Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, May 6, 2009
Homo James Dobson: Coming and Going
Posted by Dominic Holden on Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:38 AM
The aged patriarch of Focus on the Family delivered this dire warning yesterday about Congress's bill against hate crimes. Protecting bisexuals from getting their heads bashed in.... why, why... it's the same as providing shelter to necrophiliacs. Dobby, who must be afraid of being exhumed and fondled in his sleep, starts talking sex at about 1:30 minutes in:
Is it just me, or are Dobson and his cohorts getting less threatening by the day? A few years ago, they were at the vanguard of a conservative revolution, and now reading the news is like watching a national gay pride parade to the altar. I know that here on the cock-sucking, turd-pounding saturnalia that is Slog, we've been a little caught up with the whole gay marriage thing. But Dobson's empire of bigotry is all crumbling at once. In Maine, New Hampshire, Iowa, Connecticut, Washington and Washington, D.C. The country is coming around the bend—it's the backlash to the anti-gay backlash—but these guys are left behind by the side of the road. Hell, they're still a few miles back in the rest area bathroom tapping their foot at the next stall trying to drum up support.
And in other hackneyed revelations: As I was showering this morning, I was thinking about bigots—as I often do when I'm naked and wet. Dobson's argument and has long rested on the premise that homosexuality is a choice. It occurred to me that the only people who could convince themselves that homosexuality is a choice must be people who want to have gay sex but choose to pretend they're straight. Maybe he does want to be fondled in his sleep.
Via Pam's House Blend.
3
I wasn't aware that pedophilia was something protected under the bill. It just goes to show how important information is, I'm thinking of becoming more involved in any way I can to make people more aware. Cause prayer alone won't work we have to roll up our sleeves also and do the work.
4
It's funny that the religious use the "choice" argument as a way of denying equality when religion is 100% a choice in this country. That's why it's "freedom of religion" -- you choose to be religious. There is no "Christianity Gene", there's no Genesus Christosomes.
If they think that something being a choice disqualifies it, I'd like them to set an example and start paying taxes and oppose any religious protections offered under the law in excess of the standard right to exist and right to life we're offered.
If they think that something being a choice disqualifies it, I'd like them to set an example and start paying taxes and oppose any religious protections offered under the law in excess of the standard right to exist and right to life we're offered.
5
3, Unlike your fake facts about the hate crime bill, and a real fact is your demographic has an over 80% family failure rate.
6
i thought the bills he was referring to was about hate crimes and not pedophilia, but he confused me a lot.. in one moment he was on bestiality and necrophilia. then he mentions the koran, then he talks about speech from the pulpit. loveschild follows the logic of his drivel though. so i suppose he's saying SOMEthing about something that matters.
7
I think it's awesome that you don't have the correct spelling of altar jammed into your brain yet. Hooray.
Every time I read Loveschild now, I give her the voice and figure of the actress who played the spirit expert in Poltergeist.
Every time I read Loveschild now, I give her the voice and figure of the actress who played the spirit expert in Poltergeist.
9
Sadly it's true,
"THE HOUSE APPROVED federal hate crimes legislation (H.R. 1913), by a decisive 249- 175 margin. But in a shocking move, Democrats killed language that would have excluded pedophiles from receiving protections afforded in the measure. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) added the amendment during Judiciary Committee hearings, which stated that sexual orientation in the bill specifically be defined as not including pedophiles.
According to Ted Pike, director of the National Prayer Network, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) objected, saying that King’s amendment was “unnecessary and inflammatory.” Ms. Baldwin claimed that sexual orientation, as defined by the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, means consensual heterosexual or homosexual sex. That definition, she claimed, is sufficient to exclude pedophiles, Pike added. Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (Ill.) then quickly cut off debate—before any conservatives on the committee could respond—and called for a vote.
“When Republicans objected,” said Pike, “Conyers said he had not noticed them wanting to debate Baldwin’s position, an absurd, unbelievable lie.” Pedophilia is a problem, contends Pike, and is something that should be addressed in this legislation to avoid protecting those who break the law. It is inexplicable why Democrats on the committee would seek to provide federal protections to homosexual individuals and groups that promote pedophilia, while “straight” pedophiles would remain without specially protected status, punishable under conventional law.
During the last several minutes of the hearing, Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) tried to object to the committee’s burying of language that would have excluded child-molesting homosexuals, but it was a lost cause.
The Judiciary voted to pass the hate bill without protective language so that any homosexual can claim special protection even when it comes to children. What other forms of dangerous practices will be afforded federal protections under the law? Before the debate was ended, Gohmert wondered aloud if parents, who attacked a homosexual pedophile who had been preying on their child, could now be prosecuted under federal hate crime laws.
Says Pike: “If the hate bill threat has not moved you to pick up your phone and protest to Congress, the fact that H.R. 1913 protects even pedophiles should cause you to react with outrage.”
Call 1-877 851-6437 toll free and tell your Senators in Congress to vote against this bill. "
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/vo…
I was in favor of this bill but not anymore, some of our elected officials priorities seem to be screwed up when they give more protection to homosexuals than kids.
More...
"THE HOUSE APPROVED federal hate crimes legislation (H.R. 1913), by a decisive 249- 175 margin. But in a shocking move, Democrats killed language that would have excluded pedophiles from receiving protections afforded in the measure. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) added the amendment during Judiciary Committee hearings, which stated that sexual orientation in the bill specifically be defined as not including pedophiles.
According to Ted Pike, director of the National Prayer Network, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) objected, saying that King’s amendment was “unnecessary and inflammatory.” Ms. Baldwin claimed that sexual orientation, as defined by the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, means consensual heterosexual or homosexual sex. That definition, she claimed, is sufficient to exclude pedophiles, Pike added. Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (Ill.) then quickly cut off debate—before any conservatives on the committee could respond—and called for a vote.
“When Republicans objected,” said Pike, “Conyers said he had not noticed them wanting to debate Baldwin’s position, an absurd, unbelievable lie.” Pedophilia is a problem, contends Pike, and is something that should be addressed in this legislation to avoid protecting those who break the law. It is inexplicable why Democrats on the committee would seek to provide federal protections to homosexual individuals and groups that promote pedophilia, while “straight” pedophiles would remain without specially protected status, punishable under conventional law.
During the last several minutes of the hearing, Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) tried to object to the committee’s burying of language that would have excluded child-molesting homosexuals, but it was a lost cause.
The Judiciary voted to pass the hate bill without protective language so that any homosexual can claim special protection even when it comes to children. What other forms of dangerous practices will be afforded federal protections under the law? Before the debate was ended, Gohmert wondered aloud if parents, who attacked a homosexual pedophile who had been preying on their child, could now be prosecuted under federal hate crime laws.
Says Pike: “If the hate bill threat has not moved you to pick up your phone and protest to Congress, the fact that H.R. 1913 protects even pedophiles should cause you to react with outrage.”
Call 1-877 851-6437 toll free and tell your Senators in Congress to vote against this bill. "
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/vo…
I was in favor of this bill but not anymore, some of our elected officials priorities seem to be screwed up when they give more protection to homosexuals than kids.
10
Standard fucking panic by the religious right. I doubt if hate crimes laws work, but his characterization is off base. You can preach or say whatever you want. The law means you can't fucking beat, kill, or threaten someone because they're gay, black, or whatever. So in James Dobson's world, it should be okay for me to say to my friends "Let's go beat the shit out of some hookers (or gays, or whoever) because they sin against god"
It's like they lost the Congress and the White House and suddenly they're a persecuted minority. And dumb-ass republican members of congress have stirred the pot to keep their voting based inflamed. They can continue to spew whatever drivel they want, you just can't threaten or harm someone because they happen to be different.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_ha…
Nice site with some good points on the bill.
It's like they lost the Congress and the White House and suddenly they're a persecuted minority. And dumb-ass republican members of congress have stirred the pot to keep their voting based inflamed. They can continue to spew whatever drivel they want, you just can't threaten or harm someone because they happen to be different.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_ha…
Nice site with some good points on the bill.
11
And by the way Dan, it shouldn't matter if being gay is a choice or not. You should have the freedom to decide. I'm constantly amazed by all of the right-wingers who scream freedom and liberty from the rooftops and then become enraged when someone actually decides to excercise their freedom.
12
9, Unlike your fake facts about the hate crimes bill, a real fact is your demographic has a runaway out of wedlock birth rate.
13
That's been my longstanding theory about 'phobics. They think everyone, including themselves, wants to smoke mad pole, just like we all wish we could be drunk and high and eat Twinkies all day (or is that just me) but we can't because we have other shit to do and Twinkies are made out of poison, and the people who actually *are* gay are just the weak-willed losers who are similar to junkies or drunks or stretch-panted mall fatties, and the righteous among us suffer every day by inserting their dicks into vaginas and ejaculating. Or something.
PS Loveschild = Mr Poe.
PS Loveschild = Mr Poe.
14
Loveschild, seeing as the definition sexual orientation already excludes pedophiles, it was unnecessary and inflammatory. Sexual orientation is defined as two consenting adults pursuant to local and federal mandate. They included this exclusion provision as a poison pill provision so that, if passed, it would set the bill at odds with previous bills and would directly implicate homosexuals and bisexuals as pedophiles.
Legally adding that was a last-ditch effort to gum up the works and give cultural currency to something insidious and evil. Which is par for course, it seems.
Legally adding that was a last-ditch effort to gum up the works and give cultural currency to something insidious and evil. Which is par for course, it seems.
16
Next time you want to quote a new source Loveschild, could you try one that's actually legitimate? American Free Press has about as much standing for journalistic integrity as does Pravda, or Weekly World News (which these days, are barely distinguishable from one another).
17
You know, when you scrape away that damp layer of "creepy old white dude," what he's saying isn't actually that crazy. I mean, if I understand him correctly, his thesis is basically threefold:
1) Hate crimes legislation that addresses sexual orientation should be explicit in distinguishing sexual orientation from compulsive criminal conduct.
2) Changes in marriage law should be carried out by legislatures rather than courts.
3) The hate crimes legislation, as written, may pose a threat to First Amendment rights both in freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
I don't agree with any of his points, but they're not particularly controversial in their particulars.
1) Hate crimes legislation that addresses sexual orientation should be explicit in distinguishing sexual orientation from compulsive criminal conduct.
2) Changes in marriage law should be carried out by legislatures rather than courts.
3) The hate crimes legislation, as written, may pose a threat to First Amendment rights both in freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
I don't agree with any of his points, but they're not particularly controversial in their particulars.
18
Baconcat, there's no excuse for obstructing something that would protect children. I don't care how homosexual and sensitive you're, the welfare of children comes first and no protections should be given to homosexual child molesters. It does you no good to be siding and defending that, and I would believe that the last thing homosexuals would want is for people to be confused on the deviancy and automatically equated, though I could be wrong in thinking that's what gays would like. Regardless this is a deal breaker for me, children come first and if that hurts homosexuals and pedophiles then so be it, but somthing like this cannot be tolerated.
19
Murder is wrong, even if the murder victim is a pedophile. Saying a pedophile has the right not to be murdered is not the same as saying a pedophile has the right to fuck children.
A very subtle nuance, I know.
But all that is irrelevant because as the language of the law already excludes pedophiles in its definition of sexual orientation. The article you quoted even states that:
"sexual orientation, as defined by the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, means consensual heterosexual or homosexual sex. That definition, she claimed, is sufficient to exclude pedophiles"
Is pedophilia consensual sex? No, it is not, therefore it is not protected by this law.
A very subtle nuance, I know.
But all that is irrelevant because as the language of the law already excludes pedophiles in its definition of sexual orientation. The article you quoted even states that:
"sexual orientation, as defined by the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, means consensual heterosexual or homosexual sex. That definition, she claimed, is sufficient to exclude pedophiles"
Is pedophilia consensual sex? No, it is not, therefore it is not protected by this law.
20
18, You know what would help children? Is it lies about the hate crimes bill? Is it blaming gays for your problems? No. Maybe you should use your gay hating energy to help lower the astronomical teen pregnancy rate among your demographic?
22
Judah, #1 is addressed in the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, cementing sexual orientation as merely identifying the gender and age of the involved (it states "consenting adults", so that covers the legal aspect). It's pretty clear.
#2 is a red herring, since it's quite clear that they oppose the legislature when it rules against their cause. Similarly to number 3, the law makes no special case to discriminate against the cause, just the subject. It's legislating against the shooter and not the gun. They want to make the non-existent case that this is a gag rule.
The thing is, the points you try to reconcile aren't really points at all, it's mere base-covering on Dobson's part. He hasn't been one to be very cohesive when making points.
Basically what he's saying is that we should listen to the will of the people, but now that the will of the people has shifted quite a bit, it might not be smart to listen to the will of the people, so we might as well let those legislative acts that prohibit equality stand and just not vote on any equality since we're okay where we're at!
He's trying to tap out and end the fight before it's over. That way, he can hold onto gains or something.
#2 is a red herring, since it's quite clear that they oppose the legislature when it rules against their cause. Similarly to number 3, the law makes no special case to discriminate against the cause, just the subject. It's legislating against the shooter and not the gun. They want to make the non-existent case that this is a gag rule.
The thing is, the points you try to reconcile aren't really points at all, it's mere base-covering on Dobson's part. He hasn't been one to be very cohesive when making points.
Basically what he's saying is that we should listen to the will of the people, but now that the will of the people has shifted quite a bit, it might not be smart to listen to the will of the people, so we might as well let those legislative acts that prohibit equality stand and just not vote on any equality since we're okay where we're at!
He's trying to tap out and end the fight before it's over. That way, he can hold onto gains or something.
23
Loveschild, I'm not defending pedophiles, they have no protections, period. None. The law is clear in saying that it's consenting adults that are covered by sexual orientation.
You know you have no dog in this, so why are you lying about the intent of this bill? The article you posted already said the definition already excludes them, so where do you get the assumption that they aren't excluded in this? They are using the definition of sexual orientation from the previous act, so it follows legally that no pedophile, regardless of sexual orientation, can be protected under this law.
And the fact that you only go after the gay pedophiles makes me wonder if you're one of those sickos that thinks it's okay for a 20-something to get a 15 year old pregnant because "god willed it" (or so he told her!).
You know you have no dog in this, so why are you lying about the intent of this bill? The article you posted already said the definition already excludes them, so where do you get the assumption that they aren't excluded in this? They are using the definition of sexual orientation from the previous act, so it follows legally that no pedophile, regardless of sexual orientation, can be protected under this law.
And the fact that you only go after the gay pedophiles makes me wonder if you're one of those sickos that thinks it's okay for a 20-something to get a 15 year old pregnant because "god willed it" (or so he told her!).
24
19 Pedophiles are not sane individuals since their sexual deviancy overtakes their judgement. To them what they do is consensual unless an adult like them tells (restricts) them otherwise. So to a pedophile a bill like this might seem to give him green light to commit their crime. I'm not willing to take that risk and neither is any other parent I know of.
25
I think the shift in zeitgeist has to do with the economy. Dobson et al have been prophesying doom if the gays were allowed get married- well the people listened to him, and things fell apart anyway, and it was because of rich conservatives. Now he seems to a lot of people like a charlatan braying on about a stupid non-threat.
26
@18, I try to avoid your trolling, but I don't know if you know what you're actually saying. Laws like this prevent people from being assaulted and/or murdered for being who they are. Not all pedophiles act on their urges; how do you try and convict someone for something they've not done? Encouraging people to beat or kill pedophiles may "protect" some children somewhere, but that would be like saying, "If I kill all the evangelicals, there'd be none left to try to take away my right to marriage equality." I doubt you have the brain capacity and thinking skills to understand this based on your posts (given that you are actually a real person), but I wanted to throw that out there for whichever misguided soul has read your post and taken it too seriously.
27
@18, I try to avoid your trolling, but I don't know if you know what you're actually saying. Laws like this prevent people from being assaulted and/or murdered for being who they are. Not all pedophiles act on their urges; how do you try and convict someone for something they've not done? Encouraging people to beat or kill pedophiles may "protect" some children somewhere, but that would be like saying, "If I kill all the evangelicals, there'd be none left to try to take away my right to marriage equality." I doubt you have the brain capacity and thinking skills to understand this based on your posts (given that you are actually a real person), but I wanted to throw that out there for whichever misguided soul has read your post and taken it too seriously.
29
loveschild..
i knwo you're going to think this off topic, but i'm going to ask it again. do YOU have gay friends ?.. not gay pedophiliac friends. or gay dog corpse fucking friends. but gay friends like the ones you might just stand up for .
so again.. do YOU have gay friends ?
i knwo you're going to think this off topic, but i'm going to ask it again. do YOU have gay friends ?.. not gay pedophiliac friends. or gay dog corpse fucking friends. but gay friends like the ones you might just stand up for .
so again.. do YOU have gay friends ?
30
@24: Not all pedophiles act on their desires. I read a very poignant letter in a newspaper column from a person who recognized he had those urges, and so went into work in a profession where he has virtually no interaction with the public and even then only with adults.
The ones that you hear about are the ones who succumb to their temptation. The ones who don't... you'd never even know that they had those urges, would you?
The ones that you hear about are the ones who succumb to their temptation. The ones who don't... you'd never even know that they had those urges, would you?
31
"...the cock-sucking, turd-pounding saturnalia that is Slog..." Ahem. You forgot to add "fist-fucking, bacon-packing, man-on-pitbull action".
You're welcome.
You're welcome.
32
24, More lies so you don't have to deal with the fact that your demographic's males go to jail more often than any other. That doesn't make for stable families, or protect children, does it?
33
29 reverend dr dj riz,
I know gay people, some are friends of mine and they in no way support the things some do here. And don't view people like Dan Savage as leaders or spokes persons for lesbians and gays, more accurately they see them for what they truly are. Actually they're very reasonable and non extremist in their thoughts, they're in no way interested in gay marriage if that's what you're driving at but in case I misread you, why do you ask?
by the by I like your new avatar its cute.
I know gay people, some are friends of mine and they in no way support the things some do here. And don't view people like Dan Savage as leaders or spokes persons for lesbians and gays, more accurately they see them for what they truly are. Actually they're very reasonable and non extremist in their thoughts, they're in no way interested in gay marriage if that's what you're driving at but in case I misread you, why do you ask?
by the by I like your new avatar its cute.
34
I grew up in a household where this guy was considered a demigod. My parents bought every one of his books, and I was forced to read “Preparing for Adolescence”. I’m sure my parents thought that if I read that book, all of my weird puberty questions would be answered, and my high school years would be a breeze. Funny thing, though, this man did nothing but cultivate a pattern of self-hatred that took years, YEARS, to overcome. You see, behind that smiling face of his, is this idea that if you pray hard enough, you can change your sexual orientation! Do you know what this does to a high school kid who prays that he’ll start thinking more about the head cheerleader and less about the quarterback, and that prayer doesn’t get answered? All sorts of crazy, I’m not good enough, Jesus doesn’t want to hear me, I’m going straight to hell kind of thoughts.
Maybe I wasn’t praying the right way, you say. Or maybe, I should’ve talked to my pastor. Whatever. Last I heard, God didn’t require a professional to be heard. In fact that kind of sounds like a psychic asking for a little sumpin’ sumpin’ in order for the spirit guides to hear my prayer.
The facts are these. I did not choose to be gay. In fact, I tried my hardest not to be. AND I did all of the things that a christian high school kid is supposed to do when he thinks he is gay and he doesn’t want to be. Guess what? I’m still as gay as Elton John’s fannypack thirteen years later.
Maybe I wasn’t praying the right way, you say. Or maybe, I should’ve talked to my pastor. Whatever. Last I heard, God didn’t require a professional to be heard. In fact that kind of sounds like a psychic asking for a little sumpin’ sumpin’ in order for the spirit guides to hear my prayer.
The facts are these. I did not choose to be gay. In fact, I tried my hardest not to be. AND I did all of the things that a christian high school kid is supposed to do when he thinks he is gay and he doesn’t want to be. Guess what? I’m still as gay as Elton John’s fannypack thirteen years later.
35
I grew up in a household where this guy was considered a demigod. My parents bought every one of his books, and I was forced to read “Preparing for Adolescence”. I’m sure my parents thought that if I read that book, all of my weird puberty questions would be answered, and my high school years would be a breeze. Funny thing, though, this man did nothing but cultivate a pattern of self-hatred that took years, YEARS, to overcome. You see, behind that smiling face of his, is this idea that if you pray hard enough, you can change your sexual orientation! Do you know what this does to a high school kid who prays that he’ll start thinking more about the head cheerleader and less about the quarterback, and that prayer doesn’t get answered? All sorts of crazy, I’m not good enough, Jesus doesn’t want to hear me, I’m going straight to hell kind of thoughts.
Maybe I wasn’t praying the right way, you say. Or maybe, I should’ve talked to my pastor. Whatever. Last I heard, God didn’t require a professional to be heard. In fact that kind of sounds like a psychic asking for a little sumpin’ sumpin’ in order for the spirit guides to hear my prayer.
The facts are these. I did not choose to be gay. In fact, I tried my hardest not to be. AND I did all of the things that a christian high school kid is supposed to do when he thinks he is gay and he doesn’t want to be. Guess what? I’m still as gay as Elton John’s fannypack thirteen years later.
Maybe I wasn’t praying the right way, you say. Or maybe, I should’ve talked to my pastor. Whatever. Last I heard, God didn’t require a professional to be heard. In fact that kind of sounds like a psychic asking for a little sumpin’ sumpin’ in order for the spirit guides to hear my prayer.
The facts are these. I did not choose to be gay. In fact, I tried my hardest not to be. AND I did all of the things that a christian high school kid is supposed to do when he thinks he is gay and he doesn’t want to be. Guess what? I’m still as gay as Elton John’s fannypack thirteen years later.
36
So what you're saying is we shouldn't pass legislation because a mentally disturbed person might misconstrue the law's intent. I would argue that the law, as it is, offers MORE protection to vulnerable demographics, not less. A big reason a pedophile might have those false notions of the extent of the law, and what it protects, is because guys like Dobbs are out there actively lying about it.
37
33, You have gay friends just like Joe the plumber, and Sarah Palin have gay friends. And like many of the teens in your demographic, Sarah's daughter had a teen pregnancy!!! You are in great company!
38
Loveschild, What is this loving thing that you want to do to pedophiles that you will no longer be allowed to do?
39
36 Seriously, how does killing the language "that would have excluded pedophiles from receiving protections afforded in the measure", offers more protections to kids? if by "vulnerable demographics" you're meant children and not gays. Explain coherently that if you can at all.
40
The best response to anyone who says "but homosexuality is a choice!" is to respond "so is religion."
If people were denying rights and committing assaults against people simply because they owned a Honda, I'd support adding Honda owners to hate crime laws too.
If people were denying rights and committing assaults against people simply because they owned a Honda, I'd support adding Honda owners to hate crime laws too.
41
@22
#1 That wasn't really the point. If he'd said, "There should be a law against burglary," one could reply that there is a law against burglary, and that he probably should have known that. But his statement wouldn't be particularly controversial on its own, and controversy is the issue I was addressing.
#2 Herring schmerring. The notion that he's trying to lull us into a false sense of security by making a valid point doesn't impress me.
#3 Laws attempting to ban or penalize so-called hate speech are fascist. Conspiracy and solicitation laws address most of the situations that people think they're addressing when they pass laws against hate speech. I'm not really worried that Orwellian thought police arresting Baptist preachers for saying that homosexuality is a sin -- but I can see how a Baptist preacher might be concerned about that.
#1 That wasn't really the point. If he'd said, "There should be a law against burglary," one could reply that there is a law against burglary, and that he probably should have known that. But his statement wouldn't be particularly controversial on its own, and controversy is the issue I was addressing.
#2 Herring schmerring. The notion that he's trying to lull us into a false sense of security by making a valid point doesn't impress me.
#3 Laws attempting to ban or penalize so-called hate speech are fascist. Conspiracy and solicitation laws address most of the situations that people think they're addressing when they pass laws against hate speech. I'm not really worried that Orwellian thought police arresting Baptist preachers for saying that homosexuality is a sin -- but I can see how a Baptist preacher might be concerned about that.
42
39, Instead of spending so much time fearing and hating gays, maybe you might want to do some work on getting your demographic's high school drop out rate down? That is one of the factors that leads to your demographic's high incarceration rates, and greatly destabilizes your families. Banning gay marriage isn't going to fix it. Blaming gays isn't going to bring down that over 80 percent family failure rate either. No, but it's more important to stop others from getting equal rights than to recognize the problems in your own back yard, right? Then you might have to do something about it.
44
From Westneat's column in the Seattle Times today:
"With every passing day, we lose more young people to the postmodern philosophy (no absolutes) and older people (with the Judeo-Christian value) to death. Time is not on our side," wrote Heidi Lestelle, a Kitsap County Christian activist.
Demographics are an irresistible force. There will be no turning back.
"With every passing day, we lose more young people to the postmodern philosophy (no absolutes) and older people (with the Judeo-Christian value) to death. Time is not on our side," wrote Heidi Lestelle, a Kitsap County Christian activist.
Demographics are an irresistible force. There will be no turning back.
45
Loveschild.. i was curious was all..although you got me at the part about 'they're in no way interested in gay marriage'
i mean... whatevs about the pedophilia or dog corpse fucking but gays who are 'in no way interested in gay marriage' sounds curious to me. ALL of my straight - including the ones who are apprehensive about it, the once evangleical now episicopal ones, the southern baptist ones, even the speaking in tongues pentecostals - they're ALL interested in it. every single one. they're all ,like 'well i guess since you're gonna do it and YOU seem to be reasonable , moral, spiritual and all..well i guess i don't have a problem with it' and that how i imagine most children of love consider things.. and that what confuses me about you.. really confuses me. jesus spent so much time on more important issues like the problem that arise from loving and worsipping money and absolutely none on sexual stuff ( ok i momentarily forgot that part where he saved the whore from being stoned by the crowd. but he wasn't mad at HER ) i don't understand ..why modern american christians get so worked up over issues they haven't the slightest interest in engaging in.
so where was the moral outrage all those years when bush and his ilk was ' dealing in dirt and stealing in the name of the lord' ?... where was the opposition then ? like the bumper sticker says if you 'don't believe in gay marriage, then don't have one.'
but why us..
why why why ?
.. ps the avatar..was in direct response to your minnie and mickey. glad you liked it.
i mean... whatevs about the pedophilia or dog corpse fucking but gays who are 'in no way interested in gay marriage' sounds curious to me. ALL of my straight - including the ones who are apprehensive about it, the once evangleical now episicopal ones, the southern baptist ones, even the speaking in tongues pentecostals - they're ALL interested in it. every single one. they're all ,like 'well i guess since you're gonna do it and YOU seem to be reasonable , moral, spiritual and all..well i guess i don't have a problem with it' and that how i imagine most children of love consider things.. and that what confuses me about you.. really confuses me. jesus spent so much time on more important issues like the problem that arise from loving and worsipping money and absolutely none on sexual stuff ( ok i momentarily forgot that part where he saved the whore from being stoned by the crowd. but he wasn't mad at HER ) i don't understand ..why modern american christians get so worked up over issues they haven't the slightest interest in engaging in.
so where was the moral outrage all those years when bush and his ilk was ' dealing in dirt and stealing in the name of the lord' ?... where was the opposition then ? like the bumper sticker says if you 'don't believe in gay marriage, then don't have one.'
but why us..
why why why ?
.. ps the avatar..was in direct response to your minnie and mickey. glad you liked it.
46
Anything that bothers the "religious" must be good for freedom and justice. Anything. They hate for a living despite the trash they spout. Dobson is mixed up in a tax scam. The IRS should put the nail in his evil coffin.
48
45 You do know that I'm okay with civil unions right? The gay people I know tell whenever the issue has come up that gay marriage is a non issue for them, I've only seen or heard interest about it from the likes of the type of people who come to this blog but the people I know of tell me issues of inheritance, visitation rights, housing and employment are what they really care about. You get what I'm conveying, gay marriage doesn't come into the picture and believe me if they felt otherwise they would've let me know.
They're not shy and I have asked. It comes down to knowing that they have different needs and that marriage is not something for them, it's not the holy grail that can provide for their particular needs. As for the son of a Bush (may he remain in perpetual retirement (he and his whole family too) until death), I can't tell you how many rallies against his criminal policies I attended cause I've lost count but I have worn soles to prove it. I give out my time, just because you see me posting here doesn't mean I'm not doing anything, you know how it is we multitask. So believe me if I came off as hating here then you got me wrong cause just because I know through my insights of what's really important and I also believe in the importance of preserving marriage the way it is and not conflating the two for pc purposes that only serve those in the high like Mr Savage and the open racist at #42 It doesn't mean that I'm against gays. It just means that I believe that fusing the two does nobody any good in the end.
Do you agree with me that this bill should've made specific mention of not allowing any protection for child molesters? And also why did you change your avatar in response to mine? I don't understand that. This might be too premature (I've been fooled before here) but you seem very pleasant reverend dr dj riz. Don't take on the behaviors of some here.
More...
They're not shy and I have asked. It comes down to knowing that they have different needs and that marriage is not something for them, it's not the holy grail that can provide for their particular needs. As for the son of a Bush (may he remain in perpetual retirement (he and his whole family too) until death), I can't tell you how many rallies against his criminal policies I attended cause I've lost count but I have worn soles to prove it. I give out my time, just because you see me posting here doesn't mean I'm not doing anything, you know how it is we multitask. So believe me if I came off as hating here then you got me wrong cause just because I know through my insights of what's really important and I also believe in the importance of preserving marriage the way it is and not conflating the two for pc purposes that only serve those in the high like Mr Savage and the open racist at #42 It doesn't mean that I'm against gays. It just means that I believe that fusing the two does nobody any good in the end.
Do you agree with me that this bill should've made specific mention of not allowing any protection for child molesters? And also why did you change your avatar in response to mine? I don't understand that. This might be too premature (I've been fooled before here) but you seem very pleasant reverend dr dj riz. Don't take on the behaviors of some here.
49
@24: God, you are an idiot...
NEWSFLASH: PEDOPHILIA IS AGAINST THE LAW. Doesn't matter if they don't think it is, it is! You are suggesting that if we don't specifically proscribe pedophilia in every law that somehow they'll think it's a loophole?
Officer Bob: "Hey! Why are you fucking that kid?"
Pedo Pat: "It's a red light. I can't cross the street, but it doesn't say anything about pedophilia, it must be OK!"
Officer Bob: "Wow, you got me there!"
You are truly, truly a clueless and dangerous person.
To them [pedophiles] what they do is consensual unless an adult like them tells (restricts) them otherwise.
NEWSFLASH: PEDOPHILIA IS AGAINST THE LAW. Doesn't matter if they don't think it is, it is! You are suggesting that if we don't specifically proscribe pedophilia in every law that somehow they'll think it's a loophole?
Officer Bob: "Hey! Why are you fucking that kid?"
Pedo Pat: "It's a red light. I can't cross the street, but it doesn't say anything about pedophilia, it must be OK!"
Officer Bob: "Wow, you got me there!"
You are truly, truly a clueless and dangerous person.
50
@48: I bet some black people thought the Jim Crow laws were better than slavery and were fine with that status quo as well. It was those other uppity ones that caused all the trouble.
51
Loveschild, if people respect you, they'd know well enough not to touch a topic you'd be dangerously unyielding on. The reason they aren't saying "it's about marriage" is that they probably know well enough not to get you into an argument where you express no willingness to understand the other side, especially given your quickness to insult and degrade those you see as inferior in this argument.
The fact that you speak of your friends so lowly is probably a big indicator that your relationship with them is probably lukewarm at best. I'm proud that people have patience enough for you.
And while I'm not dj dr riz, I will say, again, that there is absolutely no reason to add a pedophilia clause. What it does is try to invent the point that "gay people are so deviant that when we begrudgingly protect them, we have to remind them that we will not tolerate their pedophilic ways", which ignores that the crime is ignorant of gender. The clause had no point, the person who tried to get it inserted wasn't going to vote for the hate crimes bill, nor was anyone who agreed.
Saying you're "protecting marriage" is disingenous when you haven't made a case as to what you're protecting it from aside from the onerous boogeyman of "indoctrination", which is an outright lie. I've yet to see a single example of you trying to be practical or rational in this matter. I've only seen fear-mongering, which is detrimental to you and not me.
The fact that you speak of your friends so lowly is probably a big indicator that your relationship with them is probably lukewarm at best. I'm proud that people have patience enough for you.
And while I'm not dj dr riz, I will say, again, that there is absolutely no reason to add a pedophilia clause. What it does is try to invent the point that "gay people are so deviant that when we begrudgingly protect them, we have to remind them that we will not tolerate their pedophilic ways", which ignores that the crime is ignorant of gender. The clause had no point, the person who tried to get it inserted wasn't going to vote for the hate crimes bill, nor was anyone who agreed.
Saying you're "protecting marriage" is disingenous when you haven't made a case as to what you're protecting it from aside from the onerous boogeyman of "indoctrination", which is an outright lie. I've yet to see a single example of you trying to be practical or rational in this matter. I've only seen fear-mongering, which is detrimental to you and not me.
52
Loveschild, reading your posts is like reading a Toni Morrison novel--without the laughter. Is your house filled with 'Precious Moments' figurines by any chance?
53
ROLF. Well never mind. Upon close inspection I see now what you meant by your response to my avatar, that's another dude on top right? The light made it seem like another thing. LOL Oh well, fooled again. I should know better by now.
54
Pedophiles, and/or child molesters, do not have adult sexual orientations.
"The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes."
"Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children. For example, in one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. Nicholas Groth wrote:
Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual."
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HT…
"The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes."
"Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children. For example, in one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. Nicholas Groth wrote:
Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual."
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HT…
55
loveschild.. those two dudes are sidney poitier and tony curtis. the film the defiant ones. 1958 sidney lumet directed. did you do your homework on bayard rustin ?
56
39, you make it seem like believing this law should be passed is the equivalent of pimping out our kids to the baby rapers. Do I think kids should be protected from predators? Yes, of course. Did you really mean to imply that I thought otherwise?
What I meant with the whole "vulnerable demographics" thing was, there are already plenty of laws against pedophiles on the books; pedophilia is already illegal. Adding that language would be redundant. Also, it seems to equate homosexuality with pedophilia which is just a hateful stereotype. This law, however, protects people, youngsters included, from being targeted because of their sexuality, and it protects both gay and straight people from such attacks, although, "straight bashings" aren't something straight people have to worry too much about.
So, to sum up my point:
1) are pedophiles protected by this law? No.
2) does this law encourage pedophilia? No.
3) are there existing laws that punish pedophilia? Yes.
4) does this law extend new protections to demographics that do not have them? yes.
Maybe by children you mean kids that are too young to have a sexual identity, but as I said already, there are laws that protect them. Let's not forget, however, that there are young people between puberty and adulthood who need laws to protect them, protection that this law would provide.
PS: This is why I was a little short in my previous post. I didn't want to write out a 500 word diatribe. Oh well.
What I meant with the whole "vulnerable demographics" thing was, there are already plenty of laws against pedophiles on the books; pedophilia is already illegal. Adding that language would be redundant. Also, it seems to equate homosexuality with pedophilia which is just a hateful stereotype. This law, however, protects people, youngsters included, from being targeted because of their sexuality, and it protects both gay and straight people from such attacks, although, "straight bashings" aren't something straight people have to worry too much about.
So, to sum up my point:
1) are pedophiles protected by this law? No.
2) does this law encourage pedophilia? No.
3) are there existing laws that punish pedophilia? Yes.
4) does this law extend new protections to demographics that do not have them? yes.
Maybe by children you mean kids that are too young to have a sexual identity, but as I said already, there are laws that protect them. Let's not forget, however, that there are young people between puberty and adulthood who need laws to protect them, protection that this law would provide.
PS: This is why I was a little short in my previous post. I didn't want to write out a 500 word diatribe. Oh well.
57
Loveschild, we might believe your, I'm all for today's civil union stance, if you had not posted these posts that stated you were opposed a month ago.
>>Besides degrading a time honoured institution by being an empty pretense that lacks the mutual needs of male and female it opens the doors to aberrant sexual behavior like polyamory and any other arrangement that the human brain can come up with. Homosexual mockery of marriage are of a short lived and transitory nature as studies made in countries were homosexual marriage has been allowed show. Gay relationships average durations are of one and a half years. In those that last longer promiscuity tends to be the rule were an average of eight sexual partners outside of the relationship per year is all too common.
Surely children need better homes than this and not be exposed to such examples.
Posted by Loveschild on April 3, 2009 at 9:18 AM
>>You were never in a battle because to begin with Dan. People of faith are not your enemies. There's this wrong belief amongst self identified gays that people of traditional values hate them when in reality its all the opposite. I can assure you that if less followed blindly the aggressive ideologies and tactics of some radical groups you would find less opposition to things such as domestic partnerships and civil unions. I know I was one of them.
Posted by Loveschild on April 10, 2009 at 9:15 AM
>>I have in the past had no problem with same sex pairings being afforded civil partnerships but the push of impositions like gay marriage have really turned me away from even supporting that. And many people of faith feel just like I do.
Posted by Loveschild on April 10, 2009 at 9:50 AM
More...
>>Besides degrading a time honoured institution by being an empty pretense that lacks the mutual needs of male and female it opens the doors to aberrant sexual behavior like polyamory and any other arrangement that the human brain can come up with. Homosexual mockery of marriage are of a short lived and transitory nature as studies made in countries were homosexual marriage has been allowed show. Gay relationships average durations are of one and a half years. In those that last longer promiscuity tends to be the rule were an average of eight sexual partners outside of the relationship per year is all too common.
Surely children need better homes than this and not be exposed to such examples.
Posted by Loveschild on April 3, 2009 at 9:18 AM
>>You were never in a battle because to begin with Dan. People of faith are not your enemies. There's this wrong belief amongst self identified gays that people of traditional values hate them when in reality its all the opposite. I can assure you that if less followed blindly the aggressive ideologies and tactics of some radical groups you would find less opposition to things such as domestic partnerships and civil unions. I know I was one of them.
Posted by Loveschild on April 10, 2009 at 9:15 AM
>>I have in the past had no problem with same sex pairings being afforded civil partnerships but the push of impositions like gay marriage have really turned me away from even supporting that. And many people of faith feel just like I do.
Posted by Loveschild on April 10, 2009 at 9:50 AM
58
loveschild
..but to pick up the point other posters have elucidated on ..the obsfucation of pedophilia serves to cloud the issue. and the ease by which you took that bait and ran all the way into ' see THIS is why i don't want them having these rights today..' disheartens me greatly. it feels as if you'd love to goad me into the name calling that others here have no problem with. if only to say
' see.? .those ill mannered peoples on the slog is why i pledge to fight the scourge of gay marriage to my dying breath.' i've been very close to saying what my other 'friends' here on slog have been saying to you, you'd be surprised how much they and i have in common in this regard.
as for your friends i'd have to talk to them to find out what it is about gay marriage that doesn't serve them. but i offer ( again ) that the seperate but equal idea you espouse has been historically proven to be both false and dangerous. i think you as an african american should know better.
anydangways.. it's an issue FOR ME while i fully intend to marry my partner in a state that doesn't recognize it ( yet ) i want each and EVERY protection that the law affords AND that the church espouses.and while i'd be prepared to accept it be called 'civil union' i think that you and the man you marry should be willing to do the same. i want and will have them all. i don't want them to be doled out by the likes of you or anyone else whose benevolence blows in opposite directions whenever the mood strikes them. i'd be prepared to accept it be called 'civil union' as long as you and the man you marry do the same.
..but to pick up the point other posters have elucidated on ..the obsfucation of pedophilia serves to cloud the issue. and the ease by which you took that bait and ran all the way into ' see THIS is why i don't want them having these rights today..' disheartens me greatly. it feels as if you'd love to goad me into the name calling that others here have no problem with. if only to say
' see.? .those ill mannered peoples on the slog is why i pledge to fight the scourge of gay marriage to my dying breath.' i've been very close to saying what my other 'friends' here on slog have been saying to you, you'd be surprised how much they and i have in common in this regard.
as for your friends i'd have to talk to them to find out what it is about gay marriage that doesn't serve them. but i offer ( again ) that the seperate but equal idea you espouse has been historically proven to be both false and dangerous. i think you as an african american should know better.
anydangways.. it's an issue FOR ME while i fully intend to marry my partner in a state that doesn't recognize it ( yet ) i want each and EVERY protection that the law affords AND that the church espouses.and while i'd be prepared to accept it be called 'civil union' i think that you and the man you marry should be willing to do the same. i want and will have them all. i don't want them to be doled out by the likes of you or anyone else whose benevolence blows in opposite directions whenever the mood strikes them. i'd be prepared to accept it be called 'civil union' as long as you and the man you marry do the same.
59
Here's an experts opinion on the subject of pedophilia.
The Work of Dr. A. Nicholas Groth
A. Nicholas Groth is a pioneer in the scientific study of sexual offenders against women and children, who has treated over 3000 child molesters over the course of two decades.12 A former director of the Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections, Groth is the author of Men Who Rape: Psychology of the Offender,13 a work widely regarded as a classic textbook on the psychology of sexual violence. In his work, Groth has found that approximately one‑third of all cases of child molestation involve an underage boy and an adult male14, a statistic which has been used incessantly by certain conservative activist groups in an effort to prove that homosexuals are disproportionately responsible for acts of child molestation. However, Groth explicitly states that it is a myth that men who molest boys are homosexual.
According to Groth, child molesters can be divided into two types: “fixated” and “regressed.” The fixated offender is attracted primarily to children and has little or no interest in adult relationships; such a person is known in clinical terms as a “pedophile.” The regressed offender is interested in and capable of adult sexual relationships; however, this person may on occasion regress to sexual encounters with children, often as a result of difficulties and frustration in his adult relationships.15
Groth writes that the fixated offender, or pedophile, tends to select boys more often than girls, but for reasons having nothing to do with homosexuality:
In general, fixated child molesters are drawn to children sexually in that they identify with the child and appear in some ways to want to remain children themselves. It is for this reason that the trend for fixated offenders is to target boys as victims. . . . They see the boy as a projected representation of themselves. They feel themselves to be more child than adult – more boys than men – and therefore find themselves more comfortable (especially sexually) in the company of children. . . .16
Groth stresses that “these same individuals are uninterested in adult homosexual relationships. In fact, they frequently express a strong sexual aversion to adult males, reporting that what they find attractive about the immature boy are his feminine features and the absence of secondary sexual characteristics such as body hair and muscles.”17 The second type of offender, the regressed offender, is predominantly heterosexual. However, he may temporarily turn to boys or girls as a result of complications in his adult relations.18 Although regressed offenders are more likely to choose girls than boys as victims, writes Groth, what attracts the regressed male offender to boys are the feminine characteristics of pre‑ pubescents. Groth found no cases of boy molestation in which the offender had an adult homosexual orientation. Concludes Groth,
Homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia are not synonymous. In fact, it may be that these two orientations are mutually exclusive, the reason being that the homosexual male is sexually attracted to masculine qualities whereas the heterosexual male is sexually attracted to feminine characteristics, and the sexually immature child’s qualities are more feminine than masculine. . . . The child offender who is attracted to and engaged in adult sexual relationships is heterosexual. It appears, therefore, that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater sexual risk to underage children than does the adult homosexual male.19
http://www.internationalorder.org/scanda…
More...
The Work of Dr. A. Nicholas Groth
A. Nicholas Groth is a pioneer in the scientific study of sexual offenders against women and children, who has treated over 3000 child molesters over the course of two decades.12 A former director of the Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections, Groth is the author of Men Who Rape: Psychology of the Offender,13 a work widely regarded as a classic textbook on the psychology of sexual violence. In his work, Groth has found that approximately one‑third of all cases of child molestation involve an underage boy and an adult male14, a statistic which has been used incessantly by certain conservative activist groups in an effort to prove that homosexuals are disproportionately responsible for acts of child molestation. However, Groth explicitly states that it is a myth that men who molest boys are homosexual.
According to Groth, child molesters can be divided into two types: “fixated” and “regressed.” The fixated offender is attracted primarily to children and has little or no interest in adult relationships; such a person is known in clinical terms as a “pedophile.” The regressed offender is interested in and capable of adult sexual relationships; however, this person may on occasion regress to sexual encounters with children, often as a result of difficulties and frustration in his adult relationships.15
Groth writes that the fixated offender, or pedophile, tends to select boys more often than girls, but for reasons having nothing to do with homosexuality:
In general, fixated child molesters are drawn to children sexually in that they identify with the child and appear in some ways to want to remain children themselves. It is for this reason that the trend for fixated offenders is to target boys as victims. . . . They see the boy as a projected representation of themselves. They feel themselves to be more child than adult – more boys than men – and therefore find themselves more comfortable (especially sexually) in the company of children. . . .16
Groth stresses that “these same individuals are uninterested in adult homosexual relationships. In fact, they frequently express a strong sexual aversion to adult males, reporting that what they find attractive about the immature boy are his feminine features and the absence of secondary sexual characteristics such as body hair and muscles.”17 The second type of offender, the regressed offender, is predominantly heterosexual. However, he may temporarily turn to boys or girls as a result of complications in his adult relations.18 Although regressed offenders are more likely to choose girls than boys as victims, writes Groth, what attracts the regressed male offender to boys are the feminine characteristics of pre‑ pubescents. Groth found no cases of boy molestation in which the offender had an adult homosexual orientation. Concludes Groth,
Homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia are not synonymous. In fact, it may be that these two orientations are mutually exclusive, the reason being that the homosexual male is sexually attracted to masculine qualities whereas the heterosexual male is sexually attracted to feminine characteristics, and the sexually immature child’s qualities are more feminine than masculine. . . . The child offender who is attracted to and engaged in adult sexual relationships is heterosexual. It appears, therefore, that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater sexual risk to underage children than does the adult homosexual male.19
http://www.internationalorder.org/scanda…
62
Baconcat,
You're my favorite prophetic slogger. I'll buy the second round.
Maybe, I'll make it to a Slog Happy some day.
You're my favorite prophetic slogger. I'll buy the second round.
Maybe, I'll make it to a Slog Happy some day.
63
58 reverend dr dj riz, I hope you can open up your heart and understand what I'm about to comment to you. It's coming from an honest place in an attempt to bridge the gaps and for a better understanding.
It's not a separate but equal issue, please if you truly are an African American refrain from the same insults others freely make here. Invoking the civil rights movement to justify your ideological agenda is tantamount to using the N word, you know that. You're reducing us into a metaphor to please upper middle class white homosexuals and lesbians, is that self loathing denigration worth it? You just don't destroy your family like that rev. Where are the police dogs and water hoses? Where are the refusal of public sittings in the front of buses? Where are the refusal to serve in lunch counters? This has to do with homosexuality's compatibility with traditional marriage not race. Gay marriage is simply not a civil rights issue your freedom is not being denied here you're seeking whole social approval and the eradication of those institutions and individuals who think that's not a good thing. For people like Mr Savage gay marriage represents the ultimate goal of normalcy and makes homosexuality something intrinsic like skin color when that hasn't been fully proved. But regardless of the true nature of homosexuality, the truth remanins that homosexuality and heterosexuality are different. Homosexuals profess a same sex attraction while Heterosexuals profess an oppsite sex attraction. Procreation is possible only in the latter, making them the sole producers for the continuation of the human species. People who believe in the preservation of marriage did not dictate that reverend dr dj riz.
That makes homosexuality and heterosexuality immensely different, it's a truth that exists and by recognizing I'm in no way denying the existence of homosexuality or am I a homophobe. It just makes sense that if such a difference exists there should particular institutions in accordance to those differences. Marriage has been one of such institutions tailored specifically for heterosexuality, for procreation and the building of families. Something that goes beyond sexual desires, needs, urges and even love which is something that I do recognize gay couples can have in the same way heterosexuals have. Homosexuals trying to mimic that institution just so that they can prove that they're equal to heterosexuals doesn't do society any good. It's just grounding them into a situation that's not reflective of their reality which is free from the obligation placed by nature on heterosexuals. It can prove to be more of an impediment for them and challenge for same sex unions who are by nature not placed with that obligation.
Instead of trying to imitate heterosexuals wouldn't it be more beneficial for gays to invent their own authentic institutions that reflect more accurately the nature of homosexuality? I know gay people I do not deny their existence and wants to love and such by the same token I don't deny or refuse to recognize the essential difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Why can't you do the same? It's not about discrimination, It's about recognizing our differences and preserving them for the good of homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.
More...
It's not a separate but equal issue, please if you truly are an African American refrain from the same insults others freely make here. Invoking the civil rights movement to justify your ideological agenda is tantamount to using the N word, you know that. You're reducing us into a metaphor to please upper middle class white homosexuals and lesbians, is that self loathing denigration worth it? You just don't destroy your family like that rev. Where are the police dogs and water hoses? Where are the refusal of public sittings in the front of buses? Where are the refusal to serve in lunch counters? This has to do with homosexuality's compatibility with traditional marriage not race. Gay marriage is simply not a civil rights issue your freedom is not being denied here you're seeking whole social approval and the eradication of those institutions and individuals who think that's not a good thing. For people like Mr Savage gay marriage represents the ultimate goal of normalcy and makes homosexuality something intrinsic like skin color when that hasn't been fully proved. But regardless of the true nature of homosexuality, the truth remanins that homosexuality and heterosexuality are different. Homosexuals profess a same sex attraction while Heterosexuals profess an oppsite sex attraction. Procreation is possible only in the latter, making them the sole producers for the continuation of the human species. People who believe in the preservation of marriage did not dictate that reverend dr dj riz.
That makes homosexuality and heterosexuality immensely different, it's a truth that exists and by recognizing I'm in no way denying the existence of homosexuality or am I a homophobe. It just makes sense that if such a difference exists there should particular institutions in accordance to those differences. Marriage has been one of such institutions tailored specifically for heterosexuality, for procreation and the building of families. Something that goes beyond sexual desires, needs, urges and even love which is something that I do recognize gay couples can have in the same way heterosexuals have. Homosexuals trying to mimic that institution just so that they can prove that they're equal to heterosexuals doesn't do society any good. It's just grounding them into a situation that's not reflective of their reality which is free from the obligation placed by nature on heterosexuals. It can prove to be more of an impediment for them and challenge for same sex unions who are by nature not placed with that obligation.
Instead of trying to imitate heterosexuals wouldn't it be more beneficial for gays to invent their own authentic institutions that reflect more accurately the nature of homosexuality? I know gay people I do not deny their existence and wants to love and such by the same token I don't deny or refuse to recognize the essential difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Why can't you do the same? It's not about discrimination, It's about recognizing our differences and preserving them for the good of homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.
65
loveschild..i have to go to work and don't have time to answer you now. give me some hours to cool off..and yes i'm absolutely boiling seething angry .. i'll tell you why later
66
1. Of course Riz is a legit black man. Anyone knows that, fool.
2. Pedophilia receives NO protection under this law nor the statute before it nor any other law.
3. All marriages are civil unions. Marriage wasn't drummed up to make the union legit in the eyes of your fool sand god, but rather in the eyes of the state.
4. It used to be illegal under the sanctity of marriage for blacks to get married. Progress is a good thing.
5. Post 63 is the dumbest thing you've ever said.
2. Pedophilia receives NO protection under this law nor the statute before it nor any other law.
3. All marriages are civil unions. Marriage wasn't drummed up to make the union legit in the eyes of your fool sand god, but rather in the eyes of the state.
4. It used to be illegal under the sanctity of marriage for blacks to get married. Progress is a good thing.
5. Post 63 is the dumbest thing you've ever said.
70
LC lost all her credibility in saying that her gay friends "have no interest in gay marriage". That simply cannot be true. Even she has a (suspiciously unnatural) interest in it. Exposed!
And... the hate crime bill has to do with the perpetrator's intentions and motivations, not the victim. It concerns the punishment for a crime. It's bizarre to consider the criminal record of the victim in determining the sentence for the perpetrator!
And... the hate crime bill has to do with the perpetrator's intentions and motivations, not the victim. It concerns the punishment for a crime. It's bizarre to consider the criminal record of the victim in determining the sentence for the perpetrator!
71
Reverend dr dj riz,
I've said this before. I am so very happy for you and your beloved. Your (upcoming) marriage is an encouragement to both my husband and I. It reaffirms for us that commitments for life can provide one of life's most humanizing relationships. We wish you joy.
I've said this before. I am so very happy for you and your beloved. Your (upcoming) marriage is an encouragement to both my husband and I. It reaffirms for us that commitments for life can provide one of life's most humanizing relationships. We wish you joy.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (71) RSS