Democrats & Liberals Archives

Election Year Republican Hatred

Here we go again. The Republicans and Religious Conservatives are hoping to cash in on people’s hatred and fear again this year. The closer we get to the election the more they show their true colors as hatemongers and bigots.

The Senate is planning a vote this year for a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.

Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has announced that he expects to hold a vote in June on the measure, which would prevent states from allowing gay marriages. It will be an important test for lawmakers on gay rights before the midterm elections in November. Senators will be forced to go on the record about their support for gay marriage, which could help Republican candidates in bigoted conservative states.

About 50 prominent religious leaders, including seven Roman Catholic cardinals and about half-dozen archbishops, have signed a petition in support of a constitutional amendment blocking same-sex marriage.

Organizers of the petition said it was in part an effort to revive the groundswell of opposition to same-sex marriage that helped bring many conservative voters to the polls in some pivotal states in 2004.

At least now, they are admitting that they are using their hatred and fear of people unlike themselves to win elections.

Now, the people who brought you the gay marriage ban are bringing a gay adoption ban to a state near you. Where does the hatred end?

The President's presidential prayer team has urged congress to “pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles.”

The President wants a marriage amendment based on Biblical principles? I suspect those principles he is talking about are only the ones that apply to gays and lesbians.

Unless the amendment includes all marriage principles contained in the Bible, it is discriminatory, immoral, unethical, and hypocritical. An amendment that is according to “Biblical principles” would have to look something like this:

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1.
Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Genesis 29:17-28)

Section 2.
Marriage shall not impede the man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Samuel 5:13; II Chronicles 11:21)

Section 3.
A marriage shall be considered valid if and only if the bride was a virgin at the time of the marriage ceremony. If the wife was not a virgin, she must be put to death. (Deuteronomy 22:13)

Section 4.
Marriage of a believer and a nonbeliever is strictly forbidden. (Genesis 24:3)

Section 5.
If a married man dies and leaves no children, his brother must marry the widow. He must then impregnate her so that she might bring up children in the dead brother's name. (Genesis 38:6-10; Deuteronomy 25:5-10)

Section 6.
If a man is caught forcing a virgin woman to have intercourse with him, he may pay her father and she will be his wife. She shall have no say in this matter. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Section 7.
A man my kidnap a female of his choice to be his wife. (Judges 21.20-23)

Section 8.
A father may give, by contest, his daughter to the winner to be his wife. (Josh 15.16-17)

Section 9.
If a man dislikes his new bride and her parent's cannot prove her virginity, she is to be stoned to death. (Dt 22.13-21)

Section 10.
A man may take his Aunt to be his wife. ( Exodus 6:20)

I wonder if people who support a Constitutional marriage amendment realize what such an amendment would do? It would not only ban same-sex marriage, but it would also take states rights over marriage away and hand it over to the federal government. All marriage. That means that the federal government could regulate marriage in anyway it saw fit. It would start with same-sex marriage, but as the cliche goes, "It's a slippery slope".

Many SCOTUS decisions are based on the very fact that the constitution does not give the federal government the power to regulate marriage. Including a law that forbid stores from selling contraception to married couples that was struck down by the SCOTUS. A federal marriage amendment would suddenly give the government the power to regulate this and other such activities.

Instead of pursuing hateful principles, how about following the Constitutional principle of equality for all? Of course, I suspect much of the hate we are seeing from Republican politicians has less to do with "Biblical" principles, and more to do with getting votes. After all, most Republicans in Congress wouldn't know a Biblical principle if it bit them on the ass.

Posted by JayJay Snow at April 24, 2006 3:40 PM
Comments
Comment #142720

Nicely done, Snowman. Unfortunately, now my brain will be replaying that catchy little Suess-ian song for the rest of the day! ;^/

Posted by: Adrienne at April 24, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #142721

Ok so what you are saying is repersentives actually take a position on an issue is bad?
Where is the problem, If the dems are for gay marriage how would they lose support? Or is it that the amreican ppl in general are still against gay marriage?

Pew and Fox Polls

Right before the elections is a great time also, if you do not like how your representive voted vot him or her out of office, sounds like how things should work.


There is thing we once belived in called majority rule, its been losing ground for years, but in essence, its where the most liked, most supported view of an issue, item or thing… is cositered the accepted view.

As of late though, its fliped over to minority rule, if 100 people decide on how to do something but one person dissents, the other 100 lose out.

Posted by: RHancheck at April 24, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #142722

gaygaysnow Your attempt to make america gay will never work.You sir are out numbered and its all ready been tried in california an boston.stop trying to shove your filth down the throats of the american people.

Posted by: saying at April 24, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #142725

RHancheck,

“There is thing we once belived in called majority rule, its been losing ground for years, but in essence, its where the most liked, most supported view of an issue, item or thing… is cositered the accepted view.”

Sorry there is no majority rule here and there never has been. This isn’t a Democracy. It’s a Representitive Republic so that everybody gets a voice.


saying,

“stop trying to shove your filth down the throats of the american people.”

Spoken with a true open mind.

Posted by: Rocky at April 24, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #142726

saying,

Thank you for your comments. I really do feel bad that you think two people who love each other and want to make a commitment to raise a family together is filth. Only time will tell if Americans will decide to stand up and act like Americans. The tide is changing and support for bigoted ideas is waning, people will not hold on to a heart of stone forever.


Your Friend,

GayGay

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 24, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #142728

ahh Rocky… yes but we elect our reps.. and they do get into office from a MAJORITY vote so in essence if everyone elects reps with their views.. then their majority view is repersented

also items like special elections and referendums are decided by majority vote.

Majority rule is still out there, its just been trampled and rephrased a bit

Posted by: RHancheck at April 24, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #142731

JayJay:

If you truly want equality for all, then you have to recognize that there are some really really “out there” people who will want equality for their causes too.

There are lawsuits using the same logic argument used for gay marriage that are fighting for polygamy to be recognized as a legal marriage. They claim that there should be NO infringement on the right of marriage—and that the number of people involved in a marriage is such an infringement.

There are far more “out there” people than that, too. The question, then, is how far along the line of equality do you really want to go? I’d submit that equality is a nice idea in theory, but one that doesn’t work in reality. I doubt you or I would want to condone a person marrying an animal (I use that as an example of a way “out there” idea. But…if we want true equality for EVERYone, we’d have to accept such a crazy thing.

In our society there have to be limits. I don’t mind the states holding the rights to determine who can be married—I assume you feel the same way from your comments. What I would NOT want is for a couple to be legally married in one state and another state be forced to recognize it.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 24, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #142732

RHancheck,

Majority does not rule, the U.S. Constitution does. We have a Constitution to protect minorities from majority rule.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 24, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #142733

I’m not at all surprised at this crock. The REPs have nothing but a horrific track record to show the voters in 2006… so they start making noise about “those gays!” in hopes that it’ll distract people from real issues and concerns. It’s sad and pathetic, but not out of the ordinary for them.

As for this blog… DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!

Posted by: tony at April 24, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #142735

Marriage in the church is always the province of the church. The Catholic church does not have to offer its sacrament to those it feels do not meet the requirements. I can understand my fellow Catholic’s impulse to ban this in general, but I feel this is just one more point where we run against the essential nature of our republic. I think banning gay marriage is a losing battle. After all, gay lifestyles are already part of our society. Constitutional amendments like this are a waste of time that later generations will likely not think much of.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 24, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #142736

joebagodonuts,

So what you are saying is you are for equality as long as you are in the group that recieves it. Everyone else be damned?

Don’t even bring up the whole animal argument, it is moot. A marriage is a legally binding contract, an animal cannot consent or enter into a legally binding contract. Nor can a minor, so that leaves out the other strawman, pedophilia.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 24, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #142738

jay jay , evil mr frist oh so evil, on the first day as leader of the senate. he was driving and saw a accident. he pulled over and gave mouth to mouth to the poor accident victim, he did his sworn duty as a doctor. btw he did not ask, he did.that sounds so evil huh.

Posted by: jim c at April 24, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #142742

RHancheck,

“ahh Rocky… yes but we elect our reps.. and they do get into office from a MAJORITY vote so in essence if everyone elects reps with their views.. then their majority view is repersented”

Those same elected officials represent even those that voted for the other guy, and theoreticaly should also listen to ALL of their constituents.

Posted by: Rocky at April 24, 2006 5:20 PM
Comment #142744

JayJay,

Republican hate? Have you so quickly forgotten all the Democratic hate poured out right here in this blog? Not to mention all the smears, slander and pure bile poured out by Reid, Pelosi, Boxer and Company? And you say that the “Repuglicans” have a lock and key on hate?

PUH-LEESE.

Just look in the archives.

Posted by: Jim T at April 24, 2006 5:21 PM
Comment #142747


The regulation of marriage is a state’s rights issue. No where in the Constitution of the U.S. is marriage mentioned. Under the reserve amendment, that means it is up to the states to determine mariage rules and regulations. This is in theory. in actual practice, some trial lawyer will file a federal case and probably find a judge that is more knowing and wise than the framers of the Constitution and declare a state ban on gay marriage invalid. The only weapon a state has is an amendment to the state constitution.

BTW, I joined this blog to engage in reasoned, logical argument with people with whom I may, or may not disagree. However, some of the hatred and venom poured out in the name of argument is stomach turning. While respecting everyone’s right to free speech, that does mean that I admire such childish screeds.

Posted by: John back at April 24, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #142748

JayJay,

Nice post. Too bad our Conservative brothers and sisters don’t realize the following statement…

Our Congressman and women place their hand on the Bible to uphold the Constitution. They don’t place their hands on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.

Posted by: Vincent Vega at April 24, 2006 5:38 PM
Comment #142752

Wonderful Post Snow,

Frankly i find this latest attempt for open bigotry as an awful flash back to the Jim Crowe Laws of The Recontruction Period Southern States. If gay marriage and gay adoption are to be banned by the federal government have we done anything but become the very “freedom haters” which the RRC(republican ruling class) Politicians loves to say are attacking us abroad?

Posted by: Dylan Young at April 24, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #142759

It’s unfortunate that for many this the only issue they will think about while this country sinks like a stone into an abyss of red debt and oil-dirty blood. Republicans know many people don’t want gay marriage written into law, so they pump up this issue to distract the bigots. JoeBagoDonuts - wake up, your party is trying to manipulate you and take your eyes off the ball.

Posted by: Max at April 24, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #142762

JayJay,

I was raised in a fundamentalist church and it’s taken another 40+ years to get the gook out of my head. I always wondered how my church could lean so hard on some verses and seem to totally ignore others, usually saying that the Old Testament was obsolete and had been replaced by New Testament teachings. but then they still taught the Ten Commandments, and Genesis creation, etc…..I could never make it gel in my head. Your list reminds me of why I started looking for another way long ago.

I am so upset by the hatred and venom spewed by the “religious right”, and feel such a sense of powerlessness. I read so much reasonable argument and debate on this site, but I don’t believe there is any way to open the minds of people who are so angry and scared. I wasn’t sure how we’d get through Bush’s first four years, and I’m not convinced we’ll make it till the end of his term — his politics might get us blown up before then.

If it doesn’t, this gay marriage issue and other hate-filled issues will be the undoing of our great republic. How in the world can any thinking, reasoning person make a serious argument that in our land of liberty, freedom, separation of church and state — it’s okay to tell consenting adults how they should live their lives if there’s no harm to someone else? And how can private sexual practices between consenting adults harm others? Why aren’t they going after the molesters? the rapists? with the same venom and diatribe? Or if they want to go after those whose sexual practices are different but between consenting adults, how about going after the swingers? BYW, many of the women I know who are sexual abuse survivors were molested at the hands of deacons and elders of their churches who just happened to also be their fathrs or step-fathers. There is so much sexual shame and repression in most churches today, having the influences of Puritanism that helped found our country. If more people could get comfortable with their own God-given sexuality, then maybe they could leave others alone.

Posted by: MaggieRose at April 24, 2006 6:41 PM
Comment #142764

John Back, Vincent Vega’s, and Dylan Young’s posts just sparked an idea on a simple solution to this topic…

Rather than ignore states rights by trying to ban marriage between same sex couples across the entire country with a Constitutional amendment that would affect all, like it or not, we instead pass an amendment that says that if you’re a registered to vote for the GOP and you’re gay, you cannot ever be married.
This way, aside from the small sliver of “Log Cabin” folks everybody gets to feel happy and righteous in their souls. Republican’s get to outlaw what they consider the “godless filth” of committed gay lovers within their party being allowed to have the same rights as the straight folks. Meanwhile, everyone else (Dems, Independents, Third Party people) will be pleased to see our gay brothers and sisters finally being allowed to have the exact same civil rights and freedoms as any other taxpayer in America.

Comments?

Posted by: Adrienne at April 24, 2006 6:43 PM
Comment #142767

One point is unanswered from the CONs/REPs side - do you favor this legislation or not? I hear lots of “Well, you guys hate people too” or “these guys have done something decent…” BLAH BLAH BLAH. Stay on point. It’s not about avoiding blame - it’s about looking at the issue.

Posted by: tony at April 24, 2006 6:56 PM
Comment #142771

JBOD,

“What I would NOT want is for a couple to be legally married in one state and another state be forced to recognize it.”

The Constitution (its “Full faith & credit” clause) requires that the states honor each others’ legal decisions. It’s necessary for any kind of national government.

Imagine IL choosing not to recognize MO driver’s licenses, and pulling over and impounding the vehicle of every MO driver.

Imagine CT not honoring child custody orders from NY courts.

This is why serious conservatives know that only a Constitutional amendment can prohibit same-sex marriage. ALL the case law is against prohibiting same-sex marriage on both equal protection and full faith & credit grounds.

Marriage licenses is clearly a reserved power - only states issue marriage licenses. All precedent since 1962 (I believe) advances the idea that states cannot refuse to grant licenses to consenting adults based on choice of partner, a decision expanded in Lawrence v. Texas.

DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) is clearly unconstitutional on its face, all that needs to happen is for a legally-married couple to be refused some benefit of marriage in another state - boom! An actionable federal case with all the rpecedent on the side of the married couple.

That’s why serious conservatives are terrified - they literally have no legal ground on their side.

But undoing the full faith & credit clause? That scares me.

Posted by: Arr-squared at April 24, 2006 7:06 PM
Comment #142772

joebagodonuts,

You comments are preposterous. Did you read the top article in entirety? Was the reductio-ad-abserdum argument lost on you?

We can limit laws to PEOPLE. That is reasonable since it is people who make the laws. Your comment about animals is offensive and misplaced.

…and the laws are meant to judge everone EQUALLY under the law. I don’t advocate polygamy. I think it is an inherently exploitive practice that cannot be justified religiously, or any other way. However, I can understand those who argue for it as freedom they should be EQUALLY allowed to practice. The way to beat polygamy, is to advocate for EQUALITY of the women being exploited by it, not by merely mindlessly outlawing it without recognition of the legal issues involved.

Inherent in the anti-gay marriage advocacy, is the assumption that it is a pratiice that is sinful in the eyes of their religious beleifs. Such an arguement is rediculous when applied to civil laws in a nation that advocates a constituion with the anti-establishment clause. I just don’t get why this is so hard to understand. This is NOT just America for a few, THIS IS AMERICA FOR EVERYBODY…or not at all. You can’t have it any other way.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 24, 2006 7:09 PM
Comment #142773

All this issue proves is that the Republicans have nothing to run on, so lets scare the American people into voting against their best interests. Its not just about two people wanting to spend the rest of their lives together, its about protecting property and getting all the rights and benefits that married people share.

BTW
Lets pass a law that forces pro-lifers to adopt children from unwanted pregnancies.

Posted by: Pat at April 24, 2006 7:13 PM
Comment #142780

JayJay,
Good try! It’s a shame that some people are so afraid of new ideas that they end up cutting off our heads while they cut off their own. I thank God that He gave me the power to think, and will-power to choose. I can be open-minded enough to NOT be afraid of those who are different.

I suspect many of these same ‘thinkers’(I use the word losely) :

Would have been too afraid to have fought against the British,

Just assumed slavery had never been brought up, let alone actually believe that Blacks, Afro-American’s or whatever were ‘real’ people,

Are the same people who probably tried to and may still pretend there was no problem with the NAZI final solution,

And are also the ones who had mothers who were afraid to go outside the home to work,wore dresses and pearls to clean, and were called ‘Baby ’ by their big manly fathers.

They are afraid of anything that might, maybe, possibly, rock what they see as their nice secure lives. What they don’t seem to realize is these very people they fear are the ones who can bring new ideas to light, offer solutions to troublesome problems, and in general allow our GREAT COUNTRY to continue to GROW as it should.

Posted by: Linda H. at April 24, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #142784

Oh No, Bible quotes, here we go again, providing an opening for the organized haters who believe fairy tales can come true, it can happen to you, if you have the mind of a 7 year old.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 24, 2006 8:09 PM
Comment #142787

I have advocated for gay marriage on these blog pages. But I have also pointed out that the idea is not popular. Referenda against gay marriage still win by 60-70% margins. Are you willing to believe that 60-70% of the people are Republicans?

Re the hate - I think liberals and Dems have enough of that to go around. Just look at this blog. You find a lot more hate aimed at conservatives. And then we have the liberals who are confident that they are ones oppressed. They get together and talk about how conservatives hate them and spend their time obsessing. Let me let you in on the secret. When liberals are not around, we usually don’t talk about them at all.

Posted by: Jack at April 24, 2006 8:46 PM
Comment #142791

We should have Koran quotes too. Then the nuts can argue who is holier than thou…

Posted by: Aldous at April 24, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #142794

Laws are made for the public good. Seat belts, smoking bans, motorcycle helmets, child pornography laws, sex offender registries, laws against incest and statutory rape are all intended to protect various groups within our society or the society as a whole. Societal norms are established by the majority for the good of society- like it or not. That is what voting is all about. Freedom has and must have boundaries established by the governed. Get out the vote and let the majority rule.

By the way, if you are so concerned about states rights, then you won’t mind overturning Roe vs. Wade. Lets let the states choose, shall we?

Posted by: rbt at April 24, 2006 9:04 PM
Comment #142797

Jack,

This is not about oppression of liberals or conservatives. Those are ideologies, not people. This is about oppression of a class of people based on a natural variation of sexual orientation.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 24, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #142798

“Re the hate - I think liberals and Dems have enough of that to go around. Just look at this blog.” (Read these quotes and then tell me who they came from…)

—- gaygaysnow Your attempt to make america gay will never work.You sir are out numbered and its all ready been tried in california an boston.stop trying to shove your filth down the throats of the american people.

—- It is amazing how clean the air smells when you pull your head out of your ass.

—- Your so freakin stupid.

—-“So vote in that BITCH hillary and you get your beloved slick willie back and the world will be safe again and the camel kissers will stop killing and we can all be gay again. What a great idea I feel safer already just think no one will have to die because bill and hill will stop globel warming.besides who needs borders we can all learn to speak spanish and we all will be set free from the evil we now live under. Then we can raise taxes and surrender to the war on terror woooo that will be so kool just think how proud we could all be again.”

“And then we have the liberals who are confident that they are ones oppressed. They get together and talk about how conservatives hate them and spend their time obsessing. Let me let you in on the secret. When liberals are not around, we usually don’t talk about them at all.”

(WOW - that’s pretty obsessive. As far as not talking about them at all - if the red blog is any indication, then you guys can’t shut up about us. As far as CONs/REPs go - I feel a little sorry for you, you have to root for this Administration… but no, we don’t talk much about YOU, we care a lot about who is running the country - and there’s a difference.)

Posted by: tony at April 24, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #142800

BTW, lets also identify anti-smoking advocates as hatemongers and bigots. The Catholic Church is against gay marriage, all Catholics must be hatemongers and bigots. To be against polygamy makes one a hatemonger? Objections to gay marriage are not about hate, they are about protecting societal norms and children.

The biggest difference between republicans and democrats today is that republicans choose based on intellect, dems choose based on emotion. Sometimes you just have to recognize that something is not right. Remember right and wrong? It was pretty simple for the last 2000 years, then all of a sudden, nothing is wrong anymore. Anything goes. Grow up.

Posted by: rbt at April 24, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #142801

Jack:

“When liberals are not around, we usually don’t talk about them at all.”

HA!!! I guess you have never been to BlogsforBush.com, Redstate.org and StudentsforWar.com cause they ALWAYS talk about liberals and their sites are 100% GOP.

Posted by: Aldous at April 24, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #142802

rbt,

There is a reason that our form of government has a Judicial Branch. The Constitution and the Judicial branch decide which things are subject to majority rule and which are protected from majority rule. Our civil rights are clearly protected from majority rule by the Constitution.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 24, 2006 9:16 PM
Comment #142806

very well said JayJay…whatever happened to our country having a separation of church and state, i guess that was all a bunch of bullshit. Basing a hateful constitutional amendment on religious beliefs is ABSURD. We should let people live their lives the way they see fit.

Posted by: tyla at April 24, 2006 9:33 PM
Comment #142807

“Objections to gay marriage are not about hate, they are about protecting societal norms and children.”

So, now we’re trying to govern by what one group of people consider normal. To hell with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness… it’s now “blend in or else?”

“anti-smoking advocates as hatemongers and bigots.”

??? What??? Now, that’s a tangent. And, in case you’re wondering, tobacco kills 1200 people a DAY! Preventing that is hatred?

Posted by: tony at April 24, 2006 9:34 PM
Comment #142808

If such an Amendment is passed (what with current abuses of eminent domain laws, spying on citizens, secret prisons, torture, fiscal and moral bankruptcy, government of nightmare proportions, voters that allow all of it, etc.), there will then be no doubt that we are well into step (1) …

Based on history, it will then only be a matter of time before step (2) follows.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 24, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #142814

d.a.n.,

wow, dan. I never thought I’d say this, but I actually agree with you. I hope we can stop this cycle and re-invigorate mass faith in our country before this happens as you predict.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at April 24, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #142820

“The closer we get to the election the more they show their true colors as hatemongers and bigots.” No hatred or bigotry in that statemet, eh, JJ?

If a politician is not ashamed of supporting same-sex marriage, then let him/her say so. Otherwise, they show their true hypocritcal colors by trying to play both sides just to get votes. At least some Republicans aren’t afraid to state their beliefs, maybe because a majority of Americans share them.

Posted by: mac6115cd at April 24, 2006 10:02 PM
Comment #142822

Actually, I think this renewed effort is less idealogical and much more political. The repub politicans have been losing ground with their base and need to strengthen it. So they are going to an issue that had strong support with their conservative base, and plan to schedule the activity close to the mid term elections so that the last thing on conservative voters’ minds will be the issue of gay marriage.
If it were not for this fact, we would probably not be seeing any activity on this issue by those on the right side of the aisle. It’s absurd to think that they really want to pass this amendment. They just want to put on a good show, then go to the polls.
The truth is that they know it won’t pass. They also know that many of their own party don’t really want it either.

Posted by: Cole at April 24, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #142830

Thanks for doing the Biblical research. One question. I have daughters. This contest thing,do I sell tickets or is it a footrace kind of thing?

And please you trolls
We already have plenty of examples of the tradgic problems unresolved latient homosexuality can inflict on people. Please refrain from giving us yours.

Posted by: BillS at April 24, 2006 10:39 PM
Comment #142833


Let Frist introduce his anti-gay marriage amendment. Then let he who is without sin cast the first vote.

Posted by: jlw at April 24, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #142834

I think you’re absolutely right, Cole.

“If a politician is not ashamed of supporting same-sex marriage, then let him/her say so. If a politician is not ashamed of supporting same-sex marriage, then let him/her say so.”

Feingold just did. True to fearless form, the man stood up for his principles.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 24, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #142859
d.a.n., wow, dan. I never thought I’d say this, but I actually agree with you. I hope we can stop this cycle and re-invigorate mass faith in our country before this happens as you predict. RGF
RGF, Thanks. I see this type of Amendment as one of the first steps down the slippery slope toward tyranny.

If Congress wants to make themselves useful, why don’t they work on some long-time, badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer Amendments, how about:

  • (a) One-Purpose-Per-BILL Amendment: This would reduce pork-barrel, graft, waste, and corporate welfare. It would let the voters know exactly why and who voted for or against a BILL. As it is now, no one can know why any incumbent voted for or against a 10,000 page, pork-laden BILL.

  • (b) Campaign Finance Reform: Limits must be set on campaign donations. Reform in this area is very badly needed. Government should not be FOR SALE. Bought-and-Paid-For incumbents are too beholding to their big-money-donors. Also prohibit members of Congress (and their staff and family members) from accepting gifts of any kind from lobbyists and special interest groups.

  • (c) Election Reform: Election fraud threatens the democracy. So does main parties trying to block access to ballots for third parties and independents.

  • (d) Tax Reform: The tax system is extremely complicated, abused, unfair. A simple and fair tax system is badly needed.

  • (e) Balanced Budget Amendment: The government can not even account for where all the money goes. In 2003, $24.5 billion dollars could not be accounted for. The un-reconciled $24.5 billion could have funded the entire Department of Justice for an entire year. A Balanced Budget Amendment is needed to limit spending except for national emergencies (only).

  • (g) Lobbying and Influence Peddling: Make it illegal for members of Congress and senior staff from taking jobs as lobbyists until after 5 years of leaving public service. The American people don’t elect their representatives to promote their bank accounts and financial status upon leaving office for a lucrative lobbying positions.

  • (g) Ethics Commission: Create an independent Ethics Commission to monitor and investigate unethical conduct, and report illegal activity so that violators will be held accountable.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 25, 2006 12:35 AM
Comment #142861

You forgot to add the removal from Congress the ability to raise its own salaries.

Always annoyed me when that would always pass.

Posted by: Aldous at April 25, 2006 12:49 AM
Comment #142870

Aldous:

You’re right. Pay raises for congress do seem to be a perennial consensus issue.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 25, 2006 2:37 AM
Comment #142892

Adrienne Proposed (Modestly Enough):

Rather than ignore states rights by trying to ban marriage between same sex couples across the entire country with a Constitutional amendment that would affect all, like it or not, we instead pass an amendment that says that if you’re a registered to vote for the GOP and you’re gay, you cannot ever be married.

8o}

Glmph! A-HAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahah!

Oh God…

(Pat had a good Modest Proposal to offer as well.)


Nice post, JayJay.

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 25, 2006 7:30 AM
Comment #142897

You spend alot of time with characterizations. How about giving people the benefit of a doubt.
The issue isn’t anti gay as much as pro family. It has to do with the value of marriage. It seems both sides call the other demons whenever they disagree. This is similar to what churches do.
I personally have known a few gays, was always nice and a friendly to them. Most of them ended up arrested for molesting. My wife had her father step in when a teacher who was one went after her. A close friend of mine who was one molested his daughters. I have more examples. They don’t have a good track record with me. This isn’t a scientific study but makes me cautious. I met a professor who has a gay son. The prof and I hit it off well and we are going to get together and discuss this. This is reasonable discourse.
How do you tell the difference between a couple guys and their crib and a gay couple without looking in their bedroom ?

Posted by: kruser at April 25, 2006 7:45 AM
Comment #142899

kruser,

The issue isn’t anti gay as much as pro family.
Nice try, but reframing the issue into more positive sounding language doesn’t change what it is. What you’re implying is that gay couples can’t be as good at parenting as straight couples…your entire premise is anti-gay.
I personally have known a few gays, was always nice and a friendly to them. Most of them ended up arrested for molesting.
I find this hard to believe, but I guess I’ve got no reason to doubt your word. I have a large number of gay friends—both single ones and ones in stable relationships—and none of them have ever been arrested or accused of molesting anyone. In contrast, I have known more than one straight person that has been arrested for abuse and molestation. Perhaps you’ve had a bad track record, but it’s definitely not the norm. I know a lesbian couple that has adopted two young girls from China (the girls were basically found abandoned in ditches), and they are one of the most stable, well-adjusted families I have ever known.

Posted by: Charles Wager at April 25, 2006 8:49 AM
Comment #142901

jayjay:

I’m sorry you jumped so quickly on the dog marriage thing without looking at the point I was making. I’m not comparing marrying a pet with marrying a person—-I’m simply saying there are crazy people out there who will want equality for their specific issue. You focused on the symptom while I was presenting the problem.

So what you are saying is you are for equality as long as you are in the group that recieves it.

I think EVERYone feels this way to a degree, including you and me. I’m assuming you have limits to your equality ideas, or do you have no limits whatsoever? Is polygamy acceptable to you, in the name of equality? It isn’t to me—I’d draw the line there. If you want everyone to have equality though, then you logically have to be accepting of something like polygamy.

Some religions forbid the use of medicines or blood transfusions etc, even if it might save a life. Do we accept these people as equal, or do we say that they must do whatever possible in order to save the life? Example: A child will die without a transfusion, but the parents will not consent on religious grounds. If you are the decision maker, what do you decide? Do you give them equality, in that you accept their religious ideas as equal to any other religious ideas, or do you save the life of the child?


Posted by: jhoebagodonuts at April 25, 2006 9:08 AM
Comment #142902

Good post, Jay Jay, albeit a little scary. As this administration has no more political capital to spend, it appears to me that the strategy du jour is to try to re-energize their ultra-conservative base by trumpeting their alleged morality.

This administration has failed in Iraq, failed to secure our borders, failed to see the diviseivness in handing over port security to the UAE, failed to do anything abbout rising gas, energy and medical costs, failed to see the dangers in an ever-growing deficit, failed to help the legions of those afflicted by Katrina, and failed to build an economic policy that benefits anyone other than corporations and the wealthy. They have failed…period. So with no more political capital to spend, embracing a hypocritical moral high ground (beginning with the push to ban gay marriage) is how they will push their platform in 2008. Let’s just hope the voting public doesn’t get sucked into it this time.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at April 25, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #142904

Disagreement does not mean hatred or make one a bigot. Some people just think its gross and don’t want to be subjected to it.

Republican hatred JayJay?
Missouri news outlets conducted exit polls on the gay marriage amendment vote and reported that 80-90 percent of black Americans here, were against allowing gays to marry. But yet, the majority voted for kerry for President.

This issue is just another wedge issue that the Reps are smart enough to capitalize on while the Dems keep losing votes with their “our way or no way” line of thought.

Fix your own house, THEN worry about others.

Posted by: kctim at April 25, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #142905

kctim — Dems keep losing votes with their “our way or no way” line of thought.

This is a Democratic line of thought? I thought it belonged to Bush.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at April 25, 2006 9:52 AM
Comment #142906

“My wife had her father step in when a teacher who was one went after her. A close friend of mine who was one molested his daughters.”

OK - and these pedophiles were women? There’s a difference. Did you know that 94% of all pedophiles in jail are “devout” heterosexuals?

“Some people just think its gross and don’t want to be subjected to it.”

Great - now we get to legislate based on personal taste? Subjected to it? Like rape? Are you being raped or are you being petty?

“This issue is just another wedge issue that the Reps are smart enough to capitalize on…”

So, your OK with the blatant use of an issue to split voters rather than actual responsible focus on the real day-to-day issues.

Posted by: tony at April 25, 2006 9:53 AM
Comment #142908

Being opposed to homosexuality is not the equivalent to being a hatemonger or a bigot. The problem with homosexuality is biology. If I were to say I hate black humans, then I am a racist. A black human is born black and should not be discriminated for something they had no choice in.

However, are homosexuals born that way or did they choose that lifestyle. If it is a choice then society has a right to condemn it the same way they condemn rapist.

Biology dictates that we humans are heterosexual in order for the species to survive. However, I personally know people who are born with a uterus and have a penus. Therefore, as I have gotten older I have come to accept that biology may have something to do with people being homosexuals.

On the other hand I have also worked with a kid who is gay because his uncle would come in and masterbate him and tell him he was teaching him how to have sex. Yes, he was but not heterosexual sex. So was this kid born gay or taught to be gay? Is NAMBLA teaching homosexuality or do they have some sort of unique GAYDAR that I am lacking? We owe it to all kids to answer these questions.

That is my fundamental problem: What percent of homosexuals are born that way and what percent were taught or choose to be? If they are not born that way then we should be strong enough as a society to do the right thing and help them, but not by giving them equal marriage status.

Once you are strong enough to deal with my fundamental problem you will get my support, but until then you have no right to shove your lifestyle in my face and the face of my children.

If you notice I do not believe my religion has anything to do with dealing with this issue. My religion once condemned blacks as inhuman, but biology won the argument. Once again, we need to answer the issue of homosexuality in terms of biology. That is if you are honest enough and willing to accept the answers you find. Quite frankly, I am not sure what the right answer is but I believe it is a combination of both. Lets join together and find out how to determine the truth.

Posted by: pat at April 25, 2006 10:04 AM
Comment #142918

“However, are homosexuals born that way or did they choose that lifestyle. If it is a choice then society has a right to condemn it the same way they condemn rapist.”

No - homosexuality is consensual, rape is not,. One is illegal… right?

“What percent of homosexuals are born that way and what percent were taught or choose to be?”

Well, all gay children come from straight parents (at least biologically.) It’s foolish to think you can actually teach someone to be gay… just like you can not teach someone to be straight. Sure you can sometimes apply enough emotional/social pressure to have someone avoid their true nature - but that’s hardly the same thing. Sexuality is ingrained in the most primative parts of our brains - and it’s either there to begin with or part of a culmination of very early life experiences. Why should either matter - it is the way some people are, and to wish them to change to make you more comfortable is a very pathetic way to live. (And I mean YOU in the general sense.)

“Once you are strong enough to deal with my fundamental problem you will get my support, but until then you have no right to shove your lifestyle in my face and the face of my children.”

??? What does strength have to do with biological questions? It’s a scientific thing, yes? Also, it’s not my lifestyle - other than to be American. Being American is to honor freedom, in all it’s forms.

The only reason this lifestyle is “in your face” is because you make it so. If people would just relax and allow people to choose their own style to live, then this issue would be as “in your face” as the people who directly impact your day-to-day life. Gay people do not want your attention - they would prefer if you would simply mind your own business.

“If you notice I do not believe my religion has anything to do with dealing with this issue. “

Religion is at the heart of this problem. Once we made marriage - both religious as well as civil - a single, legal term we were forced to accept changes to one as changes to both. I have no issue with people keeping control of their religious ways, but that means that they must give up some ownership on marriage. They really already have - you can be married and religious or just married - so why can’t they allow marriage/non-religious to operate separately from married/religious? Please, explain to me how allowing people I will never know to be married in any way, shape or form reduces the value or sanctity of my own marriage.

Posted by: tony at April 25, 2006 10:36 AM
Comment #142919

“Great - now we get to legislate based on personal taste? Subjected to it? Like rape? Are you being raped or are you being petty?”

Just stating a fact Tony. Are people going to vote to support something that disgusts them? No.
Right or wrong, its human nature.

“So, your OK with the blatant use of an issue to split voters rather than actual responsible focus on the real day-to-day issues”

Am I ok with it? No. But it is politics you know.
Both sides do it, the Republicans are just better at it. They know which issues cross party lines and jump on them. Gun control and gay marriage are perfect examples.

The personal freedom and right to marry whoever you wish, seems like a real day-to-day issue to me.

Posted by: kctim at April 25, 2006 10:41 AM
Comment #142920

“This is a Democratic line of thought? I thought it belonged to Bush”

Bush was re-elected. The Dems lost, again.
Apparently, the American people thought the Dems “our way or no way” message was worse than Bushs’.

Posted by: kctim at April 25, 2006 10:44 AM
Comment #142921

I wonder how many of our Republican friends are aware of the Log Cabin Republicans.

http://online.logcabin.org/issues/defendconstitution.html

One brief quote:
“We should not be surprised that the radical right is using its last desperate weapon against gays and lesbians. With public opinion polls showing increased support for inclusion and fairness, the extreme right is desperately trying to scare the American people. Fear is all they have left. Our nation’s history shows fear and bigotry will eventually lose to liberty and fairness. However, we still must forcefully counter any attacks coming from the radical right. Our best weapons are logic and fairness.”

So, we Liberal Democrats aren’t the only ones to recognize the culture of hatred among the Religious Right.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at April 25, 2006 10:44 AM
Comment #142923

pat,

However, are homosexuals born that way or did they choose that lifestyle. If it is a choice then society has a right to condemn it the same way they condemn rapist.
Nope, your conclusion is flawed. For example, following Christianity (or any other religion) is a choice. By your “logic”, society has the right to condemn all religions the same way they condemn rapists… Your conclusion is flawed because you are starting with a flawed premise—that there is something “wrong” with homosexuality.
That is my fundamental problem: What percent of homosexuals are born that way and what percent were taught or choose to be?
The fundamental answer: It makes no difference whether it’s taught or learned.
On the other hand I have also worked with a kid who is gay because his uncle would come in and masterbate him and tell him he was teaching him how to have sex. Yes, he was but not heterosexual sex.
He wasn’t teaching him how to have sex at all—he was criminally molesting him, which has nothing to do with his or the kid’s sexual orientation. It’s a huge leap to draw the conclusion that this is the reason the kid is gay.
Once you are strong enough to deal with my fundamental problem you will get my support, but until then you have no right to shove your lifestyle in my face and the face of my children.
I could make another comparison with Christianity here, but I won’t because I highly doubt anyone is trying to shove anything in your face.

Posted by: Charles Wager at April 25, 2006 10:45 AM
Comment #142925

“What percent of homosexuals are born that way and what percent were taught or choose to be?”

How is either, any of your business?
It’s not!

Posted by: kctim at April 25, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #142928

“If we were to wake up some morning and find that everyone was the same race, creed and color, we would find some other cause for prejudice by noon.”
George Aiken

Posted by: russ at April 25, 2006 10:52 AM
Comment #142938

The Democrats would be wise not to let this issue turn into a partisan debate as it did before the last election. There are supporters and opponents on both sides of the aisle. VP Cheney’s daughter is gay, and I’m sure he was torn between his love for his daughter and his support for the President and his position. Unfortunately, this whole debate is run by the extremists on both sides.

I consider myself a left-of-center moderate and I believe in civil unions and the benefits and rights that come with them (adoption, survivor benefits), but my religious and traditional values compell me to stop short of marriage.

This is an issue that cries out for compromise, not a constitutional amendment.

Posted by: Tim in NY at April 25, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #142943

Tony,

Nice attempt at dancing.

You did absolutely nothing but express your opinion and presented zero facts. The difference between you and me, is have the courage to admit I do not have all the answers. You insist you do have all the answers.

“No - homosexuality is consensual, rape is not,. One is illegal… right?” So are you saying that homosexuals are not born that way? Societies (some still do) believed it was OK (consensual) to stone people to death, the Salem Witch Trials were consenual and both were/are legal at the time. Legality does not always mean right. And is homosexuality always consenual? Were all the homosexual Catholic priest exercising their consensual rights? Is NAMBLA exercing its consenual right? Societies do have the right to regulate consensual acts of humans.

“Well, all gay children come from straight parents (at least biologically.)” So none of those gay parents at the White House Easter Egg Hunt gave birth to their children. Melisa Ethrigde didn’t give birth to her children. Does the truth even matter to you?

“It’s foolish to think you can actually teach someone to be gay… just like you can not teach someone to be straight.” No its not. As you yourself admitted we have primal instincts. We are animals at our core. People used to teach lefthanders to be righthanders. Many homosexuals (that are actually born that way) go through much of their life as a heterosexual (because they were taught to). Our humanity is taught. And yes you can teach a kid to be gay. The question is why would you. Unfortunately, the part that you aren’t willing to admit is there are some sick people in this world and some happen to be homosexuals. I believe it is just as wrong for a homosexual to be taught to be heterosexual as I believe the opposite.

“The only reason this lifestyle is “in your face” is because you make it so. If people would just relax and allow people to choose their own style to live, then this issue would be as “in your face” as the people who directly impact your day-to-day life. Gay people do not want your attention - they would prefer if you would simply mind your own business.” What a crock. And a true testiment to your dishonesty. So Gay Days in Disney is not in the face of families visiting the park - this is just an attempt to get me to mind my own business? You do not see any heterosexual days happening at Disney. What about reading to elementary kids about why Dick has to Dads - this is not in my face - this is you minding your own business? The parents that aren’t allowed to mind there own business by opting their kids out of these classes - how do you eplain this? What about the flamboyant display in the Gay Pride parades? Is there a Heterosexual Pride Parade?

I served on board submarine and we a gay sailor. Everyone knew he was but he didn’t put it my face, he didn’t try to force his lifestyle on me, and he didn’t call me a bigot or hatemonger because I disagreed with him. And quess what he was allowed to do his job and continue to serve his country.

“Also, it’s not my lifestyle - other than to be American. Being American is to honor freedom, in all it’s forms.” Being an American does not give you the right to freedoms in all it’s form. Murder is a choice, but it is not a freedom. Just because you choose to do something that is not currently illegal it does not make it a freedom. Just because some CHOOSES to be gay does not make it a freedom. If someone is born gay then it is a freedom. But that is the question.

Once you get that I have a valid reason to question the virtues of homosexuality you will get support. I would like to support you. However, until you show concern for how your actions (or the actions of those you think you are helping) are affecting my kids you can forgot my support.

Posted by: Pat at April 25, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #142950

Charles,

Your argument is flawed as well and that is my point. Now one on this post has a clue (including myself) what the truth is.

However, I feel confident NAMBLA is wrong. If all we were talking about is was consenual sex between ADULTS then I am not writing anything on this post. But we are not and this is where the homosexual communtity loses with me because I have not seen them take a moral stand to protect children. I have even heard a Gay Rights leader (my appologies for not remembering the name) say that she had the right to put it in the face of kids because they had to learn about homosexuals. Says who? The gay community gets to dictate how my kids are raised.

Charles, are you willing to condemn NAMBLA and all public displays of homosexuality that can affect children? My guess is you have great spin for this.

“Just because someone chooses to do something it does not make it right.
⦣x20AC;œWhat percent of homosexuals are born that way and what percent were taught or choose to be?⦣x20AC;

How is either, any of your business?
It’s not!

Posted by: kctim”

It is none of my business if it is consenting adults. But good job at plucking only one part of what I am talking about to make your point. My entire point with all of this is HOW DO WE PROTECT OUR KIDS. If a child is taught to be gay it is, as a member of society, ever bit my business.

Posted by: pat at April 25, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #142954

“Just because some CHOOSES to be gay does not make it a freedom. If someone is born gay then it is a freedom. But that is the question”

It does not matter how or why one is gay. The right to care and love whoever one wishes is a freedom afforded to every American.

“However, until you show concern for how your actions (or the actions of those you think you are helping) are affecting my kids you can forgot my support”

What are these “actions” you speak of and just how do they “affect” your kids?

Posted by: kctim at April 25, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #142956

rbt,

“The biggest difference between republicans and democrats today is that republicans choose based on intellect, dems choose based on emotion. Sometimes you just have to recognize that something is not right. Remember right and wrong? It was pretty simple for the last 2000 years, then all of a sudden, nothing is wrong anymore. Anything goes. Grow up.”

You do realize that the Catholic Church is against the Iraq war right? So how as a Republican do you choose if it is right or wrong? Or do you leave those hard decisions to God?

Posted by: Vincent Vega at April 25, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #142957

“And is homosexuality always consensual? Were all the homosexual Catholic priest exercising their consensual rights? Is NAMBLA exercing its consenual right? Societies do have the right to regulate consensual acts of humans”

That is not homosexual behavior - it is pedophilia… if it’s not consensual, then it’s illegal. Plain and simple.

“all gay children come from straight parent” It’s a biological truth - a male and female created a child. You bring up a good point, that gay people can be involved in having children… but they seem to be having an average number of straight kids vs gay kids. Seems to be indeterminate - based of parent’s sexual preference… that was my point.

“And yes you can teach a kid to be gay” No. You can teach behaviors, but not inclination or instinct. Avoiding your true nature is a behavior. I believe homosexuality is more instinctual.

“What a crock. And a true testament to your dishonesty. So Gay Days in Disney is not in the face of families visiting the park - this is just an attempt to get me to mind my own business?”

Now you confusing a reaction to the lack of freedom with flamboyant expression. I will admit that there are people who are unavoidable gay - larger than life - but the same goes for overtly macho men. It’s their personalities that are in-your-face, not the lifestyle expressed. If people would allow these people to go about their daily lives as they see fit, then they would do exactly that. It’s kind of like people in the 60s wishes black people would stop trying to force their ways on people. It’s a reaction/response.

“Being an American does not give you the right to freedoms in all it’s form. Murder is a choice, but it is not a freedom. Just because you choose to do something that is not currently illegal it does not make it a freedom. Just because some CHOOSES to be gay does not make it a freedom.”

Again, you are comparing illegal activities with a lifestyle. (Speaking collectively from this post) People wanting to marry animals, sexually attack children, or murder others are illegal acts because they involve non-consensual acts. It seems that your mindset will not separate these distinctions.

“You insist you do have all the answers.”
“What a crock. And a true testiment to your dishonesty. “

Those are your perceptions and have nothing to do with reality. I do not have all the answers, nor would I presume to ever preach the answers to my life. I prefer everyone find their own answers… and be given the freedom to do so.

These are my opinions - and have always been stated as such. How can you presume “dishonesty” with opinion?

Posted by: tony at April 25, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #142958

and why do I keep spelling consentual as consensual? (Must be some sort of Freudian slip…???)

Posted by: tony at April 25, 2006 12:03 PM
Comment #142959

kctim,

Again, the arguments from your side are pure opinion. Is something right just because someone chooses to do it? Are humans biologically designed to be heterosexual? If yes, is there a possiblity that sometimes something else happens? Are all homosexuals born that way? Are children being abused and ignored in attempt to make homosexuality mainstream? This is what I am asking. And yes it is both my right and business to ask both these questions. But I have yet to see anyone on this post provide me with an answer.

Please do not reply with opinion. I am looking for the truth. Because as I have already said I do not know what the truth is in this case. Your opinions no matter how often you state them will not become facts.

Posted by: Pat at April 25, 2006 12:03 PM
Comment #142961

Pat,

“It is none of my business if it is consenting adults. But good job at plucking only one part of what I am talking about to make your point. My entire point with all of this is HOW DO WE PROTECT OUR KIDS. If a child is taught to be gay it is, as a member of society, ever bit my business.”

It’s called communication.
It’s called taking responsibility for how your children are raised.

Gays exist, that is a fact.
Teaching a child about gays isn’t teaching a child to be gay.

NAMBLA is abhorent. It is child abuse. It is a crime.

Being a homosexual isn’t.

You cannot equate all gays with NAMBLA any more than I can equate all Christians with Pat Robertson or Jimmy Swaggart.

You guys all talk about the “sanctity” of marriage, yet more than 50% of marriages in this country end in divorce. That fact alone does more damage to “family values” than homosexuality ever will.

And you can’t blame that on gays.

Posted by: Rocky at April 25, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #142962

Pat,

The truth is it is none of your business how anyone has sex. At what point do you have the audacity to think it is?

EVERY species of animal studied have homosexual characteristics. Go rent that movie about penguins and you will know what I mean. But the bottom line is that you have no right to ask anyone what they do in their bedroom.

Another one of your quotes, “And yes you can teach a kid to be gay.” Are you kidding or just that uneducated?

Posted by: Vincent Vega at April 25, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #142963
But I have yet to see anyone on this post provide me with an answer.

Actually, you’ve just rejected the answers when given. There’s a huge difference.

Please do not reply with opinion.

That’ll be difficult for us to do when you insist that everything we say is baseless opinion.

Let us know when you have a reasonable standard. Then we’ll respond.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #142964

Tony,
“These are my opinions - and have always been stated as such. How can you presume “dishonesty” with opinion?”
So is it also your opinion that because my opinion differs from yours on the issue of gay marriage that I am a hatemonger and a bigot? If it is then you believe your opinion is fact and my opinion (which is more of a question - because I do not know what is right) is wrong.

Here is my true opinion. If gays were to live their lives as quietly as I do, nobody would give a hoot. As far a the macho man, I am not so sure that is cool anymore. Companies are slowly changing the culture. I like slow. Slow I can explain to my kids. We as a nation are not ready for gay marriage. I hear some people in this post say we have the right to religion but do we if gays are allowed to marry and our tax dollar support this institution? Gay marriage is not about equal right its about economics. Companies started giving benefits and everyone now thinks these are rights.

“”Again, you are comparing illegal activities with a lifestyle. (Speaking collectively from this post) People wanting to marry animals, sexually attack children, or murder others are illegal acts because they involve non-consensual acts. It seems that your mindset will not separate these distinctions.”“
It seems you have made my point for why gay marriage is wrong. After all it is illegal - case closed - gays are not allowed to wed each other. Yes, I now see your point. I stand corrected.

Again, I close with the question: Are people born homosexual or taught to be homosexual or in your words ” Avoiding their true nature?”


Posted by: Pat at April 25, 2006 12:28 PM
Comment #142965

“Apparently, the American people thought the Dems “our way or no way” message was worse than Bushs’.”

Do the American people feel the same way now? With Bush at a 32% approval rating, Idon’t think so.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at April 25, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #142970

LawnBoy,

Please present the facts. Just because you present you opinion does not make it right. What is right? Has anyone yet answered if humans were by design intended to be heterosexual? Are people born homosexual or taught to be homosexual? Sure I have heard opinion and I could spout opinion but am I right? No see in your eyes that make me a hatemonger and a bigot. Does society have the right to regulate human choices (here you can answer with an opinion)? I must have missed the factual answers to these questions because all I have read is a bunch of opinion as to why laws should be changed and why my opposition makes me a bigot. While at the same time I have said if you can prove to me that all homosexuals are born that way, then I will support the changes to the laws that you are promoting.

As far as you saying I am claiming your opinion is baseless, that is false. But what I am questioning is what is it based on. Is it based on the opinions of this post or can you point me to some scientific fact to support your based opinion.

Posted by: pat at April 25, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #142971
Are people born homosexual?

Asking this question repeatedly in a political discussion forum doesn’t really seem to be the best place because this isn’t a scientific forum. However Wikipedia has a long article on the issue. Here’s what you would find if you looked in reasonable places:

An increasing number of studies have investigated this link, but no scientific consensus exists as to the specific biological factors that may play a role, nor to the precise nature of their influence on sexual orientation. Causal areas these studies have examined include morphological brain structure, prenatal environment, chromosomes, and viral genetic influence. Methodologically, some studies have used twins as controls.

The main biological determinants of sexual orientation are generally thought to be genetic and hormonal, with some writers suggesting either one or the other are the key factor, and many suggesting that both play a role. Most scientists agree that it is unlikely that there is a single “gay gene” that determines something as complex as sexual orientation, and that it is more likely to be the result of a number of biological factors. Many also agree that social and environmental factors intersect with biology to produce sexual orientation. The view that post-natal environmental influence are the sole determinant of sexual orientation and gender was prominent in the 20th century, but is less widely held in the 21st century.

There’s a lot of data in the Wikipedia article, and you’ll find that there are a lot of studies that suggest that homosexuality has a genetic component, and that at least some (if not most or all) homosexuals are born that way.

This tracks well with anecdotal and historical data. In many societies, homosexuality is taboo, yet homosexuality is found in every society. There’s not a good explanation for why people would choose homosexuality in such societies unless homosexuality were something they were born with.

Also, homosexuality is found in many different animal species, indicating that it’s not an invention of human free will.

Added all together, there’s strong reason to believe that homosexuality is an intrinsic trait, not a choice.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #142975
Has anyone yet answered if humans were by design intended to be heterosexual?

Design? Evolution doesn’t have design in mind. Please don’t beg the question. If you want to base the conversation on religion then be up-front about it.

While at the same time I have said if you can prove to me that all homosexuals are born that way, then I will support the changes to the laws that you are promoting.

Why is the standard of proof that high? What if we demonstrated that homosexuality is intrinsic for 95% percent and chosen for 5%? Would the existence of that 5% that chose the lifestyle be enough for you to justify denying rights to the whole group?

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #142980

“Do the American people feel the same way now? With Bush at a 32% approval rating, I don’t think so”

Now Magoo, you know we will never know the answer to that.
Bush cannot run for re-election, so therefore, it will be whether the people think the Dems or Reps have the milder “my way or no way” message.

Posted by: kctim at April 25, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #142981

pat,

Please present the facts. Just because you present you opinion does not make it right. What is right?
You keep asking for the facts, yet you provide no facts of your own. Why ask what it right…without first asking what is wrong? Can you provide us with any facts that demonstrate homosexuality is wrong? Why are you so convinced that homosexuality is a negative trait? Show us the facts!

Posted by: Charles Wager at April 25, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #142988

Pat
I don’t think I’ve posted my opinion on this issue.
I have simply said it does not matter how one is gay and that it is none of your business how or why they are.
You bring up your children and mention how the “effects” of being gay has a negative impact on them but yet you refuse to mention what those effects are.

Posted by: kctim at April 25, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #142990

LawnBoy,
“Asking this question repeatedly in a political discussion forum doesn’t really seem to be the best place because this isn’t a scientific forum.”
Huh?? So if we were talking about Global Warming in a political discussion (i.e., the Kyoto Treaty) I could dismiss all scientific data you bring to the table.

“Design? Evolution doesn’t have design in mind. Please don’t beg the question. If you want to base the conversation on religion then be up-front about it.”
Nice try but religion is the last thing I want to discuss. If I brought religion into this it would be to easy for you to dismiss me. After all isn’t religion just another man/woman’s opinion. I am still talking about the biology. I am willing to accept all people that are born gay but I want an honest effort from both sides of the isle to find out about those (that you have admitted exist) that were not born that way.

Again, just because you choose something does not make it right. And just because you made a choice you are not guanteed a reward (i.e., gay marriage).

“Why is the standard of proof that high? What if we demonstrated that homosexuality is intrinsic for 95% percent and chosen for 5%? Would the existence of that 5% that chose the lifestyle be enough for you to justify denying rights to the whole group?”
Absolutely not but when the 95% will not admit the existance of 5%, then they are complicit in their denial. If one of those 5% is a child brought into this life by a member of NAMBLA and the 95% is unwilling to condemn NAMBLA then they are complicit in their denial. Again, I have admitted that I believe some people are born gay. It is that 5% that I want to prevent. A choice is not a right. You would think that those who are born gay would want the same thing - after all that effectively ends my argument.


Posted by: pat at April 25, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #142991

“So is it also your opinion that because my opinion differs from yours on the issue of gay marriage that I am a hatemonger and a bigot? “

You are advocating that we limit these people’s freedoms… I am advocating for their freedoms… that is the difference. To prove a crime will be committed (hypothetical), can your prove damage done by allow gay people to be married?

“It seems you have made my point for why gay marriage is wrong. After all it is illegal - case closed - gays are not allowed to wed each other.”

What law are you referring to? There are several states that do not allow gay people to marry - and there are states that do. That seems to be a workable solution. What is being proposed is a Federal law banning gay marriage no matter what an individual state says. 1 - that requires changes to the Constitution, 2 - this is advocating for forcing YOUR opinion on others.

“Are people born homosexual or taught to be homosexual or in your words ” Avoiding their true nature?”” OK - well let’s explore this a bit. Since most gay children come from straight parents, where are they TAUGHT gay behavior? I am surrounded by gay people, and not one of the were taken aside and instructed. Not one of them were taken aside and abused. So, without proof to the contrary, I would say that people are “born” gay. Let me pose this question: shouldn’t the proper question be “is a gay lifestyle in response in one’s environment?” There is something that determines someones sexual preference - and it’s been with us as long as we’ve known enough to make the distinction. The world has changed greatly over the past 10,000 years, but the basic human sexuality has not.

You want facts - but I say that if you are proposing the limitation of freedoms, that the burden of proof is on you.

As far as the issues with children and the concept of “being gay” - as far as I know, gay is not a viral infection and can not be transferred from one person to another. I am living proof (as well as my 3 sisters) that this is not a transferrable trait. I do think, that since gay people are a permanent part of our world, we should be teaching our children tolerance so that they can live a more peaceful existance.

Posted by: tony at April 25, 2006 1:15 PM
Comment #142993

Also - as for experiental effects: I’ve known quite a few women who “experimented” with lesbian sex. I’ve never met a man who “experimented.” Is this a learned nature or something taught? Is there a difference between men and women that allows women to more easily move between these “lifestyles” and forces men to solely choose one or the other?

Again, this seems to point to a biological/predisposed concept. Is this is so, Pat - can you accept gay marriage?

Posted by: tony at April 25, 2006 1:21 PM
Comment #142995

I’m not sure how NAMBLA always seems to creep into these conversations. NAMBLA is a pedophilia organization and does not represent the homosexual community any more than a straight man who rapes a little girl is representive of the heterosexual lifestyle. Homosexuality and pedophilia are two very different things. Are there homosexuals who are pedophiles? Unfortunatly yes, just as there are unfortunatly heterosexuals who are pedophiles.

The discussion of pedophilia does not belong here, if someone would like to start a post somewhere else, then fine, but here we are talking about loving, consenting adults who wish to enter into a committed relationship and start a family.

Is homosexuality a choice? Absolutly not. Can it be taught? I suppose, just like Exodus brainwashes a small percentage of homosexuals to be heterosexuals, a small percentage of heterosexuals can be brainwashed into living a homosexual lifestyle.

The problem is that some people here want to hold homosexuals to a higher standard. If a few gays are pedophiles then all gays are to be condemned. But most pedophiles are heterosexual, so should we condemn heterosexuality? Of course not, so why is homosexuality held to a higher standard?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 25, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #142997

Having a personal opinion about morality and cultural issues is not being a bigot. Disagreeing with somebody else’s opinion is not being hateful. I think that it is time that some of the overly self-conscience liberals in this country realize that it is possible to love someone and support them as a human being without agreeing with their lifestyle. Tolerance does not mean I have to sacrifice all of my beliefs and opinions just so someone else can feel accepted.
When Christians disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle and classify it as immoral, it is not because they hate the people practicing homosexuality. It is because the Word of God teaches that homosexuality along with adultery, incest, and rape are sexual sins. The Bible is the foundation for the Christian’s beliefs. Maybe that is why some people in America are trying so hard to discredit the Bible and spread bald-faced lies about it, like in the book,
“The Da Vinci Code.”
And why is it that the Christian should have to change his beliefs about homosexuality to match that of a liberal, but the person practicing homosexuality doesn’t have to change his beliefs about homosexuality to match that of a Christian. It sounds to me like the liberals and Sodomites are just as guilty of hatred and bigotry as the Conservatives and Christians are.
We have freedom in America. With freedom comes the right to disagree with others and stand up for what you believe in. This is exactly the reason why I am righting this comment. I refuse to allow the Liberals and Atheists to rob me of my Christian and moral identity for the sake of “tolerance”. I love the people who practice homosexuality but I don’t agree with their lifestyle. Love does not equal tolerance of immoral behavior, but it does equal truth, forbearance, and forgiveness.

Posted by: Tim at April 25, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #142999

kctim,

“I don’t think I’ve posted my opinion on this issue.
I have simply said it does not matter how one is gay and that it is none of your business how or why they are.
You bring up your children and mention how the “effects” of being gay has a negative impact on them but yet you refuse to mention what those effects are.

Posted by: kctim at April 25, 2006 01:08 PM “

You have clearly have not been reading what I have said. Just because someone chooses to do something it does not give them the right to privacy. I have compared this to murder - if you choose to murder it is my business. As Tony said murder is illegal - so is gay marriage - so does that end both of our arguments?

If you dictate that you have the right to teach my child “Why Jane has two Mommys.” Then that has a direct impact on my kids. If you have Gay Days in Disney and men are seen by my kids having sex then that affect my kids. Yes, I know you are going to say that they could also witness heterosexual public sex and it would also have an affect on my kids. But here is the difference unless I am wrong (and I have been known to be) the heterosexual comunity has repeatedly condemned these actions (i.e., Amos and Andy), but I did not hear one condemnation of the public displays in Disney by the gay community. The public displays of flamboyant acts are repeatedly avoided or white washed by the gay community.

Has anyone on this post yet condemned NAMBLA??

Yes it is my business. When it is public, it is my business? But as I a have repeatedly said if it is between two consensual ADULTS, then my personal opinion is, it is none of my business. But that is not support your agrument in favor a gay marriage. It just means you don’t need to worry about crashing in your door.

Posted by: pat at April 25, 2006 1:30 PM
Comment #143003

Tim -

So this is now a discussion about how horrible Christians have it in America? Sorry if I fail to shed a tear.

This is NOT about accepting or quantifying someone’s lifestyle, it is about rewriting the Constitution to prevent people’s freedoms. End of story.

Personally, I do not like rednecks or cowboys, but it would be very unAmerican of me to try and prevent either of these groups from marrying. (Hey - maybe if prevented rednecks from getting married we would end up with fewer rednecks…??? Sadly, I think “redneck” it simply another part of the human condition.) Maybe we could assume that all rednecks are incestual, and therefore allowing rednecks to marry only promotes having sex with your sister.

I do not care whether people are born or if they learn how to be a redneck - it’s their right to be so and it is NOT my right to try and interfere with their lives.

Posted by: tony at April 25, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #143004
Huh?? So if we were talking about Global Warming in a political discussion (i.e., the Kyoto Treaty) I could dismiss all scientific data you bring to the table.

No, my point is that you dismiss our opinions, claiming you only want facts. However, if if you really want facts, then don’t waste time at a forum designed for eliciting opinions.

Nice try but religion is the last thing I want to discuss.

You used the word that has religious connotations. If that’s not what you meant, please clarify.

It is that 5% that I want to prevent.

Why? If you want to prevent abuse of children, that’s great, but largely irrelevant to the issue at hand. But if you want to prevent people from making the free choice to have sex with different people, why do you care?

You would think that those who are born gay would want the same thing - after all that effectively ends my argument.

Hell no. Because you seem to be supporting an investigation into anyone that lives a gay lifestyle - “You’ll get your rights if you prove that you were born that way”. Why on earth would homosexuals want to be subject to such invasive questioning into their lives. Would you want the same?

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #143005
And why is it that the Christian should have to change his beliefs about homosexuality to match that of a liberal, but the person practicing homosexuality doesn’t have to change his beliefs about homosexuality to match that of a Christian.

Because homosexuality is not a belief, it is a part of who someone is. That is like telling someone with blue eyes to change them to brown. They can put on colored contacts, but underneath the surface they are still blue.

It amazes me that people take the Bible literally without ever doing any historical research on just how the Bible came into being. If most people knew the history of the NT they would be shocked. (I am not talking about the The Da Vinci Code either, that is a work of fiction.)

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 25, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #143006
And why is it that the Christian should have to change his beliefs about homosexuality to match that of a liberal, but the person practicing homosexuality doesn’t have to change his beliefs about homosexuality to match that of a Christian.

We’re not talking about forcing Christians to change their beliefs. We’re talking about updating the law to reflact the reality that homosexuality exists and is an inherent part of human life.

To have the state recognize the human rights of homesexuals in no way forces Christians to change their beliefs.

In contrast, you support forcing people to change their inherent nature to satisfy your chosen beliefs. It’s completely different.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #143008

AAAHHHHH, but majority rule does not always work, example, the 2000 election. Bush got it by gift of Fla and the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Sherri at April 25, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #143009

” As Tony said murder is illegal - so is gay marriage - so does that end both of our arguments?”

Again, what LAW are you referring to? State law? Then it changes based on what State you are in. There is no Federal law, yet, so there is no legal prevention of gay marriage. It is not presumed illegal. End of argument.

“Has anyone on this post yet condemned NAMBLA??”

Duh - it’s pedophilia, it’s abhorent and illegal. Are you suggesting that anyone here on this post could possibly support this group?

“If you have Gay Days in Disney and men are seen by my kids having sex then that affect my kids. Yes, I know you are going to say that they could also witness heterosexual public sex and it would also have an affect on my kids.”

Any public sexual act is illegal. You actually saw gay men having sex at Disney? That’s the weirdest thing I heard all day. Do you think Bert and Ernie know about this? Tinky-winky?

“But as I a have repeatedly said if it is between two consensual ADULTS, then my personal opinion is, it is none of my business. But that is not support your agrument in favor a gay marriage.”

By definition, gay marriage can ONLY be between consentual couples. How could suggest otherwise. Since this IS fact, then does this mitigate your argument?

Posted by: tony at April 25, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #143011
The public displays of flamboyant acts are repeatedly avoided or white washed by the gay community.

What about the flamboyant public displays of the straight community? When I kiss my wife in public, no one thinks anything of it. However, if my friend Greg kisses his boyfriend in public, it’s condemned as being public, flamboyant, in your face, etc.

I haven’t attended Gay Days, but I would guess that 95% of it is just normal, with typical levels of interaction between loving couples as there is every other week of the year between straights. The difference is that straights have 52 weeks a year they can feel comfortable as themselves at Disney, and gays are harrassed by people like you for having the temerity to hope for a week to have the same sense of comfort for themselves.

Has anyone on this post yet condemned NAMBLA??

Yes, so please move on. The debate about homosexuality isn’t about pedophilia.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #143012

Pat,

“Has anyone on this post yet condemned NAMBLA??”

“NAMBLA is abhorent. It is child abuse. It is a crime.”

Posted by: Rocky at April 25, 2006 12:09 PM

“If you have Gay Days in Disney and men are seen by my kids having sex then that affect my kids.”

Sex in public is also a crime, be it hetro OR gay and if this was actually happening I am sure that Disney would have tose participating arrested and suspend the “Gay Days”.

Posted by: Rocky at April 25, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #143016

JayJay Snow

“I’m not sure how NAMBLA always seems to creep into these conversations. NAMBLA is a pedophilia organization and does not represent the homosexual community any more than a straight man who rapes a little girl is representive of the heterosexual lifestyle. Homosexuality and pedophilia are two very different things. Are there homosexuals who are pedophiles? Unfortunatly yes, just as there are unfortunatly heterosexuals who are pedophiles.”
First time I have heard someone from your side, to be bold enough to say this - I commend you.

However, I still fault you for calling me a hatemonger and a bigot just because I disagree with you.

Tony
“You want facts - but I say that if you are proposing the limitation of freedoms, that the burden of proof is on you.”
I have not ever suggested limiting freedoms, but clearly you only hear what you want. I only question your definition of what a freedom is. I am pretty sure that marriage even heterosexual is not a freedom. Otherwise, we wouldn’t need a license. You insist that because someone CHOOSES something that make it right. I insist that is false and I also consider it very dangerous.

After all, JayJay and you CHOSE to call me a bigot because I disagree with you. I could build an equally slippery slope, as you have, by saying if the Dems get back in power, they will CHOOSE to condemn my opinion, and CHOOSE to ban me from having this opinion because it displays biggotry and therefore they will excerise their freedom to throw me in jail for being a hatemonger.

Chooses do not equal Freedoms!


Posted by: pat at April 25, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #143017
And why is it that the Christian should have to change his beliefs about homosexuality to match that of a liberal
You talk as if there are no Christian liberals…but there are just as many liberals who are Christian as there are Christian conservatives. Where did you get this strange idea that Christian = Conservative?
Posted by: Charles Wager at April 25, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #143020

Frankly, I’m waiting for pat to disavow cannibalism. I haven’t heard him say anything about it yet. I guess he supports it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #143021

“I have not ever suggested limiting freedoms, but clearly you only hear what you want. I only question your definition of what a freedom is. I am pretty sure that marriage even heterosexual is not a freedom. Otherwise, we wouldn’t need a license. You insist that because someone CHOOSES something that make it right. I insist that is false and I also consider it very dangerous.”

It is your Constitutional right to enter a legal contract - the requirement to obtain a license. You can also live together for 5 years (in most states) and have right to common-law marriage. I have yet to hear the reason most gay couples are not assumed to be married.

Posted by: tony at April 25, 2006 2:03 PM
Comment #143022
The issue isn’t anti gay as much as pro family.

kruser,

I hate to break it to you, but same-sex marriage is pro-family. Why do you think these people want to get married? To start a family maybe?

However, I still fault you for calling me a hatemonger and a bigot just because I disagree with you.

Pat,

This is not about disagreements; this is about people’s lives, their entire existence. I am not talking about differences in beliefs; I am talking about oppression of one group at the hands of another.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 25, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #143024

LawnBoy,

“No, my point is that you dismiss our opinions, claiming you only want facts. However, if if you really want facts, then don’t waste time at a forum designed for eliciting opinions.”

I am sorry to waste your time asking for facts. I am sorry to think that the truth might be more important than opinion. I am sorry to believe that the truth has a part in a political discussion. I am sorry that I wasn’t able to bring out the truth by asking for the truth. I am sorry that by having a different opinion I have given you reason to believe I am a hatemonger and a bigot. I am sorry that I do not agree with you on the issue of gay marriage. I just can’t bring myself to make a leap and agree that a Choice equals Freedom. Fact is, I still am no closer in understanding the biologics of this issue, but my lack of understanding does not warrant the right of gays to marry. I appreciate your time and would like to thank you for the discussion. Thanks, Pat

Posted by: pat at April 25, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #143029

pat,

Please stop playing such a victim. It’s just sad.

It’s one thing to ask for facts. It’s very much another to present your opinions very forcefully and strongly and dismiss any response as not being factual. That’s what I was responding to.

I gave you evidence from the Wikipedia article. You haven’t referred to it once. Did you actually want information, or did you just want to dismiss our ideas?

I am sorry that I do not agree with you on the issue of gay marriage.

So am I, but perhaps you’ll get there someday.

I just can’t bring myself to make a leap and agree that a Choice equals Freedom.

Since you’re the only one that has used this construction in this debate (that I remember), it should be pretty easy for you to get passed it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #143031

Pat,

So let me get this straight. It is ok to have beliefs with no bases of facts and use those beliefs to oppress a group of people because you don’t like their facts?

The excistance of God can not be proven with facts, yet you want everybody to respect your right to believe in him, the way you see fit.

According to your logic, Christianity does not warrant the right of people to worship God.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 25, 2006 2:21 PM
Comment #143032

Tony,

My apologies - I thought I was done for the day but you said:

“It is your Constitutional right to enter a legal contract - the requirement to obtain a license. You can also live together for 5 years (in most states) and have right to common-law marriage. I have yet to hear the reason most gay couples are not assumed to be married.”

Fact is all people have the right to enter into contracts. Two gays can enter into a contact with each other, but lets face it what you are really after is the insurance. Your are not after the right to love and be loved by who you want (that already exist). You are after the insurance that Companies are paying to someones else partner. Again, not a compelling enough agrument to warrant gay marriage. So if you want to be truly honest, this not about one group keeping another group down. Its about the health insurance (companies are already changing this without government intervention). Gays can do everything heterosexuals can do except get a piece of that health insurance.

I know you’ll love this next line, but I will give you the last word.

I promise I am truly gone this time and I thank all of you for your time and dialogue.

Posted by: pat at April 25, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #143033
Gays can do everything heterosexuals can do except get a piece of that health insurance.

That’s absolutely untrue.

Gays don’t have automatic inheritance rights.
Gays don’t have hospital visitation rights.
Gays don’t have medical decision rights.
Gays don’t have the right to adopt.

The list goes on and on. Here’s a listing of the hundreds of federal rights that I have as a straight man that my homosexual friends don’t have.

It’s so much more than just insurance.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #143041

The right doesn’t get it.

The right probably never will.

The right understands only selectively.

Posted by: Rocky at April 25, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #143042

“Its about the health insurance”

Now, that’s crap… an it should be painfully obvious. Is it a right for me to visit my wife in the hospital? To be her legally assumed beneficiary?

Again - it’s the burden of proof, and that belongs to your side of this argument. We are open to letting people live the best way they see fit - YOU are trying to pass legislation that limits a personal freedom, and without extensive proof of damage, you have no argument.

Posted by: tony at April 25, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #143048

kctim,

You might be right when you state “Bush cannot run for re-election, so therefore, it will be whether the people think the Dems or Reps have the milder “my way or no way” message.” But indulge my utopian naiveté fora moment: can it be possible that someone from either party adopts no such stance (real or implied) whasover? In other words, why can’t someone build a platform on “We the people?” I realize this might be a pipe dream, but the fact is, We the people have been forgotten. Has the political landscape been dirtied to the point where being truly and honestly inclusive and accountable to We the people is impossible? I’d appreciate your opinion!

Posted by: Mister Magoo at April 25, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #143049

Tony,

Decided to take one more look before I shut down.

You Wrote:
“Now, that’s crap… an it should be painfully obvious.”

Your right, that was crap, just thought it would be fun to drop that one, on my way out. But since you couldn’t see me laughing the humor was lost. My bad - won’t do it again. I don’t want to cheapen the exchange of ideas. Still don’t agree with you and I guess you still believe I am a bigot but at least we agree to disagree!

Posted by: pat at April 25, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #143050

” Still don’t agree with you and I guess you still believe I am a bigot but at least we agree to disagree!”

I’ve never suggested that you are a bigot… this is the first time I’ve used that term on this post.

Posted by: tony at April 25, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #143054

Just look to nature to solve this rant. And nature says, sex is for procreation.For the love aspect, you can love persons of the same sex with out getting sexual.You seek exceptance, and for the most part you have it. Unions I can see. My opinion of marriage is, you find the one you want to spend your life with, (that is what we have in common to homosexuals) but… the main reason of the unions is to procreate hence in my opinion it is not the right framework for homosexuals . Plain simply why? becuase it goes against natures desighn. To argue about something that is not even acceptable by nature makes it just histericaly funny to me.

Posted by: Nature at April 25, 2006 3:31 PM
Comment #143057
Just look to nature to solve this rant.

Kinda odd, since there are animals that eat their mates after sex and I don’t think you’re proposing that, but let’s go ahead.

And nature says, sex is for procreation.

Or for a greeting, a means of conflict resolution and post-conflict reconciliation, or as favors traded by the females in exchange for food.

Oh, I see. You want us to only look at the natural sex that supports your view, not other natural sex.

To argue about something that is not even acceptable by nature makes it just histericaly funny to me.

Well, that’s not what we’re talking about. Homosexuality in nature is common.

Thanks for providing an argument that contradicts your view.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #143058

Magoo
“Has the political landscape been dirtied to the point where being truly and honestly inclusive and accountable to We the people is impossible?”

IMO, yes. They have “We the People” fighting amongst ourselves and not paying attention to them.
“We the People” HAVE been forgotten, but it is WE who have forgotten ourselves.

Our own personal opinions and beliefs have trumped the Constitution and we now vote according to what we want govt to do for us and not what govt is meant to do.

Those who disagree with us are considered un-American and must be stopped at all costs. Even if that means voting for the lesser of two evils.

We are a divided nation and the politicians know that keeping us divided and scared will keep them in power.

Posted by: kctim at April 25, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #143063

>>I’ve never suggested that you are a bigot… this is the first time I’ve used that term on this post.

Posted by: tony at April 25, 2006 03:24 PM

It’s okay, I think pat’s a bigot. You don’t need to.

What insurance are we talking about? I read as much of this post as I could on the way down, but must have missed a juicy part, because there is no restriction on ANYone buying life insurance on ANYone else, if they have a vested interest. That is why corporations can insure employees, fathers can insure mature children, etc. What law stops one of a gay couple from insuring the life of the other?

Posted by: Marysdude at April 25, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #143065

Marysdude,

I think what he or she was talking about was company-sponsored health insurance.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #143066

Yea - I think that point was basically that this is all financially motivated.

Yea… right.

Posted by: tony at April 25, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #143073

Someone upthread:

“You can also live together for 5 years (in most states) and have right to common-law marriage.”

For what it’s worth, Missouri (to give just 1 example) acknowledges no common-law marriage.

Posted by: Arr-squared at April 25, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #143074

JayJay: Great job.

However, you did fall into the trap the Republicans have set for Democrats. To avoid talking about the corruption, incompetence, selfishness and greed permeating the Congress, they inserted this marriage amendment.

Let’s not talk today about marriage amendments that do not have much chance of passing. In any event, it will take many years for the many states to consider it.

Let’s stick to the lousy job Republicans are doing in Congress.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at April 25, 2006 4:34 PM
Comment #143081

My bad on the insurance thing. Yeah, if only married folks can benefit from corporate health insurance, gays should be authorized to wed. But, who can afford the corporate plans, with all the payday costs, co-pays, deductables and exclusions? I helped raise eleven children, and if it weren’t for my military retirement health benefits, I’d never have been able to afford health insurance.

I worked for Wal-Mart for fourteen years after I left the Marine Corps. Those company health insurance costs were prohibitive. I don’t know how my co-workers could deal with it.

Luckily, we have escaped major health problems, and the kids are all grown, but whew! Whether you are gay or straight, health insurance cost is a do-baddy.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 25, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #143082
the main reason of the unions is to procreate hence in my opinion it is not the right framework for homosexuals

Nature,

So when my dog humps my leg it is for procreation? I don’t think so. What about people who marry after child bearing age? Should they be allowed to marry? How about women who are barren? If the only reason for a union is to procreate, then do you suggest we outlaw contraceptives?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 25, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #143084

>>Let’s stick to the lousy job Republicans are doing in Congress.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at April 25, 2006 04:34 PM

Most of us have agreed on the lousy job Republicans are doing in Congress and the Presidency (and soon the Supreme Court, I’m afraid), but these other things are important too…

Posted by: Marysdude at April 25, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #143089

>>So when my dog humps my leg it is for procreation? I don’t think so. What about people who marry after child bearing age? Should they be allowed to marry? How about women who are barren?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 25, 2006 04:56 PM

For the guys here only…you ladies ignore this post please…how many have watched a dog lick himself, and thought…damn if I could do it like that, I wouldn’t have to marry?

If you are a Christian or a heterosexual…bad on you…

Posted by: Marysdude at April 25, 2006 5:09 PM
Comment #143090

JJ,

Sqaure on target! The religious right neo-conservatives suffer from “selective” scriptural misapplication and hatred. Once again they will ralley all “village idiots” on election day. Too late. Enough of us … the majority are fed up! You did not mention that in Leviticus a woman during her menstration cycle should be escorted out of the camp for seven days because she is dirty! I wonder where the religious right hide their females and concubines?

Posted by: Rafael at April 25, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #143093

JayJay:

Is homosexuality a choice? Absolutly not.

How do you reconcile your above statement with the following statement from Sheryl Swoopes (WNBA basketball player who recently admitted to living with her female partner in a lesbian relationship:

“Do I think I was born this way? No,” Swoopes said. “And that’s probably confusing to some, because I know a lot of people believe that you are.”

Jay Jay, being heterosexual, I have no first hand knowledge of whether being homosexual is a choice or not. But Swoopes, who states unequivocally that she is homosexual, states just as unequivocally that she chose to be so. Is she lying? Is she deluded? Is she wrong about her own lifestyle?

What’s your take?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 25, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #143100

jay jay. about your dog humping your leg. ie liberal, if it feels good do it.! conservative. stop it (swat ) you horny bastard.! a dog expert says they do it as a way of asserting authority! he he! you got shi* on ya or something else!

Posted by: john at April 25, 2006 5:38 PM
Comment #143103

john,

No matter the reason why dogs do it, it still proves my point that it is not just for procreation. You also bring up another point. It was common in Biblical times for a heterosexual male to rape another heterosexual male to assert his authority over him and to shame him. I suspect that at least some of the passages in the Bible are refering to this practice and not to committed couples.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 25, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #143104

jay jay you could be right. but refer to no 1. liberal, if it feels good do it! no 2. conservative, stop it (swat ) you horny bastard.!

Posted by: john at April 25, 2006 5:55 PM
Comment #143105

JBOD,

I am not ignoring you, I will answer your question, but unfortunatly I cannot right now due to I have to go to work.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 25, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #143107

On a new computer. Ready for round two.

Marysdude,

I must ask “if I am a bigot just because we disagree, what does that make you?”

I think the one thing that is assured in this entire post is that not one mind will be changed today, but if it is truly your intent to be involved in an intellectual discussion then calling someone names just because they aren’t seeing eye to eye is wrong.

I have already apologizes for the insurance comment. I was attempting to stir the pot (which I might add worked) on my way out the door. However, my comment did not lend itself to an intellectual discussion.

I do agree with Paul Siegal that an amendment to the Constitution will never pass. Not given the Constitutional requirements.

Given that I wonder why we are even chatting back and forth.

I only got involved with this post because I felt it was wrong to be called a hatemonger and bigot just because I disagree.

I do believe that if “We the people” have the right to get laws passed in certain states, then “We the people” have the right to oppose those laws if they disagree. Just because you disagree it does not make you a hatemonger or a bigot. If by some freakish way a Constitutional amendment were to pass, then that would be “We the people” speaking.

Since the matter of homosexuality has some grey area (as clearly defined in the above post), it should be accepted that there will be opposing views, but just because you feel you are right does not make you the moral authority and does not make me a bigot.

Since I have heard the word Choice thrown around as to why there are homosexuals you can not equate this issue (as much as you would like) to the civil rights movement. Blacks did not have a CHOICE in being black. With the civil rights movement I would agree that anyone opposing civil rights was a bigot (which ironically was the Dems but not worth discussing further).

At any rate, as I have repeatedly stated I do not think it is right to call someone a bigot or hatemonger, merely because they disagree with you. This is called a democracy or as someone has posted often above “We the people” speaking.

But since Tony was the only one in the post bold enough to agree that disagreeing doesn’t make you a bigot, I have better things to do (at least for today).

This was fun. I look forward to discussing the next post.


Posted by: pat at April 25, 2006 6:03 PM
Comment #143108

joebagodonuts,

But Swoopes, who states unequivocally that she is homosexual, states just as unequivocally that she chose to be so.
Actually, she did not say unequivocally that she chose to be homosexual, she just said that she became homosexual. Sexual orientation is not an on/off binary state—there is a full spectrum of sexuality identity, just like there is a full (but often ignored) spectrum of political identity.
Is she lying? Is she deluded? Is she wrong about her own lifestyle?
No, she is simply one person going through her own personal experience. Personally, I don’t give a rat’s ass whether or not homosexuality is inate. Many people seem to believe the whole issue of gay marriage hinges on whether or not homosexuality is genetic or learned, but even if it’s entirely learned—in spite of much evidence to the contrary—I still don’t think there’s a compelling argument to prohibit someone from marrying the person they love no matter what gender that person happens to be.

Posted by: Charles Wager at April 25, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #143110
Since I have heard the word Choice thrown around as to why there are homosexuals you can not equate this issue (as much as you would like) to the civil rights movement. Blacks did not have a CHOICE in being black.

You’re really hanging on the 5% or whatever that might have chosen their orientation, aren’t you? What about the vast majority of homosexuals who didn’t choose to be gay? Do they just not matter because a few other people made a choice?

That seems completely illogical and unfair.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 25, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #143114

pat,

Since I have heard the word Choice thrown around as to why there are homosexuals you can not equate this issue (as much as you would like) to the civil rights movement.
As far as I can see you are the first one to mention the Black civil rights movement on this thread. Anyway, let’s discuss choice some more, since you seem hung up on the idea. If homosexuals can choose to be heterosexual, then likewise you can choose to be homosexual. The fundamental question is still: Why is one choice necessarily worse (and therefore worthy of being banned) than the other? If you leave your personal “choice” of religious beliefs out of the equation, as I assume you’re still trying to do, then why shouldn’t homosexuality be on equal footing with heterosexuality? Will you actually address the question this time, or will you “choose” to continue to ignore it?

Posted by: Charles Wager at April 25, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #143118

Pat,

“Since the matter of homosexuality has some grey area (as clearly defined in the above post), it should be accepted that there will be opposing views, but just because you feel you are right does not make you the moral authority and does not make me a bigot.”

Because I don’t know you I can’t say whether you are a bigot or not. Bigotry, however doesn’t seem to square with the God you profess to worship.

Oh, BTW, just because you feel you are right doesn’t give you the moral authority to judge gays.

Posted by: Rocky at April 25, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #143119

pat,

Bigot: A bigot is a prejudiced person who is INTOLERANT of opinions differing from his own. The origin of the word in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of religious hypocrite, especially a woman. Today, it is considered a synonym of CLOSED-MINDED.

Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is OBSTINATELY devoted to his or her prejudices even when these prejudices are challenged or PROVEN TO BE FALSE, often advocating and defending these prejudices in a rude and INTOLERANT manner. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or worldview such as racism, religion, nationalism or HOMOPHOBIA or Islamophobia.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 25, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #143138

pat -

It’s not the names that others call you, but the names that you answer to, that matter most.

ML King (I think)

(One of my favorite quotes.)

Posted by: tony at April 25, 2006 8:54 PM
Comment #143154

Tony,

I agree with you. I know I am not a bigot for disagreeing. But I guess I can answer to being naive for believing others besides yourself would agree.

Thanks for the dialogue. That is a great quote!!!

Posted by: pat at April 25, 2006 9:34 PM
Comment #143169

Charles:

I see three options for homosexuality: 1) Born that way; 2) learned behavior; or 3) a choice.

Swoopes’ quote eliminates number 1 as an option for her, but does leave open numbers 2 and 3.

If you think something is wrong, and learn that someone chose to do that thing, then it is more difficult to accept that action. If the something is a learned behavior, then one would think it can be unlearned. If someone is born that way, then the action is hereditary or genetic and cannot be changed.

I didn’t bring up the issue of homosexuality being a choice or being innate. I simply pointed to two homosexuals who are diametrically opposed on the issue. I personally think people are born with certain predilections towards personality and behavioral traits. Their experiences guide them either toward or away for those leanings. In other words, I don’t buy B.F. Skinner’s operant conditioning as the way people learn to act, but I think o.c. is a part of how we learn to act.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 25, 2006 11:13 PM
Comment #143186
How do you reconcile your above statement with the following statement from Sheryl Swoopes (WNBA basketball player who recently admitted to living with her female partner in a lesbian relationship:

“Do I think I was born this way? No,” Swoopes said. “And that’s probably confusing to some, because I know a lot of people believe that you are.”

JBOD,

I cannot answer for anyone but myself. Why is it that you are so willing to accept the word of this one woman, while dismissing the word of thousands who say their sexual orientation was set at birth?

Human sexuality is not simply black and white, but it is very complex. I believe that there are varying degrees of sexuality. Some are strictly heterosexual, some are strictly homosexual, some are strictly asexual, but I believe most are bisexual. I also believe that bisexuals are the most homophobic of all the groups.

Strictly heterosexual men tend to be less homophobic because the homosexual choice is out of the question, therefore, homosexuality must not be a choice. Likewise, strictly homosexual men see the heterosexual choice as out of the question, therefore, homosexuality must not be a choice. Bisexuals, however, see where they could make the choice to engage in homosexual activity, sometimes leading to fear and homophobia, sometimes leading to changes in lifestyle.

Obviously, Sheryl Swoopes falls into the bisexual category

pat,

Differences in opinion do not make a person a hatemonger nor a bigot. It is when you try to use those opinions to oppress others that it turns into hatemongering and bigotry. That is what the Republican party is doing with it’s bigoted marriage amendment and it’s hateful adoption bans.

There has been some recent research that has pointed to biological differences between gay and straight men, although not finding a specific cause. One such study involved monitoring a region in the hypothalamus while exposing subjects to male pheromones. Heterosexual men showed no change in activity of this region. When women and gay men were exposed to the same pheromone, that same region of the hypothalamus was activated. The heterosexual men did have a similar response when exposed to a female pheromone.

Some claim that homosexuality goes against nature. However, consider that sexuality is determined in most people’s mind by genitalia. The union of two males or two females is considered unnatural because they have the same genitalia. However, what about when the genitalia begin to blur? One in 1500 births have inter-sexed qualities to varying degrees. Sometimes it is external and obvious, but sometimes it is internal. Some women find out later in life, when trying to conceive, that they do not have ovaries, but abdominal testes (pseudohermaphroditism). We know this occurs and we know it is a natural phenomenon. Why is it then, so difficult to believe that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon?

There is ongoing research being done to determine the causes of inter-sexuality. A small percentage of inter-sexuality can be explained by a chromosomal anomaly, but in the vast majority of cases, the cause is unknown. No genetic markers have been found to explain the cause of either homosexuality or inter-sexuality. The research is not only providing answers to inter-sexuality but also homosexuality. It is believed that homosexuality and inter-sexuality are caused, to varying degrees, by hormonal imbalances during gestation. It has been shown that males fetuses exposed to high levels of sex hormones in the womb are predominantly homosexual.

There is also a correlation between the incidence of homosexuality and birth order. Very rarely is the first born male ever homosexual. The incidence of homosexuality increases substantially with each subsequent male birth. Other research has also shown that women who have homosexual son/s have a chromosomal anomaly not found in women who have only heterosexual sons.

For you non-religious types, consider that homosexuality and inter-sexuality may be part of the evolutionary process. The present day trend of smaller family units is a recent development. Previous generations did not practice Planned Parenthood and had many more offspring, resulting in increased competition for reproductive mates. The first born male is generally the most masculine (who may have trouble attracting females if he is too aggressive) and each subsequent male born would be slightly more feminine and possibly one or more may be homosexual. This would ensure a greater range of personality types and differing interests and result in less competition between male siblings, resulting in the greatest possibility for reproductive survival.

This is seen in other places in nature, not all members of some species have the ability to reproduce, but rather only certain individuals who have features that are more dominant personalities are selected for the task. Leaving the rest to responsibilities that ensure the greatest possibility for the species to survive and flourish. Furthermore, some species reproduce asexually, while others are given the ability to change their sex from male to female and vice versa. This leads to the question is homosexuality simply a stepping stone in an ongoing evolutionary process? After all asexual reproduction would ensure by far the greatest possibility of reproductive survival. Maybe the next step in the evolutionary ladder is being witnessed in people, who are born inter-sexed, which is more prevalent that some may think. The next step may be series of evolutionary events that would eventually enable these individuals to reproduce asexually.

The incidents of homosexuality are high enough to ensure their survival but not nearly high enough to have any negative effects on human reproductive survival. So you see homosexuality can easily fit into Darwin’s Evolution Theory; a slow process of evolutionary baby steps, whereby the anomaly persists until it evolves to the next step or becomes detrimental to the survival of the species at which time it will die out.

Of course, this is just a theory. I don’t have the answers in the cold hard facts that you seem to want. I do know, however, for a fact that homosexuality is inborn and unchangable (at least for some), that fact is self-evident.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 26, 2006 2:40 AM
Comment #143202

“If you think something is wrong, and learn that someone chose to do that thing, then it is more difficult to accept that action. If the something is a learned behavior, then one would think it can be unlearned. If someone is born that way, then the action is hereditary or genetic and cannot be changed.”

So - are you OK with the legal persecution of Christians in China other parts of Asia and the Middle East? Afterall, if it’s a LEARNED behavior (which religion def. is) and the majority find it offensive, then by all means, majority rules.

Posted by: tony at April 26, 2006 6:34 AM
Comment #143203

JJ,

Protecting the sanctity of marriage does not make you a hatemonger or bigot. Republicans as a whole are not telling gays they can’t love each other. The institution of marriage was created to provide a stable environment for our future - our children. Maybe to make it fair to your gay friends we should ask all couples if they plan to have kids prior to marriage and deny applications for those who don’t.

At any rate, I do not think believing that marriage would become eroded and meaningless if that basic tennant is removed, makes an individual a bigot. It is a difference of opinion. If you notice the trend is changing - Civil unions are being allowed and accepted. But still many believe marrige is worth saving.

I am not going to try to stop men from loving men. But I do not believe that this provides you with an automatic right, to what so many people in the post are calling a right. (Here is my first stab at getting religious). Many people (and many happen to be Republican) believe that marriage is sacred, a gift from God (I believe it is just required to provide a stable environment for our children) but that does not make them bigots. Some of these same people have supported Civil Unions (myself included). So for you to continue to called people bigots and hatemongers because they believe deep within their core that marriage is worth saving so that children will be protected, is wrong.

Posted by: pat at April 26, 2006 6:34 AM
Comment #143204

“Protecting the sanctity of marriage “

PLEASE - explain to me the danger that marriage faces? I am married - and I love my wife and children. I plan to grow and happy - and married.

This will happen regardless of who else gets married. My friends and family will always recognize me as a Husband and Father.

I can’t help but sense that the whole “protecting marriage” is a facade for the real issue: many people find gay people “gross” and they don’t want to allow it to exist. Logically, we all know that people will be who they are, but this might be some desparate attempt to fend “them” off.

Let’s look at it a different way - if I have a gay couple move in next door to me, is my HOME somehow in danger? No.

No matter how deeply people beleive their arguments, so far all I’ve heard is conjecture and perception of danger - nothing you could ever prove in court. Since the courts are where a good bit of government functions, that is a good test. And, from everything I’ve seen so far, banning gay marriage will never hold up in court.

Posted by: tony at April 26, 2006 7:37 AM
Comment #143208

I asked this before and I’ll ask it again, because no one supporting a gay marriage ban can give me an honest answer.

Who does a gay marriage ban help?

Actually, I found one answer for this question, but it’s not good. Gay marriage bans help the politicians that use them for political power.

Posted by: Darkblood at April 26, 2006 8:01 AM
Comment #143209

Tony,

After this I am done with this argument. It is proven that no matter what I write, someone on this post will pull a piece to disagree with me. Which is fine. However, only you were bold enough to say that disagreeing does not make you a bigot.

I only got involved with this, because regardless of what the argument for or against this issue, I did not believe it was right to call the opposing side names. Perhaps my thoughts were not coherent and perhaps I combined to many issues. If I had to do it all over I would have only focused on this one point.

People (who you disagree with) have deep seated beliefs in the “sanctity of marriage.” You may think that is hogwash (your right), but that does not make them a bigots. You can not make a blanket statement that they are oppressing a body of people, because some of these same people stood in support of Civil Unions (or at least did not stand in opposition) (if your argument is CUs are not the same as marriage then maybe that is where your fight s/b - the technical fact is any union of gays by today’s laws w/b a CU).

I just think that if JJ’s argument was strong enough to stand on its own, he would not have needed to use insults starting in the second sentence.

Everyone in this post has made valid arguments (what is right is still to be determined) but no one has made a compelling enough argument to justify the name calling. The reaction of the Republican party (which I am not a part of - I am an Independent - course I know you won’t believe that - but I do support their rights to oppose marriage for gays on principle) is because of the recent changes that in their opinion has eroded marriage. They have the right to oppose this (even though I question the wisdom of taking an avenue we all know will fail). By exercising this right they are not bigots.

Posted by: pat at April 26, 2006 8:05 AM
Comment #143211

JayJay:

Why is it that you are so willing to accept the word of this one woman, while dismissing the word of thousands who say their sexual orientation was set at birth?

I never said that I accepted her word nor that I dismissed the word of thousands. I responded to YOUR statement that homesexuality is “absolutely not” a choice by showing a homosexual who clearly thinks that choice is a part of it. If you stand committed to your statement, then you are dismissing Swoopes’ statement. So lets be clear on it—-are you dismissing her statement, or is it possible that there is an element of choice?

Your logic argument is flawed. You say that “Strictly heterosexual men tend to be less homophobic because the homosexual choice is out of the question, therefore, homosexuality must not be a choice.” That’s a conclusion leap of the grandest sort. What it might mean is that they are biologically disposed to heterosexuality, that they have learned heterosexuality, or that they have CHOSEN it for a variety of reasons. But you cannot conclude from the example you gave that choice is not one of the possibilities. To go back to Swoopes, if you do so, then you in effect call her undeniably wrong or a liar.

Tony:

I don’t follow how you jump from a “learned behavior” to the persecution of Christians. I don’t see the connect there. Its clear to me that some learned behaviors are offensive and should not be tolerated. Racism or spousal abuse are learned behaviors—they are offensive and should not be tolerated. Pedophilia, I think, is not necessarily considered learned behavior—some think its more innate. In either case, its reprehensible and should not be tolerated.

The persecution of ANYone for their religion should not be tolerated. In America, we are far more willing to ignore the persecution of Christians in other countries by suggesting that it is none of our business. It can be argued that perhaps it isn’t our business, but it makes the practice no less reprehensible.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 26, 2006 8:21 AM
Comment #143213
It is proven that no matter what I write, someone on this post will pull a piece to disagree with me.

That’s the nature of debate. Welcome to a debating forum.

However, only you were bold enough to say that disagreeing does not make you a bigot.

I’ll agree to that, too. In fact, I’ve never called you a bigot, but you imply I have.

Of course, you’ve never disavowed cannibalism either as I challenged you to. Does that mean you favor it?

Of course not.

But still many believe marrige is worth saving.

But what on earth does this have to do with preventing same-sex couple from marrying? How does treating all Americans equally imperil marriage? As several others have noted, this is just assumed by the anti-gay-marriage crowd but never explained.

You said in your most recent final post “but I do support their rights to oppose marriage for gays on principle…eroded marriage”. How has this happened? What is the connection between legalizing gay marriage and eroding marriage? Gay marriage has been legal for a year in Massachusetts, and there has been no negative effect on heterosexual marriage or divorce. So what’s the problem?

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 26, 2006 8:44 AM
Comment #143217

“The persecution of ANYone for their religion should not be tolerated.”

That IS the crux of my last argument. You find religion as good, so there for you find persecution untolerable. However there are those who find Christianity vile and persecute people for follwoing it. The majority of people in these countries believe this - so by the argument supporting a ban on gay marriage (that learned behaviors found my the majority to be offensive can be banned) applies the same - if not more to religion that to sexual preference.

My point is that if we say we value freedom so much, then we should back it up with actions. Let every person be as free as possible. The only limits should occur when one person’s free choice causes unbalanced harm to others. Since no one here has made any valid point to the harm caused by gay marriage - I can see no viable argument to ban it.

Posted by: tony at April 26, 2006 9:26 AM
Comment #143221

kctim,

Thanks for your reply and astute observation:

“We are a divided nation and the politicians know that keeping us divided and scared will keep them in power.”

What a world…what a world…

Posted by: Mister Magoo at April 26, 2006 10:04 AM
Comment #143238
If you stand committed to your statement, then you are dismissing Swoopes’ statement. So lets be clear on it—-are you dismissing her statement, or is it possible that there is an element of choice?

JBOD,

I thought I covered this in my last response, but maybe I was not clear enough. If Swoopes claim is that she in homosexual by choice, then yes, I dismiss her claim. She clearly is not homosexual by nature, she is bisexual. As I stated in my previous response, there is an element of choice for bisexuals. There is absolutly no choice for homosexuals by nature, our orientation is fixed at birth.

To go back to Swoopes, if you do so, then you in effect call her undeniably wrong or a liar.

Either/ or, you decide.

pat,

If you are so worried about the “sanctity” of marriage, then perhaps there should be a marriage amendment- that outlaws divorce.

The institution of marriage was created to provide a stable environment for our future - our children.

There is no credible evidence that same-sex households are any less loving, nurturing, or stable than their heterosexual counterparts.

Fact: There are millions of children accross the country who are being raised in same-sex households. All of the evidence shows that lesbians and gay men can and do make good parents. The American Psychological Association, in a recent report reviewing the research, observed that “not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents,” and concluded that “home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable childrens psychosocial growth.”

The only significant difference found was that children raised in same-sex households were more compassionate and tolerant of others.

Fact: All of the available evidence demonstrates that the sexual orientation of parents has no impact on the sexual orientation of their children and that children of lesbian and gay parents are no more likely than any other child to grow up to be gay.

That is strong evidence that homosexuality is not a taught/learned behavior, but biological.

Fact: There is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. All of the legitimate scientific evidence shows that. Sexual orientation, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is an adult sexual attraction to others. Pedophilia, on the other hand, is an adult sexual attraction to children. Ninety percent of child abuse is committed by heterosexual men. In one study of 269 cases of child sexual abuse, only two offenders were gay or lesbian. Of the cases studied involving molestation of a boy by a man, 74 percent of the men were or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the boys mother or another female relative. The study concluded that “a childs risk of being molested by his or her relatives heterosexual partner is over 100 times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual.”

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 26, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #143242
You can not make a blanket statement that they are oppressing a body of people, because some of these same people stood in support of Civil Unions (or at least did not stand in opposition)

Pat,

Bingo! That is what I have been trying to say. It does not make you a bigot or hatemonger because you have a difference of opinion. It is when you put that opinion into action and it causes harm to others. That is what some Republicans are doing with this marriage amendment.

Try putting yourself in the shoes of someone unlike yourself. If Congress or the electorate in your state voted that you were not worthy of the rights and privileges of every other citizen, if you had just been relegated to second class status, how would that make you feel? How would you feel to be told that you are not good enough to marry the one you love and raise a family together? How would it make you feel to know that if something happened to the one you loved, you would be regarded as insignificant? How would it make you feel to be told day after day that there is something wrong with you, that you are sick, disgusting, less than human? How would you feel to be told you are ungodly and were doomed to hellfire simply because of how God made you? How would it make you feel for heterosexuals, who are ignorant on the subject, to act like armchair experts and make personal decisions for how you should live your life? How would that make YOU feel coming from people who don’t have a clue what it is like to be you?

It must be nice to have a “normal” orientation, and it must be easy to live your “normal” life, but some people are not as lucky as you. Some of us have to struggle to reconcile ourselves with our own differences. Some of us cannot and wind up as self-hating gays, or worse commit suicide. Some try to adapt to a heterosexual lifestyle, marrying and having children, only to find out later that they can no longer deny who they are. Families become broken and scarred. Others have won the internal struggle and are perfectly comfortable in their own skin, these are the ones fighting for their right to life, liberty, and happiness. These are the ones who know they are no less human than anybody else and will not settle for anything less.

All in all, I think the word bigot is perfectly appropriate.

“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 26, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #143248

The basketball player said she didn’t ‘think’ so, when asked if she was born that way. That sounds like a pretty authoratative response. I ‘think’ she was, so which one of us is correct? And, what difference would there be in any case?

I’ve been married for 42 years to the same woman, we’ve raised 11 children. We currently live in a duplex. If the gay couple that lives in the other duplex, is allowed to marry, do you think my wife and I will suddenly feel some sort of pressure to divorce? If my grandchildren visit me and come into contact with my neighbors suddenly turn homosexual?

If, as I’ve stated on other posts, the male of our species has already outlived its usefulness…has evolved to the point it is no longer needed, i.e., don’t need to hunt for game; not needed for heavy lifting or exploration; no longer necessary for procreation…what difference does it make if we are hetero or homo?

Posted by: Marysdude at April 26, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #143252

JJ,
“All in all, I think the word bigot is perfectly appropriate.”
Guess I didn’t expect you to yield. But all in all, as long as you think it is appropriate to call names of those who have opposing views or solutions to yours, don’t expect to break the 50% barrier you will need to make something happen. Your ideas alone s/b enough. If you need to result to name calling, you will always marginalize your support. To be honest I haven’t read past the words “hatemonger and bigot”. That is how effective your post has been in swaying me. You lost any opportunity to make a good point because “All in all, you think the word bigot is perfectly appropriate.”

Posted by: pat at April 26, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #143256

Well said there Pat.
They claim you are a “hatemonger and bigot” for being intolerante of their views by being intolerante to your views and resorting to name calling.
End result? Nothing changes and we continue on the same path.

Posted by: kctim at April 26, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #143257

Pat,

There is great power and emotion in words, that is why I like quotes so much. You get a powerfully emotional reaction from just a few words. I use the words bigot and hatemonger because they express the power that I wish to convey in the strong way I feel about the oppression of a class of people. Obviously, the word bigot has evoked great emotion within you, I suspect because it makes you feel guilty. You want to dismiss my ideas simply because I used a word you do not like. I suspect that is just a red herring because you cannot adequately challenge and debate the subject matter.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 26, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #143258
End result? Nothing changes and we continue on the same path.

kctim,

Actually, the end result was that it brought Pat into this conversation, that he himself admits he would not have been apart of if it would not have been for my use of the word bigot. Pat’s involvement in turn caused an emotional response from others and allowed for a flow of ideas that for the most part stayed on point. It is only this exchange of ideas and opinions that will eventually allow reason to prevail.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 26, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #143265

JJ,
“Obviously, the word bigot has evoked great emotion within you, I suspect because it makes you feel guilty.”

Nice try - I do not feel guilty. In fact I feel quite proud of my recent declaration to be an Independant. The main reason I will not listen to someone like Rush is because he resorts to name calling to make his point. You are no better than him. Your ideas do not stand merit on their own so you resort to name calling.

I have been making sure that I try to focus on positives only. Since both political parties are living in the gutter of ideas lately, I feel it is best to search for new focus. I am in search of ideas. Not something that needs to be started with intimidation.

Just think of how much opportunity you wasted by not being able to convey your thoughts without resorting to a Limbaugh tactic.

Posted by: pat at April 26, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #143267
Being opposed to homosexuality is not the equivalent to being a hatemonger or a bigot. The problem with homosexuality is biology. If I were to say I hate black humans, then I am a racist. A black human is born black and should not be discriminated for something they had no choice in.

Pat,

You yourself said that if you said you hate black humans, then it is ok to call you a racist. Blacks are born and had no choice in the matter. So, why then, do you think that it is not ok for me to call someone a bigot that says they hate homosexuals, when I know full well that I was born homosexual and had no choice in the matter? Kind of a double standard you’ve got going there, pat. Just because you are not gay does not give you the right to discriminate based on your own ignorant opinions.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 26, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #143269

JJ,

One more thing: I certainly can’t claim to be innocent of some of the negatives that were pointed at me. I have already admitted that I was combining to many thoughts. I got caught up in this and lost focus. I still have many questions and/or beliefs that I won’t be able to resolve here. But it now time for me to withdraw. If you need to claim victory, more power to you. To much negativity here for me. Call me wimp, whatever. Two years ago I would have stood toe-to-toe with you but now I am just wasting what could otherwise be a nice day. Looking back on my contibutions, I apologize for muddying your post. I still believe you could win more people like me though ideas versus insults. If by some chance I insulted you or anyone else, please accept my apologies.

If by chance I should ever enter a post like this again I will cautiously attempt to keep it positive; however, I will never again make the mistake to enter a post that begins with an insult.

Posted by: pat at April 26, 2006 1:48 PM
Comment #143270
Your ideas do not stand merit on their own

If you believed that, I’m sure that you’d be able to counter any of the many arguments, facts, and assertions we’ve made.

You haven’t. You’ve simply retreated behind the protection of being the victim of name-calling.

Many times we’ve asked you to explain why banning gay marriage protects marriage. That is a question about your ideas, not an insult. Why haven’t you responded?

I still believe you could win more people like me though ideas versus insults.

We have presented literally dozens of ideas to support our position, and you focus instead on the insult. I think it’s because you know that you can’t support your position without resorting to invoking religion, and you know that’s a losing argument in a society like ours.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 26, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #143272

pat wrote:

To be honest I haven’t read past the words “hatemonger and bigot”. That is how effective your post has been in swaying me.

pat,

Your very first entry on this thread tells me this statement is false.

pat wrote:

All this issue proves is that the Republicans have nothing to run on, so lets scare the American people into voting against their best interests. Its not just about two people wanting to spend the rest of their lives together, its about protecting property and getting all the rights and benefits that married people share.


BTW
Lets pass a law that forces pro-lifers to adopt children from unwanted pregnancies.
Posted by: Pat at April 24, 2006 07:13 PM

In fact, you made no mention of my use of the words “hatemonger and bigot” at all. Why then did this issue suddenly become so much more important to you than the underlying idea of the post?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 26, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #143275

Pat,
I’m late entering this discussion, but I want to say a few things.

First things first:I have found NAMBLA to be disgusting. However, like it or not they have a right to free speech. To me they are pedophiles simply trying to justify their position. As a former Youth Services employee to go any further would merely anger me more, and not actually accomplish my point.

Second: I have known very well several homosexuals.
None of them wanted to be homosexual. It is a miserable life-style. Being subjected to hatred and fear is not a something people want. If it were their choice many would change in a minute.

In particular I used to know very well(while in college at 18-20) a young man who wanted desperately to be heterosexual. We had many discussions regarding what he could do to change. Well, let’s see:

1. He tried dating women (including myself)
2. Tried to be intimate with females (not including me)
3. Refused to hang around any other people (men or women, he either knew or thought might be gay)
4. Asked God to help him,
5. Worked out, and tried all the ‘manly’ stuff that ‘real’ men do.
6. Tried ‘male enhancement’ drugs….

It all worked too well - he didn’t know what he was anymore - so he committed suicide at the age of 21.

His death broke my heart - and that was 30 odd yrs ago.

Was he a homosexual by birth or by choice?

Just something to consider.

By the way, I still miss him.

Posted by: Linda H. at April 26, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #143279

BTW Pat,
I do not know whether you are a “hatemonger or bigot “. I haven’t read anything that you have posted to indicate either.

You have asked some reasonable questions and others have attempted to answer you with reasonable answers. Whether you agree with them or not is your choice.

I merely hope that you will accept the fact that at this point in time there is no scientific proof one way or the other.

HOWEVER it simply does not seem reasonable that one would voluntarily choose such a life-style. Therefore I would lean towards birth.

Posted by: Linda H. at April 26, 2006 2:18 PM
Comment #143290

“This is how the Republicans won in 2004 etc..”

Then why didn’t Bush win in a landslide?
Reports said around 70+ percent of black Americans voted in support of the gay marriage amendments.
Did 70+ percent of black Americans also vote for Bush?

“The confederate flag waving is the main point”

You have no clue whatsoever of what you are talking about. Your comments on this are the same stereotypical response used to minimize an issue by screaming racism in attempts to make it seem evil and go away.

Posted by: kctim at April 26, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #143292
Adrienne, if you are gay and vote for the Rplcns, you would have to be mentally incompetent or live outside the real world.

I don’t think those are the only options. There’s also the option of really conflicted.

There’s no inherent reason that a homosexual would be opposed the Republican principals of small government, strong military, etc. (however poorly the current administration achieves these goals). I can easily imagine someone in favor of low taxes, etc. choosing to vote for a Republican if the only issue of disagreement were gay rights issues.

However, I would expect that person not to be happy about the limited options in a two-party state.

In contrast, the pro-business party in Germany, the Free Democratic Party, is led by a gay man, Guido Westerwelle. There’s nothing in his party’s platform that opposes homosexuality, so it’s a good fit. Of course, his Catholic-based coalition partner party, the Christian Democratic Union, isn’t quite as comfortable with him.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 26, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #143303

JayJay:

In your posts, you seem to say that those who dislike or oppose homosexuality hate homosexuals. I don’t think that’s always the case, though its certainly true some of the time. It’s definitely NOT the case with me. Allow me to explain:

I consider homosexuality a sexual sin. ( I’m not asking for your agreement on that, simply stating what I believe) I liken it to promiscuity, which I also believe is a sexual sin. Some people are accepting of either, think there is nothing wrong with either and feel it is solely the province of the person to make such decisions. Some will say that both are based on choice, others will say that neither is based on choice, and others yet will claim that homosexuality is a born trait while promiscuity is a choice.

I dislike both ACTIONS. I have friends who have been promiscuous. I have had friends in the past who were homosexual. I liked the people and disliked their actions. Its possible to do that, though I’ll admit it takes work. It would be much easier to simply dismiss them and not have the friendship—it takes work to hold to my beliefs and still keep the friendship.

I don’t hate people. I get angry with them, I disagree with them and I get frustrated with them. But I don’t hate them. Its been my experience that if I show people respect, concern and love, they will show me the same and we can base a relationship on that. That I disagree with some of their lifestyle doesn’t poison the entire relationship. That they disagree with some of my lifestyle doesn’t need to poison the relationship for them.

In the end, building the relationship on honesty makes it far more secure than building it on what the other person might want to hear.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 26, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #143312

>>I dislike both ACTIONS. I have friends who have been promiscuous. I have had friends in the past who were homosexual. I liked the people and disliked their actions.
Its been my experience that if I show people respect, concern and love, they will show me the same and we can base a relationship on that. That I disagree with some of their lifestyle doesn’t poison the entire relationship.
In the end, building the relationship on honesty makes it far more secure than building it on what the other person might want to hear.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 26, 2006 03:22 PM

joebod,

All that sounds great, but how do you stand on gay marraige? It is fine to disagree with someone elses’ lifestyle, as long as you don’t tread on their right to exercise it. I’m not fond of preachers. I think most are poor representatives of their faith and poor executors of their religion, but they have every right to sermonize, and I certainly would not try to pass or maintain a law in attempts to stop them…

Posted by: Marysdude at April 26, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #143320

Argument summary:

Is homosexuality a learned response or inate?

Does not liking something make you a bigot or a bad person?

———

Why is legislation part of this conversation?!

This is obviously a very personal and private topic and people should not be forced to live by others beliefs or an individual’s feelings on this matter. Is there a middle ground? Allow gays to have all rights/treatment under the law afforded to straight people. This does not mean forcing religions to marry gay couples. This does not mean having “gayness” shoved in your face. This does not mean anything other than NOT LIMITING FREEDOMS FOR A SELECT GROUP OF AMERICANS. This also probably means that divorce lawyers can expect to double their client base… we’re all human.

Posted by: tony at April 26, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #143322

Marysdude:

I suspect you already know where I stand on marriage, but I’ll engage anyway.

I think there should be certain restrictions to marriage. Some people say there should be absolutely no restrictions to marriage, but when pressed, they usually agree they actually favor certain restrictions.

For instance, there are currently court cases stating that the number of people involved in a marriage should not be restricted, though most people in Western societies believe it should be restricted. Most do not support the concept of polygamy.

Some societies have no age restrictions, allowing women to be married at young ages. Again, in Western societies, almost everyone says there should be an age restriction on marriage and that adults should not be able to marry minors .

Most of society doesn’t condone siblings marrying each other, even if they are both consenting adults. Less favorable yet is the idea of a parent marrying their own child, even if both are consenting adults.

I’d hope that we can agree there should be some restrictions on marriage. If so, then the question becomes specifically what restrictions, rather than whether any restrictions. As I’m sure you’ve already gathered, I’m not in favor of gay marriage, though I am generally in favor of civil unions. From what polls I’ve seen, a majority of Americans hold a position similar to mine, for what its worth. I don’t create my thinking to align with polls, nor do polls determine right or wrong, but its sometimes helpful to know where one stands in relation to the majority.

I don’t think I’m treading on someone’s rights necessarily by opposing the marriage of two people of the same sex. If I were to support making homosexuality illegal, that would be a great restriction on their rights.

Lets say that two men ( or women) living together as roommates decide they want the benefits (such as health insurance, life insurance etc) that a married couple gets. In my opinion, they do not meet the definition of a married couple, but…..hey, if they can get the definition changed, then they might be in luck. I wouldnt support that.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 26, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #143328

I think the fairest solution is to abolish marriage under the law for everybody and instead institute civil unions as the sole legal union of any two people. While preserving marriage as a religious/ spiritual institution to be handled by the Church.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 26, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #143338

11. Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery (Matt 10:11-12)

Posted by: Rich Furman at April 26, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #143341

ok - jj, you’re on to something.

Civil Union is the Union of two people… certain types of union must be avoided (based on negative outcomes - mainly incest and related biological problems.) Marriage (or whatever you want to call it) could be a religious union.

This seems fair - 1. I am treated the same as gay people, so it’s a fair approach. 2. I do not care what other people want to call me & my wife, but I do care that we are seen as a union under the law (ie, Wills, living Will, filing taxes, custody assumptions, etc.)

Honestly - can we all be grown up and get past this. Let people do what they wish - and be afforded the legal equality that makes us all Americans. You do not have to accept it or approve it or like it or even be aware of it.

I know someone here posted that they simply found gay sex revolting - or something like that. OK - but honestly think of any of us here having sex. I’m not sure I would find the visual imagary any more disturbing than two men or two women having sex. Face it, most of us look - at best - odd while having sex. My point, do we want to use the “revolting factor” for marriage.

Posted by: tony at April 26, 2006 6:34 PM
Comment #143347

Roy Cohn died of AIDS.

J. Edgar Hoover was a Gay (Clyde Tolson) Transvestite.

Both of them just as Conservative as they could be.

The right should be careful about throwing stones…

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 26, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #143348
Civil Union is the Union of two people… certain types of union must be avoided (based on negative outcomes - mainly incest and related biological problems.) Marriage (or whatever you want to call it) could be a religious union.
This is essentially how things work now. The word “marriage” is used for two different functions, a legal contract and a religious sacrement. The government only concerns itself with the legal contract, and the fact you can get married at city hall without involving any church demonstrates that.

All we have to do is use a different term, such as “civil union”, to apply to the legal contract that comes with marriage—whether the contract is between straights or gays. If you get rid of the religion-loaded word of “marriage”, most of the public’s resistance to the idea will melt away. Conservatives like to quote the (rapidly decreasing) statistic that the majority of the American people are against gay marriage; however, the public’s resistance to civil unions between gays is much smaller. It seems like an easy solution to me, but solving problems is unfortunately not the priority of most politicians.

Posted by: Charles Wager at April 26, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #143349

… and something tells me that Laura is the who wears the camo-undies around the White House (if ya know what I mean.)

Posted by: tony at April 26, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #143372

We should not stop any type of marriage.

My wife and I fell in love 4 years ago with another woman but we weren’t allowed ot get married again. We tried several times to get permission to marry but we couldn’t get past the laws. Until we adopted her. It was the most brilliant move we ever made. We have everything, we can share everything, and it is all legal.

We have since fell in love again. We know better than to attempt to marry again, so we have already started adoption procedings.

If you love someone you should have the right to be married. I hope the gay community wins this battle but until they do i suggest they try our method. It works, we are a happy family and as I said it is legal.

Posted by: peacefirst at April 26, 2006 8:29 PM
Comment #143382

Since desire for the opposite sex has genetic origins designed, oops, evolved for procreation, then disgust toward the misuse of both the physical and emotional tools is not hatred or learned. These feelings are normal.
I do admire the discipline it takes to force this natural repulsion into acceptance.
Maybe the repulsed should have rights since it really isn’t a learned response. The science must obviously be there.

Posted by: kruser at April 26, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #143402
Since desire for the opposite sex has genetic origins designed, oops, evolved for procreation, then disgust toward the misuse of both the physical and emotional tools is not hatred or learned. These feelings are normal.
Although previous posts have given evidence that homosexuality is just as natural, let’s go with the idea that nature drives us to the opposite sex for purposes of procreation. Congratulations! You have just come up with a good argument as to why polygamy should be legalized! It’s natural!

If, on the other hand, polygamy and promiscuity disgust you…you may need to rethink your premise.

Posted by: Charles Wager at April 26, 2006 11:39 PM
Comment #143477

Charles,

“You have just come up with a good argument as to why polygamy should be legalized!”

If you look around at the polygamist communities here in the West, you will find, in every one of them, birth defects that are caused by inner-family marriages.
It doesn’t matter how far removed your cousin might be, you just can’t fool genetics.

Somehow, I just don’t think that will be a problem with gay marriage.

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #143542

“It doesn’t matter how far removed your cousin might be, you just can’t fool genetics.”

You had me worried with this comment. Me and my momma-sis were planning on haven a couple mo’ chillin’s… I was worried about problems the kids might face… but I called my family doctor and she said that “given the current state of my family, she had a hard time seeing much further damage to future generations.” And then laughed a little - maybe she wus just tryin’ to be polite. Anyhow, there taint be much noticeable problems with my family, ‘cept my daddy, who was born with breasts. Yea, it do cause him some trouble while waiting tables at the truck stop (I think it sorely cunfuses some of the customers) but it’s been a great source of extra income selling lap dances at the family reunions.

Posted by: tony at April 27, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #143551

tony,

“Yea, it do cause him some trouble while waiting tables at the truck stop (I think it sorely cunfuses some of the customers)”

It was the fishnets that threw me off.
You would think the tips would be better.
Maybe if he showed a little more cleavage.

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #143552

He’s got the good cleavage coming and going, as it were!

(Man, this could get really sick…)

Posted by: tony at April 27, 2006 1:24 PM
Comment #143553

Maybe a little spackle.

tony, as much as I am tempted to take this to the extreme …….

There is a polygamist enclave here in Arizona called Colorado City. These folks are an fundamentalist offshoot of the Mormon Church, and they only answer to their self-proclaimed prophet. His name is Warren Jeffs, and he is on the run from the FBI.

There are other serious problems having to do with this area;

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/3338

The birth defects were only recently brought to light.

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #143554

Does the above quote make me gay???? :(

Posted by: tony at April 27, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #143557

Rocky,

In all seriousness - that’s some real messed up stuff. Damn. People with unchecked power usually end up screwing everything. The above humor would be a lot more enjoyable if it just existed in Hollywood.

Posted by: tony at April 27, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #143561

tony,

The worst part is this has been going on for years and nothing, NOTHING, has ever been done about it.

So all you folks that try to skew the issue of gay marriage with this polygamy crap are pissing in the wind.
Give it a rest and try to treat your fellow man the way you want to be treated.

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #143570

Rocky - At first I thought you were against me and my three wives, but I am glad to see you are on my side. I agree people should just leave us alone. We do not harm anyone. Our children are normal. We are intelligent enough to realize that genetics will catch up with you. We all love each other and would never do anything to hurt each other or anyone else. Why does it always have to be someone else business what we do. We keep to ourselves. We have a farm and we are self-sufficent. Why isn’t just enough that we love each other. I support the gays right to marriage. If kelly and I meet someone else it would be nice to marry her rather than adopt her. But I know that gay marriage needs to become law before they will allow me to have more than one wife. Love is the key to the world. If all that mattered was love we would always have peace.

Posted by: peacefirst at April 27, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #143584

peacefirst,

I am not against most things, but you have to admit that’s a little weird.

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #143588

Rocky,

If you look around at the polygamist communities here in the West, you will find, in every one of them, birth defects that are caused by inner-family marriages.
That is not an argument against polygamy—it’s an argument against a closed social structure and incest. There are closed monogamist communities that suffer from the same problems.

You did notice the sarcasm in my previous post, right? Perhaps it was too subtle.

Posted by: Charles Wager at April 27, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #143596

Charles,

“That is not an argument against polygamy—it’s an argument against a closed social structure and incest.”

Is marrying you cousin 40 times removed incest?

Polygamy usually ends up with a “closed social structure”. The arguments against it are valid.

“You did notice the sarcasm in my previous post, right? Perhaps it was too subtle.

I just get a bit tired of hearing the gay marriage debate always getting sidetracked by this bullshit about polygamy, beastiality and pedophillia.

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #143616

Rocky:

I truly dont understand your thought process. Seems to me that disallowing same sex marriages and polygamy is a limitation on marriage in each case. One focuses on “who” can get married, while the other focuses on “how many” can get married.

The arguments for and against are very similar, and so too are the court cases that are being currently argued. Check out the legal cases in which polygamists are using the same sex marriage arguments to argue for polygamy to be legalized.

You say the two are totally different issues. I think they are both ‘horses’, though perhaps of a different colour.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 27, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #143620

JBD -

I would agree with you, if I looked at it from the non-standard marriage angle. But what about in terms of negatives impacts on society. There have been quite a few recorded examples where polygamy leads to what was posted above as a “closed society structure” that leads to a whole host of problems - rape, incest, genetic issues, abuse, etc. These are problems that we as a society must deal with and pay for, so I can see at least having a watchful eye on polygamy. I’m not aware of any such problems with gay marriage.

Posted by: tony at April 27, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #143633

Rocky,

Is marrying you cousin 40 times removed incest?
No, but the marrying of 40 times removed cousins happens in both polygamy and monogamy. I doubt you’ll find many genetic problems cropping up with 40 times removed marriages—it’s a hell of a lot more removed than the six degrees that separate all of us. ;-)
Polygamy usually ends up with a “closed social structure”. The arguments against it are valid.
Usually? How large a sample size are you using as a basis for such statistics? If polygamy results in a closed social structure it is entirely because it is illegal and stigmatized (and therefore difficult to find partners outside of the community). It is this illegal status that leads to closed communities—not the nature of polygamy itself. Another argument in support of legalizing polygamy! And of course, you can’t ignore the fact that closed communities and genetic problems are not exclusive to polygamous societies:

Amish inbreeding is boon for rare recessive disease research

I just get a bit tired of hearing the gay marriage debate always getting sidetracked by this bullshit about polygamy, beastiality and pedophillia.
Agreed, although I put beastiality and pedophillia in an entirely different class than polygamy between consenting adults. You’ll note by my other posts that I’m in support of gay marriage—the people usually bringing up this bullshit and trying to skew the issue are almost exclusivly those who oppose gay marriage. People like kruser, who was erroneously trying to claim that monogamy is the most “natural” state.

I see many valid arguments towards legalizing gay marriage without legalizing polygamy. However, I can’t personally bring myself to condemn polygamy as inherently bad.

Posted by: Charles Wager at April 27, 2006 4:44 PM
Comment #143636

Honestly, I could care less who gets married. It’s really none of my business and intrusion into this union is much more aggregious than any issue ever conceived by the anti-gay marriage group.

Obviously, the animal and child thing has no place in this argument, and anyone who tries to put it there is solely looking for a way to taint something they don’t want to exist. If everyone involved in a marriage is a consenting adult, then I see nothing in our Constitution that would want to intrude or limit a person’s freedom.

It takes a great deal of adult thought and courage to work towards to truly free society, however this issue is one of many that leads me to see America as the “teen-agers” of the world.

Posted by: tony at April 27, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #143639

Here’s an essay on the prevalence and acceptance of inbreeding in monogamous society. Talk about a large sample size!

Societies which practice cousin marriage are less open to western ideas of civic culture

Posted by: Charles Wager at April 27, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #143642
However, I can’t personally bring myself to condemn polygamy as inherently bad.

I agree. I know that polygamy as it is practiced in parts of the west (old men “marrying” youg teenage girls who have no say in the matter) is abhorent, but I don’t really have an objection to consenting adults entering a multiple marriage.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 27, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #143644

Tony:

I really try to look at the big picture and the overriding principle when I look at issues like this. Let me give you an example: What do you do if an adult (as we define it—typically around or over 18) goes to a society that defines “adult” differently—-say age 12. Is a marriage between the two then acceptable in one culture but not another? If that’s the case, why put one culture’s viewpoint over anothers?

If we go there, then why not discuss what makes someone an adult? Is it a reasonably arbitrary age? We’ve chosen 18, yet there are some 15 year olds much more ready for marriage and responsibility than some 30 year olds. Our age issue is even wrapped around itself—-we allow 18 year olds to vote, but not drink. Adult enough to vote for our leaders but not to drink? Seems arbitrary to me, though often it seems that we must all have been drinking when we look at the leaders we choose.

We have to figure out how to consistently judge something, rather than jump to conclusions presumptively. Only by looking at the bigger picture and being consistent with it can we do so.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at April 27, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #143662

“If we go there,”

We don’t go there. The legal age in America (for being considered an adult) is 18. It should remain the standard.

If we want to be obtuse - why don’t we discuss hermaphrodites and their legal choices to marry who the choose to….?

Posted by: tony at April 27, 2006 5:38 PM
Comment #143668

“Seems arbitrary to me, though often it seems that we must all have been drinking when we look at the leaders we choose.”

Surely, if anyone wasn’t drinking heavily during the last election they must’ve started by now.

Posted by: tony at April 27, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #143674

JBOD,

We must work within the confines of what we have. The legal age of consent is 18. If someone wanted to change that then they would need to go through all the steps to make that happen, not an easy thing to do. Demands for marriage equality did not just pop up out of nowhere. Gays and Lesbians have had to work hard to get to this point, including removing homosexuality as a mental illness and getting anti-gay laws overturned.

When we talk about same-sex marriage we are asking for equality with opposite-sex couples, the union of two people. Polygamists on the other hand are not asking for equal rights but for special rights not afforded to any other group of citizens. There is a big difference.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 27, 2006 5:53 PM
Comment #143680

Rocky- “I am not against most things, but you have to admit that’s a little weird.”
Why is this weird? the law will not allow us to get married. My wives are only my daughters on paper. It was actually Sara’s idea. She so badly wanted to be married to us that she came up with this idea. Sara is pregnant now with our 7th child. That gets complicated because everyone wants to know who the father is. We all would like to be able to tell everyone but we have to be careful. The government is always trying to take away our freedom to live with each other. We just want to be a family and accepted for who we are. Jane’s best friend has been hanging around a lot and we have taken a liking to her. But no one is allowed to talk about marrying anyone else unless Kelly is OK with it. We would all like the laws to change so if we decide to ask Mary to join our family we can do it as husband and wives. At any rate I would not want to start talking about marrying Mary until she is 16 (she is 15 now). The age of consent here is 16. Of course we could adopt here now but i think we should wait till she is 16, there are some laws I respect and this is one. I like this post’s logic and am glad people are fighting to let us live the way we do. I want the law to change so that all that matters is love. If you love someone you should be allowed to be them.

Posted by: peacefirst at April 27, 2006 6:18 PM
Comment #143683

JayJay Snow: I am not asking for special rights. I am aking for the same thing gays are asking for and that is to be with who I love. Well actually I already have that. But I want to be able to walk down the street as one happy family. How is it a special right? Just because I love more than one woman and they all love me. Who gets to make this arbitrary decision. Why is being married to more than person “special”. Sounds like you are being a hypocrit. Isn’t that what they used to call gays? I think the equality is in being with who you want. If you want to be with one woman and you can or if two men want to be with each other and they can or if I want to be with three woman and I can then we are all equal. The equality is all of us being able to to do makes us happy and the number of people involved is irrelevant. Isn’t that the underlying premise of this post. We should all be able to exercise what ever freedoms we want and if we love someone that is all that matters.

Posted by: peacefirst at April 27, 2006 6:32 PM
Comment #143691

peacefirst,

Currently, heterosexual rights to marriage are above and beyond those granted to homosexuals. That is not equal rights. No group, gay or straight is currently allowed to marry more than one other person. Asking for a right not granted to anybody else, is asking for a special right. Limits can be applied as long as those limits are applied equally to all.

In other words if homosexuals are not granted the legal right to marry then nobody should be granted the legal right, including heterosexuals. If nobody is granted the legal right to marry more than one person then that is equal.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 27, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #143698

JJ,

Since he has stated that the age of consent where he is located is 16, I am assuming that he isn’t currently a resident of the US.
If that is the case I suppose he is trying to push some buttons.

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #143699

… and if he’s living in a house full of women, he should know better than to push anyone’s buttons.

Posted by: tony at April 27, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #143704

Amen to that.

25 years experience.

Posted by: Rocky at April 27, 2006 8:43 PM
Comment #143705

To all the age of consent is 16 in my state. There are other restrictions but none of them concern me as much as not being allowed to be legally wed to my wives. I am afraid to let you know more about my location but the below should prove to you I am in the United States.

JayJay Snow: I still do not understand how you feel you have the right to decide what equality is. Isn’t that what the heterosexual communitiy is doing to gays? I love all my wives but just becuase you feel limits on marriage are OK I should not be allowed to be married to them. I do not understand how you how you think its OK to move the bar for one group and not another. So once you get your rights you will discriminate against me? That doesn’t seem fair.

Alabama: If either of you are under 18, you will need a certified copy of your birth certificate. Both parents must be present with identification, or if you have a legal guardian they must be present with a court order and identification. If one or both parents are deceased, proper evidence of such must be provided. Individuals under the age of 14 may not marry.

Alaska: If either of you are under 18, you will need certified copy of birth certificate, both parents must be present with identification, or if you have a legal guardian they must be present with a court order and identification.

Arizona: If you are 16 or 17 years old, you must have the notarized consent of your parents or legal guardian. If you are under 16, you must have the notarized consent of your parents or legal guardian as well as a court order.

Arkansas: Under 18 requires consent of both sets of parents.

Bahamas: If you are under 18, you will need parental consent.

California: If either the bride or groom is under 18, at least one of the minor’s parents, or legal guardian, must appear with the couple. Certified copies of birth certificates are required. The couple must also schedule an appointment with a counselor and then appear before a superior court judge.

Colorado: If you are 16 or 17, you will need consent of both parents (or parent having legal custody), or guardian, or seek judicial approval. If you are under 16, a Judicial Court Order along with parental consent is necessary.

Connecticut: If under sixteen years of age, the written consent of the judge of probate for the district where the minor resides must be obtained. Written parental consent is needed if under 18 years of age.

Delaware: You will need signed parental consent forms provided by the Clerk of the Peace office if you are under 18 years of age.

District of Columbia: You will need signed parental or guardian consent forms if you are under 18 years of age. If you are under 16 years of age, you cannot marry in the District of Columbia.

Florida: If an individual is under 18 years of age, but older than 16 years of age, a marriage license can be obtained with parental consent. If a minor’s parents are both deceased and there is not an appointed guardian, he/she may apply for a marriage license. A minor who has been previously married may also apply for a license. A minor who swears that they have a child or are expecting a baby, can apply for a license if the pregnancy has been verified by a written statement from a licensed physician.

Georgia: If you are 16 or 17 years old, you may apply if accompanied by both parents who have given written consent. If the bride is pregnant, no parental consent is required if you submit a statement from a licensed physician certifying that the bride is pregnant.

Hawaii: If you are 16 or 17 years of age, you must have the written consent of both of your parents, legal guardian, or the family court. If you are 15 years old, you will not only need the written consent of both of your parents or legal guardian, but also the written approval of a judge of the family court. You can obtain the necessary consent forms from a marriage license agent.

Idaho: If you are 16 or 17 years of age, you will need to have a certified copy or your original birth certificate, or a passport, or a driver’s license or state ID card. You must be accompanied by one of your parents or your legal guardian and have written parental consent on the Affidavit of Consent to Marriage of Minor. If you are under 16 years of age, you will also need a court order.

Illinois: If you are 16 or 17 years of age, you will have to provide a copy of your birth certificate along with some other sort of identification showing your date of birth. You will also need to have the sworn consent from each parent, each legal guardian or a judge - in person - before the county clerk at the time of application. If your parent is deceased, you will need to show a death certificate or proof of guardianship, or a court order waiving consent. A legal guardian will also need to show a certified copy of the guardianship papers. If you are under 16 years of age, you cannot get married.

Indiana: A certified copy of your birth certificate is required. If you are 17 years old you must apply for the license with both parents (or the person with legal custody). They will need to sign the consent portion of the application. If you are 16 or 15 years old, you must petition the Circuit Court via a “Permission to Marry” form.

Iowa: Under 18 applicants (16 or 17 years of age) need to have parental consent.

Kansas: Any applicant who is under age 18 must have either: - Notarized, written consent of all then living parents and legal guardians, or notarized, written consent of one parent or legal guardian and consent of a district court judge.

Kentucky: The age is 18 or above, if you are 16 or 17 years old, you must have the consent of your parents or legal guardian.

Louisiana: If either party to the marriage is between the ages of 16 and 18, the presence and signatures of both parents are required. If a parent has legal custody in a divorce, a certified copy of the judgment must be presented. If either party is under the age of 16, a court order is required in order to obtain a license.

Maine: Applicants must be over 18 years old. A license shall not be issued to anyone under the age of 16 without written parental consent and the written consent of a judge.

Maryland: Parental consent is needed if under 18 years of age. If you are between 16-18 years of age, one of your parents or guardian must be with you and provide written consent. If you are under 16 years of age, you will need both the written consent of your custodial parent or guardian and the written approval of a judge of the Orphans’ Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas. If you are under 18, pregnant or have a child, and show a certificate from a licensed physician stating you are pregnant or have had a child, the parental consent requirement may be waived.

Massachusetts: Age 18 years or older. A birth certificate may be required to show proof of age. ¾If either party is under 18, a court order from a probate or district court where the minor resides must be obtained before the marriage intentions can be filed.

Michigan: Applicants 16 years of age may marry with parental or legal guardian written consent. Applicants under the age of 15 with parental consent and probate court permission. ‘Marriage of a Minor’: The legal marriage of a minor “shall release such minor from parental control.”

Minnesota: Applicants between the ages of 15 and 18 must have the consent of a parent, guardian or the judge of juvenile court. ¾Applicants younger than 15 needs the written consent of a parent of guardian and the consent of a juvenile court judge.

Mississippi: Parental consent is needed if under 21 years of age. If parents or guardians do not give consent at time of application, they will be notified via certified mail. The marriage application will be held for three (3) days. Marriage licenses cannot be issued to males under 17, or females under 15 years of age. If the clerk receives a signed authorization from the parents, this minimum age requirement can be waived.

Missouri: A person under age 18 cannot marry without the consent of the custodial parent or guardian. «¾A person under age 15 cannot marry without approval of a judge in the county where the marriage license is sought. The statute states that the judge should grant approval only upon a showing of “good cause” and that unusual conditions make the marriage “advisable.” Persons lacking mental capacity to consent to marriage cannot marry without court approval.

Montana: If you are 16 or 17 years old, you must have the consent of both parents unless only one parent has legal custody of you. Both of you, as a couple, will also have to attend at least two counseling sessions that are at least 10 days apart. This has to be done with a designated counselor who will then have to provide a letter that states the names of the couple, their ages, the dates of the counseling sessions, and what the counselor thinks about their possible marriage.

Nebraska: Under 19 — A notarized consent form must be signed by the person’s legal guardian giving consent to the marriage of the minor. Nebraska will not issue a marriage license if either applicant is under 17 years of age.

Nevada: If you are 16 or 17 years old, you must have one parent or legal guardian present. A notarized written permission is also acceptable. It must be written in English and needs to state the name, birth date, age of the minor child, along with the relationship of the person giving consent. The notary must note that the parent or guardian personally appeared before or was subscribed and sworn to. If you are under 16, marriage can be authorized only by court order when the request has been filed by either parent or legal guardian.

New Hampshire: A female between the age of 13 and 17 years and a male between the age of 14 and 17 years can be married only with the permission of their parent (guardian) and a waiver. A female below the age of 13 and a male below the age of 14 are not allowed to marry under any conditions. If both parties are nonresidents of NH and are below the age of 18 they cannot be married in NH under any conditions.

New Jersey: Applicants under 18 can marry if both parents consent to the marriage. The consent must be given under oath in front of two witnesses. Males: 16 or younger parties may marry with parental consent and/or permission of judge. Younger parties may obtain license in case of pregnancy or birth of child. Females: 16 or younger parties may marry with parental consent and/or permission of judge. Younger parties may obtain license in case of pregnancy or birth of child.

New Mexico: Parental consent if 16 or 17 years of age. Court order if 15 years of age. (There is no waiting period as in most states and marriage licenses are issued and valid immediately and do not expire.

New York: If you are 16 or 17 years of age, you will need to have a completed parental consent form filled out by both parents. If you are either 14 or 15 years of age, you will need to show the written consent of both parents and a justice of the Supreme Court or a judge of the local Family Court. Applicants under 14 years of age cannot marry. Only one parent’s consent will be accepted if one parent is deceased or has been missing for over a year, or if one parent has full custody from a divorce proceeding. Your parents or guardians must give their consent in person before the town or city clerk or some other authorized official. If they are out of state, a notarized affidavit is acceptable but has to be accompanied by a certificate of authentication when the consent is filed in New York State.

North Carolina: Applicants 18 to 20 must present a certified copy of their birth certificate. Applicants 16 and 17 must present a consent form signed by the parent, individual, agency or institution having legal custody or serving as the legal guardian of the underage party. (birth certificate is also required). The consent form must be notarized. Applicants 14 and 15 must provide a certified copy of the court order authorizing the marriage. A certified copy of the birth certificate is also required. A marriage license may not be issued to applicants under 14 years of age.

North Dakota: If a person is between sixteen and eighteen years of age, a marriage license may not be issued without the consent of the parents or guardian. This requires a notarized statement.

Ohio: If you are 18 to 21 years of age, you will need to show your birth certificate. Persons aged 16-17 must have consent to marry from parents or legal guardians and may have to contact the Probate Court. Additionally, the Judge may require the minors to state that they have received marriage counseling that is satisfactory to the court. Section 3101.05 also mentions how the court will deal with a pregnant minor.

Oklahoma: If you are under 18, your parents must appear at the courthouse with you to sign a consent form. Minors must wait three days before the marriage license is valid.

Oregon: Under 18: Anyone not yet 17 years of age cannot be legally married in the State of Oregon. A seventeen year old can be married if they have the parent’s or guardian’s consent (State Consent form needed).

Pennsylvania: If under 18 years of age applicants may marry with consent of a parent or guardian. Applicants must present Birth Certificate plus an additional $5.00. Okay, if under 16 years of age with the approval of a Judge of the Orphans Court, as well as parent or guardian.

Rhode Island: Under 18: A Minor’s Permit to marry must be completed if a female applicant is 16 or 17 years of age. The permit must be signed and notarized in the presence of the City or Town Clerk or any clerk employed in that office. ¾A female under age 16 and a male under age 18 cannot secure a marriage license in the State of Rhode Island without the approval of the Family Court.

South Carolina: If you are under 18, you will need a certified copy of your birth certificate and a notarized statement of parental consent. The minimum age for a female is 14 and it is 16 for a male.

South Dakota: Applicants 16 and 17 must have parental consent. South Dakota law does not permit marriage of those under 16.

Texas: The age is 18 without from a parent or your legal guardian. If under the age of 16, the law requires that the couple receives a court order before being allowed to marry.

Tennessee: If either party is under the age of 18, they must be accompanied by parents. If under the age of 16, Tennessee law requires that the couple receives a court order before being allowed to marry.

Utah: The law states that marriage at the age of 18 years and above does not require parental consent. For those aged 16-17, parental consent is necessary. For those 15 years old, the following requirements must be met: Parental consent must be obtained. Approval from Juvenile Court is necessary. The court must conclude that the marriage is voluntary and in the best interests of the minor.

Vermont: If you are at least 16, but under 18, you will need the consent of a parent or guardian.

Virginia: If either of you are under 18 years of age, you must have written, notarized consent from a parent or your legal guardian.

Washington: If under the age of 18, proof of age is required (birth certificate or driver’s license). Additionally, the parent or guardian must be present to sign the application form. If under 17, written permission from the family court must be obtained.

Washington DC: Both applicants must be at least 18 years old to obtain a marriage license. With parental consent, the male must be at least 16 years old and the female must be at least 16 years old. Parental consent must be provided either in person or by notarized letter.

West Virginia: If either of you are under 18 years of age, you must have the consent (in person or written) of a parent or guardian. If written, the consent must be notarized. There may be special provisions for an underage bride who is pregnant.

Wisconsin: If either the bride or groom is under 18, you must have written, notarized consent from his or her parents or guardian. There is a Consent form available to be signed by parents or guardian before a County Clerk.

Wyoming: Applicants must be at least 18 years old or with written parental consent. Applicants under 16 years of age only with court order.

Other situations - Pregnant Teens: Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland and Oklahoma allow pregnant teens or teens who have already had a child to get married without parental consent. In Florida, Kentucky, and Oklahoma, the young couple must have authorization from a court. Maryland requires that the minor be at least 16. Even with parental approval, many states will require court approval when a person is 16 years of age or less.

Posted by: peacefirst at April 27, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #143751
I do not understand how you how you think its OK to move the bar for one group and not another.

peacefirst,

Becuase moving the bar for one group brings it into line with a group that already has those rights. The other moves the bar beyond both those groups and establishes new rights that no group presently holds. As it stands, you can legally marry the one you love, I cannot. That is not fair. It is not discrimination if nobody else has that right.

I am aking for the same thing gays are asking for and that is to be with who I love.

Gays and Lesbians are NOT asking to marry multiple partners, we are asking to marry the one we love. Something you already have the right to do. What you are asking is to marry multiple partners. You may love them all, and you are certainly free to fight for the right to marry them all, but you are not asking for the same thing.

So once you get your rights you will discriminate against me?

No, I never said that I was against the idea of polygamy. It is not for me, but as long as everyone involved consents and you are not causing harm to anyone, then I personally would not oppose it. What I said is that your fight for pologamy rights is not the same as gays fight for marriage equality.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 28, 2006 12:04 AM
Comment #143763

Everyone:

Do you think peacefirst is for real? I get the feeling that the situation being described is manufactured to yank chains.

peacefirst:

If you are for real, and one wife is having your seventh child. With you and your adopted daughter, legal wife and the children you’ve discussed that makes a household of ten.

Since you are making a pitch for legalizing your situation, I feel entitled to ask if you receive assistance from state or federal sources. Be aware that I will take a dim view of you picking my pocket to support a harem.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 28, 2006 2:07 AM
Comment #143779

goodkingned: Kelly and I are older. We have had five children with Kelly, one with jane (she pregnant when we married her) and now one with sara. As I said before we have a farm and are self-sufficient. No government aid for my family but we do get federal argiculture assistance (as does every farmer).

Posted by: peacefirst at April 28, 2006 6:24 AM
Comment #143780

JayJaySnow: I think pologamy and gay marriage are exactly the same. We are asking to be married to who we want because we love them. I look above and see that the same reasons you gave for marrying your partner are the same reasons I should be able to marry who ever I want, as many as I want, and as often as I want as long as we love each other and are consenting.

Posted by: peacefirst at April 28, 2006 6:30 AM
Comment #143789
Do you think peacefirst is for real? I get the feeling that the situation being described is manufactured to yank chains.

I’m very suspicious as well.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 28, 2006 8:56 AM
Comment #143793

Whether peacefirst is real or not, his points are accurate. So too is JayJay’s assertion about how polygamy brings about NEW rights, not equal rights.

But the point is that the same arguments can be made in favor of polygamy as can be made in favor of same sex marriage. The argument can be made—and is being made—that people in love should be able to be married, regardless of sex or number.

Its a Pandora’s box. When we remove one limitation on marriage, we can then create arguments to remove all limitations on marriage. The same logic applies. Personally, I want limits on marriage. I want the definition of marriage to remain as it is. It seems the majority of Americans agree with that position, according to the polls.

But those who favor removing only certain restrictions must look at their hypocrisy in wanting to be the ones to determine which limits they want and don’t want. They can no longer state that they simply want those who love each other to be able to marry—-unless they are willing to remove any and all restrictions on marriage.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 28, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #143808
Personally, I want limits on marriage. I want the definition of marriage to remain as it is. It seems the majority of Americans agree with that position, according to the polls.
Yes, but acceptance of gay marriage is increasing rapidly, even just looking at the last year or two: Less Opposition to Gay Marriage, Adoption and Military Service. It’s only a matter of time until the majority of the American public gets over the fear that was instilled in them and reality takes hold. As far as limiting marriage goes, I think it should be based on a cost benefit analysis. Legalizing gay marriage would result in a great benefit for many Americans…but what about the cost to society? There is none—at least none that has been backed up by evidence.

And Pandora’s box has been open for a long time. It was first opened when the slaves were set free, and the lid was ripped off completely when women were allowed to vote. How much worse can it get! ;-)

Posted by: Charles Wager at April 28, 2006 10:54 AM
Comment #143815

Charles Wager:”It’s only a matter of time until the majority of the American public gets over the fear that was instilled in them and reality takes hold. As far as limiting marriage goes, I think it should be based on a cost benefit analysis. Legalizing gay marriage would result in a great benefit for many Americans…but what about the cost to society? There is none—at least none that has been backed up by evidence.”
I agree with your logic and once we can get past allowing gays to marry it will be my family’s turn. There are many of us just hoping and waiting for your precedent to take hold in society. After all if you can accept two men sleeping with each and raising a family, you could surely accept all of us. We are heterosexual, just more than two of us. And so far we have only contributed to society and not taken away. We home school so we are not waste tax dollars for schools. We do get crop assistance but that is what every farmer gets in order to survive. We have been very good citizens and are looking forward to the day when we can be accepted as a loving family. We are looking forward to the gay community to support us in court when it is our turn.

Posted by: peacefirst at April 28, 2006 11:10 AM
Comment #143834
But those who favor removing only certain restrictions must look at their hypocrisy in wanting to be the ones to determine which limits they want and don’t want. They can no longer state that they simply want those who love each other to be able to marry—-unless they are willing to remove any and all restrictions on marriage.

JBOD,

Sorry, but my argument has always been about equality. Gays have been relegated to second class status in this country. I am not trying to say which restrictions should be removed and which shouldn’t. Everyone in this country has the right to try to remove a restriction to marriage, but as we have seen with same-sex marriage it is not that easy. I am simply talking about the equality between two groups of people. Polygamy is not about equality, as nobody is currently allowed to marry multiple partners.

After reading peacefirst’s last post, I am thouroughly convinced he is not for real, but simply here to instigate and prove a point.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 28, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #143839

JayJay:

I understand your premise, and you’ve stated it eloquently. I think, however, that one can view this in a different manner regarding equality.

You want the freedom to marry who you want to, be they woman or man. peacefirst wants the freedom to marry who he chooses, regardless of how many people it is. To have true equality, then, one could say that equality is every citizen having the freedom to marry whom they choose, with no restriction.

By tilting your argument slightly, and making the freedom to marry the measure of equality, your logic can be used to support peacefirst’s opinion.

It’s a difficult topic without a clear answer in my opinion. You’ve brought up some interesting points that I’ll be considering. I doubt I’ll change my viewpoint, but I’ll likely modify it somewhat. At the very least, I’ll investigate my own thinking for hypocrisy. I hope you’ll do the same.

Thanks for making your viewpoint clearer to me.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 28, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #143840

To all: we are for real, it may be convenient for you to ignore us for now (I am baffled as to why you would), but we are for real. Regardless of whether you believe we are real, we will have our day, but we are not stupid, we know we have to wait. My guess in twenty years our sons and daughters will be able to marry, however they see fit, not how the government decides. The standards for marriage will be determined by love and consent only. I thought you of all people could relate to this but I guess it is just human nature to display a me only attitude. That is why I believe we are more evolved than you. It is hard to be selfish and me only when you have to share with so many on a daily basis. I have hope for you and will continue to cheer on your efforts. We are real, ignoring us or pretending we don’t exist will not make us go away.

Posted by: peacefirst at April 28, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #143843

JayJaySnow:No man is yet allowed to marry another man except in MA. So how does the number of people involed in a married matter or differ from what you are talking about. It still comes down to if my wives and I love each other and are all consenting then who’s business is it. We haven’t hurt any one!

Posted by: peacefirst at April 28, 2006 1:02 PM
Comment #143850

peacefirst,

I agree with you, if all consent and no one is getting hurt, then it is none of my business, and as I have stated I would not oppose it. However, I take exception with your premise that the right to same-sex marriage and polygamy are the same battle. They are not.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 28, 2006 1:42 PM
Comment #143858

jayjaysnow: maybe I should accept your premise that they aren’t exactly the same, but to me this is semantics. the number or the who will not matter. we are planning to be accepted and we will use the same arguement you are using. and thanks to your effort it will be easier for us. unfortunately we can not join forces with you because that is what they wnat. but it is comforting to know you will not oppose us once you battle is over.

Posted by: peacefirst at April 28, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #143868

You guys crack me up!

Posted by: kctim at April 28, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #143870

peacefirst:

You say that you are ‘older’ and that you are waiting for Mary to reach the age of 16 before you adopt her and f**k her as part of your household. How commendable! I’m assuming that you either would like to f**k her now as a guest wife or that you already are f**king her. Are Mary’s real parents aware of your interest in their daughter? Are you lining up other vives from your wife/daughter circle of friends?

What you are doing is illegal under child protection laws. You sick f**k.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 28, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #143886

goodkingned: we do not f people in our house. we love each other. but your jump to conclusion is wrong. Jane gave birth about a yr ago and I have not as you would say f’ed her. I was not the father of her child until Annie was born. It is not preverted it is love. Jane is now 17. ALL of my wives parents agree with what is going on. John has four wives hisself. John is Jane’s father. When Jane got pregnant he wanted her to marry the father but he bailed, so Kelly, Sara and I step-up and took responsibility. It has been all love and respect. Mary parents do not exist. They are drug addicts and have disappeared. And no I have not been f ing her. I would never consider that until Kelly says to. As much as you would like to paint us as a bunch orgy lovers, it just doesn’t work that way. to bad you aren’t open minded like jayjay.

Posted by: peacefirst at April 28, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #143899

“As much as you would like to paint us as a bunch orgy lovers, it just doesn’t work that way”

Damn! I had just started looking too.
Oh well.

Posted by: kctim at April 28, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #143900

Oh, and Ned.
Message, not the messenger please. Don’t want to lose you from the site.
Thanks.

Posted by: kctim at April 28, 2006 3:46 PM
Comment #143912

Jay Jay,
It’s complete and total bullshit what they’re trying to do to taxpaying American citizens who are committed to each other. If the govt. wants to keep denying gay couples the same rights as everybody else, then you folks shouldn’t have to pay taxes at all. I bet a huge loss of revenue like that would make them change their bigoted tune in a hurry.

kctim, you’ve got to admit that an old man adopting teenagers, because he can’t legally marry them seems pretty damn creepy and pervy.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 28, 2006 4:17 PM
Comment #143926

If they are legal and its all consentual, I am not the type to judge.
We have no idea of what the situation really is and jumping to conclusions would not be fair.

Not really my cup of tea though. I prefer older, mature women myself.
To each his own, I guess.

Posted by: kctim at April 28, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #143937

Apparently there is a nest of them. Parents who approve of taking an impressionable teenager and immersing her in an adult sexually charged situation are not just bad parents by my standards. The government outlaws such behavior and would remove these children from this unhealthy enviroment if they were aware of the situation.

Limitations on the sorts of contracts and relationships that young people are allowed to engage in were established for the purpose of protecting them. Teenagers do not have the perspective to evaluate the long term pro and cons of entering this sort of relationship.

I would have no moral problem with peacefirst’s practice of polygamy assuming he is able to support his dependents if he chose to include adults as his wives. He is preying on naive youth and should be prosecuted if for no other reason than to protect the juveniles living in his home. What chance do they have of integrating into normal society upon adulthood after being raised this way?

Peacefirst has the right to make decisions about his lifestyle. He does not have the right to condemn his children, the real ones not the fake wives, to being outcasts in society.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 28, 2006 4:55 PM
Comment #143950

goodkingned: you continue to make a lot of assumptions. I said I was older, that is all I said. Kelly and I are younger than 35. Sara is now 24. She was twenty when we married. What would have us do about Jane. I have never had sex with her. Someday we may have a child together. But when you live in a house with three woman and soon to be 7 kids you learn you are not the boss. If it is decided that we Jane should have a child fathered by me it certainly will not be decided by me. Nothing has been decided with regards to Mary. The women make those decisions in this house and Kelly has the final decision. what we do know is we can’t leave her homeless and the Social Services people will just screw up her life. We will provide her a loving environment.

And yes we am providing for all my dependents and even some who aren’t. can you say the same?

Posted by: peacefirst at April 28, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #143964

peacefirst:

It is possible to assist people without marrying them. If John, also a polygamist, is Jane’s father why doesn’t he take care of her until she is eighteen. In the rest of the country, that’s the accepted practice. Furthermore, if Jane had an abortion or put the child up for adoption, then she could get an education and move out of your little wierdo world.

And I assume that you are raising your children to believe that polygamous relationships are superior and should be the norm. I guess that you don’t plan on educating these children past the minimum required by law. You are closing doors on these children. There is a reason that laws are enacted to stop this kind of child abuse.

Do these kids have any contact with people who don’t believe this? Do you think that living under a veil of secrecy and hiding from the government will prepare them to be on their own as adults? It seems quite likely that your children will only be comfortable in a compound, not in society.

I was talking to a friend about your situation and we decided that you farm people. When the little girls grow up to maturity, that seems to be about 14 in your neck of the woods, will you trade out with some of your neighbors for their young’uns or do you plan to recruit more wife/daughters at the bus station?

Posted by: goodkingned at April 28, 2006 6:36 PM
Comment #143975

kctim:
“If they are legal and its all consentual, I am not the type to judge.
We have no idea of what the situation really is and jumping to conclusions would not be fair.”

As my gran always said: “Keep an open mind, but not so much that your brains fall out.”
While I don’t know all the details (and I’m not sure I’d care to), I’m still going with my creepy/pervy hunch.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 28, 2006 7:09 PM
Comment #143980

Adrienne;

That’s really funny!

peacefirst;

I’m going to dinner now. So goodnight, peacefirst, goodnight Kelly, goodnight Mary, goodnight Jane, goodnight Annie, goodnight Sara and goodnight Kletus and all the rest.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 28, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #143983

Ned,

You forgot Johnboy.

Posted by: Rocky at April 28, 2006 7:23 PM
Comment #144005

goodkingned:You know for people who claim to be so open minded, you are very close minded. I have to say, it sounds like, now that you are close getting your rights you are acting the same as those, you claim to be hateful. I have said I haven’t had sex with Jane but you still do not except that. In all my life I have never had sex with any one under 18. I have no intention of starting, I guess you are not trying to understand us. We do have a superior way of life because it is not about the sex it is about the love. That is it, we love each other. You talk about education. What do you consider education? I never finished formal schooling but I am communicating with you. We are all farmer in this community. There is no need for any of your higher education, but we never stop studying. We believe God wanted us to constantly better ourselves, so we do. We have the internet and we know how to use it. We learned how by reading and practicing. Maybe I would make you feel better if I sed I learnt it bi reding n other stuff. Wesa also good at planten crops and stuf. Wesa red a flyer tells us to puts the cernels in da ground and when da rains hits it itsa grows. You need to practice some of the open mindedness you so mightly preach. I bet you claim to have many gay friends and thus are an expert on why they should be allowed to marry. So where is that same type of understanding with us? Now you know why we usually keep to ourselves. Course that sounds like the gay community 20 years ago. Give us 20 years and we will be mainstream too (see I even know the difference between to and too). I am just the beginning. Kelly cautioned me, she said people weren’t ready for us, but I said look Kelly these people believe the same as we do. They love each other and want to be married. They believe if you are of consenting age, then love is all that matters. I guess as always Kelly was right again. We are not going away you will have to deal with us. We have learned (or learnt which ever you like) a lot from you but we are not ready to use it. We are still waiting for your final outcome. I still wish you luck even though you are against us. How would you say it “Its all about the love, baby!”

Posted by: peacefirst at April 28, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #144015
Wesa also good at planten crops and stuf. Wesa red a flyer tells us to puts the cernels in da ground and when da rains hits it itsa grows.
Dat makes us lafs. Thanks.
Posted by: Charles Wager at April 28, 2006 9:51 PM
Comment #144079

peacefirst:

I don’t speak for anybody but myself. My tone has been unpleasantly strident, but I’ll stand by my opposition to raising children in the manner you have chosen. However, do not judge anyone else by me. I am not typical of most of the posters at this site who have largely been silent on the topic of your lifestyle.

Posted by: goodkingned at April 29, 2006 3:21 AM
Comment #144130

Adrienne
“As my gran always said: “Keep an open mind, but not so much that your brains fall out.””

About everything ma’am.

While I don’t know all the details (and I’m not sure I’d care to), I’m still going with my creepy/pervy hunch

Never said I didn’t agree with ya on that.

Posted by: kctim at April 29, 2006 12:08 PM
Post a comment