Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, an openly homosexual man, has ruled against California’s Prop.8. The Gay community of San Francisco doesn’t think that there is a conflict of interest or that being openly homosexual was an influencing factor.
Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise – or advertise – his orientation.
Californians held a referendum on gay marriage after the Supreme Court voted for legalization of gay marriage. Prop. 8 ruled that marriage was to be between a man and a woman.
California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.
Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.
Walker, however, found it violated the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses while failing “to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”
“Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples,” the judge wrote in his 136-page ruling.
He also said proponents offered little evidence that they were motivated by anything other than animus toward gays — beginning with their campaign to pass the ban, which included claims of wanting to protect children from learning about same-sex marriage in school.
“Proposition 8 played on the a fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who are not heterosexual,” Walker wrote.
Walker heard 13 days of testimony and arguments since January during the first trial in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married.
Walker is a Republican that was nominated by Reagan, but his nomination was held up by gay activists, he was later appointed by H.W. Bush.
He was appointed by Ronald Reagan, but his nomination was held up for two years in part because of opposition from gay rights activists. As a lawyer, he helped the U.S. Olympic Committee sue a gay ex-Olympian who had created an athletic competition called the Gay Olympics.
Walker is a Republican. He said he joined the party while at Stanford University during the Vietnam War protests, and spent two years clerking for a judge appointed by Richard Nixon.
Currently, Gays can only marry in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Washington, DC. Walker has asked both sides to submit paperwork by Friday so that he can determine whether to allow marriage during the appeals process.
Legislating from the bench has been considered a tactic of the Left, this is a bit different since Walker is a registered Republican.
A professional horseman for over 50 years, Skook continues to work with horses. Skook has finished an historical novel, Fifty Thousand Years, that traces a mitochondrial line of DNA from 50,000 years ago to the present. The story follows a line of courageous women, from the Ice Ages to the present, as they meet the challenges of survival with grit and creativity. These are not women who whimper of being victims, they meet the challenges of survival as women who use their abilities without excuses or remorse, these women are winners, they are our ancestors.
Fifty Thousand Years is available in paperback and e-book, it is getting great reviews. You can purchase a copy here; Visit me on Facebook.
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Dylantheauthor
OLD TROOPER 2: hi
@Offensive Bias: Something can’t be illegal if there is no law against it. Marriage was not in the Massachusetts constitution, so any kind of marriage isn’t illegal. The formally “gay pay” (not sure what that means) who are now leading normal lives could be doing like I mentioned earlier and trying to be straight because they don’t want any more of the name calling like you do and the other stuff but it isn’t natural for them.
“If homosexuality is real and a person is born with it then homosexuals wouldn’t have to indoctrinate children in public schools it would self evident.”
It already is self evident. When a boy or girl are drawn to the same sex as they are growing up, they know there is something different about them, but in today’s society if they let it be known that they have those feelings, they are subjected to name calling, ridicule, violence, and rejection.
“…I use to be a homosexual, now I’m married with three children and there is no looking back.”
I’m curious if you had grown up in a society that accepted people they way they are if you would still be a homosexual or not. We will never know, so I won’t debate it. It’s just something to think about. I wish you and everyone else happiness and success.
@Offensive Bias:
“Marriage was created by God hence the world procreated to the modern point of a 6 billion world population.”
If the gays can’t procreate, then they aren’t adding to the population. It’s us straights that are causing the over population of the planet. Gay marriages that stay true to each other result in ZERO population growth.
Each religion has their own idea of “marriage.” Some require others to decide who marries who, not the ones getting married. Some even allow someone to marry a child.
“Us straight people cannot marry the same sex, nor should homosexuals.”
Am I detecting a hint of, “I wish I could, but if I can’t, then nobody can” here?
@Cary: You’d make a lousy politician. You are making too much sense and taking so little space saying it.
@Cary: You reminded me of couples I have heard about over the years who tried for years to have a baby, gave up, adopted, then had a baby. I ain’t a church goer, but stuff like that makes me wonder.
The judges decision concerning Prop 8 is a travesty not because it allows or doesn’t allow gay marriage. It is atrocious because law is all about words and their meaning. If a judge can change the definition of a word at will, it strikes at the very heart of the US system of jurisprudence.
What is the meaning of is… it’s been all down hill since then.
@Blake:
As promised:
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/environment/2009/june/Gay-Penguins-in-Germany-Rear-Their-Own-Chick.html
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_gay_animal_kingdom/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUwza5Grxos
Have you ever considered the possibility that nature has a way of balancing itself out against a species that cannot control its own libido, from overpopulating itself? Just my personal theory. The universe has many occurrences within itself that mankind’s intellect cannot explain. Doesn’t mean any of them are inherently wrong.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I responded to your argument as you presented it – full of sweeping generalizations, stereotypes, and backwards thinking. Your stance that acceptance of homosexuality would be confusing to children is nonsense. Children are naturally open and accepting until they are taught otherwise. Nearly all gay people were born to, raised, and surrounded by heterosexuals. Encouraging children to accept themselves and others as they are fosters well adjusted growth as human beings, a healthy self esteem and respect for others, which are the true remedies for the problems you bring up – STD’s, promiscuity, as well as the widely believed number one cause for teen suicide. Take away the hidden shame, guilt, and self hatred a kid growing up to realize they are gay has away and these things, to a large extent, have a much greater chance of disappearing. That we already have straight kids in high school befriending and supporting their gay peers is a lot further along than we were even 20 years ago, and I believe we will soon see the benefits, for both gay and straight people, of such acceptance.
Of course, everyone with children gets to decide for themselves how to raise them. That’s how it should be. But nobody should get to decide how other people should live their lives. Your neighbors’ marriage, gay or straight, has no effect on yours whatsoever. Of course, this point is very difficult to convey within a society that believes that we are entitled to be privy to the intimate details of another person’s life simply because they’re on television. We tend to like sticking our noses into other peoples’ business, and then reacting as if it were our own. Perhaps we’d blossom more if we tended our own gardens.
@johngalt:
Nobody ultimately gets their way in this country without the support of the US Constitution. So I’m actually not too worried about the long run.
@Smorgasbord:
Thank you, I appreciate that. I’ve already spent more time on this than I originally intended. One endlessly repetitive debate that goes nowhere per week should be more than enough for me! At this point, I think I should rest my case and tend to things that needed to be done a week ago. All the best to you.
50% of heterosexual marriages now end in divorce. Maybe heterosexuals are worried that married gay people may have a lower divorce rate and make them look bad.
@Cary
I can’t respond to the above. Please tell me what is a sweeping generalization, and I’ll respond. Please tell me what you consider to be a stereotype, and I’ll respond. Please tell me what you consider to be backward thinking, and I’ll respond. The above statement is not an argument, it is an insult.
What is confusing to children is that the traditional concept that marriage, which is based on fidelity is no different from the new idea of gay marriage, which is based, as I have referenced, on “openness.” Traditional marriage is a big F***ing deal, because it involves a vow on the same order of magnitude as a vow of celibacy. It involves a vow of commitment. And the reality of the institution largely matches the ideal. Gay “marriage” is a new age concept. It’s OK to have multiple partners, as long as you are honest about it with your spouse. Your suggestion that we simply encourage children to be themselves is no more the answer to promiscuity and STDs than it is to the problem of substance abuse.
What you can’t seem to grasp is that male/female marriage is not a partnership of biological equals, as in the case of male/male and female/female partnerships. Men really are different from women. Marriage imposes rules which make the relationship much more equal. These rules allow both parties in the relationship to have an equal degree of security. What works for gay “marriage” (I’m going to coin a new term and call it “joinage,” with the verb being “to join,” the past participle of which is “joined,” to refer to same sex unions analogous to marriage). Marriage almost always requires fidelity in order to succeed; joinage, it would appear, does not require fidelity for success. Marriage is, therefore, fundamentally different than joinage and therefore should not share the same name.
That’s a straw man argument. I agree with absolutely everything in the above paragraph.
Agreed.
Agreed; point being???
At the level of the individual, I agree. At the level of society, neither you nor anyone else currently has the data to make this assertion!!
I earlier gave the example of the movie Sex in the City II. There is an enormous amount of creative talent in Hollywood which is strongly influenced by gay culture. SITC II depicted a gay wedding in which one of the newlyweds was asked how on earth he could be faithful. He winked and said that his vows were only operative in the state where the ceremony took place.
One can easily imagine future sitcoms depicting not the currently sanitized versions of gay marriage which are now presented (e.g. Brothers and Sisters), but also the reality, as presented in the New York Times article I referenced in #96. After all, it would make for some very entertaining television. So straight men become influenced by this. Hey, it works so well in gay marriage, why don’t we run our marriage this way, honey? As I wrote before, the male/female relationship is inherently unequal; one of the important purposes of marriage is to impose rules which equalize the relationship. I think anyone with the capability of seeing more than one move ahead in a chess game can see where this is going.
So let gays tend to their own gardens. Develop their new institution of “joinage” as they see fit, in a way which suits them. Do not co-opt a cherished institution which has worked so well for the overwhelming majority of the world’s people, for the long history of American and Western civilization.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Greg. That’s incredibly misleading. It includes people with multiple divorces. In point of fact, the average first marriage endures for more than 20 years and, during that time, there is an average of only 0-1 sexual encounters outside of the marriage. There is simply no way to deny that the institution of traditional marriage has, until now, been a resounding societal success.
I wrote out a detailed reply to Cary’s #111 attack advertisement (as contrasted with
thoughtful debate), but it was kicked out as spam. I am hopeful that it will be eventually dug out of spam and posted.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I saw it before it disappeared. I’m glad we’re starting to get on the same page, but if you’re going to perpetuate the stereotype of gay men as you do, using a movie as your reference, is it too much to ask that you use one that wasn’t as poorly received as Sex in the City II? I mean seriously! Perhaps you could try Brokeback Mountain or Broken Hearts Club…
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388795/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0222850/
(now, THAT’S advertising…)
Thanks again for the discussion.
As always Skookum; a great thread!
I have much to say on this topic, but will try to only make the points that have not already been made by others. Firstly, I wasn’t surprised that the vote of 7 million was overturned by “judicial activism”; welcome to the new America! I personally gave up countless weekends collecting signatures to get Prop 8 on the ballot. It was a long road, with many hurdles, and this is just one more bump in the road. But I’m afraid Larry is right; the next generation clearly doesn’t “get it”, and they will be the ones who will pay the biggest price, as society has no chance of survival without the cohesion of family and at least some sense of fidelity within marriage.
For any who feel that the homosexuals were treated unfairly by Prop 8, this is clearly not the case. Prop 8 said absolutely NOTHING about BANNING gay marriage, or anything at all “anti-gay.” It merely defined what marriage is, a union between a man and women, period! Civil Unions have been legal in CA for some time now, we have our “Gay Days” in schools (albeit no “special days” for heterosexuals), as well as our gay parades (again, no heterosexual special parades), and countless other examples where a case could actually be made for discrimination against the heterosexual.
But then, how odd is it that anyone of us would want to be defined by our sexual orientation? Aren’t we more than that? Of course we are, which is why the whole movement has absolutely nothing do with equal rights. It’s clearly a far left progressive movement to bring down the family, which subsequently will bring down Amercia. One even has to wonder how many of them even realize that they are being used as useful idiots, only to be thrown under the bus when mission accomplished.
Seuk made a good point about the communist’s infusion of gay men into the Catholic Church. T here is sworn testimony on record of this fact, with Bella Dodd admitting personally to recruiting at least a thousand. Needless to say, this was quite a few decades ago, with perfect timing to the average age of the sexual abuse crisis within the church, of which 90% guilty were also homosexual men. I’m not at all trying to make excuses for the filth within the Catholic Church, just putting some sense to it.
Even more interesting, the MSM will never address it as a “homosexual” problem when the facts clearly indicate otherwise. FYI, the abuse rate is almost non-existent today (less than 10 reported cases this past year), but one could say that the communist plan indeed worked, as the Catholic Church has never, at least in my lifetime, been weaker in its authority, and that was the goal!
One must understand that the last big elephant in the room is the Catholic Church, and only when it is fully undermined, will the last card fall. Timing should be just about right with the demise of religious authority and the next generation, for the long awaited communist takeover. For all who think the church doesn’t matter, I assure you it matters much, simply because no authentic Judeo/Christian nation could possibly spiral into a ‘family less’ moral relativistic hell, which is surely where gay ‘marriage’ will take us.
Another thing no one mentioned is NARTH, and the work of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi. The big secret few know is that the American Psychiatric Society years ago made the decision (one can only guess under what influence), to dismiss any possibility of psychological factors, let only “reversals” of homosexual behavior. The fact remains, that with proper therapy, many once ‘homosexual’ men have been healed to normal, including normal lifestyles void of homosexual urges. For all who claimed to be so tolerant and compassionate, how can we keep our gay friends and family without any hope? For any who want to read about some fascinating work, take a look, as I doubt you will see it published anywhere else.
http://www.narth.com/menus/positionstatements.html
While it’s not a cure for all, many men have been helped and have gone on to live much happier (and heterosexual), lives.
Lastly I just wanted to say to Gaffe and the others who thing religion has “nothing to do with this”, that you are clearly misguided and would at least ask you to consider the following.
From the book of Genesis, marriage was made known. Not only is it relative to the first words of Divine Revelation, but the entire bible is about “the wedding”, with the Song of Songs, (often a misunderstood book, albeit the favorite of all the great mystics), exactly in the middle of Scripture . In the Song of Songs, God is calling us to a courtship of sorts (preparing us for the ultimate, ‘wedding’. Moving along to the New Testament, the first public miracle of Jesus was at a WEDDING (not insignificant). Lastly, the Book of Revelation is the ultimate ‘wedding’, where, when it’s all said and down, the faithful live in spiritual ‘marital bliss’ with God ( the spouse) , for all eternity.
I’m not going to get into a big bible discussion, only wanted to make the point, that biblically, at least from the Catholic interpretation, marriage is not only important, it’s the goal, with “earthly marriage”, between a man and a women, being highly significant not only in the economy of salvation, but in the survival of a nation.
Lastly, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but in conclusion, here’s mine. We are in perilous times, as a country and as a society. We already have soft tyranny, a government who disregards the constitution and the will of the people, along with increasing moral relativism.
Nothing will destroy a culture faster than Godlessness, as Godless cultures simply and predictably, destroy themselves. Nothing will take us faster down the downward spiral than ‘gay marriage’. For those who can’t relate spiritually, at least consider the fact that maybe “going against nature” just might have its consequences.
My prediction: Eventually the last moral voice of authority, the Catholic Church, will be underground. Once the damage is done, and the gays are “used up”, they will be outcasted, with their only hope of refuge being the remaining underground remnant of the Catholic Church. What they see as “Catholic intolerance” today will be tomorrow’s “misunderstood love.” The family will be totally destroyed, consequently, the America many of us knew and loved will be no more. All because of one judge? Hardly, any more than it was about ‘equal rights’.
As old Abe Lincoln often warned, “If destruction be our lot, we will have done it to ourselves.”
This is a fascinating interview by a psychologist in LA who’s clinic works with 135 cases a week of gays who want to be normal; IMO, worth the time to take a listen.
http://www.josephnicolosi.com/videos2/
Guess I should’ve included But I’m a Cheerleader on my list…
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0179116/
pdill: thank you for your excellent comment; your views on this subject reflect the many
peoples’s views who could not voice so well as you. bye
openid aol.com/runnswim: hi, I also want to mention of how many young children are being pursued by degenerate homosexsuels who have a tendency for using youngster in their fantasy,
it’s too bad that many will seduce thoses young boys, and altering their life which will be of shame and many will ruin their life because of having known perversion from an adult homosexsual,
because of that, they should take another name than the marriage name as now the judge
agree to that union, it give thoses couple the right to adopt childrens who would learn mostly their sexsual way and ruin the young judgement for his future life. bye
@ilovebeeswarzone:
The equation of homosexuality to pedophilia is an old myth at best. Homosexuals are no more or less disposed to child molestation than heterosexuals. I’m not going to get into it further, but here’s an article for you to peruse….
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
John Galt:
(Responses to John Galt marked by > below)
You seem to believe that the more you write, the more evidence you are developing to make your case. Or, that the more you write, perhaps you might stumble on an argument that make sense. Unfortunately, neither is the case. Verbosity does not equal truth. By eliminating all your repetition, you can reduce all this volume of words to a few short arguments—let me show you:
1. Claiming an objection to a group, or certain group, as being against this does not give you support for it. Are you trying to encourage feelings of guilt for opposing gay marriage by relating someone’s opposition to it with the ‘fundamentalist’ christians? Muslims most likely oppose it even more vehemently than them, yet I don’t see you using Islam as your chosen attack target.”
>No, I’m saying that the arguments against gay marriage is based on religious tenets with which not all people agree, or at least, most are willing to maintain as a private issue . Fundamentalist Christians, e.g., Christians who believe in the Bible as the inerrant word of God, are in the forefront of this opposition to gay marriage. Their main reason is that it says it’s wrong in the Bible. The reason I am not targeting Fundamentalist Muslims is because the are not involved in this fight. But, thanks for the pschoanalysis of my motivations for making this argument.
2. It does infringe on a person’s chosen religion when society is forced to adopt the changing of accepted definition of what marriage constitutes. It’s not the action of the homosexual unions that most people are against. There is a difference, and it does affect other people’s lives.”
>It used to be the the definition of marriage, by law, didn’t include inter-color mixing of whites—not with Japanese, Filipinos, Negroes, etc, in America. Was their inclusion into the definition of marriage law an infringement or extension upon anyone’s rights. History also shows Fundamentalist Christians as being of the forefront of these racially biased exclusion of human rights too, in addition to women’s sufferage..
3. Are you attempting to equate slavery with the traditional, accepted definition of marriage? It doesn’t work, as one(slavery) infringed on other’s rights, while the other does not. There is no case you can claim that by disallowing a civil union of gays to be termed a marriage has infringed on someone’s civil rights. On the other hand, as I stated above and do so again, you infringe on people’s religious rights by forcing a change in the accepted definition of an institution that has been around as long as marriage has.
>No, I’m saying that your appeal to “tradition based on many millenia” is flawed. If you going to base an argument on tradition, then you’re obliged to extend that argument to everything that has a millenia of tradition. Oh, and slavery isn’t limited to black slavery in the American experience—slavery has existed since the beginning of time. Yes, slavery infringed on a minorities’ rights—the slaves—banning gay marriage infringes upon a minorities’ rights—gays.
4. Again with trying to equate this issue with those civil rights issues of blacks. It’s not even close to being the same thing. Never mind your misguided relating of the ‘right-wing’ to opposition of black’s civil rights. That is a whole other topic.
>Just a repetition of what you’ve said before.
5. Again, show me a case of religious ‘rights’ of someone that has trampled on the rights of gays seeking legal recognition of their union to another. If you are talking about disallowing any such union to occur, then I agree that it has happened. If you are talking about disallowing that union to be termed a ‘marriage’, then it has not. As for ‘emotive language’, I don’t see how you can say it doesn’t have any place in a rational discussion, as it is descriptive and paints a visual interpretation to reinforce a point.
>Maybe this statement makes sense to those who agree with you, but you have to be clearer if you intend to argue with anyone else. But, I’ll try, based on what I think you mean: The current court case on Proposition 8 is a result of infringement on gay marriage—that’s an example of what I think you asked for. I do not use ‘loaded’ words like ‘trampled’ because it is emotive and rhetorical. Emotive statements are commonly excluded from rational discourse—do your understand what ’emotive statements’ are? Rationality is opposed to emotionality, and, as such, is a rational discussion is supposed to be devoid of emotional content. But, I don’t know about your rules, if you can win an argument by calling it stupid (see next comment).
6. It wasn’t a name, and it wasn’t directed at your beliefs. It is an adjective referring to your comment about smaller government. I just as easily could have said it was ’silly’, or ’stupid’, or ‘foolish’ in describing that comment.
>Do you understand that all of these are derogatory comments and have no place in rational discussion? Only on a right-wing site do you win an argument by call another or their idea stupid, or foolish, or silly.
(continuation of John Galt’s comment #6) Your original comment: “For people who say they want smaller and less government, they sure try their best to expand it.”
(misc. unnumbered statements by John Galt) If you use ‘civil union’ as the term defining a legal, committed relationship of gays, you do not grow government (unless the law is written badly, I can give you that). It does nothing more than allow the government to legally term those relationships depending on what term is used. This is not an issue where smaller government, nor the growing of it, comes in to play.
>Oh great, first you’re a psychologist, and now you’re a lawyer. In order to give gays all the same rights under civil unions, as they would have under current marriage laws, you would have to re-legislate so many State and Federal laws that that task by itself, let alone legal changes and enforcement in municipal and local laws, that it would be a create of larger government bureaucracy just to accomplish it. In reality, by proposing a separate but equal institution to accommodate gays to enter into a relationship equal to marriage, you’re actually creating a new, shadow institution, which must mirror marriage, instead of just including all people in an old one. You’ve got to think about these things.
Clear enough for ya’?
>But is it clear enough to you?
(misc. unnumbered statement by John Galt) Much clearer, and pointed, than your comment at
#30, particularly this:
They were against extending the rights to vote to women and the rights to anything to people of different races other than Caucasians, and now the are against the rights to marriage for gay people.
The argument is on the terming of homosexual unions, not the actual ‘act’ of it, hence my
descriptive of your sentence as ‘rambling rhetoric’.
>I think you call it rhetoric because you don’t understand English. Again your comment here is
just repetitious and specious. .
(misc. unnumbered statement by John Galt) ‘Fundamental’ christians, along with orthodox jews and fundamentalist muslims, are against homosexuality in and of itself, never mind the allowance of gay ‘marriages’. ‘Fundamental’ christianity is not the mainstream among christian sects of the religion generally, although it depends on where you live. For example, those in the southeast are much more likely to be baptists or evangelicals, and are more closely related to what is termed ‘fundamental’ christianity. Those in the NE are much more likely to observe catholicism or protestantism, which do not fall under the ‘fundamentalist’ category. One can see why you chose that which you did though. It’s kind of like using ‘emotive’ language in that it paints a picture to go along with the words and reinforce one’s opinions and thoughts based on the ideas presented, but in your case, it is used wrongly and attempts to equate all who oppose within the ‘fringe’ or ‘extremist’ elements.
>This entire last paragraph is just repetitious and possibly a of lack of religious knowledge general, and political influence in particular. Fundamentalist Christians are not just, nor necessarily mostly, in the south. I agree that Fundamentalism objects to both gays and gay marriage. Mormons are Fundamentalists, and they are everywhere in the country. Presbyterians may be considered Fundamentalists—and their province knows no geographical boundaries. Pentacostals, Evangelicals, Minnonites, and even many Catholics, and others, may be considered Fundamentalists. A lot of adherents of different Christian religions are Fundamentalists, in the sense of believing that the literal interpretation of the Bible is the inerrant word of God. The rest are liberal religious people, because they have an interpretation of the Bible which is not literal, are considered mainstream, and probably have little opposition to gay marriage. But, I think you’re trying to say that since Fundamentalist Christians are in the minority and not mainstream, they can have little to do with public policy. However, although estimates of their number is only 30 million, they had a big effect in the election of George Bush, for example. Plus, have a loud voice and can sway a lot of borderline Christians to their opinion through fear and hate. An example of this attitude can be seen in the words of Pat Robertson, was heard on the 700 Club saying these things on 5-18-93 and 8/6/98:
“I have known few homosexuals who did not practice their tendencies. Such people are sinning against God and will lead to the ultimate destruction of the family and our nation. I am unalterably opposed to such things, and will do everything I can to restrict the freedom of these people to spread their contagious infection to the youth of this nation.”
“If the widespread practice of homosexuality will bring about the destruction of your nation, if it will bring about terrorist bombs, if it’ll bring about earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor, it isn’t necessarily something we ought to open our arms to.”
Now, please, if you’re going to respond to my comment, use a little economy of words. I don’t particularly like reading tomes, and taking the time to separate the relevant from the irrelevant.
tadcf: hi, HERE something for you, YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING, all in one line. bye
ilovebees…
Now what would I be kidding you about?
@49 Larry
I suspect the overlap is 100%. Scratch the surface of those who say they are not homophobes and ‘pure’ defenders of traditional marriage and you will get plenty of homophobic replies (e.g. see this thread!)
lol – never going to work ot be accepted. If it’s the same then why have a different name? The thing is – that if it is different then it will be treated differently as people who have civil unions have found. Currently there are legal difference between marriage and civil unions.
A war? Maybe against bigots – but I think you over exaggerate the whole thing.
@54 Aye
Such a weak argument. If there is a groundwell from millions of americans who want to marry their own daughter or their horse then let them fight for that and see where they get. Simply ridiculous reason to deny a sizable minority the ability to marry who’s crime it is to be gay. Fortunately you are on the wrong side on this one in terms of how western society is progressing.
@johngalt
And if you are not religious?
@PDill
Using Genesis as a historically account of reality? lol – good luck with that one. Shame even Genesis can’t be consistent on happened.
@113 Larry
Your views are shaped by a Sex and the City movie? 🙄
What else in life should we bar people from doing things based on stats?
I think some of you on here should have it that marriage should only be for virgins, only happen once (no remarriage), only happen to those who are religious, void if either party breaks their vows and only happen to those who can have and intend to have children naturally. That way at least you will be consistent with some of the plainly obvious prejudices against gay people – who are apparently pedophiles who unable to faithful to their partner. I no doubt some of the opinions here echo the same reasons why people were against interracial marriage at the time.
Fortunately whatever gay people do in terms of being able to marry or not doesn’t effect my marriage one iota. I married a woman not some inflexible institution.
@GaffaUK:
I’m not sure that Aye was asking those questions for any other reason but to gauge on what basis the person he addressed stood.
I do find it interesting that pdill would assert that Prop 8 wasn’t about an anti gay sentiment, when its entire purpose was exclusionary, and then advocate the “rehabilitation” of homosexuals.
[sarc]I’m not sure how anyone could be restored to something they weren’t in the first place, but I’m sure there’s no anti-gay sentiment there…[/sarc]
Articles comparing the similarities between the arguments againsts gay marriage to those used against interracial marriage…
http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2004_fall/forde.htm
http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I missed this one before…
Reread my comment. I said nothing about “being yourself” as the answer to these problems, but that SELF ACCEPTANCE AND RESPECT FOR OTHERS is. I hope I don’t have to explain this further, as it should be evident.
@Gaffa(#125)
You made two comments, concerning my earlier comments:
#1
#2
These are superficial rejoinders. You choose to ignore entirely the substance of my arguments in the both of these rejoinders.
Let’s take the first. The Sex in the City II movie is simply a useful example, from popular culture, of a very important point, discussed in #s 96 and #113. Here’s a more formal reference (from #96), which you chose not to note:
The gay view of marriage is different from the traditional view.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=1
With respect to why this is important, I’m not going to repeat the prior explanations. The point is that gay “joinage” will, indeed, threaten the institution of traditional marriage, for reasons I explained.
With respect to the second quote – let’s just say that I utterly detest this type of debate tactic. Argue against an Israeli tactic in Gaza and you are an anti-Semite. Argue against the Iraq War, and you are un-American, or, at least a “Bush hater.” Criticize Charles Rangel, and you are a racist. Take the position that border security should be the first step in comprehensive immigration reform, and you are anti-immigrant/anti-Mexican. Take the position that the Ten Commandments shouldn’t be displayed in a public courthouse, and you are anti-Religious. Support health care reform, and you are pro-abortion. Vote for Barack Obama, and you are a socialist Marxist. And dare to suggest that there may, in fact, be harmful consequences in official government sanction of same sex “marriage” and you are a homophobe.
It is the debate tactic of the intellectually bankrupt.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Gaffa(#125)
I just replied to you, but it went to spam. @#$%^&*
@Cary (#128)
I read your earlier comment as implying that society contributed to promiscuity and STDs by stigmatizing gay ideation, gay sex, gay lifestyle, and, in the present context, lack of official government sanction of gay “marriage.” My comment was that the solution to promiscuity and STDs was akin to the solution to substance abuse, which has little or nothing to do with societal acceptance or non-acceptance.
– Larry Weisenthal
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Actually my comments were quite clear as to what I think, and your dishonest, embellished portrayal of them doesn’t change that. However, I will submit that a healthy self esteem is also the most effective remedy for substance abuse, as well as self abuse such as promiscuity and unsafe sex (which does not automatically or anyway near include all gay sex or “lifestyle” (what the heck is a “gay lifestyle” anyway? Gays pursue equally as diverse lives as straight people…) . Yet you continue offensive stereotyping to make your point.
As to the “study” you cite, I know not a single gay man who has ever been interviewed on this topic, do you? Perhaps if the interviews were conducted near the Rambles of Central Park, I could certainly understand such conclusions. Very narrow and beneath you to take stock in. Almost as ludicrous as using a “bubble gum” movie to back your assertions.
But you prove Gaffa’s points with your replies, which can easily be characterized as homophobic and exaggerated, and way beneath how you otherwise portray yourself. I’m done with you on this.
@Cary:
You now write:
“Actually my comments were quite clear as to what I think, and your dishonest, embellished portrayal of them doesn’t change that. However, I will submit that a healthy self esteem is also the most effective remedy for substance abuse, as well as self abuse such as promiscuity and unsafe sex (which does not automatically or anyway near include all gay sex or “lifestyle” (what the heck is a “gay lifestyle” anyway? Gays pursue equally as diverse lives as straight people…) . Yet you continue offensive stereotyping to make your point. But you prove Gaffa’s points with your replies, which can easily be characterized as homophobic and exaggerated, and way beneath how you otherwise portray yourself. I’m done with you on this.<>Encouraging children to accept themselves and others as they are fosters well adjusted growth as human beings, a healthy self esteem and respect for others, which are the true remedies for the problems you bring up – STD’s, promiscuity, as well as the widely believed number one cause for teen suicide.<>Your suggestion that we simply encourage children to be themselves is no more the answer to promiscuity and STDs than it is to the problem of substance abuse.<>I read your earlier comment as implying that society contributed to promiscuity and STDs by stigmatizing gay ideation, gay sex, gay lifestyle, and, in the present context, lack of official government sanction of gay “marriage.” My comment was that the solution to promiscuity and STDs was akin to the solution to substance abuse, which has little or nothing to do with societal acceptance or non-acceptance.”
My "embellishment" was simply an attempt to further explain to you the way the I read the meaning of what you wrote, above.
Note that your exact quote was, once again:
"Encouraging children to accept themselves and others as they are fosters well adjusted growth as human beings, a healthy self esteem and respect for others, which are the true remedies for the problems you bring up – STD’s, promiscuity, as well as the widely believed number one cause for teen suicide.”
You state the encouraging children to accept themselves makes them well adjusted which, in turn, is the remedy for STDs and promiscuity (I did not myself raise the issue of teen suicide and so did not discuss this).
You directly accused me of dishonesty. Unlike you, I sign my own name to these posts and I therefore have a reputation to protect. I ask you to explain anything in my discussions with you which is in any way “dishonest.”
With respect to the remainder of your comments — you, like Gaffa, are unable to give a specific example of ANYTHING in ANY of my responses which are either “homophobic” or “exaggerated,” yet you have no hesitation in smearing me with the term “homophobic” and in, again, attacking my integrity with your claim of exaggeration.
Please tell me — specifically — which comment(s) you find to be “homophobic” or “exaggerated,” and then we can have a serious discussion.
But I suspect that you have no interest in having a serious discussion. Your defense of gay marriage comes down simply to the point of view that one cannot possibly have voted (as I did) in favor of Proposition 8 without being a homophobe. I carefully explain a point of view and you don’t specifically challenge any of the points I made and discussed.
In the end, all that you can do is to shout “dishonest, exaggerated, homophobe.”
Like gaffa, you should also go and have a nice day.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Larry
Sorry but denying gay people the option that they can marry because they are seen or are more likely to break their marriage vows is homophobic in my opinion because you are tarring all gay people with the same brush.
Q. If you are so concerned that people should keeping their wedding vows they do you support a ban on remarriage (particularly if one partner strayed)?
Q. Apparently black men are more likely to cheat on their partners than white men – do you support and think that would be a socially acceptable reason to deny black men the ability to marry?
Q.If lesbians were less likely to cheat than black men – would you allow them to marry but not black men?
Your argument is morally bankrupt. I haven’t heard a reasonable reason why gay men cannot marry which hasn’t been homophobic – religious or otherwise.
For instance – whether Elizabeth Taylor has married 8 times or Britney Spears marriage lasted 5 minutes has no effect on my marriage – in the same way if Elton John got marrie’ has no effect on my marriage. There have been plenty of heterosexuals who can be accused of corroding the ‘institution’ marriage but most of us aren’t bothered by that – we just get on with life. If a marriage is a consensual agreement between two adults I have no problem with it.
@Cary: I’m going to show how far behind the times I usually am by asking what a “bubble gum movie” is.
@gaffa
I am not “denying gay people the option that they can marry.” I am saying that the nature of gay “marriage” is demonstrably different from the nature of conventional marriage. Conventional marriage is based in fidelity. As I wrote, the average first marriage endures more than two decades and, during this time, the average number of extramarital sex partners averages 0 to 1. In contrast, 50% of same sex couples have sex outside of the “marriage” within the first two years. According to the study quoted in the New York Times article, same sex couples do not view fidelity as being nearly as important within the marriage as do opposite sex (traditional) couples.
The threat to traditional marriage is exactly as I described. My popular culture reference, which you criticized (SITC II movie), is just the tip of the ice berg of what we’ll see in the future, regarding the trivialization of fidelity as being a bedrock component of marriage. Right now, there are largely timid (and highly idealized) portrayals of gay marriage in popular culture (example previously given of the American TV series “Brothers and Sisters” (which won awards from gay organizations for their favorable portrayal of gay marriage). Eventually, there will be portrayals of the reality of “open” gay marriages. “Open” marriage, among straights, does occur, but it is very uncommon and rarely successful. But there will inevitably be a lot more gay marriages portrayed in TV and movies and there will be (often favorable) portrayal of the open marriage aspect of it.
Infidelity is portrayed in TV and movies about traditional marriages, obviously, but this is never glamorized — I can’t think of a single situation in which marital infidelity was portrayed in a favorable light in any TV show or movie (or country/western song, for that matter). The reality of infidelity in straight marriage is most often heartbreak and worse. The New York Times article actually touted the gay marriage model as being the potential salvation of the institution of traditional marriage. If only straight couples viewed this the way gays do, the article stated. Don’t get uptight if your partner has sex outside of the marriage. Have an “open” marriage. Just be honest about it and everything will be OK.
This is ALREADY happening (e.g. as in the SITC II example and in the NYT article). Once gay marriage is established as an institution, the gay alternative to traditional marriage (i.e. “openness,” coupled with honesty about the outside the marriage sex) will be increasingly offered up as a more glamorous and more successful way to run a marriage.
What will then happen is also inevitable. As I also wrote, male/female relationships are inherently much more unequal than male/male or male/female relationships. The firm “rules” of traditional marriage levels the playing field and offers security to both individuals (and to their children). I can readily see that the concept of “open” marriage would be welcomed by a great many individuals in a traditional marriage — most often men. Pressure will be put on the other partner — most often women — to go along with it. The reason “open” relationships work for gays is that both partners are typically on the same page, in wanting the variety, and have equal opportunities to find and partake of this variety. This is not at all the way it is in a male/female marriage.
What’s also wrong with the “openness,” besides the heartache? STDs. A huge benefit to society is the fact that traditional marriage dramatically lowers the reservoir of STDs circulating in the community by permanently taking huge numbers of people out of sexual circulation. Gays comprise only 2% of the population and, yet, contribute enormously to the circulation of STDs. Turn just 10% of traditional marriages into “open” marriages and there will be an explosion of STDs.
Getting back to my first statement, no, I’m not for “denying” gay people the opportunity to marry. I’m saying, look, the way that gay people themselves view marriage is different from the way that straight people view it. A man marrying a man (or a woman marrying a woman) is obviously different from a man marrying a woman. So let’s have equal rights and equal responsibilities but just call them by different names. It would be such a small concession for gay marriage supporters to make, but it would, by itself, lead to overwhelming support and acceptance. Then, when popular culture starts to have more and more depictions of “joinage” (my suggestion for what same sex unions could be called; again with precisely the same rights and responsibilities as in the case of opposite sex unions), it will be clear that the ostensibly advanced concept of “open” relationships is something which is prevalent and often accepted in the new institution of same sex unions, while remaining a taboo in traditional marriage.
Don’t go twisting my words. What I did was to state some objective facts. 1. The typical traditional (straight) first marriage endures for more than two decades, with only 0 to 1 sexual partners outside the marriage. 2. In at least 50% of gay marriages, there is extramarital sex within the first two years of the marriage. 3. In straight marriage, out of marriage sex is virtually always viewed as a betrayal and as a tragedy for the marriage itself. It is precisely because of this attitude that extramarital sex is so relatively rare. 4. In gay marriage, out of marriage sex is more typically viewed in a much more casual light. 5. In popular culture, the concept of open marriage has never been glamorized (note to cinema buffs: can you think of an example in which this has been done?). 6. In popular culture, the concept of open marriage has already been glamorized (e.g SITC II), and this will obviously be an increasingly common occurrence in future story lines.
Now, what individual couples choose to do, should one person “not keep their wedding vows,” is entirely up to the couple in question, straight or gay. That’s not the issue. And your (rhetorical, I hope) question regarding a ban on remarriage is beyond silly.
Traditional marriage is based on a bedrock of fidelity. I looked for stats to confirm or refute your assertion. Here’s what I found. If you don’t agree, supply your own statistics, along with a source.
Black men are only slightly less likely to remain faithful to their wives, over the course of their marriage, than are white men:
Race Cheated N
White 20.0% 2575
Black 32.5% 268
Hispanic 21.6% 102
Asian* 17.7% 96
Nat. Am. 19.4% 31
Note that 80% of whites, Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans remain faithful, over the course of the marriage. This is pretty darn good. Even among blacks, it’s 68%, which is also pretty darn good. What percent of gays do you think will remain faithful, over 20 years (not just over the first two years). Give me an honest estimate.
The average gay male in a so called “committed” (but non-married) relationship has 5 to 6 sex partners per year, outside of the relationship. This degree of infidelity is simply not tolerated among straight, unmarried couples (or the relationship tends to be over, as soon as the infidelities are discovered). In marriage, infidelity is an enormous taboo, to the great benefit of the opposite spouse, to the children, and to society at large (by dramatically reducing the disease reservoir).
Gay attitudes toward fidelity are discordant from straight attitudes. Gay attitudes toward fidelity spill over to marriage, according to the study quoted in the New York Times. Again, different attitudes, institution of a different character; just give it a different name.
Lesbians should definitely be allowed to have their own institution, with the same rights and responsibilities of traditional marriage, but called by a different name. The New York Times article specifically includes lesbians in the new age attitude toward marital fidelity, by the way.
Anyway, there are many other reasons (which I explained earlier) for giving same sex unions their own name, than because of the vastly different attitude toward fidelity as being a bedrock component of the institution.
.
You may not agree with my reasons, but they have everything to do with a genuine concern/fear for what gay marriage will eventually do to the institution of traditional marriage and nothing whatsoever to do with homophobia.
What you are citing are extreme individual anecdotes and not a general attitude, and you are defining success in marriage as lifelong commitment, which is not how I or most people would define it. Marriage is not a perfect institution, precisely because people are not perfect. Many of us do make “mistakes,” of one sort or another (a “mistake” often being that at which you get caught, while it’s not a “mistake,’ if you don’t get caught). But marriage is an undeniably successful institution, which serves both individuals and society in beneficial ways. Most important are the traditional rules of marriage, which are, indeed, observed in most marriages, and which level the playing field between inherently unequal partners of opposite sexes. The rules of traditional marriage were codified by millennia of human experience and they exist because they have been proven to work.
It’s very obvious to me (and, I’m sure, to you, if you think about it and are honest about it) that the rules of gay marriage, as it develops over time will, in fact, be different, in important ways, from those of traditional marriage, because male/male relationships and female/female relationships are obviously different from male/female relationships.
There is no reason to co-opt an existing, proven, treasured institution, developed to meet the needs of male/female relationships and, once co-opted, begin to change that institution to meet the needs of same gender relationships, with, I am certain, severe collateral damage to the institution of traditional marriage.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@GaffaUK:
Such presumptuous assumptions you make.
First, you’ll notice that there was a series of questions in #54.
Second, you’ll notice that the person that they were addressed to didn’t answer them.
Third, you’ll notice that you didn’t answer the questions either.
So, if you’d like to engage me on this issue, start by answering the questions and we’ll go from there.
openid aol.com/runswim: hi, IT does’nt bother you to know of unions of homosexsuels,
because you and other adult have their judgement formed enough to make your mind adjust to it:
BUT if we say, the youngs must be protected ,as they are not ready to make a true analisyst
OF witnessing a sort of behavior that naturely is known to be repulsive, and
the young minds mental answers would be “this not normal,and this has been okayed by the authoritys that I am supposed to respect, ” SO IT affect them more than anyone,and they keep their thoughts conceiled from their closes family, adding the problem they are trying to comprehend
SO FOR THEIR PROTECTION, I say to any authority, dont legalyse through marriage, and dont legalyse which is not normal,in order to make it accepted as normal, FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHILDRENS.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Does “Cary” sound like some made up screen name? We’ve both been here long enough for you to know that I am indeed using my real name, which links to exactly who I am. Don’t know why you’d make such an untrue statement, when you most certainly know better, as it has been discussed in the past. Do you even bother to double check your statements before you press send? Are you so used to making that self defensive argument that you forget whom you are addressing?
Or do you feel that you’re such an important person and my own identity and reputation is less significant? (you don’t have to bother answering, I don’t actually care…)
Are you now going to pretend to be offended when I call you dishonest?
I have responded specifically as to which statements of yours I have issues with. For you to feign confusion as to what I’m referring to because I haven’t provided a bulleted list is incredible.
I’ve provided much more than that throughout this entire thread, but you repeat your degrading, stereotypical arguments. Sorry I can’t be all warm and fuzzy in response!
@Smorgasbord:
Sorry! When I say “bubble gum” movie, I’m using a slangish term which refers to something that is meant to be superficial fun and without substance. Larry used a poorly received pop culture movie as “evidence” of how seriously gay couples take their commitments to each other, which pretty much makes my head explode, coming from someone who fancies himself an intellectual worried about his reputation.
@Aye Chihuahua:
I’m guessing they may not have, because I already covered it in comment #20. Of course, they may have different answers, so we’ll just have to wait to hear from them…
@Larry
Well – let’s start with traditional. How you or I define that will probably differ. Marriage like many things differ in time and place.
Not that many generations ago – traditional marriage as dictated by law or social ‘norms’ would probably include the following…
* The bride and groom were virgins
* Divorce was frowned upon and a lot lower
* People couldn’t marry someone of a different colour
* It was done within a church
* Parental permission was needed
* Divorcees werent supposed to remarry
* Only the opposite sex can marry
So I suppose the pre-martial sex addicts, multiple divorcees, atheists, non-conformists and those who cross race boundaries have ruined the party? Or is that the gays fault? Are things better now that we don’t expect rigid perfection as defined by some churches? Certainly I wouldn’t want society to go back to that ‘one-size-fits-all’ stifling mentality thanks.
Apparently Kinsley back in the 50s reported that 50% of men had extramaritial sex.
Desperate Housewives
Greys anatomy
Sopranos
and oh…and how much is heterosexual extramartial affairs glamourized in Sex and the City???
Bandits
Jules et Jim
Paint your Wagon
Vicky Cristina Barcelona
…or just about any ‘traditional’ porn movie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9nage_%C3%A0_trois
Saying you can marry but you have to call it ‘joinage’ (!) is not marriage.
Black men according to your stats are 61% more likely to cheat than white men and you call that slight???
Woah – one thing at a time – you seem to be wriggling on this point and just reiterate that you would like gay people to call their marriage by a different name. Let’s go through this one point as it seems it’s the key point you focus on. I see there are figures that 28% of lesbians have affairs outside of their relationship ( google – Blumstein and Schwartz 1983). That is less than black men. Your main point is that gay people should not be able to marry as they are more likely to engage in infidelity. Well on this point it seems lesbians are more likely not to cheat than black men – therefore according to your own criteria – if black men can marry then so should lesbians. Isn’t that true or not?
Put it this way – if a gay couple who have been together for 10 yrs and have been faithful to each other – you would deny them being able to marry whilst you would be fine for a heterosexual person who has already been married and divorced due to being unfaithful? Surely if you are so worried about infidelity – why not target those who have transgressed. Would you turn to the gay couple and say sorry – according to my stats – you’re kind aren’t good enough for marriage. That’s like stopping a black kid entering a store – despite never have stolen anything but allowing a white shoplifter in – purely based on stats. What’s wrong with judging people as individuals and keep government out of such bedroom stats? How is your opinion not discriminatory?
As for open marriages – have a lot at the popularity of swinging in the US. Maybe we should get that banned because it encourages STDs and erodes marriages. Or maybe we should let adults decide for themselves – gay, bi or straight.
CARY: hi, I think you are taking it to personal, the comment dont accuse any one
except the ones who are related to it. bye
@ilovebeeswarzone:
As someone who has people I care deeply about who are affected by this, I do indeed take it personally, and will continue to long after this thread has died. I’m reading stereotypes, stats, and myths being used to justify punishing real live, actual individual human beings. What’s more personal than that?
openid… #113
Yes, marriage has really worked well in this country, with a 50-70% divorce rate.
openid….
Marriage has been a success if what way–maybe as legal prostitution.
In the previous comment, please substitute the word ‘in’ for ‘if’.
@Cary (#138)
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I have no idea who “Cary” is. Cary Grant? I never said that you’re own identity and reputation aren’t important. I said that I sign my name (and city, and I’m in the white pages and I have a real business and a real family). I’m Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA on each and every post. You are “Cary.” My statement was that it is irresponsible for a person who hides behind the cloak of anonymity to personally defame a person who posts under his own name.
I participated on this blog between about September of 2008 and up to about 6 or so (forget how long) months ago. Over the last 6 months, I haven’t been around. I don’t remember ever engaging before with a “Cary.” I just now Googled “Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach” “Cary” “flopping aces” and I can’t find that I’ve ever engaged with you before this thread.
I just now changed browsers from Safari to Chrome and clicked on “Cary,” and I indeed see that you are a real person. I truly didn’t know this previously. I didn’t actually know before that the red screen names at the beginning of the comments were even clickable. I just now clicked on my own screen name at the top of one of my comments and was astonished to see one of my web sites pop up. I truly had no idea of this, previously!
You called me dishonest. I asked you to tell me precisely where I was being dishonest. I’ll take a lot of shots and let them roll off my back or bounce off my chest. I won’t take character assassination. Tell me where I made a dishonest statement — on this thread or anywhere on the Internet.
You said that I made statements which were dishonest, exaggerated, and/or homophobic. That’s all you said. It was a broad brush, ad hominem attack. You did not ever tell me which specific statement was “dishonest,” which statement was “exaggerated,” or which statement was “homophobic.” You never responded to a prior comment by saying “that statement is dishonest,” and then give me the chance to defend what I said. You never responded to a prior comment by saying “that statement is “exaggerated” or “that statement is homophobic.” I can’t defend myself against an ad hominem charge. I can defend myself against a specific charge.
I made an honest mistake, in my last post to you, relating to me referring to you as an anonymous commenter. This was obviously not an intentional lie, as it was instantly refutable, as you illustrated. I do make mistakes, and when these are pointed out, I acknowledge them, as I’m now doing on the issue of your identity.
I ask you again. 1. Please tell me which, if any, statements I made which were “dishonest.” 2 Please tell me which, if any, statements I made which were “exaggerated.” 3. Please tell me which, if any, statements I made which were “homophobic.”
I made a specific charge against you (that you posted anonymously). This allowed you to refute my claim. I ask you for the same courtesy in being specific.
Quoting me, you say:
And then go on to say:
I’m not asking you to be warm and fuzzy. I’m asking you to be specific. Where have I been dishonest? Where have I exaggerated? Where have I been homophobic?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
openid…#135
Please list the collateral damages–and document the reasons–that you expect gay marriage to have on the instiution of marriage.
The average first marriage in the USA endures for more than two decades, and in 80% of the time there is fidelity over the course of the marriage, meaning that an enormous segment of the sexually active population is taken out of the reservoir of potential carriers of sexually transmitted diseases, such as HIV, hepatitis, HPV, HSV, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis. Two decades is also long enough to raise children to physical maturity. Traditional marriage is, by any measure, a resounding success.
What does it matter that Al and Tipper Gore are calling it quits after 40 years of being together and supporting each other and raising a family? It’s always sad whenever any previously loving couple breaks up, but that doesn’t take away the decades of personal and societal benefit.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@ gaffa (#139)
Thank you for a thoughtful, polite, specific, and well reasoned response. I’ll reply, eventually, but right now I need to begin my work day.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
openie….
This “bedrock of marriage” is often based on financial dependency, religious fear, and the obligations of being a care-giver.
@tadcf (#146)
Fair enough. I’ve tried to address and explain these issues in prior comments, but I’m willing to try and produce an executive summary. I’ll try to do so tonight (it’s currently 07:37, GMT -7, and I’ve got to start my work day).
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
openid…
Don’t fool yourself, the statistics would be even worse if people didn’t feel trapped in a dead-end marriage early in it life.
@Cary
Quoting you:
Here’s the difference. I never once accused you of dishonesty, exaggeration, or bigotry. You accused me of all three, without giving me the courtesy of telling me specifically what I said which was dishonest, exaggerated, or bigoted. I do care about the reputations of others. Which is why I try as hard as I can not to engage in ad hominen attacks.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
openid aol.com/runnswim: I have found your comments highly full of intelligence
AND decency toward this POST’S SUBJECT, and no one can say otherwise as I read all of them.
thank you for visiting FA and stay with us. bye
@Larry
Traditional marriage is a lifetime commitment and traditionally our ancestors had less trouble than we do in fulfilling such vows as ‘to death do us part’. If you divorce then by nature of the traditional vows you have failed.