I’ve been saying for ages that I didn’t buy for a minute the notion that President Obama had any problems with gay marriage. Not for a moment did I think that a guy whose parents, less than half a century ago, would not have been allowed to marry in some states, would believe that legally keeping people apart who love each other was an acceptable way of doing things. But I think that he was concerned about the political backlash. Me, I think he should have said screw the backlash and just been honest. Then again, that’s easy for me to say, because I wouldn’t have had to worry about going all-in on my political ambitions with this issue. He probably felt he needed to save his political capital for health care, which we all know is rock solid steady and couldn’t possibly be overturned or set aside.
In any event, whether Joe Biden’s honest answer to the question was a trial balloon or simply forced Obama’s hand, it was obvious that his foot-dragging toward an inevitable “reversal” of his “evolving” opinion was going to have to happen sooner rather than later. Based on surveys, the GOP is (once again) on the wrong side of this issue, and the people who pointlessly hate the idea of gay marriage were likely not voting for Obama anyway. So in theory nothing is lost and some good will is gained. The other bit of timing that I liked was that it came in conjunction with North Carolina’s obscenity of an anti-marriage, anti-civil union amendment (which also impacts heterosexuals, so brilliant move there.) North Carolina comes across as so stupid, you’d almost want to joke that it should marry Arizona, except of course that would be illegal. One North Carolina politico claimed that they hoped this would send a message to the rest of the country. Well, I think the President of these United States sent a message right back: everyone who voted for it was wrong.
My one regret is that Obama basically said that it’s still a state issue. I mean, yeah…he’s right. But so was slavery, once upon a time. I wouldn’t have minded him putting forward a case for possibly taking it to the national level. I don’t pretend to understand these things, but I wonder if a class action suit in North Carolina by disenfranchised gays AND straights would be the ticket to a Supreme Court ruling.
PAD
• 
I have never felt, or even understood, why any question regarding civil rights should be a matter for each state to determine for themselves. The Constitution, if I remember correctly, guarantees Equal Rights Under the Law for every U.S. citizen. No exceptions. Race doesn’t enter into it, religion doesn’t enter into it, and sexual orientation shouldn’t be entering into it. I think Obama should step up to the plate and decree that gays can be legally married, nationwide, and to hëll with what the bigoted, intolerant governments of the individual states think about it. Yes, I know he’d catch political flak and so it is therefore unlikely to happen. But dammit, it’s what OUGHT to happen.
Amen en Hallelujah.
You do realize that the Constitution protects you from the Federal government right? The state constitutions protect you from the state government.
Hope that helps with understanding.
Except when the state constitution is amended to allow the government to discriminate against you.
Anyway, thanks to the 14th Amendment, the US Constitution now protects us from both the federal and state governments.
I don’t know what that has anything to do with gay marriage, Brent. It would apply if the federal government wanted to strip someone of their rights.
.
But I don’t see how you need to “fear” the big government when all it does is to give someone the same rights you already do.
.
Gays will be better for it, and you won’t lose a thing. Why do you think anyone needs “protecting” in this issue?
Presidents do not “decree” laws into being. It does not work that way.
Well, it’s nice when bigots don’t “decree” laws either. Oh sure, you can blather something about “elections,” but elections don’t mean much when emotion trumps reason and demagoguery trumps democracy.
Well, the advantage of election “blathering” is that they are based in reality, as opposed to some imaginary place where a president can “decree” what we like…and, of course, we can be certain that no “bad” president will ever abuse such power.
The other side didn’t decree it either; they whupped us. And rather than mope around about it I hope to return the favor.
David Peattie: I have never felt, or even understood, why any question regarding civil rights should be a matter for each state to determine for themselves.
Amen ta that.
PAD: Obama basically said that it’s still a state issue. I mean, yeah…he’s right.
I don’t get that. Beyond the bizarre result that one can be married in one state but not in another, what David said.
I’m not certain I understand what the thrust of this thread is; however, for what it’s worth, the Fourteenth Amendment creates no rights. It does prohibit States from infringing the “privileges and immunities” of citizens of the United States, and it does prohibit States from depriving “persons” of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denying said persons the equal protection of laws which exist.
It long ago was determined that the Fourteenth Amendment is not sex neutral (recall it took the Nineteenth Amendment to give women the right to vote in national elections). It also long ago was determined that the Fourteenth Amendment is no shield for novel social ideas (recall the federal government’s struggles with the Mormons over polygamy). Within broad parameters, it remains for the state legislatures to declare the morality of the state, and that can extend from the obvious (e.g., laws against bank robbery) to what apparently here is not so obvious (e.g., laws against sodomy).
You are not going to Hëll for being homosexual (there is no such place), and God isn’t going to get you (there’s no compelling evidence that “God” exists, but even if I’m wrong, no one yet to my satisfaction has defined “God” with sufficient particularity for me to know I’m wrong). Like most libertarians, I rarely get particularly disturbed about victimless “crimes” (though I’ve never been an absolutist).
I can say that I’ve taught biology (along with many other subjects) in the public schools to adolescent students, that in the course of doing that, I probably saw 4,000 kids a year, and that my experience tells me such individuals need strong role models at that age for coming to grips with their own developing sexuality. Because sexual behavior (like all behavior) is learned, given the orientations of the vast majority in our society and what remains necessary for its continuance, I cannot agree that a homosexual couple presents such a role model, and I therefore find the presence of a reasonable relationship between the state’s interests in this area (as expressed by the legislature) and exclusions it makes attendant to the laws of domestic relations. Yes, I do concede that it’s very possible for two men or two women to love one another intensely, just as I also would have to concede that it’s possible for a man equally to love half a dozen wives. And, maybe that is an argument for a heightened degree of tolerance. But, MARRIAGE remains a special relationship between a man and a woman only, which envelopes (among other things) the legal right to have or adopt and raise children; and, I’m not willing to concede that any constitutional provision is violated by keeping it that way, or that any child can be made some kind of legal Guinea pig in an organized effort to create some new morality. I quietly supported the Defense of Marriage Act when it came to a vote in Florida, and if the issue should reapper on the electoral scene, I probably will support it again.
Robert Crim: …or denying said persons the equal protection of laws which exist
Meaning, you can’t apply the law differently for different people (You can’t bust this person for jaywalking, but not that person. You can’t stop only black motorists and not white ones.) nor can you make a law that makes a certain action illegal for one particular class of folks. You can’t make a law that says Catholics are not allowed to be bankers, or that Jews are not allowed to own guns, or that Irish are not allowed to fly in airplanes. So why would you expet to be able to make a law that says homosexuals and lesbians are not allowed to marry?
my experience tells me such individuals need strong role models at that age for coming to grips with their own developing sexuality
And what does it do for the gay teenager struggling to understand their sexuality when the state legally declares the only role models are heterosexual couples?
Because sexual behavior (like all behavior) is learned
You acknowledge “there’s no compelling evidence that “God” exists” and then a moment later plop down that completely unsupported statement. And even if it were true, if sexual behavior was a “learned” thing, given the massive prejudice against and the oppression of gays that happens, how in the world would anyone “learn” to be gay?
given the orientations of the vast majority in our society and what remains necessary for its continuance
And what, exactly, is “necessary for its continuance”? Just breeding?
Arguments against homosexuals and lesbians that spring fomr anything even close to marriage is to produce offspring fall completely apart under the slightest reasonable examination. Do you have any idea how large a percentage of married male/female couples don’t have kids? Don’t want to have kids?
Try looking at it from this side: What harm does it cause if a same sex couple gets married. How does that damage in any actual way any heterosexual couple’s marriage? The only complaint a heterosexual couple could have about the gay couple down the block being married is that it means something exists in the world that they don’t like.
And lacking any actual damage being caused, what rationale is there for preventing someone from doing something? Partticularly when there are millions of other people who are allowed to do it?
“I think the Chevy Tahoe is an ugly car and it’s just wrong that anyone should like it. I don’t think Tahoe owners should be allowed to drive. I get to drive the car I like, but they shouldn’t be able to drive the one they like. Becuase I just don’t like it.” Any suggestion that a law should be passed declaring Tahoe ownes, because of their personal preferences and taste, should be legally forbidden from doing something every other adult is allowed to do would be ridiculous, right?
I therefore find the presence of a reasonable relationship between the state’s interests in this area (as expressed by the legislature) and exclusions it makes attendant to the laws of domestic relations.
I find the presence of a reasonable relationship between the state’s interests in this area (as expressed by the legislature) and exclusions it makes attendant to the requirements of economics. So blacks are hereby excluded from full citizenship and may be held as property.
Same logic, right?
There’s not enough time for me to answer all of Sean’s remarks, and in any event, I answered some of them in a post below. On nature v. nurture, it simply is biological reality that the genome determines structure only (behavior AS SUCH cannot be inherited). Sean is welcome to his own opinions but not his own facts (if he does not give the above answer to a question on evolution, he flunks the biology test).
Whether the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause authorizes “equal rights” for homosexuals is at the heart of modern debate, but it’s simply wrong to assert that “equal protection” obliges equal laws. By that concept, the rich could not be charged tax rates different from the poor, and we all know that isn’t true every hour of the day.
An argument to equal protection must overcome two propositions: That the state has a legitimate interest in the subject being legislated, and that there is a “reasonable relationship” between the categorizations the law erects and the legitimate interest being legislatively protected. The law may not discriminate between Christians and Jews flying airplanes because there is no relationship whatsoever (let alone a reasonable one) between religious faith and flying skill. Hence, a law prohibiting Jews from flying airplanes is unconstitutional on its face.
It has been determined as a matter of science that there is no reasonable difference among the races of man such as to make an anti-miscegenation law sustainable. The Supreme Court of the United States struck down just such a law in Loving v. Virginia (go to Findlaw and read it).
As my posts (supra and infra) point out, there’s good evidence to support the proposition that allowing homosexual couples to adopt children (a necessary consequence of legal marriage) is deleterious to the intersts of the adopted child (see further my remarks below). That evidence is not compelling, but the burden of proof is on those who wish to overturn legislation, not on those who wish to sustain it. Loving v. Virginia is not precedent here, for the reasons asserted below.
UPON THE CURRENT STATE OF THE EVIDENCE, equal protection per the 14th Amendment is not applicable to the question of homosexual “marriage,” and any remedy available to them must come from the legislature alone, which has an obligation to beware the welfare of all the state’s citizens, including adolescent minors.
Robert Crim: By that concept, the rich could not be charged tax rates different from the poor, and we all know that isn’t true every hour of the day.
Absurd example. You’re arguing people in different circumstances have to be treated the same. You could similarly argue that toddlers could not be subject to different rules than adults. (Going to advocate for toddlers being allowed to drive?)
The law may not discriminate between Christians and Jews flying airplanes because there is no relationship whatsoever (let alone a reasonable one) between religious faith and flying skill. Hence, a law prohibiting Jews from flying airplanes is unconstitutional on its face.
And the relationship between gas getting married and the, what?, the downfall of society is what exactly?
there’s good evidence to support the proposition that allowing homosexual couples to adopt children (a necessary consequence of legal marriage) is deleterious to the intersts of the adopted child (see further my remarks below). That evidence is not compelling, but the burden of proof is on those who wish to overturn legislation, not on those who wish to sustain it.
I see. It’s “good”, yet somehow not “compelling”. Yet because of some uncompelling evidence you want to make it illegal for a certain population of citizens to do what is legal for all others.
What of all the actually compelling evidence of all the heterosexual couples that have been not just deleterious to the interests of a child but out-and-out damaging? I could show case after case after case where heterosexual parents have beaten, starved, raped, burned and/or outright killed their own children. Why then would we ever allow these straight couples to get married. Think of the children!
And how large a burden is there on those who want to create legislation in the first place? You left that one out. Before a law is passed shouldn’t some evidence exist that there is actually a problem?
Sean, I’ve given you the standard used by the Supreme Court of the United States for use in determining equal-protection cases under the Fourteenth Amendment. If you don’t like those standards, your fight is with John Roberts, not with me. However, be advised ahead of time that you are going to have to be a might more disciplined in your objections there than here. True: The Constitution is the law of the land, not the opinion of the Court; but, it remains your obligation to show why nine of nine justices are wrong.
I raised ONE (and only one, though one must admit not a trivial one) objection to expanding the legal concept of marriage based on about ten years of observations made in the public schools of a single county in Florida (the remainder of your post therefore is irrelevant). Were my evidence compelling, the issue would be closed (at which point one says, “Fill your hand, you son of a bìŧçh, and I’ll see you in Tallahassee” — that is what “compelling” means). The evidence is not compelling, but it’s far from trivial either. If homosexual couples want the legislature or courts to expand the legal definition of marriage, then they are going to have to answer three questions: Will being “married” (as opposed to “unioned”) give homosexual couples power to adopt children [I think the answer to that is “yes,” and in any event it certainly will lead to more political pressure from homosexuals to gain even that “right”]? Will raising adopted children in a homosexual home increase the probability that the child becomes homosexual rather than heterosexual [I think the answer to that is “probably yes”]? Finally, is it in the best interests of a child who would have been heterosexual but now isn’t (because of the change we made in the law) to live and work in society as a homosexual?
An answer to this last question is most problematic and inevitably obliges one to impose a value judgment; however, I think we’ve certainly seen enough vitriol on this column alone to prove that the challenges confronting such an individual would not be insignificant (when they didn’t have to exist at all). The Christian Church is not going away; rather, it remains the majority religion in the country; and, the Bible (whatever its actual validity as the “word of God”) specifically condemns homosexuality as a sin. That can’t be changed. Although the efforts on the part of committed homosexuals to neutralize such prescriptions as ignorant and “homophoebic” are understandable, it also is understandable that they are not likely to succeed any time soon.
But, I’m not Christian, so I won’t try further to focus the problem through a religious lens. What biology as a science tells us is that sexual beings living in a sexualized environment behave in certain sexual ways because, if they don’t, their genetic lines terminate, and they become extinct. Children learn to talk, but as Washburn points out, that is because evolution gave them the underlying neural substrata allowing for and perhaps almost requiring speech. Nevertheless, without doubt, you can find for me examples of children who, for some reason, never learned to speak, including children abused as infants by (heterosexual) parents. What if the legislature were to pass a law, saying such abuse is “moral” in the interest of some new theory of “equal rights” for child abusers, pedophiles, bigamists, or whoever? Can anyone doubt that the child, later in life, still would be handicapped for having been deprived of speech?
A legislature addressing the problem I have posed has to address that question. Its members have to ask themselves: Is obliging an orphaned or otherwise abandoned child to mature under demonstrable homosexual influence and pressure similar in any way to countenancing the kind of abuse which could deprive the child of speech? I realize that, for homosexuals anxious to convince us all that they are just as “normal” and moral as the rest of us, the answer to this question is obvious; but, what may be obvious to some hardly is obvious to the vast majority of Americans (were that not true, defense-of-marriage acts wouldn’t be passing 60-40 in state after state where the issue has arisen).
In other words, this isn’t a contest of logic, nor can it be an argument over syntactic forms. Your objections certainly are scatter-shot, and some would say scatter-brained, but it really does not make any difference were they fine-tuned sharpshooting. I’m presenting no argument to the glory of God. I’m calling for someone to produce some actual evidence that I’m wrong. Screams and cat calls don’t fill the bill. Studies and observations like mine of actual children under actual conditions do.
There is a very elegant solution.
Make sure a couple of lesbians can only adopt male kids, while gay males can only adopt femake kids.
So the male kid with the lesbian Moms will be a super-stud, real macho! And the female kild with the two gay Dads will be femme and fabulous!
Problem solved. In this way we can even create an ever more straight society! Male kids who act all butch like Bruce Willis and female kids with fabulous hair and clothes. Imagine the possibilities! Who can be a better teacher?
Robert Crim: In other words, this isn’t a contest of logic
Clearly, as many of the statements you’ve made defy both logic and reality.
Considering that there are a goodly number of guys whose parents would not have been allowed to vote in the South a few decades ago (and who themselves would not have had the opportunity to fulfill their potential had not the government intervened on their behalf), but still have a curious myopia that allows them to have no problems supporting policies that would deny that privilege to others, it wouldn’t be that a great shock if it turned out that Obama suffered the same affliction.
.
Fortunately, it would appear that he doesn’t.
Yeah, I agree with the thrust of what PAD is saying, but I thought this was an odd statement, given the significant opposition amongst the African-American community to not just gay marriage, but homosexuality in general.
As for the federal vs. state issue… given the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, which would seem to require states to recognize marriages performed in other states… we’re probably going to head to the Supreme Court on this.
Of course, many blacks would say that, since “gay” is not a race, they have no moral obligation to support gays, even if they believe in equal rights for members of all races.
.
They also are as likely as any other straight male to let their guts dominate their thinking, and the awful truth is that a lot of straight males have some degree of innate disgust of male homosexuality. It doesn’t matter if you happen to have more melanine.
.
It also seems like members of one minority sometimes have a perverse pleasure to see that another minority is even less accepted. The newest member of a private club can be the one most hostile to those outside the club.
.
Even the gay community is not immune. to this sort of bûllšhìŧ. There are manly gays that don’t accept effeminate gays. There are effeminate gays that don’t accept travestites. So, even in the gay community you have a hierarchy of what is more socially acceptable.
.
Humans are such bášŧárdš sometimes. Live and let live, I say.
but I thought this was an odd statement, given the significant opposition amongst the African-American community to not just gay marriage, but homosexuality in general.
I think this is an exaggeration (for example, differences between populations on voting on Prop 8 were not that significantly different).
I think a far more pertinent correlation is with religiosity, and for that, African Americans tend to be more devout than other populations as a hole
African Americans tend to be more devout than other populations as a [w]hole
Risking making a generalization, I’ve suspected that may be a result in part from the oppressive history blacks have faced in the US. Were I enslaved and institutionally discriminated against, I think I’d tend to find comfort in a higher power and promise of a better life.
Ironic then, that the oppression one group faced guides them into oppressing another.
I’m not so sure that religion is the great villain here. It seems to me that African-American culture is similar to Latino culture, in that traditional manhood is celebrated in a very unambiguous way.
.
A black guy that says “bìŧçh” a lot and mistreats his woman? Cool. A white guy that says “bìŧçh” a lot and mistreats his woman? Creep.
.
I see a lot of that šhìŧ here in Brazil, too.
(BTW, Rene. You no longer need to put periods between paragraphs. Yea! 🙂 )
I too thought the Joe Biden appearance was a ‘Let’s run this up the flagpole and see who salutes it’ moment. Not that Biden doesn’t have a true gift for shooting off his mouth at the wrong time, but ever since his gaffes in the last presidential election, I got the impression that the White House kept a pretty tight leash on him. The Meet the Press appearance seemed a bit too well-crafted for Biden’s traditional off-the-cuff remarks. Beyond that Peter, I pretty much agree with most of what you say, especially the title of your post. I wish Obama had come forward a few days earlier so we didn’t have to put up with that awkward ‘His position is evolving bûllšhìŧ, which really didn’t fool anyone. As far as I’m concerned, the people who aren’t going to vote for Obama aren’t going to vote for him anyway, so coming forward a few days earlier wouldn’t have changed any opinions; just made him look less wishy washy on the subject.
Now I’m wondering, since there are reports that he apologized to Obama for bringing the issue to the forefront. Seems no point in that. Why apologize for an honest answer to a straightforward question?
PAD
PAD, it’s like if a magazine asks your publisher what are the resolutions to the next bunch of plots for your comics. Being honest is good, but sometimes there’s a plan for when the information is supposed to come out.
I imagine the apology wasn’t that big a deal. I bet in essence it was some version of, “Sorry I jumped the gun.”
I don’t think the two situations are analogous at all. If they’d asked him, “When is the administration going to step forward and support equal marriage rights?” then it would make total sense for him to play his cards close to the vest. And if he didn’t, if he spoke out of turn, then yeah, an apology seems in order. But they asked him a point blank question about how he felt on a particular subject. If he waffles or tries to talk around it, then he comes across as mealy mouthed. So he opted for the truth, probably if for no other reason than that the truth is easier to remember.
PAD
I saw a bit on the Biden apology this morning. I’m wondering a) why the hëll he thinks he has to apologize, b) if Obama would be far better off finding somebody who isn’t a coward for his running mate this fall.
No, they’re analogous. The similarity in the situations is that they’re both about looking out for someone you work with.
Biden knows that he’s not just Joe Biden, he’s a member of the president’s team. He knows that the president was planning an announcement in the near future. There were ways for him to say supportive things in a way that didn’t steal the President’s thunder.
The issue isn’t that he told the truth. The issue is that he did it in a way that drew more attention to himself than he could have. I doubt this is the first time in four years that someone has asked him about gay marriage.
What Biden did is not a huge deal and saying “oops” isn’t a big deal either.
I wish I could give him more credit here, but I’m not sure that I can. His “evolution” just seems a tad too politically timed.
I do get changing your POV on an issue over time. Hëll, I’m on record here on this blog years ago being against legalizing drugs like marijuana and then again last year in a discussion where it got brought up discussing the fact that I was once against it but am now fine with legalizing marijuana and dumping the stupidity around it. Certainly going from “against” to “for” on an issue is a greater shift than going from being for civil unions to being for gay marriage. But I can’t get over the timing here.
Romney is anti-civil union and anti-gay marriage. He is now the nominee. You have more and more high profile Republicans espousing anti-gay rights, if not just flat anti-gay, rhetoric lately. And, of course, you had the NC fun brewing. And on the heels of that you get Biden and another administration member almost testing the waters on the issue just prior to this. So then Obama, less than 24 hours after the vote in NC, declares that he’s evolved his POV on the matter.
And just in time for a major election.
There are aspects of this that seem legit. The part about discussions with his daughters about their friends and their friends’ parents seemed legit and it is the kind of thing that might sway the POV of someone who is not completely anti-gay rights and gay marriage. He has had years to soften his stance on the issue as well. Certainly the very same Republicans and conservatives in the media blasting Obama as a flip-flopper or talking about how Obama changes his statements on everything seem to have no issue with pointing out and accepting the idea that Jane Roe changed her POV over time without seeing it as a negative or an impossibility; and she went from one extreme to the other. I’ve mentioned here before a friend of mine who was almost violently anti-gay through his early 20s and then, after washing out of the marines, becoming a chef and being around a lot of gay individuals, became completely fine with gays and gay rights later in life. So, yeah, people can change their POV even when their POV is going from one extreme to the other and Obama only had to change from almost for it to for it.
but the timing and events around this just make it look like a political calculation and not a true action from the heart. I might be wrong, but it just has a little trouble passing the smell test right now.
“I’ve been saying for ages that I didn’t buy for a minute the notion that President Obama had any problems with gay marriage. Not for a moment did I think that a guy whose parents, less than half a century ago, would not have been allowed to marry in some states, would believe that legally keeping people apart who love each other was an acceptable way of doing things.”
You give humans more credit than I do. I know people who will admit that they’re parents or grandparents were illegal immigrants to this country and that either one of their parents or they themselves were essentially anchor babies who will tell you that illegal immigration is horrible and wrong. It was okay back then, but it’s a different world now.
We saw blacks who were some of the defenders of civil rights where profiling was concerned turn on a dime after 911 and declare that it was just fine and dandy to profile based on race and color once the profiling was targeting someone other than them.
And there are quite a few children of mixed marriages out there, children who have parents who would never have been able to marry if certain laws hadn’t fallen into the dustbins of history and ignorance, be some of the voices most adamantly against gay marriage and gay rights in general.
I don’t think that it factors in to the equation with as many people out there as it should and I’m not sure if it does here or not.
I’m pretty much of the same opinion as you, Jerry: it feels too much like trying to get the right timing, rather than something that could and should have been said a couple of years ago.
It was way past bloody time.
I wish I could give him more credit here, but I’m not sure that I can. His “evolution” just seems a tad too politically timed.
Of course it is. He’s a politician. Everything he does is politically timed. I don’t care if he expresses the sentiment as a genuine, from-the-heart belief or if it’s careful calculation because he sees the polls that show the country’s offering less and less resistance to the concept and he wants to use that to undercut Romney. It’s something that needed to be said and he said it. Maybe it’s shallow of me, but the whys of his saying it are of no consequence to me…as long as he then actually backs his words with action. THAT is the big question remaining.
PAD
“as long as he then actually backs his words with action. THAT is the big question remaining.”
And there’s the rub…
It matters a lot if Obama means it or if it’s just something that he’s saying. We could actually see a fight for substantial changes in this country if he and some others actually mean it. We could see some advancements towards gay marriage in significant ways.
If he doesn’t really mean it, well, we have the DOMA flap all over again. He says something that has little actual impact and barely changes anything. All we get is each political side claiming what they want to claim.
He knows that the gay marriage issue is big with younger voters. He’s been hitting the colleges again to try to get that block fired up again like they were in 2008 after the fizzled a bit in 2010. This is a great bone to throw to that voter block. But it matters if he means it and will try to follow through VS saying it with no intention of doing anything while hoping the youth vote that this might excite doesn’t notice the lack of anything substantial being done until well after November.
I understand political timing. I understand the need for it. But I also see hollow political rhetoric a lot. Politically timed announcements when there’s follow-through can be great. Hollow rhetoric is garbage.
Well, when a figure like the President openly supports a controversial cause, it has effects on public opinion, even if the President doesn’t do anything else directly.
.
So even “hollow rethoric” is better than nothing. But I agree that it’s still very disappointing, if it’s just rethoric.
Jerry, you’re looking at this wrong. Obama didn’t do this for votes, he did it for campaign contributions. He wasn’t getting the dollars in like he expected and was consistently denounced by the by the Hollywood left as being too timid on their issues. Since his announcement, they have already opened up their wallets again.
.
This issue loses whenever it’s on any state ballot. Regardless of whether gay marriage is accepted by the majority of Americans in the future, at the moment it still is not accepted by a significant majority. This is unlikely to change by November especially in the swing states Obama needs. He’s basically gambling on Hollywood’s campaign contributions being enough to overcome the damage.
.
The real kicker about all this is that he hasn’t actually changed anything. He made the statement, and then pawned the actual decisions off on the states. It’s ironic given that every good progressive (as already pointed out here) will tell you “state’s rights” is code for “right-wing racism.” It’s doubly ironic given that the prevailing winds in the conservative movement say this should be a decision left to the states.
.
Obama basically espoused the conservative position, and the lefties are now paying him for it. Amazing.
“Obama basically espoused the conservative position, and the lefties are now paying him for it. Amazing.”
Actually, the conservative position more and more of late is to declare that the Constitution should be amended to ban gay marriage. So, no, he hasn’t quite espoused the conservative position on the matter.
I wouldn’t call that the “conservative position”. At least, I can;t say I recall any of the major conservative pundits coming out for an actual constitutional amendment (if only because such an effort would be an incredible waste of time.)
if only because such an effort would be an incredible waste of time.
Since when has that stopped anybody? 🙂
The “conservative position”. It causes me to instantly think about the fact that the GOP has tried to drag this country so far to the right that Obama is probably more conservative than Saint Ronald. But don’t tell the Republicans that.
“I wouldn’t call that the “conservative position”. At least, I can;t say I recall any of the major conservative pundits coming out for an actual constitutional amendment (if only because such an effort would be an incredible waste of time.)”
George W. Bush supported and supports a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Look up John Boehner’s voting records on the issue. Boenher voted “YES” on having a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Look up Eric Cantor’s voting records on the issue. Cantor voted “YES” on having a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Look up Mitch McConnell’s voting records on the issue. McConnell voted “YES” on having a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Look up Paul Ryan’s voting records on the issue. Ryan voted “YES” on having a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Mitt Romney (this month at least) supports a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Sarah Palin supports a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Rand Paul supports a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Newt Gingrich helped author the Defense of Marriage Act and now supports a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Bob McDonnell is on record as supporting a state and a federal Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Ohio Governor John Kasich is on record as supporting a state and a federal Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Certainly the evangelical conservatives and Republicans support a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
The Republican Party’s 2008 platform supported a ban on same-sex marriage through a federal constitutional amendment, along with state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.
NC was the 30th state to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the state legislators pushing for it and the majority of the voters for passing it have been conservatives and Republicans.
Most of the Tea Party candidates run and supported by the Tea Party since 2010 supported a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Most of the Fox News hosts and contributors who represent the right support a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Most of conservative talk radio supports a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
And I could spend the next day listing by name the sitting Republicans on the national level who have spoken out in favor of such amendments. I could spend the next week listing by name the sitting Republicans on the state level who have spoken out in favor of such amendments.
When Republican candidates speak on the stump or at rallies, whether its a standard affair or a Tea Party event, they speak out in favor of state or federal amendments banning same sex marriage. Are they met with jeers? Are they met with people suggesting that they might want to reconsider this position? Are they met constituents asking them why they’re trumpeting the idea of fighting for social issues when the economy is such a pressing matter? No. They’re met with rabid cheering.
How is it wrong to say that the conservative position more and more of late is to declare that the Constitution should be amended to ban gay marriage? The bulk of the conservative politicians across the country have supported the idea of or outright pushed for such amendments. Where there is a vote, whether it’s to have such a amendment voted on or an actual vote for passage, the majority of the supporting votes are conservatives. And, again, as I pointed out above, it was introduced into the Republican Party platform in the 2008 election.
Are there moderates, independents and Democrats, both elected and in the voter base, who support a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage? Yes, yes there are. But if you got every supporter of a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage together and broke them down by grouping, the conservatives and the Republicans would be the vast majority in that group.
So, again, at this point and time in U.S. political history, how is it wrong to say that the conservative position more and more of late is to declare that the Constitution should be amended to ban gay marriage?
“It’s ironic given that every good progressive (as already pointed out here) will tell you “state’s rights” is code for “right-wing racism.””
Not quite.
.
IMO, there are at least two specimens of conservative. One is the Libertarian Internet Intelectual, that is usually sincere about his interest in minimal government, states’s rights, and economic freedom.
.
The other is the run-of-the-mill social conservative. This guy believes in traditional gender roles, Christianity, and if not exactly racist, distrusts everyone that doesn’t share his own cultural background. THIS GUY is the one that only gives a dámņ about minimal government and states’ rights while this stuff helps advances his traditional agenda.
.
IMO, the disconnect comes from the more intelligent conservatives such as yourself assuming/wishing that you represent the whole of your side. And Liberals assuming that Evangelical rednecks represent the whole of your side. Both views are simplistic.
Bill Mulligan: I can;t say I recall any of the major conservative pundits coming out for an actual constitutional amendment
Jerry with the TKO.
If a politician wants to ‘fake’ being a sensible, nice, liberal guy by constantly acting like a sensible, nice, liberal guy then I’m down with that.
Well, I stand totally corrected–I guess that’s one more place where I am not in lockstep with the GOP. I am surprised though, which is probably because I have been reading more the kinds of conservatives and libertarian who would think, as I do that this sounds like a huge waste of time at best and a rotten idea in general. If Shep Smith, Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds are for this idea I will be very depressed.
I guess that’s one more place where I am not in lockstep with the GOP
I suspect more conservatives are going to be coming to a very similar realization. The GOP has been becoming a very radical fringe.
“IMO, there are at least two specimens of conservative. One is the Libertarian Internet Intelectual, that is usually sincere about his interest in minimal government, states’s rights, and economic freedom.
.
The other is the run-of-the-mill social conservative. This guy believes in traditional gender roles, Christianity, and if not exactly racist, distrusts everyone that doesn’t share his own cultural background. THIS GUY is the one that only gives a dámņ about minimal government and states’ rights while this stuff helps advances his traditional agenda.
.
IMO, the disconnect comes from the more intelligent conservatives such as yourself assuming/wishing that you represent the whole of your side. And Liberals assuming that Evangelical rednecks represent the whole of your side. Both views are simplistic.”
.
.
While I thank you for the kind words, I must admit to being what most term “evangelical,” even if I don’t believe the term fits due to theological differences that no one outside the faith gives a dam about. I’ll even cop to being a religious conservative.
.
I won’t try to minimize that I believe homosexual conduct to be a sin. I also believe adultery to be a sin of equal severity. I don’t hate people engaged in these sins, but I don’t condone the sins either.* Twenty years ago, the fact that I held this view marked me as somewhat enlightened in the eyes of my progressive friends. My views have not changed in those years, but now I am considered a bigot. Or rather, it deepens the bigotry already attributed to the fact of being a conservative.
.
That said, I am a federalist. I would oppose federal effort to ban gay marriage because it’s not constitutional. Short of an amendment, which is impractical, it can’t be done. I also oppose any federal effort to recognize gay marriage. It’s also worth noting, that I’ve always strongly disliked the government recognizing any marriage. I believe that institution to be the domain of the church.
.
However, the full faith and credit clause does not necessarily ensure the interstate recognition of gay marriages. The courts have historically recognized a public policy exception to the clause, and it remains to be seen if SCOTUS will apply that exception to gay marriage. And let’s face it, on this issue, the constitution will effectively say whatever it is that Anthony Kennedy says it does.
.
.
.
*Having been an aspiring actor who made a lot of gay friends, and as a man who has two gay brothers-in-law, I tried very hard to explain away scripture defining homosexual conduct as sin. It was not a position I could reach with anything resembling hermeneutic consistency. One of the greatest sins, IMO, is defining something as sin that isn’t clearly defined as sin in the Bible, because you assume you have a standard holier than God’s. (Dancing and drinking in some circles are examples of this.) However, another one is explaining away a clearly defined sin for the same reason. Telling God that I think I know better than Him is not a situation to which I aspire. If anyone wishes to accuse me of “Cliff Notes Christianity”, feel free to state your argument, but make sure your hermeneutics are in order.
“If Shep Smith, Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds are for this idea I will be very depressed.”
I have no idea on their personal stands on the issue, but I understand that Goldberg has once again been busted for falsely claiming that he is a two time Nobel nominee.
I don’t know what the hëll is up with the Republican Party and most of the conservative groups and think tanks out there. Reagan would be run out on a rail as a RINO by the modern party.
“I don’t know what the hëll is up with the Republican Party and most of the conservative groups and think tanks out there. Reagan would be run out on a rail as a RINO by the modern party.”
.
.
After almost twenty unsuccessful years of trying to portray Ronaldus Magnus as a fascist, warmongering, homeless-kicking idiot, the left has finally given up and decided to rewrite history as Reagan being as modern Democrat. Like the former accusation, it’s b.s. Reagan would be considered an even more extreme conservative than he has was back in the 1980’s. His rhetoric about small-government would still be called heartless. His pro-life stance would be characterized as waging war on women. His attempts to cut the rate of growth of government spending would be denounced as draconian austerity. His anti-communism would be called dangerous to the international community. His build-up of the military would be considered wasteful.
.
If you argued that TR would be a RINO in today’s environment, I’d agree with you. However, in every major area of public policy, Reagan still measures up as a conservative.
Malcolm,
Thanks for explaning your positions.
Like you, I don’t believe the government should be recognizing any marriages. I’m non-religious, and I am also an individualist at heart, I think marriage is a pact between two individuals, of life-long dedication to each other. No need for governments or churches, IMO.
But there are legal consequences. I’m curious to know your opinion about visitation rights, inheritance, stuff like that.
I also want to ask something else. Do you consider yourself a libertarian? Do you see anything incompatible about being both a libertarian and a Christian, a believer in scripture? Do you have any trouble reconciling the two?
Malcolm, do try and note that I said that the modern party would consider Reagan a RINO. I did not say that he would be called a Democrat or that he would be one if he were in office today.
Reagan would be at best labeled a “moderate” by most in the party of 2012 and be labeled a RINO by some. Ðìçk Lugar just got primaried by his party. He’s at best a moderate Republican, but he supports conservative principles and has criticized Obama over his actions on the pipeline project and in not passing some jobs bills (like the one he supported along with Rand Paul.) But because he dared to compromise with Democrats and he worked with Obama on foreign policy issues, he was labeled a RINO and primaried. Reagan would get the same treatment right now.
Reagan compromised on some issues with the Democrats. The Republican leadership refuses to even say the word “compromise” even while citing Reagan as the party spiritual leader. Many more in the Tea Party openly speak of seeing the need to primary any Republican who compromises with or works with Democrats; even as they cite Reagan as an inspiration for their political beliefs.
Reagan raised taxes. Not only did he raise taxes, but he raised them in his first term when we were under the recession that started under Carter and the unemployment was higher than it was for Obama. And, double fun, he even cited some of his tax increases as ways to get us on the road to recovery. Some of the tax increases were targeted to raise federal funds for infrastructure work and to higher people to do that work. In other words, to create jobs in the public sector to balance against the private sector that was unable to do so and was actually losing jobs at the time. Modern Republican leaders will look at such facts and declare that the myth of Reagan is the reality and that the facts are are lies. Oh, and when Obama suggested doing the same thing, Republicans fought him tooth and nail and called such policies big government socialism. So by their own words, Reagan is, in the standards of today’s party, a big government socialist.
Reagan also knew when and where to balance social issues in his politics. Despite their “Jobs, jobs, jobs!” rhetoric and their supposed focus on economic issues, we’re seeing more and more focus on working on social issues while merely mostly talking about economic ones by the Tea Party and the Republicans. And if you aren’t in line with the extreme social issues, you’re a moderate or a RINO and there’s talk of dumping you in a Republican primary.
Do you know how insane things are getting on the Right? Parts of the Tea Party and some other groups want to primary Eric Cantor. Why? Because he compromised on some issues and that makes him a RINO.
If a young Ronald Reagan stepped into the political game today and suggested the policies and ideas on the economic and foreign policy issues of today that were the signature policies of his terms on like-issues back then or suggested compromise with Obama and the Dems… He’d be drummed out by the Tea Party in a heartbeat and labeled a moderate and a RINO by most of the conservative groups and think tanks out there.
Ronald Reagan was a single bulwark against a solidly Democratic House of Representatives and HAD to compromise to get anything done. He’d had the same problem in California, was once a Roosevelt New Dealer, and thereby had great experience in the how-to’s. He was good friends with Tip O’Neill, who once observed that “any jáçkášš can kick down a barn; to build a barn takes a carpenter.” Reagan was able to work with that.
Would Reagan be as “compromising” today? Not sure, given that the demodonkeys are systematically running us over the cliff of national insolvency, and with increasing acceleration. That alone is generating a lot of the acrimony, along with the demodonkeydoo that, by, e.g., opposing the killing of unborn babies (50 per cent of whom are girls), Republicans are “waging a war on women.”
It’s very hard to compromise with the ridiculous.
The reality is that we live in less compromising times, and that inevitably is going to generate struggles within both parties to exorcise the middle. The activists on both sides are on the extremes, for they are the ones with the most fixed agenda and the ones who make the most noise; but, the fundamental falsehood in Jerry’s argument is reflected by the current standard bearer of the party, who withstood all the “RINO” attacks for much of two years. Yes, Ðìçk Lugar was not so fortunate, and he will be missed, but Jerry’s effort to portray the Republicans as a party of extremists are just as colored as efforts to portray the demodonkeys as a party of pseudo-communist left-wing lunatics.
The reality is that most Democrats “out there” are Gabby Gifford types, not the kinds we see writing so often here. These are the people who voted for Obama last time because (then) he was saying we are neither “red” states nor “blue” states but the United States; and, for having so radically changed his tune, I doubt these people will vote for him again.
Or, you know, to hire people…
“But there are legal consequences. I’m curious to know your opinion about visitation rights, inheritance, stuff like that.”
.
On issues of inheritance, people who care what happens to their stuff after they die usually write a will or set up a trust. I realize that spouses don’t have to pay inheritance taxes like others, but my answer to that is simple: get rid of inheritance taxes. Custody and visitation rights are issues I’m quite comfortable with punting to state legislatures.
.
.
“I also want to ask something else. Do you consider yourself a libertarian? Do you see anything incompatible about being both a libertarian and a Christian, a believer in scripture? Do you have any trouble reconciling the two?”
.
My political philosophy is best described as federalist. I believe that majority of laws and social policy should be addressed locally rather than federally. I believe this because I don’t believe one-size-fits-all type of government works. What is desirable or even works in the state of California, does not match up with the desires or needs of Texans. If some states want to redefine marriage to “whoever you want to shack up with” that’s fine with me, just don’t that force that new definition on every state.
.
On a local level, I consider myself a conservative with libertarian tendencies. Without trying to restart this argument, I will restate I believe every piece of legislation is a moral, but I do not believe every moral should be legislated. I favor minimal government even at the local level. The thing about federalism is that it allows me to choose a state where the laws, level of government involvement, and enforced social mores are to my liking.
.
For example, the city I live in passed one of the most draconian anti-smoking ordinances in the country. The ordinance even bans the use of e-cigs in public parks. I think this is a bone-headed law to pass. I don’t agree with most anti-smoking ordinances in general, and I really loathe this one in particular.* However, I don’t dispute the right of the city to enact this ban. If it really bugged me enough, I’d pack up my family and move. Other factors keep me here, but in the end it is my choice to stay. If I were an anti-smoker living in a town with no tobacco restrictions, it would still be my choice to stay or leave. This is a principle I apply to bigger issues like drugs, education, environmental protection, religious expression (like prayer in schools), or gay marriage. Again, the idea is leaving people with the choice to live in a community to their liking, not forcing the community made in my image on everyone in the country.
.
I reconcile my federalist views with scripture by recognizing that all authority is ordained by God as Paul tells us this in Romans. In many places might holds authority. Chairman Mao recognized this when he famously declared that power comes from the barrel of a gun. However, in the U.S. the highest authority in the land is the Constitution. It is that document that our politicians and government figures swear to uphold and protect. This is also why original intent is so important to my political views.
.
.
.
*It’s worth noting that I quit smoking about 2 months ago. Public anti-smoking ordinances actually help me in this endeavor due to aromatic second-hand smoke triggering nicotine fits the intensity of which is only exceeded by anti-smoking commercials that overstate the dangers of smoking or second-hand smoke. This is a case where my principles run counter to my self-interest.
“Reagan would be at best labeled a “moderate” by most in the party of 2012 and be labeled a RINO by some. Ðìçk Lugar just got primaried by his party. He’s at best a moderate Republican, but he supports conservative principles and has criticized Obama over his actions on the pipeline project and in not passing some jobs bills (like the one he supported along with Rand Paul.) But because he dared to compromise with Democrats and he worked with Obama on foreign policy issues, he was labeled a RINO and primaried. Reagan would get the same treatment right now. ”
.
It was telling that Lugar appealed to Dems to cross party lines and vote for him in the primaries. I think people also forget that a sitting senator or office holder has no “right” to the nomination. I didn’t dislike Lugar, but if I’d lived in Indiana I also would have voted Mourdock because the latter more closely represented my views. Sure, Lugar was adequate, but I won’t let the adequate stand in the way of getting the better. My 2000 Mitsubishi Eclipse is a good ride, but I wouldn’t let it stand in the way of getting my dream Corvette is the opportunity arises. To portray this as some sort of hit job by radicals seems disingenuous to me.
.
As for the Reagan question, he also regretted raising the taxes because the spending cuts Dems promised in return never materialized. He learned from his mistakes on these issues. You’d seem to insist that Reagan must be considered perfect by Conservatives and thus his mistakes we not learn from mistakes he made. Should conservatives repeat Iran-Contra because Reagan was involved? Ronaldus Magnus was the best President in my in forty years of living, and I tend to view politics in a WWRD (What Would Reagan Do?) lens, but even I recognize the man had shortcomings. I’ll even list some of them:
.
1. He didn’t eliminate any of the many Nixon era agencies or the Department of Education (and thus show his devotion to education).
2. He compromised on taxes with the Dems.
3. He didn’t challenge the constitutionality of the Boland amendment, and thus allowed the mess of Iran-Contra to mar his presidency.
4. Realpolitik, Saddam Hussein… ’nuff said. Though I’ll admit this is more in hindsight.
5. Beirut.
6. Reagan said his biggest regret was not being able to curb abortions.
.
Reagan is not revered by conservatives for perfection. He is revered for his devotion to the principles of the movement.
.
.
“Reagan also knew when and where to balance social issues in his politics. Despite their “Jobs, jobs, jobs!” rhetoric and their supposed focus on economic issues, we’re seeing more and more focus on working on social issues while merely mostly talking about economic ones by the Tea Party and the Republicans. And if you aren’t in line with the extreme social issues, you’re a moderate or a RINO and there’s talk of dumping you in a Republican primary.”
.
That focus on social issues is due to the White House shifting the focus from the economy. Obama can’t run on what he’s done, so they’ve manufactured these different “War on (insert non-white male group here)” hoping people will forget that unemployment is so high or the that deficit is so high. It started with Stephanopoulos (from here on and forever referred to by his Clinton-era nickname of Stephie to avoid spelling issues) asking Romney whether he favored banning contraception, and continued by attempts to frame opposition to federally funded contraception as opposition to any contraception. Whether the Republicans are making a mistake about not being more forceful in shifting the focus back to the economy remains to be seen. Since the Dems have brought up the social issues, Republicans seem to have risen in the polls. We’ll see how it plays out.
.
.
“Do you know how insane things are getting on the Right? Parts of the Tea Party and some other groups want to primary Eric Cantor. Why? Because he compromised on some issues and that makes him a RINO.”
.
When Reagan compromised on taxes, both he and his principles still won out. Cantor was part of secret negotiations on the debt limit while publicly insisting there were none happening. What made that worse was he and Boehner still lost out. We now know that during those talks, they’d give Obama what he wanted, and he suddenly move the goal posts back, and they’d cave and give in to him again, and that this happened more than once.
.
Cantor not only compromised against our wishes, he lost in doing in it, and came out looking ineffective. I don’t live in Cantor’s district, and I’d not heard of efforts to nominate someone else, but I approve. I don’t want to vote for a loser. What’s worse, IMO, when he lost the American people lost. Keeping Cantor is akin to a rock band keeping a drummer who has problems with rhythm. You’re perfectly free to claim John and Paul were áššhølëš for bouncing Peter Best from the band, but I personally think they were better without him.*
.
.
.
*Please, realize that’s an analogy, I’m not trying to insinuate that you actually believe Best was a better drum than Ringo.
Malcolm, thanks for explaining your views. They make sense to me. I would only question the limits to each State’s ability to choose their own legislation.
I don’t know the details of the US Constitution, IMO smoking wherever one wants isn’t an inalienable human right, while expressing your sexual orientation, while harming no one, should be.
I’m not disrespectful of the sensibilities of religious groups, when reasonable. I do not find it reasonable that any religious group should interfere in the recognition of a civil agreement between two people not members of their own church.
I don’t know if that is a wussy solution, but then let’s rename all civil marriages, call them all “civil unions” in the legislation, and obviously people are free to call them “marriages” in their own homes, and make extra-clear in the legislation that this recognition of a civil union has nothing to do with any religious recognition, that has to be sought separately.
While I’m very glad Obama finally “outed” himself on this issue, I just hope the political price won’t be too high. The 2012 election will be very close, and the initial political analysis is that while this will help Obama with younger voters, it will hurt him with blue-collar middle-class Americans. (It’ll also help get socially conservative Republicans behind Romney.) And if Obama loses, Romney has advocated a Constitutional amentment against gay marriage — and he has a party that will push him towards that if he flip-flops on it.
As for North Carolina, I’m a resident of the state, I voted against Prop. 8, and I’m ashamed that it passed by such a wide margin. Then again, we have people like this http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/02/kth-pastor-encourages-parents-to-punch-boys/?hpt=ac_t4 and I don’t know which is worse: that a pastor said such harmful things, or that his congregation laughed and agreed.
What strikes me is how little those guys actually know about gays and psychology, how stupid they are.
.
Now, I don’t advocate trying to “change” anyone’s sexual orientation, I don’t think that is even possible. But these blunt methods will surely make the kid even more determined to be gay, particularly in an age where there is a lot of support for gay people out of home.
.
The parent will only push the kid away.
.
Here is a tip for the Evangelical Christian Bigoted parent with the gay kids: quiet, calm disapproval is a lot more effective if you want to transform your kid in a neurotic closet case for the rest of their lives.
I have a hard time believing this election is going to be “close” considering the way the GOP is going out of its way to alienate one demographic after another. And not just minor demographics, and not just by slim margins, we’re talking ALL women, ALL alternate sexual orientations, ALL Hispanics, ALL union workers, not to mention the majority of the financially disadvantaged, those blue collar workers you mentioned, who are going to get a tax hike while their bosses get tax cuts, then ship their jobs overseas to maximize their record profits. In most polls, Romney is coming up anywhere from 10 to 30 points behind the incumbent. The ONLY polls that are showing fluctuation are “independents,” who quite simply are NOT going to be deciding this election, the GOP has basically rendered that precedent moot. We already knew that social conservatives weren’t going to vote Obama in the first place, but they’re going to be vastly outnumbered by the people the GOP has pìššëd øff, All Obama has to do is embrace and support every group the GOP dumps on, and he should win by a landslide.
If this election is close, it means the American people have stopped paying attention to all reality and given in to apathy, and the whole system is too far gone to even try fixing anymore.
Jay, you’re living in a very closed world–if the election is close it means none of those things, necessarily. Events out of the control of either man can make a big difference. A poor debate performance could change things. The economy is not in the sort of shape that usually leads to an incumbent landslide. There are all sorts of perfectly valid reasons why Obama could lose, none of which require the American people to be apathetic and the system to be irrevocably broken.
In most polls, Romney is coming up anywhere from 10 to 30 points behind the incumbent.
I know of no real polls showing that–Gallup has Romney in the lead by 3 points, others show a pretty tight race. The election is a lifetime away but if you are expecting a 30 point blowout as a likely outcome you are probably in for a world of surprise.
Biggest problem with that assessment is most folks belong to more than one “demographic”. And while the GOP is pìššìņg øff a lot of the groups, they have one particularly blind and (sorry) ignorant block locked up pretty tight, the religion-nuts.
Repubs may practice hate towards women and hispanics and workers, but a lot of those people are also religious and that blind religious lemming-hood overrides their ability to think rationally, and they end up still voting for the party that does NOT have their best interests or rights and freedoms at heart…
Quite the opposite, Mr. Mulligan, I’m approaching this from a VERY wide-world, all encompassing perspective based on a few simple facts:
The GOP has declared, with one voice, that women do not deserve equal rights. No equal pay, no sexual freedom, no medical care. Not isolated, this is party wide, and if you want to hold office as a Republican, you MUST share this perspective. (CNN Poll – Women pick Obama over Romney, 16 pts)
The GOP has declared that homosexuals do not deserve equal rights. They shouldn’t be serving in the military, they shouldn’t have kids, they shouldn’t marry. Again, no questions, if you want to hold office, THIS IS WHAT THE GOP BELIEVES, period. (of course, I’m disgusted to learn, this seems to be the consensus of the American people as well, as the latest Gallup has Obama losing 43-50 because he supports gay marriage . . . so three cheers for ignorant @#$%s on that front, right?)
The GOP has declared that Hispanics do not deserve equal rights. They don’t deserve to be in this country, they don’t deserve an education, they don’t deserve privacy (papers please), they don’t deserve a path to citizenship, they should all be deported. If you are a Republican candidate, you DO NOT ARGUE, you MUST agree to this point. (Pew poll – Hispanics take obama 67 to 27, 40 POINTS . . . so yeah, I was wrong, it’s not 30)
The GOP has declared that the lower and middle class do not deserve equal rights. Fair pay, union bargaining, healthcare, job security, fair tax rates, voting rights, student loan interest rates, Social Security, if you’re not rich, you get NONE. These are not isolated points, this is party wide and NON-NEGOTIABLE, you CANNOT be a candidate without following these marching orders. (two days ago, AP-GfK poll had Obama leading Romney by at least 8 points in ALL demographics . . . until, you know, GAY)
Basically, unless you are a rich, white, hetero, Christian man, the GOP has declared you can go screw yourself, you’re beneath their notice and don’t have any real rights as an American or, in most cases, a human being.
And what are the points against Obama?
The economy isn’t improving fast enough. Oh, it’s improving, but it’s just TOO SLOW.
Gas prices are still high.
Guantanamo is still open.
He likes GAY PEOPLE.
Call it idealism, but in fact, YES, apathy and ignorance and selfishness are EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. If the American people are willing to ignore ALL THE HORRIBLE CRAP the Republicans have pulled in the last year and a half . . . if we’re willing to forgo our basic rights as a WHOLE free society, solely on the empty promise that MAYBE Romney can decrease unemployment by a few more tenths of a percent per month . . . if we’re so blind that we can’t see how the GOP has been repeatedly, deliberately sabotaging the economic recovery that they claim to be fighting for, in an embarrassingly transparent attempt to get us to blame their opponent . . . if we’re so self-important that we can ignore the blatant, cruel oppression of every OTHER American around us, because HEY, at least they’re not targeting MY rights, so no worries . . . then there is no question, the system is ABSOLUTELY BROKEN beyond all hope of salvation, and this nation DESERVES to collapse into an economic dark age, because we will have brought it on ourselves.
But I’m not naive. I’m an idealist AND a cynic. I hope that we’re not that far gone as a society, and I expect Obama’s win to be a landslide. But it won’t surprise me if that doesn’t happen, because I’m always prepared for the worst . . . and in the last decade, my country has only ONCE surprised me on that front.
actually James it was Amendment 1, not prop 8 same hate, different name
James, it was Amendment 1, not prop 8.
Same hate, different name and I voted against it, too
You’re absolutely correct in saying that “It’s About Bloody Time!” in summing up what was obvious to everyone else and should have been said long ago: Obama finally weighs in and gives support to gay rights and gay marriage. That being said, I only wish he had given this opinion well before NC’s asinine amendment.
Would it have made a difference? I don’t know. I live in North Carolina. I voted against this amendment. I said to myself, “Even if this amendment passes … I will be able to look myself squarely in the mirror and know that I voted correctly.” I may have voted on the losing side on this particular day but, I know that I didn’t vote on the wrong side. My conscience is clear enough on that point.
The amendment unfortunately passed and North Carolina conservatives proudly managed to show everyone just how little out of the swampy mire they’ve crawled.
Do not ally me with their actions ~ I find such actions to be intolerable and have no qualms about saying so.
NC is by and large a rural state. Yes, there’s civilization here with progressives making their homes here. However, there’s a lot of folks too willing to give in to a fear of change and, in doing so, they give power to those seeking to hold on to that very status quo by ensuring that antiquated notions of the stone age are perpetuated into tomorrow. Unfortunately, not enough level-headed people spoke out on Tuesday. NC is my home but, right now, not where my heart is.
Nationally, the issue is headed for a showdown of sorts. Now that Obama has spoken out in favor of it ~ the GOP and their supporters will take whatever measures they feel necessary to counter it. This country is either going to step forward into tomorrow or it is going to find itself dragged back into the past.
That being said, I only wish he had given this opinion well before NC’s asinine amendment.
He IS on record as having opposed the NC amendment as of March 8.
Amen, brother. A-bloody-men.
Another teacher told me he has a conversation with a friend–the biracial child of a black man and a white woman–and she not only was for Amendment 1 she got angry when he pointed out that this was basically the same thing that would have denied her the very right to exist just a few years ago. And I had to shut down a class discussion about the bill because a few of my african-American students were beginning to get really really upset when people talked about it as a civil rights question. I mean, it was getting ugly…and I teach chemistry so it isn’t like I could claim it was part of the curriculum, so on we moved.
It’s easy to dismiss these kids (and no doubt the parents who ingrained this into them) as hateful bigots, etc etc. It always feels good to feel superior. But those of us here in NC who have to try to change their minds would appreciate it if some of you would keep the hate down, makes the job easier.
It CAN be done. People are basically decent, even as they do indecent things. Hardly anyone sets out to be bad. The best hope we have is with the gay people who live in North Carolina, the great teachers (we have 3 openly gay teachers at my school. 2 have been teacher of the year and one will get it if he stays). More and more people see gay parents raising great kids. With the exception of the Westboro types, few will condemn them to their faces and most will see their views soften as what was strange becomes ordinary.
Already people know how they SHOULD feel. they tell pollsters that. But then they get in the booth and vote differently. We just have to get their actions to fit their words. Keep the Dan Savage type creeps away, don’t pull some stupid boycott stunt, we’ll get there sooner.
(and for Gods sake, don’t defriend facebook friends for disagreeing with you–those are the people you want to convince. Why preach to the choir, what good does that do? Every vote we turn is a double victory. We just have to get what, 10% to flip? Doable, very doable.
Obama’s nothingburger of a statement impresses me less now than it did at first. he had to do it–poor jay carney was being grilled like a cheap steak every time reporters saw him. The “evolving” thing was no longer cutting it. His official position that he is okey dokey with gay marriage but it’s not a civil right so states can do as they please is basically just voting “present” on the issue.
Still, weak as it was, it’s better than what it was before and lot less insulting to our intelligence. Such is what passes for statesmanship these days.
Bill, your experience does not track mine, but at least you appear to speak from knowledge and not the programmed ravings of Jay and his even more jackassed friends. See my post, supra: I’d be interested in hearing more of what you have to say.
Sorry, wrong location (should have been further down).
Belay the last (my computer is playing tricks on me). The message was for Bill, not Jay.
My argument may not be as well put together as the rest of you.. but I am speaking from the heart. As a young gay male who has been with his partner for 6 years… it’s hurtful, degrading, and oppressive when things like Prop 8 or Amendment 1 get passed. Who are any of “you” to tell me that I’m not deserving of the same rights as you? and to mister Robert Crim above (whose response was rather upsetting…. no idea why someboday hasn’t said something sooner) I can’t speak for everyone, but i can speak for myself. Being Gay wasn’t a learned behavior. I didn’t look around one day and see two guys kissing and say “hey that looks swell”. and believe it or not… most gays have Straight parents. You can’t raise a child to be gay (just like you can’t raise a kid to be straight).
On the question of nature v. nurture, this was debated to death by the ethological community a generation ago after (non-scientist) Robert Ardrey skewed some of Konrad Lorenz’s work to write The Territorial Imperative. But, in the final analysis, the fundamental rule in biology is that only structure, itself, can be inherited. Upon that structure, all behavior is learned — period!
This does not mean that all learning is conscious, as Grey implies. Sherman L. Washburn pointed out that, no matter how much one tries, one cannot teach chimpanzies to talk because the underlying neural substrata which supports speech is missing. But, one really has to deprive a human infant to prevent it from talking, even though (clearly) every language is learned. Babies naturally learn to talk.
What Grey fails to appreciate is that there is a continuum of structure in a species such as ours, given that it no longer is subject to intense survival pressures. Although one can point to individual humans and say, e.g., “He’s definitely heterosexual; he’s definitely homosexual,” the fact is that most are somewhere between the behavioral extremes, and that at a developing age, several factors could push them either way. I certainly have known my share of women who became Lesbian as a reaction to an abusive, incestuous father, and that’s almost 100 per cent learned and not a byproduct of their genes. I sympathize with their condition, but I reject their cure (they needlessly continue to punish themselves for the sins of another instead of obtaining the professional help I believe they’d appreciate).
Now, the natural libertarian line is to ask, “What difference does it make?” (implying there is none). So, if I followed my inclinations, I’d probably come down the other way. But, as Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, a page of history is worth a volume of logic, and what history tells me (in the form of the 8,000 to 10,000 adolescents I had contact with, in some cases across 5-6 years) is that such individuals need strong guides in the development of their sexuality if they are to become happy, contributing adults in society. Public school teachers, by law, cannot be those guides as such (as one writing here pointed out, his job was to teach chemistry, so he had to move on). At least at this point in our civilization, both by state law and school-district policy, those guides remain parents and (for better or ill) religious leaders, and on these subjects, I have to be careful about what I say, at least in class.
Now, it can be argued that what is “guided” is a somewhat arbitrary value judgment (the earth is not suffering from human overpopulation, and the Catholic Church’s position here is motivated strongly by its desire to make more Catholics). But, my objection goes beyond that: Treating marriage as something more than it is would empower homosexuals (who clearly have difficulty bearing children on their own) to ADOPT children probably somewhere else on that behavioral continuum, and now we’re no longer talking about arbitrary choices but about subjecting an independent human being without true choice into becoming a social Guinea pig for what still is a novel political idea.
Hence, the question boils down to whether we modify the concept of marriage in such a way so as to make homosexuality a societal norm, given that, whatever benefits this gives to homosexual partners, the societal benefit is limited and the risk to adolescent minors unknown.
On such questions, it is a fundamental power of the legislature in a representative democracy to decide the matter. Just as it can reject polygamy as a norm, so can it reject homosexual behavior.
This is NOT a recommendation that we go about, beating up “queers” in the street, and on this one, I’m fully willing to admit that further experience well may prove me the dinosaur; however, until sufficient EVIDENCE can be presented to establish that such a modification would not be harmful to the interests of adopted children, I have to count myself in the other camp.
Whether that “disturbs” Grey or others of his orientation is not part of the equation.
Congratulations. The scientific community has found no consensus on the causes of homosexuality, but Robert has the answer. It’s learned. Please sir, send your discoveries to the Nobel committe and allow me to congratulate you again on your important discovery that will definitely change human society.
I’ve answeredthis objection in a couple other posts. I’d accept the Nobel Prize were it merited; however, obviously Sherman L. Washburn beat me to it, and by about 40 years.
Strange. A google search of the terms “Sherman L. Washburn” and “homosexuality” has returned 0 hits. One would think that such a major discovery about the origins of homosexuality would be all over the Internet.
Sherwood L. Washburn (sorry, my mistake). And, he did not make the remark in any book on homosexuality. He made it in an anthology on general primate behavior (Irven DeVore). He has no axe to grind here (the observation was made in connection with an entirely different subject, the one I mentioned, involving the work of Konrad Lorenz and its use by Robert Ardrey, plus the opposing views of anthropologists like Ashley Montagu). It remains, Bill, an absolutely correct statement concerning evolutionary biochemistry. Your error, as I mentioned to Grey, lies in assuming that all learning is conscious learning, that somehow someone “sees two guys kissing” and “thinks that’s cool.” But, that isn’t true either.
For those not familiar with this literature, Konrad Lorenz and Niko Tinbergen are Nobel laureates who jointly founded the science of ethology with their studies on certain learning patterns in birds, specifically the phenomenon known as imprinting. This is a powerful form of initial learning, common especially in, e.g., ducks and geese, by which infant chicks almost automatically learn to follow whatever is the first moving thing they see. Since in 99+ percent of the time that’s the hen (her áršë is sitting on the nest), the chicks naturally will follow the mother, but by isolating the eggs, Lorenz and Tinbergen were able to show that chicks actually would reject the mother and follow the scientists instead, were they hatched solely in the human presence.
Lorenz argued (Development and Modification of Behavior) that imprinting was instinctual, since it appeared to be something which happened automatically as soon as the bird emerged from the egg and appeared to be independent of anything it could be taught. After a long and acrimonious non-scientific debate, in which (conservative) Ardrey argued his understanding of Lorenz against (liberal) Montagu’s insistance that almost all human behavior was learned, Washburn pretty much terminated things by pointing out what (today) all geneticists know, which is that only structure is passed by the genome, not behavior. The genome MAY create structures which only can be “programmed” one way or can express themselves only in highly limited forms, but that does not change the fundamental fact, which is that only structure can be inherited.
The key point remains that there is a broad continuum of structural arrays expressed by the human genome on the heterosexual-homosexual scale. There are some who will be strongly oriented toward homosexuality and some who will be strongly oriented toward heterosexuality, but most (including myself) will be somewhere in the middle, perhaps from the genome, perhaps from additional factors such as overproduction of testosterone in the adrenal glands of a developing female fetus, hyperneotony in the pubescent male, &c., &c. It is these adolescents in the middle who are the subject of the objection.
I do not know Grey (obviously) and can have no valid opinion on why he became what he is. What I can say is that, at the legislative level, this matter cannot be resolved by testimonials, only by observations made with some kind of scientific rigor. And, the fundamental question for each legislator remains: If I change this law so that homosexual couples legally can adopt and raise children, will that make homosexuals of some adolescents who otherwise would have been heterosexuals, and if so, is that reconcilable with the long-term interests either of the child or of society? To be sure, that incorporates a value judgment, which for a legislator should reflect the collective judgment of his or her constituency. That probably insures the addition of a religious element (one writers here don’t like), given where our society currently is on how to address this subject. But, the alternative is to have some judge or other dictator substitute his value judgments for the judgments of the citizens. That is (as Friedrich Hayek once remarked) the road to serfdom.
It is not “bigotry” to point out the potential flaw in the prescription, nor will the flaw disappear solely because proponents of the elixer choose to fling brickbacks at the critic. Those who want the law changed at some point will have to produce the evidence, and that means unbiased studies, not testimonials, and certainly not unsupported assertions fortified by little more than insults.
Wow. Robert found something that’s 40 years old that he likes because it backs his POV and acts as if it is the be all and end all answer in the discussion. Big surprise there.
Of course, he ignores two very important things about the facts he presents that he loves so.
(1) I’m not all that sure that he understands it as well as he would like to think he does.
(2) It is, by his statement on it, 40 years old.
Now, such an age insofar as knowledge isn’t always a negative. Some knowledge discovered by man is millions of years old and still true today. Fire is hot, animals are tasty and a good, solid clubbing to the skull of an animal with a hammer-like object will usually drop it like a bag of wet cement.
But modern science has opened the door to a lot of new discoveries in the last 20 years that sometimes make the older knowledge partially or completely outdated or shows that there is another factor involved in the science that was not observed years ago. Such a thing has been done here.
The first bit of information that came along was that there was in fact an observable difference in the hormonal and chemical balances on homosexual men and women when compared to their heterosexual counterparts. Now, some such differences could be the body’s attempt at adapting to new learned behavior over time; not unlike the chemical differences seen in sports medicine when athletes are tested in some tasks VS what the “common man” shows in such tests. But it didn’t explain all the differences.
A while back, research was done to confirm or eliminate the possibility of the differences being from learned responses or a born trait. They looked at the brain. But it wasn’t just any old part of the brain that they looked at. Previous homosexual-brain studies focused on structures or responses that might have been shaped by social interactions. To screen out social factors, they looked at brain scans rather than behavioral responses They also targeted the structures known to form during or shortly after gestation. Care to guess what they found out?
In overall symmetry and amygdala activity, the brains of gay men resembled the brains of straight women, whereas the brains of lesbians resembled the brains of straight men. It also showed that straight men had asymmetric brains, with the right hemisphere slightly larger – and the gay women also had this asymmetry. Gay men, meanwhile, had symmetrical brains like those of straight women.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Robert also ignores data that’s as old as his. Unsurprising really since it undermines his, basically, “choice” argument.
Bruce Reimer were born in Canada as a perfectly normal boy. A medical accident when he was in the hospital at the age of seven months destroyed his male genitalia. Dr John Money was a psychologist specialising in sex changes. It was his belief that it wasn’t so much biology that determines whether we are male or female, but how we are raised and the choices we make.
So steps were taken to change Bruce into Brenda. Long story short, it didn’t work and as he/she entered puberty, he/she became isolated, confused and depressed. The ultimate outcome was that Brenda finally became David thanks to reconstructive surgery. Still, the life he had lead with everyone trying to make him a her and matter related to that ultimately drove David to suicide.
Being gay is not a choice. I have gay friends and have had gay family. Not a single one of them can remember when they weren’t gay. One of my oldest friends could never figure out why we were all goofy about Catherine Bach, Erin Gray and Loni Anderson and the various outfits that they were almost wearing while kinda wondering why he liked John Schneider, Gil Gerard and Gary Sandy so much. more than we did.
Yeah, he was an Andy Travis fan no matter how much cooler Johnny Fever and Venus Flytrap were. He’s a good guy, but his taste in “cool” has always been a little questionable.
Being a bigot or simply choosing to deny a group of people equal privileges or rights is a choice. And all the long winded talking in the world won’t change the fact that it’s a very poor choice to make.
The evidence against homosexuality being a choice is plain as day:
Nobody would choose a lifestyle that they had trouble accepting, as many gays struggle with accepting their own homosexuality, much less receiving acceptance from others.
Nobody would willingly want the ridicule, bullying, and abuse that comes from people like Robert that many homosexuals deal with on a daily basis.
So much talk on whether homosexuality is genetic or not, as if that were the only alternative to it being a conscious choice or the result of nurture.
I would agree that it most probably is not genetic per se, as in there probably isn’t a “gay gene” or combination of genes that are passed on which cause this trait. It doesn’t appear to be inherited.
That said, there are many conditions and traits that are indeed congenital (as in you’re born with them), but are not genetic! These include, but are not limited to:
• Spina bifida and other neural tube defects (caused by insufficient maternal folate in the womb at a critical stage of neural tube development)
• Harelip, cleft palate (similar causes)
• Any of a number of birth defects caused by the mother contracting rubella (“German measles”)
• Fetal Alcohol Syndrome — this can cause a child to be born without a conscience! One alcoholic drink imbibed by the mother during pregnancy is sufficient to cause this in some cases.
• Rh factor incompatibility between mother and fetus (if its Rh factor gene came from its father), causing the mother’s immune system to attack the fetus
• “Thalidomide babies” — while Thalidomide was banned ½ a century ago for this very reason, a similar situation could easily arise again, whether from pharmaceuticals or some other environmental factor.
• And many others.
There are also neonatal conditions that one isn’t born with per se, but which happens very shortly after birth, and again the person has no choice in the matter. A classic example is retrolental fibroplasia, in which, due to excess oxygen reaching the retina while it’s still growing shortly after a premature birth (it would normally finish growing in the last few weeks of pregnancy), usually from the oxygen needed to keep a premie alive in neonatal care, the retina grows out of control, and a column of retinal tissue rises from the macula / fovea centralis in the center of the retina and grows until it reaches the back of the lens, resulting in lifelong blindness. These days, parents of a premie often have to choose whether to accept the oxygen treatments after having been informed of this likely result, or letting the premie die of hyeline membrane syndrome. But there is no choice for the premie.
And finally, there are conditions which are technically “genetic” in that genes are the underlying cause, but not because of anything to do with inheritance from the parents. In addition to the obvious case of true mutations (“sports”), there are also chromosomal abnormalities such as Down Syndrome and other trisomies, polysomies, and monosomies, caused by improper chromosomal replication during meiosis.
So no, the opposite of “it’s a choice / result of nuture” is not “it’s (inherited) genetic.” Fallacy of the False Dichotomy. There are many other possibilities, even beyond the three that I listed above.
1. Everything you mention, e.g., spina bifida, is structural.
2. Perhaps for coming late (so you’re forgiven), you didn’t read the original posts, quoting the passage from Washburn at issue here (time to refocus).
3. I doubt that anyone here believes that homosexuality is caused by, e.g., fetal alcohol syndrome. As for genuine genetic disorders strongly disfavored by natural selection, things like cystic fibrosis affect about one person in 10,000, not 4 persons in 100.
4. Finally, it’s obvious that, at least so far, no one has read the Jarrett case, which only is the considered opinion of the Supreme Court of Illinois and (apparently) at least 6 justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (since it takes 4 to grant certiorari). Or, perhaps what we have in the face of that is tacit admission by Peter, Jerry, et al., that nothing of substance they could say holds water.
Do please read the citations, and I’ll check back in a couple days.
To Robert Crim:
Define “structural.” Are we talking macroscopic only (major differences in the structure of bones, organs, etc.), or including microscopic (cellular and sub-cellular structure)?
The key point that I raised is that not everything that one is born with is necessarily inherited. Whether it’s “structural” or not is completely irrelevant to that. I was highlighting the Fallacy of the False Dichotomy of those (on both sides of this debate) who insist that homosexuality must either be chosen / learned / taught / inflicted during childhood or whenever, or (genetically) inherited, as if those were the only possibilities.
I have soundly demonstrated that they are not the only possibilities, that it is quite possible and even common for traits to be congenital or otherwise established early in development and remaining with the person lifelong without any choice by anyone (with the exception of those cases of retrolental fibroplasia where the doctor and parents choose the likelihood of that over the premie dying outright) without being genetically inherited.
If they’re not genetically inherited, then all of the natural selection B.S. goes out the window. Natural selection does not apply to congenital but non-inherited and non-inheritable traits.
Fallacy of the False Dichotomy again. Yes, only structure can be geentically inherited, but (A) if we’re talking about things that are not inherited, that becomes irrelevant, and (B), since when is “structure” the opposite of “behavior,” or that those two are mutually disjoint sets on a Venn diagram with no overlap?
We can soundly disprove that last, by direct example. Remember Charles Whitman, aka the Texas University Tower Sniper of 1966? Certainly, planning out the acquisition of sniper weapons, going into a tower, sighting along and shooting random people who had done him no wrong, would qualify as a complex “behavior,” and even one involving extreme moral and ethical repurcussions. And yet, it turned out at his autopsy that he had a structural element in his brain (a tumor) that had developed over time. This almost certainly warped his behavior and personality, causing him to do things that he otherwise would never have done. That right there demonstrates that structure can influence if not outright cause behavior, including behavior that would drastically contradict the moral and ethical mores of society that the person would’ve learned and normally abided by. We’ve also seen many other similar cases, in both humans and laboratory animals.
It has been observed that the hypothalamus of human homosexuals is observably different from those of human heterosexuals. That’s structural.
It has also been observed that the odds of any given male infant growing up to be homosexual is directly proportional to the number of older brothers he has from the same mother, whether he knows of them (let alone was raised with them) or not!
Given this, a reasonable scenario is that homosexuality (and heterosexuality) may be caused by differing levels of estrogen vs. testosterone in the womb during the development of the brain.
So what if the amount of testosterone that the woman can supply to male fetuses that she incubates is limited, that the firstborn male would get the most and the levels would decrease with subsequent males? If this is coupled with excess estrogen, it could conceivably result in varying degrees of feminization of some parts of the brain associated with libido.
Thus, it would be congenital, but not inherited nor genetic in any way. Natural selection pressures would be almost totally irrelevant in this case (one could speculate that this may be part of the reason that human women evolved menopause, to lessen the likelihood of this happening, but I suspect that that has more to do with the fact that meiosis becomes less reliable as the ovaries age, resulting in exponentially greater likelihoods of Down Syndrome and other chromosomal replication conditions that would be far more devastating).
That was not my implication. Those were simply examples of other conditions that we know for a fact are congenital but not genetic, thus demolishing the Fallacy of the False Dichotomy used or assumed by both sides in this debate.
Irrelevant and dealt with above. Natural selection does not apply to non-inherited traits.
Really? You’re honestly suggesting that a legal case has anything to do with what actual scientific truth is? Really!?
Okay, how about we solve our energy problems once and for all? I’ll write my Congressman to submit a bill to Congress repealing the Law of Entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics). That should do it.
I apologize for failing to follow your reasoning, but I can’t see where any of this goes.
1. My original statement was that behavior is “learned,” where “learning” refers to biological learning and is not limited to the kind of learning you do in calculus class. It goes without saying that environmental factors can alter biological structure (it’s common knowledge that all sorts of cancers are caused by environmental pollutants, and that timely artificial administration of androgens to a female child will emasculate it); however, what does any of that have to do with the subject of the post? I really am baffled.
2. It is within that context that I said only structure is inherited, so that what is passed is (in Washburn’s words) “ease of learning” only. Thus, monkeys learn to be social, but they are so constructed that it’s almost impossible for them to be anything else, especially in the field (anti-social monkeys get reduced to cat food). Human beings learn to talk, but it’s an extremely unusual human being who doesn’t, and those who are so unusual almost always are missing something in the neural substrate (which is the common condition of pongid apes).
3. Natural selection works on anything alive. A white lion stands out in the moonlight like a silver dollar. The environment will select against it, regardless of whether the fur is white from albinism or white because you captured it and dyed its hair. Of course, the loss of a lion with artificially dyed hair would have little or no effect on balance in the gene pool, so if that’s all you meant, then of course you are right. So what?
4. On the question of percentages, the point was that genuine genetic defects (in the sense that nature disfavors them strongly) do occur but are relatively rare (e.g., .01 per cent for cystic fibrosis). It is difficult to estimate the number of homosexual individuals in society, since the definition of “homosexual” is not fixed; however, limiting ourselves to the original example we were given (Grey’s very long-term, exclusive relationship with one man and ignoring all women), the best maximum estimates are between 3-5 per cent of the male population and 2-3 per cent of the female (hundreds of times more than for a disfavored, exclusively genetic trait like cystic fibrosis). That’s inconsistent with a strongly disfavored condition having exclusively genetic origins and good evidence that far more than genetics is at work. As far as I recall, I said no more than that.
5. That we are restricted to considering solely relationships such as Grey mentions is required by the heading, which claims it’s “about bloody time” that same-sex “marriages” be allowed. (Although today many don’t, marriage is SUPPOSED to last “till death do you part,” and many laws associated with the institution of marriage were adopted with that in mind.) EVERY objection I have made here must be measured against the concurrent power such a change in the law would enable: The power to use the force of the state, via the laws of adoption, to oblige participation by a ward of the state in Grey’s PERMANENT AND EXCLUSIVE arrangement. Anything else, e.g., getting a teaching credential, is off the table. (If Grey were denied that, he should call the ACLU, since that very probably was a violation of his rights.)
6. The court opinion (which immediately concerned heterosexual conduct but was applicable by extension — that’s what “see” means) does not purport to establish scientific truth. It does lay down legal standards by which voluntary conduct is measured, including such things as burden of proof and the constitutional dimensions of legislative power to declare the morality of the state. No one is suggesting that the legislature could repeal the law of gravity, but were that attempted, any court would take judicial notice of that anyway, so as far as I can tell, your objection is not relevant. Indeed, it’s not terribly relevant (in the subsequent example I gave) whether Katy’s lesbian behavior can be traced to environmental or genetic factors, since (as mentioned) she ABSOLUTELY can decide to live with her daughters and not subject them to whatever relationship she has with Dawn.
As far as I know, neither you nor anyone else is debating Katy’s mental or physical capacity to do that.
Had you read the Jarrett opinion, you should have realized that the failure of Mrs. Jarrett to make a similar choice was a key element in why her custody was transferred. Stated succinctly, Mrs. Jarrett had made clear her intention not to comport her conduct with the requirements of the law. That she thought the law unfair or outdated was of no moment. To have any chance of getting HER daughters back, Katy will have to end her lesbian relationship with Dawn, at least in the daughters’ presence. The court made clear that it was not about to allow Mrs. Jarrett to turn her children into experimental Guinea pigs for testing whether her unlawful relationship would cause them harm. IN THE FACE OF A COMPELLING, EQUALLY COMPETING CLAIM (which most fathers would have), her custody was lost before courts legally required to do what is in the best interests of the child, upon the moral and legal standards which the legislature declares to them.
Neither the law of entropy nor the laws of genetics have anything to do with that. The court’s decision was founded on the laws of Illinois, and AT LEAST 6 justices of the Supreme Court of the United States agreed (cert.denied).
To Robert Crim:
(And it came to pass that COMALite J didst palmeth his face.)
Gee, Robert, why didn’t you just say, “I don’t actually know what ‘natural selection’ means even though I throw the term around a lot?” That would’ve been much easier, not to mention more honest of you.
Why, yes, yes indeed, that’s exactly what I was talking about, and more importantly, that’s what anyone who knows anything about how Darwinian evolution actually works would be talking about when using that term.
Inigo Montoya would like a word with you regarding your use thereof.
Okay, listen up: Natural Selection refers to precisely and solely to a natural method resulting in selection of inborn traits to be passed on, or failed to be passed on, to subsequent generations.
Acquired traits such as painting a lion white would have absolutely zero bearing on this. Lamarckian evolution was soundly disproved a long time ago. I don’t know how you could’ve missed it — it was in all the papers.
Any non-acquired but non-inherited (including congenital) traits also have zero bearing on this. If two parents with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome have kids, but the mother does not drink any alcohol during pregnancy, the kids will not be born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. If two parents both with spina bifida have kids, but the mother eats sufficient folate during pregnancy, their kids have no more chance(virtually zero) of having spina bifida than children of non-spina bifida parents would with the mother getting the same amount of folate.
Likewise, if there is no “gay gene” and homosexuality is neither genetic nor learned, but is a non-inherited yet congenital condition like the aforementioned two, then even if two homosexual parents work past their sexual repulsion of the opposite gender and have children together, said children would have no more chance — at all — period! — of becoming homosexual themselves than would children born to heterosexual parents with all else being equal (e.g. number of older brothers).
Get it? Got it? Good! Now don’t talk any more about subjects you know nothing about. It’s embarrassing for you and is no fun for us. It’s like the Weisenger-era Superman arm-wrestling Aunt May Parker (and not as Golden Oldie).
FYI: I’ve taught biology and spent 8 years on the front lines of biochemical and genetic research. That does not make me God’s gift to the world in this area; however, so far, we’re all unaware of your qualifications, which so far have been those of an occasionally rambling (and therefore difficult to understand) critic.
In any event, I think I’ve finally figured out what you are saying, viz., that perhaps homosexuality is contracted by the parents in a sense similar to how malformed limbs are imposed by use of, e.g., thalidomide by grandmothers during pregnancy (such a disability is not heritable), so I’ll ignore the insults and proceed from there.
I congratulate you on opening a new door (I don’t think anyone else actually has ventured such an idea to date). However, the original post which started this debate had nothing to do with that; rather, it was half a line in one sentence I penned, by which I contended that structure could be inherited but behavior had to be learned. That follows from the essence of what DNA does (code protein, not ideas), and nothing more was said (including how easy such learning might be, depending upon the structure inherited).
It is the opponents who insist that homosexual behavior can be inherited, not I, so your objection appears misdirected.
Nevertheless, it’s also true that timely addition of certain chemicals during gestation or even later can alter structure, and that not only is well known, it was a major element overall in my experimental work. If the chemicals are added artificially (like thalidomide was or pesticides can be), the structure changed will be unique to the organism and not passed on, unless, of course, the chemical penetrates the nucleus to the genes (and that’s very hard to do).
Since we don’t know precisely what causes homosexuality (it’s probably several causes), we cannot automatically rule out homosexuality as an environmentally induced, non-heritable effect caused by a poison — that IS a theoretical possibility, even if the possibility seems remote (I remind all else that we are talking about complex behavior patterns here, not something so “simple” as a malformed spine or limb).
More importantly, we are not dealing here with the theoretically possible but with actual claims of actual harm. In other words, if you have EVIDENCE to support your contention, by all means, produce it! After all, the challenge was the same for everyone else, so why leave you out? If you know of some chemical not in the Merck Manual, like alcohol or thalidomide, or lack of chemical, like foliate, which (when dispensed or withheld) leads to some cases of homosexuality, we definitely all want to know what it is, and “we” includes me. I’m quite sincere about that.
For everyone else, the challenge was simple. To reintroduce it, here is the missing passage from Kitzinger (warts and all), verbatim:
“Lesbians who have, or would like to have, children often encounter a lot of prejudice because of the notion that lesbians cannot be good mothers. ALL THE RESEARCH THAT HAS BEEN DONE ON THE CHILDREN OF LESBIANS INDICATES THAT THEY GROW UP TO BE DISTRESSINGLY NORMAL. They choose the toys, games, and dress expected of their gender, AND RARELY BECOME HOMOSEXUAL THEMSELVES. [All emph.added.] But, as Susan Hemmings, herself a lesbian mother, points out:
“‘THE ASSUMPTION IS, OF COURSE, THAT WE OURSELVES DO NOT WANT OUR CHILDREN TO BE DIFFERENT, BUT I WILL NOT BLOW THE GAFF. WE DO. [All emph.added.] We are not crazy about the world as it is, and we’d like our boys not to grow up into bomber pilots and our girls into animated aprons. All-American boys and girls leave us rather cold.’ [Citation omitted]…”
Sheila Kitzinger, Women’s Experience of Sex (New YOrk: Putnam, 1983) at 102-103.
The book then goes on to discuss the Katy/Dawn relationship previously mentioned.
Now, that WAS 30 years ago! And, although the book CLAIMS what also is claimed here and CLAIMS such is supported by “all the research,” the book cites NO research directly (either in text or in a footnote) and mentions NONE of it in the bibliography. The “research” has remained SECRET research for 30 years! And, in response to my GENEROUS willingness to reconsider the problem whenever some of this “research” surfaces, no one writing here in opposition has produced anything more than a personal testamonial or private observations of a pet cat.
They apparently have yet even to consult the large article on learning in animals located in Britannica’s macropaedia.
I submit the reason is because this CLAIMED research does not exist — it’s fantasy; it’s the claim ALWAYS made to score debate points and goes no further than that.
The law requires more. For, as Henry Brougham observed (in Philadelphia in 1841):
“There is no one branch of the law more important, in any point of view, to the great interests of society, and to the personal comforts of its members, than that which regulates the formation and dissolution of the nuptial contract. No institution indeed more nearly concerns the very foundations of society, or more distinctly marks by its existence the transition from a rude to a civilized state, than that of marriage.”
The state’s interests here are enormous and historic, and those interests are protected by not extending the definition to embrace same-sex couples (solves the due-process problem). Although we may argue here over what is the proper standard by which to make that determination, the bottom line is that, when the question was put to the voters of North Carolina, by whatever standard was employed, DOMA won 70 per cent to 30 per cent. To give some dimension to this result, consider that Ronald Reagan did not win 70 per cent of the vote in 1984 (when he took 49 states), Lyndon Johnson did not win 70 per cent of the vote in 1964 (when he took 44 states), and FDR did not win 70 per cent of the vote in 1936 (when he took 46). One has to go all the way back to the Era of Good Feeling, when Monroe ran unopposed, to find a presidential election so lopsided, and the only other example one may cite is when Washington won the first time by acclamation.
A 70-30 win is unmistakable re what it says.
The polity clearly understands the issue; its members do not want the change which a very vocal but limited minority wants imposed upon them; when given the opportunity to make their voices known directly, they defeat the imposition by overwhelming numbers, again and again.
The law reflects what the people want. Isn’t that the way things are supposed to work in a democracy?
and to mister Robert Crim above (whose response was rather upsetting…. no idea why someboday hasn’t said something sooner)
I can’t speak for anyone else, but in my case, I didn’t say anything because I don’t read Robert’s posts. He’s not a fan of my work; he simply showed up here to spout off with overlong, self-important and pretentious screeds.
PAD
Robert, what I think you fail to appreciate is that your response is nothing more than bigotry covered with pretentious jibber jabber.
Your implication that gay parents create gay children is unsupported and frankly ridiculous. If gay parents produce gay kids, then inversely straight couples produce straight kids. My parents are straight. My soon-to-be husband’s parents are straight. Zach Wahls was raised by two very wonderful mothers. He’s straight (and very articulate).
But I’ll play your game. lets say gay parents do in fact raise gay children. Whats the problem? What’s wrong with being Gay? please do tell.
the fundamental rule in biology is that only structure, itself, can be inherited. Upon that structure, all behavior is learned — period!
that is simply untrue. Many behaviors are inherited. In the animal kingdom I would say that most behaviors are inherited. Humans and other higher mammals have far fewer inherited traits than other animals but still, that fundamental rule is nothing of the kind.
I certainly have known my share of women who became Lesbian as a reaction to an abusive, incestuous father,
How can you be certain they would not have been lesbians otherwise? And do you think most gay men are gay because they had bad experiences with women?
I think there are some very interesting things that could be learned from research into the underlying factors that influence sexuality but it’s probably not worth the hassle one would get from both the PC crowd and the “any excuse to hate gays” gang. At any rate, it seems to me the ones who are for discrimination against gays have the duty to prove it the right path. Logic, to me, indicates that no harm will come of it and in situations like this, I’ll favor the side of more freedom and fewer constraints. That’s why I would have no problem supporting gay marriage and not multiple marriages, since one can make logical arguments on the potential harm there and even show some examples (places with polygamy as a social norm are not exactly great places to be. Gay marriage, conversely, has no such evidence against it.)
“that is simply untrue. Many behaviors are inherited. In the animal kingdom I would say that most behaviors are inherited.”
Indeed. Anyone with pets can tell you that. Cats especially often exhibit similar behaviors that they couldn’t possibly have learned.
In any case, sexuality is not a behavior. It’s an innate biological trait. Robert Crim seems to be confusing sex and sexuality, which are two completely different things.
Glad to hear, Robert, that you’re an authority on cats, although I must confess a natural skepticism at any scientist who uses “couldn’t” and “possibly” in the same sentence.
I’m out of here for two or three days. The rest of you can read Jerry’s post and chew it over for a little while. Please try to stay focused on the narrow objection raised.
One need not be an authority on cats to know they have innate behaviors.
One can argue that homosexuality is not innate. I would disagree but it’s arguable. Saying it is not innate because there are no innate behaviors is not arguable.
And I think one could easily, if unethically, prove that cats have behaviors they could not possibly have learned by taking a kitten at birth and raising it in an environment without any stimulus. You’d have one psychotic cat though. We call ours Starsky.
And, mine was Pussywillow, who gave birth to about 100 kittens (only one litter of which we had to take to the pound). NONE of these cats were feral cats, no one here has conducted a single field study of feral cats, and furthermore, NO ONE HERE WOULD WANT A FERAL CAT!
They are genuinely nasty!
Indeed, a feline housepet is Exhibit A in demonstrating the extent to which even lower-order mammals can adapt significantly to changes in environment.
So that we’re all on the same page, here is the passage in question verbatim:
“In summary, from an evolutionary point of view, selection is for successful behavior. Structure, physiology, social life, all these are the result of selection, and the structure-physiology-behavior of populations of primates are adapted to each other and to a way of life. Parts of this complex are almost entirely the results of heredity with a minimum dependence on environment, whereas others are heavily influenced by learning. It is advantageous for behavior to be adaptable, to adjust to a wide variety of circumstances. WHAT IS INHERITED IS EASE OF LEARNING, RATHER THAN FIXED INSTINCTIVE PATTERNS. [Emph.added] The species easily, almost inevitable LEARNS the essential behaviors for its survival. [Emph.added] So, although it is true that monkeys learn to be social, they are so constructed that under normal circumstances this LEARNING always takes place. [Emph.added] Similarly, human beings learn to talk, but they inherit STRUCTURES which make this inevitable, except under the most peculiar circumstances. [Emph.added] Although great efforts have been expended, chimpanzees simply do not learn to communicate verbally. THE GENETICALLY DETERMINED NEURAL SUBSTRATE is not sufficient to support speech behavior.”
Sherwood L. Washburn & David A. Hamburg, “The Study of Primate Behavior,” in Irven DeVore, ed., Primate Behavior: Field Studies of Monkeys and Apes (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965) at 5-6.
This principle is well illustrated by plates 5, 6, and 7 following p. 338 in David T. Suzuki et al., An Introduction to Genetic Analysis, 4th ed. (New York: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1989). The plates depict the three varieties of standard Labrador retriever (chocolate, brown, and beige); in the world of domestic dogs, the superiority of one variety over the other is fully dependent on the preference of the owner (which color dog do you want to feed).
But, evolution never would give us something like that — on the veldt, a chocolate Lab could be seen from a mile away, and prey animals quickly would learn to avoid it, resulting in its starvation and removal from the gene pool.
However, what could happen is that, through the process of genetic drift, some of the number 6 brown dogs would have offspring which vary from chocolate to beige, with most being somewhere in the middle. If, concurrently with the darkening of the coat, the chocolate dog also evolved changes in the eye affecting the relative abundance of rods and cones, such a dog would develop the ability to see well at night (just like our cats). Now the brown coat is a benefit to it, because in the dark it is concealed. Similarly, the more beige dogs will not become night dogs because, in the moonlight, they stand out like a silver dollar. But, if concurrently they evolve more cones than rods, these dogs see well in the daytime and can hide very well in savannah grass.
Notice what I did NOT say: None of the dogs biologically transmit, as “instinct,” the complex behaviors of diurnalism or nocturnalism. (DNA directs the formation of protein, not actions or reactions, and certainly not cultural, religious, or other metaphysical ideas). What happens with the dogs is that two diametrically opposite behaviors appear when the dogs explore their environment and learn from it the circumstances under which the individual structural equipment works best.
Jerry at least gets a sand dollar and a starfish for his effort, but unfortunately he is a police officer skilled at looking up stuff on the internet, not a scientist trained to analyze data.
1. Yes, you cannot turn a boy into a girl by cutting off his pëņìš and parading him in a dress. Concurrently, if anyone is planning to toss DNA, RNA, and the 20 amino acids in a test tube and pull out a dinosaur, he or she is going to be disappointed. One cannot carry out complex, delicate operations with a meat cleaver and the mindset of a butcher. However, in the case of male fetuses in which dihydrotestosterone synthesis is inadequate because of a deficiency of 5-alpha-reductase, the resulting ambiguity in external genitalia commonly is treated by surgical conversion to pseudo-females, because of what traditionally has been the difficulty in reconstructing a pëņìš. Studies of such children have been made, though early ones were flawed by hidden sexism, e.g., whether such “girls” preferred to play basketball or baseball rather than to play with dolls. I stopped doing biological research in the earely 1990s, and any subsequent studies here are not known to me, but nothing since has crossed my desk indicating that such children all are out committing suicide for having been converted to girls though with XY chromasomes and an inability to bear children.
2. As for the one non-testamonial study he mentions, nothing in the study even suggests that it may be extrapolated beyond what it says. SOME homosexuals, somehow selected, were examined and compared against a check of SOME heterosexuals, somehow selected, and certain STRUCTURAL similarities were noticed in areas of the brain which may or may not contribute to sexual behavior. And, that IS what it says. NOTHING in that study refutes anything I’ve said. At best, it says that, in the total sample, we have some chocolate dogs and some beige dogs which, if allowed to develop sans guidance, will be strongly inclined to develop one way or the other. That is a far cry from saying that the nocturnalism of the chocolate dog somehow is “instinctually” predetermined.
Many of the critical comments made in effect attempt to put a thumb on the scale by trying to restrict biological learning to the conscious choice of a sentient being. Hence, Grey pooh-poohs the idea that he or any other homosexual one day went out, saw two guys kissing, and rationally decided that such was the thing to do. But, that kind of learning and decision making is primarily learning restricted to humans, and biological learning is present in all species, but certainly in all mammals. Biological learning can occur in utero, before the brain even is fully functioned. Early suckling behavior in infants can be traced to exploratory thumb sucking while the fetus still is in the amniotic sac.
The Merck Manual includes among its causes of sexual dysfunction “ignorance (often the consequence of inhibited learning, itself based on anxiety, shame, or guilt) of the sex organs and their function; TRAUMATIC EVENTS IN CHILDHOOD (e.g., incest or rape) [emph.add.]; feelings of inadequacy; religious training; excessive modesty; and puritanical aversion to intercourse.” The woman who, having been subjected to incest at an earlier age by her father, rejects sexual encounters with men and prefers instead sexual satisfaction with women is NOT making a conscious choice to be homosexual; rather, she is manifesting an aversion reaction to trauma developed to a full-blown psychoneurosis. But, it simply begs credulity to claim that her homosexuality was determined by her genes. Bill, that’s not only bad biology, it’s bad psychiatry as well.
Five minutes of thought also should convince one that, as philosophy, none of these claims even hold water. For, what exactly is a homosexual anyway? The host of those who speak out are like Grey, who has been with a same-sex partner for a long time and is fully convinced that (a) he’s a boy who does not like girls, and (b) there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. But, a far greater proportion of the gradient fall into a different category. “[M]any people feel attracted to members of the same sex at one time or another in their lives and at other times are attracted with greater or lesser intensity to members of the other sex. The population seems to be distributed along a continuum, at one end of which is the exclusively heterosexual person and at the other end the exclusively homosexual person, with many falling somewhere in between.” Homer H. Clark, Jr., The Law of Domestic Relations in the United States, 2d ed. (St. Paul, Minn.: West, 1988) at 75-76. In the words of my friend, Jana, “I don’t know what I am.” Which is a VERY prescient answer, since nature does not create categories (only human beings do). What nature does create are SOME chocolate dogs and SOME beige dogs and a lot of brown dogs that are in between.
That brings us to the crux of the objection: What any of you do with your own begat children (those that have any) is strongly shielded by the law’s respect for privacy in domestic relations. But, the demand for expansion of legal marriage to include “marriages” of same-sex couples necessarily includes power to use the arm of the state to deliver one of its wards into the homosexual couple’s parental care. Perhaps by chance, the chocolate dog will get a chocolate puppy, in which case any harm is limited to continuation across generations of a homosexuality which well may have developed anyway. In that situation, one perhaps can raise the objection that this is no more than preferring to feed the beige dog or preferring Buicks to Chevrolets.
A far more difficult problem arises when, by chance, the chocolate dog gets a beige dog. The long-term effects may be nil (by definition, the influence of the chocolate dog is insufficient to move the beige dog off its diurnal dime). But, every HUMAN evaluator knows the difficulty of rising at two in the morning to blunder around in the dark. Can anyone doubt that it would be abuse for the beige dog to have to spend a fifth of its life under the tutelage of a chocolate dog structurally incapable of understanding that it’s doing anything wrong?
Far worse is the significant liklihood that our chocolate dog will get neither a chocolate puppy nor a beige puppy but a Jana puppy (the brown dog in the middle). We have seen in the case of the woman become homosexual as a reaction to incest that at least SOME cases of homosexuality have no genetic component at all. Environmental factors are what created the condition. The proponents of same-sex marriage, as part of their effort to get society to validate the legitimacy of their life choice, are grasping for the power to use the organs of the state to place in their care an independent human being who otherwise could have been heterosexual but who, under the environmental influences of its forced adoptive parents, now will become homosexual.
To so invoke state power is a monstrous abuse of it. That Grey can’t see that IS the problem.
We need not consider here the religious objections which will be mounted against that, for as I have represented in the past, I’m a libertarian atheist who does not believe in gods or goddesses. It is sufficient on this score to say only that, in a democracy, the legislature has the power to declare the morality of the state, and that Christianity is the religion of the majority of the country. The Catholics on this may be bigger jáçkáššëš than the demodonkeys, but in their eyes, homosexuality is evil.
Homosexuality also is biologically “evil,” at least in the extreme. True homosexuals do not produce offspring; nature viciously removes them from the gene pool. That may not be fair, but that is the way the earth works. It simply is false to liken the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality to the difference between Negroes and Caucasians. In the areas where Negroes evolved, the Negro is the superior organism: His dark skin shields him against skin cancer and limits production of vitamin D; his broad nose limits the moisturization of inhaled air in humid climates, cutting down on respiratory disease; his flattened hairs curl tightly or “kink,” allowing excess heat to be shed from the body, especially the head; the structure of his legs favors his travel on relatively flat surfaces.
Similarly, in places like Europe, nature disfavors these features and selects for light complexions, prominent noses, hair with a rounder cross-section, and legs better suited to climbing mountains.
But, a homosexual is a fish out of water in either location. One of the best arguments against homosexuality being primarily genetic in origin is the estimated number of homosexuals among the American population (3-4 per cent per Kinsey). Given the severe biological pressure which exists against homosexuality, this percentage is too great to be accounted for by repeated instances of mutation or genetic drift.
The primary objective reasons for opposing homosexuality as a practice generally and same-sex marriage in particular are (1) public health and (2) discouraging people, “especially young people, from becoming homosexual, thereby placing themselves outside the mainstream of society and incurring the many difficulties and hardships which the homosexual faces.” Clark, supra at 78. To prevent this, the state legitimately may intervene. “If in fact the prohibition of same-sex marriage would have this effect, then perhaps it is constitutionally justified.” Id.
The current effort on the part of its adherents to convince us that homosexuality primarily is genetic in origin is a natural response to this of an advocate who is hoping to get something for it. After all, if no homosexual can help it, then why should they be punished?
But, bad biology is just bad biology, and history tells us that trying to hijack biological science (or for that matter any science) to support a political agenda simply is a dead end. It was bad biology when Spencer and the libertarians tried to twist Darwin; it was bad biology when Ardrey and the conservatives tried to twist Lorenz; and, it’s still bad biology when modern supporters of novel political theories like “gay rights” try to twist our understanding of genetics. As previously stated, DNA commands the production of proteins, not actions or reactions, and certainly not cultural, religious, or metaphysical ideas. There is every reason to believe at this point that long years of conditioning under the parental supervision of homosexual couples would be sufficient to induce a significant proportion of adopted children, who otherwise would have developed normally, to develop abnormally. This is NOT in the best interests of the child, and that is why, until I can be shown that I’m wrong here, I will continue to support defense-of-marriage acts. Sean can dismiss this if he wants to, but the fact is that he’s not being asked for an argument, good or bad. He’s being asked for evidence. And, if he cannot produce evidence that would convince a libertarian atheist using the fundamental rules of biology as a guide, what possible chance does he have of prevailing against the far greater number of citizens who will substitute Bible-thumping for analysis and mantra for thought?
Finally, although we’ve yet to mention them, few people so far have given one significant element of the issue any genuine practical consideration. What do any of you really think would be the fallout the first time a homosexual, having used a same-sex marriage act to gain parental control of a pre-pubescent boy, gets caught fûçkìņg him up the áršë? Don’t tell me it won’t happen (the Pope, himself, knows that isn’t true). Don’t whine that, in terms of numbers, there are far more heterosexual fathers who commit incest on their daughters (I already know that, just as you already know such won’t make a whit’s worth of difference in the public eye). The result would be catastrophic. Bill, go ask the econ teacher at your school who was the most influential (as opposed to best) economist in the Twentieth Century, and without hesitation he should tell you: John Maynard Keynes, regardless of his politics. Queer as a three-dollar bill! But, clearly, there is no more relationship, let alone a “reasonable” one, between homosexuality and proficiency at economics than there is between being Jewish and flying a plane; and, in the current climate, I would estimate the life expectancy of a statute denying homosexuals a teaching credential to be about 20 minutes in the appellate courts. Indeed, I’ve been before some judges who wouldn’t give the proponents that long.
But, let the perception become established that homosexuals are real potential threats to children, and your teacher friends won’t be able to get within a thousand meters of their school. Indeed, the community may, instead, be sending them to Jerry to register with the police before they allow them back in the neighborhood.
I don’t think that is what most writing here want.
Learn how to take that which can be taken, and tramp less noisily or incessantly in those areas where even angels dare not tread.
What do any of you really think would be the fallout the first time a homosexual, having used a same-sex marriage act to gain parental control of a pre-pubescent boy, gets caught fûçkìņg him up the áršë?
I believe this has already happened at least once and made the news. What happened? Well, support for same sex marriage has continued its inexorable climb in support. I’ll try to find a link to the story.
I’m tired of this game. You haven’t addressed exactly why being a homosexual is bad. You haven’t addressed the FACT that most homosexuals… have heterosexual parents. and you’re dillusion that homosexual parents will raise homosexual kids… well it’s just plain unfounded, admittingly probably influenced by your own prejudices. I’m going to hope that what you’re doing here is just internet trolling. have a good Mr. Crim.
Conflating homosexuality with pedophilia just goes to show how completely fûçkëd up (yet how typical) Robert’s ‘argument’ is.
“Homosexuality also is biologically “evil,” at least in the extreme. True homosexuals do not produce offspring; nature viciously removes them from the gene pool. That may not be fair, but that is the way the earth works.”
Well, then isn’t it lucky for them that the Earth, at least most of the human part of it, doesn’t make marriage dependent on having children. Last I looked, we still let people Waaaayyyyy past their childbearing and child raising days get hitched in this country. We also let people that we know are sterile or infertile and do not have the biological ability to have children get married all of the time.
Hëll, we have at least a few prominent anti-gay marriage voices out there who are well into there third or fourth marriage who have openly stated that they have no desire to have children and took steps to prevent it or who have taken steps to have no additional children while still with Mrs. Future Ex-Wife the Second.
And lucky for them again that the Earth, at least most of the human part of it, has this great thing called adoption. And lucky kids up for adoption that they might have even more chances of ending up in a good home than before.
“One of the best arguments against homosexuality being primarily genetic in origin is the estimated number of homosexuals among the American population (3-4 per cent per Kinsey). Given the severe biological pressure which exists against homosexuality, this percentage is too great to be accounted for by repeated instances of mutation or genetic drift.”
Well, it’s one of “the best” arguments unless you look to nature that is. There’s already homosexuality in the animal kingdom that most people are aware of. Old news. But it has also been observed that in animal populations in the wild when population numbers increase too greatly in an area that we then see an increase in homosexual tendencies in newer generations.
A similar phenomena has been observed in controlled environments with mice (and, I think, monkeys.) Mice have been set up with tons of food and a nice living space. Plenty of food, space and no predators. Perfect for them. They started to overpopulate. Then something funny happens. The heavier the population pressure became, the more males started having sex with other males and ignored the females completely. Females started having sex with other females as well.
It’s almost like a biological trigger buried somewhere in some mammals as a guard against unsustainable population growth. Interestingly, they also noticed a higher tendency of violent activity among the group members across the board as the population number got too dense for their living area.
We already know from crime stats that we have heavier crime in many heavy population centers, it would be interesting to see if there’s a like correlation to the numbers in the homosexual population in heavy population centers VS less populated areas.
So, no, not a great argument on your part and possibly just good old nature at work all along.
“The primary objective reasons for opposing homosexuality as a practice generally and same-sex marriage in particular are (1) my personal prejudices and I think two keys getting it on is icky.(2)”
There, fixed that for you.
“What do any of you really think would be the fallout the first time a homosexual, having used a same-sex marriage act to gain parental control of a pre-pubescent boy, gets caught fûçkìņg him up the áršë? Don’t tell me it won’t happen (the Pope, himself, knows that isn’t true).”
Ðámņ. I lost the bet in the pool. I figured you go at least six more posts before devolving into some version of the same tired, cliched and piss poor “Dem dar ho-moe-sex-yuls are all a bunch a pee-dee-oh-files!” argument. Hëll, if I wanted to see that gone to this quickly I would have just driven over to West Virginia, gone into backwoods country and found a couple of married siblings who both dropped out of elementary school.
(I kid the West Virginians out there. I know that West Virginia isn’t filled with married siblings who dropped out of elementary school. Most of the married siblings in WV have at least one partner who made it into jr high before dropping out.)
Beyond displaying your own ignorance by equating pedophilia and homosexuality up there, you also answered your own question to a degree. Although, you had to do it by preemption tactics.
“Don’t whine that, in terms of numbers, there are far more heterosexual fathers who commit incest on their daughters (I already know that, just as you already know such won’t make a whit’s worth of difference in the public eye). The result would be catastrophic.”
It’s happened. There have been people accused of being homosexuals who have molested children. Most of the intelligent population writes off that individual as sick because most people outside of the Fox News and conservative talk radio audiences know that pedophiles are sick individuals whether straight or gay and are not reflective of the vast majority of either group.
And the other simple fact is that even the bigots favorite line of attack, as used here, that “Dem dar ho-moe-sex-yuls are all a bunch a pee-dee-oh-files!” will slowly lose what little power it has on all but the smallest minds as there are more and more examples of good homosexual parents and families in the mainstream to offset this ridiculous crap; just the same way that all of the small minded garbage spread by bigots about what would happen when we let “them darkies start tah marry good folks like us” died deservedly quick deaths in all but the simplest minds as the various laws outlawing marriage or even just sex between people of different colors landed in the dustbin of history.
And, as Bill noted, we’ve seen similar incidents to what you throw up as a theoretical already. Again, most intelligent people already know that such activities are not indicative of the whole and the population as a whole moves closer and closer to wanting to see gays treated with equal rights.
I took some time considering whether it was worthwhile to say anything further, since most of what’s appeared subsequently is students whining about the homework assignment, but a couple items oblige further development:
Jerry, ever since you deliberately misrepresented the facts in the Horn case in Texas, we’ve all been on notice that you can be one to be fast and loose with the truth when such suits your convenience. Peter isn’t going to ban you for that, so I guess I accept it as freedom of speech, but please — if you’re going to lie, please do it through your own lips and don’t presume to do it through mine. You show yourself for a skunk.
You do get kudos for one item: Pongid apes LEARN BIsexual behavior as part of their socialization process. Bonobos are strongly oriented that way, chimpanzees less so, and gorillas perhaps not at all.
They also are resistant to the AIDS virus, though they can get it.
(This should save some people some research time.)
So that no one doubts what WAS said:
1. This is not and never has been about “ickiness” (whatever that is). The framework of the law already is clear. Prohibitions must reflect more than “animus toward the class it affects.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). There must be a reasonable relationship between a legitimate state intertest and the legal prohibition. Id. at 632 There is no relationship (let alone a reasonable one) between being Jewish and flying a plane or (apparently) between being homosexual and proficiency in economics. A law denying a homosexual a teaching credential for being homosexual is suspect on its face and probably would not survive appellate review in today’s climate. Pooh pooh the situation if you like, but in an inflamed panic situation, that might not continue to be the case. Judges are humans before they are judges.
2. This post never was about flying licenses or teaching credentials or even about co-habitation. It is about one thing only: Same-sex marriage, and changing the parameters of an institution which has been at the heart of English society for a thousand years. THAT is a legitimate state interest, and not amending it an immediate cure.
So, one more time for those who couldn’t see the message through all the chaff:
YOU MAY NOT subject a ward of the state to ANY kind of legalized kidnapping, then make said ward an experimental Guinea pig in some kind of modern, neo-Nazi style medical experiment, period.
Among other things, that means:
YOU MAY NOT asport the child to a secret laboratory and, using some Buck Rogers procedure unknown to general science (gene replacement therapy or whatever), give the child cystic fibrosis, Down’s syndrome, Huntington’s chorea, sickle-cell anemia, or any other similar genetic disorder;
YOU MAY NOT subject the child to pedophilia (homosexual or otherwise) or any other similar behavior which could cause it to develop autism or otherwise lose its capacity for speech;
YOU MAY NOT immerse the child for as long as 18 years of its life in an exclusively homosexual parental environment, or by any other means deprive the child of normal heterosexual development.
All of the above are CHILD ABUSE, and it is not a defense that some of these things are or have been good things in other cultures or other species. Sickle-cell anemia actually is a benefit to some black people in malaria-infested regions of Africa (why they have it), but no one can doubt that, in the United States of America, it is a disability. A child who cannot speak has a disability. A child deprived of normal, heterosexual function has a disability. (That Rene apparently was so afflicted from another direction does not make that any less abuse.) Since expanding the legal concept of marriage to include same-sex couples necessarily empowers them to adopt (non-homosexual) children, I oppose such a change in the law, for allowing child abuse.
3. The issue is not foreclosed. While several here have tried to transform me from a skeptic into an advocate, a skeptic I remain. IF, someday in the future, EVIDENCE surfaces to prove compellingly that such emersions DO NOT lead to the posited disability, the matter may be revisited. But, the burden of proof to show no harm is on those who want to change the law, not on those who support it. And testamonials are not proof.
4. Although I remain a skeptic on evidence good but not compelling that same-sex marriage is a bad idea, I would be less than honest to say I am not a skeptic that evidence to the contrary ever will be forthcoming. The deprivation experiment Bill suggested with cats ALREADY has been done with monkeys (and that was FIFTY years ago — it’s nice to see we’re all up on the literature). H.F. & M.K. Harlow, “Social Deporivation in Monkeys,” Sci.Amer. 207:137-146 (1962); see also H.F. Harlow, “The Development of Affectional Patterns in Infant Monkeys,” Determinants of Infant Behavior, B.M. Foss, ed. (New York: Wiley, 1962) at 75-97, &c. What the Harlow’s experiment showed was the CRITICAL role which parental nurturing, especially maternal nurturing plays in allowing monkey juvenals to become assimilated into monkey society as happy, productive individuals. In 50 years, this result never has been even seriously challenged. Even in the situation of imprinting in birds, whatever the cause of the initial following response (which remains incompletely understood), that response is constantly reinforced by the hen, who leads the chicks to water, leads the chicks to food, leads the chicks to cover when there’s danger, and does everything else a mother does to create reproducing offspring. At every turn, the chicks LEARN: “Follow mother, get some treats; follow other, become eats.” It does not take the loss of very many ducklings to convince the rest: DON’T follow the eagle!
The origins of homosexuality remain incompletely understood, probably because there are many causes. Rene apparently was driven that way at one time but shifted back, and his story is not untypical. That does not make him a bad person, but honestly, Rene, wouldn’t it have been better had you not been abused in the first place?
What you all do on your own time in your own bedrooms is your own business (I well might not win the battle of “icky” kinks). What you may NOT do is use the law to draw innocents into it.
That remains child abuse.
can’t find any links to that story I remembered…perhaps i got it wrong. Given that there are 16,000 adoptions in CA alone to gay parents you have to expect at least a FEW will end badly. And i expect that there will be no backlash because most people would regard that as transparently bigoted, no different than justifying prejudice against any group based on the actions of a few.
Homosexuality also is biologically “evil,” at least in the extreme. True homosexuals do not produce offspring; nature viciously removes them from the gene pool.”
With or without scare quotes, that is a pretty unscientific statement. What does “biologically evil” even mean? Evolution does not demand that all organisms reproduce–some of the most successful organisms are colonial insects where only a handful out of millions do so.
If, for example, just thinking off the top of my head. there was an advantage to having, within the tribe, a small group of men and women who do not reproduce (without this being a health issue) but are still active in the family unit, I could see an advantage over other tribes where all are engaged in child bearing.
And it seems a simplistic view of things to suggest that there can be no genetic component to homosexuality because it would have been bred out by now. By that logic how can there be ANY genetic diseases? Why do we still have cystic fibrosis or any of a number of purely genetic diseases? And this does not even take into account the likelihood that something as complex as human sexuality might be controlled by multiple genes and/or a combination of genes/pre-birth hormonal influences/ and outside influences.
Since the census and adoption agencies say that 4% of all adoptions are to gay parents that should provide an ample sample size to prove any assertions as to the deleterious effect of those adoptions. failure to do so should invoke the “put up or shut up” rule. My own version of libertarianism demands that any laws that single out groups for discrimination had better have some powerful evidence to back it up, not hunches and feelings.
ooookay, that post came out a little screwed up…the part at the end was supposed to be near the top and not in italics. Oh well.
it also occurs to me that an arguably “negative”–I refuse to use the word “evil” s it pertains to evolution, since that seems the kind of thing only Nation Of Islam and other kooks use–trait may persist forever if it is linked to other, more positive outcomes. Ashkenazi Jews are above average in intelligence and also have a tendency toward severe genetic disorders. If the two are linked, this is unsurprising. So maybe homosexuality is one side of a genetic coin, the other being something that clearly confers an advantage.
Jerry,
While I agree with much of your rebuttals of Mr. Crim’s arguments, I wish you would refrain from statements like “people outside of Fox News and conservative talk-radio audiences know that pedophiles are sick individuals whether straight or gay and are not reflective of the vast majority of either group.”
.
It is a lazy smear against a group of people. You have admitted to watching Chris Wallace and Shep Smith. Does that make you as ignorant as the most extreme of the those who supposedly watch Fox?
.
This is touchy with me because though I am lucky enough not to have had a pedophile impact my life directly, one really hurt some people I really care about.
.
So even though I watch Fox, I hate this person not because he was gay – he wasn’t, he actually married someone I know and has a ton of kids by various women – but because he is a sick bášŧárd who has hurt a lot of people.
.
On another note, Bill, the “march” toward gay marriage is hardly “inexorable”.
.
The Equal Rights Amendment was considered a foregone conclusion and had the support of President Nixon. Last I checked, it still hasn’t passed.
.
Those favoring gun control seemed unstoppable back in the 1990s as the Brady Bill and assault-weapons ban both passed…and now, two decades later, there are more protections for gun rights than there were then, not less.
.
This “inexorable” march is news to voters in 31 states who have written into their laws that marriage is between a man and a woman. Despite what polls say, 61% of voters embraced the traditional definition of marriage. And for those who feel North Carolina is like Mississippi for doing so, it isn’t. It voTed for Barack Obama in 2008.
.
Heck, NO referendum upholding traditional marriage has ever lost, not even in a liberal state like Maine, where in 2009 voters reversed a gay marriage law passed by the legislature.
.
If it is true that younger voters are more likely to support gay marriage, change can come but it will take at least a generation.
.
The only way to do it quicker would be if the Supreme Court, led by Anthony Kennedy, decides to change the definition of marriage by judicial fiat.
.
Ironically, if Obama’s change on gay marriage helps cost him the election it could be a huge setback to the cause. Not only will a Republican president be picking Supreme Court nominees for the next four years but if gay marriage is seen as an issue that costs him crucial swing states, it will be a long time before anyone takes up it’s banner again.
Jerome,
I’m not going to take it back, but I will clarify a bit. It wasn’t quite a full blanket statement that was aimed at every single viewer of Fox News and every single listener of conservative talk radio. Hëll, I can’t say that as a blanket statement like that about this topic if for no other reason than I know two gay Republicans who watch Fox News and listen to some conservative talk radio. They certainly don’t believe the thing about all homosexuals being pedophiles.
However, that doesn’t change the fact that during the last few big pedophile priest scandals, that was the basic talking point that you got on many Fox news programs and heard in call after call on conservative radio programs. It wasn’t that these priests were just sick puppies. The situation was the result of the church letting the gays in. If we didn’t have liberal modernists letting gay priests in their lusting after little boys, then we would never have had this happen. And, of course, there was the ever popular but thankfully not completely universal call in point that “the facts” of the matter were that this was going to happen because homosexuals, not some mind you, but as a group, are pedophiles.
Hannity absolutely pushed the “It’s the fault of liberals getting the gay priests in there!” point. Some of the Fox News guests banged that drum and all the drums all the way up to declaring that gays were predisposed to being pedophiles. And, again, caller after caller to many conservative radio programs would go off of the host’s lead of talking about how it was the fault of the modern liberals in the church for putting gays in their in the first place and springing into a rant about all gays being pedophiles.
Sorry, but I saw it on Fox News and I heard it on the radio. It happened. That’s what was said. You didn’t get that spin in any significant way (other from the odd conservative contributor) and MSNBC and progressive radio hosts vilified both the church over the scandal and the conservatives pushing those ideas. You weren’t going to find the idea being treated seriously in those other audiences in the same numbers that you would in the Fox News and conservative radio audiences.
But, again, it’s not a blanket accusation that is meant to say that every single person in that group is that way. But the reality of the situation is that that is the demographic where you will most often find these things being said when such an issue comes up. That’s the demo where a large amount of the people pushing these ideas will move themselves into.
And what I said was really no different than some things I’ve said before about the left. At least a few times now when Cindy Sheehan has stuck her head back up to squawk for attention and say something mind bogglingly stupid, someone on the right will bring her up and ask someone on the left what they think of the left’s hero and her latest nuttiness. That’s actually come up here once or twice.
Well, when it comes to Sheehan and her fans, ever dwindling as they thankfully may be, I’ve always maintained that she wasn’t held in any great esteem by anyone out there other than those who were in the MSNBC and Air America (now just progressive radio) audiences. MSNBC (until she got totally insane and when started attacking the Democrats) and Air America were where she was held up as this tragic hero fighting the good fight against the evil Bush. Air America hosts and their callers where the ones pushing that idea as well.
You really didn’t get that spin about her on CNN unless it was coming from a far left contributor and Fox News and the conservative radio community vilified her and the “MSM promoting her” at every turn. You weren’t going to find the idea of her as a figurehead or a great symbol of the left being treated seriously in those other audiences in the same numbers that you would in the MSNBC and Air America radio audiences.
It’s not always a cheap shot and a smear. Sometimes it’s a fact of demographics and a fact of certain POV “news” channels and radio personalities drawing a certain crowd with certain beliefs and ideas that they already hold and want validated by some TV or radio “authority” on the subject. In this case, as Robert referenced the pedophile priest scandal, the majority of the people you find who advocate the ideas of or suggest the linkage of gay = pedophile is in the general group I referenced. Again, it’s not every person in that group, but that’s where most of the people like that, or at least the noisiest ones, are.
On another note, Bill, the “march” toward gay marriage is hardly “inexorable”.
.
The Equal Rights Amendment was considered a foregone conclusion and had the support of President Nixon. Last I checked, it still hasn’t passed.
That’s true and I have warned those on my side of the gar marriage debate that we had best not repeat the errors of the equal rights amendment crowd.
But when you look at how the idea of gay marriage has gone from a punchline in an episode of Golden Girls to something that a significant chunk of the population has no problem with or even supports, it would take a major change in momentum to stop it. In my own experience, family members who dismissed the idea as not even worth thinking about now just shrug their shoulders and say “whatever.”
And as more and more states allow it and the sky fails to fall it will be hard for opponents to get many on their side. Short of making Dan Savage the poster boy for the movement or starting a “Vote Our Way, You Stupid Bášŧárdš” campaign, I don’t see this stalling.
This “inexorable” march is news to voters in 31 states who have written into their laws that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Not so very long ago, many of these same states had laws banning interracial marriage, too.
Of course, it took a Supreme Court decision to put an end to these laws. Thankfully, the phrase “activist judges” wasn’t around back then.
But 45 years on the country hasn’t fallen into a black hole as a result. It won’t have from gay marriage 45 years from now, either.
From the Unintended Consequences Department:
Though the likely reasons President Obama chose Robin Roberts to be the one he made his “support of gay marriage” statement to are that she has basically been universally respected whether at ESPN or ABC by both sides of the aisle; that she is black and Christian and there3fore may make Obama’s message more acceptable to two of the groups frequently cited as having hardened views against gay marriage, my Inbox has been flooded by several e-mails “outing” Roberts as a lesbian.
.
The Left are sending them to demonstrate how accepting and tolerant Obama is by making this announcement, down to the “fact” (easily disproved) that he gave the “breaking, historic news” to a lesbian reporter.
.
The Right fringe groups are sending them to demonstrate how Obama wanted assurances he would have a friendly interview by granting an interview to a lesbian reporter ( as well a black and a woman and someone he’s been friendly with). I might agree with the fact that if he really wanted to make progress and hit the ground running with this “historic” announcement, he would have done so in a press conference, where he might have gotten some tougher questions, but what the hey.
.
The only problem with the chatter about Roberts is that the extremists on both sides are simply wrong: http://www.nowpublic.com/world/robin-roberts-lesbian-speculations-after-obama-interview-2927839.html
I always find it a little unbelievable that some people may think homosexuality isn’t innate. I have always been attracted to women. I have never felt any physical attraction to men. And any hot-blooded heterosexual will understand what I am talking about when I say that hot women are like magnets to me, in a very instinctive way. The idea that any of us would “become” gay if we were raised by gay families is ludicrous.
Sometimes I suspect that people who are so afraid of the gays “teaching” kids to be gays are the ones who have gay leanings themselves and have deluded themselves into thinking they have “chosen” to be straight instead. I never “chose” to be straight. I can’t help being straight.
And man… I was raised by a overprotective mother, an aggressive father, I had lots of gay friends, actually there was a time in my life when all my friends were gay people, because they were also geeks and we played Dungeons and Dragons and other RPGs. As a fellow geek, I wasn’t particular about the sexual orientation of my geek friends.
And I went with them to gay clubs, and I was so lonely that sometimes I even wished that I could be one of them, but I couldn’t. The desire was never there. The idea of touching another man never appealed. My internal workings were simply different from theirs.
Actually, like most straight males, I feel slightly nauseated even with the idea of intimate contact with other males. This is not a cultural construct. Every other cultural construct I have can be argued with internally. This one can’t.
That’s weird, I could have sworn that you said you were gay, in one discussion thread or another. Or am I just confusing you with someone else?
Anyway, I don’t think it’s so much that the “teaching kids to be gay” crowd has homosexual leanings themselves. It has more to do with their religious beliefs, and their inability to fathom a God who would condemn homosexuality as a sin while at the same time creating homosexuals. Therefore, it has to be the homosexuals’ own choice, and if they can make that choice, it stands to reason they can teach impressionable children to make the same choice.
Which of course is all nonsense. Really, it’s ridiculous that we still have to have this argument about homosexuality being a choice, as if it’s possible that millions and millions of gay people around the world are all just kidding themselves, and lying to everyone else. All it would take for this argument to end is for all the “choicers” to simply spend some time with gay people. The more, the better. That’s the only way to learn that A. these people are genuine, and B. they all share similar traits that can only be the product of biology. I mean, there’s a reason why the term “gaydar” exists, and why gay people are often the last to know that they’re gay, and it has little or nothing to do with learned behaviors.
That was me, Robert. It’s complicated and very personal, but hëll, this is the Internet, so why not?
I think my lifestory is proof that sexual orientation is innate and “physical”.
Growing up, I was a very traumatized person. My father was very abusive. Not physically, thank God, but emotionally. Nowadays, I understand him, but growing up with him was very hard. He was an alcoholic, pressured into marriage by his family, and had a son (me) that was very different from him, personality-wise.
Growing up, the only thing I wished was to be the opposite of my father. And my father was the stereotypical macho guy. So I had gay friends, went to gay places, identified myself as gay. But you know, I never managed to make myself intimate with another male. It just wasn’t in me. I lusted after women.
My traumas and my mind pulled me into one direction, but my body pulled me at another. I was a real mess. I didn’t really fit in the gay community, with my gay friends. I never did. I liked women, but I was afraid of becoming like my father.
Years of therapy gradually fixed that. I accepted my body’s feelings. I started to admit my interest for girls. And nowadays I have a girlfriend, she lives with me, and I am very happy. I feel complete and at peace.
And that is why I believe you can’t change what you are, when it comes to sexuality. You can’t “cure” gays, you can’t cause a straight kid to grow up gay on account of abuse. All my gay friends had attraction for things that I never did, and never could have.
Interesting. I’ve known a lot of “straight” people who turned out to be gay, but you’re the first person I’ve met who has come out of the straight closet (or would that be the gay closet?… whatever, it’s a wonky metaphor either way).
Yeah. The people who know my story usually say that. The way I see it, I had to come out of the closet twice. First, when I had managed to convince myself that I was gay. Later, when I had to admit that I was really straight.
I dunno, I suppose the upside of it all is that I can’t help but be open-minded with other folks.
Considering the subset of homophobes who turn out to be closeted gays, that theory sounds fairly plausible.
Robert Crim –
I don’t think my sexual orientation has ever shifted. I don’t think people ever “change” their sexual orientation. What happens is that some people are very confused about what their true orientation really is.
My physical reactions have always been the same. I always felt physically attracted to women and repulsed by males. But I didn’t want to accept it. The human being is capable of amazing self-deception. It’s just that my body never cooperated with the self-deception.
I was lousy at “being gay”. After 5 years of attempts, I never managed to have a complete intimate encounter with another male. My mind wanted it, but my body didn’t. It was awful. Worse, the more I tried to be gay, the more acutely I felt attraction to women, and the more I suffered, because I believed being straight would turn me into an unfeeling brute, like my father.
But when I finally accepted that I was straight, I took to it like a duck to water.
Anyway, this is a long way to say that, in a certain way, I agree with you (surprise). I have to be honest: I think that being raised in a gay household might cause a kid to grow up sexually confused. It won’t turn them gay, because people don’t turn gay. But it might cause them to become confused, like I was.
But hey, kids always run that risk. Even with straight parents. I’m not convinced that they are at higher risk with gay parents.
And more, there is a difference between straight and gay psychology. Usually, straight parents want their kids to be straight. But gay parents do NOT necessarily want their kids to be gay. They’re usually are very open with their kids being whatever they want to be. Some of them even want their kids to be straight! Because they don’t want their kids to face the same persecution.
When my mom found out I was gay… she cried. Not because she thought it was ‘wrong’ or ‘biologically evil’, but because she knew that my life would be hard. She knew that there were people in world who would stop at nothing to hurt me.. or at the very least… make me feel like i’m some abomination.
In all honesty, I wouldn’t want my kids to go throught the same discrimination I have. No parent says “boy i wish my kid gets the short end of the stick”… well no good parent at least.
Rene, I’m glad you found yourself. and i thank you for sharing your story.
Thanks, Grey.
My years in the gay community have taught me to respect gays a lot and make me appreciate the many difficulties you guys still face. It also made me fully appreciate gays as individuals, that deserve all the happiness that is entitled to any other human being.
When conservatives complain that we live in some sort of politically correct dictatorship that tries to influence kids to “be gay”, I have to laugh. Because I have lived both ways, and let me tell you, we still live in a very straight world. As a straight man, I have all the advantages and social acceptance that I never had when I identified as gay. I can go with my girlfriend anywhere, everybody is happy for us, and everybody wants to keep us together.
Being gay is a lot harder, you still has to face a lot of intolerance in a daily basis.
I give all my support to gay causes. People feat that gay rights will “change society” too much. So what? Like Margareth Tatcher said, there is no society. There is just people. But unlike Margareth, I think the thought should be applied to all areas, not only to economics.
So, what is the point? That society cannot pass or enforce laws which steer people in the right direction?
Perhaps “biologically evil” was a poor choice of words, although it’s clear to me that what was said is that biology wars against exclusive homosexuality. That is a fact (true homosexuals cannot reproduce and fall out of the gene pool, period). In any event, if one does not use the religious gauge, if one does not use a biological gauge, what’s left? Culture? History? It appears they yield the same answer. If one does not employ a religious gauge and equally eschews a biological one (I also recall saying that the world is not suffering from human overpopulation), it seems to me that cultural and historical gauges equally militate against any such change in the law.
You don’t have to go to the Bible to find proscriptions against things believed to make people sick (the Iliad will do). In times before modern disease theory, attributing ills to some god’s displeasure was common though understandably objectionable today. What arose from that are institutions which make sense and don’t make sense all at once (until one unwraps the actual reasons for them).
To illustrate this, let’s move in another direction here and suggest that, perhaps, Jerry got closer to the truth than he realized. What if, a very long time ago, humans were like bonobos — not HOMOsexual but BIsexual. EVERY study actually done shows a CONTINUUM of behavior, with some solidly on the ends, but most in the middle, so a scientist cannot rule out bisexualism as a possible “culprit.” If the “homo” part of bisexualism be dangerous, cannot society legislate to steer people away from that?
Bonobos and chimps today are resistant to the AIDS virus probably because the virus at some time dispatched all of the apes who weren’t (that is how natural selection works). Humans obviously did not go through that bottleneck (why the disease in us so far is almost universally fatal). Instead, culture, religion, and our knowledge of history simply told us that certain behaviors were dangerous “displeasures to God,” and so we legislated accordingly. The Jewish “unclean” became the Christian “impure.” Additional cultural institutions grew around that, and society was transformed when these institutions generated changes of their own. Society today reaps the benefits of those changes, and of the progression, even if its members do not fully appreciate the reasons for them or how they got here.
Does that mean one never changes such prescriptions? Of course not. But, don’t just throw a rule away because it’s “religious” in origin (the prohibitions against murder and theft also are “religious”). The Catholic Church has been around for 2,000 years, and while at least some of what it professes appears to me designed primarily to make more Catholics, that doesn’t automatically negative everything they say. You have to look at the entire picture. That’s what a legislator does.
Once again, I insist that the discussion be brought back to what David actually laid on the table and I responded to: Obama’s newfound support for same-sex MARRIAGE. We’re talking about changing the fundamental institution at the heart of English society for a thousand years, NOT co-habitation in Colorado. And, we’re talking about dragging minor wards of the state (and probably potentially normal, heterosexual minor wards of the state) into the middle of it all. This is not chump change. Grey wants the power to force someone who does not belong there into his choice of lifestyle. That (and that he does not see that) is the actual evil, not how he chooses to spend his free time.
And who says being gay is the “wrong direction”?
And I mean, real people and real research, not religious-fascist claptrap?
Howdoes someone being gay affect you (realistically) at all? The effect it has is YOUR reaction to it. And the only person that control your reaction is you. If you choose to keep your nose out of others business and not get all bothered about someone being gay, then you’re on the “right path”
I’ve already been too bothered by the things you say Mr. Crim to fall into that trap again. You’ll never believe this, but being gay isn’t a choice. its not something you wake up and decide to do. You can’t make someone gay, just like you can’t make someone straight… unless… of course… you are suggesting that your decision to be be heterosexual is a choice… interesting…..
I’ll let it slide that you keep bringing up HIV in a discussion of gay marriage. and i think its interesting that for someone who claims to not be Christian… you sure have been using religion as a staple in your argument. but hey, whatever.
I’ll ask of you one last question. for giggles. If a marriage bill was passed that said gays could marry… but not adopt… you’d be ok with it?
Sure, why not, as long as it’s for giggles? And, while we’re at it, we can amend a few other relevant laws as well, so that this pretension of marriage can be terminated solely by a pretended divorce. Since there’s no need for visitation privileges, we can substitute for them a solemn order from the circuit court, giving you every other weekend with Bill’s cat. The problem of resolving coverture well may be insoluble; however, to resolve the question of who assumes the obligation of support, perhaps we could just have one of you (when you are before the justice of the peace) simply jump up and down while waving your right hand in the air and shouting, “I get to be the mommy!” And, if either party need defend against a plea of annulment, in place of a hymenal examination, we can make it possible for one side to call a pseudo-expert, who can give his sworn testimony that, as far as he could tell, the sperm swam up the crack in the áršë rather than down. Of course, the problem of kidnapping the cat (catnapping the kit?) does remain, since all whoever has to do is take the cat to Kentucky, where there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hëll of the law ever being changed, and where the courts there long ago opined that what you seek is a license to do what you cannot do (which is a nullity). Against any protests that this is “bigotry,” expect the catnapper to resurrect the writ of jactitation (having been tipped off to its existence by his perusal of Inherit the Wind). But, cheer up, since we can declare “catnapping” across a state line to be a serious federal crime, allowing the FBI to enter the affray. We even can resurrect J. Edgar Hoover and allow him to lead the sorte, attired in his dress. Should the Governor of Kentucky resist their efforts in defense of “state rights,” we always could call in the 82nd Airborne Division to fight the first battle of the Second American Civil War — for a cat! You say the judges obliged to carry out this farce are refusing to degrade the dignity of their courts in any effort to help you? By all means, let’s rewrite the law of contempt, so that we can throw the judge’s áršë in jail, then make him perform community service with a little sign around his neck, reading, “I have homophoebia; the kitty belongs in Florida!”
You do realize, Grey, that anyone reading this, who isn’t a fanatic, by now is rolling on the floor (but, then, it was ALL for giggles).
Allow me to ask you: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
If you are being denied a driver’s license or teaching credential because of your sexual affiliations, you don’t need to change Florida’s marriage statute; you need to call the ACLU (the main office is in Miami). If you are fearful you won’t get a fair share of your “others” estate should he pre-decease you, the solution lies in picking up the Yellow Pages, opening it to the thick section in the front headed “attorneys,” and picking one virtually at random to draft the two of you a will (after all, this worked for J. Edgar Hoover). If you are hoping to collect old-age survivor’s benefits, changing Florida’s statute won’t help you, since that is a federal program, and it’s black-letter law that Congress can make its own distinctions in this matter. [Adams v. Howerton, 486 F.Supp. 1119 (C.D.Cal. 1980), aff’d. 673 F.2d 1036, cert.den. 458 U.S. 1111.] And, if you’re seeking absolution in some way for what you have done, rest assured that the Pope won’t give it to you (he’s sovereign, doesn’t have to listen to our laws, and is guided solely by a Bible that says what you’re doing is a sin). As for me, I won’t give it to you either, because what you are requesting makes no sense. Seriously, which one (you or your partner) intends to submerge his rights in coverture to the other? Because, if you don’t decide that ahead of time, the JP won’t be able to do it for you, since when he turns the two of you upside down, you’ll both look just the same!
“Marriage [is a] legally and socially sanctioned union between one or more husbands and one or more wives that accords status to their offspring and is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners….The main legal function of marriage is to ensure the rights and define the relationships of the children within a community.” [Encyclopaedia Britannica] If you take the children out of it, what have you got left? Yeah, I know, Jerry, there are, indeed, STUPID HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE who elect to get married but remain barren. However, for anyone who knows anything about the law, it’s far wiser today for the “wife” to spend her money, getting her tubes tied, while leaving her legal rights intact.
Grey does not seek to be married; rather, he seeks to turn an institution once defined by people who despise his elections into a joke.
For everyone else, the remainder of what’s been written since I went away for a few days merits little, if any, response, for being mostly drivel. See Jarrett v. Jarrett, 78 Ill.2d 337, 400 N.E.2d 421, 36 Ill.Dec. 1 (1979), cert.den. 449 U.S. 927; see also Merck Manual (15), 1962-63 (relation of structure to behavior in hermaphroditic infants). Although Lorenz and Tinbergen did find that imprinting in geese was all but irreversible after the first few days of life, even there, neither eventually could deny that DNA, itself, directs the formation of protein, not actions or reactions, and certainly not moral, religious, cultural, or legal ideas. The contention that anything as complex or as variable as a human being can have his or her behavior determined genetically in the form of fixed-action patterns simply is unsustainable. Consider:
“Dawn and Katy have two children each, but Dawn’s husband won custody of her children because of her lesbianism, and Katy’s ex-husband pays for her daughters to go to boarding school rather than let them live with Katy and Dawn. Katy says, ‘I feel as though they’re being punished for my behavior, but if I protest, my husband will fight me for custody, and I know I’d lose that, so I put up with it. I see them during school vacations.'”
Sheila Kitzinger, Women’s Experience of Sex (New York: Putnam, 1983) at 103.
If my boss comes to me (since I’m not licensed to practice) and says, “I need you to put all your preconceptions aside because Katy is our new client, and we need to figure out how to get her girls back,” then because I like my paycheck, I say, “Yes, sir: What have you got?” If he then shows me what’s in Kitzinger’s book immediately preceding the quoted passage, I tell him:
“OK, I can call Putnam on Tuesday and find out if Kitzinger’s still alive and, if so, where to reach her. The flap says she lives in England; it probably will be expensive to bring her to Florida. Still, her bona fides appear on the surface reasonably good — Oxford, Univ. of Edinburgh, apparently not a Ph.D. (an M.S. maybe?), but she HAS done field research in three very different countries, is a published author, and has lectured all over the English-speaking world (which perhaps trumps my little study in South Florida). She says there are studies which show that lesbian mothers don’t influence their children’s sexual preference, but as too often is the case, she does not say what the studies are and does not list any in her bibliography. So, maybe the studies do exist, and maybe she can and will lead us to them, but I have to be honest with you and say this flies in the face of my own knowledge of ethology and behavioral psychiatry. Furthermore, the very next thing she does is quote a well known lesbian who openly admits that SHE was trying to influence her daughters, even assuming that could not be successful, and that’s a definite fly in the ointment. Personally, I doubt that either Katy’s or Dawn’s lesbianism is the product even of ANY predisposition at the genetic level; more likely, this is a reaction to each of them finding themselves in šhìŧŧÿ marriages which ended in šhìŧŧÿ divorces. The other side would jump on that to prove Katy psychoneurotic and unfit, and she’d probably have to submit to a psychiatric examination by THEIR doctor if this were to go to trial. Therefore, at minimum, we should send her to Nathan not to ‘cure’ her but to try to unwrap her a little bit so that we know what we have to work with.
“Concurrently, you must know (because you are licensed to practice) that the situation is not lost, and that Katy’s position is not hopeless; however, if she wants a result she’d consider positive without putting half a million dollars on the table for a study that might take years to complete and yield negative or inconclusive results, what she’s going to have to face is what she can do for free, which is CHOOSE to live with her daughters and see DAWN on vacation.”
That choice, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with her genes.
Mistake 1:
Ascribing morality to nature. There is no “evil” or “right and wrong” in nature. Nature is what is. The only thing that nature tells us is that homosexuality is a phenomenon that occurs in nature. It was not eliminated by natural selection (which is neither good or evil). The moral attitude we have to homosexuality has nothing to do with biology (aside from the fact that the human mind apparently includes the ability to be bigoted).
Mistake no. 2:
This whole work of fiction you came up with to wrap up together diseases, AIDS, Judaism, the Iliad and the catholic Church.
You have no real basis to claim that Homosexuality is physically harmful. So that whole part is empty speculation.
Mistake 3:
Your argument seems to boil down to this. [Some] religions condemn homosexuality [at some points in history], therefore [although you have zero proof to that effect] you say that [some] religions have a secret medical motive to oppose homosexuality. [Although history shows different religions might have many different motives for its different rules and attitudes and that religions, being ancient, usually don’t have much up to date scientific knowledge.]
This argument is a mistake not only because it’s fiction, but also because it ignores the very simple point: it’s up to humans to make the moral choices at any given time. They are the ones who accept or reject the teachings of certain religions at different points in history. That’s how history and culture works. That’s how religions themselves change.
Yes, the concept of marriage is changing, as it has changed many times in the past. Supporting or opposing the change is your choice, just as it was with all the other changes in attitude societies go through all the time. Society changed it’s attitude toward minorities, religious diversity, forms of government, nobility, children, slaves, romance, cleanliness, property, gender roles, etc. many times. There is nothing new here.
Mistake 4:
The idea that letting gays adopt is somehow forcing them to become gay. As we already knows, having gay parents doesn’t turn anyone gay. So what is imposed on these poor children who are placed in gay households? Only that they’ll grow up believing there is nothing wrong with being gay — i.e. they will be educated in a moral belief you disagree with.
But under that logic, any adopted child is being forced to accept a moral belief. If a Christian family adopts a child, then the Christian lifestyle is forced on the child (much more so than homosexuality, in fact).
In total what you have is prejudices masquerading as biology and social studies.
See, you have to realize, Robert, that the problem isn’t homosexuals. The problem is you.
Actually, his two biggest mistakes are completely different than any of those, Micha.
His two biggest mistakes are –
Big Mistake #1) Trying to pretend that his personal feelings towards gays aren’t what’s actually the guiding force behind his objections and instead claiming that it’s all about the facts and logic and his wonderful grasp of them. He’d be better off arguing from the point of his likely actual reasoning – “Two men having sex is icky. That gay marriage thing is icky. I don’t like icky things.
He wouldn’t sound much more intelligent, but he’s avoid looking stupid by engaging in things that show us his Big Mistake #2.
Big Mistake #2) He’s so busy trying to look intellectual and pretend that his motivation to argue against gay marriage isn’t based purely on his own petty prejudices that he’s just throwing anything and everything out there whether it it makes sense or not or whether it directly contradicts his prior points.. He’s also accidentally letting the source for his true motivation for his objection slip through from time to time.
In reverse order –
You may have noticed in some of his other posts his inability to go long without repeatedly linking the ideas of homosexuality and pedophilia. There’s no link between these two things. Pedophilia is a sickness that knows no exclusivity to sexual orientations. Yet he still feels the need to pointlessly throw it out there and muddy the water. Grey pointed out his HIV remarks elsewhere. And, of course, this person who claims to not be religious can’t seem to stop himself from resorting to labeling something he personally doesn’t like as “evil” multiple times now. Again – “Two men having sex is icky. That gay marriage thing is icky. I don’t like icky things.
Then there’s these bits of monumental stupidity.
Robert Crim
May 14, 2012 at 12:14 pm
“On the question of nature v. nurture, this was debated to death by the ethological community a generation ago after (non-scientist) Robert Ardrey skewed some of Konrad Lorenz’s work to write The Territorial Imperative. But, in the final analysis, the fundamental rule in biology is that only structure, itself, can be inherited. Upon that structure, all behavior is learned — period!”
… … … … …
Robert Crim
May 18, 2012 at 2:50 am
“One of the best arguments against homosexuality being primarily genetic in origin is the estimated number of homosexuals among the American population (3-4 per cent per Kinsey). Given the severe biological pressure which exists against homosexuality, this percentage is too great to be accounted for by repeated instances of mutation or genetic drift.”
We then get Bobby arguing this bit.
Robert Crim
May 24, 2012 at 2:09 am
“Perhaps “biologically evil” was a poor choice of words, although it’s clear to me that what was said is that biology wars against exclusive homosexuality. That is a fact (true homosexuals cannot reproduce and fall out of the gene pool, period).”
Remember, it is, in Bobby World, learned behavior – period!
And there are conclusive and persuasive arguments against homosexuality being “primarily genetic in origin.”
But when he needs to argue a different point, well, then the “true homosexuals cannot reproduce and fall out of the gene pool, period.“
Beyond the base stupidity in that statement*, it implies support to the argument that he was arguing against before. If it can be bred out of a species, then it’s genetic and/or inherited and thus something produced in nature and handed down genetically from generation to generation. It is therefore not learned behavior – Which directly contradicts Bobby’s point when arguing a different version of his objections to the issue.
Again, Bobby, just start arguing this from the real POV you hold (and maybe even lie to yourself about at this point. Just tell us you find the idea of two gay guys doing the horizontal mambo off putting to your delicate sensibilities and be done with it. While it won’t make you look any better, it will at least make the argument you’re putting forward more coherent and consistent and at least make your argument look better (in a way.)
* – (Does he know how stupid that looks to say that “true homosexuals cannot reproduce and fall out of the gene pool, period.” Homosexuals haven’t been reproducing because, duh, they’re homosexuals. Other than the few closeted homosexuals who fake a heterosexual life for a while, the vast majority of homosexuals have never had any kids. By Bobby’s amazing “logic” displayed here, the homosexual community would be three guys, two gals and their six pet mice by now.
Again, Bobby, despite the long winded nature of your smoke and mirrors arguments, keeping some sort of internal logic and coherence in your arguments doesn’t seem to be one of your strengths. Best just to stick to saying that it’s icky and that you don’t like it. It’ll be easier for you that way.)
Actually, I have more respect for people who admit to having religious objections to homosexuality.
At least they have a good excuse.
I know you’re right Jerry.
The question is: is it worth the effort to refute anti-gay arguments as if they were serious rather than an excuse for prejudice against gays?
Here is a thought:
If homosexuality is genetic,
and therefore should have become extinct by evolution because gays can’t have offspring,
than why homosexuality is not extinct?
because gays had children?
Why?
Because homophobic society forced them into heterosexual marriages.
Conclusion: homophobia is the cause of homosexuality.
Of course this is ridiculous. But it makes as much sense of any of the other anti gay arguments I ever heard.
———————-
A person can claim that he has nothing specific against gays but that his religion forbids it.
But religious people know that they live in a world where there are many people who do not follow their religion. Attempting to force them to do so on this issue of all issues shows they are more hostile to it.
Religious people who are not hostile to gays usually are able to find ways to accept homosexuality at least in practice if not in principal.
“Here is a thought:
If homosexuality is genetic,
and therefore should have become extinct by evolution because gays can’t have offspring,
than why homosexuality is not extinct?”
Possibly because it is in fact genetic, but the trigger is something we don’t see in most discussions. As I mentioned in other parts of the thread, we know that there are very real differences between the homosexual and heterosexual brain. We also know that some animal populations have been observed in nature and in controlled environments to start producing more homosexuals in there population once population begins to increase beyond certain levels.
It really is very possible that nature created this as a self defense against overpopulation. We are basically nothing more than high end animals. It stands to reason that we may have a similar trigger. Right now though, getting such studies done would be a pain in so many ways. But, as I said somewhere above, it would at least be interesting to see a study on if our heaviest population centers seem to create a higher percentage of homosexuals in the population than do our lower population centers.
Even genes that are explicitly bad for one’s likelihood of reproducing have not vanished–cystic fibrosis, for one. It could be that any such genes are recessive, so while those who are homozygous for that trait will be selected against, those who carry a single gene will have no such pressure and thus the gene survives.
And as i think I mentioned, as social animals there is more to the success of a gene than the reproductive success of those who carry and express it. If a gene for homosexuality exists it may be that cultures that have it have a distinct advantage over those that didn’t. having adults who do not have children of their own but are valued members of a family unit would make that family stronger than ones where everyone is looking out just for their own progeny.
At any rate, I don;t know if Mr Crim is a foolish person using big words poorly or an educated person thinking foolishly but I don’t think there’s a good chance of gleaning much insight by continuing the discussion.
You’re right and I probably should have stuck to my guns on just ignoring him for a while as I said I would do. But, dámņ, it was just too funny to see him basically 180 his stand on genetics VS learned (Period!) without paying enough attention to his own arguments to realize that he was arguing “A” to answer “Y” and then trying to answer “Z” by putting forth “B” as an answer even if “A” and “B” are in opposition to one another on the topic.
But, yeah, at this point an intellectually satisfying discussion on the subject is not likely to be found via exchanges with Robert Crim. Floor’s certainly open to just about anyone else though.
Is it possibly that homosexuality is the result of something that happens during the development of the fetus or even after birth as the child grows rather than genetics?
In any case, it doesn’t really matter. Our moral obligation to treat gays equally is not depended on the causes of homosexuality or even if it’s a choice or not. Gays exist. They harm no one. They deserve the same rights and chance at happiness as anybody else.Oppressing them or denying them equality in the name of religion or without religion is wrong, period.
“You can’t make someone gay, just like you can’t make someone straight… unless… of course… you are suggesting that your decision to be be heterosexual is a choice… interesting…..”
Yes. There is that.
I’m sure I’m not the only one that thinks the panic guys like Robert Crim feel about gays indocrinating children and changing society is because Robert feels specially vulnerable to gay “propaganda”.
Converselly, men who are sure of their heterosexuality know that no amount of propaganda could ever cause them to trade their women for a gay husband, so there is no panic.
Okay, guys: a fine joke and well played. Now which of you came up with this “Robert Crim” character in order to prank us all? C’mon, fess up.
PAD
Peter! How good to hear that I’ve inspired you (those are the perquisites of fame).
It’s also good to know that you’ve mended enough to emerge from your tent. Unfortunately, it does appear that you still have some sand in your ears.
Could I offer you a Q-tip?
Grey – Just ignore him. I know I will, from now on. And take heart from this fact: it’s people like him that oppose gay marriage. Who would want to be on the same side as him, in ANY issue? I predict that they will bleed out more and more supporters in the next years, until only the crazies and fanatics remain, just like with racism. It’s the same story as the fight against racism, 50 years later.
Seriously, guys, who’s going to claim credit for him? He’s like a bizarre combination of Gary Groth, a right wing troll and Niles Crane. It’s really a very clever construct and had me going for a while, even though the name (an obvious parody of Robert Crumb) should have tipped me off sooner.
But you overplayed it when he started talking dismissively about comics on a board frequented by comic book readers, accused me of making money off the Constitution without ever clarifying what the hëll he was talking about, never DID offer any explanation as to what the hëll he’d doing here, and has now adopted the pretentious arch faux “Peter ol’ pal o’ friend” attitude that we’ve seen from several different idiots in the past. Like a bad dye job, his roots are showing.
So fess up. Which of you created him for our amusement?
PAD
I think he’s real, but that he’s using something akin to Scott Pakin’s automatic complaint-letter generator. He plugs in a few keywords and picks the “Snide” option and it spits out something full of big words and concepts but devoid of any real intellectual substance. Probably a college student created prank program.
See, here’s an example from Pakin’s page. Tell me that it doesn’t look like the average Crim post.
Guns? Absence of religion? Lack of self-esteem? Poor parenting? The entertainment industry? Who’s to blame for Mr. Robert Crim’s pea-brained calumnies? Numerous professionals (and not-so-professionals) have speculated and mulled, publicly and privately, over what has caused Mr. Crim to let us know exactly what our attitudes should be towards various types of people and behavior. To get immediately to the point, there appears to be some disagreement in the community regarding the number of times that he has been seen working both sides of the political fence. Some say once; some say five times; some say a dozen times or more. The point is not to quibble over numbers or anything like that but rather to clarify that whenever Mr. Crim attempts to twist the teaching of history to suit his muzzy-headed purposes, he looks around waiting for applause as if he’s done something decent and moral rather than unsavory and pigheaded.
Mr. Crim’s memoirs may not be traditional for a rabid psychopath, but conclaves of Mr. Crim’s grunts have all the dissent found in a North Korean communist party meeting. That’s why no one there will ever admit that last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Mr. Crim that the big parlor game among his compatriots in aspheterism is guessing which of them was the first to promote, foster, and institute Bourbonism. As I expected, Mr. Crim was thoroughly unconvinced.
Mr. Crim has warned us that within a short period of time, cruel, chthonic anthropophagi will set the wolf to mind the sheep. If you think about it, you’ll realize that Mr. Crim’s warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that I can reword my point as follows. Mr. Crim serves up his sinful form of gnosticism as intellectual fast food for his ultra-manipulative shock troops. Maybe it’s not fair to call his comrades “pushy” just because they commit acts of banditry and insurgency, but remember that his claim that we’ll be moved by some heartfelt words on the glories of Jacobinism is factually unsupported and politically motivated. No matter what Mr. Crim thinks, if this letter did nothing else but serve as a beacon of truth, it would be worthy of reading by all right-thinking people. However, this letter’s role is much greater than just to get us out of the hammerlock in which he is holding us. Okay, I’ve vented enough frustration. So let me end by saying that thanks to Mr. Robert Crim’s public-opinion molders, more people than ever now believe that anyone who resists him deserves to be crushed.
http://www.pakin.org/complaint?title=Mr.&firstname=Robert&middlename=&lastname=Crim&suffix=&gender=m&shorttype=t&pgraphs=3
See, reads just like his garbage and makes about as much sense. So, yeah, I think he’s real, it’s just his posts that are a joke.
The least he could do is share the link with us.
My God, it does sound like one of his posts.
Maybe we’re both right. Maybe it’s someone who created him as a joke and is using that page as a means of writing his screeds.
PAD
I just used that site to write a complaint letter about my cat. The weird thing is, most of it’s pretty accurate. Such as:
“Kitty acts as if she were Queen of the World. This hauteur is astonishing, staggering, and mind-boggling. With all due respect, it’s unfortunate that she has no real education.”
Jerry, this is my new favorite website. Just for laughs, I did one for Gary Groth. My God, it was SO accurate.
http://www.pakin.org/complaint?title=Mr.&firstname=Gary&middlename=&lastname=Groth&suffix=&gender=m&shorttype=l&pgraphs=5
That is hilarious.
Thanks Rene. I really appreciate. As of May 29th 12:15pm, I officially have a husband. Married. good stuff. and look at that… it wasn’t the apocalypse… and fire didn’t rain from the heavens.
Grey.
Congratulations!
Congrats dude!
Congrats!!!
Congrats.
You just devalued Robert Crim’s marriage 🙂
I’ll offer congratulations too (for what they’re worth); however, in light of the vituperative remarks directed my way by others, I’m also obliged to quote Kentucky’s court of appeals:
“A license to enter into a status or relationship which the parties are incapable of achieving is a nullity. If the appellants had concealed from the clerk the fact that they were of the same sex and he had issued a license to them and a ceremony had been performed, the resulting relationship would not constitute a marriage.”
Jones v. Hallihan, 501 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Ky.App., 1973); see further Herma Hill Kay, Sex-based Discrimination, 3d ed. (St. Paul, MN: West, 1988) at 239 (contractual conditions attending an actual marriage, at least in some states, which became subject of protest by a “feminist” couple). To remind Justice Stevens of something he once said, one cannot declare trees “persons” and thereby defeat the First Amendment by requiring a due-process hearing before cutting one down to make paper.
The law simply does not work that way.
Congrats!
Congratulations!
As far as fire raining down from the heavens, though, I must quote Susan Ivanova:
“No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There’s always a boom tomorrow.”
Congrats, man!
It’s a big step. Forget the politics and the a-holes like Crim and just enjoy the moment.
To Tim Lynch:
From a very old post of mine in the Filksongs section of the Comics and Animation RoundTable (Comics RT) of the late and lamented GEnie™ online service:
♪♫ | Su-sie Ba- | -boom, | Su-sie Ba – | -boom, ♫♪
♫♪ She | lives on a | Sta-tion with a | Gar-den in | bloom. ♪♫
♪♫ Her | fel-low crew | knows that | an-y-time | soon, ♫♪
♫♪ | Su-sie thinks the | Sta-tion will | go: Ba- | -boom!! ♪♫
Robert Crim
June 4, 2012 at 11:39 am
Translation –
“Hi, I’m Robert Crim and I’m an áššhølë.
It’s so much fun, Jerry, to watch leftists skedaddle, and when one gets responses like yours, it’s sufficient simply to consider the source. I’d get the same from Bill or Emily Harris and the Symbionese Liberation Army, and the proper response to them was to put them in jail.
http://trololololololololololo.com/
Mazel tov.
PAD
Sorry I’m late to this discussion.
I remember clearly the day I learned for a fact that homosexuality is not a choice, despite what my intensely religious upbringing had taught me all my life.
Before the popularity of the Internet, before the World Wide Web, there were dial-up online services. I met PAD on one called GEnie™ (originally owned by General Electric) decades ago.
But before that I was an active member (and remained for some time) on another online service, one that only existed for the Commodore 64 (and later 128) computers: QuantumLINK aka Q-Link, from Quantum Computer Services, which would later become America OnLine aka AOL.
Before that I was on PlayNET, which had later licensed its software to far better funded Quantum Computer Services, which paved the way for PlayNET’s own demise and the rise of Q-Link and eventually AOL.
I was a member of the COMAL User’s Group there, which is how I got this handle that I still use to this very day on nearly all online forums that I use for entertainment, social, or debate purposes.
One of the reasons I still use this handle is because I hope that some of my old PlayNET and Q-Link and American PeopleLINK and GEnie, etc. buddies will recognize me in posts on the Internet forums where I use this handle or variants thereof.
One in particular that I would love to know what happened to is a young man who came into a People Connection chatroom on Q-Link (after PlayNET was no more — it was PlayNET who invented such terms as “People Connection” for chatooms, which of course would later be used by AOL).
I forget the subject nature of this chatroom. It was decades ago, after all. I often went into chatrooms on the subject of comic books or science fiction, but occasionally into general chatrooms as well.
Anyway, into this chatoom came someone who announced himself to be a young teenaged boy who had discovered that he was gay. His father loathed him and verbally and physically abused him for this. So, the boy said, he was going to kill himself, and just wanted some people, even people he never met, to know that he was leaving this life and why.
In that moment, my delusions of homosexual choice shattered. I would later learn that what this young man was going through was the #1 underlying cause of teen suicide, which itself was the #1 cause of death of teens. I was smart enough to realize even then than if it really were a choice, then this young man and all the others like him could simply choose not to be homosexual. Instead, he could see no way out except death!
I and (at least insofar as I can infer from their behavior) the other adults in the room were terrified. This remains to this day the single most terrifying thing that has ever happened to me online, which is why I remember it so clearly. A life of a young man who should have his whole life ahead of him was in our hands, whether we wanted such responsibility or not, and like it or not, what we said next could make the difference on whether he lived or died.
Some, of course, tried to get him to call a suicide prevention hotline, or otherwise seek professional help. That was certainly the responsible thing to do, but it didn’t work in this case. The boy said he was going to die by his own hand as soon as he left the chatroom. We could not get professional help. It was up to us.
Some of the other adults tried to tell him how great life is, how, yes, being a teen can suck even under normal circumstances, but that this too shall pass, and all that. He wasn’t buying it.
Finally, I took a desperate gamble. I typed, and I remember these words clearly:
“Look, ______. It’s your life. You can end it if you want. It’s your right to do so, and we cannot stop you. We cannot make this decision for you. But just consider this one thing first…”
That was all that would fit in the chat buffer. Before I could finish typing the rest, I was immediately bombarded by several Instant Messages (another PlayNET innovation — they would appear at the top of the screen in an overlaying window, even if you were in a chatroom, but only the recipient could see them), all on the theme: “WHAT are you DOING!?!?” “Are you OUT OF YOUR MIND!?!?!?”
I ignored them, and finished typing my advice to the kid:
“Just remember this one thing: if you DO kill yourself, then your father, and everyone who thinks like him, will have won.”
Silence in the chatroom for over a minute, easily one of the tensest minutes of my life. Then the kid replied:
“IM NOT GONNA LET HIM WIN!!!!! I wanna LIVE!!!!!!!!!!!”
Well, more was said in the chatroom after that, and I received some IMs from the same people who had questioned my sanity a minute ago, saying, “You said the Right Thing!” but soon the kid left, and the general feeling was that he was not going to end his life after all.
I really hope that that was indeed the case. I hope that he did have the courage to stick it out, as his reply to me suggested. But I don’t know for sure. I don’t even know his name.
To anyone here who still thinks that being homosexual is a choice, prove it. How? Simple: Let’s see you choose it. Right now. By force of will alone. Stop being attracted to the opposite gender. Be every bit as repulsed by the thought of intercourse with a member of the opposite gender as you currently are by the thought of intercourse with a member of the same gender. Conversely, become just as attracted to beautiful people of the same gender as you currently are to equally beautiful people of the opposite gender.
I don’t just mean that you have bring yourself to somehow bear to have physical relations with a member of the same sex, while gritting your teeth and holding back the urge to projectile vomit.
You have to LIKE it!!
Not so easy, is it?
If it really were a choice, then this should be a piece of cake!
I remember that incident. I wasn’t there when it happened, or even on that service, but word about it spread very quickly. A LOT of people were talking about it.
PAD
I think I may have posted about it on GEnie® when you and I were both there.
Thank you Robert for the congratulations. I stopped reading after that, I’ll assume it was asking about the floral arrangements or wedding brunch. Because it would simply be in bad Taste to spew forth negativity on such a happy occasion. And you’re not mean spirited Robert. Right? That’s what you’ve been failing, I mean trying, to convince us. A long time ago my mother told me that there will always be people out there trying to take away your happiness, trying to make you feel like less than a person. You’ll never be able to change them, but don’t let them change you. Be happy. So that’s what I’m doing. Being happy with the man I love. And Robert Crim, and people like him be dámņëd. I suggest Robert that you try to find your own happiness, so you don’t continue to spread negativity in hopes of filling that void in yourself. God bless.
Uh oh, now you’ve done it: you are not only (probably) gayer than he is, it would appear you are classier and a good deal more clever as well. This shall not stand!
There is a difference between being “negative” and being real (I include citations for a reason). THIS is “marriage” according to one of its critics:
“While we acknowledge our mutual affection by publicly assuming the relationship of husband and wife, yet in justice to ourselves and a great principle, we deem it a duty to declare that this act on our part implies no sanction of, nor promise of voluntary obedience to such of the present laws of marriage as refuse to recognize the wife as an independent, rational being, while they confer upon the husband an injurious and unnatural superiority, investing him with legal powers which no honorable man would exercise and which no man should possess. We protest especially against the laws which give the husband:
“1. The custody of the wife’s person.
“2. The exclusive control and guardianship of their children.
“3. The sole ownership of her personal and use of her real estate, unless previously settled upon her, or placed in the hands of trustees, as in the case of minors, lunatics, and idiots.
“4. The absolute right to the product of her industry.
“5. Also against laws which give to the widower so much larger and permanent an interest in the property of his deceased wife than they give to the widow in that of the deceased husband.
“6. Finally against the whole system by which ‘the legal existence of the wife is suspended during marriage’ so that, in most States, she neither has a legal part in the choice of her residence, nor can she make a will, nor sue or be sued in her own name, nor inherit property.
“We believe that personal independence and equal human rights can never be forfeited except for crime; that marriage should be an equal and permanent partnership, and so recognized by law; that until it is so recognized, married partners should provide against the radical injustice of present laws, by every means in their power.
“We believe that where domestic difficulties arise, no appeal should be made to legal tribunals under existing laws but that all difficulties should be submitted to the equitable adjustment of arbitrators mutually chosen.
“Thus reverencing law, we enter our protest against rules and customs which are unworthy of the name, since they violate justice, the essence of law.”
s/Henry B. Blackwell & Lucy Stone, from the Worcester [MA]Spy in 1855, quoted in Herma Hill Kay, Sex-based Discrimination, 3d ed. (St. Paul: West, 1988) at 239 (see citation in the previous post, supra).
Granted the laws are much amended since that was written; and it’s far beyond the scope of this post to comment on the wisdom or foolishness of that. It is sufficient here to say that, despite amendment, the laws of most states still contain elements in some degree of all of the above protested, claimed injustices, which is what women’s “coverture” means. See further I Blackstone 442-445 (1765).
Now, obviously, I don’t know what kind of contractual arrangement Grey has with his partner; but, I doubt seriously that he’s married, since some of the elements of marriage, outside of marriage, appear to violate the Thirteenth Amendment, and in plain, simple English, Grey: YOU ARE NOT A GIRL! Nor can you become one by standing before a justice of the peace, jumping up and down, waving your right hand in the air, and shouting, “I get to be the mommy!”
That is mere pretense.
READ THE CONTRACT BEFORE YOU INK IT, EVERYBODY! (That’s very good lawyerly advice.)
– Enter Translation Mode –
-+- Translation Sequence Engaged -+-
Robert Crim</B.
June 7, 2012 at 11:07 am
“Hi, my name is Robert Crim and I’m practically desperate to prove to everyone just how much of an áššhølë I am.”
Good lord man, stop digging.
Digging is what investigative reporters do, especially when they smell a big story; and, what could be bigger than when the President of the United States advocates a change in basic law which could foment child abuse?
That alone ought to be cause for his diselection.
Good lord man, stop digging.
I dunno, maybe if he keeps at it he’ll fall into an underground lake or something and we’ll never hear from him again.
Something smells but I don’t think it’s a big story.
The problem, Jerry and Bill, is that Mr. crim does not believe he is digging..Like many, he believes what he says..It might seem accurate to call him a snake oil salesman, except he does not sell the snake oil. His posts show he actually drinks it and buys into his own propaganda and believes his own hype.
.
Politics is one thing. But you ywo are centrist and open-minded. I am a bit more to the right than both of you and although I still have questions and concerns about gay marriage, I am open to evolving if people can make solid arguments.
.
Where Mr. Crim, goes waaay over the line, in my opinion, is basically attacking someone personally and calling them a liar.
.
Where in heaven’s name does someone have the balls to say “but I doubt seriously that he’s married”. Ignore the childish stuff that comes after. Since judges in certain cities and states – not to mention elsewhere, as I do not recall if Grey is even an American citizen – have performed gay marriages,to simply not “believe” that Grey could “possibly” be married, makes you look like – there is no other word for it, Mr. Crim – a fool.
.
Unless you simply feel that Grey is a liar. Either way, you are attacking Grey in a personal way. It would be as if someone here were to say “I doubt you’ve been engaged twice” or “(Fill-in-the-blank) never loved you anyway.”
.
Grey is taking this nonsense you spout a lot better than I would. I would simply have told you to go to hëll or to get lost.
Oh, I could care less if he believes it or not. That’s not what had me slapping my head in disbelief. My thing is that he’s either too stupid to know when to turn “it” off or he knows and simply doesn’t care.
I have atheist friends who will, at the drop of a hat, argue with you about the existence/nonexistence of God and about the stupidity, from their POV, of something like religion. But they know when to turn it off. When someone they know announces that they’ve finally gotten some position or status in their church that they’ve worked hard for, like, say, becoming a youth pastor, they will sincerely congratulate the person for what they’ve achieved. When mutual friends have announced that their children are old enough for first communion, they’re right there with everyone else in congratulating them. They know that events like these are not about them, their POV or being “right” about an issue. They’re smart enough and have enough class to know that it’s about the other people and their moment of celebration and joy.
It’s certainly no secret that I’m not a fan of some of the policies to come out of the office of my state’s Governor or some of the things that have come out of the mouths of my state’s Governor and AG. I know a few guys who work for both of those men’s offices who qualify as friendly acquaintances more than friends right now. We’ve had discussions about politics and policies before when we’re all away from the workplace. Some of them have been, in a friendly way, rather heated. When they do something at their jobs that get them positive notice and recognition and or makes them proud- I’m right there with everyone else congratulating them. I know they work their áššëš off. I know that they believe in what they’re doing. I also know when to turn it off because it’s about them and not about me, about my beliefs or about my being right. And the one time recently when one of them was happy about some work they did and I couldn’t sincerely congratulate him on it? I kept my mouth shut and I left the subject alone for a while.
I could care less if Robert believes anything that he’s saying or not because it’s not about Robert, it’s not about Robert’s opinions and it’s not about Robert being right or wrong. It should have been about Grey and his moment.
Robert had three options in front of him. He could have congratulated Grey, whether it was meant or just token congratulations is irrelevant, he could have said nothing, or he could have been an ášš and attacked Grey over it. Obviously, he went with the third option. And he didn’t just go with it once; he went with it twice. Two separate posts dedicated to informing Grey that his marriage wasn’t real and didn’t exist. Two separate posts dedicated to Robert trying to convince everyone that he’s brighter than he really seems to be and dedicated to his knack for cherry picking bits and pieces of legal rulings the he can use and trying to pretend that it means that the world, this country and the law work exactly as he says it does.
And all just so he can declare, twice in two long posts, that Grey’s marriage doesn’t exist and isn’t real.
I could care less if he believes anything he said or not. It has no bearing on my opinion of his actions. The fact that he chose as a deliberate act to post twice in order to essentially launch attacks at Grey and his marriage when he could have saved time, trouble and bandwidth by acting like a civil human being… That’s what I reacted to. That’s why his two posts here, far more so than any other posts he’s made, just came off to me as Robert attaching the word “(*)Úšhølë(*)” to his name in large, gaudy and brightly lit neon letters.
“Ignore the childish stuff that comes after. Since judges in certain cities and states – not to mention elsewhere, as I do not recall if Grey is even an American citizen – have performed gay marriages,to simply not “believe” that Grey could “possibly” be married, makes you look like – there is no other word for it, Mr. Crim – a fool.”
Maybe George and Brad can send him a shirt and a bumper sticker and have a word with him about it. If nothing else, George would certainly turn the discussion into comedy gold while gently but skillfully and intelligently eviscerating his points about the nonexistence of real gay marriage in this country.
Wow, Jerry, you have just now 100% articulated something that needs to be shouted from the rooftops. It seems like the world is inundated with people who really sincerely believe that everything revolves around their silly ášš beliefs about The Way Things Ought To Be.
It’s both sides that do it. Since most of my friends are to the left of me I’ve had to deal with more of it from the left (driving me further to the right, a vicious cycle) but no honest person could claim either side has a monopoly on it.
And it is soooooo stupid! It totally makes your side look bad when you don’t have the common sense God gave a clam and can’t see when you have crossed the line into boorish self indulgence. I remember a young woman from around my college years who, when informed by a mutual friend of an engagement, got all sad and grave and explained in excruciating detail why she would LIKE to be able to be happy for her but because of the (insert incredibly long, boring “feminist” screed about patriarchy, gay rights, marxist theory, and, curiously, Yugoslavia) she, alas, could not in good faith do so. Do you know how bad things have to be when someone is arguing a political point you disagree with and doing it so badly that you feel sorry for them? And she must have known how bad it looked because she doubled down, kept digging deeper and was on the verge of tears before someone thankfully cut it off by pulling a fire alarm or something.
I’ve seen this a few more times and it’s almost Pavlovian–sometimes you can tell, you can see the panic in their eyes, “I’m looking like a horse’s ášš! And I can’t stop!” Teenagers I can understand, the amygdala hijacks the thought process, leaving the frontal cortex just sitting there, fuming. “Yeah, keep going, áššhølë. Don’t come to me looking for a way out of this one.”
But Mr Crim had plenty of time to think this out. Knee jerk foolishness and mendacity in the printed word is less forgivable than the verbal diarrhea of an adolescent.
For the rest of us–it’s not always ABOUT you! Don’t worry, you DON’T lose your atheist street cred if you don’t act like a douchenozzle when a family says grace at the table in their own house (the one you are a guest at, douchenozzle). You CAN listen to someone tell a story about being in a union without opining on how overly generous pension plans are leading us to a fiscal cliff and yay Scott Walker, neener neener neener. It IS possible to observe a diseased rat sniffing around a dumpster and not loudly inquire among a group of liberal friends on whether or not there is an OWS rally nearby. Admittedly the last example has been difficult for me.
But cripes, two people announce a celebration of their love and happiness for each other, a celebration that harms exactly nobody? Saying something nice and saying nothing are the only viable options, from a “Boy, I sure hope I don’t look like a cretin!” standpoint.
=potk-jrtyj0srpty-p0tuj00ojp=oh0\t0oj\drt was the first thing he’s said that I agreed with. p0tuj00ojp=oh0\t0oj\drt, indeed.
The only person I ever called a liar was Jerry Chandler, because habitually that’s what he is. What I said of Grey is that his relationship with whoever has all the elements of pretense. Does he have a contract with his partner? I assume so. Is it within an American jurisdiction? Probably, since he spells “color” without the “u.” Is he happy? I hope so.
But, as the post made clear, one cannot evade the nuances of law by using pretensive definitions. Calling a tree a “person” would not allow one to evade the First Amendment via the due-process clause of the Fourteenth. Similarly, whatever contract he has, Grey does not have a marriage unless what he has encompasses all the elements of marriage, which include coverture on the part of the woman in exchange for a legally enforceable obligation of support from the man.
It is true that coverture “ain’t what she used to be” — the days when a woman had to have her husband’s permission to have a credit card are over. Similarly, women have gained new protections, e.g., sex-harassment laws, to enable them to enter the workforce. But, none of that means coverture has ended, and it simply is not legally possible for a man to submerge his rights in coverture to another man. Slavery, indenturement, and peonage violate the Thirteenth Amendment.
Finally, if you believe in “hëll,” then you don’t need case law, scientific studies, biology, psychology, ethology, sociology, cultural anthropology, or the Encyclopaedia Britannica to determine that legalizing same-sex “marriage” is wrong (the Bible will do nicely, and it unreservedly declares homosexuality a sin).
Be consistent.
“Finally, if you believe in “hëll,” then you don’t need case law, scientific studies, biology, psychology, ethology, sociology, cultural anthropology, or the Encyclopaedia Britannica to determine that legalizing same-sex “marriage” is wrong (the Bible will do nicely, and it unreservedly declares homosexuality a sin).”
Ah yes, that book of fiction that religious whack-out pick and choose and mis-quote to fit their own convenience, the Bible.
There are a lot more non-christians in the world than christians. But considering how intolerant the most tolerant religion in the world is of other religions, I don’t think you seriously want to let that majority rule…
Religious beliefs have no place in rational discussions.
This reply is for Jerome, right? Or, did you forget that I am an atheist who does not believe in hëll?
And with your most recent two posts highlighting your stupidity, epic ignorance and monumental lack of self awareness… We’re done.
Robert, you contribute almost nothing of value, you lower both the general intelligence and the level of civility in a thread with most of your posts and you seem to suffer from the delusion that you are the fount of all wisdom and knowledge and the speaker of all that is right and true despite reality telling everyone else that you are in fact an ignorant ášš who is full of both himself and šhìŧ.
But we’re done. You are shrouded. What that means is that you basically no longer exist. When your name is on a post, the post gets skipped. I’m sure many others will be doing the same to you very soon.
And while Peter and Glenn don’t ban people from the blog, I look forward to the day that your ignorance, stupidity, lack of self awareness and inability to know when to just keep your fool mouth shut hits its peak on a topic that gets you the disemvowelling you do/will so richly deserve.
0ewtufpoajgpoia[-40b9
‘[poKRE-0AG\=-]-G]-W0SOTG3IT-[08UYGB0JJIPPT[0U9POIJB’POE][-0RIT]-IERG]-EI0\O LKFNODSO
‘[phb]k’]pwejry]l\
[[plk \=bn-p=uj[uyj0pu=p50jn ][ale
7,\=u09\=k56eu\=spv00=p06unp \=-soj0nop\7uyorh\-i]nik e]-i]drtih ]ri]yhio
\-ir\]tis\s-ojhn\
-idf\=hg\
=potk-jrtyj0srpty-p0tuj00ojp=oh0\t0oj\drt\.
&c., &c., [aka QED].
Let’s see if my disemvoweller works. I suspect I’ll have to break it out soon…
Disemvowelling now includes a rollover explanation window? Modern technology for yah.
““Finally, if you believe in “hëll,” then you don’t need case law, scientific studies, biology, psychology, ethology, sociology, cultural anthropology, or the Encyclopaedia Britannica to determine that legalizing same-sex “marriage” is wrong (the Bible will do nicely, and it unreservedly declares homosexuality a sin).””
That’s actually not true. A person can believe that homosexuality is a sin according to his religion and still believe that the laws of the state should not prohibit homosexuality and/or gay marriage. It’s called separation of church and state, no?
I think many religious people don’t (or at least shouldn’t) want to live in a state in which the laws of the state are identical to religious laws.
Everything depends on the crusading spirit, and how you interpret it. Christians and Islamists think it’s their duty to spread the good word. Spreading the good word may include working to change society, including its laws, to conform to the good word.
I think it’s a saner notion to consider that, if you follow a religion’s precepts only because the laws of society compel you, then you’re not a real believer in God.
Sorry, I absolutely hate the idea of disemvowelling someone…If someone is such an ášš you don’t want them around, just be honest and ban them..to say you are still for free speech yet still make someone’s posts unreadable is just wrong, in my opinion.
.
Shroudiung has worked on various trolls in the past, including the gold standard, Frawley…and from my experience, it pìššëš the jáçkáššëš off more to post and post and post and no longer get a RISE FROM or response from anyone.
Disemvoweling was funny, as it was still readable, this new thing just shows up as total gibberish…
The first bit WAS total gibberish. But since the ending actually parsed, I thought he had something in particular in mind.
As far as shrouding vs. disemvowelling– well, we like to have options. Just like it’s nice to have different caliber bullets.
True.
I’m against disemvowling, because it’s so amusing to read these trolls making fools of themselves.
Rene, they generally do that just fine with their vowels. 🙂
Yes. 🙂 That is why I said I’m against disemvowling.
While Jerry has his head in the sand and, therefore, his áršë in the air (allowing us to see the real áršëhølë), I took the trouble to conduct a general survey of all of the United States to see just what is, and is not, “šhìŧ.”
For better or worse, here are the results:
Five of the United States — Idaho, Washington, California, Arizona, and New York — are community-property states, and three others — Texas, Louisiana, and Nevada — effectively are community-property states, though with restrictions. Speaking of the law in Washington, Daniel J. Evans said (on 05 February 1976):
“I am aware of no classification of ‘privileges’ which a woman has lost because of adoption of the [state] ERA [Equal Rights Amendment]. Alimony is awarded on a very limited basis in this State because of the Community Property Law. Adoption of the ERA and the implementing dissolution law merely makes it clear that either spouse may sue for support. A woman has not lost her right to be supported by her husband; rather, she never had such a right. Support within a marriage has been a matter of custom and has never been guaranteed by law.”
Whether that was political bilgewater at the time, I don’t know, but I’ve never been to Washington, and Evans was the Governor of the State (so for now, we’ll take his representation as proven).
Whether the representation applies to the other community-property states, I don’t know, but for the moment, we’ll assume that it does. That means there are FORTY-TWO States plus the federal government and its territories in which some kind of marriage based on coverture exists, including Florida where Jerry (Tampa) and I (Collier County) live.
In Florida, as in many of the others, the extent of coverture is much reduced though not ended. See Florida Constitution, Article X, section 5. In addition, Florida’s constitution has the following provision:
” Right of privacy.—Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public’s right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.”
Article I, section 23; History.—Added, C.S. for H.J.R. 387, 1980; adopted 1980; Am. proposed by Constitution Revision Commission, Revision No. 13, 1998, filed with the Secretary of State May 5, 1998; adopted 1998.
As for the “otherwise provided herein” part:
“SECTION 27. Marriage defined.—Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
Article I, section 27; History.—Proposed by Initiative Petition filed with the Secretary of State February 9, 2005; adopted 2008.
Of course, it begs the question whether Article I, section 27 should have been passed (that’s what started this debate). However, the above settles dispositively just who has his head in a hole (as usual, I sit on the law library while everyone else sits on his áršë, congratulating himself on his latest non-response).
Bottom line: No one yet has produced the evidence called for by my initial posts. My support for the Defense of Marriage provision stands, and it’s now part of the Constitution of the
State of Florida.
Jerry, read it and weep.
While Jerry has his head in the sand and, therefore, his áršë in the air (allowing us to see a real áršëhølë), I take the trouble to conduct a general survey of all of the United States to see just what is, and is not, Jerry’s “šhìŧ.”
For better or worse, here are the results:
Five of the United States — Idaho, Washington, California, Arizona, and New York — are community-property states, and three others — Texas, Louisiana, and Nevada — effectively are community-property states, though with restrictions. Speaking of the law in Washington, Daniel J. Evans said (on 05 February 1976):
“I am aware of no classification of ‘privileges’ which a woman has lost because of adoption of the [state] ERA [Equal Rights Amendment]. Alimony is awarded on a very limited basis in this State because of the Community Property Law. Adoption of the ERA and the implementing dissolution law merely makes it clear that either spouse may sue for support. A woman has not lost her right to be supported by her husband; rather, she never had such a right. Support within a marriage has been a matter of custom and has never been guaranteed by law.”
Whether that was political bilgewater at the time, I don’t know, but I’ve never been to Washington, and Evans was the Governor of the State (so for now, we’ll take his representation as proven).
Whether the representation applies to the other community-property states, I did not have time to determine, but for the moment, we’ll assume that it does. That means there are FORTY-TWO States plus the federal government and its territories in which some kind of marriage based on coverture exists, including Florida where Jerry (Tampa) and I (Collier County) both live.
In Florida, as in many (if not all) of the others, the extent of coverture is much reduced though not ended. See, e.g., Florida Constitution, Article X, section 5. In addition, Florida’s constitution has the following provision:
“SECTION 23. Right of privacy.—Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public’s right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.”
Article I, section 23; History.—Added, C.S. for H.J.R. 387, 1980; adopted 1980; Am. proposed by Constitution Revision Commission, Revision No. 13, 1998, filed with the Secretary of State May 5, 1998; adopted 1998.
As for the “otherwise provided herein” part:
“SECTION 27. Marriage defined.—Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
Article I, section 27; History.—Proposed by Initiative Petition filed with the Secretary of State February 9, 2005; adopted 2008.
Of course, it begs the question whether Article I, section 27 should have been passed (that’s what started this debate). However, the above settles dispositively just who has his head in a hole (as usual, I sit on the law library while almost everyone else sits on his áršë).
For those interested in actual science speculation, as opposed to, see above, http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2555-gay-men.html
Something lazy natural selection fans tend to forget is that just because a gene may offer a selective disadvantage in one area it is foolish to assume you are getting anywhere near the whole picture. Let’s accept the premise that a “gay gene” would, if expressed fully, make a man less likely to have children due to a lack of attraction to females. There is the obvious consideration that the same gene may have entirely different effects if expressed differently, or if one were heterozygous instead of homozygous in terms of the gene. But here’s another–what if the “gay male gene” makes WOMEN who have it far more likely to reproduce? That could dwarf any negative selective pressure from its expression in men.
Key claim–“studies led by Andrea Camperio Ciani at the University of Padova in Italy and others have found that mothers and maternal aunts of gay men tend to have significantly more offspring than the maternal relatives of straight men.” and “the same genetic factors that induce gayness in males also promote fecundity (high reproductive success) in those males’ female maternal relatives. Through this trade-off, the maternal relatives’ “gay man genes,” though they aren’t expressed as such, tend to get passed to future generations in spite of their tendency to make their male inheritors gay.”
Interestingly, the gene seems to make women more attractive to men and they have “fewer gynecological disorders or complications during pregnancy; they are more extroverted, as well as funnier, happier and more relaxed; and they have fewer family problems and social anxieties”
So you could do worse than pursue a woman with gay sons (or her sister).
All still somewhat speculative but interesting and a slap in the face to those who lack the imagination to consider ANY way that homosexuality could have a genetic basis.
Well, I don’t think anyone said that structure could have NO influence on behavior (most certainly, that’s not what Washburn said, and though I think Jerry did not interpret them correctly, the studies he cited initially do exist). It is a medical fact that mammalian bodies naturally are female (this has been known at least since Denenberg’s Development of Behavior and can be found in any Merck Manual), that one must add something, specifically testosterone in the right amount at the right time, to get a male. No one “learns” to exude testosterone; that is a manifestation of structure only.
The problem with your contention lies in the complexity of the behavior pattern — you seek a fixed-action pattern such as what Lorenz called imprinting, and sexual preference inevitably is a complex mixture of structure on which learned behavior is imposed, all within the context of a legal and social system seeking to regulate it. Something like that is not heritable, at least in any Darwinian sense. Indeed, with the exception of two men or two women having an exclusive, permanent relationship, it probably is not even possible with precision to define what a “homosexual” is. That definition necessarily would vary from culture to culture.
Repeatedly, I have said what all the produceable studies do confirm, which is that there is a CONTINUUM of behavior observable within the human species which most societies, via their laws, social institutions, culture, religion, and mores steer toward heterosexual expression, perhaps in part from outdated religious prejudice but also for the still very real reason that male-female based families with clear lines of descent are good for society and for the children of the next generation. There is more to raising a child than fûçkìņg it into existence; the institution of Christian marriage (which becomes the institution of English marriage) was designed primarily to allow the wife to devote herself to child rearing, not child bearing (the latter will happen naturally enough). Toward that end, English marriage imposes on the husband exclusively the burden of support and frees the wife from that necessity. Though that institution even now is under sustained attack in this state, and coverture is much reduced, it remains the law that, e.g., in the event of divorce, the wife and not the husband may seek imposition of a permanent alimony. That is one of her rights per the marriage contract.
It is within this context that homosexual unions are disfavored (though not necessarily prohibited). Florida actually entertains both — its constitution’s privacy provision would prevent the police from arresting or harassing Grey or his partner for living together while the marriage and the coverture provisions would prohibit them from, e.g., demanding dower or curtesy on death of a partner, demanding alimony for the “wife” in the event of “divorce,” filing a joint tax return, or (in my opinion) forcing adoption of a ward of the state.
Our laws are not troglodytic; they simply recognize the difference between marriage and having a roommate or playing house.
It is funny that Darwin’s theories, that have supposedly “debunked” religion, have been and continue to be, used just like religion: to justify prejudice.
I’m not aware that Darwin “debunked” religion; indeed, as far as I know, like most Englishmen of the time, he was a believer. What he did argue is that biology operates by rules different from what is claimed in the Bible, specifically Genesis.
In any event, just where is the “prejudice,” and exactly what is it? I doubt anyone is claiming that society is better off without strong families at its base.
You make it sound like, if he comes here, we’re going to tie thongs to Grey’s ankles and drag him through the streets, and that’s just crazy. What the law appears to command is to leave him alone.
Back in a few days.