"Do you think we actually want more of the same old pandering and reliable mediocrity for another four years? Apparently the major Democratic candidates think we do."

The major Republican candidates think we do too. And I wholeheartedly agree with them all on this one point. We do!

We want the same old same old.


"On Tuesday night, Kucinich wowed the crowd of 15,000 union activists in Chicago when he promised to use a little-known provision in the North American Free Trade Agreement to pull the U.S. out of the deal....the applause rose from a rumble to a thunderous roar...

Kucinich did exactly what the AFL-CIO's leadership had hoped he would. He showed the most cautious frontrunners [sic]-- all of whom continue to back NAFTA, albeit with apologies and calls for reform -- just how much enthusiasm there is for a radical shift from the misguided trade policies of Bill Clinton and George Bush.

None of this is meant to suggest that Kucinich will win any official endorsements...Labor organizations tends to go with perceived winners rather than allies who are trailing."

(Quotes at URL)

And that is the point. We actively support the major candidates--always. We support them, just like the AFL-CIO does. The AFL-CIO were presented with a candidate who is a perfect choice to represent their interests, where no major candidate is even a good choice. Individuals presented with their ideal "fringe" candidate do likewise.

There is not likely to be a major candidate who is"...someone of high ideals who has a core set of beliefs and holds to them..." Big money interests assure this. So, where are we likely to get such a candidate? From the fringe.

We don't vote for fringe candidates. We don't even support them in the earliest stages of the campaign.

We must want the same thing we have.

So we want corrupt leadership, government which wasted money hand over fist, self-serving hacks who govern based on polls, and no leadership, innovation or vision at all?

Wow, we want a nation which sucks. Who'd have thought it.

And BTW, how do you feel about the right of union members not to have their dues used to support political candidates they don't personally support?

Dave

I'm all for anyone being able to withhold the percentage of their dues that goes to support causes they don't agree with.

The more I see of the candidates - of BOTH parties - the more furious & nauseated I'm becoming.

These people are SCUM. Self-serving, lying, fawning, pandering, slick, insincere, waffling, wheedling, unethical, amoral scum. If we'd gone & dredged the prison system itself, I doubt we'd have gotten a worse group of losers; it's just that the candidates haven't been caught & convicted of anything yet. Being professional sneaks & liars, (not to mention connivers & thieves) they're no different from the vermin currently infesting the jails. Just better dressed & groomed. But no better.

God, this is SO depressing. Where the hell is/are the MSM? Why aren't they exposing these assholes - every single one of them? Why aren't more people like us standing up & vomiting forth their outrage & disgust/distrust of these maggots?

Ruvy has it right in another thread: this is what the corporate-conditioned consuming sheeple of American have been brainwashed to want: the status quo, bought & paid for & firmly under the control of the usual band of self-serving tiny plutocracy.

We need a revolution. We need a second coming. Where the hell is God & His putative justice & judgement when He's past due needed? Why doesn't the Cosmic Bastard strike these assholes dead when they stand up there & lie? I've been waiting for Dubya or Cheney to be struck down for ages.

I can only conclude that God is as big a lying, thieving bastard as those who flourish with his help & connivance. He obviously has no interest in justice, or helping those who are oppressed by the powerful.

Of course, Chris will say there is no such being, which would certainly explain to me why Dubya continues to lie & Cheney to rant unobstructed & unpunished, even as the latest crew of wannabes lies their lips off.

What a disgusting state we've come to.

But...but...Mitt Romney is so PRETTY - we have to vte for him. He's like a shiny and fascinating disco ball. Positively hypnotic.

Dave

Complaining that a national candidate's positions are based on compromises is a little disingenuous. It's not exactly news that most politicians tread gingerly around issues that are both controversial and likely to appeal primarily to a minority special interest group.

As a gay man, maybe I've become blase about these middle-of-the-road positions, because they've been the norm among Democrats for so long. But I'm much more comfortable with any of the Dem candidates on this issue than with any of the GOP candidates. At least Dems won't appoint more Neanderthal judges to push us backward on this and other matters.

And the GOP has an unfortunate record of unpleasant, bigoted rhetoric on most gay issues, including the forked, hypocritical tongues of George Bush and Mitt Romney, among many others.

Gay marriage shouldn't be a federal issue, anyway. It will come, state by state, though it may take decades. Someday we'll look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.

Some of us look at it today & wonder what the fuss is about. Handy - let me ask you: what exactly is it that marriage will confer? Is it insurance coverage & inheritance rights? If that's all, why not be satisfied with legal equal status via Civil Unions? Why the insistance of "marriage" per se? As far as I can see, "marriage" is nothing but a religious thing, mostly sponsored by organized crime religions, & I doubt you'll ever get any or most of them to loosen up their strictures against gay marriage. Does it really matter that much, as long as you have equal legal rights?

Hey, I agree with you. But there are some gay folks who see civil unions as 'second class citizenship.' I see their point, but civil unions are more than we had even 5 years ago. Things are moving rather fast.

It is a rare presidential candidate that has any idea about what to do AFTER they win. Their entire focus and energy is on winning and making the promises and deals to insure victory.

They are almost always either incapable, unprepared, or uninterested in actually governing effectively. Once in office, typically they more often react rather than act.

An individual with strong principles--and a record of standing for them--would be welcome from either party. (I believe--whether he deserved it or not--that was Reagan's persona.)

In presidential politics, if you can fake sincerity, you've got it made.

BTW, I also posted this article (a day after posting it here at BC) over on DailyKos where it's gotten some interesting response - part of my ongoing effort to confuse people about my political allegiances.

Dave

Dave, you fail to consider one possibility: that some of the Republican candidates are following their beliefs and providing leadership, just on the opposing side. You're not looking for a principled leader; you're looking for a leader with your principles. It doesn't always work that way. Sometimes the people who stand against you aren't being cynical.

Good point, B.

Republicans - leadership - feh!

They are obeying the Rovian principle of following their base, even if their personal beliefs differ. This certainly applies to Bush, who could barely hide his prune-faced distaste when he announced his 'support' for an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment he knew would fail.

It also applies to the execrable Mitt Romney, who was pro-gay rights when he needed to get elected governor of MA, and then vociferously anti- as soon as he knew that what he was running for next was not reelection but the White House.

These people are not leading anyone anywhere a sane [or thoughtful] person would want to go.

#9 sez - "part of my ongoing effort to confuse people about my political allegiances."

no one who pays attention could possibly be confused, but it's interesting to see you openly admit deliberate deception

it's a start, i guess..

Excelsior?

This certainly applies to Bush, who could barely hide his prune-faced distaste when he announced his 'support' for an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment he knew would fail.

Which is worse, knowing that Bush personally supports civil unions and yet compromises as little as he can get away with on the issues in order to keep his support, or knowing that Obama and Clinton and Edwards personally hate the idea of gay marriage but are willing to reluctantly endorse civil unions in order to get votes?

Dave

no one who pays attention could possibly be confused, but it's interesting to see you openly admit deliberate deception

Yes, but no one pays attention, with you leading the pack. So it's necessary to jump on every opportunity to try to break down peoples assumptions. I don't expect to bring you around, but others might get a clue.

Dave

...knowing that Obama and Clinton and Edwards personally hate the idea of gay marriage but are willing to reluctantly endorse civil unions...

You may know this, or think you know this, but I think you're way off base. Most Democratic candidates, including the leading 3, seem perfectly happy, not reluctant, to endorse civil unions, and many if not most would probably endorse marriage too if it didn't mean the tedium and embarrassment of backtracking and being smeared by GOP attack dogs.

The fact that they appeared at the forum last night at all belies any 'reluctance.' They were announcing their friendliness to this constituent group in a quite open, visible way. Not so sure about Biden and Dodd, but maybe they were just busy, ha.

I feel certain Fox will cover the forum heavily and unfavorably just for its very existence, and use it as evidence that the Dems are out of touch with 'mainstream, normal' America. Ugh.

Oy, Davey boy... are you trying to be outrageous? Did you not get to rebel as a teenager or something?

To accuse gonzo, of all people, of being the prime offender when it comes to not paying attention.

It's like accusing Trent Lott's brain cell of synapsing.

As for confusing people about your political orientation, a better ploy would have been to post this article on World Net Daily and one of your Bush-apologist pieces on Kos. The blue half of the country is already convinced you're a screaming neocon. Now you need to get the red half thinking you're a raving pinko commie.

Then the fun truly begins...

Democrats are caught in a bit of a quagmire at the moment... our political and philosophical loyalties are obviously with the left, but we can't find a viable candidate who has real guts and integrity on this side. We might recognize that there are some very authentic candidates on the right, but they're "sincere" about things we don't agree with.

If you're like me, you're not interested in "settling" for someone who shares your values, but only champions them half-ass'dly. Unfortunately, not enough people are like that... too many are willing to settle for a "viable" candidate who happens to be politically flaccid. That's the third part of this trilemma.

There's three factors: are they principled? Are they right about their principles? And are they politically viable? Apparently I can't have all three, but I'll take the first two. Kucinich gets my support.

Yeah, but when Kucinich loses the primaries, who will meet more than one of your criteria then?

The blue half of the country is already convinced you're a screaming neocon. Now you need to get the red half thinking you're a raving pinko commie.

Yes, that sounds good. The ideologically hidebound deserve to be equally wrong on both sides of the divide.

Dave

"As for confusing people about your political orientation, a better ploy would have been to post this article on World Net Daily and one of your Bush-apologist pieces on Kos. The blue half of the country is already convinced you're a screaming neocon. Now you need to get the red half thinking you're a raving pinko commie."

I guess to the moonbats anyone who doesn't swallow their leftist propaganda whole is a Bush apologist, raving neocon, with an eight figure bank account, playing cards with cheney rove et al every Tuesday night in a top secret underground bunker at necon HQ in a top secret location, feasting on the carcasses of the middle class joe's that they hunted down earlier that night roasting on a spit over an open fire and washing it all down with a nice tall glass of crude oil.

If I had a nickel for every time some moonbat attributed to me support for Bush that I never expressed simply because I called him out on his uber left moonbat bullshit the number of nickels I'd have would be greater than the number of women Bill Clinton has sexually harassed.

Now that's a lot of fucking nickels folks.

#15 sez - "I don't expect to bring you around, but others might get a clue."

hopefully they get a clue of just how deep the confidence game goes with some people in the political arena...

"the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist" - Kaiser Sose

Excelsior?

What troubles me is the people who will point fingers at everyone else and shout 'devil' while never noticing the forked tail swishing behind themselves.

it's the brimstone aftershave that gives it all away...

Excelsior?

To at least 96 per cent of readers -- the heterosexuals -- the idea that we can be persuaded to change something as fundamental as sexual orientation seems ridiculous. So it is to homosexuals, who make up the remaining 4 per cent and who are often told that their "deviant" behavior is a lifestyle choice. Make it known

#21: Speaking of ideologically hidebound...

I would have loved to see Sam Brownback (or a similar Republican candidate) show up, and tell the audience that he opposes not only "gay marriage," but also civil unions, and then encourage them all to pray to Christ and change their deviant ways in order to save their souls.

It would have been classic.

The crowd and the "moderators," of course, would have gone berserk. But it would have given a long-shot conservative Republican candidate some needed "free media" on an issue that most Americans would agree with him on. And he would have certainly earned extra points for bravery, for coming into the "Lion's Den" and all...

Dave:

Openly supporting and advocating gay marriage is currently an unpopular position pretty much everywhere outside San Francisco (and in the chambers of unelected judges in a few small, liberal states). For a first-tier Democrat candidate to "come out" and openly support gay marriage would be political suicide. They almost certainly support it in their heart, but they don't want to say so. After all, it wouldn't help them much in the Democrat primaries (gays comprise only about 5% of the population, or maybe 10% of the Democrat base), and it would prove absolutely fatal in a general election campaign.

But don't worry. Hillary and friends intend to impose gay marriage on the American people through judicial fiat, whether this majority of the citizens of this country like it or not. As judges in more and more liberal states suddenly "discover" loopholes in their state Constitutions that "require" gay marriages to be recognized, there will eventually come a tipping point. And the USSC will then likely overturn the DOMA, and you'll have de facto "gay marriage" nationwide.

"Progressive" Democrats take the long-term view on these sorts of things (much like Islamic extremists do). They know where they came from, and they know where they want to go. They are happy to move incrementally towards their goals, and any electoral setbacks will be viewed as merely temporary. After all, they have the MSM and the unelected judges on their side, and those are good allies to have in a long-term battle.

It's a war of attrition. The MSM will wear down the public with their propaganda, while denying any bias, and demonizing any other members of the media who dare to offer an opposing viewpoint. In the end, they will prevail. They almost always do, in the long-run.

"After all, it wouldn't help them much in the Democrat primaries (gays comprise only about 5% of the population, or maybe 10% of the Democrat base), and it would prove absolutely fatal in a general election campaign."

so bigots are the other 90-95%? nah... many people believe that equal rights are a good thing, even if it comes down to sticking your dick in or licking and fingering something of the same sex as you. [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor.]

"After all, they have the MSM and the unelected judges on their side, and those are good allies to have in a long-term battle."

and history! don't forget about history... you don't get laid much do you? i think i asked you this before... you don't have to tell me.

"The MSM will wear down the public with their propaganda, while denying any bias, and demonizing any other members of the media who dare to offer an opposing viewpoint. In the end, they will prevail. They almost always do, in the long-run."

yes, equal rights is propaganda! a man allowed to stick his dick in another man! and declare his love! and say that they will be partners! and live a life together! oh, how horrible! oh, how sinful! my balls shrink at the thought! oh! no! oh! no! maybe they will have equal rights!? oh shit! that hurts you... how? oh, it hurts your morals! my morals hurt so bad. oh, they pain me. i think i might have to cut them off!

and yeah, those who are for equal rights will win. it's called progression. moving forward. having a better society where you don't hate for some stupid reason. people is equal, son. get used to it.

[Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor.]

RJ, gays and lesbians compose more like 12% of the population, despite the oft repeated 5% figure you trotted out, which has no actual data to back it up.

What's more, the polls don't agree with you either. They put support for gay marriage overall at about 35%, 40% for democrats, 32% for republicans and actually slightly lower among independents. But the key thing is that support for civil unions is huge. Something like 70$ nationwide in most polls and even at over 50% among republicans.

Taking a strong stand on this issue to a democratic primary audience was not nearly as much of a risk as you make it out to be, and the only conclusion I can come to, shared by many other observers, is that several of the candidates are in fact much more anti-gay and are moving left on this issue just to support civil unions for the primaries.

Dave

Dave save your polls will you.

In EVERY state where a state consitutional gay marriage ban has been put on the ballot for citizens to vote on, that's a total of seventeen states, it has passed.

I'm sure some people feel pressured to say they support gay marriage when taking part in a poll where they face the possibility of being called as a homophobe by the person taking the poll but in reality when Americans have stepped into the voting booth in private on this issue they have made it very clear that they do not support gay marriage.

Also if gays do represent 12% of the overall population that does not mean they represent 12% of people who will actually vote. A safe bet would be that it's at least 3-5% less than the 12%.

What did the Dems have to gain by doing this debate? Were they afraid the people that attended it were going to vote for the GOP? All they were doing was pandering to the base that already planned on voting for them and possibly alienate some moderates that both sides need to win.

"Also if gays do represent 12% of the overall population that does not mean they represent 12% of people who will actually vote. A safe bet would be that it's at least 3-5% less than the 12%."

On the contrary, Arch. Since gays probably vote to a much higher degree than the general population (especially on issues like gay marriage), their proportion as voters in an election will be HIGHER, not lower than their proportion among the population.

I don't know if anyone's ever done a survey, but I'd bet that voting among the gay population approaches 100% of eligible voters.

Not out on the harbour this morning Clav?

Not yet, Stan. I do have an appointment later in the day.

What are you doing up? According to my World Clock, it's about 0145 in SYD.

RE: #28

"Hillary and friends intend to impose gay marriage on the American people..."

I wasn't aware that the Democrats intend to force Americans into marrying gay people. I was wondering what all the fuss was about. That explains it.

"The MSM will wear down the public with their propaganda, while denying any bias, and demonizing any other members of the media who dare to offer an opposing viewpoint."

I wholeheartedly agree with you! The MSM is indeed biased.

See URL for:

Openness & Accountability: A Study of Transparency in Global Media Outlets

P.S. Dave - I support "...the right of union members not to have their dues used to support political candidates they don't personally support?"

Cindy, if you support political freedom for union members and gay marriage you're okay by me.

Dave

Dave,

I suppose yours and my definition of human NEEDS is different.

Our society has become so enormously confused because of the endless images that are provided to us and the persistence of ideas some logical but most not; we are caught up in a swirl of manufactured importance. We are owned by those with the biggest mouths no matter how delusional, deficient or confused they may be, logic is irrelevant.

Marriage is not a need it is an engagement. Health care, shelter, and clothing are NEEDs.

Something that has never been experienced by humans could not possibly be a NEED for them.

why can't gays get married? if the republicans are so worried about "scantity" of marriage then why not teach cheaters within the party about what marriage means rather than forcing their ideals on rest of the country

bhumika
politics desk,the newsroom

"For a first-tier Democrat candidate to "come out" and openly support gay marriage would be political suicide."
- RJ

So will this prognostication be more accurate than your prediction that Burns was going to beat Tester?
(MCH)

Clavos,

don't know if anyone's ever done a survey, but I'd bet that voting among the gay population approaches 100% of eligible voters.

Are you referring to the young coked up (or methed up) party boys that a large portion of today's gay community consists of? Info sources again..... Sharpen up.

Clav

As a reference look up PNP culture, PnP or Party and Play.

Not the world of civic minded patriots.

From the LA Times:

"The study this spring by San Francisco-based Community Marketing Inc. found that an eye-popping 92.5% of gay men reported that they voted in the 2004 presidential race, and almost 84% said they cast ballots in the 2006 midterm election. Among lesbians, the results were almost as impressive; nearly 91% said they voted in 2004; for the midterm, the figure was 78%.

By comparison, the Washington-based Committee for the Study of the American Electorate put the turnout for all Americans eligible to vote at about 61% in 2004 and roughly 40% in 2006."

Clavos,

The report is by a company which markets the gay community.... I would be very interested in seeing their research methods.

I am more than sure that those meth addicts who spend days on end awake in their drug induced paradise are highly responsible civically engaged people. I am sure that the costumed, hazy, club kids rush to the polls and participate soberly every chance they get. Really Clav

Dave asserts that gays make up more like 12% of the population..

According to Voter News Service data, openly gay voters are 9 percent of the vote in large cities and 7 percent of the vote in medium-size cities.

If I recall my cross tabulation from grade school, that would mean 75% in large cities and 58% in mid size cities who vote. Did I get that right? Check me.

1. Who better than a company who researches markets to know the demographics and habits/activities of a specific one?

2. "Openly gay" are still the minority of the gay community; there's still too much opprobrium for those who are physicians and other professionals (especially teachers, for example) and most business people for them to be open about their gayness.

3. Gays older than 25 tend to be VERY upscale, successful and responsible people. I target-marketed specifically to them in the airline business; they were (and are) an important and large market segment in tourism. The cruise lines, for example fill entire ships full of gays for cruises several times a year. Disney has a special weekend in the summer for them, there's the White Circuit, which is worldwide and year 'round, etc., etc.

They are activists, and they vote. In greater proportions than straights, as the survey in San Francisco proved.

According to Voter News Service data, openly gay voters are 9 percent of the vote in large cities and 7 percent of the vote in medium-size cities.

Ah, but my 12% was a nationwide figure. Urban areas always have a larger concentration of gays. Some more than others, of course. When I lived in DC the estimate was 18% and I believe San Francisco claims a 24% gay population.

Dave

RJ, gays and lesbians compose more like 12% of the population, despite the oft repeated 5% figure you trotted out, which has no actual data to back it up.

Here is some "actual data" suggesting that homosexuals make up less than 5% of the population...

So where is your "actual data" that backs up your claim that 12% of the population is homosexual?

What's more, the polls don't agree with you either. They put support for gay marriage overall at about 35%, 40% for democrats, 32% for republicans and actually slightly lower among independents.

Right. So, like I said, an overwhelming majority of the American people oppose gay marriage. Which is why it has been defeated almost every time it's been put on the ballot.

But the key thing is that support for civil unions is huge. Something like 70% nationwide in most polls and even at over 50% among republicans.

Well, I support civil unions, too. So?

You were encouraging the Democrat candidates to support something that most people oppose (gay marriage) instead of supporting something most people allegedly support (civil unions). And I said they won't openly support gay marriage because it's unpopular and will cost them support in the general election. Where was I wrong?

Taking a strong stand on this issue to a democratic primary audience was not nearly as much of a risk as you make it out to be

It wouldn't be much of a risk in the Democrat primary, and in fact could be of some marginal benefit. But it would be a huge risk in the general election campaign. Which is precisely why they aren't taking that risk.

and the only conclusion I can come to, shared by many other observers, is that several of the candidates are in fact much more anti-gay and are moving left on this issue just to support civil unions for the primaries.

So...Hillary hates homosexuals? That would be weird, since I always pictured her as a closeted lesbian... :-/

"So...Hillary hates homosexuals? That would be weird, since I always pictured her as a closeted lesbian"

That's interesting.

What about Hillary gives you the impression she's a lesbian?

So where is your "actual data" that backs up your claim that 12% of the population is homosexual?

Actually, my recollection was wrong, it's 14% according to a study called the Janus Report on Sexual Behavior published in 1993.

Right. So, like I said, an overwhelming majority of the American people oppose gay marriage. Which is why it has been defeated almost every time it's been put on the ballot.

No, that's incorrect. While as I indicated only about a third of the population supports gay marriage, that doesn't mean that the other 2/3 oppose it. In fact, less than 20% express definitive opposition to gay marriage. Most people are neutral or undecided.

You were encouraging the Democrat candidates to support something that most people oppose (gay marriage) instead of supporting something most people allegedly support (civil unions). And I said they won't openly support gay marriage because it's unpopular and will cost them support in the general election. Where was I wrong?

You're wrong because they are never going to get the votes of that hardcore 1/3 of the population who vote against gay marriage no matter what they do. They lose those voters on half-a-dozen other issues too, and they lose them just for supporting civil unions. They'd have to become extreme religious conservatives to win those people over and that's not happening.

It wouldn't be much of a risk in the Democrat primary, and in fact could be of some marginal benefit. But it would be a huge risk in the general election campaign. Which is precisely why they aren't taking that risk.

Democratic voters know that their candidates move left in the primary and back to the middle in the general election. If their move left barely gets them to civil unions, then what will their position be when they move back to the right?

Dave

"What about Hillary gives you the impression she's a lesbian?"

Duh...do ya think the fact that she's a powerful liberal democrat might have something to do with it?

No, it's the hideous suits.

Dave

Dave I thought you were a Republican? No problem. But I did not go into detail about the responses because, let's face it--they were in the hot seat, literally. The men were gawking at Barack and Edwards because they are cute.

Then there were the questions about gay marriage. I like gays, they can be friendly people, but hell they want to tell everyone their sexual business and that gets nauseating after two seconds. And more than nauseating it, by definition, comes under sexual harassment.

Anyway, they did not want to be there it was obvious. Did they pander, did they make new friends? Time will tell.

Heloise

Heloise, because I"m a Republican I believe in equal rights. It's what the party was founded on. Plus I'm not a homophobe or a religious zealot.

dave

Clavos,

Since gayness is not a biological condition, a gay person is gay if they are openly gay. Secretly engaging in homosexual sex for the time being (as we can not see the future) does not mean one is gay. Gay is an elected and proclaimed lifestyle and not a biological condition.

So the numbers of people who were surveyed would represent the gay community.

My point however was that 100% is a gross exaggeration and a clear indication of a wrong image of the gay scene TODAY on your part. Dave also exaggerated figures would prove my point even further.

I don't see what the rush is in calling united gays "married couples". Are we so desperate for meaning that we are digging up victims out of every nook and cranny? Look the world is full of real suffering. I find it interesting that you tend to pooh pooh their plight often blaming them or their inability to hold their governments accountable, yet you wave the flag and make the cry for MEN to wed MEN? There are hungry children going to bed tonight, crying mothers, and degraded and helpless fathers who wish for the luxury of such folly.

Inteded to say, Dave's added, exaggerated figures would...

"Since gayness is not a biological condition, a gay person is gay if they are openly gay. Secretly engaging in homosexual sex for the time being (as we can not see the future) does not mean one is gay. Gay is an elected and proclaimed lifestyle and not a biological condition."

Totally and completely false. You have no idea what gayness is about. In fact your assertion that it is "an elected and proclaimed lifestyle" flies completely in the face of scientific opinion on sexuality and borders on bigotry.

"My point however was that 100% is a gross exaggeration"

I actually said "approaches 100%". And the results of the study I cited confirm it. 92.5% "approaches" 100% in any language.

Next, you'll be telling us gays can be "cured."

Feh.

Gay is an elected and proclaimed lifestyle and not a biological condition.

Zedd, we see eye to eye on many subjects, but you are well out of order here. You know as well as I do that there is a growing preponderance of evidence that sexual orientation is biologically determined.

You can't just disregard the truth because you don't want it to be true.

Even if homosexuality were simply a lifestyle choice, so what? Celibacy is also such a choice, as "unnatural" as homosexuality supposedly is. So where is all the moral outrage towards celibates?

I have yet to see any anti-gay marriage advocate demonstrate convincingly why allowing two persons of the same sex to wed would hurt them in the slightest.

I had only seen news coverage of the forum [definitely not a debate!] on Friday. This weekend I have watched most of it.

Barack Obama was astonishingly effective. I challenge anyone, even perhaps a right-winger, to watch his clips from this forum and still call him an empty suit or whatever.

Hillary Clinton was also extraordinarily articulate and relaxed. No plastic nonsense or fakery detectable here!

And both did a solid job explaining why their position is pro-civil-union and anti-marriage. Dave's facile comments implying that they are obviously masking their own homophobia and hidden intentions to move to the right in the general election are just ridiculous. Just watch the clips!

John Edwards, on the other hand, seemed a bit uneasy and out of his element, although he got better as he went. Maybe he was just nervous.

Any of these three still have my vote, enthusiastically: How about HRC for Prez, Obama for Veep, Edwards for Sec of Health/Human Services.

It is interesting that Dave, on many issues a rightist, skews left on this one, and Zedd, a wide-eyed liberal on almost everything else, is so reactionary [and uninformed, and offensive] about this.

Handyguy


I am by no means a liberal (in the current sense). You just assumed.... I am an independent thinker.


How am I not informed? Please inform me. I enjoy learning.

Doc, Clavos, and Handyguy,


Does your preference for green vs. blue have a biological reason? What about your love of opera vs. Jazz?

My attraction to dark, dark brown men vs. a person of my complexion or whiter is not a biological occurrence. It is a choice; a preference. I won't die if I "mate" with a light completed male, I just won't be as enthralled. The supporting evidence lays it the FACT that over the ages millions of those who would now declare themselves gay had relations with people of the opposite sex and produced offspring. Just as millions of people TODAY who are heterosexual are engaged in marriages with people that they don't find attractive.

While attraction may have some biological significance but not the extent to where we draw a distinct line proclaiming a segment of the species as being biologically engineered to have a certain taste. That is simply rubbish!

How many elements go into being attracted to something, let alone a person? What you men are suggesting is that an attraction to an orifice or appendage would be biologically determined but other elements and combination of factors would not be. Ha ha ha ha!

THINK guys!

It is interesting that Dave, on many issues a rightist, skews left on this one, and Zedd, a wide-eyed liberal on almost everything else, is so reactionary [and uninformed, and offensive] about this.

Actually, Zedd herself admits proudly to not being a liberal, and I have yet to see her take a liberal position on much of anything. Most of my 'conservative' positions which she takes exception to are actually liberal positions which democrats no longer support.

Dave

Doc

Gosh I hate to do this because we often agree on things but...........

What your study says is:
Males who are effeminate in today's world have a greater likelihood to believe that they are homosexual.

Your study doesn't prove that homosexuality is biological.

You see because sex is so subjective, a person could be attracted to feet or to women's purses or whatever. There are people who are attracted to children. They are not faking it they really are but we as a society tell them NO. They cant be. We don't do studies on whether they are born that way.... A person could be attracted to a person of the same gender once in their lifetime or twice or a hundred times or never. A needy person could be attracted to whoever is attracted to them (male or female). A person who doesn't fit in could find a home among other misfits and declare themselves to be gay because they are welcomed and may or may not enjoy the sex. A person could be highly effeminate and just find solace in being around other people like him and thus assume he is born gay. A person could live as a heterosexual but not have any sexual feelings at all (see the multitudes of wives across the world). There are way too many variables to consider marking a definite line in the sand as a distinguisher for sexual orientation. Hence it could only be declared a choice.

As to the responses to smell, you know that that could be a Pavlovian response. It doesn't prove that the response to the pheromones came before the attraction.

You see my contention is not with gays or the right for anyone to declare themselves gay. It's with just how carried away society is with this notion without real evidence. It's just as insane in my eyes as the "exis of evil" thing or the hysteria after 911 or any of our fads, the red scare or the wild natives of Africa or pet rocks or crystals or capitalism curing all ills or speaking in tongues or any other stupid thing that humans have globed on to. None of it is well thought through. Its just people getting carried away about something that SOUNDS good but has no rational bases.

Like what you like but don't claim that you were born to like it.... come on.

Clavos

I never want to be a bigot.

Explain to me how my opinion that gayness is an elected lifestyle is bigoted OR dispute my assertions point by point.

I would say to you that you are caught up in a fad. You have no real scientific proof for anything. You've just heard the claims of scientific proof long enough to where you believe that they must exist.

Please provide them and I will gladly look at them. If I am wrong I will admit it.


Just as I would not take Bush's word that there were WMDs just because he said there were, I won't beleive someone who tells me they were born to like a certain thing. Its silly.

That is not to say that they don't have a right to. That is not to say that they should be discriminated against for their choice to persue their interest. That is not to say that they deserve love and respect for being good and loving citizens, freinds or family members. It just means I don't believe its genetic. There is no real proof of that YET. Neither should you believe it. Its silly.

What difference does it make if being gay is genetic or a choice? People should be free to marry and/or have sex and/or form a family with whoever the hell they want (assuming it's a consenting adult), regardless of their motivations. And that includes polygamists too.

Dave

"People should be free to marry and/or have sex and/or form a family with whoever the hell they want (assuming it's a consenting adult), regardless of their motivations. And that includes polygamists too."

Quoted for Truth. Every word.

NO ONE should be prohibited by law from marrying.

And might I add that it's just a contract, so get over it.

Dave

'Born that way' vs. 'It's a choice' makes a big difference to gay people. We have lived this particular experience, straights have not, and I have never met a gay person who believed they are gay by choice. We believe intuitively - we know - God made us this way. And it's very, very deeply offensive for a heterosexual person to tell me he/she 'knows' differently.

Watch Melissa Etheridge's question to Gov. Richardson on the Visible Vote forum. She is much more eloquent about this than I proabably just was.

By coincidence, a friend just sent me this. Check out this article in today's Chicago Tribune about 3 gay and 3 straight brothers in the same family. It may not change your mind, but it's pretty interesting.

I quote one sentence:
"Although the question of whether homosexuality is a choice remains a hot topic for pundits, scientists are largely in agreement that sexual orientation is at least partially determined by biology."

Yes, Handy, it's a big deal to gay folks. And that's fine for them, but as far as the law goes and treating people properly, the reasons why you're gay shouldn't have anything to do with whether you have equal rights. Those who raise the choice vs. nature argument to suggest that somehow gays don't have equal rights are the problem here, not gay folks who believe they're born that way.

The point is that no matter how much difference it makes to you personally and to other gays, it shouldn't matter legally or to the rest of us. It's none of our business.

Dave

It tends to be those opposed to gay rights, particularly on religious or quasi-religious grounds, who insist on calling homosexuality a 'choice.'

So it's reasonable to infer that people gravitate to this otherwise unproven notion in order to rationalize their own bigotry and discomfort.

Science does seem to be on my side in this. But as with evolution, some people apparently know little and care less about science.

I agree with you there, Handy. The irrational insistence that it must be a choice is probably a sign of bigotry. Personally I'm convinced that it can be a choice and that there's a lot of diversity in the gay community. Some are just born gay, but I think a lot of people have the capacity to be gay or straight or both in the same lifetime. And is a person who could be straight, but chooses to be gay any less gay or any less entitled to full civil rights than someone born that way?

But my main point is that in the issue of rights, choice vs. birth nature just doesn't matter. You should get equal treatment regardless.

Dave

Zedd,

The page I linked to references thirteen studies. Which one are you referring to and which twelve are you ignoring?

"The irrational insistence that it must be a choice is probably a sign of bigotry."

Of course it is.

By insisting gays choose their sexual orientation, they can be denied civil rights without running afoul of the Constitution, the law, or conventional morality, and the nation's conscience can remain clear.

handy, Dave, you're absolutely right. Who would choose to be gay in this (or practically any other historical) cultural climate?

Makes about as much sense as a German in 1939 voluntarily converting to Judaism.

Does your preference for green vs. blue have a biological reason? What about your love of opera vs. Jazz?

Zedd, I was going to use the exact same argument against you.

But I decided to let the science speak for itself. Something you're not prepared to do, it seems, since you had the unmitigated gall to assert to Clavos in comment #33: "Please provide them [the scientific proofs] and I will gladly look at them. If I am wrong I will admit it."

I did provide them, you did not look at them, you are wrong and you will not admit it.

Next, you'll be telling us gays can be "cured."

From here:

"Like most psychiatrists," says Dr. Robert Spitzer, "I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted, but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that's untrue--some people can and do change."

Most mental-health professional associations have recently issued warnings about therapy to change sexual orientation. Homosexual fantasies and feelings can be renounced or resisted, clinicians tend to agree --but not transformed.

But in a new study announced May 9, 2001 at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, Columbia University's Dr. Robert L. Spitzer released the evidence for his conclusions in an historic panel discussion.

He interviewed 200 subjects (143 men and 57 women) who were willing to describe sexual and emotional histories, including their self-reported shift from homosexual to heterosexual.

Dr. Spitzer is currently Chief of Biometrics Research and Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University. But he is better known for his scientific role in 1973--when he was "the" instrumental figure in the American Psychiatric Association's decision to remove homosexuality from its diagnostic manual of mental disorders.

People should be free to marry and/or have sex and/or form a family with whoever the hell they want (assuming it's a consenting adult), regardless of their motivations. And that includes polygamists too.

Okay, fair enough. So where is the polygamist lobby group that gets all the positive media attention while demanding a "right" to group marriages, and calling anyone who disagrees with them hateful and monstrous bigots?

If we are going to redefine a fundamental tradition that is thousands of years old simply to appease a small minority of the population, why not redefine it further and allow polygamy? Or beast marriages, for that matter? After all, "recent research" indicates that some higher mammals are sentient beings...

"it's just a contract"

Wow. Marriage is "just a contract." Wow.

I'd like to believe that most people would disagree with that statement, Dave.

#76 - RJ:

Nice try, but... no.

"So it's reasonable to infer that people gravitate to this otherwise unproven notion in order to rationalize their own bigotry and discomfort."

Riiight. Anyone who disagrees with you (like 65% of the American people) is a bigot. I've heard that before. And I'm sure I'll hear it again. But it's always been a bullshit argument.

And as for it being an "unproven notion," so is the other POV, which claims that homosexuality is genetic and/or biological as opposed to environmental/psychological.

Personally, I believe most homosexuals are "hard-wired" that way (but not jail/prison inmates, heh), but there is no "proof" of that, regardless of your feelings on the issue.

And I also support national civil unions for homosexuals, but not "gay marriage." Of course, that position puts me to the left of most Americans, but I'll still be called a "bigot" for stating it. Sigh...

RJ your link sources are fucking hilarious...seriously...funniest shit i've seen in a while...

Doc D sez - "I have yet to see any anti-gay marriage advocate demonstrate convincingly why allowing two persons of the same sex to wed would hurt them in the slightest."

i've been Asking that one for years around here...still NO answer...well, someone did say it was about the integrity of a word to it's traditional meanings trumped Individual's freedom of association when it came to the marriage license thing...

but that's it...

i gotta go with , why is it anyone's business who legally consenting adults want to be married to? and who could possibly be harmed by recognizing that folks have the right to legally marry each other as they chose being consenting adults?

Excelsior?

handy, Dave, you're absolutely right. Who would choose to be gay in this (or practically any other historical) cultural climate?

Makes about as much sense as a German in 1939 voluntarily converting to Judaism.

Wow. Death camps for homosexuals? In the United States? Never happened, never will.

Comparing opposition to "gay marriage" by the majority of the American people to NAZI death camps for Jews is simply obscene.

seems like the APA is disagreeing with NARTH as is being reported here

from the Article - ""For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA's concern about the positions espoused by NARTH and so-called conversation therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.""

just sharing...

oh yeah..and legally, in the U.S.....marriage IS just a contract...

Excelsior?

"I'd like to believe that most people would disagree with that statement, Dave."

Let me guess, you aren't married. Sure, love is grand, but at its essence, marriage is a business arrangement. If you are against changing traditions that are thousands of years old than people shouldn't be getting married for love. That idea is only a few hundred.

Also, I enjoy the small minds that can only handle two as a number. It's hysterical to assume that adding a third person to a relationship is the same thing as adding an animal. Please stop projecting your perversions and grow up.

i've been Asking that one for years around here...still NO answer...well, someone did say it was about the integrity of a word to it's traditional meanings trumped Individual's freedom of association when it came to the marriage license thing...

but that's it...

i gotta go with , why is it anyone's business who legally consenting adults want to be married to? and who could possibly be harmed by recognizing that folks have the right to legally marry each other as they chose being consenting adults?

Do you support polygamist marriages, gonzo? If so, why do you suppose polygamist marriage isn't considered an issue of importance, while gay marriage is?

Polygamists are a small minority of the population, but so are homosexuals. At least previous civilizations used to occasionally indulge in polygamous marriage. But no prior civilizations recognized "gay marriage" at all, much less something supposedly equal to a normal heterosexual marriage.

Personally, I support people having sex with and marrying dolphins and bonobos. After all, it's very natural to have sex with different species (lions and tigers to it, and so do sheep and goats). And if you disagree, you are a hateful, fascist bigot.

RJ..which part of "legally consenting adults" is beyond yer comprehension?

and as i stated..i think consenting adults should be able to marry other consenting adults as they see fit...didn't say anything about numbers...ain't my business how others want something as basic as their Family...

that whole "Pursuit of Happiness" bit

Excelsior?

RJ sounds like an angry guy that can't get one woman, so he wants to keep the rest of us from doubling up to improve his odds of someone finally being desperate enough to give him a shot, er, I mean, fall in love with him.

From Wikipedia:

"In 2001, Spitzer delivered a controversial paper at the 2001 annual APA meeting arguing that "highly motivated" individuals could "successfully" change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. The APA immediately issued an official disavowal of the paper, noting that it had not been peer reviewed and bluntly stating that "There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation."[1]"

Here's an article about the APA's repudiation of Spitzer's paper, which says, in part:

"The American Psychiatric Association issued a formal disavowal of conclusions reached by Dr. Robert Spitzer, a psychiatrist at Columbia University, who said in a paper submitted this week at the group's annual convention that "highly motivated" individuals could "successfully" change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.

Speaking for the organization, APA Medical Director Steven Mirin, M.D., issued a blunt statement. "There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation," he said."

And:

"In February 2000, the American Psychiatric Association reissued guidelines on the potential harm caused by "reparative therapy," adding its condemnation of the practice.

Officially, the APA opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy, which is based either on the assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that the patient should necessarily change his or her gay orientation.

The announcement reaffirmed the organization's position that there is no clinical evidence supporting the idea that psychiatric intervention has any lasting impact on changing a patient's sexual orientation and numerous studies which suggest that it can, in fact, be harmful."

"Curing" homosexuals is an anti-gay myth.

So...

Pretty much everyone here who supports "gay marriage" also supports polygamist marriage. So I guess that'll be the next shoe to drop.

And yet these same people would dismiss the slippery-slope argument that suddenly redefining marriage after several millenia in order to appease a small minority will inevitably have a watering-down effect on marriage.

Well, just 30 years ago, it was inconceivable that homosexual marriages would become a political cause célèbre. But today, it is rapidly becoming a reality.

30 years from now, who is to say that PETA supporters and other radical environmentalist types won't succeed in making cross-species marriages an acceptable, and legally-recognized, "lifestyle choice" ???

FUCK THE FISH IN 2036!!!

Even Spitzer himself is of the opinion that in most cases, orientation is fixed and cannot be changed.

He's actually quite upset that he's now the reparative therapy movement's blue-eyed boy.

RJ, how many times does gonzo have to repeat the phrase "consenting adults" for it to penetrate your skull?

If I could afford 'em, I'd have several wives - at least one for each day of the week.

re the "slippery slope" argument...

again..which part of legally consenting adults don't you understand?

Excelsior?

What, and multiply the nagging seven fold?

You're better off with one mate.

"Curing" homosexuals is an anti-gay myth.

One apparently supported by the Chief of Biometrics Research and Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, who happened to be one of the main forces behind de-listing homosexuality as a paraphilia...

And who was REPUDIATED by the APA, RJ!

Did you not read my last comment???

"Robert L. Spitzer, MD Chief, Biometrics Research and Professor of Psychiatry, Columbia University"

...Whose name is Robert Spitzer, and we're back where we started.

Sheesh...

Thanks for the reality check, Stan.

What WAS I thinking???

It wasn't until 40 years ago that the Supreme Court ruled on Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws that banned interracial marriage that still existed in 16 states.

Considering your arguments, it doesn't take much imagination to see what side you would have been on back then.

Other than your obvious immaturity and ignorance, how does three people in a marriage lead to animals in relationships?

Nationally-recognized gay marriage = nationally recognized polygamist marriage. Or so say the supporters of gay marriage in this comments section.

So. Why not be honest, and admit that your ultimate goal is the complete redefinition of marriage to include not merely homosexuals, but also polygamists? Why isn't that "allowed" to be brought up in these these discussions? Why isn't that factor included in the MSM-sponsored scientific polls on this topic? Why didn't Melissa Etheridge bring that up, as moderator of the Democrat's recent debate?

Seems kinda...dishonest to leave the whole "group marriages" factor out... :-/

And who was REPUDIATED by the APA, RJ!

You mean, the same exact APA that classified homosexuality as a paraphilia (in other words, a mental disorder and a sexual deviancy) just 30 years ago?

Sounds like a group I'd put all my trust in.

All great questions, RJ.

You wouldn't be trying to change the subject, would you?

RJ...read the basis of his study...it consisted of 200 individuals who already self-identified themselves as both Evangelical and ex-gay...a pretty narrow field of potentials there...

good reason to demonstrate that some were bisexual in orientation...

all things considered, they submitted...even out of that 200...a total of 46 examples (check Doc D's link for a lot of it, poke around even in what you linked for more on the actual data)

there's a reason a bunch of folks, like the American Psychiatric Association among others, disagree with the conclusions..as has been pointed out on this thread in many comments and links...

but beyond all of that...doesn't matter if it's nature or nurture...consenting adults...HOW is it hurting or harming ANYONE to allow them recognitions of the rights and responsibilities inherent in the secular marriage license agreement within our Nation?

Excelsior?

Okay, fair enough. So where is the polygamist lobby group that gets all the positive media attention while demanding a "right" to group marriages, and calling anyone who disagrees with them hateful and monstrous bigots?

THey're right here, though they make a real effort to be kinder and gentler. This might have something to do with the FBI periodically hunting them down and shooting them. Last I checked the government never shot anyone for being gay.

If we are going to redefine a fundamental tradition that is thousands of years old simply to appease a small minority of the population, why not redefine it further and allow polygamy? Or beast marriages, for that matter? After all, "recent research" indicates that some higher mammals are sentient beings...

Polygamy goes back as far as monogamy does and it has a long and glorious history. It's in the Bible - how can you argue with Abraham and Jacob and their multiple wives?

As for marrying animals, only if you can get their consent. But I'd be pretty broadminded about it.

Dave

Oy.

I'm going to bed; it's 0236 here, and I've got to work tomorrow.

It's just a contract, RJ.

#101: That has to be just about the dumbest comment I've ever seen on BC by someone whose IQ is above single figures.

Which I suppose is meant as a backhanded compliment, but really, come on, man. Anyone changing their opinion is untrustworthy? Come on.

Nationally-recognized gay marriage = nationally recognized polygamist marriage. Or so say the supporters of gay marriage in this comments section.

That's unfair to gays who want to get married, RJ. The people on this site who you're claiming are speaking for the gay agenda are mostly heterosexual males who happen to believe in individual liberty. We aren't speaking for the gay population which has an entirely different interest in and perspective on the issue. They may well - really quite likely - oppose polygamy as much as you do. We're just speaking on behalf of society in general which is likely to be better off with more freedom whatever form it takes.

Dave

heh..it's a "Family Values" issue, really...

what Family does the Individual value, why can't that Family have the legal rights and obligations of being a Family...or whom does it harm to recognize it?

again..all legally consenting adults here, and folks can speak for themselves...but in the broad legal sense..what business is it of the government's?...recognize the signatories of the contract license and keep the government's nose out of it...

your mileage may vary

Excelsior?

I'm outta here as well. My laptop battery is about to die and I don't know where the power cord is.

RJ, you haven't got a leg to stand on, and for a Republican who supposedly believes in individual liberty and minimal government, you certainly seem to want to restrict people's freedoms quite a bit.

Nighty night.

"#101: That has to be just about the dumbest comment I've ever seen on BC by someone whose IQ is above single figures."

Anyone have documentation or link to the IQ score?

Maybe in RJ's world no one changes their mind over 30 years. Hmm, we better keep S-A-N-T-A out of the discussion to play it safe.

Recent "gay marriage" votes in the United States (by actual voters, or their actually elected representatives), along with the small number of states with unelected judges who have taken it upon themselves to make the law:

# 1 Alabama - 81 percent in favor of the amendment [banning gay marriage] and 19 percent against.

# 2 Alaska - November 3, 1998: The state's voters amended their constitution to require that all marriages be between a man and a woman.

# 3 Arizona - November 2006: Even well past midnight on election night, the amendment was flipping between a narrow margin for or against. The final outcome of 51% (including absentee ballots) opposing the marriage amendment made Arizona the first state where voters rebuffed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.[3][4][5] Conservative groups have said, considering the relatively small margin in which it failed, the result was more likely due to confusing ballot language than an indication of changing public opinion. An already-existing statutory ban was unaffected and remains current state law.

# 4 Arkansas - This amendment [banning gay marriage] was adopted at the November 2004 general election and approved by a vote of 753,770 for and 251,914 against.

# 5 California - California's 2000 ballot initiative Proposition 22 prevents California from recognizing same-sex marriages. Voters adopted the measure on March 7, 2000 with 61.4 percent of the electorate in favor (4,618,673 votes versus 2,909,370 against).

# 6 Colorado - On November 7, 2006, Colorado voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman only and defeated a referendum to allow same-sex couples to register domestic partnerships.

# 7 Connecticut - A Quinnipiac University poll[3] released April 7, 2005, the day after the Senate approved civil unions, showed that 56% of registered voters were in support of their action, while 37% were opposed to it. The poll shows 53% opposed same-sex marriage, while 42% approved.

Democrats backed same-sex civil unions 66-29 percent and gay marriage 53-42 percent. Republicans were narrowly divided on civil unions, with 45 percent in favor and 48 percent opposed. But Republicans opposed gay marriage 70-26 percent. Independent voters supported civil unions 56-37 percent, but opposed gay marriage 52-42 percent.

Women voters supported civil unions 60-34 percent, but split 47-48 percent on gay marriage. Men backed civil unions 52-42 percent, but opposed gay marriage 59-36 percent.

# 8 Delaware - DOMA adopted as state law

# 10 Florida - In 1997, the Florida Legislature overwhelmingly adopted the Defense of Marriage Act, which specifically states marriage is the "union between one man and one woman" and bars the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.

March 2004 - Miami Herald and St. Petersburg Times Poll - 65% Oppose Same-Sex Marriage, Majority Support Civil Unions.
A poll conducted by The Miami Herald and St. Petersburg Times found that 65% of Floridians oppose same-sex marriage, while 27% are supportive and 8% are undecided. A majority, however, believe that same-sex couples should have equal rights as marries heterosexual couples.

# 11 Georgia - The issue [banning gay marriage] had been approved by 76 percent of voters in 2004.

# 12 Hawaii - 1998: Hawaii's voters amend their Constitution to allow state legislature to restrict marriage to men and women only.

Beginning 2007: An attempt made to introduce civil unions in Hawaii's legislation stops in Committee.

# 13 Idaho - November 7, 2006: Idaho voters approved a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage. (Idaho Amendment 2 (2006))

# 14 Illinois - DOMA adopted as state law

# 15 Indiana - DOMA adopted as state law

# 16 Iowa - DOMA adopted as state law

# 17 Kansas - Kansas became the 18th state to pass a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage

# 18 Kentucky - DOMA written into state constitution and state law

# 19 Louisiana - 18 September 2004: Louisiana voters ratified a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. The amendment passed with an overwhelming majority, 78 percent in favor to 22 percent opposed, but allegations of botched elections procedures taint the validity of the outcome.[10]

October 2004: District Judge William Morvant of Baton Rouge struck down the amendment on the grounds that it violated a provision of the state constitution requiring that an amendment cover only one subject; the amendment prevented the state from recognizing any legal status for common-law relationships, domestic partnerships and civil unions between both gay and heterosexual couples.[11]

19 January 2005: The Louisiana Supreme Court reinstated the anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution.[12]

# 20 Maine - DOMA adopted as state law

# 21 Maryland - The first state law defining marriage as a union between a man and woman was adopted by Maryland in 1973

# 22 Massachusetts - Same-sex marriage in the U.S. state of Massachusetts began on May 17, 2004, as a result of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution to allow only heterosexual couples to marry. Massachusetts became the sixth jurisdiction in the world (after the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec) to legalize same-sex marriage. It is the first and currently the only U.S. state to make same-sex marriages legal.

# 23 Michigan - DOMA written into state constitution and state law

# 24 Minnesota - DOMA adopted as state law

# 25 Mississippi - Gay marriage ban passes with the margin at a whopping 86 percent

# 26 Missouri - DOMA adopted as state law and written into constitution

# 27 Montana - November 2, 2004 : An amendment is put on the ballot to ban same-sex marriage. 67% of voters supported it. Cfr Montana Initiative 96 (2004)

# 28 Nebraska - May 12, 2005: A federal judge in Omaha struck down Nebraska's sweeping ban on same-sex marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other same-sex relationships.

July 14, 2006: The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the ban.

# 29 Nevada - DOMA written into state constitution

# 30 New Hampshire - State law bans same-sex marriage and pre-dates DOMA laws

# 31 New Jersey - New Jersey has legislated for both Domestic partnerships and Civil unions, and recognizes out-of-state Same-sex marriages as equilivent to civil unions conducted in the state

# 32 New Mexico - Gay New Mexicans can marry in Massachusetts, but it may not make much difference once the honeymoon is over and they're home.

New Mexico hasn't outlawed same-sex marriage, but it hasn't endorsed it either. Nor have lawmakers approved domestic partnership legislation, despite prodding from Gov. Bill Richardson.

# 33 New York - Same-sex marriage is not recognized in New York state. Five separate suits were filed seeking same-sex marriage. At the trial level, four failed and one succeeded (though it was stayed and later reversed). At the intermediate appellate level, four failed and one was not decided. The cases were all rolled into one and heard by the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, on May 31, 2006. On July 6, 2006, the court rejected the call for same-sex marriage

# 34 North Carolina - DOMA adopted as state law

# 35 North Dakota - DOMA written into state constitution and state law

# 36 Ohio - March 24, 2005: Two judges rule that Ohio's 25-year-old domestic violence law cannot be used against unmarried heterosexual couples because of Ohio's new constitutional definition of marriage.

December 12, 2005: The Twelfth District Ohio Court of Appeals overturns the lower court rulings.

# 37 Oklahoma - DOMA written into state constitution and state law

# 38 Oregon - November 2, 2004: Oregonians voted 57% to 43% to pass Ballot Measure 36, a constitutional amendment defining marriage to be between one man and one woman. Opponents of Measure 36 outspent the Defense of Marriage Coalition more than 2 to 1.

# 39 Pennsylvania - DOMA adopted as state law

# 40 Puerto Rico - The island territory of Puerto Rico ratified a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1998.

# 41 Rhode Island - Same-sex marriage is not recognized in Rhode Island state.

# 42 South Carolina - November 7, 2006: South Carolina voters approved a state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage and civil unions by a margin of 78% to 22%.

# 43 South Dakota - November 7, 2006: South Dakota voters passed an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage with 52% of the vote.

# 44 Tennessee - November 7, 2006: The Tennessee Marriage Protection Amendment passed by a margin of 81% to 19%.

# 45 Texas - DOMA adopted as state law

# 46 Utah - 2004: A constitutional amendment was passed defining civil marriage to be limited to opposite-sex couples. It was approved by wide margin, 66% favorable and only 34% against, in November 2004.

The amendment defines marriage as "... the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

# 47 Vermont - 1999: Vermont Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples are entitled, under the state's constitution, to all of the protections and benefits provided through marriage.

2000: The legislature passes a law creating civil unions for same-sex couples

# 48 Virginia - 2006: In November, a new Constitutional amendment, previously approved by the Virginia General Assembly, limiting marriage to unions of one man and one woman was voted on by people of Virginia. A majority of the voters (1,325,668 or 57%) approved the amendment, as opposed to 1,003,967 or 43% voting no.

# 49 Washington - Same-sex marriage is not recognized in Washington state

# 50 West Virginia - DOMA adopted as state law

# 51 Wisconsin - 2004-2006 : in both Wisconsin State Senate and Wisconsin State Assembly, double vote in order needed to put the subject on the ballot. November 7, 2006: Wisconsin voters pass the amendment by a margin of 59%-41%.[17]

# 52 Wyoming - State law bans same-sex marriage and pre-dates DOMA laws

Doc,


Actually my first point applied to 12 of those assertions. Just think about it a bit.

You see its not about bigotry or any other hysterical claim, its about responding in a rational manner, one which fits the times in which we live. We don't practice blood letting neither should we make scientific claims based on feeling. You cant feel something, then try to make science fit it. Just as I roll my eyes at Christians attempting to make scientific curriculum out of the Bible, this is also absurd.

I agree with Dave on the idea that the issue should be about freedom of choice in this case not about claims of biological proclivity.

Its silly to think that one is born to like one specific appendage but not others. What about knocked knees or large chests or buffalo humps; will we discover scientific evidence that there are those who are born to be with individuals with those characteristics? Its foolish when you think about it.

As for your comment on homosexuals being "cured", all sexual compulsions have a low rate of "rehabilitation". While some who may have for instance lived as child molesters MAY change, it is nearly impossible to change them. So no the issue is not about curing anyone. The issue is just that let us not loose our minds over the fact that we have no way to prove that homosexuality is not a choice, like other preferences.

RJ--

You argue both sides of an issue without being firmly committed to either. You alternate calm, considerate discussion points ['I'm for civil unions'] with ludicrous controversy-bombs [pretending to argue that homosexuality is curable, pretending you'll be called a bigot for your pro-civil-unions stance, pretending Democrats have a 'hidden agenda' in league with the 'MSM' to 'force' gay marriage on Americans].

You wouldn't perhaps be a...law student, would you? And possibly a...young, unmarried male? Recovering frat-boy Dittohead?

You're obviously intelligent. Why insist on hiding it half the time?

And trotting out, at tedious length, every lopsided gay-marriage referendum held in the last few years conveniently ignores the most salient facts about these exercises in 'pure democracy.' They are always instigated by religious-right opponents of gay marriage, and virtually none of them involved civil unions. Which most Americans would support. Even you.

In other words, the ballot initiatives you quote as if they are significant are deck-stacking demagoguery of the most appalling kind. They prove nothing, other than the odious nature of the people who write and promote them.

RJ;
What's up with this obssession you have regarding homosexuality?
(MCH)

Zedd, you sometimes talk a lot of sense but on this gay issue you seem to be deliberately making no sense. It's not a question of being born to prefer a particular appendage and it is blatantly deceptive of you to refer to this subject in these terms. Are heterosexuals then just interested in vaginas rather than the whole woman?

It's a simple statistical fact that in any large group of people there will be a broad spread of interests whether the subject is sexuality or any other aspect of humanity; it's called the bell curve and is typical of a huge range of human qualities and characteristics.

As to paedophiles, they are not usually born that way but become like that through either abuse or poor reaction to early sexual experience. It is indeed possible to fix that quality, as it is caused by damage.

From what I've observed, Chris, consensus among the shrink/therapist community is that it's almost impossible to "fix" (i.e. cure) pedophiles of their attraction to children. Where did you get information that it is possible to a percentage that would make it a viable process?

I think I understand what Zedd is saying in maintaining gayness is a voluntary cultural choice, just like any other preference. If she means it the way I think she does, I might agree. She's referring not to the programmed attraction to same-gender persons, but to the gay culture itself, including identification with self of same. Do I have that right, Zedd? Well, that makes sense to me. I don't think anyone can deny their DNA-wired inner proclivities (I like cute guys, m'self & would rather not change), but adopting the openly (or even closet) gay lifestyle & philosophies & all the baggage that comes with it is voluntary - as is going with the hetero lifestyle, or the abstinent celibate lifestyle, etc.

Ref: consenting adults & variations on who comprises a "family", my understanding of objections to polygamy is that those practising it currently tend to do so in such a way as to burden the public with support of their numerous kids & wives; also that underage girls are involved, and/or women are pressured into it. That being the case, no it should not be allowed. However, if a guy can support two or more households, and the women are of age, fully advised, mutually consenting adults - why not? For that matter, why not polyandry as well? I knew/know some folks who happen to consist of 2 guys & a gal. Good folks, good jobs, responsible citizens, etc. - & they're happy. T'ain't none of my business what they do once they close their doors. As long as they don't do it in the streets & scare the kids & animals, ain't anybody's business what they do.

The objection to bestiality & pedophilia, of course, is that the other party (an animal or child) is NOT in any way a consenting adult. Both are easily manipulated, intimidated, or physically forced into the situation. Hence neither one will ever qualify for social approbation or inclusion, where poly-whatever just might.

Kind of like prostitution: if a woman wants to do it, then license her, impose certain requirements (like health inspections) - & good luck to her. The trouble comes when a pimp rears his ugly head, or drugs or coercion or organized crime become involved. I should think otherwise, it would be just another business, & probably a good thing for everybody if it were legalized but regulated, & carried out by people who really did want to do it - altho for the life of me, I can't think why any woman would want to, but that's just my feelings about it.

Nancy, maybe that says more about the standard of therapists, many of whom are far more bonkers than those they seek to help, rather than the impossibility of healing damaged people. I don't have any statistical evidence to present but it doesn't take a huge amount of insight to see the difference between people who are damaged and people who are simply outside the mainstream.

Mmmmmmnnnnnoooo...I wish I was any good at finding statistics, but I do read a lot of criminal psychology, etc. & every article on the subject, & the studies, conclude that the recidivism rate of pedophiles is so high they are basically unrehabible, so to speak. It was for this very reason that all the laws establishing sex crime - especially pedophile - public notifications (of where such criminals, once released, settle to live, etc.) have come about, even in the face of court challenges that it violates offenders' civil rights, privacy, etc. Every case so far has failed because the public's right to know has been deemed to over-ride the offenders rights, especially where children are concerned. And in that respect, the law is absolutely right. And of course, pedophiles go on to create other pedophiles by the kids they themselves molest. I'll see what I can find, but I'm not very good at internet digging. If I can just remember the name of one of the main authors....

Well - hit gold first time out. Googled "Recidivism among sex offenders" & got the 1994 DOJ report plus some Wikipedia summations plus a few more. I have it backwards: per the DOJ, sex offenders have a relatively LOW rate of recidivism, not more than 12.something %, & since the establishment of the national sex offender registry, it has fallen even lower, to a 2004 reported rate (in Georgia, at least) of 5.7%. Unfortunately, this report doesn't say whether or if any or all of the offenders got psychiatric help while in prison or not. I rather suspect not. Nor does it indicate whether the recidivism rate is so low because they are on court-ordered so-called 'castration' drugs to eliminate their sex drives, or not. Interesting. I wonder how I could have gotten my reading so misinterpreted? Totally unexpected. Maybe I was just reading old stats rehashed into new reports?

Two other possible factors which may be causing the low recidivism rate:

1. On release, most serious sex offenders are placed under extremely close parole supervision;
2. Perhaps there is more recidivism, but the offenders are very careful not to get caught second time around.

jesus. let's not get on pedophelia. it's got nothing to do with this.

rj, if you're for all the rights that civil unions impart, why bother with a word? what's the point?

zedd, you should know better.