You’re surprised, aren’t you?
Here are germane facts, compliments of The Alliance Defense Fund, a pro family, pro traditional marriage group:
BREAKING NEWS — The Washington State Supreme Court upholds as lawful that state’s defense of marriage act prohibiting same-sex marriage: The lead opinion
states: “The two cases before us require us to decide whether the legislature has the power to limit marriage in Washington State to opposite-sex couples. The state constitution and controlling case law compel us to answer ‘yes,’ and we therefore reverse the trial courts.”
The six separate opinions issued in the case can be accessed via this link. Washington State’s Supreme Court has a total of nine justices. Three justices joined in the lead opinion. The Chief Justice, who joined in that lead opinion, also issued a concurring opinion. Two other justices joined in an opinion concurring in the judgment only, thereby giving rise to a total of five votes to uphold the challenged law.
The Associated Press has issued a news alert stating that “The state Supreme Court has upheld Washington’s ban on gay marriage.”
Posted at 11:04 AM by Howard Bashman
Majority Opinion
http://www.alliancealert.org/2006/20060726.htm
Concurrence
http://www.alliancealert.org/2006/2006072601.htm
Dissent 1
http://www.alliancealert.org/2006/2006072602.htm
Dissent 2
http://www.alliancealert.org/2006/2006072603.htm
Dissent 3
http://www.alliancealert.org/2006/2006072604.htm
Click here to unsubscribe or manage subscription preferences.
I think the majority opinion as to why the law is not unconstitutional is rather weak.
The same logic could get us a law on the books that requires you procreate “within” so many years after you are married, or you lose your marriage rights.
Additionally, if we are concerned about family constructs, using the same logic, wouldn’t we want same sex couples to be married, if they plan to adopt children and raise a family? Or not allow same sex couples to adopt?
I feel it is a good decision. The whole “gay marriage” agenda is nothing more than a back door approach and forcing legitimacy on the rest.
Gays already have the same rights I do, even in marriage. They have laws set up so they cannot be discriminated against in jobs, housing and such, I don’t have that right.
I hold no distain against gays for their lifestyle, it’s their choice. But, to further erode marriage by making such a mockery of it is just going too far.
More later tonight.
“They have laws set up so they cannot be discriminated against in jobs, housing and such, I don’t have that right.”
What rights are afforded to homosexual members of society that you don’t also enjoy?
Same sex marriage is a genetic dead end.
“Same sex marriage is a genetic dead end.”
So…homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to adopt?
Ahh … so if you’re not able to have children for some medical reason, should you also not be allowed to marry? That’s also a genetic dead end.
Strawman arguments?
As for what rights they have that I don’t, if I denied one a job or rental property because they were gay, I can be charged with discrimination. If I am denied something, who can have charged?
Do Hate Speech laws ring a bell?
As for adoptions, spare me the tears. Gays have been adopting and others are having children by others. Meaning, a gay man has sex with some woman just for the kid, or supplies sperm for artificial insemination. Lesbians have done the same. Results have been mixed with several saying it was terrible to be raised by two gays and several others saying it was no problem.
Granting gay marriage is a special right as they currently have the same exact right to marriage that I have. Find a woman (or man) and date them and ask them to marry you. We all have that same exact right currently.
Who says you have to be married to love each other? Anyone can love anyone they feel like. They can also assign anyone they feel like as executor of their estate or can sign a medical power of attorney to have said person make decisions for them, should they become incapacitated. Simple being married doesn’t guarantee your spouse will make the best decisions for you, look back at Terri Schiavo.
I’ve asked before and have yet to receive a cohesive answer, so I’ll ask again. What is the benefit to society to grant gay marriage? Before a major change is made like that, shouldn’t it have a positive impact on society? Do you think divorce attorneys don’t have enough money already?
Think also of what doors are being opened. Once marriage is redefined to accommodate gays, what will be next? Who will be next? Surely, once the definition is prostituted to accept gay couples, others will push for their select little group.
Homosexuals pretending to be married are further extending their pretense of being men (lesbians), or women (gays). Since they are neither, they can only exhibit behavior they learn as affectation. Hence the innate mental instability of the group as a whole. For those of you on the left who are interested in homework, please research relative suicide rates, promiscuity rates, and (psychological)therapy rates. I’m sure you will find that “no one has ever gone to a psychiatrist and said, Dr., you must help me, I think I might be a heterosexual.” (tip of the hat to Bill Bennett.) BTW, since this ruling is bound to stun even the most “in denial” lefty, everyone please be on a suicide watch for liberals. Reality is tough enough on them without the knowledge that even their “friends” on the court don’t buy their liberal nonsense. And to the “ladies of Hawthorne,” here’s another one….”up yours.”
“As for what rights they have that I don’t, if I denied one a job or rental property because they were gay, I can be charged with discrimination. If I am denied something, who can have charged?”
Charge whomever denied you whatever it is, afforded you equally under the law.
“Do Hate Speech laws ring a bell?”
Are you saying you could never find yourself a victim of hate speech?
“Results have been mixed with several saying it was terrible to be raised by two gays and several others saying it was no problem.”
Appears the same could be said from children raised in heterosexual homes. So, where does that leave the “preserving the sanctity of family” argument?
“Granting gay marriage is a special right as they currently have the same exact right to marriage that I have. Find a woman (or man) and date them and ask them to marry you. We all have that same exact right currently.”
Remove the governmental benefits awarded to the married heterosexual couple, and you’d be correct lew.
“What is the benefit to society to grant gay marriage?”
If you are going to apply that logic to gay marriage, you must contrast it with heterosexual marriage. The court did that today lew. And the best they could come up with – procreation.
On that sentiment, I could provide you ample evidence against traditional marriage.
“Once marriage is redefined to accommodate gays, what will be next?”
Maybe you should get out and meet some “gays” before you opine as to the nature of beast you would group them with. Really.
Charge whomever denied you whatever it is, afforded you equally under the law.
And, just what laws say that I, a white male, cannot be denied employment or housing due to my being a white male?
Are you saying you could never find yourself a victim of hate speech?
I refer you to the question above.
Appears the same could be said from children raised in heterosexual homes. So, where does that leave the “preserving the sanctity of family” argument?
Where have I argued “sanctity of family? I said gays already have been adopting. Why do they need a legal marriage to do what they are already doing?
Remove the governmental benefits awarded to the married heterosexual couple, and you’d be correct lew.
Just what benefits? The marriage penalty? If you wish to allow gays a tax deduction for each other, shouldn’t that right also be extended to heterosexual couples just shacking up? If those benefits are extended to all, why have marriage at all?
Maybe you should get out and meet some “gays” before you opine as to the nature of beast you would group them with. Really.
You act as if I have never spoken to or been friendly with any gays. You are dead wrong.
A simple suggestion for you. Find a copy of the book “The Death of Right and Wrong,” by Tammy Bruce, an openly gay woman who is the past president of the L.A. Chapter of NOW. Interesting read.
And again, you cannot supply any benefit to society for allowing gay marriage. Where does it make society better?
Gay people are people, who feel love just like anyone else. Who should care who it is who they’re loving? What does it matter?
The question was asked, “What is the benefit to society to grant gay marriage?” I say, what is the benefit in NOT allowing it?
Who’se going to get hurt? Kids? Kids who end up without a mother or father? May I remind everyone that 50% of “straight” marriages end in divorce already?
May I remind everyone that the “sanctity” of marriage is questionable at best when one of the highest rated TV shows in the country is “The Bachellor”?
Who cares. If a guy wants to marry another guy, let ’em. It shouldn’t make any difference whatsoever.
“And, just what laws say that I, a white male, cannot be denied employment or housing due to my being a white male?”
Ahh sweet miscommunication. There are laws that protect you from being discriminated against, not ones that discriminate. And to that end I have lost what point you were trying to make.
“Where have I argued “sanctity of family? I said gays already have been adopting. Why do they need a legal marriage to do what they are already doing?”
You specifically, no where. But that seems to be the running argument against gay marriage. If “marriage” is going to define the optimal situation for child rearing, then it appears homosexual couples raising children would benefit their child with a legal marriage.
“Just what benefits? The marriage penalty? If you wish to allow gays a tax deduction for each other, shouldn’t that right also be extended to heterosexual couples just shacking up? If those benefits are extended to all, why have marriage at all?”
If homosexuals wanted the benefits extended to them simply for being together, there would be no push for marriage. You’re overstepping your logic.
“You act as if I have never spoken to or been friendly with any gays. You are dead wrong.”
Ok. So would you group homosexuals with pedophiles, polygamists, and those who engage in bestiality? Your opinion seems to lead in that direction.
“And again, you cannot supply any benefit to society for allowing gay marriage. Where does it make society better?”
Refer to my previous answer to the same question…
Gay people are people, who feel love just like anyone else.
Who says they cannot love? Surely you don’t feel one must be married to feel love?
The question was asked, “What is the benefit to society to grant gay marriage?” I say, what is the benefit in NOT allowing it?
In other words, you don’t have an answer either, so time to obfuscate?
May I remind everyone that 50% of “straight” marriages end in divorce already?
And you think making a sham out of all of marriage will make it better? Divorce is too easy and people have been taught not to work through problems. So, they take the easy way out and divorce, instead of making sure they marry who is worth it and then stick it out (barring abuse and such). Financial reasons are the most prevelant reason for divorce.
But, let’s say you do get your gay marriage through. Due to statistical infidelity within the gay community, half of them end in divorce too. What did you gain, other than divorce lawyers getting more?
May I remind everyone that the “sanctity” of marriage is questionable at best when one of the highest rated TV shows in the country is “The Bachellor”?
Making decisions for the betterment of society based off of television is one of the main problems within our society. Need I remind you that television is fantasy?
There are laws that protect you from being discriminated against, not ones that discriminate.
Please list these laws that prevent me, a white male, from being discriminated against that don’t also apply to gays.
If homosexuals wanted the benefits extended to them simply for being together, there would be no push for marriage.
Correct! All the bloviation about love, benefits, rights and such is just the smoke screen for forcing legitimacy and acceptance of their lifestyle upon others.
As was written in an article appearing in a Gay publication back in 1987 titled The Overhauling of Straight America, “First let the camel get his nose inside the tent–only later his unsightly derriere!”
So would you group homosexuals with pedophiles, polygamists, and those who engage in bestiality?
Like it or not, a male pedophile that seduces young boys is part of the homosexual community. Only in recent years did gay groups, such as the International Lesbian and Gay Alliance, publicly distance themselves from groups like NAMBLA.
To their credit, the vast majority of gays that aren’t also activists abhor pedophiles as much as heterosexuals do. It isn’t the individuals I’m speaking of, but the activist groups who also quietly support legitimization of pedophiles.
That doesn’t condemn all gays any more than it argues for legitimacy of gay marriage.
However, once traditional marriage is redefined to include same-sex, how can you stop others from marrying also? Will it lead to polygamy legalization? Why wouldn’t it? Could it lead to brother sister marriage, or even brother brother or sister sister? What is to stop it, passing another law that redefines marriage again and barring them? Isn’t that what is supposed to be the fight currently? Breaking down restrictive laws?
Refer to my previous answer to the same question..
Your non-answer did not supply anything but more obfuscation. Why is so hard to list how gay marriage will better society? Shouldn’t supporters be able to easily explain something that could drastically alter society?
iknow, surely you don’t buy into that nonsense?
A Power of Attorney could easily accomplish everything you listed. Insurance policies allow you to designate anyone you wish as beneficiary already. A will designates whoever you wish as executor.
You nor anyone else have yet to show me where gays are lacking in equal rights. Please explain what rights I have that they don’t?
As for it is the right thing to do, that is as hollow as anything you have said. Who says it’s right, you? Seems to me the majority of America says differently, since gay marriage isn’t the law of the land, yet.
The problem with the left is all this touchy feely nonsense about what feels good, instead of what is right and what works.
As I discussed with my very liberal son-in-law once. After telling me how discriminated against the gays were, he went on to tell me that on average, they had better educations and better paying jobs than straights did.
I then asked him if that is so, where is the discrimination? I got a blank stare in reply.
“You nor anyone else have yet to show me where gays are lacking in equal rights. Please explain what rights I have that they don’t?”
Seriously? How about, THEY CAN’T GET MARRIED.
Replace “gay” with “Swedish”. Doesn’t make sense, does it? That two Swedes couldn’t get married? So let gay people get married already.
How about, THEY CAN’T GET MARRIED.
Sorry, inaccurate. They have the exact same rights to marriage that I currently have. Find someone of the opposite sex and ask them to marry you, if they will have you.
That’s about as EQUAL as it gets.
Two Swedes can get married too, provided they are of the opposite sex.
And, before you try to slip it in, the classic 1967s Supreme Court decision of Loving vs. The Commonwealth of Virginia on interracial marriage, that did not allow same sex, just interracial in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
In legalizing interracial marriage there, it still mandated male and female.
But, since you are so keen on redefining marriage to include gays, why stop there? What about others who feel their rights are being denied?
Woman Marries Dolphin
“Please list these laws that prevent me, a white male, from being discriminated against that don’t also apply to gays.”
lew, you are twisting my answers to your original opinion that homosexuals have particular laws preventing discrimination that did not also apply to you. If I may remind you:
“(you said) They have laws set up so they cannot be discriminated against in jobs, housing and such, I don’t have that right.”
I posed a simple question to illustrate that you enjoy the same discrimination protections that homosexuals do. Since your current question is at odds with your first opinion, I’ll leave you to sort it out.
(I said) If homosexuals wanted the benefits extended to them simply for being together, there would be no push for marriage.
“(your reply) Correct! All the bloviation about love, benefits, rights and such is just the smoke screen for forcing legitimacy and acceptance of their lifestyle upon others.”
I’m amused that you agree with me, but miss the point entirely. Are you married lew? If so, why did you get married?
“Like it or not, a male pedophile that seduces young boys is part of the homosexual community. Only in recent years did gay groups, such as the International Lesbian and Gay Alliance, publicly distance themselves from groups like NAMBLA.
To their credit, the vast majority of gays that aren’t also activists abhor pedophiles as much as heterosexuals do. It isn’t the individuals I’m speaking of, but the activist groups who also quietly support legitimization of pedophiles.”
Your grasping at straws. You despise homosexuality and view it in the same vein as any of the morally disgusting and disturbing acts I listed. It’s your right to have that opinion, so there’s no need to waffle around on the subject. Coming from someone with your viewpoint, it doesn’t hold water.
“However, once traditional marriage is redefined to include same-sex, how can you stop others from marrying also? Will it lead to polygamy legalization? Why wouldn’t it? Could it lead to brother sister marriage, or even brother brother or sister sister? What is to stop it, passing another law that redefines marriage again and barring them? Isn’t that what is supposed to be the fight currently? Breaking down restrictive laws?”
The point is not who can marry who, as anyone can “marry” anyone or anything they wish (see your story about the lady and dolphin). The goal is that a homosexual marriage be recognized by the state. Since homosexual couples can already own a home, adopt children, and any other benefits you “claim” they get, your slippery slope doesn’t portray a realistic set of situations. Polygamy is illegal. Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not.
“Your non-answer did not supply anything but more obfuscation. Why is so hard to list how gay marriage will better society? Shouldn’t supporters be able to easily explain something that could drastically alter society?”
If you didn’t understand my answer, that doesn’t mean I didn’t provide one. You question applied to heterosexual marriage was applied by the court in their decision, and the best they could come up with was “a benefit to children through procreation.” If that’s the best “benefit to society” that could be determined for traditional marriage, why do you keep beating everyone up for a societal benefit of homosexual marriage?
Lew, an honest and sincere question: If you are married, why? What led you to the decision to get married?
Lew and Bear I liked all of your comments . I just have a couple of thoughts, Genesis 2:23therefore aman shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and become one flesh.
The part about hate speech crimes . as a white Christian Male there is more hate spoken about me (us ) than anyone else , and most people praise the hate that is said .
I posed a simple question to illustrate that you enjoy the same discrimination protections that homosexuals do.
You claim the same laws that protect gays from discrimination protect me as well. Yet, you do not list any, as I have asked you to do.
Incidentally, the only thing at odds is your typical leftist obfuscation.
Are you married lew? If so, why did you get married?
More obfuscation and diversion? The subject is not heterosexual marriage, but gay marriage.
You despise homosexuality and view it in the same vein as any of the morally disgusting and disturbing acts I listed.
Again with the obfuscation? FYI, I do not despise homosexuality at all. It’s their choice to live as they see fit, so long as they don’t push their lifestyle on me.
Like I said, like it or not, an older male that preys on younger males is a homosexual pedophile. No, not all gays are pedophiles and not all pedophiles are gay, but some gay activist groups do have support for them.
Incidentally, some mental health professionals are starting to claim that pedophiles are also “born that way.” What next, pedophile rights?
Not supporting gay marriage doesn’t make me a “homophobe” either, in spite of your obvious attempt to paint me that way.
No one answers to me for their lifestyle choice, that’s left up to another.
The goal is that a homosexual marriage be recognized by the state.
Which is a forced legitimacy. Accept it or else.
Polygamy is illegal. Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not.
Why do they remain illegal? Homosexuality once was too. Since that door was opened, there are slow moves underfoot to legitamize the others as well. As society is forced to accept homosexuality as a “norm,” what else comes along that will be forced down our throats?
Several past socities also openly embraced homosexuality, as well as pedophelia and such. Can you show me one still thriving?
why do you keep beating everyone up for a societal benefit of homosexual marriage?
Why don’t you just show the overall benefit to change society in this manner?
Lew, I can only speak for myself when I ask about why you’re married and how it came about. I have no idea what the motivation of others may be.
I ask the question in the hope of being able to say, in defense of gay marriage, that the reasons you give for marrying your wife are the same that gays should be allowed to marry.
I’m hoping your answer is love, loyalty, and appreciation of the other person as a person. If there is a reason why you are married that a gay person would also not feel or experience under circumstances, I wish to learn something.
This is the reason I ask, and I’ll ask again: Why are *you* married? What was your motivation?
I don’t ask in anger, and I’m not out for a “gotcha” moment. I want to know what’s diferrent between your straight marriage and someone else’s gay marriage.
I think it’s a legitimate question.
“You claim the same laws that protect gays from discrimination protect me as well. Yet, you do not list any, as I have asked you to do.”
Housing, Workplace, Banking/loan, Voting/Public office..need I go on. One would think these are obvious.
“Incidentally, the only thing at odds is your typical leftist obfuscation.”
Much as you try to claim, it is not my fault if you are confused…
“(You said) They (gays) have laws set up so they cannot be discriminated against in jobs, housing and such, I don’t have that right.”
“(You then said) Please list these laws that prevent me, a white male, from being discriminated against that don’t also apply to gays.”
I believe it is your own obfuscation that is causing you grief.
“Like I said, like it or not, an older male that preys on younger males is a homosexual pedophile. No, not all gays are pedophiles and not all pedophiles are gay…”
An older male that preys on younger females is a heterosexual pedophile. What’s your point?
“Incidentally, some mental health professionals are starting to claim that pedophiles are also “born that way.” What next, pedophile rights?”
Would you care to share these reports from or the names of said professionals?
“Not supporting gay marriage doesn’t make me a “homophobe” either, in spite of your obvious attempt to paint me that way.”
You define yourself with your opinion and comments lew, I have no control over that. You are the one that has grouped homosexuality along with detestable acts such as pedophilia. I have no problem with you having that opinion, but if you do then own it.
“(I said) The goal is that a homosexual marriage be recognized by the state.”
“(Your reply) Which is a forced legitimacy. Accept it or else.”
Your opinion is to deny two committed homosexual persons a right afforded to two committed heterosexual persons, simply because you are unwilling to accept it. You do realize you also said “No one answers to me for their lifestyle choice…”? Which is it?
“Why do they remain illegal? Homosexuality once was too. Since that door was opened, there are slow moves underfoot to legitamize the others as well. As society is forced to accept homosexuality as a “norm,” what else comes along that will be forced down our throats?”
“Several past socities also openly embraced homosexuality, as well as pedophelia and such. Can you show me one still thriving?”
Please, tell me of these movements that are trying to legitimize pedophilia and incest, and such past societies that openly embraced homosexuality and pedophilia, and were destroyed as a direct consequence of it. I feel we are moving quite a distance from a logical discussion.
“(I asked) why do you keep beating everyone up for a societal benefit of homosexual marriage?”
“Why don’t you just show the overall benefit to change society in this manner?”
Provide everyone the same opportunities, regardless of their sexual orientation, whether they chose it or not.
past societies that openly embraced homosexuality and pedophilia, and were destroyed as a direct consequence of it.
Did I say “direct consequence?” Ever hear of Rome or Greece?
Please, tell me of these movements that are trying to legitimize pedophilia and incest,
Ahem, you appear to have answered it yourself.
Provide everyone the same opportunities, regardless of their sexual orientation, whether they chose it or not.
As for organzations, ever hear of NAMBLA?
Pedophiles Argue Their Case in the Journal of Homosexuality
Ever hear of Alfred Kinsey and his infamous “report?”
‘Legalize Incest’ Suggestion Shocks Lawmakers
Who is confused?
For your amusement;
A Scene At City Hall In San Francisco
“Next.”
“Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.”
“Names?”
“Tim and Jim Jones.”
“Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance.”
“Yes, we’re brothers.”
“Brothers? You can’t get married.”
“Why not? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?”
“Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That’s incest!”
“Incest?” No, we are not gay.”
“Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?”
“For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.
Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.”
“But we’re issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman.”
“Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have.
But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim.”
“And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?”
“All right, all right. I’ll give you your license.”
“Next”
“Hi. We are here to get married.”
“Names?”
“John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”
“Who wants to marry whom?”
“We all want to marry each other.”
“But there are four of you!”
“That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me.
All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”
“But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”
“So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”
“No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it’s just for couples.”
“Since when are you standing on tradition?”
“Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.”
“Who says? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage
license!”
“All right, all right.”
” Next.”
“Hello, I’d like a marriage license.”
“In what names?”
“David Deets.”
“And the other man?”
“That’s all. I want to marry myself.”
“Marry yourself? What do you mean?”
“Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.”
“That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!”
(I said ) [show me] past societies that openly embraced homosexuality and pedophilia, and were destroyed as a direct consequence of it.)
“Did I say “direct consequence?” Ever hear of Rome or Greece?”
If not by direct consequence, your forecast that homosexual marriage would bring and end to our society means nothing.
“(I asked) Please, tell me of these movements that are trying to legitimize pedophilia and incest,”)
“Ahem, you appear to have answered it yourself.”
No lew, I gave you an answer to your continued question as to what benefit to society homosexual marriage would bring. My answer to you in no way attempts to legitimize pedophilia or incest. I do not consider committed, consensual adult homosexual relationships the same as such revolting acts. You do.
We’ll have to agree to disagree, as that single difference of opinion shapes both of our arguments, and will never find a resolve.
Due to your continued obfuscation, I’ll simply ask, why only marriage? If it’s state recognition you desire, why not Civil Unions?
Please don’t tell me what I believe either, you aren’t even close.
This country went through “separate but equal” before. It was a bad idea then, and it’s a bad idea now.
Uh, “Separate but equal” access to education due to race is not even close to the same.
It has been said they deserve marriage because they “love” each other, are being “denied” equal rights (even though marriage is not a right, mentioned nowhere in the constitution), and can’t get the benefits of traditional marriege. It was stated: What’s gained, simply, is equal rights and equal protection under the law. Also, The goal is that a homosexual marriage be recognized by the state.
Civil Unions accomplish that without trashing traditional marriage. Not everyone disagreeing over gay marriage is opposed to Civil Unions. Most I know have no problem with it.
Being born Black is not even close to the same as choosing a lifestyle. In fact, equating racial birth to sexual choices is insulting. The “gay gene” is a myth since the genecist that “discovered” it has never been able to replicate it, not he or any other genecist.
Not long ago, Civil Unions were being asked for by the gay community and now they balk at that idea and demand “marriage.”
Why the need to destroy everything that has long been the backbone of society?
“Due to your continued obfuscation, I’ll simply ask, why only marriage? If it’s state recognition you desire, why not Civil Unions?”
Again lew, if what I say confuses you, all you have to do is ask and I can attempt to explain what is unclear.
The topic here concerns marriage, not civil unions. At the moment, neither option is a reality for homosexual couples.
“Please don’t tell me what I believe either, you aren’t even close.”
I don’t have to tell you lew. You have made very clear what you believe.
Now that you have moved the topic to civil union, I’ll ask you – what benefit to society would recognized homosexual civil unions contribute over recognized homosexual marriage?
r, as is typical with the pro-gay agenda, you paint all who disagree with you as homophobes and such nefarious labels.
It is you who stated “The goal is that a homosexual marriage be recognized by the state.“
Yet, when asked about Civil Unions, which would give that recognition, you again resort to obfuscation, instead of discussing it.
You state, “At the moment, neither option is a reality for homosexual couples. You also claim the subject has been changed to Civil Unions, when in fact, it has not. I simply asked why the push for marriage over Civil Unions.
Incidentally, how can you state Civil Unions are not an option when it isn’t even discussed or moved towards? Seems marriage and marriage only will fulfil the desire of desecration of traditional marriage even further.
Seems the stated goal of “recognition by the state” is just another smoke screen.
“Our goal is here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream’s self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.”
Quoted from “The Overhauling of Straight America,” by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill appeared in the November 1987 issue of the homosexual periodical, “Guide.” (I believe no longer in print or under a different name)
I think it would be fair to run down a list of exactly what you have said here lew, as you seem to claim I am putting words in your mouth or paint you as something other than what your own words say about you.
1. Gay marriage is making a mockery of marriage further erodes it.
2. Gay marriage is a special right.
3. Gay marriage is a slippery slope, which will lead those who practice pedophilia, incest, or bestiality, among other detestable acts to push for marriage rights.
4. Gay marriage will make a sham of all marriage.
5. A homosexual marriage is not a “legitimate marriage,” and is a means to force a lifestyle acceptance on others.
6. Homosexuality was a [major] reason for the downfall of both Rome and Greece.
These are your words lew. Not mine. Not my invention. If none of these are correct or you misrepresented yourself, please explain. Until then, from these sentiments, I think it’s fair to say that: 1. You equate homosexuality the same as pedophilia, bestiality, and incest, 2. I do not agree with you on that point, and 3. I have never said you were a homophobe. Any further discussion between us is going to bias on the “morality” view you hold towards homosexuality.
Lastly, why discuss Civil Unions? Are you for them?
First, philosophically at least, I do not believe that being gay is necessarily a choice. Though I cannot prove it one way or another, I think you’re either born that way or you aren’t. The gay friends I’ve had over the years, while not numerous, have all shared with me in coversation that they just “knew” they were, and that they never chose it.
Because who’d choose to be someone that so many people look down upon? Why risk being the point of violence by painting a giant target on your chest? I don’t believe that people “choose” being gay as a lifestyle – not the overwhelming majority, at least.
So, in that way, I disagree with you – it sort of IS like being black. If you’re born that way, as I believe people are, there’s nothing to be done about it.
Civil unions are a start, but they aren’t good enough, and I highly doubt that marriage is the “backbone” of society (otherwise the 50% divorce rate would have brought this country to its knees by now).
iknow, if “born that way,” when was the last time you ever heard of a 5 year old in school attracted to another of the same sex? Even the genecist that made a big deal out of the “discovery” of the “gay gene” has been unable to replicate it in over 10 years now. No replicating, no gene.
Ask your gay friemds if perhaps they had “help” realizing they were “born that way” when younger and approached or seduced by an older male.
Incidentally, this “target on the chest” you mention doesn’t really exist any longer. Gays have been openly accepted by the majority of society. No one really cares what others do in the privacy of their homes, until they strat pushing it on to others, straight or gay.
LOL, you should have seen the cross dresser, transvestite or whatever he was, I saw at the airport last night. Spiked heels, mini-skirt and all. No one even gave him a second glance.
As for civil unions, if what is sought is recognition by the state, as r has said, why aren’t they good enough?
You are correct in marriage being in trouble, but how does futher degrading it by allowing a sham imitation help correct that? With today’s “anything goes” atmosphere, marriage is even more trouble than it ever was. In the Netherlands, by some reports, it’s almost a thing of the past.
Incidentally, last year, they allowed their first trio “marriage,” although more of a civil union by a notary, the authorities will not annul it. One man and two bi-sexual women. Guess that opening of the door got a little wider, huh?
My final word (maybe) on the subject. If you and other gays and supporters are seriosuly wishing to make gay marriage the norm, a change in tactics would be in order. Instead of painting those of us who oppose it as homophobes, trying to lay guilt trips on us and make us out to be bigoted demon inspired bad guys, just start showing society all the positive aspects of allowing this type of union ——— provided you can.
“(lew said)…Instead of painting those of us who oppose it as homophobes, trying to lay guilt trips on us and make us out to be bigoted demon inspired bad guys…”
Curious lew, that no one here arguing a different view point than yours, called you a homophobe, tried to lay a guilt trip on you, or claimed you were a bigoted demon inspired bad guy.
Are you just painting with a broad stroke?
Nice try, r. Your insinuations bear me out. One need not use specific words to support a view.
For a view of what you might expect, as well as receive, should you succeed;
When heterosexuals are in the minority
Like I said, you will have much more succees by just speaking out about all the positive aspects towards society in general, if you can.
“Your insinuations bear me out.”
By “insinuations” do you mean repeating your own words?
“One need not use specific words to support a view.”
To rebut your attempts to vilify those of an opposing viewpoint before you continue:
1. I do not consider you to be, nor have I called you a homophobe.
2. I have no means to try and guilt you into changing your view point, nor do I wish to. I have already said you are welcome to your own opinion.
3. I do not think you are a “bigoted demon inspired bad guy.” In fact, I would assume your viewpoint is shaped upon some spiritual or religious, non-secular ideal, which would be an opposite to your “demon.”
don’t suggest homosexuality is like skin color. It demeans the difficulties blacks and other minorities of ‘color’ have suffered.
1. Why don’t you tell these people that “no one really cares what others do in the privacy of their homes” and that they don’t have targets on their chests.
2. And your argument about five year-olds is ridiculous. Five year olds barely know what direction is up. I can only speak for myself, but when I was five, I wasn’t having sexual identity issues because I didn’t have any “attraction” issues or anything of the sort to ANYONE. Why? Because I was five! I was figuring out how to be a ninja. These issues are not issues a five year old is even close to thinking about.
But by your own argument, do you feel that maybe Mary Cheney was sexually abused by her mother? I don’t either. I think it’s a ludicrous theory.
3. I don’t care about three people in the Netherlands. What they chose to do with their government has nothing to do with what I want to do with mine. I care about what we can do for our fellow Americans and how we can give them a fair shake in our society.
4. I never called you a homophobe either. Just for the record.
I do think you are, however, totally wrong on this issue. I don’t see how marriage would be “degraded”, and I’ve never understood the argument (not necessarily yours, but the larger one) of how it “treatens traditional marriage”. It’s utter nonsense to me.
Now, for those who may have missed it, if you scroll further down on the main blog page to the picture of the beastly Coultergeist, I’ve linked to a story about how she’s gone unhinged, to borrow the great neo-con word, calling Bill Clinton a latent homosexual.
Lew, you wrote:
“I thought the left loved and supported homosexuals. You all label us as homophobes because we don’t support gay marriage. But, when someone says they think your god may have latent homosexual tendencies, that upsets you all?”
Again, I never called you a homophobe. And whatever Clinton was, is, will be, or whatever makes no difference to me. For all his personal issues, he brought us eight years of peace and prosperity.
My point in posting it was to show that she again must resort to bitter, useless mudslinging to get some attention, because she’s an utterly talentless hack who gets a free pass EVERY TIME she pulls this crap. Devoid of substance, she is the ultimate mouthpiece for the hatemongers and the fearmongers. Then she wonders why the mainstream media won’t listen to her or take her seriously. Easy answer: she’s a joke, and not a funny one at that.
Victoria wrote:
“don’t suggest homosexuality is like skin color. It demeans the difficulties blacks and other minorities of ‘color’ have suffered.”
How so? My argument was that I believe that being gay is not necessarily a choice, and that if you’re born gay and have to fight discrimination because of a trait that you acquired simply by being born, then there’s a parallel. Born black, some face discrimination. Born gay, some face discrimination. IIs this such a horrible explanation of why we should fight this discrimination?
It’s horrible in either circumstance.
r, you do not repeat my words, you post your version of what my words were.
1. So would you group homosexuals with pedophiles, polygamists, and those who engage in bestiality? Your opinion seems to lead in that direction.
2. You despise homosexuality and view it in the same vein as any of the morally disgusting and disturbing acts I listed. It’s your right to have that opinion, so there’s no need to waffle around on the subject.
3. You define yourself with your opinion and comments lew, I have no control over that. You are the one that has grouped homosexuality along with detestable acts such as pedophilia.
4. I don’t have to tell you lew. You have made very clear what you believe.
Your EXACT words, copied and pasted as you typed them, not my version of what you said.
As I said, you may not think that is what you all do, but anyone can see the effort at vilification in the discussion. Doesn’t bother me, though. It just tells me the left doesn’t have a logical leg to stand on and operates on feelings and emotions, rather than common sense.
Historicaly, past socities that did openly embrace homosexuality, even though they did not embrace same-sex marriage, did fall. I did not say it was a [major] reason for the fall, as you claimed I did. However, they did fall, for whatever reason. One could possibly be because of a drastic reduction in their populace, especially male warriors to fend off attackers. I don’t know that nor am I claiming that, just saying what could be a possibility. Others more qualified in history than me will have to answer.
In spite of your effort to paint me otherwise, I did not say pedophiles and gays were one and the same, just some, just as are some heterosexuals. However, the denial that no gay could also be a pedophile is laughable, given groups such as NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). Male male is homosexual. I also stated that to the credit of the gay community, most I know personally also abhor the pedophiles, which you somehow missed or chose to ignore.
I’ll end again by saying as I did earlier. The easiest way for you all to win your choice of change is still to just outline and state the positive merits of changing society in the manner you choose, if you can.
There is really no need for all the ugliness that ends up coming from left during these discussions. Not all of us “breeders” fall for that old trick.
Incidentally, in response to I would assume your viewpoint is shaped upon some spiritual or religious, non-secular ideal. Once again, you are wrong. In fact, I do not belong to any specific religion and actually see most religion as being misled themselves. My opposition is based solely along more “personal” lines. And no, I am not a “recovering gay” myself, although I have been approached by some in the past. A simple “no thanks” sufficed.
iknow, are you moving the discussion away from Gay Marriage to homosexuality?
Since you feel gays are “born that way,” have you any medical or scientific evidence of such? Or, is just your personal feelings?
As to your “statistics” for “Hate Crimes,” don’t make me laugh. Does it describe just what these “incidents” are that are categorized as a “Hate Crime?” Are you trying to insinuate there were that number of gays murdered because they were gay? How many are actually incidents of “offensive words?”
My exact words, from a few posts above:
“First, philosophically at least, I do not believe that being gay is necessarily a choice. Though I cannot prove it one way or another, I think you’re either born that way or you aren’t.”
There you go.
Now, in terms of marriage, you never answered *my* question: if you are married, why are you married? What led you to the decision to get married?
Your answer is important, because, as I also stated above, I would assume it is for the same reason I would like to see gay marriage be legalized: that you love and honor your partner, and that you appreciate the other person for who she is — these are basic things that I feel are enough to justify legalization of gay marriage.
If not, if you married for some other reason, I’d like a new perspective so I can figure out your argument of how gay marriage wouldn’t contribute to society the way “straight” marriage does. Maybe I should ask you what the point of “straight” marriage is, then, because I don’t see a difference between the two other than the gender makeup of the couple – which doesn’t bother me at all.
Now, I’m assuming you didn’t really look at the chart in the link I posted. Though it didn’t specifically break down which incidents were due to “offensive words”, it says this:
First, for those who haven’t gone to the link, it’s on fbi.gov, so it’s not some “extremist lefty blog”.
There were 738 incidents in 2005 of “anti-male homosexual” hate crimes, with 902 victims. There were 164 “anti-female homosexual” hate crimes, with 212 victims. And these numbers only represent what was reported — I’m sure nobody’s naive enough to believe that this is the sum total of everything.
1100+ victims, to me, hardly supports that “No one really cares what others do in the privacy of their homes.” Clearly, there are horrible people out there who do care and make it a point to act on their hate. The victims who suffered only verbal assaults are the lucky ones.
“r, you do not repeat my words, you post your version of what my words were.”
lew, I have already asked you to explain otherwise if I have misinterpreted your words and arguments. I can only bring what you have said to it’s logical conclusion. For example:
“(You say) Think also of what doors are being opened. Once marriage is redefined to accommodate gays, what will be next? Who will be next? Surely, once the definition is prostituted to accept gay couples, others will push for their select little group.”
“(You say) However, once traditional marriage is redefined to include same-sex, how can you stop others from marrying also? Will it lead to polygamy legalization? Why wouldn’t it? Could it lead to brother sister marriage, or even brother brother or sister sister? What is to stop it, passing another law that redefines marriage again and barring them? Isn’t that what is supposed to be the fight currently? Breaking down restrictive laws?”
“(You say) But, since you are so keen on redefining marriage to include gays, why stop there? What about others who feel their rights are being denied?
(linked story) Woman Marries Dolphin”
“(You say) Like I said, like it or not, an older male that preys on younger males is a homosexual pedophile. No, not all gays are pedophiles and not all pedophiles are gay, but some gay activist groups do have support for them.”
“(You say) Why do they remain illegal? Homosexuality once was too. Since that door was opened, there are slow moves underfoot to legitamize the others as well. As society is forced to accept homosexuality as a “norm,” what else comes along that will be forced down our throats?”
“(You say) Several past socities also openly embraced homosexuality, as well as pedophelia and such. Can you show me one still thriving?”
Just a sample of arguments you have made here. After reading and drawing a logical conclusion to what you have said, I think my below statements, which you copied and pasted in your last response to me still stand:
1. So would you group homosexuals with pedophiles, polygamists, and those who engage in bestiality? Your opinion seems to lead in that direction.
2. You despise homosexuality and view it in the same vein as any of the morally disgusting and disturbing acts I listed. It’s your right to have that opinion, so there’s no need to waffle around on the subject.
3. You define yourself with your opinion and comments lew, I have no control over that. You are the one that has grouped homosexuality along with detestable acts such as pedophilia.
4. I don’t have to tell you lew. You have made very clear what you believe.
“As I said, you may not think that is what you all do, but anyone can see the effort at vilification in the discussion. Doesn’t bother me, though. It just tells me the left doesn’t have a logical leg to stand on and operates on feelings and emotions, rather than common sense.”
I assure you lew, there is no attempt on my part to vilify you through this discussion. I do find it curious that you would apply the label “left” to me, and thus attempt a vilification of your own rather than just respond in clarification to misrepresentations you say I have made.
“Historicaly, past socities that did openly embrace homosexuality, even though they did not embrace same-sex marriage, did fall. I did not say it was a [major] reason for the fall, as you claimed I did. However, they did fall, for whatever reason. One could possibly be because of a drastic reduction in their populace, especially male warriors to fend off attackers. I don’t know that nor am I claiming that, just saying what could be a possibility. Others more qualified in history than me will have to answer.”
“As I interpret” lew, you are still trying to connect the downfall of a society to homosexuality. If the “left” as you say are operating on feelings and emotions to argue a position, then I would say you are using feelings and emotions to re-write history.
“In spite of your effort to paint me otherwise, I did not say pedophiles and gays were one and the same, just some, just as are some heterosexuals. However, the denial that no gay could also be a pedophile is laughable, given groups such as NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). Male male is homosexual. I also stated that to the credit of the gay community, most I know personally also abhor the pedophiles, which you somehow missed or chose to ignore.”
So if the majority of the gay community despises pedophiles just as the majority of the homosexual community, what point are you trying to make? As I said before, there are heterosexual pedophiles just as there are homosexual ones. If not to try and align homosexuality with pedophilia, then what are you trying to say here lew?
“I’ll end again by saying as I did earlier. The easiest way for you all to win your choice of change is still to just outline and state the positive merits of changing society in the manner you choose, if you can.
There is really no need for all the ugliness that ends up coming from left during these discussions. Not all of us “breeders” fall for that old trick.”
Again lew, you are taking words said from outside news or discussions and trying to apply them here to those who have a differing view point. Additionally, you have begun to use the label “left” in a similar vein as Ann Coulter, to vilify opposing argument.
“Incidentally, in response to I would assume your viewpoint is shaped upon some spiritual or religious, non-secular ideal. Once again, you are wrong. In fact, I do not belong to any specific religion and actually see most religion as being misled themselves. My opposition is based solely along more “personal” lines. And no, I am not a “recovering gay” myself, although I have been approached by some in the past. A simple “no thanks” sufficed.”
When I say assume, I am not making a “factual” statement. Thank you for a clear response. We can now continue in a discussion knowing your argument is shaped solely by personal reason.
In response to your last statement, how do you see religion being misled?
r, I’m not going to play this little he said, he said game. Of everything either of us said, you stated that I despise homosexuality when I have repeatedly said different. This discussion was about gay marriage, not homosexuality itself.
As is typical, once someone disagrees with the left, they become whatever negative conotation can be mustered at the moment. Still, it doesn’t bother me as I expect this and it just reaffirms what I already believe.
Instead of just campaigning on the positive aspects of a societal change as this, vilification is what the left normally does, to get it’s way. Whether intended or not, it is what is done.
All the verbage, interpreting and such is unnecessary. As I said, just campaign the idea to society on all the positive aspects society may expect, if you can. Nothing else would really be necessary.
As to how I view religion, different topic, different time. However, you may feel free to contact me privately for more of a discussion on that. It is not the topic here at this time.
“Instead of just campaigning on the positive aspects of a societal change as this, vilification is what the left normally does, to get it’s way. Whether intended or not, it is what is done. “
Umm, excuse me?
EXCUSE ME?
Not you, specifically, but are you willing to condemn some of the reactions of folks like Scottiebill and Bear and that other guy who spells everything incorrectly? Have you actually read what they’re written?
The word “liberal” might as well be the f-word with those guys, they use it so insultingly.
And, by the way, I’m trying to stay on track and have an honest debate. I have not called you names, and you ignore my posts when they seem inconvenient to you.
“r, I’m not going to play this little he said, he said game. Of everything either of us said, you stated that I despise homosexuality when I have repeatedly said different. This discussion was about gay marriage, not homosexuality itself.”
I think homosexuality and how you view it’s morality is kind of part of the whole discussion around gay marriage, especially when arguments against gay marriage are bias towards the “ills” of homosexuals. But maybe that’s just me.
Regardless, I have accepted that you have said you don’t despise homosexuals, and don’t think I’ve further eluded to any such connotation.
“As is typical, once someone disagrees with the left, they become whatever negative conotation can be mustered at the moment. Still, it doesn’t bother me as I expect this and it just reaffirms what I already believe.”
I’m curious as to why simply having a different view point then you would make me “some one from the left?” And to that end, again I have made no negative campaign against you in this discussion. I have tried to determine the real point you are trying to make when you use such broad generalizations such as “civilizations that accepted homosexuality which no longer exist.”
“Instead of just campaigning on the positive aspects of a societal change as this, vilification is what the left normally does, to get it’s way. Whether intended or not, it is what is done.
All the verbage, interpreting and such is unnecessary. As I said, just campaign the idea to society on all the positive aspects society may expect, if you can. Nothing else would really be necessary.”
To be fair, “equal representation under the law” is the corner stone positive societal benefit to the entire campaign for state recognized homosexual marriage. I’m pretty sure I’ve made that element clear during discussion.
When you get answers to your questions and refuse to accept them, one tends to want to know the “why” to further understanding.
It turns out the “why” for you finally comes down to “personal” reasons. That’s great. Discussion would have been more clear had you simply stated that to begin with.
“As to how I view religion, different topic, different time. However, you may feel free to contact me privately for more of a discussion on that. It is not the topic here at this time.”
You brought it up, but agreed.
To be fair, “equal representation under the law” is the corner stone positive societal benefit to the entire campaign for state recognized homosexual marriage.
Again, they currently have the same exact “representation” and “right to marriage” that you and I currently have. In fact, no one has a “right” to marriage. Legal state recognition is also accomplished by Civil Unions, but that doesn’t seem good enough. The prostitution of traditional marriage seems all that would be acceptable, regardless of what effects it would have elsewhere.
After seeing how the Boy Scouts have been under fire the last few years over their anti-gay stance (around young boys, no less), I shudder to think who else will be villified for not abandoning their values to have such a sham marriage foisted on them, as well.
So if the majority of the gay community despises pedophiles just as the majority of the homosexual community, what point are you trying to make?
As I keep saying, these groups that you and some of the gay community also dislike and see as a danger are riding on the coat tails of this movement for their own legitimization. There is even some support coming from within the gay community (thought not all gays) for their recognition as well. I have already linked articles addressing how they are doing that. Maybe you didn’t read them.
When you get answers to your questions and refuse to accept them, one tends to want to know the “why” to further understanding.
This could also be said of the left, but labeling you a gay person or other label isn’t my style. But, since labels do seem to abound, maybe those in the article I previously linked to above about Provincetown could be labelled as Heterophobes? 😉
Discussion would have been more clear had you simply stated that to begin with.
If it was that important to you, all you had to do was ask earlier.
iknow, you said, are you willing to condemn some of the reactions of folks like Scottiebill and Bear and that other guy who spells everything incorrectly? Have you actually read what they’re written?
Yes, and no. Your game isn’t going to work with me. Everyone is responsible for what they say themselves. In fact, I like seeing you and others on the left getting yourselves in a wad over what you also do everyday.
The word “liberal” might as well be the f-word with those guys, they use it so insultingly.
Your point is?
I guess neo-con and such is considered a term of endearment to you?
As a famous once President who was also a Democrat said, “if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
You also said earlier, I’ve never understood the argument (not necessarily yours, but the larger one) of how it “treatens traditional marriage”. It’s utter nonsense to me.
You refuse to see what harm it could do. It has been pointed out and yet, you choose to refuse to see or accept it. Some people cannot fathom the meaning behind closing the barn door after the horse escaped.
The only time I choose to ignore your comments is when there is no real point in addressing what comes across to me as sheer idiocy or confrontation. I could also cry you ignore me, but I’m an adult.
There were 738 incidents in 2005 of “anti-male homosexual” hate crimes, with 902 victims. There were 164 “anti-female homosexual” hate crimes, with 212 victims.
Now, care to break those numbers down as just exactly what consititues a “hate crime,” as I asked? You claim some 1100 “reports out of how many people? Last I heard (2000), the population of the country was just under 300,000,000. That would make your statisitcs about three thousandths of one percent, or less, committing what are listed as hate crimes. And still, no qualification as to just what said crime actually was. Was it a beating, a murder, or simple a name called that is offensive? It does make a difference.
Also, according to the 2000 census, there is maybe as high as 600,000 gays in the country. That equals out to less that 2 thousandths of one percent, or less, who have had these unknown hate crimes committed on them.
Not exactly a pandemic, is it?
A little off subject, but if we have “hate crimies,” doesn’t that also me we have the opposite too, a “love crime?” 😉
Oh, as for my 5 year old comment, many five year old boys, as well as girls, have been seen kissing, hugging and otherwise interacting with ones of the opposite sex. To the point that some have been accused of sexual harrassment by teachers and sent to counseling. Maybe the teachers would have been happier had they tried to kiss a child of the same sex.
Personally, I haven’t seen or heard of any 5 year olds interacting in such a way with the same sex.
Incidentally, passing laws based on someones “philisophical attitude” is very dangerous. Philosophically, one could end up arguing that Black is really White and a square is actually round. Very dangerous way to run a country.
My apologies if I don’t address each and every sinlge word you type, I do have other things of importance to me.
I tried, Lew. I listen, I respond with respect, and I try to understand your point of view the way I would hope you would try to understand mine. It doesn’t mean you have to like it, as I do not always like yours.
You’re clearly not willing to return the favor. So be it.
“You refuse to see what harm it could do. It has been pointed out and yet, you choose to refuse to see or accept it. “
It’s not that I refuse to see it, Lew, it’s that I haven’t been convinced by any portion of the argument, because I think it’s a weak argument. Maybe I can be won over if someone can do a better job of explaining it, but right now, no. I flatly disagree with it, but I do not refuse to see it.
“Now, care to break those numbers down as just exactly what consititues a “hate crime,” as I asked”
No. I’m not going to research 1100+ reported hate crimes to satisfy you. It’s an FBI website, which I’d say is probably pretty credible. I’d say you get the point, but clearly, you don’t. Your point is that gay bashing and gay hate crimes are “hardly” a problem, and I think 1100+ people would say otherwise.
Hey, let’s play a fun game and cross topics:
Terry Schaivo. One case out of 300,000,000 people. Why was THAT such a big deal, then?
I can’t help you understand my point of view if you aren’t willing to listen, and you’re not, so I suppose that’s that.
Sorry, iknow, I’m not falling for that either.
Trust me, I understand your view more than you realize, but I alsos ee the harm that will be done and has been done in other countries.
I have shown that marriage has been degraded in the Netherlands, where gay marriage started by now allowing plural marriage. No bog deal, some say? Okay, what next? Where does it stop?
We all agree that pedophiles are sick and disgusting, as do many gays. Yet, it is gay activist groups like GLAAD and ILGA that have some support for them, as well.
You claim the number of 1100+ like it is a pandemic of violence against gays. Yet, you will not make any effort to supply a breakdown of that number to shows how many are actually violence and how many were mere name calling. You also didn’t include how many were actually gay on gay violence, something statistics show is a fairly high number. Do you believe gay marriage will end that?
There is no logical reason to further erode traditional marriage, which I agree, is in trouble. Mostly due to experimanting with it as they have ever since no fault divorces came into being and our society moved towatds a throw away society. We throw away marriage as we do anything else.
I fail to see how adding a small group that has been shown to be more violent towards each other than most straights are will do anything to help that.
It has been said the main reason for marriage is for children. So, supporters come back with the ridiculous notion that childless couples should not be allowed to marry. No dice. Even childless, they can be an example to growing children of how to interact with the opposite sex, something some 97% of the population does, and not always very well, today.
There is the cry that gays do not have equal rights because they cannot marry each other. Yet, they have the same right to marriage that the rest of us do. That sounds pretty equal to me. Marriage is not a constitutional right, either.
It was a religious ceremony, instituted by God, according to the Bible. As we “progreesed,” the state decided they needed a hand in it as well.
Most ceremonies are still religious. If gay marriage becoems the law of the land, whay will be the agenda towards people freedom of religion for chuches that refuse to accept or marry gays? A look towards the Boy Scouts should provide an example.
Civil Unions have been proposed and actually, were first asked for by the Gay Community. Somehow, now, they aren’t good enough, yet no one will say why. Since they supply gays with state recognition, I fail to see why the push for full marriage, other than there must be a hidden agenda behind it.
A couple articles on how well Gay Marriage has done in Scandanavia;
Concerned Women For America
The End of Marriage in Scandinavia
Children of Gay Parents
“This could also be said of the left, but labeling you a gay person or other label isn’t my style.“
For my last comment (as there seems to be no open discussion to be had with lew on this subject), I have to add that this is by far your most amusing reaction. You prove yourself hypocritical in under 20 words.
(Please re-read many of your responses before you claim you haven’t used any labels to vilify opposing argument when your own argument was weak.)
I do look forward to discussing other topics with you, and others here. Hopefully you won’t let [unknown] personal reasons hinder realistic discussion in the future.
Hopefully you won’t let [unknown] personal reasons hinder realistic discussion in the future.
Funny how you don’t even know my true reasons, but automatically label them as a hinderance to “realistic discussion.”
Is everyone who disagrees with you automatically “unrealistic?”
“Is everyone who disagrees with you automatically ‘unrealistic?'”
Not at all lew. But I think most of the arguments you put forth were quite unrealistic, and some quite unfair to an honest discussion. Since you decided to argue your dissent of opinion with such arguments instead of your “real” personal reason, then yes, I would say you hindered a realistic discussion.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.