We live in a country with a legal system based on the preponderance of evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt before a man is convicted of a crime. We cherish this, rightly so. We are innocent until proven guilty. This too is a fundamental truth. We conservatives insist on factual knowledge, on experience, on logic, reason, and a fundamental truth to things. Liberals, as we all well know, live in a sort of amorphous dreams and wisps of imaginary problems, buttressed by the flimsiest logic known to mankind. Socialism, communism, progressives, liberals, social justice … oh, they use so many terms it’s hard to keep track; you know of whom I speak.
But, then, beyond all this stuff about economics and foreign policy and patriotism and entitlements and the debt and deficit and the budget, or, non-existent budget, and the current politics of our times … there’s the gay thing. The homosexual issue. Oh, I contend we are so very different that it requires an appeal to something beyond mere math, such as might be contended with a budget. The gay thing simply stands apart from every other political problem facing the nation. And so, as the gay guy who is quite conservative in every sense of the word you might imagine on any issue before the public – immigration, bank bailouts, dealing with Europe, the Fed, the IRS, the DHS – hell, all the D’s (how appropriate, so bad that they only get D’s, eh?) and well, I’d make Barry Goldwater proud – I will try to explain the dilemma.
I make my father proud too. He was a Goldwater Republican. Still is, I guess. He’s gone Reagan. Oh well, no one is perfect. But it was Goldwater who said, in 1994: “You don’t have to like it, but gay Americans deserve full constitutional right including military service and marriage.”
That’s what Mr. Conservative said while Mr. Third Way Liberal Clinton with his pants down was signing into law DADT and DOMA. Irony, yes? Yes, then there’s the gay thing. Well, my father and I have a great relationship, and he and I wrote a book together.
His life as he wanted to tell it, and my two cents. Well, that’s the “gays are anti-family” bit, yes? Isn’t that is what is said? Yes, “homosexuals are anti-family.” So be it. Maybe homosexuals are. But, alas, to reality, gay men are not. My own father doesn’t think so, I assure you.
Indeed, in my appeal, I posit this simple notion – I’m as opposed to “homosexuality” as the opponents of gay guys are. That is, this construct called “homosexuality” and its “lobby” “agenda” and “pro-gay liberals” is a myth, it’s a thing that doesn’t exist. And yes, I’m against it. But then, well, then there are us gay guys. And we don’t fit the “homosexual” mold. That’s the problem. That’s my appeal to the jury of my peers. The evidence against us is not real, and the facts are for us. We are, I hope, at least deserving of a reasonable doubt.
Let me start off with the sex. Yes. Most of you find the sex abhorrent. OK, fine. I’ll accept that. Let us then stipulate that minimally 95% of the male population is not gay. That leaves 5%, at most. Is this the real number? We don’t know. Out of all the things counted and quantified, studied and examined, the real numbers of gay men is not on the list. No one knows. Every study must, of course, reference Kinsey’s 10%. It’s a number long discredited, no one believes it, and yet, it must be referenced. Pro-or-con. This I agree, some gays use it, some heteros do. Then, there’s the 11 – count them – 11 studies by phone that were done over the decades. Gary Gates, of UCLA Williams Center – and a gay demographer, the gay websites helpfully tell me – concludes there are exactly, I kid you not: 2,491,034 gay men in America. This is the supposed latest number. Except the Gallop poll of just a few weeks ago which says that the “number” of “LGBT” [who would admit] on the phone was 3.5% – they did not break it down as to which were L, G, B, T nor provide an absolute number.
Some people use 1%, others 1.4, 1.5, 2, 2.3, 2.6, 2.9, 4, 6 – Here’s but one “study” of the number. Here’s a mind shocker – most heterosexuals think 25% of the population is gay and just 6.5% are gay according to Roberto Lopez at American Thinker conservative blog a month ago no source was given. Here’s yet another strange estimate
So, indeed, no one has a blessed clue as to how many of us there are. Once you face that, then you can conclude that any other study which purports to show that this number of gay guys are or are not doing this or that is utter bunkum. But you know, liberals are the bunkum artists, and conservatives deal with facts. So, the fact is, no one knows how many gays there are, on earth.
It is supposed that this is an American issue. That Obama is for gay marriage, and good Republicans–are–not. Except, gays – known as ‘gays’ in the local lingo worldwide, and English word run amok – are in every country on earth. Did you want to go to the Gay Pride event in Minsk, Belarus? Well, it’s there for those with the desire. How about Japan? Osaka, Tokyo, Kyoto – more, Sapporo – oh my. And Helsinki in Finland and Cape Town, Durbin and Johannesburg, South Africa, to Santiago, Chile and Buenes Aires, and Caracas, Rio, Sao Paalo, Bogata, Mexico City, Casablanca, Rome, Tel Aviv, Ankara, New Delhi – Teheran – gay people have the audacity for liberty to hold a gay pride march in Tehran! I suppose they’re attacking Allah instead of Jesus. What is that about the toughness of Tea Party conservatives with a 2nd Amendment under some rhetorical attack? Compare: gay guys got up in Teheran and said “the hell with this.” Oh, innocents.
In India there are the Untouchables. 150,000,000 souls considered, well, untouchable. The Brahmin doctors in the public hospitals for free health care refused to treat the Untouchables. And where are gays in the caste system of India? Beneath the Untouchables! Oh yes, that’s how despised we are. And what happens in Hyderabad, Bangalore, Mumbai, Calcutta, and lesser places? Gay pride marches. And you folks think this is an American issue? You think this is remotely related to any public policy issue the USA faces? Really?
If gay folks, the vast consortium of LGBTQ (I know, it’s confounding, I’m sorry, I’m not in charge) amount to a mere 5% or less of the population we are a mere 350,000,000 people out of 7 billion. Do you really all think we chose this to fight you all incessantly in every country on earth because Obama decided to come out for gay marriage? Or, that it’s not natural in some way? We appeal to your reason, and you switch to emotion. I can’t fight you on that – you know what you know, and believe what you believe, so be it. We are the pariahs of mankind, of that there is no doubt. But, well, here we are. We say we’re born gay, many of you demur, and essentially call us liars and then say it either happened to us, or we chose it, or a confab of both.
Let us face the reality too that there is, among heterosexuals, a clear division in the LGBT rainbow. Lesbians are not so bad. Oh, face it, Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt have made millions off of displays of lesbianism. As a 20 year old I did color proofing for High Society magazine, please. Bisexuals are, well, lapsed heterosexuals, and they have wives and girlfriends, and a dash of intervention and all will be well. Transgendered are, strangely, heterosexuals.
Yes, let me explain that by pointing to the two most historically prominent transgendered people we can reference: Christine Jorgensen and Chaz Bono. Christine was a guy who became a girl who then found a guy and as a gal and guy have been happily married for decades. So, gal and guy – that’s heterosexual, yes? Now, Chastity Bono was a gal, who because a guy, who then went out and found a gal – so, guy and gal together. Last I looked, and correct me if I’m wrong, when guy and gal are together in holy matrimony or at least socially acceptable shacking up that’s heterosexual, yes? Yes. So, I will admit, wholeheartedly, that I am utterly flummoxed why Transgendered people are lumped with gay guys. Gay men are not gender confused, I assure you. Well, so, the three, L, B and T, are shall we say, OK, to some degree. Ah, but then there’s G – the gay guy. We are the butt of the problem (oh, pun intended, we are adults here.)
Yes, the gay man. And what does he do? Well, as the “homosexual” he is hellbent on destroying the nation, civilization, God, marriage, kids and anything else good and wholesome. There is no good in the “homosexual.” Well, the way that guy is described I don’t like him either. Now, then, there’s the gay guy. I can’t speak for us all. Alas, we don’t get a memo from Gay Agenda Central. In fact, almost certainly much to your surprise there is a very vigorous Republican-Liberty versus Democratic-Control debate going on on gay websites. You don’t know that because “homosexuals” might be pushing an agenda to make everyone gay instead of discussing something silly like whether the currency is being inflated out of all reason. No, gay men must perforce have an exact same opinion on say, the tax code, with nary a difference to be found, like among good heteros such as yourself and say Nancy Pelosi. Who you smooch apparently doesn’t affect your IRS meter – but, if you’re a gay guy, well, I guess it must be true that you’re for something else, whatever the gay guy position is on the IRS code is supposed to be. I don’t know it. Do you?
Meanwhile, let us be realistic that there are still American politicians calling for criminalizing gay sex. Yes, Rick Santorum and Allen West and Tony Perkins and many many others have spoken about the need to outlaw gay sex. I suppose that’s to stop heterosexuals from having gay sex. It certainly didn’t stop gay men. Why, that’s why we were arrested in police raids on bars – for liberty. Oh, don’t worry, gay men paid for those raids, with our tax dollars.
We also must face the fact that this ridiculously small percentage are the only gay folks, we’re not trying to make anyone gay, and we know well we can’t, for, well, you’re born gay or you are not. And the vast majority of you are not gay, and never will be. And yet, it seems the fear that if a nice word is said about the few gays folks every heterosexual will run down to the local gay bar to find some sex. It’s strange, this belief, but that has to be it. We “choose” to be gay, so, if something nice is said about it, everyone else will choose to be gay, and then what? Only, well, no one chooses, and no one turns gay. And so the fear or worry is completely unfounded.
Strangely, groups like NARTH, AFTAH, FRC, AFA, NOM – oh, fine groups I’m sure, even if a tad gay obsessed – they are sure that we make up 1% of the population, that we are richer and more well off than everyone else, that we are gay because our father, mother, uncle, man down the block, predisposition and choice made us gay (or any combo) and that we are also demented, sick, ill, childish, absurd, unnatural and worse. And so, people who would seem to be unfit to make a go of life are also just doing stupendously! I’ll let you figure that one out.
Then too, there are the various reasons we are gay. Conservatives, as I know them, wish to know causes and fact, and to drop dogma and wishful thinking – until it comes to gay folks. Then they jump onto the merry go round of why guys are gay with wild abandon. Have you seen the list? It’s incredible. My my, so many reasons, for a tiny bunch, but 1 reason for 95%. It seems gay men have such powerful minds and wills that we are able to turn off instinct and nature itself; science has not seen fit to study the anomaly.
Actually, since gay men are the majority of the 5% LBGT, I’ll say 3% gay men – OK – AFTAH says it’s because our mothers were strong and our fathers absent – OK, so there would be no black teenage pregnancy problem in America today – they’d all be gay for having strong mothers and absent fathers. Not to worry, Ann Coulter and others blame gay guys on the black teen pregnancy problem. I suppose we get them pregnant after our hours and hours of gay sex. I don’t know.
The late Charles Socarides, a doctor, with NARTH, is sure it’s the weak father and cloying mother – only, he has a gay son, a “homosexual lobbyist” even, and well, there’s tension there, yes?
The Family Research Council is sure there’s predisposition and a choice – I suppose we are predisposed to choose. The predisposition is not further explained, except, it’s not genetic or natural. So, somehow, we’re both naturally predisposed and unnaturally predisposed – and we choose to be gay too later on. I don’t know. I’m not in the business of purveying the mush, merely to present it. They also put out an information package pointing out that gay men die at the age of 41. This is news to me as I approach my 55th birthday. It’s their mush, ask them.
The Catholic Cardinal of Chicago, Mr. George, says that his gay nephew is a fine man while homosexuals are intrinsically disordered and evil and destructive to society. I will leave to you all and the Cardinal the division of proportion of how much “fine man” and how much “evil” the nephew might possess. Or, I submit, one or the other proposition – fine or evil – is off the wall. But you can’t be a “fine” and “evil” at the same time, can you?
It is well known that liberals despise the military and avoid serving. It’s not so well known that it was Log Cabin Gay Republicans and serving soldiers who challenged DADT and had won in the lower courts and were going to win higher up when Obama decided to join the bandwagon. He fought the case at first, after he lost he changed his mind. Oh don’t let his evolving and following be confused for leadership. The man hasn’t led on anything ever – now you think he’s at the forefront of gay issues? Egad. We rightly claim he’s a bumbling idiot, and then on the gay thing you think he’s changing America. He’s just another heterosexual who’s “Evolving.” Every heterosexual is evolving on the issue, you can’t get away from the discussion.
Meanwhile, gay men up and joined the military, lied as best they could to do it, at the behest of DADT and heterosexuals in general, and you still hunted them down and chased them away. The nation was in need of linguists – we had 400 linguists in the languages we needed – oh, I’m sorry, they were gay – what could they do to help the nation? – after all – it must be true that these Americans who learned Dari, Pashtun and Urdu were hellbent on destroying America by demanding a shred of decency and the ease of the legal regime of marriage. Or, the homosexual does one thing, and the gay guy another.
Which brings me to marriage. The Supreme Court is considering two cases. Two so far. There’s more in the pipeline. Even if we lose this round there’s plenty more cases, we are determined fellows. In Helen Branson’s mid-1950s book “Gay Bar” attests: gay men were for marriage, and used the word, in the 1950s. This has been a goal since the beginning. Every group, every plea, every court case, every begging has been directed towards a decent recognition of our relationships and our humanity. That’s the gay goal. It’s not political, it’s social. Meanwhile, there is the construct of the homosexual goal of destroying the place. Nothing could be father from the truth. All evidence shows it.
In fact, gay folks have jobs or own businesses. We have to, there are no public programs for us, no. We aren’t the unwed mothers on welfare. We’re not the people getting disability – even though many are quite sure being gay is some disability indeed, we still have to make our own money. So, we do. The National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce claims 1.4 million members. Say ½ are gay – that’s a lot of business folks, yes? I would think that gay folks pay roughly $100 billion in taxes. It’s a guess. And AIDS, always the big gay concern, costs about $2 billion total. And the defense of DOMA by Congress is costing $3 million. And other than that, gay men don’t get any services as gay men, but we sure pay for you folks – we add $98 billion to the pot for unwed mothers and abandoning fathers. We’re a net plus to the nation, obviously.
The clearest evidence that you can see on the difference between “homosexuality” and gay guys? Think about the next time you fly and get a hotel and rent a car and eat out. Look carefully at the young man who is tending your needs. The desk clerk, the waiter, the man who takes your credit card and brings your kid a glass of water – they are gay men. That’s the people you fear – the people who make sure you food is hot, your water is cold, your wine is chilled and your bed is comfy – while you all fly hither and yon denouncing homosexuals gay men are politely helping you do it. And it is this reality versus the myth that I bring to your attention. Why Conservatives go from fact, reason and logic based people on matters of public policy and then switch to pure emotion and religious dogma without a shred of fact, logic or reason on gay folks is something I don’t understand.
I don’t say these things to tell you gay folks are wonderful or that we are innocent of sin, or that you have to like us – but I tell you because you are as against the “homosexual” as I am, but I wish to speak to you as a gay American, who is not the “homosexual” of your thinking, and tell you, we are simply so unimportant, and so different, that the whole “left-right” divide disappears. With gays it’s a whole new territory.
@Redteam #151:
“Smaller government” doesn’t mean “No government.” “No government” would be reek chaos, anarchy. People cannot function together without rules and the enforcement of those rules – one of the necessary functions of government.
We all three are champions of smaller government, but when MataHarley or I point to the enforcement of a necessary rule, you charge duplicity. That’s not helpful.
@George Wells: #150, George, it’s a technical point, but:
That’s the way it’s ‘supposed’ to be, but depending on the political agenda, it’s not always allowed to be that way. The best example I can think of is: Though every citizen of the US has a vital interest in whether Obama is a ‘legitimate’ president, no court will give any citizen ‘standing’ to challenge his legitimacy. If they had nothing to be concerned about, they would allow every citizen status for that contention.
You seem to believe that if you have a right to file a complaint in court, that you automatically have the right to demand the court render a decision you agree with.
The birther lawsuits have been before the bench. They have been thrown out for sundry reasons… standing being a very common one. That is a court decision, whether you like it or not. That same has been taken all the way to SCOTUS, who also rendered a decision.
The right to sue gives you your day in court. It does not guarantee an outcome you want to hear.
@George Wells: George, as you know, #151 was addressed to Mata because her position is that the ‘government should not be involved in marriage in any way’ but then she wants to use all kinds of legal remedies for all the problems that occur. I was only pointing out her inconsistency. You can’t have it both ways, if the government is not involved, then they can’t solve your problems for you. Mata has stated repeatedly that ‘the government should not be involved’ that is not an avocation of ‘smaller’ government, it’s ‘no government’, quite a difference. I have pointed out to her that all civilizations have to have rules to live by. You can’t have ‘rules’ without ways to enforce the rules.
I agree with your statement about ‘smaller’ government.
Redteam, why would you think that getting government out of the business of issuing marriage licenses – all benefits that require a marital status to collect – or requiring divorces to undo a license/relationship that they created as necessity, negates all other laws?
That’s like saying if the requirement for a marriage license go away, all tort law in the US Code books is erased.
@Redteam #152:
Thank you.
@Redteam #153:
But perhaps you are wrong about my writing ability, as you have reached a different conclusion than did the researchers and scientists who evaluated the data. I must have failed to accurately explain their experimental design or the logic of their conclusions.
@Redteam #154:
LOL.
Homosexuality is a biological defect that some people are born with. That is scientifically established fact. When scientifically established facts become pawns in agenda-driven politics, no good comes of it.
As a scientist, I am committed to the search for truth. If I hold a position on an issue and a flaw in that position is revealed, I change it. I am always eager to up-grade my understanding of the truth. If you have conflicting data, I am very interested in it. But rhetoric without support is of little value.
Show me the proof that homosexuals are NEVER “born-that-way.” I’ve shown you proof that SOMETIMES they are. Your rebuttal must present equally compelling evidence to establish a “draw,” and a preponderance of overwhelming evidence to establish a “win.”
@George Wells: Don’t have any “proof” there is no proof either way, just rhetoric, as you said.
Do you still work for Celanese?
@Redteam #156:
Yes it is a technical point, and I think your example would be answered that there must be practical limitations in every case. You are allowed only so many appeals, and new evidence must be submitted, and there are statutes of limitations, etc., etc. The country would be submitted to an endless review of Obama’s election if every person objecting to his election was given his day in court. And doubtless, the next Republican president would suffer the same fate. For practical reasons, that scenario is not allowed, a fact that does not infringe upon anyone’s personal liberty.
Redteam #159:
Retired.
@Redteam: # 159:
I suggest you Google “homosexual identical twins study” and read a reasonably short Wikipedia entry called: “Biology and Sexual Orientation.” (There’s plenty more to read, but I think that the Wiki piece covers the subject impartially.
George, I’ll make it easy for you and Redteam. There’s a 2007 article that links the various studies directly.
One of the creepy studies was that of following young boys who were made into girls for defective organs. This would relate to, as some erroneously think, it has everything to do with parental influence. This of course is absurd, since not all siblings in a family, each with the same parents and upbringing, are homosexual.
As this article rightly points out, such studies carry an ominous note… i.e. if they find such a genetic factor, what happens within a society that feels the need to “correct” that genetic factor? Such are the foundations of genocide.
@MataHarley: #160
Mata, it is YOUR position that government should not be involved in marriages and families, not mine. marriages and families include children. If there is no law concerning marriages, how can you have a law, concerning that marriage, to correct something that is wrong? If there is no law concerning human interactions, such as sexual affairs, then you can’t have a law to rectify a problem that may occur as a result of that sexual affair, such as a pregnancy.
.Oh, so now are you limiting your ‘no government involvement’ to just whether a marriage license is issued or not? I thought you didn’t want the government involved in marriages, not just getting a license. When did you change your mind on that?
sigh… Redteam, I gave you many scenerios and specifics above about lawsuits and children for people NOT married. They did not require a license to take advantage of our civil court system.
And I’ve *ALWAYS* limited my “no government involvement” to a marriage license. duh… where ya been. Maybe you should go back and read it all again, eh? That might explain your eternal confusion.
@Redteam #165:
Oversimplification.
Argumentative.
@George Wells:
I wouldn’t advocate that ‘every’ citizen be allowed to sue, but certainly at least one person should be allowed standing just to settle the issue. And yes, it would create a lot of problems in the future, but that’s no reason not to grant at least one US citizen standing as a US citizen.
@MataHarley: @MataHarley:
No you haven’t, maybe that’s why you cause such confusion, you just think you limit it to that. I suggest you re-read what you’ve posted on this thread and you will see that you have not limited it.
@MataHarley:
Quote just one statement that implies what you just said.
No court has given any decision on the birther issue other than ‘standing’. No court has thrown out any case for any other reason.
If a US citizen does not have standing in a case of whether a person is ‘a legitimate’ president, then how could anyone ever take the case to court. Plenty of evidence is available, they are just afraid of the ramifications of the issue.
@Redteam #168:
Are you trying to tell me that of the tens of thousands of judges across the land, that “birthers” could not find ONE, lone, died-in-the-wool Republican judge who was willing to hear this case? Not one who was willing to get out into the “open” all of the damning evidence Trump-and-Troop have accumulated? I find that rather difficult to believe. Surely some renegade hanging judge down on the prairie would take it.
@MataHarley: #101
#114
#105
Also:
Definitely implying they shouldn’t be getting into estates and medical health management, etc.
#114
violence, abuse and criminals acts are not associated with ‘marriage license’.
I could go on and on Mata, but just those few examples point out that you have a big problem with government intrusion in many areas other than just a ‘marriage license’.
@MataHarley #171:
Thank you Mata – of course your quoted study’s conclusion is relevant and correct, and I agree with your closing comment.
My interest in the causes of homosexuality is both scientific and personal. More importantly, the answer to the question of causation carries serious implications for society in general and for religions in particular. Much of the moral opprobrium aimed at homosexuals comes from the belief that homosexuality is a choice. Proof that it is not would make a huge difference in many lives. It took the Catholic Church some 400 years to admit they were wrong to persecute Galileo, and it would be useful for them to reverse their position on homosexuality a bit sooner.
Yes, Redteam. I do have a big problem with government intrusion in many areas of our lives. That doesn’t equate to dismissing all of US Code. But I darned sure would like to get rid of a lot of it, that being said.
However that explains a lot about your answers. As I said, you don’t know how to separate a marriage license from existing civil (property and custody/financial support disputes) and criminal (which relates to abuse/violence) laws. Rights of couples – regardless of their genders – is not dependent upon having a marriage license for legal recourse.
The “confusion” seems to be limited to you.
@MataHarley #171:
The study of 7600 pairs of twins in Sweden in 2010 is probably the most recent to weigh in on the issue of causation. The results of that study are informative.
@Redteam, apparently you do not have a comprehension of the legal interpretation of “standing”.
But I will agree that out of all of the lawsuits where “standing” had the best shot, it was Alan Keyes, being as he was another candidate for the office. And Keyes did progress up the judicial food chain, as was his right to do.
But just because you don’t like the legal interpretation of “standing”, doesn’t mean that the right to sue has been negated, or that the day in court has not been granted.
@MataHarley #175:
“Rights of couples – regardless of their genders – is not dependent upon having a marriage license for legal recourse.”
Beg to differ in Virginia, where a Constitutional Amendment does restrict couples’ rights depending upon gender. Same-sex couples’ legal documents attempting to construct benefits that obtain automatically through marriage are rendered void by the amendment.
@MataHarley: Read the article, seems very reasonable to assume that they don’t have any answers. For every proposition they raise, they effectively shoot them down. I don’t think they will find the answer in ‘genes’ alone. Has to be something else involved, and maybe it is as simple as ‘testosterone”….
@MataHarley:#175
And yet, just above you said:
So why your statements are so confusing. always limited only to the marriage license, but also intrusion in many areas of our lives. Oh my.
reading your comments…..
Here’s where you and I part ways, George. Forget any church’s views of homosexuality… again, that comes down to whether you feel the need to sanction a religious rite. A denomination’s attitude is irrelevant, and I don’t see why it should be changed to suit your particular situation.
Instead, if you want that particular religious rite blessed, then start your own church or find one friendly to such. They may be rare, but not unheard of. Not to mention, I hear it’s a lucrative endeavor to start your own church… LOL
In the end, we all stand before God, or the deity of our choice, to answer. Your eternal fate is not decided by anyone here, making comments on FA, or a human walking this planet. (unless the second coming has happened, and CNN hasn’t reported it yet… Oh wait! Is that Obama? LOL) Man’s version of organized religion means nothing at the “pearly gates”, so to speak.
@MataHarley: #177
Sorry Mata, it’s not my misunderstanding of the meaning of ‘standing’, it’s apparently the problem a lot of judges have.
And yet Alan Keyes was dismissed for ‘standing’.
@Redteam #197:
“I don’t think they will find the answer in ‘genes’ alone.”
Correct. Every study has proven that point. Every study has ALSO proven that the answer is not in “environment” alone. What possible conclusion can be reached other than that both genes AND environment play a role. And that role is expressed in the population, not in the individual. One person may be 100% one way, or 100% the other way, or a combination of both. When you add up all of the individuals into a population, the result can only be the sum of all the individuals, and that result has to be a number in between zero and 100. Cannot be one or the other.
Mata: here is the legal definition, very simple, and accurately applied would mean that every US citizen has standing to be sure the president is legitimate. Surely you wouldn’t disagree with that.
@George Wells:
Well said. Of course the sort of knowledge you reference will only address ignorance in those who are open-minded and willing to learn. Sadly, I think you’ll be disappointed if you think it will make a dent in dyed in a wool homophobes, just as analogous knowledge never did the trick with hardcore racists. Proving anything to a “redteam” is beside the point, at least in most of the US, since demographically we’re seeing a watershed generational viewpoint shift on this topic, and his ideas, already out of touch in many part of the country, are sure to be nothing more than ugly curiosities in the near future. Don’t put your faith in empirical proof, because people who don’t want to believe simply never will. Put your faith in yourself, because the reason attitudes change on homosexuality is because people get to know their family members and neighbors, who happen to be homosexuals.
@MataHarley #181:
All agreed. I’m just trying to make peace. Ignorance is an obstacle. I try to teach, but lack your liquid delivery. Impressive.
We already have some churches – I don’t need more. Organized religion is not for me, and my marriage to my partner of 38 years comes next week at the courthouse in Annapolis, MD. But for those that do want to be married in a Catholic church, guess again.
@George Wells: #183
Uh…that neither genes or environment play a role? The more I read on the subject, the more I’m sure that no one ‘really’ knows the answer. That’s why it’s important that the agenda “they are born that way’ is not pushed, what happens if it gets proven to be incorrect? Which is beginning to be the most likely scenario.
That is the most astute comment you have made to date. Science, and society, are clueless as to the cause.
Now take it a step further. To seek to “correct” what government, or society, may consider a human flaw – and as Hitler did in his quest for a super race – ends up as NFG as a solution.
@Tom #185:
Thanks, Tom. Sentiment much appreciated. And true. I have lived in the same, predominently Republican neighborhood here in Virginia Beach for 33 years, and while the neighbors are still Republican, most of them are now in favor of gay marriage. My out partner and I have been assets to the neighborhood in many ways, and our contributions have made a difference. Had we remained in the “closet,” our lives would have meant nothing to the progress of gay rights.
I believe that’s my point. That government, creating the definition of “marriage” by the issuance of a “license” for a religious rite – that is available only to those they deem qualified – is discrimination. This “license”, or permission, is not denied based on civil or criminal background, but strictly on gender of parties involved. If one wants to take States to court over marriage licensing, using that argument, I bet they’d see a different response to arguments.
Yet if the State (or feds) did not have a “definition” and “license” for marriage, everyone would have equal rights to recourse.
But I think this is sorta escaping what I keep trying to tell Redteam. And I doubt that there is a way to convey this via Internet communication.
Redteam, it is private companies, using a government “definition”, to deny benefits to others. i.e., a discrimination enabled by government.
Directly, (pre Obamacare anyway.. LOL), the “government” is not discriminating. But by the “government” providing a definition, it perpetrates discrimination in the private sector by tort.
And BTW… if that’s what you gleaned from the link I sent on with the various studies and their disputes etc, then you didn’t spend too long on the article and it’s links.
Oh were but law that simple, Redteam. Would you like to go into the definition of “harm/injury” now? Because if you went to the Cornell definition I linked above, instead of finding a more generic version that suits your fancy, you would know that political disagreement of actions and law (or a politician’s beliefs) ain’t gonna fly as a definition of “harm”. Whether Obama was born in Kenya, or Hawaii, you… Redteam… do not have standing to bring a lawsuit because there is no personal injury or harm by legal definition.
As I said above, I thought Keyes would have been the one who would have made the grade. His personal “harm” would be as a candidate, competing against an alleged unqualified candidate…. and losing.
Silly me… busted by the robed ones as incorrect. There goes the argument. He’s a lame duck. The horse is dead.
@Redteam #187:
Sorry, redteam, but your conclusion is not rational. The results of every study point in the same direction, they vary only by degree. If you lack the capacity to appreciate the significance of the data and the logic of the conclusions, that is something I cannot give you.
Good talk. Good night!
@Tom: Tom, just for the record, I’ve never asked George to ‘prove’ anything to me. I think we’ve had a good discussion and I certainly agree with many of his points so no proof was necessary or asked for, or required. I don’t feel that I’ve made an ‘enemy’ of George and he certainly has no reason to feel that I’m the enemy. I certainly am not a ‘dyed in the wool homophobe’, I’ve clearly said many times that I couldn’t care less about who lives together and who does not. It’s the business of the people involved. You said:
leads me to think that you haven’t read or understood much of anything I’ve said. Just because people are more willing to acknowledge that what homosexuals do, has very little to do with them, I think it is very much a ‘live and let live’ situation. But think of the times when you’ve been in a crowd and someone was wrongly credited with being a homosexual and how quickly they made damn sure that idea was corrected. But, I’m sure the same reaction would have occurred if they had mistakenly been credited with being rich or poor or something like that.
Anyhow Tom, if there is one message you should get, it’s that you should be sure of who you are accusing of being something they are not.
@George Wells:
It wasn’t until I was in college that I knew a gay person. But then one day I looked back and realized I had known gay people all along, I just hadn’t known they were gay, both due to the times and my own obliviousness. It makes a huge difference, getting beyond a term to a real live person. What you are doing now makes a difference.
@George Wells: George, you misunderstood my comment. Look back at the question you asked.
I only gave you a ‘possible conclusion’ that could be reached. I didn’t say it was right, only a possible conclusion.
@MataHarley: Yes, the horse is dead, but only because he was a dimocrat.
Redteam… LOL! Humor is always appreciated, and wise, in intense debates.
@Tom: Tom, I’m gonna bet that I’m older (72) than you and I’m going to assure you that I knew what a homosexual person was by the time I was 10 years old. And not because somebody pointed him out to me.
@Redteam:
My apologies if i’ve misrepresented you. I can’t keep track of everyone whom I’ve had the same old arguments with. Why don’t you clear things up for me and explain why you care so much whether two people who are strangers to you marry. Because I have to wonder how you would feel if a complete stranger made dictating to you your personal life his business, his little important cause.
@Redteam:
I never said I didnt know what a homosexual was.
@MataHarley: #189
Mata, you don’t need to attempt to lecture me on legal terms,, I’m quite sure I have adequate legal knowledge to understand that a lot of injustice is taking place.
Let’s say, hmmm….that Obama passes a law that increases my taxes and as a result, I have to pay more taxes and assume that he is not a legitimate president and did not have the right to steal money from me, then I think it could very easily be proven that I was ‘harmed’ in a legal sense. It doesn’t matter that 315 million others were also harmed, unless they bring suit. Or would you make the case that stealing from me does no harm? It also does no good to argue that had a legal president passed the law, I would be obligated to pay those taxes and it wouldn’t be stealing. Well, that’s true, if he were legal, it wouldn’t be, but if he’s not, then it is. That’s why it’s important that the truth be known, because if he’s not legit, millions are being ‘harmed’ and have ‘standing’. For anyone to argue otherwise defies logic.
Apparently not… or you’d be sitting on a bench and not making such obtuse observations about obvious cases that would fall short via legal standards.
@Tom:
Yes you are confused. Point out to me where I said that I care about two people who are strangers to me get married. I have no concerns about that subject and have never said I did.
@Tom: This ‘seems’ to say that you didn’t know what a homosexual was:
If that’s not what you’re saying, then I apologize for being wrong in my statement.
@Redteam:
How about post 43? You had some dickish things to say regarding the topic there. Is that a good enough example? Now why don’t you answer the question this time?
@Tom:Here is everything I said in #43
Where in that statement do I say anything about 2 strangers to me getting married.
First, strangers were never mentioned. I defined marriage, as between one man and one woman. So if two strangers, one man and one woman want to get married, I think that’s great. Was there another question in there somewhere?
you said:
I’m not sure what a ‘dickish’ thing is so you may need to clear that up for me.
I answered the question before and I’ll answer it now. quote me ” it does not matter one bit to me if two strangers get married to each other”. Is that clear? And what wasn’t clear before?
@MataHarley: Would you tell me which law school you got your degree from and what year? I think I’m very adequate in legal knowledge and need no mini lessons from an amateur.
Tell me which obvious case I’ve mentioned that legal standards would fall short on? Are you seriously trying to say that if someone steals from you that you can’t claim in a court of law that someone stole from you? I’d like to see anyone make that case.
Redteam, had you read the Cornell “standing” definition I linked, you’d find a few referenced cases to “standing” opinions there which would make it abundantly clear. Well, maybe to some it would be abundantly clear. They even provided them as hotlinks to the opinions. After that, you need only search for legal cases INRE “standing”. Matters not the subject. “Standing” is a well used precedent, and there is no dearth of examples available across a wide spectrum to those who desire to search.
But hey, Redteam. I don’t expect you to believe me. I also don’t expect you to do any research or figure out what you’re reading. You’ve already ignored a plethora of links and formed your own conclusions, prior to full scrutiny. I suspect you’re a hands on, gotta experience it yourself, kind of guy. So please… do feel free to take your own stated argument about how you should have “standing” to the courts. (i.e Obama, as POTUS signs a bill that was passed by elected officials from all states, that harms/injures you, and it’s all because he was allegedly born in Kenya) You can find legal brief templates on the standard word composition software, write your own brief, pay your own recording fees down at the court house, stand in front of the judge and argue your own case. When he/she (the judge) shoots you down, you are free to have yet another legal brief for appeal waiting in your possession, ready to walk down to the court recorder and file for your appeal in a higher court.
etc, etc, etc
You, like anyone else, can run the legal maze of our judicial system. They will be happy to take your recording fee, stamp your brief, and give you a court date. I won’t promise that a judge won’t scare the tar out of you, tho. They can be merciless when they think their time is being wasted. Been there, done that.
Trust me… it would be much cheaper for you financially if you just followed some links already provided, and did the tiniest bit of research on top of that. But I suspect you are one that really needs to learn the lessons one on one, your own way. I just hope you have a pocket full of cash and a boat load of time, and nerves of steel in a court room… as well as some decent legal composition skills.
@MataHarley:
you don’t need to use your insinuations. I get them. Just because you know how to look up your ‘Cornell” definitions is not impressive by itself. Any novice or google user can do that.
Your attempt of a slam is weak at best. So far, no appeals, since I won them all, appeals were not necessary.
That is especially funny. In fact, I’ve done that 3 times so far and won all 3 cases. All pro bono. So I’m not a novice.
You forgot to tell us which law school you graduated from and what year. We’d be interested. Sounds as if you need to get some ‘real’ world experience and then tell us about that rather than talk hypothetically. Hypothetically can be scary when you get to the ‘real’ world.
You also forgot to mention where I’m going astray in claiming that if someone steals from me, I don’t have a right to pursue him. Or did you forget that was the question.
I like the fact that you like to include your insinuations that you are talking to someone way beneath you, but so far, you’re not impressing me with your false statements. If you don’t think a thief should be prosecuted, there is something wrong with you.
@Redteam #193:
Good enough. Thanks for the clarification.
Friend
@Redteam #195:
Ah. So at age 10 you already possessed a functioning Gaydar. You are in good company.
@Redteam #200:
The “Birther” issue you refuse to drop is costing you dearly. For the sake of your Party, move on to better prospects. You have three current impeachable issues – focus on them and abandon the settled “Birther” dispute. Discretion is the better part of valor.
@Redteam #208:
I would not require MataHarley to legitimize her observations on “standing” by providing certification of education. Such education might be 50 years old and obsolete. The sources she references are contemporary and legitimate, and are not diminished by their availability to the public.
The body of your# 208 post draws a tie with Mata over who lands the more childish slaps, but you fall short at the finish. Instead of moving in for a kill, you retreat to the irrelevant education question. You are making a reverse appeal to authority (a fallacy) instead of arguing the merits of this issue. Keep on track.
Well, you got us, Redteam. All the teams of lawyers of birthers who filed lawsuits tossed for “standing” are way too stupid. Apparently they should have called you.
As I said, file your own lawsuit. Maybe you can teach those dumb judges something, eh?
@George Wells:
Nope, not homo, so could not have Gaydar. He asked me if he could ‘molest’ me. That’s not exactly the word he used.
I only used the birther issue as an example. No one gives a damn about that because it’s a Dimocrat. It’ll get resolved when someone like Rubio tries to run as a Republican.