Social & Domestic Issues

Libertarians and Gay Marriage

What is the libertarian position on same-sex marriage?
 
Believing that government has no right to restrict citizens’ freedom to marry the mate of their choice, and holding that freedom is enhanced when the institution is made available to more people, some libertarians support same-sex marriage.
 
And at first glance, such a position might appear to correspond with the Libertarian Party’s motto: “Minimum government, Maximum Freedom.”
 
These core beliefs prompted rich New York libertarian Republicans to provide what some commentators claim was decisive support for New York’s Marriage Equality Act, which recently made the Empire State the largest state to legalize same-sex nuptials.
 
But as numerous recent events reveal, the forces behind same-sex marriage have little interest in minimizing government or maximizing freedom.
 
When New York became the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage a few weeks ago, the liberal press couldn’t wait to announce whose support proved pivotal.  As a New York magazine headline put it:  “You can thank a few rich libertarians for gay marriage.”
 
Aides for Andrew Cuomo, New York’s Democratic and pro-gay marriage governor, met with Republican donors who ended up contributing $1 million to the pro-same-sex marriage fight in its crucial final days.  It wasn’t despite these libertarians’ political ideology that they supported same-sex marriage, but because of it.  The donors, as the New York Times put it, “were inclined to see the issue as one of personal freedom, consistent with their more libertarian views.”
 
Unfortunately, the radical redefinition of marriage threatens freedoms beyond marriage.  The gay marriage movement has succeeded in erasing the freedom many Americans have to voice their support for traditional marriage.
 
Thirty-one states have voted to protect normal marriage and reject same-sex marriage.  They range from liberal California to conservative Tennessee.  Nonetheless, in increasing areas of American life, a person risks sanction for exercising his or her freedom of speech or belief in support of traditional marriage.
 
Recently, Frank Turek, an employee for computer networking firm Cisco Systems, was fired for authoring a book titled “Correct, not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone.”  Turek had a stellar work record and never talked about his religious or political views on the job.
 
But after a homosexual manager at Cisco Googled Turek’s name, learned about his views and complained to a human resources professional at Cisco, Turek was immediately fired.
 
Also recently, Canadian sportscaster Damian Goddard was fired for declaring his opposition to gay marriage.  Rogers Communications fired Goddard after he tweeted his support for Todd Reynolds, a hockey agent, who had earlier voiced his opposition to the activism of Sean Avery, a New York Rangers player who was part of the New Yorkers for Marriage Equality campaign in the lead-up to the same-sex marriage vote in the New York State Legislature.
 
“I completely and wholeheartedly support Todd Reynolds and his support for the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage,” the sportscaster wrote.
 
Goddard says he will file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against his former employer.  In a news release, Goddard said he was discriminated against for standing up for his Catholic beliefs.  Goddard’s lawyer says that his fundamental right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion were violated when he was fired.
 
Same-sex marriage is already having a chilling effect on religious freedom.  In states that have legalized civil unions or gay marriage, Catholic adoption agencies have been shuttered or lost their tax-exempt status for refusing to let gay couples adopt children.
 
Last week in Illinois, Gov. Pat Quinn affirmed a decision by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services not to renew adoption contracts with Catholic Charities for the same reason because of the state’s law recognizing same-sex civil unions.
 
The radical homosexual rights movement is also trumping parental rights.  In California last week, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a first-of-its-kind bill that requires public schools to add lessons about gay history to their social studies classes.  Other states have incorporated the homosexual agenda into their curricula.  In 2007, a federal judge ruled that Massachusetts public school students would not be able to opt out of lesson plans that normalize the homosexual lifestyle and promote same-sex marriage.
 
All of this would seem to clash with the Libertarian Party’s official position that “Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.”
 
Most Americans are understandably galvanized by the profound economic threats the country faces.  The vital importance of addressing our fiscal problems is something libertarians and conservatives can agree on.  But conservatives and libertarians can find common ground on issues beyond the economy.
 
Guided by the “minimum government, maximum freedom” ethos, libertarians should realize where their support for same-sex marriage will lead.  The society gay-rights activists envision would destroy the very values libertarians claim to extol.

Sign Up
  • red_zone

    “Unfortunately, the radical redefinition of marriage threatens freedoms
    beyond marriage.  The gay marriage movement has succeeded in erasing the
    freedom many Americans have to voice their support for traditional
    marriage.”

    And how many times has marriage been redefined through the centuries? Used to refer to a man and several woman. It is not so much marriage that has changed, but society. Society is coming to recognize that there is not one legal, legitimate reason for denying gay couples the right to marry.

    People are NOT coming out in opposition of traditional marriage. They are coming out in SUPPORT of equal rights for people long marginalized and frequently demonized. Supporting same-sex marriage does NOT mean opposing strait marriage. Strait couples will still marry, etc.

    “Same-sex marriage is already having a chilling effect on religious
    freedom.  In states that have legalized civil unions or gay marriage,
    Catholic adoption agencies have been shuttered or lost their tax-exempt
    status for refusing to let gay couples adopt children.”

    So… because the Catholic Church has NO LEGAL authority to deny gay couples the right to marry, it the fault of those gay couples?

    Those charities may be run by the Catholic Church, but they are NOT exempt from anti-discrimination laws. No one’s religion is beign oppressed. The Catholic Churhc, of it’s OWN WILL, chose to close those organizations down because they refused to abide by the anti-discrimination laws set up to protect people. These organizations, while affiliated with the Catholic Church, are NOT churches themselves. NO ONE’S freedom of religion is being denied. You are free to worship however you choose. But don’t, for ONE second, think that makes it okay for your tax-exempt organization (which is not itself a church) to deny services to other just because you claim your religion says they’re ‘wrong’.

    “In California last week, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a first-of-its-kind
    bill that requires public schools to add lessons about gay history to
    their social studies classes.”

    Because gay and lesbian people have been largely omitted from history. Even those who were forced to wear pink triangles during the Nazi takeover of Europe, where many of them ended up in concentration camps and STILL suffered after the war.

    How many schools talk about that part of history?

    “The society gay-rights activists envision would destroy the very values libertarians claim to extol.”

    I’ve heard all this posturing before.

    And yet, there is a total absence of explaining how granting same-sex couples equal marriage rights would do this. As it stands, no legal reason can be given to deny gay couples the right to marry.

    What you claim is not only unfounded assumption, it is factually untrue and has shown to be the OPPOSITE. Denmark was the very first country tov legalize same-sex unions (at that tiem, they were civil unions) and it did NONE of the things you claim. It has only been GOOD for the country.http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/

    And this news article, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/04/world/main604084.shtml show that Scandinavia is doing quite well and that the Dutch are looking at us like we’re nuts and why we’re so preoccupied abotu other people’s private lives.

    Say what you want. But don’t make claims that you can’t support with actual evidence. Acting like the country’s going to hell in a handbasket because we give other American’s equal status is unsupported fear-mongering.

  • http://twitter.com/Cos2mwiz2 Cos2mwiz2

    As usual, blind religious belief is used to justify bigotry, foment fear, and keep the sheep ignorant of the truth. Willful ignorance and fear is a choice…sexual orientation, whether gay, straight, transgender or bi, is clearly how people come wired. Ignoring the facts doesn’t make them any less a reality, it just makes you an pathetic imbecile.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=16822034 Paul McElroy

    I think you are twisting the actual facts of the situation.  Allowing OTHER people to marry has nothing at all to do with you.  If same sex marriage was legalized that wouldn’t stop you from being able to protest it.  It does not violate your religion to live in the same country where other people are allowed to marry who they please.  The emphasis is on you, at that point.  You aren’t allowed to marry people of the same sex if you want to stay in line with your religion.  However, your assertion that Libertarians would destroy the very values that they promote is absurd and you should know better than to put your name on this garbage. That is just irresponsible propaganda and you’re only hurting yourself.

  • hyhybt

    Skipping over the usual lies and distortions, this near the end really demands explanation: “Guided by the “minimum government, maximum freedom” ethos, libertarians should realize where their support for same-sex marriage will lead.  The society gay-rights activists envision would destroy the very values libertarians claim to extol.”

    How do you get from the one to the other? WHY must Libertarians (or anyone else) oppose gay marriage, *rather than* supporting it but still opposing those other things? (And that’s pretending, for the moment, that those other things are exactly as you describe them and are thereby undesirable.)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Coffey-III/1438976951 John Coffey III

    According to New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/us/16religion.html), many New York religious groups were instrumental in helping the gay marriage law to pass in New York.  If gay marriage was banned, wouldn’t that prevent these groups from practicing their freedom of religion?

  • http://twitter.com/JaeKay Jason Kay

    So you think employers shouldn’t be able to fire people for their beliefs? So I’m assuming you support the very unlibertarian ENDA? You’re position is bizarre, and absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism. 

    Libertarians want Government out of the marriage business, out of education, out of employer/employee relations. What you are suggesting (having the Government decide to only teach things Christian homophobes believe, mandate who can and can’t get married and decided which beliefs are okay for an employee to hold and which aren’t) is exactly as unlibertarian as the plans that you believe “radical” gay rights activists have for society. You’ve completely missed the point. 

  • http://twitter.com/thepartyofno Party of No

    I must commend Gary Bauer for another great article.  He is right.  RINO Giuliani said that we should stay out of people’s bedrooms.  But this is a CHRISTIAN NATION!  And that doesn’t mean Christianity is BANNED from the bedroom!  The bedroom is a sacred place, and we are to allow SATAN to do as he pleases in there?  Are you kidding me?  So should we allow incest in the bedroom as well?  NO!  God is watching us and we must stay true to our Judeo-Christian way of life in all areas of our society.  And that includes the bedroom.  That means no perverse immoral promiscuous sex.

    It’s time that we live up to the ideals of the Founding Fathers.  They DID NOT create the United States of America to become the new Sodom and Gomorrah!  We must clean up this filth BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE and bring this nation BACK TO GOD!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Coffey-III/1438976951 John Coffey III

    Party of No: Please stay out of my bedroom, unless you wish to join in the action!  The only reason why you want to be in my bedroom is your curiosity in homosexuality.  How would you like it if we placed a camera in your bedroom and watched 24 hours a day?

  • red_zone

    No. We are a nation that has a separation of church and state. The Founding Fathers made that VERY clear when they wrote up the Constitution which included the Establishment Clause.  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    In other words, people are free, as individuals, to worship as they so please, so long as it does not infringe upon others. At the same time, NO religion shall get preferential treatment because they knew the dangers of imposing a single religious ideology onto a populace. You cannot and should not impose your religious views on the rest of the nation though the government simply because you feel they are ‘right’. You have NO RIGHT to do so. Freedom of religion also implies freedom FROM religion.

    Your personal beliefs may be right for YOU, but not everyone in this nation is a Christian and they should NOT have such narrowly-rooted laws pushed upon them. Their beliefs deserve consideration and respect, too.

  • Altosackbuteer

    I think there is only one fair way left which COULD satisfy everybody.

    Red_zone and John Coffey III, you both should admit that the idea of gay marriage feaks out many Americans, right?

    But what if there were a way to remove sexuality, or any presumption of sexuality, from officially-sanctioned intimate relationships?  Would that not serve to defuse the entire issue?

    There is a way to do this.  It is with Universal Domestic Partnerships (UDP).  With UDP, ANY TWO persons could form a relationship with each other which would be officially-sanctioned, and which would bring to it the privileges which we today associate with marriage. (By “person,” I mean, any two freely-consenting ADULTS.)

    There would be NO BAR on whom could form a UDP.  Same-sex would be allowed.  Close relationships would be allowed too.

    If a mother wishes to enter into a UDP with her son, or a dad with his mother, or a brother with his sister — let them. 

    Suppose, for example, a mother has health insurance but wants to insure her unemployed son who lives with her.  They could form a UDP and he could then ride on her insurance.

    THERE WOULD BE NO PRESUMPTION THAT THEY ARE ENGAGING IN INCEST.

    Similarly, if there are two straight men who decide to live together, and one is employed and one is not, they might decide to have a AUDP so they then could file joint income taxes and split the extra refund.

    THE FACT THEY ARE THE SAME SEX WOULD NOT LEAD TO A PRESUMPTION THEY ARE ENGAGING IN GAY SEX.

    UDP would remove presumption of sexual behavior from ALL relationships and leave them in individual bedrooms where they belong.

    And this SHOULD be something which CONSERVATIVES could readily support.  Conservatism is about traditional morality.  An essential component of sexual morality is modesty of attire and behavior, since immodest behavior is a gateway to immoral behavior.  With UDP, because there is no presumption of sexual activity, modesty is restored to all relationships.

    So what happens to civil marriage?  Simple.  WE ABOLISH CIVIL MARRIAGE, and replace it with UDP.

    The very concept of “civil marriage” is an oxymoron, like saying “army intelligence,” or “fornication for chastity.”

    This is because the definition of “marriage” INCLUDES GOD, which, as red_zone and John Coffey III noted above, violates the American concept of separation of church and state.

    What IS “marriage”?  The Catholic Church defines it as a THREE-way partnership, between man, woman, and GOD.  Without God being present in a marriage, there is NO MARRIAGE.  And this forms the basis of Catholic annulment, their finding that God was never present in a given “marriage,” therefore there never was a marriage.

    Similarly, in Judaism, the very word for marriage is “kiddushin.”  This is cognate with the word for holy, which is “kodesh,” and implies also that no marriage is a marriage unless holiness is present.

    “Civil marriage,” then, is an oxymoron because, if it’s “civil,” it’s can’t be “marriage,” since God by definition is excluded by the doctrine of separation of church and state.

    From now on, then, if you want God to recognize your relationship, then get married according to the dictates of your own creed.  And if you don’t wish a UDP to go along with it, then don’t bother.  But otherwise, the rest of us will go along with our UDP’s.

  • Hominid

    Right, America, – according to the queer, redzone, we should follow the lead of those paragons of world leadership – the Scandinavians & Dutch.  After all, those are the countries that thwarted the tyranny of Hitler and preserved freedom and democracy for the entire rest of the world; those are the countries that brought down the communist threat of the Soviet Union; those are the countries that have led the world in innovation and production; those are the countries that are the model of virtue to be emulated by the rest of the world’s Neanderthals.  It just seems right that we should sink to their level of depravity and sloth so that a handful of brain damaged homos can feel ‘normal.’

  • Hominid

    That would be MISwired, Nina.

  • Hominid

    Nobody wants to watch your filthy, depraved acts of perversion, fool – we don’t want to even imagine them.  That’s the point – you homos want to force us to acknowledge them.

  • Hominid

    UDP is not satisfactory to the homos, Al – the aim is not ‘gay marriage,’ it’s the destruction of another standard of American culture that matters to them and their Lib allies.

  • redware

    There seems to be little difference these days between a libertarian and a libertine!Anything goes!

  • NUTN2SAY

    Said it before, saying it again folks!

    HETEROSEXUALITY IS ULTIMATELY ALL ABOUT THE PRESERVATION OF THE HUMAN SPECIES.

    HOMOSEXUALITY IS ULTIMATELY ALL ABOUT THE DEVASTATION OF THE HUMAN SPECIES!

    Think about it! 

  • pilgrim249

    Libertarians ignore the biblical admonition to “resist the devil and he will flee from you”.

    If Churchill had been a libertarian, Hitler would have conquered the world.

  • johndubose

    No doubt there is a hard core of “gay” activists who really want acceptance and even power to stomp on people who say bad things about their activities or condition.   It is not clear that even a majority of homosexuals feel that way.
    I would bet that most just want a little acceptance on a personal level and to be left alone.

    UDP should satisfy the great bulk of reasonable people.

    Lets hope some state tries it so we can all see.

  • http://twitter.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

    Destruction of individual liberty and free speech? Are you kidding me? Even in its most ridiculous form, it doesn’t appear to want to suppress either at all.

    I notice that other posters have mentioned UDPs, but some conservatives are fighting even that. That’s an unnoticed battle in Wisconsin, where Scott Walker wants a judge to declare that the state’s UDP law is no different from gay marriage (he is battling the ACLU in this regard).

  • http://twitter.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

    If the beliefs have nothing to do with performance of job duties, an employer should not be fired.

  • http://twitter.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

    Actually, I would argue it more be an issue of “live and let live”, so long as the lifestyle isn’t forced on you (but that’s exactly what is happening in California, where the alarm bells SHOULD be going off.)

  • Hominid

    That’s more-or-less my point, john – it’s not about gays wanting to get married (if you look at Holland where gay marriage has been in effect for over a decade, less than 2% of gays have availed themselves of marriage) – it’s about the Lib-Lefties using militant homos to (as you put it) ‘stomp’ on American traditions & values.  The Lib-Left hates America and wants to eradicate it in any way possible.

  • Hominid

    Now, you finally get it – see Hominid’s post above to johndubose.  Gays already have ‘live & let live,’ – it’s not enough to satisfy the Lib-Lefties who use them as pawns in their battle to destroy America.

  • http://twitter.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

    To that end, there should be a legal group that ses California on those grounds to block that from going into effect. I have not read the law and do not know how or if it would be measured on state tests, granted.

    There are gay marriage demands, and then there is forcing the learning of it in schools (not sure if it would apply to private schools).

  • RJLigier

    Sorry, Gary, but your argument is for naught. All libertarians, left or right, and progressives are social liberals, aka homosexuals/bisexuals. This is war between the sociopathic 3% of the population and the majority. Secession is not an option, mass deportation is the solution.

  • RJLigier

    July 17, 2011

    MassResistance UpdatePro-family activism

    “In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary
    act.”
    – George Orwell

    Home Page

    Blog

    Please
    DONATE

    1. Newly appointed
    lesbian Mass. Supreme Court Judge speaks at fundraiser for radical gay
    group.  Violation of Code of Judicial Conduct!

    2. Just how radical is the “LGBTQ Bar Association” — where SJC
    judge spoke at fundraiser?

    3. Take action: File an official complaint against Judge Lenk!

    4. MassResistance featured on major pro-family radio in British Columbia!

    1. Newly
    appointed lesbian Mass. Supreme Court Judge speaks at fundraiser for
    radical gay group.  Violation of Code of Judicial Conduct!

    Two days after being formally confirmed to the Massachusetts Supreme
    Judicial COurt, Judge Barbara Lenk (an “out” lesbian activist)
    was a featured speaker at a fundraiser for the radical Massachusetts LGBTQ
    (“Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Queer”) Bar
    Association.

    The Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct forbids judges from being
    a speaker at an organization’s fundraising event. Lenk’s participation that
    evening was a clear — and arrogant — public violation of that Code.

    (A similar situation occurred when Justice Margaret Marshall was keynote
    speaker at the group’s 1999 dinner. MassResistance–then Article 8
    Alliance–Massachusetts News, and others brought
    this up as a disqualifier at the timeMarshall issued her “gay
    marriage” ruling. But the major media ignored it.)
     

    Judge Barbara Lenk (center) flanked by former Chief
    Justice Margaret Marshall receives award at May 6 Mass. LGBTQ Bar Assoc.
    meeting. [Mass. LGBTQ Bar Assoc. photo]

    This is a person who will be shaping the legal landscape of
    Massachusetts for years to come!

    Hostility to pro-family concerns during confirmation process

    When Barbara Lenk was nominated to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
    (SJC) on April 4 by Governor Deval Patrick, the media and the liberal
    establishment lectured everyone that her “sexual orientation”
    must have no bearing on her qualifications as a judge in the highest and
    most powerful court in the Commonwealth.

    SEE
    MassResistance full report on
    Judge
    Barbara Lenk confirmation

    At Lenk’s confirmation hearing on April 27, Governor’s Council
    members were rude and even abusive to pro-family witnesses who expressed
    concern at a lesbian activist on the state’s highest court. And
    they ignored most of the issues we brought up.
     

    When the Council members met on May 4 and took their vote to
    confirm Lenk, they continued their abuse in their public comments.
    Councilor Jennie Caissie described the pro-family testimony as
    “irrelevant and ignorant.” Councilor Marilyn Devaney said that
    testimony regarding homosexual behavior should be banned!

    Afterwards Devaney told
    the press that Lenk is “most brilliant” and is a judge
    “without bias” who “has the highest ethics.”

    And throughout the confirmation period, through multiple editorials
    the Boston Globe lectured us all that Lenk’s “experience
    and ethics” – not her “sexuality” – should assure her
    confirmation. [At right: Boston Globe lead editorial on May
    4, 2011]

    Of course, it turns out that we were right all along. In fact, Lenk
    is more arrogant and condescending towards traditional values than even we
    had anticipated.

     

    Two days after confirmation — helping raise money for
    homosexual group!

    On May 6, two days after Lenk’s formal confirmation, she was a
    featured speaker at the Massachusetts LGBTQ Bar Association’s annual
    fundraising dinner.

    As the LGBTQ Bar Assn. spring newsletter bragged, Lenk was a big
    hit:

    Message from the Co-Chairs

    Dear Members of the Mass LGBTQ Bar:

    Thank you to so many of you who attended the 2011 Annual Dinner, our
    largest annual dinner in the history of our organization! We were honored
    to hear from incoming Supreme Judicial Court Justice Barbara Lenk . . .

    Attendees exceeded the Board’s $4,000 matching challenge grant for the
    Scholarship by pledging over $9,000 for a one-night total of $13,000 . . .

    Download entire Mass LGBTQ Assn spring
    newsletter HERE

    Lenk’s appearance was also the major emphasis in
    the local homosexual press regarding that event.

    Also speaking that night were recently retired Chief Justice Margaret
    Marshall (see photo above). In addition, current Superior Court Judge (and
    openly lesbian) Linda Giles participated, according to press reports. (She
    famously ruled cross-dressing “transgender” children had to be
    accepted in Mass. public schools.) Marshall was never shy about her bias and
    passionate support for the homosexual movement. Giles, by participating in
    the event, was also likely violating the Code of Judicial Conduct. More
    arrogance.

    A clear violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct

    In 2003 the Supreme Judicial Court (including Margaret Marshall as Chief
    Justice) issued an updated version of the Code of Judicial Conduct. This
    new version included both the code itself and also the SJC’s commentary and
    explanation after every section. It covers this issue pretty clearly.

      Mass. Commission on Judicial
    Conduct

      Download
    the Code of Judicial Conduct with commentary

    The relevant language is in section 4C(3)(b) and subsection (iv):

    CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

    4C(3)(b) A judge as an officer, director, trustee, non-legal
    advisor, or member of an organization described in Section 4C(3) ["an
    organization or agency devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal
    system, or the administration of justice; or any educational, religious,
    charitable, fraternal, or civic organization that is not conducted for
    profit or for the economic or political advantage of its members"] or
    in any other capacity as to such an organization:

    (iv) shall not use or permit the use of the prestige of the judicial
    office for fund-raising or membership solicitation.

    Commentary to Section 4C(3)(b):

    A judge must not be a speaker or guest of honor at an organization’s
    fund-raising event, but mere attendance at such an event is permissible if
    otherwise consistent with this Code. A fund-raising event is one where the
    sponsors’ aim is to raise money to support the organization’s activities
    beyond the event itself.

    Also relevant to this is Section 4A(1):

    4A. Extrajudicial Activities in General. A judge shall conduct all
    of the judge’s extrajudicial activities so that they do not:

    (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially
    as a judge.

    There is no question that Lenk’s enthusiastic participation
    with a radical homosexual advocacy group casts enormous doubt on her
    capacity to be impartial.

    At the time of the event, May 6, Lenk had been confirmed as an SJC
    Associate Justice but was officially still an Appellate Court judge. She
    was sworn in as SJC Associate Justice on June 8.

    Overwhelming in-your-face arrogance

    It’s hard to describe arrogant and “in-your-face” this was. To be
    publicly helping raise money for an aggressive homosexual-transgender-queer
    activist group just two days after her confirmation, Lenk was thumbing her
    nose at everyone with traditional values.

    And she’s showing us that all of this talk about “judge me on my legal
    record only” was just a sham, that she’s been a biased activist all
    along and intends to continue to be as a Supreme Court Justice.

    2. Just how radical is the
    “LGBTQ Bar Association” — where SJC judge spoke at fundraiser?

    Judging from its activities, The LGBTQ (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender
    Queer) Bar Association, which Judge Barbara Lenk helped to raise money for,
    is a radical organization that is dedicated to changing society. (They’ve
    only recently added “Queer” to their group’s name. It’s not clear
    what it means.)

    As their
    spring newsletter indicates, their involvements include:

    Lobbying for the Transgender
    Rights and Hate Crimes Bill (H502), which forces the acceptance of transgenderism,
    cross-dressing, and similar behaviors throughout society — including
    schools, businesses, public accommodations, and even rest rooms –
    with draconian punishments for non-compliance.

    Getting the Transgender Bill passed is a major goal of this group.
    Their activities have included lobbying at the State House,
    organizing, circulating petitions, and at least one state-wide phone
    bank event.

    From the spring newsletter:

     Working closely with GLSEN. The “Gay Lesbian Straight Education
    Network” is a national homosexual organization that targets
    children in the public schools. Founded by homosexual activist Kevin
    Jennings, GLSEN has a long history of aggressively pushing
    homosexuality and transgenderism to schoolchildren.  Some of
    GLSEN’s outrageous activities have included the “Fistgate”
    conference, distribution of the
    Little Black Book, and other
    homosexual and transgender related activities.

    GLSEN’s national Executive Director was the keynote speaker at
    the May 6 event where Judge Barbara Lenk spoke.

    The Mass LGBTQ Bar also led a GLSEN training workshop focusing
    on “transgender and gender non-conforming youth” at GLSEN’s
    recent Conference in Cambridge earlier this year.
     Getting more GLBT judges confirmed in
    Massachusetts. A
    major activity of the LGBTQ Bar Assn. is greasing the political skids
    to funnel more homosexual (and transgender!) nominees up the path to
    become judges. They see this as a powerful way to change society. And
    it’s every pro-family parent’s nightmare.

    Transgender madness:

    Also from the Mass LGBTQ Newsletter. We’re not making this up. This is their notice for candidates for their
    Board of Directors!

    (Their contact person for this nonsense is a lawyer at Ropes and Gray
    in Boston!)

     

    3. Take action:
    File an official complaint against Judge Lenk!

    This action by Judge Lenk is as outrageous a breach of judicial conduct as
    anything imaginable. Citizens must not take it silently. Is this how you
    want judges to behave?

    If this outrages you, we encourage you to file an official complaint on
    this matter against Barbara Lenk.

    The Commission on Judicial Conduct (“CJC”) is the state agency
    responsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct against
    state court judges and for recommending, when necessary, discipline of
    judges to the Supreme Judicial Court.

    Commission on Judicial Conduct home page
     

    HOW TO FILE A COMPLAINT

    Filing an official complaint of judicial misconduct is a matter of filling
    out a two-page form and mailing it to the Commission on Judicial Conduct.

    Take action: Download the official
    complaint form HERE

    Not sure what to write? Here
    are directions and sample text

    Fill out the form, sign it, and mail it to:

    Commission on Judicial Conduct
    Executive Director
    11 Beacon Street, Suite 525
    Boston, MA 02108

    (There appears to be no requirement you live in Massachusetts
    to do this.)

    4. MassResistance featured on
    major pro-family radio in British Columbia!

    Up in Canada the homosexual agenda is, in many ways, accelerating faster
    than here in the US, particularly in the schools. And since Canada does
    not have a First Amendment, the government can censor the media for
    trumped-up “hate” speech.

    But in British Columbia longtime pro-family activist Kari Simpson
    and her team broadcast fearless news and commentary on issues and battles
    for freedoms and liberties of Canadians on a popular weekly show called RoadKill Radio — openly defying
    the Canadian censors and “hate speech” tribunals.

    This past Tuesday, Brian Camenker of MassResistance was interviewed on
    their show. It was a pretty lively

    LISTEN
    to the “Roadkill Radio” interview with
    Brian Camenker of MassResistance HERE

     

    Support our work . . .

    Donate to
    MassResistance!
    Better yet – become a monthly donor
    (email us back to get set up)!

    Donations can also be mailed to: MassResistance, PO Box 1612, Waltham, MA 02454
    ALL donations are confidential. MassResistance does not sell or lend any of
    its lists.

    Contact us if you
    want to get involved.

    Also, check out the MassResistance blog (for even more in-depth coverage)!

    [If you are on this list by mistake, or do not want to get our email
    information alerts, please accept our apologies. Please call us at
    MassResistance at 781-890-6001 or email us back, and we'll immediately take
    you off the list. We've tried to only include people who've contacted us at
    some point or otherwise indicated they would like to hear from us.]

    Also, if this is being forwarded to you
    and you want to be on our primary list, please let us know!

     

     

     

    This email was sent
    to: RJNaumann@sbcglobal.net

    This email was sent by: MassResistance

    P.O. Box 1612 Waltham MA 02454

    Profile
    Center | Unsubscribe

    Type your comment here.

  • Proud2beFree

    So all social liberals are homosexuals? It’s both sad and hilarious that you think that. What about polls that say around 50 per cent support gay marriage? Are they all gay?

  • Proud2beFree

    I support “traditional” marriage as much as I support “gay” marriage, why are the two mutually exclusive?

    “Guided by the “minimum government, maximum freedom” ethos, libertarians should realize where their support for same-sex marriage will lead.  The society gay-rights activists envision would destroy the very values libertarians claim to extol.”

    Yeah, that’s when the article goes off the deep end. Yeesh.

  • http://twitter.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

    That separation only came about as the byproduct of the Everson decision and later application of it. (Everson was correct, but later jurisprudence based on it is debatable at best.)

  • 2Anglico

    When the Constitution was signed, how many “States” already had an established religion? What Article and Section of the Constitution contains the hallowed phrase “separation of church and state”? And do you realize that the Constitution’s  “establishment” clause deals with the “general” or “Federal” government? Do you realize that the term “separation of church and state” was the mid twentieth century construct of a racist Supreme Court justice? Do you realize that when Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Baptist minister and used the term “wall of separation” he was doing so because he knew that GOVERNMENT would try to influence churches to “see things the government way”? Explain how it is the purview of the Federal Government to intervene in a duly enacted law of a state that says” marriage is between one man and one woman”?
    Lastly, do you notice in your own quote the part where it says “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”?

  • RenegadeScholar

    And how many times has marriage been redefined through the centuries?

    ZERO.

    Marriage has ALWAYS been between members of the opposite sex.

    Even in polygamous marriages, the man marries another woman. The women DO NOT marry each other.

    Nice try, though.

  • RenegadeScholar

    So… because the Catholic Church has NO LEGAL authority to deny gay
    couples the right to marry, it the fault of those gay couples?

    Reading comprehension 101: The point you are arguing with is about ADOPTION, not marriage.

  • RenegadeScholar

    How many schools talk about that part of history? [gays wearing pink triangles]

    MORE than talk about the priests who were put into concentration camps, that’s for sure.

  • RenegadeScholar

    Because gay and lesbian people have been largely omitted from history.

    Really?

    I’ve read all kinds about people in history–some of whom practiced homosexuality.

    You’re talking about learning about ONLY people who were homosexual. How selfish of you. Don’t you realize the 10,000 other categories of people who are being omitted when teaching “gay history?”

    * Short people history
    * Tall people history
    * Bald people history
    * Blonde people history
    * Curly-haired people history.

    I know. As long as GAY people get a special history class, it doesn’t matter who else does.

    BIGOT.

  • RenegadeScholar

    And yet, there is a total absence of explaining how granting same-sex couples equal marriage rights would do this

    It’s been explained every day. You just refuse to listen. Look it up.

  • RenegadeScholar

    Scandinavia is doing quite well…

    The European population is disappearing off the face of the earth. In Sweden (someone who just returned from living there for 2 years told me), there is a widespread adoption of paganism and cultism. Mental disorders are treated only with medication, no therapy. Europe is even more bankrupt than we are.

    “Doing quite well…?”

  • 2Anglico

    Since Thomas Jefferson is soooo often associated with “separation of church and state”, here is one and only one of many quotes of Thomas Jefferson; “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?”
    If you find that quote unsettling, you should read what John Adams and John Jay had to say!

  • RenegadeScholar

    Acting like the country’s going to hell in a handbasket because we give
    other American’s equal status is unsupported fear-mongering.

    You know as well as I do that we’re not talking about “equal status.” Homosexuals have EXACTLY the same rights as anyone else. What they are looking for is SPECIAL rights.

    And furthermore, they are looking to FORCE everyone else to comply with their radical agenda. Forcing others to agree to their radical re-definition of an ancient institution that has NOTHING to do with tax breaks or “love,” and everything to do with stability for the family. (and don’t give me the crap about “what about couples who can’t have children…” etc. that’s been refuted a zillion times.)

    Gays want all of the privileges of marriage, and none of the responsibilities. It’s really all about attacking Conservatives, nothing else. Gay activists don’t want to “marry,” they want to manifest their hate of Conservatives by taking away the things that Conservatives hold dear. Today it’s marriage, tomorrow something else. They’ll NEVER be satisfied.

  • Theresa Higby

    Clearly, you did not read the article or you simply can’t understand it.

  • RenegadeScholar

    they should NOT have such narrowly-rooted laws pushed upon them.

    LOL!

    “Religious beliefs?”

    Marriage is marriage, regardless of “religious belief.” Redefining a “dog” as a “trout” doesn’t work, no matter what your “religious belief.”

    Other than modern leftists (and some libertarians), there aren’t ANY people who consider marriage other than what it actually is.

  • RenegadeScholar

    sexual orientation, whether gay, straight, transgender or bi, is clearly how people come wired.

    Of the more than a dozen homosexuals I’ve known well over the years, all but one were sexually abused when growing up, and all but two eventually went straight.

    Sounds like a choice to me.

  • RenegadeScholar

    Excellent point

  • JWII

    Sex by two consenting people, is really none of my business, but when those same two people petition Government to claim it as right, and said Government rules in their favor then all rights are in peril. In my own opinion, the gay rights activist, deny it as they will, is  agenda driven only to legitimize a perverted behavior.  Evidenced by now wanting the gay lifestyle taught in Elementary schools. Would they be comfortable with Christian religion being taught alongside their curriculum? I doubt it as it teaches against it. And we surely can’t have that now could we?

  • reddarin

    >Ignoring the facts doesn’t make them any less a reality, it just makes you an pathetic imbecile

    Oh? I thought you libs were all about Science? Science says that you are not hard wired for gayness.

    When science agrees with you then full speed ahead. When it doesn’t then just don’t mention it and hope the rubes don’t notice.

  • RenegadeScholar

    Yeah, that’s when the article goes off the deep end. Yeesh

    If this is your idea of an intellectual argument, you fail spectacularly.

  • RenegadeScholar

    If same sex marriage was legalized that wouldn’t stop you from being able to protest it.

    It already has.

    Photography studios run by devout Christians sued for not wanting to photograph gay “weddings.”  Same with hotels run by devout Christians.

    The Pink Mafia want only power, and rank-and-file gays are their saps in this.

  • NUTN2SAY

    Just as there is sunlight during the day and moonlight during the night as nature intended things to be….conservatism is what nature had in mind as a driving force of life!

    Look into the animal kingdom. Observe how and what animals live for. Not much liberalism going on there is there now?

    Animals live for survival. Survival of the fittest! They fend for themselves as in defend themselves. They don’t lay around expecting others to fend for them! Animals know how to conserve and not squander.

    But liberals like to squander. But they like to squander what belongs to you. Liberals don’t really believe in the redistribution of wealth. They believe in the redistribution of life!

    The liberal anti-heterosexual, heterosexualphobe agenda is an example of that!

  • http://twitter.com/fsamuels Forrest Samuels

    “all of the privileges of marriage, and none of the responsibilities”

    What are you talking about? What responsibilities?

  • http://twitter.com/fsamuels Forrest Samuels

    Thank you red_zone. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tammy-Crater/100002050012494 Tammy Crater

    “A pathetic imbecile?”  Why do liberals resort to vicious name-calling?  Labeling all people who disagree with you as pathetic imbeciles is the true definition of bigotry.   You’re more bigoted than the rest of us. 

  • hyhybt

    In other words, you have no explanation. Otherwise you’d provide one instead of passing it off as “explained every day.”

  • hyhybt

    In what sense, exactly, would it be “special rights?” What do you even mean when they use that phrase? It at least implies that these would be rights that only gay people would have, and yet every one (that I’ve heard of, at least) applies to everyone. Marriage? Straight people would be free to marry someone of the same sex if they wish. ENDA? Protection from discrimination based on orientation or perceived orientation, *no matter what that is,* not just for gay people. Same with the hate crime law, etc. In every case… equal. Not special.

  • hyhybt

    Would you argue that people who think other things protected by anti-discrimination laws, such as religion, race, etc., also should be exempt from them?

  • http://twitter.com/fsamuels Forrest Samuels

    Everyone is all about science right? Not just liberals? It doesn’t get better than a testable, predictable way to understand reality right. So where is your evidence homosexuality is a choice? I find it hard to believe anyone would choose a sexual orientation that sets them up to be hated and discriminated against. Do you think that other species who show homosexual behavior are making a conscience choice too? 

  • rebelyell4

    If I am to read the opening sentence of this article correctly, I’d say we should all agree.

    “Believing that government has no right to restrict citizens’ freedom to marry the mate of their choice,”

    Our problem is that silly interpretation of the word “mate”? We’ve got to watch out for words. Non of this has to do with what the real marriage thing is all about, does it? To me it has much more to do with certain folks wishing to 1, destroy morality, 2,destroy all religious bounds, 3, destroy human organization, 4, alter the course of the human race on earth and lead it into failure. Simply no more and no less.

    The success of humanity is based on the following of organization meant to keep us from being animals. It was realized long ago that were we to remain as primitive beasts we could not evolve to use our given talents for anything worthwhile. The subjects of religion and law were created by God to oversee our behavior as humans and control our higher developed possibilities for good and evil as compared to the many other species of animal on earth.

    The very simple problem is that their exists in man a selfishness that is by its very nature, the evil that God has attempted to protect us from with laws of behavior. It is very selfish indeed for some who very well know that their behavior breaks the laws of God himself, those established for success of the human race, to give in to some of the abberations associated with all species.

    Laws from God are meant to protect us from ourselves and those who feel the need to break with these laws, should realize that they are also on the path of destruction for the human race in general. Some see to it that the path of destruction is hastened by strongly pursuing changes in human behavioral civil law so that evil may triumph. Some do so through pure selfishness, but many do so knowingly and with a purpose.

    Those who purposely undermine the will of God should also realize that they purposely undermine the success of the human race itself. Perhaps some would prefer this. It seems we are in a time where selfishness is rampant and increasing. The way forward for the human race has to be decided by those who wish for it to succeed, but so far we will not step forward and do what may be neccesary. God has given us our guide. We need to see it through.

  • reddarin

    >I find it hard to believe anyone would choose

    I find it hard to believe anyone would choose to be a liberal when it means forfeiting any objectivity and selling out to a herd mentality.

    I think that other species are not human.

    Here is a shocker for you. You cannot murder an animal. You can murder a human being.

  • BillNC

    Re-read the article and you will see that the theme is compulsion, brought on by liberal activism.  

    We have seen plenty of this mode in the past.  As soon as liberals attempt to codify their ideas, there is a strong resistance made by the populace.  Over time, liberal persistence wears down their defenses, making it easier for people in charge to override previous decisions (see Proposition 8 in California). 

    Liberals always demand that the laws change in one direction only:  theirs.  (See the military go from hundreds of years of knowing that homosexuality subverts “good order and discipline” to forcing upon it the “Don’t Ask / Don’t Tell” compromise, and the recent “repeal of Don’t Ask / Don’t Tell” which meant ONLY a move toward more acceptance, not a return to what worked for the first couple hundred years). 

    We are TIRED of being compelled to accept all of the unfounded ideas that liberals come up with.

  • reddarin

    >Everyone is all about science right? Not just liberals

    Liberals don’t have anything to do with science unless it agrees with their worldview. AGW is an excellent example.

  • reddarin

    >So where is your evidence homosexuality is a choice

    I don’t have a list sorry. I am not interested in scurrying around to produce one for you either.

    My evidence is that fact that many scientists have tried to prove it is biological and have failed. Like the spectacular Gay Gene fraud.

  • reddarin

    >homosexuality is a choice

    Aside from that, I’d put the onus of proof back on Nina for making the claim it is not a choice in the first place.

  • NUTN2SAY

    Politicians in their desperation for votes won’t admit that they are in a mental state of denial. Instead of making it understood by all that homosexuality is a mental disorder that is a illness in need of medical treatment….they are trying to legitimize it in favor of getting that extra vote thus selling out the heterosexual human being who preserves human life and not destroys human life!

    And you are right. The politicians want what should be considered a mental disease to be taught in the Elementary Schools which is nothing more than indoctrination. I might even suggest it as being an act of perverted pedophilia imposed by government!

    The greed of politicians has sold out The American Heterosexual People!

    The greed of politicians has sold out America!

    And now.

    THE GREED OF POLITICIANS HAS SOLD OUT THE HUMAN SPECIES! 

  • reddarin

    >Same with the hate crime law, etc. In every case… equal. Not special

    What?!?

    Bullshit. A black man saying the most racist crap while beating the hell out of a white guy will not face a hate crime prosecution.

  • BillNC

    What you are pushing for is so-called privacy, not freedom of religion. 

    The ‘privacy’ argument for homosex is just as bankrupt as it is for any other wrong behavior.  We do not get to beat our wives in the privacy of our own house; we cannot kidnap and hold people, we cannot raise marijuana, we cannot promote child pornography in the privacy of our own homes.  Privacy does not allow for wrong-doing.

    Regarding religion:  if you narrowly define a “nation” as being our governmental administration, you could easily make the error of thinking that the government must be secular.  It is still an error, nonetheless.  But a nation is more than just its government, just as a small business is more than just its secretary.  We are a people that formed a society on moral principles, and we desire that our government enforce those principles, not work against them.  For the record:

    New York Supreme Court, The People v. Ruggles, 1811, found the defendant guilty of blasphemy.  Portions of the Court’s opinion read:  “Such words uttered with such a disposition were an offense at common law….whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government….Such offenses have always been considered independent of any religious establishment or the rights of the Church.  They are treated as affecting the essential interests of civil society….We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity….Though the Constitution has discarded religious establishments, it does not forbid judicial cognizance of those offenses against religion and morality which have no reference to any such establishment….This declaration (noble and magnanimous as it is, when duly understood) never meant to withdraw religion in general, and with it the best sanction of moral and social obligation, from all consideration and notice of the law…To construe it as breaking down the common law barriers against licentious, wanton, and impious attacks upon Christianity itself, would be an enormous perversion of its meaning….”

    There are many other such judicial decisions and quotations from our past which deny the modern-day interpretation of “freedom of religion” to be “separation of church and state.”

  • BillNC

    Jefferson also wrote in an 1808 letter to Samuel Miller: 

    “I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.  This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States.  Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government.  It must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority.”

    This explanation, as well as his original letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, illustrate a one-way separation:  that government cannot compel the populace regarding belief and practice.  Never was there any thought that the reverse was true; we the people can influence our laws to reflect our morality.  Only modern-day liberals and libertarians think that morality has no place in our laws, and that our laws must be secular.

  • BillNC

    Hey, let’s use your logic to justify lowering the “age of consent” while you’re at it.

    We can pretend that the “age of consent” isn’t about sex.  We can allow pedophiles to petition for Universal Consent Agreements (UCAs), and that all people having nothing but good intentions–no presumption of engaging in sex.  We’ll speak of the agreements as multi-purpose legal instruments only, and declare sex “off limits” in all further discussion. 

    Yeah, that’ll defuse the whole issue about sex with children.  Just license it and don’t talk about it, and everybody will be happy, right?

  • Altosackbuteer

    Wrong.

    But the fault is partially mine.  I SHOULD have added, between any two consenting ADULTS.  Thank you for pointing that out; I will now go in and correct it.

    And by “adult,” I leave the definition of an adult up to the states, just as is the case now.  Different states define differing ages for “children.”

  • Altosackbuteer

    By the way, I point out that Ron Paul, the LIBERTARIAN, who is beloved of so many bloggers on this site, supports gay marriage.

  • BillNC

    I, for one, do not buy the “two consenting adults” idea as if it is a moral standard.

    1.  It is completely made up.  As long as people are making up standards, why not say “three”?  What is magic about two?  And what about other species?  As long as we’re making up a rule about adults, why limit it to homo sapiens?  Those who throw out established moral norms in favor of made-up ideas never see the logical end of their ideas.

    2.  It is the modern-day version of “free love” from the misguided 1960s hippie generation.

    3.  It promotes sex without consequences.  It demands all of the pleasure of sex, without any natural connections to sex.

    4.  As with other wrong behavior, having two involved adds “conspiracy” to the list of wrongdoing.  Two people agreeing to do something doesn’t make it right.

  • BillNC

    The fact that the Everson v. Board of Education decision came in 1947 illustrates its incorrectness.  How in the world did we survive as a people in the previous years?  Quite well, thank you:

    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 1824:  “Thus this wise legislature framed this great body of laws for a Christian country and a Christian people.  This is the Christianity of the common law…and thus, it is irrefragably proved, that the laws and institutions of this state are built on the foundation of reverence for Christianity….In this the constitution of the United States has made no alteration, nor in the great body of the laws which was an incorporation of the common-law doctrine of Christianity…without which no free government can long exist….No free government now exists in the world unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country….Its foundations are broad and strong, and deep…it is the purest system of morality, the firmest auxiliary, and only stable support of all human laws….Christianity is part of the common law…”
     
    Senate of the United States, January 19, 1853:  “The [First Amendment] clause speaks of ‘an establishment of religion.’  What is meant by that expression?  It referred, without doubt, to that establishment which existed in the mother-country…endowment at the public expense, peculiar privileges to its members, or disadvantages or penalties upon those who should reject its doctrines or belong to other communions,–such law would be a ‘law respecting an establishment of religion’….They intended, by this amendment, to prohibit ‘an establishment of religion’ such as the English Church presented, or any thing like it.  But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people…they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistic apathy.  Not so had the battles of the Revolution been fought and the deliberations of the Revolutionary Congress been conducted.”
     
    United States House Committee on the Judiciary, 1854:  “What is an establishment of religion?  It must have a creed, defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances, which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications, to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the non-conformist.  There never was an establishment of religion without all these….Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle.  At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, [though] not any one sect.  Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation.”

    The Everson decision went contrary to the history of America; it did not define America.

  • bob42

    This is yet another irrational, slippery slope, fear mongering, hit piece from a xenophobe  who makes his living by promoting hatred and selling lies. 

    No two consenting adults should have to beg permission from their government to be treated equally under the laws of the land. That is just plain wrong. Churches can sanctify whatever they like, but are not entitled to use MY taxes to further their Bronze Age discrimination and authoritarianism.

  • bob42

    Be afraid my fellow Americans. Be VERY afraid. If you don’t continue voting for the anti-liberty, anti-freedom, delusional far right wing social conservative authoritarians, our nation is doomed!

    If just one more state starts treating all citizens equally, then overnight all “traditional” marriages will be annulled,  every chruch sanctuary across the fruited plain will be forcibly converted to an Abercrombie & Fitch factory outlet store, and people will be forced to have sex with ducks! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8
     

  • http://www.facebook.com/dawn.ratz Dawn Ratz

    I am sure all hetrosexual couples plan on and in fact have loads of babies to keep the human species going… *eyeroll* In fact we are so under populated- any hetrosexual who can not bear children should just be taken out of the gene pool right? If you dont like gays- stop having gay babies! Its that simple.

  • http://twitter.com/fsamuels Forrest Samuels

    “scientists have tried to prove it is biological and have failed” does not a scientific theory make. failing to proive it is biological is not the same as proving it is not biological. Why do you hold a view you can’t or aren’t willing to support with evidence? The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and American Medical Association all say you are wrong.

    It should be a moot point anyway. Who consenting adults want to have sex with and love is none ones business but their own.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dawn.ratz Dawn Ratz

    “Unfortunately, the radical redefinition of marriage threatens freedoms beyond marriage.  The gay marriage movement has succeeded in erasing the freedom many Americans have to voice their support for traditional marriage”

    How does this threaten any freedoms? Did the civil rights movement threaten the freedoms of whites to say things against the blacks who fought for their rights? Oh.. yes… it did. then I guess if you are spouting hate- then with gays getting *EQUAL* civil rights~ you may be frowned apon if you spout off negative things against them because they are just a group of “different” minorites. So sorry hetrosexuals- my gosh.. being called out on being prejudice must just be awful! You poor dears…. you need to form a support group- wait… isnt that the Tea Party. Seems like you have this one bagged all ready.

  • MikeHearts

    I live in San Francisco, where probably thousands of gay couples married legally in California in 2008, and I see gay marriage as a positive influence.  There are gay couples with children in this city and they go to the same schools as our kids.  I see no evidence of “redefinition of marriage”.  You might consider coming to our beautiful city, which is full of people (and religions) from all over the world.

  • http://twitter.com/fsamuels Forrest Samuels

    AGW is real whether you believe it or not. I’m not sure how to convince someone otherwise at this point because the evidence is so overwhelming.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dawn.ratz Dawn Ratz

    How did this turn to a discussion about pediphiles? This is about 2 consenting adults- 18+ having realtionships- Not an dog and a person or a child and a person. Funny thing is when Loving vs. Virgina came up and interracial marriage was brought to the table people had the same debates. “Well if a white woman and a black man can marry- hell whats next? A dog and a man?” prejudice is prejudice. This is the lamest arguement ever. Fearing folks who are different from you is just silly- taking to this degree is willfull ignorance.

  • MikeHearts

    “The Lib-Left hates America and wants to eradicate it in any way possible.”

    This sounds like Nazi propaganda to me – blaming a group of people for being anti-American, when it is not at all true.  Think about what you are saying, Hominid.

    Sincerely,
    Mike

  • bob42

    What consenting adults choose to do in private is none of my business, none your business, and none of the government’s business. All people deserve to be treated equally. Thanks to far right wing big government loving authoritarians like the author of this garbage, and dupes that swallow his fear mongering, they are not. 

    You don’t have a right to tell others how to live their lives. 

  • http://twitter.com/fsamuels Forrest Samuels

    Other species are not human but humans are animals. Looking to our cousins in the animal kingdom is a good way to better understand ourselves.

    I’m laughing at your comment about liberals forfeiting objectivity. I see it the other way with modern conservatives. Talking points and dogma rule the GOP. That is how they do so well politically. They pick a message and stick to it regardless. Liberals have much more varied views on subjects making it harder for them to decide on a single message.

  • Hominid

    Do you think I haven’t thought about it at length?  You don’t even know what America means, Lib.  You Libs accusing Cons of being Nazis (and racist, and mean, and greedy) grows tiresome.  Can’t you come up with any new baseless accusations?

  • Hominid

    If 50% support gay marriage, why is it repeatedly defeated in plebiscites?  Your lies grow thinner and thinner.

  • bob42

    The only thing anybody wants to “force” you to do is to stop empowering your government to systematically discriminate based on fear mongering articles like this one, along with cherry picked verses from your supernatural space daddy’s bronze age nonsense. 

    It’s been a buzy day at the town square. At dawn, we stoned a couple of adulterers and a few of David Vitters prostitutes. At noon, we beheaded several disobedient kids, and then at sunset, we’re gonna burn us a witch. Ye Ha!

    Why not? It’s all in the bible… Read it. 

  • MikeHearts

    Frankly, I have never met anyone who wants to “eradicate America”.  Yes, there are anti-American forces in the world, but everyone I know (both left- and right-wing) vote and pay taxes and write letters to the editor and go to baseball games.  Not one person has ever said they want to destroy America.

  • http://twitter.com/fsamuels Forrest Samuels

    Which marriage are you talking about? The one that is between opposite sexes and based on love and respect like the ideal we have in the US today? Or the one where men can have many wives? Or the one where women are basically property to be transfered from their fathers to their husbands? What about marriage before 1967 that often also limited couples to being of the same race?

    Unlike physical things such as dogs and trout, marriage is an idea. Ideas change and marriage is changing.

  • Hominid

    I’m an atheist, fool.

  • http://twitter.com/fsamuels Forrest Samuels

    One man + many women is not the same as one man + one woman. That sure sounds like a change in definition to me.

    Marriage is an IDEA subject to change in thought and understanding. As a whole our country has a new understanding of the institution. The reality of the change in the idea is trailing but it is inevitable in a society where freedom of ideas is prized as is the case in the United State.

  • Proud2beFree

    The future that you posit is terrifying and very possible. I can picture it now:

    The government legalizes gay marriage. Straight people suddenly stop seeing the appeal of marriage now that gays can do it, and heterosexual marriage rates plummet. Pretty soon, heterosexual sex loses its hold, too, as the gay lifestyle goes mainstream.

    Suddenly, straight people start experimenting in homosexuality. They like it, and don’t go back. Pedophilia is made legal, too, since the majority of our society is now gay, and everyone knows that gays are inherent pedophiles.

    Within three generations, our world ceases to be, as procreation  becomes a relic of the past.

    Actually, that scenario sounds ludicrous. What the hell are you talking about, NUTN2SAY?

  • http://twitter.com/fsamuels Forrest Samuels

    Right, America, having a powerful military and strong economy is why we are the best!

    red_zone only mentioned the Dutch and Sweeds to show that the predicted downfall of society when same sex marriage is legal is unfounded. He said nothing about those countries past military or economic contributions nor should he – it is irrelevant.

  • NUTN2SAY

    And mentally ill homosexuals will further contribute to that “under population” and bring about further devastation to the human species!

  • Proud2beFree

    First of all, using sexual preference as a pejorative IS pretty neanderthal-like behavior. Second, you’re saying because they lost World War 2 that Scandinavia and the Netherlands cannot be used as a model for anything ever? That seems a bit silly.

  • Hominid

    It’s irrelevant to you because you are either too dense to see the connections or too dishonest to acknowledge them, Lib.

  • Proud2beFree

    A common, and disappointing, misconception. Libertarians believe that the individual should be able to do anything he or she wants as long as s/he doesn’t expressly infringe on the rights of someone else to do the same, while libertines do and say anything they want with no regard for the consequences.

    For example, as a libertarian, I think that the government shouldn’t be able to prohibit drug use, or prostitution, but I wouldn’t personally imbibe, and teach my children not to as well. It’s the ultimate expression of that whole personal responsibility thing that I thought conservatives where supposed to be all about.

  • hyhybt

    I see the theme. I’m asking for, and neither you nor the article so far have provided, a *necessary* connection. As in, why *must* same-sex marriage be opposed in order to oppose the others? Why do you claim it MUST be either this AND that or neither one, rather than “this, but not those?”

  • hyhybt

    That would not be a flaw in the law, but in application. So, again: how does the LAW create “special,” rather than equal, rights?

  • Proud2beFree

    Well yeah, he’s a libertarian, duh.

    Though I’d argue the truest libertarian argument is for government to get out of the marriage business entirely.

  • Hominid

    Right, Mike – going to baseball games & writing letters to the editor makes one an American.  Ever heard of American VALUES, Mike?  Ever heard of AMERICANISM, Mike?  Read up on the FOUNDING of America, Mike, and read the Constitution and the Fed Papers while you’re at it – you’ll be surprised what you might discover.

  • Proud2beFree

    What about all of the people who were sexually abused that grew up to be heterosexual?

  • reddarin

    >humans are animals

    Nope.

    >Looking to our cousins in the anima

    Seeing a male dog screw another male dog is hardly an enlightening experience. Unless you have a gay agenda I guess.

    >Liberals have much more varied views on subjects

    Bull. There is left and more left.

    Same old drivel – left is smart, right is dumb.

  • Proud2beFree

    You see liberals as the herd? I think I’ve read a lot of studies that show that conservatives are far more herd-like, but I could be mistaken.

    You should look up In-group–out-group bias, it might open your mind.

  • JWII

    BillNC, I actually agree with your statement. At which point is two or three or however many is not receiving the same rights as someone else.  The problem with using the same sex conundrum as a rights issue is disingenious at best and destructive to individual rights at worst.

    Libertarians in philosophy and as a political idealogy, if they were sincere, would desire that perversion should be protected at all cost. From the group NAMBLA, to female genitailia mutilation,  as it is a cultural right to practice as one sees fit. Taken to the utmost extreme, which is really a hardcore Libertarian thought, we would desolve into a lawless society with no thoughts to others rights afforded in the COnstitution. What appears to be in theory a FOUNDERS ( Thomas Jeffeson, not what he advocated ) desire of self rule and self govern, to a Libertarian is nothing more than total anarchy.

    Now does that mean we want Government telling us what we can and do in our own lives on a daily basis? not on your life, just as the argument we really do not wish for  ( Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Mormons, etc. ) pushing their morals on us. As a society, we can and should fight for known morals or what is decided by a civil society to protect that which is GOOD. The founders believed that our Constitution was so designed that it would take a RELIGIOUS people to be able to prevent it from lapsing into the areas which we are now debating. One being same sex marriage. Our Constitution as such is libertine designed to protect the people from Government. Unfortunately, when taken to its extreme as a RIGHTS document, then we are left with fighting for moral clarity and I do believe that the protectors are losing that ground to Libertarians and junk rights advocates.  

  • Guest

    “stop having gay babies”? Is that sarcasm? Because I can’t tell.

    If it’s not sarcasm, it’s a ridiculous suggestion.

  • Proud2beFree

    Isn’t it obvious? Polls that are scientific are unbiased by design and represent a random cross section of people, while voting is anything but.

    50 per cent of America supports gay marriage, but that doesn’t mean that that 50 per cent get out to vote, or that the 50 per cent is evenly distributed throughout the state plebiscites of which you’re referring. Also, old people vote disproportionately, and old folks like yourself tend to be more anti-gay marriage.

    So yeah, they’re not lies, just critical thinking.

  • reddarin

    >evidence is so overwhelming

    Uh huh. That ClimateGate thing? Move along. Nothing to see here.

    All the evidence of data manipulation? Temperature sensing stations in cooler areas being taken off line, stations in warm urban areas not being adjusted for artificial heat sources like the newly poured parking lot that surrounds the unit, data massaged but the formula for the adjustments a tightly held secret.

    Former doom and gloom reports made by the UN that failed to come true disappearing.

    The fact that the prime mover in AGW, CO2, trails temperature increases? A minor detail.

    The fact that these AGW scenarios are all created with computer simulations that do not, and cannot, account for serious variables? The fact that the simulations are massaged to produce an expected result?

    I don’t see how someone who thinks he is so smart, being a lib and all, can look at that evidence of fraud and blithely walk on by to your Republicans R Evil conference.

  • Proud2beFree

    There’s plenty of evidence that “good order and discipline” haven’t been affected one bit in the various armed forces that have allowed gays to serve openly.

  • bob42

    Uh, no Tammy, we’re calling a spade a spade. You big government loving social conservative authoritarian nutjobs go out of your way to empower government to discriminate and disadvantage other human beings, and do so via dishonesty and fear mongering. 

    I can easily think of far worse things to call you willfully ignorant people, but I’ll just stick to the facts for now. Somebody needs to, and the far right is certainly not doing it.

  • reddarin

    >That would not be a flaw in the law, but in application

    No sir. The law is flawed.

  • Hominid

    I didn’t say that – that’s your vapid interpretation.

    The point I made is that those countries are DECADENT beyond all hope of achieving anything.  They are nations of parasites who HAVE LOST whatever MORAL COMPASS they might have once possessed; they are devoid of VIRTUE.  They survive in their cesspools for no other reason than the good graces of the USA.

    Accepting the the destructive lifestyle of pathological homos as ‘normal’ is a step toward DECADENCE.  Forsaking traditional marriage and the traditional family unit is a further step toward the DECAY of American virtue.

    Now you get it, don’t ya? 

  • NUTN2SAY

    That scenario is your scenario! I never said what you just said. Learn how to read please!

  • Guest

    Yes, and how about two consenting adults deciding it’s alright not to pay taxes? Or that it IS alright to rob liquor stores? Or that it IS alright to kill homosexuals?

    If two, or three, or twenty, people can decide what’s moral about sex, why is it not correct for them to decide which laws of all kinds are “right for them”?

    Even majority rule is risky, unless based on valid morality. IMHO, the only valid morality, as demonstrated by both short-term and long-term results, is Christian morality. That was the guiding morality of this nation at its founding, and is the reason behind all the other reasons that America was as good and as great as it was for so long. The abandonment of Christian morality is what has brought us to the dangerous condition we are in now.

  • reddarin

    There has never been a more herd like creature since the Buffalo roamed the Great Plains.

    >a lot of studies

    Whew! Spare me the pseudo science studies.

  • Proud2beFree

    How? By not already being gay and not having children? By adopting and giving orphans a far better life?

  • bob42

    Can you show me where in the constitution it states that this is a christian nation? Nope. Didn’t think so.

    “In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty”
    ~ Thomas Jefferson

    “I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology…”
    ~Thomas Jefferson

    It seems to me that you exemplify the goals of the dominionist far right propagand. If you decide to think for yourself for a change, you might just discover how often you are being lied to. 

  • Proud2beFree

    Actually, it’s pretty basic.

    In all of the scenarios, someone is directly harmed. Your rights end when they directly harm someone else. See? Simple.

  • reddarin

    > does not a scientific theory

    As I said, I refer back to the original poster to prove it is biological.

    >Why do you hold a view you can’t or aren’t willing to support with evidence

    Exactly! That is my question to both you (apparently) and the original poster.

    >Who consenting adults want to have sex with and love

    Exactly!! Quit dragging me into your damn bedroom!

  • bob42

    Oops. Did I fall for a POE?

  • http://twitter.com/fsamuels Forrest Samuels

    Animals also don’t own and hoard resources like us humans. There is no “what belongs to them”. They take what they need and leave the rest for others. Humans take as much as they can possibly get even when it keeps others from having what they need. I don’t see that us humans necessarily have a better system than the rest of the animal kingdom.

  • Proud2beFree

    “they are trying to legitimize it in favor of getting that extra vote
    thus selling out the heterosexual human being who preserves human life
    and not destroys human life!”

    “THE GREED OF POLITICIANS HAS SOLD OUT THE HUMAN SPECIES!”

    Your words, not mine. Explain your scenario, then.

  • hyhybt

    How so? Specifically, yet again, how does it create “special,” rather than equal, rights?

    (Selective prosecution cannot logically be the answer, as, again, that is not a flaw in the law.)

  • Telescoping You

    Well, Nina, you speak like a charter member of the international brotherhood of worthless liberals using that all-purpose phrase – pathetic imbecile – to dilute yourself with illusions of persecution that always anesthetizes the swirly world you homosexuals live in.

    To realistically address this force-fed prattle of homosexuality “no worries mate – we are just like everyone else” canard, one really needs to look deeper, a lot deeper, if
    you care to, at the history of psychopathology and the Pavlovian propaganda that has been rung for decades by the left to, shall we say, change the face of reality.

    You probably, or should have by now, heard of NARTH and what they are tasked to do and the tremendous achievements they’ve made, even with the most hardened cases, like you. 

    But what is forgotten among Americans, and vehemently ignored by homosexuals, is what the APA has said recently and throughout history about this subject.  Even more disturbing is that there is little awareness that the APA has been overrun by leftist fanatics (your primary source of knowledge) who have threatened the very careers of “traditionalists” who possess centuries-old reams of substantiated research that hold homosexuality, right next to moslems who market in head removal, as a psychopathology.

    You and your homosexual crusaders, just like Al Gore’s cabal of environmental sociopaths absolutely giddy over their silly global calamity bunco-game, have armed themselves with spurious research data, padded statistics and fairytale testimony, much like your statements today.   This forged research was compiled by (guess who?) homosexual psychology majors and offered up by (guess who?) homosexual attorneys to complicit leftist and (guess who?) homosexual “legislating from the bench” judges, who now are hell-bent on quilting this sociopathic lifestyle into the fabric of American life; precisely your only objective.   

    But to those of us who matter, Nicholas Cummings, Ph.D.and Rogers Wright, Ph.D. from the American Psychiatric Association have warned of the “Intellectual arrogance and zealotry within a profession that is now dominated by social-activist groups.” 
    This is a big bold Red Flag to 98.5% of the world’s population, but just another gay-freak day in a liberal park for you.

    Homosexuals have lost every argument they have advanced; genetics- debunked; inconsequential behavioral impact-psychiatric clinics are full of people like you; constitutionally protected – not now, not ever; the persecution card – all conservatives hate me – so arrest them; and finally, the current social strata to be mutilated – multiculturalism – now being flushed down the sewer in every society. 

    Really, in order to be serious, for homosexuals to make this latest claim that their demented behavior (morally rejected the world over) is a culture, then so too are megalomaniacal psychopaths (Islamic rag-heads, O.J. Simpson, Hitler), every worthless liberal progressive in Congress and all the Marxists in the White House – all of whom are your patron saints.

    Perhaps you should give NARTH a call today.  Your life will be improved a thousand fold.

    Incidentally, who did you root for in yesterday’s soccer match, the Japanese lesbians, or the American lesbians?

  • http://twitter.com/fsamuels Forrest Samuels

    Not everyone votes. Only the most impassioned do.

  • Proud2beFree

    Really? Wow. You know that social conservatives pretty much hate you by definition, right?

    I’m agnostic. Atheism is pretty hardcore.

  • Guest

    Indoctrinating the children is an absolute necessity for the homosexual community, since they can never recruit enough either to satisfy their perverted lusts. I’m not expressing hatred for homosexuals, just stating a fact.

    Heteros (of which I am one) can understand the inevitability of forcing indoctrination on children this way: if you, a hetero, were to find yourself living in a society of, say, 90% homosexuals, how would you go about changing that society into one in which you would feel comfortable? Because if you contemplate the question for a minute, you will see that you would not ever feel comfortable in a society whose sexual orientation was so radically tilted to the direct opposite of yours.

    That’s why heteros have tolerated homosexuals in America: we were still in our “comfort zone” by virtue of being in the vast majority on this most personal of issues.

    I am way out of my comfort zone when children are taught that homosexuality is acceptable, is just another alternative, or even is “right”.

  • Hominid

    I live my life by pragmatic empiricism, not by other people’s emotions.

    It doesn’t bother me to be ahead of the crowd.

    In the eternal debate over the existence of god, there are the credulous, the atheists, and then there are the agnostics.  The last congratulate themselves for holding the truly sensible position.  To them, I respond thusly.  If your neighbor, a bird-watcher, returns from his trip out west and tells you he discovered a new species of finch in the remote mountains of New Mexico, you might reasonably doubt his claim and demand proof.  If he tells you he discovered a new species of raptor that weighs 200 pounds, has a wingspan of 50 feet, and routinely flies off with full-grown steers, you would laugh in his face.  To be agnostic about the existence of god is the same as being agnostic about the giant raptor – utterly stupid.

  • reddarin

    >Selective prosecution cannot logically be the answer, as, again, that is not a flaw in the law

    You have some strange logic there pal.

    The proof this class of law is flawed is in the application of the law.

    Non-white victims gain special rights when the assailant is white in particular. God forbid the white guy says anything that could even remotely be considered racist.

  • Hominid

    Here, once again, inverted Lib-think.  Polls are accurate, plebiscites bogus.  It’s the point Hominid made on another thread today regarding the debt ceiling battle – Libs argue that increasing the debt actually lowers it.  Libs are truly psychotic.

  • Hominid

    You know this how, brainiac?  Let me tell you why you think know it – it’s what your fellow brain dead Libs have told you over and over again – no evidence, just bullshit you love to lap up.

  • Hominid

    Not one person here has argued that they’re ‘mutually exclusive,’ moron.  The argument is that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE!  It’s just another destructive delusion of the psychotic Libs and another weapon in the hands of antiAmerican Leftists.

  • bobert432

    Libertarians do not support legal definitions of marriage, period. Its a bit disingenuous to impugn all Libertarians based on a NY Magazine headline saying thank NY Libertarians. Really? Not NY Liberals? 

    And surely this columnist for NY Magazine was using the term Libertarian accurately? Surely these NY Republican “Libertarians” have read von Mises, and genuinely support Libertarian philosophy. Of course, there are some Libertarians who support abortion and gay marriage; there are some who are Jewish, Catholic and even Agnostic. There are many others who do not. Hey, sounds like the Republicans. The only difference is, Libertarians actually, as a general principle, believe in limited government involvement. That means, whether you support gay marriage or not, it is a private matter. It is not a matter that requires State endorsement. If your church wants to marry two men, what do I care? Its not my church. I don’t have to recognize their marriage. Anymore than I have to recognize their sacraments and use of the Eucharist. Some Republicans have muddled the term Libertarian, and use it as a catch-all for “socially liberal.” No, that is not what Libertarian means. Libertarians promote the basic foundational principle that private action is preferable to State action, as this system of “minimum government” promotes “maximum freedom.”A State law defining the term marriage IS NOT Minimum government. What is hard to understand about that? It’s not Libertarians who support this approach, its Leftwing Liberals and “family values” Republicans. Of course, I have family values. I do not support gay marriage. There are many Libertarians who do not support gay marriage. But, furthermore, I also do not support bills that define marriage. I know what marriage is. My Church knows what marriage is. So, I do not support State licensing of marriage. Nor do I support censoring private organizations who discriminate against gay marriage. As a Catholic, I personally belong to such an organization. This is the same tired argument from so called family values Republicans, either intentionally or unwittingly confusing the position of Libertarians in order to scare Republicans back toward good solid candidates…. like Bachmann. Speaking of anti-Catholicism, Bachmann only recently left a Church that officially described the Pope as the antichrist. Or how about apostate Catholics who actually support gay marriage, like Giuliani. Or a Catholic like Santorum who supports unabashed and unconstitutional militarism. Or maybe Romney will work for you–he’ll support what you want him to support! By the way, if you limit State action, State censorship becomes kind of impossible. It the State is simply not making marriage laws, not subsidizing medicine, and not endorsing people’s sexuality….then, why exactly would Catholic hospitals be shutting down for failure to oblige the State? Riiiiiight…because we’ve been trusting Republicans and Democrats to write our wonderful laws for these past 80 years, and now live under a tyrannical leviathan. Yea, they’ve dont a great job protecting Catholic hospitals and other private institutions! Its those slimy Libertarians with their “maximum freedom” you want to be careful about!

  • hyhybt

    Trying again… how is that a flaw in the law itself? *Any* law can be selectively applied, after all.

  • Hominid

    You, sir, are a brilliant biologist – no shit!!!  Your willingness to expose yourself for the ignoramus that you are is astonishing.

  • bobert432

    Its not merely a moral standard, its also a legal standard. I don’t support premarital sex between consenting opposite sex partners either. However, if it is two consenting adults (meaning (a) no one is being forced or coerced and (b) no one is under the age of consent) then it is not for the State to outlaw the conduct. 

    Private citizens are entitled to have moral outrage and even discriminate against people based on their moral preferences. The State itself is not entitled to do this. If it were so entitled, we would call the State a “Church.” 

  • reddarin

    >Trying again.

    Uh huh.

  • libertyandtyranny

    The libertarian notion of rights is that “To consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as no one gets hurt.”   But this runs in to problems when one starts examining what exactly constitutes someone getting hurt,what exactly constitutes two consenting adults.  First of all, the libertarians have misinterpreted the founding documents of this country, which specify “the pursuit of happiness.” the word “happiness” back then did not mean Hugh Hefner parties. It was based on the Greek word “Eudimonia”, which meant wisdom and virtue. the pursuit of happiness today has been misinterpreted as some sort of hedonistic pursuit of pleasure, regardless of right or wrong.
      It is clear the founding documents had a very clear moral dimension, and if we are not consistent in following that moral dimension, we run into problems.  The problem we have here is the unintended consequences of allowing two gay people, “two consenting adults”, to do whatever they want, like turn the institution of marriage on it’s head.  But we see the consequence is that there is another group that ends up being discriminated against, in order to allow the former not to be discriminated against.  It’s fighting an absolute: that there is a right way, and a wrong way, and one of them is wrong.  This is the definition of Truth.
      The reason why this is happening is because of the infiltration of Subjectivism into our society which states: one culture’s values are not superior to anothers, they are simply different.  Fairness taking the place of right and wrong.  But if this is true, and both cultures have equal rights to do whatever they want, there will inevitably be conflict.   If right and wrong have no meaning, then the only thing that makes one culture come out on top in a disagreement is how powerful or bullying they are.  For instance, the gay rights industry (I call it that because they already have achieved rights-civil unions, domestic partnerships,etc, and should stop complaining) has concocted a way to force their way of life on everyone else.   flaunt it in our faces as they prance around at their gay pride parades in nothing but chaps and a cowboy hat.  They shake thier asses at us and say, I dare you to say this is wrong! I’ll just accuse you of discrimination/racism/sexism etc.   This is the tactic of the left-this is so they can get away with their quest to conform reality to their desires, instead of their desires to reality.  

  • BillNC

    There’s a level above the realm of “personal responsibility” that you’re missing.  It’s called “right versus wrong.”  Once we establish right versus wrong, we expect people to be responsible to do what is right, resist what is wrong, and teach their childrern to do likewise.  This basic breakdown in society–which liberals are constantly pushing for–is causing all manner of problems.  To the extent that libertarians and libertines follow suit, the society continues to go downhill. 

  • reddarin

    >don’t own and hoard resources

    Never heard of beavers where you come from huh.

    >There is no “what belongs to them”

    The hyenas will be very pleased to hear that. I assume you’ll be happy to deliver the news to the lion pride that just killed the antelope? 

    >Humans take as much as they can possibly get even when it keeps others from having what they need

    Here, let me fix that for you:

    “Liberals take as much as they can possibly get even when it keeps others from having what they need”

  • bobert432

    I would be deeply afraid to live in the society you’ve described where the government gets to regulate private citizens through broad anti discrimination laws. You’re basically arguing that religious institutions, indeed ALL private institutions, have no right to open schools and hospitals unless the celebrate homosexuality and government-approved morals. You’re also suggesting that American children [thanks to Government Schools, already dumb as dog...well] somehow benefit from fashionable programs that showcase irrelevant aspects of history at the expense of, you know, actual history. 

    So, since the Catholic Church is not allowed to defy the Great State by promoting its own values, what about you yourself? Does the government get to forbid you personally as a private citizen from discriminating against people? Should the government impose a quota system on your next neighborhood BBQ? What if the government passed a “non discrimination law” mandating that an equal number of every race and LGBTs must be represented at all gatherings where private citizens open their doors to the public, in order to promote equal protection?   

    Also, while the definition of marriage has indeed evolved, has it ever, in any country, at any time, included men marrying men or women marrying women? Can you name a famous gay couple in history that was legitimately married? 

  • hyhybt

    So… you don’t have a reason, then, for making the distinction you do between *this* type of sometimes-unevenly-applied law, which you declare unfair, and laws you like, which are also (because all are) unevenly applied?

  • hyhybt

    Wait, never mind. Your name looks familiar; if you’re the nutcase who insisted (but, just as in this case, couldn’t be bothered to support anything in any way other than just declaring it to be so) that gay marriage would lead to Sharia law, then I’m wasting my fingers.

  • BillNC

    If the State were paramount, that would be true.  But we have been a historically moral people, and we the people decide what the government does, and not the other way around.  The government does not get a free pass to override the moral will of the people.

    “It is in the man of piety and inward principle, that we may expect to find the uncorrupted patriot, the useful citizen, and the invincible soldier.  God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one, may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both.” –John Witherspoon, Continental Congress, and signer of Declaration of Independence

    “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe….Religion…[is] the basis and foundation of government.”–James Madison, 6/20/1785
     
    “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government; far from it.  We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government:  upon the capacity of each of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”–James Madison

    “In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed….No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” –Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828

    “Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion.  They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope.  They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary.”–Daniel Webster, December 1820; speech at Plymouth, Massachusetts commemorating the landing of the pilgrims.

    Our nation is a group of moral individuals, not a government.  The government does not dictate to the people; the people can and should dictate what their government should look like.

  • reddarin

    Look.

    I know you have an ideological ax to grind here. You chose a poor example when you chose hate crimes.

    The flaw in the law *is* the application of the law. You want to split hairs and say how wonderful it looks on paper when the salient issue is how bad it is in action. It creates a special right – minorities can run their mouth all they want saying the most obnoxiously racist shit and nothing will happen. A white guy will got to prison.

    It is the same damn thing with the same tired argument ‘we just want to live in peace and marry our lifelong partner, what’s wrong with that’? Nothing. On paper. In practice it means school kids will be forced by law to be indoctrinated with the gay agenda.

    Go bark up someone else’s tree my rabid little limp  wristed friend.

  • Guest

    In the scenario of two consenting adults choosing homosexuality, others are directly harmed also.

    1) Two people engage in a frustrating relationship that cannot satisfy their God-given desires, which is one reason that homosexuals frequently have many partners. Greater frustration = heavier drinking and drug use, greater crime and domestic violence. Yes, even among homosexuals.

    2) AIDS is still, despite denial from homosexuals and liberals, mostly a homosexual disease. But it will spread to heteros. And those who have even full-blown (not my choice of words) AIDS cannot be quarantined. They can and do expose others. It’s my understanding that they can’t even be fired from the food service industry, even retail positions. How did you enjoy your lunch today?

    3) The American population replacement rate is shrinking. Aside from all those thousands of aborted babies, those who choose homosexuality obviously will not contribute to population replacement. One of the reasons we’re in a crunch over Social Security is bvecause there aren’t enough workers to do the pay-as-we-go thing. Granted, the fedgov threw away all the money anyone ever trusted them with.

    4) The homosexual agenda includes alienating children from their parents so as to indoctrinate them and prepare them for use by adult homosexuals as early as possible.

    Not direct harm?  In legal parlance, “but for” homosexuality, those problems would be less. And those are significant problems. That makes homosexuality the proximate cause of those problems, if not the sole cause or precipitating event.

  • George

    Same sex marriages  – they have a lot of

    ‘Chutzpah’ I mean Chootzpah.

  • reddarin

    >lead to Sharia law

    As usual everything gets run through your little gay liberal filter. That is not what I said.

    BUT, I’m thanking God that you recollect it that way and therefore feel I am a waste of time. Adios.

  • libertyandtyranny

    How does inflicting lawsuits on businesses owned by Christians-take a photography shop that doesn’t want to photograph to men in tuxedos kissing each other because it goes against their beliefs-not discriminate against Christians? this is being prejudiced about another group?
    sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. There is a right and a wrong.

  • libertyandtyranny

    First of all, you can’t take the NYT on face value. They are clearly a liberal organization and skew their articles to defend a position on their set of morals and values, which is INHERENTLY anti-Christian and pro-Subjectivist.  Secondly, many religious groups went along with it only because their would be exempt from being forced to marry gay couples if it goes against their belief system.  It’s only a matter of time until there are lawsuits imposed upon these religious groups, or there is so much intimidation and violent protests that they are forced to acquiesce. 

  • BillNC

    It is ironic that you call something “wrong.”  You abandon the true moral standard of sex outside of marriage being wrong, in favor of a made-up standard of “two consenting adults.”  A century ago, people who engaged in illicit sex not only would not call what they were doing “right,” but they wouldn’t have the audacity to call right behavior “wrong.”

    We are not discriminating against people for who they ARE.  Who they ARE is a person, just like me.  What they DO is sexual perversion, and it is right and good to resist people for their sexual perversion. 

  • Midlandr

    I agree with BillNC.

  • libertyandtyranny

    The libertarian notion of rights is that “To consenting adults should be
    allowed to do whatever they want, as long as no one gets hurt.”   But
    this runs in to problems when one starts examining what exactly
    constitutes someone getting hurt,what exactly constitutes two consenting
    adults.  First of all, the libertarians have misinterpreted the
    founding documents of this country, which specify “the pursuit of
    happiness.” the word “happiness” back then did not mean Hugh Hefner
    parties. It was based on the Greek word “Eudimonia”, which meant wisdom
    and virtue. the pursuit of happiness today has been misinterpreted as
    some sort of hedonistic pursuit of pleasure, regardless of right or
    wrong.
      It is clear the founding documents had a very clear moral
    dimension, and if we are not consistent in following that moral
    dimension, we run into problems.  The problem we have here is the
    unintended consequences of allowing two gay people, “two consenting
    adults”, to do whatever they want, like turn the institution of marriage
    on it’s head.  But we see the consequence is that there is another
    group that ends up being discriminated against, in order to allow the
    former not to be discriminated against.  It’s fighting an absolute: that
    there is a right way, and a wrong way, and one of them is wrong.  This
    is the definition of Truth.
      The reason why this is happening is
    because of the infiltration of Subjectivism into our society which
    states: one culture’s values are not superior to anothers, they are
    simply different.  Fairness taking the place of right and wrong.  But if
    this is true, and both cultures have equal rights to do whatever they
    want, there will inevitably be conflict.   If right and wrong have no
    meaning, then the only thing that makes one culture come out on top in a
    disagreement is how powerful or bullying they are.  For instance, the
    gay rights industry (I call it that because they already have achieved
    rights-civil unions, domestic partnerships,etc, and should stop
    complaining) has concocted a way to force their way of life on everyone
    else.   flaunt it in our faces as they prance around at their gay pride
    parades in nothing but chaps and a cowboy hat.  They shake thier asses
    at us and say, I dare you to say this is wrong! I’ll just accuse you of
    discrimination/racism/sexism etc.   This is the tactic of the left-this
    is so they can get away with their quest to conform reality to their
    desires, instead of their desires to reality. 

  • hyhybt

    Perhaps you’d share what connections you see and how you make them.

  • hyhybt

    The question still stands for RenegadeScholar.

  • bobert432

    I agree, and therefore the people have a right to be outraged at their neighbors’s decisions and lifestyles. I don’t need a law to tell me to oppose gay marriage. And its not the law that makes a society moral. It takes a moral society to make moral laws. The people should dictate what their government should like. 

    But the people, acting through the government, should be careful about dictating what other people should like. This is tyranny. This is what Communists did. This is what the French Revolutionaries attempted to do. 

    A law cannot make gay people straight. Nor should it attempt to do so. Even Thomas Aquinas concluded that there are certain violations of the moral law, that cannot be codified into the civil law, and penalized by the same. It doesn’t make any sense. I don’t know if this is what you are arguing for or against, but this is the point I was making.

  • hyhybt

    You can hardly blame someone for supposedly misunderstanding you when you refuse to elaborate :)

  • hyhybt

    …which is meaningless, even if it turns out to be true. A dozen does not even remotely mean all, nor does it demonstrate causation.

  • Guest

    That’s an amazing fact. I had never heard that definition of happiness before. Thank you. It fits with what we know of the character and antecedents of the Founders.

    The rest of your comment was also very well-reasoned. I’m glad you posted it.

  • hyhybt

    If humans aren’t animals, then what are we? Plants? Fungi? Prions, perhaps?

  • hyhybt

    Testimony is a form of evidence. Not the best kind, to be sure, but ask *almost* any gayetc person and they’ll tell you they didn’t choose to be attracted to the same sex and couldn’t not be. For that matter, ask almost any straight person. Yourself for instance: when and how did you go about choosing which sex to be attracted to?

  • bobert432

    [The libertarian notion of rights is that "To consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as no one gets hurt." But this runs in to problems when one starts examining what exactly constitutes someone getting hurt, what exactly constitutes two consenting adults.]
    The original poster was referring to two consenting adults engaging in homosexual relationships, and not endorsing gay marriage. I think its important to distinguish these two concepts. I don’t support gay marriage or legalizing gay marriage. I do support an adult’s fundamental right to consent to things that make him happy, even if those things are harmful. You disagree?

    There is no problem at all with the notion that grown adults should be allowed to voluntarily consent to conduct that only harms themselves, unless you’re an authoritarian. You realize that this is the same argument made by Socialists when they promote universal health care? The individual choices of consenting adults notwithstanding, choosing not to buy health care runs in to problems when one starts examining the social costs this has on the Collective. Therefore, we should regulate people’s health care decisions. 

    Since when do my personal choices have anything to do with you? So long as I am not harming others, its really no one else’s business. Again, unless you are an authoritarian who thinks the State is entitled to regulate private morality, I don’t see how you can disagree with this.

    Do you imagine that the Founders were creating a Church? Otherwise, from where does the federal government (or the States) derive the authority to tell consenting adults they are not allowed to consent to activities that are harmful to them? 

  • hyhybt

    When marriage was an arrangement where women became essentially the property of men, same-sex marriage *would* have been nonsense. Perhaps even when it was the job of the man to go out and work and make decisions and that of the woman to keep house, tend children, and obey. But nowadays, marriage even between a man and a woman is (legally, at least) an arrangement between equals. They may choose to divide up responsibilities and such any way they wish. The only time male or female comes in as a necessary division is in the begetting, gestating, and perhaps nursing of children. But marriage (at least, marriage in the early 2100′s as practiced by most straight people in the United States) is not about gestation, but about the relationship between the couple. That’s the core, and that’s the same whether they’re both male, both female, or one of each.

  • hyhybt

    We don’t have “live and let live” so long as we, *including* our relationships, are treated as inferior before the law.

  • bob42

    Given the fact that people were having sex thousands of years before humans created gods or marriage, your argument as no legs. It is an argument in favor of authoritarianism for the sake of authoritarianism. 

    I’m single, I’m straight, and I like sex. YOU do not have the right to tell me I can’t, or to call me immoral for doing so just because some religious authority figure tells you it’s the right thing to do. 

    Try minding your own business. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4CDIOZQWVWHDOAIENG3W4A5DWQ Michael F

    After thinking about it, I’m not so sure what you mean by “devastation of the human species”, unless you’re saying gay people are responsible for preventing billions of starving people from getting access to food and water, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, or the entirety of Justin Beiber’s career (I think that one’s on teenage girls).

  • hyhybt

    Voting records consistently show that large percentages of those eligible to vote don’t register, and that many who are registered don’t show up. It’s also long been known that the older people are, the more likely they are to go vote (up until the point health prohibits, at least.) Is there something in that you believe not to be true, and if so why?

    Combine that with surveys showing that large majorities of younger age groups are in favor of gay marriage, while those opposed are older, and it makes sense that marriage bans would win come election time, but by an ever-shrinking amount. And that’s pretty much what we’ve seen: in 2004, some bans passed with upwards of 70% support, but Maine’s (the last one I’m aware of) got just over 50.

  • hyhybt

    You may want to look again. This isn’t about “the gay lifestyle taught in Elementary schools.” It’s about including gay history, not sex, in the curriculum.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4CDIOZQWVWHDOAIENG3W4A5DWQ Michael F

    Have you seen Africa, Asia, or Latin America recently?  I’m not so sure “under population” is really a problem for the human species.

  • Hominid

    Already did that – see Hominid’s reply to Proud, below. You inability to discern clear and valid connections is your problem, not mine.

  • Hominid

    Homos are not ‘treated as inferior before the law.’  They can marry just like anyone else.  In my opinion, however, it would be proper to treat homos differently (as we rightly treat pedophiles and serial murderers differently) since the behavioral manifestation of their constellation of mental pathologies is extremely corrosive to society. 

  • hyhybt

    No, you didn’t. You made quite a few *declarations* in that post, but you did not tie anything together in anything even remotely resembling a chain of logic. (That would be the “and how you make them” part, though claiming you even made connections is tenuous itself.)

  • hyhybt

    Prove “mental pathologies.”

    And yes, so long as we are not permitted to marry *each other* (not just someone of the opposite sex; what good would it do for you if the law allowed only same-sex marriage?) then we are treated as legal inferiors.

  • Hominid

    To hy – I was responding to Forrest’s vapid post that says nothing about the age of voters, or the ratio of registers to actual voters.  If you can’t follow a simple discussion, keep out of it, fool.

  • reddarin

    Uh. After harassing me about Hate Crime laws that actually are a failure, as you yourself agreed to vis a vis application, you are going to put forth anecdotal evidence of gayness not being a choice?

    >Yourself for instance

    I’m not going to get into my sex life on this board :p

  • reddarin

    A gross mischaracterization of that conversation.

    I was very plain about the matter. You didn’t agree.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ed.posnock Ed Posnock

    “the word “happiness” back then did not mean Hugh Hefner parties. It was based on the Greek word “Eudimonia”, which meant wisdom and virtue. the pursuit of happiness today has been misinterpreted as some sort of hedonistic pursuit of pleasure…”
    You’re asserting here that gay people want to get married to satisfy “hedonistic” desires.  Why is that the case with two men/women as opposed to a man and a woman?  HINT: It’s not!  Your problem is flawed framing of the issue, just like all opponents of gay marriage.  Mr. Bauer frames the issue not as people striving to achieve equality, but one group (gay rights supporters) taking rights away from other people (anti-gay marriage folks).  This is as absurd as it is depressingly logic-defying.  As it stand now, the former group is being hurt while the latter remains unaffected one way or the other.  If you have to twist logic and reason so drastically in order to cast yourselves as the victims, you should probably take that as a signal that y’all are wrong.

    EDIT: “First of all, the libertarians have misinterpreted the founding documents of this country”
    I hope you recognize the irony of this statement

  • Hominid

    I’ve presented the data and explained it at length in past posts.  The irrefutable conclusion?  Homos aren’t just about packing each other in the poop shoot, they exhibit a broad constellation of maladaptive behaviors – i.e., higher incidences of bipolar disorder, hyperactivity, emotional instability, pediphilia, drug abuse, compulsiveness, desire for high-risk sexual practices like promiscuity, sex with strangers, dangerous sex acts, sado-masochism.  You aren’t going to accept any data that are not consistent with your preconceived notions and selfish interests anyway.  The Hominid is not here to educate hopeless pervs like you – that’s not possible – I’m here to effectively refute your bogus arguments so that some of your usual dupes might see the light and not be cowed by political correctness.

  • hyhybt

    I have never harassed anybody in my life. That you cannot (or perhaps only will not, but you’ve certainly had ample opportunity) support your wild claims is your problem.

  • hyhybt

    You were plain in only one respect: you were very emphatic that you believe that 1) some people who are in favor of gay marriage also oppose governmental support of one religion over another; 2) this opposition will somehow (no plausible mechanism provided, just a bare assertion) lead to the implementation of Sharia law in the United States; and therefore 3) gay marriage (not just Sharia law) must be opposed at every turn. You never bothered to demonstrate causal connections between these things; most relevantly here, again, no explanation of why “this, but not that” is not, to your mind, a valid option. Indeed, you seemed to find the very notion that anyone would think you *ought* to provide evidence of causal connections, rather than just taking your word for it that these on-their-face unrelated items were intimately linked.

  • jrzip100

    Nice strawman idiot.

  • hyhybt

    Where have you provided this data? Certainly not in the post you referred me to when I asked.

    Again, that you refuse to support your wildly absurd claims can reasonably be taken as evidence that they are unsupportable.

    But suppose, for a moment, that what you just said is true: that homosexuals have a *higher incidence* of all those things. That obviously would not mean that all of us, or anywhere close, have any of them at all. Therefore, it would also not be a logical reason to assume anything negative about someone given only the knowledge that they’re gay, and certainly no cause to deny marriage licenses.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ed.posnock Ed Posnock

       “Indoctrinating the children is an absolute necessity for the homosexual community, since they can never recruit enough either to satisfy their perverted lusts. I’m not expressing hatred for homosexuals, just stating a fact.”
    You clearly know virtually nothing about anything, let alone homosexuality.  Thanks for playing!

  • last_resort

    ‘If you have to twist logic and reason so drastically in order to cast yourselves as victims, you should probably take that as a signal that y`all are wrong.`

    Go find a mirror, recite these words exactly as written. To yourself. See if it might apply. Seriously. Do yourself a favor, you might learn something.

  • reddarin

    Uh huh.

  • lungshot

    The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. – Ayn Rand

  • reddarin

    Whoa. I thought you said I was a nut job and you were wasting your time. You promised that I wasn’t worth the effort to type stuff into the computer.

    Here you are going back on your word after getting my hopes up. That is just evil.

    As for your restatement of our previous conversation I see that the gay-liberal filter is in full effect.

    >you seemed to find the very notion that anyone would think you 

    I’m gonna say this not for you but for other conservatives that read these posts… This is a classic tactic of the leftist that post here. They will pick something you say and demand detailed explanations and supporting evidence for any assertion you make or anything you’ve said.

    Watch out for it because it is a big ass waste of time. What you need to recognize when this tactic is employed is that no matter how much time you spend researching something and providing proof it will never be enough. There will be some reason to refute your laboriously gathered information out of hand.

    For example. What hyhybt is referring to is my remarking that liberals who are blindly embracing Islam (chiefly I think, because it is not Christian) are the same liberals who demand special rights and privileges for homosexuals.

    This assertion does not require any further proof or tedious study time. The fact is Liberals are eager to embrace Islam and readily ignore the thornier issue surrounding that quasi-governmental religion. The fact is Liberals are champions of special rights for gays.

    Now. When you look at both positions is it hard to see the contradiction inherent in these two end points? Islam has a quick way with homosexuals. Islam requires sharia law. Praise Allah. The worldwide Caliphate that Muslims want is one ruled by Sharia law.

    I state it plainly here as I stated it plainly several times in the last conversation with this person. You see how he recounts my previous part of the conversation? See how he demands that I substantiate the self evident facts of the two statements? See how he thinks that drawing a conclusion that these two positions the Left takes are contradictory to each other is somehow untenable?

    And there ya go. School is out. Ya’ll have a fun summer and we’ll meet back here in the Fall.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ed.posnock Ed Posnock

    Good thing you didn’t actually just make an argument or even try to refute the one I made.  That would look too much like intellectual honesty, and you wouldn’t want that, now would you?

  • hyhybt

    In what sense have I gone back on my word? I didn’t say I’d leave, only that trying to get sense out of you is a waste of time. As it happens, I have some extra time this afternoon.

    You did say more or less what you say you did… but *in the context of it being a reason gay marriage must be opposed.* You did not, have not, and cannot provide any reason that it is not possible, or even not logical, to support gay marriage and oppose Sharia law at the same time. Nor is it in any way honest to depict equal treatment of people of all religions as “embracing Islam,” nor by what mechanism Islamic law would become part of US law, etc. But most important, again, is the either-or part: the claim that you cannot support one thing and oppose the other. That sort of claim by itself and without any help from me demands, if not proof, then at least the presentation of a strong cause-and-effect chain where each step *must necessarily* (not just by bare assertion) lead to the next.

    Which is what reminded me of that discussion, because you’re trying to pull the same nonsense in this thread.

  • last_resort

    Guess you didn`t catch my drift, sorry. I should`ve listened to my first impressions, you are a waste of time. Good luck.

    I`ll let you have the last word, give it your best shot.

  • reddarin

    Your Honor, I rest my case.

    “Wait, never mind. Your name looks familiar; if you’re the nutcase who insisted (but, just as in this case, couldn’t be bothered to support anything in any way other than just declaring it to be so) that gay marriage would lead to Sharia law, then I’m wasting my fingers.”

    If that isn’t at the very least an implicit promise that I was a waste of time and you wouldn’t waste your fingers then I’m an impartial lib. Or a pink elephant. Or an honest Democrat.

    >I have some extra time this afternoon

    Say it isn’t so!

    >but *in the context of it being a reason gay marriage must be opposed.* 

    No sir. That was *you* not me. I made the observation as I said above – *YOU* are the one that brought that boondoggle (in the context blah blah blah) into the conversation.

    >Sharia law

    That is another straw man of yours. You said why do conservatives bring up sharia law when talking about same sex marriage. Silly me, I genuinely thought you were curious. So I connected the dots between Libs loving Islam, gay marriage and the inimical nature of Sharia law to gays.

    >the claim that you cannot support one thing and oppose the other

    Yet another straw man. *You* said that, not me. 

    >where each step *must necessarily*

    Class is back in session. See!

    Okay, class dismissed again!

    >same nonsense in this thread

    One of us is alright.

    By the way, that is real funny saying that the libs are trying to treat Islam equally with Christianity. Funny in a scary liberal doublethink sort of way.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ELVVIKQBY6RG3FTED7NVM7OJEM JenChris

    Here is the comprehensive, secular, and distinctly libertarian argument against same-sex marriage from Harvard Law, Princeton & Notre Dame:

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155#

    Click Download, enjoy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ed.posnock Ed Posnock

    **LAST WORD**
    Ah yes, the “NO, U ARE” argument.  Classic!  I take comfort in the fact that this is all that social conservatives can muster; with such paltry arguments, the ban on gay marriage will soon go the way of its race-based predecessors.  I’ll be there, too, gleefully watching you be dragged kicking and screaming into a truly free America.

    VVV Yes, a “free America” is one in which people have equal rights.

  • bobert432

    Ok, notwithstanding the accurate and verifiable points you made here (and leaving aside the absurd ones you’ve made), a couple of rebuttable points:

    1. Causation is kind of tricky. Almost everything is the but for cause of everything that comes after it. You’ve failed to show how homosexuality is, for instances, the proximate cause of the shrinking US birth rate. 

    2. Let’s say 100% of what you’ve said is true (and realistically, (a) how many AIDS patients do you think are flipping your burgers at restaurants, and (b) do you suppose, if they are, they are having sex with your lunch? Otherwise, I’m not sure why I should fear food made by AIDS patients. Explain…). What does any of this have to do with a person’s right to have consensual sex with other adults? Returning to Point 1 about Causation, I can argue that premarital sex between opposite sex couples causes almost all of the problems you’ve indicated. Should premarital sex, therefore, be outlawed?  

    This is how Socialists argue and enact their agendas. Because People do X, Y can happen as a result and harm the population at large. Therefore, X must be outlawed because it harms the Collective. Wow! Are the problems of a society that easy to solve? You just outlaw immoral and unsavory conduct? Well where to we begin? How about banning contraceptives, premarital sex, pornography and unchaperoned sleep overs? How about no kissing until you’re married, and 28 years old. How about a State license for flirting at a bar?

  • reddarin

    >’ll be there, too, gleefully watching you be dragged kicking and screaming into a truly free America

    What horse poop.

    Gay marriage is the pinnacle of a Free America huh?

    Keep drinking the lib kool-aid there pal. The Left will never run out of victims in its quest for complete power over you, me and everyone else.

  • reddarin

    “compulsiveness, desire for high-risk sexual practices like promiscuity, sex with strangers, dangerous sex acts, sado-masochism.”

    >Where have you provided this data? 

    You are one of the few gays in America that has never been to one of the big Gay Pride Parades I take it.

  • Sally Pearson

    You are right Ed gay people are not a para military unit, (as described by libertyand tyranny) they are simply human beings hoping to be treated as such. I too hope one day soon we will all pay witness to a truly free America!

  • redware

    Well this conservative doesn’t want to be responsible for the rehabilitation of all those irresponsible people who will abuse drugs when you libertarians get the government to okay its use.Oh,never mind, thankfully you libertarian/anarchists will never be in a position to get the government to do anything.Freedom is wonderful and we must fight to protect it,but we must also be sure to preserve the moral fabric of our society.Sometimes I think you libertarians orbit Venus when you go on vacations!

  • hyhybt

    “If that isn’t at the very least an implicit promise that I was a waste of time and you wouldn’t waste your fingers…”—There it is again: that *and* you like so much whether it belongs or not. It was not a promise, but a declaration, that talking with you was a waste of time, and I said nothing at all about ceasing to do so.

    “No sir. That was *you* not me. I made the observation as I said above – *YOU* are the one that brought that boondoggle (in the context blah blah blah) into the conversation.”—No, if for no other reason than that it was a conversation about supporting gay marriage to begin with, which you were against, and you chose to drag your Sharia law nonsense into it.

  • hyhybt

    A change of subject. Compare the worst of Gay Pride parades to what goes on at Mardi Gras; neither has anything to do with day-to-day life. So, again, where have you provided this DATA?

  • Major_Bong

    Oh, when will we repeal those horrible laws that prevent gays from voting and owning property, like we did for women and minorities?…. oh wait.

    Will America ever be ready for its second (or is it third?) gay president?

    LIKE ABORTION, IT DOESN’T MATTER WHICH SIDE YOU ARE ON, YOU CANNOT FORCE RELIGIOUS TAX-PAYERS TO SUBSIDIZE IT. THAT IS MORALLY WRONG, AND ALSO UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  I’M AN ATHEIST AND I KNOW THIS.

    Do you have any idea how few gays actually want to get married? I have a sinking feeling this is more about establishing a precedent to nullify 1st Amendment rights for Christians and Jews than gay marriage.

  • libertyandtyranny

      I never said I don’t support gays to have relationships. In fact, I specified that they already have rights, and are not “discriminated against.” I just don’t support gay marriage.  We need heterosexual marriage for practical reasons.  But it goes deeper than that.   It’s the fact that they want to corrupt an institution that has worked for thousands of years. It’s the fact that this great progressive social experiment on society is at the expense of the most innocent creatures on the planet: children. Children need the role models of a man and a woman to learn how to get along in the world.  A child needs to
    learn how to relate to the opposite sex, and learn how both sexes relate
    to one another in order to grow up understanding the world and themselves.  Of course
    marriages aren’t perfect, but it’s the fact that people strive to hold
    it up to an ideal that makes it special, and incredibly powerful.  In the Christian view, to create new life between a man and a woman is the most devout
    way one can pay tribute to God, their creator.  Man and woman offer different things to the world-that’s a story that’s been told since time memorial.  They come together and create something new together, linking the act to the idea of linear time, hence progress. This is linked to the idea of human potential.  By engaging in an act that creates something of greater potential than you, there can be nothing more satisfying. When the relationship between man and woman becomes ONLY about sex, his baser more animalistic desires, there is no motivation to strive towards better potential-that is why sex for sex’s sake gets boring, and gays have multiple partners.  This of course is at the behest of these children they want to bring into the picture-we haven’t seen the long term effects of whole societies having a huge number of the population in gay marriages with children. At best, it will lead to lower human populations. (this makes sense because Subjectivism is ultimately anti-human, while Christian Natural Law is pro-human, being made in God’s image)  At worst, it will lead to men and women hating each other, because there is nothing keeping them together. If I can get my sexual pleasure from the same sex, why do I need the opposite sex? for what purpose? The structure of society will crumble. We will be all equals, all equally mediocre and bored with each other. Hence all equally fighting for power over the other.  Sounds like brave new world to me. Some absolutes are unchanging.  We have to stop trying to conform reality to our desires, and start conforming our desires to reality again.

  • Major_Bong

    Oh, you people are so clever, I bet your Pagan, Socialist death cult won’t even purge the gays among you this time!

    Remember, you’re the next evolution of man, Ed!  We’ve never seen your kind before, you’re so mysterious!

    (I grew up in New York in the 1970′s, you think you’re going to fool me?)

  • libertyandtyranny

     Thanks. I was highly influenced by the leftist mindset earlier in life, so I’ve been in the belly of the beast.  But thankfully, I’ve extracted myself from it’s grip-after seeing so much hypocrisy, and seeing the result of their policies have such a bad effect, I started doing research. I also luckily had parents who had strong Judeo-Christian values, even though they came out of the morally cataclysmic 60′s experience. I think we always go back to the original values our parents espoused, that’s why it’s so important to protect the institution of marriage.

  • http://twitter.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

    True, but that’s an entirely different issue from gay marriage, and where the bells should be sounded…as is happening in CA. I’m surprised that no article on that has come up on this site.

  • NUTN2SAY

    Then tell that to Dawn Ratz and not me.

  • Major_Bong

    Oh yeah, I sure welcome your pre-bronze age ideals of pedophilia and ritual child sacrifice.

    It’s not your right to brainwash or molest children.

  • NUTN2SAY

    You call it adopting. Others call it indoctrinating!

  • NUTN2SAY

    Well then maybe you need to think about it some more.

  • reddarin

    >I said nothing at all about ceasing to do so.

    Uh huh. Our time is drawing to a close.

    >about supporting gay marriage to begin with

    That context ended with your plea for someone to explain the connection between sharia and gay marriage. Which I did in good faith only to be repaid with the usual liberal double talk and run around. Sort of like this conversation here.

  • NUTN2SAY

    I don’t have to explain anything to you. You explain your first scenario for which you falsely accused me of saying!

  • reddarin

    >So, again, where have you provided this DATA

    Down boy.

    I simply point out that the things Hominid indicated are on full display at these huge Gay Day parades. In spades. Both in the full sunshine and while the light fades. In front of the police standing at their blockades. Along with Barney Frank (shudder) and his aides.

    Yeah. 

  • reddarin

    >at Mardi Gras

    LOL

    The stuff that goes on at Gay Day parades would not be tolerated at Mardi Gras. Open sex in the streets? Man there are cops everywhere and while they may not hassle any of the girls for flashing their breasts I’d like to see any links you have that show the lewd sex taking place out in the open like it does at GD.

  • Guest

    (replying here to your later post because the formatting won’t let me reply there – !!!)

    1) You say I have “failed to show how homosexuality is… the proximate cause of the shrinking birth rate.”

    bobert, I said it was A cause, not the only cause. How? Biology. How many male/male or female/female couples impregnate one partner? They depend on other people to make babies.

    2) You ask,  “How many AIDS patients are out there flipping burgers…do you suppose they are having sex with your lunch?”

    About 10 or 12 years ago a friend told me that his sister, an RN with some dozen years in the field, quit after seeing a video made for health professionals only on the different ways they could catch AIDS from an infected patient. Transmission of BODY FLUIDS, not just semen. A sneeze, a cough, carelessly blowing their nose – yes, bobert these things can and do happen all the time. I’ve seen some of it. I got one guy fired because, thinking he wasn’t being watched, he licked salt off his thumb and went back to flipping burgers. I don’t know and didn’t care if he was homosexual.

    But that’s a masking question. Why should ANY person infected with any deadly contagious disease be employed in any capacity that allows him to infect others? There’s direct harm to others, because our government doesn’t want to risk offending homosexuals. And as I did explain, AIDS is still largely a homosexual disease. One reason for that is that many homosexuals have many partners.

    Yes, you could argue that premarital sex causes almost all of the problems I’ve listed. You would be wrong, however. That’s why we didn’t have a huge problem with AIDS before homosexuality became as common as it is today. And I don’t think I remember, on this thread at least, anyone saying that homosexuality should be outlawed. Those of us who are upset are talking about the issues of loss of freedom of speech and of indoctrination of children. Strawman argument, bobert.

    You say, “This is how Socialists argue and enact their agendas.” Wrong again, bobert. (Don’t you get tired of being wrong all the time?) Socialists argue with lies, distortions, strawman arguments, and silliness and hysteria. Witness obama’s entire existence. And your last paragraph.

    No one said the problems of a society were “that easy to solve”. That’s not an excuse for denying them.

    Or indulging in them…. right?

  • LIBIntOrg

    Thanks for the article. For info on people using voluntary Libertarian tools on similar and other issues, please see http://www.Libertarian-Int​ernational.org ,  the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization.

  • Guest

    “But the people, acting through the government, should be careful about
    dictating what other people should like. This is tyranny. This is what
    Communists did. This is what the French Revolutionaries attempted to do.”

    It’s also what the Founding Fathers did, and many of us are exceedingly glad that they did. We call ourselves Americans.

    That phrase, “should be careful”, robs this comment of content. Be careful how? How much? According to whose standards? This is an escape clause which allows you to approve or disapprove of anything you want without reference to any objective, consistent standard. A “line item veto” of any moral code.

    Government is always tyranny. The problem is to base the tyranny on correct morality.

    A law can prevent homosexuals from forcing schools to teach children that homosexuality is normal, desirable, right, or acceptable. Or a law can force schools to teach that. A law can protect people’s right to say what they believe in public as well as in private, or a law can punish people for doing so. that is the kind of law homosexuals are trying to pass now, as they have in Canada – “hate speech” laws.

  • reddarin

    >I’m single, I’m straight, and I like sex

    Libs. Always fixated on sex. No one asked you about your sex life. No one wanted to know about your sex life.

    It is funny how you announce it to the world then glare around madly challenging anyone to knock the chip off your shoulder.

    Quit dragging us into your stupid bedroom.

  • bobert432

    No, you said it was the proximate cause: “That makes homosexuality the proximate cause of those problems.” That’s much stronger than saying it is A cause. A cause of me typing this sentence is that I was born. Having been born is not the proximate cause of my typing. I didn’t challenge your assertion that opposite sex partners create babies. In fact, I generally said that you failed to prove homosexuals were the proximate cause of “those problems.” You listed many problems. Some of which I might agree with. Others of which, were a stretch. 
    Most of the people making food at restaurants near me are Illegal Aliens. Very few appear to be AIDS patients. In answering my question about how fearful you are of AIDS patients preparing your food, you gave no evidence that this is a serious problem. About how many times have people contracted AIDS by someone coughing on their food? I’m sure, if this has even happened, one is more likely to be struck by lightening. 

    I never said people with deadly diseases should be allowed to be employed around food. I asked whether contracting AIDS from restaurant chefs is something you seriously fear. 

    Premarital sex, causes many STDs, as well as social and relationship frustration. It also leads to unplanned pregnancies, high school drop outs, single motherhood, drug abuse, domestic violence, abortion, etc. The rise in sexual promiscuity, among heterosexuals, has had a direct impact on the shrinking population rate. You disagree? My Catholic family has no shortage of children because Catholics never endorsed contraceptives and birth control. 50 years Pope Paul VI was right, and Western nations have basically committed suicide. Was this all because of Gays? I don’t think so.

    You argue that AIDS is a great crises, and yet that its strictly a homosexual disease. True. But then you argue that heterosexuals are exposed to this risk of AIDS too. Oh? How could that be? Could it be because of promiscuity? Might pre-martial sex play a role here? Say, “A cause”?

    I’m not arguing with you about whether I think gay sex vs heterosexual premarital sex is a greater social ill, I’m accurately submitting that premarital sex carries its own bundle of unique problems.
    Strawman? No, let’s refresh our memory: JWII’s original post referred to “two consenting adults.” BiLLNC responded; then you responded to BiLLNC; then Proud2BeFree responded to you; then you responded to him; then I responded to you.Without exhausting the whole conversation, you at one point suggest:”Yes, and how about two consenting adults deciding it’s alright not to pay taxes? ….If two, or three, or twenty, people can decide what’s moral about sex, why is it not correct for them to decide which laws of all kinds are “right for them”?…..Even majority rule is risky, unless based on valid morality. IMHO, the only valid morality… is Christian morality……The abandonment of Christian morality is what has brought us to the dangerous condition we are in now.”

    You were analogizing two consenting adults deciding to not pay taxes to two consenting adults deciding to have sex, in response to JWII’s position that two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want. You can go to jail for not paying taxes. While it is perhaps not your opinion that gays should go to jail, you must understand the confusion someone reading this post would have. How is this a contrary response to the idea that two consenting adults should be able to have sex UNLESS you think it is right that the law should prevent instances of consenting adults having sex? 

    Proud2BeFree responded to you that liberty ends were it begins to harm others. You responded with your post about AIDS. 

    If I posted a essay about the dangers of premarital sex, in response to someone saying two consenting adults have a legal right to do what they want, do you suppose someone would respond : “Yea…ok, but they STILL have a right to do it, regardless of the social costs their decision inflicts on others.”….silliness and hysteria. Where have I seen that on this comment feed? Oh right, it was the part where someone was fearful of AIDS patients sneezing on their sandwich. 

  • Euskaldun

    I love comments about gays.

  • bobert432

    @Westernman:disqusThe Founding Fathers were Communists? The Constitution restricts the government. In its original draft, there was almost nothing restricting private conduct. No, the Founding Fathers did not attempt to dictate how the citizenry should behave by force of law.My response to BiLLNC about being careful about letting the government dictate what private citizens can and can not do was not cryptic, nor was a concise thesis of how I would order a perfect government. In other words, calm down. My response was a direct caution to BiLLNC who appeared to be submitting that the government should regulate morality. Yes, I think the government should not regulate morality. This does not mean I do not want moral laws with moral objectives. This means I do not think Government is entitled to tell people how to live and what to do with themselves. If you honestly think Government is always tyranny, and that is ok, please don’t vote.Tyranny is generally defined arbitrary and unrestrained power. I don’t know if you’re reading the history of the USSR, but the history of my country’s government began with people disabusing themselves of arbitrary and unrestrained power; which coincidently was a theocracy as well. People left England in the 1600s because England fused the Church of England with the State & the Monarchy. Some people weren’t too keen on this system.It was competition among the colonies that gave rise to religious freedom. Connecticut allowed religious freedom, and some New Englanders decided that sounded better than being oppressed by Puritans in Massachusetts. You can keep reaching for conclusions that I never made. Did I say homosexuality should therefore be taught in schools? Did I say I support Hate Crimes Legislation or bans on speech? To the contrary, I oppose all such laws. In fact, I support eliminating all public education, period.But I’m saying, quite simply, that your right to free speech and expression, is on a equal footing with some dude’s right to be gay. I don’t support gays using the instruments of government to oppress heterosexuals, ANYMORE than I support the opposite. Get it? 

  • bob42

    That’s a very poor strawman argument. It’s entirely non-factual in terms of anything I’ve written. Read your old testament. It’s your god, not me, that was cool with child abuse. When people base their arguments on fear mongering, like Gary often does, I reckon facts become optional. 

    The fact remains that YOU and your fellow social conservative authoritarian nutjobs have no right to tell other people how to live their lives. Yet you go out of your way to do so.

    Anti-liberty. Anti-freedom. Pro-Authoritarian. Be proud of it!

  • bob42

    You posit a ridiculous argument. For decades, the religious far right has sought to empower government to intrude into peoples private lives simply because irrational fear mongering is a proven successful political tactic. It not the “libs” that are hung up on sex. It’s people like you and Gary. It should not be an issue, yet, you people think it should be.

    I’m all for a limited government that minds it’s own business. When people like you and Gary start minding your own business for a change, instead of trying to legislate your own idea of morality on everyone, I’ll shut up. Until then, I’ll keep calling you out on your lies, and excessive authoritarianism. 

    I’ve dragged no one into my bedroom. I simply ask that you and your fellow authoritarians mind your own business for a change. Frankly, I don’t think you can do it.

  • johndubose

    There is a lot of evidence that homosexuality is NOT a choice.  It is an outcome of genetics and/or a rotten childhood.   The ability and motivation of homosexuals to recruit is ( I think ) way over stated.   We can safely mostly ignore them.   But no one should be picked on for expressing an opinion, even if it is prejudiced and wrong.   Telling kids that homosexuality is OK is to lie to them.  It arises from something bad that happened to them.   Feel sorry maybe try to help but to be homosexual is to be damaged.

  • reddarin

    Get bent Bob.

    >I’ve dragged no one into my bedroom. I simply ask that you and your fellow authoritarians mind your own business for a change

    *I* was minding my own business when you felt like you needed to tell me and the world about your sexual orientation, desired frequency of copulation and relationship status.

    >For decades

    Uh huh.

    > It should not be an issue, yet,

    Pardon me? I cannot hear you over your proud proclamation about your sex life.

    >excessive authoritarianism

    lol. WTF? Who is an authoritarian? The Left that is who. If the libs cannot legislate their values on everyone then they find a sympathetic judge to decree the issue a done deal.

    Get real Bob. Put down the hash pipe. It is making you angry instead of mellow.

    >Frankly, I don’t think you can do it.

    Let’s take baby steps. We’ll start with you keeping your bedroom to yourself and go from there. Deal?

  • bob42

    Well Red, how ’bout you show me how those evil “libs” have impacted your life with their authoritarian legislation, and then I’ll give you a thousand examples of how big government loving far right wing authoritarian nutjobs like your buddy Gary have successfully demonized people for purely political and monetary gain. 

    Mind your own business. Live and let live, and stop trying to dictate to the world. Please.

  • bob42

    Paranoid and homophobic is no way to go through life, Hominid. 

    “The Lib-Left hates America and wants to eradicate it in any way possible.”

    You offer no evidence to support your assertion. None at all. You’re certainly entitled to your own opinion, but you are in no way entitled to your own facts when they are not substantiated by reality. And you are definitely not entitled to impose your narrow minded nonsense on others.

    Mind your own business.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGIFTB73YDE3SPLHRVMQZHLXZY Reno Rivera

    The rich New York libertarian Republicans knew the consequences and are not making any effort to redeemed themselves.

    Besides, they help make New York the most liberal state and now a homosexual state and it’s residents further without a voice.

    It would be interesting to follow up on the homosexual manager at Cisco and of Turek’s success against Cisco. Now I know not to buy Cisco (Linsky) products and will pass the word around.

    Another interest would be the Goddard case in Canada. Mark Steyn was taken to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and prevailed which was rare. That liberal bunch has hurt many Canadians.

    Slowly and surely Canadians are taking back their country from the tyranny of liberals.

    Same here, homosexuals are creating an environment of hate towards them with their sick and destructive agenda. It’s just adds to more animosity towards them and other liberals. Their quest to change and cut America to size would be met with stronger resistance and lead to violence.

  • red_zone

    You either are or aren’t homosexual. You cannot ‘indoctrinate’ people into being one.

    You claim it ‘fact’. How about EVIDENCE?

  • red_zone

    Because we have anti-discrimination laws for a reason.

  • red_zone

    Can you provide the SLIGHTEST evidence that homosexuality is a mental disorder?

    No?

     Then stop making unsupported claims.

  • red_zone

    There is only marriage. There is not one reason to deny gay couples the right to marry.

  • red_zone

    MassResistence is recognized as a hate group.

    I am a Massachusetts resident and have seen NO ill by allowing gay couples to marry. This is more weak-minded cowardice by people who think they have the right to deny loving couples the right to marry.

  • red_zone

    Prove they are lies.

  • red_zone

    And yet, those kids do just as well, if not better, in homes headed by gay couples.

  • red_zone

    So… by your definition, anyone who believes and acts to ensure that other American citizens get equal rights are somehow ‘anti-American’? Does that make sense?

    Deny fellow citizens the right to marry each other just because they’re of the same sex is anti-American.

    Prejudice is anti-American.

  • red_zone

    “The ‘privacy’ argument for homosex is just as bankrupt as it is for any
    other wrong behavior.  We do not get to beat our wives in the privacy of
    our own house; we cannot kidnap and hold people, we cannot raise
    marijuana, we cannot promote child pornography in the privacy of our own
    homes.  Privacy does not allow for wrong-doing.”

    Beating your wife, kidnapping, raising marijuana and child porn = ALL ILLEGAL!

    Being homosexual =NOT illegal

    Comparing homosexuality to real, illegal, and genuinely harmful actions is weak and unsupported by any fact.

  • red_zone

    Uh, huh. Sure.

  • red_zone

    So a gay couple wanting the same privileges, rights and protections that strait couples get is ‘special rights’?

    “Gays want all of the privileges of marriage, and none of the responsibilities.”

    says who? You? What responsibilities exactly are you talking about? Why would they bother with marriage if that were true?

  • red_zone

    No, I’m saying that institutions that are otherwise open to the public, such as hospitals, etc, should not prevent gay couples from receiving the same services as strait people. Because despite their religious background, they are by and large secular institutions that receive money from the state.

    Why should a hospital deny a woman from seeing her partner, even though she has the legal right to? Why should a school refuse a child because their parents are two men?

    Actually, yes. It has. A gay couples shouldn’t have to be famous to be legitimate. They existed.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Evan-Miller/589111039 Evan Miller

    Unfortunately , much your argument is a strawman. Two adults deciding to have sex with each other is not comparable to murder and burglary. “If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?” Besides, last I checked having sex isn’t against the law… well I suppose there are still outdated oral sex and sodomy laws on the books in many states.

    While I agree that morality is important, trying to legislate morality is a folly. That doesn’t stop people from trying to do so in the name of social engineering, but it doesn’t work as a deterrent to behavior. Morality comes about when parents and others close to a child are actively engaged in teaching a child right from wrong from their own moral base and experiences.

  • red_zone

    Can you explain how granting gay couples the right to marry is a ‘special right’ or can’t you?

  • red_zone

    I’ve heard them. They are BS without any supporting facts.

  • NUTN2SAY

    That’s right! Go ahead and blame your mother and father for your mental illness. So typical. Don’t blame yourself, blame others! Mentally ill liberals and sick homosexuals do this all the time!

  • red_zone

    Maybe you’re not aware of this, but I DOUBT that has anything to do with gay marriage, especially when you consider that fact that it is only legal in a few countries.

    Also keep in mind; in the more developed nations, people are more educated, tend to wait longer to have children and even then smaller families. Whereas in places like India, people have LOTS of children.

  • red_zone

    ‘Practiced homosexuality’? Really? Can you prove it’s a learned behavior?

    The rest of your argument is just weak. Gays have been historically abused, demonized and harassed through history and have been largely omitted. It wouldn’t be all that different from teaching Black, Asian, Hispanic or Native American history. It should be given equal attention.

    COWARD

  • red_zone

    I’m not queer. Just a human being who believes that other fellow human beings have rights, too.

    And PLEASE, do NOT resort to that tactic abotu the Scandinavian and the Dutch. It just looks desperate on your part.

  • red_zone

    “The point I made is that those countries are DECADENT beyond all hope of
    achieving anything.  They are nations of parasites who HAVE LOST
    whatever MORAL COMPASS they might have once possessed; they are devoid
    of VIRTUE.”

    Prove it. Who are YOU to make such a self-righteous claim?

    Would you say the same thing about countries like Spain or Argentina, both very Catholic countries who have legalized gay marriage, both within the past seven years? 66% of the population of Spain supported the rights of gay couples to marry. Ten countries have legalized gay marriage. How many of them have collapsed? How many have suffered for it?

    The answer is NONE.

  • red_zone

    Thank you.

    And just for future reference, I’m a she.

  • NUTN2SAY

    Are you a heterosexual? Case closed! You are sick and a threat to the heterosexual human race and heterosexuals are waking up to your threat!

    In terms of procreating for the purpose of preserving the human species….you are a slacker and are a failure to do your fair share for the world, and slackers who think they should be considered equal are very insulting to the rest of the world!

    If you ain’t mentally ill….then you are an arrogant insulting slacker! Or both?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGIFTB73YDE3SPLHRVMQZHLXZY Reno Rivera

    Those who have kept track of homosexuality’s status in American society know that homosexuality was taken out of the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM list of mental disorders back in 1973. This laconic defense ignores problems with the decision. 

    Even sympathizers with the APA’s decision admit that politics, rather than science, was the chief reason for removal. 

    Gay gene proponent Simon LeVay concedes, “Gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the APA to declassify homosexuality.” 

    Also, the final tally was not impressive. The vote was 5,584 to 3,810 out of about 30,000 APA members, meaning that only about 37 percent of the APA took part in the decision. 

    In total, only approximately 20 percent of the organization actually said yes to removal, meaning that as much as 80 percent of the APA in 1973 might have opposed removal.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ed.posnock Ed Posnock

    You were so close to being right it’s almost painful.

  • NUTN2SAY

    I as a conservative independent would like to say that there is something to be said in support of “Two consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as no one gets hurt.” …..provided as long as it is done in privacy and not made public.

    And most certainly…..not turned into a political movement! 

  • red_zone

    So people who support same-sex marriage, that is to say, marriage equality, are ‘anti-American’?

    You don’t think your attitude is anti-American?

  • NUTN2SAY

    Because in the current quest for liberal freedom. Homosexuality is on the table right, right now, or should I say “left now” but, be patient.

    Government sanctioned pedophilia is a coming! A recent California court ruling will make sure of that!  

    And the war that homosexuals declared upon HETEROSEXUALS…..MOVES ON!

  • red_zone

    “Even sympathizers with the APA’s decision admit that politics, rather than science, was the chief reason for removal.”

    Oh, really? You can PROVE that homosexuality is a mental illness? It couldn’t be because that, after intensive further study, they found NO LINK to homosexuality being a mental illness?

    “Gay gene proponent Simon LeVay concedes, “Gay activism was clearly the
    force that propelled the APA to declassify homosexuality.”

    And…? Could it be because there was no evidence to support the claim of homosexuality being a mental illness? And gay and lesbian people demanded that they be regarded as human beings and NOT as depraved?

    How many gays do you know personally? How many gay couples? Would you ever think of calling them mentally ill?

  • red_zone

    Pedophilia is illegal for a reason.

    For what legal reason should same-sex marriage be banned?

  • red_zone

    “Same here, homosexuals are creating an environment of hate towards them
    with their sick and destructive agenda. It’s just adds to more animosity
    towards them and other liberals. Their quest to change and cut America
    to size would be met with stronger resistance and lead to violence”

    So, you’re saying that gays are responsible for whatever actions of violence people CHOOSE to commit? And that they should just accept whatever crumbs they can and NOT demand/expect to be treated as fellow human beings and Americans?

    That same argument was made over 50 years ago when Black Americans demanded their civil rights. Any violence committed was because people were afraid of change. Afraid of the unknown. They were too cowardly to try to understand and reacted with violence.

    Was that REALLY the fault of Blacks? Should they have just laid down and let themselves be walked over? Should gays just stay in the closet just so self-righteous hypocrites don’t have to deal with the reality of their existence?

    No. It doesn’t’ work that5 way. Just because you’re an insecure wimp doesn’t make it okay to mistreat or marginalize people.

  • red_zone

    Prove it.

  • red_zone

    And what legal right does the Catholic Church have to deny gay couples the right to adopt?

  • Anthony998

    What the argument for homosexual marriage comes down to is the phony charade of trying to portray vice as virtue, which the radical homosexuals are experts at, as well as portraying themselves as victims of an “unjust” society, and the latest of their  tactics, portraying Christian virtues and morals as old fashioned, bigoted and anti-intellectual.

  • bobert432

    The problem with Socialism (and socialize everything) is that it inevitably leads down the path you’ve started on. American Catholic hospitals and schools were on the cutting edge of medicine and education since the 1800s. It wasn’t until the mid 1900s that the US Federal government decided to start to socializing medicine and education. The Fed is slowly but surely excluding all competition from these markets. Pretty soon, Catholic hospitals and schools will have no place, because Catholics aren’t going to start endorsing abortion and gay marriage and gay history just because the State has said these things are ok. 

    Do you think every private person and institution that takes government subsidies, does so because it is the best system? No, its become the only system. Catholic schools and hospitals were self sustaining until Government began monopolizing the medical industry. It now dominates 60% of the market. It also regulates the entire market. It would be almost impossible for any medical provider in the country to not, at some point, take subsidies from the government given how the system has been set up. And because of that, you think that hospitals, opened by monks and nuns, and named for Saints, therefore must approve of homosexual marriage and adoption? 

    So, then you’re effectively saying that any private institution that provides any kind of services to the public, is forbidden from rejecting the State’s approved list of morals? What if I think homosexuality is a sin? Or are people not entitled to have that thought, because the government deemed it bad? 

    Why should private institutions get to discriminate based on their own morals and values? Its called the First Amendment. Freedom of Speech, Association and Religion. 

    I guess I’ll just take your word on the existence all these “famous” gay couples you’ve never heard of… My point was that gay marriage has never, ever, anywhere, at any time, in any place, in any society, been recognized or legitimized. This is a fact. This is not disputable. So before you propose altering the definition, and preaching to people about the ‘evolving’ definition of marriage, you might want to take note of the insurmountable weakness in your argument: (a) Social definitions of marriage have evolved over time and in different regions. (b) But it has never included homosexual marriage.  

  • Anthony998

    Traditional marriage is more than an idea, it is the cornerstone of Western Civilization, which fool liberals like you want to tear down. Marriage is the beginning and the foundation of the family, a place where children are conceived and brought into the world.

    “As a whole our country has a new understanding of the institution.”

    This kind of gay rights propaganda is a joke, only you idiot liberals who believe your own BS think stuff like this is real. You’re not fooling anyone. Anyone else notice how the homosexuals have been on the attack lately, especially since the court ruling in New York about gay marriage? Who is paying the tab for all these pro-homosexual trolls to post their liberal crap that has cropped up here lately- the ACLU? or maybe the New York Times?

  • NUTN2SAY

    You really need to seek mental help!

    I will let the rest of the remaining people who have just read for themselves your latest stupid remark towards me….BE THEIR GUIDE!

  • red_zone

    THAT’S your best response? I ask you what legal, legitimate reason exists for banning gay marriage and you act like a child?

    I wouldn’t talk abotu stupid here when you deliberately avoided my question.

  • red_zone

    Because they ARE victims. Of harassment, abuse and discrimination.

    Let’s look at a list…

    July 2, 1990 – Julio Rivera was murdered in New York City by two men who beat him with a hammer and stabbed him with a knife because he was gay

    October 27, 1992 – U.S. Navy Petty Officer Allen Schindler was murdered by a shipmate who stomped him to death in a public restroom in Japan. Schindler had complained repeatedly about anti-gay harassment aboard ship. The case became synonymous with the gays in the military debate that had been brewing in the United States culminating in the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” bill.

    1993 – Brandon Teena, a trans man, was raped and later killed when his birth gender was revealed by police to male friends of his.The events leading to Teena’s death were depicted in the movie Boys Don’t Cry

    December 4, 1995 – Roxanne Ellis and Michelle Abdill, a lesbian couple in Medford, Oregon, were murdered by a man who said he had “no compassion” for bisexual or homosexual people. Robert Acremant was convicted and sentenced to death by lethal injection

    July 6, 1999 – U.S. Army Pfc. Barry Winchell was murdered in Fort Campbell,
    Kentucky by fellow soldier Calvin Glover. Winchell was beaten to death
    with a baseball bat after rumors spread on base of his relationship with
    transgendered author Calpernia Addams. Glover was sentenced to life in prison.

    September 22, 2000 – Ronald Gay entered a gay bar in Roanoke, Virginia
    and opened fire on the patrons, killing Danny Overstreet, 43 years old,
    and severely injuring six others. Ronald said he was angry over what
    his name now meant, and deeply upset that three of his sons had changed
    their surname. He claimed that he had been told by God
    to find and kill lesbians and gay men, describing himself as a
    “Christian Soldier working for my Lord;” Gay testified in court that “he
    wished he could have killed more
    fags,” before several of the shooting
    victims as well as Danny Overstreet’s family and friends.

    June 16, 2001 – Fred Martinez, a transgender and two-spirit student was bludgeoned to death near Cortez, Colorado by 18-year-old Shaun Murphy, who reportedly bragged about attacking a “fag”.

    May 11, 2003 – Sakia Gunn, a 15-year-old lesbian, was murdered in Newark, New Jersey.
    While waiting for a bus, Gunn and her friends were propositioned by two
    men. When the girls rejected their advances, declaring themselves to be
    lesbians, the men attacked them. One of the men, Richard McCullough,
    fatally stabbed Gunn. In exchange for his pleading guilty to several
    lesser crimes including aggravated manslaughter, prosecutors dropped
    murder charges against McCullough, who was sentenced to 20 years.

    June 17, 2003 – Richie Phillips of Elizabethtown, Kentucky was killed by Joseph Cottrell. His body was later found in a suitcase in Rough River Lake.
    During his trial, two of Cottrell’s relatives testified that he lured
    Phillips to his death, and killed him because he was gay. Cottrell was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

    July 31, 2003 – 37-year-old Glenn Kopitske was shot and stabbed in the back by 17-year-old Gary Hirte, a straight-A student, star athlete and Eagle Scout, in Winnebago County, Wisconsin. Prosecutors contended that Hirte murdered Kopitske to see if he could get away with it.
    Hirte pleaded insanity, claiming he killed Kopitske in a murderous rage
    after a consensual sexual encounter with the victim, because he felt a
    homosexual act was “worse than murder”. The ‘temporary insanity’
    mitigation plea was not upheld, he was found guilty, and received a life sentence.

    January 28, 2005 – Ronnie Antonio Paris, a three-year-old boy living in Tampa, Florida,
    died due to brain injuries inflicted by his father, Ronnie Paris, Jr.
    According to his mother and other relatives, Ronnie Paris, Jr.,
    repeatedly slammed his son into walls, slapped the child’s head, and “boxed” him because he was concerned the child was gay and would grow up a sissy. Paris was sentenced to thirty years in prison.

    September 15, 2008 – A Bourbonnais, Illinois elementary school bus driver
    was charged with leading a homophobic attack on a 10-year old student
    passenger. The boy was taunted by the driver who then encouraged other
    students to chase and beat the child.

    Now you sit there and claim that gays are ‘trying to portray themselves as victims’.

    Well, look at these cases. It’s hard to make such a claim when the evidence speaks for itself. And there are many, many more cases like these. And look at some of the excuses some of them dared to give. They claimed to be acting ‘in the name of God’. And as shown, even KIDS aren’t safe!

    You see what attitudes like yours breeds? You may not participate or even support that kind of thing, but there are people who are motivated by such attitudes to commit atrocities on people for their sexual orientation.

    This has nothing to do with Christian values. It has EVERYTHING to do with discrimination and how gays and lesbians are treated. Legalizing same-sex marriage is only PART of the issue. It would show them as HUMAN BEINGS deserving of fair and equal treatment and would help in reducing these sort of crimes.

    Do you think your God would support those kind of actions?

  • RJLigier

    No such thing as homosexual/bisexual babies. Homosexual/bisexual children are the resultant of borderline caretaker environments aka dysfunctional homosexual/bisexual dyad.

  • Charles Burch

    I’m a heterosexual, but I never remember ‘choosing’ to be one.  One year baseball was the most important thing in my life, and the next year I was fascinated by Diana Rigg in her leather jumpsuit on ‘The Avengers’ (I know I’m dating myself).

    I just don’t understand the contention that homosexuality is a ‘choice’, when I don’t know any heterosexuals who had to make a choice. Can any heterosexuals out there provide me with their ‘choice’ experience?

  • RJLigier

    It’s because they are a product of a dysfunctional homosexual/bisexual dyad. Where are they going to acquire the tools to address their neurotic behavior if the sociopathic, gay-affirming, professional homosexual/bisexual community suppresses legitmate research?

  • Anthony998

    Notice how the news media never covers any stories of homosexuals that
    commit rape and murder? That would make them look bad, and they can’t have
    that. How about the story of 5 year old Jeffrey Curly, a boy who was
    kidnapped and murdered by two gay men (who were members of NAMBLA) who later
    molested his dead body, I bet you didn’t hear about that story from Katy
    Couric or Diane Sawyer. There are plenty of other stories like this that
    never see the light of day, as they would make the gay rights people look
    bad. How many men do you think are molested in our prison system, and no one
    goes to interview them, their names are never plastered across the front
    page of the New York Times as victims. And then there was John Allen
    Muhammed, the DC sniper, a violent homosexual Muslim- the news media
    conveniently left out the fact he was both a homosexual and a Muslim, that
    is called a lie of omission.

  • reddarin

    “Can you explain how granting gay couples the right to marry is a ‘special right’ or can’t you? ”

    You cannot read very well I see. My first impulse is just to ignore you since your post is nothing but ignorant.

    In fact, I think I will. Unless you can tell me what hyhybt and I are discussing in this thread. If you tell me that then I’ll answer your stupid question about special rights created by gay marriage – I’ll even give you a hint big boy – this exchange had nothing to do with that.

  • Anxious_in_MA

    From the comments here I note the left-wing hammer and anvil strategy.  They get all libertarian when it comes to perverts doing perverted acts, but once they get those perversions legitimized, then anyone who subscribes to the normally libertarian principle that he can choose to do business with whom he wants, then they bring the full weight of “anti-discrimination” laws on his head.  If the supporters of perversion are truly libertarians, then they should also favor freedom for those who want nothing to do with the perversion, and want to protect others from hit using their own means, but I won’t hold my breath for that.

  • Hominid

    Well said, L&T.

  • Hominid

    Excellent points, all, Bill.  And Kudos for seeing through the ‘truisms’ that the Lib-Lefties always toss to the dupes.

  • NUTN2SAY

    Listen inferior one! You don’t tell me what to do!

    You are one of those sick arrogant liberals who spreads disease while the heterosexuals of the world do what is right for mankind.

    Go get a wife and leave children alone!

  • Guest

    In reply to your earlier comment, “How did you get so ******* stupid?”:

    If you care to strain your brain and make an actual comment, it might be worthwhile to reply. I doubt it, but I suppose it’s at least theoretically possible. Enough monkeys on enough typewriters, that sort of thing…

  • Anthony998

    One more point on this issue is that just because certain violent people
    commit crimes against the homosexuals (I am not advocating violence against
    them), that does not mean that the homosexual behavior is now morally
    acceptable, or that all homosexuals are victims. And please do not attempt
    to smear Christianity with these violent crimes, as you are attempting with
    your comment on what God would approve of.

  • http://twitter.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

    They are against what is going on in California, which does go to that extreme. But aside from that, there is nothing that goes to an extreme where those who want nothing to do with said perversion would have any rights infringed.

  • reddarin

    >Well Red

    Bob, you’ve got two choices when there’s no reply button:

    You can do what you did here but you need to use the ‘at’ (shifted 2) sign and then, no spaces, start typing my screen name (reddarin). A dropdown box should appear and as you type it will narrow the choices till you can pick me from the list.

    That will generate an email that says so and so was mentioned in or by such and such. I have a filter set up to catch those emails and highlight them.

    That way doesn’t always work. Disqus is a little buggy sometimes.

    The other thing you can do is go up the comment tree till you see a reply button and reply at that comment.

    Either way you need to quote part of the post you are replying to so I know what you are addressing.

    There are a few other ways to reply directly to any post, button or no button. Like I am doing here.

    >how ’bout you show me how those evil

    You first big boy. You made an unsubstantiated claim. I replied with an unsubstantiated claim.

    >have successfully demonized people for purely political and monetary gain

    Are you off topic? I didn’t think were were talking about Democrats.

    >Mind your own business. Live and let live, and stop trying to dictate to the world. Please.

    My thoughts exactly. MYOB. Stop trying to dictate to the world. Live and let live. Pretty please.

  • http://twitter.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

    NAMBLA is ostracized even by the gay rights movement. If you believe that they support NAMBLA, I have a bridge to sell you.

    As for molestation in the prison system—too bad! Not my problem, as they did something to put themselves in that position to begin with (namely, the crime that got them imprisoned); I have no sympathy for them (unless wrongly convicted).

    The DC Sniper was not homosexual. Muslim, yes, but not gay. As for why it was not reported, was that why he killed? Not that I am aware of. Only if the homosexuality is a direct cause of the crime should it be relevant.

  • http://twitter.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

    BTW, the bit about the TSN reporter and Sean Avery (which was a point of discussion a month ago on hockey forums). Damien Goddard did not have any civil rights violated at all, and he will find that out very soon that their version of the Bill of Rights does not extend to private employers. (In an odd twist, the CEO of that company – Canada’s largest – is Muslim.)

  • usamopatriot

    Oh there are consequences all right. How about AIDS? A disease brought about by the perversion called the homosexual agenda. Even leaving religion out of the discussion the danger of the lifestyle is beyond question. Just like liberalism it’s suicidal.

  • usamopatriot

    Amen!!!

  • BillNC

    There is no evidence yet that homosexual behavior is in the medical realm.

    Neither is there any evidence that people are homosexual. 

    People are male and female.  Their behavior can be right or wrong, but behavior doesn’t make you a different kind of person.  Homosexual behavior is wrong, and is inconsistent with who people are. 

  • usamopatriot

    Just common sense. No procreation, extremely risky behavior, ie, AIDS anyone? Has been called deviant behavior for the past 6000 years. Brings absolutely nothing to the human species that can be considered a positive attribute. Is against nature itself. But I don’t suppose that any reasoned argument will change your mind so just please look at the historical facts of the results of the behavior and lifestyle.

  • sovereignguy

    you should be embarrassed coming from MA. 

  • sovereignguy

    well said!!!! I don’t give a darn what people do…just don’t tell me we HAVE to respect it…

  • sovereignguy

    I just find it interesting this article is written by the closeted one, Gary Bauer.

  • http://profiles.google.com/junegenis June Genis

    Correction!  You have misrepresented the Libertarian position on gay marriage.  Our ultimate goal is to get the state out of having anything to do with marriage.  Marriage was created by religious institutions and that’s where it belongs.  Until then we support equal rights for all which means that if the state institutionalizes marriage for some people it must do so for all. The state’s job is to protect any contractual agreements which are made in conjunction with a marriage or any other form of social partnership. The oppression of people who speak out in opposition to gay marriage is no better, and no worse, than that which have spoken in favor of it. Also, Libertarians do not support any activity “where someone doesn’t get hurt”.  That is too vague a concept.  We oppose the use of force or fraud, including acts conducted by the state, to achieve social goals.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5LASE52MEXKB4ODV3P77R6IBCI Jackie

    After reading all these comments, I am only validated in my initial supposition that most of you are among the biggest hypocrites around.

    You pretty yourselves up in the flag – freedom this, liberty that – but, ultimately, you’re part of a hate movement.

    Not the good, decent, upstanding folks you pat yourself on the back for being.  Not nearly close.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5LASE52MEXKB4ODV3P77R6IBCI Jackie

    Nowhere is the gulf between science and religion more evident and more enormous than when we confront the issues of sexuality, sexual orientation, gender identity, and homosexuality. It seems bizarre that in the 21st century so many people in America and elsewhere are still confused by ignorance and self-deception–by rampant stupidity.
    The science of the issue is clear to every biologist and was cogently summarized in a recent review by two endocrinologists (1). The authors make the following points:
    The human fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb.
    However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in transsexuality.
    This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain.
    There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

    The above points are made by endocrinologists, but you don’t need to be an endocrinologist to understand the facts and the implications.
    The first important implication is that sexuality and sexual orientation and gender identity are not questions of choice but matters of biology and hormones and circumstances in the fetal environment.
    The second important implication is that all the chief religions are apparently completely out of kilter in their understanding of biological realities concerning these issues.
    The third important implication is that there’s no rational basis for prejudice, discrimination, or persecution of homosexuals, transsexuals, or whatever–and in fact such hostile attitudes are from the standpoint of science and reality blatantly disgusting.
    Most religions base their doctrines on ancient books with obsolete knowledge of the real world. As the human species moves forward in time, our knowledge of the real world increases in quantity and quality, and it seems to me that any religion that hopes to survive must either change its books or ultimately implode for lack of relevance.
    Meanwhile, people in and out of religion need to understand the reality of the 21st century. We need to understand that the human species exhibits a whole spectrum of sexualities, sexual orientations, and gender identities, a smooth continuum from extreme female to extreme male, with all sorts of combinations of orientation and identity and sexuality in between the extremes.(2) That’s biological reality–and for the sake of sanity it should be our social reality. There’s no reason to oppose gay marriage except stupid ideas based on old books, irrational fears, and psychiatric hatreds. It’s time to grow up.

    Note (1). Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF. (2010). Endocr. Dev. 17:22-35.
    Note (2). A full discussion of fetal variables in sexuality and gender identity plus some interesting cases can be found in Chapter 7 of my new book More Than Genes, Oxford University Press, 2009.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5LASE52MEXKB4ODV3P77R6IBCI Jackie

    (Dan Agin, neuroscientist)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5LASE52MEXKB4ODV3P77R6IBCI Jackie

    Dan Agin, neuroscientist:

    Nowhere is the gulf between science and religion more evident and more enormous than when we confront the issues of sexuality, sexual orientation, gender identity, and homosexuality. It seems bizarre that in the 21st century so many people in America and elsewhere are still confused by ignorance and self-deception–by rampant stupidity.
    The science of the issue is clear to every biologist and was cogently summarized in a recent review by two endocrinologists (1). The authors make the following points:
    The human fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge.

    In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb.
    However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in transsexuality.
    This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain.

    There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

    The above points are made by endocrinologists, but you don’t need to be an endocrinologist to understand the facts and the implications.
    The first important implication is that sexuality and sexual orientation and gender identity are not questions of choice but matters of biology and hormones and circumstances in the fetal environment.

    The second important implication is that all the chief religions are apparently completely out of kilter in their understanding of biological realities concerning these issues.
    The third important implication is that there’s no rational basis for prejudice, discrimination, or persecution of homosexuals, transsexuals, or whatever–and in fact such hostile attitudes are from the standpoint of science and reality blatantly disgusting.

    Most religions base their doctrines on ancient books with obsolete knowledge of the real world. As the human species moves forward in time, our knowledge of the real world increases in quantity and quality, and it seems to me that any religion that hopes to survive must either change its books or ultimately implode for lack of relevance.
    Meanwhile, people in and out of religion need to understand the reality of the 21st century. We need to understand that the human species exhibits a whole spectrum of sexualities, sexual orientations, and gender identities, a smooth continuum from extreme female to extreme male, with all sorts of combinations of orientation and identity and sexuality in between the extremes.(2) That’s biological reality–and for the sake of sanity it should be our social reality. There’s no reason to oppose gay marriage except stupid ideas based on old books, irrational fears, and psychiatric hatreds. It’s time to grow up.
    Note (1). Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF. (2010). Endocr. Dev. 17:22-35.
    Note (2). A full discussion of fetal variables in sexuality and gender identity plus some interesting cases can be found in Chapter 7 of my new book More Than Genes, Oxford University Press, 2009.

  • reddarin

    >I am only validated in my initial supposition

    So. You had a bias. You confirmed your bias.

    Are you an AGW scientist? Just curious.

  • reddarin

    “There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.”

    Didn’t they just spend two paragraphs explaining the physiology of sexual orientation?

    Yes. They did. According to you, Jackie, it is clear that homosexuals are born that way.

    Then why this limp wristed ‘no indication’ qualifier? If the stamp is made in the womb how is environment going to change that?

    Or do they mean to say that a straight baby, formed in the womb as straight, can become gay due to environmental conditions?

    Well. If those two people say it is so the debate is settled. You nuanced libs win again against us religious neanderthals.

    P.S. We have an atheist here who doesn’t believe homosexuality is the bees knees.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5LASE52MEXKB4ODV3P77R6IBCI Jackie

    “Two people engage in a frustrating relationship that cannot satisfy their God-given desires, which is one reason that homosexuals frequently have many partners.”

    Uh, no.  Gay men (because that’s essentially what you are saying, though by “homosexuals” you do indeed unwittingly include lesbians, who are notoriously monogamous, in terms of reputation in “the gay community”) often have many partners because:

    1.  They are MALES
    2.  They do not typically have the “blue print” their straight counterparts have, that bind those counterparts to routine and rigidity
    3.  Escape – Being gay is not easy.  Each and every day gay people are scorned, mocked, or ridiculed in some capacity.  For many, alcohol, shopping, drugs are all tools of escape; for others it is sex.

    “AIDS is still, despite denial from homosexuals and liberals, mostly a homosexual disease.”

    Denial?  You dare accuse others of being in denial, yet you post the above, which is a pitiful declaration of ignorance, in bright, bold neon.

    There are 40 million people worldwide living with HIV/AIDS, and a mere fraction are gay men.

    AIDS did not start with gay men.  Scientists have traced the origins to HIV/AIDS to Africa, where man ate contaminated primate meat, planting the seed to what has become a global epidemic.

    “those who choose homosexuality”

    Any self-identifying straight person so insistent on the allegation that one chooses to be gay is either (a) stubborn in his willful ignorance, or (b) a bisexual who has himself repressed/denied his own homosexual inclinations, therefore believing being gay is indeed a choice….which it isn’t.

    “The homosexual agenda includes alienating children from their parents so as to indoctrinate them and prepare them for use by adult homosexuals as early as possible.”

    You are sick to think that way.  Absolutely twisted. 

    We gay people were once gay kids.  We know the tough road ahead of them.  We are trying to educate people as to the realities of human sexual orientation and identity, not indoctrinate and recruit.  Grooming children for our purposes?  Get a clue.

     

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5LASE52MEXKB4ODV3P77R6IBCI Jackie

    HIV/AIDS originated in Africa, from man eating contaminated primate meat. 

    If HIV/AIDS was some sort of punishment of gays, by God, why has the disease become a predominantly “straight disease,” on a global level?

    What kind of vicious god would create a punishment that would also ravage innocents, such as children?

    It’s all nonsense and fearmongering; feeble justification for nothing but raw hatred.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5LASE52MEXKB4ODV3P77R6IBCI Jackie

    Ignorance.  Proud ignorance.

    Dan Again, neuroscientist:

    Nowhere is the gulf between science and religion more evident and more enormous than when we confront the issues of sexuality, sexual orientation, gender identity, and homosexuality. It seems bizarre that in the 21st century so many people in America and elsewhere are still confused by ignorance and self-deception–by rampant stupidity.
    The science of the issue is clear to every biologist and was cogently summarized in a recent review by two endocrinologists (1). The authors make the following points:
    The human fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. 

    In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb.

    However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in transsexuality.
    This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain.
    There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

    The above points are made by endocrinologists, but you don’t need to be an endocrinologist to understand the facts and the implications.

    The first important implication is that sexuality and sexual orientation and gender identity are not questions of choice but matters of biology and hormones and circumstances in the fetal environment.

    The second important implication is that all the chief religions are apparently completely out of kilter in their understanding of biological realities concerning these issues.
    The third important implication is that there’s no rational basis for prejudice, discrimination, or persecution of homosexuals, transsexuals, or whatever–and in fact such hostile attitudes are from the standpoint of science and reality blatantly disgusting.

    Most religions base their doctrines on ancient books with obsolete knowledge of the real world. As the human species moves forward in time, our knowledge of the real world increases in quantity and quality, and it seems to me that any religion that hopes to survive must either change its books or ultimately implode for lack of relevance.
    Meanwhile, people in and out of religion need to understand the reality of the 21st century. We need to understand that the human species exhibits a whole spectrum of sexualities, sexual orientations, and gender identities, a smooth continuum from extreme female to extreme male, with all sorts of combinations of orientation and identity and sexuality in between the extremes.(2) That’s biological reality–and for the sake of sanity it should be our social reality. There’s no reason to oppose gay marriage except stupid ideas based on old books, irrational fears, and psychiatric hatreds. It’s time to grow up.
    Note (1). Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF. (2010). Endocr. Dev. 17:22-35.
    Note (2). A full discussion of fetal variables in sexuality and gender identity plus some interesting cases can be found in Chapter 7 of my new book More Than Genes, Oxford University Press, 2009.

  • Anthony998

    “The DC Sniper was not homosexual.” Yes, he was, that was a fact, not an
    accusation, and the news media refused to report that. You can pretend that
    NAMBLA and other child molesters are not a part of the gay community, and
    then you can put on your phony pretend outrage that someone would dare to
    link homosexuals to pedophiles, yet we all know better. In many places
    such as Greece and many muslim Arab countries they make no distinction
    between homosexuals and pedophiles. Why did Barney Frank, a homosexual
    congressman, stand up in front of Congress and state “We are going to repeal
    the age of consent laws” if him and other homosexuals do not want to molest
    children?

    And so you think that prison rape is “what those people deserve”? An “extra”
    form of punishment? No one deserves to be raped or molested, no one.

    “Only if the homosexuality is a direct cause of the crime should it be
    relevant.” It absolutely was, as it contributed to his mental instability.

  • reddarin

    >Yes, he was, that was a fact,

    Do you have some link to back that up? All I could find was this World Net Daily article and it was quoting an unlinked National Enquirer article. 

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=15777

  • reddarin

    >tate “We are going to repeal the age of consent laws”

    I can answer that with certainty. Think of the lock on government that the Democrats could have if they could change the laws and allow high school students to vote.

    Most public schools are no longer schools in the traditional sense. They are liberal indoctrination facilities with most of the staff being far left shills for the DNC.

    Look at the schools that bussed those kids to take part in the WI protest. If those kids could vote who do you think they’d be voting for? Whoever their teacher endorsed.

    That isn’t to say that Barney Franks wouldn’t enjoy the side benefit of unfettered access to nubile young boys.

  • reddarin

    >As for molestation in the prison system—too bad!

    uh.

  • reddarin

    “I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.”We are asked about this one on a fairly regular basis. As with many spurious Jefferson quotes, it is frequently seen on various Internet sites. Many sites do not cite a source, but a good number of those that do attribute this quote to a letter from TJ to a “Dr. Wood.” As far as we know, TJ never wrote to an individual calling him/herself Dr. Wood. Another suspicious element is the statement that he does not find in Christianity “one redeeming feature.” One presumes that Jefferson did, in fact, find some redeeming features in Christianity, otherwise he would not have taken the time to paste together his own versions of the Bible. See the report Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs for more information.
    Of course, when you read the entire quote with some context it is clear that TJ is not condemning religion or religiousness but Organized Religion (in particular the Catholic Church it would appear) or State Religion.
         In a letter to Horatio Spafford in 1814, Jefferson said, “In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes” (George Seldes, The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey Citadel Press, 1983, p. 371). In a letter to Mrs. Harrison Smith, he wrote, “It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest” (August 6, 1816).    

  • reddarin

    He also supports the right to tell a homosexual that wants to do business with you to get lost.

  • RJLigier

    1st amendment

  • RJLigier

    BS. Hypothetical argument without empirical data to support those conclusions

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5LASE52MEXKB4ODV3P77R6IBCI Jackie

    I fully expect you all to simply dismiss this.  You’re very predictable.  Willful ignorance is.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5LASE52MEXKB4ODV3P77R6IBCI Jackie

    “Then why this limp wristed ‘no indication’ qualifier?”

    Clearly you hate gay people and enjoy just lashing out at them via sites like this.

    Grow up.

    That’s all I have to say to you. 

  • reddarin

    >First of all, using sexual preference as a pejorative IS pretty neanderthal-like behavior.

    Does it count if it is a gay person doing it?

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44894#comment-257295738

    “or (b) a bisexual who has himself repressed/denied his own homosexual inclinations”

  • reddarin

    lol

    Come on! I could easily say the same thing about you. Clearly you hate straight people and enjoy lashing out at them via sites like this.

    Grow up.

    Do you promise that is all you have to say to me?

    I see you couldn’t address what I said in my post though. Yep.

  • bob42

    Only a total fool can support the level of government intrusion into personal lives that the gay hating fear mongering social conservative authoritarian nutjobs promote. It’s not like systematically disadvantaging gay people via the force of nanny state government is going to make them straight. 

    The government has no business meddling in or regulating the most private of free associations that can exist. In a society that values freedom and liberty, a citizen should not be required to beg permission from their government to be treated like other couples.
    Anyone that continues to support that authoritarianism is immoral. 

    Let churches define marriages as they like. Religion is voluntary. Government is not.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5LASE52MEXKB4ODV3P77R6IBCI Jackie

    Common sense?  Common sense?

    Common sense dictates that a heterosexual, monogamous couple having any and all sorts of sex, going into the scenario STD-free, REMAIN STD-free.

    Common sense dictates that a homosexual, monogamous couple having any and all sorts of sex, going into the scenario STD-free, REMAIN STD-free.

    By your reasoning, because of Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, Herpes, and HPV, for instance, merely being in existence, all heterosexual sex is “extremely risky behavior.”

    The absence of critical thinking on this site, by your angry haters, because that’s all you’re really doing here – lashing out at gay people, letting out your hate.

    I came here today to explore the Libertarian view and I have been profoundly disappointed, not to mention disgusted.

    I will leave this site today believing the charges of racism often directed at The Tea Party.

    Unbelievable.

  • reddarin

    >Willful ignorance is.

    Uh huh.

    We are willfully ignorant if we point out flaws in your so called proof.

    You, on the other hand, are an enlightened intellectual when you uncritically agree with something that supports your worldview.

    Got it.

  • reddarin

    >I came here today to explore the Libertarian view

    This is a conservative site. Not a libertarian site. Did that big ‘Conservative’ label fool you or something?

    >believing the charges of racism often directed at The Tea Party

    Oh. I don’t think you came here questioning your already confirmed notions about the TEA party.

    And. WTF does the TEA party have to do with anything on this thread?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5LASE52MEXKB4ODV3P77R6IBCI Jackie

    Wow.

    The flagrant hypocrisy is stunning.  Truly.

    You diminish this person for insulting you and for being arrogant, yet you exhibit no hesitancy to insult and arrogantly chastise and condemn him.

    I’ve said it earlier, Libertarians are looking like real hypocrites.

    And the hate at this site is palpable.

  • reddarin

    >the Libertarian view

    The libertarians are not your friends anyway. They believe that businesses have the right to tell homosexuals to get lost if they don’t want to do business with gays.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5LASE52MEXKB4ODV3P77R6IBCI Jackie

    “Sex by two consenting people, is really none of my business”

    It might be your business if you one day find yourself with a suicidal gay child struggling with self-hatred and dispair.

    Time and time again I’ve seen people like you devastated when they finally realize that they could have educated themselves and helped to save their child’s life.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5LASE52MEXKB4ODV3P77R6IBCI Jackie

    “You know as well as I do that we’re not talking about “equal status.” Homosexuals have EXACTLY the same rights as anyone else. What they are looking for is SPECIAL rights.”

    Nonsense.

    A straight person can marry the person he loves.

    A gay person cannot marry the person he loves.

    It’s all right there, and quite simple.

    “they want to manifest their hate of Conservatives by taking away the things that Conservatives hold dear. Today it’s marriage, tomorrow something else. They’ll NEVER be satisfied.”

    Wow.

    You’ve managed to make this ALL ABOUT YOU.

    You really think this is a gay conspiracy?

    Get some professional help.

    Paranoid delusion and nothing else.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5LASE52MEXKB4ODV3P77R6IBCI Jackie

    I admire your attempt to communicate with these cavemen.

  • bob42

    And you have another atheist here who supports “…liberty and justice for ALL.”

    As evidenced by the litigation in CA’s prop 8 controversy, it was religious organizations who fleeced their flocks with fear mongering in order to spend tens of millions producing and airing entirely misleading ads. But in the courtroom, where facts matter, they didn’t have a case, at all. Their only point was that their special little book allegedly written by their supernatural space daddy says “teh gayz is bad!”

    I don’t know which atheist you are referring to reddarin, but he sounds like a willfully ignorant authoritarian jerk to me. 

  • bob42

    It’s is clear that Jefferson supported the constitutional separation of church and state. This flies in the face of idiots like David Barton and Glenn Beck who constantly attempt to blur that line, as well as the social conservative religious right wing of the republican party. 

    At the time of the American Revolution most of the 13 colonies had state sanctioned/supported religions. At the constitutional conventions that followed, it was discussed in depth, and the founder decided that government and religion should remain separate. 

    Only revisionists/dominionists reject those facts, and they do so primarily for political reasons, just like the author of this article does. 

  • reddarin

    >But in the courtroom

    Uh huh. You mean in the courtroom presided over by a Gay judge.

    If that had been an evangelical fire and brimstone part time preacher judge there is no question that the Left would have lynched him for ruling in favor of prop 8.

    >willfully ignorant authoritarian jerk to me.

    lol

    He’s not always my favorite person so I’m just gonna let that stand. :p

  • reddarin

    >Time and time again I’ve seen people like you devastated

    yeah. Are you Santa Clause? Or maybe the gay Flash?

    There are about 4 million gays in America today. Spread all over the country. But time and time again you’ve been there when parents are dealing with the grief homosexuality has wrought in their life.

    Maybe you are the grim reaper?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5LASE52MEXKB4ODV3P77R6IBCI Jackie

    Most of us in Massachusetts view guys like this as gum on their shoes.  Never gonna get rid of ‘em…but what are ya gonna do? 

  • reddarin

    Lets see.

    You say ‘blah blah blah not a Christian nation blah blah’. Then you quote Thomas Jefferson to support your assertion.

    I show you one of your quotes is a lie and the other is missing the context to make sense of it.

    You respond with…insults to Beck and some other guy. And then shrilly proclaim that the founders wanted government and religion to be separate.

  • Hominid

    Your premise is false.  Two poop-packers do not constitute a ‘couple,’ let alone husband and wife, dummy.

  • reddarin

    lol

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5LASE52MEXKB4ODV3P77R6IBCI Jackie

    It’s very easy to say “no,” which is all you’ve said, in essence.

    If you have anything to back up your hollow claim of convenience, please do feel free to offer it.  It’s always better than just a baseless rejection.

  • reddarin

    “stop empowering your government to systematically discriminate based on fear mongering articles like this one”

    Uh huh. Free Speech? That is for the liberals and homosexuals. Not those knuckledragging conservatives and especially not religious people if they disagree with libs.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5LASE52MEXKB4ODV3P77R6IBCI Jackie

    “I see you couldn’t address what I said in my post though. Yep”

    There’s plenty I could say in response.

    After having been a part of fighting for marriage equality in Massachusetts eight years ago, I’m a veteran of the equality fight and I can recognize a hopeless debate situation a mile away; I do not suffer fools gladly.

    Now good day.

  • reddarin

    >This sounds like Nazi propaganda to me

    It is a good thing we don’t follow Godwin’s law any more. You libs would never get to say anything.

  • reddarin

    >After having been a part of fighting for marriage

    Which has zero to do with that pseudoscience crap you posted.

    >I do not suffer fools gladly

    And yet, here you are. You’ve already proclaimed that you came here with bias and it was proved out by reading the comments yet you began commenting and insulting people all around the thread.

    Who’s foolish?

    Good day :)

  • reddarin

    >You might consider coming to our beautiful city

    I’ve been there. Nothing special. The pier was interesting and the temp there was very nice. GD traffic sucked!

    Now, North of the bridge? That is beautiful land up there. Nice people too.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5LASE52MEXKB4ODV3P77R6IBCI Jackie

    “And yet, here you are. You’ve already proclaimed that you came here with bias and it was proved out by reading the comments yet you began commenting and insulting people all around the thread.”

    Yes, yes, I know.  They’re only insults when they’re directed at people with whom you agree.  Meanwhile, you say reprehensible things about others and think nothing of it.

    As for insults, here’s one.  YOU are a moron, sir.

  • Grumpy56

    The ultimate goal of the radical gay activists is the redefinition of the traditional family. Enough prominent activists have said so. I don’t see any reason to ignore them. So guilty Americans act like useful idiots for a cause that they see only through emotional lenses and sure enough, the unintended consequence of their kids being taught in school that not only is homosexuality as normal as heterosexuality, it is equally as desirable comes to pass. Male and female genders are watered down as well. There’s no difference between maternal and paternal love or child caring. We live in a society that has the prosperity (for now) and the leisure time to ignore the dictates of nature. I’m not so sure how long that’s going to last. Our society might be forced some day to recognize how critical the traditional family and distinct male and female roles are but it’ll probably be too late by then to do anything about it. 

  • bobert432

    Jackie, just to clarify:How are Libertarians looking like hypocrites? Read the comments on this feed. Ninety percent of them are not being posted by Libertarians. Gary Bauer is actually condemning Libertarians (by misuing the term) for their support for Gay marriage. So-called Conservatives also misuse the term. I’ve read through the above posts under this particular comment…..yea, I haven’t really seen anything Libtertarian in them. I’ve seen no shortage of paranoia though.

    Libertarians believe you have the right to decide how to live your life without government interference or endorsement.  

  • reddarin

    >They’re only insults when they’re directed at people with whom you agree

    That is a very interesting view of insulting someone. The inverse must mean, and in fact experience with you libs proves it out, that if you do not agree with someone then *anything* is okay to say to them.

    I think any reasonable person would consider calling someone a moron an insult without regard to how you feel about any particular issue.

    >Meanwhile, you say reprehensible things

    Oh? Unprovoked? Please do link to my guilt.

    >YOU are a moron

    Am I? Well, this moron took apart your little post about being born gay that you so put so much stock in. What does that make you? What is beneath a moron? A lib?

  • red_zone

    “Why did Barney Frank, a homosexual

    congressman, stand up in front of Congress and state “We are going to repeal

    the age of consent laws” if him and other homosexuals do not want to molest

    children?”

    Because ONE MAN represents ALL of them, right? WRONG!

    Homosexuality has NOTHING to do with children. it has to do with adult’s having an unhealthy attraction to children. Homosexuals are attracted to those of the same sex.

    “Only if the homosexuality is a direct cause of the crime should it be

    relevant.” It absolutely was, as it contributed to his mental instability.”

    ONLY if he were in denial and killed as a means of lashing out. That happens.

  • reddarin

    Bob. Please tell her the other part of the Libertarian philosophy. The part where you believe it is equally right for someone to tell a homosexual to get the hell out of their place of business if they want to.

    But that is pretty funny that the ever so sanctimonious Jackie thinks everyone here a Libertarian. Makes you wonder what other polysyllabic words she’s having problems coping with.

  • red_zone

    I never once claimed that all homosexuals were saints. But I’d also like to point out that there have been some people who, having suppressed their homosexuality, commit acts of violence because society tells them these feelings are wrong.

    EVERYBODY knew he was Muslim. It was never omitted. Do you know what happens to gay men over in the Middle East? They are put to death.

    What does being a homosexual have to do with him committing an act of violence? Maybe because it was IRRELEVANT to the story at hand.

  • red_zone

    You are not the arbitrator of what is ‘morally acceptable’. By claiming that, you give people the excuse they need.

    Those who commit these acts do not need my assistance in ‘smearing’ Christianity. They do that ALL on their own when they act on their ‘beliefs’ and attack another human being and take a life.

  • red_zone

    Except no one is prohibiting their free right to practice their belief. They ARE telling them they cannot discriminate others based on their sexuality.

  • red_zone

    Marriage was NOT created by religious institutions. It is and has ALWAYS been a social contract in regards to property rights and kinship.

  • red_zone

    In other words, you can’t tell me. Because you don’t know.

  • red_zone

    “Homosexual behavior is wrong, and is inconsistent with who people are.”
     
    Says who? You? Nature disagrees with you, as it happens frequently in the animal kingdom among thousands of species of animals.

  • red_zone

    Procreation is not the be all, end all. We are not in danger of going extinct just because some people can’t have children. Having children is NOT all there is to life and it’s not the reason for loving someone.

    Oh, really? Past 6,000 years? You have evidence of this? History says otherwise. Mesopotamia, Egypt and Greece, to name a few were VERY accepting of homosexual relationships.

    Nature disagrees with you and wants you to pick up a book sometime. Homosexuality is recorded as a regular occurrence in thousands of species of animals.

    Present a reasoned argument and I’ll listen, kid. Otherwise all your claims are bunk as PROVEN by documented evidence.

  • bobert432

    @reddarin Private property rights are beatiful thing. Gays have an equal right to open their own businesses and throw their doors open to whom ever they want.

    When I people have private parties at their homes, they also reserve the right to select whom they will invite and exclude. If Leftists (there’s nothing Liberal about them) and Neoconservatives (who gave up on the Bill of Rights about 10 years ago) weren’t so narrcisitic, they would realize that the same principle that protects their backyard BBQs and private clubs, applies equally to the businessman selling goods and services.  

    Last week a restrauntuer in Pennsylvania decided that his business would not longer serve children under six. The discriminates against children under six and parents with children under six. Now, he will lose a certain percent of clientele and gain another demographic: old people that don’t want to be bothered. And parents and their kids will give their business to places that want their money. That’s the beauty of the market, there’s always competition, and there’s always someone willing to take your money. This is because smart people pursuing their market interests will realize that there is no such thing as “gay money” versus “straight money.”

  • reddarin

    Unless you can tell me what hyhybt and I are discussing in this thread. If you tell me that then I’ll answer your stupid question about special rights created by gay marriage – I’ll even give you a hint big boy – this exchange had nothing to do with that.

  • red_zone

    Repeating yourself will not garner any points, kid. Either you answer it or you don’t. You’re either lazy or ignorant. I’m going with both.

  • reddarin

    I’m sorry. Was that an answer or a long quavering windy attempt to obscure what you are saying?

  • reddarin

    >@reddarin:disqus 

    Did the drop down show up? Did you pick my screen name from the list? That post did not generate the email as it should have.

  • reddarin

    You can go right over to the lake and jump right in pal or pallett.

    I don’t give a crap.

    Or you can answer what I asked since you chose to butt in on the other conversation with a non-sequitur.

    > kid

    Do you really think you are older than me? Or maybe just a lame attempt at an insult. I’m wounded. But I’m lazy and ignorant so I don’t care much.

  • BillNC

    Poppycock.

    Quoting people who repeat the same unfounded conjecture does not make the ideas true.  That’s just repetition.

    All the talk of “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” are complete fabrications from the past 40 years.  People who repeat those myths have fooled themselves–and a lot of other people.  Our gender identity is either male or female, and that is true at the moment of conception.  The idea that hormones change you into something other that male or female is ridiculous.  Even so-called “transgendered” people have been altered to be that way, and again only in the past 40 years.

    My message to people who commit the sin of homosexuality is the best possible:  you are not anything different from anyone else.  You can be free of that destructive behavior. 

  • CaptainAhab

    Sounds like Mr. Bauer has something against Libertarians. You can’t possibly blame the recent events in New York on Libertarians. 

     I believe that it takes more than “a few rich libertarians” to get a law that outrageous passed. Had it not been a MAJORITY of votes from Democrats, it wouldn’t have been close.

    Mr. Bauer, please put the blame where it belongs.

  • BillNC

    It’s not about racism or hate.

    There is no such thing as a gay person.  They are people just like the rest of us.  We are resisting the lie, oft repeated, that people are homosexual, and that they are therefore justified in their behavior.  It’s not true, and there is no proof of it.  You have believed a lie. 

    So we are not against people for who they ARE; that would indeed be discrimination and bigotry.  But we are correct to resist people for their warped ideas, words, values, and actions.  It is these activities and directions that we are against.

  • BillNC

    The moral standard is not our own; it is independent of us. 

    It IS our business when corrupt behavior is being foisted upon our society, and demanding its acceptance by all. 

  • BillNC

    A good parent helps their child see where they have gone wrong, and lovingly corrects them.  Reinforcing the lie that they are “gay” just makes it worse.  Feelings come and go, and they need to take a back seat to facts.  Giving in to illicit sexual feelings does make people have despair and self-loathing; that is conscience, and it ought to be listened to.  It is the truth that sets us free.

  • BillNC

    If we have a history of homosex in the classroom, do we also need to look at the history of adultery?  Pedophilia?  Beastiality?  Rape?  Bad behavior should not be sold to the children as if it is good.  That is what we’re uptight about.

  • BillNC

    We are male and female, not homosexual or heterosexual. 

    The idea that people are homosexual is a lie; it is wishful thinking; it is an attempt to justify perverse behavior by claiming that they “are” this way, so they must behave this way.

    ‘Homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ were originally adjectives to describe a kind of sexual behavior.  Only in the past 40 years have people started using those words as nouns with the intent that it describe who a person is; historically, nobody ever assumed that someone IS homosexual.  For example, when we say that a man is an adulterer, we do not for a minute believe that he is not male, or that he is different from the rest of us, and that he must commit adultery because that is who he is.  No, the noun ‘adulterer’ is a way of describing someone based on his behavior, not his innate self.

    So it is the verb that is the lie.  Nobody IS homosexual.  People engage in homosexual sex, they commit homosexuality, etc.

    Like Hans Christian Anderson’s story about the emperor’s new clothes, the lie just keeps getting retold until most people believe it. 

  • bobert432

    @reddarin:disqus “I’m sorry. Was that an answer or a long quavering windy attempt to obscure what you are saying?” You didn’t ask me a question, so I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be answering. Instead, you made a loaded request: “Please tell her the other part of the Libertarian philosophy… where you believe it is equally right for someone to tell a homosexual to get the hell out of their place of business if they want to.”There’s actually no aspect of my reply to this that even comes remotely close to being considered obscure. I think it was crystal clear. Do you think I am obscuring the fact the Libertarian principle of freedom to associate includes, dare I say it outloud, the right to freely assoicate with and exclude people from your private property? Are you that obtuse?

  • reddarin

    A coward till the end eh?

    Just say it you damn coward.

    “Jackie, we libertarians also believe that if an adoption agency or wedding chapel refuses to do business with you strictly because you are homosexual that is their right. They can tell you to get lost you gay person you.” 

  • http://www.facebook.com/ed.posnock Ed Posnock

    You are a simpleton with a second grade-level understanding of the world.  Also, way to tack on a (barely) tangentially related parable.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ed.posnock Ed Posnock

    @reddarin:disqus Liberals drag you into their personal affairs?  Social conservatives aren’t authoritarians?  Conservatives upheld anti-sodomy and anti-homosexuality laws, laws that literally intruded into the sexual lives (the bedroom) of gay people. 
    They did, literally, exactly what you sarcastically accused bob of doing. 

  • dropquick

    Well, you’re just a moron! :)

  • dropquick

    Isn’t there a klan meeting you should be attending?

  • reddarin

    >Conservatives upheld anti-sodomy and anti-homosexuality laws

    Maybe you are new to America. Welcome to America.

    What you seem to not be aware of is that Congress was controlled by ….who…for 40 some odd years. Who? Democrats.

    Hmmm. That is strange.

    Stranger still is the fact that Democrats, during that time, were frequently the majority in most city governments.

    Stranger than that is the historic sweep of Democrats out of State’s Offices nationwide in 2010. That must mean that Democrats were the majority in so many states.

    Gays love to try to equate their plight with the black struggle.

    Do you know who was against basic civil rights for blacks? Democrats.

    But. Whatever you say.

  • reddarin

    >you sarcastically accused bob of doing

    Pardon?

    Conservatives ran around, announced they are straight, like sex as frequently as possible, and single and then glared around with spittle on their chin looking for challengers?

    I don’t remember that happening but you are well informed so it must be so.

  • http://twitter.com/fsamuels Forrest Samuels

    Thank you for a post that was well thought out, contained evidence to support your views and didn’t have any name calling. Sorry for the incorrect gender assumption.

  • http://twitter.com/fsamuels Forrest Samuels

    I thought that was pretty common sense. If you care about something, you take action. If you don’t, you don’t take action. Voter turn out has been around 60% or less in presidential elections since 1904. Why aren’t the other 40% of voters getting to the polls? Off year elections have even worse turn out. Older voters are much more likely to vote than younger voters. The census bureau puts out a great report after each federal election. Here is from 2008: http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-562.pdf Enjoy the evidence to back up my statement.

    The Australians have 95% voter turn out (though voting is compulsory). Our voter turn out is worse than most if not all western democracies.

    And I say all this simply to make the point that what the majority of voters say is not the same as what the majority of the population thinks. If the apathetic took the time to participate in our democracy, we would be living in a country that much more closely reflected the will of the people. We did see this in the last election by the way. 8 years of President Bush and the optimism of Barack Obama presidency lead to an increase in turnout of younger voters who are overall more liberal.

  • usamopatriot

    I should have made myself clear that my perspective is a from a christian standpoint and I see that I’ve also made the mistake of pointing that out to a fool.

  • usamopatriot

    See above comment to red zone….. it also applies to you.

  • http://twitter.com/fsamuels Forrest Samuels

    Why do you think marriage is the cornerstone of western civilization? It hasn’t hurt but democracy, freedom of ideas and science have played a much greater role in getting us where we are today.

    No one is talking about tearing down marriage. I’d like to see marriage expanded to any loving couple. I assume in your view that tears it down but I see it as strengthening marriage by allowing more people to participate in it. Like I said before, marriage is just an idea. It isn’t sacred. It was created by people and can and should be changed by people to work best for everyone.

  • http://twitter.com/fsamuels Forrest Samuels

    From your later reply, how do you not understand that humans are animals? Did you ever take a biology class? Do you deny evolution too?

  • red_zone

    Thank you and no problem! I’ve had that happen before (people calling me a ‘he’.)

  • red_zone

    A Christian standpoint is NOT the only standpoint and it’s not the only one that matters. I speak form a HUMAN standpoint that recognizes that denying rights to other citizens is hardly ‘Christian’.

  • Jason Johnson

    Ultimately, the gay rights agenda is all about giving a group of degenerates victim status and a wide range of special rights. The end result MINIMIZES freedom for everyone else.

  • Anxious_in_MA

    What can I say?  This commonwealth is run by an oligarchy of hacks (corrupt politicians) and extreme moonbats.  Somewhat ironically, homo “marriage” was imposed on us thanks to the Republicans.  Bill Weld and Argeo Paul Cellucci promoted the foreign-born totalitarian wanna be and Elmer Fudd sound alike Margaret Marshall to our Supreme Judicial Court, and she was the key force in the imposition.  The GOP up here is for its size a bigger promoter of perverts than the Dems, who still harbor many Cat-licks who don’t like that sort of thing.  The people tried to get a constitutional referendum on the ballot, but that has to get at least 25% support from the legislature, and Deval the Devil and the moonbats bought off enough legislators to prevent that from happening.  And just to back up Bauer’s point, many people who signed the petition to bring that referendum before the legislature receiving harassing phone calls from perverts with nothing better to do.

  • John1966

    Libertarianism is an unproven concept.  It amounts to anarchy.

  • reddarin

    > how do you not understand that humans are animals

    Whew. That is stupid even for you Forrest.

    >Do you deny evolution too

    I see. Exactly what does homosexuality offer in terms of evolution? Procreation is *the* prime mover in evolution.

    I hear there is an opening for some one to commune with the grizzly bears. The last guy forgot to tell the bears he was an animal too.

  • http://twitter.com/Speakin4real We

    How ignorant you are, Indoctrinating?? By Parenting,raising,loving and providing care, a  home and family to a child who needs it? Please, If your logic had even came close to any truths there would be NO gay people – or do straight parents indoctrinate their children into homosexuality Too?Hmm ? Yeah, Right….

  • http://twitter.com/Rick_Sincere Rick_Sincere

    Unless the employer-employee contract states otherwise, any employer should be able to hire and/or fire any employee for any reason:  for being gay, or for being anti-gay; for being evangelical, or for being anti-Christian; for being competent, or for being incompetent.

    Whether those hiring decisions are wise or not is a different matter.  I would probably choose not to patronize a business that routinely discriminates against gay workers (or customers).  But I would not use the coercive arm of the state to force such a business to behave otherwise.

    People, even business owners, have a right to be stupid.  They will pay the consequences of their stupidity farther down the road.

    And none of Gary Bauer’s arguments along these lines have anything to do with whether all Americans should have equal marriage rights.

  • reddarin

    >Barack Obama presidency

    Pointing out that we are saddled with the Obama Presidency because of greater voter turn out is not a winning argument.

    He has failed the Left and the Right and the Center by any standard. After 8 years of the DNC and their MSM branch offices getting relentless retribution for the treatment of that crook and slimeball Clinton the last thing we needed was an ideological hack who does not have the faintest clue as to how to run the Executive Branch.

    There is no doubt that if he ran a Center Left Administration he’d be bitched about by the Right.

    But the man is a complete failure.

    He uses scare tactics on the Seniors when he knows damn well he can pay their SSI indefinitely, and all the other entitlements, and pay the debt and interests on the ~200 Billion in revenues the gov gets monthly.

    When Bush took Office, especially the 2nd time, the Media hounded him about reaching across the aisle. I cannot recall one time that Obama has been asked if he will ‘reach across the aisle’.

    Every single speech the man has given he’s blamed Bush for the current woes. Damn.

    Bush took over and inherited Clinton’s recession. He didn’t say a damn thing about Clinton.

    When 9/11 happened, Bush could have easily pointed the finger at Clinton and he would have been justified in every respect doing so but he didn’t. *He* was President and he took ownership squarely on his shoulders.

    Every time Obama opens his mouth he reminds everyone that he is a Democrat and the Republicans are to blame for everything that is wrong with the country. If there is something going right then he takes the credit.

    Example? Oil production. Obama took credit for current oil production but his policies have forced a reduction in production. The production levels right now are because of Bush’s policies.

    He’s been nothing, nothing, but a partisan hack the whole time he’s been in Office.

  • Anthony998

    When a guy like Barney Frank is talking about age of consent laws, are you
    really naive enough to think it is about schools or voting?

  • Anthony998

    Traditional marriage is the beginning of a family, and families are the
    building blocks of society, and that is how it has been for thousands of
    years, all around the world. The real goal of the gay marriage issue is to
    make marriage cheap and meaningless, to void it’s purpose in an attempt to
    radically alter society, and to destroy parental rights.

  • reddarin

    I don’t believe Franks is a pedophile if that is what you are asking. Nor do I believe, were he, that the Democrat party would be in favor of helping him out by lowering the age of consent laws to make his prey legal.

    He doesn’t need to be a pedophile to be an evil sick piece of crap. He’s proven that a zillion times already.

  • NUTN2SAY

    Your silly reply has absolutely nothing at all to do with….

    Said it before, saying it again folks!

    HETEROSEXUALITY IS ULTIMATELY ALL ABOUT THE PRESERVATION OF THE HUMAN SPECIES.

    HOMOSEXUALITY IS ULTIMATELY ALL ABOUT THE DEVASTATION OF THE HUMAN SPECIES!

    Think about it! 

  • http://twitter.com/fsamuels Forrest Samuels

    Anthony998 – Same sex marriage will create more loving families. That is the whole point. If you are gay, you shouldn’t be kept from starting a family because the state doesn’t allow you to legally recognize your love. I fail to see how it will make marriage cheap or meaningless.

  • Guest

    Rodney Holm was, and Warren Jeffs is, behind bars.
      Their many crimes included polygamy and presiding at the “marriages” of children!
      Lesbians, being barren, do not need abortions.
      The majority opinion, in the ROE V. WADE case, was written by Justice Blackmun.
      Chief Justice Warren Burger presided.
      Nixon nominated both of them.
      Nixon was a liberal?
      Was any conservative concerned when Senator Alphonse D’Amato was a guest of Howard Stern?
      I do not pretend to have the wisdom of King Solomon, his 700 wives and 300 concubines!
      However, I am disgusted with this farce!
      Clifford Spencer

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XVLVLMQUL4S4CKEZQC3KYHGHCI Jay

    I pray for the people who think that homosexuality is “wrong” daily.  Thank you for being concerned about the good of humanity; your voices are important, though they are misled.  I wish you all could open your hearts to the love that God gave mankind.  Hate is the most detrimental thing to society, there is nothing that will rot you from the inside faster.  If you have hate in your heart then you can never live a truly happy life.  When we work together, love everyone for all of their qualities, and combine the power of equal humans into one force, there is nothing that we humans cannot do.  We are distracted by hate and it is succeeding in preventing us from achieving what we are really meant to achieve.  This country and entire world could be complete paradise if people could just take a step back and realize that we are all here on this Earth because of the creator and that being anything other than full of love to any living creature degrades life the fastest because love is the energy that powers us all.  The world is the way it is today because humanity has forgotten God and the major religions we practice today are in no way following God’s message to us.  Open your hearts and open your minds and you will be blessed by the holy one in everything that you do. 

  • bobert432

    “Government is always tyranny. The problem is to base the tyranny on correct morality.”
    I just noticed that 4 people liked Westernman’s comment. Let me repeat for the five of you then : PLEASE don’t vote. For the same reason drunks shouldn’t drive, people who endorse this statement should really avoid voting. 

    God help us all.

    Btw–”Correct” morality? Sort of “robs this comment of content,” no? How correct? Correct according to whose standards? This is an escape clause which allows you to approve or disapprove of anything you want without reference to any objective, consistent standard. A “line item veto” of any moral code. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/ed.posnock Ed Posnock

    You are conflating Democrats/Republicans and Conservatives/Liberals.  Not only are you naive, you’re uninformed.  Please refrain from posting in the future.

  • reddarin

    >You are conflating Democrats/Republicans and Conservatives/Liberals

    Look. I know you feel good sometimes, even froggy, when you think ‘aha! finally got him!’ but give yourself 30 minutes or so before you post. Something shiny might catch your eye and keep you from making yourself look even stupider.

    The general demarcation is the Republicans represent the conservative voters and Democrats represent the liberal voters.

    Shocking. I know. Like I said, 30 minutes and pray for something shiny.

    >Please refrain from posting in the future

    heh. Well. Okay since you asked in such a sanctimonious way. But only until another lib posts something exceedingly stupid. That should be within 5 seconds.

  • cfranz

    I do believe we have finally found equality between the hetros and homos on this site.  It appears that neither side can put together a cogent and/or coherent (certainly not thought provoking) argument.

    I’d like to thank one and all for providing a truly remarkable reading experience and maintaining the status quo vis-a-vie supporting all the lowest and dumbest of the stereotypes available to both sides.

    If we keep this up we’ll have the pilot episode of a sit-com.

  • Rubashova

    The idea that employers ought to have the right to fire their employees for any reason whatsoever — including their political or religious beliefs, such as opposition to gay marriage — is entirely consistent with the libertarian belief in free enterprise. The first and largest part of this article’s argument seems to be founded on a misunderstanding of libertarianism.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OHBKTCSIRF6UL4KLQDAWQINPSE Thomas

    If Socialism is Christianity for Atheists then Libertarianism is collectivism without the charity.

    Oh yes they want everyone to be free to do everything, but the problem is that life is a series of choices and each choice takes away another choice; so in other words you are not actually free to do both, you only have free will with which you can choose the good and maintain your freedom or you can choose to reject the good and then make choices which leave you hemmed in at every turn until you lose your freedom.

    The other thing about the stupid libertarians is that they are for less taxes, yet they constantly encourage immorality which always leads to broken families and medical as well as substance abuse problems. These always lead to more people in need at a time when the government raises taxes to pay for needs as we no longer just have these folks starve in the hedgerows.

    So since few people learn from these mistakes, and the culture cheers immorality on (a culture that the libertarians like to keep safe and legal) then we have whole families kept in these types of vices for generations all because the conservative movement is divided because of the libertarians who don’t know what authentic freedom is.

    Libertarians aren’t conserving anything; they are destructive radicals whose ideas have all been tried and found to not work when applied to the population at large.

  • bobert432

    Your 2nd paragraph is really unclear–and the beginning of your 3rd notwithstanding, I have no idea what the first stupid thing is. That Libertarians believe people have the right to make the wrong choices for themselves? This is “stupid” because…?

    In your 3rd paragraph, you imply that people’s choices have a tendency to harm the society at large. That because people do bad things, it makes our social programs more expensive. This actually make you a Collectivist. How is possible that you don’t see this? You’re entire comment is focusing on the “population at large” and the negative effects individual choice would have on the Collective. Honestly, you make this way to easy.

    This argument in favor of individual rights, is not the equivalent of cheering on immorality. I favor one’s choice to be Muslim. That doesn’t mean I’m cheering on Islam. Are there no choices that you consider personally immoral, that you wouldn’t force others to abide by? Everyone in the society is supposed to be just like you and observe the exact same morals as you? How convenient…for you. And what happens when get into areas of morality where there’s widespread debate and disagreement? Gladly we will have Thomas to tell us what is moral and what is not.

    Libertarians keep Conservatives divided? Because we won’t sign on to Authoritarianism? Or do you mean because Libertarians have actually caused social decay? What exactly are you talking about?

    Individual choice includes the ability to choose morality. These really aren’t difficult concepts to understand. I am a Christian. Therefore, I believe in freedom of the will. I also believe that Christ died for my sins. I’m pretty sure He didn’t say “Go forth and compel everyone to choose Christianity, beating them into submission by force of law.” Freedom of will and freedom of choice are the only possible ways authentic freedom is achieved. No one forces me to choose Christ. No one forces me to be honest and moral. 

  • http://twitter.com/fsamuels Forrest Samuels

    Oh right, I forgot about all the vacation ponds beavers build to store all the extra bark and leaves they don’t need.

    The lion doesn’t think the herd of antelope is his, just his current meal. There is a difference.

    And yes, I have recently read Ishmael. You should too.

  • MissAnnThropic

    What study says that children do better in same-sex households than in families with two-gender parents?  I’ve seen it, and what people fail to realize…or worse, ignore…is that adoption by same-sex couples in any significant percentage is a very recent phenomena. So, in a short span of time, based on a small percentage of children who have not yet even reached adulthood, it was concluded they are ‘healthier’. I certainly hope the standards of research are higher than that when releasing new medication to the public.

    Perhaps heterosexuality isn’t indoctrinated, but seeing as homosexuality is not entirely biological (no scientist worth his PhD would state that with certainty, and opposite-preferenced identical twins are strong evidence), it is at least partially environmental. What factors? No one knows, but I doubt anyone would deny that observing it as a child could….COULD…affect later interactions, and in a cascade effect, later attractions. No one is born with a shoe fetish, after all, or a strong desire for blondes, but those are very real to those who possess them.

    Other, reliable studies show that children’s social bonds ARE strongly affected by the gender of the parent in question….who hasn’t heard of men who hate women due to an abusive mother, or women who are in unhealthy relationships with men because of their fathers? Yet, people seem inclined to disregard these facts as ‘unimportant’ when trying to make a case that the lack of a (fe)male parental role model is somehow ‘healthier’.

    At best, the studies are incomplete….look up ‘Young Male Syndrome’, and understand that boys lacking in a positive male role model, or raised in a matriarchal-dominated hierarchy, are at greater risk of criminal behaviour and risk-taking. No one has connected the rise in crime by young men with the rise of single motherhood; to do so would be poor science (for now) and politically incorrect. But it is something to think about.

    Are children better in same-sex households than state care? Probably. But ‘better’ does not mean ‘ideal’.

  • MissAnnThropic

    Jackie, orientations are NOT ‘wholly’ decided in the womb. There is a big difference between correlations and proof. No scientist will ever say that sexuality is wholly biological, and environment is wholly irrelevant.

    And no, I am an atheist, not religious at all. I simply have seen many ‘studies’ held up as ‘proof’ that seemed iron-clad, and was later disproven. Usually, these studies were never the basis for social policy. I mean, one need only look at all the conflicting studies about the health benefits of, say, coffee.

    And sexual differentiation in fetal brains is not the same thing as absolutely ‘deciding’ who will like breasts, and who will like penises. There are gender differences in children, but it has been shown that many of these tendencies can be overcome. (Don’t believe me? Look at all the strides women are making in math, despite their ‘spatial disadvantage’.)

    I am skeptical that gender identity is wholly ‘set’ in this way either…when gender roles mean something different depending on which society you live in, how could you possibly be ‘programmed’ to ‘feel’ feminine, if the society you live in prizes aggression in both sexes? I’m open to answers on that one.

    There can be (and doubtless are) tendencies, but nothing in brain-based biology is ever set in stone.The brains of infants and children are highly plastic, and to say that hormonal influences set them in cement is, frankly, irresponsible.

    I agree and repeat that prenatal influences can create -tendencies-….such as chemical exposure predisposing a child to ADD, or having a tendency to schizophrenia…but what is neglected is that there is often an environmental ‘trigger’ for these things.

    Children who are raised in stressful, unstable and abusive environments show lasting changes to the fear response of the amygdala, and physical changes occur. Encouraging — say, aggression — in children literally alters the brain to strengthen those connections. Think of it as a feedback loop.

    So no, claiming to hold the ‘decisive’ last word — based on conclusions in which even the scientific community itself can’t say has conclusively discovered the root cause of sexuality — doesn’t sway a lot of critically thinking people.

    I doubt you’ll change your mind, or even question your own studies that you cite….it’s not how people work….but I’ve looked at all of them, and considered the drawbacks, before making up my own mind. I probably won’t be back, since I am here on a whim following a link, but I hope to at least point out the flaws in not just THAT study, but ALL studies that are, in effect, just small pieces of the complex puzzle that is human sexual behaviour.

  • MissAnnThropic

    Jackie, this makes it simple. Whether or not you ‘choose’ to be attracted to someone — be it to men, women, small children, or your own mother, you CAN choose whether to act on it.

  • MissAnnThropic

    Evan – One thing I agree with….trying to legislate morality may be useless, but so is attempting to stop vandalism, or telling people not to shoot heroin. People will do it anyway, but the point is, the law is there to uphold an IDEAL. ‘In an ideal world’, we would not have crime, so crime is illegal.

    And on a second point, perhaps some sex laws are an outdated relic, but consider; for most activists, they are attempting ALSO to impose a morality, often in the name of ‘freedom (to do as I please)’. In their case, it is making the morality of whatever cause they believe in an acceptable moral value to be imposed on others, or replacing/supplanting an existing value with a ‘new and improved’ or ‘updated’ one.

  • NUTN2SAY

    Only desperate and disgusting people will drag children into the debate! Leave children out of it and leave children alone!

  • MissAnnThropic

    Like it or not, they are integral to the discussion. I presume that wasn’t to me, though, as I was responding to someone else.

  • NUTN2SAY

    Dear Heterosexualphobe MissAnnThropic?

    You should feel embarrassed. AfterAll!

    I don’t recall you at all!

    WHO IN THE HELL ARE YOU?

  • MissAnnThropic

    I’m not at all embarrassed. And you obviously didn’t understand my post.  Feel free to re-read it at your leisure.

    I probably won’t bother to respond to any further posts, as I didn’t bookmark this page, and the notifications are annoying and spammy.

    Peace out, all.

  • reddarin

    >Animals also don’t own and hoard resources like us humans
    >I forgot about all the vacation ponds beavers

    Huh. So that beaver damn, that often means destruction downstream when the water supply is suddenly choked off, is okay because the cute furry little guys don’t use it for vacation?

    I thought it was hoarding that was the problem. But I guess it is vacation hording.

    And, as long as it is unintentional hording, well in that case it is cool with you because, well, they aren’t evil humans.

    >current meal. There is a difference.

    I see. So, even though the antelope is more than the lion can eat since he isn’t hoarding the whole herd that is cool. Well, since you say that level of hoarding is cool that’s cool.

    And when the lion is stuffed and walks off? Well, that is just benevolence he is acting on to feed other animals.

    Hakuna Matata!

  • reddarin

    marry me</sup

  • Corey

    Only the elimination of all conservative Christians will allow all
    Americans to be free and the world to no longer have to live in fear of
    the U.S.A.’s imperialist, terrorist holy war. The conservative ideology
    has never helped mankind in any way, it has not only never helped
    mankind in anyway, it has oppressed, murdered, raped and killed all
    those in it’s way to gain power. History shows us this. Fact shows us
    this. James Madison, the “Father of the U.S. Constitution”, along with
    many founders of this country, regardless of their religious or
    non-religious affiliations, knew keeping politics and religion separate
    not only preserves each, but helps them flourish: “The number, the
    industry, and the morality of the Priesthood and the devotion of the
    people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the
    Church and the State.”

  • Guest

    NUT Who is responsible for you’re mental illness?

  • Pat

    Nut Who is responsible for YOUR mental illness?

  • Pat

    I am straight and I support gay rights because they are human beings. Regardless how they became that way they are gay. Regardless their sexual orientation they are human and deserve to fully enjoy the blessings of liberty. It’s sad that you don’t think so. It’s sad that you are willing to deny their rights to ease your fear.

  • Pat

    1.3 Personal Relationships

    Sexual orientation,
    preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the
    government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage,
    child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.
    Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict
    personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their
    own sexual practices and personal relationships.

  • reddarin

    It is sad that your pathetic fall back is always ‘fear’ and ‘bigotry’.

  • Pat

    Well Darin that shoe fits you so perfectly. And before you come up with another of your “witty” 1 liners think about why anyone who would describe themselves as or align themselves with libertarianism would want to deny ANYONE their rights granted them as human beings!

  • reddarin

    Pat.

    You don’t know a damn thing about me. All you know is that I disagree with your position.

    Everything after that is moronic pseudo-psychobabble that is part projection and all sub-intelligent drivel.

    Go away fool.

  • jeffmagic

    The libertarian position is that the state has no business with marriage, period. Why should you pay more or less taxes if you are married? Keep the state out of it and get whatever church or whatever to sanction your marriage.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steve-Butler/100000616547935 Steve Butler

    Why do schools feel the need to teach gay history? They don’t teach “oral sex lovers history” “missionary position lover’s history” ? Can’t we leave the sex out of it and just teach American History? Do what you want in the bedroom but don’t try to force it on everyone else as normal.

  • Ingrid

    I recently got into an argument w/ a liberal about this. I simply stated it was hypocritical for Americans to condemn traditionalist, while they wouldn’t even consider the rights of polygamist or those that want to marry family members. There is no freedom unless all are equally free.

  • Anti-Unamerican

    ‘Believing that government has no right to restrict citizens’ freedom to marry the mate of their choice,” This makes no sense. A “mate” is another half that is required for procreation. Like Marriage originally in mechanical terms is when two parts fit together to perform a unique function. Gays are so gay. they show their mental illness everytime they speak. They should all be locked up in nut houses before they kill themselves.

    Another study published simultaneously in Archives of General Psychiatry followed
    1,007 individuals from birth. Those classified as “gay,” lesbian, or
    bisexual were significantly more likely to have had mental health
    problems.[76] Significantly, in his comments on the studies in the same
    issue of the journal, D. Bailey cautioned against various speculative
    explanations of the results, such as the view that “widespread prejudice
    against homosexual people causes them to be unhappy or worse, mentally
    ill.”[77]

    Reduced Life Span. A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexualsconcluded that they have a significantly reduced life expectancy:

    In
    a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and
    bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same
    pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of
    gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their
    sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and
    bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy
    similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.[78]

  • Anti-Unamerican

    Amen, Amen, Amen !!!!!!