Today on Blogcritics
Home » Democratic Candidates Fail the Gay Marriage Test

Democratic Candidates Fail the Gay Marriage Test

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

You would think that in their desire to win the White House and control two of the three branches of government the Democratic candidates would be making some effort to differentiate themselves from the Republicans and seize the high moral ground and attract disenchanted voters. When literally handed a golden opportunity to stand up for something meaningful, you would think that they would grab it with both hands.

Well, that golden prize was offered to them in Los Angeles on Thursday and they gawked at it like scared children, covered their asses and ran for safety.

All of the Democratic candidates except for Biden and Dodd appeared Thursday night at a forum held by the Human Rights Campaign and the gay cable network Logo. Questions were asked by noted gay activist and musician Melissa Etheridge, two gay journalists and the director of the HRC. The format was much more formal than a debate, with each candidate coming in separately to answer questions from the panel, with no direct interaction with their opponents.

Not surprisingly, among other questions on gay rights issues, they were asked where they stood on gay marriage. This was their chance to make a statement that would set them apart from the crowd, but what we got from the major candidates was hemming and hawing, half-measures and confusion. What we didn't get was any of the front-runners even coming close to endorsing gay marriage, though the two   fringe candidates, Kucinich and Gravel  who have little to lose by taking risks, did step up in support. The rest more or less endorsed the idea of civil unions, a position so uncontroversial that it's shared by President Bush and most of the major Republican candidates. Bill Richardson continued his plummet from most promising candidate to biggest disappointment by making an unasked for comment about homosexuality being a choice and then retracting it after the forum was over.

Other questions were handled a bit better, including all of the candidates agreeing that it was time to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. Hillary Clinton did a reasonable job selling the idea that she had changed her position, despite her uninspiring record which includes a vote in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act. Richardson also turned in an honest but not terribly reassuring defense of his vote for the act on the basis that it was a cynical political tactic to head off an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment.

Barack Obama came closer than any other candidate to supporting gay marriage – and viewer polling suggests he was the winner with the target audience – when he made the convincing argument that marriage was a church sacrament and that the government should stay out of marriage altogether as a matter of separation of church and state. It wasn't exactly support for gay marriage, but it's as close as any candidate came that night.

The unwillingness of the other candidates to take a strong position, or come up with a good explanation for their past actions, makes me wonder what they expected to be asked when they came to a forum sponsored by a gay rights group and a gay cable network. I suspect that Biden and Dodd, who hold some of the most socially conservative positions of the group, realized the trouble they could get into and were wise to follow the lead of the Republican candidates (who were also invited) and stay away. Given the nature of their answers, Clinton and Edwards and Richardson might have been wiser to join them as well.

The nation desperately needs leadership from someone of high ideals who has a core set of beliefs and holds to them regardless of whether they test well in focus groups. The President's job is to make decisions, and to do that effectively you need to believe in something more than just winning an election. In this campaign that quality of leadership seems to be missing from most of the major candidates in both parties. I'd be happy just to see a major candidate from either party whose positions don't look like they were formed by a committee of lawyers.

Look at the approval ratings of Congress (24%) and the President (29%). 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. This was their chance to take a stand on an issue that a lot of people care about, stake out the moral high ground and set themselves above the pack, and no one with more than 2% in the polls wanted to take even this mildly controversial position. If they cannot lead on an issue like this, how can we expect them to lead on more critical issues?

Now voters are left wondering whether there is any candidate who has the necessary qualities to be the kind of president the nation needs.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070808/cm_thenation/45221001 Cindy D

    “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.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • Nancy

    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.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    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.

  • Nancy

    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?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    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.

  • http://adreamersholiday.blogspot.com Lee Richards

    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.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • Baronius

    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.

  • Nancy

    Good point, B.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    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.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    #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?

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    …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.

  • Dr Dreadful

    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…

  • http://benefitofthedoubt.miksimum.com/ Jesse

    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.

  • Dr Dreadful

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

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • Arch Conservative

    “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.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    #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?

  • Lumpy

    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.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    it’s the brimstone aftershave that gives it all away…

    Excelsior?

  • http://www.youpolls.com PollM

    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

  • Dr Dreadful

    #21: Speaking of ideologically hidebound…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    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…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    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.

  • zingzing

    “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.]

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • Arch Conservative

    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.

  • Clavos

    “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.

  • STM

    Not out on the harbour this morning Clav?

  • Clavos

    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.

  • http://www.icmpa.umd.edu/pages/studies/transparency/main.html Cindy D

    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?”

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

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

    Dave

  • Zedd

    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.

  • bhumika

    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

  • REMF

    “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)

  • Zedd

    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.

  • Zedd

    Clav

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

    Not the world of civic minded patriots.

  • Clavos

    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.”

  • Zedd

    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.

  • Clavos

    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.

  • http://www.libertyrepublican.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    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… :-/

  • Clavos

    “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?

  • http://www.libertyrepublican.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • REMF

    “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?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    No, it’s the hideous suits.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/heloise Heloise

    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

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • Zedd

    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.

  • Zedd

    Inteded to say, Dave’s added, exaggerated figures would…

  • 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.”

    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.

  • Dr Dreadful

    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.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    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.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    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.

  • Zedd

    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.

  • Zedd

    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!

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • Zedd

    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.

  • Zedd

    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.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • Clavos

    “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.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

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

    Dave

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    ‘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.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    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.”

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    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.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • Dr Dreadful

    Zedd,

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

  • Clavos

    “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.

  • Dr Dreadful

    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.

  • Dr Dreadful

    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.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    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.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    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…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “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.

  • Dr Dreadful

    #76 – RJ:

    Nice try, but… no.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “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…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    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?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    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.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    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?

  • Egbert Sousé

    “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.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    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.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    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?

  • Egbert Sousé

    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.

  • Clavos

    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.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    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!!!

  • Dr Dreadful

    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.

  • Dr Dreadful

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

  • Clavos

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

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    re the “slippery slope” argument…

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

    Excelsior?

  • STM

    What, and multiply the nagging seven fold?

    You’re better off with one mate.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “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…

  • Clavos

    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”

  • Dr Dreadful

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

    Sheesh…

  • Clavos

    Thanks for the reality check, Stan.

    What WAS I thinking???

  • Egbert Sousé

    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?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    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… :-/

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    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.

  • Dr Dreadful

    All great questions, RJ.

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

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    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?

  • http://www.libertyrepublican.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • Clavos

    Oy.

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

    It’s just a contract, RJ.

  • Dr Dreadful

    #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.

  • http://www.libertyrepublican.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    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?

  • Dr Dreadful

    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.

  • Egbert Sousé

    “#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.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    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

  • Zedd

    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.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    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?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    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.

  • REMF

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

  • http://www.robot-of-the-week.com Christopher Rose

    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.

  • Nancy

    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.

  • http://www.robot-of-the-week.com Christopher Rose

    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.

  • Nancy

    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….

  • Nancy

    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?

  • Dr Dreadful

    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.

  • zingzing

    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.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Now handy, let’s not get down on the frat boys. We had a couple of gay members in our frat and it was no big deal – we even made one president – and that was 30 years ago. Of course most of our members were so stoned and drunk they probably didn’t notice that the president was gay.

    Dave

  • Zedd

    Nancy,

    On the mark. I’m not sure if my preference for dark men is hard wired though. I would guess that it has something to do with my first boyfriend at 12yrs old or the Western images of brute stregnth (grrr) vs purity and delicateness :o).

    I think the gentlemen think that I am making an emotional/religious/moral evaluation. You seem have the best grasp of what I am saying.

    As for the lack of awarness about sexual compulsions and their “grip”, it is these sort of things that make it difficult to converse further than simply making light generalities. How do you begin a deeper discussion if the basic premise is not known and is thought to be a point of conjecture?

  • Zedd

    Zing,

    YOU should know better. The truth is that you don’t even know what I am talking about.

    You think that I am talking about right vs wrong or good vs evil, I am no where there.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    the basic premise is an Individuals right to assemble as they see fit in order to further their own Pursuit of Happiness

    in the purely legal and secular arena of a marriage license and all the rights and responsibilities pertaining to such…ALL folks should enjoy equal protection under the Law

    all the rest is just bullshit trying to emotionally charge a straight forward civil rights Issues

    hope that helps…

    Excelsior?

  • Clavos

    I’d sya (or say – it’s been a long day) that was pretty straightforward, gonzo…

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    I do agree that discussion of child-molesters is way off-topic here – even looking beyond the obvious fact that most child molesters are straight.

  • zingzing

    zedd: “The truth is that you don’t even know what I am talking about.”

    unless you’re speaking in code, i think i get it. you believe that homosexuality is a choice, and therefore should be treated as such. right? i don’t see you making any moral judgments, nor did i say you were.

    still, you know as well as the rest of us that people like rj use such an argument as an excuse. a certain percentage of rj’s ilk will use that excuse to deny equality to homosexuals.

    when all the scientific evidence (excluding rj’s quoted material, which is bunk,) points in the other direction (ie–it’s not a choice), why do you stick by your opinion? you asked for proof that you were wrong, it was given to you, and yet you still stick by it.

    your opinion is wrong. your opinion is used by some people (not necessarily you) to deny rights to others. you should know better.

  • Zedd

    Christopher,

    Let me help you with this.

    The issue is sexual orientation. If the issue was that homosexuals are attracted to one type (personality type) of person then your point would be valid. Homosexuals are attracted to their same gender (SEX) and a variety of people within that gender.

    We know that besides the emotional and spiritual levels of attraction between human beings there is another which makes a huge difference, it is the sexual one. Without it we would all be plutonic and love one another as brothers and sisters. This attraction has something to do with the organs that we possess and we want to use them (I know cringe) with the person whom we find attractive.

    Now we know that what makes gays different is not that they seek kinder people, wittier people or richer people. We also know that gay men don’t necessarily seek masculine people or females feminine people because in many cases they exhibit qualities of the opposite sex (so gay males are not necessarily attracted to maleness because many gay males act feminine) however they are attracted to what makes the person a male, the appendage.

    Does that help you understand how I came to the appendage thingy?

    Please continue, I do want to get a better perspective on this issue.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Zedd –

    You should recognize that whether you are using the argument that way or not [and I’m not yet convinced you’re not], ‘homosexuality is a choice’ is a position used by political opponents of gay rights to further their agenda. It’s not even about facts for them; it’s about casting us as conscious deviants, therefore unworthy of constitutional protection. We chose to do this distasteful/sinful thing, and therefore ‘gay rights = special privileges for misbehavior.’

    At the very least, take my word for this much: It’s not a conscious choice. It’s not a decision. The only decision involved is whether to live a lie concerning the condition that’s already present.

    This is how nearly all gay people feel. Will you please try to understand and respect that? Thank you.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    doesn’t matter if it’s choice or genetics..that’s a distraction…

    it’s about Equal Protection under the Law, a civil rights matter…and as such it just doesn’t matter who is getting legally married under the secular contract of the license…

    don’t fall for the distractions, imo

    Excelsior?

  • Clavos

    ONE MORE TIME (with a nod to gonzo):

    NO ONE SHOULD BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED UNDER THE LAW.

    I’ll stop shouting now.

  • Zedd

    Zing

    I haven’t read RJ’s posts.

    I also haven’t read any evidence which proves that prefering someone or any part of someone is biological. Neither have you.

    You see its not about people like RJ. Its about reason. If we get all worked up and irrational just to counter every kook out there then we loose. A la being angry at Osama and bombing Bagdad. The reason that Bush and Co can come up with all of that bull and the inhabitants of the most developed nation on Earth since its conception, just nod like drones is because no one THINKS anymore. If it sounds official then it must be real (drool, drool).

    Zing were you born to like your favorite color? Were you born to like your favorite movie. You cant even claim to be born to like women. You just like them. What about tall ones or round ones or whatever. Where does it start and where does it end. Its silly.

    The truth is we don’t even have a measure of what gayness is. There is a continuum of sexual atractedness by gender. Many if not most who are straight have thought about homosexual sex. What does that mean? Many who are gay have had and thought about straight sex. What does that mean? Most people have masterbated (excuse the crudenss). What are they? What does that mean? It means that humans like sex. THAT IS ALL. THAT is what we are born to be. THAT IS ALL. Get your intellectual pride back man! The rest of the pseudo science is garbage. Its like rattling chicken bones.

    The reason that human societies have remained straight for the many milenia is because there was no real benefit, “evolutionarily speaking”.
    Now that we can do a lot of what we FEEL like doing, we do.

  • Zedd

    Clavos,

    Is it about the RIGHT to use the word MARRIED?

    What kind of obserdity is that? Why does it matter so much to USE the word.

  • Zedd

    Gonzo,

    It’s a distraction from what REALLY?

    Please share what meaningful thing we are loosing mind of?

    It certainly isn’t civil rights.

    What important issue are we being distracted from?

    Is it that gays want to be able to use the WORD married? Is that THE hot issue here?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    that whether you are straight or gay or bi or whatever is COMPLETELY irrelevant when it comes to all sharing the same right to enter into a secular contract with equal protection under the Law

    that’s the part you keep missing, Zedd

    it IS a civil rights issue

    you see, i am NOT talking about what a church says..i’m speaking simply of the secular contract that comes from a civil issues marriage license

    just…that…simple

    we’ve done this dance before, and you have the right to your Opinion…as i have the Right to mine

    i’m merely stating that the basic Issue is one of civil rights and equal protection…ANYTHING else is distraction, imo

    can’t make it any plainer than that

    Excelsior?

  • zingzing

    zedd: “The reason that human societies have remained straight for the many milenia is because there was no real benefit, “evolutionarily speaking”.”

    but that’s simply not true. homosexuality has always been around. go look it up.

    and yeah, i believe that i am biologically programmed to like women, and that there are some men who are biologically programmed to like men. it’s not a choice at all. i don’t know what i would choose, as i’ve never been presented with the choice.

    you know what? i’d bet you are bisexual. it may be a choice for you which way you lean, but that’s because you have both tendencies. a lot of people don’t. it’s just a theory, but you aren’t understanding the truth of the situation.

    handyguy is gay. i am straight. we didn’t make a choice, we just do what is biologically natural.

  • Zedd

    Zing,

    You missed the entire point.

    Your saying I am bisexual is a sign of your own exasperation. It neither adds or detracts from SIMPLE facts. Your claims of supernatural knowledge of biology based on FEELING is belittling to you and contributes to an assurance of your enability to reason beyond popular hype.

    You don’t know if you were BORN to like women. You just do. I don’t know why I like men. I don’t know why I like tall really dark men with rectangular heads and wavy black hair (to be specific). I cant claim a knowledge of some genetic “thing” which makes them so cute to me. They just are.

    You also missed the fact that I said “human SOCIETIES” not individuals or individual acts. Remember its me who said that humans just like sex. They have and will boink anything and anyone. Heck is there a predisposition to sex with animals. Many farm boys around the world since when when have endulged. What do we call that?

    Zing it is silly. Just accept that people will have sex any kind of way. To officialize it and make a big deal out of it is actually deminishing to people who like to have sex with the same gender. It makes them other than. Because (pay attention and don’t get emotional…) IF it is genetic, then something is wrong with them genetically. Like Downs Syndrome is genetic. While kids with Downs are ADORABLE the gene which caused their condition is an anomoly. The same would then be true for gays. If it is genetic, then they are defective. The human organs fit a certain way and theirs don’t work properly. Their “orientation” does not match their sexual organs so something is wrong with them. THAT is much worse than, “If they CHOOSE to do that fine have at it. Do what you WANT to do”.

    The biology stuff actually backfires. So let it go AND it makes NO SENSE.

  • Zedd

    Gonzo,

    I hope you ate your Wheaties. Put on your thinking cap…. ready?

    No one stops gays from participating in the current arrangement of marriage. They can participate ANYTIME they choose to.

    Now don’t get emotional, THINK.

    On the converse….

    There are millions of women around the world who don’t like sex (at all), I suppose we would call them asexual but like the institution of marriage so they marry, and have babies.

    There are those who are asexual and never marry. They don’t want to be in that sort of relationship with anyone, male or female.

    Would we say that marriage discriminates against asexual people? NO. We would say that asexual people who choose not to marry, CHOOSE it.

    People who proclaim themselves to be homosexual (and actually that’s all we can go by is THEIR proclamation, they don’t get tested), they can marry. They don’t because they don’t want to. They don’t want to be in that sort of a relationship with a person of the opposite gender. Marriage is available to them but they don’t WANT it.

    There is no discrimination.

    They can have something different from marriage (which it would be, different that is, in a number of ways other than the obvious). They can call it whatever they want and get the same rights.

    Where is the problem??

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    Zedd…attempting to be condescending towards me scores you negative points…

    YOU THINK about this…

    a couple, with kids each from previous marriages, commits and stays together for years…raising their kids

    one goes into the hospital..the partner AND some of the children are NOT allowed visitation, nor can the partner aid in medical decisions…if one dies, insurance will not pay out to the Family other than the blood children

    there’s a ton more examples of the Rights and Responsibilities inherent in the purely secular contract of a marriage license…

    why should ANY legally consenting adult be denied said rights and responsibilities?

    WHO could possibly be harmed by recognizing these Rights for EVERYONE?

    we’ve done this dance before, the silliness of your arguments as well as the repetition of fallacy and poor thinking that gets used in discussing this Issue is boring and fruitless

    NO emotion…pure Reason and the Constitution as well as the Declaration…

    NO argument against recognizing these Rights for everyone has EVER been made that shows how anyone is harmed by recognizing them…or why their Rights in this matter should be discriminated against due to their orientations

    pure civil rights Issue, equal protection under the Law

    nuff said

    Excelsior?

  • Clavos

    “Zedd…attempting to be condescending towards me scores you negative points…”

    You’re not alone, gonzo, you’re not alone…

    She’s an equal opportunity condescender.

    And you know something? I don’t think it’s deliberate. I think she doesn’t even realize that’s how it comes off.

  • Zedd

    handyguy,

    What evil nasty people think is neither here or there.

    I know that you are compelled to live the life that you live. If you were in my life I would love you completely without any hezitation. If you were efeminate I would love you more (you’ve heard about how women love gay guys)and if you were masculine I would wish you were not gay (really badly).

    You see I think it is more crippling to focus on the genetic argument. Gays could usher in a new age of general tolerance by simply saying WHATEVER the reason I am here, I love, I give, I dream and I will live my life abundantly! Care to join me?

    The focus on genetics only says, something went wrong in the womb or the genes and gays are deformed people. You are just people. You don’t want to marry and live like people have for thousands of years. DONT. Do YOUR thing.

    However you have to understand that it is also not right to say to the world, stop being this one thing because we want to be that thing too even if we are not. Marriage is a union between people of the oposite sex. That union comes with a lot of stuff. People of oposite genders relate differently. The traditions that have occured because of those differences over the ages, the myths, the jokes, the expectations will no longer be there. Marriage WILL be something different. The physiological realities of marrage will no longer exist. The unique emotional components of marriage that come with gender issues will cease. It will all END. Marriage will be anyone not male and female. Simple things like group therapy for married people couldl not deal with gender issues in marriage (that would be discriminatory), even if gender issues play a large roll in marriage (currently). I list only a few complexities…

    WHY though?

    Because gays want to use the WORD?

    Come on HANDY.

  • Zedd

    Gonzo,

    I was joking.

    Breath fellow.

    Civil unions would erase all of that garbage. I think we’ve established this before.

    If civil unions are legalized than hospitals would be in jeopardy because of tax issues if they denied domestic partners with a civil union.

    Does that solve your issue or is there something that I am missing.

  • Zedd

    Well yes I do condescend with Clav. I can’t help it. But only when I am kidding around.

    When I am serious and I sense he is serious I really don’t.

    However it’s my way of sparring. So be prepared for the cut and thrust or take your gloves home.

  • zingzing

    zedd: “Your saying I am bisexual is a sign of your own exasperation. It neither adds or detracts from SIMPLE facts.”

    maybe. it was just a theory. for some reason you don’t understand what most people understand. bisexuality might be a reason. shrug.

    “Your claims of supernatural knowledge of biology based on FEELING is belittling to you and contributes to an assurance of your enability to reason beyond popular hype.”

    i don’t feel belittled, not do i think that there is anything supernatural going on here. in fact, i think it’s quite natural. that’s my point.

    “You don’t know if you were BORN to like women. You just do.”

    true. why? i don’t know. maybe because it’s just the way i am. which, of course, is my point. why is it that you say something and it backs up your point, but i say the same thing and it backs up mine?

    “I cant claim a knowledge of some genetic “thing” which makes them so cute to me. They just are.”

    nope. you can’t claim any knowledge as to why you like men. you just do. it’s biological.

    “You also missed the fact that I said “human SOCIETIES” not individuals or individual acts.”

    wait, now whole societies are having sex? or are they just heterosexual? when did that happen? care to explain? homosexuality has been prevelant throughout history. that’s all i was saying. you said, “Now that we can do a lot of what we FEEL like doing, we do.” sounds to me like you are saying that homosexuality is something new. or there was some biological/social imperitive to procreate which is no longer in effect… and that’s just silly.

    “Remember its me who said that humans just like sex. They have and will boink anything and anyone.”

    true, but why do some people only like the opposite sex, and others only the same? do they weigh the options? or are they simply attracted to one or the other? what creates that attraction? is it like taste in music?

    “Heck is there a predisposition to sex with animals. Many farm boys around the world since when when have endulged. What do we call that?”

    opportunity. or lack thereof.

    “Zing it is silly. Just accept that people will have sex any kind of way.”

    i understand that! but why is there homo and heterosexuality? why do people only do one or the other? why isn’t the whole world just an orgy?

    “To officialize it and make a big deal out of it is actually deminishing to people who like to have sex with the same gender. It makes them other than.”

    nah, just different.

    “Because (pay attention and don’t get emotional…) IF it is genetic, then something is wrong with them genetically. Like Downs Syndrome is genetic.”

    or like race?

    “If it is genetic, then they are defective.”

    in pure biological terms, that could be a true statement.

    “THAT is much worse than, “If they CHOOSE to do that fine have at it. Do what you WANT to do”.”

    i’m not really saying anything different. no one HAS TO go and have sex with anyone/thing. i believe it to be a issue of genetics that no one has any control over, like race, height or hair color. so any discrimination is just pure discrimination.

    you can go ahead and believe it is a choice (although why anyone, male or female, would choose men over women is beyong me) as long as you don’t discriminate because of it.

  • zingzing

    sigh… like it or not, zedd, it’s the word “marriage” that is holding back equal rights for everybody. we can all tell that you are not a bigot, but you are in effect, if not intent, part of what holds that equality back.

    sure, you could say that the gay population is just as responsible, but i think you would know that was a lie. they just want equality. and equality by any other name is not spelled the same.

  • Zedd

    Zing,

    I’ll give you a chance to punch holes in all of your assertions. They are there.

    I like you so much and think you are adorable so i cant do it.

    The issue if rights will be taken care of by civil unions. Equal rights will be available.

    What is left is the use of the WORD. Which is the real issue.

    Side note: I find it funny that so many men want to rush to marriage. I’d be interested to see how cool those civil unions will be after the social difience thing wears off. I’m guessing that 40yrs after CUs are enacted that they wont be such a hot thing. I’d guess they will be a pull mainly for old lonely guys.

  • http://benefitofthedoubt.miksimum.com/ Jesse

    As a reasoning intellectual, Zedd, you should know that “marriage” is loaded with cultural weight, and denying gay couples the right to the “word” also denies them the benefits and distinctions that the institution confers.

    “Civil Unions” is not an equivalent to “marriage” in any sense, because a union has no cultural weight. Thousands of privileges await a couple bonded in a socially-recognized long-term contract. Insurance, taxation, adoption, visitation, inheritance, proxy decision-making… these are all systems formed around the idea of a matrimonial bond, and they will continue to exclude gay couples who are signed into “civil unions.”

    You should know the power of language in determining social customs and habits. If a homosexual tries to visit a partner in a Southern hospital, a “civil union” won’t mean anything. The person at the desk will vigorously deny the partner and children any access, and the problem will only be solved in a cumbersome, expensive civil suit, after the fact. No matter how clear the language is in favor of rights of civil unions, the basic cultural conceptions will always dictate the treatment of gay couples, and these conceptions will be driven by the language.

    The only way for gay couples to find their way into the healthy American conception of a family is to crack open the language and distinction of matrimony. Legal clauses don’t secure equality, no matter how verbose and specific you make them.

  • http://benefitofthedoubt.miksimum.com/ Jesse

    You’ve hinted at another interesting possibility, Zedd… what if Americans got tired of an antiquated “marriage” institution and started getting civil unions en masse? That would be a beautiful civic solution to this stupid problem.

    One thing is for sure… as long as the gay community is denied access to marriage, then I’m never going to get married. At best, I’ll get a civil union, myself. And I’ll spend the rest of my life hoping that the rest of the country, gay and straight, will follow suit.

  • Egbert Sousé

    “Why does it matter so much to USE the word.”

    Zedd, if words don’t matter, then I am hard pressed to understand why you were upset with a word Don Imus used. Or are you the sole arbiter of what words mean and whether they should matter?

    Just as you claimed most whites didn’t fully understand that situation, it’s obvious you don’t understand this one.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    It’s no use. I will no longer even attempt a [typewritten!] conversation with someone who can neither think nor spell.

  • Zedd

    Jesse

    So its not about civil rights.

    Marriage has earned the cultural weight. The weight that it has gained cant be high jacked by those that want to benefit from it. Its like wanting to be called CEO because it sounds good without having ANY qualifications for it.

    Marriages while they are difficult have ushered human beings through the melinia and the elements which they consist of forged by the genders and their differences have allowed them to sustain our species.

    Just wanting a piece of this particular pie out of nowhere is not acceptable.

    A cat wanting to be called a dog because there are more dog lovers and dogs are called man’s best friend doesn’t make a cat a dog. Not biologically, not socially, ITS NOT A DOG.

    People of the same gender will never be a mom and a dad or a husband and a wife. That is what marriage is.

    What you are saying in essence is that gays are throwing a tantrum and want to dismantle an institution because they just want to. Sort of if we can’t have it no one can? If our relationships cant be respected then no one’s will?

    What is silly is that you know that when gays get married their union will be referred to as a gay marriage. There is and always be a distinction. There will have to be. As someone who is familiar with the social sciences, names matter. The distinctions that define cultural phenomena must be made and will always be made. Nomenclature is standard in language and in science. Calling everything no matter how different the same thing is stupid. Two men are not the same as a man and a woman together. Pretending as if that is the case is ridiculous.

    We are so weak as a society and so pliable mentally. Any fool can come by with a notion and in a decade, we believe. Whether one is gay or straight, the push should be for reason, not weird psycho babble and pseudo science.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    “People of the same gender will never be a mom and a dad or a husband and a wife.”

    wow….

    so gender matters in care giving roles? so who gets to make the decisions as to who gets on top of whom and plays husband?

    all that aside, it’s all bullshit, and some folks need to seek professional counseling for their problems…

    it IS a basic matter of civil rights, it IS a simple matter of equal protections…is IS a simple matter of being NOBODY else’s business

    it IS a matter of NO one still being able to show or give good cause why folks should not have equal protection in this matter

    but yas knew that…

    Excelsior?

  • Zedd

    Handyguy,

    I didn’t check my spelling. However, if you have something bring it. But it’s clear you don’t so you are using my spelling or misspelling as a reason for your bowing out.

    We both know that you don’t really believe that I can’t think.

    Women know these things about men. It’s okay.
    Did you know that in marriage women know this about men. You often turn things around trying to put someone down but you actually end up revealing your insecurities. I suppose that is one of the benefits of men marrying. Everyone is dense but thinks they are great.

  • Zedd

    Gonzo

    “so gender matters in care giving roles?”

    YES.

  • Zedd

    Egbert,

    Help us all….

    We are not discussing name calling.

    What are you on about?

  • Zedd

    Zing

    You cant believe a scientific occurance into being. You need strong evidence. There is none. That is the bottom line now isn’t it.

    Again, you will have to provide it (strong scientific evidence), then provide scientific evidence for genentic causes for all other likes and dislikes.

    Its just silly.

  • Clavos

    The word “marriage” refers to a type of relationship, in which two people cleave together because they love each other, NOT to the sex of the participants or any other physical aspect of the coupling; just the relationship.

    One of the purposes of marriage is to create a family unit, raising children, training them, instilling in them the values the couple holds, and finally sending them forth into the world to lead their own lives and start the cycle over again.

    No part of this description precludes that the couple be same sex; everything above can and has been engaged in and successfully achieved by gay couples, often better and with more empathy and love (for each other and for their children) than can be found in many heterosexual marriages.

    Nothing in what constitutes a marriage decrees that it MUST be between a man and a woman,except in the bible, a book which contains many good lessons and advice, but which is also replete with many bizarre and apocryphal ideas which are little more than legends, bearing little or no resemblance to reality, either ancient or modern.

    It is telling as well, that virtually everyone participating in this debate, except for two people, is in agreement regarding the basic premise; that it’s a question of equality of rights under the Constitution and structure of law by which our society is organized and governed.

  • Clavos

    “Women know these things about men. It’s okay.
    Did you know that in marriage women know this about men. You often turn things around trying to put someone down but you actually end up revealing your insecurities. I suppose that is one of the benefits of men marrying. Everyone is dense but thinks they are great.”

    Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable.

    If a guy had written this, with the “man” and “woman” references reversed, he would be accused, rightfully, of sexism by every woman who read it.

    Gonzo, what was that about condescension?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    @ # 156 – so you are stating that according to you, gender matters in care giver roles…

    i’ll say the same as you did earlier to others, show your proof

    but besides that, i’ll leave you be…since i refuse to even try and discuss matters with folks who harbor what i consider distasteful prejudice as well as sexist attitudes as evidenced by many comments made in this thread

    Excelsior?

  • Egbert Sousé

    I don’t have the time required to clear up all that you don’t understand. Suffice it to say, even in this thread you can’t decide if words matter or not.

    #135 – Why does it matter so much to USE the word.

    Then you change.

    #153 – names matter.

    I am sure you won’t see it and will explain yourself in a long convoluted answer.

  • Dr Dreadful

    You cant believe a scientific occurance into being. You need strong evidence. There is none. That is the bottom line now isn’t it.

    If the thirteen scientific studies I referred you to don’t constitute strong evidence, than I don’t know what does. The problem is that you appeared to deliberately misinterpret the studies’ findings.

    Again, you will have to provide it (strong scientific evidence), then provide scientific evidence for genetic causes for all other likes and dislikes […] Its just silly.

    No, Zedd, your demand is silly, and unreasonable. It’s as if you were demanding proof that the tyrannosaurus rex was extinct, and refusing to accept the evidence until it was also proven to you, on an individual basis, that every other prehistoric species was also extinct.

    Your assertion that gayness is a choice is more extraordinary than the scientific consensus that it is predetermined. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you.

  • Zedd

    Egbert

    I don’t mean to be rude but you are out of your league on this one. Maybe next time

  • Clavos

    The hell you don’t.

  • Zedd

    Gonzo,

    Gosh do we have to do this? If the genders are socialized differently, then they will parent differently. If the genders are biologically different then they will BE different. It’s a good thing. While the tendency in the 70’s was to dispel our differences in or to make points for the women’s rights camps, we denied some basics (much like we are doing in this movement). We are different.

    Without getting all text book and boring, there are biological differences in males and females. Our brains have differences. Our physiological processes are different; what happens to us physiologically when dealing with the same stimuli is different. Surely you know this and I won’t bother to provide proof because it would degrade the integrity of the people engaging in this conversation. It would mean that we are not equipped to have such a discussion as we don’t have the basic knowledge to function intelligently in such a dialogue.

    How we manage spatial issues. What we notice and don’t notice. If anything is inborn that is.

    I abhor rightness politics, where society is required to change in order to prove a point which has nothing to do with the need for change. The Republicans did it to us and the country dummied down. The Dems did it to us and now we ignore science and vehemently spout juju voodoo ideas thinking we are being open-minded, caring and evolved. It’s just the opposite.

  • Nancy

    I’m indebted to Clavos (as usual) for defining “marriage” for me. I always thought ‘marriage’ per se meant some kind of religious, church/synagogue-blessed ceremony on top of the civil union the State authorized the church/synagogue to validate through said ceremony. But then, hetero couples get married all the time in non-religious ceremonies by JPs & court clerks – so…what exactly IS ‘marriage’ as such that we’re discussing here? It seems to me that a JP or court marriage between two heteros is the same as a civil union. Should one of them go to the hospital, & the hospital deny visitation or treatment decision rights, all hell would (rightfully) break loose. So…now I’m confused again. If it’s valid as legal tender, so to speak, for heteros, why not also for gays, & why is it any more “second class” to have a civil union via a JP or court clerk, than in a religious setting? Am I missing something here? is a civil union not the same as a civil ceremony by a JP or court? I thought they were…?

  • Zedd

    Doc,

    I am sorry but there are scientific methods and there are ways to interpret data. It is incumbent upon those who make an assertion to prove their point unequivocally and not to assert disjointed factors which don’t prove causality but correlation. That data proves nothing.

    Homosexuality is a lifestyle. Choosing a partner is a choice. The evidence that you provided does nothing to speak to why these individuals make that choice. Does variation in the inner ear influence choice? Or does it determine masculinity vs femininity. Then we would have to ask if the masculinity of many lesbians makes them gay or if they live as lesbians because they live much like men and thus want to be with a woman like men do. These are important questions. The types of questions are not dealt with so they make your report really amateur and cut and paste. I’m really sorry. In academic circles it lacks integrity. It sounds good but I’m afraid it’s just fishing and is extraordinarily weak. I’m sorry.

  • Zedd

    Nancy,

    The real issue is about the right to use the word “married”. All of the posturing about civil rights is just to make the denial of the word appear unjust. Which is silly.

  • Zedd

    Gonzo,

    If you cant manage the discussion that is one thing but bowing out and calling me prejudice is beneath you.

    Unfortunately in social science things are looked at differently than the way we speak. Differences are acknowledged and spoken about openly in order to gain more knowledge. To someone without the same type of background it sounds unPC or mean. In the context of the scientific investigation its not. You have to talk about things openly in order to explore them fully.

    We are not engaging in polite society right now. We are engaging brain to brain sort to say. It would be ridiculous for me to be have stating things when we are trying to solve an equation. Its like removing all of the variables in a mathmatical equation and expecting the same result. YOU WONT.

    So don’t be offended. Lets look at things sobberly and have a real discussion for a change.

  • http://www.robot-of-the-week.com Christopher Rose

    Sobberly? Have you reduced yourself to tears, Zedd?

  • Zedd

    Clavos

    Dont be silly. Marriage as long as you have known it and as long as your ancesters have known it does involve two genders. It involves a vagina and a penus comming together. It involves mom PMSing and Dad being a duffus and loosing his sox every day. It involves in most cases mom getting pregnant and dad having to walk on eggs during that time. It involves in more than most cases mom kissing the boo boo and dad telling jr. to toughen up. It involes grandma and cookies and grandpa and fishing. It involves mom knowing how it feels to have a menstral cramp and dad knowing what a wet dream is like. Can we go on all day…….

    Your egnoring GENDER and the affects on the dynamic of marriage and what it means, that very real, overwhelming fact makes your asseertions pointless. Stop the cut and paste job. Come on.

    A relationship of love between two people. Don’t insult. Wake up its morning time Clav. Put the daisey bucket down.

  • Dr Dreadful

    I am sorry but there are scientific methods and there are ways to interpret data.

    Exactly, Zedd.

    I don’t have time right now to go over all the logical fallacies you have committed on this thread in pursuit of your determination that gayness should be a choice. I’ll get back to you.

  • Nancy

    If it’s a case basically of love between two people, it would seem to apply as well to gays/lesbians as heteros. It seems to me what we’re doing is trying to define how many angels can dance on the head of a pin: what constitutes ‘marriage’ vs a ‘civil union’? Is there a legal difference? Is a civil union different from a civilly-performed wedding? If so, how? Until these are established, we’re arguing to no point, here. What makes a ‘marriage’ superior either legally or socially to a civil union/civilly-performed wedding, aside from the putative theological blessing conferred?
    Thanks.

  • Zedd

    Clav
    “Women know these things about men. It’s okay.
    Did you know that in marriage women know this about men. You often turn things around trying to put someone down but you actually end up revealing your insecurities. I suppose that is one of the benefits of men marrying. Everyone is dense but thinks they are great.”

    Where have you been? Do you live under a rock with Dave making an occasional month long visit or something. Why would you be shocked or appalled by this AT ALL. Do you really not know that women tolerate a lot of the denseness that men have in the home? Women have their variety too but dange men are clueless. You should become comfortable with this. The wisest men have. You claim to be worldly and well read and you haven’t picked up on this? Alrighty then…. Its been happening since forever Clav.

    Again the daisy covered slumber needs to end.

  • http://www.robot-of-the-week.com Christopher Rose

    Zedd, you’re getting sillier by the minute. All the things you describe marriage as are cosy romantic inventions of the 20th century. Love the penus bit though, is that the thing that is mightier than the sored?

  • Clavos

    As both gonzo and I said upthread, you are erroneously condescending and patronizing (in this case, to an entire sex) to an astonishing degree.

    It’s one of the prime reasons why I take very few of your posts seriously.

  • Clavos

    Chris #176,

    ROTFL!

  • Zedd

    Chris

    My little brain is tingling. I enjoy this sort of thing most of the time. However I feel sort of icky because no one is challenging me so its sort of getting stale. I feel rude having to shoot down people and say it in a way that doesn’t sound all text book and smarty pants.

    My last comments to Clav were smarty pants on purpose. There is something about him that is gnomish and REQUIRES a frequent ribbing. Perhaps it’s the lapdog image that he is so expert at portraying. He seems like a nice guy though. I hope he gets the humor.

  • Zedd

    Chris

    Are you married?

    What are you talking about? When the clock changed on December 2000 at midnight people didn’t instantaneously change to be these none emotional non biological entities. The boring crap that marriage consisted of still stands.

    Lets just say that you want the world to change so that the values that we have are no longer valued and there is more room to do whatever you want. Don’t dress this discussion up as a debate about rights and genetics and social evolution hipness or cool. Its about the pressure to fit into a mold that many don’t want to fit into.

  • http://www.robot-of-the-week.com Christopher Rose

    Zedd, I suspect that tingling sensation is the unfamiliar experience of oxygen trying to reach parts of your brain that don’t often see much of it!

    Sure, five or ten thousand years ago, Mum and Dad were sharing family values and bringing up the kids just the way you picture it – NOT!

    As to you being a smarty pants to anybody, that must be going on in the privacy of your own brain only – probably right where you’re getting that tingling feeling!

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Chris/Clavos/Gonzo/Doc D:

    Good God, why egg her on? She believes herself to be an ‘intellectual’ and a ‘social scientist,’ but she can’t put two coherent sentences together. She writes like an 11-year-old. She claims to want to listen and learn, and then completely ignores every valid point that anyone makes back to her. She claims to be full of love for all humanity, then obnoxiously insults people by the dozen [ineptly, but still hurtfully].

    It is, in short, sheer insanity to try to reason with her. And painful to even attempt to decode her posts.

    The horror…the horror…

  • Zedd

    Chris

    That is funny!

    I’ll get you next time.

  • Zedd

    Handyguy,

    You don’t have the chops yet kid. Take a Critical Thinking course then come back. I’ll let you hold the ball.

    I’m joking off course. Well sort of…..

    I would take a spelling class but it won’t help. I’ll continue to make spelling errors. That’s one of my goober areas and I get lazy to use spellchecker.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    You don’t have the chops yet kid. Take a Critical Thinking course then come back. I’ll let you hold the ball.

    Good lord, this from Zedd whose thought processes are as cloudy as my pool is now with a pump that broke a week ago, saying it to Handy who is one of the most consistently reasonable and analytical commenters on the site.

    Dave

  • Zedd

    Handyguy,

    For a while I was accused of sounding like a text book. I had to take it down a notch. Also sometimes discussing things in a decoded simple way allows for greater understanding. I prefer to refer to my style as first grade than third grade. It has purpose. Its fun and it’s disarming. However I suspect that in your case you are used to receiving information that you’ve heard before and have a difficult time absorbing data which is presented in a different format than what you are used to hearing. I suspect your political and social views are formed by some route concepts that are predictable worse off to YOU. The reason you can’t follow me is because you probably don’t challenge your own ideas and you just say what is expected and don’t take the time to process things, weighing if they are reasonable (or well reasoned).

    I am not an intellectual but I enjoy intellectual discussions. I find them stimulating, much like really good music or other indulgences. Don’t put that down. It becomes more telling about you than me. I am not a scientist but have studied the social sciences. I won’t apologies for that. Don’t put that down either. Ask yourself what it is that you may not know that I do and learn or find a legitimate way to refute it.

    Its all to common in our culture to degrade the pursuit of knowledge and the expansion of ideas, trading that endeavor for the hard and fast, quick jabs, sound bites and gotchas. Even worse, we have come to accept dumb ideas without questions strangely at a time when we have all of the world’s information at our finger tips.

    No one said anything about devaluing anyone. No one said anything about not providing equal rights. You should wonder what your real frustration is.

    It sounds to me, and I could be wrong, that you don’t want to be what you are. You don’t want it to be noticeable or different. It seems to me that your contention is with why nature is what it is. It sounds to me as if you want to erase the noticablity of your difference by changing society. While I’m almost certain that you didn’t get that and you’ll think it’s because I am writing like a third grader, come back to it on another occasion and ponder on it. That seems to in fact the real issue from assesing this dicussion.

  • zingzing

    zedd…

    you think you’re right and that homosexuality is nothing more than a choice of who to have sex with.

    i’m not so sure it’s that simple.

    you may be right–there may not be any biological reason, it may not have anything to do with chromosomes, it may not have anything to do with hormones, there may be absolutely no physical or mental differences, it may all just be a choice. i dunno. i don’t pretend to be an expert, or even to have first-hand knowledge.

    that said, you ask just about any gay individual or scientist studying homosexuality, and you’ll find that they disagree with you. i’m going with primary and scientific secondary sources…

    and you are going with… ?

    the issue of civil rights IS wrapped up in the word “marriage.” it’s unfortunate, but it’s true. many gay people are willing to take “civil unions” rather than full equality, to the point of the word. many straight people who won’t give up the word “marriage” will concede full benefits under the term “civil union” (although i don’t think that the same benefits have been made available under both terms as of yet).

    the problem comes with the hardliners. some gay people won’t take anything but full equality. and some straight people are just bigotted against gay people.

    as a nation, we should do the right thing and guarantee full equality for all people under the law. we should crush bigotry. if that means that how a lot of people define a word has to be changed, what price is that compared to our continued segregation/inequality based on sexual orientation?

    as a black woman, i would expect better of you.

  • Zedd

    Dave,

    Perhaps things aren’t visible to you because you are dim. Just perhaps?

    Don’t make such statements. No matter how confident you are of yourself. Especially since you are not prone to asking questions… If you don’t understand, it may just be you. But again you are male. This will not translate all that well :o) Let’s try this…. You respond as one with confidence in our critical thinking abilities. Is there a reason why you are?

  • Zedd

    “You respond as one with confidence in our critical thinking abilities. Is there a reason why you are?”

    That would be: YOUR critical thinking skills.

  • Zedd

    Zing,

    Understand, I am for full rights under the law. Totally!!

    I don’t think we make policy based on what hardliners think. We make policy based on what is best and most practical; what will produce the best affect in the long term (I hope) .

    I think marriage should remain what it is and that same gender people should have full rights too. Is that not the best solution? Everyone has full rights.

    Not sure what that has to do with being Black. It would be like me not wanting to be called Black and forcing everyone to call me White because Whites get the better end of the deal in this world. Even though I have equal protection under the law, people’s prejudices still make being White a more beneficial condition. BUT I’M NOT WHITE.

    You are wrong about people who have studied homosexuality… I studied this issue. Those conclusions have not been reached at all. Its too complex to be defined simply therefore there is not definitive on this. Again, if that assertion is made, we would have to examine all other things that we are highly drawn to and find the gene for those desires. THAT is how science works.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Perhaps things aren’t visible to you because you are dim. Just perhaps?

    I’m not going to go all Moonraven on you here, but…

    After editing magazine articles for a decade and grading college for more than 20 years and getting paid for both, I have to assume that someone thought I could read with some comprehension. What’s more, I managed to get through two graduate degrees, can carry on a conversation successfully and feed myself fairly effectively most of the time. None of this is absolute proof that I’m not dim, but until I see definitive evidence to the contrary I’ll operate on the assumption that I can tell a hawk from a handsaw.

    Don’t make such statements. No matter how confident you are of yourself. Especially since you are not prone to asking questions…

    I’m very aware of my limitations. When some subject comes up where I need to ask a question I will. Most of the time I just go out and do the research to answer it for myself.

    If you don’t understand, it may just be you.

    It’s not that I don’t understand, it’s that your thought processes are turbulent and scattered, especially when we get to topics where your emotional reaction and reason are at odds, as seems to be the case here.

    But again you are male. This will not translate all that well :o) Let’s try this…. You respond as one with confidence in (y)our critical thinking abilities. Is there a reason why you are?

    A good education and smart parents who had us all sit down at dinner and engage in intelligent discussion of the day’s news and events and challenged my assumptions. Plus I read a lot.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    zedd: “Understand, I am for full rights under the law. Totally!!”

    fine. i get that, and have stated so above. a lot of people, however, use your line of reasoning to deny full rights to people.

    “I think marriage should remain what it is and that same gender people should have full rights too. Is that not the best solution? Everyone has full rights.”

    that would be a great solution! if it worked. everyone does not have full rights, however, and some will never believe that they do until they can get married. and some will use the word to deny rights to others. so, yes, that’s the best solution, but it’s not working, is it?

    “Not sure what that has to do with being Black.”

    rights, equality, etc. there you go.

    “You are wrong about people who have studied homosexuality… I studied this issue.”

    and i’m going to believe you over the majority of scientists (and homosexuals), why?

    “Those conclusions have not been reached at all.”

    sure they have, at least by a lot of people. go to wikipedia or something. go to those studies doc sent you. it’s all there. what are you not seeing? in the nature vs nurture argument, you go straight for nurture, eh? that’s fine. but don’t deny that a lot of people believe nature is responsible. cause that’s not true “at all.”

    “Its too complex to be defined simply therefore there is not definitive on this.”

    sigh… there probably isn’t. but why do you take such a definitive stand then?

  • Zedd

    Zing,

    The reason that I must take a definitive stance on it is because it hasn’t been proved. Its incumbent upon the people who are making these assertions to prove that they are valid.

    As for trusting homosexuals to KNOW what their genetic structure is…. Zing come on. Their being gay does not give them x-ray vision specializing in the molecular or psychic ability of the cellular. They, just as much as anyone one else don’t know what their genes consist of. They just feel as if they were born that way. Just as many FEEL and believe vehemently that they have seen the Madonna cry in various parts of the world or have seen the blood come out of Jesus’ statues or that their toast has Jesus’ face on it. For many it’s a deep and powerful belief.

    Funny how people like Christopher Rose will scoff at the religious but will stand up for those who pledge to know their genetic structure because of how they FEEL.

    Love Doc but his evidence was HIGHLY flawed. It proved nothing. Like I said it doesn’t stand up. What scientists will do is produce evidence that produces other questions. So that those questions can be answered or so other questions can be generated. Those results only produced more questions. Now what those who want certain conclusions did was ditch the process and make extremely irresponsible conclusions, which only weakens their claims.

  • Zedd

    Dave,

    “It’s not that I don’t understand, it’s that your thought processes are turbulent and scattered”

    To the contrary. I’m afraid that I am cursed with just the opposite. Read my comments on all of the threads. It’s the same message over and over again. Perhaps the turbulence is within you when you try and comprehend? Perhaps your processes are so simple that you expect the same from others and anything else is confounding? Just perhaps.

    Academic accomplishment doesn’t produce an ability to comprehend things with depth. It says you are good at regurgitating perhaps or that you know how to study…. It does not mean you are a deep thinker. One attains certain skills from the information that they have learned. For instance if you were to tell me that you were a Philosophy major I would regard your comment and consider your assertions. If you were one of the individuals on these threads whose processes I admire or am intruiged by, I would consider, but……. Perhaps your degrees impress your ranch hands. I know, that was rude but…. I don’t even trust the IQ thingy. I’ve been ranked high and I know I have goober waves.

  • http://www.libertyrepublican.com Dave Nalle

    Zedd, this isn’t a brain weighing contest. I have lots of experience evaluating the writing of others. Yours has good and bad qualities, but it does not always effectively convey what I would describe as clarity of thought, regardless of how you feel about it yourself. You can take that criticism or not as you choose.

    And BTW, I have no ranch hands and I know exactly what the value of my degrees is for anything other than getting another teaching job. I’m also quite aware of what my limitations are and what I’m good at and not good at. This is why you won’t see me writing on certain topics.

    Dave

  • Zedd

    Dave

    I agree with you about most of my posts. I don’t edit and therefore when I read many of my posts I realise my errors. I’ve always agreed with that assessment. I am distracted most of the time as I have stated before, working and mommying…. For the past couple of days I’ve been on a new laptop and the keys are sticking and I hadn’t installed my spell check until a couple of hours ago. The errors will be more rampant than usual.

    However I don’t agree that my processing is deficient. While always striving to grow and know and am curious by nature, I am confident and comfortable in my capability to process ideas. I enjoy it. I am also aware that deductive reasoning is no longer an expectation. What is expected is that one will defend a standard ideology, sloganeering or championing some overstated and under considered notion. Skipping a word or misspelling one here and there in a casual venue where I type most of the time as I sit in bed, does not negate the substance of my ideas.

    While I should do better, I wont… I know that’s bad too, but I simply wont. I’ve got a lot of burners going all at once in my real life and will not take this exercise seriously.

    Its nearly impossible to believe but I’m actually a decent writer, at least that is what my instructors and professors have said over the years :oD. I just have to be focused and take it seriously, which wont be happening on BC. I’ve got too much really serious stuff going on right now unfortunately. This has got to be totally for leisure and conversational.

    Thanks for the dialogue.

  • http://www.libertyrepublican.com Dave Nalle

    Zedd, your ‘scattered’ writing style could actually be a sign of intelligence. I’ve seen it before, where someone leaps ahead of themselves in the logical process and forgets to explain the intermediate steps, not really thinking in terms of the audience, or as you suggest, some writers get easily distracted. Writing to your audience is a learned skill.

    But I do much of my writing with a hyperactive 4 year old hanging on me and trying to get me to help her play computer games designed for 10 year olds, which means reading all the words to her. It’s a miracle I can even find my computer. Actually, it’s a miracle I’m not asleep right now.

    Dave

  • STM

    Actually, it’s just a miracle period :)

  • Egbert Sousé

    “I don’t mean to be rude but you are out of your league on this one. Maybe next time.”

    You are right about that, but that’s because you are still playing in the minors. However, you have made it crystal clear what an utter waste of time it is to interact with you on this subject.

  • Egbert Sousé

    “While always striving to grow”

    Not always. From the same comment:

    “While I should do better, I wont”

  • http://www.robot-of-the-week.com Christopher Rose

    The art of the selective quote:-

    Zedd: “I am not an intellectual”.

    ;-)

  • http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040309073256.htm Cindy D

    Zedd-

    RE: #40

    “….the young coked up (or methed up) party boys that a large portion of today’s gay community consists of? Info sources again…..”

    Info sources indeed. I would love to see the info sources for this proclamation.

    “As a reference look up PNP culture…”

    Interesting method of citation.

    Noted: More unsupported gay-bashing comments in #43.

    From #53: You present yourself as a prima facie an expert on “the gay scene today”. The others you are addressing are clueless, I suppose, and you alone have the authority to make judgments about an entire group of people?

    Also from #53: “Since gayness is not a biological condition…Gay is an elected and proclaimed lifestyle and not a biological condition.”

    First of all, who says gayness is not a biological condition? I have seen some illogical conjecture by you so far, but you haven’t presented any evidence at all to support this idea. I haven’t seen you provide any reasonable or scientific-minded discounting of the evidence that is available either.

    You act as if the world of evidence is limited to what people in this blog are providing. As if, you only have to casually discount what is said here to prove that gayness is a choice. Try doing a survey of the scientific literature on your own, then come back with your arguments. That is the only credible way to make the kind of point you are trying to make.

    Second, even if gayness were not a biological condition, that does not in itself preclude the possibility that it is not a choice (see my argument below).

    In the sense you are using the idea of “choice”, you relegate the sex drive itself to insignificance. Obviously, if you negate attraction, arousal–the drive itself, then everyone is making a “choice” whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. As a matter of fact no one will “die” if they “choose” a plant or a cow as a sexual partner or choose no sexual partner. Therefore, by extension of your “logic”, all sexual orientation is a choice.

    What do you make of attraction to plumage, color, size, etc. in the animal kingdom? If you consider sexual display for mating in the animal kingdom and the elements of attraction as not biologically based, then I guess you live in a different sort of universe than I do.

    From #62:

    “As to the responses to smell, you know that that could be a Pavlovian response.”

    Let’s assume that this is correct: the response to smell is a Pavlovian Response. A Pavlovian Response is not a choice. Unless of course you think that conditioned dogs “choose” to salivate to the tone of a bell. So, your argument that sexual orientation must be a choice if we cannot absolutely prove it to be biological in and of itself is ill considered and flawed. If sexual orientation were not biologically determined it still would not mean that it is a choice.

    From 193:

    “The reason that I must take a definitive stance on it is because it hasn’t been proved.”

    Correction: You apparently must take a definitive stance AGAINST it because it has not been proved. Much of the information we use has not been “proved”–that isn’t the way science works. It was only in late 2002 that the speed of gravity was observed, supporting Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. The world is complex, science requires a preponderance of replicable evidence to support validity. Ideas are tentatively supported based on the credibility of evidence. Most ideas, in science, are tentatively valid not “proven” valid.

    In addition, to say that the evidence to date doesn’t absolutely prove something, therefore we should assert that the OPPOSITE is true is a logical fallacy called Argumentum ad Ignorantiam or Appeal to Ignorance. Let’s flip the burden of proof and see how your argument holds up. Let’s say that because there isn’t PROOF that homosexuality is a choice we can assert that it is not a choice. I doubt you would accept your own reasoning if the shoe was put on the other foot.

    In conclusion:

    We have scientific evidence that demonstrates that homosexuality has biological influences. It is clear that sexual orientation is complex and we don’t have enough evidence “prove” it is exclusively biologically determined. This in no way proves that the opposite is true–that we choose our sexual orientation.

    The disrespect demonstrated by some of your comments makes me think that it is your personal bias that dictates your “beliefs” rather than your self-proclaimed “reasoned” thinking. Disputing the scientific evidence we have with opinions, amounting to zero evidence of your own, is not rational or objective at all.

    I highly recommend a philosophy class in logic and one in scientific research methods.

    See URL for:

    Biology Behind Homosexuality In Sheep, Study Confirms

  • Egbert Sousé

    Game Set Match. Bravo, Cindy D.

  • Zedd

    Christopher

    I read your post at 5:00 this morning and didn’t have a clue what you were talking about. I knew you were being a smart-aleck but at that time in the morning I wasn’t getting it.

    I just reread it and chuckled out loud several times. Mind you I am teaching a class.

    Very funny… wise guy!

  • Zedd

    Cindy D,

    You seem to be very emotional and don’t seem to be at a place to understand any of what I said. Perhaps one day when things are calm for you, you will recall this dialogue and a light bulb will go off. Your responses don’t speak to neither the spirit nor the logic behind my post so I really can’t respond to you. I would love to but 99% of what you posted has nothing to do with my position or what I have intimated. You are expecting someone to bash gays so you see that in the posts. I didn’t bash gays or people who believe in the stigmata or anyone. Not agreeing or believing is not bashing. I don’t agree that ANY one preference for a specific person is biological. Sorry. You can’t get mad about that. Doing so would be weird. Actually doing so is just as bad as Fundamentalist Christians who get mad at those who don’t espouse the tenets of their faith…. You believe, I don’t. That does not victimize you.

    Now, you have to be calm to get this……

    The proof against your assertions is in the proof that was presented to support your assertions. None of it says gayness is genetic. It makes spurious correlations which by no means support the claim. The fact that the studies that have been done don’t prove a genetic tie to the proclimation of gayness says that there is no evidence which proves there is a tie…. Read what I just stated slowly if you must in order to injest.

  • Zedd

    Egbert,

    Just walk away…… let it go bud. I feel like I am dealing with a really young man and I don’t want to be mean. But just move on kid. You are not there yet. Bless you.

  • REMF

    “I have lots of experience evaluating the writing of others. Yours has good and bad qualities, but it does not always effectively convey what I would describe as clarity of thought, regardless of how you feel about it yourself.”
    – Dave Nalle

    I disagree, Nalle. I think Zedd expresses herself beautifully, and I also consider her writing style to be superior to yours.

    —————————

    “I’m also quite aware of what my limitations are and what I’m good at and not good at. This is why you won’t see me writing on certain topics.”
    – Dave Nalle

    Aw, if only this were true…BC’s archives would contain about 12,000 fewer comments and 500 fewer posts.

  • Clavos

    “I think Zedd expresses herself beautifully, and I also consider her writing style to be superior to yours.”

    You’re kidding, right? If you knew anything about good writing, you’d be able to write well yourself.

  • Clavos

    Props, Cindy! #202 is excelllent!

  • Zedd

    Cindy,

    I have read the study on the sheep.

    1. Lets be clear… The claims that you you’ve made were not made in this study not in the article that you presented. Again, we are talking about science. You can’t take such leaps. You would be putting the researchers of this sheep study in a precarious situation if you quoted them as saying that “human homosexuality IS biological”. This study is still in progress. This article does not say what you claim. They have not made a definitive on the sheep yet let alone humans.. Steady, simmer down.

    Actually they are trying to try to reverse the brain anomaly so that they can see if the reversal affects the behavior. In that way, they can check their conjecture. A large part of the gay community has stood up against the reversal because they think its about trying to make gays straight…(Just and aside FYI)

    2. About 8 percent of domestic rams display preferences for other males as sexual partners. Scientists don’t believe it’s related to dominance or flock hierarchy; rather, their typical motor pattern for intercourse is merely directed at rams instead of ewes.

    Why don’t they believe that? Your article doesn’t say. We need that information. Its rather crucial. You should request it too. My dog hunches everything including her stuffed animals. Why do these scientist think these sheep have a different motivation than other animals who hunch animals of the same gender? No one has said…. If you find the article that deals with that I’d love to read it. I’ll look for it too.

    3. This study says that the behavior may be caused by an irregularity in the brain of those sheep. Meaning something is wrong with those sheep’s brain. Are YOU willing to say that something is WRONG with gays then? Because once you latch on to the biology thing, you must latch to the idea that gays are genetically or biologically defective. Your parts were supposed to work a certain way but they can’t because of this anomaly…. Is that what you are arguing for?

    Now if you are genetically defective than you would be given accommodation under the law much like the disabled?. So because you are disabled, then you should be able to use the word marriage even though you could still partner under a civil union that would grant you all of the same legal rights. Is that the argument or reasoning? Help me out here.

    I would like to delve just a notch deeper but I’m afraid you’ll misunderstand me and get mad again. However, please respond. I’d live to read your response.

  • Nancy

    Excellent research, Cindy. Good job. But then, you always do.

  • Zedd

    Clavos,

    Got your little cheerleader outfit on again I see. Don’t forget to wax your legs this time. You could have stuffed a pillow with that fur the last time you showed in spirit mode. Oh and you wear bloomers. No thongs PLEASE this time. Still recovering from that incedent….

  • Zedd

    Question….

    If gays copulate with the same gender because of a brain dysfunction but can copulate heterosexually as they have for generations, is the dysfunction a serious one?

    In other words, if a Downs child can behave like a person with a normal IQ are they mentally disabled?

    If a person born with missing limbs can spontaneously grow those limbs whenever they need to in order to function in society, should they be afforded disabled status?

    Not a value based question. Just a question to expound on this issue so that we can deal with it further. I don’t have the answer…..

  • REMF

    “You’re kidding, right? If you knew anything about good writing, you’d be able to write well yourself.”
    – Clavos

    No, I’m not kidding, Clavvy. I’m as serious as cancer. And while we’re on the subject, I think Zedd writes better than you, too.

    BTW, I’ve never claimed or pretended to be a good writer, Clavvy.
    (MCH)

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Thank you, Cindy, for the best comment posted to this thread and the most reasoned response to She Who Must Not Be Named.

    Of course it would be too much to expect a reasonable answer in return from SWMNBN, and indeed her two replies are quite appalling. But we have let her hijack this discussion for whatever mysterious motivations of her own, and it makes me very unhappy to see it. My best guess is that she just likes to see her [pitiful, inept, ridiculous] words in print, so she keeps typing as many of them as she can. Sigh.

  • Clavos

    “BTW, I’ve never claimed or pretended to be a good writer, Clavvy.
    (MCH)”

    And you’re not, MCH. Which is why you wouldn’t recognize good writing if it bit you in the ass.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    REMF/MCH–

    Amazing. While you have demonstrated what politely might be called monomania heretofore, you have rarely said anything as strange and outrageous as claiming that SWMNBN is a good writer. Bizarre.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Perhaps if REMF/MCH and SWMNBN simply agreed to write only to each other from now on, they would each gain a more appreciative audience, and the rest of us could breathe a sigh of pleasurable relief.

  • REMF

    “And you’re not, MCH. Which is why you wouldn’t recognize good writing if it bit you in the ass.”

    It’s Kerry’s fault. I was a good writer until 1966, until his 1971 speech screwed everything up five years earlier.

  • Zedd

    handyguy,

    You are trying a tad too hard.

    Boy you are really hurt. Let it go. Nothing happened. Breath. You are safe. The world is the same as it was last week. No insults were hurled at you. There there……

  • Clavos

    Yeah, “breath,” Handy.

  • Zedd

    Handyguy,

    I just realized, are you referring to me?

    Listen I don’t have to agree with you. If your reason for being contemptuous has to do with the fact that I don’t agree with you about something that you have no way of knowing yourself; that science hasn’t yet proven yet, you are quite childish aren’t you. Your rebel rousing and trying to get a crowd behind you is ridiculous. Are you so needy? I DONT AGREE. Try and accept that.

    I am neither high jacking nor doing anything that you have accused me of. This is a venue to discuss issues, most of which are controversial. Do you have the ability to accept that? If so, put your thinking cap on and go. If not take notes. However acting like a school girl, trying to revive clicks, will do nothing to forward your position. Make your point man then move on if you are done! We are on the web AND most of us are well into our adult years with kids, mortgages, businesses, careers, college funds to grow, pets and elderly parents to look after. This is a past time. We are not at summer camp vying for best girl or boy camper.

    Accept it man, billions of people don’t share your views. Now get over it. That neither makes you more valid or less valid. Its just an opinion! LIVE. Now go smell the fresh air…. I’m getting nervous…. Don’t handle any weapons until you’ve calmed down.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    This gay sheep thing may explain why my brother-in-law’s ram keeps trying to rape him.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    zedd: “This study says that the behavior may be caused by an irregularity in the brain of those sheep. Meaning something is IRREGULAR with those sheep’s brain. Are YOU willing to say that something is DIFFERENT with gays then? Because once you latch on to the biology thing, you must latch to the idea that gays are genetically or biologically IRREGULAR. Your parts USUALLY work a certain way but they DON’t because of this DIFFERENCE….”

    there. i replaced all your silly negativity with words more in tune with what these scientists are saying. they are not making any value judgments. they are simply stating facts.

    zedd, do you believe in evolution? or god? or love? or the afterlife? or that chocolate is as good as sex? or the future?

    none of these things are 100% fact. they are just scientifically/theologically 99% true. scientists have known for quite some time that homosexuality is driven by biology, and that a person, no matter how hard they try, cannot become heterosexual or homosexual by choice. they are born that way, and they simply fall into their natural role once they become sexually active.

    i think i’m going to check out of this conversation. zedd, you are disappointing me. usually, you are really quite logical, if scatterbrained… although that may have to do with english not being your first language. (right?)

    here’s some facts you can’t deny: it’s just a word. one side or another is going to have to give up their claim. both sides have some claim to the word. only one side’s claim denies equality to the other side.

  • zingzing

    and before you say it, no, i do not subscribe to the theological stuff above. i do, however, put my trust in science, to a reasonable extent. i believe science is correct about a lot of things, like evolution and relativity, and this is one of them.

  • Dr Dreadful

    #223: You do leave yourself wide open sometimes, Dave. Expect STM to swing by sometime in the next 12 hours with a New Zealander joke…

    :-)

  • STM

    Dave: “This gay sheep thing may explain why my brother-in-law’s ram keeps trying to rape him.”

    He wouldn’t be a New Zealander by any chance??

  • REMF

    “…and the rest of us could breathe a sigh of pleasurable relief.”

    A “sigh of pleasurable relief.” (?) Hhhhmmmm. Well, wuddya expect from someone called HANDYguy…

  • http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040309073256.htm Cindy D

    Zedd,

    These comments, in which you are referring to the bulk of the gay community, are malicious and repugnant and need no interpretation to find them so:

    “Are you referring to the young coked up (or methed up) party boys that a large portion of today’s gay community consists of?”

    “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.”

    “Lets be clear… The claims that you you’ve made were not made in this study not in the article that you presented.

    I wish you would try to be clear. I am having a hard time understanding what you are talking about.

    My post was generally meant to point out your faulty reasoning. I didn’t make any claims at all that I am aware of Zedd. I also stated in my post that research suggests there are biological factors that influence sexual orientation. That is an observation, not a claim.

    “You can’t take such leaps. You would be putting the researchers of this sheep study in a precarious situation if you quoted them as saying that “human homosexuality IS biological”. This study is still in progress. This article does not say what you claim.”

    What leaps are you referring to? What quote are you referring to? What claims are you referring to? I never quoted the article in my comment. I didn’t, in fact, even discuss the article in my post.

    Why would I quote the researchers in the article as saying something they didn’t say.

    Speaking of taking leaps…

    I am sort of put off balance by your replies to my post. I am not sure what you are trying to say. I don’t know if I should be irritated, amused, or if I should feel sorry for you.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    He’s a Philippino, Stan.

    Dave

  • STM

    Chickens would be more his go, then?

  • REMF

    “He’s a Philippino, Stan.”
    – Dave Nalle

    Actually, it’s Filipino, Nalle. There’s no such thing as a “Philippino.”
    (MCH)

  • http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040309073256.htm Cindy D

    Zedd,

    “This study says that the behavior may be caused by an irregularity in the brain of those sheep.”

    You need to read more carefully. This is what may have caused confusion. The article says, “…researchers discovered an irregularly shaped, densely packed cluster of nerve cells in the hypothalamus of the sheep brain…”

    They are speaking of “the sheep brain” in general terms, meaning all sheep brains. It is an “irregularly shaped” formation, not an irregularity in the brain.

    The article discusses a difference in the brain of the heterosexual sheep versus the homosexual sheep. It says the size of this formation is “different”. It does not claim any brain irregularities. As you pointed out, there are differences in male and female brains. That doesn’t mean that one sex has an irregular brain and the other has a normal brain.

    It is dawning on me that maybe you are trying to say that I cannot count the sheep study as having anything to do with human biology.

    As I said earlier, you may want to do your own survey of the literature. There was already a study done that found differences between the hypothalami of homosexual and heterosexual male human brains.

  • Zedd

    Cindy,

    I think your need to be pursecuted is leading you to see more into my posts than what exists.

    My comments on the Meth issue amoung young gay males was in response to a suggestion that gays are close to 100% represented in civic participation, voting mainly I believe. There is a growing epidemic or subculture that I made reference to. As you did with the bulk of your commentary, you miss read my contribution or read it out of context and went to town.

    You missed that most of what you were going on about is what I had stated to other people.

    You also missed what I was saying was a choice. While I strongly insist that it is imposible at this stage of scientific developement to deliniate gene fuction to the extent that the claims of genetically based sexual orientation. If you are as knowledgable as you portport to be, you know this. Suggesting anything else is highly irresponsible and misleading. There are far far to many variables: hunddreds of genes and enumerable social influences to make any definitive statement about any phycho-social behavior including one as complex as attraction.

    As for research methods, I afraid that I am all too familiar with them, hence my contention with what is being proposed. You should know that the over simplification and reckless extrapulation that is taking place on this thread and in most of the media regarding this topic deserves correcting as it is naively wrong.

    In the area of Phylosophy, I enjoy the dicipline. Having an analytical mind, I was drawn to it and found it useful and a wonderful engagement. I didn’t get to endulge as much as I would have loved to in college but I did study it. I woudl recomend it to any youth however they may be doomed to a life of frustration and being misunderstood.

    The choice is how you live your life. IT IS A CHOICE. Just as I have chosen not to remarry or other people choose to be married, just as I have chosen EVERY boyfreind that I have had and my beloved husband. I chose every relationship that I’ve had. People choose their social relationships. They choose whether to have them or not.

  • Zedd

    I hit the “Publish” key while typing, by mistake. Certainly wasn’t ready to post yet….

  • http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040309073256.htm Cindy D

    Look Zedd, if I am going to be psychoanalyzed with every comment I make, I’d prefer it be done by someone who can read without moving their lips.

    I would love to stay and demonstrate some of the other holes I could poke in your distorted interpretation of the sheep article but I have got to give up this conversation now.

    I have got to go watch a rerun of Saturday Night Live…my favorite part is about to come on. It’s the part where Dan Akroyd turns to Jane Curtain and says, “Jane you…”

    Well, I am sure you’ve seen it.

  • Zedd

    Cindy,

    All social relationships are a choice. Unlike animals, human beings decide when, in what way, and with whom they will have sex. Unlike animals, we are not simply lead by instinct without choice. If we were lead by instinct, we would have had the same proportion of people who lived gay lives from the beginning of human civilization as we do today. Is that not correct?

    Its unfortunate that you didn’t read enough of my posts to actually comment on my reasoning.

    BTW I never said that a Pavlovian response was a consciously chosen response. Why would anyone have to re-explain such a simple notion??? I was making the point that the Pavlovian response is distinct from an inborn proclivity. Again you jumped in, out of context and reinterpreted my comments. I was responding to the “proof” of biological gayness that was presented, saying that it may have been a Pavlovian response…..sigh….


    On this most recent post.

    Oh goodness Cindy, homosexuals are male and female.

    Now, if the “homosexual” sheep have a difference in their physiology from sheep whose reproductive organs match their functionality, one would conclude that those differences are irregularities.

    Cindy we know what tongues are for, biologically (mechanically) speaking. They are not for oral sex. They are merely used for those purposes to compensate. So are rear ends. The fact that homosexuals don’t naturally have the parts which match the gender that they are attracted to, would suggest that there is an irregularity. So if homosexuality is biological, then something went wrong and homosexuality is a glitch; an anomaly.

    Take your pick, a glitch or a choice. Am I missing something?

  • Zedd

    Enjoy your show :o)

    I’m going to bed.

  • http://www.robot-of-the-week.com Christopher Rose

    More high comedy:- “Having an analytical mind”. You’re on great form today, Zedd.

  • Nancy

    And nobody has YET explained to me the legal difference between a civil union and getting married by a JP or court clerk, i.e. a civil union? IS there even a difference? If so, what? Thank you all in advance. Again.

  • http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040309073256.htm Cindy D

    Zedd, are you side-stepping the point–or don’t you understand the point?

    Your opinions and conclusions are irrelevant.

    Besides being irrelevant to the point, I’m not really interested in the conclusions of someone who can’t be bothered to review the pertinent literature before forming their argument.

    The point here is your claim about the article.

    You claimed that the researchers attributed the sheep homosexuality to brain irregularities.

    I will make this simple.

    Zedd, did the researchers in the article attribute the sheep homosexuality to brain irregularities?

  • http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm Cindy D

    Nancy,

    I’ll try. The JP and court clerk weddings are civil ceremonies, informally–civil unions. But, when used in the formal (legal) sense, Marriages and Civil Unions are defined by the law and come with certain rights and benefits.

    If one weighs those rights and benefits, a Civil Union is inferior to a Marriage.

    Here is an article that explains some of the differences in the rights and benefits.

  • Zedd

    Zing,

    Sorry I missed your post.

    Zing I don’t think its just a word. For those gays that are campaigning to use it, it is a status. For me, it defines an institution, the most important one from the time of our onset. While in some cases it is temporary (divorce, death), it is still highly important and should be revered while it exists. Its configuration is important. It serves the purpose of encoding. The two genders provide a balance and perspective that is beneficial.

    If gays are gay because of an anomaly in the brain or ear or where ever, their being challenged or having a physical deficiency should not force the entire society to shift and destroy what this institution is and does. Again, the genders and what they bring define what the institution is. While love and all of the elements that any human being can provide are important, the uniqueness of the male and female configuration comes with some important contributions.

    So yes allow for civil unions for whomever, but what we know as marriage should remain and actually be championed so that it thrives.

    Now as to my personhood…… sigh

    There was no value judgment in my comments. You keep making that assumption, it doesn’t exist.

    The statement about the irregularity was made to pose a question. If gays have this irregularity, it would mean that something went wrong, meaning something IS wrong. The question was, are gays comfortable with being viewed as being gay because something is wrong with them…. I should have “broke it down”….. now remember I am not saying that something is wrong with them. I am not buying the biological cause thingy yet. I am just posing a question for rhetorical purposes.

    I suppose I will have to be more careful when posting. I really don’t wanna! I’m lazy to do so. Just thinking about it makes me tired. I certainly am not a scatterbrain, however. I never have been and don’t know how to be. As I’ve stated before, these past couple of days my errors have been more prevalent because I am adjusting to a new keyboard and the letters have been sticking so some small but important words are missing in my text and I hadn’t installed the spell check. However, like I said before, my problem is due to the fact that I did not edit or preview. I don’t wanna most of the time. However my logic is in tact. I think you are just on the bandwagon because of Handyguy and his childish recruiting strategy. I feel badly that he is hurt by my assessment but I am disappointed in his cringe worthy personal hurls at me. Listen we just disagree on this topic.

    From where I sit, the reasoning ability of many who have posted on this thread is highly deficient and it pains me that that notion is illusive to the extent that it is. Handyguy getting an endorsement from DAVE (help), that he is is a great thinker (really help us all)which all of a sudden catapulted him to scholar and theorist, is interesting (I wanted to get the popcorn and watch the bizarreness unfold). Then the rest of you chiming in ((((Twilight Zone)))) like drones and I am labeled as being dumb as an 11yr old and cant read without moving my lips and…… you Zing are disappointed in me….. Wow. One word from any idiot and everyone jumps in line, believes and is ready to take on the baton and march on the Bastille. There will be more Iraqs coming for sure…. geez. Settle down natives. (I’m joking, lest the drool patrol gets started again)

    BTW what is your ethnic background if you don’t mind me asking?

  • Nancy

    Cindy D – Many thanks, muchas gracias, danke shoen, merci beaucoup! Good article & it does explain a lot. It seems to me the difficulty could/would be resolved by simply passing a federal law requiring the states to standardize benefits/privileges/rights of civil unions to equate with those of marriage, with marriage per se involving more of a religious aspect than the civil union which would entail legal rights only.

    Frankly, even if it was between two heteros, if someone showed up at any hospital I worked at & said “I’m his/her wife/husband” of someone of the opposite sex – I’d still want to check their papers – see a license or something – before giving that person any kind of medical POA or what have you.

    However, I can see why businesses such as insurance companies, etc. or employers don’t want to expand the definition. It would cost quite a bit if you have to cover anyone someone claims is a spouse, of whatever gender, & (in the US at least) there are far too many people who simply partner-hop to be allowed these kinds of benefits, whether hetero- or homo-sexual. It isn’t right to have to extend benefits to just anybody who happens to be living with someone, just on their say-so, somehow.

    I don’t know. This is a tangled web. Part of the problem is the word “marriage” carries such emotional freight, AND involves a heavy implication of religious sanctity…and I can’t think of too many conventional religions where a same-sex marriage is welcomed, blessed, or even tolerated. In fact, I can’t think of any offhand. Taboos against same-sex marriage seem to be pretty universal shibboleths – on this planet at least.

  • Zedd

    Cindy

    “Kay Larkin and colleagues from Oregon Health and Science University found the difference was in a particular region of the hypothalamus – the preoptic nucleus. The region is generally almost twice as large in rams as in ewes. But in gay rams its size was almost identical to that in “straight” females.

    The work shows that rams that prefer male sexual partners had small but distinct differences in a part of the brain called the hypothalamus, when compared with rams that preferred to mate with ewes.” —- NewScientist

    It would appear that parsing and fogging the discussion serves some sort of benefit to your assertions. Disguising such behavior as exploring and attempting to maintain the scientific integrity of our discussion may be impressive to some of our more starry eyed male co-inhabitants but…… Or you simply misunderstood my comments, as I have grown exhausted of saying and we find ourselves in this entanglement as a result. I could cut and post more snip-its but I don’t think its necessary. I realize that I am becoming a bit snippy but I’m slightly weary of your embarrassing assumption that you possess a greater comprehension of what is being conveyed while continuously missing it. I’ve stopped rolling my eyes and its now taken on nuisance status. Besides a migraine is inching in and I’ll have to fade out soon, else the typos will take on another form.

    Now…….

    The difference cited in the sheep Cindy would be an anomaly, an irregularity, dare I say, an abnormally. If these sheep have something that is not present in sheep who exhibit sexual behavior which correlates with their biological function, then it is an irregularity. Capisce?

    What I understand you to be saying is that if the study does confirm (I’m not sure how) that these sheep are “gay” because of this difference, than it says that this type of difference is normal. Well sort off….

    Much like, lets say, a cleft pallet, while this difference DOES occur in humans, it is a variation which is contrary to the functionality of the pallet, teeth and lips. The pallet, teeth and lips serve specific functions. Just because humans CAN and do produce babies with cleft pallets doesn’t mean that having a cleft pallet is not an irregularity which goes against the function of it.

    Does that help. More than likely not…. But it was fun (sorta).

    I’ll catch you next time. Perhaps you wont be all guns-a-blazin’ and steroid-ed up starting off. Maybe then we will have a good and productive dialog.

  • zingzing

    zedd: “All social relationships are a choice.”

    tell that to my mother.

    ok, i’m not going on with you about the homosexual thing. you believe what you believe. i think it’s foolish and antiquated and maybe a bit dangerous, but whatever. i don’t think you’ll see reason, and you don’t think i am writing anything reasonable. fine. done.

    i will, however, address this: “then the rest of you chiming in ((((Twilight Zone)))) like drones and I am labeled as being dumb as an 11yr old and cant read without moving my lips and…… you Zing are disappointed in me….. Wow. One word from any idiot and everyone jumps in line, believes and is ready to take on the baton and march on the Bastille.”

    i’ve never said you were stupid or childish or any of that. i don’t care about your new keyboard or your spellchecker. you’ve always had bad spelling, and your mental grasp of the language seems to outrun your visual grasp of it. case in point: “in tact.” see? both of those are words… but i don’t think that’s a pure typo. i think you just have a hard time with spelling. it makes you look scatterbrained, like you are typing too fast for your own good. we all make mistakes, but english isn’t your first language, or at least you’ve got another one running around in there at the same speed.

    i’ve also never said you were bigotted, like you claim a bit earlier. you just come from a different culture… where your idea on THIS subject may still be accepted.

    that is why i am disappointed in you. it’s just about this. i agree with you on most everything else, and while disagreement isn’t a prerequisite for disappointment, your perspective on homosexuality is pretty ugly. not so much for how you would choose to use it, but because those of a similar perspective here in america are quite often bigots. it’s just disappointing to see you using similar arguments, even if your ends are quite different.

  • Zedd

    Cindy

    Before I go…

    What would prevent states from providing the same rights under civil unions as in marriage?

    Am I missing something? We make the laws…

    Nancy,

    How was your question answered? Did I miss what you were asking?

  • zingzing

    nancy: “It seems to me the difficulty could/would be resolved by simply passing a federal law requiring the states to standardize benefits/privileges/rights of civil unions to equate with those of marriage, with marriage per se involving more of a religious aspect than the civil union which would entail legal rights only.”

    what if the couple got married in a gay/lesbian church? then wouldn’t the church be giving their consent? and then what would the difference be?

  • Nancy

    Aw, everybody except Cindy did. It was quite awhile ago. That’s OK; I’m nothing if not persistent when I need info.

  • zingzing

    “It isn’t right to have to extend benefits to just anybody who happens to be living with someone, just on their say-so, somehow.”

    they already do. it’s called domestic partnership… it’s limited in some ways, but my live-in girlfriend got it back in the day.

    zedd, my ethnic background is finnish-luxembourgish-austrian-french-german-mongolian.
    since you ask, i’m a mutt.

  • Dr Dreadful

    The difference cited in the sheep Cindy would be an anomaly, an irregularity, dare I say, an abnormally. If these sheep have something that is not present in sheep who exhibit sexual behavior which correlates with their biological function, then it is an irregularity.

    Zedd, I can accept that you personally do not have anything against gays. The problem a lot of us on this thread have is that your argument about “irregularities” is basically what anti-gay folks use to justify their hatred/discrimination (except that the word is often changed to “abnormality” or “freak”).

    A fully-grown adult who is only 4’9″ is also an “irregularity”, but they won’t be persecuted because of it. All of us are “irregular” in some way… which makes your use of the term in defense of your position rather meaningless.

  • http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040309073256.htm Cindy D

    Zedd,

    Why is this question so difficult? The answer is simply yes or no.

    Did the researchers in the article attribute the sheep homosexuality to brain irregularities?

  • Zedd

    Cindy,

    Are you getting childish?

    I answered your question both simply and in detail. I wont engage in a silly tit for tat with you. Stop yourself. You are loosing your credibility.

    You were more affective when you were in Rambo mode.

    _____

    Zing,

    Most people don’t support gay marriage in AMERICA.

    South Africa is one of SIX countries (I believe) in the world that allows for gay marriage. Not sure what you are on about…..

    You are making some extrapolations that don’t apply.

    However you are correct about my spelling. I zip through quickly and DON’T EDIT. I’ve said it so many times. Not gonna edit most of the time…. Don’t wanna most of the time….. If things get undecipherable, I apologize in advance. If I catch the weirdness I will rephrase.

    It still makes no sense to be disappointed in me. As tired as we both are of this subject, I will say, it’s impossible at this stage to make claims about psycho-social behavior and genes. I’m disappointed in you Zing that you don’t care that we cant say such things, that it makes no sense to say such things, yet you espouse those views. WHY? You believe. Well know that that is not good enough. Still think you are adorable….

    Now what the heck are you? Are you White, Black, Mexican, Asian, Mixed, WHAT? You don’t seem like a standard White guy. What’s up with that?

    _________

    Doc,

    Thank you for acknowledging that you see that I am not making the statements that I am making because of a bigoted point of view. I appreciate that.

    However, you may consider that a lot of people who hold the same views are not bigoted either. They are just dumbfounded by the title wave of disinformation regarding this issue. Many people feel bullied into accepting these ideas. When people feel coerced, they tend to over react and dig down. Now imagine the reaction that I got on this thread, while repeatedly saying that I am not against anyone, I was pounced on from all angles. If I didn’t have a relaxed approach toward what goes on on BC, I would have ended up calling people names and veering away from my true stance, which is “hold your horses, these claims are not making sense”.

  • zingzing

    zedd: “Most people don’t support gay marriage in AMERICA.”

    now i didn’t say anything about that. i said that viewing homosexuality as a choice is an antiquated view. gay marriage and the origins of homosexuality are quite different things, ain’t they?

    “South Africa is one of SIX countries (I believe) in the world that allows for gay marriage. Not sure what you are on about…..”

    i know. and i applaud them. i think they see the value in absolute equality for everyone. or, in other words, they see the danger and injustice in not granting those rights. but, if south africa is known for anything, it’s bigotry. (i’m saying that in respect to the nation, not to the people; i know there were two sides to all that fun.) i’m sure it still lingers there, as it lingers everywhere. unfortunately, i would gather that you oppose gay marriage in south africa. that’s no good.

    “Now what the heck are you? Are you White, Black, Mexican, Asian, Mixed, WHAT? You don’t seem like a standard White guy. What’s up with that?”

    i am mutt. my blood obviously likes to travel and fuck things in different countries. or, more accurately, i’m finnish on my mother’s side (which is also where the mongolian, (very faintly, if at all,) comes from), and luxembourgish on my father’s. luxembourg was the pawn of europe. the city is a fortress. many flags were flown over it and borders were constantly changing. it’s hard to tell what was what when fluids were swapped.

    what’s a standard white guy?

  • http://benefitofthedoubt.miksimum.com/ Jesse

    This isn’t a direct argument… it’s more of a general response to the tone of the debate I see here, which has more or less collapsed upon itself (and upon Zedd).

    By letting Zedd dominate this thread, are we being productive any longer? She’s been selected out as the lone defender of the traditional marriage arrangement, and she’s been called out on her writing skill, the cohesion and validity of her arguments, her overwhelming logical fallacies (well done, Cindy), and the biases and normative judgments that are obviously implicit in so many of her posts, despite her vehement claims to the contrary. She’s spent hundreds of words calling scientific arguments invalid, and then referring to her own obnoxious comparisons as mere observations. Comparing homosexuality to a deformity? Characterizing all of gay culture as meth-heads and slackers? And there’s “no value judgment in my comments” (#243)? This is not evidence of a convincing position. In fact, for 70% of this thread, Zedd’s responses have been reactionary, in a rather literal sense… she’s been reacting to comprehensive counter-claims, trying to discredit and unhinge a range of valid ideas without advancing any serious arguments of her own.

    Is this a microcosm of our cultural complex? Is the whole civil rights community just desperately reacting to a vocal minority who don’t have any creditable claims? Do politicians (read: the democrats) shy away from the issue because the very people who advocate for it are making it seem like a bigger deal than it has to be?

    Marriage, the institution, isn’t worth preserving if it isn’t in service of social and civil equality. All people who forge long-term, loving, romantic relationships, and who have the desire and ability to raise a family, should have full, equal access to the cultural designation that signifies this. If we stop fighting against the narrow-minded, is it possible that the rest of the country will just wake up to this understanding?

    I wish that didn’t sound so naive, even as I type it.

  • Zedd

    Doc

    OMG, I thought you were talking about a man who is 49yrs old not 4’9″…. I thought, alrighty then, what is irregular about that? I’ll just ignore that…

    Anyway, I don’t agree with your assessment. I am not referring to simple variation, i am talking about biological glitches that affect function. Downs Syndrome, cleft pallets, Autism may fall into the category that I am referring to but having big ear lopes doesn’t (you can still hear). If there is a gay gene or a biological gay thingy, it would mean ones reproductive organs don’t correlate with their “make up”. A glitch!

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Jesse, thanks for your sensible words.

    This had been an interesting thread with commenters from several different angles, but once She Who Must Not Be Named took it over, most of us gave up trying to talk over her long-winded nonsense.

    Here’s to future discussions, hopefully without the rude takeover this one suffered.

  • Nancy

    Dr. D – ROTFLOL-!

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Jesse, I do think the entire process has been pretty informative. It has illustrated how this issue crosses traditional political boundaries, because we see Zedd who is staunchly of the political left defending ‘traditional’ values and several people who would have to be considered on the political right among the most vocal defenders of the right of gays to be married. It kind of shakes up typical assumptions about this issue.

    In the end I think I have to reiterate what I said earlier. The reasons why someone is gay DO NOT MATTER. That argument is just a distraction from the real issues, which are:

    First, that everyone should have the right to form a household/family of whatever sort they choose with whomever they choose and the law ought to recognize that all members of that household should share the legal benefits of the relationship.

    Second, that the government ought to get out of the marriage business. Let churches determine who gets to call their relationship a ‘marriage’ and let the government register officially recognized households with some sort of license, similar to filing documents of incorporation.

    Remember, it IS called a ‘Marriage Contract’ and there’s a reason for that.

    Dave

  • http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040309073256.htm Cindy D

    Zedd,

    Actually, I was making (albeit more slowly) the same point that zingzing and Dr Dreadful made so much more simply.

    It is a point of semantics. It has to do with the connotation and denotation of the words. The researchers did not use the words irregularities, abnormalities, or anomalies. They used the word differences.

    They did this to make a clear denotation and avoid the following connotation that might be arrived at by shallow thinking.

    “This study says that the behavior may be caused by an irregularity in the brain of those sheep. Meaning something is wrong with those sheep’s brain. Are YOU willing to say that something is WRONG with gays then? Because once you latch on to the biology thing, you must latch to the idea that gays are genetically or biologically defective.

  • http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040309073256.htm Cindy D

    what’s a standard white guy?

    Apparently, one with a large preoptic nucleus in his hypothalamus.

    Heh, heh…sorry i couldn’t resist.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Zedd,

    (sorry Jesse, Dave, handy et al)

    The sexual organs of gay people, unless there is impotence or some other sexual dysfunction present, work just as well as those of straight people. There is no “glitch”.

    You might just as well say that someone has a glitch because they don’t use their arms and legs to climb trees.

  • http://benefitofthedoubt.miksimum.com/ Jesse

    Oooh, good analogy, Doc. It’s rare that a “You might as well say…” analogy actually hits the mark, but I believe that one does.

    Nature is overrated… evolution’s only decree is that we use our biology for whatever we decide it’s good for. (See also my unnatural manifesto, which nobody seemed to find very interesting at the time)

  • http://www.amazon.com/Deathbird-Stories-Harlan-Ellison/dp/0440117372 Cindy D

    “Marriage, the institution, isn’t worth preserving if it isn’t in service of social and civil equality. All people who forge long-term, loving, romantic relationships, and who have the desire and ability to raise a family, should have full, equal access to the cultural designation that signifies this. If we stop fighting against the narrow-minded, is it possible that the rest of the country will just wake up to this understanding?”

    “The reasons why someone is gay DO NOT MATTER. That argument is just a distraction from the real issues, which are:

    First, that everyone should have the right to form a household/family of whatever sort they choose with whomever they choose and the law ought to recognize that all members of that household should share the legal benefits of the relationship.”

    I suppose I am inclined to argue with what I deem to be illogical. Sometimes I wish I could just shut up and take in the bigger picture.

  • Zedd

    Doc,

    Actually, that is a horrible analogy. Logica the Amazon queen mislead you. She’s turning out to be quite a disappointment. I thought that she was representin’ for the ladies…. sigh.

    We use our arms and legs all of the time. They are not for climbing trees.

    The real analogy would be if someone had the capability to walk and use their arms but didn’t because of some glitch, say Alzheimer’s. Alzheimer’s patients can physically do everything but they don’t, because their brains don’t function adequately (glitch, if you will), so they waste away, not walking, not using their muscles to the extent of not eating and they end up dying.

    Gays CAN use their reproductive organs but you and the rest of the wise counsel say that they that they have something within them that tells them that they cant use them so they don’t. While they may manipulate their sexual organs, they don’t engage in reproductive sex because they think they can or believe they can’t.

    Doc don’t mess with me…… I’ll mow you down every time! One thrust of the spear and you are done! (joking off course…. before Handyguy has another glitch and lays an egg… couldn’t resist.)

    Fin

  • Zedd

    correction:

    they don’t engage in reproductive sex because they think they can’t or believe they can’t.

  • Zedd

    Dave,

    You are right, everyone deserves the right to establish their own family structures, without the government telling them they cant or that their families aren’t legit. We have adoption, guardianship and we should have civil unions with full rights. You are also right that the government has no right fudging around with marriage.

    As to your fantasy that I am on the far left, let it go. I am not. I make assessments on a case by case bases.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Doc don’t mess with me…… I’ll mow you down every time!

    Then the blades of your mower must be blunt, because I keep popping back up.

    they don’t engage in reproductive sex because they think they can’t or believe they can’t.

    They can and do.

    before Handyguy has another glitch and lays an egg

    Like many others, I’m kind of getting tired of talking to a brick wall. As I said, I’ll get back to you at some point regarding all your logic errors on this thread. There’ve been a lot of comments and a lot of fallacies. But the above was one of your many ad hominem attacks. Polite ones, as they go, but still ad hominem.

  • Zedd

    Doc,

    Did you miss the scores of not so polite ad hominem attacks by Handyguy, Chris, Cindy and the rest toward me? I have laughed at many my self and ignored most, understanding the spirit of what we are engaged in. As to the last comment, I was simply making a funny. I thought it was rather clever.

  • REMF

    Zedd;
    Keep on keepin’ on. I think you’re holding up well under a typical BC wolfpack frenzy. And I for one do see a difference in your agenda and the mean-spiritedness of your attackers.

    ——————————–

    “And you’re not, MCH. Which is why you wouldn’t recognize good writing if it bit you in the ass.”
    – Clavos

    Oh good, we’re even then, because you wouldn’t recognize a deserter if one bit YOU on the ass.
    (MCH)

  • Nancy

    Thank you, Dave; that was what I meant (#259): there ought to be some kind of generic one-size-fits-all LEGAL license issued by government that bestows legal only status on two people as ‘married'; and if they want to go on to a religious ceremony, that’s their perogative, but the religious ceremony isn’t the legally binding factor. In fact, in my innocence, that’s what I thought a marriage license did: it’s the license you can’t get married without, not the religious mumbo-jumbo. And anybody who has no legal impediments to marriage (such as already being married) should be able to get one.

  • Clavos

    “Oh good, we’re even then, because you wouldn’t recognize a deserter if one bit YOU on the ass.
    (MCH)”

    I recognize them, all right. I just don’t care.

    If you FORCE people to serve (which I’m totally against) you WILL have both deserters and draft dodgers.

    More power to ‘em I say.

    They’re more honest than phony “heroes.”

  • Dr Dreadful

    If you FORCE people to serve (which I’m totally against) you WILL have both deserters and draft dodgers.

    More power to ‘em I say.

    They’re more honest than phony “heroes.”

    I have to disagree with you, Clav.

    The really honest ones are the conscientious objectors.

  • Nancy

    This is true, Dr. D. COs have a lot more integrity & honor than, say, dodgers (like Limbaugh & Cheney) or deserters (like Bush).

  • Clavos

    “The really honest ones are the conscientious objectors.”

    True.

    But emmy would tell you they’re draft dodgers.

  • Clavos

    Also, I still say that phony “heroes” (and I put John Forbes Kerry very firmly in that category) are the most dishonest of all.

    There were a hell of a lot of unearned medals awarded in Vietnam.

  • REMF

    “Also, I still say that phony “heroes” (and I put John Forbes Kerry very firmly in that category) are the most dishonest of all. There were a hell of a lot of unearned medals awarded in Vietnam.”
    – Clavos

    Excellent writing, Clavos. Some of the best I’ve ever read.

  • Zedd

    There are probably very few people who have not felt, at some time or another, some sexual attraction to both men and women. . . . A person’s sexual orientation is not necessarily a fixed, life-long attribute. Sexual orientation can change: for example a woman may be predominantly attracted to men for many years, and perhaps have a happy marriage and children during that time, and then become increasingly aware of same-sex attraction in her thirties, forties, or later. This does not mean that she was concealing or repressing her homosexuality during that early period. To argue that she was really homosexual all the time would be to change the definition of sexual orientation into something murky and inaccessible.
    —Simon LeVay and Elisabeth Nonas, City of Friends: A Portrait of the Gay and Lesbian Community in America, 1995, p. 5

    Homosexuality is not defined[;] what one person call[s] homosexual, is not called homosexual in the next study.
    And people don’t do the necessary statistical experiments, and what really bugs me is that it is possible to do them. When you *have* [a] genetic marker [as Dean Hamer claimed to have found], then there is no excuses for not testing the reverse; i.e[.,] how many people having the marker are homosexuals. [Dean Hamer never tested for this.]
    —Henrik Ernoe, posted in soc.culture.nordic, 20 March 1997

    Because of problems with statistics and sampling, nearly every report of a ‘behaviour gene’ located in this way—including those supposedly associated with schizophrenia, manic depression, criminality and alcoholism—has been retracted or called into question when later investigators failed to replicate the results. A famous example is Dean Hamer’s ‘gay gene,’ announced with much fanfare in 1993, when his group found an association in 40 families between a marker on the X chromosome and male homosexuality. Because of the high political stakes and levels of public interest, Hamer’s results immediately hit the headlines, followed quickly by the publication of his popular book, The Science of Desire: The Search for the Gay Gene and the Biology of Behaviour. The expected uproar ensued: many gays rejoiced that homosexuality could no longer be seen as a sinful choice, and some conservatives spoke darkly of pre-emptive abortion. Since 1998, however, two independent research groups have failed to find any evidence for Hamer’s gene, which now seems likely to be an artefact of sampling. Unsurprisingly, the press has largely ignored these later studies.
    —Jerry Coyne, “Not an Inkling” (review of Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters by Matt Ridley), London Review of Books, Vol. 22 No. 9, April 27, 2000

    In the first place, since Alfred Kinsey researched the sexual experience of American men in the 1940s, it has been known that human sexual behavior is more varied and complex than suggested by the simple concepts of hetero and homosexuality. How would LeVay’s cells account for bisexuality? Do the nuclei change in size according to mood? Can they change suddenly and once and for all when a middle-aged married man ‘comes out’ as gay? Or do bisexuals fall in the middle of the size range?….And what about people who’ve got a thing for sheep, or men who like to have cream cakes thrown at them by prostitutes wearing Nazi uniforms?……You don’t have to go to the wider shores of desire, either. Apparently there are heterosexuals who get off on pretending to be football players during copulation, and why not? But exactly which gene is it that accounts for that?

    It’s Not Natural: New Research Claims to Prove That Homosexuals Are Born and Not Made. Peter Ray Thinks That Idea Is Unscientific, Irrational—and Very Dangerous,” Living Marxism, No. 50, December 1992

  • http://www.robot-of-the-week.com Christopher Rose

    Zedd, perhaps you haven’t noticed but just above the comments box it says in large letters “Add your comment, speak your mind”. That doesn’t mean paste in chunks of other people’s words without some commentary of your own…

  • Catey

    And so the thrust of the spear is, thank you SO much fir the edumycation.

  • Zedd

    Sorry Christopher,

    I hadn’t noticed.

    ———-

    Catey

    I’m glad you learned something. Next time try learn without incurring so many unnecessary wounds and you wont end up such a bloody mess. Just weigh the logic….

  • Lumpy

    Which weighs more, Zedd’s logic or the sound of a tree falling in the woods?

  • Catey

    gonzo’s brimstone aftershave…thats the winner

  • Dr Dreadful

    Lumpy, you’re priceless.

    On this thread, though, that’s a good thing.

  • averageJoe

    There is no such thing as a ‘gay marriage’. The very idea is a travesty. Homosexuals and lesbians are mentally ill, and should be treated as such, not pandered to.