Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsMonday, February 22, 2010
Politics / Homo Who Wants to Stop Gay Marriage?
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 8:14 AM
Not the crazy conservatives at CPAC, as it turns out. Despite the best efforts of NOM and assorted religious bigots to elevate opposition to same-sex marriage to the status of a Republican article-of-faith, only 1 percent of attendees at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference listed "stopping gay marriage" as a priority. "You can thank the kids for that," says Joe My God. Students comprised upwards of 48% of the respondents, and more than 50% of votes were cast by CPAC attendees under the age of 25. And younger people—including young conservatives—are much likelier to support marriage equality. That splat you just heard was Maggie Gallagher crapping her pants.
3
I sort of love this; it's the most long-range-optimistic thing I've seen recently. Just as the baby-wingnuts at CPAC would roll their eyes at anti-miscegenation laws, the future conservative leaders of America increasingly don't see themselves as having a dog in the fight against marriage equality. Go team!
4
But I think you misinterpret the poll results. Yes, only 1% of respondents cite "stopping gay marriage", but that is as their 1st or 2nd most important issue. If the question were "Is stopping gay marriage an important issue?" I imagine the percentage responding "yes" would be a significant majority.
What I found interesting, though not surprising, is that the most important issue to these people was reducing the size of the federal government. Basically, reduction for the sake of reduction - without any indication of what or how. And that this issue was more important than both reducing spending and lowering taxes (though those 2 intertwined issues added up to the same percentage as reducing the size of the goverment).
What I found interesting, though not surprising, is that the most important issue to these people was reducing the size of the federal government. Basically, reduction for the sake of reduction - without any indication of what or how. And that this issue was more important than both reducing spending and lowering taxes (though those 2 intertwined issues added up to the same percentage as reducing the size of the goverment).
7
Maybe so, tho there are many strong defenders of marriage amongst the under 25 crowd. I'd venture to say that one reason for this might be that some are not as open about their morals and values as other demographics partly due to the effective pr campaigning by gay groups that has successfully made traditional marriage and having morals a dirty words amongst their age group.
But like with all, as they grow older and better understand the importance of family and marriage both for themselves and for their nation most of them will have a change of mind.
So this might be something of a trend of rebellion amongst the young today, every generation had theirs, and all of them left them behind as they grew older and took on adult responsibilities.
But like with all, as they grow older and better understand the importance of family and marriage both for themselves and for their nation most of them will have a change of mind.
So this might be something of a trend of rebellion amongst the young today, every generation had theirs, and all of them left them behind as they grew older and took on adult responsibilities.
8
And yet NOM is still flush with cash. Clearly CPAC straw poll voters don't necessarily represent the average hater.
9
Kay, that's cool 'n' all, but wtf!?—33% have a hardon for reducing government spending, but only 1% care about reducing health care costs?! Major disconnect. These people have no capacity for critical analysis. It is runaway costs under the present health care system that pose the greatest risk of financial disaster down the road; that's why we need fee-for-results, electronic medical records, individual mandates combined with a ban on elimination for preexisting conditions, etc. to reign in expenses in Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, and whatever crippled Frankenstein staggers out of Congress to bear the name of "coverage for the presently uninsured."
Actually, more likely, the CPAC attendees are among the majority who are still covered by employer-sponsored health care, and therefore can't be bothered thinking about the uninsured minority. To be fair, I didn't pay a lot of attention to health-care policy when I had a Cadillac plan, either.
Actually, more likely, the CPAC attendees are among the majority who are still covered by employer-sponsored health care, and therefore can't be bothered thinking about the uninsured minority. To be fair, I didn't pay a lot of attention to health-care policy when I had a Cadillac plan, either.
10
I assume that "promoting traditional values" means stopping adultery and divorce. Maybe these mouth-breathers are finally realizing that the only true "threat" to marriage is coming from heterosexuals.
11
unlike liberals, conservatives are able to think about more than one thing at a time. we plan to take care of all 15 things on the list.
12
I'm fascinated by their capitalization choices. 'Honesty' but not 'values', 'Spending' but not 'jobs', 'Gun Owners' but not 'rights'.
And @7 - Right. Just like the previous generation grew up and realized that the whole civil rights movement of their youth was just a "rebellion" and now they're all for racial segregation again. What with their adult responsibilities and all.
This pattern has NEVER happened with expanding rights to minorities. Sorry, but it's not going to happen this time either. You will see your position become that of a tiny lunatic fringe as your life goes on. Count on it.
And @7 - Right. Just like the previous generation grew up and realized that the whole civil rights movement of their youth was just a "rebellion" and now they're all for racial segregation again. What with their adult responsibilities and all.
This pattern has NEVER happened with expanding rights to minorities. Sorry, but it's not going to happen this time either. You will see your position become that of a tiny lunatic fringe as your life goes on. Count on it.
13
Jeff Lax's paper is pretty congruent with this, pointing out that reviewing past trends and polling shows 30-44 year olds support marriage in roughly the same proportion they did when they were 18-29 and that 45-64 year olds typically are the same, but become more liberal as they age, albeit only slightly.
CPAC is indicative of this shift, showing that marriage equality opposition will be removed as a plank from the GOP platform sooner than later. A straw poll like this will guide messaging, and they'll definitely go after the top priorities. That stopping marriage equality didn't nab anyone until the second go around, and still remained at the bottom of the heap, is a pretty strong indicator of what the CPAC-aligned conservatives will do for 2012.
Another positive is that Cheney is still maintaining a high profile within the conservative movement, and with his support of marriage equality (regardless of how lukewarm) and his friendships with Scalia, Thomas and his hand in the appointment of Roberts, it seems the conservative movement may truly be moving toward throwing opponents of families and equality under the bus.
The big question is the depth of the grab the GOP will make for GLBT voters. GOProud got resounding support at CPAC, anti-equality speakers got booed, their booths were poorly visited and they were generally underwhelming. The anti-family/anti-equality component was basically a parade of the same demographics that already don't support marriage equality, which is to say, not the target of the proposed messaging that's coming out of CPAC.
CPAC is indicative of this shift, showing that marriage equality opposition will be removed as a plank from the GOP platform sooner than later. A straw poll like this will guide messaging, and they'll definitely go after the top priorities. That stopping marriage equality didn't nab anyone until the second go around, and still remained at the bottom of the heap, is a pretty strong indicator of what the CPAC-aligned conservatives will do for 2012.
Another positive is that Cheney is still maintaining a high profile within the conservative movement, and with his support of marriage equality (regardless of how lukewarm) and his friendships with Scalia, Thomas and his hand in the appointment of Roberts, it seems the conservative movement may truly be moving toward throwing opponents of families and equality under the bus.
The big question is the depth of the grab the GOP will make for GLBT voters. GOProud got resounding support at CPAC, anti-equality speakers got booed, their booths were poorly visited and they were generally underwhelming. The anti-family/anti-equality component was basically a parade of the same demographics that already don't support marriage equality, which is to say, not the target of the proposed messaging that's coming out of CPAC.
14
@7 My first bite of a loveschild troll how fun...
Anyway I think its interesting you say that progressive issues that resonate with young people go away as they get older. This is just like how the civil rights movement for equality of blacks did a 180 once they turned 40 right? Everyone just went back to racism once equality wasn't in fashion anymore right?
Anyway I think its interesting you say that progressive issues that resonate with young people go away as they get older. This is just like how the civil rights movement for equality of blacks did a 180 once they turned 40 right? Everyone just went back to racism once equality wasn't in fashion anymore right?
15
@13:
I think you're right in that the GOP will try to pull in LGBT voters, but after decades of hating on them and constantly throwing what few supporters they had in the larger community under the bus, I can't possibly imagine there's going to be much traction to be found in that group, regardless of how sincere their change of heart may be.
I think you're right in that the GOP will try to pull in LGBT voters, but after decades of hating on them and constantly throwing what few supporters they had in the larger community under the bus, I can't possibly imagine there's going to be much traction to be found in that group, regardless of how sincere their change of heart may be.
16
I love that only six percent think "Restoring Honesty to government" is important. Haven't you been saying for a year that Obama is a socialist Muslim anti-Christ? So apparently, he's a socialist Muslim anti-Christ, but at least he's telling the truth. Way to stay consistent, CPAC-ers!
17
6% think "doing away with abortion" is the most important issue on this list. Not a huge number, but still it's pretty damn scary.
18
@15: That's the beauty of reinvention, which is what we're seeing. It doesn't matter what your party stood for yesterday, if it stands for something else today and will stand for it in the next election, it's easy to nab a voting demographic as certain social policies fall out of vogue.
I'm going to wander out on a limb and say that this is the narrative that they'll write: fringe voters within the GOP hijacked the party platform and abused the strength of the federal government (e.g. DOMA) and bloated state-level bureaucracy to push an oppressive liberty-limiting agenda through. This is exemplified by Clinton signing DOMA and DADT, made easy by a federal mechanism that's far too large to respect a citizen's rights. The GOP has long been a vanguard of personal liberty, and it is coming to the strength it needs to push such an agenda with regards to GLBT rights. Dick Cheney is a supporter of marriage equality, and so are folks like Bill O'Reilly. Even Glen Beck is on the cusp of such support, and Limbaugh could hardly care less at this point.
Within the decade, the GOP will make their move by asserting that anti-gay policies are symptomatic of a too-large government that is hell-bent on micromanaging the daily lives of everyone in the country. They'll point to bans on gay marriage and say that they were largely enacted under the watch of democrats and buttress this with Clinton's support of DOMA and Governor Schwarzenegger's opposition to Prop 8 and Obama's lukewarm support of GLBT rights. Cheney and his ilk and kin will come out swinging on this point and ask the salient question of "what has the Democratic Party done for you?"
I'm going to wander out on a limb and say that this is the narrative that they'll write: fringe voters within the GOP hijacked the party platform and abused the strength of the federal government (e.g. DOMA) and bloated state-level bureaucracy to push an oppressive liberty-limiting agenda through. This is exemplified by Clinton signing DOMA and DADT, made easy by a federal mechanism that's far too large to respect a citizen's rights. The GOP has long been a vanguard of personal liberty, and it is coming to the strength it needs to push such an agenda with regards to GLBT rights. Dick Cheney is a supporter of marriage equality, and so are folks like Bill O'Reilly. Even Glen Beck is on the cusp of such support, and Limbaugh could hardly care less at this point.
Within the decade, the GOP will make their move by asserting that anti-gay policies are symptomatic of a too-large government that is hell-bent on micromanaging the daily lives of everyone in the country. They'll point to bans on gay marriage and say that they were largely enacted under the watch of democrats and buttress this with Clinton's support of DOMA and Governor Schwarzenegger's opposition to Prop 8 and Obama's lukewarm support of GLBT rights. Cheney and his ilk and kin will come out swinging on this point and ask the salient question of "what has the Democratic Party done for you?"
19
Maybe so, tho there are many strong defenders of marriage amongst the under 25 crowd.
Yes, Loveschild, but based on these poll results, those "strong defenders" are a minority, and as you've indicated on many occasions the opinions of minorities don't matter. According to you people who hold a minority view don't represent "the will of the people" and therefore their views, according to you, are irrelevant.
20
@17
I am sure they meant "doing away with abortion" by funding the shit out of comprehensive sex education, free and readily accessible birth control and emergency contraception, paid maternity and paternity leave, affordable day care, help for families who are poor, and, wait, no, you're right.
I am sure they meant "doing away with abortion" by funding the shit out of comprehensive sex education, free and readily accessible birth control and emergency contraception, paid maternity and paternity leave, affordable day care, help for families who are poor, and, wait, no, you're right.
21
there's tons of things wrong with this poll.
like "reducing size of fed govt" and "reducing govt spending" are very similar things. "lowering taxes" is quite similar as well. i'm sure that if you want the first, you want the second and the third. there is obviously a very strong correlation between the first two.
so given that each respondee had only two options, they end up picking both.
like "reducing size of fed govt" and "reducing govt spending" are very similar things. "lowering taxes" is quite similar as well. i'm sure that if you want the first, you want the second and the third. there is obviously a very strong correlation between the first two.
so given that each respondee had only two options, they end up picking both.
22
I, too, think we should get back to traditional marriage. We should do it like it was done by my people, back in the old country.
I'm shocked that people today completely flaunt traditional hand-fasting ceremonies when forming a partnerships. They cast aside centuries of established tradition! Its shameful.
I'm shocked that people today completely flaunt traditional hand-fasting ceremonies when forming a partnerships. They cast aside centuries of established tradition! Its shameful.
23
also - it IS cool that the Paulites aren't so hot to restrict the rights of gays.
HOWEVER, not so cool that they are very hot to trot about limiting reproductive rights. It's in their top 5!
They also don't seem to give a shit about any environmental issue. Doesn't even appear in the survey.
HOWEVER, not so cool that they are very hot to trot about limiting reproductive rights. It's in their top 5!
They also don't seem to give a shit about any environmental issue. Doesn't even appear in the survey.
24
@7--I think you're confusing "having morals and values" with having the same morals and values that you have. I live my life by a moral code as well as an ethical one, and my morals and values are very important to me; I don't shy away from making them known. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that my moral code is identical to everyone else's.
25
Reduce taxes and the size of government while prosecuting a war on terrorism, improving education and stimulating the economy.
That's like yelling at your gardener to get off your lawn.
That's like yelling at your gardener to get off your lawn.
26
My impression of CPAC is that it represents those with the most traditionally-conservative views - small government, states-rights, etc. The low "score" of gay marriage and abortion as target issues seems pretty much in keeping with CPAC philosophy. I think the Republican party itself contains many more social conservatives than does CPAC, and these issues would rank much higher in a similar poll of the GOP base. But this makes me hopeful that a split in the GOP is inevitable. When that happens (once the social conservatives are isolated) their minority-belief bigotry will be easier to reject by the more progressive mainstream, including by the more traditionally (fiscally) conservative. I'm optimistic not so much that social conservatives will change their minds, as that they will eventually be marginalized in the political process. Hopefully sooner than later.
27
@12 Hardly ....
..... especialy since all of us are born into a race and ethnic group from the union of one man and one woman and therefor endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights due to that fact.
The same, tho, cannot be said about those who choose to take on membership with sexually related identity lobbies and the gay 'community' since choosing to adhere to a political lobby is not enough to be equated with an intrinsic natural trait, it cannot be classified on par as a birthright like the former (ethnicity, race ). Homosexuality as such is but an ideological and political splinter group from the general population and not an intrinsic trait.
The complementing and integration of the sexes; male and female is not something that needs to be done away with or changed socially, it is the foundation of our species and no nation can exist without it. Those who pursue homosexual identity politics oppose this foundation in order to favor imitations that seek the opposite of the integration of the sexes, and by doing so they are no better than those who in the past opposed the integration of what was natural: race.
..... especialy since all of us are born into a race and ethnic group from the union of one man and one woman and therefor endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights due to that fact.
The same, tho, cannot be said about those who choose to take on membership with sexually related identity lobbies and the gay 'community' since choosing to adhere to a political lobby is not enough to be equated with an intrinsic natural trait, it cannot be classified on par as a birthright like the former (ethnicity, race ). Homosexuality as such is but an ideological and political splinter group from the general population and not an intrinsic trait.
The complementing and integration of the sexes; male and female is not something that needs to be done away with or changed socially, it is the foundation of our species and no nation can exist without it. Those who pursue homosexual identity politics oppose this foundation in order to favor imitations that seek the opposite of the integration of the sexes, and by doing so they are no better than those who in the past opposed the integration of what was natural: race.
28
@17 — I agree with you completely. Not that I'm completely surprised, but it's still scary and depressing to see the numbers. I'd love to know the male-female ratio of the voters...
29
Loveschild,
Do you love your children and your husband because you feel some primal urge to do so, or because God tells you?
I think what effects family values is NOT gay marriage but a combination of things. Namely the need for education to be successful, poor sexual education which is making people make god aweful reproductive choices, the discrepancy, between rich and poor, the stupid long hours we are required to work away from our spouse family, and my personal theory, the global economy, where you have to be fluid and follow the money in this world ...
I mean, there are very very few people in this world who can carve a life stable enough to actually have children. Many people I do know have children, they may love their children, but they are secretly resentful because their reproductive choice made them live in desperate poverty for them and their children.
Say what you want of the 50's but if you knocked up your gf out of high school, you can get a job at the mill, marry the girl, and live a comfortable middle class wage until you retire. Conservatives would like to argue it was "family" values that made life better, but in reality it was an ideal distribution of wealth.
Today, having a child is a lifetime poverty sentence for most people, even people with college degrees. And the number of children born into poverty is STUPIFYING. This alone puts more stress on the family than anything Adam and Steve are doing in the bed rooms. Hell Adam and Steve are at least making smart reproductive choices, and only seek to adopt when they want and are in a position to provide.
The biggest threat to family values? I'm sick and tired of moving away from girlfriends ( and vice versa), or face poverty. Hell, I just got a bight for some postdoctoral interest at the University of Georgia, a place where I LOATHE to end up, but might have to put up with for another 2 years.
More...
Do you love your children and your husband because you feel some primal urge to do so, or because God tells you?
I think what effects family values is NOT gay marriage but a combination of things. Namely the need for education to be successful, poor sexual education which is making people make god aweful reproductive choices, the discrepancy, between rich and poor, the stupid long hours we are required to work away from our spouse family, and my personal theory, the global economy, where you have to be fluid and follow the money in this world ...
I mean, there are very very few people in this world who can carve a life stable enough to actually have children. Many people I do know have children, they may love their children, but they are secretly resentful because their reproductive choice made them live in desperate poverty for them and their children.
Say what you want of the 50's but if you knocked up your gf out of high school, you can get a job at the mill, marry the girl, and live a comfortable middle class wage until you retire. Conservatives would like to argue it was "family" values that made life better, but in reality it was an ideal distribution of wealth.
Today, having a child is a lifetime poverty sentence for most people, even people with college degrees. And the number of children born into poverty is STUPIFYING. This alone puts more stress on the family than anything Adam and Steve are doing in the bed rooms. Hell Adam and Steve are at least making smart reproductive choices, and only seek to adopt when they want and are in a position to provide.
The biggest threat to family values? I'm sick and tired of moving away from girlfriends ( and vice versa), or face poverty. Hell, I just got a bight for some postdoctoral interest at the University of Georgia, a place where I LOATHE to end up, but might have to put up with for another 2 years.
30
@27 - You can still get married to whomever you want. And in a few years, so can I. Deal with it.
31
@27:
Um, yeah except it wasn't until ratification of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in 1868 that your alleged racial/ethnic group would have been able to collectively enjoy any of those rights.
Oh, and since WHEN did being born with a genetic predisposition to feel attraction to another member of ones own sex NOT become an "intrinsic" trait? You still arguing from the long-debunked "teh Gay is something you learn, not something you're born with" position?
Once again, you-all should do just a teensy bit of research on these subjects before shooting off your ignorant pie-holes. Not that we'd ever expect that, it being clearly beyond your collective combined skill-sets, but you know, just so that maybe for once someone might actually take anything you-all spew with even a marginal degree of credulity.
Um, yeah except it wasn't until ratification of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in 1868 that your alleged racial/ethnic group would have been able to collectively enjoy any of those rights.
Oh, and since WHEN did being born with a genetic predisposition to feel attraction to another member of ones own sex NOT become an "intrinsic" trait? You still arguing from the long-debunked "teh Gay is something you learn, not something you're born with" position?
Once again, you-all should do just a teensy bit of research on these subjects before shooting off your ignorant pie-holes. Not that we'd ever expect that, it being clearly beyond your collective combined skill-sets, but you know, just so that maybe for once someone might actually take anything you-all spew with even a marginal degree of credulity.
32
@29:
Wait, LC's claimed to be married now? After all this time they spent portraying the character as a multiple times unwed single-parent?
Dang, we need some sort of character profile update; tracking LC's online persona these days is is getting harder than trying to figure out what's going on in an episode of "Lost".
Wait, LC's claimed to be married now? After all this time they spent portraying the character as a multiple times unwed single-parent?
Dang, we need some sort of character profile update; tracking LC's online persona these days is is getting harder than trying to figure out what's going on in an episode of "Lost".
33
@27: Religion is entirely a matter of choice, yet anti-discrimination laws prohibit discrimination based upon religious belief, so the argument about sexual identity being a choice really is irrelevant.
Even assuming I made a considered decision to be gay, there is no reason to deny me equal rights under the law based upon my having made that decision. After all, it's a decision that has no impact whatsoever upon anyone other than me and a consenting adult partner.
Just because it makes you mad that we even exist, that doesn't mean WE caused you to be mad, and therefore did you harm. You have to take responsibility for your own neuroses, and not expect that the world will, upon demand, amend itself to provide you with unending delight and satisfaction.
In other words, 1. grow up, and 2. Mind your own business.
Even assuming I made a considered decision to be gay, there is no reason to deny me equal rights under the law based upon my having made that decision. After all, it's a decision that has no impact whatsoever upon anyone other than me and a consenting adult partner.
Just because it makes you mad that we even exist, that doesn't mean WE caused you to be mad, and therefore did you harm. You have to take responsibility for your own neuroses, and not expect that the world will, upon demand, amend itself to provide you with unending delight and satisfaction.
In other words, 1. grow up, and 2. Mind your own business.
34
@32--I'm fairly new to the comments section, but on a recent comment thread, LC portrayed herself as a married woman with bio children, who is considering adopting children soon, though her family's economic situation has not been conducive to that up to this point.
35
That's funny @34, because so far as I'm aware, in the - what? - roughly two years the LC character has been showing up in the comments, that's the FIRST time I've heard of a "husband" being mentioned.
Seriously, guys - if you're not even going to TRY to keep your story straight anymore, what's the point?
Seriously, guys - if you're not even going to TRY to keep your story straight anymore, what's the point?
36
@former tri-state: You're right, this fast paced, hurried up rat race that the 'modern' world is demanding on us in order to survive does wreck a lot of damage on the family. And I'm not one of the life was always better in the past crowd, because I know it wasn't, but I recognize that there were certain good aspects that are worth preserving. It's just so sad that we've come to this point in our society, I mean, to the point where having children is seen as a liability and as you stated "poverty sentence". But I believe that to agree to that is to perpetuate that belief and lend it validity. Instead of accepting that heinous belief we should instead try to strive for economic justice and policies that protect working american families so that they're able to enjoy the same economic stability and boom of the 50s which were a result from the positive impacts that the greatest generation had in our society. I just don't see how throwing another wrench in a institution like marriage that's already in peril is goin to solidify and help the family.
Regarding your situation I remember you previously commenting about this problem and I'm sorry that you haven't been able to relocate to a place of your liking. If you're currently in a long distance relationship i know that can be extremely challenging. But if you're young let me tell you, two years go by faster than you'd think. Just don't dwell to much on the loathing because that won't help you, but instead think of the positive outcome. See that as the ribbon at the end of the race track that you're currently in. Once those two years go by you will be on a way better financial stability than you're right now and as such you will be the one dictating your future and won't be subjected to the same that you would if you hadn't opted to make this sacrifice. So hang in there and don't despair you'll come thru this sooner than you think, God willing you and the family you'll form will be victorious.
More...
Regarding your situation I remember you previously commenting about this problem and I'm sorry that you haven't been able to relocate to a place of your liking. If you're currently in a long distance relationship i know that can be extremely challenging. But if you're young let me tell you, two years go by faster than you'd think. Just don't dwell to much on the loathing because that won't help you, but instead think of the positive outcome. See that as the ribbon at the end of the race track that you're currently in. Once those two years go by you will be on a way better financial stability than you're right now and as such you will be the one dictating your future and won't be subjected to the same that you would if you hadn't opted to make this sacrifice. So hang in there and don't despair you'll come thru this sooner than you think, God willing you and the family you'll form will be victorious.
38
@former tri-state: And to answer your first question, I'd say that I cannot separate the two, to me God is Love and therefor the unconditional love that I feel for my kids and my husband cannot be something that I can separate from God.
39
Loveschild@38 says,
Very pretty words coming from someone so filled with hate, so quick to condemn others, and so unwilling to let go of prejudice.
to me God is Love
Very pretty words coming from someone so filled with hate, so quick to condemn others, and so unwilling to let go of prejudice.
40
@38: You stinking hypocrite.
If God is Love, then isn't the love that two men or two women may feel for each other holy? If love is a manifestation of God's greatness and generosity, how can it be wrong for two people of the same gender to feel unconditional and wholehearted love for each other?
@37: Here are some links to scientifically run studies demonstrating clear neurochemical differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals:
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200…
There's even some explanations for how a "gay gene" might be evolutionarily advantageous.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200…
All that and in ~5 minutes of looking. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Nice original nickname, by the way.
If God is Love, then isn't the love that two men or two women may feel for each other holy? If love is a manifestation of God's greatness and generosity, how can it be wrong for two people of the same gender to feel unconditional and wholehearted love for each other?
@37: Here are some links to scientifically run studies demonstrating clear neurochemical differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals:
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200…
There's even some explanations for how a "gay gene" might be evolutionarily advantageous.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200…
All that and in ~5 minutes of looking. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Nice original nickname, by the way.
41
Loveschild, I once heard this quote from a female minister who said, "We know we have created God in our own image when we find he loves and hates all the things we do."
I guess, it really is testament to the lack of empathy people have toward their fellow man. I guess empathy becomes rather easy for me. I grew up constant conflict and saw all sides of the situation. It's a gift and a curse. It often makes me the shrink for most of my friends. I can often see and coax the experiences of the people I care about the most without actually partaking in myself.
And I'm sorry, having children for most of us IS a poverty sentence. That is not some "heinous belief" it's the unfortunate truth. It's the fact that people are in denial about the economic realities of their situation, and succomb to the emotion of "love" that most children in this country are born into poverty. It might just be the net result of years and years of inflating home prices that have made it impossible to own a space large enough to raise a family.
There are a lot of great things in modern society that are worth preserving. Living like a transient can be a gift, depending on where you are going and who you are going with. As someone who feels that overpopulation is a problem, I don't mind not having children. Hell, it's why most of resumes, I send abroad.
God is Love, is just a cop out. To be totally cynical, love and hate are not opposites, they are fed through similar chemical signals in the body. Extreme emotions to act out on extreme behaviors. As human beings, I don't believe we are ever "logical" I believe we all are either wired to place value on things, and deduce out outcomes based on what we deem truly valuable.
To me to say God is love is equal to God is hate. To love, is a very very human quality, and to look into nature, I find very few examples that mimic human "love" especially in such a broad general term. What is love to your children (I find a lot of single mothers both simultaneously love AND hate their children, but would never say it out loud ... that's the ultimate shame), or love to you husband (to which ... most women both love AND hate their husbands.), or love to your friends or even your enemies. They are all very very different things. Not say to love is bad, nor is beauty. I mean, I could go all pagan and start forcing human emotions and "energy" on inanimate objects like rocks and lakes. And I can't knock people who do that because it helps them find peace and center in the universe.
You have every right to LOVE god, and you have ever right to LOVE your family, and as human beings it's what we are wired to do.
But to blindly associate the two ... to me it negates a very real reality for most people.
More...
I guess, it really is testament to the lack of empathy people have toward their fellow man. I guess empathy becomes rather easy for me. I grew up constant conflict and saw all sides of the situation. It's a gift and a curse. It often makes me the shrink for most of my friends. I can often see and coax the experiences of the people I care about the most without actually partaking in myself.
And I'm sorry, having children for most of us IS a poverty sentence. That is not some "heinous belief" it's the unfortunate truth. It's the fact that people are in denial about the economic realities of their situation, and succomb to the emotion of "love" that most children in this country are born into poverty. It might just be the net result of years and years of inflating home prices that have made it impossible to own a space large enough to raise a family.
There are a lot of great things in modern society that are worth preserving. Living like a transient can be a gift, depending on where you are going and who you are going with. As someone who feels that overpopulation is a problem, I don't mind not having children. Hell, it's why most of resumes, I send abroad.
God is Love, is just a cop out. To be totally cynical, love and hate are not opposites, they are fed through similar chemical signals in the body. Extreme emotions to act out on extreme behaviors. As human beings, I don't believe we are ever "logical" I believe we all are either wired to place value on things, and deduce out outcomes based on what we deem truly valuable.
To me to say God is love is equal to God is hate. To love, is a very very human quality, and to look into nature, I find very few examples that mimic human "love" especially in such a broad general term. What is love to your children (I find a lot of single mothers both simultaneously love AND hate their children, but would never say it out loud ... that's the ultimate shame), or love to you husband (to which ... most women both love AND hate their husbands.), or love to your friends or even your enemies. They are all very very different things. Not say to love is bad, nor is beauty. I mean, I could go all pagan and start forcing human emotions and "energy" on inanimate objects like rocks and lakes. And I can't knock people who do that because it helps them find peace and center in the universe.
You have every right to LOVE god, and you have ever right to LOVE your family, and as human beings it's what we are wired to do.
But to blindly associate the two ... to me it negates a very real reality for most people.
42
In your defense LC, I don't think you HATE people, but you border on judgemental. And you're attitude that the world is going to "get over themselves and think and believe like me because it works so well for me and the world will be a better place." Is a bit naive and not truly empathic. And it's kind of an insult to our experience, our dreams and our desires. Some of us may not feel any differently than you, but we have other more important problems to address to than gay people being gay.
I for the life of me can't understand why being gay effects YOUR love and devotion to your family and Jesus Christ. And heaven forbid that one of your children ends up being gay (heaven forbid for the child), I can't imagine how that would effect YOUR love and devotion to Christ. Or that my occasional bout of premarital sex to take the edge off life and to allow me feel like a fully functioning, capable and loving human being effects YOUR love and devotion to your family and Christ.
I for the life of me can't understand why being gay effects YOUR love and devotion to your family and Jesus Christ. And heaven forbid that one of your children ends up being gay (heaven forbid for the child), I can't imagine how that would effect YOUR love and devotion to Christ. Or that my occasional bout of premarital sex to take the edge off life and to allow me feel like a fully functioning, capable and loving human being effects YOUR love and devotion to your family and Christ.
43
@former tri-state: Humans are fraught with imperfection because of our falling from grace since Eden, but after our departure our Loving Father still left us with the essence that allows us to resemble the perfection that we once had with Him in the garden, the capacity to fully reflect Him: God = Love in our lives. "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is Love" 1 John 4:8.
Hate on the other hand originated with the enemy of the souls, the first one who sought to pursue his own passions and rebelled against God = Love. It is that disturbed entity ( previously was the day Star ) who propagates that seed of ill ( Hate ) in this world thru the enticing of passions, it was that disturbed entity who introduced suffering and death in this world, not God.
God's will is life affirming, "good, pleasing and perfect". Romans 12:2 And it was due to Love that we were offered a new hope at Calvary when Love was made flesh and bone in Jesus Christ.
So anything else that promotes the opposite cannot be of God = Love.
It seems to me that if you could you'd forbid the poor from having children, that's highly disturbing to me I must confess, an affront to God, it's to me as if wanting to forbid the nature. And nature cannot be forbidden on the other hand am all for educating and helping people get out of poverty so that they're able to rejoice be "fruitful and multiply" Genesis 1:28
That's why we as imperfect beings under assault by the enemy of the souls in this world of sorrow need to seek to return to communion with our Heavenly Father, so that we are able to confront better the inevitable challenges that will come our way whilst our journey in this valley of weeping. It is the only way in which we can fully come to understand the true meaning of Love.
More...
Hate on the other hand originated with the enemy of the souls, the first one who sought to pursue his own passions and rebelled against God = Love. It is that disturbed entity ( previously was the day Star ) who propagates that seed of ill ( Hate ) in this world thru the enticing of passions, it was that disturbed entity who introduced suffering and death in this world, not God.
God's will is life affirming, "good, pleasing and perfect". Romans 12:2 And it was due to Love that we were offered a new hope at Calvary when Love was made flesh and bone in Jesus Christ.
So anything else that promotes the opposite cannot be of God = Love.
It seems to me that if you could you'd forbid the poor from having children, that's highly disturbing to me I must confess, an affront to God, it's to me as if wanting to forbid the nature. And nature cannot be forbidden on the other hand am all for educating and helping people get out of poverty so that they're able to rejoice be "fruitful and multiply" Genesis 1:28
That's why we as imperfect beings under assault by the enemy of the souls in this world of sorrow need to seek to return to communion with our Heavenly Father, so that we are able to confront better the inevitable challenges that will come our way whilst our journey in this valley of weeping. It is the only way in which we can fully come to understand the true meaning of Love.
45
40
The first study only looked at 15 people.
Conclusion?
"we cannot rule out that some other factor and
not sexual orientation itself may have produced the
differential activation we observed."
The first study only looked at 15 people.
Conclusion?
"we cannot rule out that some other factor and
not sexual orientation itself may have produced the
differential activation we observed."
46
40
Your third study notes: "Male homosexuality is difficult to explain under Darwinian evolutionary models, because carriers of genes predisposing towards male homosexuality would be likely to reproduce less than average, suggesting that alleles influencing homosexuality should progressively disappear from a population."
In other words, if there were a "gay gene" it would die out because true homosexuals would not pass the gene on to future generations.
Your third study notes: "Male homosexuality is difficult to explain under Darwinian evolutionary models, because carriers of genes predisposing towards male homosexuality would be likely to reproduce less than average, suggesting that alleles influencing homosexuality should progressively disappear from a population."
In other words, if there were a "gay gene" it would die out because true homosexuals would not pass the gene on to future generations.
47
@43: I see you don't care to comment on the status of love between two people with the same kind of parts. Please, I entreat you, is their emotional and romantic love also a manifestation of God's glory?
Also, love and hatred have similar roots: in our evolutionary history. Love comes from the drive to reproduce and care for offspring and other relatives, and hatred comes from territorial behavior and the drive for social dominance.
Even if you want to play the game of interpreting the Bible literally, you're dead wrong about God not creating us with the ability to hate. Genesis 1:26 clearly states: "God said, 'Let us make man with our image and likeness.'" Since God has no physical form nor body of any sort, we can only be made in the likeness of God and God's Angels in the form of our minds; though insignificant compared to that of our Creator, our minds are as Hers in miniature, in our abilities to think, reason, and feel. This, according to Torah, should be why we are able to love, since God, master of mercy and abundant in lovingkindness, is beyond all others in His capacity to love, we should have some minuscule portion of that ability. In God's words to Noah: "I will then recall the covenant that exists between Me, you and every living soul in all flesh." (Genesis 9:15)
However, God is also capable of hatred. In Leviticus 20:3, God warns against the worship of false gods. "I will direct My anger against that person, and will cut him off [spiritually] from among his people, since he has given his children to Molekh, thus defiling that which is holy to Me and profaning My holy name." Since we are created in God's image, we too can feel anger; however, since we are less than divine and therefore imperfect, we can also feel anger against those who have not wronged us.
But whether you look at it scientifically or from Judeo-Christian theology's point of view, your argument that anger springs from the devil makes no fucking sense.
More...
Also, love and hatred have similar roots: in our evolutionary history. Love comes from the drive to reproduce and care for offspring and other relatives, and hatred comes from territorial behavior and the drive for social dominance.
Even if you want to play the game of interpreting the Bible literally, you're dead wrong about God not creating us with the ability to hate. Genesis 1:26 clearly states: "God said, 'Let us make man with our image and likeness.'" Since God has no physical form nor body of any sort, we can only be made in the likeness of God and God's Angels in the form of our minds; though insignificant compared to that of our Creator, our minds are as Hers in miniature, in our abilities to think, reason, and feel. This, according to Torah, should be why we are able to love, since God, master of mercy and abundant in lovingkindness, is beyond all others in His capacity to love, we should have some minuscule portion of that ability. In God's words to Noah: "I will then recall the covenant that exists between Me, you and every living soul in all flesh." (Genesis 9:15)
However, God is also capable of hatred. In Leviticus 20:3, God warns against the worship of false gods. "I will direct My anger against that person, and will cut him off [spiritually] from among his people, since he has given his children to Molekh, thus defiling that which is holy to Me and profaning My holy name." Since we are created in God's image, we too can feel anger; however, since we are less than divine and therefore imperfect, we can also feel anger against those who have not wronged us.
But whether you look at it scientifically or from Judeo-Christian theology's point of view, your argument that anger springs from the devil makes no fucking sense.
48
@46: You didn't read it, you douchebag. The point is that FEMALES who inherit a copy of a gene that predisposes MALES towards homosexuality would gain some benefit towards their fertility from possessing a copy of the gene. They go on to explain how the argument you quoted is not necessarily true. By that same logic, the alleles that cause sickle-cell anemia should have died out long ago. Why didn't they? Because carriers (individuals who have only one "bad" allele rather than two) have extra resistance to malaria. Learn to think, you filth-spewing ass bastard.
49
Loveschild @ 7,
You're confusing "morals and values" with your own personal definition of them. I live by a moral and ethical code, and it has been shown over and over on Slog that it is not identical to yours.
Just like not all Christians or Christian denominations or Christian communities interpret scripture exactly alike. There is a lot of differences that you seem to be unaware of or choose to dismiss in this world.
You're confusing "morals and values" with your own personal definition of them. I live by a moral and ethical code, and it has been shown over and over on Slog that it is not identical to yours.
Just like not all Christians or Christian denominations or Christian communities interpret scripture exactly alike. There is a lot of differences that you seem to be unaware of or choose to dismiss in this world.
50
For the record, I don't want to ban poor people from having children. I just want people to realize their are GLOBAL consequences to procreation, and that your child in reality is just as special as every one else's special child. All the unconditional biological love aside, having a child, in my view, is a self emotional indulgence.
The proof? Pesticides? Fertilizers? Drugs, and now we are dumping ass loads of money into soler power. And on the flip side, birth control!
As a scientist, especially a chemist, my job is to find chemical products to allow us to cope with our humanity IN ABUNDANCE, so we aren't mauling each other in the street over our precious natural resources.
And then I meet more and more struggling parents, and if they aren't struggling their children almost have NO relationship with their hard working parents.
THAT is my very personal and ethical dilemma with children. It's a little too real for me. Regardless of socio-economic status, I'm not convinced we all should be having children.
And your bible babble, made me laugh. I'm sampling some stouts for my next beer project. That type of rambling inflection makes me think of "the holy grenade"
I love it, when someone says bible/koran/whatever speak, regardless of whether or not they actually READ the scripture we are so supposed to stop and hang on every word.
The proof? Pesticides? Fertilizers? Drugs, and now we are dumping ass loads of money into soler power. And on the flip side, birth control!
As a scientist, especially a chemist, my job is to find chemical products to allow us to cope with our humanity IN ABUNDANCE, so we aren't mauling each other in the street over our precious natural resources.
And then I meet more and more struggling parents, and if they aren't struggling their children almost have NO relationship with their hard working parents.
THAT is my very personal and ethical dilemma with children. It's a little too real for me. Regardless of socio-economic status, I'm not convinced we all should be having children.
And your bible babble, made me laugh. I'm sampling some stouts for my next beer project. That type of rambling inflection makes me think of "the holy grenade"
I love it, when someone says bible/koran/whatever speak, regardless of whether or not they actually READ the scripture we are so supposed to stop and hang on every word.
51
and because of this, I fully accept gay people!!!!! Anything that promotes love, intimacy, and happiness in life while curbing overpopulation, I'm ALL for. Let people marry reindeers as far as I'm concerned. I just wish you conservative wackos were right, that we are all secretly gay and the power of Christ is what compels to be straight and desire to have nuclear families and long term life long partners.
I mean, to think we have NO natural desire to couple and raise children without god almighty is laughable, and makes me question Loveschilds motivations for everything she does every day.
Am I just hungry or Is god's love compelling me to want have to honey nut cheerio's this morning?
I mean, to think we have NO natural desire to couple and raise children without god almighty is laughable, and makes me question Loveschilds motivations for everything she does every day.
Am I just hungry or Is god's love compelling me to want have to honey nut cheerio's this morning?
52
Loveschild, you quote the Bible very selectively, but you insist that "God's will is life affirming, 'good, pleasing and perfect'." And yet nothing in what you're quoting explains your hatred toward homosexuals. Let's be blunt about it: you are motivated by hatred for people who are different from you. I don't understand why, but I can't see any explanation for your insistence on repeating arguments that have been thoroughly refuted, or, for that matter, your continued insistence that homosexuals should be treated as second-class citizens--or worse.
As for Genesis, your "be fruitful and multiply" foolishness has been addressed in another thread. Since you're quoting Genesis as though it's factual, though, do you also believe the Earth and all life on it was created in just six days?
As for Genesis, your "be fruitful and multiply" foolishness has been addressed in another thread. Since you're quoting Genesis as though it's factual, though, do you also believe the Earth and all life on it was created in just six days?
53
@48
Now college boy, you'll need to learn to think for yourself and not blindly lap up the Homo Liberal Propoganda your Professors vomit up...
What passes for "research" into homosexuality these days is really poorly masked advocacy- your boys here give themselves away:
"These findings provide new insights into male homosexuality in humans. In particular, they promote a focus shift in which homosexuality should not be viewed as a detrimental trait ..."
Real Scientist do the research and let the facts speak for themselves and let the conclusions draw themselves from the facts.
They don't feel the need to coach readers on how they should view things.
Your boys observe that women carring the mythical "homosexual gene" are more fertile.
They, being loyal advocates for the Gay, assert that the Benevelont Glow of the Gay confers fertility on the women.
They overlook the Darwinian reality, that mommy's genes say "holy shit, another faggot that will never reproduce- I'll have to make more kids to compensate for this reproductively useless waste of skin if I'm ever going to pass myself on to another generation..."
It's called the "Gay Panic" Reproductive Strategy.
Now college boy, you'll need to learn to think for yourself and not blindly lap up the Homo Liberal Propoganda your Professors vomit up...
What passes for "research" into homosexuality these days is really poorly masked advocacy- your boys here give themselves away:
"These findings provide new insights into male homosexuality in humans. In particular, they promote a focus shift in which homosexuality should not be viewed as a detrimental trait ..."
Real Scientist do the research and let the facts speak for themselves and let the conclusions draw themselves from the facts.
They don't feel the need to coach readers on how they should view things.
Your boys observe that women carring the mythical "homosexual gene" are more fertile.
They, being loyal advocates for the Gay, assert that the Benevelont Glow of the Gay confers fertility on the women.
They overlook the Darwinian reality, that mommy's genes say "holy shit, another faggot that will never reproduce- I'll have to make more kids to compensate for this reproductively useless waste of skin if I'm ever going to pass myself on to another generation..."
It's called the "Gay Panic" Reproductive Strategy.
54
Wow @ 53,
I hope your day improves. You sound like you're having a crappy one with all the nastiness. Take care.
I hope your day improves. You sound like you're having a crappy one with all the nastiness. Take care.
55
@53: You do realize that gay eggs and gay sperm still make babies, right? And that in general, a genetic predisposition doesn't always translate into a manifestation of a trait? That's 6th grade biology. Dominate, recessive, dominate-dormant, recessive-active, etcetera.
It explains a lot about a large number of really vocal anti-gay activists. Forbidden urges! Unspeakable lusts! Why do I feel this way?!
You can stop looking at Dan's package now, @53.
It explains a lot about a large number of really vocal anti-gay activists. Forbidden urges! Unspeakable lusts! Why do I feel this way?!
You can stop looking at Dan's package now, @53.
56
55
Of course we understand it.
Pretty much everyone does.
Which is why the whole "Nature innately made me a homosexual' thing is laughable.
Homosexuality is a behavior.
Not an innate biological characteristic.
Of course we understand it.
Pretty much everyone does.
Which is why the whole "Nature innately made me a homosexual' thing is laughable.
Homosexuality is a behavior.
Not an innate biological characteristic.
58
@56: Heterosexuality is also a behavior, so if we're going on that kind of metric, we might as well not extend special rights for heterosexual behavior.
Considering that almost 100% of all deaths of every sort and exactly 100% of all dictators were the direct result of opposite-gender sexual pairings, we may as well ban such behavior. The government has no need for heterosexuality since it's a touchy and potentially dangerous arrangement and puts children at risk.
Considering that almost 100% of all deaths of every sort and exactly 100% of all dictators were the direct result of opposite-gender sexual pairings, we may as well ban such behavior. The government has no need for heterosexuality since it's a touchy and potentially dangerous arrangement and puts children at risk.
63
@56: Please provide evidence supporting your conclusion that homosexuality is a conscious choice rather than an innate attribute.
Your response to the studies I referenced was stunning in the extent to which it demonstrated your unfamiliarity with how scientifically sound studies are run. It is perfectly acceptable to offer forth an interpretation of the evidence given that the results of the study support it to an appreciable extent. Just writing down the data collected and letting the facts "speak for themselves" is not a write-up or a technical article; it is a data dump. I guess you just don't like feeling like someone else understands the facts better than you.
You claim that my professors feed me "Homo Liberal Propaganda", which is ironic in that your entire protest against the validity of homosexuality's innate origins is itself propaganda. You say, in essence "fags are evil and disgusting people, and that's the way it is" and dismiss any actual discussion of the issue or any studies that disagree with your prejudice. Real science is about looking at things objectively. For example, science used to be unsure of homosexuality's status. When it became more acceptable to society (and hence subjects for study became easier to find) scientists were able to run studies and tests that provided evidence that homosexuality was innate rather than a choice. The important thing is that they were looking for data and drawing conclusions from it, rather than trying to find only what would back up a predetermined decision. And right there, you have the difference between science and angry ranting prejudiced pseudo-science.
If you want to see who's a better scientist, you need only throw your hat into the ring. I'll make you eat it.
Your response to the studies I referenced was stunning in the extent to which it demonstrated your unfamiliarity with how scientifically sound studies are run. It is perfectly acceptable to offer forth an interpretation of the evidence given that the results of the study support it to an appreciable extent. Just writing down the data collected and letting the facts "speak for themselves" is not a write-up or a technical article; it is a data dump. I guess you just don't like feeling like someone else understands the facts better than you.
You claim that my professors feed me "Homo Liberal Propaganda", which is ironic in that your entire protest against the validity of homosexuality's innate origins is itself propaganda. You say, in essence "fags are evil and disgusting people, and that's the way it is" and dismiss any actual discussion of the issue or any studies that disagree with your prejudice. Real science is about looking at things objectively. For example, science used to be unsure of homosexuality's status. When it became more acceptable to society (and hence subjects for study became easier to find) scientists were able to run studies and tests that provided evidence that homosexuality was innate rather than a choice. The important thing is that they were looking for data and drawing conclusions from it, rather than trying to find only what would back up a predetermined decision. And right there, you have the difference between science and angry ranting prejudiced pseudo-science.
If you want to see who's a better scientist, you need only throw your hat into the ring. I'll make you eat it.
64
Venomlash, not to quibble, but Anonymous's comment about homosexuality being "a behavior" rather than "an innate biological characteristic" doesn't actually say anything about whether homosexuality is "a conscious choice". Although I haven't yet seen any evidence that it is a conscious choice, and, as Baconcat astutely pointed out, "Heterosexuality is also a behavior".
That's why, any time I hear someone call homosexuality a "choice" I wonder when, exactly, they chose to be straight...although I'm willing to bet that not everyone who says that really is straight.
That's why, any time I hear someone call homosexuality a "choice" I wonder when, exactly, they chose to be straight...although I'm willing to bet that not everyone who says that really is straight.
65
Heterosexuality is the default setting for homo sapiens. It's how the species reproduces itself. I'm sure this was covered in 7th grade science.
66
Whether by conscious choice or due to nurture, the reality is there has been no 'gay gene' found (because there isn't one), so it cannot be truly classified as a biological characteristic. All that those who seek to elevate homosexuality on par with heterosexuality got is biased vague conclusions done with the intention of further legitimizing homosexuality socially. As @53 correctly stated that's not real science but merely propaganda.
The reality is that homosexuality is a biological dead end, that's the only relation if any that it has with biology, as such it cannot pass any 'genes' unless those who claim to be homosexual copulate with the opposite sex (man and women) in which case that would pretty much crumble the myth of homosexuality.
No civilization, nation, tribe or population can exist counting on homosexual behavior to renew it , because it can't. That's why homosexuality has been something tolerated (by some) not depended upon. As such it is ill advised to place it equally with what is biologically sound and necessary for the existence of humanity.
The reality is that homosexuality is a biological dead end, that's the only relation if any that it has with biology, as such it cannot pass any 'genes' unless those who claim to be homosexual copulate with the opposite sex (man and women) in which case that would pretty much crumble the myth of homosexuality.
No civilization, nation, tribe or population can exist counting on homosexual behavior to renew it , because it can't. That's why homosexuality has been something tolerated (by some) not depended upon. As such it is ill advised to place it equally with what is biologically sound and necessary for the existence of humanity.
67
@67 Apparently it wasn't, it never seizes to amaze me. And they're supposedly the ones with so much academic knowledge. Sad to see that 'knowledge' amounts to little common sense and practicality in the real world. But that's why they're in the fringes of society and the rest of America has rejected their nonsense each time they've been allowed to do so.
68
The reality is that homosexuality is a biological dead end...
Loveschild, learn something about biology before you try to discuss it. As I've mentioned previously--you apparently didn't read it or simply ignored it--overpopulation is as much of a threat to any species as underpopulation, although, at present, there is no reason to believe human beings are in any danger of becoming extinct because of low numbers. Just because a three-thousand year-old book tells you to "be fruitful and multiply", though, doesn't mean it's sound advice. Besides, as you are always quick to point out, homosexuals are a minority. If you're going to claim that homosexuality could cause human beings to become as slow to reproduce as pandas you should wait until 90% of the population is homosexual and 10% is straight.
By the way, when Washington voters passed R-71, is that what you're referring to as America rejecting "their nonsense"? Sometimes people vote in favor of gay rights, Loveschild, when they're educated and provided with the facts.
Also, please don't use words like "propaganda" unless you know what they mean.
69
@66: Please go back and read up on genotypes and phenotypes, dominant and recessive genes, the current breadth of discovered and traceable genetic markers and the simplistic notion why your skin tone doesn't perfectly match that of your siblings, cousins or parents.
70
@69 You don't consider this a developed nation ?
All civilizations need a thriving young population in order to exist. Those who get stuck with an aging population and are unable to renew, cannot sustain their society into the future and are doomed to disintegration. The time frame of such is not immediate (as you tried to implied that I said) but gradual and dependent on the extent of policies and behaviors that said society adopts. A scenario comparable to western europe might seem fine with you but thankfully that's not appealing to most Americans, and they're not willing to go down that same road.
As for what took place with R-71, it is quite simple. The votes of a couple of counties ended up having more weight than the majority from the greater number of counties. Hardly a real legitimate electoral victory. And if you couple that with the effective trojan horse campaing done by homosexual lobby groups, in which they disingenuously repeated that they had no intention of eroding the distinctions between marriage and civil unions all while doing precisely that, then you end up with this new law. But I guarantee you, those shenanigans and others that they were able to pull off here (which included actual threats) won't be something that they are going to be able to do on other states. As the ME, NJ, and NY aftermath clearly showed.
"please don't use words like "propaganda" unless you know what they mean."
Isn't propaganda the deliberate spreading of allegations to further a cause or ideology ? Seems to me there's no other appropriate word to use when talking about people that under the veil of research promote ideas (like the existence of 'gay genes') not based on actual evidence.
Rather than taking issue with the accurate use of the word "propaganda", I propose you reconsider your incorrect usage of the word "biology" when referencing to homosexuality.
More...
All civilizations need a thriving young population in order to exist. Those who get stuck with an aging population and are unable to renew, cannot sustain their society into the future and are doomed to disintegration. The time frame of such is not immediate (as you tried to implied that I said) but gradual and dependent on the extent of policies and behaviors that said society adopts. A scenario comparable to western europe might seem fine with you but thankfully that's not appealing to most Americans, and they're not willing to go down that same road.
As for what took place with R-71, it is quite simple. The votes of a couple of counties ended up having more weight than the majority from the greater number of counties. Hardly a real legitimate electoral victory. And if you couple that with the effective trojan horse campaing done by homosexual lobby groups, in which they disingenuously repeated that they had no intention of eroding the distinctions between marriage and civil unions all while doing precisely that, then you end up with this new law. But I guarantee you, those shenanigans and others that they were able to pull off here (which included actual threats) won't be something that they are going to be able to do on other states. As the ME, NJ, and NY aftermath clearly showed.
"please don't use words like "propaganda" unless you know what they mean."
Isn't propaganda the deliberate spreading of allegations to further a cause or ideology ? Seems to me there's no other appropriate word to use when talking about people that under the veil of research promote ideas (like the existence of 'gay genes') not based on actual evidence.
Rather than taking issue with the accurate use of the word "propaganda", I propose you reconsider your incorrect usage of the word "biology" when referencing to homosexuality.
72
Isn't propaganda the deliberate spreading of allegations to further a cause or ideology ?
No, but that's a pretty good summation of what you're frequently guilty of, Loveschild. Here's a definition from the Oxford English Dictionary:"The systematic dissemination of information, esp. in a biased or misleading way."
I've emphasized "information" because you have a problem with information. You spout opinions as though they were facts and expect the rest of us to fall in behind you in lockstep. Repeating the same stupidity over and over doesn't make it true, regardless of whether you believe it or not.
As for "biology", perhaps you should look up the definition for that as well. It's the study of life in all its forms. Do you think homosexuals aren't living? You've made it clear you have no problem with executing homosexuals, but if you're now going to insist that they're not even alive, well, that's putting you even further away from reality.
74
By the way, Loveschild, in spite of your false claims about R-71, it passed 53% to 47%. Maybe it's not an "electoral victory" in your opinion, but then your opinion doesn't trump the will of the people. The same is true of Arizona in 2006 when voters rejected Proposition 107. Again, maybe it wasn't enough of a majority to make it an "electoral victory" in your opinion, but in other cases you've made it clear that you believe majorities have the absolute right to dictate laws with no concern for minority rights.
75
@72 Biology according to Webster:
A behavior that's not conducive to life (nor vital processes) cannot be related with a branch of knowledge that deals with life.
Yet you're the one that believes and vehemently defends something for which there's no resounding evidence and that for a fact cannot be equated with a human function that's the basis for human life.
I truly hope you do reside in the South.
1 : a branch of knowledge that deals with living organisms and vital processes
2 a : the plant and animal life of a region or environment b : the life processes especially of an organism or group; broadly : ecology.
A behavior that's not conducive to life (nor vital processes) cannot be related with a branch of knowledge that deals with life.
"You spout opinions as though they were facts and expect the rest of us to fall in behind you in lockstep. Repeating the same stupidity over and over doesn't make it true, regardless of whether you believe it or not."
Yet you're the one that believes and vehemently defends something for which there's no resounding evidence and that for a fact cannot be equated with a human function that's the basis for human life.
I truly hope you do reside in the South.
76
I truly hope you do reside in the South.
And why, pray tell, is that? Are you hoping I'll be lynched for my beliefs? That would be consistent with your views, since you're all for eliminating all those who don't agree with you.
Please tell me what, exactly, I believe and vehemently defend which has no "resounding evidence". You're now resorting to vague statements because all your arguments have been refuted. You have nothing but hate and prejudice, which is apparently why you insist on attacking those of us who cite facts that contradict your beliefs.
As for your definition of biology, congratulations on having access to a dictionary. You should also learn to read, though, particularly that part about "the life processes especially of an organism or group; broadly : ecology". There are numerous behaviors that, going by your extremely narrow definition, would not be "conducive to life": reading, typing, watching television, kissing...Do you think all these behaviors are outside the scope of the study of biology? Presumably you think they should also be banned, since they're not "conducive to life".
77
@74 No, those of us defending marriage are not like those on your side, you know, who goin out of your way to keep citizens from voting (as you did in DC), I fully accept and respect the outcome of R-71. I want people to be able to vote as our Constitution provides, instead of letting this at the hands of unelected judges and unaccounted politicians. I was just expressing my desire to see that happen without any questionable tactics employed to change the real outcome. Plus if it served to secured marriage in three more states then so be it. We are going to win completely in the end and if there is gonna be some states that opt for gay marriage, like some have opted for prostitution, euthanasia, and legalized marijuana, then so be it. Many states have laws that are not observed by the rest in the union. So long as the people are able to decide I'm fine.
78
If marriage is to "encourage reproduction", we're going about it in entirely the wrong way, if you want to talk biology:
If gays are a genetic dead-end, then I wonder what it says if the idea that gay men and women have more money, are better educated and are more intelligent, as is typically used to insist gay people don't need any protections in the workplace, schools or society.
Some demographers are concerned that these days, in contrast to most of human history, the most educated and affluent people are having the fewest children. Fertility rates have dropped significantly in almost every industrialized country.
Futurologists have even predicted that the human race could diverge into two parts—tall, fit elites and a larger pool of shorter, less educated laborers.
Wall Street Journal, 2/23/10 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424…
If gays are a genetic dead-end, then I wonder what it says if the idea that gay men and women have more money, are better educated and are more intelligent, as is typically used to insist gay people don't need any protections in the workplace, schools or society.
79
@74 No, those of us defending marriage are not like those on your side, you know, goin out of your way to keep citizens from voting (as you did in DC), I fully accept and respect the outcome of R-71. I want people to be able to vote as our Constitution provides, instead of letting this at the hands of unelected judges and unaccounted politicians. I was just expressing my desire to see that happen without any questionable tactics employed to change the real outcome. Plus if it served to secured marriage in three more states then so be it. We are going to win completely in the end and if there is gonna be some states that opt for gay marriage, like some have opted for prostitution, euthanasia, and legalized marijuana, then so be it. Many states have laws that are not observed by the rest in the union. So long as the people are able to decide I'm fine.
80
Loveschild (@7) wrote: " I'd venture to say that one reason for this might be that some are not as open about their morals and values as other demographics partly due to the effective pr campaigning by gay groups that has successfully made traditional marriage and having morals a dirty words amongst their age group."
Loveschild, did it escape your attention that this poll was taken at CPAC? A conference of The Conservative Political Action Committee? If EVER there was a place where conservative people could freely and safely be "as open about their morals and values as other demographics," it was PRECISELY at this conference!
Loveschild, did it escape your attention that this poll was taken at CPAC? A conference of The Conservative Political Action Committee? If EVER there was a place where conservative people could freely and safely be "as open about their morals and values as other demographics," it was PRECISELY at this conference!
81
@77 you do know that those activist judges are why black people can marry white people, right? And why black people can marry at all. Before those activist judges changed the law, the popular thought was that livestock can't get married. Now you can call me a racist for pointing out that racism used to exist (and still does), but that doesn't change history. If put to a popular vote, things would look very different now. Those activist judges ensure that everybody has equal rights, not just the majority. You may not like it, as many white people didn't like it back then, but those judges are there to protect people from people like you. Welcome to America.
82
@78 Yes, the Wall Street Journal, advancing the idea that only those who are affluent should reproduce in greater numbers, who would've thought. Who wrote that piece former tri-state ?
Homosexuality is a biological dead end, not people. The behavior not people.
Homosexuality is a biological dead end, not people. The behavior not people.
83
@79: You don't fully accept and "respect" the outcome of R-71, you immediately attempted to downplay and dismiss it and claim it was a fraudulent result:
And:
It wasn't a majority because King County doesn't count.
That's not respectful in the slightest because you have no respect for voters in King County.
They certainly aren't--(thank God). It boggles the mind that out of thirty-nine counties one can have a grip such as King has over the rest which make up the majority. But until the people of the state address that in a peaceful, democratic but resolute fashion, we will keep on seeing more of this.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
And:
They have, and the overwhelming majority didn't think that this extension was such a good idea, but King county got the last word. Let it be so, and let it be used as an example for other states.
It wasn't a majority because King County doesn't count.
That's not respectful in the slightest because you have no respect for voters in King County.
84
I was just expressing my desire to see that happen without any questionable tactics employed to change the real outcome.
You mean like the "questionable tactics" of Prop 8 defenders, who misrepresented the law and made the false claim that churches would be "forced" to perform same-sex marriage? It's amazing how lying becomes acceptable when it furthers your beliefs, and yet you claim I have no facts to back up what I'm saying.
Homosexuality is a biological dead end, not people. The behavior not people.
Again, you're claiming to understand biology without demonstrating any actual knowledge of biology, or, more specifically, ecology. As I've mentioned before unrestrained reproduction can be damaging, if not destructive, in any ecological system. Of course you have this belief, Loveschild, which has no basis in facts, that same-sex marriage will somehow result in a sudden and drastic reversal in population growth.
Can you explain that, Loveschild? There are already same-sex couples. Extending the benefits of marriage which our supposedly secular government already provides to heterosexual couples would only be an extension of benefits. It wouldn't cause people who are planning to have children to suddenly change their minds. Maybe you'll cite Europe again as proof of this theory, although I can, again, cite Japan right back as proof that not recognizing same-sex couples can't be linked to population decline. Actually women being granted more rights and being allowed to pursue higher education and the same careers as men seems to be linked to population decline. I'd honestly be surprised, though, if you're opposed to equal treatment of women.
85
@84 It is not up to you nor those who share your views to dictate how many kids people should have in this nation. We here in this country leave that up to adults to decide. If you're arguing that homosexuality could be an option to reduce what you call "unrestrained reproduction" then you are precisely making my point. And it might surprise you, but I have no problem whatsoever with any individual(s) who may decide that's good for them, if you want to forgo your bloodline and have no offspring, go for it. However, public institutions for the common good should not promote and incentivize that double edge sword and drag the citizenry down, unless the public deems that they want their government to do so.
I have never said that gay marriage by itself brings population decline, what I have said is that it certainly doesn't help in reversing it, and that is a fact. Most of the nations that have adopted a gay marriage policy are currently dealing with a surplus in their aging population and a deficit in their younger. That is not the result of gay marriage, that's the result of a whole host of other policies, but gay marriage and some of the consequences from it will not alleviate their situation, quite the contrary it will only serve to further exacerbate the problem down the road.
It is dumb to think that incentivizing two men with all the benefits of marriage as it is done with a man a woman will produce equal benefits for a society, cause it wont.
As for biology, when people are able to reproduce because they've engaged in homosexual acts (NEVER), then you'll be able to make a sound correlation between homosexuality and biology. As it stands the two couldn't be more further from each other.
Oh, and my remark about hoping you do reside in the South in no way referred to what you took it as, the last person who would ever wished something like that on another human being would be me.
More...
I have never said that gay marriage by itself brings population decline, what I have said is that it certainly doesn't help in reversing it, and that is a fact. Most of the nations that have adopted a gay marriage policy are currently dealing with a surplus in their aging population and a deficit in their younger. That is not the result of gay marriage, that's the result of a whole host of other policies, but gay marriage and some of the consequences from it will not alleviate their situation, quite the contrary it will only serve to further exacerbate the problem down the road.
It is dumb to think that incentivizing two men with all the benefits of marriage as it is done with a man a woman will produce equal benefits for a society, cause it wont.
As for biology, when people are able to reproduce because they've engaged in homosexual acts (NEVER), then you'll be able to make a sound correlation between homosexuality and biology. As it stands the two couldn't be more further from each other.
Oh, and my remark about hoping you do reside in the South in no way referred to what you took it as, the last person who would ever wished something like that on another human being would be me.
86
To Loveschild and Alleged, as well as any others who may share their viewpoints:
Please show us one reputable study proving that homosexuality is a choice rather than biologically innate (that is, neither genetic nor predetermined in very early childhood). You shoot your mouths off about how "homosexuality is a dead end" without providing any evidence, and claiming that the mountains thereof that we have brought to the table for some reason or another "doesn't count".
I'd like to see you guys show us just one scientifically honest study indicating or suggesting that homosexuality is just a choice.
Please show us one reputable study proving that homosexuality is a choice rather than biologically innate (that is, neither genetic nor predetermined in very early childhood). You shoot your mouths off about how "homosexuality is a dead end" without providing any evidence, and claiming that the mountains thereof that we have brought to the table for some reason or another "doesn't count".
I'd like to see you guys show us just one scientifically honest study indicating or suggesting that homosexuality is just a choice.
87
Loveschild,
Please have mercy and stop nominating yourself for Christian Git of the Day. Let Pat and the Westboro Baptist folks keep the title. They get better publicity and you know your shy about showing your face. (Not that your face isn't lovely enough*, but because you fear for your safety all the time.)
* Not that I have ever seen you. I just have never seen a human that did not have at least one lovely feature and thus their own unique type of beauty.
Please have mercy and stop nominating yourself for Christian Git of the Day. Let Pat and the Westboro Baptist folks keep the title. They get better publicity and you know your shy about showing your face. (Not that your face isn't lovely enough*, but because you fear for your safety all the time.)
* Not that I have ever seen you. I just have never seen a human that did not have at least one lovely feature and thus their own unique type of beauty.
88
It is not up to you nor those who share your views to dictate how many kids people should have in this nation.
I've never said that I or anyone else should "dictate how many kids people have" in this nation or any other. If you're going to debate an issue, Loveschild, don't stoop to misrepresenting my arguments or putting words in my mouth. Or are you incapable of debating honestly?
I have never said that gay marriage by itself brings population decline
No, you've merely cited population decline as a serious problem in Europe, one which, you claim, is exacerbated by same-sex marriage. And yet you haven't been able to cite any proof of this allegation.
As for biology, when people are able to reproduce because they've engaged in homosexual acts (NEVER), then you'll be able to make a sound correlation between homosexuality and biology.
Again, perhaps you should read what I've written over and over and over again. Biology is about a great deal more than just reproduction, but you seem intent on missing the point. Homosexuality, as a behavior, is not contrary to biology. In fact homosexual behavior has been seen in species other than humans. Bonobos, for instance, which are genetically closely related to humans, engage in homosexual behavior. Apparently sexual behavior isn't always linked to reproduction.
Oh, and my remark about hoping you do reside in the South in no way referred to what you took it as, the last person who would ever wished something like that on another human being would be me.
Sure. You're okay with a policy that calls for homosexuals to be executed, but you wouldn't wish harm on a specific person. In fairness, though, what exactly did you mean?
89
It is dumb to think that incentivizing two men with all the benefits of marriage as it is done with a man a woman will produce equal benefits for a society, cause it wont.
You're arguing, I assume, that providing same-sex couples with the benefits and responsibilities of marriage won't "produce equal benefits". Fair enough. The only benefit of marriage that you cite is children, so we're back at this: according to the same logic heterosexual couples who simply don't want to have children, should also be denied the benefits of marriage. And yet a promise to have children is not required of any couple planning to marry.
And if you don't think there are any benefits to same-sex marriage, what would the harm be?
90
It is dumb to think that incentivizing two men with all the benefits of marriage as it is done with a man a woman will produce equal benefits for a society, cause it wont.
You're arguing, I assume, that providing same-sex couples with the benefits and responsibilities of marriage won't "produce equal benefits". Fair enough. The only benefit of marriage that you cite is children, so we're back at this: according to the same logic heterosexual couples who simply don't want to have children, should also be denied the benefits of marriage. And yet a promise to have children is not required of any couple planning to marry.
And if you don't think there are any benefits to same-sex marriage, what would the harm be?
91
86
None of the "studies" you linked showed, or even claimed to show, that homosexuality is a biologically innate trait.
Dead End:
"If" homosexuality were an innate biological trait it would die out in one generation because homosexuals, being-you know- "Homosexual"- wouldn't have any kids to pass the genes to. (did you know that's what 'homosexual' means, venom?)
(unless, of course, homosexuality is a Tragic Genetic Defect that renders it's owners unable to reproduce; a random Mutation that pops up in 2% of the population... venom, is homosexuality a Tragic Genetic Defect that renders it's owners unable to reproduce?)
Choice:
"If" homosexuality were an innate biological trait homosexuals wouldn't have heterosexual intercourse.
Because,they would be-you know- "Homosexual".
Birds gotta fly,
Fish gotta swim,
Homos gotta ....you get the point.
In actuality most self identified homosexuals have had heterosexual sex.
Often long term heterosexual relationships.
(Has Dan had sex with a girl?)
They choose the behavior they engage in.
Or don't engage in.
Self identified Heterosexuals engge in homosexual behavior.
Prisons.
"Gay for Pay" porn actors.
Runaways prostituting them self on the street.
Are they Homosexuals?
No. They choose to engage in a behavior.
If Heteros can choose don't you think Homos can as well? (or does the Tragic Genetic Mutant Defect prevent them from choosing?...)
None of the "studies" you linked showed, or even claimed to show, that homosexuality is a biologically innate trait.
Dead End:
"If" homosexuality were an innate biological trait it would die out in one generation because homosexuals, being-you know- "Homosexual"- wouldn't have any kids to pass the genes to. (did you know that's what 'homosexual' means, venom?)
(unless, of course, homosexuality is a Tragic Genetic Defect that renders it's owners unable to reproduce; a random Mutation that pops up in 2% of the population... venom, is homosexuality a Tragic Genetic Defect that renders it's owners unable to reproduce?)
Choice:
"If" homosexuality were an innate biological trait homosexuals wouldn't have heterosexual intercourse.
Because,they would be-you know- "Homosexual".
Birds gotta fly,
Fish gotta swim,
Homos gotta ....you get the point.
In actuality most self identified homosexuals have had heterosexual sex.
Often long term heterosexual relationships.
(Has Dan had sex with a girl?)
They choose the behavior they engage in.
Or don't engage in.
Self identified Heterosexuals engge in homosexual behavior.
Prisons.
"Gay for Pay" porn actors.
Runaways prostituting them self on the street.
Are they Homosexuals?
No. They choose to engage in a behavior.
If Heteros can choose don't you think Homos can as well? (or does the Tragic Genetic Mutant Defect prevent them from choosing?...)
92
@91: Your bogus logic does not count as a scientifically sound study. Please post a link to an actual study. Sorry to break the news to you. Also, the first study I linked to showed substantial difference in how the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men dealt with the application of a chemical; specifically, the brains of homosexual males behaved more like those of heterosexual FEMALES in that context. Brain chemistry is not something that you can just up and change; how many depressives do you think we'd have if it was?
You seem to have gotten "innate" confused with "genetically predetermined". Many aspects of the brain's functioning are innate but not genetic. Schizophrenia, to pick an extreme example, is by no means voluntary. However, it is very rare for two identical twins--who have the EXACT SAME GENOME--to both have the disease. Your argument that a "gay gene" would die out is irrelevant, as homosexuality is by no means caused by a gene. The most cutting-edge research tends to suggest that sexual orientation is determined by more or less random chance during the development of the fetal and infant brain. Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold any water.
Also, you seem to be oblivious to the existence of recessive genes. We all have two copies of each gene (except for men, who have only one of each on the X or Y chromosome, and people with Down Syndrome, who have a third copy of some on Chromosome 21). If a person has an atypical copy of a gene along with a normal copy, then if the atypical copy is recessive, it will not be expressed. A "gay gene" that is recessive would only manifest in people with two unusual copies of it; an individual with one of each would be a carrier. Some children of two carriers then may inherit two copies (making them gay), while some siblings might be carriers and therefore continue to pass the gene on. Look up "Mendelian Inheritance" if you want to know how this works.
You are correct in that both homosexuals and heterosexuals (not to forget bisexuals!) are capable of choosing to have sex with someone. However, neither can choose who they are actually ATTRACTED to. A gay man might have a sexual experience with a woman (usually if he's closeted at the time) but you won't see him falling in love with that woman or actually really wanting to have sex with a woman. Similarly, how many straight guys and gals actually want to nail someone of their own gender or form a romantic relationship with them? And you know what? Sure, some closeted homosexuals get married and have kids. How does this usually end? They come to terms with their sexual identity and usually get a divorce. The pressure that bigoted asswipes like you put on homosexuals to deny who they are even to themselves is bad for the spouses and children of such people. Want to protect marriage? Stop forcing homosexuals into doomed relationships through the endless persecution of the religious right.
And I've told you before about misusing my name. Though I must admit, your inability to use it fits nicely with the general theme of incompetence in your post.
More...
You seem to have gotten "innate" confused with "genetically predetermined". Many aspects of the brain's functioning are innate but not genetic. Schizophrenia, to pick an extreme example, is by no means voluntary. However, it is very rare for two identical twins--who have the EXACT SAME GENOME--to both have the disease. Your argument that a "gay gene" would die out is irrelevant, as homosexuality is by no means caused by a gene. The most cutting-edge research tends to suggest that sexual orientation is determined by more or less random chance during the development of the fetal and infant brain. Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold any water.
Also, you seem to be oblivious to the existence of recessive genes. We all have two copies of each gene (except for men, who have only one of each on the X or Y chromosome, and people with Down Syndrome, who have a third copy of some on Chromosome 21). If a person has an atypical copy of a gene along with a normal copy, then if the atypical copy is recessive, it will not be expressed. A "gay gene" that is recessive would only manifest in people with two unusual copies of it; an individual with one of each would be a carrier. Some children of two carriers then may inherit two copies (making them gay), while some siblings might be carriers and therefore continue to pass the gene on. Look up "Mendelian Inheritance" if you want to know how this works.
You are correct in that both homosexuals and heterosexuals (not to forget bisexuals!) are capable of choosing to have sex with someone. However, neither can choose who they are actually ATTRACTED to. A gay man might have a sexual experience with a woman (usually if he's closeted at the time) but you won't see him falling in love with that woman or actually really wanting to have sex with a woman. Similarly, how many straight guys and gals actually want to nail someone of their own gender or form a romantic relationship with them? And you know what? Sure, some closeted homosexuals get married and have kids. How does this usually end? They come to terms with their sexual identity and usually get a divorce. The pressure that bigoted asswipes like you put on homosexuals to deny who they are even to themselves is bad for the spouses and children of such people. Want to protect marriage? Stop forcing homosexuals into doomed relationships through the endless persecution of the religious right.
And I've told you before about misusing my name. Though I must admit, your inability to use it fits nicely with the general theme of incompetence in your post.
93
@66 "the reality is there has been no 'gay gene' found (because there isn't one)"
LC: The absence of evidence is NOT the same as the evidence of absence! Genetics is incredibly complex. We haven't been able to identify genes associated with diseases that we know are genetic in origin due to patterns of Mendelian inheritance, even with the Human Genome sequence. Familiarize yourself with the concept of epistasis at the minimum before you try to hijack science.
LC: The absence of evidence is NOT the same as the evidence of absence! Genetics is incredibly complex. We haven't been able to identify genes associated with diseases that we know are genetic in origin due to patterns of Mendelian inheritance, even with the Human Genome sequence. Familiarize yourself with the concept of epistasis at the minimum before you try to hijack science.
94
Has Loveschild now abandoned this thread? I've noticed this before. When the facts become insurmountable and her opinions no longer hold up Loveschild refuses to comment any further. This is why the same debates come up over and over: Loveschild will take the same statements and just repost them somewhere else, refusing to acknowledge the points that have already been made.
97
Actually I'm more concerned with trying to change my own mind. Unlike Loveschild I'm not convinced of my own moral superiority, and I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong. But I'd need some facts to back up that conclusion, and so far Loveschild hasn't offered up a single fact.
Opinions, value-judgments, misinterpretations, and fabrications aren't facts, even though Loveschild seems to think they are. And if Loveschild's "facts" are the best any opponents of same-sex marriage have to offer, then ultimately the question becomes, what's the hold-up?
I realize the CPAC members polled may all oppose same-sex marriage, but it's possible that only 1% listed it as their second-most important issue because most of them realize it's a losing battle.
Opinions, value-judgments, misinterpretations, and fabrications aren't facts, even though Loveschild seems to think they are. And if Loveschild's "facts" are the best any opponents of same-sex marriage have to offer, then ultimately the question becomes, what's the hold-up?
I realize the CPAC members polled may all oppose same-sex marriage, but it's possible that only 1% listed it as their second-most important issue because most of them realize it's a losing battle.
98
97
Actually they assume it's a done deal.
Every state that has voted has already outlawed homosexual marriage.
The Supreme Court is about to ratify Prop 8.
Actually they assume it's a done deal.
Every state that has voted has already outlawed homosexual marriage.
The Supreme Court is about to ratify Prop 8.
99
Loveschild-
@70 you said that R-71 was "hardly a real legitimate electoral victory." I recall that it passed by more than 110,000 votes. By your standards, I-960 (limiting the Legislature's ability to increase taxes) would "hardly be a real legitimate electoral victory" since it won by less than 40,000 votes in 2007. By your standards of legitimacy, G.W. Bush's election in 2000 would not be a "real legitimate victory" as a result of less than a thousand votes in Florida.
Oh, I forgot - a different standard applies when it comes gay rights. Sorry, my bad.
@77 you said "I was just expressing my desire to see that happen without any questionable tactics employed to change the real outcome." You were alleging "questionable tactics" on part of the proponents of R-71. What about Sen. Val Stevens' letter saying "Are the homosexuals finally going to take control of our culture and push their depraved lifestyle on children and families?" and "pushing the lifestyle through public schools, beginning with elementary school-aged children." In California during the Prop 8 campaign, proponent Hak-Shing Tam wrote in campaign literature addressed to Chinese-American church groups, claiming that the gay rights agenda included sinister goals: "on their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children" and warning that other states would "fall into satan's hands" if Prop 8 was defeated.' Are these tactics not questionable?
Oh, sorry again. I forgot that it's OK to use inflammatory rhetoric when you speak against the gays, but not when you speak against righteous people who oppose them. My mistake again.
As for wanting "the people to decide" rather than "letting unelected judges and unaccounted politicians" make decisions about social policy....I assume you took issue with the legislature's decision to pass SB 5688? In the past, conservative groups have filed legal challenges to prevent, or slow down, the signature gathering process for I-1000 (death with dignity), and filed more legal challenges after the voters approved it.
Oh, I forgot, I different standard applies when you have God on your side. My bad again.
As for your claim that "We are going to win completely in the end..." I actually think you may be right, because, after all, you have God on your side. The Nazis, after all, said God on their side (See Martin Luther's "On the Jews and their Lies", 1543). They lost the war, but largely succeeded in their goal of erradicating Jews from Europe. White southerners claimed biblical justification for slavery, then their decendants claimed biblical justification for laws mandating segregation and prohibiting mixed race marriage. I have no doubt that what is happening now in Uganda is but a trial run for the Christian right's future plans for dealing with the homosexual problem here in the U.S.
With God on your side, how can you lose?
More...
@70 you said that R-71 was "hardly a real legitimate electoral victory." I recall that it passed by more than 110,000 votes. By your standards, I-960 (limiting the Legislature's ability to increase taxes) would "hardly be a real legitimate electoral victory" since it won by less than 40,000 votes in 2007. By your standards of legitimacy, G.W. Bush's election in 2000 would not be a "real legitimate victory" as a result of less than a thousand votes in Florida.
Oh, I forgot - a different standard applies when it comes gay rights. Sorry, my bad.
@77 you said "I was just expressing my desire to see that happen without any questionable tactics employed to change the real outcome." You were alleging "questionable tactics" on part of the proponents of R-71. What about Sen. Val Stevens' letter saying "Are the homosexuals finally going to take control of our culture and push their depraved lifestyle on children and families?" and "pushing the lifestyle through public schools, beginning with elementary school-aged children." In California during the Prop 8 campaign, proponent Hak-Shing Tam wrote in campaign literature addressed to Chinese-American church groups, claiming that the gay rights agenda included sinister goals: "on their agenda list is: legalize having sex with children" and warning that other states would "fall into satan's hands" if Prop 8 was defeated.' Are these tactics not questionable?
Oh, sorry again. I forgot that it's OK to use inflammatory rhetoric when you speak against the gays, but not when you speak against righteous people who oppose them. My mistake again.
As for wanting "the people to decide" rather than "letting unelected judges and unaccounted politicians" make decisions about social policy....I assume you took issue with the legislature's decision to pass SB 5688? In the past, conservative groups have filed legal challenges to prevent, or slow down, the signature gathering process for I-1000 (death with dignity), and filed more legal challenges after the voters approved it.
Oh, I forgot, I different standard applies when you have God on your side. My bad again.
As for your claim that "We are going to win completely in the end..." I actually think you may be right, because, after all, you have God on your side. The Nazis, after all, said God on their side (See Martin Luther's "On the Jews and their Lies", 1543). They lost the war, but largely succeeded in their goal of erradicating Jews from Europe. White southerners claimed biblical justification for slavery, then their decendants claimed biblical justification for laws mandating segregation and prohibiting mixed race marriage. I have no doubt that what is happening now in Uganda is but a trial run for the Christian right's future plans for dealing with the homosexual problem here in the U.S.
With God on your side, how can you lose?
100
@98-The Prop 8 question may still be a long way from the Supreme Court, although, if it does make it, and if the Supreme Court does uphold it, it'll be interesting to see what their justification is. The defense in Perry v. Schwarzanegger hasn't been able to mount much of a defense at all. Maybe they're holding back, but I doubt it when they had to withdraw some of their own witnesses.
Also, unlike Loveschild, the defendants for Prop 8 were under oath. No one's making Loveschild tell the truth, which is why she doesn't feel obligated to do so.
Also, unlike Loveschild, the defendants for Prop 8 were under oath. No one's making Loveschild tell the truth, which is why she doesn't feel obligated to do so.
101
100
It will be interesting to see how the Supremes rule.
Walker ran an odd trial, he spent a great deal of time on emotional issues that whipped up the homosexual fan base but were not germane at all to the legal issues at hand.
It will be interesting to see how the Supremes rule.
Walker ran an odd trial, he spent a great deal of time on emotional issues that whipped up the homosexual fan base but were not germane at all to the legal issues at hand.
102
The defense also spent a lot of time on "emotional issues", since this is a very gray area legally and the defense didn't have much of a logistical leg to stand on. The defense's most solid witness was probably David Blankenhorn, who was allowed by Walker to testify as an expert even though he doesn't meet the legal standard. And Blankenhorn ended up undermining the case he was supposed to make by admitting that same-sex marriage would have benefits to society, including more committed relationships and less prejudice.
Of course it wasn't Walker's fault that the defense couldn't make its own case, nor is it the fault of "the homosexual fan base". It's the defense's fault for not having a solid case.
Of course it wasn't Walker's fault that the defense couldn't make its own case, nor is it the fault of "the homosexual fan base". It's the defense's fault for not having a solid case.
104
Biological, not-biological, the will of the people or not--who cares? I'm still gay, rich, and happy. Enjoy your childen, LC.
105
according to the same logic heterosexual couples who simply don't want to have children, should also be denied the benefits of marriage.
Infertility in married couples has been reversed in many cases and even in those that couldn't there was no societal harm in their recognition because they still served as examples to those who could bear children. That can never be the case for two people of the same sex because biologically they do not complement each other.
And if you don't think there are any benefits to same-sex marriage, what would the harm be?
A thorough social sanctioning of homosexuality which will result in a greater segment of the population (especially the young) in seeing such behavior as a viable conduct for themselves.
And If that takes place further disintegration of male and female cohesion (the basis for the human family) will ensue.
Could a greater testament to life such as this be given by those in a gay marriage ? :
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/nyregi…
For all nations and peoples, stability, continuity and renewal are of great importance, and if one thread of that fabric is pulled the rest falls apart.
106
If infertile and post menopausal women can still marry because they set a good example, then same sex couples can set a good example of a loving family too. You may not like the example, but tough shit bitch. I've seen plenty of straight couples that make horrible examples of a loving family, but they can still legally marry. You are a hateful bag of wind and your opinion doesn't belong in my life. You get what you give in this world, and someday your karma is going to catch up with you.
107
for those who claim that homosexuality has no genetic/evolutionary purpose because they do not "naturally" reproduce...it is worth mentioning that more than your direct descendants share your genes.
Homosexuals may not increase their own reproductive success, but they MAY increase the success of their genes by caring for (or providing some other benefit to) their brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, cousins, etc.
Homosexuals may not increase their own reproductive success, but they MAY increase the success of their genes by caring for (or providing some other benefit to) their brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, cousins, etc.
108
@105: Loveschild, you hypocritical CWB, you have returned to fill our stockings with your words of holy wisdom. You're like a female Santa Claus that way, except your sleigh is full of bullshit, made of arrogance, and drawn by bad grammar.
On the first point:
If we don't let gays get married because they biologically don't complement each other, as you put it, why do we allow transsexuals who have undergone a surgical and legally recognized gender reassignment get married? If they are both biologically male, why does it matter that one now walks like a lady? If transgender people can marry people with the same chromosomal setup as them, then cisgender people in the same boat certainly should be allowed to.
Your argument holds a little water at first, but, to borrow a phrase from "Yahtzee" Croshaw: like a glass of milk with a spider in it, towards the end it all goes horribly wrong.
On the second point:
If we say that homosexuality is OK, do you seriously think that more people will be gay and go around not making babies? A homosexual is a homosexual, a heterosexual is a heterosexual, and a bisexual is a really lucky bastard who can do it both ways with roughly equal enjoyment. Straight kids are not going to turn gay from hearing it's OK any more than white kids turned black when civil rights got handed out properly. It may not be genetic, but it's innate.
So quit worrying about your kids turning gay. Odds are they're not, and will never be no matter how many gay neighbors get the rights they deserve. And if they are, then no amount of praying will change them. They're in God's hands, really; it all depends on how He made them.
On the first point:
If we don't let gays get married because they biologically don't complement each other, as you put it, why do we allow transsexuals who have undergone a surgical and legally recognized gender reassignment get married? If they are both biologically male, why does it matter that one now walks like a lady? If transgender people can marry people with the same chromosomal setup as them, then cisgender people in the same boat certainly should be allowed to.
Your argument holds a little water at first, but, to borrow a phrase from "Yahtzee" Croshaw: like a glass of milk with a spider in it, towards the end it all goes horribly wrong.
On the second point:
If we say that homosexuality is OK, do you seriously think that more people will be gay and go around not making babies? A homosexual is a homosexual, a heterosexual is a heterosexual, and a bisexual is a really lucky bastard who can do it both ways with roughly equal enjoyment. Straight kids are not going to turn gay from hearing it's OK any more than white kids turned black when civil rights got handed out properly. It may not be genetic, but it's innate.
So quit worrying about your kids turning gay. Odds are they're not, and will never be no matter how many gay neighbors get the rights they deserve. And if they are, then no amount of praying will change them. They're in God's hands, really; it all depends on how He made them.
109
107
you know; in addition to fucking each other and making lots of babies that are packed full of our genes; heterosexuals are also capable of caring for (or providing some other benefit to) their brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, cousins, etc.
we are fiendishly clever.
you know; in addition to fucking each other and making lots of babies that are packed full of our genes; heterosexuals are also capable of caring for (or providing some other benefit to) their brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, cousins, etc.
we are fiendishly clever.
110
"why do we allow transsexuals who have undergone a surgical and legally recognized gender reassignment get married?"
Venomlash, people that go thru the appropriate psychological and surgical treatment for their gender identity disorder seek full reintegration into society within the gender in which they see themselves psychologically and if they follow thru with the medical requisites to physically resemble such gender then they're not reinventing what has been established by society.
Concerning your second point, it has been proven that once behaviors are seen socially acceptable or cool by young people they'll tend to gravitate more towards imitating such behaviors even if they're not inclined initially to do so. Peer pressure and the impact of public figures cannot be easily diminished in today's society, not even by common sense.
... p.s. no name calling or use of foul language on my part.
Venomlash, people that go thru the appropriate psychological and surgical treatment for their gender identity disorder seek full reintegration into society within the gender in which they see themselves psychologically and if they follow thru with the medical requisites to physically resemble such gender then they're not reinventing what has been established by society.
Concerning your second point, it has been proven that once behaviors are seen socially acceptable or cool by young people they'll tend to gravitate more towards imitating such behaviors even if they're not inclined initially to do so. Peer pressure and the impact of public figures cannot be easily diminished in today's society, not even by common sense.
... p.s. no name calling or use of foul language on my part.
111
I'm going to take awhile to laugh at the sheer idea of homosexuality being seen as "cool" or something people are peer pressured into. Especially considering that heterosexuals actually have a drive to be sexually intimate with the opposite gender and no such drive towards their own. They'll always be the majority and can't "fall out of style."
...But you're still under the false idea that sexuality is entirely derived through free will, and not based on anything else, so carry on.
...But you're still under the false idea that sexuality is entirely derived through free will, and not based on anything else, so carry on.
112
@110: So what if someone is transgender but has not had surgery yet? I have a friend like that. He's biologically and physically female but identifies as a dude. Acts like a dude, dresses like a dude, talks like a dude. But he's still physically a woman. Is it okay for him to marry a woman and be a father to some kids they adopt? One mother, one father, but it just happens to be two sets of lady parts. Is that okay?
Also, shouldn't transgender gay people be allowed to get married, by your logic? If a female-to-male dude and a cisgender man want to get married, they should be allowed to, right? They may both be gay men, but they complement each other biologically. And in cases similar to that of the much-publicized pregnant man, they might even be able to have kids naturally. But they'd still be gay and have all sorts of gay sex in the privacy of their own bedroom/kitchen floor. Is that kind of gay all right?
And to address your second point (that term used loosely), I can tell you that I have seen the effects of peer pressure on sexuality. It's what causes homosexuals to be closeted; all of little Alan's friends like girls, so he pretends that he does too even though he's secretly lusting after one of the Jonas brothers. But apparently if we let gays have their civil rights, then this trend will reverse and all sorts of apple-pie-American straight middle-schoolers will stop trying to peek into the girls' locker room and instead play grab-ass with each other all day because "it's just so cool to be queer".
...wait, what? I thought that peer pressure tended to be applied BY the majority ON the minority. But apparently "the gay" is an exception to that. Your gay panic only accentuates your utter lack of intelligence.
P.S. Oh, whoop-de-fucking-do, I called you some names and said a few bad words. I don't really give a flying rat's tuchus how genteel you act online; the fact is that you're a small-minded, unintelligent, bigoted, hateful tosser.
More...
Also, shouldn't transgender gay people be allowed to get married, by your logic? If a female-to-male dude and a cisgender man want to get married, they should be allowed to, right? They may both be gay men, but they complement each other biologically. And in cases similar to that of the much-publicized pregnant man, they might even be able to have kids naturally. But they'd still be gay and have all sorts of gay sex in the privacy of their own bedroom/kitchen floor. Is that kind of gay all right?
And to address your second point (that term used loosely), I can tell you that I have seen the effects of peer pressure on sexuality. It's what causes homosexuals to be closeted; all of little Alan's friends like girls, so he pretends that he does too even though he's secretly lusting after one of the Jonas brothers. But apparently if we let gays have their civil rights, then this trend will reverse and all sorts of apple-pie-American straight middle-schoolers will stop trying to peek into the girls' locker room and instead play grab-ass with each other all day because "it's just so cool to be queer".
...wait, what? I thought that peer pressure tended to be applied BY the majority ON the minority. But apparently "the gay" is an exception to that. Your gay panic only accentuates your utter lack of intelligence.
P.S. Oh, whoop-de-fucking-do, I called you some names and said a few bad words. I don't really give a flying rat's tuchus how genteel you act online; the fact is that you're a small-minded, unintelligent, bigoted, hateful tosser.
113
I love you venomlash!
"your sleigh is full of bullshit, made of arrogance, and drawn by bad grammar."
God that made me happy.
"your sleigh is full of bullshit, made of arrogance, and drawn by bad grammar."
God that made me happy.
114
Loveschild, in comment 105, you take a statement I made about heterosexual couples who choose not to have children and launch into a talk about couples trying to deal with infertility. This is pretty typical: whether it's intentional misreading or not, your arguments fail because you don't address what others are actually saying.
Your arguments have been decimated by Venomlash already, but would you please do me the courtesy of explaining your remark about how you hope I do live in the South?
Your arguments have been decimated by Venomlash already, but would you please do me the courtesy of explaining your remark about how you hope I do live in the South?
115
LC is so quick to spout off about religion. Last I heard, according to the Bible, women are to remain silent. Religion is men's talk, women aren't allowed. Now go put on your burka, sit in the corner and remian silent. How dare you challenge the authority of men!
Funny how they pick and choose the parts they wish to follow.
Of course we shouldn't pick on LC cuz we know she's never ever wore pants or a pant suit or ate any shellfish (lobster, clams, etc.), cloven hoof animal (pork, ham, etc). Because doing any of that is an abomination, just like being gay!
Funny how they pick and choose the parts they wish to follow.
Of course we shouldn't pick on LC cuz we know she's never ever wore pants or a pant suit or ate any shellfish (lobster, clams, etc.), cloven hoof animal (pork, ham, etc). Because doing any of that is an abomination, just like being gay!
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (115) RSS