April 24, 2006
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.
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 04:15 PMOk 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?
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 04:36 PMgaygaysnow 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 04:39 PMRHancheck,
“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 04:53 PMsaying,
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 04:55 PMahh 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 04:57 PMJayJay:
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 05:01 PMRHancheck,
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 05:02 PMI’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 05:03 PMMarriage 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 05:05 PMjoebagodonuts,
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 05:07 PMjay 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 05:11 PMRHancheck,
“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 05:20 PMJayJay,
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 05:21 PM
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 05:37 PMJayJay,
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 05:38 PMWonderful 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 06:12 PMIt’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 06:37 PMJayJay,
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 06:41 PMJohn 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 06:43 PMOne 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 06:56 PMThere is no way that a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage will ever pass. This is just another attempt by the Consevative ruling class to use religious extremism to divert all of us from the real issues (oil prices, healthcare, environment, national debt, pensions going bust, incompetence of leadership, etc.), while they turn our laws back to what we had a hundred years ago. This is how the Republicans won in 2004, they got all the toothless, confederate flag waving, bible thumping, sister fucking, nascar watching rednecks out to vote on gay marriage bans in several states, and while they were there they voted Republican down the line.
Posted by: bushflipflops at April 24, 2006 07:02 PM
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 07:06 PMjoebagodonuts,
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 07:09 PMAll 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.
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.
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 08:09 PMI 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 08:46 PMWe should have Koran quotes too. Then the nuts can argue who is holier than thou…
Posted by: Aldous at April 24, 2006 08:58 PMLaws 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 09:04 PMJack,
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 09:10 PM“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.
—-€œSo 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 09:14 PMBTW, 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 09:14 PMJack:
“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 09:15 PMrbt,
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 09:16 PMvery 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 09:33 PM“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 09:34 PMIf 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.
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 09:50 PM“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 PMActually, 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.
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.
Let Frist introduce his anti-gay marriage amendment. Then let he who is without sin cast the first vote.
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 PMd.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. RGFRGF, 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.
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 AMAldous:
You’re right. Pay raises for congress do seem to be a perennial consensus issue.
Posted by: goodkingned at April 25, 2006 02:37 AMAdrienne 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.
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 ?
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 08:49 AM
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?
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 09:31 AMDisagreement 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 09:43 AMkctim — Dems keep losing votes with their €œour 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 09:52 AM“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 09:53 AMBeing 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“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“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“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’.
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 AMpat,
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
€œWhat 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!
“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
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 AMTony,
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 €œin 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 €œin 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 AMCharles,
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;“What 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“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 AMrbt,
“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“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 AMand why do I keep spelling consentual as consensual? (Must be some sort of Freudian slip…???)
Posted by: tony at April 25, 2006 12:03 PMkctim,
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 PMPat,
“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.
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 PMBut 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 PMTony,
“These are my opinions - and have always been stated as such. How can you presume €œdishonesty€ 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?”
“Apparently, the American people thought the Dems €œour 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 PMLawnBoy,
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.
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 PMHas 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“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.
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 01:00 PM
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.
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.
“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 01:15 PMAlso - 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 01:21 PMI’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 01:22 PMHaving 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.
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 €œeffects€ 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.
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 01:36 PMHuh?? 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 01:38 PMAnd 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 01:38 PMAnd 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 01:40 PMAAAHHHHH, 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 01:45 PM” 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 01:45 PMThe 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 01:47 PMPat,
“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”.
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!
And why is it that the Christian should have to change his beliefs about homosexuality to match that of a liberalYou 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 01:49 PM
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 01:59 PM“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 02:03 PMThe 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 02:06 PMLawnBoy,
“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
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 02:20 PMPat,
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 02:21 PMTony,
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 02:24 PMGays 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 02:32 PMThe right doesn’t get it.
The right probably never will.
The right understands only selectively.
Posted by: Rocky at April 25, 2006 02:54 PM“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 02:59 PMkctim,
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 €œmy 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 accountabl