Curse you, Adam Corolla! As my faithful readers know (thank you, both of you!) I generally only weigh in on topics where I can find an angle that somebody smarter than me hasn’t already written. This is another one of those ideas that I’d been kicking around for a while but never got around to writing, and Mr. Corolla beat me to the punch. In a recent podcast he pointed out that Gay Marriage is hardly an end point to the debate:
“It’ll be legalized, hopefully, and then you’ll think we’ll be done with it, and then they’ll say, ‘we want to get married at the Crystal Cathedral,'” Carolla said on a recent podcast. “And the guys at the Crystal Cathedral will go ‘no, we don’t agree with it, and according to our faith, a man doesn’t lie down with another man, and a chick who looks like a man doesn’t lay down with another human who drives a Subaru. We don’t condone this.’ There’s a gonna be a march, and then there’s gonna be a thing and it’s gonna go to the Supreme Court again. This much I know … there will be more fighting. it will continue.”
I raised the incrementalism argument when I wrote about this subject last summer, and now with the subject becoming bigger in the news I’m seeing more of the incrementalism that conservatives are rightly concerned about. Here was my take:
Gay marriage was a subject I had never really had an opinion about until around twelve years ago when I read Jesse Ventura’s first book, “Do I Stand Alone?” Mind you, back in 2000 Jesse was still a new governor in Minnesota and a breath of fresh air in the system, not the full time conspiracy theorist he’s become today. On the issue of gay marriage he looked at both sides, and his assertion was that it was wrong to discriminate against two consenting adults from legal benefits from a system that they have paid taxes into based on their gender preference. On the other side, the term “Marriage” has an important spiritual meaning in religions practiced by many Americans, and their views should be respected as well. His solution was civil unions – granting legal rights for gay couples while still respecting the people whose religious views would be offended.
This seems like a reasonable compromise for both sides, and one that I supported then and still continue to do so. In fact, contrary to the leftist notion that conservatives are opposed to “gay rights” polls show that the majority of Conservatives as well as Republicans support civil unions.
Now, this was an opinion that I adopted thirteen years ago, and it still is my opinion today. But look at how the public perception, and particularly in the mass media has “evolved” since that time. Back in 2000 my stance would be considered moderate to somewhat left of center1 in most quarters, depending on the person I’m standing next to. But today? The fact that I don’t wholeheartedly support “Marriage Equality“, or whatever the latest term is to make the leftist position sound centrist makes me some bigoted extremist who is probably ready to throw a white sheet over his head and burn rainbow painted crosses on Harvey Milk’s grave. I go into my arguments in a lot more depth at my link, but while I haven’t changed, the left certainly has. Each step where leftist thought is met “halfway” (or anywhere) automatically becomes the new center to them, and anything to the right of that new line is right wing extremism.
I laid out before two of my concerns as to how we’re already seeing negative impacts of recognizing gay marriage –forcing gay marriage to be taught in schools, as opposed to trivialities like reading and writing, and in preventing children in foster homes from getting placed with families.
When conservatives raise the flag of what will be next down the road, such as redefining marriage for multiple partners, the left just tut-tuts about how they’re overreacting, just as they did when gay marriage was mentioned back in 2000. The problem is that California has already considered polygamy. Jeremy Irons also raised the touchy subject of this possibly leading to incestuous unions, which gets the same chuckle and a head shake reaction. But I ask, why not? Can someone from the left tell me where this issue will be 5-10 years from now? Does this end with “Marriage Equality”? or whatever you’re telling us is now the new center? I look at how our schools are infantilizing our kids today – suspensions for chewing a cookie shaped like a gun, or as a friend whose son is in the Maryland public school system recently told me, the horror of a teacher using a lighter for a science experiment resulted in notes being sent to all of the parents whose kids might have been traumatized by the event. When Baby Bob starts out in school if he calls another kid on the playground “gay”2 is he going to be forced into a modern leftist re-education camp known as “sensitivity training?” And as his parents, will Sister Babe and I also be held accountable for this vile hate speech coming from our child? Yes, it sounds ridiculous, but look at what’s happening up in Canada:
The Diversity Celebrators have their exquisitely sensitive antennae attuned for anything less than enthusiastic approval. Very quickly, traditional religious teaching on homosexuality will be penned up within church sanctuaries, and “faith-based” ancillary institutions will be crowbarred into submission. What’s that? I’m “scaremongering”? Well, it’s now routine in Canada, where Catholic schools in Ontario are obligated by law to set up Gay-Straight Alliance groups, where a Knights of Columbus hall in British Columbia was forced to pay compensation for declining a lesbian wedding reception, and where the Rev. Stephen Boisson wrote to his local paper, objecting to various aspects of “the homosexual agenda” and was given a lifetime speech ban by the Alberta “Human Rights” Tribunal ordering him never to utter anything “disparaging” about homosexuals ever again, even in private. Although his conviction was eventually overturned by the Court of Queen’s Bench after a mere seven-and-a-half years of costly legal battles, no Canadian newspaper would ever publish such a letter today. The words of Chief Justice Burger would now attract a hate-crime prosecution in Canada, as the Supreme Court in Ottawa confirmed only last month.
Of course, if you belong to certain approved identity groups, none of this will make any difference. The Rev. Al Sharpton, who famously observed that Africans of the ancient world had made more contributions to philosophy and mathematics than all “them Greek homos,” need not zip his lips – any more than Dr. Bilal Philips, the Toronto Islamic scholar who argues that homosexuals should be put to death, need fear the attention of Canada’s “human rights” commissions. But for the generality of the population this will be one more subject around which one has to tiptoe on ever-thinner eggshells.
And back to Adam Corolla’s original point, at what point does any church that refuses to perform a gay marriage ceremony get labeled a “Hate Group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center? Leftists like to claim that their goal is to have the state out of the business of marriage. While I think many of them actually believe that, I also think that the ultimate goal is the opposite – to get the church out of the business of marriage. Many leftists follow different religious faiths to various degrees, but at the end of the day Leftism is their one true God that will have no other Gods before it.
So my question to all of the gay marriage proponents today is this: If I adopt your position today and accept it as the new center how are you going to “evolve” over the next decade to turn anyone holding your opinion today into hateful right wing bigotry? Will we see any clergy on college campuses who don’t endorse gay marriage attacked in the same manner that’s happening at George Washington University today? Will Polygamy be perfectly acceptable as the recent article in The Economist argues? Scroll down to the comments if you want to start reading some ideas that are just downright creepy. I’ll be curious to see where the leftist feminist groups will weigh in over the practice of polygamy that is so harmful to women. Or do we start normalizing pedophilia in the name of tolerance?
Do my last few ideas sound over the top and kind of crazy? I’ll be the first to admit that they do, but a decade ago I would have said the same about today’s debate. I like to be proactive, so assuming I give in and surrender to this new normal, I have one question for all of you leftists reading this. Can I just get a heads up as to why you’re going to hate me again a decade from now?
1. For my more conservative readers, I’ve lived in the DC area since 1999. If my civil unions idea seems radical leftist to you keep in mind in this town everyone half a step to the right of Michael Moore thinks their views are mainstream and moderate.
2. And no, we’re not going to be encouraging Baby Bob to call anyone gay or any other forms of name calling. From what I hear this is still a favored taunt used by little kids on the playground, and I’m guessing if gay becomes an outlawed term kids will find other colorful insults to hurl at one another.
I agree with you that religious groups should be free to practice their particular beliefs without interference from the “state”. That’s one half of “separation of church and state.” The other half is that religions should not interfere with government function. Now if marriage law is state business, then the state (not the church) licenses marriages and sets all of the laws and benefits regarding same, much as it is today. But if that is wrong, then parhaps it should be the church that licenses marriages and determines the tax benefits etc. of marriage? I doubt that you would want that, as you seems to be overlooking the fact that there are some churches that are already performing same-sex marriages, and that there are others willing to do so in states which do not yet license them. Perhaps you are hoping for a particular denomination to be “in charge” of the whole marriage business, something of a “state religion”? I would think that you wouldn’t want that either, as we’d surely have a 21st century crusade on our hands in no time. Fighting like there was in Northern Ireland.
Your argument that the Crystal Cathedral will be required to perform same-sex marriages is empty. Churches do what they want, and the only rub comes when their practices (like polygamy) run opposite of state law. Then they just lose their tax-exempt status. It’s the price they have to pay for being contrary. There are all sorts of services that churches provide from time to time, but not all are always available at all churches. Are you seeing a lot of court cases being brought against churches for not performing one or another of those services? No. It’s because churches are not held to any particular list-of-services requirement by the state, and nobody has suggested that same-sex marriages should be any different. Some churches will choose to perform them, and others will not.
@George Wells:
To begin with, the laws against polygamy are federal, as well as state. As to not being able to force churches to perform same-sex marriages, how is that any different than forcing churches to provide birth control/abortion care via their insurance? Or have you not heard of the many cases that are now working their way to the SCOTUS requiring churches to do something that goes against their very teachings?
Brother Bob makes a salient point: the dialog has changed. When the gay activist movement first started, there was no mention of “marriage.” The goal was to simply abolish sodomy laws. Once that was acheived, it was not enough. The activists then turned their energy toward “marriage”, called “gay marriage.” But it was pointed out that gays could marry, under the same rules and restrictions as “straights” so the terminology morphed into “same-sex” marriage.
The goal has always been two fold: create a “protected” class of individuals based on their private sexual preferences (think affirmative action based on sex) and normalize homosexuality, including teaching that homosexuality is a normal human condition starting in the very early grades. It has nothing to do with rights, tax returns, fairness. It has everything to do with political clout and the progression of the Gramsci philosophy on the American body politic.
@retire05
OK, you are wrong that this battle has “everything to do with political clout and the progression of Gramsci philosophy on the American body politic.” I’m part of the battle, and while I am surprised by the recent surge of political clout, it doesn’t influence my feelings on the subject one bit, and I am unfamiliar with and don’t care what Gramsci philosophy is.
What I do care about is the fact that for the past 58 years I have been horribly mistreated as a criminal abomination for what I discovered at age 5 when I fell in love with Lassie’s owner “Timmy”, that I was different. I could never understand why the society at large didn’t just lock us all up or exterminate us if we were so horrible. While there were always a few who suggested exactly those remedies, they were never adopted, and in their absence our society tolerated a compromise in which gay people could not enjoy the fair housing, employment and many other equal rights that non-discrimination acts convey on the vast majority of citizens. I suffered homophobic discrimination my entire career. If you have not experienced intense discrimination first hand, I would suggest that you have no business commenting on the motives of those who have. For us, it has EVERYTHING to do with fairness and equal rights.
Yes, there was a time when the focus was repeal of anti-sodomy laws. We are a small minority, and resources are correspondingly limited. Fighting on all fronts simultaneously was and continues to be cost-prohibitive. As society has becomed enlightened on the subject (you would say “loose”) the battle for equal rights has progressed. Maybe some day,somebody will demand reparations, but the vast majority of gays just want to lead a normal-type life. And on the topic of “normality,” no, homosexuality is not statistically “normal,” but it IS “natural”. It is a behavioral variation found throughout nature (google it in Penguins, for example.) Those opponents who suggest homosexuality is simply a sociopathic choice ignore the scope of homosexuality in nature. If you mean to purify the master race, go ahead and demand that ALL imperfect individuals be destroyed – it makes perfect sense if racial purity is your penultimate goal. However, if you think that the U.S. Constitution’s statements regarding equality, the persuit of happiness and fairness under the Law are lofty sentiments worth keeping, then you need to some how find a way to give up fighting against everybody who is different from you.
The cases you cite challenging religious institutions refusal to act counter to their beliefs are indeed being litigated, but they are not resolved, and SCOTUS has never supported deconstruction of the separation of church and state. Those cases will fail, as they should.
One last point, which I thought would have been obvious: Your suggestion that gay people have the same rights to marry that straight people have is facetious and disingenuous. You don’t marry any person simply because they are the ‘correct” gender, you marry them because they are the ONE you love. Heterosexuals can marry the “ones-they-love” but in 41 states homosexuals cannot. That’s not equal treatment.
You have been sold a fraudulent bill of goods. You largely misconstrue the so-called “homosexual agenda,” and stupidly accept Scalia’s “slippery-slope” prognostications – they could and have been used to resist EVERY advance in the battle for equal rights. Spend some time looking at BOTH sides of this issue, and unless you are irreversibly blinded by hate, you just MIGHT see the light.
Despite what Carolla says, this is settled law. The 1st amendment protects churches making their own rules. Nor has anyone seriously challenged that. For example, Catholic churches cannot be required to marry couples who don’t suit their religious requirements, which are quite significant. There are churches still in the south that won’t marry mixed race couples. And Loving v. Virginia has been on the books for almost a half century.
Obama has already tried to tell churches who they can or cannot hire (or even call a church member) …..above and beyond the (once) required membership in the religion of the particular church!
His attempt failed and was overturned by the courts.
But his attempt was a first step in trying to force churches into a Sharia-like limitation of ”freedom” only when they are inside their building.
Maggie Thatcher said that the problem with socialism is that eventually they run out of other people’s money, but another problem with socialists like Obama is that they never quit when they win.
They always insist on more, more, more.
If gay marriage becomes the law of the land socialists, like Obama, will keep moving the goalposts.
Yes, they will push for more than grudging allowance of a legal gay marriage.
They will demand respect for those gays, equal opportunity for their marriages to take place inside churches of all stripes.
There is no end game in terms of gays and the state……only a continuing battle for more.
The real end of the marriage debate is for everyone to stop worrying about a few sissies who want to smooch in peace and file a joint tax return – – and the rest of everyone get on to other important matters. To think, a bunch of grown up freaking over sissies. No heterosexual is going to pay any attention to what two gay men do – the idea is preposterous. Heterosexuals will do what they’ve all done, without paying us a second thought. Oh, I’m sorry, I just can’t wrap my mind around the concept that maybe 3 or 4% of the population is going to destroy the place. We just can’t be this powerful or important.
@Jim Hlavac:
It isn’t the homosexual community that we conservatives should be worried about. It’s the left in this country who purposely sow the seeds of dissent on issues, pitting neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend, brother against brother. When they do so it makes it easier to submit the incremental changes that effect control over all of us.
Whether the issue is gun control, or gay marriage, or illegal immigration, the left is adopting a viewpoint far to the left of the average person. They advocate for the strictest gun control solutions, for gay marriage to be legalized across the country, or for the illegals to be given blanket amnesty and immediate citizenship. And when those issues are discussed, debated, and legislated upon, the “compromise” ends up shifting what people will accept further to the left, without really addressing the issue fully. Then, somewhere later down the road, the debates start up again, resulting in further shifts in viewpoints to the left. And then again. And again. And again.
But no one is asking the most important questions about these issues and debates that need to be addressed, and therefore, the issues do not get resolved. Ever.
Personally, on the whole gay marriage issue, I don’t believe that the federal government has standing to subject itself into the debate and issue any kind of federal legislation, other than to make policy concerning the employees of the federal government. If the people in, say, the state of Tennessee do not want gay marriage recognized, then that should be their prerogative, just as it should be the same for, say, Vermont if they choose to recognize it.
So how much big government do you want? I have a church that marries gay people – you want the government to intercede? You want them in YOUR bedroom telling YOU what acts are approved and which are not? (Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia’s attorney general, is attempting to reinstate Virginia’s overturned anti-sodomy laws that applied to ALL citizens.) And if you are not comfortable with giving gays EQUAL rights, just which rights do you think they SHOULD have? Maybe it’s OK to fire them from their jobs but not put them in concentration camps? You can punch them if you don’t like them looking at you but you can’t cut them with a knife? Just how do you want to codify which second-class rights they get and which rights thay cannot have. Isn’t it just easier to kill them all then to argue over the details or have to tolerate how different from you they are? Society has every right to collectively decide the answers to these questions, and this is exactly what they are doing right now. I am pleasantly surprised that society is moving away from Hitler’s “Final Solution.” But if you have a better idea, now’s the time. (Hint: “Go back into the closet” won’t cut it.)
@George Wells: The “master- race” junk is getting old. That’s not the issue and you know it.
We’re not penguins, we’re human beings. We have language and culture. We build pyramids and rocket ships. We’ve been fighting our “natures” for millenia. Our “orientations” are not us.
The issues:
Marriage for “love” is a new thing. Marriage in most cultures has to do with stability and raising kids. My fear with “gay marriage” is that gays want to emulate traditional marriage, rather than finding something that fits our new world and culture. Nobody wants to deny you love and happiness–chill out. Nobody is stopping you from loving your partner. What the rub is that you will remain different. Yup. that’s your cross to bear, I’m afraid. The issue is trying to make LGBT into a new “gender,” and that’s not what it is.
My natural urge is have sex with any attractive woman I can. Actually, it’s to get off. It’s always there. I don’t follow it, however, for a variety of reasons. That’s my true “orientation.” Staying with one mate is not natural . . . not in the least, so don’t cite nature as the legitimizing factor for non-straights. Polygamy is more “natural,” so when is it going to be LGBTQP?
Orientation is a myth. People can satisfy their psycho-sexual needs in any way they see fit. I don’t think gay, or LGBTs in general are “faking it.” I just don’t think they understand that sexual attraction and gender-identification aren’t empirical, scientifically verifiable things like race or gender. Our society, classically, doesn’t recognize LGBT as basis for family. Can that change? It is already. Can we talk about it and not make it another liberal “it’s us or them . . . attack the white/male/Christian/straight guy whose a bigot!” argument? I hope so.
Sex is what we make of it. It’s not an identifier and doesn’t need a “sub-class” to be created around it. That’s the real issue you need to address. I’m open to being proved wrong on this, but it has to be more than projecting “human rights” onto sexuality. LGBTs have all the same rights as straights in America. They can’t “marry” because marriage used to be defined as something between a man and woman. That’s not bigoted, that’s just several thousand years of culture. I’m all for LGBTs coupling up, but there’s no need to destroy all that has come before just to stick it to the 97% of people who are “straight.” Let’s have a conversation about this and come to real solution.
@George Wells:
I’m not sure if your rant was directed at me or not. I will state that anyone wishing for the federal government to intercede in this issue is asking for a lot more than they bargained for. Namely, control. It is better to let the individual sovereign states decide such an issue for themselves, for it is much easier to change viewpoints and accepted law and policy on the state level than on the federal level. What’s more, allowing the government to intercede means that the government will involve itself into your bedroom, exactly the opposite of what you would intend.
Let me be clear, I am not advocating either way on the issue of gay marriage itself, and would no more support the federal government outlawing it than I would have them approve it. It is not their place to say what is and what is not acceptable on this issue(other than the caveat of the federal employee).
Less government means exactly that. Less government. But if you wish the federal government to involve itself in this issue, on either side, it will only lead to more government and more federal control over your life, and that is something that no one who believes in freedom and liberty should ever be in favor of.
@George Wells:
Well stated. On a personal note, I think homosexuality is a sin. That being said, Christ said the following:
“Judge not lest ye be judged.”
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
“Remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
So, I got nothing on the sinful part of homosexuality. I leave that to my priest and Church.
As for the political side, I cannot argue against State’s rights. If a State agrees to allow same sex marriage, that is the right of the State and the people. Same with the churches. If a church wishes to perform same sex marriages, that’s their right. Any infringement on the rights of other churches to force them to perform same sex marriages would be counter to the first amendment.
On the federal level, the federal government should do no more than remove the penalties for marriage or partnerships. There is no reason couples that aren’t married, be that same sex or traditional couple, be restricted from benefits. This should be allowed by simple contracts, it doesn’t have to be marriage.
@ Nathan Blue
Sorry to humbly disagree. You failed to note, I gather by your lack of answer, my question concerning exactly what sort of second class rights should gay people have? In Virginia I can be fired for being gay. Same reason is acceptable for refusing housing. I was arrested in the 70’s for BEING at a gay bar. I’ve been attacked, harrassed and ridiculed my whole life, and my “issues” reach WAY beyond marriage rights. YOUR republican party has NEVER offered any consolation prize of any civil rights what-so-ever for gay people, so in spite of my support for limited government and physical conservatism, I have to vote Dem. as a gesture toward self-preservation. How can you square all of the statutory abuse gays have suffered with the tenets of the constitution regarding equality?
Your incredibly nieve explanation of human sexuality is… astonishing. I have to assume that you’ve arrived at your conclusions in an intellectual vacuum. I also assume that you remember the day that you woke up and said to yourself: Today I must decide if I want to play with penises or vaginas? No, of course not. You woke up one day and discovered that your penis, all by itself, POINTED to what it was interested in. THAT is empirical. You didn’t “choose”. Neither did I. If I DID choose homosexuality, I would be certifiably mad, considering all of the social consternation that came with the package.
You want to use the Biblical justification for marriage? Can’t accept more modern understandings? Then stone your kids for talking back, kill women adulterers, etc., etc. Don’t selectively ignore some proscriptions and accept others when they fit your bigoted agenda. Find within the constitution exactly those justifications you need to support exactly which rights you think gays should have. Oh, about slavery and those other parts we had to change… want them back? Or is the constitution also to be a living document? OF COURSE! You want states’ rights? (I hope so…) Or do you want big government federalism? Either way, you will ultimately end up with gay rights or gay extermination – either is possible, according to the will of the people. Looks to me like it’s going in the direction of gay rights. Still waiting for your explanation/justification of an alternative.
@George Wells:
So you admit that you are unfamiliar with one of the originators of the very movement you subscribe to? Tell me, do you not feel an obligation to understand policies that you support? I consider that blatantly irresponsible.
Are you trying to sell the snake oil that at age five, barely out of being a toddler, you were completely aware of your sexual proclivities? You really want to push that a child, at age five, is aware of sexual desires? Really? And what about the kids that at age five were in love with Lassie? Shall we design laws to suit their needs?
Wow! You really are the drama queen, aren’t you? Tell me, do you work at Charlie Brown’s? Who do you play? Babs Streisand or Bette Midler?
So what you are saying is that two men, or two women, were not allowed to rent an apartment or purchase a house together? If so, that is a lie, and you either know it is or you are painfully stupid. People have been sharing living quarters forever. People of the same sex. They were called “room mates” and it was for financial advantage (not having to bear the brunt of the rent by themselves). Sons and mothers, fathers and daughters, siblings, friends and those not related by blood, or marriage, have been able to enter into a real estate contract as dual partners. So you are spinning the truth to further your agenda.
Employment equality? Where was that ever denied? And why should it be denied because of what you do in the privacy of your own home? How would an employer even know you are gay? Is there some formula where I can tell you are gay just by looking at you? How do I do that? What is the formula? Or do you think that you should be able to march into a prospective employer’s office, reveal your private business, privacy that, I might add, you homosexuals fought for, and demand a job? If the goal was, as in Lawrence vs. Texas, to secure privacy rights, then what is the purpose of making your personal life public? Doesn’t that sort of defeat the entire argument for privacy?
The arguement of “nature vs. nurture” has been going on for over a hundred years. There is no, ABSOLUTELY NO, scientific proof that homosexuals are born homosexual. Name the study that tried to support that claim, and I can show you where that study was debunked. There is NO gay gene. The much touted “Hypothalamus Study” that was heralded as the proof of the “born gay” debate, was soundly discredited, even by other homosexual researchers. It is a choice. It has been declared a choice since the beginning of the movement that originated in California. Homosexual activists said, quite loudly, it was a choice. But queers were losing the battle for “protected” classification, so they decided to go the “nature” route, knowing that the “nurture” route was losing them law suits.
Dr. John DeCecco, a homosexual psychologist, declared about his book, If You Seduce A Straight Person You Can Make Them Gay, that the whole “born gay” characteriristic idea is “just gay and lesbian politics.” Dr. Vera Whisman, who wrote the book, Queer By Choice: Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Politics of Identity, said “Without the essentialist [born gay] foundation, do we have a viable politics?”
There are rules, and limitations, placed on everyone. It is not that gays are not allowed to marry, but the fact that in order to demand special treatment, you have to add the caveat “the one I love” to the mix. What if I love my sister? Or my brother? Or my dad? Should I be allowed to marry them as long as we are both “consenting” adults? Do you support polygamy? If not, why not? Is it impossible to love more than ONE person?
Sorry, you’re a whiner, just like your buddy, Jim, but I don’t like whiners. You are NOT denied any benefit that applies to married straights, except for the benefit of Social Security and a $255.00 death benefit. If your relationship with another man is contingent on $255.00, it is not a good relationship to begin with. Even the case pending before the SCOTUS based on a lesbian couple married in Canada, is over paying taxes on an inheritance. The lesbian plantiff has spent more money on lawyers than she would have if she would have just paid the taxes. And now, sons who inherite farms/ranches from their fathers will have to pay the inheritance tax. The case, basically, is just one more instance of those who make choices do not want to be responsible for their choices.
I was totally on your side. I think the court ruled correctly in Lawrence as the gay movement claimed that was all they wanted; privacy rights. But it didn’t end there, did it. It is never enough. Never has been, never will be, and now I am totally opposed to your radical agenda. An agenda that I have studied, and understand the beginnings, while you admit you do not. And while you whine about “joint tax returns” I suggest you do a little research in that area. Like I told Jim, who had no response, there seems to be a lack of math majors in your movement.
How about just keeping your personal life personal? Isn’t that was Lawrence was all about?
@George Wells: I said it clearly. You have first class rights. Period.
Next question?
@George Wells: @George Wells: @George Wells: You’ve jumped to many assumptions and conclusions, which is why many find “discussing” this topic to be meaningless.
Some points:
I’m not a republican (but funny how you think that given I’m not 100% for what the dems/libs are for). The “you’re either with us . . . or a republican b.s. is getting old. I’m not putting you in a box (you’re doing that yourself). Don’t put me in one.
Naive on sexuality? Don’t think so. I don’t care what you are attracted to, though I will agree with retire5 that stating you had sexual feelings at age five is a little far-fetched. Affinity or endearment? Sure. Sexual urges: no. That starts at puberty, I believe. Also, I’m not arguing that your sexuality is what it is. I don’t want you to “change.” I just think we address this differently. You’re fighting a war from the seventies. Gays are accepted, but acceptance doesn’t mean “exalted.” Sorry.
Never brought up the Bible, but thanks for showing that you are bigoted against Christianity. Marriage the world over usually had roots in religion: Hindu Marriage, Jewish Marriage, Buddhist Marriage, etc. If you’re going to cut on religion, be inclusive.
But you’ve proved the point of the article: where does this all lead, and end? The gay marriage thing has to be cleaned up, yes, but the continued cry of “human rights” is a farce. You have the same rights as everyone else. The government can’t stop some jerk from treating you poorly. That’s life. Deal with it.
The gay mafia, with their state government pals, strike in California and Washington State… This is the end game.
Faithfulness to the Bible and the Christian faith will very soon be declared bigotry by the media and a de facto civil rights violation by the State.
According to your link servicing a gay wedding would violate the conscience of the florist.
But the state is declaring that a person’s conscience is equal to bigotry!
(As if disliking serving a gay wedding equates with hating gay people!)
This is the same government that is currently attempting to force the Church and other religious business-owners to pay for the abortion pill and they are using the same ideas to press their case through the courts.
@The gay marriage supporters: I hear your arguments, and I’d still like to hear what you see as an end point to this debate
The end point is government should stay out of this. Using the power of the state to compel you to do what they think is right is frankly BS.
@ Nathan Blue and Retire05:
I never said that I had sexual feelings at five, I said that I first appreciated at that age that I was “different”. I’m sure that you don’t need to put words in my mouth to win the approval of the crowd at this site. If we still need clarification, at age 5, I wanted for Timmy to be my best friend, and I named my female cat “Timmy”. I got some measure of ridicule for these proclivities, but by the time I reached second grade (age 7) I was being called “hermaphrodite” (and “hermie” for short), terms I had no understanding of at all. (I had a crew cut and when I look at old photos, I can’t see any physical indications of hermaphroditism, so it must have been something else that cued the other children.) It wasn’t until age 11 that sexaul attractions to boys began (yes, at puberty) much to my dismay, as the church’s teachings on the subject forbode ill. I tried desperately to associate with girls, and with much encouragement from my parents, dated a few, but it was no use. There was no attraction at all. At sixteen I attempted suicide with iodine (the only poison I could find in the house), which made me violently sick but obviously did not work. The Johns Hopkins psychologist who my father consulted assured Dad that the homosexual condition was likely irreversible and that appropriate measures should be limited to whatever assistance was needed to alleviate my stress. The rest of my childhood was miserable, I joined the Navy and remained celibate until ahe 25, after I had been honorably discharged. You so conveniently ignore the details I offer as examples of the adversity of the gay experience – I assume your argument is that “That’s life, get over it.” Such an easy excuse for the oppression of a minority by a majority. (The same argument was offered to blacks objecting to the racially motivated abuse they suffered, but it was never an answer worth the breath it took to utter.) Shame on you! It DOES point up the very worthy role the SCOTUS will eventually play in this debate. Perhaps of some interest to you might be a very odd exchange I once had with SCOTUS Chief Justice Warren Berger (is that spelled right?). It was around the time Nixon was having his Watergate problems, I think. I asked him why, with all the constitution had to say about equality, didn’t the Court correct all of the unfair treatment of gays? His reply was that they most certainly would correct all that I suggested, but “in the fullness of time.” His exact words. Never heard the term before. Meant that the country wasn’t yet ready for it. “Be patient” he said, but I’m now 63 and in my silly old age, I want this fight to end. I’m not political (well, I do vote…) but I can’t afford to die in Virginia for the same reason that the DOMA case is presently being considered. Then there was the time I went into the emergency room and my partner of 38 years wasn’t allowed in because he wasn’t “family”. He had my medical power of attorney, but Virginia has a law that voids it, and after I was knocked out with morphine, the hospital ran up $5k of unnecessary tests that I had to pay entirely out of pocket. And everything you say refuting unfair housing and employment practices is obviously entirely ignorant of Virginia Law, in which there are no protections at all for gay renters, home buyers or employees. For decades the mainstream media refused to print accounts of these abuses, ignorance being bliss that it is. But gay papers and magazines were in the same period full of accounts detailing endless abuses, and I’m sure that you must have noticed the national publicity that accompanied many firings from the military before “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was repealed. I could offer books worth of discrimination details, but it seems like you prefer to remain ignorant of that problem, so what would be the point.
As for supporting policies I am unfamiliar with, how ever did you make that connection. I’m not supporting policies of people I don’t know, I’m sharing with you the reasons I object to current Law. If you vote for Mitt Romney, surely you’re not irresponsible in not being familiar with the positions of all the other people who vote the same way. I’ve never read or heard a spoken word from “Gramsci” – -don’t know if it is a person or an organization. I’m not a parrot for anyone else, and judging from the nonsense you’re spilling as make your many dazzling references, I’d say your superior exposure hasn’t brought you all that much wisdom.
Wasn’t trying to be a “drama queen” as you suggest. I honestly couldn’t understand how, in view of all the church and government vitriole over homosexuality, the powers that be had not concluded that extermination was the best course to take. I give you an honest personal anecdote and you return slander. Aren’t you proud!
Well, I had hoped that by sharing with you a few of my life’s details, having personally experienced what you can only imagine from a most distant perspective, you might gain some better insight. Sorry I have failed to make an impression. I won’t bother you further.
@ Brother Bob: End game would be simple, wouldn’t it? Originalists interpret the constitution literally, and ignore the pieces that have needed changing over the years. (That part puts the constitution on a parallel course with the Bible.) The originalist part is a bit screwed, but it does draw attention to the evolution our constitution has undergone. It HAS to evolve, because the times change. Or else why would the constitution need amendments? There’s no end game to the reality of the situation, because the culture will always be in flux. The end point of the debate seems to find Nathan Blue with his head stuck in a dark place, desperately ignorant of the discriminatory Virginia statutes I have repeatedly referred to. (They are widely regarded to be the most hateful in the country… a circuit court just Wednesday struck down our attorney generals latest attempt to reinstate Virginia’s anti-sodomy law.) The best I hope for is peaceful compromise between competing points of view.
I disagree with all efforts to require religious institutions to act contrarily to their tenets, and am confident that the Supreme Court will CONTINUE to strike down efforts designed to compel churches otherwise. I recognize that in both this case and in the case making the argument for states’ rights in the gay marriage debate there are conflicting federal interests. In the first is the question of tax-exempt status for churches, for surely the states cannot force the federal government to indiscriminantly grant special tax dispensations. In the second one finds conflict between the states’ rights pertaining to licensing marriage on the one hand and federal rights to grant special tax dispensations to some state-approved marriages but not others. The details of these federal and state issues are in conflict one with the other and an easy resolution does not exist. If Section 3 or all of DOMA is upheld, states’ rights get screwed. If DOMA Section 3 falls, Federal benefits get unequally distributed according to which states allow gay marriage, and then DOMA Section 2 (which permits one state to ignore the next) comes almost immediately under attack for much the same reasons that were argued for section 3, and that case would then likely be next in line for SCOTUS resolution. I do not see any other likely options in the near future. The House is no where near passing ANY legislation regarding ANY rights for gays, much less gay marriage rights, regardless of what the senate might eventually do. (Right now the senate’s majority in favor of marriage equality is a baker’s handfull short of filabuster-proof.)
For me, the end game would be a level playing field of equal rights for everyone regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., etc., kind of like what the Miss America contestants wish for. I know that fear mongers have to point out that beastiality is the next domino if the gay one falls, but… really? When I hear that argument, I’m heartened that we must surely be close to victory, as it has been evoked so often as a last, desperate exercise in futility. I am so looking forward to the end of June!
I could care less if someone is homosexual. But I do not think some lady who opposes gay marriage should be prosecuted by the state over that (under the guise of consumer protection and equal protection). That is wrong.
More of the usual on the road to hell. Can I now marry my son, if not why not? My sheep? Twenty women. And I should enjoy a special priviledged class to boot because of the descrimination and hatred I have had to endure.
The American experiment has failed. We are not a nation under god, under a cosmic donut mandated by the ACLU maybe, but we have all the virtues of Anthony Weiner. So sad that we can steal from generations yet unborn, listen to arguments about gay marriage while our rights under the 2nds amendment are trampled and have to endure an out of control political class.
Its over. Time to strat anew.
@Brother Bob:
I’m not a gay marriage supporter, I just think it should be left to the States. What I do find odd is people going to the government asking for rights that, that government had no right to take away in the first place.
As for the end game……I truly believe a majority of the gay community just want the same benefits as traditional couples. But, and I would really like for George to explain this, there is a radical movement that want to destroy the whole institution of marriage. In a speech/Q&A Masha Gessen gave, she said same sex marriage means lying about the end result.
In her own words:
@George Wells: Thanks for offering the experiences. I don’t think for a second it is “easy” to be in the LGBT community. I would only like to point out there are many youth out there that feel “different,” and that leads them to similar suicidal situations as your own. It’s not “easy to be an LP (Little Person), I assume, but we’re not trying to pass legislation to get all doorways to be reduced in size so they can pretend the majority of people are not LPs. The majority of people are straight, and if we’re following naturalistic deviations, that’s the way it will remain. My “get over it” comment was merely to point out that life isn’t easy, for any of us, and the prevailing myth that more laws and more government will somehow make life easier for everyone is a complete farce. You were not the only one to struggle with your “identity” and your identification as “gay” does not afford you a protected status from a cruel and unfair world. Everyone is in the same fight.
@George Wells: Again, not all agree that orientation is something biologically empirical, because it hasn’t been proven by science. If it were, I’d think much differently on the matter. As it stands now, “sexual orientation” isn’t the same gender or race (even race is getting old). The concern is that LGBT is a complex social phenomenon and not something concrete. That’s not fear mongering, just logic.
On a side note, I wasn’t aware of the Virgina laws you cited–thanks for sharing.
@George Wells:
George – You sound like an extremely miserable person. Why is that? Most of your points are disingenuous because I am a licensed Realtor and there is absolutely NO truth in what you have stated regarding housing laws against gays. BS. There is NO Realtor on God’s green Earth that would NOT sell a house to a gay person or any other “labeled” person for that matter. Besides that fact of life, we Realtors, have LAWS to abide by and you have lied on that one. The RE laws are NATION wide, not state by state with regards to discrimination as you have fictionalized. They are called Fair Housing Laws and have been around since the 60’s. If someone is bullying you it is NOT the fault of the country and NO laws, federal or state will ever be able to stop bullying. People are in charge of their actions regardless of what laws are in place. The Constitution IS based on Biblical beliefs because the Founders were Bible followers and trusted in God NOT government which is why we have America and why we have a Constitution of Law that NO other country on God’s green Earth has. It gives ALL people the right to pursue happiness, the trick is: You have to catch it yourself! Happiness that is, no laws can make you catch happiness, laws can only make happiness harder to catch. I have one question NO gay person has ever answered, so I will try again – IF you do not believe or follow in the teachings of the Bible, then why is it so important to you to be married under God’s roof? Why is that? Why are civil unions not enough for people who do not believe in God anyway but yet will drag their country through piles of mud to force a Church to go against it’s beliefs. Why is that? Really like to know. Because for me it says that you do believe or why else would you so loudly voice that God’s endorsement of your same sex marriage be acknowledged??????? Makes absolutely NO sense. AND furthermore, this SC BS regarding same sex marriage or “marriage equality” is for CA, not the nation. CA refused to endorse a same sex marriage so they took it to the SC. You guys are wrong because you are re-interpreting law based on emotion. Equality is a basic human right and it is God given. You as a person have every right everyone else has. Marriage is based on religion because in nature it takes 2 opposite sex’s to procreate. Not a man made law, a God made law of nature. Your stupid penquin comparison is nonsense. Homosexuality is NOT natural, it is UN – natural but we as civilized humans recognize that it is not your fault that this has happened to you so we give you legal authority to not be discriminated against by Law. Because that is civil, that is the right thing to do because bullying is wrong. If you do not like the weather conditions in VA, then MOVE to where they fit your needs. Leave the rest of us alone. You complain about bullying yet you are bullying heterosexuals, and Christianity instead. Do you see the conflicts of interests yet?
@ Nathan Blue
Thank you for the acknowlegement regarding Virginia Law. Here in the Commonwealth we know that the 2006 constitutional amendment will be struck down, as it’s provisions give to perfect strangers significantly more legal protections that to gay couples. It’s design depended upon the legality of the same moral outrage against homosexuality that the U.S. House of Representatives expressed in explaining their motives for passing DOMA. If you feel that same outrage, no logic will change your mind. And I’m not about to suggest that you don’t have a right to your views. But if you find anything objectionable to the routine police harrassment of gay people that was the rule rather than the exception until about ten years ago (and remember that until quite recently a gay proposition was considered by the courts to be grounds for justifyable homicide), then you must admit that there is some measure of good in the progress the LGBT community has recently made, and your only objection is that you think the trend may go too far. I’ll take that any day, and promise to work with you to thwart the efforts of extremists on both sides.
@deshevlin:
I guess that I should have pointed out that I was referring to rental law, not real estate sales law. Sorry if I confused you. On your objection that homosexuality is not “natural,” gee, where to begin? The word “natural” is taken in science to express that which exists in nature, as in not synthetic or man-made. When scientists studying animal behavior observe homosexual activity among penguins, chimps or parrots (just a small sampling) and also observe over time that some of the same individuals repeatedly show the same abnormal preferences, they conclude that homosexuality occurs in nature independent of the so-called “gay movement”. They say that it is natural, that it occurs in nature. They do not say that it is “normal,” which is a statistical term referring to the majority proportion of occurance within a population. If a population of humans is 85% white, it is not statistically “normal” for an individual in that polulation to be black. But being black is natural unless the high concentration of melanine in the skin was deposited there by artificial means. Similarly, in a population of humans that is 97% heterosexual, it is not “normal” (abnormal) to be homosexual, but it is “natural” to be so unless the condition was again caused by artificial means. Perhaps you should read up on this a bit, as the meaning of these words is as close as the nearest dictionary.
Your complaints about my not following the teachings of the Bible have already been addressed: Do you stone your children when they talk back? NO. Because you know that not all of what is in the Bible is right for today. So you selectively choose the parts that you want to take literally, and you ignore the others. I do the same thing. There are churches that embrace gays and happily marry them. Because I am agnostic (which means I do not know God personally) I will be married in a civil ceremony in Maryland’s capital. I am not hypocritical – my actions are consistent with my beliefs.
As for California and the supreme court case, I’m sure that you understand that if the SCOTUS doesn’t overturn Prop 8, the voters will quickly do it, as their views on the subject have shifted dramatically since the measure narrowly passed what, 5 years ago? SCOTUS in either case will not interfere with states rights on the issue until there is a large majority of states already pro, much as they did in the interracial marriage case. That will be a while, so there you have a timeline to work with. Just as there are still folks in the South who think slavery was a good thing, I’m sure from your comments that you will never accept gay marriage. But you might learn a new word or two along the way, and that would be a start.
@George Wells:
Ah, and here is where you on the left fail to understand the purpose of the U.S. Constitution. You seem to think it was written based on sociatal norms of the times, and since sociatal norms have changed, it, too, should change. But you are wrong. The U.S. Constitution was written based on the unalienable rights granted not by governments, or politicians, but by God and that no matter how sociaty may change, the rights of man do not and human nature, itself, is unchanging in its quest for God-given rights.
The Bible, and the U.S. Constitution, have few similarities. One deals with how the individual should live their lives, the other deals with how an organized government deals with individuals. One outlines acceptable behavior for individuals, the other outlines acceptable behavior for a government made up of those individuals.
And herein lies your hypocracy. You find it abhorant that someone would refuse to rent their property to you based on the fact that you made public your sexual preferences, not willing to accept their personal beliefs, yet have no trouble demanding that their personal beliefs be ruled a violation of your civil rights to live in a property the person you disagree with owns. I doubt you would have a problem if that landlord refused to rent to KKK members or to neo-Nazis. You would be saying “Good for him for taking a stand against unacceptable behavior.”
Bull. If that was the goal of the homosexual movement, which you definately are a part of, it would have ended with Lawrence. But it didn’t, did it?
Oh, how generous of you. You can’t control one’s opinions or thoughts, so you’ll grant them the right to have those opinions or thoughts, just as long as they don’t act on, or verbalize, those opinions or thoughts. Then you, and your ilk, will label someone with a different view as racists, homophones, bigots, and any other perjorative you can come up with. My particular favorite to come out of the gay movement is the “Christian Taliban” slur.
And exactly what have you done to shut down the San Francisco Folsom Street Parade where gay men parade with their genitals hanging out, have gay sex events showing the art of “fisting, rimming, etc” that is held on the public streets of San Francisco? What have you [personally] done to put a stop to the Sisters of Perpetual Outrage and their invasion of Catholic Churches in absurd costumes throwing glitter on attendees and the priests saying Mass? Where is your outrage when a university requires religious, Christian students to fund the GLBT “student” center and does not allow those Christian students to opt out of that? Where is your demand that homosexuality not be taught in the elementary grades in our schools, or that students in New York City be required to list the different ways to have homosexual sex?
You showed your hand when you said this:
You vote Dem because they are willing to gore someone else’s oxe, not yours. As long as they are issue centric, and it benefits you, while violating the rights of millions of others, you’re absolutely fine with that. You don’t simply want public tolerance, you want enforced public acceptance. And when that became apparent, to any rational thinking person, that is when you lost me.
But what happens when the pendulum swings the other way, as it is currently on the issue of abortion, and as it always does, and the Dems learn that they have to support traditional marriage, and Christian values, in order to get elected? Do you think they will still continue to leave your oxe alone, or do you think they will come after you with a vengence? You don’t seem to realize that the harder you, and your queer friends, push, the pushback will be even greater. And the Democrats will not always be in control of the Senate and the Oval Office.
The Gay Agenda has been interesting to watch, to say the least. We have gone from calling you what you are, sodomites, to homosexual (a term coined in post War Germany to humanize the person and distract from the action) to now you’re “gay,” bastardizing a word that has always had a different connitation. You have gone from “gay” marriage (a term you still wrongly use) to “same-sex” marriage. From rights of privacy to rights of protected status.
The answer to that question is simple; never. There will never be an end until the philosophy of Gramsci is complete. Then, and only then, will the pendulum swing against you, George, and I fear it will not be what you want nor will it be pretty.
@George Wells:
Perhaps you should have a TV show called “Hooked On Penguins.” The only problem with that is that in every instance of “gay” penguins, they were never observed actually having penguin sex. And when given a chance, dumped their “gay” mate for a female with which they did what nature desiged them to do; reproduce. Even the famous Toronto gay penguins decided in favor of a female partner, and they even became agressive against each other when defending their new female partner.
Male dogs may hump one another, but there is no actual penetration by one male dog of another male dog. If they were truely “gay”, wouldn’t they try to penetrate the other dog?
@George Wells:
Does it really have to change?
I contend that it does not. I also contend that as originally written, and applied to current accepted viewpoints, that most of the post Bill of Rights amendments are completely unneeded.
Don’t believe me? Read the Constitution up to and including the Bill of Rights, and apply the accepted viewpoints of today to it(i.e. Slavery is wrong and black men are, in fact, men and have the same rights as all other men. Or that women have the same rights as men.) If you do that, you see that the Constitution encompasses an idea, not specific circumstances, and therefore, does not NEED to change with the times. Now apply the same basic rights listed and inferred in the Constitution to the LGBT community. Is there anything in the Constitution that denies people in that community the rights that everyone else enjoys? No. Not one thing.
It is only due to misunderstanding and intentional misleading ideas that people believe the Constitution must EVOLVE.
@George Wells: Fair enough. Hang in there, George.
@ Nathan Blue:
Thanks. Your reaction is so refreshing after much mischaracterization of my positions and the intentionally insulting commentary by retire05. There are plenty of folk out there who are ripe to take matters into their own hands regardless of the Law and who are itching for a bloodbath. I’ve had a few run-ins with such folk, and retire05 fits their psycho-profile. I want to avoid them for the obvious reasons. While their opinions are constitutionally protected, failure by others to express consternation encourages escalation of retoric that already approaches violence. In a peaceful society, expression of extreme views is counterproductive, unless war is what you seek. I have tried in my discussions to demonstrate a willingness to live and let live, for as a member of a small minority, I know how important that is.
I never dreamed that one day I could marry – for most of my life I just wanted to be free from harassment. But now I find myself the recipient of benefits hard-won by others of the LGBT community who have not been so docile. So I have tried to help in some small way, and I thought that an honest sharing of experience with those who have not stood in my shoes would be more meaningful than preaching to the choir. Thus my visit to this site. As the audience here seems quite limited, and as most respondants seem more offended than interested in a fresh, anecdotal perspective, I should move on.
Thanks for your thoughtful consideration.
George
@George Wells:
How have I mischaracterized your positions? I have been quite clear; you have an agenda to drive, and that is what you are doing. Also, I’m right here, George, so you don’t have to talk about me behind my back like some 7th grade school girl. But then, you don’t want to engage in discussion with me, do you? And we both know why.
Plenty? Is that a fixed number or just a generalization in your own mind? If people wanted to take “matters” into their own hands, there would not be a gay left in the Castro or Montrose districts.
I assume you have a degree in either psychiatry or psychology to feel qualified to make a assertion like that? Please, provide us with a copy of your degree, otherwise I will just chalk that remark up to hyperbole, which you seem to excel at.
Of course you do. You have NOT responded to one thing I have said, instead, you prefer people who will sit down and shut up and let you run your mouth. Tolerance? You don’t know the first thing about it. But no surprise there, either. You don’t want to understand why I feel the way I do or where I am coming from. The political correct thing for me to do would be to pander to you.
Poor Georgie; he had such a rough childhood being teased, and all. How could anyone know how he felt? Nevermind the fat kid that was called “Porky” or the too skinny kid called “Spider” or the too tall kid that was constantly asked “How’s the air up there?” or the homely girl in glasses and braces who was constantly ridiculed. Only poor Georgie knows the true cruelty of kids. George is panding for sympathy, and we must be politically correct and give it to him. GROW UP, GEORGE.
You want to know my real problem with you, George? You’re dishonest. You’re dishonest about your agenda (I’m just looking for sympathing and understanding because, after all, I’m just like you No, you’re not just like me). You’re even dishonest about why you chimed into this thread (I would be it was a tip from Jim Hlavac, if the truth were known). But when you get confronted with facts, and not fairy wings, you run and hide and talk about me behind my back as if I cannot read what you said.
I know many homosexual men and they are at least honest in their goals; to normalize abnormal behavior in our society. They, I respect. I even respect the far leftist that admits Socialism is their goal. Because they are honest and while I may disagree with them on the issues, I respect their honesty. I cut you no such slack.
@George Wells: No. 21
George, I’m not sure I believe that is what you really want. Do you think the NBA and NFL should be required to have women players? Should the rules be changed so that they have equal chances for positions as men do? Doesn’t a woman have a right to have the rules changed so that she can have the opportunity to play on an equal basis? Do you think the rules for the Miss America contest should be changed to give men an equal chance to compete? I mean just because ‘traditionally’ we have always thought that ‘Miss” America should be female doesn’t mean that just a few laws and rules couldn’t be changed that would alter the way we all ‘feel’ about that. The Federal government should stay out of this discussion. It should be up to individual states. That’s what ‘United States” mean. States set their rules and the Feds don’t get into it for local issues. Just as each state regulates property ownership, auto ownership, gun ownership, etc, they should regulate unions amongst their population. While I believe that generally speaking, sexual orientation may be born, acting on that orientation is most likely a choice. For example, so people may be born with an orientation toward being a murderer, but that doesn’t mean that they should be allowed to murder people legally. (and I am not equating being gay with murder, so don’t bring that up)
@George Wells:
George, you are confusing. First you say that Retire05 mis-characterizes your positions and is intentionally insulting, while at the same time, you are not willing to share his right to have his position and you also are intentionally insulting in your comments to him. Have you ever considered that his orientation and points of view are ‘natural’ to him and he should have every right to that orientation and points of view. I mean if it’s good enough for you, shouldn’t it be for him also? Why do you feel that he should change his natural feelings and instincts to accommodate you when it would take a change in maybe 97% of the ‘normal’ people, whereas, if you and the other LBGT were to change your natural feeling and instincts, only 3% of the people would have to change? It is obvious that you feel that society should change to accommodate your proclivities but that you should be the beneficiary and not have to be equally accommodating.
You said:
Do you really believe that? Do you think some people may be ‘born’ to feel that way? Should we change our laws to make it legal for them to act on their ‘natural’ feelings? Or does that only apply to LBGT?
Did Wells just try to say people like Retire are seeking a bloodbath? Is this person a pure moron or a troll that can’t read? Also is he ignorant that Progressives in the late 1800’s were the ones who made it a plank to condemn such sexual deviation in a human being and the same political body now seeks to manipulate the very people it used to see as disgusting just a mere 20 years ago as a means to expand political power and control?
Many here, “George” believe a person should be their own unquie individual, however your whole pile of shit of a logic is pointing to a damn near facist point of view that everyone must conform to your needs and political views and you just judged and labeled someone here a possible pyscho seeking blood due to how they bluntly explained their points of view without any direct threats of violence which makes you a childish troll.
From your disjointed logic and your failure at history of the LG movement, of anyone here you are not fit to pyschoanalyze anyone.
@Nathan Blue: It’s a tough issue and everyone is fighting a hard battle. Live and let live.
I’m hopeful for the brightest future, for all of us.
@Jim Hlavac: You’re not that powerful or important you’re just being used as propaganda for a fundamental transformation of a nation, because the idea of changing the definition of marriage for an entire nation will indeed destroy that nation and that is the point. Remove morality and you destroy people’s lives. The fact that 3 or 4% of a population could demand the other 96 or 97% change what has been and shall always be the only natural definition of marriage is what is disturbing and it is why we fight you. – Heterosexuals will do as they have always done, yes, they will procreate as God intended it be. – Homosexuals will do as they have always done and that is disturb the rest of the population with demands of acceptance and rule of law both nationally and religiously. Let me say this, even IF the federal government changed the definition of marriage from meaning one man and one woman to marriage equality – marry anything you want – it will NEVER be right, moral or religiously correct. George won’t answer my question, maybe you will. WHY if you do not believe in God and what is natural from God do you insist on being married under God’s roof? Why is that? Gay people can be married in several states and it is called a civil union. That union gives gay couples all the same legal spouse laws as heterosexual married couples have. SO why do you have the desire to force priests, bishops, pastors and the like to marry you under religious law when religious law says no to same sex couples? That is force, that is not true acceptance. That is why people get angry, no one likes force.
@George Wells: George you are so confused. You’re example of 85% white not normal vs.natural is seriously lacking any legitimacy. Makes absolutely NO sense. Natural is what occurs Naturally. Nature is what God created, NOT man made. Very simple. Homosexuality is NOT natural. The reason is simple, nature has a built in survival mechanism in human DNA. That instinct to survive means CONTINUE THE “RACE”/”POPULATION” SURVIVE. A race can not survive if it can not procreate and in nature same sex’s can not procreate so the race would become extinct. That is just a basic message of why most all life forms if they want to survive must not practice homosexuality. There are no gay penquins or chimps or any animals. You are making stuff up. When something in nature goes astray it is usually due to man’s footprint in that part of nature because nature is PERFECT. Man is NOT. – Rental housing abides by the same exact FAIR housing laws as sale of housing, you are not being truthful. There is NO realtor on this planet that gives a crap about who buys or rents a house, all we care about is is your money green. You can have 3 heads, be blue, purple or poka dotted, we do not care, we are NOT permitted to discriminate and we only want to sell and earn a paycheck. In fact rentals are even more policed then sales are. IF you were discriminated against for housing then you have the RIGHT to file suit against that entity be it a homeowner or a realtor. It is illegal. The Bible does NOT tell you to stone your children. What are you talking about? Jesus stopped stoning by asking for the stone thrower to be one of no sin. NO one could stand up for that because all people sin. Why do you put words in others mouths? Since you do not know God personally how do you know what his words are? You know God, you just ignore Him. If you attend a church that endorses your beliefs then it is not a church of Christ. It is Lucifer. Changing the definition of marriage and forcing America to accept your beliefs ( which are no beliefs ) is wrong and you know it. What is it you really want? I think I know, you want God and Jesus in your life but you know you are behaving against His teachings so you think you must shun Him and all who believe in Him and the Bible. Well I’ll tell you something else, God and the Bible also tell us Christians to not hate gays, to love them. He loves you He just does not want to endorse your same sex marriage because He made you to procreate! Faith can cure what ails you but you must open up your heart to Christ. America does NOT hate you or gays, we hate being forced to do something we know is not right. A civil union is fair, “equality”LEGALLY. OK, you got it and you’re getting it, so why are you still not content? Really like to know.
@dshevlin: Dear Sir, did you ever think that evolution intended for gay men not to reproduce? — that we are sort of sloughing off the bad genes — which is why we’re sort of well, you know, sissies — nature wants the survival of the fittest, not the reproduction of everyone. Not every zebra has a baby, you know. There really would be no point in passing down whatever thing gay men have, so, well, we don’t do it. And that then helps society, not harms it.
As for animals — there is ample research available on the internet about the apparently paradox of gay animals in over 1500 species. One of the websites that deals with it is a Christian one. Do some research instead of stating opinion as fact. It’s fascinating reading.
meanwhile, all the science, such limited as it is — shows that something happened prenatally, and perhaps postnatally to us — and it’s very confusing, and no one is sure. The Bible sir, while a Good Book — is not science. Science has trumped other Bible beliefs, ones of equally long standing as on gay folks.
As for “not natural” — well, I then would have no earthly clue as to tell you where we might come from — or how we could exist — if it weren’t natural – even if not exactly conducive to survival of the fittest. I’m mean, we’re here, yes?
Actually…
If we want to go into animal sexuality sciences most biology studies outside the internets and in the real world points to various avian species’ having the situation of small population of males using sexual domination over other males to force control over females, which indicates a bisexual paradox instead of a homosexual paradox.
If homosexuality was genetically bound, then it is either a very curiously mutation as by the theories behind Evolution.
@Mr. Irons:
Make no mistake about the intentions of Jim Hlavac. He is an homosexual activist, trying to get his agenda out in as many conservative websites as he can find. He recently wrote an article that is much of what he posts here (We are just like you, we are not hateful, we are just girly-men “sissies” so why do you worry about us?). But there was one response to his article at AT that says it all:
” OK, I didn’t get past “we are indeed integral to family and society in some way”. Uh, Jim, no you aren’t. You are an angry man that wants to kill all breeders. How you convinced a top notch place like AT to let you get your manicured tonails in the door is beyond me. And for any that are wondering, I know Jim and have for years. No, not personally, but via the webs. He and I have exchanged lengthy emails over the years, and by lengthy I mean his not mine. I tried to get along with Jim, but when he threatened to kill me, I just quit trying to understand him. Oh, I am sure Jim will dispute this or play it off as a joke, but I still have those emails…wanna play Jim?”
Hlavac has his own web site (with the same whiny crap he posts here) and it seems he kinda went off the rails a year or so ago and wanted to “kill all the breeders (heterosexuals)” , something he now makes light off. Sorry, Hlavac needs to be exposed for what he is; a radical homosexual agendist who is simply putting out smoke and mirrors to mask his agenda.
Let’s just take a look at what he said above:
Ok, so here he is accepting the premise that he is a freak of nature and nature never intended for him to reproduce. Perhaps he would like to explain the movement to permit homosexuals to adopt children they were never intended to have? I doubt that.
Then Hlavac says:
So he is here; he exists. And your place is to sit down and shut up and just accept his chosen sexual proclivities as normal. You have no right to label him a sodomite, which he is, and if you do, he will object to that label by declaring you a bigot, a racist, a homophobe and a violator of his “civil” rights. Hell, he will put that label on you even if you are sympathetic to his agenda. He, and Wells, make the argument they are gay because it is “nature” not “nurture.” But try and get them to cite even ONE study that upholds that philosophy that has not been debunked. They can’t.
Hlavac, and Wells, are both hypocrites. They want you to be open to their agenda while you have no right to your own. They compare themselves to the plight of black people in the U.S., while refusing to explain how we can tell someone is gay visually, as you can tell someone is black visually. They just want to be loved, but will offer you nothing but their “My way or the highway” position.
They will use the Bible as their battering ram, quoting the Old Testament, but never acknowledge that the purpose of Christ’s walk on earth was to change Old Testament traditions. It was that very reason that the Jews of Christ’s time feared him. Stone our children? Not according to Christ’s rules.
You will never get honest debate from Hlavac/Wells or what the final goal really is. You see, there is no final goal. Nothing will ever be enough, not until they are able to indoctrinate our children is queer run public schools that their choices are perfectly normal and they are a “protected” class in our government. You could debate someone who is honest about that, but they’re not.
I have stated above that I feel the SCOTUS got it right in Lawrence. And isn’t that what the Gay Liberation Movement claimed they wanted; just the right to privacy? Well, what happened to that? It seems privacy got thrown out the window by (tah-dah) the gay movement as they violate their own right to privacy in order to sue florists and bed and breakfast owners who will not cater to their “weddings.” They support their right to “equal” housing, but not the right of the landlord to determine who lives in the property the landlord owns. If I don’t want to rent to a couple of KKK members, or to skin-heads, that should be my right. I’m sure Hlavac would have no problem with me refusing to rent to Westboro Baptist Church members. Just as long as I’m not goring his oxe, he’d be fine with someone else’s oxe being gored.
“We just want a right to privacy” was the clarion call. Now, it’s “we just want the same rights as “straights””, and “hey, look at us, we’re the ‘new’ black in the civil rights movement”, yada, yada, yada. To answer Brother Bob’s question; there is no end goal as nothing will EVER be enough.
@Jim Hlavac: Sorry Jim baby, but science has NEVER proven the Bible to be wrong. You can NOT name one thing to refute that FACT, AND the Bible HAS proven science wrong many many times. I think it is you who needs better information sources. i.e.: Science once said the earth is flat – the Bible has ALWAYS said the Earth is round. There are numerous pslams to site as proof of this but I am too busy and you should read it yourself. – LOL…. “there really would be no point in passing down what gay men have so we don’t do it” LOLOLOLOL News flash for ya Jim, you CAN”T do it, hello!!!! Same sex’s can NOT do it – procreate. Didn’t they explain that to ya at your gay church? Hmmm. You know you are a trouble making spin meister. What is NOT natural is your behavior NOT you silly. YOU were created naturally by one man and one woman, but your actions will not produce more nature because your actions are un-natural. I nor any other man on Earth has made this rule, this is the rule of nature, the rule of God. Can’t be disputed. You really sound ignorant and lacking intelligence with your attempts to discredit perfectly legitimate information that man kind has known for centuries. You are FREE to do as you please because GOD gave you FREE will, doesn’t mean your choices are correct or moral or bona fide, just means their YOUR choices. Still no answer on my questions as to WHY it is so important to a non-believer to be endorsed by religious marital law under Gods roof.?? I know the answer: Defiance. Denial. Spoiled young adult behavior syndrome. Best.
The following appeared in the Washington post today as part of an explanation of why progress on equal rights for gays has been uneven, with gains in marriage equity but not in equal employment opportunity or housing:
“In fact, gays still lack the constitutional protections the Supreme Court awarded abortion providers and their clients 40 years ago. It is still legal in 34 states to fire employees based on their gender identity, and in 29 states to terminate them based on their sexual orientation.”
Maybe you should check a few facts before making claims that gays are treated the same as everyone else.
@George Wells: Name one state that it is ‘legal’ by law, to fire a person ‘because they are gay’ and ‘to discriminate in housing’ and cite the law in that state that ‘makes it legal’. I don’t believe you can do this.
Your quote was:
First of all, there is minute respect for information out of the Post, but let’s play ball George. ( sorry for the pun ) Since you are quoting stats you need to provide more entailed dialogue. What Constitutional protections “exactly” are you quoting about that is lacking for gays vs. abortion providers? Need to be more specific because that says little and is vague and why would you want your denomination to be grouped andor categorized in with murders? ,perplexing…. Next: “It is still legal in 34 states to fire employees based on their gender identity….” *What are those states and site the suits that have won this to be true, ??? how else can that be stated as accurate? Give examples. Additionally it too is a vague sentence. It is legal to fire employees for anything you want, but who said, “You’re fired because you are gay, transgender or transsexual???” ….”and in 29 states to terminate them ( who is them? ) based on sexual orientation.” Heterosexuals can also be terminated for sex at the work place, so what is your point of that quote? NO examples of actual cases Georgie poo. ( again, sorry for the pun ) Like to have fun. Best.
You all are having a fascinating discussion here. Indeed, the internet is abuzz about homosexuals. I feel not unlike a sack of potatoes, but still, it’s so abstract. You’re missing something from this. You’re missing people — you’re all talking theory. What will “homosexuality” do — “what will we do with the homosexuals.” “What will we allow gay folks?” “how much do we have to accept them?” Well, it goes on from there.
Meanwhile, I’ve been too busy to join in the discussion about me, though I get the updates — and I do feel it is about me, in a Schrodinger cat sort of way — as Jim, and as the abstract thing. So rather than comment here on some abstract I’ve been well, living. I’ve been playing piano at a cancer clinic and an old folks home to joy and merriment of all. I have an art exhibit up at a restaurant. I’m planning on going to my niece’s wedding. I’m handling the family history and sharing what I find with three branches on three continents in two languages. I’m building websites. Each brings in money, and well, regardless of the abstract, that’s so real, yes? So, forgive me if sometimes I don’t quite understand what you all are saying. But you people keep on discussing us, and maybe one day we’ll come to an exciting conclusion. I can’t wait.