Slog
News & ArtsMonday, January 3, 2011
Homo / Hetero Open Homosexual Dances With Little Boy...
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:04 PM
...while boy's parents look on approvingly! The shocking video:
Sometimes you just gotta pause to marvel at how far we've come and how fast. And I paused last night to marvel as I watched my husband dance around my straight neighbors' living room with one of their three sons—dancing around their living room to the classic gay disco anthem "It's Raining Men," no less.
A scene like this would have not have been possible when I was a kid—and not just because Just Dance 2 technology had yet to be developed. We had no gay neighbors that we knew of back when I was the same age as the kid in the video. And if my parents did know which of our neighbors were gay... well, my parents would not have invited our gay neighbors over for dinner much less allowed our gay neighbors to dance with me and my brothers after dinner. Back when I was that kid's age my parents believed that gay men were sexual predators and pedophiles who raped and recruited children. I don't blame my parents; that's what they'd been taught, they didn't know any better, and it would be years before they got to know any openly gay adults and began to question what they had been taught.
Anyway...
We've moved so quickly from the gay-people-recruit-straight-people's-children libel to gay people dancing around in straight people's living rooms with their kids. The concernstipated women at the Concerned Women for America, the liars at Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, and the anti-family haters at Family Research Council—all officially designated hate groups now (I don't think I'll ever get tired of typing that)—are all very, very worried about teh gay agenda and the "creeping social acceptance of open homosexuality," as they call it. To the haters I say: you're losing and you're losing badly—and not just in Congress or state legislatures or on cable news shoutfests. The most important battles you're losing are taking place in living rooms all over the country.
It's over, motherfuckers, you lost, and love and compassion and friendship and humanity won. Hallelujah.
1
I've always wondered how recruiting was done, now we have photographic evidence. This is priceless footage.
4
This post was poor cover for Dan wanting to post hubby wiggling his tuckus on the internet. It's ok man. You've earned it!
(jk! I agree!)
(jk! I agree!)
8
Competitive side-by-side movements while staring at a teevee is not "dancing together". Though whatever it was, it was definitely adorable, and no, that kid did not stand a chance on points, and yes, your hubby makes junkie jeans look gooooood.
10
I had a good chuckle at this, can't believe Terry let you post it!
Also, I think I need to get myself this game so I can bust a move to some It's Raining Men (except I would be in my underwear... not with neighbors' kids.)
Also, I think I need to get myself this game so I can bust a move to some It's Raining Men (except I would be in my underwear... not with neighbors' kids.)
12
That was sweet, very sweet, Dan.
I wish we had such sweetness in my neck of the woods. Over the holidays my daughter's best friend went back in the closet, couldn't take the pressure from her mom. She's forbidden from staying with us, too.
I wish we had such sweetness in my neck of the woods. Over the holidays my daughter's best friend went back in the closet, couldn't take the pressure from her mom. She's forbidden from staying with us, too.
14
No wonder Dan fell for Terry after watching him dance all night--the man has some moves!
Love this video, and love that you are winning the fight...thank God for friendship, and may the haters be the ones forced to hide from now on.
Love this video, and love that you are winning the fight...thank God for friendship, and may the haters be the ones forced to hide from now on.
15
Did anyone notice that when the two women are falling out of the window in the music video, the one who's wearing a green dress partially disappears? Apparently no one told her, you can't wear green when you're in front of green screen, because then the computer inserts "background" onto your clothing.
16
Kim, I'm so sorry to hear that :( Even though she's not allowed to see you, she's very lucky to have someone who she knows accepts her. That's so much more than many other gay teenagers have.
18
Open homosexual? Like he’s only open 9-5 Monday through Friday and the rest of the time he’s closed? I’m confused.
20
Oh Dan, you are the best Sex Columnist EVER for posting that, and Terry is the best husband EVER for letting you (I won't even mention that he has a body to die for...jeez.)
Kim, that is so sad. Two of our neighbours also monitor how much time their kids can spend with ours (I think they have visions of us waiting at the door with a Halloween candy bowl full of condoms, or something), but I don't think their kids are gay, just wanting out of the convent occasionally...
I don't know what the rules are in the States, but here you can give any information to a kid who is 14 or older, so I'm sure you know you can keep being a source of info, as well as an ally to her, without her parents' consent...one of my son's friends (whose parents just pulled her out of public school to put her in a private Christian school) talks to me via webcam, for instance...just sayin'.
Kim, that is so sad. Two of our neighbours also monitor how much time their kids can spend with ours (I think they have visions of us waiting at the door with a Halloween candy bowl full of condoms, or something), but I don't think their kids are gay, just wanting out of the convent occasionally...
I don't know what the rules are in the States, but here you can give any information to a kid who is 14 or older, so I'm sure you know you can keep being a source of info, as well as an ally to her, without her parents' consent...one of my son's friends (whose parents just pulled her out of public school to put her in a private Christian school) talks to me via webcam, for instance...just sayin'.
21
I can die a happy old man knowing the liars will lose. It's something I knew would happen because the gay people I've had the honor of knowing, and there have been many, were just everyday people trying to make the most of their lives like anyone else. And they did it with dignity and courage and a considerable amount of joy despite the way they were treated.
22
I guess I've had a less common life path: I was sad that my gay friends weren't more taken by my two boys when they were that age ... quickly adding that many of my straight male friends weren't too taken, either. I guess folks who don't like kids come in all sizes. Either that or the boys were a pain in the ass; but, no, they were charming.
23
How far we've come? Western culture has never been in worse shape the past 1000 years, but since the poofters are gaining more acceptance, we've come so far.
25
@23 i guess they don't call you basehead for nothin..put the pipe down.
western culture ? what's that ?
western culture ? what's that ?
26
Thank you Canuck and Jamie,
"Staying with us" was about moving in with us. She knows the door is open. We get to see her, my daughter sees her everyday at school, and Facebook makes it possible to interact as well. Plus, I can always show up at ye ol' church on Sunday for face to face time. I just wish there was more that I could do for her.
"Staying with us" was about moving in with us. She knows the door is open. We get to see her, my daughter sees her everyday at school, and Facebook makes it possible to interact as well. Plus, I can always show up at ye ol' church on Sunday for face to face time. I just wish there was more that I could do for her.
29
Kim, thanks for being there for her. A few years ago, our son had a friend who thought he would need a new place to live and, of course, we offered our home. He didn't take us up on it, but he told us that the offer had made all the difference. Knowing you're there for her will make a big difference for her, too.
30
My six year old just got that same game. (Or a very similar competitor.) It's been great for wearing her out for bedtime, as well as being the only time I'll get off my cellulitic ass too...
31
Hot hot hot! Was there filming from 2 angles? I want to see the front-on video (or at least pix).
32
And yet, we know from things Dan has written that his mom came around in a big way.
It reminds me of a conversation I had with my old college roommate, still a dear friend, at the death of my grandfather just over a year ago. I remarked that, while I loved grandfather and he had many admirable qualities, he was a Kentucky good ol' boy who watched Fox News till the end.
And yet, my friend reminded me, there was something in what grandpa passed on to me that allows me to have an enduring friendship with himself, a gay black man. While we shouldn't lose sight of how far we have to go, it is fine to remember how far we really have come.
It reminds me of a conversation I had with my old college roommate, still a dear friend, at the death of my grandfather just over a year ago. I remarked that, while I loved grandfather and he had many admirable qualities, he was a Kentucky good ol' boy who watched Fox News till the end.
And yet, my friend reminded me, there was something in what grandpa passed on to me that allows me to have an enduring friendship with himself, a gay black man. While we shouldn't lose sight of how far we have to go, it is fine to remember how far we really have come.
33
I've thought for a while now that all those folks at all those Officially Designated Hate Groups don't care beans about homosexuality. Couldn't care less one way or the other.
For them, it's all about the money. They demonize Teh Gays, not-very-bright but probably in a lot of cases well-meaning people get their irrational fears stoked of Teh Gays coming for their children or ruining the "institution of marriage" or putting Teh AIDS into the town reservoir or whatever and send off their checks to stop it.
If those Officially Designated Hate Groups didn't have us, they'd invent us.
And that, to my mind, makes what they're doing all the more evil.
Your other half can sure get his groove on, Mr. Savage! He's a keeper!
For them, it's all about the money. They demonize Teh Gays, not-very-bright but probably in a lot of cases well-meaning people get their irrational fears stoked of Teh Gays coming for their children or ruining the "institution of marriage" or putting Teh AIDS into the town reservoir or whatever and send off their checks to stop it.
If those Officially Designated Hate Groups didn't have us, they'd invent us.
And that, to my mind, makes what they're doing all the more evil.
Your other half can sure get his groove on, Mr. Savage! He's a keeper!
35
Dept. of Two Steps Forward, One Step Back:
You may want to sign this online petition that just landed in my inbox:
http://www.change.org/petitions/view/tel…
You may want to sign this online petition that just landed in my inbox:
http://www.change.org/petitions/view/tel…
37
Dan, I love you. And your husband. And your straight couple friends and their son. And this blog post. For all the ranting you do (which, don't get me wrong, I love too), it's the optimistic messages of hope that really make me love you. <3 You and your family are welcome to come dance in my straight living room with my kids any evening you want! Oh, and Terry has some moves!
38
Drew @33, I've long suspected that it was because Teh Gays weren't producing more offspring of their own, and so they didn't breed a new generation into the fold and thereby provide a future source of funding.
39
Kim, as several others have said, I'm glad she has at least you to show her that people can be better at accepting gays than her family has been. It makes a great difference, from what I've been told.
I'm not gay, and -- I'm sad to confess -- I was very much anti-gay at some point in my life, very long ago, back in the old days when I thought that lesbianism would spread to all women and make almost-nil my chances of ever finding sexual happiness actually equal zero.
I've since then grown wiser. Others can, too. Which is our best hope for the future. As Dan says: the battle is being fought (and lost by the anti-gays) in the houses, in the living-rooms and kitches of the world.
I'm not gay, and -- I'm sad to confess -- I was very much anti-gay at some point in my life, very long ago, back in the old days when I thought that lesbianism would spread to all women and make almost-nil my chances of ever finding sexual happiness actually equal zero.
I've since then grown wiser. Others can, too. Which is our best hope for the future. As Dan says: the battle is being fought (and lost by the anti-gays) in the houses, in the living-rooms and kitches of the world.
40
@23 for the insightful totally politically incorrect win.
by all measures our culture is on its last swirls around the bottom of the crapper.
as homosexuality becomes openly accepted.
coincidence?
Gommorah is so close you can taste it.....
by all measures our culture is on its last swirls around the bottom of the crapper.
as homosexuality becomes openly accepted.
coincidence?
Gommorah is so close you can taste it.....
42
@40: Actually, he was referring to the insidious influence of all that Negro "rap music" on the ears of our children.
43
Terry and Avery are getting down with their bad selves.
Shake your groove thing, shake your groove thing, yeah, yeah...
We are winning and it's scaring the crap out of the haters. Best go change your pants bitches, you're really stinking up the place.
Shake your groove thing, shake your groove thing, yeah, yeah...
We are winning and it's scaring the crap out of the haters. Best go change your pants bitches, you're really stinking up the place.
44
BTW, in the weeks/months since I last watched Dan & Terry's It Gets Better video, Terry has somehow morphed in my memory into Mark Pellegrino. Looking again, I'd say it's a pretty decent resemblance.
46
Thank you, gus, j in ca, and ankylosaur.
I appreciate the kind wishes and thoughts on her behalf and your words of encouragement. I've always been the type to feel injustice strongly, and the type of person who sees pain/rejection and wishes to comfort, heal, encourage, nurture, forgive or whatever else one wants to call it. I just want to make things better, kinder...
Sorry, to have occupied a little too much of this thread, too. This video is about joy and being full of integrity! Having spent part of my holiday shaking my bunda to Just Dance 2, etc. (and messing with Tony Hawk Shred Big Air), I recommend such moments of joy.
I appreciate the kind wishes and thoughts on her behalf and your words of encouragement. I've always been the type to feel injustice strongly, and the type of person who sees pain/rejection and wishes to comfort, heal, encourage, nurture, forgive or whatever else one wants to call it. I just want to make things better, kinder...
Sorry, to have occupied a little too much of this thread, too. This video is about joy and being full of integrity! Having spent part of my holiday shaking my bunda to Just Dance 2, etc. (and messing with Tony Hawk Shred Big Air), I recommend such moments of joy.
47
@40
You wrote: "by all measures our culture is on its last swirls around the bottom of the crapper."
Really? I guess that depends upon your metrics.
In the last 200 years, we've seen "divine right" monarchy replaced by some form of representative government in all western nations--and a great many non-western nations, as well.
In the last 100 years, we've made vast progress in making sure women have the right to vote--a right they now hold even in Iraq.
Slavery in western nations is a thing of the past.
Women in America no longer die at the hands of back-alley abortionists.
People who burn crosses to frighten "uppity" blacks or jews are now prosecuted, instead of silently encouraged.
You may want to return to the good old days of the 1861, when Scarlett O'Hara's biggest concern was which of her hoop skirts to wear to the barbecue at Twelve Oaks, and she was able to overlook the fact that her hoop skirt was the end result of a barbarous system of chattel slavery. You may want to live in the good old days of the 1950's, when Joseph McCarthy could ruin lives by making baseless accusations of Communist affiliation (an affiliation which was, by the way, a constitutionally protected right).
I prefer 2011.
You wrote: "by all measures our culture is on its last swirls around the bottom of the crapper."
Really? I guess that depends upon your metrics.
In the last 200 years, we've seen "divine right" monarchy replaced by some form of representative government in all western nations--and a great many non-western nations, as well.
In the last 100 years, we've made vast progress in making sure women have the right to vote--a right they now hold even in Iraq.
Slavery in western nations is a thing of the past.
Women in America no longer die at the hands of back-alley abortionists.
People who burn crosses to frighten "uppity" blacks or jews are now prosecuted, instead of silently encouraged.
You may want to return to the good old days of the 1861, when Scarlett O'Hara's biggest concern was which of her hoop skirts to wear to the barbecue at Twelve Oaks, and she was able to overlook the fact that her hoop skirt was the end result of a barbarous system of chattel slavery. You may want to live in the good old days of the 1950's, when Joseph McCarthy could ruin lives by making baseless accusations of Communist affiliation (an affiliation which was, by the way, a constitutionally protected right).
I prefer 2011.
49
On a side note, did y'all know that "It's Raining Men" was written by Paul Schaffer, from the David Letterman Show? For reals!
50
Okay, I keep coming back and watching that clip, and I'm thinking Terry has a real Jake Shears vibe going there...it's like watching "I Don't Feel Like Dancing" from behind...too cute!
53
those look like jeggings to me. just say no. skinny leg jeans are a bad enough fashion trend, jeggings are an abomination.
55
Canuck, I wonder if Jake picked up a bit of his dancing style when Terry and Dan took him under their wing as a lad...excellent eye you have!
56
Couple things-
First, your partner isn't your husband, and you he and the child you are raising are not a family. Those are words which actually mean something. They have actual definitions which don't fit your circumstances, Mr. Savage. My wife and I conceived children within our marriage and together we are a family. I don't doubt that you love your boyfriend and would love a child you adopted together. Love is not the definition of family, however. Isn't English so much more clear when we use words according to, you know, their actual definitions?
Obviouly, gay men are not automatically pedophiles any more than straight men are. Your partner dancing with a young boy is no more threatening on its face than my taking my niece and her friends out for ice cream is on its face. This is hardly radical, it simply is psychologically factual. Also obviously, pedophilia and homosexuality are both sexual perversions, but pedophilia has identifiable non consenting victims. This places it under the purview of a mental health, criminal and moral issue, while homosexuality is merely deviant and self destructive.
And don't kid yourself. Full social acceptance of your deviancy will never happen. People will accept that you've embraced a deviant lifestyle, accept that it doesn't hurt them and assume it not to be their business. They will treat homosexual couples the same under the law as normal ones. They will refrain from violence based on your perversions, or be punished for not doing so under the law. This is far from embracing your deviancy as the social and biological norm that is heterosexuality. Kid yourself all you like, you are and will always be a deviant with the social ramifications of deviancy.
BTW, you might try a nodding acquaintance with facts. The Southern Poverty Law group designating 'hate groups' is in no way 'official.' While they have every right to their opinions, they are just that, opinions. I'm unaware of any government agency in charge of deciding who is exercising their right to have and publish and opinion and who is a hate group, but such an agency would hardly surprise me in the current leftist administration.
Also, Michael Medved nowhere hints at being sexually aroused by contemplating lesbian sex anywhere of which I'm aware. In the quote you attribute to him it simply doesn't come up at all, which makes your statement not so much an opinion as a lie and a calumny. Yes, I understand the frustration and jealousy you must feel of that gentleman. He is so much more intelligent and well spoken than you could ever be for a start. He has a normal lifestyle with a real marriage that is socially accepted and acceptable, as well. And most frustrating, he speaks to the core of this country while you reflect a tiny fringe at the far left.
More...
First, your partner isn't your husband, and you he and the child you are raising are not a family. Those are words which actually mean something. They have actual definitions which don't fit your circumstances, Mr. Savage. My wife and I conceived children within our marriage and together we are a family. I don't doubt that you love your boyfriend and would love a child you adopted together. Love is not the definition of family, however. Isn't English so much more clear when we use words according to, you know, their actual definitions?
Obviouly, gay men are not automatically pedophiles any more than straight men are. Your partner dancing with a young boy is no more threatening on its face than my taking my niece and her friends out for ice cream is on its face. This is hardly radical, it simply is psychologically factual. Also obviously, pedophilia and homosexuality are both sexual perversions, but pedophilia has identifiable non consenting victims. This places it under the purview of a mental health, criminal and moral issue, while homosexuality is merely deviant and self destructive.
And don't kid yourself. Full social acceptance of your deviancy will never happen. People will accept that you've embraced a deviant lifestyle, accept that it doesn't hurt them and assume it not to be their business. They will treat homosexual couples the same under the law as normal ones. They will refrain from violence based on your perversions, or be punished for not doing so under the law. This is far from embracing your deviancy as the social and biological norm that is heterosexuality. Kid yourself all you like, you are and will always be a deviant with the social ramifications of deviancy.
BTW, you might try a nodding acquaintance with facts. The Southern Poverty Law group designating 'hate groups' is in no way 'official.' While they have every right to their opinions, they are just that, opinions. I'm unaware of any government agency in charge of deciding who is exercising their right to have and publish and opinion and who is a hate group, but such an agency would hardly surprise me in the current leftist administration.
Also, Michael Medved nowhere hints at being sexually aroused by contemplating lesbian sex anywhere of which I'm aware. In the quote you attribute to him it simply doesn't come up at all, which makes your statement not so much an opinion as a lie and a calumny. Yes, I understand the frustration and jealousy you must feel of that gentleman. He is so much more intelligent and well spoken than you could ever be for a start. He has a normal lifestyle with a real marriage that is socially accepted and acceptable, as well. And most frustrating, he speaks to the core of this country while you reflect a tiny fringe at the far left.
57
Hey Dan,
Can you tell Terry to start a Youtube channel that features him dancing? Maybe a Monday-Friday thing where each day he loses another piece of clothing? Joking. Sort of.
You two are so awesome. You're lucky to have each other, and the world is lucky to have you both.
Can you tell Terry to start a Youtube channel that features him dancing? Maybe a Monday-Friday thing where each day he loses another piece of clothing? Joking. Sort of.
You two are so awesome. You're lucky to have each other, and the world is lucky to have you both.
58
@56--your smugness and self-righteousness smells all the way to the east coast here. Please take your faux-intellectualism and go away. Your "obvious" points and your ilk are fast becoming amusing anachronisms. Enjoy irrelevance!
59
@56 I spend all my time on conservative blogs I don't agree with in order to tell them that their deviant lifestyles will never be accepted by us 'normal' Americans. Oh wait... I don't do that because I have a life with a real family to enjoy and worry about.
And as Mrs. Doubtfire says:
"Some families have one mommy, some families have one daddy, or two families. And some children live with their uncle or aunt. Some live with their grandparents, and some children live with foster parents. And some live in separate homes, in separate neighborhoods, in different areas of the country - and they may not see each other for days, or weeks, months... even years at a time. But if there's love, dear... those are the ties that bind, and you'll have a family in your heart, forever."
Thanks for everything Dan. You fill more people with laughter and hope than you could ever know in a lifetime on this Earth.
And as Mrs. Doubtfire says:
"Some families have one mommy, some families have one daddy, or two families. And some children live with their uncle or aunt. Some live with their grandparents, and some children live with foster parents. And some live in separate homes, in separate neighborhoods, in different areas of the country - and they may not see each other for days, or weeks, months... even years at a time. But if there's love, dear... those are the ties that bind, and you'll have a family in your heart, forever."
Thanks for everything Dan. You fill more people with laughter and hope than you could ever know in a lifetime on this Earth.
61
@23 aww, poor you! Are you one of those whiny nostalgia-ridden assholes for whom the past is always better, the "Western culture" is always rotten and the youngest generation are "spoiled disrespectful brats" for (gasp!) liking a different kind of music and fashion?
62
Don't get too excited about the Southern Poverty Law Center declaring some organization a "hate group." They have a poor track record on these declarations, and frequently label libertarian or gun rights groups as hate groups, including, oddly, the Fully Informed Jury Association. It's hateful to think jurors should know their rights...
63
CWA, AFTAH and FRC deserve their designation as hate groups. What they do is exactly the same as what racist and anti-Semitic groups do: spread lies about the target group in order to incite hatred and violence against members of that group. And even the lies are the same: they're out to do horrible perverted things to your women and/or children! Those evil black men will rape your daughter! Those evil Jews will sacrifice your son on a satanic altar! Those evil Homosexuals will recruit your kids and give them AIDS! Always the same, sensationalistic lines, aimed at short-circuiting people's ability to think rationally, to cause a panic and lead good people to do bad things.
It's the exact same despicable strategy, with the exact same goal, as what schoolyard bullies do, only with ten times the malice and consequences that are even more serious. People die because of what hate groups do. Lives are ruined. Families are torn asunder. Human potential is wasted. And for what? Whatever the haters have to gain from this, they must be prevented from gaining. Nobody must be allowed to profit by the destruction of innocents!
It's the exact same despicable strategy, with the exact same goal, as what schoolyard bullies do, only with ten times the malice and consequences that are even more serious. People die because of what hate groups do. Lives are ruined. Families are torn asunder. Human potential is wasted. And for what? Whatever the haters have to gain from this, they must be prevented from gaining. Nobody must be allowed to profit by the destruction of innocents!
65
@62: Your precious FIJA encourages jurors to vote for acquittal if they happen to think that the law is unjust, which would fuck up the judicial system pretty damn badly.
66
Terry's dance moves are priceless! And that is by far the funniest and cutest video I've seen. <3
67
Seattleblues, three questions:
1. My husband has an adopted brother. Is he part of their family, or should we stop inviting him for family get-togethers?
2. Everyone I know I Canada who is married has made the assumption their marriage is legal and binding, as legally binding as the marriage Dan and his husband had when they, too, married in Canada. If Dan and his husband aren't really married, as you say, what should I tell my friends? (I'm off the hook, thank god, as I got married in the States)
More importantly, can I now call my friends' kids bastards when they annoy me?
3. Where in the bible does Jesus talk about "deviants"? I've read quite a bit about his teachings, and even did an online search, but I can't find the part where he talks about that (just lots of "love, love, acceptance, love, blah, blah"), could you please cite the chapter and verse to which you are referring? Because you do follow the teachings of jesus, right?
1. My husband has an adopted brother. Is he part of their family, or should we stop inviting him for family get-togethers?
2. Everyone I know I Canada who is married has made the assumption their marriage is legal and binding, as legally binding as the marriage Dan and his husband had when they, too, married in Canada. If Dan and his husband aren't really married, as you say, what should I tell my friends? (I'm off the hook, thank god, as I got married in the States)
More importantly, can I now call my friends' kids bastards when they annoy me?
3. Where in the bible does Jesus talk about "deviants"? I've read quite a bit about his teachings, and even did an online search, but I can't find the part where he talks about that (just lots of "love, love, acceptance, love, blah, blah"), could you please cite the chapter and verse to which you are referring? Because you do follow the teachings of jesus, right?
68
@56 >Also, Michael Medved nowhere hints at being sexually aroused by contemplating lesbian sex anywhere of which I'm aware. In the quote you attribute to him it simply doesn't come up at all, which makes your statement not so much an opinion as a lie and a calumny. Yes, I understand the frustration and jealousy you must feel of that gentleman. He is so much more intelligent and well spoken than you could ever be for a start. He has a normal lifestyle with a real marriage that is socially accepted blah blah blah blah
Translation: I am Michael Medved posting anonymously because I am butthurt.
Translation: I am Michael Medved posting anonymously because I am butthurt.
70
This is genuinely heartwarming.
It's also heartwarming to see that about half the posts here are to note how smoking hot Terry is in his skinny jeans and tee. Hoorah for Sloggers.
It's also heartwarming to see that about half the posts here are to note how smoking hot Terry is in his skinny jeans and tee. Hoorah for Sloggers.
71
SPLC are whores who pimp "hate" to panic their credulous liberal donors to donate.
They have a vested interest in reporting more and more HATE and finding more and more OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED HATE GROUPS.
They have a vested interest in reporting more and more HATE and finding more and more OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED HATE GROUPS.
72
65
so you think Southern juries should convict jews and blacks on trumped up racially motivated charges just to make the DA happy?
so you think Southern juries should convict jews and blacks on trumped up racially motivated charges just to make the DA happy?
73
67
Romans Chapter 1
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, perversion, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, deviants, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Romans Chapter 1
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, perversion, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, deviants, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
74
Re 59
I find points of view I don't share interesting. Liberal concepts of social and economic justice, while patently unworkable, are at least motivated by a destire to better society. It's people like Mr. Savage for whom I have little respect. 'I'm gay, no-one wants to treat me as a priviledged class because of this choice, and I'm damned angry about it!' about sums his worldview up. Sorry, I don't have sympathy for those who, having made a choice, don't like the repercussions.
As far Mrs. Doubtfire is concerned, I don't see why a comedy defininition of family is germane. Should we quote Carlin or Drew Carey on definitions as well, in your estimation?
Re 67
Fair point. Heterosexuals adopting a child much in need of a loving home are a different matter.
All that I'm saying is that words have meanings. Marriage refers to the union of a man and woman in a lifelong partnership recognized by the state. It does not refer to heterosexual cohabitation. It does not refer to one night stands. And it does not refer to deviant and perverse couplings homosexuals practice, however long term.
I don't know how the law stands in Canada regarding reciprocal recognition of marriage. In the United States Mr. Savage is no more married than is my dog. His marriage in Canada is a political statement without legal ramifications here.
Nor did I anywhere mention the Bible or religion at all. My faith is a personal matter, not one which dictates the law for my fellow citizens.
RE 65
Try reading some legal history. Or even cursory histories of England from about 900 AD to 1400 AD. The whole point of juries is to express the will of ones peers in the law. It's a check against government power enshrined in the common law, and adopted by the United States. The best way for juries doing so to not 'fuck up' the legal system is for the legal system not to adopt unjust laws.
More...
I find points of view I don't share interesting. Liberal concepts of social and economic justice, while patently unworkable, are at least motivated by a destire to better society. It's people like Mr. Savage for whom I have little respect. 'I'm gay, no-one wants to treat me as a priviledged class because of this choice, and I'm damned angry about it!' about sums his worldview up. Sorry, I don't have sympathy for those who, having made a choice, don't like the repercussions.
As far Mrs. Doubtfire is concerned, I don't see why a comedy defininition of family is germane. Should we quote Carlin or Drew Carey on definitions as well, in your estimation?
Re 67
Fair point. Heterosexuals adopting a child much in need of a loving home are a different matter.
All that I'm saying is that words have meanings. Marriage refers to the union of a man and woman in a lifelong partnership recognized by the state. It does not refer to heterosexual cohabitation. It does not refer to one night stands. And it does not refer to deviant and perverse couplings homosexuals practice, however long term.
I don't know how the law stands in Canada regarding reciprocal recognition of marriage. In the United States Mr. Savage is no more married than is my dog. His marriage in Canada is a political statement without legal ramifications here.
Nor did I anywhere mention the Bible or religion at all. My faith is a personal matter, not one which dictates the law for my fellow citizens.
RE 65
Try reading some legal history. Or even cursory histories of England from about 900 AD to 1400 AD. The whole point of juries is to express the will of ones peers in the law. It's a check against government power enshrined in the common law, and adopted by the United States. The best way for juries doing so to not 'fuck up' the legal system is for the legal system not to adopt unjust laws.
75
So what does "for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature" mean. Is that a reference to lesbianism or hetero butt sex? Why can't you religious types find a diety who says what he means?
76
@Seattleblues:
His marriage in Canada is exactly the same, legally, and in every other definable sense, as my in-laws' 52 year Canadian marriage is. Does that make their marriage a political statement when they visit the States? Does it have no validity beyond Canadian borders?
And I beg to disagree: Your religion, although you take care not to mention it very often, is precisely the reason you hold the views that you do, and is the reason you send your children to Christian, rather than public schools where they might encounter people who do not decry being gay as you do. Your religion informs your opinions, and if you think it's a separate matter, you are delusional.
I don't know how the law stands in Canada regarding reciprocal recognition of marriage...His marriage in Canada is a political statement without legal ramifications here.
His marriage in Canada is exactly the same, legally, and in every other definable sense, as my in-laws' 52 year Canadian marriage is. Does that make their marriage a political statement when they visit the States? Does it have no validity beyond Canadian borders?
And I beg to disagree: Your religion, although you take care not to mention it very often, is precisely the reason you hold the views that you do, and is the reason you send your children to Christian, rather than public schools where they might encounter people who do not decry being gay as you do. Your religion informs your opinions, and if you think it's a separate matter, you are delusional.
77
@74 So why are you against Dan, Terry, and DJ calling themselves a 'family'? I'm sorry you may have adressed this earlier but for some reason the computer isn't letting me read all of your long winded comments.
79
@74 Just FYI, you sound about 19-23 in your childishly spiteful remarks posing as straight faced intellectualism. The transparency is indicative of your actual indignation and stupidity or, more likely, your attempt to troll. 4/10!
80
Canuck,
I have friends who married in China, though the husband is a US citizen. Their marriage was not recognized here in the US until they went throught the paperwork at INS. Mr. Savage has not and cannot go through that kind of paperwork, as his 'marriage' is not legally recognizable here in Washington State. Canada may view Mr. Savages marriage as equivalent to your heterosexual in-laws for all I know. That holds force only while he is in Canada or under the jurisdiction of its government.
My faith emphasises the notion of free will, the necessity to make choices for oneself. I don't mention it very often not because I'm ashamed of it, but because the faith choices of others are between them and God, not them and I.
And yes, my faith and my upbringing absolutely inform who I am and what I believe. Quite apart from that faith are simple matters of common sense, though. 3% of the population, in a free country, don't get to determine policy for the other 97%. They don't get to set the terms of social discourse, or morals or any other purely social ramifications of choices they make. Yes, the tiny minority that is homosexual has every right to expect equal treatment under the law, freedom from violence and all the other benefits of a law abiding society. But they don't have the right to impose their morality or view of sexuality on society. If they choose a socially distasteful lifestyle, they must live with the consequences of that lifestyle, just as any other person would.
I have friends who married in China, though the husband is a US citizen. Their marriage was not recognized here in the US until they went throught the paperwork at INS. Mr. Savage has not and cannot go through that kind of paperwork, as his 'marriage' is not legally recognizable here in Washington State. Canada may view Mr. Savages marriage as equivalent to your heterosexual in-laws for all I know. That holds force only while he is in Canada or under the jurisdiction of its government.
My faith emphasises the notion of free will, the necessity to make choices for oneself. I don't mention it very often not because I'm ashamed of it, but because the faith choices of others are between them and God, not them and I.
And yes, my faith and my upbringing absolutely inform who I am and what I believe. Quite apart from that faith are simple matters of common sense, though. 3% of the population, in a free country, don't get to determine policy for the other 97%. They don't get to set the terms of social discourse, or morals or any other purely social ramifications of choices they make. Yes, the tiny minority that is homosexual has every right to expect equal treatment under the law, freedom from violence and all the other benefits of a law abiding society. But they don't have the right to impose their morality or view of sexuality on society. If they choose a socially distasteful lifestyle, they must live with the consequences of that lifestyle, just as any other person would.
81
@80 >3% of the population, in a free country, don't get to determine policy for the other 97%.
Um, yes we do and we will continue to do so. Gay marriage is right around the corner pal, whether you like it or not isn't really our problem. Your hand was already forced with the DADT repeal, there is plenty more where that came from and there isn't anything you can do about it! ^_^ Sorry, but you are losing =(
Um, yes we do and we will continue to do so. Gay marriage is right around the corner pal, whether you like it or not isn't really our problem. Your hand was already forced with the DADT repeal, there is plenty more where that came from and there isn't anything you can do about it! ^_^ Sorry, but you are losing =(
82
Oh BTW Seattleblues, you wouldn't be spending so much time posting comments on this gay-ass website unless deap down inside you wanted to suck a big throbbing cock. You know that right?
84
I know it is cold here, but I have to wonder what it means when Fox New's Red Eye starts making fun of Conservative Christian anti-gay groups. Maybe there are more conservative, liberal, progressive, green, libertarian... people in society who don't share their obsession or think that we need to keep a portion of the population as second class citizens? I know I didn't get my knickers in a twist when Merriam-Webster added same-sex relationships to their definition of marriage, after all the English Language is constantly changing and adapting. Then again, I tend to think that the only way to allow one's relationship to be diminished is to personally decide it has been diminished. But, then again, I find the source of both my ethics and morals within myself, and not require an outside source to define them for me. Just my $0.02, though.
Anyhow... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgA52KXqD…
Anyhow... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgA52KXqD…
86
Seattleblues, you do realize that not too long ago, a substantial portion of the US population would have considered your mixed race marriage "socially distasteful" as well, don't you? Your hypocrisy is stunning, and your outlook puts you, thankfully, in the same rapidly diminishing numbers as those racist bigots of a generation ago.
87
@ Seattleblues: You say: "Yes, the tiny minority that is homosexual has every right to expect equal treatment under the law"
Read that again. Cogitate as best you can. And then get back to the real world with what that means. And please, spare us the inane shrieks that homosexuals can get married as long as they marry the opposite sex. It's a tired and thoroughly ridiculous bromide.
I'm so very sorry your immutable definitions of English are ossified somewhere in the 1990s. The word "marriage" until very recently also did not include divorce as a potential ending. Please stop masquerading your reflexive fear of change with pseudo-intellectualism.
Once again, enjoy your rapid descent into irrelevance.
Read that again. Cogitate as best you can. And then get back to the real world with what that means. And please, spare us the inane shrieks that homosexuals can get married as long as they marry the opposite sex. It's a tired and thoroughly ridiculous bromide.
I'm so very sorry your immutable definitions of English are ossified somewhere in the 1990s. The word "marriage" until very recently also did not include divorce as a potential ending. Please stop masquerading your reflexive fear of change with pseudo-intellectualism.
Once again, enjoy your rapid descent into irrelevance.
88
@ Seattleblues "3% of the population, in a free country, don't get to determine policy for the other 97%."
So the majority shouldn't accommodate, um, amputees, veterans, babies, centenarians, Delawareans and any of the other countless groups that are not the majority? We should only vote for things that only benefit the majority?
But the part that really confuses me is this: "The tiny minority that is homosexual has every right to expect equal treatment under the law."
You are aware that marriage is a legal institution, right? I got legally married recently, despite the fact that there wasn't a God or a Bible in sight, AND now that I'm married I'm no longer in the majority. According to your logic, does this mean single people can vote away my rights?
So the majority shouldn't accommodate, um, amputees, veterans, babies, centenarians, Delawareans and any of the other countless groups that are not the majority? We should only vote for things that only benefit the majority?
But the part that really confuses me is this: "The tiny minority that is homosexual has every right to expect equal treatment under the law."
You are aware that marriage is a legal institution, right? I got legally married recently, despite the fact that there wasn't a God or a Bible in sight, AND now that I'm married I'm no longer in the majority. According to your logic, does this mean single people can vote away my rights?
89
@80: "I have friends who married in China, though the husband is a US citizen. Their marriage was not recognized here in the US until they went throught the paperwork at INS."
I am pretty sure that you are confusing marital status with immigration status, i.e. the overseas marriage was being used to obtain legal resident status for the non-citizen wife, so prior to that status being granted there was paperwork, etc. to be completed. Here's a follow-up question that may help clarify: After your friends resolved their INS paperwork, did they have to get married again in the US for their marriage to be recognized?
Spoiler alert: I'm pretty sure the answer is NO, because the USA - like many countries - recognizes foreign marriages. Which brings us back to Canuck's point: How is it fair and legal for the USA to recognize some but not all foreign marriages when those marriages are legally identical in the countries where they took place.
Try to remember in your answer that legal marriage is a civil institution, not a religious one.
I am pretty sure that you are confusing marital status with immigration status, i.e. the overseas marriage was being used to obtain legal resident status for the non-citizen wife, so prior to that status being granted there was paperwork, etc. to be completed. Here's a follow-up question that may help clarify: After your friends resolved their INS paperwork, did they have to get married again in the US for their marriage to be recognized?
Spoiler alert: I'm pretty sure the answer is NO, because the USA - like many countries - recognizes foreign marriages. Which brings us back to Canuck's point: How is it fair and legal for the USA to recognize some but not all foreign marriages when those marriages are legally identical in the countries where they took place.
Try to remember in your answer that legal marriage is a civil institution, not a religious one.
90
@87
I have. A homosexual should not be discriminated against in housing, employment and so on. I can't, and should not be able to, refuse to sell or rent a house to a gay or lesbian couple. I can't refuse to hire, or having hired terminate employment for someone based on their chosen sexual orientation. Violence directed against someone should be punished whatever their orientation.
What the left wants isn't equality. With that I have no quarrel. What the left wants is protected status for homosexuals, with which I do quarrel. They want it to be a special crime, for instance, to commit an assualt against someone based on race or sexuality. They want freedom of speech to be limited so as not to offend those who choose a deviant sexuality. They want social acceptance for men and women who choose deviance. This is no different than my church demanding incorporation of the book of Luke into our law, or Jewish synagogues demanding the inclusion of the Torah into the law. It is no different from a call for Shariyah law as a matter of public policy.
Canuck,
There is a vast difference between an illusory (genetically a black or asian or caucasion person are not different in any meaningful way from each other) difference between ethnic peoples and the chosen lifestyle of homosexuality. If I choose to sky-dive I accept the attendant risks. If I choose to risk all of my savings on a stock issue, I accept the possible consequences. Somehow if I choose homosexuality the attendant costs are supposed not to be the responsibility of the one making the choice, but of society as a whole. I just don't understand that view.
I agree that my values and morals are not ipso facto a matter of public policy. I simply wish the same courtesy extended those of us in the majority by the homosexual agenda.
More...
I have. A homosexual should not be discriminated against in housing, employment and so on. I can't, and should not be able to, refuse to sell or rent a house to a gay or lesbian couple. I can't refuse to hire, or having hired terminate employment for someone based on their chosen sexual orientation. Violence directed against someone should be punished whatever their orientation.
What the left wants isn't equality. With that I have no quarrel. What the left wants is protected status for homosexuals, with which I do quarrel. They want it to be a special crime, for instance, to commit an assualt against someone based on race or sexuality. They want freedom of speech to be limited so as not to offend those who choose a deviant sexuality. They want social acceptance for men and women who choose deviance. This is no different than my church demanding incorporation of the book of Luke into our law, or Jewish synagogues demanding the inclusion of the Torah into the law. It is no different from a call for Shariyah law as a matter of public policy.
Canuck,
There is a vast difference between an illusory (genetically a black or asian or caucasion person are not different in any meaningful way from each other) difference between ethnic peoples and the chosen lifestyle of homosexuality. If I choose to sky-dive I accept the attendant risks. If I choose to risk all of my savings on a stock issue, I accept the possible consequences. Somehow if I choose homosexuality the attendant costs are supposed not to be the responsibility of the one making the choice, but of society as a whole. I just don't understand that view.
I agree that my values and morals are not ipso facto a matter of public policy. I simply wish the same courtesy extended those of us in the majority by the homosexual agenda.
91
With respect-
No one will change their position one jot by this, so I'll quit wasting your time or mine.
Yes, gay marriage is a near certainty given the de-evolution of our society. With Edna St Vincent Milay I'll say "I know. I understand. I accept. But I do not approve and I am not resigned."
Mr. Mehlman,
Not everyone who seeks out other views is unsatisfiied with their own. Because I don't enjoy echo chambers and do enjoy spirited discussion of issues does not necessarily make me gay. It doesn't make me a liberal to discuss issues with liberals, or a Muslim because my Islamic neighbor and I frequently discuss comparitive religion. It just makes me someone who is curious about how other people think.
No one will change their position one jot by this, so I'll quit wasting your time or mine.
Yes, gay marriage is a near certainty given the de-evolution of our society. With Edna St Vincent Milay I'll say "I know. I understand. I accept. But I do not approve and I am not resigned."
Mr. Mehlman,
Not everyone who seeks out other views is unsatisfiied with their own. Because I don't enjoy echo chambers and do enjoy spirited discussion of issues does not necessarily make me gay. It doesn't make me a liberal to discuss issues with liberals, or a Muslim because my Islamic neighbor and I frequently discuss comparitive religion. It just makes me someone who is curious about how other people think.
92
Dan and Terry are awesome and hot.
I also dance with my nephews...occasionally in the livingroom of their straight parents. Funny that the world hasn't come to an end.
I also dance with my nephews...occasionally in the livingroom of their straight parents. Funny that the world hasn't come to an end.
93
@72: You're an idiot. If the case is trumped up and based for the most part on prejudice, then the evidence will not justify a conviction, and so the jury should vote to acquit. That's NOT the same as taking issue with the law in question.
@73: Nice try, but that's not Jesus. Romans, in the New Testament, was written by Paul. Remember, he's the guy who decided that you don't have to follow the Old Testament (i.e., be a good Jew) in order to be a good Christian. Next caller?
@74: It is the role of the courts, not the lay people, to decide whether or not a law is just. Such a practice as is encouraged by the FIJA amounts to vigilante justice at best, and anarchy at worst.
Okay, you have your definition of marriage, and you're welcome to it. But on whose authority do you seek to enshrine it as THE definition of marriage? Why should you get to define marriage for the rest of us? Are you just an arrogant ass frantically trying to impose his petty desires on others in society?
@80: Government does not exist for the purpose of imposing the will of the majority on the minority. It exists to bring justice and equality to all its citizens.
Also, the existence of free will does not imply that everything is a choice. I like the scent of hydrogen sulfide, but hate the scent of tobacco smoke. I like bitter, spicy and acrid tastes in food, and can't stand overly sweet meals. For many people, those personal attributes would be the inverse of mine. I can't change my personal preferences, and neither can anyone else, barring extreme circumstances or trauma.
@73: Nice try, but that's not Jesus. Romans, in the New Testament, was written by Paul. Remember, he's the guy who decided that you don't have to follow the Old Testament (i.e., be a good Jew) in order to be a good Christian. Next caller?
@74: It is the role of the courts, not the lay people, to decide whether or not a law is just. Such a practice as is encouraged by the FIJA amounts to vigilante justice at best, and anarchy at worst.
Okay, you have your definition of marriage, and you're welcome to it. But on whose authority do you seek to enshrine it as THE definition of marriage? Why should you get to define marriage for the rest of us? Are you just an arrogant ass frantically trying to impose his petty desires on others in society?
@80: Government does not exist for the purpose of imposing the will of the majority on the minority. It exists to bring justice and equality to all its citizens.
Also, the existence of free will does not imply that everything is a choice. I like the scent of hydrogen sulfide, but hate the scent of tobacco smoke. I like bitter, spicy and acrid tastes in food, and can't stand overly sweet meals. For many people, those personal attributes would be the inverse of mine. I can't change my personal preferences, and neither can anyone else, barring extreme circumstances or trauma.
94
@90: When people choose to be straight and accidentally an unwanted pregnancy, society takes responsibility for their choice, right? Yup, society adopts children from parents who can't or won't care for them, because they made the mistake of choosing to be straight and accidentally formed babby.
So according to your logic here, Teh Ghey is actually just asking for the same treatment as straights.
So according to your logic here, Teh Ghey is actually just asking for the same treatment as straights.
95
No one will change their position one jot by this, so I'll quit wasting your time or mine.
Translation: I know I've lost, I know my argument isn't based in logic, but I can't bring myself to admit it.
However, Seattleblues, please don't assume that the rest of the world is as stubbornly wedded to their opinion as you are. Some people will change their opinions because they don't see admitting they're wrong as a sign of weakness.
96
95, now 96, comments about complete jibberish... Great use of the dog whistle, Dan! The advertising team thanks you for the page-views!
@3 & @4 FTWs.
@3 & @4 FTWs.
97
Love this game!! My 32 year old gay ass destroyed my teenage, cheerleading, dance squad nieces the entire holiday. One of them smugly asked if me if I had tried a Benni Bessasi song yet. I said no, she eagerly selected it, and then I said, "but its on my iPod". Beat her by several thousand points!
98
Hmm... I THINK Merriam-Webster is a pretty solid authority on word definitions. Right?
"mar·riage
noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage"
Well, so much for the one man, one woman definition.
Unless you want to argue, practically, why your personal definition of marriage (since that's all it is) should be the law of the land? Do gays never cohabit? Are they inherently unable make lifelong commitments or to pool their finances together or raise children (adopted or otherwise)?
See, once you leave the obedient, unthinking right-wing circles, "because I say so" or "because THEY say so" no longer work as arguments. There has to be something convincing about your arguments for them to be taken seriously among the rest of us.
And gay marriage isn't a "special right," and here's why: marriage, in PRACTICE, isn't just a male and a female deciding that they may as well form a legal union so as to please the Lord and also to create offspring. Typically, you marry somebody that you are sexually attracted to, that you are in love with, and that you have made a lifelong commitment to. For gays, this is going to be a same-sex partner.
So don't give us any of that bullshit about how gay marriage would be a "special right" because gays can still marry an opposite-sex partner if they want to. There are three things wrong with that argument:
1) If gay marriage is legal, straights can marry a same-sex partner if THEY want to, just as gays can marry an opposite-sex partner. So, even using your own logic, there's no "special right" for gays anyway.
2) Most forms of discrimination can be lazily defended by saying that the victims have the "right" to give up whatever they're being discriminated against for. Jews have the "right" to become Christian. Blacks have the "right" to move to Africa. Women have the "right" to get a sex change and become a man. Yet somehow these aren't proper defenses for sexism, racism, or antisemitism. Why should this same logic, then, qualify as a defense for homophobic laws?
3) It is more accurate to discuss people's right to marry "someone they wish to marry," rather than people's the right to marry either "a man" or "a woman." Even if a gay man has the right to marry "a woman," he is being denied the right to marry "someone he wishes to marry." Yet straight people enjoy this right every day. To deny this very obvious contrast is dishonest.
Marriage should be between two consenting adults. There is absolutely no convincing reason to restrict it beyond that.
More...
"mar·riage
noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage"
Well, so much for the one man, one woman definition.
Unless you want to argue, practically, why your personal definition of marriage (since that's all it is) should be the law of the land? Do gays never cohabit? Are they inherently unable make lifelong commitments or to pool their finances together or raise children (adopted or otherwise)?
See, once you leave the obedient, unthinking right-wing circles, "because I say so" or "because THEY say so" no longer work as arguments. There has to be something convincing about your arguments for them to be taken seriously among the rest of us.
And gay marriage isn't a "special right," and here's why: marriage, in PRACTICE, isn't just a male and a female deciding that they may as well form a legal union so as to please the Lord and also to create offspring. Typically, you marry somebody that you are sexually attracted to, that you are in love with, and that you have made a lifelong commitment to. For gays, this is going to be a same-sex partner.
So don't give us any of that bullshit about how gay marriage would be a "special right" because gays can still marry an opposite-sex partner if they want to. There are three things wrong with that argument:
1) If gay marriage is legal, straights can marry a same-sex partner if THEY want to, just as gays can marry an opposite-sex partner. So, even using your own logic, there's no "special right" for gays anyway.
2) Most forms of discrimination can be lazily defended by saying that the victims have the "right" to give up whatever they're being discriminated against for. Jews have the "right" to become Christian. Blacks have the "right" to move to Africa. Women have the "right" to get a sex change and become a man. Yet somehow these aren't proper defenses for sexism, racism, or antisemitism. Why should this same logic, then, qualify as a defense for homophobic laws?
3) It is more accurate to discuss people's right to marry "someone they wish to marry," rather than people's the right to marry either "a man" or "a woman." Even if a gay man has the right to marry "a woman," he is being denied the right to marry "someone he wishes to marry." Yet straight people enjoy this right every day. To deny this very obvious contrast is dishonest.
Marriage should be between two consenting adults. There is absolutely no convincing reason to restrict it beyond that.
99
@ Seattleblues: "You'll stop wasting your time or mine" by leaving the argument. Just admit you don't have a leg to stand on. Your rebuttal to my position that homosexuals deserve equal marriage rights with pedantic rantings about "special rights" and hate speech issues are the last gasp of the loser. This is about the LEGAL rights of marriage given by a secular government. Your natterings about religion are irrelevant to this issue.
Hear that? That's the sound of you and a two-toothed Klansman jerking each other off over the good ol' days. Buh-bye! : )
Hear that? That's the sound of you and a two-toothed Klansman jerking each other off over the good ol' days. Buh-bye! : )
101
The definition of family has also adapted beyond the "traditional family" according to Merriam-Webster.
To sum it up in a few pithy statements, marriage equality is necessary to right the wrong created by the government when it involved itself in marriage and provided legal rights, benefits, tax breaks, etc. The only ethical and therefore moral option, in my opinion, is to right the inequality. Basically there are two options as I see it, 1) the government does away with marriage and only allows for civil unions or no legal rights for any union, or 2) extend the same legal rights, etc. to all couples. I would guess that those who already enjoy the legal rights of marriage would like to keep them, which really only leaves us with option number 2. The wrong of denying legal rights of marriage to some citizens will right itself, it is only a matter of time, justice like compassion and love wins in the end.
To sum it up in a few pithy statements, marriage equality is necessary to right the wrong created by the government when it involved itself in marriage and provided legal rights, benefits, tax breaks, etc. The only ethical and therefore moral option, in my opinion, is to right the inequality. Basically there are two options as I see it, 1) the government does away with marriage and only allows for civil unions or no legal rights for any union, or 2) extend the same legal rights, etc. to all couples. I would guess that those who already enjoy the legal rights of marriage would like to keep them, which really only leaves us with option number 2. The wrong of denying legal rights of marriage to some citizens will right itself, it is only a matter of time, justice like compassion and love wins in the end.
102
@65, 93: While we may disagree about what jurors should be instructed to do, the point is that this is a political disagreement, not a "hate group" issue.
By the way, jurors already can vote however they want, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Even if the jurors come out after the verdict was announced and say that they nullified, the verdict has to stand. It's just a question of whether to tell them this.
By the way, jurors already can vote however they want, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Even if the jurors come out after the verdict was announced and say that they nullified, the verdict has to stand. It's just a question of whether to tell them this.
103
Nice post, Dan! Thanks!
Seattleblues is one of an ever-shrinking group that still believe he chose to be straight, like I chose to be gay. Once that group becomes too tiny to matter, these arguments will end. Until then, folks like Seattleblues will think that we're demanding 'special rights' to live like everyone else- you know- equal protection under law, the right to marry and join our lives to those we love, the right to not be beaten to a pulp because we find a man's ass sexy. All *those* special rights.
What I find curious is that the Seattleblues folks are so completely unwilling to take every single GLBT's personal experience as truth when we say "WE HAD NO CHOICE IN WHO WE FIND PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE". There's something diabolical and evil in nullifying that many individual's experience in favor of writings in a 3000 year old book.
Seattleblues is one of an ever-shrinking group that still believe he chose to be straight, like I chose to be gay. Once that group becomes too tiny to matter, these arguments will end. Until then, folks like Seattleblues will think that we're demanding 'special rights' to live like everyone else- you know- equal protection under law, the right to marry and join our lives to those we love, the right to not be beaten to a pulp because we find a man's ass sexy. All *those* special rights.
What I find curious is that the Seattleblues folks are so completely unwilling to take every single GLBT's personal experience as truth when we say "WE HAD NO CHOICE IN WHO WE FIND PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE". There's something diabolical and evil in nullifying that many individual's experience in favor of writings in a 3000 year old book.
105
Aw, Come on, you suck-ups. Terry is cute, but he's not *that* cute. Or if you must pander so shamelessly, at least restrict your comments to his ass, legs, and hair, since that's all that can be seen.
Seattleblues, words' definitions undergo changes routinely.
As do the conventions of social norms.
And even the definition of "marriage" that you're working from isn't found in the bible, but the very recent--and soon to be overturned--DOMA.
Also, in your harping on the unrecognizability of a same sex marriage, you're thinking only of federal law and rights; Individual US states have already granted the right of same-sex couples to marry, and those marriages have been recognized legally even in states that don't extend that right (yet), like Texas.
Seattleblues, words' definitions undergo changes routinely.
As do the conventions of social norms.
And even the definition of "marriage" that you're working from isn't found in the bible, but the very recent--and soon to be overturned--DOMA.
Also, in your harping on the unrecognizability of a same sex marriage, you're thinking only of federal law and rights; Individual US states have already granted the right of same-sex couples to marry, and those marriages have been recognized legally even in states that don't extend that right (yet), like Texas.
106
This totally made my day Dan <3 Thank you SO much. I had both a rolling fit of laughter and a moment of thoughtful insight. We really have come a long way.
By the way, Terry's got a very nice ass. You lucky dog you. <3
By the way, Terry's got a very nice ass. You lucky dog you. <3
110
Someday I want a legally binding Slog poll on which commenter is most frequently "hidden" through the magic of Greasemonkey. My top 5 guesses (in alpha order):
*Naive White Libtarded Seattle Progressive
*Raindrop
*Seattleblues
*Supreme Ruler of the Universe
*WiS
*Naive White Libtarded Seattle Progressive
*Raindrop
*Seattleblues
*Supreme Ruler of the Universe
*WiS
111
Perhaps, nocutename, it's because although we are routinely subjected to images in the media of total hotties (my personal favourite? the headless body on the Abercrombie shopping bag...), we don't imagine that Actual People Out There are married to people like that, and at least in my little world, I can safely say there are no husbands who look that way (rear view, at least) in my extended social circle, more's the pity. (Maybe I need to get out more? Maybe I shouldn't have ridiculed Dan for going to the gym on Thanksgiving??)
*and we have seen his face, BTW, and it's pretty cute, too...*
okay, sucking up ceasing now...
*and we have seen his face, BTW, and it's pretty cute, too...*
okay, sucking up ceasing now...
112
@99 and 103
Religion was mentioned once by me. I wrote, in fact, that personal faith should have no bearing on public policy. I did not and will not quote the Bible or Pat Robertson or anything else purely faith based to support a position which needs no support. Homosexuality is a perversion and a mental illness. Making this illness a ground for marriage is the height of lunacy.
I wrote repeatedly that homosexuals are entitled to equal treatment under the law. Violence, discrimination in housing or employment, or discrimination in public places are all unacceptable.
You might try reading what was written before commenting on it. It would save you looking foolish.
@ 105
At some point the federal government will step into the fight for the preservation of marriage, if only to avoid a patchwork approach to marriage at odds with even handed application of law accross this country. In all likelihood decency and family will lose against the vague instinct to play nice that has played hell with American policy since the 60's. It doesn't mean I have to like it, nor surrender the fight for our culture without an effort.
@102
Juries were the check against the power of aristocrats and royalty. They are the check against over zealous government now. The jury of our peers insures that we are held to a body of law acceptable to the community in which we live. Generally they can find as they like without regard to anything presented in the actual trial or the transcript of it. You will, however, find few citizens who know this, and fewer judges who will include it in pre deliberation instructions to the jury.
However, a judge can call for a directed verdict if the prosecution fails to present a viable case. He or she cannot call for a directed verdict of guilty.
More...
Religion was mentioned once by me. I wrote, in fact, that personal faith should have no bearing on public policy. I did not and will not quote the Bible or Pat Robertson or anything else purely faith based to support a position which needs no support. Homosexuality is a perversion and a mental illness. Making this illness a ground for marriage is the height of lunacy.
I wrote repeatedly that homosexuals are entitled to equal treatment under the law. Violence, discrimination in housing or employment, or discrimination in public places are all unacceptable.
You might try reading what was written before commenting on it. It would save you looking foolish.
@ 105
At some point the federal government will step into the fight for the preservation of marriage, if only to avoid a patchwork approach to marriage at odds with even handed application of law accross this country. In all likelihood decency and family will lose against the vague instinct to play nice that has played hell with American policy since the 60's. It doesn't mean I have to like it, nor surrender the fight for our culture without an effort.
@102
Juries were the check against the power of aristocrats and royalty. They are the check against over zealous government now. The jury of our peers insures that we are held to a body of law acceptable to the community in which we live. Generally they can find as they like without regard to anything presented in the actual trial or the transcript of it. You will, however, find few citizens who know this, and fewer judges who will include it in pre deliberation instructions to the jury.
However, a judge can call for a directed verdict if the prosecution fails to present a viable case. He or she cannot call for a directed verdict of guilty.
113
@110 Yep. Pretty much 5 for 5 on that one. I guess Loveschild would also have made the list, once upon a time... Whatever happened to that batshit-crazy loon, I wonder. Posts like this used to catnip for him- her-them.
114
@103
Homosexuality happens one of 3 ways. It is a biologically predetermined condition without any possibility of choice, like eye color or fingerprint pattern. It is a wholly chosen lifestyle. Or, more likely, it has biological roots with the person choosing to act on the predisposition.
If sexuality is chosen, no accomodation within the law is required by our federal government. A person choosing an activity chooses the repercussions of it and lays no obligation on his fellows. If no element of choice exists in sexuality we need to stop imprisoning rapists and child molestors. At worst they suffer from a mental illness and should be institutionalized. At best they are celebrating their innate sexuality. (PLEASE NOTE I do not believe pedophilia or rape to be equivalent to homosexuality. The first two are crimes, the other merely regrettable self destructive behavior. It is those who would say that sexuality has no element of choice that have to live with the corollary, that if the will isn't involved in sexual expression, we can't sanction it.)
In fact like most behaviors there is probably a biological component and a choice to embrace that predilection. In that case, we owe equal treatment, as there are no victims except those who choose to express the prediliction. But we owe no societal accomodation. The old phrase 'you made your bed, now lie in it' is singularly apt here.
Homosexuality happens one of 3 ways. It is a biologically predetermined condition without any possibility of choice, like eye color or fingerprint pattern. It is a wholly chosen lifestyle. Or, more likely, it has biological roots with the person choosing to act on the predisposition.
If sexuality is chosen, no accomodation within the law is required by our federal government. A person choosing an activity chooses the repercussions of it and lays no obligation on his fellows. If no element of choice exists in sexuality we need to stop imprisoning rapists and child molestors. At worst they suffer from a mental illness and should be institutionalized. At best they are celebrating their innate sexuality. (PLEASE NOTE I do not believe pedophilia or rape to be equivalent to homosexuality. The first two are crimes, the other merely regrettable self destructive behavior. It is those who would say that sexuality has no element of choice that have to live with the corollary, that if the will isn't involved in sexual expression, we can't sanction it.)
In fact like most behaviors there is probably a biological component and a choice to embrace that predilection. In that case, we owe equal treatment, as there are no victims except those who choose to express the prediliction. But we owe no societal accomodation. The old phrase 'you made your bed, now lie in it' is singularly apt here.
115
Seattleblues:
You:
Them:
Your perception is coloured by your religious views and your bigotry, not fact or science. Saying the same thing over and over will not make it true.
You:
"I did not and will not quote the Bible or Pat Robertson or anything else purely faith based to support a position which needs no support. Homosexuality is a perversion and a mental illness."
Them:
"The current research and clinical literature now only demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, reflecting the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association."
Your perception is coloured by your religious views and your bigotry, not fact or science. Saying the same thing over and over will not make it true.
116
@114: Sure, there's the choice whether to act on your attraction or stay in the closet. But if enough people in society want to support gay marriage and ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, it will happen, and we're reaching that point. And why not? It doesn't hurt me any; in fact, it *helps* me, by making society more sexually open and free.
(I do agree with you on jurors, though.)
(I do agree with you on jurors, though.)
117
Someday I would like to read actual scientific, peer reviewed, published in legitimate and internationally recognized scientific journals that can provide evidence that the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, etc., are wrong on the subject of being gay. After all, the anti-equality crowd seems rather fond of claiming that their opinion that homosexuality is a mental illness, etc. is a fact. I personally haven't found the evidence to support their opinion, nor have a met a single individual who can tell me how they chose their straight sexual attraction either. It seems that if one is so convinced that some choose to be gay, they should be willing to provide evidence on how they choose not to be gay. I've never got an answer yet, just an obstinate restatement that their opinion(s) is/are fact(s).
118
@114: You're right on one thing; homosexuals do make one small choice. Unfortunately for your line of reasoning, that choice is the decision to come out of the closet. Sexual orientation is almost certainly set very early in life, and some people are going to be Teh Ghey whether or not they are honest about it.
(And for the record, straights make a similar decision about whether they're going to admit, as pissy little preteens, that they are attracted to the opposite gender.)
(And for the record, straights make a similar decision about whether they're going to admit, as pissy little preteens, that they are attracted to the opposite gender.)
119
@93 Venomlash, we agree on most things. But allow me to observe that it's NOT "the role of the courts ... to decide whether or not a law is just." Decision after court decision comes down to "I know this penalty is absurdly harsh but my hands are tied" -- a sentiment expressed in so many words by some judges, and more often left implied.
Allow me to observe, too, that the right of a jury to acquit for whatever reason they want is the law of the land. The question is whether a jury should be informed of this right.
With all due respect to the SPLC, saying that the FIJA would make hate crimes and bigotry go unpunished is hogwash. Hate crimes and bigotry go unpunished now. When bigoted jurors are empaneled their choice is influenced by their bigotry, whether or not they are told of their right to acquit.
It is much more likely that adoption of the FIJA would lead to a quick dismantling of the drug war, and the consequent improvement in the situation of minorities who are now the main victims of this crazy "war".
Silvio Levy
Allow me to observe, too, that the right of a jury to acquit for whatever reason they want is the law of the land. The question is whether a jury should be informed of this right.
With all due respect to the SPLC, saying that the FIJA would make hate crimes and bigotry go unpunished is hogwash. Hate crimes and bigotry go unpunished now. When bigoted jurors are empaneled their choice is influenced by their bigotry, whether or not they are told of their right to acquit.
It is much more likely that adoption of the FIJA would lead to a quick dismantling of the drug war, and the consequent improvement in the situation of minorities who are now the main victims of this crazy "war".
Silvio Levy
120
109
for historical perspective.
christians believe the law of moses was fulfilled by the Messiah.
"But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament; which veil is done away in Christ.
But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart.
Nevertheless when it (..."it"= the hearts of those still adhering to the law of moses...) shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."
the first christians were jews.
when gentiles began to accept the gospel some 'jewish' christians insisted that they must be circumcised as part of becoming christians.
the apostles correct that error teach that the law of moses is fulfilled and done away and circumcision and other rites of the law of moses are not required of christians.
see Acts 15
for historical perspective.
christians believe the law of moses was fulfilled by the Messiah.
"But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament; which veil is done away in Christ.
But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart.
Nevertheless when it (..."it"= the hearts of those still adhering to the law of moses...) shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."
the first christians were jews.
when gentiles began to accept the gospel some 'jewish' christians insisted that they must be circumcised as part of becoming christians.
the apostles correct that error teach that the law of moses is fulfilled and done away and circumcision and other rites of the law of moses are not required of christians.
see Acts 15
121
111
it is entirely appropriate to comment ad nauseam on the physical features.
in fact, that's all there is to comment about.
of course dan goes to the gymn on thanksgiving.
when the body goes he will lose all currency in the homosexual scene.
"you have a pretty mouth"-"the better to eat you with..." is not the start of an emotionally mature sustainable relationship.
it is a one night stand repeated 'groundhog day'-style for as long as it stays 'fresh' (hint- liberal cheating and lots of pot can postpone -but not eliminate- the expiration date...)
it is entirely appropriate to comment ad nauseam on the physical features.
in fact, that's all there is to comment about.
of course dan goes to the gymn on thanksgiving.
when the body goes he will lose all currency in the homosexual scene.
"you have a pretty mouth"-"the better to eat you with..." is not the start of an emotionally mature sustainable relationship.
it is a one night stand repeated 'groundhog day'-style for as long as it stays 'fresh' (hint- liberal cheating and lots of pot can postpone -but not eliminate- the expiration date...)
123
@119: Okay, what does the Supreme Court (state or federal) do? It decides if laws have merit. It is NOT the place of the lay people to decide, entirely outside of our system of government, whether a law is just or not; that is basically vigilante justice. I can agree that classifying FIJA as a hate group is hyperbolic and unnecessary, however. I still think that they're a bunch of tossers.
@120: Well, that would explain why Christianity has so little regard for the Second, Fourth, Sixth, and Ninth Commandments.
@120: Well, that would explain why Christianity has so little regard for the Second, Fourth, Sixth, and Ninth Commandments.
124
"you have a pretty mouth"-"the better to eat you with..." is not the start of an emotionally mature sustainable relationship."
@121: The longevity of Dan's relationship says otherwise.
@121: The longevity of Dan's relationship says otherwise.
126
I read what you wrote @112 Seattleblues:
"I wrote repeatedly that homosexuals are entitled to equal treatment under the law."
Great. So you agree that they should be allowed to marry the person they love, just as heterosexuals are permitted to do under the law. And that would be legally marry, exactly the same as heterosexuals, because the US has already determined that "separate but equal" solutions (such as "civil union" in lieu of marriage) do not constitute true equality.
Glad you agree. That was surprisingly easy.
"I wrote repeatedly that homosexuals are entitled to equal treatment under the law."
Great. So you agree that they should be allowed to marry the person they love, just as heterosexuals are permitted to do under the law. And that would be legally marry, exactly the same as heterosexuals, because the US has already determined that "separate but equal" solutions (such as "civil union" in lieu of marriage) do not constitute true equality.
Glad you agree. That was surprisingly easy.
127
@117 and 118
As I wrote, if no choice is involved in sexuality no penalty can apply to it. In any expression. After all, bestiality and pedophilia are not, in your view, chosen. The child molestor is the helpless victim of his or her own sexuallity. Forget the child, the real victim is the perpetrator of such crimes! (BTW, I'd keep this slogan off of your marriage equality banners. Some Americans are just SO sex negative!) Those who find cattle unbearably attractiive were born that way, so we can't punish the poor helpless dears. Or wait, is it only homosexuals that are the helpless victims of their preset sexuality in your view? Neat trick, that.
See, you can't have it both ways. Either we are responsible for our behaviors or we aren't. We choose to act on whatever we are given in the lottery of birth and are responsible for those choices, or we don't and aren't. It really is that simple.
I've written often that of course I don't believe the horrible crime of pedophilia equal in any way to the regrettable mental illness of homosexuality. It is those who see homosexuality as inevitable in some people that make this equivalency, intended or not, if they are intellectually honest. I personally don't see myself as the helpless victim of my sexuallity. If homosexuals need to blame something for their choices, though, I suppose genetics or biology will serve as well as anything else.
As I wrote, if no choice is involved in sexuality no penalty can apply to it. In any expression. After all, bestiality and pedophilia are not, in your view, chosen. The child molestor is the helpless victim of his or her own sexuallity. Forget the child, the real victim is the perpetrator of such crimes! (BTW, I'd keep this slogan off of your marriage equality banners. Some Americans are just SO sex negative!) Those who find cattle unbearably attractiive were born that way, so we can't punish the poor helpless dears. Or wait, is it only homosexuals that are the helpless victims of their preset sexuality in your view? Neat trick, that.
See, you can't have it both ways. Either we are responsible for our behaviors or we aren't. We choose to act on whatever we are given in the lottery of birth and are responsible for those choices, or we don't and aren't. It really is that simple.
I've written often that of course I don't believe the horrible crime of pedophilia equal in any way to the regrettable mental illness of homosexuality. It is those who see homosexuality as inevitable in some people that make this equivalency, intended or not, if they are intellectually honest. I personally don't see myself as the helpless victim of my sexuallity. If homosexuals need to blame something for their choices, though, I suppose genetics or biology will serve as well as anything else.
128
Interesting you chose not to answer my comment @115, Seattleblues. You calling same-sex attraction a mental illness is like saying the sky is green and the grass is blue. The people who serve as an arbiter of what constitutes mental illness disagree with you, and the people who know, love, work with, work for, and hang out with gay people disagree with you. Your lone voice bleating the same tired phrase over and over DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.
129
BB
"Great. So you agree that they should be allowed to marry the person they love, just as heterosexuals are permitted to do under the law"
Umm no. A black or asian person had no choice in their ethnicity. Penalizing someone for a choice they did not make would be manifestly unjust.
A gay person chose to act on thier sexuality. Provisions of seperate but equal simply don't apply. I'd add that the specific cases you mention, Plessy v Fergusen and Brown v Board of Educaton of Topeka Kansas 1and 2 are specific to ethnic issues, not gender or sex ones.
And more directly, any gay person can marry anyone of the opposite sex they wish who will consent to such a marriage. They are not being barred from marraige except by their own choices. Otherwise, by your reasoning, the civil rights of anyone who proposes and is turned down are violated. After all, they wanted to marry that person, not someone else. The fact that they can't means they don't have access to marriage, right?
Having said that removing marriage from the sphere of government altogether would seem the best way to save it. Were government to officially sanction only civil unions or whatever term is desired other than marriage regardless of sexual choices, the problem would be solved. Marriage could be a private religious matter, and the civil riights of gays would be unquestionably equal to those of heterosexuals as regards life partnerships.
"Great. So you agree that they should be allowed to marry the person they love, just as heterosexuals are permitted to do under the law"
Umm no. A black or asian person had no choice in their ethnicity. Penalizing someone for a choice they did not make would be manifestly unjust.
A gay person chose to act on thier sexuality. Provisions of seperate but equal simply don't apply. I'd add that the specific cases you mention, Plessy v Fergusen and Brown v Board of Educaton of Topeka Kansas 1and 2 are specific to ethnic issues, not gender or sex ones.
And more directly, any gay person can marry anyone of the opposite sex they wish who will consent to such a marriage. They are not being barred from marraige except by their own choices. Otherwise, by your reasoning, the civil rights of anyone who proposes and is turned down are violated. After all, they wanted to marry that person, not someone else. The fact that they can't means they don't have access to marriage, right?
Having said that removing marriage from the sphere of government altogether would seem the best way to save it. Were government to officially sanction only civil unions or whatever term is desired other than marriage regardless of sexual choices, the problem would be solved. Marriage could be a private religious matter, and the civil riights of gays would be unquestionably equal to those of heterosexuals as regards life partnerships.
130
Canuck,
Sorry, I missed the comment.
So, when schizophrenia was treated with electric shocks (a practice since disavowed) the fact that qualified psychiatrists so treated patients made the treatment unquestionable? Doctors and the quacks who call themselves doctors of psychology or psychiatry aren't infallible. Time has a way of showing their errors.
Psychology is an evolving field. At one time psychology correctly regarded the refusal to acknowledge biological realities which homosexuals suffer as a mental illness. It no longer does. Perhaps it will revert to reality, maybe it won't. It hardly is my problem what a bunch of overpaid and underqualified quacks do.
Sorry, I missed the comment.
So, when schizophrenia was treated with electric shocks (a practice since disavowed) the fact that qualified psychiatrists so treated patients made the treatment unquestionable? Doctors and the quacks who call themselves doctors of psychology or psychiatry aren't infallible. Time has a way of showing their errors.
Psychology is an evolving field. At one time psychology correctly regarded the refusal to acknowledge biological realities which homosexuals suffer as a mental illness. It no longer does. Perhaps it will revert to reality, maybe it won't. It hardly is my problem what a bunch of overpaid and underqualified quacks do.
131
Venomlash,
I consider myself a devout Christian. I believe that the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, not its' replacement.
However, I don't and won't advocate that adulterers be stoned to death. I don't and won't practice polygamy (figuring out the quirks of one wife is a sufficiently daunting task for any sane man, thank you very much.) Were my brother to die I would not perforce marry his wife.
No Jewish person I know practices animal sacrifice in ritual expiation of sin, or indeed any of the other Old Testament provisions I mentioned. Are they all hypocrites?
As I get older I accept that there are just some things I don't yet, and maybe never will, understand. I keep my eyes and my mind and my heart open to understanding and shelve the questions in such cases. I've had enough of these questions answered at unexpected times when I wasn't even asking that I'm not particularly worried about them. If this makes me a hypocrite or a bad Christian, so be it.
I consider myself a devout Christian. I believe that the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, not its' replacement.
However, I don't and won't advocate that adulterers be stoned to death. I don't and won't practice polygamy (figuring out the quirks of one wife is a sufficiently daunting task for any sane man, thank you very much.) Were my brother to die I would not perforce marry his wife.
No Jewish person I know practices animal sacrifice in ritual expiation of sin, or indeed any of the other Old Testament provisions I mentioned. Are they all hypocrites?
As I get older I accept that there are just some things I don't yet, and maybe never will, understand. I keep my eyes and my mind and my heart open to understanding and shelve the questions in such cases. I've had enough of these questions answered at unexpected times when I wasn't even asking that I'm not particularly worried about them. If this makes me a hypocrite or a bad Christian, so be it.
132
@Seattleblues: Ah, thank you for clarifying! So, when a science makes early assumptions based on the knowledge available at the time (shock therapy, leeches, bodily humours, old views on homosexuality) they are in the right. When that science changes its collective opinion based on new research and knowledge, they are "underqualified quacks." See, most people would have applied that term to the leech doctors, but not you! Seriously, go read your beloved New Testament and get A FUCKING CLUE. Try to absorb what it teaches (love, love, love), and stop being so bloody dogmatic.
To go back to Dan's original sentiment, it really doesn't matter what dinosaurs like Seattleblues think. Although it is a good exercise to debate him, his views are the dying gasp of an outmoded way of thinking. Looking back, thinking about debating people like Seattleblues will be like remembering hearing your parents debate civil rights with their crazy ass southern relatives.
It's all changing. And Dan is right: Something that would have been remarkable a generation ago is just business as usual today. When I look at my kids, and think that for each of them, they, child 1: work with gay co-workers, child 2: go clubbing with their gay friends, child 3: have an after-school job working at a business owned by a gay couple, I think, you know what? Fuck people like Seattleblues. Our kids are where it's at, and their world isn't his world, thank god.
To go back to Dan's original sentiment, it really doesn't matter what dinosaurs like Seattleblues think. Although it is a good exercise to debate him, his views are the dying gasp of an outmoded way of thinking. Looking back, thinking about debating people like Seattleblues will be like remembering hearing your parents debate civil rights with their crazy ass southern relatives.
It's all changing. And Dan is right: Something that would have been remarkable a generation ago is just business as usual today. When I look at my kids, and think that for each of them, they, child 1: work with gay co-workers, child 2: go clubbing with their gay friends, child 3: have an after-school job working at a business owned by a gay couple, I think, you know what? Fuck people like Seattleblues. Our kids are where it's at, and their world isn't his world, thank god.
133
@ 130: May I take this opportunity to congratulate you, Seattleblues, on a truly breathtaking example of what I believe is the logical fallacy known as "No True Scotsman". Enjoy your haggis!
134
128
Mental Healthcare professionals observe that homosexuals have much greater rates of mental illness. (homosexual's suicide rates track nicely with what would be expected from a population with those mental illness rates, btw- but no one tell Dan and burst his bubble....)
what do you think-
does the mental illness produce homosexuality or
do homosexual lifestyle choices create greater rates of mental illness?
(ps- those greatly elevated mental illness and suicide rates occur across the world in nations of all religious traditions and social levels of acceptance of homosexuality....)
Mental Healthcare professionals observe that homosexuals have much greater rates of mental illness. (homosexual's suicide rates track nicely with what would be expected from a population with those mental illness rates, btw- but no one tell Dan and burst his bubble....)
what do you think-
does the mental illness produce homosexuality or
do homosexual lifestyle choices create greater rates of mental illness?
(ps- those greatly elevated mental illness and suicide rates occur across the world in nations of all religious traditions and social levels of acceptance of homosexuality....)
135
@129: "A black or asian person had no choice in their ethnicity. Penalizing someone for a choice they did not make would be manifestly unjust. A gay person chose to act on thier sexuality."
So, it's not being gay that you object to so much as it is acting upon being gay. That is, to be blunt, fucking insane.
Let's go back to ethnicity: discriminating against people who are black or asian is fine, as it wasn't a choice. But is it okay to discriminate against them if they "act on" being black or asian? Of course not - that is an absurdity. Who they are and what they do are inextricable.
In the same way, being gay and "acting on" being gay are inextricable.
I'm afraid your argument doesn't get any better. This:
"By your reasoning, the civil rights of anyone who proposes and is turned down are violated. After all, they wanted to marry that person, not someone else."
is a ridiculous distortion of the equal marriage position.
Finally, there is this:
"Removing marriage from the sphere of government altogether would seem the best way to save it."
I'd suggest instead that marriage be removed from the sphere of religion. It is a civil contract.
So, it's not being gay that you object to so much as it is acting upon being gay. That is, to be blunt, fucking insane.
Let's go back to ethnicity: discriminating against people who are black or asian is fine, as it wasn't a choice. But is it okay to discriminate against them if they "act on" being black or asian? Of course not - that is an absurdity. Who they are and what they do are inextricable.
In the same way, being gay and "acting on" being gay are inextricable.
I'm afraid your argument doesn't get any better. This:
"By your reasoning, the civil rights of anyone who proposes and is turned down are violated. After all, they wanted to marry that person, not someone else."
is a ridiculous distortion of the equal marriage position.
Finally, there is this:
"Removing marriage from the sphere of government altogether would seem the best way to save it."
I'd suggest instead that marriage be removed from the sphere of religion. It is a civil contract.
136
@Seattleblues, is it possible that legal recognition of gay marriage would encourage gay men to form stable relationships and mitigate the negative aspects of the gay lifestyle?
138
@125: Yes, Christianity has a very bad track record with the 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 9th Commandments as handed down to Moshe on Mount Sinai. Let's make a list here:
2nd Commandment, "Do not have any other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.": Notice all the crucifixes and paintings of Jesus and Mary before which Christians pray.
4th Commandment, "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.": Apart from the Seventh Day Baptists and Adventists, Christians have forgotten entirely which day was the Sabbath, observing it a day too late.
6th Commandment, "You shall not murder.": Notice the huge numbers of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim innocents mown down in the name of God by the crusaders.
9th Commandment, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.": There are too many excellent examples in this category; for brevity's sake I shall mention only the blood libel preached against the Jews of Europe for many years, even after many religious leaders had exposed it as patently false.
So, in light of such evidence, I'm rather inclined to believe that Christians have no respect for the law of the Old Testament.
2nd Commandment, "Do not have any other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.": Notice all the crucifixes and paintings of Jesus and Mary before which Christians pray.
4th Commandment, "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.": Apart from the Seventh Day Baptists and Adventists, Christians have forgotten entirely which day was the Sabbath, observing it a day too late.
6th Commandment, "You shall not murder.": Notice the huge numbers of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim innocents mown down in the name of God by the crusaders.
9th Commandment, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.": There are too many excellent examples in this category; for brevity's sake I shall mention only the blood libel preached against the Jews of Europe for many years, even after many religious leaders had exposed it as patently false.
So, in light of such evidence, I'm rather inclined to believe that Christians have no respect for the law of the Old Testament.
139
@137
This isn't a view shared by all or even most gay men, but a select few see the inability to get married in the future as a reason to not bother establishing a long term relationship. Unfortunately this can also lead them to not care whether marriage equality comes to pass or not, which hurts those that DO want to get married.
Similar to how someone expecting to die before they reach retirement age is not going to see a reason for saving money for retirement. Everyone is short sighted in some way.
This isn't a view shared by all or even most gay men, but a select few see the inability to get married in the future as a reason to not bother establishing a long term relationship. Unfortunately this can also lead them to not care whether marriage equality comes to pass or not, which hurts those that DO want to get married.
Similar to how someone expecting to die before they reach retirement age is not going to see a reason for saving money for retirement. Everyone is short sighted in some way.
140
@123: No, the Supreme Court does not decide whether "laws have merit." It settles specific cases. It can also invalidate a law if it contradicts a different law (the Constitution).
Jury nullification has nothing to do with vigilante justice. Vigilantes act illegally, outside of the system of law. Juries are part of the system of law, and they have the power, in our legal system, to decide whether someone is guilty or innocent. If a jury thinks that someone should not be convicted of a crime, our legal system specifically gives them the power to find him innocent.
Jury nullification has nothing to do with vigilante justice. Vigilantes act illegally, outside of the system of law. Juries are part of the system of law, and they have the power, in our legal system, to decide whether someone is guilty or innocent. If a jury thinks that someone should not be convicted of a crime, our legal system specifically gives them the power to find him innocent.
141
@127: Pedophilia and zoophilia, as orientations, are not and should not be illegal. What is illegal is engaging in a sex act with a partner who cannot meaningfully consent to it, such as a child or an animal. It is astounding that you should continue comparing these disorders to homosexuality. That dog won't hunt, and in fact has been blissfully snoozing in front of the fireplace for several years.
@129: Straight people chose to act on their sexuality too. If I want to marry my girlfriend, should I be denied that because I chose to act on my heterosexuality?
Also, all people are entitled to equal protection under the law: "equal", not "equivalent", under the Fourteenth Amendment. A civil union solution is inherently flawed for that reason.
@131: We Jews have not performed sacrifices in the Temple for many many years, due to the destruction of the Temple. Instead, we read the passages pertaining to the sacrifices and keep the days of the Temple's existence in our memory in lieu of actually performing the sacrifices.
@132: You're giving Seattleblues too much credit by referring to him as a dinosaur. Dinosaurs were the dominant clade of large land animals for over a hundred million years, with many variants on the basic archosaur form living in many diverse niches; one such variant, birds, is alive and thriving today.
@129: Straight people chose to act on their sexuality too. If I want to marry my girlfriend, should I be denied that because I chose to act on my heterosexuality?
Also, all people are entitled to equal protection under the law: "equal", not "equivalent", under the Fourteenth Amendment. A civil union solution is inherently flawed for that reason.
@131: We Jews have not performed sacrifices in the Temple for many many years, due to the destruction of the Temple. Instead, we read the passages pertaining to the sacrifices and keep the days of the Temple's existence in our memory in lieu of actually performing the sacrifices.
@132: You're giving Seattleblues too much credit by referring to him as a dinosaur. Dinosaurs were the dominant clade of large land animals for over a hundred million years, with many variants on the basic archosaur form living in many diverse niches; one such variant, birds, is alive and thriving today.
142
138
they could surely learn a lot about Old Testament adherence from the Jews.
what with their burnt offerings and stoning adulterers and capital punishment for homosexuals and all.......
they could surely learn a lot about Old Testament adherence from the Jews.
what with their burnt offerings and stoning adulterers and capital punishment for homosexuals and all.......
143
141
Are pedophilia and zoophilia, as orientations, normal and natural?
Or are they perverted deviant impulses?
Are pedophilia and zoophilia, as orientations, normal and natural?
Or are they perverted deviant impulses?
144
in what state, county or city are heterosexuals given the "right" to marry whom they Love?
We'd like to know.....
We'd like to know.....
145
Seattleblues: What happened to you not commenting anymore? You are deliciously entertaining however, like a chimp that smokes Carry on!
146
@145 If he stopped commenting he would he wouldn't have a reason to bring up the post and watch Terry wiggle his tush.
147
it's a matter of belief. imposing one's religious beliefs on society and other individuals is what is happening here. for so long some people have demanded everyone believe the way they do. about all "their" moral beliefs. demanding others believe "this" or "that" as they "proscribe" the "truth" to be.
Since no one has stopped them, they continue to demand everyone agree to and with their beliefs. Ain't gonna happen. Unless America becomes like Iran, that is. a Theocracy. The supposed separation of church and state has been breached. Doesn't make them wrong about what they believe, just wrong about forcing others to believe their "truths", which was the accepted way in America. American society today is more than just one "set" of beliefs.
American society is so much different now than it was yesterday. much greater tolerance for the "other." the light of a new day is upon us all.
Americans are very diverse and different now. multiple beliefs in and ways how to be happy in the American Dream.
like Steve King said, "I get so tired of them forcing their beliefs down my throat."
Terry is a wonderful dancer.
Since no one has stopped them, they continue to demand everyone agree to and with their beliefs. Ain't gonna happen. Unless America becomes like Iran, that is. a Theocracy. The supposed separation of church and state has been breached. Doesn't make them wrong about what they believe, just wrong about forcing others to believe their "truths", which was the accepted way in America. American society today is more than just one "set" of beliefs.
American society is so much different now than it was yesterday. much greater tolerance for the "other." the light of a new day is upon us all.
Americans are very diverse and different now. multiple beliefs in and ways how to be happy in the American Dream.
like Steve King said, "I get so tired of them forcing their beliefs down my throat."
Terry is a wonderful dancer.
148
Mr. Savage & Terry,
Will you please come to my house and teach my 10 year old boy how to dance? He sees only girls dancing here. I will cook fancy gay food and everything. Maybe after we can all sing Glee songs together?
Midwest Farmtown Mom
Will you please come to my house and teach my 10 year old boy how to dance? He sees only girls dancing here. I will cook fancy gay food and everything. Maybe after we can all sing Glee songs together?
Midwest Farmtown Mom
149
@135 and 136
Marraige is a term that carries a lot of freight. Removing it from the discussion and focusing on attaining equality under the law, as you see it, would be a more realistic goal.
But that isn't what's wanted, is it? I mean, if the rights of marraige were the goal, civil unions would be acceptable. What is wanted is for homosexuality to entitle one to special status under the law. You want to be married. You want speech or writings about homosexuality that offend you to be considered criminal. You want assaults against someone who is homosexual to be treated as different from one against a heterosexual.
As for Mr. Mehlmans point about stability of relationships and harms to gays from not being married, there is a semi reasonable point there. The person who posted the question about what stops gays from forming stable and healthy relationships without marriage has a point. Apart from that, if stability is what's wanted, why are civil unions incapable of providing it?
@146
You might spare the inuendo about me being gay. The only reason for doing this is that you believe I'll find it insulting. (I don't, by the way. If I were in fact gay it would be true, and not insulting. Since I'm not it isn't insulting as it lacks any basis in fact.) You might ask yourself what that says about your personal perception of homosexuality that you consider it insulting to call me gay, as well.
Marraige is a term that carries a lot of freight. Removing it from the discussion and focusing on attaining equality under the law, as you see it, would be a more realistic goal.
But that isn't what's wanted, is it? I mean, if the rights of marraige were the goal, civil unions would be acceptable. What is wanted is for homosexuality to entitle one to special status under the law. You want to be married. You want speech or writings about homosexuality that offend you to be considered criminal. You want assaults against someone who is homosexual to be treated as different from one against a heterosexual.
As for Mr. Mehlmans point about stability of relationships and harms to gays from not being married, there is a semi reasonable point there. The person who posted the question about what stops gays from forming stable and healthy relationships without marriage has a point. Apart from that, if stability is what's wanted, why are civil unions incapable of providing it?
@146
You might spare the inuendo about me being gay. The only reason for doing this is that you believe I'll find it insulting. (I don't, by the way. If I were in fact gay it would be true, and not insulting. Since I'm not it isn't insulting as it lacks any basis in fact.) You might ask yourself what that says about your personal perception of homosexuality that you consider it insulting to call me gay, as well.
150
the troll also finds it amusing when the homoliberals start losing the argument
and trot out the 'oooohhh- YOU MUST BE A CLOSETED FAGGOT...." card.
like that is an insult?
calling us what you are is an insult?
perhaps therapy could help those self esteem issues......
and trot out the 'oooohhh- YOU MUST BE A CLOSETED FAGGOT...." card.
like that is an insult?
calling us what you are is an insult?
perhaps therapy could help those self esteem issues......
151
I'm not insulting you by implying that your gay. I'm insulting you by implying that you are self deluded. You go on about the evils of the gay lifestyle at such great length I have to wonder who are you trying to convince, us or yourself?
152
@149: "I mean, if the rights of marraige were the goal, civil unions would be acceptable. What is wanted is for homosexuality to entitle one to special status under the law."
No. No no no. You are completely backwards here.
What you want is for heterosexuality to entitle one to special status under the law - the status of being a married person. You want this to be reserved only to heterosexuals.(And please spare me the old canard that homosexuals are free to marry persons of the opposite sex.)
Advocates of equal marriage, like myself, simply want all persons to have an equal right to marry the partner of their choosing, whether or not they are gay or straight. All persons with the same status - no special rights for anyone.
No. No no no. You are completely backwards here.
What you want is for heterosexuality to entitle one to special status under the law - the status of being a married person. You want this to be reserved only to heterosexuals.(And please spare me the old canard that homosexuals are free to marry persons of the opposite sex.)
Advocates of equal marriage, like myself, simply want all persons to have an equal right to marry the partner of their choosing, whether or not they are gay or straight. All persons with the same status - no special rights for anyone.
153
I can honestly say that I find a man being attracted to a man completely perplexing. I find movies like Brokeback Mountain (my wife wanted to see it, 2 hours and 15 dollars I won't get back, damn it) unwatchable, because I simply don't buy the premise. For my money, the best thing God ever did was create women. A world without them in all their caring, exasperating, illogical and physically desirable complexity would hardly be worth living in. It would be like living in a world without color or without sound.
Wonder all you like, Mr. Mehlman. It really doesn't concern me one way or the other.
Wonder all you like, Mr. Mehlman. It really doesn't concern me one way or the other.
154
Seattleblues: "I can honestly say that I find a man being attracted to a man completely perplexing."
So because you aren't gay, you don't buy the premise? And because of that, you would deny a whole segment of society their civil rights?
And you don't see the huge flaw in all of this?
So because you aren't gay, you don't buy the premise? And because of that, you would deny a whole segment of society their civil rights?
And you don't see the huge flaw in all of this?
155
@149: No, although I support gay rights, I do not want hate speech to be criminalized. I support free speech and the First Amendment. People should be able to engage in hateful or discriminatory speech. I don't support hate crime laws either, though you don't seem to accurately understand how they work. Hate crime laws add increased penalties based on the reason you commit a crime against someone. So, they would equally punish killing a gay guy cause he's gay, and killing a straight guy cause he's straight.
And the problem with civil unions is that in states where same-sex couples were allowed civilly recognized unions called "civil unions", but opposite-sex couples were allowed civilly recognized unions called "marriage", is that they didn't, in fact, get the same rights.
Civil unions are fine, as long as they're the same civil unions (usually called "marriages") that straight couples have.
And the problem with civil unions is that in states where same-sex couples were allowed civilly recognized unions called "civil unions", but opposite-sex couples were allowed civilly recognized unions called "marriage", is that they didn't, in fact, get the same rights.
Civil unions are fine, as long as they're the same civil unions (usually called "marriages") that straight couples have.
156
Oh, it seems like we are finally getting somewhere, Seattleblues. You don't understand why a man would be attracted to another man, so you name that attraction a pathology. I don't particularly like cats. Does that mean I should bar others from owning cats? No, to be honest, I really don't care who has cats, as long as I don't have to have one. And that's the point, really. I spend no time thinking about other cat owners, why? Because I couldn't care less what they are doing. That is how most men who are straight, and who aren't actively advocating for gay rights see the issue--that is, they don't think about it at all. They don't have any interest in seeing Brokeback Mountain, they aren't knowledgeable about gay issues, and they DON'T think about gay people at all. You, however, like many of your Christian brethren, spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about gay men. Thinking about their "deviant" behaviour, thinking about all that sex they are having, and writing about your outrage here on Slog, and making sure we know just how much you love women. It's telling. Sweetheart, try Googling "Methinks he doth protest too much"...
157
@150: If a disproportionately large fraction of the guys making Seattleblues's arguments turn out to be closeted faggots...it's not exactly illogical to suggest that Seattleblues himself is. Also, it's not the "faggot" part of "closeted faggot" that we rational people consider a bad thing; it's the "closeted" bit that you damn well better have a good reason for.
Frankly, I don't think Seattleblues wants a dick up his ass; I think he just has a stick up his ass.
@153: You seem to have a great appreciation for women. Can you therefore understand why some women might like women?
And if that is so, perhaps straight women may be able to understand gay men, since they too like men.
@156: You don't like cats?
DIE YOU CALLOUS UNCARING MONSTER
Frankly, I don't think Seattleblues wants a dick up his ass; I think he just has a stick up his ass.
@153: You seem to have a great appreciation for women. Can you therefore understand why some women might like women?
And if that is so, perhaps straight women may be able to understand gay men, since they too like men.
@156: You don't like cats?
DIE YOU CALLOUS UNCARING MONSTER
158
@157 Meh...cats. Cats are like spiders, they go everywhere! Instead of keeping themselves (and their heinous fur) on the floor like a dog, they nest all over the place, leaving little fur-middens on freshly washed sheets, piles of laundry, stacks of pristine fabric...and the kitty litter, gaaa, beyond appalling. And when they pee on something, it is there for life, like a brand new suitcase that has to go to the dump....(can you tell we actually have one of the flea-bags, venomlash? although, at 13, he likely not long for this world, thank jaysus)
160
My fear, and hence hatred, of spiders is longstanding and faithfully nourished every summer as our house in the godforsaken woods becomes an orb-weaver playground. (If you didn't know, orb-wearvers are those spiders with bums the size of garbanzo beans, and spiky legs. They are also manufactured in a furry version. Geh.)
PS venomlash, when I have I ever given you or anyone else cause to think I am a good person? Kim is a good person. She would talk you out of murdering someone, whereas I would help you hide the body.
PS venomlash, when I have I ever given you or anyone else cause to think I am a good person? Kim is a good person. She would talk you out of murdering someone, whereas I would help you hide the body.
161
@114 That's ridiculous rubbish. We don't base whether or not we should prohibit activities on whether or not they are a choice, because that's actually irrelevant. We base whether or not we should put people in prisons or mental institutions based on that, but the difference isn't actually that big. Being a choice is irrelevant for homosexuality though.
By your reasoning, we should abolish religious freedom - or, at least, could. Since religious beliefs are 100% environmentally influenced and are a choice, you would consider it 100% okay for a society to mandate that everyone practice Hinduism and that anyone who does not be punished, because they should take responsibility for their choices.
However, a fair society only punishes people for choices that are a problem and violate other people's rights. Since homosexuality does not cause problems nor violates anyone's rights, it is irrelevant whether it is a choice and discriminating against people who practice it, regardless of why they practice it, is irrelevant. Just as people should have the right to not eat strawberries for any reason from the fact that they are deathly allergic to them to just plain don't like them. Because we protect the right for people to take actions within their lives that are within the bounds of reasonable actions. Determining the degree of choice involved is an exercise for philosophers and psychologists, but is irrelevant for determining legality.
@131 You clearly don't know much about Judaism. Jews don't practice animal sacrifice because the temple was destroyed. It is impossible to correctly perform the mitzvah of animal sacrifice and any mitzvah that cannot be performed properly is not to be performed at all. So, Jews are abiding by the laws of animal sacrifice properly to this day.
More...
By your reasoning, we should abolish religious freedom - or, at least, could. Since religious beliefs are 100% environmentally influenced and are a choice, you would consider it 100% okay for a society to mandate that everyone practice Hinduism and that anyone who does not be punished, because they should take responsibility for their choices.
However, a fair society only punishes people for choices that are a problem and violate other people's rights. Since homosexuality does not cause problems nor violates anyone's rights, it is irrelevant whether it is a choice and discriminating against people who practice it, regardless of why they practice it, is irrelevant. Just as people should have the right to not eat strawberries for any reason from the fact that they are deathly allergic to them to just plain don't like them. Because we protect the right for people to take actions within their lives that are within the bounds of reasonable actions. Determining the degree of choice involved is an exercise for philosophers and psychologists, but is irrelevant for determining legality.
@131 You clearly don't know much about Judaism. Jews don't practice animal sacrifice because the temple was destroyed. It is impossible to correctly perform the mitzvah of animal sacrifice and any mitzvah that cannot be performed properly is not to be performed at all. So, Jews are abiding by the laws of animal sacrifice properly to this day.
162
@160: I'm just not scared of spiders. Sure, I don't want them crawling on me, but I have a deep admiration for their patience. Also they're fierce, solitary (for the most part) predators, and I have a lot of respect for those.
Other creepy-crawlies I'm fans of: centipedes, bees, mantises, and lacewings.
Other creepy-crawlies I'm fans of: centipedes, bees, mantises, and lacewings.
163
157
A disproportionately large fraction of practicing homosexuals turn out to have AIDS, according to the CDC... so it's not exactly illogical to suggest that every practicing homosexual has AIDS.
And an enlightened society should make public policy (for things like health insurance rates, employment opportunities, adoption, etc) based on that "knowledge".
Is that it?
A disproportionately large fraction of practicing homosexuals turn out to have AIDS, according to the CDC... so it's not exactly illogical to suggest that every practicing homosexual has AIDS.
And an enlightened society should make public policy (for things like health insurance rates, employment opportunities, adoption, etc) based on that "knowledge".
Is that it?
164
141
Are pedophilia and zoophilia, as orientations, normal and natural?
Or are they perverted deviant impulses?
Are pedophilia and zoophilia, as orientations, normal and natural?
Or are they perverted deviant impulses?
165
@163: Exactly what fraction of all "practicing homosexuals" in the USA have The AIDS, according to the CDC?
I will bet you $50 you can't get this question right on the first try. Seriously, I'll give you $50 if you get it right on the first try...but if you give me a wrong answer, you ought to pay me.
I will bet you $50 you can't get this question right on the first try. Seriously, I'll give you $50 if you get it right on the first try...but if you give me a wrong answer, you ought to pay me.
166
Seattleblues' failure to "get it" re:homosexuality mirrors Slogs attitude toward religion.
Slog's homoliberal secular humanists don't get the appeal that religion holds for some people, find it icky and illigocal. And loudly advocate banning religion.
Despite the fact that millions and millions of people testify that religion is an important/vital comfort and support in their life.
Despite the empirical evidence that church goers are mentally more healthy and far less suicidal.
Slog still see's religion as evil and wants it GONE.
Many people share Seattleblues' attitudes toward homosexuality.
In fact, as reported on Slog, half of Americans believe homosexual behavior between consenting adults is a SIN. (oh my......)
Will it be terribly unfair if Real America responds in kind to Slog's attitude about religion?
Slog's homoliberal secular humanists don't get the appeal that religion holds for some people, find it icky and illigocal. And loudly advocate banning religion.
Despite the fact that millions and millions of people testify that religion is an important/vital comfort and support in their life.
Despite the empirical evidence that church goers are mentally more healthy and far less suicidal.
Slog still see's religion as evil and wants it GONE.
Many people share Seattleblues' attitudes toward homosexuality.
In fact, as reported on Slog, half of Americans believe homosexual behavior between consenting adults is a SIN. (oh my......)
Will it be terribly unfair if Real America responds in kind to Slog's attitude about religion?
167
@164: People cannot act on those orientations without violating a partner who is incapable of consent to a sexual act. Therefore those orientations are improper. Problem?
168
165
"A disproportionately large fraction".
Keep your money,
the answer is right there in 163,
it'd be taking candy from an (incredibly obnoxious) baby.....
"A disproportionately large fraction".
Keep your money,
the answer is right there in 163,
it'd be taking candy from an (incredibly obnoxious) baby.....
169
167
"improper"?
biology know no etiquette or social mores.
adultery is "improper" but sex between a man and a woman is biologically normal and natural.
Are the biological urges of pedophilia and zoophilia, as orientations, normal and natural?
Or are they perverted deviant impulses?
"improper"?
biology know no etiquette or social mores.
adultery is "improper" but sex between a man and a woman is biologically normal and natural.
Are the biological urges of pedophilia and zoophilia, as orientations, normal and natural?
Or are they perverted deviant impulses?
170
117
People choose to engage in homosexual behavior.
Everyone IS heterosexual.
It's how our species reproduces.
Many/most "homosexuals" have/do engage(d) in heterosexual behavior.
Because biologically they/we are ALL heterosexual.
People choose to engage in homosexual behavior.
or not.....
"orientation"?
It's like religious faith.
Can't see it, feel it, smell it....
You just have to take someone's word for it.
There is no more evidence that "homosexuals" actually have an attraction to their own gender than there is that a god hears and answers prayers.
Plenty of people will affirm both positions.
Plenty of other people will think they are full of crap.
Prisons are full of people who would slit your throat if you suggested they were gay but that have more homosexual sex than Dan. And there are lots of "homosexuals" who have two or three heterosexual marriages and kids on their resume. And bis who make no pretense to having a "orientation" but just go with the flow. Boy, does Dan hate and loathe their honesty that puts the lie to his whole fragile stack of cards bullshit philosophy....
If we judge "homosexuals" by their behavior- the only think we can actually see- we must conclude that "homosexuality" is a very inconsistent flighty ethereal trait. something dabbled in and abandoned then picked up again and mixed with hetero behavior- more like having a current favorite band than a biological "orientation"...
Hope this helps.....
People choose to engage in homosexual behavior.
Everyone IS heterosexual.
It's how our species reproduces.
Many/most "homosexuals" have/do engage(d) in heterosexual behavior.
Because biologically they/we are ALL heterosexual.
People choose to engage in homosexual behavior.
or not.....
"orientation"?
It's like religious faith.
Can't see it, feel it, smell it....
You just have to take someone's word for it.
There is no more evidence that "homosexuals" actually have an attraction to their own gender than there is that a god hears and answers prayers.
Plenty of people will affirm both positions.
Plenty of other people will think they are full of crap.
Prisons are full of people who would slit your throat if you suggested they were gay but that have more homosexual sex than Dan. And there are lots of "homosexuals" who have two or three heterosexual marriages and kids on their resume. And bis who make no pretense to having a "orientation" but just go with the flow. Boy, does Dan hate and loathe their honesty that puts the lie to his whole fragile stack of cards bullshit philosophy....
If we judge "homosexuals" by their behavior- the only think we can actually see- we must conclude that "homosexuality" is a very inconsistent flighty ethereal trait. something dabbled in and abandoned then picked up again and mixed with hetero behavior- more like having a current favorite band than a biological "orientation"...
Hope this helps.....
171
Many/most "homosexuals" have/do engage(d) in heterosexual behavior.
Could you please cite your sources for this? This sounds suspiciously like a faith-based argument. Since you don't provide sources I suspect you're expecting others to accept this statement as true solely because you say it is, even though there are plenty of reasons to think you're full of crap.
172
@169: They are natural but not normal. That said, not being normal does not make them bad. What makes them bad is that they cannot be fulfilled without violating others.
@170: Try as I might, I can't find a single thing you said there that is true and accurate. You win the Gold-Plated Turd Sandwich Award for Most Misleading Statement of the Year!
@170: Try as I might, I can't find a single thing you said there that is true and accurate. You win the Gold-Plated Turd Sandwich Award for Most Misleading Statement of the Year!
173
@168: I did ask exactly what fraction of homosexuals have AIDS. (I'll accept an answer as correct if it is within one percentage point of the most likely value.) Your reading comprehension is clearly on the same level as your reasoning capabilities.
174
@124
Actually Dan is the proof.
The Slog is all gaga over how hot Terri is.*
But Dan insists that he be allowed to cheat or the relationship can not last.
Even though he is "married" to an Incredibly Hot! Hot! Hot! Young Thing.
A relationship based on physical attraction,
even if one of the partners is Incredibly Hot! Hot! Hot! ,
will inevitably get stale and boring.
Dan's insistence on the right to cheat is proof.
* we shall tactfully step over the question of
does Slog really think Terri is Soooo HOT
or are the loyal cultists just kissing up to The Chosen One
( "my- that's a beautiful tie Mr Hubbard.....")
Actually Dan is the proof.
The Slog is all gaga over how hot Terri is.*
But Dan insists that he be allowed to cheat or the relationship can not last.
Even though he is "married" to an Incredibly Hot! Hot! Hot! Young Thing.
A relationship based on physical attraction,
even if one of the partners is Incredibly Hot! Hot! Hot! ,
will inevitably get stale and boring.
Dan's insistence on the right to cheat is proof.
* we shall tactfully step over the question of
does Slog really think Terri is Soooo HOT
or are the loyal cultists just kissing up to The Chosen One
( "my- that's a beautiful tie Mr Hubbard.....")
175
172
Not "normal"?
Bad?!
How are the biological urges of pedophilia and zoophilia any less normal than homosexual urges?
What makes them biologically less valid?
Not "normal"?
Bad?!
How are the biological urges of pedophilia and zoophilia any less normal than homosexual urges?
What makes them biologically less valid?
176
@ 174: "sniff, sniff sniff" Is that your bacon I smell boiling again Period Troll? Still can't stand the fact that Dan and Terry have been together 15 years? Guess what? This year it will be *16* years. The gift you should send is traditionally silver hollow ware, so maybe a nice silver vase. I'm sure Macy's can help you with that. xoxo
178
VL,
FYI, the research that follows took me 3 minutes due to the wonders of the interweb. Prior to that I had only the common conceptions of what constitutes child pornography, pedophilia etc. Since I have no legal interest in this question, I took the lazy way out and used Wikipedia as a source. For those in the Slog community who need legal advice on pedophilia- well, you're on your own.
In all cases where a child is engaged in sexual acts with an adult, it is of course illegal. This is the clear line you are attempting to draw.
But, pedophilia is illegal even where the physical act of engaging in sex with children isn't present. Were I to posess images of children engaging in sex acts, or giving the impression that they will (this is the general definition of obscene at play in the courts currently) I can go to prison. And should. Were I to possess images of children entirely computer generated in the same category, I would go to prison, and should. A person from Colorado was just arrested for writing a DIY book for pedophiles, with no suggestion that he in fact acted on his own suggestions. (To me, this last is a bit dicey. Free speech trumps unproven public safety concerns. But the only conceivable purpose for buying or reading such a book is to engage or encourage impulses which would result in children being harmed. However, the arrest is recent, and the courts haven't decided this matter as yet.)
There is an exception for 'artistic' images of nude or partly nude children. It's a pretty gray line, from what my 3 minutes of research told. It all turns on what the definition of 'obscene' means to the particular court trying someone accused of child pornography. Famously this was once defined as 'I know it when I see it,' a definition which gives courts considerable lattitude.
The gist is that your attempt to separate the sexual urge to pedophilia or zoophilia and the sexual urge to homosexuality on grounds of victim or consent fails. We can and do try, convict and sentence people for pedophilia without a specific child victim or any sexual activity involving real children in this country. We have as a society made the entirely reasonable assumption that nearly anything involving the sexualization of children is a crime against the larger community. This is a moral stance, but one which we choose societally to accept and endorse in our criminal law.
So we're back to square one. Either all sexuality is chosen or none is. Where the will and choice aren't engaged there cannot by definition be a crime. Either homosexuals have a choice, or pedophiles don't. You can't have it both ways.
And again, to be crystal clear- My belief is that both do choose. My belief is that we as human beings are responsible for our behaviors, no matter from where those behaviors derive. Choosing homosexuality with the attendant social and civil costs is a persons right. Choosing homosexuality but denying the costs is not.
More...
FYI, the research that follows took me 3 minutes due to the wonders of the interweb. Prior to that I had only the common conceptions of what constitutes child pornography, pedophilia etc. Since I have no legal interest in this question, I took the lazy way out and used Wikipedia as a source. For those in the Slog community who need legal advice on pedophilia- well, you're on your own.
In all cases where a child is engaged in sexual acts with an adult, it is of course illegal. This is the clear line you are attempting to draw.
But, pedophilia is illegal even where the physical act of engaging in sex with children isn't present. Were I to posess images of children engaging in sex acts, or giving the impression that they will (this is the general definition of obscene at play in the courts currently) I can go to prison. And should. Were I to possess images of children entirely computer generated in the same category, I would go to prison, and should. A person from Colorado was just arrested for writing a DIY book for pedophiles, with no suggestion that he in fact acted on his own suggestions. (To me, this last is a bit dicey. Free speech trumps unproven public safety concerns. But the only conceivable purpose for buying or reading such a book is to engage or encourage impulses which would result in children being harmed. However, the arrest is recent, and the courts haven't decided this matter as yet.)
There is an exception for 'artistic' images of nude or partly nude children. It's a pretty gray line, from what my 3 minutes of research told. It all turns on what the definition of 'obscene' means to the particular court trying someone accused of child pornography. Famously this was once defined as 'I know it when I see it,' a definition which gives courts considerable lattitude.
The gist is that your attempt to separate the sexual urge to pedophilia or zoophilia and the sexual urge to homosexuality on grounds of victim or consent fails. We can and do try, convict and sentence people for pedophilia without a specific child victim or any sexual activity involving real children in this country. We have as a society made the entirely reasonable assumption that nearly anything involving the sexualization of children is a crime against the larger community. This is a moral stance, but one which we choose societally to accept and endorse in our criminal law.
So we're back to square one. Either all sexuality is chosen or none is. Where the will and choice aren't engaged there cannot by definition be a crime. Either homosexuals have a choice, or pedophiles don't. You can't have it both ways.
And again, to be crystal clear- My belief is that both do choose. My belief is that we as human beings are responsible for our behaviors, no matter from where those behaviors derive. Choosing homosexuality with the attendant social and civil costs is a persons right. Choosing homosexuality but denying the costs is not.
179
@172: Well, actually it's more complicated than that. Pedophilia/Zoophilia are natural, in the sense that they occur naturally in a small minority of the population. They're not normal, in the sense that they are rare, and in the sense that they don't match society's norms. It's not clear that animals and prepubescents can't meaningfully consent: in some ways they can, in the same way that an animal can nuzzle against someone trying to pet it, or bite, scratch, and growl, or the same way a kid can decide that he wants or doesn't want to kiss or hug someone.
The issue really isn't meaningful consent. Note that kids don't consent to go to school and animals don't consent to be killed or eaten. Also note that interspecies sex is legal in some states. Rather, these acts are frowned upon based on how we as a society think sex should be treated. We as a society don't think child-adult and human-animal sex are healthy for the participants, and we find these acts repulsive, and so we prohibit them, regardless of consent. Same thing for consensual adult incest, which can actually get people thrown in jail. It's not about consent, it's about people's feelings and beliefs about the proper role of sex.
The issue really isn't meaningful consent. Note that kids don't consent to go to school and animals don't consent to be killed or eaten. Also note that interspecies sex is legal in some states. Rather, these acts are frowned upon based on how we as a society think sex should be treated. We as a society don't think child-adult and human-animal sex are healthy for the participants, and we find these acts repulsive, and so we prohibit them, regardless of consent. Same thing for consensual adult incest, which can actually get people thrown in jail. It's not about consent, it's about people's feelings and beliefs about the proper role of sex.
180
Re 176
The gift you should send a married couple together for that length may be as you describe. These gentlemen aren't married.
The gift you should send a married couple together for that length may be as you describe. These gentlemen aren't married.
182
Kudos, Blackrose. You wrote in your second paragraph what I tried to convey in 6 or 7 long winded ones. In this case legal niceties should bow to brevity and readability.
183
@178: We don't sentence anyone for "pedophilia," which is not a crime. We sentence people for possession of child porn, because the Supreme Court decided in New York v. Ferber to make a special First Amendment exception based on the possibility of continuing harm to the child, and the idea that circulation of child porn increases the demand and encourages child abuse. Also, you're incorrect about computer-generated images of children: see the Supreme Court cases Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition and US v. Williams.
184
@175: Now you're not even making sense. Pedophilia and zoophilia are less normal than homosexuality, by the very definition of normal because pedophilia and zoophilia are far less prevalent than homosexuality.
How common homosexuality is is not the issue here.
@178: Until mental gymnastics become an Olympic event, you might want to stop with your pitifully incoherent line of reasoning. It is not a crime, nor should it be, to suffer from pedophilia. It is only criminal once you ACT on your urges.
I have been saying for some time that sexuality is NOT chosen. Straights don't choose to be straight, gays don't choose to be gay, and pedos don't choose to be pedos. Today's knowledge of the brain supports this claim. The remainder of YOUR argument, however, doesn't seem to have any logical grounding in what we've said so far. Can you explain what you are trying to say in the last two paragraphs of your post?
(Also, crimes can be committed without any criminal choice or willing action. If you accidentally run over a pedestrian with your car, you can be charged with involuntary manslaughter.)
@180: You should have done another 3 minutes of research on Wikipedia. From the article on Dan Savage: "Savage and his husband, Terry, have one adopted son, and were married in Vancouver, BC in 2005."
How common homosexuality is is not the issue here.
@178: Until mental gymnastics become an Olympic event, you might want to stop with your pitifully incoherent line of reasoning. It is not a crime, nor should it be, to suffer from pedophilia. It is only criminal once you ACT on your urges.
I have been saying for some time that sexuality is NOT chosen. Straights don't choose to be straight, gays don't choose to be gay, and pedos don't choose to be pedos. Today's knowledge of the brain supports this claim. The remainder of YOUR argument, however, doesn't seem to have any logical grounding in what we've said so far. Can you explain what you are trying to say in the last two paragraphs of your post?
(Also, crimes can be committed without any criminal choice or willing action. If you accidentally run over a pedestrian with your car, you can be charged with involuntary manslaughter.)
@180: You should have done another 3 minutes of research on Wikipedia. From the article on Dan Savage: "Savage and his husband, Terry, have one adopted son, and were married in Vancouver, BC in 2005."
185
@183
Ashcroft excepted obscene images, cgi or not, in the writing. At least according to Wikipedias write up on it. I haven't read the case myself. In 2010 the Supreme court refused to review a conviction on just that ground in Whorley V United States, agian according to Wikipedia.
Having said that, I'm not an attorney, and this is not an area of interest of mine legally, so I could be wrong.
Yes, technically the crimes are child rape or child pornography. Why would someone engage in either who wasn't expressing pedophilia, though?
Ashcroft excepted obscene images, cgi or not, in the writing. At least according to Wikipedias write up on it. I haven't read the case myself. In 2010 the Supreme court refused to review a conviction on just that ground in Whorley V United States, agian according to Wikipedia.
Having said that, I'm not an attorney, and this is not an area of interest of mine legally, so I could be wrong.
Yes, technically the crimes are child rape or child pornography. Why would someone engage in either who wasn't expressing pedophilia, though?
186
@185 You admit you're not an attorney, and yet you feel you're qualified to say who's legally married and who isn't?
187
@185: Ashcroft struck down a law specifically banning all virtual child porn as overly broad and infringing on the First Amendment. You're correct that some virtual child porn could still be considered "obscenity," a notoriously vague category which does not receive First Amendment protections, but my point is that it's not accurate to say all virtual child porn is illegal.
Also, the other point I was making is that pedophilia itself, which is just the attraction, is not illegal, but some expressions of it (adult-child sex, and child porn) are.
Also, the other point I was making is that pedophilia itself, which is just the attraction, is not illegal, but some expressions of it (adult-child sex, and child porn) are.
188
You might want to rethink your position that we are all either (XY) and (XX), buddy ".".
This is likely another huge waste of time on your behalf, because you have your mind made up and mine as well. This is how I understand gender for any person foolish enough to read what I type without a previously made up mind. I am by no means an authority, but my understanding isn't limited to dicks and vaginae.
The human body expresses biological sex in four different ways, the first being genetic. Genetic males carry an X and a Y chromosome, genetic females two X chromosomes, but this isn't always the case. There are some individuals who lack a chromosome and some who have a combination of three or more X and Y chromosomes: Turner syndrome (XO), Triple X syndrome (XXX), Klinefelter's Syndrome (XXY/XXXY), XYY syndrome (XYY), de la Chapelle syndrome (XX male), Swyer syndrome (XY female), etc.
Second, being gonadal. Gonadal males possess testes, gonadal females possess ovaries; some individuals possess undescended testes or streak ovaries.
Third, by hormone production and hormone reception. Those persons who possess testosterone or DHT in the body are hormonal males. Estrogen and progesterone are found in hormonal females, and some people might have levels of any of these hormones that are either high or low...or they do not have the receptors that allow the body to recognize the hormones that are present.
Fourth, being morphological features. Morphological sex is expressed by the presence, in males, of the Wolffian duct and a penis. Females will possess a Mullerian duct and a vagina. Some people possess both a Wolffian and a Mullerian duct or incomplete internal sexual organs--or none of the above--and an enlarged clitoris, a "micro-penis", or a shallow and fused vagina.
Now for gender perception. The gender of a person is perceived in two parts: Part one, which is derived from the perception of whether you appear to others to be male or female externally. Part two, gender identity, which is based on your own perception of yourself as male, female, neither, or both.
Sexuality, or sexual orientation, starts with an individual's gender identity, then proceeds to the gender of the individuals one finds themselves spontaneously attracted to.
It is not as simple as your pithy little statement that we are all heterosexual. You, of course, are welcome to disagree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
Have a great day. I'm out of here.
More...
This is likely another huge waste of time on your behalf, because you have your mind made up and mine as well. This is how I understand gender for any person foolish enough to read what I type without a previously made up mind. I am by no means an authority, but my understanding isn't limited to dicks and vaginae.
The human body expresses biological sex in four different ways, the first being genetic. Genetic males carry an X and a Y chromosome, genetic females two X chromosomes, but this isn't always the case. There are some individuals who lack a chromosome and some who have a combination of three or more X and Y chromosomes: Turner syndrome (XO), Triple X syndrome (XXX), Klinefelter's Syndrome (XXY/XXXY), XYY syndrome (XYY), de la Chapelle syndrome (XX male), Swyer syndrome (XY female), etc.
Second, being gonadal. Gonadal males possess testes, gonadal females possess ovaries; some individuals possess undescended testes or streak ovaries.
Third, by hormone production and hormone reception. Those persons who possess testosterone or DHT in the body are hormonal males. Estrogen and progesterone are found in hormonal females, and some people might have levels of any of these hormones that are either high or low...or they do not have the receptors that allow the body to recognize the hormones that are present.
Fourth, being morphological features. Morphological sex is expressed by the presence, in males, of the Wolffian duct and a penis. Females will possess a Mullerian duct and a vagina. Some people possess both a Wolffian and a Mullerian duct or incomplete internal sexual organs--or none of the above--and an enlarged clitoris, a "micro-penis", or a shallow and fused vagina.
Now for gender perception. The gender of a person is perceived in two parts: Part one, which is derived from the perception of whether you appear to others to be male or female externally. Part two, gender identity, which is based on your own perception of yourself as male, female, neither, or both.
Sexuality, or sexual orientation, starts with an individual's gender identity, then proceeds to the gender of the individuals one finds themselves spontaneously attracted to.
It is not as simple as your pithy little statement that we are all heterosexual. You, of course, are welcome to disagree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
Have a great day. I'm out of here.
189
Hmm I stand corrected! As Venomlash so rightly points out Dan and Terry were married in '05 which would make this upcoming anniversary their sixth, so the correct gift would be candy or iron if you want to be traditional, or wood if you would like to be more modern. Sorry for the mixup Seattleblues! Hope you and Period Troll hadn't already done your shopping.
190
Why do you people keep arguing about this? The point is society is changing and the world is turning - for the better! GLBT people are more accepted by more people. Who cares what some pale, fat, naked doofus sitting with a laptop in his mother's basement types? He is, as the president says, on the wrong side of history. He may not like it, but that's how it is.
191
Seattlebues,
Kindly stop banging your head on the wall, please. We get that it is your opinion that Dan and his husband are not married and that they and their son do not make a family. We get that it is your opinion that homosexuality is a mental disorder. We understand that you don't like the fact that Merriam-Webster, etc. have changed the definition of marriage and family to include same-sex relationships. We get that you don't like the fact that marriage equality exists in other countries and other states here in the US. We get that it makes you unhappy that the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychology Association, American Medical Association, and a whole host of others disagree with you and do not consider being gay a mental disorder. We get that your opinion is that same-sex relationships are repulsive, inappropriate, and improper. Repeating your opinions won't make them facts. Plus, no-one is obligated to agree with you and it should be obvious that very few here do. It is likely that many here see your opinions as unreasonable and your instance of factuality as a tenacious example of folly. You're always welcome to your opinions, just stop stating them as facts or cite the facts that support your position. It is hubris, in my opinion, to continue stating your opinions as accepted facts that all must agree with, but you may disagree.
Best wishes.
Kindly stop banging your head on the wall, please. We get that it is your opinion that Dan and his husband are not married and that they and their son do not make a family. We get that it is your opinion that homosexuality is a mental disorder. We understand that you don't like the fact that Merriam-Webster, etc. have changed the definition of marriage and family to include same-sex relationships. We get that you don't like the fact that marriage equality exists in other countries and other states here in the US. We get that it makes you unhappy that the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychology Association, American Medical Association, and a whole host of others disagree with you and do not consider being gay a mental disorder. We get that your opinion is that same-sex relationships are repulsive, inappropriate, and improper. Repeating your opinions won't make them facts. Plus, no-one is obligated to agree with you and it should be obvious that very few here do. It is likely that many here see your opinions as unreasonable and your instance of factuality as a tenacious example of folly. You're always welcome to your opinions, just stop stating them as facts or cite the facts that support your position. It is hubris, in my opinion, to continue stating your opinions as accepted facts that all must agree with, but you may disagree.
Best wishes.
193
@184
Couple points of general information, then I've got appointments the rest of the day.
Liability under the criminal law generally requires 3 things. Look up 'elements of a crime' on google or whatever you use, and you'll see that intent, choice, is a necessary condition for criminal behavior. This choice can exhibit as failure to know what a person should know, negligence. This is the choice your inattentive driver made, and the reason he is subject to criminal prosecution.
As far as whether we punish those who suffer from pedophilia or just their actions, I don't know that you can separate the two, or that the law really tries. In my state, a person convicted of child rape can be held past the completion of their sentence should the propensity for re-offense be deemed sufficiently dangerous. At any rate, ask yourself this question- You have a relative who admits to suffering from urges to pedophilia. He has not acted on those urges. So, when you and your wife go away for a romantic weekend, you leave your children with him, right? It isn't as easy to draw those neat lines in the real world, is it?
If you haven't done so, you might read Holmes 'The Common Law.' It's a good general text on the sources of American jurisprudence. Yes, it is outdated as to detail, but knowing what principles determine the details is perhaps more important in the long run than the details themselves. If someone were looking to understand why things happen in our legal system, it really is fairly useful. Additionally, it's actually pretty enjoyable reading, considered either as a source legal text or just general reading. There's a shorter and pithier, but less detailed, book about the legal system (with special emphasis on what law schools are attempting to accomplish) called 'The Bramble Bush' by Llewelyn. I don't know if it's still in print, so it might take some finding.
If that sounds condescending, I do apologize. You seem a bright and curious person, and good books are rather rarer than lovers of good books might wish. For any 100 books I'll read 80 or 85 are complete fluff. (I have to admit the guilty pleasure of enjoying some of Dean Koontz books, for example. I know, this makes me even more of a bad human being than trying to trample the rights of gays under my iron heel.) Somewhere between 14 and 19 might have value at that time and place in my life, but would not bear re-reading. (PG Wodehouse is somewhere between this and classic. In writing, he plays the language llike a mix of a fine violinist and a mischievous 4 year old. Very funny, and capable of lightening a dark mood within a few minutes of picking up something about Uncle Fred or Jeeves.) The remaining 1 or 2 are books that my children and their children might read and enjoy. The ability to transcend time and place and give a brief glimpse of the eternal is what makes a classic, but it is prohibitively rare.
More...
Couple points of general information, then I've got appointments the rest of the day.
Liability under the criminal law generally requires 3 things. Look up 'elements of a crime' on google or whatever you use, and you'll see that intent, choice, is a necessary condition for criminal behavior. This choice can exhibit as failure to know what a person should know, negligence. This is the choice your inattentive driver made, and the reason he is subject to criminal prosecution.
As far as whether we punish those who suffer from pedophilia or just their actions, I don't know that you can separate the two, or that the law really tries. In my state, a person convicted of child rape can be held past the completion of their sentence should the propensity for re-offense be deemed sufficiently dangerous. At any rate, ask yourself this question- You have a relative who admits to suffering from urges to pedophilia. He has not acted on those urges. So, when you and your wife go away for a romantic weekend, you leave your children with him, right? It isn't as easy to draw those neat lines in the real world, is it?
If you haven't done so, you might read Holmes 'The Common Law.' It's a good general text on the sources of American jurisprudence. Yes, it is outdated as to detail, but knowing what principles determine the details is perhaps more important in the long run than the details themselves. If someone were looking to understand why things happen in our legal system, it really is fairly useful. Additionally, it's actually pretty enjoyable reading, considered either as a source legal text or just general reading. There's a shorter and pithier, but less detailed, book about the legal system (with special emphasis on what law schools are attempting to accomplish) called 'The Bramble Bush' by Llewelyn. I don't know if it's still in print, so it might take some finding.
If that sounds condescending, I do apologize. You seem a bright and curious person, and good books are rather rarer than lovers of good books might wish. For any 100 books I'll read 80 or 85 are complete fluff. (I have to admit the guilty pleasure of enjoying some of Dean Koontz books, for example. I know, this makes me even more of a bad human being than trying to trample the rights of gays under my iron heel.) Somewhere between 14 and 19 might have value at that time and place in my life, but would not bear re-reading. (PG Wodehouse is somewhere between this and classic. In writing, he plays the language llike a mix of a fine violinist and a mischievous 4 year old. Very funny, and capable of lightening a dark mood within a few minutes of picking up something about Uncle Fred or Jeeves.) The remaining 1 or 2 are books that my children and their children might read and enjoy. The ability to transcend time and place and give a brief glimpse of the eternal is what makes a classic, but it is prohibitively rare.
194
@191 - You had a nice way of saying what EG Marshall's character said to Ed Begley's character in 12 Angry Men.
EG - I have listened. Now sit down & don't open your mouth again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R7AzMf8f…
EG - I have listened. Now sit down & don't open your mouth again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R7AzMf8f…
195
@193: Everything we do is a choice. Your heterosexual behaviour, of which you are so proud? A choice. Many people with a heterosexual orientation choose not to engage in heterosexual acts, for various reasons. Others choose to act upon their heterosexual orientation.
Some of the acts people choose to engage in cause harm to others. The sexual abuse of a child, for example. Or theft. Or assault. Or rape. No one suggests that these acts be excused simply because they sprang from a choice to follow a particular urge or orientation (e.g. pedophilia, kleptomania, sadism, heterosexuality). Rather they are punished, because the urge or orientation was followed in a way which did harm to another.
Other acts people choose to engage in do no harm to others. Most enlightened societies do not impose sanctions on individuals for engaging in these acts and they are considered irrelevant in terms of public policy.
You wish to take an act which harms no one - loving persons of the same gender rather than those of the opposite gender - and make it grounds for discrimination, simply because it is an act that you yourself do not engage in or wish to engage in. No amount of obfuscation or misdirection on your part can change that.
Some of the acts people choose to engage in cause harm to others. The sexual abuse of a child, for example. Or theft. Or assault. Or rape. No one suggests that these acts be excused simply because they sprang from a choice to follow a particular urge or orientation (e.g. pedophilia, kleptomania, sadism, heterosexuality). Rather they are punished, because the urge or orientation was followed in a way which did harm to another.
Other acts people choose to engage in do no harm to others. Most enlightened societies do not impose sanctions on individuals for engaging in these acts and they are considered irrelevant in terms of public policy.
You wish to take an act which harms no one - loving persons of the same gender rather than those of the opposite gender - and make it grounds for discrimination, simply because it is an act that you yourself do not engage in or wish to engage in. No amount of obfuscation or misdirection on your part can change that.
196
If Dan and Terri come to my state,
and many others,
their "marriage" will not be legally recognized.
If they get a Washington State Civil Union that won't be recognized either.
What is the appropriate gift for 16 years of non-faithful shacking up?
I'm sure it must be something very special.....
and many others,
their "marriage" will not be legally recognized.
If they get a Washington State Civil Union that won't be recognized either.
What is the appropriate gift for 16 years of non-faithful shacking up?
I'm sure it must be something very special.....
197
188
wow
that's pretty convoluted.
no wonder so many GBLT kids kill themselves-
they know they have zero chance of passing the
"Pervert's and Degenerate's Entrance Exam on Sexua-nonreal-ity"
(have you had "the talk" with your kids?
you probably simultaneously scared and bored the hell out of them...)
.
luckily in reality it is just this simple:
we are heterosexual creatures.
everybody and anybody can do "it".
or not.
the choice is theirs......
wow
that's pretty convoluted.
no wonder so many GBLT kids kill themselves-
they know they have zero chance of passing the
"Pervert's and Degenerate's Entrance Exam on Sexua-nonreal-ity"
(have you had "the talk" with your kids?
you probably simultaneously scared and bored the hell out of them...)
.
luckily in reality it is just this simple:
we are heterosexual creatures.
everybody and anybody can do "it".
or not.
the choice is theirs......
199
@197: Poor Period Troll! Him no understand science! Give Period Troll headache! Make hard for Period Troll to shop for nice anniversary gift for Dan and Terry!
200
191 etc
The APAs changed their definitions under political pressure, not because of new evidence.
Too bad political pressure and Acting Up can't address the underlying mental disorders homosexuals experience or reduce the suicide rate that those disorders produce....
Perhaps had the APAs not been bullied into ignoring the mental health implications of homosexuality back in the 70s meaningful objective research in the ensuing 35 years could have produced more insight into homosexual suicide than "it's Christian's fault...."
The truth will set you free.
If you let it.
Or; you can cut off your nose to spite your face.
The APAs changed their definitions under political pressure, not because of new evidence.
Too bad political pressure and Acting Up can't address the underlying mental disorders homosexuals experience or reduce the suicide rate that those disorders produce....
Perhaps had the APAs not been bullied into ignoring the mental health implications of homosexuality back in the 70s meaningful objective research in the ensuing 35 years could have produced more insight into homosexual suicide than "it's Christian's fault...."
The truth will set you free.
If you let it.
Or; you can cut off your nose to spite your face.
201
I love this part:
"The APAs changed their definitions under political pressure, not because of new evidence.
Too bad political pressure and Acting Up can't address the underlying mental disorders homosexuals experience or reduce the suicide rate that those disorders produce....
Perhaps had the APAs not been bullied into ignoring the mental health implications of homosexuality back in the 70s meaningful objective research in the ensuing 35 years could have produced more insight into homosexual suicide than "it's Christian's fault....""
Perhaps if Period Troll could actually cite some examples proving it's point, it might be taken semi-seriously. Unfortunatly, it can't. Prejudice, while rampant, is not an acceptable substitute for truth, fact, and reason. Too bad, so sad. Thanks for playing!
"The APAs changed their definitions under political pressure, not because of new evidence.
Too bad political pressure and Acting Up can't address the underlying mental disorders homosexuals experience or reduce the suicide rate that those disorders produce....
Perhaps had the APAs not been bullied into ignoring the mental health implications of homosexuality back in the 70s meaningful objective research in the ensuing 35 years could have produced more insight into homosexual suicide than "it's Christian's fault....""
Perhaps if Period Troll could actually cite some examples proving it's point, it might be taken semi-seriously. Unfortunatly, it can't. Prejudice, while rampant, is not an acceptable substitute for truth, fact, and reason. Too bad, so sad. Thanks for playing!
202
@193: Many people commit crimes of negligence without choosing to be negligent. Not all crimes involve intent, you pompous twit.
@199: OMG YOU'RE THE PERSON WHO WRITES THIS COLUMN???
@199: OMG YOU'RE THE PERSON WHO WRITES THIS COLUMN???
203
@202 Oh God I wish that were the case, and I'm so flattered that would suggest it! I'm very taken with the whole Hulk speak trend. One of the few people I follow on twitter (because really, I don't understand twitter. Possibly because I am old) is Feminist Hulk. She cracks me up in a totally socially conscious way!
204
@202
In choosing not to be negligent, a person chooses negligence, child. Had you bothered to do some basic research, you would have known why. For a conviction prosecutors must generally prove that a crime has occured, that the perpetrator intended to do so, and that a timely relationship exists between the two.
I guess I mistook you for your better. I can disagree with someone on nearly everything while respecting the will to explore and learn about the world around them. You seemed to have this. My mistake.
In choosing not to be negligent, a person chooses negligence, child. Had you bothered to do some basic research, you would have known why. For a conviction prosecutors must generally prove that a crime has occured, that the perpetrator intended to do so, and that a timely relationship exists between the two.
I guess I mistook you for your better. I can disagree with someone on nearly everything while respecting the will to explore and learn about the world around them. You seemed to have this. My mistake.
205
@204: Suppose, say, a man forgets to turn off a stove at a restaurant where he works, and something falls on the burner and catches fire, causing property damage. The man is clearly guilty of negligence, no? Did he make any active decision? No; his negligence is entirely involuntary. Is he still liable? Sure thing. I'm not quite sure why you think that all crimes necessarily involve intent; we even have a category called "involuntary manslaughter" partially for the reason that many crimes do not.
Also, your statement of "[i]n choosing not to be negligent, a person chooses negligence" is self-contradictory. Did you perhaps mean to type something less hare-brained?
Also, your statement of "[i]n choosing not to be negligent, a person chooses negligence" is self-contradictory. Did you perhaps mean to type something less hare-brained?
206
@193, 204, 205: Negligence isn't a crime, it's a tort, for which the remedy is paying damages after a civil suit. Yes, there are a few crimes that do not require intent (involuntary manslaughter being one, as venomlash points out), but as a general principle, most crimes do.
The law does distinguish pedophilia, which is legal, inside someone's head, and private, because it is just an attraction, from possession of child porn or child molestation, which are criminal acts. Your example of a child rapist being committed after release is because of the crime he was convicted of: you couldn't do this to a pedophile who hadn't committed a crime. As far as leaving kids with the pedophile relative goes, if he was comfortable with it, sure: most pedophiles don't commit crimes, any more than most heterosexuals commit rape.
The law does distinguish pedophilia, which is legal, inside someone's head, and private, because it is just an attraction, from possession of child porn or child molestation, which are criminal acts. Your example of a child rapist being committed after release is because of the crime he was convicted of: you couldn't do this to a pedophile who hadn't committed a crime. As far as leaving kids with the pedophile relative goes, if he was comfortable with it, sure: most pedophiles don't commit crimes, any more than most heterosexuals commit rape.
208
@204: I always find it amusing (and telling!) when those in opposition to Venomlash begin to bring up his age as some how supporting their argument against him. Go back and read what Kim wrote to you Seattleblues. You can fuss and kick and condescend all you like but your day is done. Venomlash is of the generation coming up behind us, and to them being gay is about as interesting as being left handed. Your children will live to see going to gay weddings as a matter of course. And that is a better world. Hopefully you won't embarrass them.
209
On the Southern Poverty Law Center's website: Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.
That's interesting. On one hand, I understand why the SPLC would list an organization as a hate group "based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling and not list any anti-gay organization (or religion) as a hate group but, on the other hand, what is "biblical" is very hateful (the Bible does, after call, call for men who lie with another man to be "put to death") so it seems a little odd to give a pass to an anti-gay organization (or religion) that has a "biblical" view of homosexuality. Plus, while not all Christians hate gays and not all anti-gay attitudes stem from the Bible, I think the Bible is primarily responsible (in countries where Christianity is the main religion) for spawning the demonization of gays and lesbians.
That's interesting. On one hand, I understand why the SPLC would list an organization as a hate group "based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling and not list any anti-gay organization (or religion) as a hate group but, on the other hand, what is "biblical" is very hateful (the Bible does, after call, call for men who lie with another man to be "put to death") so it seems a little odd to give a pass to an anti-gay organization (or religion) that has a "biblical" view of homosexuality. Plus, while not all Christians hate gays and not all anti-gay attitudes stem from the Bible, I think the Bible is primarily responsible (in countries where Christianity is the main religion) for spawning the demonization of gays and lesbians.
210
I can understand that SPLC is hesitant to directly take on The Bible since so many people still think of it as somehow being holy or important. There is a lot of bullshit in that book that justifies everything from slavery to violence against women and children. Until more people realize that the bible is just another book that people take seriously at their own peril it is best to focus on the results of taking it literally rather than on the book itself.
211
@205 and 206
Both hare brained and poor tying, I'm afraid. Kids in the background combined with a dog feeling like she needed attention (both claims which were infinitely more interesting than this discussion, as involving real life, hence the delayed response,) combined to result in a very poorly worded sentence.
No, negligence is not a crime and yes, it can be a tort. More to the point, it can constitute one of the 4 generally established types of intent necessary for prosecuting a crime.
All of this gets off in the weeds. Rather than a dispute about tort law or criminal intent, this was an illustration about the role of choice in sexuality whose point has been made.
Black Rose, with respect I wonder if you actually have children. I do. And I would not leave them with a pedophile, actively expressing his pedophilia or not. I wouldn't for two reasons. First, if a person is struggling with alcholism, I don't serve wine when they come to dinner. It's singularly callous to put temptation in front of someone struggling with it. Second, and for me far more compellingly, my children are the single most important thing I will ever be entrusted with. I don't take chances with their safety.
Both hare brained and poor tying, I'm afraid. Kids in the background combined with a dog feeling like she needed attention (both claims which were infinitely more interesting than this discussion, as involving real life, hence the delayed response,) combined to result in a very poorly worded sentence.
No, negligence is not a crime and yes, it can be a tort. More to the point, it can constitute one of the 4 generally established types of intent necessary for prosecuting a crime.
All of this gets off in the weeds. Rather than a dispute about tort law or criminal intent, this was an illustration about the role of choice in sexuality whose point has been made.
Black Rose, with respect I wonder if you actually have children. I do. And I would not leave them with a pedophile, actively expressing his pedophilia or not. I wouldn't for two reasons. First, if a person is struggling with alcholism, I don't serve wine when they come to dinner. It's singularly callous to put temptation in front of someone struggling with it. Second, and for me far more compellingly, my children are the single most important thing I will ever be entrusted with. I don't take chances with their safety.
212
@211: As a heterosexual man, do you consider every woman you see a temptation to rape? Do you try to avoid them? How hard do you struggle not to rape a woman when you're alone with her?
If the person in question said, yes, it would be a struggle, don't put temptation in front of me, then I'd understand and I'd agree, but otherwise, that makes about as much sense as saying heterosexual men shouldn't be left alone with women
If the person in question said, yes, it would be a struggle, don't put temptation in front of me, then I'd understand and I'd agree, but otherwise, that makes about as much sense as saying heterosexual men shouldn't be left alone with women
213
@209 and 210
Ah. More historical revisionism on the impact of Christianity on Western culture. And more villification of Christianity. How entirely predictable. Really, you folks should send an email to whatever website you get your talking points from, Huff Po or whoever. They really need to come up with some fresh material.
Of course, you could actually use original thought to critique those with whom you disagree. But then, you probably were educated at a liberal college, so original thought wouldn't have been taught. Ah well.
Ah. More historical revisionism on the impact of Christianity on Western culture. And more villification of Christianity. How entirely predictable. Really, you folks should send an email to whatever website you get your talking points from, Huff Po or whoever. They really need to come up with some fresh material.
Of course, you could actually use original thought to critique those with whom you disagree. But then, you probably were educated at a liberal college, so original thought wouldn't have been taught. Ah well.
214
@213: Ah. More condescension, ad hominem, and misdirection. 209 and 210 were not addressing your flawed stance against equal marriage.
Speaking of which, I'm still interested in your explanation of how marriage equality confers special status on homosexuals, as opposed to opposite marriage which clearly privileges heterosexuals. How exactly is the freedom for two persons to marry each other if they choose to do so a "special status" if the two are of the same gender, and not so when it is limited only to persons of the opposite gender?
Speaking of which, I'm still interested in your explanation of how marriage equality confers special status on homosexuals, as opposed to opposite marriage which clearly privileges heterosexuals. How exactly is the freedom for two persons to marry each other if they choose to do so a "special status" if the two are of the same gender, and not so when it is limited only to persons of the opposite gender?
215
@213. Actually western secularism and separation of church and state had a civilizing influence on Christianity. Ideas of pluralism, democracy and secularism have largely housebroken Christianity in western nations.
216
Black Rose,
I can only say this-
Before my wife and I married I was returning from dropping a date off at her apartment. A young girl who must have been 14 or 15 approached me at a stoplight, asking for money for the ferry so she could get to her home accross the Sound. Not wanting to contribute to a drug habit, I offered her a ride to the ferry dock, and fare for the trip. Then I thought better of it. See, whether I was inclined to assault this young girl or not, the fact of her being in my car alone for the ride to the dock would have been dicey, had she made accusations. Instead, I advised her of the location of a police station nearby where they might get her to the ferry dock, and wished her well.
It sucks that this is the kind of world in which we live. It's terrible that the urge to help your fellow men must be tempered with the concern that your fellow man might not be feeling so charitibly disposed towards you. But we do, and it must. So no, I won't risk my children in a gamble to no purpose. It might make the suffering pedophile feel better that I trusted him with my kids. I might help him to find the strength to work through his illness. Or he might injure my kids in a way that could never be taken back. That isn't a gamble anyone I know is willing to take.
I can only say this-
Before my wife and I married I was returning from dropping a date off at her apartment. A young girl who must have been 14 or 15 approached me at a stoplight, asking for money for the ferry so she could get to her home accross the Sound. Not wanting to contribute to a drug habit, I offered her a ride to the ferry dock, and fare for the trip. Then I thought better of it. See, whether I was inclined to assault this young girl or not, the fact of her being in my car alone for the ride to the dock would have been dicey, had she made accusations. Instead, I advised her of the location of a police station nearby where they might get her to the ferry dock, and wished her well.
It sucks that this is the kind of world in which we live. It's terrible that the urge to help your fellow men must be tempered with the concern that your fellow man might not be feeling so charitibly disposed towards you. But we do, and it must. So no, I won't risk my children in a gamble to no purpose. It might make the suffering pedophile feel better that I trusted him with my kids. I might help him to find the strength to work through his illness. Or he might injure my kids in a way that could never be taken back. That isn't a gamble anyone I know is willing to take.
217
@216: "It's terrible that the urge to help your fellow men must be tempered with the concern that your fellow man might not be feeling so charitibly disposed towards you."
That's remarkably Christian of you. Help me out, please; where was it again that Jesus instructed us to temper our charity with concern about the intent of the person we are helping? I don't remember that from the Sermon on the Mount...
That's remarkably Christian of you. Help me out, please; where was it again that Jesus instructed us to temper our charity with concern about the intent of the person we are helping? I don't remember that from the Sermon on the Mount...
218
I think 216 misses the days when Christians called the shots in the U.S. and can't stomach the fact that nonbelievers have the same rights that he does.
219
Heather,
Most of the notions which inform Western values of justice and equality and so on came from the Christian church, from the Bible. Yes, separation of church and state is invaluable. I don't wish my religion forced on you anymore than I want athiesm or Buddhism forced on me. But at least try to be honest about how Christianity has impacted Western history for the past 2 millenia. Ideas of democracy derive from Greece, yes. But they also come from the organization of the monastic houses in Europe. Ideas of pluralism come from our multicultural society, yes. But they also come from the New Testament message to treat all people equally regardless of culture. Yes, secularism has
BB,
Again? The choice to homosexuality confers no special status on the gay man or lesbian woman. You have precisely the same rights to marry as I do. I can marry any woman who will accept me and so can you. Any woman can marry any man who wishes to be married to her, and so can any lesbian. There is no discrimination present in this system.
What you want is to redefine the social structure for your convenience. That's a bit different from asking not to be discriminated against because of your sexual choices.
Most of the notions which inform Western values of justice and equality and so on came from the Christian church, from the Bible. Yes, separation of church and state is invaluable. I don't wish my religion forced on you anymore than I want athiesm or Buddhism forced on me. But at least try to be honest about how Christianity has impacted Western history for the past 2 millenia. Ideas of democracy derive from Greece, yes. But they also come from the organization of the monastic houses in Europe. Ideas of pluralism come from our multicultural society, yes. But they also come from the New Testament message to treat all people equally regardless of culture. Yes, secularism has
BB,
Again? The choice to homosexuality confers no special status on the gay man or lesbian woman. You have precisely the same rights to marry as I do. I can marry any woman who will accept me and so can you. Any woman can marry any man who wishes to be married to her, and so can any lesbian. There is no discrimination present in this system.
What you want is to redefine the social structure for your convenience. That's a bit different from asking not to be discriminated against because of your sexual choices.
220
@218
Christians have never 'called the shots' in America, except in strict line with our democratic principles. From the beginning the separation of church and state has been in effect. Certainly, the airtight seal people like you wish hasn't existed, but in the nature of things it can't. A Christian congressman or president won't vote his church doctrines, but he'll certainly vote his values. A Christian community won't vote to establish the Baptist or Methodist church as the only church possible, but if 70% of the community are Baptist you can bet the elected representatives will vote their values.
Keep up the hatred of Christianity, if you wish. Mainstream Americans reactions to bigotry like yours is one of the reasons why this country remains center right politically.
Christians have never 'called the shots' in America, except in strict line with our democratic principles. From the beginning the separation of church and state has been in effect. Certainly, the airtight seal people like you wish hasn't existed, but in the nature of things it can't. A Christian congressman or president won't vote his church doctrines, but he'll certainly vote his values. A Christian community won't vote to establish the Baptist or Methodist church as the only church possible, but if 70% of the community are Baptist you can bet the elected representatives will vote their values.
Keep up the hatred of Christianity, if you wish. Mainstream Americans reactions to bigotry like yours is one of the reasons why this country remains center right politically.
221
@219. Yes, again.
Your position is ridiculous on its face and, as always, you are confusing sexual orientation with sexual acts. People don't choose their orientation - when did you "choose" to be straight? People do choose which acts they participate in - a choice which in sexual matters is primarily informed by their orientation, though it can be subject to situational and societal pressures.
Would you choose to be married to a man? Would you choose to have sex with a man? More to the point, would you consider yourself to have true freedom or equality if your only choice was to marry a man or not to marry at all?
This whole "gay men can still marry women just like I can" is a joke and an insult. And it is discriminatory. The freedom to do something which runs counter to who you are - just as marrying a man would be counter to who you are - is no freedom at all.
I won't even start with the whole "redefining the social structure" bullshit. I've heard for years how equal marriage is an attack on the sacred state of opposite marriage. Guess what? It isn't. Two men or two women being married has ZERO impact on the marriage of one man and one woman. I know this to be a fact - I live it.
Your position is ridiculous on its face and, as always, you are confusing sexual orientation with sexual acts. People don't choose their orientation - when did you "choose" to be straight? People do choose which acts they participate in - a choice which in sexual matters is primarily informed by their orientation, though it can be subject to situational and societal pressures.
Would you choose to be married to a man? Would you choose to have sex with a man? More to the point, would you consider yourself to have true freedom or equality if your only choice was to marry a man or not to marry at all?
This whole "gay men can still marry women just like I can" is a joke and an insult. And it is discriminatory. The freedom to do something which runs counter to who you are - just as marrying a man would be counter to who you are - is no freedom at all.
I won't even start with the whole "redefining the social structure" bullshit. I've heard for years how equal marriage is an attack on the sacred state of opposite marriage. Guess what? It isn't. Two men or two women being married has ZERO impact on the marriage of one man and one woman. I know this to be a fact - I live it.
222
Seattleblues: "You have precisely the same rights to marry as I do. I can marry any woman who will accept me and so can you. Any woman can marry any man who wishes to be married to her, and so can any lesbian. There is no discrimination present in this system."
In a purely contextual sense, this is a true statement except for the discrimination part. You see, you are confusing ability with desire. Let me put it this way. I could have played football in high school (I could marry any woman who would have me) but I didn't want to. It was within my ability, but it was not my desire. I don't WANT to marry a women as I have zero sexual desire to be with one. I desire a male. That is who I want to partner with. But a Civil Union does not convey the same rights as marriage, and we all know how separate but equal worked out, or do we have to spell that one out for you? By not allowing committed couples of whatever gender access to the same rights you have, you are being discriminatory. Fact, not bias.
Unless you are suggesting that all heterosexual marriages be desire free and simply a business arrangement. Nah, you can't mean that! In that case, you still wouldn't have as leg to stand on, because it would be a business arrangement.
You are removing all emotion from the subject when, in our current society, marriage is all about emotion. The days when people were wed to someone they neither loved nor knew simply to bolster a political or economic position has thankfully faded into the past in most cultures. You could say that the concept of marriage evolved. You could, but you in particular won't.
When you can stand up and demonstrably prove that there is harm in same-sex marriages, I will take your points seriously. Until then, you just keep making circular arguments with zero proof to verify them other than how you feel. That isn't an argument or a position. It's an opinion. Arguments and positions can be debated and disproved by the application of facts. Opinions ignore the facts because they get in the way of how you feel about something. And all your pretty prose won't excuse that fact.
More...
In a purely contextual sense, this is a true statement except for the discrimination part. You see, you are confusing ability with desire. Let me put it this way. I could have played football in high school (I could marry any woman who would have me) but I didn't want to. It was within my ability, but it was not my desire. I don't WANT to marry a women as I have zero sexual desire to be with one. I desire a male. That is who I want to partner with. But a Civil Union does not convey the same rights as marriage, and we all know how separate but equal worked out, or do we have to spell that one out for you? By not allowing committed couples of whatever gender access to the same rights you have, you are being discriminatory. Fact, not bias.
Unless you are suggesting that all heterosexual marriages be desire free and simply a business arrangement. Nah, you can't mean that! In that case, you still wouldn't have as leg to stand on, because it would be a business arrangement.
You are removing all emotion from the subject when, in our current society, marriage is all about emotion. The days when people were wed to someone they neither loved nor knew simply to bolster a political or economic position has thankfully faded into the past in most cultures. You could say that the concept of marriage evolved. You could, but you in particular won't.
When you can stand up and demonstrably prove that there is harm in same-sex marriages, I will take your points seriously. Until then, you just keep making circular arguments with zero proof to verify them other than how you feel. That isn't an argument or a position. It's an opinion. Arguments and positions can be debated and disproved by the application of facts. Opinions ignore the facts because they get in the way of how you feel about something. And all your pretty prose won't excuse that fact.
223
BB
Oh. So I assume that you give money to every person begging on the streets on your way to work?
If you're an intelligent person, and you seem to be one, of course you don't. Secular and religious charities exist which specialize in whatever area of concern you have. Homelessness? There are people who plan organized methods to help the homeless who will spend your charity dollar much more wisely than the beggar. Drug addiction? Ditto. I can and do give to charities which help the unfortunate. I donate time and food to my local food bank. I help a couple of elderly neighbors with home repairs they no longer can do or afford to have done. But I don't and won't give money to a stranger to support a destructive habit. And I don't and won't make decisions, like transporting minors I don't know unattended, that put my family at risk.
Oh. So I assume that you give money to every person begging on the streets on your way to work?
If you're an intelligent person, and you seem to be one, of course you don't. Secular and religious charities exist which specialize in whatever area of concern you have. Homelessness? There are people who plan organized methods to help the homeless who will spend your charity dollar much more wisely than the beggar. Drug addiction? Ditto. I can and do give to charities which help the unfortunate. I donate time and food to my local food bank. I help a couple of elderly neighbors with home repairs they no longer can do or afford to have done. But I don't and won't give money to a stranger to support a destructive habit. And I don't and won't make decisions, like transporting minors I don't know unattended, that put my family at risk.
224
Sorry if this is a little awkward. the thread is going sooooo fast, and I'm out of sequence.
@ 219: First let me say by way of establishing my religious street cred, that I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic schools through much of grade school and all four years of high school, and received my master's degree from the Catholic University which my grandparent, parents, and a few aunts and uncles attended. I have had the benefit of a religious education and I ask you, Seattleblues, have you actually *read* the freaking bible? I don't mean cherry picking passages out of it, I mean read it. It is a horror show of genocide, rape, land grabs, and really fucking cruel jokes played by God upon anyone unlucky enough to come to his attention. And this is the book that we're supposed to hold as the Gold Standard Template For All Behavior For All Mankind Forever Amen? Thank you, no, I'll pass. All I got out of reading "the Good Book" was a mounting sense of amazement that *any*one would worship that psychopath Jehovah.
Now this is just me, and how I got to be agnostic, and yes, the New Testament is somewhat less reminiscent of a torture porn movie like Saw seven hundred and seventy seven, but the three Religions of the Book have used said book to justify just about every atrocity imaginable, and that is why the burden of proof is on them when they come round saying "No, no! We're not all like that! Kumbya!"
@ 219: First let me say by way of establishing my religious street cred, that I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic schools through much of grade school and all four years of high school, and received my master's degree from the Catholic University which my grandparent, parents, and a few aunts and uncles attended. I have had the benefit of a religious education and I ask you, Seattleblues, have you actually *read* the freaking bible? I don't mean cherry picking passages out of it, I mean read it. It is a horror show of genocide, rape, land grabs, and really fucking cruel jokes played by God upon anyone unlucky enough to come to his attention. And this is the book that we're supposed to hold as the Gold Standard Template For All Behavior For All Mankind Forever Amen? Thank you, no, I'll pass. All I got out of reading "the Good Book" was a mounting sense of amazement that *any*one would worship that psychopath Jehovah.
Now this is just me, and how I got to be agnostic, and yes, the New Testament is somewhat less reminiscent of a torture porn movie like Saw seven hundred and seventy seven, but the three Religions of the Book have used said book to justify just about every atrocity imaginable, and that is why the burden of proof is on them when they come round saying "No, no! We're not all like that! Kumbya!"
225
@224
That's both an entirely reasonable perspective and an entirely reasonable conclusion.
I apologize for the comment about bigotry. I won't speak to your Catholic background. Being Protestant myself, I don't know enough about Catholicism to comment. However, I stand by the comment that the left alienates mainstream America with its' vehement secularism.
With all due respect, I won't engage in a theological discussion. I firmly believe that if Christianity is true, the sincere seeker after truth will believe it. If it can't hold up to scrutiny, it isn't a faith I wish to espouse. For me it can and does. I have neither the right nor the inclination to tell you what to believe.
That's both an entirely reasonable perspective and an entirely reasonable conclusion.
I apologize for the comment about bigotry. I won't speak to your Catholic background. Being Protestant myself, I don't know enough about Catholicism to comment. However, I stand by the comment that the left alienates mainstream America with its' vehement secularism.
With all due respect, I won't engage in a theological discussion. I firmly believe that if Christianity is true, the sincere seeker after truth will believe it. If it can't hold up to scrutiny, it isn't a faith I wish to espouse. For me it can and does. I have neither the right nor the inclination to tell you what to believe.
227
@226: SB isn't being "nice" - it's not nice to deny others their rights - he's just being polite. But genteel bigotry is still bigotry.
Note for example the classic "no true Scotsman" deployment of how "the left" (people who disagree with him) alienate "mainstream America" (people like him). He's defining who is and is not a real, true citizen. We see the AnonTroll do this all the time with his references to what Real America does and believes. SB is more subtle, but it is the same basic tactic.
He's also happy to say that he doesn't want to tell you or anyone else what to believe - a meaningless concession, as even if he did want to tell someone what to believe, he couldn't actually enforce it. Meanwhile, he is busy advocating restrictions on what people can actually do e.g. get married to the partner of their choosing.
(As to @223: I fully acknowledge that my post @217 was a cheap shot. Which you had coming with your holier-than-thou story of how you would have really liked to help this poor young girl but couldn't - after all, she was probably a drug addict who would falsely accuse you of rape. I don't give out change to panhandlers, but at least I don't blame them for my decision not to.)
Note for example the classic "no true Scotsman" deployment of how "the left" (people who disagree with him) alienate "mainstream America" (people like him). He's defining who is and is not a real, true citizen. We see the AnonTroll do this all the time with his references to what Real America does and believes. SB is more subtle, but it is the same basic tactic.
He's also happy to say that he doesn't want to tell you or anyone else what to believe - a meaningless concession, as even if he did want to tell someone what to believe, he couldn't actually enforce it. Meanwhile, he is busy advocating restrictions on what people can actually do e.g. get married to the partner of their choosing.
(As to @223: I fully acknowledge that my post @217 was a cheap shot. Which you had coming with your holier-than-thou story of how you would have really liked to help this poor young girl but couldn't - after all, she was probably a drug addict who would falsely accuse you of rape. I don't give out change to panhandlers, but at least I don't blame them for my decision not to.)
228
@226 No you don't.
Seattleblues:
Seattleblues is a bigoted homophobe who happens to have better grammar than Loveschild. It doesn't mean he's essentially any different.
Seattleblues:
First, your partner isn't your husband, and you he and the child you are raising are not a family. Those are words which actually mean something. They have actual definitions which don't fit your circumstances, Mr. Savage. My wife and I conceived children within our marriage and together we are a family. I don't doubt that you love your boyfriend and would love a child you adopted together. Love is not the definition of family, however. Isn't English so much more clear when we use words according to, you know, their actual definitions?
Seattleblues is a bigoted homophobe who happens to have better grammar than Loveschild. It doesn't mean he's essentially any different.
229
@227 and 228 You're both right of course, and No True Scotsman does seem to be Seattleblues' go to logical fallacy. I've teased him about it in this thread (my post @133 to his @130) as well. Obviously my own etiquette switch was activated by his display of good manners, curse it for the Achilles Heel that it is! I may have offered him tea had you not been there to stop me! But seriously, thank you, especially you Canuck, for reminding me that he is (to be all biblical for a moment, Matthew 23:27) a whited sepulcher, fair and pleasing in appearance, but all corruption and decay within.
230
@211: The last paragraph, I agree with in full. A few months back, Dan answered a letter from a pedophile (a "gold star pedophile" who, knowing his urges, avoids children like the plague) who was unsure how to politely and discreetly rebuff requests to babysit.
The rest makes me wonder if you're on drugs; it's terribly incoherent.
@213: It's not historical revisionism; it's just hyperbole. If you really want to know about Christianity's impact on Europe, you might want to look at the Crusades, the 30 Years' War, Francoist Spain, pogroms, blood libel, the expulsion of Jews and Moors from Spain, the enslavement of much of the peoples of Central and South America under the Spaniards, and the extremely patchy conduct of the papacy. Don't put Christianity on a pillar.
@219: Monasteries in Europe did NOT implement democracy to any decent degree. Did you know that in almost all monasteries, monks from nobility did the easy jobs (mostly prayer and bookkeeping), while monks from common families did the vast majority of the dirty work? Of course you didn't know that; you're averse to any information that doesn't confirm what you already think.
Also, if gay marriage is legalized, than straight men like you and I can marry the man of our choice, and straight women can marry other women too, just like homosexuals! It's not like we'd be legalizing same-sex marriage for JUST Teh Ghey...
@223: If I see a beggar on the street and I have some spare change, I don't assume he's going to spend it on drugs or booze. I give him what's called "the benefit of the doubt", and I give him what I can spare. Your grudging attitude of giving only once you interrogate the beggar is the lowest form of charity. (I encourage you to read Maimonides's writings on the forms of charity; here is a good summary.)
More...
The rest makes me wonder if you're on drugs; it's terribly incoherent.
@213: It's not historical revisionism; it's just hyperbole. If you really want to know about Christianity's impact on Europe, you might want to look at the Crusades, the 30 Years' War, Francoist Spain, pogroms, blood libel, the expulsion of Jews and Moors from Spain, the enslavement of much of the peoples of Central and South America under the Spaniards, and the extremely patchy conduct of the papacy. Don't put Christianity on a pillar.
@219: Monasteries in Europe did NOT implement democracy to any decent degree. Did you know that in almost all monasteries, monks from nobility did the easy jobs (mostly prayer and bookkeeping), while monks from common families did the vast majority of the dirty work? Of course you didn't know that; you're averse to any information that doesn't confirm what you already think.
Also, if gay marriage is legalized, than straight men like you and I can marry the man of our choice, and straight women can marry other women too, just like homosexuals! It's not like we'd be legalizing same-sex marriage for JUST Teh Ghey...
@223: If I see a beggar on the street and I have some spare change, I don't assume he's going to spend it on drugs or booze. I give him what's called "the benefit of the doubt", and I give him what I can spare. Your grudging attitude of giving only once you interrogate the beggar is the lowest form of charity. (I encourage you to read Maimonides's writings on the forms of charity; here is a good summary.)
231
@227
I would respectfully correct your statement, based on knowledge of myself that you don't have.
I know very well that I'm right of the main run of Americans politically. From what you write, I guess you to be left. In all likelihood, the majority of our countrymen find neither of our positions entirely reasonable. In the squabbling between the kinds of people folks like me elect and the kinds of people folks like you elect, that center finds something irritating and corrupt, but with which they can live, at a guess.
@228
Bigoted homophobe? Hardly. I neither fear nor hate anyone on the basis of their sexual choices. Sleep with the same gender, I don't care. Sleep with large groups of men and women, not my problem. Sleep with an iron or a skilsaw, for all I care. (Though I really don't recommend the former if plugged in, or the latter at all on general safety grounds.) Make the rational assumption that your sex life is your business and mine is mine and I'll get along with anyone. Once someone wishes to ask that society bend rules just for their convenience or comfort, then I have issues.
I would respectfully correct your statement, based on knowledge of myself that you don't have.
I know very well that I'm right of the main run of Americans politically. From what you write, I guess you to be left. In all likelihood, the majority of our countrymen find neither of our positions entirely reasonable. In the squabbling between the kinds of people folks like me elect and the kinds of people folks like you elect, that center finds something irritating and corrupt, but with which they can live, at a guess.
@228
Bigoted homophobe? Hardly. I neither fear nor hate anyone on the basis of their sexual choices. Sleep with the same gender, I don't care. Sleep with large groups of men and women, not my problem. Sleep with an iron or a skilsaw, for all I care. (Though I really don't recommend the former if plugged in, or the latter at all on general safety grounds.) Make the rational assumption that your sex life is your business and mine is mine and I'll get along with anyone. Once someone wishes to ask that society bend rules just for their convenience or comfort, then I have issues.
232
@231:
*Facepalm*
"Make the rational assumption that your sex life is your business and mine is mine and I'll get along with anyone."
Please explain, clearly and directly, how equal marriage in any way violates this position.
"Once someone wishes to ask that society bend rules just for their convenience or comfort, then I have issues."
Why? Seriously: why? Even if it is only a matter of convenience or comfort, why would you have an issue with changing the law to make things better for someone else? What possible reason, apart from bigotry or sheer selfishness, do you have for denying to one-tenth of the population the right to marry freely, just as you have it?
It doesn't hurt you. It has no effect on you whatsoever. As you so reasonably state, "your sex life is your business and mine is mine." (Not far at all from what my countryman meant when he noted that the state had no place in the bedrooms of the nation.) Why, why, WHY - if you really don't care who does what with whom - are you opposed to marriage equality?
*Facepalm*
"Make the rational assumption that your sex life is your business and mine is mine and I'll get along with anyone."
Please explain, clearly and directly, how equal marriage in any way violates this position.
"Once someone wishes to ask that society bend rules just for their convenience or comfort, then I have issues."
Why? Seriously: why? Even if it is only a matter of convenience or comfort, why would you have an issue with changing the law to make things better for someone else? What possible reason, apart from bigotry or sheer selfishness, do you have for denying to one-tenth of the population the right to marry freely, just as you have it?
It doesn't hurt you. It has no effect on you whatsoever. As you so reasonably state, "your sex life is your business and mine is mine." (Not far at all from what my countryman meant when he noted that the state had no place in the bedrooms of the nation.) Why, why, WHY - if you really don't care who does what with whom - are you opposed to marriage equality?
233
You know what, Seattleblues? Society has been bending the rules to accomodate your convenience & comfort for eons. The whole world has revolved around what people like you consider normal. Those of us outside the norm (and what exactly makes me outside the norm is none of your business) have struggled with every fiber of our being to fit into a universe that refused to accept us 'as is'. Anyone who doesn't fit your definition of normal is doing so just for the thrill of it.
You say you don't care, but clearly you do. You care a lot. But it's not kindness, it's that you're a heartless. No one is trying to upset your 'lifestyle'. All people are asking is that you mind your business.
This quote from Canuck sums you up perfectly so why not crawl back under your safe little rock and leave the freaks alone?
I would hazard a guess that most people on here are thankful they aren't your kind of people.
You say you don't care, but clearly you do. You care a lot. But it's not kindness, it's that you're a heartless. No one is trying to upset your 'lifestyle'. All people are asking is that you mind your business.
This quote from Canuck sums you up perfectly so why not crawl back under your safe little rock and leave the freaks alone?
Seattleblues is a bigoted homophobe who happens to have better grammar than Loveschild. It doesn't mean he's essentially any different.
I would hazard a guess that most people on here are thankful they aren't your kind of people.
235
#56, @seattleblues
Dan and Terry were _married_ in British Columbia. They really are married.
Don't like same gender marriage? Don't have one.
Dan and Terry were _married_ in British Columbia. They really are married.
Don't like same gender marriage? Don't have one.
236
If the Gays start teaching boys to dance, how will we tell the difference between Straight and Gay men in the future when all men can dance?
237
@221: Actually, I do think the gay rights movement, and the acceptance of gay marriage, does in fact change the social structure. Marriage is changing to be more about individuality, love, sex, and friendship, and less about economics, practicality, dominance, and gender roles. I think it's a welcome change, and it's a continuation of the social acceptance of sex outside of marriage that occurred in the last half of the 20th century.
And I don't really see why it matters if dating someone of the opposite sex is a choice or not. Human sexuality is flexible, but some things are hard-wired. So what? We should still change the social structure to allow gay marriage, even if everyone were bisexual and could freely be attracted to and date both men and women, as Seattleblues seems to think. People should be able to choose who to date, love, fuck, and marry.
And I don't really see why it matters if dating someone of the opposite sex is a choice or not. Human sexuality is flexible, but some things are hard-wired. So what? We should still change the social structure to allow gay marriage, even if everyone were bisexual and could freely be attracted to and date both men and women, as Seattleblues seems to think. People should be able to choose who to date, love, fuck, and marry.
238
235
that "marriage" is not recognized in most states.
Don't like same gender marriage?
Don't have to recognize one...
that "marriage" is not recognized in most states.
Don't like same gender marriage?
Don't have to recognize one...
239
230
you have a very selective and narrow take on history and ignore the good that christian beliefs inspired men to do.
no other religion has prompted so many to do so much good.
and you go pretty far back in history.
if we are going to troll ancient history for religious atrocities
lets not forget the genocide inflicted by the Israelite tribes under Joshua.
total slaughter of even children and animals.
animals?
really?
you have a very selective and narrow take on history and ignore the good that christian beliefs inspired men to do.
no other religion has prompted so many to do so much good.
and you go pretty far back in history.
if we are going to troll ancient history for religious atrocities
lets not forget the genocide inflicted by the Israelite tribes under Joshua.
total slaughter of even children and animals.
animals?
really?
240
232
recognizing homosexual "marriage" as equal to heterosexual marriage requires society to assign the same value to homosexual unions that it does to heterosexual marriage.
they are not of equal value and it would be poor social policy to pretend they are or to give young people the mistaken impression that they are.
recognizing homosexual "marriage" as equal to heterosexual marriage requires society to assign the same value to homosexual unions that it does to heterosexual marriage.
they are not of equal value and it would be poor social policy to pretend they are or to give young people the mistaken impression that they are.
242
Blackrose @237: I agree that equal marriage does represent a change to the social structure -and I agree that it is a positive one. What bugs me about SB and his ilk is the whole "gay marriage is an attack on REAL marriage" crap. No straight marriage has ever been harmed by the recognition of same-sex marriage. There's a whole country up here that can prove that.
@238: If the US recognizes opposite marriages that took place in Canada, it is hypocritical to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages conducted in the same jurisdiction. They are legally IDENTICAL.
@240: There is no difference in value between heterosexual or homosexual marriage. None. Nada. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Sweet fuck-all. Troll as hard as you want; you are still losing.
@238: If the US recognizes opposite marriages that took place in Canada, it is hypocritical to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages conducted in the same jurisdiction. They are legally IDENTICAL.
@240: There is no difference in value between heterosexual or homosexual marriage. None. Nada. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Sweet fuck-all. Troll as hard as you want; you are still losing.
243
@240: You know if due to these tough economic times you can't afford a gift for Dan and Terry I'm sure they'd appreciate a nice card celebrating their marriage. Hallmark started carrying them three years ago. There must be one in a mall near you, so now you have no excuse. You're welcome!
244
@242 BB, when I asked SBs to clarify that, that a same-sex marriage in Canada is in no way different than any other marriage in Canada, and does that negate all of the straight marriages here, he can't answer it. And yet he doesn't consider himself to be a bigot or homophobe. Really, what are people like that afraid of? Because if you're that worried, you're either very fearful, or if you're that obsessed, you're...hmmm.
245
@239: Are you referring to the eradication of the nation of Amalek? Last time I checked, it's not such a bad thing to kill off the people who are relentlessly attacking your people, while your people are simply trying to survive and make their way to somewhere else.
But if you insist that Christianity has improved the world, why not tell me what the best thing (in your opinion) that Christianity has done for this planet?
But if you insist that Christianity has improved the world, why not tell me what the best thing (in your opinion) that Christianity has done for this planet?
246
SeattleBlues, over 100 posts ago I pointed out that just as a gay man has the "same right" to marry a woman as you do, you will have the "same right" to marry a man if gay marriage is made legal. So, by your very own logic, legalized gay marriage is not a "special right" for gays (you can feel free to marry any man you want after we win).
Or how about this: beyond legalizing gay marriage, what if we banned straight marriage? Would you consider that to be anti-straight discrimination? Similar to my first paragraph, you would technically have the same right to marry a gay dude that every other man has (how CONVENIENT for the gays that who they're attracted to and who they can marry just happen to coincide in this example!). You may not choose your attraction to women, and it may suck that you can't legally marry people that you're actually attracted to. But you do choose whether or not to actually sleep with women, and nobody's chosen lifestyle should be catered to, right?
So let's make a deal: concede that it would be just to ban straight marriage, and I'll concede that it isn't discriminatory to ban gay marriage. Otherwise, you need to admit that the ability to marry someone that you are actually attracted to sexually and romantically is actually a pretty damn important right. Or is sexual attraction completely absent from, and irrelevant to, your marriage?
And don't start with any of that "marriage is for procreation" shit, either, unless you're really prepared to argue that infertile couples (or couples who don't want children) should be banned from marriage also.
Is it too much to ask for a little consistency in your arguments?
Or how about this: beyond legalizing gay marriage, what if we banned straight marriage? Would you consider that to be anti-straight discrimination? Similar to my first paragraph, you would technically have the same right to marry a gay dude that every other man has (how CONVENIENT for the gays that who they're attracted to and who they can marry just happen to coincide in this example!). You may not choose your attraction to women, and it may suck that you can't legally marry people that you're actually attracted to. But you do choose whether or not to actually sleep with women, and nobody's chosen lifestyle should be catered to, right?
So let's make a deal: concede that it would be just to ban straight marriage, and I'll concede that it isn't discriminatory to ban gay marriage. Otherwise, you need to admit that the ability to marry someone that you are actually attracted to sexually and romantically is actually a pretty damn important right. Or is sexual attraction completely absent from, and irrelevant to, your marriage?
And don't start with any of that "marriage is for procreation" shit, either, unless you're really prepared to argue that infertile couples (or couples who don't want children) should be banned from marriage also.
Is it too much to ask for a little consistency in your arguments?
248
242
Many states have ammended their Constitutions to Ban homosexual marriage.
By margins as large as 80%.
Many states also have ammended their Constitutions to Ban homosexual civil unions.
And, just for good measure, many states have ammended their Constitutions to specifically not recognize homosexual marriages or civil unions from other jurisdictions.
Do you recal Dan's post about the lesbian couple trying to get a divorce in Texas from their Mass "marriage"?
Texas won't even hear a case for the divorce because it doesn't recognize that the "marriage" exits at all.
Many states have ammended their Constitutions to Ban homosexual marriage.
By margins as large as 80%.
Many states also have ammended their Constitutions to Ban homosexual civil unions.
And, just for good measure, many states have ammended their Constitutions to specifically not recognize homosexual marriages or civil unions from other jurisdictions.
Do you recal Dan's post about the lesbian couple trying to get a divorce in Texas from their Mass "marriage"?
Texas won't even hear a case for the divorce because it doesn't recognize that the "marriage" exits at all.
250
245
What did the women and children of Ai do wrong?
....30,000 Israelites set an ambush of Ai overnight, and in the morning another Israelite force attack and then feign retreat, drawing the forces of Ai far away from the city. When Joshua raises his lance, the 30,000 men preparing the ambush strike, while Joshua starts attacking again, thus surrounding Ai's forces. The entire city is burned and its inhabitants slaughtered. The king of Ai is taken and delivered to Joshua. He is then impaled on a stake for public display before being buried outside the city gates.....
Prisoners of war impaled on a stake for public display before being buried outside the city gates?
Really?
Nowdays that could land you in a prison in The Hague.....
What did the women and children of Ai do wrong?
....30,000 Israelites set an ambush of Ai overnight, and in the morning another Israelite force attack and then feign retreat, drawing the forces of Ai far away from the city. When Joshua raises his lance, the 30,000 men preparing the ambush strike, while Joshua starts attacking again, thus surrounding Ai's forces. The entire city is burned and its inhabitants slaughtered. The king of Ai is taken and delivered to Joshua. He is then impaled on a stake for public display before being buried outside the city gates.....
Prisoners of war impaled on a stake for public display before being buried outside the city gates?
Really?
Nowdays that could land you in a prison in The Hague.....
251
245
The five kings of the Amorites" (the kings of Hebron, Jarmuth, Jerusalem, Lachish, and Eglon)?
Joshua launches a surprise attack following a night march.
The five kings' are discovered hiding inside a cave.
The kings are brought to Joshua, who first humiliates them, then orders their death and has them impaled for public display. At sunset, the bodies are thrown back into the cave from which they hid, and the entrance sealed.
The five kings of the Amorites" (the kings of Hebron, Jarmuth, Jerusalem, Lachish, and Eglon)?
Joshua launches a surprise attack following a night march.
The five kings' are discovered hiding inside a cave.
The kings are brought to Joshua, who first humiliates them, then orders their death and has them impaled for public display. At sunset, the bodies are thrown back into the cave from which they hid, and the entrance sealed.
252
245
The inhabitants of Hazor?
Joshua executes a swift attack and pursuing them to a great distance, he hamstrings their horses, burns their chariots, captures Hazor, slaughters its inhabitants, and burns it to the ground.
Lesser royal residences are also captured and their inhabitants slaughtered
The inhabitants of Hazor?
Joshua executes a swift attack and pursuing them to a great distance, he hamstrings their horses, burns their chariots, captures Hazor, slaughters its inhabitants, and burns it to the ground.
Lesser royal residences are also captured and their inhabitants slaughtered
253
245
Not just the Amalakites.
Seems once a little Genocide gets in your blood it's hard to get rid of.....
There are numerous commands recorded in the book of Joshua for the Israelites to destroy people and animals in the land that they are occupying. This is related to the concept of cherem (set apart for God, or set under a ban) in which entire cities (such as Jericho, 6:17–19) are recorded as commanded to be devoted to destruction.
Some theologians (including many adherents of liberal theology) see this as an ethically unjustifiable order to commit genocide.....
Entire cities.....
....devoted to destruction......
Not just the Amalakites.
Seems once a little Genocide gets in your blood it's hard to get rid of.....
There are numerous commands recorded in the book of Joshua for the Israelites to destroy people and animals in the land that they are occupying. This is related to the concept of cherem (set apart for God, or set under a ban) in which entire cities (such as Jericho, 6:17–19) are recorded as commanded to be devoted to destruction.
Some theologians (including many adherents of liberal theology) see this as an ethically unjustifiable order to commit genocide.....
Entire cities.....
....devoted to destruction......
254
242
Heterosexual marriages provide a critical service to society; producing and raising children to create functional contributing adults.
Enlightened societies have recognized this and erected benefits to foster, promote and subsidize marriage.
Homosexual pairings provide no comparable service to society.
Society has no compelling interest in subsidizing or even recognizing such pairings.
In order to perform the afore mentioned service to society marriages need to be stable, secure and long lasting.
The Family as an institution has been greatly damaged and is failing in that service.
Out-of-wedlock births, divorce, shacking up and extra marital sex; among other things; are competing with and displacing the traditional Family.
As society accepts, embraces and legitimizes those socially destructive behaviors its commitment to The Family; and its families; are weakened.
An enlightened society would renew its efforts to foster, promote and subsidize heterosexual marriage.
Granting homosexual pairings the same status and public resources as heterosexual marriage would further diminish our societies already waning efforts to foster, promote and subsidize heterosexual marriage.
Heterosexual marriages provide a critical service to society; producing and raising children to create functional contributing adults.
Enlightened societies have recognized this and erected benefits to foster, promote and subsidize marriage.
Homosexual pairings provide no comparable service to society.
Society has no compelling interest in subsidizing or even recognizing such pairings.
In order to perform the afore mentioned service to society marriages need to be stable, secure and long lasting.
The Family as an institution has been greatly damaged and is failing in that service.
Out-of-wedlock births, divorce, shacking up and extra marital sex; among other things; are competing with and displacing the traditional Family.
As society accepts, embraces and legitimizes those socially destructive behaviors its commitment to The Family; and its families; are weakened.
An enlightened society would renew its efforts to foster, promote and subsidize heterosexual marriage.
Granting homosexual pairings the same status and public resources as heterosexual marriage would further diminish our societies already waning efforts to foster, promote and subsidize heterosexual marriage.
255
242
Many states have ammended their Constitutions to Ban homosexual marriage.
By margins as large as 80%.
Many states also have ammended their Constitutions to Ban homosexual civil unions.
And, just for good measure, many states have ammended their Constitutions to specifically not recognize homosexual marriages or civil unions from other jurisdictions.
Do you recal Dan's post about the lesbian couple trying to get a divorce in Texas from their Mass "marriage"?
Texas won't even hear a case for the divorce because it doesn't recognize that the "marriage" exits at all.
They are legally NOT identical......
Many states have ammended their Constitutions to Ban homosexual marriage.
By margins as large as 80%.
Many states also have ammended their Constitutions to Ban homosexual civil unions.
And, just for good measure, many states have ammended their Constitutions to specifically not recognize homosexual marriages or civil unions from other jurisdictions.
Do you recal Dan's post about the lesbian couple trying to get a divorce in Texas from their Mass "marriage"?
Texas won't even hear a case for the divorce because it doesn't recognize that the "marriage" exits at all.
They are legally NOT identical......
256
@254 Your premise that only heterosexual marriage produce the "type" of children we need to further our society is laughable, and suggests you dropped out of high school at 16. If you had stayed on, and learned some, oh, history, anthropology, paleo-anthropology, biology, you might have discovered that producing children who go on to populate the world has been the least of our problems as a species. In fact, 7 billion people later, some might say we are actually quite good at it (considering our population was 4 billion when I was in grade 8, I'd say we are freakishly brilliant at reproducing.) And during this long road to 7 billion people on this shrinking planet, gays and lesbians have been right there the whole time. Throughout the centuries, the reason for marrying has changed and evolved, and at present, we marry, for the most part, to make a public statement about our romantic love. When I got married, it was because I loved my husband, not because I was scared I might get pregnant, and that my children would otherwise be called bastards (that's SO 19th century...) In fact, until gay and lesbians wanted to have the same right to get married quite recently in our history, I never once heard a straight person argue that the purpose of marriage was to produce children, because people got married all the time who couldn't have children, like older people who'd had a spouse who died.
@255 Backyard Bom. is from Canada, as am I, and here, marriages ARE legally identical!
@255 Backyard Bom. is from Canada, as am I, and here, marriages ARE legally identical!
257
PS Mr. Canuck just did this deal-breaking thing where he blows his nose over the sink, and then rinses off his hands. There are goobers in the sink, and slug-trails on the hand towel. The REAL question, the one NO ONE is asking on this thread, is DO WE REALLY WANT TO KEEP PRODUCING STRAIGHT MEN IN THE FIRST PLACE??
258
@249: Oh no no no! The card would be for the sixth anniversary of their marriage which took place, as you recall, in 2005. Though many couples, my parents for example, *do* celebrate the anniversary of their first date as well, so you could add congratulations on their 16 years together in the card too if you like. It would be a nice gesture and one I'm sure they'd appreciate. xoxo
259
Like Canuck was saying, same sex couples can't make babies but they can raise them. Thanks to recent scientific advances the modern world has plenty of babies but not enough responsible adults to raise them. The notion of gay marriage would have seemed ridicules in the bronze age but we're not living in the bronze age.
260
@250 -253: I know, right? As I mentioned up thread, the bible is just full to the brim with horrific shenanigans, and yet we are supposed to use this book as the final arbiter of civilized behavior, *and* as the basis for who can and cannot get married? On the word of a psychopathic deity who didn't give a rats ass what the Israelites got up to as long as they weren't worshiping Baal? Or eating *shrimp*? I mean SHRIMP for fuck sake? I am *so* glad that you have finally done some research and have realized that the bible as supporting documentation for your homophobia is no longer tenable. I await your post, when like a modern day Saul on the road to Damascus, you announce you have seen the light, and will go forth to preach to your fellows who still labor in the darkness. xoxo
261
260
dear you ARE new around here, aren't you.
the troll has NEVER used the bible as a basis for forming public policy.
nor does the troll base any of our positions, on homosexuality or anything else, on what the bible says.
we can read, however, and find it mega annoying when "jews" and "christians" try to run away from or 'interpret away' or flat out distort what their holy books say. if nothing else our reverence for the English (and Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic...) language(s) compels us...
.
258
after reading 255 we dare not.
recognizing a relationship that is banned and illegal here in Real America would surely land us in all kind of legal trouble.
we will, however, donate the cost of a card to feed the hungry Dan is so passionate about.....
dear you ARE new around here, aren't you.
the troll has NEVER used the bible as a basis for forming public policy.
nor does the troll base any of our positions, on homosexuality or anything else, on what the bible says.
we can read, however, and find it mega annoying when "jews" and "christians" try to run away from or 'interpret away' or flat out distort what their holy books say. if nothing else our reverence for the English (and Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic...) language(s) compels us...
.
258
after reading 255 we dare not.
recognizing a relationship that is banned and illegal here in Real America would surely land us in all kind of legal trouble.
we will, however, donate the cost of a card to feed the hungry Dan is so passionate about.....
263
256
Please read again, slower this time...
We shared the fact that "stable, secure and long lasting" "heterosexual marriages provide a critical service to society; producing and raising children to create functional contributing adults."
We did not mention the fact that "stable, secure and long lasting" heterosexual marriages are the best way to produce and raise children into functional contributing adults but we think you got our drift.
"Functional contributing adults", not babies, are the desired outcome.
The "married homosexual couples are going to save society by raising all the unwanted babies" theory is laughable.
ha. ha.
Homosexuals are, what, 2% of the population according to the CDC?
And perhaps, what, a third of them will marry given the chance?
And perhaps, what, a third of those will adopt unwanted children, given the chance?
So we will add a whopping .2% (zero point two percent) of the population to the parenting pool?
Vemonlast will tell you that is a 'statistically insignificant' increase.
A tiny amount of attention addressing the factors that produce unwed teens would easily yield an increase in the pool of capable parents by 10x (TEN FOLD).
or more....
Besides.
What is keeping all those great homosexual parents from caring for children now?
Tax breaks?
Is it REALLY just about the tax breaks?
how petty.....
And any gain in the parenting pool from legalizing homosexual marriage will be more than offset by reduced numbers of kids growing up to enter heterosexual marriage as credulous fashion/fad conscious teens chase the new thing.
Cause, after all, homosexual marriage is just as good as heterosexual marriage. Right?
Wrong.
.
we were addressing BB's whine about other jurisdictions not recognizing those canadian homosexual "marriages"...
More...
Please read again, slower this time...
We shared the fact that "stable, secure and long lasting" "heterosexual marriages provide a critical service to society; producing and raising children to create functional contributing adults."
We did not mention the fact that "stable, secure and long lasting" heterosexual marriages are the best way to produce and raise children into functional contributing adults but we think you got our drift.
"Functional contributing adults", not babies, are the desired outcome.
The "married homosexual couples are going to save society by raising all the unwanted babies" theory is laughable.
ha. ha.
Homosexuals are, what, 2% of the population according to the CDC?
And perhaps, what, a third of them will marry given the chance?
And perhaps, what, a third of those will adopt unwanted children, given the chance?
So we will add a whopping .2% (zero point two percent) of the population to the parenting pool?
Vemonlast will tell you that is a 'statistically insignificant' increase.
A tiny amount of attention addressing the factors that produce unwed teens would easily yield an increase in the pool of capable parents by 10x (TEN FOLD).
or more....
Besides.
What is keeping all those great homosexual parents from caring for children now?
Tax breaks?
Is it REALLY just about the tax breaks?
how petty.....
And any gain in the parenting pool from legalizing homosexual marriage will be more than offset by reduced numbers of kids growing up to enter heterosexual marriage as credulous fashion/fad conscious teens chase the new thing.
Cause, after all, homosexual marriage is just as good as heterosexual marriage. Right?
Wrong.
.
we were addressing BB's whine about other jurisdictions not recognizing those canadian homosexual "marriages"...
265
@ 263 But homosexual couples in these United States *are* raising children even as we speak remember? Maybe while shopping for that anniversary gift for Dan and Terry, you should swing by Toys R Us and get something for The Kid. He'll be, what this year? Eleven? Twelve? I understand he and his parents enjoy snowboarding together, so maybe something along those lines would be nice. Don't forget to sign the card! I'm sure Dan and Terry will want to send a thank you note.
266
265
that's great!
and without a piece of paper from the state or anything!
glad we've resolved that we really don't need homosexual marriage after all.....
that's great!
and without a piece of paper from the state or anything!
glad we've resolved that we really don't need homosexual marriage after all.....
267
The fact that gays adopt children isn't brought up to show that they're better than straights because they "take care of the unwanted children." It's brought up to REFUTE the argument that "gays can't get married because marriage and family are about children and gays can't have children." When gays adopt, they form a family (with children!), and are therefore worthy of marriage if children are your criterion. If it's a "real" family when straights adopt, it's a "real" family when gays adopt. The point isn't that gay marriage will increase adoption and save the world. The point is that your rhetoric for dismissing gay relationships as invalid and unworthy of marriage are arbitrary and faulty. You have yet to prove otherwise.
And I love when you contradict yourself without even realizing it. So married gays won't adopt many children because gays are only 2% of the population, and not all of them will marry or adopt. Yet, somehow, allowing that measly little fraction of 2% to marry each other and legally validate their relationships will severely undermine the recognition of straight marriages everywhere, and will overwhelmingly cause massive numbers of children to think straight marriage is just an outdated fad?
You know, screw the contradiction. I'd like to address this little theory of yours, which would be batshit even if gays were 20% of the population. Everyone always says that straight marriage will be mysteriously "undermined" when gays can get married, and they always, always stop there. Nobody ever explains or backs this up. You just declare it: "if gays can get married, less people will enter straight marriages because they're fad conscious and will chase 'the new thing.' "
Sorry, time to actually back up your rhetoric (man, interfering in other people's lives is so HARD nowadays). How, exactly, will gay marriage cause straight kids to abandon straight marriage? How will they suddenly view "making a lifelong commitment to someone you're sexually and romantically involved with" as a thing of the past once gays start doing it? Or will it "just happen" because you say so?
More...
And I love when you contradict yourself without even realizing it. So married gays won't adopt many children because gays are only 2% of the population, and not all of them will marry or adopt. Yet, somehow, allowing that measly little fraction of 2% to marry each other and legally validate their relationships will severely undermine the recognition of straight marriages everywhere, and will overwhelmingly cause massive numbers of children to think straight marriage is just an outdated fad?
You know, screw the contradiction. I'd like to address this little theory of yours, which would be batshit even if gays were 20% of the population. Everyone always says that straight marriage will be mysteriously "undermined" when gays can get married, and they always, always stop there. Nobody ever explains or backs this up. You just declare it: "if gays can get married, less people will enter straight marriages because they're fad conscious and will chase 'the new thing.' "
Sorry, time to actually back up your rhetoric (man, interfering in other people's lives is so HARD nowadays). How, exactly, will gay marriage cause straight kids to abandon straight marriage? How will they suddenly view "making a lifelong commitment to someone you're sexually and romantically involved with" as a thing of the past once gays start doing it? Or will it "just happen" because you say so?
268
@266: tsk tsk tsk! You can't have it both ways. Now get your fanny to the mall and start shopping!
269
I never noticed that neither Canuck nor BB are US citizens. Tbough the tag 'Canuck' should have tipped me off, the BB tag just reminds me of my dog and the twice weekly unpleasant task of picking up after her.
I accept that while nationalized health care is foolish and inefficient, it's Canadas right to adopt it. That's an internal matter. As is outsourcing L&I claims in Canada to private clinics. It seems the public clinics don't produce good results, so the Canadian government actually uses private clinics for L&I. I understand that you endorse gay marriage in Canada. Great. That's certainly your right. In Canada.
What I don't understand is why you, or any other non-US national, has any interest in gay marriage in the United States. Quite simply, it's an internal matter and not your business.
I accept that while nationalized health care is foolish and inefficient, it's Canadas right to adopt it. That's an internal matter. As is outsourcing L&I claims in Canada to private clinics. It seems the public clinics don't produce good results, so the Canadian government actually uses private clinics for L&I. I understand that you endorse gay marriage in Canada. Great. That's certainly your right. In Canada.
What I don't understand is why you, or any other non-US national, has any interest in gay marriage in the United States. Quite simply, it's an internal matter and not your business.
270
@255: Yes, we know that Texas is a horrible and disgusting place except for Austin.
@260: Shrimp is a bug.
@263: You're pretty damn ignorant of what "statistically significant" means. We're not taking a sample from a population here; we're estimating things about the population AS A WHOLE.
There are currently about 120,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted in this country. Most credible sources put the proportion of homosexuals at between 5% and 10%. Assuming that gays will get married at the same rate as straights (6.8 per 1000 per year), that equates to between 51,000 and 102,000 new gay marriages per year. Assuming that one fourth of all gay couples eventually adopt a child, and half of those who do adopt multiple children (not unreasonable estimates), and that half of gay couples who adopt will do so whether or not they are allowed to marry, letting gays get married would, in theory, result in between 10,000 and 25,000 extra adoptions per year. Even if only half of those adoptions come from within the US, the backlog of children waiting for adoption would, in theory, decline to negligible levels within two decades.
See, Period Hive Drone, just because something's a small percentage of a population doesn't make it insignificant. Only ~10% of the cells in a human being are actually human, with the rest being bacteria. But let's just see a human without that 10%!
@260: Shrimp is a bug.
@263: You're pretty damn ignorant of what "statistically significant" means. We're not taking a sample from a population here; we're estimating things about the population AS A WHOLE.
There are currently about 120,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted in this country. Most credible sources put the proportion of homosexuals at between 5% and 10%. Assuming that gays will get married at the same rate as straights (6.8 per 1000 per year), that equates to between 51,000 and 102,000 new gay marriages per year. Assuming that one fourth of all gay couples eventually adopt a child, and half of those who do adopt multiple children (not unreasonable estimates), and that half of gay couples who adopt will do so whether or not they are allowed to marry, letting gays get married would, in theory, result in between 10,000 and 25,000 extra adoptions per year. Even if only half of those adoptions come from within the US, the backlog of children waiting for adoption would, in theory, decline to negligible levels within two decades.
See, Period Hive Drone, just because something's a small percentage of a population doesn't make it insignificant. Only ~10% of the cells in a human being are actually human, with the rest being bacteria. But let's just see a human without that 10%!
271
@264: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en…
@269: It's an internal matter and none of their business?
Okay, we should let other countries treat their minorities however they want. Slavery in America? It was wrong for The British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society to stick their nose in. The Holocaust? If it weren't for Hitler conquering much of Europe, we would have stayed out entirely. The janjaweed raping and murdering the people of Darfur? Well, if the Sudanese government thinks it's okay, we'd better leave such internal matters to them.
@269: It's an internal matter and none of their business?
Okay, we should let other countries treat their minorities however they want. Slavery in America? It was wrong for The British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society to stick their nose in. The Holocaust? If it weren't for Hitler conquering much of Europe, we would have stayed out entirely. The janjaweed raping and murdering the people of Darfur? Well, if the Sudanese government thinks it's okay, we'd better leave such internal matters to them.
272
Wow, Troll, now you have an issue with unwed teens? What are you, Mormon? Or did you mean to say "unwed teen parents"? Whether you like it or not, society is constantly changing and evolving, and the definition of what makes a family is evolving as well. Plenty of children are raised in loving, secure homes by one parent, or a mother and father, or two dads, or by an aunt and uncle...at some point you will begin to see that despite all of your ranting, the kids are alright. And if you have an issue with teen parents, you might consider pushing your representatives to abolish "abstinence sex ed," because lack of birth control is what causes teen pregnancies, not gay parents.
My marriage in Canada does not have quotation marks, you ignorant, xenophobic fuck.
My marriage in Canada does not have quotation marks, you ignorant, xenophobic fuck.
273
Seattleues, prepare to have your ignorant mind blown: I am both a Canadian citizen (my adopted country) AND a US citizen by birth. In fact, my family has lived in the States since 1607, is that far back enough for you? I vote in every US election. It is precisely my fucking business.
I guess the reason Canada scores higher than the US on the infant mortality rate scale is because everyone here has access to such terrible free health care, huh?
I guess the reason Canada scores higher than the US on the infant mortality rate scale is because everyone here has access to such terrible free health care, huh?
274
Bonefish, when I asked Loveschild that question (how does gay marriage hurt straight marriage?) I had to really push, finally she said that it was awkward to explain what being gay was to her children, and that in turn would create stress in her marriage (!!) I also seem to remember that was where the Prop 8 argument broke down in one TV interview, when the guy being interviewed couldn't come up with any examples of how his straight marriage would be "harmed."
275
@270 re: shrimp. I will grant that it is unnerving it eat them with their little heads on. Makes me think of that movie Alien.
@269: My how the ground doth shift beneath thy argument! So now it's not about gay marriages being "real" since they are demonstrably so in Canada, now it's about L&I claims O_o? and your bigotry being none of our business? But if you support legislation that denies the rights of our citizens here in the US then it absolutely is our business! I invite you once again to scroll up thread and read what Kim wrote to you in post 191.
You can continue to kick and fuss, and kick and fuss, but all you will do is pull a muscle, and in the end, the US will recognize those same sex marriages performed in Canada, just as they recognize Shinto marriages performed in Japan as legal, and those secular marriages performed entirely with out benefit of clergy, or so much as a mention of a deity, that occur daily in such countries as Sweden, or Great Britain, or even our own. And then there will be gay marriage here in the US, and the US will be a better place for it.
@269: My how the ground doth shift beneath thy argument! So now it's not about gay marriages being "real" since they are demonstrably so in Canada, now it's about L&I claims O_o? and your bigotry being none of our business? But if you support legislation that denies the rights of our citizens here in the US then it absolutely is our business! I invite you once again to scroll up thread and read what Kim wrote to you in post 191.
You can continue to kick and fuss, and kick and fuss, but all you will do is pull a muscle, and in the end, the US will recognize those same sex marriages performed in Canada, just as they recognize Shinto marriages performed in Japan as legal, and those secular marriages performed entirely with out benefit of clergy, or so much as a mention of a deity, that occur daily in such countries as Sweden, or Great Britain, or even our own. And then there will be gay marriage here in the US, and the US will be a better place for it.
276
272
Please allow Vemonlast to explain the concept of 'anecdotal evidence' to you.
Unwed teens make terrible parents.
Statistically their children are at much greater risk for the spectrum of abuses and neglects.
If teens can be taught, encouraged and given societal support to postpone pregnancy until in a stable marriage their children and society as a whole would benefit greatly.
Dan has posted articles on Slog in which Federal Public Health officials report that abstinence education reduces pregnancy rates.
The CDC reports that abstinence is the BEST way to avoid STDs and pregnancy.
Whether you like it or not, science's understanding of healthy sexual practice is constantly improving and evolving, and the definition of what constitutes healthy prudent responsible sexual behavior is evolving as well.
Your Woodstock 60s Free Love attitudes may be out of date.
We don't know how canucks reproduce but in America sex is what causes pregnancies, teen or otherwise.
speaking of "marriage" how is the old man's goober?
Please allow Vemonlast to explain the concept of 'anecdotal evidence' to you.
Unwed teens make terrible parents.
Statistically their children are at much greater risk for the spectrum of abuses and neglects.
If teens can be taught, encouraged and given societal support to postpone pregnancy until in a stable marriage their children and society as a whole would benefit greatly.
Dan has posted articles on Slog in which Federal Public Health officials report that abstinence education reduces pregnancy rates.
The CDC reports that abstinence is the BEST way to avoid STDs and pregnancy.
Whether you like it or not, science's understanding of healthy sexual practice is constantly improving and evolving, and the definition of what constitutes healthy prudent responsible sexual behavior is evolving as well.
Your Woodstock 60s Free Love attitudes may be out of date.
We don't know how canucks reproduce but in America sex is what causes pregnancies, teen or otherwise.
speaking of "marriage" how is the old man's goober?
277
@269: In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%.
So much for that.
As to what is my business, I get to decide that. As Venomlash points out, there is a long history of people opposing injustice and oppression that takes place in other countries. I personally have many friends and relations in the US, including several who are gay. I have a very close friend who married her wife in Vancouver but whose marriage is still not recognized in her home state of Arizona. I think that is unfair and I am allowed to say so.
Finally, as to the grievous harm that will be done to straight marriage if gay marriage is permitted, I can offer a study with a sample size of one: I have been married, in Canada, twice. Once before equal marriage, once after. I have yet to detect any substantive difference in the quality of the former marriage, or my attitude towards it, versus the latter.
So much for that.
As to what is my business, I get to decide that. As Venomlash points out, there is a long history of people opposing injustice and oppression that takes place in other countries. I personally have many friends and relations in the US, including several who are gay. I have a very close friend who married her wife in Vancouver but whose marriage is still not recognized in her home state of Arizona. I think that is unfair and I am allowed to say so.
Finally, as to the grievous harm that will be done to straight marriage if gay marriage is permitted, I can offer a study with a sample size of one: I have been married, in Canada, twice. Once before equal marriage, once after. I have yet to detect any substantive difference in the quality of the former marriage, or my attitude towards it, versus the latter.
278
267
Kids are impressionable credulous creatures, easily persuaded.
Advertisers know it....
Hitler knew it....
You can market ANYTHING well enough and get kids to accept it.
Brand new jeans with rips and tears in them....
Nazism....
What percentage of German teens grew up to be Jew hating thugs in the 20s?
What percentage in the 30s?
A decade of Hitler Youth created a generation of loyal Nazis.
Dan and Queer,Inc. can't wait to get into America's schools.
To teach kids that homosexuality is Normal and Natural.
To teach kids that homsexual "marriage" is Just As Good As heterosexual marriage.
Phillip Morris likes to hook'um young.
So would Dan like to.
Remember the high school girl from Georgia a few years ago?
Decided she was a lesbian-agitated because she wasn't getting her rights as a proud queer teen- National Queer,Inc. rushed to the rescue- national Queer leaders declare her a Hero- she made the cover of The Advocate...
remember the case?
Where was the Lesbian Covergirl Hero a year later?
Do you know?
In a committed Lesbian relationship?
Studying Dykedom at a Liberal University?
Living her Lesbian Dream?
not quite....
She was living with her boyfriend popping out babies.
Market homosexuality like you market jeans or cigarettes and you'll sell more of the product.
but you already know that......
Kids are impressionable credulous creatures, easily persuaded.
Advertisers know it....
Hitler knew it....
You can market ANYTHING well enough and get kids to accept it.
Brand new jeans with rips and tears in them....
Nazism....
What percentage of German teens grew up to be Jew hating thugs in the 20s?
What percentage in the 30s?
A decade of Hitler Youth created a generation of loyal Nazis.
Dan and Queer,Inc. can't wait to get into America's schools.
To teach kids that homosexuality is Normal and Natural.
To teach kids that homsexual "marriage" is Just As Good As heterosexual marriage.
Phillip Morris likes to hook'um young.
So would Dan like to.
Remember the high school girl from Georgia a few years ago?
Decided she was a lesbian-agitated because she wasn't getting her rights as a proud queer teen- National Queer,Inc. rushed to the rescue- national Queer leaders declare her a Hero- she made the cover of The Advocate...
remember the case?
Where was the Lesbian Covergirl Hero a year later?
Do you know?
In a committed Lesbian relationship?
Studying Dykedom at a Liberal University?
Living her Lesbian Dream?
not quite....
She was living with her boyfriend popping out babies.
Market homosexuality like you market jeans or cigarettes and you'll sell more of the product.
but you already know that......
280
@279: Screw you, I'm necroing this thread.
@276: Your reading comprehension isn't getting any better. Canuck wasn't advocating for teens to formed babby. Canuck's just saying that kids grow up fine in households where they have loving and supporting parents, whether those parents are the same or opposite genders. Hell, even kids raised by one parent, or by relatives, generally turn out okay. (There is a correlation between being raised by a single parent and not growing up well, but that's likely not causative.)
Abstinence education does help, compared to no sex ed at all; however, comprehensive sex ed reduces unwanted pregnancy rates even further. Saying that abstinence-only sex ed prevents teen pregnancy is like saying that double bacon cheeseburgers are healthy for you. Sure, eating double bacon cheeseburgers will cause you to live longer than eating nothing at all, but there are much better options available.
And sure, abstinence may be the best way to prevent pregnancy, but it's just not that much fun. Just because you can't get any, don't try to force us to be like that too.
@276: Your reading comprehension isn't getting any better. Canuck wasn't advocating for teens to formed babby. Canuck's just saying that kids grow up fine in households where they have loving and supporting parents, whether those parents are the same or opposite genders. Hell, even kids raised by one parent, or by relatives, generally turn out okay. (There is a correlation between being raised by a single parent and not growing up well, but that's likely not causative.)
Abstinence education does help, compared to no sex ed at all; however, comprehensive sex ed reduces unwanted pregnancy rates even further. Saying that abstinence-only sex ed prevents teen pregnancy is like saying that double bacon cheeseburgers are healthy for you. Sure, eating double bacon cheeseburgers will cause you to live longer than eating nothing at all, but there are much better options available.
And sure, abstinence may be the best way to prevent pregnancy, but it's just not that much fun. Just because you can't get any, don't try to force us to be like that too.
281
@276: Oh Period Troll how your head must ache from all the things you don't understand. You need a nap before hitting the mall, and besides Venomlash can't keep explaining these things to you forever! He has his shopping to do too you know. Maybe you'll run into each other in the Hallmark store, wouldn't that be nice?
Now I'm afraid that I'm going to have to bow out for awhile. Tonight is my Father's 70th birthday party, and as it's black tie, I must go put on my party frock, and calm down my mother. You try to behave yourself now! xoxo
Now I'm afraid that I'm going to have to bow out for awhile. Tonight is my Father's 70th birthday party, and as it's black tie, I must go put on my party frock, and calm down my mother. You try to behave yourself now! xoxo
282
@281: I don't shop at Hallmark; that company lost any respect I might have had for them when they invented a holiday in order to sell sappy greeting cards.
283
Cancuck,
Are you a Daughter of the Revolutionary War, too? My European side has been here since about 1715, the indigenous side has been here all along.
Anyway, join in me in a glass and don't allow the ever changing argument to get you down. Those who have deep attachments to their emotions on a subject, will as Solomon Schimmel would say, "expend a tremendous amount of intellectual and emotional energy in defending beliefs, even appealing to arguments that he would not find convincing in the absence of an emotional attachment". The hoop will be changed, the argument moved, because it takes courage to own that you want to justify oppressing a segment of the population because of who they love and how they express their love freaks you out.
So here is a piece of advice someone we both love gave to me, and likely the reason he hasn't chimed in on this thread. "you've made your case. don't let them draw you out... you know... arguing with "insert name" is like wrestling with someone who's covered in shitven if you win, you walk away covered with shit too. sometimes refusing to wrestle is the right response to the challenge." There are many who believe they are the "fragrance of Christ" that to the living they smell sweet and to the dying they smell of death. That kind of attitude allows them the hubris to insist that their opinions are facts to be accepted. Perhaps, if we cease to give them the attention they crave, that validates their desired suffering servant identity, they will fade, like others have? Just my $0.02, as always feel free to disregard it.
Take care.
Are you a Daughter of the Revolutionary War, too? My European side has been here since about 1715, the indigenous side has been here all along.
Anyway, join in me in a glass and don't allow the ever changing argument to get you down. Those who have deep attachments to their emotions on a subject, will as Solomon Schimmel would say, "expend a tremendous amount of intellectual and emotional energy in defending beliefs, even appealing to arguments that he would not find convincing in the absence of an emotional attachment". The hoop will be changed, the argument moved, because it takes courage to own that you want to justify oppressing a segment of the population because of who they love and how they express their love freaks you out.
So here is a piece of advice someone we both love gave to me, and likely the reason he hasn't chimed in on this thread. "you've made your case. don't let them draw you out... you know... arguing with "insert name" is like wrestling with someone who's covered in shitven if you win, you walk away covered with shit too. sometimes refusing to wrestle is the right response to the challenge." There are many who believe they are the "fragrance of Christ" that to the living they smell sweet and to the dying they smell of death. That kind of attitude allows them the hubris to insist that their opinions are facts to be accepted. Perhaps, if we cease to give them the attention they crave, that validates their desired suffering servant identity, they will fade, like others have? Just my $0.02, as always feel free to disregard it.
Take care.
285
Hey Kim! Good advice...it does, after a while, become apparent that every well-reasoned answer becomes twisted in reply, new arguments formed when the old ones were disproved, all in all, a huge exercise in frustration. The comfort is, I suppose, that those voices are becoming dimmer, the arguments increasingly far-fetched....and I was never one for mud-wrestling, never mind shit wrestling!
Yes, genealogy is a beloved waste of time for me, I find it fascinating! I think 5280 and I were discovering that parts of both of our families came from Rhode Island, his about 100 years ago, and mine from the early 1600's, when one of my ancestors was banished from the Bay Colony of Massachusetts for being a "heretic," which is what they called Baptists back then (!), and he continued on to Rhode Island. And yes, they fought in the Revolutionary War on both sides of my family, Joseph Sharpe from North Carolina, and Thomas Shepherd and his four sons from West Virginia...God, stop me now...I do tend to "go on"...these relatives were, of course, mixed with a very liberal dose of jig-dancing Irish immigrants in the 1800s, hence my love of Guinness, my freckles, and my Irish temper.
Cheers!!
Yes, genealogy is a beloved waste of time for me, I find it fascinating! I think 5280 and I were discovering that parts of both of our families came from Rhode Island, his about 100 years ago, and mine from the early 1600's, when one of my ancestors was banished from the Bay Colony of Massachusetts for being a "heretic," which is what they called Baptists back then (!), and he continued on to Rhode Island. And yes, they fought in the Revolutionary War on both sides of my family, Joseph Sharpe from North Carolina, and Thomas Shepherd and his four sons from West Virginia...God, stop me now...I do tend to "go on"...these relatives were, of course, mixed with a very liberal dose of jig-dancing Irish immigrants in the 1800s, hence my love of Guinness, my freckles, and my Irish temper.
Cheers!!
286
(I would just like to chime in at this late date to say that sink thing you describe is HORRIBLE, Canuck. You must love him very much.)
287
Oh gus, I don't even know what to say...I go upstairs, sluggy towel in hand, and say, "Why would you do this? You are so WEIRD!" and he sticks his tongue out and says, "but I'm *your* weird!"
If you and I were sitting and having multiple martinis, dear, I would tell you all about this love of which you speak, but suffice to say on this public blog that I have not placed an order for arsenic this week, at least...Mr. Canuck is lucky...for now.
If you and I were sitting and having multiple martinis, dear, I would tell you all about this love of which you speak, but suffice to say on this public blog that I have not placed an order for arsenic this week, at least...Mr. Canuck is lucky...for now.
288
Snot in the sink.
Canuck, I have always had the utmost respect for you, your comments, your wisdom, and your advocacy. But this time, at least for me, you nailed it.
There is nothing that Period Troll, El Trollo Magnifico, or Seattleblues can say or do that explains marriage so bluntly, so perfectly, or so gender-free (marriage-wise) than this:
"Oh gus, I don't even know what to say...I go upstairs, sluggy towel in hand, and say, "Why would you do this? You are so WEIRD!" and he sticks his tongue out and says, "but I'm *your* weird!"
To BE with someone....
THAT way...
Sluggy towel and all....
I am all teary right now, because I don't have that someone, but I am really happy you have yours!!!!
The trolls seem to miss the basic point of this...
That they are hurting people because they don't 'get' why people who are of the same sex are attracted to people of the same sex.
How sad to be so focused on other peoples happiness instead of their own...
How empty their lives must be...
Canuck, I have always had the utmost respect for you, your comments, your wisdom, and your advocacy. But this time, at least for me, you nailed it.
There is nothing that Period Troll, El Trollo Magnifico, or Seattleblues can say or do that explains marriage so bluntly, so perfectly, or so gender-free (marriage-wise) than this:
"Oh gus, I don't even know what to say...I go upstairs, sluggy towel in hand, and say, "Why would you do this? You are so WEIRD!" and he sticks his tongue out and says, "but I'm *your* weird!"
To BE with someone....
THAT way...
Sluggy towel and all....
I am all teary right now, because I don't have that someone, but I am really happy you have yours!!!!
The trolls seem to miss the basic point of this...
That they are hurting people because they don't 'get' why people who are of the same sex are attracted to people of the same sex.
How sad to be so focused on other peoples happiness instead of their own...
How empty their lives must be...
290
Hey MirrorMan, it's funny, sometimes I look back and can't believe as many years have gone by that I've spent with someone with whom I have so little in common, and yet, who can still make me shake my head and smile with a comment like that. However, ups and downs and all that, not perfect by any means, and we have plenty of times where, if it weren't for this interwoven life we have, we probably would have gone our separate ways. But, we always seem to sort things out, eventually, too.
But here's to sluggy towels, the wonder of washing machines (for the towels...), and the hope that you find your own sluggy-towel producer, too, someday. And when you do, I expect you to tell us about their annoying habits right here on slog! *kiss*
(...and thanks for your kind words, you made me smile!)
But here's to sluggy towels, the wonder of washing machines (for the towels...), and the hope that you find your own sluggy-towel producer, too, someday. And when you do, I expect you to tell us about their annoying habits right here on slog! *kiss*
(...and thanks for your kind words, you made me smile!)
291
@288-290 You're right. That's love. I saw a lot of it last night at my Dad's birthday party. People like Period Troll and Seattleblues have a the tiniest, narrowest definition of love. It's like a little crack that some light get through, and they think that tiny trickle is the whole shebang. They don't realize how dark their lives really are, and how horrible it is to expect others to live without even a sliver of that light.
@281: No Hallmark for you! Personally I tend not to shop there either, but more because of the sappiness. Plus I make my own cards.
@281: No Hallmark for you! Personally I tend not to shop there either, but more because of the sappiness. Plus I make my own cards.
292
Lissa,
My relationship with my wife is the single most important thing in my life, barring perhaps the continuing joy of watching our children grow and mature. I look forward to seeing their tiny baby features someday in their children, should they wish to have them. The continuum from the craftsmanship of my carpernter father to my mechanically gifted son is an amazing thing to see. The continuum from my methodical and rational wife to our (so far) similar daughter also. My grandparents were the most amazing example of lifelong love I have ever seen firsthand. My parents showed me that loving your children means giving them the tools to explore who and what they are while giving them the structure to do so with control. I've walked through the worlds great cathedrals and art museums and seen examples of the love of expressing the vision inside the artist in stone or paint or architecure. I've walked humble mule paths laid down in heavy hand-hewn stone 1000 years ago in seemingly unpopulated woods and marveled both at the beauty of the woods and the craftsmanship of the stone bridges over deep canyons with white water streams below. The pure love of doing a thing right simply because there was no other conceivable way to do it was impressed on me in the mountainous regions of Tuscany or Southern Germany or Northern England. My faith inspires me with the supreme example of love for man on the part of the creator.
Your assumptions about what I know or experience are, frankly, arrogant at worst, ignorant at best. As much as I love the children my wife and I were entrusted with, that trust imposes obligations. We owe our kids the delicate balance between expression of self and consideration of others, of duty to family or employer or society as a whole. I owe my kids this as surely as I owe them food or shelter or clothing or a hug when they're sad or upset or afraid.
What liberals miss, in my opinion, is the second part of this equation. They see the marvelous individuality of thier children or other people and rightfully want to encourage it. What they don't see is that those stone pathways or bridges in Tuscany, those magnificent cathedrals in Rome or Munich, those paintings that capture the essence of humanity for all time in the Louvre or the Smithsonian are the product of structure as well as creativity, of laws as well as talent.
More...
My relationship with my wife is the single most important thing in my life, barring perhaps the continuing joy of watching our children grow and mature. I look forward to seeing their tiny baby features someday in their children, should they wish to have them. The continuum from the craftsmanship of my carpernter father to my mechanically gifted son is an amazing thing to see. The continuum from my methodical and rational wife to our (so far) similar daughter also. My grandparents were the most amazing example of lifelong love I have ever seen firsthand. My parents showed me that loving your children means giving them the tools to explore who and what they are while giving them the structure to do so with control. I've walked through the worlds great cathedrals and art museums and seen examples of the love of expressing the vision inside the artist in stone or paint or architecure. I've walked humble mule paths laid down in heavy hand-hewn stone 1000 years ago in seemingly unpopulated woods and marveled both at the beauty of the woods and the craftsmanship of the stone bridges over deep canyons with white water streams below. The pure love of doing a thing right simply because there was no other conceivable way to do it was impressed on me in the mountainous regions of Tuscany or Southern Germany or Northern England. My faith inspires me with the supreme example of love for man on the part of the creator.
Your assumptions about what I know or experience are, frankly, arrogant at worst, ignorant at best. As much as I love the children my wife and I were entrusted with, that trust imposes obligations. We owe our kids the delicate balance between expression of self and consideration of others, of duty to family or employer or society as a whole. I owe my kids this as surely as I owe them food or shelter or clothing or a hug when they're sad or upset or afraid.
What liberals miss, in my opinion, is the second part of this equation. They see the marvelous individuality of thier children or other people and rightfully want to encourage it. What they don't see is that those stone pathways or bridges in Tuscany, those magnificent cathedrals in Rome or Munich, those paintings that capture the essence of humanity for all time in the Louvre or the Smithsonian are the product of structure as well as creativity, of laws as well as talent.
293
@292: Like I said. You think that little trickle is the whole shebang. You're wrong. Nothing you wrote supports preventing two people who love each other from being together, raising a family, enduring good time and bad times, or precludes them creating and/or appreciating art and architecture. And frankly that last part just made me go O_o ?!.
You have a family you love. Dan Savage has a family he loves. My friend Susan has a wife she loves, and they've been together since 1991 when they jumped the broom in their back yard. That's right. They jumped the broom. Just like slaves used to because they weren't allowed to legally marry either. Love is love. Family is family. Someday that crack will widen and you'll see the light. And I promise the bridges of Tuscany will remain standing.
You have a family you love. Dan Savage has a family he loves. My friend Susan has a wife she loves, and they've been together since 1991 when they jumped the broom in their back yard. That's right. They jumped the broom. Just like slaves used to because they weren't allowed to legally marry either. Love is love. Family is family. Someday that crack will widen and you'll see the light. And I promise the bridges of Tuscany will remain standing.
295
@294 With any luck, they'll have discovered daddy's slog account by then, can let us know, and one of us can adopt them.
296
Canuck, as much as it pains me, you are wrong. SB will accept his children as they are, and let them know that he loves them dearly and will never turn them away. But they will forever have to sit at the back of the bus because, you know, marrying the person that they love and want to spend their life with is an exclusive "Heterosexuals Only" club. So yeah, "Love you and all that, but even though you are the fruit of my loins, you aren't good enough."
I just can't get enough of people who would do ANYTHING for their children except for accepting them for they are. AND NO, SB, NO ONE IS RAISED TO BE GAY!!!!!
I just can't get enough of people who would do ANYTHING for their children except for accepting them for they are. AND NO, SB, NO ONE IS RAISED TO BE GAY!!!!!
297
I don't know why he keeps coming here. SB has been the Pompous Blow Hard Around Town over in comments at the Seattle Times forever, where you'd think he'd find more people to play with than here in the gayest comment section in the known universe.
@296: I'm with you, but it's like I said, he's got a blind spot about love.
@296: I'm with you, but it's like I said, he's got a blind spot about love.
298
I honestly don't know. I had a childhood friend who is in a gay relationship. He is the son of the pastor at the church I attended from childhood until my family moved to Seattle. At any rate we lost touch in our early teens, long before he 'came out,' when our interests diverged and we started making different friends. The pastor and certain members of the congregation he trusts not to gossip pray for him, but they don't make a church issue of it. I'm certain the congregation knows of the sons lifestyle, but have never heard one whisper of gossip when I go home at holidays or on visits. My 2 brothers and one sister with their spouses and children still attend the church and never mention him, except with the kind of updates you'd expect. He moved to California, or he is working at this kind of job, and so on. I know about it only because I was asked to pray for him by my brother, a deacon in the church who was asked to pray for this man by his father, the pastor. His father and mother go to visit him and his boyfriend at their home, as the son won't return to his hometown where his parents still live. He won't communicate with mutual friends anymore who did keep in closer touch. He has, by his choice and not by the condemnation of the church or anyone with whom I'm familiar, cut himself off from nearly all his past relationships.
From the pastors point of view his unrepentant sin (homosexuality or persistent theft or any sin from which one will not attempt correction is seen as potentially damning in our faith) make his spiritual situation perilous. From the fathers point of view, he is watching his son going willingly to his own destruction. It's possible to disagree with his views, but still feel for the sorrow and fear he and his wife have for the son they deeply love.
So, I don't know. I don't know what I'd do were one of my kids addicted to drugs, sexually promiscuous or any other self destructive behavior, like homosexuality. Given their ages we have different parental challenges requiring different solutions just now. What I hope to do, and pray for the wisdom to do as a parent every day, is to treat my children with love and respect, and give them the guidance they need as the situation demands. What I can say absolutely is that they will always be my children and I will always love them, whatever I may think of their choices.
More...
From the pastors point of view his unrepentant sin (homosexuality or persistent theft or any sin from which one will not attempt correction is seen as potentially damning in our faith) make his spiritual situation perilous. From the fathers point of view, he is watching his son going willingly to his own destruction. It's possible to disagree with his views, but still feel for the sorrow and fear he and his wife have for the son they deeply love.
So, I don't know. I don't know what I'd do were one of my kids addicted to drugs, sexually promiscuous or any other self destructive behavior, like homosexuality. Given their ages we have different parental challenges requiring different solutions just now. What I hope to do, and pray for the wisdom to do as a parent every day, is to treat my children with love and respect, and give them the guidance they need as the situation demands. What I can say absolutely is that they will always be my children and I will always love them, whatever I may think of their choices.
299
@297
I've never commented on anything in the Seattle Times, or indeed bothered with that newspaper. Actually, I haven't read a newspaper in years, now that I think about it.
And I'm inclining more to 'arrogant' than 'ignorant' in your assessment of me. Thanks for clearing that up.
Finally, at 300 comments, I imagine everything that can possibly be said on this topic (kudos venomlash for the hilarious comparisons of failing to support gay marriage to the holocaust, mass rape and genocide) has been said. Have fun.
I've never commented on anything in the Seattle Times, or indeed bothered with that newspaper. Actually, I haven't read a newspaper in years, now that I think about it.
And I'm inclining more to 'arrogant' than 'ignorant' in your assessment of me. Thanks for clearing that up.
Finally, at 300 comments, I imagine everything that can possibly be said on this topic (kudos venomlash for the hilarious comparisons of failing to support gay marriage to the holocaust, mass rape and genocide) has been said. Have fun.
300
MirrorMan...damn, you called that one. (Will be taking you along if I ever buy a lottery ticket...) You're exactly right, SB, much like the pastor from his church, will still love his children and visit them, clearly, all the while making sure they know they are, in his mind, on the short road to hellfire and eternal damnation...nice.
SB's comment reminds me of a letter a religious person sent to Dan a few months ago (protesting the unfairness of Dan's condemnation) saying that at their church, when the organist came out, he "quietly left the church, as obviously that was best for everyone." As though if people say things in a nice way, their subjects will overlook the fact of their banishment.
SB's friend's son lives in California because he unable to return home, to the congregation that condemns him and "prays" for him to stop "choosing" his "lifestyle." The saddest thing? SB doesn't even seem to understand what he is actually saying. Personally, if I believed in hell, there would be a special corner of it for all of the parents who have either outright rejected, or made their gay children feel less than completely loved and cherished.
I guess the thing I will take away from this "Silence of the Lambs" like look at how someone's mind works is to be aware of those kids in our own lives and networks, and help them out whenever we can. And to make sure that our kids know that when one of their peers at school is being bullied, that they step in, or if they need to talk, that they are able to do that. At least while this thread was unspooling (heh) the Ali Forney center in NYC had its funding restored, so that's a bright light, anyway.
Cheers, MirrorMan, hope it's warmer where you are than it is here!
SB's comment reminds me of a letter a religious person sent to Dan a few months ago (protesting the unfairness of Dan's condemnation) saying that at their church, when the organist came out, he "quietly left the church, as obviously that was best for everyone." As though if people say things in a nice way, their subjects will overlook the fact of their banishment.
SB's friend's son lives in California because he unable to return home, to the congregation that condemns him and "prays" for him to stop "choosing" his "lifestyle." The saddest thing? SB doesn't even seem to understand what he is actually saying. Personally, if I believed in hell, there would be a special corner of it for all of the parents who have either outright rejected, or made their gay children feel less than completely loved and cherished.
I guess the thing I will take away from this "Silence of the Lambs" like look at how someone's mind works is to be aware of those kids in our own lives and networks, and help them out whenever we can. And to make sure that our kids know that when one of their peers at school is being bullied, that they step in, or if they need to talk, that they are able to do that. At least while this thread was unspooling (heh) the Ali Forney center in NYC had its funding restored, so that's a bright light, anyway.
Cheers, MirrorMan, hope it's warmer where you are than it is here!
301
@ 299: I apologize. I was misinformed as to your usual online haunts. Begs the question why you hang out here though. I absolutely believe you when you talk about how much you love your family. I'd wager that every one else here does as well. The problem is that YOU can't see that Dan and Terry are a a family and Dan loves his family every bit as much as you love yours. There. Is. No. Difference.
I had to laugh when you wrote that your childhood friend has separated himself from his family and not visa versa.
I had to laugh when you wrote that your childhood friend has separated himself from his family and not visa versa.
302
@299: "kudos venomlash for the hilarious comparisons of failing to support gay marriage to the holocaust, mass rape and genocide"
HAHAHA OH WOW.
You know, Seattleblues, I just went through EVERY SINGLE LAST COTTON-PICKING FRACKA-LACKA POST that I made in this thread...and in not a single one did I in any way compare opposition to marriage equality to genocide, mass rape, or the Holocaust. Your reading comprehension needs work. You mad?
HAHAHA OH WOW.
You know, Seattleblues, I just went through EVERY SINGLE LAST COTTON-PICKING FRACKA-LACKA POST that I made in this thread...and in not a single one did I in any way compare opposition to marriage equality to genocide, mass rape, or the Holocaust. Your reading comprehension needs work. You mad?
303
To Canuck:
Thank you so much! In my opinion, I was just returning the favor!
SeatllteBlues posted this: "I honestly don't know."
And I was almost...ALMOST!!!...willing to take him up on his comment, until he typed this:
"I don't know what I'd do were one of my kids addicted to drugs, sexually promiscuous or any other self destructive behavior, like homosexuality."
Let's repeat: " like homosexuality"
You, Sir, have now exposed your bigotry for all to see. You do not think of people who are attracted to the same sex as normal. You think of them as sick and self destructive.
(BTW, there are a shitload of studies that prove your points wrong, not that I think you will ever read them, or that they will change your mind)
For all your protests, you, at the end of the day, remain a bigot.
You.
Lost.
Shut up and go home.
Thank you so much! In my opinion, I was just returning the favor!
SeatllteBlues posted this: "I honestly don't know."
And I was almost...ALMOST!!!...willing to take him up on his comment, until he typed this:
"I don't know what I'd do were one of my kids addicted to drugs, sexually promiscuous or any other self destructive behavior, like homosexuality."
Let's repeat: " like homosexuality"
You, Sir, have now exposed your bigotry for all to see. You do not think of people who are attracted to the same sex as normal. You think of them as sick and self destructive.
(BTW, there are a shitload of studies that prove your points wrong, not that I think you will ever read them, or that they will change your mind)
For all your protests, you, at the end of the day, remain a bigot.
You.
Lost.
Shut up and go home.
304
303
Homosexuality is a self destructive behavior.
Are you aware that homosexuals give themselves AIDS and other STDs at an even greater rate than injecting drug addicts and street whores?
Are you aware than mental illness rates among homosexuals are 3X those of normal people?
Are you familiar with the suicide rate among homosexuals?
(do you consider suicide to be a self destructive behavior?...)
Are you familiar with the UCLA study that found homosexual domestic violence rates to be twice those of heterosexual couples?
Do you consider promiscuous sexual behavior and illegal drug use to be self destructive? Are you aware at how much greater rates than normal people homosexuals engage in those behaviors?
Homosexual behavior is abnormal.
Observing factual truths is not bigotry.....
Did you know that refusing to face and acknowledge unpleasant truths about ones self destructive behaviors is a self destructive behavior?
You girls got it coming and going....
.
Perhaps you should spend your day googling the shitload of studies that would aquaint you with these important truths.
Homosexuality is a self destructive behavior.
Are you aware that homosexuals give themselves AIDS and other STDs at an even greater rate than injecting drug addicts and street whores?
Are you aware than mental illness rates among homosexuals are 3X those of normal people?
Are you familiar with the suicide rate among homosexuals?
(do you consider suicide to be a self destructive behavior?...)
Are you familiar with the UCLA study that found homosexual domestic violence rates to be twice those of heterosexual couples?
Do you consider promiscuous sexual behavior and illegal drug use to be self destructive? Are you aware at how much greater rates than normal people homosexuals engage in those behaviors?
Homosexual behavior is abnormal.
Observing factual truths is not bigotry.....
Did you know that refusing to face and acknowledge unpleasant truths about ones self destructive behaviors is a self destructive behavior?
You girls got it coming and going....
.
Perhaps you should spend your day googling the shitload of studies that would aquaint you with these important truths.
305
@304: And yet with all these truths being so clear and unmistakable, you can never be bothered to cite any sources that support them...
(By the way, the UCLA study you reference doesn't actually say what you think it does. Do you consider intentionally keeping oneself illiterate a self destructive behavior?)
(By the way, the UCLA study you reference doesn't actually say what you think it does. Do you consider intentionally keeping oneself illiterate a self destructive behavior?)
306
Ooo! Ooo! @304! I'm so glad you poked you head out Period Troll! There's something I've been meaning to ask you. So we've established that your objection to Homosexuality isn't biblically based right? It's all about the CDC and HIV. So here's my question: what about Lesbians? They have the lowest rate of infection of any STDs including HIV. They tend to have fewer sex partners over a life time than straight people on average I believe, and are famous for their pair bonding ways, hence the well known U-haul Joke. Oh, and they can birth their own babies so they're not stealing children out from under deserving straight couples looking to adopt.
So what about 'em?
Crazy low rates of HIV or other STDs, not sleeping around, having their own babies, not so much with the buttsecks……...Are they as bad as crack heads too? Or is it just gay men for you?
Oh and no, you can't use studies you don't understand, or cherry pick data in your answer.
So what about 'em?
Crazy low rates of HIV or other STDs, not sleeping around, having their own babies, not so much with the buttsecks……...Are they as bad as crack heads too? Or is it just gay men for you?
Oh and no, you can't use studies you don't understand, or cherry pick data in your answer.
307
It's interesting, but when people talk about the close to 90% rate of HIV in sub-Saharan African heterosexual men, they don't recommend that these people stop having sex, they recommend using condoms. The answer to preventing the spread of HIV in any population is making sure people always use condoms with new partners--gay or straight. Telling people not to have sex, as you have suggested before (period troll advocates abstinence education) doesn't work. Although the US and Europe both average the same age for teens when they become sexually active, the US has exponentially higher teen pregnancy rates, primarily because we have not given our kids the information that actually matters: They need birth control, not self control (when you're a 16 year old in the backseat of a car, anyway.)
There are fewer redheads in the world than there are gay people. Unless you're a "ginger hater" too, "less common" does not equal "abnormal."
MirrorMan and others: I have nothing but the utmost respect for you, because you read this garbage here, are exposed to it daily in the news, on TV, out in the world, from those few very unhappy people who have made it their mission to criticize you, and yet you keep fighting the good fight, coherently dismantling their arguments in the comments, as Dan does in his posts...hats off.
There are fewer redheads in the world than there are gay people. Unless you're a "ginger hater" too, "less common" does not equal "abnormal."
MirrorMan and others: I have nothing but the utmost respect for you, because you read this garbage here, are exposed to it daily in the news, on TV, out in the world, from those few very unhappy people who have made it their mission to criticize you, and yet you keep fighting the good fight, coherently dismantling their arguments in the comments, as Dan does in his posts...hats off.
308
306
Should we be flattered by the intense interest or creeped out?....
.
We don't "object to homosexuality".
We oppose changing the definition of marriage.
We recognize that homosexual behavior carries a high cost to society and to the individuals that engage in it and the people close to them.
Same sex pairings of either gender are not "stable, secure and long lasting heterosexual marriages" which "are the best way to produce and raise children into functional contributing adults".
And we have already established that popping out babies is not the problem, why would society want to expend precious resources creating children who will never have a father?
As we said, we don't "object" to private behavior by homosexuals of either gender.
However there is no benefit for society to subsidize or grant official status to those pairings.
And enlightened public health policy should recognize and address dangers where ever they exists and not be hampered by homoliberal PC theology.
.
(btw- Lesbians suffer elevated rates of mental illness.
And the benefits that may result from two women mingling come from the absence of men.
The corollary to "good lesbian" is "bad bad gay man".
If lesbian homes are less abusive (because no man is present...) gay dad homes are going to be twice as abusive, or more because of the total lack of a woman's soft touch in the home...
So the louder we trump the "Sainted Lesbian Moms" horn
the louder we sound Taps on Dan and Terri's Excellent Parenting Adventure.....)
Should we be flattered by the intense interest or creeped out?....
.
We don't "object to homosexuality".
We oppose changing the definition of marriage.
We recognize that homosexual behavior carries a high cost to society and to the individuals that engage in it and the people close to them.
Same sex pairings of either gender are not "stable, secure and long lasting heterosexual marriages" which "are the best way to produce and raise children into functional contributing adults".
And we have already established that popping out babies is not the problem, why would society want to expend precious resources creating children who will never have a father?
As we said, we don't "object" to private behavior by homosexuals of either gender.
However there is no benefit for society to subsidize or grant official status to those pairings.
And enlightened public health policy should recognize and address dangers where ever they exists and not be hampered by homoliberal PC theology.
.
(btw- Lesbians suffer elevated rates of mental illness.
And the benefits that may result from two women mingling come from the absence of men.
The corollary to "good lesbian" is "bad bad gay man".
If lesbian homes are less abusive (because no man is present...) gay dad homes are going to be twice as abusive, or more because of the total lack of a woman's soft touch in the home...
So the louder we trump the "Sainted Lesbian Moms" horn
the louder we sound Taps on Dan and Terri's Excellent Parenting Adventure.....)
309
307
According to the CDC abstinence and monogamy are the best ways to prevent STDs.
Liberals are all for Science except for when it clashes with their cherished humanists theology.
They are very much like Creationists in that way.....
Abstinence actually is much more successful in the real world that you might imagine if you get all your news from Slog.
And that is in a popular culture that belittles and ridicules it.
If we could get half as many pop culture figures to promote
the Best Method to Prevent STDs
as Queer,Inc has pushing homosexuality imagine how successful it might be...
Of course, the HomoLiberals don't really care about reducing STDs in America's teens.
Their agenda is relentlessly promoting promiscuous sexual behavior.
We believe "Skipping Toward Gommorah...." is what they call it.
According to the CDC abstinence and monogamy are the best ways to prevent STDs.
Liberals are all for Science except for when it clashes with their cherished humanists theology.
They are very much like Creationists in that way.....
Abstinence actually is much more successful in the real world that you might imagine if you get all your news from Slog.
And that is in a popular culture that belittles and ridicules it.
If we could get half as many pop culture figures to promote
the Best Method to Prevent STDs
as Queer,Inc has pushing homosexuality imagine how successful it might be...
Of course, the HomoLiberals don't really care about reducing STDs in America's teens.
Their agenda is relentlessly promoting promiscuous sexual behavior.
We believe "Skipping Toward Gommorah...." is what they call it.
310
307
Condoms don't seem to be making a dent in the AIDS rate among homosexuals.
20% is it?
and climbing?
Condoms are treasured revered Fetishes in the Heathen Secular Humanist HomoLiberal Cults,
we realize,
but you greatly overestimate their actual protective magical powers.
Perhaps if you attached rabbits' feet to them you would have better luck?
Condoms don't seem to be making a dent in the AIDS rate among homosexuals.
20% is it?
and climbing?
Condoms are treasured revered Fetishes in the Heathen Secular Humanist HomoLiberal Cults,
we realize,
but you greatly overestimate their actual protective magical powers.
Perhaps if you attached rabbits' feet to them you would have better luck?
311
305
junior, why don't you link that study?
And post the parts where the researchers note that the 30+% rates of domestic violence within homosexual households uncovered was a disturbing unexpected finding that exposed a problem not heretofore recognized.
junior, why don't you link that study?
And post the parts where the researchers note that the 30+% rates of domestic violence within homosexual households uncovered was a disturbing unexpected finding that exposed a problem not heretofore recognized.
312
@308: So Lesbians are as bad as crack heads because they might make gay dads look bad. Ok, gotcha. O_O?
And as far as this question:
"And we have already established that popping out babies is not the problem, why would society want to expend precious resources creating children who will never have a father?"
I don't know, maybe you should ask all those straight single mothers since they are waaaaaaaaay ahead in that game.
And as far as this question:
"And we have already established that popping out babies is not the problem, why would society want to expend precious resources creating children who will never have a father?"
I don't know, maybe you should ask all those straight single mothers since they are waaaaaaaaay ahead in that game.
313
@311: Here you go. My apologies for the delay; I'd meant to post it in my earlier post, but BIOS 20192 (Genetics) sang its siren song, and I could not but attend my lecture.
Some key bits from the policy brief:
-27.9% of gays and lesbians and 40.6% of bisexuals in the study have been the victims of domestic violence. Only 16.7% of straights reported having been abused by an intimate partner.
-Divorcees and widows were roughly thrice as likely as single or married persons to have been abused.
-Women are twice as likely to have been the victims of physical violence, and eight times as likely to have been the victims of sexual violence.
Now, what you've been claiming is that homosexuals are more likely to perpetrate domestic violence. This study indicates that they are more likely to become the victims of domestic violence. Remember, due to closeting, not all intimate partners of homosexuals are necessarily homosexual. The reported domestic violence may very well have been associated with an unpleasant coming-out experience; it is plausible that someone might blame their lover for being gay and thus dooming their relationship. And then there was this excerpt:
"Another difference is that rates for recent IPV do not differ by sexual orientation." (italics mine)
Homosexuals and bisexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to have been abused SOME TIME IN THE PAST, but no more likely to have been abused IN THE PAST YEAR. This indicates that the extra domestic violence experienced by homosexuals and bisexuals tends to occur earlier in their adult lives, adding credence to my aforementioned theory.
So, bitch, what are you going to say to that? Got any way to asplain them facts?
More...
Some key bits from the policy brief:
-27.9% of gays and lesbians and 40.6% of bisexuals in the study have been the victims of domestic violence. Only 16.7% of straights reported having been abused by an intimate partner.
-Divorcees and widows were roughly thrice as likely as single or married persons to have been abused.
-Women are twice as likely to have been the victims of physical violence, and eight times as likely to have been the victims of sexual violence.
Now, what you've been claiming is that homosexuals are more likely to perpetrate domestic violence. This study indicates that they are more likely to become the victims of domestic violence. Remember, due to closeting, not all intimate partners of homosexuals are necessarily homosexual. The reported domestic violence may very well have been associated with an unpleasant coming-out experience; it is plausible that someone might blame their lover for being gay and thus dooming their relationship. And then there was this excerpt:
"Another difference is that rates for recent IPV do not differ by sexual orientation." (italics mine)
Homosexuals and bisexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to have been abused SOME TIME IN THE PAST, but no more likely to have been abused IN THE PAST YEAR. This indicates that the extra domestic violence experienced by homosexuals and bisexuals tends to occur earlier in their adult lives, adding credence to my aforementioned theory.
So, bitch, what are you going to say to that? Got any way to asplain them facts?
314
@311: Again with the age thing! It just makes you look defensive you know. Here's a thought, why don't *you* link the study, and the two of you can go over it point by point for the edification of our readers. Oh wait, I forgot. Science gives you a headache.
How's the shopping going by the way?
How's the shopping going by the way?
315
Oh see! Venomlash already linked. I'm going to go pop some popcorn and settle in for yet another round of Hand Period Troll His Ass (Science Edition)
316
@310: You are quite mistaken with regard to the AIDS prevalence rate amongst homosexual men. The CDC reports that at the end of 2007, there were 470,902 persons living with a diagnosis of AIDS in the United States of America. The CDC also reports that of all cumulative diagnoses of AIDS, 55.2% were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact, whether or not compounded by injection drug use. (Those numbers can be found here.) This indicates that there are a total of roughly 260,000 gay men with AIDS, via simple multiplication.
Let us assume, for simplicity's sake, that 5% of all men are either homosexual or bisexual. (Estimates range from 2% to 15%, so let's find common ground a little bit on the low side.) Assuming this is the case, that the population of the USA is 300,000,000, and that the gender distribution of this country is roughly even, there should be a total of 7,500,000 gay men in the USA. This indicates that the rate of AIDS prevalence amongst gay men is 3.47%. (This is using a fairly conservative estimate for the prevalence of homosexuality in men; if more men are gay than estimated, the true rate would be even lower.)
Those numbers don't lie, Alleged. Care to try and prove me wrong?
Let us assume, for simplicity's sake, that 5% of all men are either homosexual or bisexual. (Estimates range from 2% to 15%, so let's find common ground a little bit on the low side.) Assuming this is the case, that the population of the USA is 300,000,000, and that the gender distribution of this country is roughly even, there should be a total of 7,500,000 gay men in the USA. This indicates that the rate of AIDS prevalence amongst gay men is 3.47%. (This is using a fairly conservative estimate for the prevalence of homosexuality in men; if more men are gay than estimated, the true rate would be even lower.)
Those numbers don't lie, Alleged. Care to try and prove me wrong?
317
313
oh Junior- you and your theories....
We'll give you credit, you're never shy about substituting your own bullshit when credible research- be it from the CDC or UCLA- doesn't fit your world view.
The UCLA researchers who actually conducted the research are not ambiguous about the results or their implications:
"Nearly 4 million Californians report sexual or physical violence from a spouse or companion-
"UCLA Study Find that Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals Are at Particularly High Risk
"Although reported incidences of intimate partner violence, or IPV, are widespread, especially among women and certain ethnic groups, reported IPV was surprisingly high among lesbians, gays and bisexuals in California, who are almost twice as likely to experience violence as heterosexual adults, researchers said.
"Specifically, 27.9 percent of all lesbian or gay adults reported experiencing IPV in their adult lives. The rate of reported IPV is even higher among bisexual adults, at 40.6 percent. In contrast, only 16.7 percent of heterosexual adults reported incidences of IPV.
"This is not a group commonly associated with violence," said the study's lead author, Elaine Zahnd, a sociologist and senior research scientist at the Public Health Institute, which partners with the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research in conducting the California Health Interview Survey. "These findings should cause us to reconsider our assumptions about the root causes of violence, even as we redouble our efforts to eradicate it."
http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/NewsRel…
"This is not a group commonly associated with violence," Zahnd said. "Who knew lesbians and faggots were beating the hell out of each other? As if giving each other AIDS and clap weren't bad enough....."
More...
oh Junior- you and your theories....
We'll give you credit, you're never shy about substituting your own bullshit when credible research- be it from the CDC or UCLA- doesn't fit your world view.
The UCLA researchers who actually conducted the research are not ambiguous about the results or their implications:
"Nearly 4 million Californians report sexual or physical violence from a spouse or companion-
"UCLA Study Find that Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals Are at Particularly High Risk
"Although reported incidences of intimate partner violence, or IPV, are widespread, especially among women and certain ethnic groups, reported IPV was surprisingly high among lesbians, gays and bisexuals in California, who are almost twice as likely to experience violence as heterosexual adults, researchers said.
"Specifically, 27.9 percent of all lesbian or gay adults reported experiencing IPV in their adult lives. The rate of reported IPV is even higher among bisexual adults, at 40.6 percent. In contrast, only 16.7 percent of heterosexual adults reported incidences of IPV.
"This is not a group commonly associated with violence," said the study's lead author, Elaine Zahnd, a sociologist and senior research scientist at the Public Health Institute, which partners with the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research in conducting the California Health Interview Survey. "These findings should cause us to reconsider our assumptions about the root causes of violence, even as we redouble our efforts to eradicate it."
http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/NewsRel…
"This is not a group commonly associated with violence," Zahnd said. "Who knew lesbians and faggots were beating the hell out of each other? As if giving each other AIDS and clap weren't bad enough....."
318
Homosexual domestic violence is a bigger problem than Slog wants to admit.....
see this seminar which addressed violence within the LGTB community-
Understanding and Addressing
LGBT Domestic Violence
Thursday, October 29
UCLA School of Law
Room 1447
Click here to watch the video!
This training will help participants to recognize the unique obstacles that LGBT survivors confront when they turn to the legal system for assistance. National experts on LGBT domestic violence will provide participants with practical information to better understand the experience of LGBT domestic violence survivors, to assess when a person is exercising systematic power and control in a relationship, and to use domestic violence restraining orders and other forms of legal relief to help survivors achieve safety, autonomy, and justice.
Speakers:
Terra Slavin, Staff Attorney, Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center
Sharon Stapel, Executive Director, New York City Anti-Violence Project
Kristin Tucker, Program Manager, Northwest Network of LGBT Survivors of Abuse in Seattle
Moderator:
Darren Mitchell, Williams Institute Judicial Training Program
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?s…
.
You should really watch the video.......
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?s…
The video is also on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkFzj82Fw…
More...
see this seminar which addressed violence within the LGTB community-
Understanding and Addressing
LGBT Domestic Violence
Thursday, October 29
UCLA School of Law
Room 1447
Click here to watch the video!
This training will help participants to recognize the unique obstacles that LGBT survivors confront when they turn to the legal system for assistance. National experts on LGBT domestic violence will provide participants with practical information to better understand the experience of LGBT domestic violence survivors, to assess when a person is exercising systematic power and control in a relationship, and to use domestic violence restraining orders and other forms of legal relief to help survivors achieve safety, autonomy, and justice.
Speakers:
Terra Slavin, Staff Attorney, Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center
Sharon Stapel, Executive Director, New York City Anti-Violence Project
Kristin Tucker, Program Manager, Northwest Network of LGBT Survivors of Abuse in Seattle
Moderator:
Darren Mitchell, Williams Institute Judicial Training Program
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?s…
.
You should really watch the video.......
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?s…
The video is also on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkFzj82Fw…
319
Digital Journal gets it......
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/29…
"Study:: Intimate violence greater for gays, lesbians than heteros
"Incidences of intimate partner violence show a high percentage of lesbians, gays and bisexuals at risk according to a recent UCLA study.
"The research finds a total of 4 million adults in California report being the victim of either physical or sexual violence at the hands of an intimate partner, including spouses, companions or casual friends.
"The study's results with respect to gays and lesbians are particularly important because they categorizes abuse in the same way for this group as for others. According to An Abuse, Rape and Domestic Violence Aid and Resource Collection (AAARDVARC) it has been difficult to get information about gays and lesbians for several reasons.
"AAARDVARC explains why it has previously been difficult to get the rates of intimate partner violence from gay and lesbian groups as this: " Whether it's because the officer taking the report didn't know, didn't care or didn't want to "call it that", or because the parties involved were reluctant to expose the nature of the relationship, most domestic violence incidents between gays and lesbians end up classified as "assault" or "battery" - seriously skewing the true statistics and making it almost impossible to use the common statistical reports for guidance or insight into the issue."
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/29…
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/29…
"Study:: Intimate violence greater for gays, lesbians than heteros
"Incidences of intimate partner violence show a high percentage of lesbians, gays and bisexuals at risk according to a recent UCLA study.
"The research finds a total of 4 million adults in California report being the victim of either physical or sexual violence at the hands of an intimate partner, including spouses, companions or casual friends.
"The study's results with respect to gays and lesbians are particularly important because they categorizes abuse in the same way for this group as for others. According to An Abuse, Rape and Domestic Violence Aid and Resource Collection (AAARDVARC) it has been difficult to get information about gays and lesbians for several reasons.
"AAARDVARC explains why it has previously been difficult to get the rates of intimate partner violence from gay and lesbian groups as this: " Whether it's because the officer taking the report didn't know, didn't care or didn't want to "call it that", or because the parties involved were reluctant to expose the nature of the relationship, most domestic violence incidents between gays and lesbians end up classified as "assault" or "battery" - seriously skewing the true statistics and making it almost impossible to use the common statistical reports for guidance or insight into the issue."
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/29…
320
MensNewsDaily.com gets it:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/08/30/lesb…
"Lesbians More Prone to Partner Violence Than Gay Men
Monday, August 30, 2010
By Carey Roberts
A series of high-profile cases of lesbian-perpetrated domestic violence has sent shock-waves through Massachusetts communities in recent months:
1. On February 16, a Suffolk Superior Court jury convicted Nicole Chuminski on two counts of second-degree murder, following a fire that killed the two daughters of her lover Anna Reisopoulos. During a heated argument between the two, Chuminski reportedly fell into a fit of rage. A few hours later Chuminski returned to her partner’s apartment and hurled an acetone-laden firebomb into the front door.
Sophia and Acia, ages 2 and 14, were burned beyond recognition, so dental records were needed for positive identification.
2. On March 29 Annamarie Rintala of Granby, Mass. was found dead by strangulation in the basement of the house she shared with her domestic partner Cara. Cara had been previously charged with domestic violence after she struck Annamarie in the back of the head with a closed fist.
3. Eunice Field of Brockton, Mass. found herself on the losing end of a bitter ménage à trois. So on August 9 she marched to the apartment of Lorraine Wachsman. There she grabbed a serrated knife and stabbed Wachsman in the back and neck. Dispelling any doubt about her intentions, she then penned a note admitting she had killed Waschsman “for taking away the love of my life.”
Ms. Field is now being held without bail pending a September 3 court appearance.
Experts on lesbian domestic violence were shocked, but honestly not surprised by these incidents. Last November a report by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs reported a 125% increase in domestic violence fatalities in lesbian and gay couples around the country during the prior year. According to Beth Leventhal of The Network/La Red of Boston, “partner abuse in LGBT communities can be just as lethal as that in heterosexual communities.”
Ms. Leventhal’s commentary actually understates the extent of the problem. Earlier this year the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research published the results of a survey of over 51,000 California adults . The UCLA study found 28% of persons in lesbian/gay relationships had experienced intimate partner violence, compared to 17% of persons in heterosexual relationships.
It’s also believed that lesbians are more likely to engage in partner violence than gay men. According to the Boston Gay Men’s Domestic Violence Project, one in three homosexual women experience partner aggression, compared to only one in four homosexual men. Kaitlin Nichols of The Network/La Red notes, “The myth of women’s communities as safe communities has prevented many women from reaching out for support. If they have shared what is happening, they are met with disbelief from their community.”
And why are lesbians more likely to abuse?
According to Nomi Porat, an abuse-prevention expert, the reason is poor limit-setting: “An issue common to women, particularly battered women, is the fear of demanding physical and emotional boundaries. In part, battered lesbians are afraid their lovers will leave or become more violent if any limitations are set in the relationship.”
A nearly impenetrable double wall serves to keep lesbian battering tucked away in the proverbial closet. The first wall is the stigmatization invoked by lesbians themselves who believe in a sort of same-sex utopia, the feminist belief that maintains female-female relationships are inherently more peaceful, gentle, and “pure,” compared to male-female relationships.
In Naming the Violence: Speaking out About Lesbian Battering, Barbara Hart maintains that female batterers should be subjected to a form of shunning by the lesbian community: “one of the consequences of [female batterers’] violence is that they may have to limit any contact with the person they assaulted/abused. This may mean that the batterer cannot attend public gatherings or movement meetings.”
The second wall is the broader domestic violence industry that maintains a cult-like belief in the notion of patriarchal sexism, the theory that men abuse their wives due to an innate and irrepressible urge to oppress women. So every time a woman pummels, rapes, or otherwise abuses her female partner, the patriarchal dominance theory takes a body-blow.
These ideological blinders serve to justify shelters policies that turn away of needy women. According to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, the problem of abuse shelters that discriminate on the basis of gender identity is widespread.
Intimate partner aggression is not a problem limited to any particular sex, or gender identity, or economic group. Indeed, research shows women are at least as likely as men to engage in partner abuse.
When the Sisterhood gets over its denial of the truth, we’ll stop seeing so many women and men victimized by domestic violence."
More...
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/08/30/lesb…
"Lesbians More Prone to Partner Violence Than Gay Men
Monday, August 30, 2010
By Carey Roberts
A series of high-profile cases of lesbian-perpetrated domestic violence has sent shock-waves through Massachusetts communities in recent months:
1. On February 16, a Suffolk Superior Court jury convicted Nicole Chuminski on two counts of second-degree murder, following a fire that killed the two daughters of her lover Anna Reisopoulos. During a heated argument between the two, Chuminski reportedly fell into a fit of rage. A few hours later Chuminski returned to her partner’s apartment and hurled an acetone-laden firebomb into the front door.
Sophia and Acia, ages 2 and 14, were burned beyond recognition, so dental records were needed for positive identification.
2. On March 29 Annamarie Rintala of Granby, Mass. was found dead by strangulation in the basement of the house she shared with her domestic partner Cara. Cara had been previously charged with domestic violence after she struck Annamarie in the back of the head with a closed fist.
3. Eunice Field of Brockton, Mass. found herself on the losing end of a bitter ménage à trois. So on August 9 she marched to the apartment of Lorraine Wachsman. There she grabbed a serrated knife and stabbed Wachsman in the back and neck. Dispelling any doubt about her intentions, she then penned a note admitting she had killed Waschsman “for taking away the love of my life.”
Ms. Field is now being held without bail pending a September 3 court appearance.
Experts on lesbian domestic violence were shocked, but honestly not surprised by these incidents. Last November a report by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs reported a 125% increase in domestic violence fatalities in lesbian and gay couples around the country during the prior year. According to Beth Leventhal of The Network/La Red of Boston, “partner abuse in LGBT communities can be just as lethal as that in heterosexual communities.”
Ms. Leventhal’s commentary actually understates the extent of the problem. Earlier this year the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research published the results of a survey of over 51,000 California adults . The UCLA study found 28% of persons in lesbian/gay relationships had experienced intimate partner violence, compared to 17% of persons in heterosexual relationships.
It’s also believed that lesbians are more likely to engage in partner violence than gay men. According to the Boston Gay Men’s Domestic Violence Project, one in three homosexual women experience partner aggression, compared to only one in four homosexual men. Kaitlin Nichols of The Network/La Red notes, “The myth of women’s communities as safe communities has prevented many women from reaching out for support. If they have shared what is happening, they are met with disbelief from their community.”
And why are lesbians more likely to abuse?
According to Nomi Porat, an abuse-prevention expert, the reason is poor limit-setting: “An issue common to women, particularly battered women, is the fear of demanding physical and emotional boundaries. In part, battered lesbians are afraid their lovers will leave or become more violent if any limitations are set in the relationship.”
A nearly impenetrable double wall serves to keep lesbian battering tucked away in the proverbial closet. The first wall is the stigmatization invoked by lesbians themselves who believe in a sort of same-sex utopia, the feminist belief that maintains female-female relationships are inherently more peaceful, gentle, and “pure,” compared to male-female relationships.
In Naming the Violence: Speaking out About Lesbian Battering, Barbara Hart maintains that female batterers should be subjected to a form of shunning by the lesbian community: “one of the consequences of [female batterers’] violence is that they may have to limit any contact with the person they assaulted/abused. This may mean that the batterer cannot attend public gatherings or movement meetings.”
The second wall is the broader domestic violence industry that maintains a cult-like belief in the notion of patriarchal sexism, the theory that men abuse their wives due to an innate and irrepressible urge to oppress women. So every time a woman pummels, rapes, or otherwise abuses her female partner, the patriarchal dominance theory takes a body-blow.
These ideological blinders serve to justify shelters policies that turn away of needy women. According to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, the problem of abuse shelters that discriminate on the basis of gender identity is widespread.
Intimate partner aggression is not a problem limited to any particular sex, or gender identity, or economic group. Indeed, research shows women are at least as likely as men to engage in partner abuse.
When the Sisterhood gets over its denial of the truth, we’ll stop seeing so many women and men victimized by domestic violence."
321
zahrawithaz gets it.....
http://zahrawithaz.livejournal.com/19812…
"Study finds higher incidence of domestic violence among gay, lesbian & bisexual adults
zahrawithaz
May 18th, 2010
"So the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research has done a huge study on the incidence of intimate partner violence (including rape) in California, and found that gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults were much more likely to report having been victims than straights:
"Specifically, 27.9 percent of all lesbian or gay adults reported experiencing IPV in their adult lives. The rate of reported IPV is even higher among bisexual adults, at 40.6 percent. In contrast, only 16.7 percent of heterosexual adults reported incidences of IPV.
"My first response? I'm glad this is out there and getting media attention, but it's really not news. The astonishingly high rates of abuse in the LGBTQ communities have been known since the late 1970s. Plenty of us have not only known about it, but have been trying to do something to change it, for years."
http://zahrawithaz.livejournal.com/19812…
"Study finds higher incidence of domestic violence among gay, lesbian & bisexual adults
zahrawithaz
May 18th, 2010
"So the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research has done a huge study on the incidence of intimate partner violence (including rape) in California, and found that gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults were much more likely to report having been victims than straights:
"Specifically, 27.9 percent of all lesbian or gay adults reported experiencing IPV in their adult lives. The rate of reported IPV is even higher among bisexual adults, at 40.6 percent. In contrast, only 16.7 percent of heterosexual adults reported incidences of IPV.
"My first response? I'm glad this is out there and getting media attention, but it's really not news. The astonishingly high rates of abuse in the LGBTQ communities have been known since the late 1970s. Plenty of us have not only known about it, but have been trying to do something to change it, for years."
322
California charges homosexual couples entering domestic partnership a $23 fee for same-sex couples to help fund LGBT-specific domestic violence training and services.
323
@317: Tsk tsk tsk. Didn't I say no cherry picking? And remember, calling Venomlash "Junior" isn't a sound supporting argument. And it would seem that it's the straight girls that are most at risk. Straight girls who've been married.
Divorced, widowed Californians at risk:
The rate of adult IPV among Californians who are separated, divorced or widowed is among the highest of all groups, at 41.0 percent. This is nearly twice the rate of adults living with a partner (24.6 percent) and more than three times the rate of married (13.3 percent) or single (13.2 percent) adults.
Why it seems logical (based on just this cherry picked piece of data) that marriage is a danger to straight women! Surely banning marriage between heterosexuals will significantly decrease these numbers! Spit spot! Problem solved! Buuuuut no. See why cherry picking doesn't work?
Oh, and you might want to read that interview with the author of the study too. Her ideas about why the IPV numbers for Gay, Lesbian and Bisexuals are so high seem to be more in line with what Venomlash is saying.
Now why don't you go lie down for a bit. I'm sure your head must be throbbing, and you're going to need your strength for when "Junior" comes back to take apart posts 318 through 321 xoxo
Divorced, widowed Californians at risk:
The rate of adult IPV among Californians who are separated, divorced or widowed is among the highest of all groups, at 41.0 percent. This is nearly twice the rate of adults living with a partner (24.6 percent) and more than three times the rate of married (13.3 percent) or single (13.2 percent) adults.
Why it seems logical (based on just this cherry picked piece of data) that marriage is a danger to straight women! Surely banning marriage between heterosexuals will significantly decrease these numbers! Spit spot! Problem solved! Buuuuut no. See why cherry picking doesn't work?
Oh, and you might want to read that interview with the author of the study too. Her ideas about why the IPV numbers for Gay, Lesbian and Bisexuals are so high seem to be more in line with what Venomlash is saying.
Now why don't you go lie down for a bit. I'm sure your head must be throbbing, and you're going to need your strength for when "Junior" comes back to take apart posts 318 through 321 xoxo
324
323
gosh missy.....
we don't know what to say.
really.
we have no idea what you point is.
or if you're being ironic.
or sarcastic.
or snarky.
we have nooooo idea.
but since it involves math and you appear to be a girl we'll give you a pass.
gosh missy.....
we don't know what to say.
really.
we have no idea what you point is.
or if you're being ironic.
or sarcastic.
or snarky.
we have nooooo idea.
but since it involves math and you appear to be a girl we'll give you a pass.
325
Wow. I was feeling depressed about the world and thought that a quick view of Terry dancing would cheer me up. I had no idea that there was a grand debate going on in the comments.
Venomlash, Lissa, Mirror Man, Canuck et al., thanks for your fervour and tenacity!
Venomlash, Lissa, Mirror Man, Canuck et al., thanks for your fervour and tenacity!
326
@324: Of course you don't know what to say, since those stats were from the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research article *you* linked to. Now you go get back in bed and take some more Advil. Venomlash will be by later to tuck you in.
328
Well, the Period Hive Drones sure came back with a bunch of trash. But then again, they're drones, so I'd hardly expect them to be carrying pollen and nectar. Let's pick through what they brought us...
#317 and #319 are saying the exact thing that I was; gays and lesbians are more likely to have been abused by special others in the past.
#318 was a set of resources for LGBTQ people who may be in abusive relationships, or for their friends who wish to help them. (All this implies is that LGBTQ people do, on occasion, experience abuse. Well, no shit, Sherlock! Also see my notes on posts 317 and 319.)
#320 is anecdotal evidence; it presents a few selected incidents and purports to have identified a trend. Also, the report you cite is published by Men's News Daily, a (poorly-coded) website purporting to defend men from the rampant (and largely imaginary) demon of institutionalized misandry. During the 2004 election season, they syndicated articles from Talon News, which pretended to be an actual news source, but was really just GOPUSA (a conservative activist group) wearing a paper-bag mask and talking with a funny accent. Treating Men's News Daily as if it were an objective, accurate source of information is like treating a raw steak that has been used as a doormat for a fortnight as if it were food.
#321 is a partial post from someone who keeps a little personal blog. Really, Alleged? You're reduced to picking scraps from the grimy floor of the blogosphere? As if using this as evidence weren't so absurd, zahrawithaz goes on to opine that the discrepancy is actually due to gender rather than sexual orientation. So not only are you stooping so low as to treat personal blogs as reliable sources of evidence and analysis, you are also entirely misrepresenting what they say. You're pathetic.
#322 is making an implication entirely devoid of supporting evidence. You know what? If a man and a woman are married in the State of Washington, they pay fees too! Those fees fund, among other things, programs to protect abused children and programs to aid divorced or widowed homemakers.
I can't even...I just can't. There are no words for this level of idiocy. There are only snide image macros. Here you go, Alleged.
More...
#317 and #319 are saying the exact thing that I was; gays and lesbians are more likely to have been abused by special others in the past.
#318 was a set of resources for LGBTQ people who may be in abusive relationships, or for their friends who wish to help them. (All this implies is that LGBTQ people do, on occasion, experience abuse. Well, no shit, Sherlock! Also see my notes on posts 317 and 319.)
#320 is anecdotal evidence; it presents a few selected incidents and purports to have identified a trend. Also, the report you cite is published by Men's News Daily, a (poorly-coded) website purporting to defend men from the rampant (and largely imaginary) demon of institutionalized misandry. During the 2004 election season, they syndicated articles from Talon News, which pretended to be an actual news source, but was really just GOPUSA (a conservative activist group) wearing a paper-bag mask and talking with a funny accent. Treating Men's News Daily as if it were an objective, accurate source of information is like treating a raw steak that has been used as a doormat for a fortnight as if it were food.
#321 is a partial post from someone who keeps a little personal blog. Really, Alleged? You're reduced to picking scraps from the grimy floor of the blogosphere? As if using this as evidence weren't so absurd, zahrawithaz goes on to opine that the discrepancy is actually due to gender rather than sexual orientation. So not only are you stooping so low as to treat personal blogs as reliable sources of evidence and analysis, you are also entirely misrepresenting what they say. You're pathetic.
#322 is making an implication entirely devoid of supporting evidence. You know what? If a man and a woman are married in the State of Washington, they pay fees too! Those fees fund, among other things, programs to protect abused children and programs to aid divorced or widowed homemakers.
I can't even...I just can't. There are no words for this level of idiocy. There are only snide image macros. Here you go, Alleged.
329
326
we don't know what to say because you cite the figure that only 13% of married women were abused while no longer married separated/divorced/widowed women were abused 41%; then you conclude that marriage is dangerous?
'married'. seems to be the safest status for a california gal.
instead of banning heterosexual marriage it seems california should make ALL women get and stay married....
(those stats don't just apply to straight women- women of all sexual 'orientations' are included in the figures you cite.)
we don't know what to say because you cite the figure that only 13% of married women were abused while no longer married separated/divorced/widowed women were abused 41%; then you conclude that marriage is dangerous?
'married'. seems to be the safest status for a california gal.
instead of banning heterosexual marriage it seems california should make ALL women get and stay married....
(those stats don't just apply to straight women- women of all sexual 'orientations' are included in the figures you cite.)
331
@329: You can't be divorced, widowed, or separated unless you're married first. Also, the figure for single women is roughly the same as that for married women. So by getting married, a lady is only taking the risk of worsening her situation, according to a blinkered interpretation of those data.
@330: "Brevity is the Soul of Wit"? That's funny. You, many times a day, take a very short time to say something entirely witless.
You're so damn cute when you don't read my arguments! I certainly apologize for the wall-of-text effect, but when I hand someone their intellectual ass on a silver platter (and trust me, your ass is probably the most intellectual part of you), I expect them to perform the common courtesy of accepting it.
I mean, otherwise I'm left standing there holding a silver platter with someone else's wobbly asscheeks on it.
@330: "Brevity is the Soul of Wit"? That's funny. You, many times a day, take a very short time to say something entirely witless.
You're so damn cute when you don't read my arguments! I certainly apologize for the wall-of-text effect, but when I hand someone their intellectual ass on a silver platter (and trust me, your ass is probably the most intellectual part of you), I expect them to perform the common courtesy of accepting it.
I mean, otherwise I'm left standing there holding a silver platter with someone else's wobbly asscheeks on it.
332
@329: But Period Troll! That was my point. Cherry picking data leads to false conclusions. You know, like the ones you came to by cherry picking data from that same link. You begin to worry me. Does you head really hurt that bad? Tell me, are you getting like flashy lights in your field of vision? Nausea? Sensitivity to light and sound? Maybe Venomlash is playing too rough! You should probably take your pants off of your head, use them to cover those wobbly ass cheeks VL has so nicely handed you, (oh, and btw VL, VERY nice plating if I may say so) and go back to bed.
333
Well, Alleged? You sure seemed pretty confident that 20% of Teh Ghey had The AIDS. Are you going to try and prove my numbers wrong? Or are you a little bitch?
334
now junior-
we don't make the news-
we just report the news that is reported:
CDC: 20% of Gay Men suffer from aids, 50% don’t know It
http://topnews.us/content/226728-cdc-20-…
we don't make the news-
we just report the news that is reported:
CDC: 20% of Gay Men suffer from aids, 50% don’t know It
http://topnews.us/content/226728-cdc-20-…
335
Look!
It's Dan's Hero- JOE MY GOD!!!!
CDC: AIDS 50 Times Higher In Gay/Bi Men
"A just-released report from the Centers for Disease Control says that gay and bisexual men contract HIV/AIDS at a rate fifty times higher (that's right, FIFTY TIMES) than the general population. To my knowledge, the CDC has not previously made such a comparison, instead relying on the raw data of confirmed cases."
"This confirms in emphatic terms that of all the disparities and disproportionate impacts in the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the United States, the greatest one is the extraordinarily disproportionate impact on gay men.
" As incidence estimates released by CDC last year revealed, MSM constitute more than half of all new cases of HIV and are the only group in which the number of new cases continues to increase.
"What's new today is that the CDC has calculated *rates* of HIV/AIDS prevalence among MSM, not just raw numbers."
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/08/cdc…
It's Dan's Hero- JOE MY GOD!!!!
CDC: AIDS 50 Times Higher In Gay/Bi Men
"A just-released report from the Centers for Disease Control says that gay and bisexual men contract HIV/AIDS at a rate fifty times higher (that's right, FIFTY TIMES) than the general population. To my knowledge, the CDC has not previously made such a comparison, instead relying on the raw data of confirmed cases."
"This confirms in emphatic terms that of all the disparities and disproportionate impacts in the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the United States, the greatest one is the extraordinarily disproportionate impact on gay men.
" As incidence estimates released by CDC last year revealed, MSM constitute more than half of all new cases of HIV and are the only group in which the number of new cases continues to increase.
"What's new today is that the CDC has calculated *rates* of HIV/AIDS prevalence among MSM, not just raw numbers."
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/08/cdc…
336
CDC:
HIV among Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM)
"Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 4% of new infections. At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. Since the beginning of the US epidemic, MSM have consistently represented the largest percentage of persons diagnosed with AIDS and persons with an AIDS diagnosis who have died.
The Numbers
New HIV Infections
In 2006, more than 30,000 MSM and MSM-IDU were newly infected with HIV."
"In 2007, MSM were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men,"
"From 2005–2008, estimated diagnoses of HIV infection increased approximately 17% among MSM."
"In 2008, an estimated 17,940 MSM were diagnosed with AIDS in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the US dependent areas—an increase of 6% since 2005. "
"By the end of 2007, an estimated 282,542 MSM with an AIDS diagnosis had died in the United States and 5 dependent areas. "
Two Hundred Eighty THOUSAND dead....
30,000 homosexuals given a deadly disease by other homosexuals.
every. year.
You girls spend a lot of time on the Bigots and Haters you imagine in every corner.
How many homosexuals will die this year from violence at the hand of Homophobic Haters?
How many homosexuals will die this year from AIDS some other homosexual gave them?
10,000?
15,000?
More...
HIV among Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM)
"Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 4% of new infections. At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. Since the beginning of the US epidemic, MSM have consistently represented the largest percentage of persons diagnosed with AIDS and persons with an AIDS diagnosis who have died.
The Numbers
New HIV Infections
In 2006, more than 30,000 MSM and MSM-IDU were newly infected with HIV."
"In 2007, MSM were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men,"
"From 2005–2008, estimated diagnoses of HIV infection increased approximately 17% among MSM."
"In 2008, an estimated 17,940 MSM were diagnosed with AIDS in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the US dependent areas—an increase of 6% since 2005. "
"By the end of 2007, an estimated 282,542 MSM with an AIDS diagnosis had died in the United States and 5 dependent areas. "
Two Hundred Eighty THOUSAND dead....
30,000 homosexuals given a deadly disease by other homosexuals.
every. year.
You girls spend a lot of time on the Bigots and Haters you imagine in every corner.
How many homosexuals will die this year from violence at the hand of Homophobic Haters?
How many homosexuals will die this year from AIDS some other homosexual gave them?
10,000?
15,000?
337
@335: But you're still cool with Lesbians right? As long as they don't make Gay dads look bad? Oh and thanks for all the data supporting monogamy amongst Gay men! Obviously allowing Gays to marry would cause a shift in the culture and those numbers would go down at *least* a little bit, and since you're so concerned for the health and welfare of the Gay community I look forward to your continued support of marriage equality. Welcome aboard Period Troll!
339
@338 Oh Period Troll, no, you don't have to worry about that! There's no law against monogamy for *any*one. You just keep concentrating on your work for marriage equality. Striking down the laws against Gay *marriage* is what you need to focus on. Keep your eye on the prize!
342
@341: It seems inevitable to me Rob, if for no other reason than homophobic arguments always boil down to Fear Of The Butt Secks. I mean look at poor Period Troll! That's all he's got. Well, that and his bunny boilingly disturbing obsession with Dan and Terry's marriage.
343
339
We Have OverCum!
I checked and the Marriage laws here apply equally to everyone!
Awesome!
Everyone can marry someone of the other gender.
Even Faggots!!!
No one can marry someone of their own gender.
Not even Republicans!!!
One for All!
And All for One!!!
We Have OverCum!
I checked and the Marriage laws here apply equally to everyone!
Awesome!
Everyone can marry someone of the other gender.
Even Faggots!!!
No one can marry someone of their own gender.
Not even Republicans!!!
One for All!
And All for One!!!
346
@341 FTW. Amen,Rob! Judging by the panicked homophobes everywhere gay folks seem to be winning!
P.S. i am out of the loop. what,did someone "kill" the Loveschild? Or did the thing resurrect as "seattleblues"?
P.S. i am out of the loop. what,did someone "kill" the Loveschild? Or did the thing resurrect as "seattleblues"?
347
Did you girls catch the ball game last night?
Pride of the Enlightened Pacific NorthWest Oregon Sucks
and the War Eagles of Auburn (Alamaba...)?
It was awesome.
The SEC has now won 5 in a row college football championships.
Four different teams from the conference won those five titles.
Impressive depth.....
But we'll have to say,
the Oregon Dicks made it a good game.
for a bunch of faggots....
The SEC alone has three teams in the final top ten, 6 in the top 25.
15 of the top 25 are from The South.
We realize this all means nothing to you girls
but in Real America it is Very Important.
.
turn it up.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHsDa9_HS…
Pride of the Enlightened Pacific NorthWest Oregon Sucks
and the War Eagles of Auburn (Alamaba...)?
It was awesome.
The SEC has now won 5 in a row college football championships.
Four different teams from the conference won those five titles.
Impressive depth.....
But we'll have to say,
the Oregon Dicks made it a good game.
for a bunch of faggots....
The SEC alone has three teams in the final top ten, 6 in the top 25.
15 of the top 25 are from The South.
We realize this all means nothing to you girls
but in Real America it is Very Important.
.
turn it up.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHsDa9_HS…
348
@345:Oh you remember, they got married in 2005. Have you gotten around to shopping for their anniversary gift like we talked about? I know you're going to be busy working on marriage equality now, but don't forget! Oh what am I talking about, you won't forget! Dan and Terry are in your thoughts almost every waking minute of your day.
349
@347: I can't tell you how glad I am to see you broadening your interests Period Troll. Good for you! Every one needs to take a break now and then, and we don't want you overtaxing yourself working for marriage equality now do we? Remember your headaches! Go team!
350
Looks like Magnifico skipped its' medication again. It seems that pointing out truth and fact sends it into a slavering frenzy. Then again, maybe that's the only way it knows how to communicate, although quite honestly, it's easier to imagine a troup of Howler monkeys performing a flawless and deeply moving version of 'Twelfth Night" than it is to actually understand what El Trollo Magnifico is yammering about.
351
Wow, Period Troll, I don't recall if you've ever said it, but even if you hadn't, you just removed all doubt.
"Did you girls catch the ball game..."
"a bunch of faggots...."
You're not just against same-sex marriage, you're an actiul, flat-out flaming bigot.
Guess you forgot that line in the constitution about "all men being created equal", huh?
I know it doesn't mean squat to you and your micro-brained understanding of life and all that, but, to quote your own line, "In Real America it is Very Important".
How's that 'hatey' thing workin' out for ya?
"Did you girls catch the ball game..."
"a bunch of faggots...."
You're not just against same-sex marriage, you're an actiul, flat-out flaming bigot.
Guess you forgot that line in the constitution about "all men being created equal", huh?
I know it doesn't mean squat to you and your micro-brained understanding of life and all that, but, to quote your own line, "In Real America it is Very Important".
How's that 'hatey' thing workin' out for ya?
352
@334-336: Do you have any rebuttal to my assertion that the AIDS rate amongst male homosexuals is less than 5%? You've been saying that it's 20% for quite some time now; if that's the case, you'd think you'd be able to find some flaw in my numbers (which, by the way, are the CDC's numbers).
All you've been saying so far is that male homosexuals are disproportionately at risk to have contracted HIV. Nobody's disputing that.
I'd also like to see you refute the point I made about domestic abuse as it relates to LGBTQ people back in posts #313 and #328. (SPOILER: You can't. My reasoning holds water.)
@347: Yeah, have fun with your janky-ass BCS. I notice that you're not mentioning how the New Orleans Saints, athletic jewel of Louisiana, got their asses handed to them by the 7-9 Seattle Seahawks this weekend!
(Of course, it doesn't matter, because the Bears will take care of the Seahawks in short order next weekend.)
All you've been saying so far is that male homosexuals are disproportionately at risk to have contracted HIV. Nobody's disputing that.
I'd also like to see you refute the point I made about domestic abuse as it relates to LGBTQ people back in posts #313 and #328. (SPOILER: You can't. My reasoning holds water.)
@347: Yeah, have fun with your janky-ass BCS. I notice that you're not mentioning how the New Orleans Saints, athletic jewel of Louisiana, got their asses handed to them by the 7-9 Seattle Seahawks this weekend!
(Of course, it doesn't matter, because the Bears will take care of the Seahawks in short order next weekend.)
353
I' m torn. I'm a native of Chicago, so it will be hard to know who to cheer for. Not that I really have dog in that fight. For me foot ball is like watching a lava lamp- lots of colorful objects swirling around. Colorful objects with really nice butts
354
I find myself visualizing the various commenters, and when ever I read Period Troll's, I think of Andrew Shirvell. SeattleBlues puts me more in mind of Glenn Beck.
And just to confirm, because I hadn't checked for a bit, now we're talking about sports? We're down to calling people girls and making fun of their sports teams? Yeah, I'd say if this ever was a debate, well, you know, asses and platters, handed over, etc.
And just to confirm, because I hadn't checked for a bit, now we're talking about sports? We're down to calling people girls and making fun of their sports teams? Yeah, I'd say if this ever was a debate, well, you know, asses and platters, handed over, etc.
355
343
We Have OverDerped!
I checked and the Marriage laws in good old Dixie apply equally to everyone!
Awesome!
Everyone can marry someone of their own race.
Even Negroes!!!
No one can marry someone of a different race.
Not even KKK members!!!
One for All!
And All for One!!!
(FIFY.)
We Have OverDerped!
I checked and the Marriage laws in good old Dixie apply equally to everyone!
Awesome!
Everyone can marry someone of their own race.
Even Negroes!!!
No one can marry someone of a different race.
Not even KKK members!!!
One for All!
And All for One!!!
(FIFY.)
356
@347:I'm sorry but are you trying to say that Alabama won over Oregon because the South is inherently more heterosexual than the Pacific Northwest? Really? Have you read a Tennessee Williams play? What about Truman Capote? Read any Truman Capote? Maybe you should. Do that and get back to us.
359
351
oooh- no wonder your grumpy-
iron panties bunched up in a wad has got to hurt....
'faggot' is Dan's word.
Slog is Dan's house.
when in rome.....
'Girls' is bigoted?
really?
oooh- no wonder your grumpy-
iron panties bunched up in a wad has got to hurt....
'faggot' is Dan's word.
Slog is Dan's house.
when in rome.....
'Girls' is bigoted?
really?
360
Oh, Magnifico, you are so mercifully free from the ravages of intelligence.
I think I understand why you post on Slog. You just discovered opposable thumbs and are feeling particulaly talented.
You know, it's easy to love folly in a child.
Too bad you are ostensibly an adult, although we wouldn't know from the lack of discernible intellect in your posts.
I think I understand why you post on Slog. You just discovered opposable thumbs and are feeling particulaly talented.
You know, it's easy to love folly in a child.
Too bad you are ostensibly an adult, although we wouldn't know from the lack of discernible intellect in your posts.
361
@359: Seriously. Tennessee Williams. Truman Capote. You love the South! It's real America! Time you got familiar with its literature. Or...any...literature for that matter...
362
Lissa, since I can see your red hair from behind in your avatar, it always makes me think of this very cool fibre/mixed media artist named Rice Freeman-Zachary (http://voodooandzen.com/), although she is probably at least twice your age. She has a cool blog, and sounds like a really interesting person. She has passion, and lots of tattoos...I don't know if you have tattoos, but you are a valiant and passionate troll fighter!
364
Ok, you are freaking me out oh, White Witch of the Frozen North. I do have tattoos, and for a very long time my hair was that red, and that short. And I do mixed media art. Christ, it's kind of like looking in a wrinkly mirror. BEHOLD! My future! But not in that skirt.
When I think of you, I picture Ginger Rogers in the movie Stage Door. But in a parka.
I HAD to change my avatar! IT"S SNOOOOOOWWWWWWIIIIIIIINNNNNNNGGGGGG 1!!!1eleventyone!!1 I figured I'd use it to ward off the REAL rabid snow cats. You know, try to disable what I fear by embracing it...........nah, that's not gonna work. I'll have a drink instead. Join me!
When I think of you, I picture Ginger Rogers in the movie Stage Door. But in a parka.
I HAD to change my avatar! IT"S SNOOOOOOWWWWWWIIIIIIIINNNNNNNGGGGGG 1!!!1eleventyone!!1 I figured I'd use it to ward off the REAL rabid snow cats. You know, try to disable what I fear by embracing it...........nah, that's not gonna work. I'll have a drink instead. Join me!
365
I will never say no to a drink, Lissa, at least that's what the lacrosse players on my dorm floor used to say...and I know! The skirt! I was even gonna say, "she's cool, but I am not *down* with that skirt," I'm pretty sure I had one in 1985.
Ginger Rogers, completely awesome!! I love to dance, and drink, and dress up, with swearing.
Re: White Witch of the Frozen North:
True quote from child number 3, at age 8:
"You're such an evil mother, there should be a fairy tale about you! It would be called "Evil mother who doesn't let her kids watch TV on school days or play X Box!"
I informed him I would prefer to be called the Snow Queen, so you nailed that one!
Cheers, to you and the rabid snow cats of Seattle...
Ginger Rogers, completely awesome!! I love to dance, and drink, and dress up, with swearing.
Re: White Witch of the Frozen North:
True quote from child number 3, at age 8:
"You're such an evil mother, there should be a fairy tale about you! It would be called "Evil mother who doesn't let her kids watch TV on school days or play X Box!"
I informed him I would prefer to be called the Snow Queen, so you nailed that one!
Cheers, to you and the rabid snow cats of Seattle...
368
We will know we've made progress when the right wing complains about open homosexuals humiliating our children at video games.
369
As usual, Alleged insists that I'm wrong about the prevalence of AIDS amongst male homosexuals, and about the rates of domestic abuse in same-sex couples, but is too much of a massive pussy to actually try to back up his (false and unsupported by the evidence) assertions.
I'm still monitoring this thread, Alleged, if you ever feel like growing a pair and taking me on.
I'm still monitoring this thread, Alleged, if you ever feel like growing a pair and taking me on.
371
ah- the troll's harem still going at it?
you girls should get out and enjoy the snow....
.
(354 we realize the old chain'n'ball is incredibly unappealing what with his total lack of personal hygeine and the mind must wander during some domestic duties but we must insist that you refrain from visualizing the troll- no matter how much it helps the time fly....)
(
you girls should get out and enjoy the snow....
.
(354 we realize the old chain'n'ball is incredibly unappealing what with his total lack of personal hygeine and the mind must wander during some domestic duties but we must insist that you refrain from visualizing the troll- no matter how much it helps the time fly....)
(
372
Thank you, Slog, for a very entertaining read in this comment thread. I will not add to it since pretty much everything has already been discussed.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Have You Ever Heard of...? by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (372) RSS