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.
@George Wells:
I suspect if I admitted to doing that, you would quickly label me a ‘bigot’.
Do you admit to always ‘knowing’ that Rock Hudson was gay? I will admit to thinking that is easier to identify a homosexual male than it is a homosexual female. But I will also admit that I had Rachel Maddow pegged a long time ago. Very short hair is a big giveaway on women.
But I try not to run around labeling people. Although when it gets ‘in the face’ I do quickly do so.
@Redteam:
In 1985, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, both homosexuals, penned a little knwn document entitled The Gay Agenda. In it they explained the strategic importance of changing the dialog from “sexual choice” to “born gay”. The “born gay” lie would allow for the forcing of proponents to accept the philosphy that homosexuals could not help being gay and therefore were only attacking the “civil” rights of people who had no control over their own sexual preferences.
Even homosexual psychologists, who supported the gay life style, denounced that plan. They argued that gays were NOT born, but made, and even wrote a number of books on that issue: Dr. John DeCecco’s book If You Seduce A Straight Person You Can Make Them Gay and Vera Whisman’s
Some homosexuals were actually honest in their stand. But it wasn’t working, so the “born gay” rhetoric has increased by those who claim all they want is “equal” rights. It is so much bull.
As for as their goals, I refer you back to the book written in 1999 that explained how to “queer” public schools.
@Redteam #52:
I think you’re onto something!
And no, you’re not a bigot. You’re just admitting something that’s true.
I never watched Rock Hudson movies, and didn’t follow the guy, so I had no opinion there. But I did peg Ricky Martin.
@Redteam: re #53:
Thousands of books have been written on this subject. There is probably some truth in many of them, and there are also plenty of errors in most. On this subject, perfection of knowledge – 100% understanding – is not at hand. Authors often have differing agenda when writing on the subject, and their reported “results” are correspondingly skewed. Retire05 takes those books whose results agree with her views and presents them as settled science. Similarly, she condemns as “lies” those books with which she disagrees . As you may stipulate (as I do) that her references WILL corroborate her assertions, they may be ignored.
Look instead to her actual premise (if you can find one hidden among her bountiful insults) and judge it based upon the supporting logic she provides. Otherwise her posts are just “snow jobs” full of bitter fluff.
@George Wells:
Of course you ignore the fact that every book I have mentioned was written by a homosexual. Kinda blows your “whose results agree with her views” right out of the water, doesn’t it?
@retire05: Retire05, most of my life, I’ve believed that gays are gay by choice. I still believe that is mostly true. I do believe that some people are born with screwed up genes and are greatly confused by their feelings. Those people tend to ‘become’ gay. I watched a video with the flip side of the question, when did you choose to become straight?. I don’t think straight people ‘choose’ to be straight. I think it’s a ‘non-issue’ with them and they don’t ‘make a choice’. Those people that are screwed up and ‘make a choice’ do so because they are confused and think it must be ‘because they were born gay’. And of course, as you say, it fits their agenda to be able to say they did it because they were born that way. Though I’m not equating it, I believe psycho pathic murderers were ‘born that way’ also, but we don’t allow them to ‘get away with it’, if we can prevent it. There are people born with other ‘birth defects’ also, society tends to deal with them appropriately. I have known more than one gay man that ‘preyed’ on young boys, gay or not. Though I certainly exhibit no gay tendencies, I have been propositioned more than once in my lifetime by gay adult men. That is basically pedophilia.
@Redteam: @Redteam: I had to read you’re statement slowly a 2nd time. “People born with other birth defects and society deals with them appropriately.” Unbelievable– did you really say that?
You have been propositioned by gay men but you assure us you have “no gay tendencies”–Better take inventory Redteam.
@Redteam:
In 1970, the DSM-II listed homosexuality as a mental illness. It was treated by psychiatrists as a mental illness. In 1971, the APA held its convention in San Francisco. Very verbal gay activists groups protested the psychiatrists attending the convention. Again, in 1972, the same thing happened only the gay activists became even more enboldened going so far as to threaten, physically, those psychiatrists, and their families, trying to get homosexuality removed from the DSM-II as a mental illness.
That year, again a vote was taken to remove homosexuality from the DSM-II. It was voted to remove by a margin of 55%, only most of the attending psychiatrists refused to vote. In 1973, homosexuality wsa removed from the DSM-II.
Now, what prompted the removal? Was some new scientific breakthru discovered, like when the Salk vaccine was found to be able to eradicate polio from those innoculated? What study proved homosexuality was no longer a mental illness? There was none. But there were violent threats against psychiatrists who stood their ground, declaring that homosexuality should remain in the DSM-II as a mental illness. Tell me, have you ever heard of an illness, any illness, physical or mental, just mystically disappearing with no study, no science, no drug therapy, to eradicate that illness? Have you even known of any illness that just went away with no cause for its disappearance?
George wants to give the argument “Hey, we are just like you.” Tell me the heterosexual counterpart to the North American Man-Boy Love Association, better known as NAMBLA. Do you know of any group of hetrosexuals that promote pedophilia like NAMBLA does? Or do heterosexuals find the actions of those like Warren Jeffs to be dispicable and would perfer to see Jeffs strapped into Old Sparky? What is the push to indoctrinate children, as young as kindergartners, into accepting homosexuality as a normal life style really about?
But if you don’t accept homosexuality as normal; if you think that homosexuality is out of step with nature, you will be labeled a bigot by those very people who claim to support, and respect those that support, the First Amendment.
‘
@Richard Wheeler: Richard, the same gay pedophiles that were hitting on me was hitting on all the young boys in the neighborhood, they weren’t particular which ones they caught. That was back in the 40’s and 50’s. I’m a little past inventorying such things.
@Richard Wheeler: @Richard Wheeler:
yes, do you want me to think that a person born with both male and female organs is not a birth defect? Really?
@retire05: Retire, I’m sure I’ve heard most of those facts before, mostly a long time ago. Yes, I know the big push now is to make homosexuals ‘normal’. Well, those homosexuals know that it is not true and that they will always live separate lives because of their situation. You don’t have ‘heterosexuals’ pushing a ‘hetero’ agenda, it’s not necessary to make people accept them. But apparently it is necessary to push a ‘homo agenda’ to make people accept them.
@Redteam: #51
Is it possible that some of the hermaphrodites are more one way than the other at birth, but they still swing to the other side sometimes?
Do you mean they chose not to live a life that could lead to them being ridiculed, picked on, beaten, and maybe killed for how they were born? I’m guessing that if they were born into a society that taught their people that not everybody is born with the same feelings, and to accept people the way they are, they would CHOOSE to live the lifestyle they were born with. I hope someday THAT society exists for them. I could live in a society like that.
I try not to come to any conclusions about things I don’t know, and this is something I need a lot more information.
@Redteam: #52
One reason I don’t mind guys being gay, is the more gay guys there are, the better chance I have of finding a woman who wants to settle down with me.
@retire05 #59:
You asked:
“What study proved homosexuality was no longer a mental illness?”
What study proved homosexuality WAS a mental illness? What “is” or “isn’t” an illness is not determined in either case by a “study.” Was a “study” needed to determine that Polio was a disease? NO. Your logic is flawed and deceptive.
You said:
“George wants to give the argument “Hey, we are just like you.”
I keep saying that we are just the opposite. Gay people are NOT “like you.” We are NOT “normal,” and proud of it. I never gave the argument otherwise, and I have no reason to “want to.” Your fantasy to the contrary is your own invention, not mine.
@Redteam #61:
You said:
“yes, do you want me to think that a person born with both male and female organs is not a birth defect? Really?”
When you start to speak of “birth defects” in a judgmental way, you come perilously close to the rationale used by Adolf Hitler to justify mass exterminations. I stipulate that homosexuality is “not normal.” But when you go much beyond that acknowledgment, you get into the realm of evaluating the worthiness of the individual, and that consideration would best be left sacrosanct.
@George Wells:
It was not MY logic; it was the logic of the psychiatrists and sexologists that came long before me, some coming out of Germany and other parts of Europe in the late 1800’s. Until 1973, with the advent of the new DSM-II, homosexuality was treated as a mental illness. If you have a grip, it’s not with me, but with those physicians/sexologists that came long before me.
And where exactly, did Redteam advocate extermination of those born with birth defects? Or is this just more drama from you?
@ retire05 re #67:
Well then, GOOD! We both agree that there were no “studies” that determined that homosexuality was an “illness,” that the “judgment” of psychiatrists and sexologists “some coming out of Germany and other parts of Europe in the late 1800’s” was just that: JUDGMENT over 200 years old and now discredited.
In your #42 you said: “Not being a fan of Shakespeare, I really don’t care what he said hundreds of years ago.” Tit for tat.
In #57, redteam talked about “screwed up” people making choices, and other people with “birth defects” and how society would deal with them “appropriately.” Then in #58, Richard Wheeler questioned him if he really meant to say what he had said. My discussion of birth defects – including the reference to Hitler’s “solution” re: “birth defects” – was meant to demonstrate the sensitivity of the issue. In the sentence of mine that you quoted, the word “you” was being used synonymously with “a person” or “one” and was not meant to imply that redteam wanted to exterminate birth-defective people. I apologize if my choice of words lead you to mistakenly reach that conclusion.
@Smorgasbord:
All people? Would you be willing to accept Adolf Hitler ‘the way he was’? How about Dahmer? How about the Boston Bombers? Isn’t it really a matter of picking and choosing whose behavior you want to accept and reject?
@George Wells:
I am no more speaking of birth defects in a judgmental way than you are. I don’t even imply that all birth defects are undesirable. A defect that makes a person extraordinarily brilliant may be a desirable thing, there are other examples. But for my purpose anything that does not result in a person being 100% what they should be, would be a ‘defect’. Mass murderers are a birth defect, for example. homosexuality is also a birth defect, but it is certainly not in the same category. I find it interesting that it is advocated that everyone be accepted the ‘way they are’ and then when someone such as myself or Retire05 says that in our opinion homosexuality is not normal, you want to jump on us and criticize us for having that opinion. Where is the ‘accept us the way we are’ crowd when this comes down?
@George Wells:
Perhaps if you wanted to do a little more investigation, instead of simply trying to push an agenda, you would understand that the “judgement” came from years of scientific studies conducted by those psychiatrists and sexologists. Parsing words may work for some you encounter, but not me.
Check out this link, it’s about what’s going on in California:
http://godfatherpolitics.com/10792/california-assembly-wants-girls-put-at-risk-of-rape-in-name-of-equality/
For someone to claim there is no agenda: The evidence is clear. ” one of the charter members of the Bay Area Perverts Caucus” sounds like an interesting organization.
@ redteam:
DEAR redteam, Please, as a friend to EVERYONE who reads this thread, PLEASE tell us all there I (George Wells) have EVER said that I think that homosexuality is “normal,” or where I have ever criticised you OR retire05 for saying that it (homosexuality) is not normal.
You said in your last post:
“when someone such as myself or Retire05 says that in our opinion homosexuality is not normal, you want to jump on us and criticize us for having that opinion.”
Are you suggesting that while I don’t EVER say those things, I really want to? Or are you just having fun misquoting me because you have no other argument to offer?
Your opinion and my opinion on the abnormality of homosexuality are IDENTICAL. There are plenty of other issues on which we do not agree – please confine your argument to those differences instead of trying to create ones that do not exist.
@George Wells: George, you said:
What I said was not a quote. You have often stated that you consider homosexuality to not be normal, so I apologize for implying that you have stated otherwise, but you have said:
Since I don’t think that you can show where homosexuals rights are any different than heterosexuals, then I guess I read into that that you are asking for ‘special’ treatment which you interpret as ‘same TREATMENT’ . I know of no law that restricts you any more than it does me. You have every ‘right’ that I do. When someone asks for laws to be passed that changes the treatment of one group, it necessarily takes away a right from someone else. If your rights are increased, then mine will be decreased, as in if someone gets a handout, it is coming from those that pay taxes, not the government.
uh… er. Is “marriage” now a “right” that is to be regulated by government as to who can, and cannot marry? I’m confused… aren’t rights something the government cannot infringe upon? Is there anything in the Constitution or Bill of Rights and Amendments that even confers the power of government at any level to decide who can and cannot marry? Technically, what isn’t mentioned in the Constitution as a federal power is to be left to the States.
So of what benefit is it for conservatives to defend, and even sanction, allowing government intrusion – at any level – into what has historically been a religious rite? Heaven knows that laws against marrying immediate family members, in theory for “health” (which was the excuse for putting the blood test mandate in for that marriage “permission”), isn’t going to stop those who decide to ignore marriage laws and cohabitate anyway.
In fact, were there no fiscal and legal bennies attached to marital status, would there be any reason for any level of government to assume this power in to our lives?
I realize you never returned after your ball game, when I pointed out that conservatives are on the wrong argument, wrong debate when it comes to same sex marriage. As a recap here, the federal or state governments have no business being in the marriage license business, and stuck their nose into that strictly to restrict marriages between certain cultures and races which they deemed harmful to society. In other words, they did it specifically to control and discriminate, using the excuse of protecting a society. That’s one heck of a nasty cliff, well beyond a “slippery slope”.
Instead, with government entering the marriage business, they’ve done more to destroy the family unit than to encourage it…. being as when Americans quietly accepted that the government must give them permission to marry, then the government needed to come up with a way to allow them to unmarry. Big business for lawyers. And I doubt that marriage license fees pay for the tax credits and loopholes in lost revenue. Point is, this whole “marriage” business by the government is about nothing *but* handouts and spending.
This utterly bizarre argument by conservatives that government permission/intrusion, and taxpayer handouts, are hunky dory for hetrosexual marriages, but not okay for same sex marriages makes me queasy with the hypocrisy. You should be protesting the danged handouts to *anyone* – and most especially small government and Constitutionalists should be raging against the government’s unconstitutional foray into our personal lives.
Government shouldn’t be allowed to say who can and cannot marry. There should be no bennies attached to marital status. If tax credits and breaks are for dependents, again, it shouldn’t be tied to the marital status of the heads of the household. Any and everyone should be able to designate power of attorney for their affairs, health envoy, etc… and not be questioned.
Off my soapbox and back to work. But maybe some of you might wander into an entirely different discussion that doesn’t revolve around your personal moral, religious or emotional opinions about someone else’s lifestyle.
George, after reading comment 72 above, tell me if allowing boys to go into a girls restroom takes away rights of the girls in the restroom? Is that acceptable?
@retire05 re #71:
The opinion that homosexuality is an illness was a centuries-old belief that has been discredited.
Distinctly abnormal manifestations in human beings may be separated into different categories, such as “conditions,” “syndromes,” “injuries,” “illnesses,” “diseases,” ”cancers,” “infections,” and “disorders.” The decision to remove “homosexuality” from the list of “illnesses” did not remove it from the list of distinctly abnormal manifestations, it simply acknowledged that homosexuality was not caused by any known pathogen or metabolic abnormality. To categorize “homosexuality” as a “disease” or an “illness,” (the two words are often used synonymously) is to misrepresent its fundamental nature.
Your accusation that I “parse words” is curious. When I used words carelessly, you criticized me, so I am now more careful in my word selection. Similarly, I research the meanings of the words you use in an effort to understand your true meaning. If this careful attention to language is in your opinion “parsing words,” then I am guilty of that.
I think instead that you simply misspoke and are unwilling to admit it. As you did not reference an example, I assume that there was none.
@MataHarley:
The first marriage licenses issued in the New World was by the Virginia colony governor. He issued them, upon request, from the various ministers who were to perform the marriage rites. The reason for this was because the governor could not be traveling all across the colony to issue the license. The ministers were required to keep records of each marriage they performed, along with subitting the monitary bonds paid by the couple being married. So yes, Mata, it was a “government” function from the time before we were even a nation with a federal government.
I agree with you that it is an issue that should be left up to the states, or the people, as outlined in the Tenth Amendment. But you see, that doesn’t work, either. The people of California spoke, and how did that work out?
So then, is it your contention that siblings should be allowed to marry, people should be allowed to have more than one “marital” partner, or that parents should be allowed to marry off spring, as long as all parties involved are legally adults?
@MataHarley:
I don’t believe that I mentioned ‘government’ rights. Do I understand that you don’t think there should be any ‘government’ rights associated with marriage? What about if a couple ‘gets married’ i.e., they start living together, with no license or documentation and then they have a child. Is either of them free to just walk off and have no obligations to the child at all? Who would take care of the child and why? Is it ok with you if a father and daughter or mother and son be ‘married’, i.e., live together as long as they are all over 18 years of age? Is polygamy ok? I prefer local government to federal government in all things except interstate commerce and national defense. States should keep records of marriages, but not decide ‘who’ can get married. I don’t believe that states got into the marriage business to control ‘who’ married ‘who’ but to keep a record of who obligated themselves to who and who to hold responsible for their debts and obligations.
I think you’re assuming something that may not be true. I’m conservative in most ways, but as far as who lives together I couldn’t care less as long as rules of civilization are observed. If there were ‘no rules’ then you couldn’t hold anyone responsible when they did something wrong. Humans have to have rules to live by. Someone has to create the rules. We have what we have. I am not for the government giving anyone a right if that right is taken from me to give to them. There have been as many or more wrongs done in ‘correcting’ racism than were done in allowing racism. Someone is always going to ‘take advantage’ of any situation.
Am I to assume that you consider the inverse of that to be true also? That there should be no obligations attached to marital status? Should a married man and woman that are raising several children get any tax exemptions? If there is no record of the marriage, how would you know who to give the benefits or assign the obligation to? Is the man and woman living together in a household to be responsible for the children living with them or should the ‘actual parents’ of those children be obligated to support them? Who would know who that is? When a child is born, should there be a birth certificate? Should it list the actual mother and father or just the people that happen to be living together when the event happens? Or no one at all? With no record, who would know? I think when you advocate that government has no place in humans lives, you are advocating a disorder of an unmanageable magnitude.
The right to choose a mate is an inalienable ight. Deciding who takes care of progeny in a civilized society is mor ecomplicated. In olden days they were left to die.
Decidiing who will get government benefits, all things being euqual, is partially based on discrimination against gay people. An infertile couple is no different than a gay couple, if you could not inspect their plumbing.
Yet the government says the one couple can have marriage benefits while the other cannot.
This is the basis for our discontent.
We ar enot asking for rights. We have those inalienable ones. We are asking that the civil authorities stop favoring one citizenry over another, based on physical characteristics. Certainly morality ahs little part in this, if you consider all of the crack and meth heads who can get married on a whim, pop out children with no means of support, and go on ther merry irresponsible way.
Yet you have doctors and lawyers wishing to make a lifelong commitment and are stiffed so to speak.
Leaving it up to the states to determiine some aspects of marriage and child rearing is aok. but to deny marriage to a group based on sexual preference, just as they disallowed interracial marriage – that’s not ok.
We are talkng about two people marrying as consenting adults, not man and dog, or twenty people in a joint marriage.
Louisiana use dto have a Universal Partnership that the state constitutional convention did away with. it allowed two people to go in jointly. Same as marriage but unencumbered with religion or worrying about gender. Two people could share everything wth the full force of law. I don’t see the problem. the religious right here got rid of that though.
redteam- i’m 100% gay, never been with or wanted a woman. It is natural – for me. I figure it must be what God wants as there are many things I can do that I would not be able to do encumbered with children. Taking care of other people’s children is one such thing. long periods of concentration, or concentrating on work at all – lol.
@ted: There are plenty of non-gay people that feel the same way about having children. I don’t think it’s associated with gay or non gay. I shouldn’t have used the word ‘gay’, it is a complete misuse of the word in referring to a homosexual. They tend to be anything but.
@MataHarley: #76,
Well and simply said, and agreed, – I would emphasize any government in case there’s confusion as to ‘localizing’, or pushing the ‘oversight’ down the government food chain to the local level. Governments were insinuated into marriage, energized by the religious belief that marriage is a sacrament (ie.: the Judaic-Christian belief that marriage was created by God). That doesn’t mean that marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships and cohabitations cannot be registered – establishing meaningful timelines for the parties to be used in future reference as might be related to children or separation.
@Redteam: #79,
The conviction that Government can and does manage human lives and human affairs better than those humans it ‘manages’ can do themselves has long been proven a fallacy. Government Intrusion in your life results in nothing good or positive. Government can’t even apply and enforce the laws it has instituted to protect you. How can you want more from it?
The answers to the questions you raise here do not rest in government controlling and administering marriage. People are going to act like, and be ‘humans’ no matter what the circumstance, including birth of children. Most care about their children, but some don’t. Government won’t change that. What does government enforcement of a child’s support have to do with government oversight of that child’s parents through laws managing marriage?
@Redteam: #69
I was referring only to my opinion that nobody gets any choices at birth. You are born the way you are, and I accept that. I believe that if a person CHOOSES to be gay, then a person CHOOSES to be straight. How does anyone justify one life style being a choice, but the other one not? Exactly who or what decided that being gay is wrong? If you say religion, that is one reason I don’t belong to any religion. If I have to hate the act of being gay, I don’t want anything to do with that religion.
I have a problem with people who think I should change my opinions of some things because they believe differently. I form my own opinions based on as much information as I can get on a subject. Some things I don’t have enough information to decide one way or the other, so I don’t form an opinion. Too many people form opinions on what OTHERS say, or they fill in the missing information the way they want it. If there are blank spots in info, then I leave them blank until I find something that can fill them in properly. It’s like a jig saw puzzle. I don’t try to force a piece in that won’t fit.
Nobody has ever answered my simple question: How does people being gay harm anybody in any way?
@Redteam:
Before women were given the right to vote, government was controlled exclusively by men. When women got the vote, men lost some of their control. Should men have been compensated for the control they lost, or should they not have had exclusive control to begin with? Or should women not have been given the vote in the first place?
I ask this because in your posts opposing gay marriage, you seem to be making the argument that the status quo should never be changed if the change results in the redistribution of something of value.
@Smorgasbord:
you think that’s a simple question? You’ve never heard of homosexuals seducing young kids? I have.
I don’t believe that. I think with non-homosexuals, it is a non-issue, they don’t choose because it never occurs to them. Homosexuals are apparently very disturbed by the whole process so they end up having to make a choice. Some choose the homosexual lifestyle, some don’t.
@George Wells:
So you think the government should just be able to confiscate your money and give it to someone else and not owe you anything for it. Same deal, just different goods.
@Smorgasbord:
But you seem to not have a problem thinking that people that have problems with homosexuals should change their opinion about them and come around to your way of thinking. Strange how that works, isn’t it?
@Redteam: #87
…you think that’s a simple question? You’ve never heard of homosexuals seducing young kids?
You are sounding like a liberal now. Your statement is like saying, “Haven’t you ever heard of someone killing people with a gun? Guns should be banned.” Straight people have molested kids too. Most people who molest kids prefer only kids. They are not gay.
I was asking how a person being gay hearts anybody. Just like someone having a gun doesn’t heart anybody, it’s how it is used. Most gays only want the right to be like straight people, except that they want a same sex lover or mate. That is the only difference between them and us.
You say that being gay is a choice. I don’t think it is. This is a subject that neither of us will change the other person’s mind, so I would rather not continue with the subject. I never have liked to argue when I see neither person is going to change their mind.
@Redteam: #89
The difference is that if I make a statement, I usually don’t keep going on about it. If someone comments on my comment, I will answer them, otherwise, I usually make one comment and leave it alone.
It’s like my not being a church goer. I have had several conversations with people who kept preaching at me until I had to politely ask them to stop. My mom was good at preaching and arguing. I have hear her argue with some over a very little thing, until the other person wants to change the subject, but my mom had to win the argument, especially if it was about religion. It drove people away from her. I think that is one reason I don’t like to argue. It never settles the issue.
@Redteam #88:
I’m glad that you did not try to answer my question, as any attempt would have revealed the flaw in your logic directly. Instead you chose to answer with another related question, which I WILL answer, because the answer to YOUR question will ALSO reveal the flaw in your logic.
You asked:
“So you think the government should just be able to confiscate your money and give it to someone else and not owe you anything for it. Same deal, just different goods.”
Of course the answer is “YES.”
Moreover, it’s not that I THINK it should be able to, it IS able to and it DOES.
When the government taxes your income it is “confiscating” your money, which it then “gives” to somebody else. It pays military contractors, for example, or it launches satellites, or it pays for any of the other things that government pays for because individuals can’t. When I pay my state taxes, a portion of the money goes toward education, and regardless of whether the money funds public schools or private school vouchers, I have no children and get no benefit.
Yes the government should be able to do that, and it DOES. It’s how the game is played.
When wrongful traditions like slavery are abruptly ended, someone pays. When tax rates change, someone pays. When women got the vote, men “paid.”
About ten years ago, the threshold for taxing estates was around $600,000. The amount increased each year until it reached $10,000,000. The following year it fell back to about $1,400,000. Depending on the date of your death, your heirs would owe hugely different amounts of money (if you had enough to begin with). And they didn’t get any different “benefit” depending on how much was paid. It’s how the game is played.
Laws change, and understandably, the beneficiaries change as well. There are lawyers and accountants and estate planners all waiting to help you try to ANTICIPATE where the game is going. If you guess correctly, you benefit, and if you don’t, you lose.
The laws and traditions of the United States have established and upheld the right of government “to confiscate your money and give it to someone else and not owe you anything for it,” and there is no insurance that will protect you from your government. All you can do is vote.
@Smorgasbord:
I have never asked you to change your mind, nor told you that you are wrong. I don’t now nor never have expected to change your mind.
But, I just watched a YouTube video called “Is being gay a choice” and one single fact that they quoted stuck in my mind and let me ask you your opinion. In cases where one identical twin is homosexual, 70% of the time, the other identical twin is also gay. How can that be? An identical twin is just that, identical, same DNA, same birth order, same sex. If it’s from genes, hormones, etc, then 100% of the time they should both be homosexual, shouldn’t they? One other ‘fact’ that they threw in is that there are many animals that are homosexual. So far no one has ever proven that ‘homosexual’ animals ‘have sexual relations’ so that’s kinda misleading, but that was just their agenda, I realize that.
@George Wells:
My question was ‘you think the government should be able to….’ and you said yes, then you go on to say it’s not what you think, it’s just what the government does, so you didn’t ‘answer’ my question.
By the way, I did answer your question, you just didn’t like the answer. I’ve never studied the constitution with respect to ‘womens’ or ‘slaves’ right to vote. So I don’t know what new rights that they accumulated that had to be taken from someone. I suspect none.
George I asked Smorg this question just above: It is a quote from a YouTube video. “if one identical twin is homosexual, 70% of the time the other identical twin will also be homosexual” If a person’s birth determines whether they are homosexual, should identical twins always be the same, both yes or both no? Genes, hormones, birth order, all identical. I wonder who can really answer this question factually?
@George Wells:
Perhaps you can show me the part of the Constitution that allows for the taking of one person’s wealth (income) to benefit another individual? And no, it is not addressed by “general welfare” as “general” means ALL, not individuals.
.
The estate tax, or death tax as I like to call it, is nothing more than a money grab by the federal goverment to redistribute wealth to those that politicians think deserve your money, i.e. their constituents. It is nothing more than a vote grabbing scam. Why should anyone be taxed on assets that have already been taxed once, when income was earned to purchase that asset, and again, by property/personal property taxes? That is clearly double taxation. Yet, you admit that you vote a Democrat ticket and for those who clearly believe in this unconstitutional taxation, but whine when you are affected by it.
The Constitution permits taxing for the public good, and that included any military/security expenditures. Now, you can get off in the weeds about “public” good, but the truth is that covers every individual equally. My security is equally protected as your security.
And there are lawyers and accountants and estate planners who will help you avoid estate taxes. Just ask the Ted Kennedy family. Are you saying that those same lawyers, accountants and estate planners are not available to homosexuals?
Interesting you say that. Some think I hold an unusual view with my objections in government being involved at all. But when you separate personal moral, religious and/or emotion from the subject, there are more than a few that see the government making “the rules” as intrusive.
One notable is Townhall’s Mark Baisley, who penned an article a year ago about the States involvement in licensing/regulating marriages. As he pointed out, if their role were simply confined to keeping a registry, there would be less of an issue INRE discrimination.
In fact, his observation is that the State’s fixing the definitions violates both the 1st Amendment. I can’t disagree.
As I said, quietly allowing government’s intrusion into what is a religious rite has resulted in that sacrament being distorted… and for reasons legislators and courts freely admit are based on morals and societal “benefits”.
Yet take the taxpayer cash out of the definition of the union, and there is less impact on the public. Which brings me to @retire05 and @Redteam. I suggested you both remove your personal emotions, morals and/or religion from the issue, and look at this as sheer government intrusion and discrimination. Yet what you both did was simply provide another laundry list of people you don’t believe should be allowed to marry.
INRE polygamy… that’s sure an interesting fear so many have. Were there no robbery of tax funds for such relationships, what possible difference can it make to you personally? After all, there are many extramarital relationships, “kept” lovers, etc. The Council for Secular Humanism’s Wendy Kaminer, wrote an interesting op-ed on this very thought.
Another piece of interesting reading is a piece from The Economist blog, Democracy in America, last month.
Which then brings me to Redteam’s “for the children” argument, the last paragraph in #79. All this is covered by existing laws. “Dead beat fathers” do not have to be married to be subject to fiscal responsibilities. Child abuse laws still abound, irrelevant of marital status. It’s illegal no matter who does it, and that wouldn’t change. Additionally, having a marriage law has still not eliminated abusive care by parents who *are* married.
As @James Raider correctly points out, no government definition and regulation of marriage is going to change those who do not care for their children, despite marital status. No more than laws stop criminals from committing crimes.
Instead it can do far more damage, such as granting wide sweeping powers to government social workers, such as when authorities went into the Texas polygamist commune, the Search for Zion, and forcibly removed 460 children without a shred of evidence of child abuse by their parents… and based solely on an “anonymous” tip. Jessup, the “father” was convicted for sexual assault of a 16 yr old, but that’s already covered under other laws, unrelated to marital status.
Point is, not all polygamist or homosexual relationships result in child abuse, just as not all hetrosexual married parents result in families without child abuse.
Jonathan Turley was the lead counsel for the Sister Wives, and had posted his view INRE polygamy in a July 2011 article worthy of reading. These women were not forced, and all are living the lifestyle they choose to. If they are not abusing children, why should anyone care… as long as tax payer paid benefits are out of the mix?
It’s always interesting that so many insist their negative views towards polygamy is based on a Christian religion, but the Old Testament is filled with revered religious principals with multiple wives. Polygamy was not unusual or immoral in most religions in the past. And if society has gravitated towards monogamous unions over time, why should that make the polygamist union a crime? It is still a choice, and differs little from the man who has a wife and kids, and several mistresses on the side.
And BTW, some theorists suggest the push for criminalizing polygamy was to level the playing field for men of less wealth… as the richer men got the majority of appealing wives, leaving the rest to fight over what was left.
What much of this comes down to separating your personal distaste for someone else’s lifestyle, and examining just how much power any of you want to entrust government at any level in regulating religious “morality”, so to speak. I, personally, don’t agree with them having any such power. And the need for it is removed with the financial benefits, tied to marital status, are reversed.
@MataHarley:
Ironically, you do not mention that there seemed to be enough evidence of “child” abuse that Warren Jeffs was sentenced to a lengthy sentence in a tight prison for his crimes against children. Why is that?
To begin with, Turley, while brilliant, is a far left winger. Also, it has been shown that women in polygomous marriages are often recipients of social welfare, so taxpayer funded benefits are not out of the mix.
If you support the right of polygamy, I ask again:
If we abolish marriage licenses, issued by government (state) entities, then what? What that union falls apart, do you think the government should stay out of the desolution of that union? Just let the couple fight it out, making the decisions on who gets the kids, who gets the sofa, who gets the wash machine? Who stays in the home and who moves out? If the government has no authority in the permission of a marriage, then it has no authority in its desolution. If marriage is a strickly personal action on the part of two, or ten, individuals, then the government should have no say whatso ever, including division of property when that union falls apart.
Just picture it: no divorce courts and no divorce lawyers. Utopia, right?
Again you give a laundry list of people you don’t think should marry, retire05. Been there, done that. Laws against siblings marrying, incestual marriage, don’t stop siblings from cohabitating outside of marriage if they are intent on doing so. Nor does it stop incest for the same reason. If it was forced, it’s abuse and is already covered by law. Otherwise, what people do in their personal relationships isn’t my business. Nor is it yours.
There’s no problems with legal property rights. Common law marriage is recognized in something like 9-10 states, and functions quite well within the legal system. If there weren’t State licensing laws – including some states prohibiting common law marriage – the remaining states would probably adopt something similar for use in courts. It’s all about the States retaining their power to control personal lifestyles they deem an “offense” to society.
Your statement…
… I find equally confusing for someone who thinks of herself as a “constitutionalist”. The only “say” the government has in dividing assets is based on the merits of a legal presentation of facts before a judge.. and that doesn’t have to require a marriage license to occur. The judge is merely acting as an arbitrator in a civil dispute. This mediation/arbitration can take place outside of our court system as well, and does.
Not sure what your penchant for having “divorce courts” is. Mitigating division of property is simply a civil process. Whether they were officially “married”, or simply cohabited for a long enough time to acquire common assets and children, is still decided with a civil court system. Call it what you want, it will do the same thing… mitigate civil disagreements, just as they do between non related/married people now.
INRE Jeffs, his charges in Utah (accomplice to rape by performing a marriage) were thrown out by the Utah high court. In Texas, he was facing charges of sexual assault on dozens of children… which is illegal whether he’s a polygamist/bigamist or or even a monogamist father. Or, for that matter, even an unrelated individual. He’s scum to abuse children, and should be put away on those charges. However for the state to seize everyone’s kids, without evidence of abuse, is a power I’ve disagreed with for quite some time. There are few agencies that abuse their powers more than “social services”.
@Redteam #94:
I apologize for not picking up on the distinction you made in your reply. I should have added the word “just” as follows:
“Moreover, it’s not JUST that I THINK it should be able to, it IS able to, and it DOES.” (referring to government confiscation of funds to benefit others, excusing the paraphrasing)
To clarify, I think that government has the right, and that it SHOULD exercise that right. Your choice of descriptive terminology (“confiscation,” money-grab” etc.) intended to bias the reader is unnecessary, as your disapproval of “safety-net” expenditures is more than adequately expressed in your argument.
Am I correct in identifying those government programs that give disproportionately to the poor as the ones you are taking issue with? The so-called “safety-net” programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? As well the food stamp program, support for unwed mothers, tuition aid etc., etc.? I offer the following discussion in GENERAL defense of “safety-net” income redistribution programs:
Over the past 50 years there has been a general decline in the relative prospects of the middle-class. Many more of the middle class have gravitated into poverty than have risen into wealth. Many factors have contributed to the widening gap between rich and poor, and social programs that have provided a disincentive to hard work are certainly among them.
But for whatever the causes, right here and now we have a very difficult situation at hand. Our poor have grown in such numbers and their circumstance has become so desperate that our social order is at a tipping point.
Let’s say for point of argument that there are 20 million unemployed Black males. The number and proportion of those males represented in our prison population is already at a breaking point. The criminal justice system cannot catch, try, convict and incarcerate more and more of these desperately needy people. They are already terribly “unhappy,” and if their various “safety-net” payments are taken away, how long do you think they will wait before they start taking whatever they want? Think they’ll starve before they rob? Multiply this problem by how many millions will lose their “safety-net” income redistribution payments.
Make no mistake, this IS a problem. Pointing fingers and assigning blame will help you feel better only until some desperate wretch breaks into your home looking for something to sell for a few bucks. Maybe you’ll kill him before he kills one of your family, maybe not. And I don’t mean to single out Blacks – there are huge numbers of the desperately poor across racial lines. The problem that I can’t get past is that every solution I can think of takes time (usually a LOT of time) and when you are hungry, you don’t have time to take courses to get your GED.
So what do you do? If you take away the “safety-nets,” the money you save will get spent building prisons, and we already have the highest percentage of population behind bars in the World. So I don’t see that more prisons is the answer.
I think that the communists got it wrong when they predicted that as capitalism got greedier and greedier, the “workers” would eventually rise up and throw off their shackles. That model was too neat. I think that the breakdown will be messier, caused by the under-employed and the unemployed – the MOST desperately poor – and that they won’t be organized as would be needed to overthrow either business or government. They’ll just drown law enforcement with a tidal wave of disorganized crime. The so-called “safety-net” income redistribution payments are in some cases nothing more than protection payments. But I’d rather make those orderly payments than have to pay at gun-point.
@Redteam Re: % of homosexual identical twins:
There is certainly a lot of data accumulated on the incidence of homosexuality among identical twins. The 70% figure you quoted is what I have found in the literature. My personal experiences are too limited to inform on the subject. However, a closer examination of the data reveals that NO studies suggest a single factor contributing to the homosexuality of an individual, much less an identical pair.
The identical pair-70% model is empirical – there is no simple diagnostic route to that number. Perhaps the more interesting statistic is that in NON-identical, same-gender twins, when one is homosexual, the chances of the second one being homosexual drops way below 70%… to more like maybe 20%. It is THIS number that is crucial.
You are absolutely correct in concluding that if homosexuality was caused ENTIRELY by genetic factors, if one identical twin was homosexual, the likelihood that the other would also be homosexual would be (approximately) 100%. This would be the epitome of the “nature” argument.
If on the other hand the only cause of homosexuality was the “nurture” argument – that homosexuality was caused entirely by the environment, you could conclude that either:
A. If the environment is always the same (which it is not) then the chances for each individual would equal the chances in the whole population – approximately 3%. Or:
B. If the environment is conducive to homosexual development, then twins – identical or not – would always have the SAME chance of both being homosexual.
The fact that the chance (of non-identical twins both being homosexual when one is) is around 20% indicates that there is an environmental factor at work, as 20% is considerably higher than the 3% found in the general population.
The fact that the chance (of a second identical twin being homosexual when the first one is) is around 70% indicates that there is a genetic factor at work.
It is the difference between the 20% and the 70% numbers that suggests strongly that BOTH “nature” and “nurture” are factors in determining homosexuality. In other words, there are both environmental and genetic causes of homosexuality.
I really apologize for how confusing my explanation may be. I have written this extemporaneously. No other sources were copied and pasted. But if you research the subject, you will discover the correctness of this explanation.
Every individual is different, and the causes of homosexuality are difficult if not impossible to determine individually. But the statistical analysis of populations reveals very compelling information, and in the case of the identical and non-identical twin studies, the results very strongly suggest that both genetic and environmental factors determine the incidence of homosexuality in the population at large.
This I wanted to address separately, as it’s out of left field, so to speak.
To the first, about Turley, you have no problems with leftist Dershowitz when he agrees with you, but you have problems with leftist Turley when he does not. Your persistence in dissing or approving sources, based on whether you agree with it or not, is nothing but consistent.
To the second, I have repeatedly stated that all references to marital status for tax benefits should be eliminated, and if they were most issues would be resolved INRE polygamy or same gender relationships. That you point out they remain in the mix is a moot point. I’m aware of the taxpayer’s cash being at the base of the marital status debate, thus why I say that if the State or feds didn’t assume the power to define marriage for the purposes of financial benefits, we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.
@MataHarley:
You seem to want to conflate my question; if the state/federal government has no part in marriage, then it also has no part in divorce, or the conflicts that arrise from such desolutions of any “civil” partnership. You can’t have it both ways, which you seem to think is applicable. If it is up to the parties involved to work out their “partnership” arrangements, then it should also be up to the parties involved to work out their “desolution” arrangements.
Of course Jeffs is scum. And he is where he belongs. But you tell me; you have a cloistered community that does not have much relationship with the outside world. There is reasonable suspecion that there is abuse of children going on in that cloistered community. How does any LE agency know which children were abused? Was it only the girls? Was it both the girls and the boys? Only those reaching early teens or were toddlers abused? Were the mothers complicit in the abuse of those children? As a LEO, or a person from CPS, how do you know initially which children were abused and which ones were spared?
You’re off your game today, Mata. You should re-read my question to you. A question is NOT a statement of opinion.
@MataHarley:
When Turley is right, and he often is, I will agree with him. I often have problems with Dershowitz when he opines about the goverment. His one strong point is that he supports the rights of the nation of Israel, in contrast with many other left wing legal eagles.
And yes, Mata, I will continue to point out biased links that you provide. I know that hurts your over active ego, but oh, well.
If you’re referring to the death tax, I whole heartedly agree it should be abolished. I don’t believe in “inheritance” taxes as those assets were already taxed, first when taxed income was used to purchase the assets and then again when states tax assets either through personal property taxes or ad valorum taxes. But outside of the death tax, what other tax benefits do you think are assigned to marrieds that are not granted to same sex couples?