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.
@MataHarley:
But wait a minute, aren’t you advocating that existing laws shouldn’t exist? That fathers and mothers don’t have to be related to each other? That a father can be a father or not, depending on his desires, not the ‘state’s’ You can’t have it both ways, you can’t have no intruding into marriage and what it means and then have a law requiring that they support someone. .
How can they be “dead beat fathers” if they’re not required to be fathers at all? Just because a man and woman are living together doesn’t mean they are married and even if they are and the woman has a child, it doesn’t have to be her husbands. And with your ‘no government intrusion’, who can contest what the two people themselves want? Society has to have some laws that govern behavior, though you don’t seem to think so.
What’s your confusion? If government didn’t assume the power allowing who can marry, they also don’t have to create a way to unmarry. So what? If unmarried couples that cohabitate have assets or children, and disagreements on division and custody, that’s settled in a civil court. Without any government marriage/divorce, it will still be settled in a civil court. Your point?
You really are a pathetically high strung, sanctimonious, and mean ol’ biddy, retire. Whenever anyone posts a link that doesn’t agree with you, you’re always happy to cling to your narrow-mindedness, and simply discard the source as unworthy of your attention or consideration as alternative viewpoint with merit.
Then, for good measure, you always feel free to toss in your obligatory personal insults, then whine when you’re treated like kind. So I wouldn’t be launching into your “victim” routine because I called you a pathetically high strung, sanctimonious and mean ol’ biddy. You began the personal mud slinging. Deal with it.
The government sanctifying and defining marriage extends well beyond taxes and tax credits. The former can be a plus or a minus, dependent upon tax brackets. However that status can also affect more beneficial insurance rates and loan qualifications. Then there’s gift taxes, social security benefits to surviving spouses, etc. Pile it on with problems of estate and medical health management, and such a “definition” of a religious rite creates a distorted version of discrimination by government intrusion.
You do like game playing, don’t you? And here we thought the inane word parsing was limited to the left. LOL
It has not been me all over same gender marital status threads, passing moral judgement on who should be able to marry and who shouldn’t. There is no question based on your diatribes that you are against same gender marriage. This leaves incest and sibling marriage, which I’m going to guess with your self professed religious beliefs, you oppose. Polygamy? I’ll wager a guess you don’t support that either.
But hey… here’s your moment. Feel free to answer your own questions instead of demanding answers from me. Again, I’m not the one passing out moral judgement on everyone else’s lifestyles. As I said multiple times, if there aren’t taxpayer funds involved, it’s none of my business who enters into any kind of relationship – sanctioned by a church or not. So my opinion as to whether I approve or don’t is completely unnecessary and extraneous to the conversation. Can’t get any more clear than that.
Since abuse is already covered by existing laws, get rid of the government in marriage, and all references to benefits that are related to marital status, and voila… problems disappear for discrimination.
@George Wells:
For whatever the causes? You are the one that brags about supporting the Dimocrats because the support homosexual positions even though they are driving the economy through the floor. And you can’t figure that out?
@MataHarley:
And you’re an outright bitch. So what’s your point?
Years ago that would be called a cop-out. While the terminology may have changed, the meaning remains.
WTF? You need to slow down, Redteam. At no point did I ever advocate that existing laws that relate to violence be removed. Odd comprehension to the simple statement that government should not be in the marriage license/approval business.
Surely you’re not suggesting that unmarried couples with children aren’t subject to the same laws INRE abuse of each other or children, are you?
A man doesn’t need to be married to the mother of his child to be financially responsible as a dead beat dad, so why is the “married” status, per government, even necessary? Or are you now suggesting that a biological father is not a father at all, unless government labels him such officially?
Bizarre
Adoption, of course, will always be a legal process because of no biological relation.
Wow… you’re a real hoot. You ask me questions about my personal moral views. I tell you they aren’t integral to my argument about government intrusion. And they aren’t.
But we can add reading challenged to your pathetically…. o’l biddy description. My opinion is, and remains, it’s none of my business how anyone conducts their personal lives as long as they aren’t committing criminal violent and abusive acts. Just like how I personally view any particular relationship within my own moral perspective is none of yours.
@George Wells: George, I have no problem with your explanation, but it sure blows the hell out of the “born that way” argument.
I think you’d have to admit that the ‘environment’ wasn’t there prior to the birth. That video’s claim was that it is, amongs others: genes and birth order, if there are several boys. Their explanation is that a boy is a foreign invader to the mothers body and that it builds anti-bodies and the more boys there are the more anti-bodies are present. I don’t believe that could be proven empirically. Couldn’t be genes, if it were solely that, identical twins would always be the same.
@MataHarley:
Gee, Mata, I guess I’m the only one that can read your posts on this thread. Seems like you have been all over [at least this] same gender marital status thread. Project much?
Diatribes? As if you are not guilty of the same? Check the length of your posts, Mata. Either they are simple long winded diatribes or not.
No, I do not support polygamy, sibling incestual marriages or same-sex marriage. But I challenge you to show where my objection has anything to do with “self-professed religious” beliefs. I believe I have never dragged religion into the mix, but I do understand that you will fabricate which is not there in order to slam me. (oh, my, cue Mata’s accusations of me claiming victimhood with that one) but your bias against those of religious faith is quite obvious.
Do I believe that a successful society is a moral society? Yes, and so did the Founders so if you have a problem with that, you are in direct conflict with those that created this great nation. Do I believe incest, sodomy and polygamy to be immoral? You betcha. I make no apologies for that. I also believe beating your wife is immoral, stealing from someone is immoral, cheating on an exam is immoral.
Is there some reason why you bypassed the “… passing moral judgement” part of that observation? Or by not doing so, would render your empty comeback useless?
Perhaps you may need to recheck the definition of diatribe, and bring it into the 21st century instead of using the archaic definition that it is defined by length.
My observations on government intrusion are not “bitter” nor abusive, ironic or satirical. The same can not be said of yours.
As far as your own belief system, whether you get there for religious or perceived morality isn’t much of a question or issue. Don’t care. What is important is that only a blind person couldn’t figure out you are against all personally. That’s fine. My moral perspective remains none of your business, nor is important to my government intrusion foundation on the debate.
However the large difference between you and I is obvious. You believe government has a role in regulating society’s “morality” – far beyond violence, abuse and criminal acts – than I do. Criminalizing particular unions between people, that do not involve violence or abuse, serves no purpose save for granting government powers they should not have. In fact, taking your belief a step further, you should be criminalizing adultry and extramarital affairs. But then SCOTUS already has disagreed with that as unConstitutional.
@MataHarley:
So you have your own definition of “If it doesn’t break my leg or pick my pocket.” No surprise there.
@MataHarley:
I can’t believe you’re advocating the government get into the adoption business. Why should it matter to the government who a child is related to if it’s not important to the government who the parents are related to.
First let’s leave the ‘abuse’ issue out of this. I don’t think anyone should be allowed to ‘abuse’ someone and I’m relatively sure you don’t either.
I wasn’t talking about laws relating to violence, I was talking of your objection to the intrusion of government into the marriage business. If you don’t think they should be in it, then that of necessity would mean that laws that exist about marriage would be eliminated. In that case, no one would be protected by ‘existing laws’.
Again, leave the abuse issue out of it. You are the one that suggests that the government is intruding into the married status of people. If it’s not their business when they are married, then it surely isn’t when they’re not.
How would his status of ‘dead beat dad’ be established if there were no laws that required the father to not be a dead beat dad. After all, that status could only exist if there were a legal requirement that he be responsible. Your avocation is that the government stay out of the ‘family business’, my avocation is that societies have to have some laws. And yes, if there is no law that requires that a biological father be a father, then he would not be a father at all, legally. Again, I remind you, you are the one that thinks the government should stay out, that government caused all the problems.
This is another chasm leap of assumptions, Redteam. Biological parents already lay claim to their offspring, unless social services intervenes. However to assume guardianship to one unrelated will always require a legal contract to do so. And government plays a hand in that… not always wisely, I might add.
However single parents and same gender couples have been able to adopt, and not all of them are bad parents. So it’s somewhat unrelated to marital status, and the focus for adoption is on financial qualifications and stable home life.
It’s like anything else with humans. You have losers, and then you have the rest.
I’m not sure why you believe that all legal recourse and/or disputes must hinge around a marriage license by the state. This is quite obvious by unmarried couples that settle their disputes without that marriage license. So what is it supposed to protect that isn’t already protected?
Correct. And there would be no “divorce” if there weren’t any official government “marriage”. So I’m missing your point. Why is this such a bad thing?
What does the biological father, and his financial obligation to the mother and child, have to do with marital status? And where did I suggest removing any laws that let biological fathers off the hook?
@MataHarley:
I think there are a lot of children that would love to know who their biological parents are.
Again, you appear to want it both ways. The government stay out of marital situations, but their intervention in family matters involving the children. Which is it?
Surely you believe that the ‘more powerful’ person usually comes out on top in these situations, if no law applies. I don’t think that all legal recourse should hinge on a marriage license, but then you can’t demand that the legal system guard your rights if they aren’t involved in it in the first place. If the government is not involved, a couple could take up together, have a child, buy lots of property then walk off with no obligations. If you don’t allow the government to intervene, you can’t force a dead beat to not be a dead beat because there is no legal obligation that he not be a dead beat.
Because if there is no divorce there is no obligation. Suppose you are living with a husband and your 3 children, unmarried, and he tells you to get the hell out and take your children with you. What recourse would you have if there is no legal obligation to do anything to support you or your children? If there are no laws about marriage, then there would be none about divorce or financial obligations. Besides, how could it even be proven that he is the father and is obligated. With no law requiring he be responsible for his children then there could be no law requiring the proof of whether he is the father or not. Societies have to have some laws. Legal marriages and legal divorces seems to be a minimum.
Back to your ‘have it both ways’ deal. with no laws pertaining to marriage, there can be none making a father (who’s to say he’s the father) responsible. Why would there be any financial obligation of a person toward a live in mate or child if there were not a law requiring it.. and you want no laws applying to marriage, suppose as a condition of her moving in, she agreed he would never have any financial obligation to her or any offspring if he didn’t want to volunteer it? How would you ever enforce anyone to pay anything without a legal obligation, which you don’t want.
@MataHarley:
Diatribe: a forceful verbal attack
Oxford American Dictionary of Current English
Yep, your thread entries would fit that criterion.
You know the old adage about opinions, don’t you, Mata?
Then why did you bring it up?
So are we to assume that you think the SCOTUS has always gotten every decision right?
Your “live and let live” philosphy has really brought success, hasn’t it? Odd that your philosophy is in total agreement with Antonio Gramsci.
… and this has what to do with marital status? What if the adopted child’s parents weren’t officially married? Does that mean he/she would care less or more? Unrelated.
??? I’ve never said I want government in or out of adoption. I prefer out in all circumstances save for those that are unavoidable (see below).
You are aware there are private adoptions, and agency adoption entities, right? Neither are “government” and the latter are not government departments, but private licensed businesses. They do the investigation of the potential parents.
In private adoption, the adopting parents are assuming guardianship via private individual, most often (but not always) an attorney, physician, friend, or adoption facilitator. And there are legal documents filed with the proper authorities jurisdiction (court systems), much like a deed is recorded in your or a trustees name to establish ownership of property.
The government is only directly involved when someone is trying to adopt a ward of the state. They are not involved in the private adoption process, save for licensing the agencies. Hard to get the government out of it when they have assumed the legal responsibility for the child, don’t you think?
You’re not making any sense here, Redteam. In most lawsuits, the more “powerful” person, or the one with the best attorney, comes out on top. Happens all the time.
Again you seem to tie this to a marriage license. The legal system guards the rights of unmarried couples, attempting to divide assets or custody, by functioning as the judge mediator in the courts. Again I have to ask, how do you think unmarried couples solve their own disputes, but in a court of law?
And you can add pre-nups to that mix. There is no reason that contract law cannot honor any pre-cohabitation agreement in the courts, and doesn’t require marital status to be enforceable. Contract law is just that… enforcement of legally binding contracts.
The confusion as to “having it both ways” is strictly your refusal to separate a marriage license from existing legal recourse rights that already exist, and do not require marriage.
The biological father is not determined by marital status. It is determined by proof of DNA and paternity tests…. if parentage is disputed. The marital status doesn’t enter in to it since a biological father who did not marry the mother is just as obligated to child support as the guy who did marry the mother. In fact, the biological father is obligated to the child support even if he’s married to someone else.
Have you forgotten John Edwards so soon? He denied paternity. A furious Rielle, without the benefit of a marriage license, or even putting down Edward’s name as the father on the birth certificate, threatened a paternity lawsuit thru the courts, demanding he take tests. He gave up the ghost and finally admitted it. But there is no doubt that she could have taken him to court, established paternity, and been awarded child support and living expenses.
Eddie Murphy refused to take paternity tests, but they proved paternity in court anyway… no marriage license. And even Charlie Chaplin had it happen to him, before there were DNA tests available to more firmly establish a biological relationship. But the mother’s lawyer convinced the courts anyway.
If marital status were the deciding factor for child support, there would be a lot of single mothers out there really up the creek. Again, it has *nothing* to do with the marital status of the biological father.
Enforcement of nonpayment of child support is the same for the unmarried biological dads as it is for the married ones…. it’s a judgement on your record, and affects credit, loans, purchases of homes, cars etc. And most, if not all states, have dead beat father laws that go after this non payment – regardless of marital status – with a vengeance.
@Redteam #110:
“it sure blows the hell out of the “born that way” argument.”
No it doesn’t, except if the “born-that-way” argument gives no room for the “environment” argument. Some ARE born that way, and some are “influenced” after birth.
One other interesting point came out in those “twin” studies: A number of cases were found where the twins were separated at birth, as in: went to different locations and were not expossed to each other or to similar environments. This essentially removed the environmental bias that could explain why when one twin was homosexual, the other had a heightened chance of also being homosexual. In cases where the separated twins were not identical, separation at birth lowered the likelihood of the second twin being homosexual to a probability intermediate between the not-separated number and the baseline 3%, again reinforcing the existence of both an environmental factor and a “born-that-way factor. In the separated-at-birth identical twin cases, the number also dropped a small amount, but remained quite high, reinforcing the existence of a genetic factor.
PAUSE: I am using “genetic” and “nature” and “born-that-way” interchangeably, and that isn’t quite correct. Genetic is nature, but nature is more than genetic, and your point that there are prenatal influences other than the inherited genetics is correct. The “nature” case would certainly include every prenatal factor, and arguably might include the mother’s breast milk… but that’s getting outside of my expertise.
The“born-that-way” argument is synonymous with the “nature” argument, and there is certainly proof that in a significant number of cases (as shown by the twins study numbers) homosexuals ARE “born that way.”
“I think you’d have to admit that the ‘environment’ wasn’t there prior to the birth. That video’s claim was that it is, amongs others: genes and birth order, if there are several boys. Their explanation is that a boy is a foreign invader to the mothers body and that it builds anti-bodies and the more boys there are the more anti-bodies are present.
I am comfortable limiting the “environment” to everything that happens to the child AFTER it is born, and I am equally comfortable limiting “nature” (ie. “born-that-way”) to everything that happens to the child BEFORE it is born. Perhaps the program you viewed was using different parameters to suggest otherwise, such as “genetics” versus “everything else.” To me, “born-that-way” means just that: anything – including the genes inherited from the parents, mother’s hormone or antibody attacks, anything – that happens before birth is credited to the “born-that-way” account. “Born-that-way” doesn’t just mean “genetics.”
By the way, I don’t have a twin… guess I’m one of the lucky 3%!
@George Wells
I don’t think you will get many people that are pushing the homo agenda to agree with you. It’s all or none, you’re born that way or you’re not. I make no claims either way, I don’t have a dog in the hunt, so to speak.
I have no problem with your definitions. But I will say that if it is environment, after birth, then there can not be a legitimate argument that they were born that way. But the most telling thing is the identical twin thing, if they are ‘born that way’ with all conditions for identical twins being equal, they would both be the same, not different. I don’t see how anyone can get around that detail.
@Redteam #120 :
For about the last time, (I wish) I’m not speaking for anyone else. There IS no “homosexual agenda” as far as I know. Everybody I know has his or her OWN agenda, and there are as different as night and day.
I don’t care that someone’s agenda might be better served if there was one simple cause for homosexuality, but the facts do not support that. I’m honest. I’m sorry if some other gays are not. That’s life.
You said:
“But I will say that if it is environment, after birth, then there can not be a legitimate argument that they were born that way. But the most telling thing is the identical twin thing, if they are ‘born that way’ with all conditions for identical twins being equal, they would both be the same, not different. I don’t see how anyone can get around that detail.”
You are confusing an individual’s case with the general case. One is specific, the other is not. Take cancer. John Seller’s lung cancer was caused by tobacco, Steve Miller’s lung cancer was caused by asbestos, and Fred smith’s lung cancer was caused by a failure of his immune system to protect him from the random mitochondrial mutations that are happening in healthy cells all the time. What can you say about the cause of lung cancer? That in some cases it is caused by any number of different environmental factors, while in other cases it is the result of a genetic abnormality. The same sort of thing is going on with homosexuality. In individual cases, a single cause is probable, but each possible cause would be difficult to determine, and which one was the most probable, next to impossible to determine. The statistical results of the twins studies prove that BOTH causes, nature and nurture, are at work in the POPULATION.
@George Wells: Good comments George. I buy your argument about cancer. For example, I think for a person to get lung cancer from cigarette smoking, I think the ‘gene’ or part of a ‘gene’ has to be present for the products of cigarette smoking to trigger cancer. That seems clear because some people smoke all their lives and don’t get lung cancer. Pancreas cancer is sensitive to some chemicals, but only if the right defective gene is present to allow it to form. So take the case of lung cancer and cigarette smoking. Is the person that dies from lung cancer, from smoking considered to have been born with lung cancer or did it develop later in life as a choice they made, to smoke or not to smoke? I suspect you might say it was part hereditary and part environment after birth. I’d likely agree, but in saying that, I’d say the person that chose to smoke, chose to put themselves into the situation that allowed them to develop the ‘birth condition’. Had that person made a different choice, i.e., not to smoke, the birth condition would never have manifested itself. I can say that by now, most people are aware that if they smoke, they could easily develop lung cancer so they make a life choice to not smoke. If all that is true, then you could say, if you wanted to, that if people could be aware of the triggering mechanism (akin to smoking) for homosexuality, then they could avoid those conditions. (I strongly suspect that those triggering mechanisms are well known), but having said all that, I think that some people are born so far down the road that they can’t (or don’t want to) avoid the triggering mechanism.
Oh, and you said: “There IS no “homosexual agenda” as far as I know.” That is really strange, because this whole thread is part of the result of that very agenda.
@Redteam: #93
Then why keep going on about it? I let a person think what they want. If I disagree, I might say something, but if the conversation gets to the point where neither of us is going to change our mind, I would rather talk about something else.
If this is a first time study, I am always leery of first time studies. On any study, I want to know who did the study, and who paid for it. Too many times, the one who paid for the study is the one who will profit the most from the result of the study.
Why are some identical twins born with one having a medical defect, but the other one isn’t? Why do some identical twins not look identical? I try not to come to conclusion on things I don’t understand, and I don’t understand how a person is born straight, gay, both sexes, or pedophile. I just have questions, not answers.
There are videos of male monkeys having sex with each other. There are gays in the animal world. I don’t know if there are any programs in the works to try to fix them.
@Smorgasbord:
“Why are some identical twins born with one having a medical defect, but the other one isn’t? Why do some identical twins not look identical?”
Answer is as follows: The “identical” part only means that the original genetic material split into two identical sets of the same material immediately after one sperm cell fertilized one egg. At that point, the two resulting zygotes WERE identical. They each had and will continue to have essentially the same genetic blue-print that will determine the development of most of their individual characteristics. But from that point on, their development begins to diverge.
The genetic blue-print is not the only factor influencing development. While they are both in the same mother’s womb, they are not both in the same identical position – one is lower than the other, for example. The mother’s umbilical cords to each may differ slightly. And each individual will experience different random cell mutations that are caused by, among other things, the various radiations that penetrate the womb. By the time the twins exit the womb, they are still 99.99% genetically identical, but they have already begun development of differences.
The difference is explained scientifically by two different terms: “genotype” and “phenotype.”
“Genotype refers to characteristics that were determined genetically – the direct results of the expression of the individual’s genes.
“Phenotype” refers to characteristics that are a result of the interaction of the genotype with the environment – the expression of the consequences of the environment on the genetic development of the individual.
Identical twins will have the identical genotype, but different phenotypes. That is why one may develop a disease that the other does not, and is also why two identical twins may not appear “identical.”
@Redteam #122:
““There IS no “homosexual agenda” as far as I know.” That is really strange, because this whole thread is part of the result of that very agenda.”
There are much stranger things than that, my friend.
On a more serious note, I am sure that if you and I were to dissect thoroughly the concept of the so-called “homosexual agenda,” I am confident that we would arrive at much the same conclusions.
I would say that if there are 10 million homosexuals, there are 10 million agendas, and you would say that there is only one agenda, but 10 million different ideas of how to proceed.
I would find commonality in a desire of all homosexuals to be treated equally, and you would say that we all really want to shove things down your throats. (Very oral of you, don’t you think?)
You would point out the outrageous antics of the radical left, and when I disavow such behavior, you would accuse me of lying.
We’ve already had these exchanges. All I can offer to you now is that I AM one of those “homosexuals,” I DO read a great deal of the material going around in the gay community, and I do NOT find any evidence that there is a “homosexual agenda.” There is no “gay community political platform.” There is no mention of Antonio Gramsci. I rather wish that the gay community DID have a rational plan regarding the attainment of equal rights, but it does not. There are different organizations competing for gay dollars, fighting for very different things, and fighting bitterly among themselves. What the “Human Rights Campaign” and what the “Log Cabin Republicans” are fighting for are very different things.
The so-called “homosexual agenda” is something that was invented by fear-mongers. The term enormously oversimplifies the truth to the point of fantasy. You would be well advised to adopt a more sophisticated understanding of your opponents.
@Smorgasbord: #123
I was only responding to you, I wasn’t ‘ going on about it’.
Smorg, I told you where the quote came from, I didn’t make a study of it and have no idea if it’s a first time study. Why do you jump to a conclusion and then defend that conclusion as if it is correct. Before you conclude it’s wrong, if you are interested, check it out for yourself.
I’ve never heard that and don’t believe it.
@George Wells: #124
Not true. they don’t have ‘essentially’ the same genetic blue-print, they have ‘exactly’ the same genetic blue-print. I agree with the remainder of that statement.
So you’re back to the environment being the reason for homosexuality, which is AFTER birth, as in NOT BORN homosexual. You know that is contrary to the homosexual agenda (yes, I remember you don’t believe there is an agenda)
George Well,
So you would conclude that a video being published, “Are They born Gay? ” would be something put out by an individual rather than an organization pushing an agenda?
@George Wells: #124
You said outside forces can affect two fetuses, who are in the same womb, differently. One can be perfectly healthy, while one is born with a defect. I believe one of those defects could be being born gay, only is it a defect, or just being born different? Whatever it is, I accept them as they are, and I don’t have a problem working or living around any of them.
@Redteam: #126
I love nature shows, and grew up watching them, and one of them showed male monkeys having sex. I don’t remember what show it was, and it was just a few years ago.
@Smorgasbord: Smorgasbord, I would agree that if a fetus has XX chromosomes and wants to be a boy, it is a birth defect, same as the other case if XY and wants to be a girl. I also have no problem with them and I’m sure it affects their lives a helluva lot more than it does mine. I use the term ‘defect’ very loosely, as in ‘not perfect’. As a piece of dust between a screen saver and the glass on a cell phone.
@Smorgasbord #129:
It is very important to understand that the “identical” part of “identical twins” ends as soon as the original, fertilized egg divides. Everything from that point on is not “identical.” So by the time the twins are born, there are often significant differences. The “born-that-way” issue includes everything that happens prior to birth, and that “everything” includes both the initial identical genetic makeup and the subsequent prenatal development. The “environmental factor” issue only begins at the moment of birth, even though there are environmental influences during gestation. Focus on the word “born” in the “born-that-way” argument.
There are many reasons to avoid labeling people “defective.” Unless a society decides that “defective” children should be euthanized/murdered/exterminated, labeling them as “defective” only hurts them and their parents. You might also consider that NOBODY is perfect, and that really means that we ALL have defects of one sort or another. We are ALL defective.
That said, from a reproductive perspective, homosexuals ARE defective. Homosexuals usually do not reproduce. The argument can be made that homosexuals add different skills and opportunities to family and society than heterosexuals, but worthy contributions do not erase the fact that homosexuality usually represents a genetic dead end. If the human population was at serious risk of extinction, that would be a big deal. Fortunately, there are already more than enough humans being born, so if anything, homosexuality helps control over-population.
@Redteam #128:
Maybe it is my fault that I did not more clearly draw the distinction between “A homosexual agenda” and “THE homosexual agenda.”
The term “homosexual agenda” is often used to imply that there is ONE agenda that all homosexuals have and follow as their own, and that is simply not the case.
All Republicans don’t have the same agenda.
All Democrats don’t have the same agenda.
All women don’t have the same agenda.
All Blacks don’t have the same agenda.
All Floridians don’t have the same agenda.
All blonds don’t have the same agenda.
Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
Why would homosexuals be any different?
If three homosexuals or if thirty homosexuals or if three hundred homosexuals get together and agree on an agenda, that doesn’t mean that they represent the other ten million of us. Even if they say that they do, they do not.
While I was employed by Celanese Corp., we had a “diversity” seminar in which the moderator asked how the employees thought the company should deal with homosexual employees. I guy stood up and said “I’m from Texas, and in Texas we know what to do with fags” and he made a throat-slitting gesture. It was an awkward moment, but nobody thought that he had articulated “THE heterosexual agenda.” There is no such thing. There are plenty of” homosexual agendas,” (more like 10,000,000 homosexual agendas) but not “THE homosexual agenda.” If the group whose video you referred to called themselves the “Babbling Brook Homos,” then you would be accurate to speak of the “Babbling Brook Homos’ agenda.”
But wouldn’t it be more interesting to talk about an actual issue?
@Redteam #127:
“Not true. they don’t have ‘essentially’ the same genetic blue-print, they have ‘exactly’ the same genetic blue-print. ”
Not necessarily. One twin can experience a random genetic mutation in-utero that the other does not. That is why a scientist talking about this subject will use numbers like 99.99% instead of 100%, and words like “essentially the same” or “for all practical purposes identical.” The scientist has to acknowledge that there is a small chance of random mutation. That’s what I am, and that’s what I do.
@Redteam re: monkey sex:
I was on a school trip to the Baltimore zoo once, and was amused to watch two male probiscus monkeys being… “playful.” The larger of the two sat patiently while the smaller one masturbated him to a happy ending. Maybe YOU don’t think that it was homosexual, but I bet most people would think otherwise.
@George Wells: George, sorry, you’re in the apples and oranges discussion now. The initial genes of identical twins are identical, not nearly or practically, but 100% identical. If a difference in DNA is detected they are not identical. That’s not my definition, it is a scientific definition.
that has nothing to do with the original DNA, that’s after a mutation.
oh my, and you don’t understand the difference in ‘original’ and ‘after mutation’?
@George Wells:
You’re not serious, are you? Do you think that a person doing one act that homosexuals normally do, makes that person a homosexual? Do you think there is a difference in doing a homosexual act and ‘being homosexual’? Does a person have to be ‘born’ homosexual to perform one homosexual act?
@Redteam: #131
I’ll say again that I accept them the way they are, and I will wait for more research information before I decide anything any further, and I would rather end this conversation.
@George Wells: #132
I would rather not continue this conversation. We are going over the same things. I’m done if you are.
@Smorgasbord: Hallelujah.
My dear Smorg — and everyone else — you all have no idea how tired I am of the debate which my post and many others has spawned. My existence alone seems to be endlessly debated — hence the point of my post — stop debating the hypotheticals — deal with reality. I don’t think you realize how eager I am to come to the exciting conclusion of the gay debate.
Thanks.
@Jim Hlavac: #140
I know what you mean. When there are two people commenting about the same thing back and forth, and basically saying the same thing, I usually delete those emails.
@Redteam #137:
I did not say that one monkey-jerk made the monkey homosexual – it was the jerk that was homosexual. You are correct that one homosexual act does not a homosexual make.
@Redteam #136:
I agree with everything you put in this post. What’s up?
@Smorgasbord #139:
I appreciate your exhaustion. I will miss your contributions. I continue because I think I can add some scientific perspective to an area that is drowning in traditions and beliefs but is short on fact and logic. The latter are my speciality. I wish I had MataHarley’s clarity of thought and skill at writing. My writing is sophomoric and boring. But I will not abandon the argument until there is no hope left. See you “around.”
@Redteam:
The evidence does not suggest that homosexuality is exclusively caused by EITHER “nature” OR “nurture,” the evidence proves that homosexuality is caused by BOTH. In some individuals, the influence of “nature” predominates, while in others, the predominant influence is “nurture” (the “environment”).
There are several good reasons why this issue is important.
First, the results speak loudly to those who insist that homosexuality is simply a matter of choice. People who believe that homosexuality is simply a choice generally conclude that all homosexuals are sociopaths. Given the historical disapproval of homosexuality, it would be reasonable to conclude that if one were to willfully choose to be a homosexual, he or she must be insane. When studies determine that both “nature” and “nurture” cause homosexuality, it becomes obvious that homosexuality is not a “choice.”
Second, the results speak loudly to those who insist that homosexuality is not “natural.” (We have already discussed fully that homosexuality is not “normal.” “Natural” and “normal” are two entirely different words that have entirely different meanings.) When a cause has its effect while the individual is still in the womb, then that cause is about as “natural” as there is. It may be abnormal, and it may be a “defect,” but it is natural. Think of all of the other defects that occur in nature. Homosexuality is as natural as a cleft palette. Neither is “normal.” Neither is a “choice.”
This discussion about the causes of homosexuality is based upon the results of a scientific study. The conclusions were reached by statistical evaluation of the data collected during the study. A person might BELIEVE that the results are incorrect based upon contrary religious teaching, but a belief is not equivalent to knowledge. A “belief” carries no burden of proof, while “knowledge” does. When a scientific study is repeated, and the results are found to be reproducible, there is high confidence that the conclusions are correct and that real knowledge has been acquired.
@George Wells: VERY well said.
@George Wells:
But of course, you have no agenda.
Do you really think people are so stupid they would accept your denial of having an agenda when you just clearly proved you do?
@retire05 #146:
Where didn I say I had no agenda?
Really?
I NEVER said I had NO agenda!
(You just make this stuff up because you have nothing else, right?)
Of course I have an agenda.
It is MY agenda.
It is one homosexual agenda out of 10,000,000.
It is not “THE Homosexual Agenda.”
@ Richjard Wheeler:
Thanks!
@George Wells:
The Gay Agenda includes, but is not limited to:
same sex marriage
forced acceptance by the general public, not just tolerance, of the homosexual lifestyle
indoctrination of school children that homosexuality is normal human behavior starting with, and including, children in the very lowest elementary grades
classification as a “protected” group under the CRA of 1964
ability to sue any religious entity, group or individual who speaks against homosexuality
ability to sue any business that refuses to service homosexuals based on the business owners religious beliefs
forced adoption of children to same sex couples
Now, perhaps you would like to provide which one of those agenda “points” that you do not support?
@ retire05: #149:
Glad you asked, really!
I do not approve of, nor do I “support”:
#1: forced acceptance by the general public, not just tolerance, of the homosexual lifestyle
“Forced” is unnecessary and counterproductive. Acceptance is not accomplished by aggressive coercion or violence. The gay community is making significant progress in achieving acceptance, and the use of ‘‘force” would slow or halt the progress being made.
#2: indoctrination of school children that homosexuality is normal human behavior starting with, and including, children in the very lowest elementary grades
I have explained countless times that homosexuality is not “normal.” It deviates from “normal” much like albinism deviates from normal pigmentation. There is no point confusing children with incorrect descriptive terms. Beyond the terms are the facts, and if a district chooses to delay its childrens’ sex education, I take no issue. I have no dog in that race.
#3. forced adoption of children to same sex couples
Again, “Forced” is unnecessary and counterproductive. Churches and other organizations that oppose homosexual rights should not be “forced” to act in violation of their tenets. There are sufficient numbers of organizations that WILL serve the gay community. Whatever inconvenience the gay community must endure will be offset by good will if this issue is not “forced.”
Aside from those unsupported points, I would offer that your two “rights to sue” would not be “agenda” items, as the right to sue is already established. Hire a lawyer and away you go. It is up to the courts to decide the merits of any case and to determine who prevails. I can’t imagine why a “right to sue” would be an agenda item.
In-so-far as “gay marriage” is a goal of probably a majority of gays, that one would come close, and I obviously support it. But we discussed last week a lesbian who was giving lectures about how the “gay agenda” was REALLY trying to destroy ALL marriage. Unless you want to accuse her of ridiculous hyperbole (which just may be the case – I wouldn’t know) I think that you’d have to admit that her agenda was rather different from most.
Per the CRA of 1964, I am not qualified to give an opinion on the legality of what you propose. I would defer to the judgment of the courts, and I would recuse myself in any event.
@MataHarley:#118
And you’re saying these adoptions are not ‘registered’ anywhere? I’m not sure I believe that.
You’ve made it clear numerous times that you don’t want the government involved with anything to do with a family. If you want them out, then there is nothing that is unavoidable. Just leave them out and let the cards fall where they may (seems to be your strategy)
Now you’re back to having the government involved:
Do you want the government involved or not?
Not true at all. If the government is not involved in any way, there would be no law that would compel him to take a paternity test. Going ‘through the courts’ again implies a government function, which you don’t support, right? Why should he be responsible anyhow? She was a grown, apparently freely consenting woman doing what she wanted to do. Just because she had an (maybe) unintended consequence,(getting pregnant) doesn’t mean she should run to the government to correct something she freely did. And I might point out, had Edwards not turned out to be the father, then she might well be asking me and you to support the child, through the government again.
You seem to get a lot of pleasure out of that statement. Strange that you don’t want the government involved, but you are thrilled that ‘there are laws to deal with dead beat dads’ You spend half of each comment saying why the government shouldn’t be involved and the other half telling us that you are thrilled that they are for certain things. Have your Cake and eat it too syndrome.
@George Wells: George, just for the record, I certainly think you express your thoughts and ideas very well. You’re not short changed in writing ability.
@George Wells: #144 George, again, if your argument is correct, and I have no problem with most of it, then ‘born that way’ is effectively shot down. If you become homosexual as a result of environment then you could not have been ‘born that way’. But, back to the cancer gene statements, a person may be born with a proclivity to be homosexual, but not be homosexual unless they have that ‘triggering’ event.
@retire05: Retire05, add ) They were ‘born that way’ as an agenda item.