Libertarians and Gay Marriage

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.  

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.)

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. 

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?

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.

That would be MISwired, Nina.

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.

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! 

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.

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

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.

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).

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: [email protected]

This email was sent by: MassResistance

P.O. Box 1612 Waltham MA 02454

Profile
Center | Unsubscribe

Type your comment here.

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.

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”?

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.

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.

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…?”

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.

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.

Excellent point

>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.

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.

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

What are you talking about? What responsibilities?

“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. 

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.

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? 

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

“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

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.

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

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.

I’m an atheist, fool.

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?

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

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

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?”

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.

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

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.

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

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

>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.

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.

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? 

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.

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

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.

Oops. Did I fall for a POE?

“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.

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?

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

I’m agnostic. Atheism is pretty hardcore.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.” 

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.  

>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”

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?

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.

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.

>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.

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. 

I agree with BillNC.

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

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.

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

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

[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? 

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

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).

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.

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

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.)

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.

A gross mischaracterization of that conversation.

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

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.

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.

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.

‘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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

“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.

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!

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?

  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.

 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.

Then tell that to Dawn Ratz and not me.

You call it adopting. Others call it indoctrinating!

>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.

>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. 

(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?

“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.

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. 

@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? 

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.

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?

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.

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

You claim it ‘fact’. How about EVIDENCE?

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

No?

 Then stop making unsupported claims.

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.

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

“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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

Thank you.

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

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.

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! 

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!

Pedophilia is illegal for a reason.

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

Prove it.

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

“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.

Well said, L&T.

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!

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.

>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.

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.)

Amen!!!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

“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.

>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.

“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).    

1st amendment

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

>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”

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.

>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.

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.

“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.

I admire your attempt to communicate with these cavemen.

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. 

>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?

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.

lol

“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.

>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.

>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.

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. 

>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?

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.

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.

Marriage was NOT created by religious institutions. It is and has ALWAYS been a social contract in regards to property rights and kinship.

“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.

@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.”

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: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.

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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.” 

@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. 

Isn’t there a klan meeting you should be attending?

>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.

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.

See above comment to red zone….. it also applies to you.

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?

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’.

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.

> 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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. 

You are conflating Democrats/Republicans and Conservatives/Liberals.  Not only are you naive, you’re uninformed.  Please refrain from posting in the future.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

marry me</sup

NUT Who is responsible for you’re mental illness?

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.

It is sad that your pathetic fall back is always ‘fear’ and ‘bigotry’.

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.

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.

‘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]

It won’t be long until any police person will be authorized to shoot on sight anyone who expresses a politically incorrect opinion. Wups….