Your opinion is that gender is relevant, and mine is that it is not.

It’s not an “opinon”, it’s a fact. This is exactly what the homo marriage activists want to do: substitute their self-serving opinions for the facts about what real marriage is. Gender is the primary requirement: one man, one woman.

Gays aren’t a threat to marriage, folks. It’s people who can’t keep their wedding vows. It’s the celebrities who get married for a week then get divorced.

Rob,

How many times are you going come up with the same crap?

Every Conservative on SAB but you recognizes that you are in denial with respect to the facts concerning homosexuality and how it is being used by the Left to DESTROY, not coexist with, but DESTROY heterosexual (you know, the other 98 percent of society) marriage, the Judeo-Christian religions and Middle American values.

The evidence is overwhelming.

Just a small taste, located at:
Homosexuality is Wrong – a Compendium

VIOLENT SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT

Gay’ advocates attack those who don’t support cause

Teacher bucks homosexual training, gets suspended

Perez Hilton’s Thought About Miss California USA 2009 Answer
– A homosexual diatribe.

SHUT UP! Let’s talk about these issues, says the right
Sunday, April 12, 2009 OUTSTANDING!

Gay Marriage Advocates Distribute Maps To Proposition 8 Supporter Homes
Tuesday, January 13, 2009

‘Gays’ crush Christian speech
Saturday, February 14, 2009

California-based homosexual-rights group files IRS Complaint Against Church for resisting Gay Marriage – 5/23/2009

Payback for expos? – on ‘dyke’ gang rapes
Homosexual activists attack revelations of lesbian assaults

Now it’s EX-’gays’ getting pummeled
Verbal to violent, attacks rise against former homosexuals

Gays Hating Ex-Gays: New Hate Crimes Bill Threatens Heterosexuals

12-year-old attacked for opposing gay marriage
Sunday, April 12, 2009
(Good example of their you’re a fag too defense) **

McCarthyism: Hollywood Liberals Blacklisting People Who Supported Anti-Gay Marriage Groups
Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Opposing Homosexual Marriage Can Mean Job Loss
Sunday, April 12, 2009
** – No, you’re Gay defense.

And, as a blazing example of how your initial premise statement is wrong, the Senate is even now considering passage of S.909 the Pedophile Protection Act.

The facts have been presented to you in abundance, but you are in denial.

Didn’t mean to ignore you Kenny – I thought all that stuff about wedded bliss equated to pursuit of happiness.

Well that’s true.

At one time blacks could not marry whites. Blacks could not ride in the front of the bus, blacks could not go to the same school as whites.

Yet even this response shows the difference. Blacks were relegated to second class citizens by the states, and faced state sponsored violence if they tried to even cohabitate with a white partner. Gays just aren’t recognized as married. Surely we can all see the difference here?

I couldn’t care less for the “homo lobby” or the benefits or costs. I consider this issue a question of basic human rights. I think people who wish to enter a consensual monogamous should have the right to do so regardless of gender.

Ignoring that you just argued against incestual relationships…here’s the rub. They ARE allowed to enter into a monogamous relationship. They just can’t get married.

I don’t think this is left or right. I’d like to think that our nation would allow its citizens the right to enter a consensual relationship that is recognized by the state with whomever they choose without prejudice, to allow this particular “pursuit of happiness”.

So acceptance is a right? What nonsense! Society doesn’t have the right to tell people that they can’t be together, but society is under no obligation to pat people on the head and tell them their union is SUPER either.

Imagine if the rolls were reversed and only homosexuals got tax credits and social, religious recognition for their behavior and heterosexuals did not.

You might as well imagine same sex couples can procreate. Imagining reality is what has got us into this nonsense in the first place.

Actually, in CA domestic partnerships are only extended to same gender couples with one exception for a heterosexual couple on party of which is over 64 and meets certain SS requirements.

No inequality is present because we all can only marry members of the opposite sex.

Even if you don’t think homosexuality is very nice, wouldn’t it at least save you some taxpayer dollars to have effective safe-sex campaigns to reduce transmission?

We do. While most Americans do not approve of homosexuality, most do not demand you stop the behavior. IMO, in order for society to progress we have to see homosexuality for what it is. Second, we ought to be honest about the potential to help homosexuals that want out. Third we ought to raise awareness of the efforts of militant homosexuals and their methods of recruitment. Fourth, we ought to encourage homosexuals to leave their sexuality where the rest of us do, in the bedroom. Finally, we ought as a society to encourage a live and let live attitude towards those who are comfortable and committed to a homosexual lifestyle.

Zig, you yourself quoted this: “He found that homosexuals accounted for 150 boy victims per sex abuser, compared with 19 female victims per heterosexual child molester.” So in other words, given that there are more female victims (cited Department of Justice) there are definitely more abusers of females than abusers of males. For instance, if there was one abuser of 150 boys, and as we saw from the stats, girls are from 2 to 1 to 5 to 1 times more likely to be abused, so for those 150 boys, there would be conservatively 300 girls. Those girls would have been molested by 15 heterosexual molesters (300/19). So for one lonely homosexual molester there are 15 heterosexual molesters. From that, the contention that homosexuals are nine times more likely to molest are ridiculous, in fact opposite.

Well when the Constitution was written, it didn’t say those African Americans were fully human.

Geez wotta dork.

That decision was based on determining populations to be counted with respect to allocating representatives.

The Northern States didn’t want Blacks to be counted AT ALL because they were not free citizens and could not vote in any event.

The South wanted to count them fully, so as to gain additional representation in the House of Representatives.

The percentage-vote was a compromise between the Free States and the Slave-holding states.

Damn. PLEASE start doing more research before you attempt a point of contention.

Every perversion should have the right to marry. Incestuous marriage shouldn’t be a problem since one can be snipped and remove the risks inherent in incest. 3+ consenting adults would make quite a union. And don’t forget those pedaphiles, they want to marry the child they love too. And of course the disease ridden homosexuality will not prevent marriage. We’ll just spend a hell of a lot more searching for the cures to STD’s. Hey at least the homosexual life span doesn’t extend into the elderly stage, that ought to save us some money.

For those who don’t see the difference between normal, natural sexuality and it’s unique place in marriage and the perversion that is homosexualty with its disprortionate disease and short life span, wake up.

Marriage is the ideal. Sanford’s behavior is incompatible with a marriage relationship, no doubt about it, and divorce can end the marriage. Homosexuality by it’s very nature is completely incompatible with marriage. While society rightly condones marriage between a man and woman, condoning homosexuality by honoring the relationship with marriage is to corrupt the ideal marriage represents. Perversion as a basis for a relationship is incompatible with marriage.

I’m not talking about population vote counting, I’m talking about rights, which were not granted to slaves.

Religion is not immutable, but it is a basis for protection against discrimination.

You are interpreting the APA but what they are saying is that there is not necessarily one particular cause, but a complex of causes. There are inherited traits that are not genetic – for instance see Obese Mother – Obese Child and likewise studies that the more older brothers you have, the greater chance you will be gay – those things have to do possibly with the womb environment. BBC News: Womb environment ‘makes men gay’
(anecdotally, I’m the oldest of three brothers and the only gay one, but my partner is the youngest in his family with two older straight male siblings. So one out of two of us follows that one. )

Majority opinion doesn’t always make something right.

True, but it is important for a couple of reasons. One, because the opinion is based on facts about homosexual behavior. Two because society’s thoughts on marriage reflect the opinion that homosexuality is immoral. Legislating a new definition of marriage inconsistent with the thought expressed by the majority of society is to legislate how society thinks about marriage. This is nothing resembling “maximum liberty”.

I guess mentioning Wilhelm Reich was a little off-topic; I just enjoy recommending books that have the potential to be eye-opening and life-changing. Hopefully my being the messenger won’t dissuade you from reading this important book which attempts to answer the question of why the German people supported Hitler when it was against their best interests to do so.

We are close to a tipping point in terms of gay marriage – polls of young people show that once older voters die off, it’s inevitable. Let’s stay away from metaphors about shoving stuff down people’s throats.

One of my posts that was “moderated” due to links cited a 1968 Gallup Poll that showed 72% of Americans opposed to interracial marriage after the court had legalized it through their ruling in Loving V. Virginia. So should the court have waited in that case until the polls flipped? (go to books.google.com and search on 1968 gallup interracial)

Personally, I don’t feel that non-discriminatory marriage is the most important issue, since its benefits are largely for people who are property owners. I am most concerned about employment non-discrimination, since there is no national law and only 20 states currently have some form of employment protection on the basis of sexuality or gender expression. In other words, people can be fired from their jobs for things they do off the jobs.

It’s getting late… last post for the night. What I meant about immutable: Religion can be changed but it is nonetheless protected, so that counteracts your arguments about how homosexuality should not be protected because you say that it’s changeable (even though I don’t admit to that particular straw man.)

By the way Lawrence V. Texas, the Supreme Court ruling that overturned sodomy laws? Surprisingly it was on due process – O’Connor concurred, but on Equal Protection grounds.

So sweet of you to have concern for me… that’s quite a steamy fantasy you’ve conjured up. Don’t worry about me, as I said I’ve survived to the age of 42 being HIV negative but then again you’re probably more promiscuous than me.

By the way “Bill Clinton” was a pretty non-sequitor answer to my question about women getting the right to vote diluting men’s right.

You may be able to say that about Zig, and Robert…

And Rob would be projecting his own emotionally rigid ideology, as usual. This is not an affirmative argument for homo hijacking of real marriage, merely a smear attack on those who don’t march in lockstep with it.
Rob doesn’t make arguments on this subject, and a few others; he just tries to smear the other guys who don’t agree with him.

Please let me know about heterosexuality – what factors do you think make the difference between promiscuous and monogamous heterosexuals?

Personal morality. Peer pressure. Personal expectations. Self-respect.

No, “pedaphiles” (sic) was first brought up by HG, who seems to be on your side. Check in with your debate partner about where he was going with that.

That’s what courts are for — to reign in the tyranny of the majority. See the stuff about the Gallup poll – in 1968 interracial marriage was legal but polling worse than gay marriage is now.

Nobody has an innate right to political power – it’s based on democracy. We could argue back and forth about who stole elections, and who has control of the media. Let’s just say there’s not a lot of people in the media who are middle-income renters like me. There’s evidence on both sides.

I’m a taxpaying American too, in case you didn’t notice – this whole “we surround you” rhetoric as in Glenn Beck makes me wonder who the “we” is. By the way, I didn’t vote for Obama – didn’t need to, he carried California easily, so I could vote my conscience.

Not a big fan of P. Hilton but it is interesting how gender non-conformity gets people riled up – your value as a human being doesn’t have much to do with how successfully you enact gender stereotypes.

I don’t know if you’re into the Bible, but check out Matthew 5:22 about name-calling – calling someone an idiot (which it seems like what you’re getting at with leftard) is something Jesus says puts someone at risk of hellfire.

First off, I did address the sheer numbers argument re: child molestation.

You seem to have have missed that. Check back on my response.

Secondly, I did look into Wilhelm Reich and find him to be a questionable source:

At that time a Marxist (see article Freudo-Marxism), Reich argued that the source of sexual repression was bourgeois morality and the socio-economic structures that produced it. As sexual repression was the cause of the neuroses, the best cure would be to have an active, guilt-free sex life. He argued that such a liberation could come about only through a morality not imposed by a repressive economic structure.[24] In 1928, he joined the Austrian Communist Party and founded the Socialist Association for Sexual Counseling and Research, which organized counseling centers for workers — in contrast to Freud, who was perceived as treating only the bourgeoisie.

Okay, Reich was a Perv who tried to use psychology to justify his perversions.

The psychological community didn’t buy into his arguments either:

He was also a controversial figure, who came to be viewed by the psychoanalytic establishment as having succumbed to mental illness or somehow gone astray. His work on the link between human sexuality and neuroses emphasized “orgastic potency” as the foremost criterion for psycho-physical health. He said he had discovered a form of energy, which he called “orgone,” that permeated the atmosphere and all living matter, and he built “orgone accumulators,” which his patients sat inside to harness the energy for its reputed health benefits. It was this work, in particular, that cemented the rift between Reich and other prominent psychoanalysts

and ultimately:

He was sentenced to two years in prison, and in August 1956, several tons of his publications were burned by the FDA in a garbage incinerator in New York City.[6][7] He died of heart failure in jail just over a year later, days before he was due to apply for parole

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for homosexuality, hey?

Hi Kenny –
You mean all that stuff about wedded bliss doesn’t equate to happiness?

Of course it doesn’t. And we both know it. And the gay community as a whole knows it. That’s why, after initial runs for marriage, the demand drops back to zero. It’ not about equal rights (homosexuals routinely rejecy civil unions which provide just that). It’s about forcing the majority to accept you.

Yes, they may not have had those intentions, but I feel the Constitution is a living document, best interpreted in the light of the time we’re living in, not the 18th or 19th century.

No one actually believes the constitution is “a living breathing document”. That’s newspeak for “to hell with what the damn thing says…I want what I want.” Everyone who claims it’s a living breathing document just doesn’t want to make a legal or logical case for their desires.

Didn’t mean to ignore you Kenny – I thought all that stuff about wedded bliss equated to pursuit of happiness.

Oh, nonsense. “All my problems would just disappear if only I could get married!” That’s bunk and we both know it.

Moreover, this doesn’t answer the question: How does not being married take away your life? How does not being married take away your liberty? How does it take away your pursuit of happiness?

Answer to all three? It doesn’t.

By the way Lawrence V. Texas, the Supreme Court ruling that overturned sodomy laws? Surprisingly it was on due process – O’Connor concurred, but on Equal Protection grounds.

And the point is reached. In Lawrence, Texas imprisoned and then fined two men for having consentual sex. (After the police officer broke into their house on a false report of weapon’s fire, no less.) The court ruled that gays had a right to privacy and to have the laws equally applied to them (sodomy statutes were rarely or never applied to heterosexual couples).

This comes back to what I said earlier. Society has no right to jail you for what you and your partner do…but they also have no obligation to recognize it, pat you on the back and say “Good job! Your union is just as good as a heterosexual one.”

I think this is your problem with the issue in general. It’s so emotional for you, and your reaction to it is so knee-jerk, that logic doesn’t really matter. You think it’s wrong, and anyone disagreeing (even when arguing from a limited government position on it) is stupid. Or inarticulate.

And is MY reaction knee jerk Rob? You may be able to say that about Zig, and Robert, but I agree. Marriage is not a right any more than health care is a right or a free TV is a right. Indeed, it’s lower than health care on the spectrum as health care doesn’t imply acceptance.

You’re inarticulate because your position doesn’t seem to have any substance behind it. It’s little more than “let people do what they want to do”. Which means little when you consider…they CAN do what they want to do. No one is preventing them from doing anything. The argument for gay marriage is to force other people to praise something they find morally repellant.

Read Wilhelm Reich’s book “Mass Psychology of Fascism” to understand how sexual repression is used by totalitarians to maintain power. I seem to be getting flagged for spam for including citation links or I would put some in.

This is the basic flaw of the pro-gay marriage movement. I have said it before and I will say it again.

Refusal to validate is not the same as banning.

While the government (or even society) has no business criminalizing consentual sexual acts…they are also under no obligation to recognize or praise them. Repeated: Gay sex shouldn’t be illegal, but neither should recognition be forced upon those who think it’s icky. Capeche?

Lotsa broken links, Zig – the @ND one has a lot of spaces and removing them didn’t seem to help me find the page. The one on whitecivilrights (nice!) cites the Family Research Institute one with a broken link, but at least the third link works.

Anyway, they base the 2% homosexual figure on a survey of the general population, so it seems like it would make more sense to compare the victim numbers of a general survey rather than related to convictions.

You keep mentioning molestation by priests. It seems like you should take that one up with the Catholic Church, not people who live as openly gay.

You STILL haven’t answered my question about what child molestation has to do with marriage.

My homosexual partner has worked for an anti-rape organization doing fundraising. Zig, what are YOU doing to stop heterosexual rape and molestation?

Gays Aren’t Destroying Marriage, Mark Sanford Is Destroying Marriage

THE SAYANYTHING BLOG. Moveing soon to Berkly, CA.

Well, prolly not. But I think Rob would feel more comfy amongst his own.

Rob,

How many times are you going come up with the same crap?

Zig,

Rob articulates many things extremely well, but when he talks of gay marriage it’s as if it’s not the same person. Flawed logic, emotions, and willful ignorance are substituted for his usual candor and insight. It’s rather strange to say the least.

You missed a great discussion though. Hannitized even behaved himself.

Gay marriage is no different than “sex change”. One cannot change one’s sex, a person born male will always be male, a person born female will always be female. One can mutilate the body to make it appear to be the opposite, but the chromosomes remain XX or XY no matter what is done to change one’s physical appearance.

Marriage has been devalued in our culture since the advent of no-fault divorce. This push to label gay unions as marriage is just a natural outcome of what has been happening for more than forty years. The damage has been done and it will take more than stopping “gay marriage” to repair.

Men and women are not interchangeable. They have naturally designed and evolved roles that support reproduction and society.

…redefining the semantics of “marriage”…

Wrong again! It’s not “semantics”, it’s reality. What homos do will never be marriage, no matter what legal tricks are used.

HG on June 25, 2009 at 10:56 am

Your logic is confusing the issue. Please stick to the neocon tradition of simple bigotry and homophobia, otherwise, their heads might explode.

I don’t think this is left or right. I’d like to think that our nation would allow its citizens the right to enter a consensual relationship that is recognized by the state with whomever they choose without prejudice, to allow this particular “pursuit of happiness”. I think that gender is irrelevant. I think that we all consider other things we discussed to be relevant.

Gentlemen. Our differences here center around this relevancy. Your opinion is that gender is relevant, and mine is that it is not.

I have truly enjoyed this discussion. I havn’t changed your mind, and you havn’t changed mine. You have definitely made me think about my position in ways that I have not and for that I thank you.

Now it’s time to play golf. Ya’ll have a great afternoon.

You missed a great discussion though. Hannitized even behaved himself.

Wow.

Yes, had to work. I even feel guilty about goofing off right now. Feel free to use the links and more importantly, the links that the links link to.

Got it?

Clearly, Governor Sanford’s was not, even though his marriage fits the traditional definition.

Exactly. Like I said, adultery is no more compatible with marriage than homosexuality.

The comparison in the post is flawed.

So should society condemn marriage for everyone that has sex?

The equivalent of this statement would be to say that deformities occur outside of incest, so should society condemn all child bearing for every couple?

I couldn’t care less for the “homo lobby” or the benefits or costs.

So you say, but then you make one:

I consider this issue a question of basic human rights.

So, what is your evidence that marriage is a “basic human right”? If it were, there would be no requirements of any kind, like the right of free speech, for instance, but that’s not the case. In fact, you admitted that you and your wife had to meet a requirement to be HIV negative. So, to have actual marriage, the basic requirement is “one man, one woman”; added to that are “not too closely related” and “above a certain age”.
The homo lobby wants to distract with the phony “rights” argument, but the reality is that they want to determine the requirements for marriage, instead of the vast majority who are normal in their sexual tastes. As always with the lefties, it’s about the power to set the rules, clothed in the phony trappings of “human rights”.
Single people can’t be married, unless they meet the requirements, which is just another proof that marriage is not a “right”, much less a “basic human right”.
Again, the ideological argument breaks down in the presence of human reality.

I have a bachelor’s degree in math. I know how to do the math.

Your argument is about propensity, but it’s propensity within a small minority. The absolute greatest number of victims are molested by heterosexuals, which you cannot refute.

By the way, check out the documentary “Twist of Faith” – there are female victims of Catholic priests in the documentary.

One man’s weakness? Take a look at the divorce statistics for heterosexual marriage sometime.

By the way “Bill Clinton” was a pretty non-sequitor answer to my question about women getting the right to vote diluting men’s right.

Clinton got elected off of the female vote.

If not for the female vote, Clinton would never have been elected…nor would Obama.

Could it be that self-esteem and community support has something to do with it?

Nope. It’s about choosing to have high personal moral standards, and acting in accordance with them.

oops, I meant refutations of The Pink Swastika from the Wikipedia article on it. You know what I mean…

I think this is your problem with the issue in general. It’s so emotional for you, and your reaction to it is so knee-jerk, that logic doesn’t really matter. You think it’s wrong, and anyone disagreeing (even when arguing from a limited government position on it) is stupid. Or inarticulate.

Geez Rob,

All those pages, perhaps six or so, chock full of studies on various aspect of homosexuality that make it objectively wrong. In that passage, you’ve described your own response exactly.

What have you provided as counter-arguments?

Knee-jerk

Bigot

Wow, you’ve about trotted out every trope from the Leftard playbook there is without saying a damn thing of substance.

Dude, you are one huge hypocrite in denial.

On the psychology front, check out Dr. Evelyn Hooker, a heterosexual woman who did research which found that psychologists couldn’t tell the difference between psychological tests of heterosexuals and homosexuals.

I have truly enjoyed this discussion.

You have yet to make a convincing argument that marriage is “a basic human right”. Even if you had done so, you still seem to have some limiting requirements in mind, like no pedo and no bestiality or incest, so the “basic human right”(which should be available to all, with no qualifications) still doesn’t add up, even in your terms.
IMO, what you are actually arguing is that homos should get “special rights”, even if they don’t meet the requirements for real marriage.
Maybe you haven’t really thought this through, or maybe you’re being dishonest.

It’s called “legal precedent”; you can look it up, but please stick to one of your points, instead of trying to change the subject every time you get refuted.

One man’s weakness? Take a look at the divorce statistics for heterosexual marriage sometime.

Rob blamed Mark Sanford for “destroying marriage”, and I refuted that false premise. No “statistics” you can cite prove anything other than human imperfection. Real marriage is a permanent human institution. If the homos succeed in forcing their hijacking on the vast majority, we will probably just rename our reality. Real marriage is a human reality; the name only has meaning if it represents something real, like any other word.

…and a side issue to the marriage thing.

Not if you believe that marriage is a “basic human right”; then it is the main issue.

When you can offer up links to sources that aren’t Evangelical Outpost, the Pink Swastika, or your own blog posts maybe some of us who disagree with you will begin to consider taking you seriously.

So, no logical or factual counter argument, just smear?
If you can’t refute the message, try to shoot the messenger.
The sign of a weak intellect.

Because you cannot possibly support one and not the other.

It was an illustration of the absurd notion that homosexuality is fit for marriage. By the way, most pedophiles are homosexuals.

Interesting that you should bring up authoritarianism.

This passage describes what is happening in England, even as the Senate considers passage of S.909:

The new totalitarianism On its way to the USA

[Reprinted from Issues & Views June 17, 2002]

Writer Peter Hitchens tells us about the new “progressive” England, where there are now laws designed to guard the sensibilities of specially protected groups from all forms of upset. Those hapless souls who are caught in the snares of these laws must simply fend for themselves. In “Keep quiet or face arrest,” in the Spectator (6/8/02), Hitchens describes the fate of one Harry Hammond, an Englishman “who likes to preach the Gospel in the open air of Bournemouth, whether anyone is listening to him or not.” Here’s an excerpt:

Mr. Hammond was prosecuted last month with the special zeal that our criminal-justice system reserves for the law-abiding types who fall into its clutches. He was fined £300, plus £395 costs, by Wimborne magistrates’ court after they convicted him for breaching the Public Order Act of 1986. This made it an offence to display any writing, sign or other visible representation that is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm and distress thereby.

(In the American First Amendment context, we call this sort of thing an Unconstitutional Heckler’s Veto)

Mr. Hammond’s crime was to display a placard–now destroyed by order of the bench–on which was written: “Stop immorality. Stop homosexuality. Stop lesbianism.”

Plainly this message was annoying to some. But the Tory MPs who passed this law might be surprised that such sentiments are now legally classified as threatening, abusive or insulting, or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

Although most of the crowd that gathered around Hammond were no more than curious onlookers, Hitchens relates how certain hecklers assaulted the sign carrier, causing him to fall to the ground:

Yet when the police were called, it was Mr. Hammond who was arrested. There had, you see, been complaints from homosexuals about the placard. One of the objectors was Sean Tapper, an articulate and intelligent young man who saw the words as a personal attack on his way of life. . . . He is unmoved by arguments that the placard did not use inflammatory language and referred to homosexuality, which is behaviour, rather than homosexuals, who are people.

Mr. Hammond’s case may well be the most bizarre arrest in the history of English policing, since the two officers involved disagreed over what to do. A more experienced male constable, Wayne Elliott, thought that Mr. Hammond should be protected. His younger female colleague, Nicola Gandy, thought that he should be taken in. Her view prevailed . . . The quarrel between the two constables neatly sums up the difference between the old law, which was concerned about what people did, and the new one, which is far too interested in what people think and say. . . .

In [Hammond's] case, the Human Rights Act proved as useless in the defence of traditional views as it is useful in advancing radical ones. It may well be the law of England that if your spoken or written beliefs might irritate a passing homosexual, it is illegal to express them. Imagine the effect that such a law would have. If condemnation of an action is deemed to be insulting to anyone who does that action, then almost all absolute morality is outlawed. . . .

It also means that a legitimate opinion about a type of behaviour is magically transmuted into so-called hate-speech, so offensive to certain persons that it is likely to provoke them to fury. The implication is that it ought not to have been said or written. . . .

Did you really think that freedom and democracy would be dismantled by people who openly declared that they wanted censorship and tyranny? The new totalitarianism comes robed in righteous outrage, but it still holds a gag in its hand.

This is the crux of my dispute with Rob. As someone who interprets law and deals with its enforcement on a daily basis, I see the threat of real damage that so-called Homosexual Rights presents to the other 98 percent of Society.

He does not and indeed, refuses to see this danger. It’s a very real danger to all freedom, but particularly to Conservative and patriotic and religious Americans.

Which brings us back to the topic of the thread: who poses the true danger to traditional marriage?

Well, for one thing, among heterosexuals (e.g. Normals or about 98 percent of society) about 18 percent of females have an extramarital affair and about 22 percent of males have an extramarital affair. Even within supposedly committed and monogamous homosexual (e.g. Deviant or about 2 percent of society) ‘cheating’ is at nearly 100 percent. Moreover, homosexual relationships generally last, one and a half, to three years, if that, depending upon the study conducted. See more on Homosexual Promiscuity, starting here and continuing through the last page of the thread.

Fidelity, Promiscuity, and Gay Covenant Marriage

Few “gay” relationships last longer than two years, with many homosexual men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners. ….

50% of homosexual men over the age of 30, and 75% of homosexual men over the age of forty, experienced no relationships that lasted more than one year

Are ‘Gay’ Men More Promiscuous than Straights?

…A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20 percent of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300…
…
…The fact that many homosexuals appear to live their lives in sexual overdrive does not seem to concern leaders in the movement. In an editorial from the same issue (August 15) in which the survey results were published, The Advocate said: “[Homosexuals] have been proud leaders in the sexual revolution that started in the 1960s, and we have rejected attempts by conservatives to demonize that part of who we are.”

and

“Homosexuality is misrepresented as essentially the same experience as heterosexuality. Children are told that homosexuals typically make love ‘when they care about each other.’ While this may be true in some cases, it is not the norm. The most reliable studies about and by homosexuals
show that the typical homosexual is quite promiscuous. In fact, the largest study done of homosexual males (Homosexualities by Bell and Weinberg, 1978) finds that nearly half have 500 or more sex partners and that 28% have more than 1,000 partners.

A recent American Medical Association study shows that homosexual youths are 23 times as likely to have a sexually transmitted disease than heterosexual youths, and other recent studies show a higher incidence among homosexuals of hepatitis, gonorrhea, syphilis, and other sexually transmitted diseases.“…

“The contention that homosexual men are apt to have relatively large numbers of sexual partners is supported by several investigations. In one study, two-thirds of the homosexual male respondents were described as having been engaged in “promiscuous sexual patterns”

There is a lot more to show that homosexuals, statistically, are not faithful within a relationship and when they stray. as heterosexuals do, it is not necessarily someone who is fairly safe sexually. Much of their pairings are anonymous and extremely dangerous when speaking of HIV/AIDS transmission risk, as well as a raft of other sexually transmitted diseases that homosexuals contract and transmit in numbers far outside their proportion to society.

SEE: Homosexuality – a Clear and Present Danger

I’m not talking about population vote counting, I’m talking about rights, which were not granted to slaves.

Okayyyy. But that’s not what you said originally.

It is clear you misunderstood the premise of the 3/5ths Compromise, and now you are changing your argument to something else.

So noted, but also irrelevant to this discussion.

Religion is not immutable, but it is a basis for protection against discrimination.

And this is relevant because….. ?

Show your work.

You are interpreting the APA but what they are saying is that there is not necessarily one particular cause, but a complex of causes.

Okay… I am reading the rest of your passage, but you are still shooting into the berm. The genetic marker theory, and thus the immutable characteristic theory is dead.

No Gay Gene. Your people have been working on it for years and found nothing. It’s finished.

Gone.

Dead.

Buried.

Those other factors are generally the environmental factors growing up. And, I know you hate to hear this, but one of the leading factors of gayness in adults is getting raped in the ass as a kid.

Incidentally, a major leading study has also determined two major leading indicators as to the onset of the HIV virus:

– a) hot breath on the back of your neck; and

– b) a pounding sensation in your ass.

If I changed my position to agree with you, could I be articulate again?

Well, we can only assume that you have finally read and acknowledged the facts established by a broad swath of studies and reports, just a fraction of which can be found on the links on my sig-line below.

What is inarticulate about your current position, is how you:

1) Have completely failed to refute any of the facts, studies or history contained within those links;

2) Have completely failed to offer up anything of substance supporting a competing view; and

3) Have merely trotted out the stock knee-jerk, Leftard ad homnium responses of Hate and Bigotry.

We’ve offered facts and you’ve offered insults.

That is what is inarticulate about your position in this matter, Rob.

Well then there are the non-incarcerated Homosexuals:

Abel also found that non-incarcerated “child molesters admitted from 23.4 to 281.7 acts per offender … whose targets were males.”

– Report: Pedophilia more common among ‘gays’ April 29, 2002

http://www.w nd.com/news/article .asp? ARTICLE_ID=27 431

Indeed fully 37 percent of Gay Men have admitted molesting young boys.

The Kinsey Report was a relatively sympathetic report on homosexuality. What’s fascinating about that report is that the Gays themselves were admitting back in 1948, when their “lifestyle” was extremely taboo, that they were seducing underage boys. If 37% of homosexual men admitted such behavior back then (which is basically admitting FELONY behavior), it seems reasonable to suspect that the actual percentage of homosexuals who molest children is really much, much higher.

–37% of Gay Men Admit Molestation, October 22, 2006

and

If 2% of the population is responsible for 20% to 40% of something as socially and personally troubling as child molestation, something must be desperately wrong with that 2%. Not every homosexual is a child molester. But enough gays do molest children so that the risk of a homosexual molesting a child is 10 to 20 times greater than that of a heterosexual

— Child Molestation and Homosexuality

HG,

Disagree.

How long ago has it been that the word got out that unprotected butt sex is a great way to spread AIDS?

The word is out there and has been out there for ages. A lot of these doctors’ studies discuss how they interview homosexuals, counsel them on safe sex and these gimps go out there and pull man-trains on each other sans condiments.

They know the risks, they know what they should and shouldn’t do and continue to ignore the risks and continue to play with each others poop and pee and jizz.

I say, mark the positive ones with the BIOHAZARD tattoo right above the Nads, and for good measure, athwart the Main Bung, and deny all taxpayer and insurance-paid benefits.

Why should ANYONE else have to pay the $600,000.00 it costs to treat each seroositive faggot when it is completely voluntary behavior and an avoidable disease.

Certainly there are those who are truly victims, those who contract the disease through no fault of their own via transfusions or secret bi-sexuals and the like.

But no, I would no longer support this bestial behavior with taxpayer-extracted funds.

Besides, they have so many rich Leftists, like George Soros and most of Hollyweird, who have tons on money and can pass the hat for their favorite 2 percent of society.

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College; taxation was only a secondary issue.[citation needed] The final compromise of counting “all other persons” as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.

The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Larry-Bob,

Comparing race vs. sexual orientation?

Errrrnnnnt!

Sorry. Wrong answer.

Thank you for playing.

The last person attempting to change his race died today. But for the rest of us, race is an immutable characteristic.

A homosexual orientation on the other hand, is a mental disease or condition which responds to treatment and can be cured. There are scores of homos who have been cured. See
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays and Exodos

As we have noted before, even the very pro-Homosexual APA has finally admitted that there is no Gay Gene, thus no Born Gay excuse.

Thus, to qualify under the Civil Rights argument, you must be being discriminated against, because you have an immutable characteristic and denied a fundamental right.

The right to marriage is not fundamental.

It is, in fact, pervasively regulated and subject to reasonable limitations. (No incest, no polygamy, no animals, etc… )

There is nothing about homosexual pairings that the State should bless and condone as conduct. No children are born of such unions, which is the principle basis for a State-based blessing of marriage. Religions, on the other hand, have other, moral bases upon which to ground marriage.

Did I mention homosexuality carries with it a 50 to 70 percent chance of contracting HIV, which is closely associated with the fatal and incurable AIDS virus?

Why should the State, which is charged with ensuring the Health, Safety, Morals and Welfare of its citizens, place its stamp of approval on a practice that shortens the practitioners life, by anywhere from 8 to 24 years? (that’s because of all the diseases, mind you)

Why should the State place its stamp of approval on a practice that accounts for perhaps 2 percent of the population and between 20 and 40 percent of all child molestation?

Why should the State bless a practice that often results in AIDS and costs the taxpayers, hospitals and insurers (and thereby others who have to pay their insurance premiums) $600,000.00 to treat each person infected with AIDS?

Geez Dude, you haven’t gotten one argument right yet.

Yes, I’ve heard refutations of Global Warming, refutations of the works of John Lott (More Guns, Less Crime) right up and through the part where his arch-nemesis Bellesiles, was drummed out in disgrace for making up his entire case against the Second Amendment. Christina Hoff-Sommers debunked a raft of Leftard Domestic Violence myths and Leftard enviro-whackos were caught planting the fur of endangered species in an area of woods to stop that area from being developed.

Leftists LIE.

It’s what they do.

Homosexuals have allied themselves with the Left and sought refuge within its ranks, and therefore have adopted its methodology.

The facts, however, regarding the disease associated with homosexuality, their proclivity to go after little boys (and Lesbians, little girls) , the costs they impose on the rest of society for the $600,000.00 it costs to treat of the AIDS infected, the way they have used the Courts to aggressively seek access to other peoples’ little boy in Boy Scout troops, they way they have comported themselves as members of the Cloth within the Catholic Church, how they will use their influence in corporate America to force employment policies down the throats of straight Americans, to terrorize and punish college students and school kids into enduring homosexual indoctrination without daring to speak out, how they have driven Christian orphanages out of the field since they could not bring themselves to place children in the hands of homosexuals… and so on and so on.

The Truth doesn’t work out so well for you pole-smokers, so you have to throw up smoke screens and resort to psycho-babble.

So you admit that heterosexual marriage isn’t actually in any danger of being destroyed as an institution.

Not what I said, no you try to lie by mischaracterizing what I actually said. If the homos destroy “marriage” by forcing their hijack on us through the courts, we will simply continue doing what we have always done; we will just have to rename it to distinguish it from what the homos have destroyed.
You’re trying to change the subject, in the typical manner of dishonest debaters.
Shame on you! My point is that the homos can’t destroy reality, even if they can destroy the word “marriage”.

I’m not sure why, simply because you disagree with my position on this particular issue, suddenly I’m not articulate when I write about it?

Rob,

The logic you employed in the title is greatly flawed. G”ays aren’t destroying marriage, but Mark Sanford is.”

Mark Sanford is destroying marriage by cheating on his wife with another woman, but husbands have also been known to cheat on their wives when they discover they like to bang other men. Therefore, your statement that gays aren’t destroying marriage is contradicted by your statement that Sanford is. This is illogical.

Now, if you were to say that adultery is behavior inconsistent with marriage and damages marriage I’d agree. But, it doesn’t follow that homosexuality is therefore not harmful to marriage. I’d say both are behavior not fit for a marriage relationship.

So many conservatives remind me of, well, liberals when the debate turns to issue like this. An utter refusal to listen to logic.

You have to post something logical on gay marriage before you accuse me of not listening to it. You have no answer to the extremely disprortionate infection rate and lower life expectancy related to homosexuality. You have offered nothing but a non-sequitor and the “maximum liberty” argument while barely acknowledging the arguments from the other side that represent the thoughts of the vast majority of Americans. A strong argument could be made that it is you who is not listening Rob.

This is where I came in, seeing this in the comments side-bar:

Wow, we got some people here who can’t stick to the subject, bringing up child abusers (most of whom are heterosexual), etc. …
Larry-bob on June 25, 2009 at 04:25 pm

We addressed that issue, particularly the aspects relating to proportionality and propensity. I also addressed the issue of sheer numbers (again, after all heterosexuals comprise 98 percent of the population, but homosexuals comprise anywhere from 20 to 40 percent of child sexual abuse, even though they comprise only about 2 percent of the population. )

I posted the point-counterpoint, Zig – there are studies on both sides in terms of proportionally who’s more responsible. However it’s a small percentage of the population that molests and a side issue to the marriage thing.

Clearly more girls than boys are victims of molestation: US Department of Justice: “A telephone survey of a national probability sample of 2,000 children between the ages of 10 and 16 revealed that 3.2 percent of girls and 0.6 percent of boys had suffered, at some point in their lives, sexual abuse involving physical contact.”
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/163390.htm
Would banning heterosexual marriage make sense in light of molestation of girls, or would that be a non-sequitor?

I have to doubt your sources since in your signature you cite the Holocaust revisionist book “The Pink Swastika” which I’m sure is a book that your gay-hating Holocaust revisionist buddy Ahmadinejad could probably get behind.

I’ve already pointed out why it is not identical. Pedophilia is a nonconsensual realtionship.

Maybe you’re not familiar with the ideological argument: “Two people who love each other should have the right to be married, if they want to.” It’s also known as “marriage equality“. In the world of moral relativism, all relationships are equal, and entitled to the “right” of marriage.
Besides, NAMBLA believes that pedo relationships are consensual. If you can force us through the courts to change the definition of marriage, the same argument can be used to change the definition of “consensual”.
It’s that old “slippery slope” thing.

I agree with this intepretation of the law.

“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice,” Justice Palmer declared. “To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage.html

I understand the arguments made by HG, but in the case of pedophilia we are discussing a relationship that is not consensual (the same is applicable to bestiality). Children (and sheep) cannot rationally consent to that kind of relationship.

In the other cases I’ll take the extreme position and say who cares. If siblings would like to marry let them (as long as they don’t reproduce). If more than 2 people would like to enter into a marriage let them.

Marriage is simply a social tradition and sometimes traditions change.

Supporting gay marriage means basically one thing: You support the minority over the majority in an issue of want…not need. Marriage is not a right. And even the standard libertarian cry for “liberty” doesn’t work. If the gay is denied marriage…well he’s in the same boat as everyone else, except without a pretty little piece of paper. He can still live with his partner, have sex with his partner, get insurance for his partner, work where he wishes, live where he wishes, leave everything to his significant other, etc.

Since marriage is societal acceptance, the argument is “Do we have a right to acceptance from others?” The answer is emphatically no. No matter how much the proponents of gay marriage want to dismiss it as silly, the issue still stands…Why gay marriage, but not polygamy? Why gay marriage but not incestuous couplings? Why gay marriage, but not roommate cohabitation to get tax breaks?

homosexuals are at least 13 times as likely as heterosexuals to molest children.

For one thing, there is no Born Gay. There is no Gay Gene.

That bubble has burst and that ship has sailed.

How’s it feel to get lumped in unfairly?

The operative word is unfairly.

Sorry.

Studies have shown that homos molest children at a rate of 13 times that of heterosexuals.

Nope. You’re lumped in, but fairly.

They shouldn’t reproduce because inbreeding leads to a higher accumulation of of homozygotes in the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#Biological_consequences_of_inbreeding

Read the section titled, “Biological Consequences of Inbreeding”.

Read Wilhelm Reich’s book “Mass Psychology of Fascism” to understand how sexual repression is used by totalitarians to maintain power. I seem to be getting flagged for spam for including citation links or I would put some in.

This site doesn’t like me to post links, but there are refutations of The Pink Triangle cited and linked from the Wikipedia article on it.

See my first post for the link to the point-counterpoint about child molestation proportions – there are about equal citations on both sides of the question.

You didn’t refute my citation of the Department of Justice saying that more girls are molested.

Gay gene – google Richard Dawkins homosexuality. Selfish Gene and all that.

Google lesbians lifespan for refutation of lifespan arguments.

How are all those women in Africa getting AIDS if not for heterosexual transmission?

Even if you don’t think homosexuality is very nice, wouldn’t it at least save you some taxpayer dollars to have effective safe-sex campaigns to reduce transmission? Or do you agree with Lyndon Larouche and Fidel Castro that people with AIDS should be put in concentration camps?

Lesbians must be God’s chosen people because it’s harder for them to transmit AIDS.

Here’s an argument I heard recently that I thought was good – when women got the right to vote via a constitutional amendment, did that decrease the value of men’s right to vote? I suppose in the sense that it increased the total number of voters, but wasn’t that simply making this a more perfect union in terms of making people more equal.

At one time blacks could not marry whites. Blacks could not ride in the front of the bus, blacks could not go to the same school as whites.

False equivalence! Black men and women could still get married. There is no relationship of any kind between racism and the homo activist attempt to hijack marriage for their own selfish purposes.

…but I feel the Constitution is
a living document, best interpreted in the light of the time we’re living in, not the 18th or 19th century.

Fortunately, your “feelings” are irrelevant to the reality of our Constitution. You probably haven’t considered this, but if the Constitution were simpy an artifact of current social fashion, there would be no protected rights; they would be subject to current legal and social fashion. That might work in the favor of your selfish agenda, and it might work against it. Of course, you could just throw out majority rule and voting, along with representative democracy, as well.
We could just have a dictatorship with you as dictator, right?
Most mature adults accept the fact that they can’t have everything they want. The terrorism associated with the refusal of your community to accept the will of the people as expressed by Prop 8 revealed a lot about your agenda.

WillHunt,

Agree!

This post is a non sequitur. One has nothing to do with the other!

Marriage is devalued when people don’t live up to their vows, but what does that have to do with homosexuality? Nothing!

Gay Marriage is by definition an impossibility.

HG,

Rob articulates many things extremely well, but when he talks of gay marriage it’s as if it’s not the same person. Flawed logic, emotions, and willful ignorance are substituted for his usual candor and insight. It’s rather strange to say the least.

I’m not sure why, simply because you disagree with my position on this particular issue, suddenly I’m not articulate when I write about it?

If I changed my position to agree with you, could I be articulate again?

I think this is your problem with the issue in general. It’s so emotional for you, and your reaction to it is so knee-jerk, that logic doesn’t really matter. You think it’s wrong, and anyone disagreeing (even when arguing from a limited government position on it) is stupid. Or inarticulate.

So many conservatives remind me of, well, liberals when the debate turns to issue like this. An utter refusal to listen to logic.

Every perversion should have the right to marry. Incestuous marriage shouldn’t be a problem since one can be snipped and remove the risks inherent in incest. 3+ consenting adults would make quite a union. And don’t forget those pedaphiles, they want to marry the child they love too.

I love we jump straight to supporting gay marriage means you must also support pedophiles.

Because you cannot possibly support one and not the other.

They’re going to destroy marriage…by getting married to one another?

How is that destroying marriage? Other than the fact that you don’t like gays and don’t want them to marry?