CBS ‘Early Show’ Continues to Push Gay Marriage

Photo of Kyle Drennen.
  • Bookmark and Share

Hattie Kauffman, CBS Following a Thursday one-sided report by correspondent John Blackstone, on Friday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez continued to lament the passage of California’s Proposition 8, defining marriage as only between a man and a woman: "On Tuesday, voters in California approved Proposition 8, a ban on gay marriage. It was a stunning defeat for gays and lesbians who are now fighting back." Correspondent Hattie Kauffman reported: "Supporters of gay marriage targeted L.A.'s Mormon temple, protesting the $15 million the church poured into passing Proposition 8." She played a clip of those protesters chanting: "Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you!"

Following Kauffman’s report, Rodriguez interviewed ‘Star Trek’ actor George Takei and his partner Brad Altman, who were married in September and have made numerous Early Show appearances since the California Supreme Court allowed gay marriage. Rodriguez, who had interviewed the pair shortly after their marriage, asked: "I remember your jubilation when you talked about your wedding here on the program. You shared your wedding video and you shared your hope that other gay couples in California would continue to get the opportunity that you had. This ban says that they won't. George, the last time we spoke, you felt hopeful. Today, you feel?" Takei replied: "Well, we feel that our marriage is valid, that there's no language in Proposition 8 that says it's retroactive... This is a fundamental right, all-inclusive, as Supreme Court of California has ruled, and this is taking away that fundamental right. It's like saying, you know, you don't have a certain -- a certain group will be -- will have their freedom of speech taken away from them, just because they're red heads."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Rodriguez later asked Takei: "Do you think, George, that you are, even though this was approved, do you think that you are closer to the day when this will happen?" Takei responded: "Well, you know, election night was an evening of bittersweet irony. We were listening to an African-American making a victory speech as the president-elect of this nation. I felt proud to be an American. And when he said 'we're renewing the promise of America,' it resonated to me as a Californian, where 52% of the people that voted, voted for discrimination..." Earlier, Kauffman observed: "There is disappointment, too, that the African-American community, which just saw the election of the first black president, voted overwhelmingly against same-sex marriage...But so far, there are no plans to protest African-American churches."

Here is the full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: George Takei's time warp. 'Star Trek's' Mr. Sulu trapped in marriage limbo as protests continue over gay marriage in California.

PROTESTORS: Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you!

RODRIGUEZ: We'll talk to him and his husband.

7:17AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: Coming up, protests grow in California over the same-sex marriage ban. We're going to talk with 'Star Trek's' Mr. Sulu, George Takei, whose marriage is in limbo.

7:30AM TEASE:

SMITH: Plus, this morning, the fight over same-sex marriage in California has been bitter and very expensive. Voters apparently have approved the ban and now gays and lesbians are fighting back. We're going to talk with actor George Takei, better known as Mr. Sulu from Star Trek, and his husband.

7:32AM SEGMENT:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: On Tuesday, voters in California approved Proposition 8, a ban on gay marriage. It was a stunning defeat for gays and lesbians who are now fighting back. Early Show national correspondent Hattie Kauffman reports.

PROSTESTORS: Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you!

HATTIE KAUFFMAN: Supporters of gay marriage targeted L.A.'s Mormon temple, protesting the $15 million the church poured into passing Proposition 8. The measure to define marriage was the most expensive proposition fight in the country. Both sides raised $70 million.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: The law that the Mormon church has broken is God's law. Do not judge.

KAUFFMAN: There is disappointment, too, that the African-American community, which just saw the election of the first black president, voted overwhelmingly against same-sex marriage.

ROBIN TYLER: We are a civil rights movement. We're entitled to full equality.

SONJA EDDINGS BROWN: According to some exit polls, 72% of all African-American women voted yes on Prop 8 and for traditional marriage.

KAUFFMAN: But so far, there are no plans to protest African-American churches. Hattie Kauffman, CBS News, Los Angeles.

RODRIGUEZ: Joining us now from Los Angeles, television star George Takei and his husband, Brad Altman. Good morning, gentlemen.

BRAD ALTMAN: Hello.

GEORGE TAKEI: Good morning.

RODRIGUEZ: I remember your jubilation when you talked about your wedding here on the program. You shared your wedding video and you shared your hope that other gay couples in California would continue to get the opportunity that you had. This ban says that they won't. George, the last time we spoke, you felt hopeful. Today, you feel?

TAKEI: I'm sorry. I didn't quite hear-

BRAD ALTMAN: How do you feel now?

TAKEI: How do we feel now? Well, we feel that our marriage is valid, that there's no language in Proposition 8 that says it's retroactive. However, the bigger picture, we are concerned about the others that did not get married and others who will want to get married in the future. This is a fundamental right, all-inclusive, as Supreme Court of California has ruled, and this is taking away that fundamental right. It's like saying, you know, you don't have a certain -- a certain group will be -- will have their freedom of speech taken away from them, just because they're red heads. There's the equal protection of the Constitution for minorities. And this is very wrong. It is going to be challenged and, ultimately, we will prevail.

RODRIGUEZ: We know that advocates of gay rights are challenging this. They're filing legal papers to try to get the state supreme court to overturn this ban. Brad, what do you say to people who say that's going against the will of the people of California?

ALTMAN: Well, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a political analyst. All I know is that in September, I legally wed George Takei. I have my wedding ring on right now, I'm going to keep it on the rest of my life, no matter what happens with the legal maneuvers that are going on. And I love George. He's my husband. I have a marriage license that says he's my husband and we -- it's all about love and that's what I say to people that don't understand. It's about love.

RODRIGUEZ: Do you think, George, that you are, even though this was approved, do you think that you are closer to the day when this will happen?

TAKEI: Well, you know, election night was an evening of bittersweet irony. We were listening to an African-American making a victory speech as the president-elect of this nation. I felt proud to be an American. And when he said 'we're renewing the promise of America,' it resonated to me as a Californian, where 52% of the people that voted, voted for discrimination, but then President-Elect Obama also talked about the long road, the steep road ahead of us as a nation, and I heard that also in terms of the long steep road ahead of us as gays and lesbians, bisexual and transgender. But, in the same way that the civil rights struggle traveled that long road to get to that point where we have an African-American president-elect, that we know we have that long road ahead, full of rocky parts of the road. But we will ultimately prevail, because this is a civil rights issue and it doesn't happen overnight.

RODRIGUEZ: George Takei and Brad Altman, thank you for being with us.

TAKEI: Thank you very much.

ALTMAN: Thanks.

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If marriage were a "right",

If marriage were a "right", there would be no requirements; anyone could get married, under any circumstances.  This is really about changing the requirements for marriage, to suit the selfish desires of a tiny minority pressure group.  That's not the American way.

If I call myself an asian or latino,is it my right to force you

 to recognize this.  Eventhough there is a DNA requirement.

My right to be recognized for government quotas as whatever race I want or being taken away.

DNA of a man and woman is required for marriage. 

 

-------------------------------------------

Google and Apple officially fought traditional marriage: .  Please Boycott them.  A Boycott changed McDonald's mind.

wait a minute, let's back up here...

This is a fundamental right

According to who?  What makes it "fundamental"?

 

And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.   -- Edgar Allan Poe

»→ very funny lotr

"back up" has specific meaning given the nature of this thread.  Would you like to rephrase?

  • Where's my welfare check?

ugh

I'd laugh at your wittiness, if the image did not invoke in me a certain revulsion.

 

And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.   -- Edgar Allan Poe

Gotta be carful around CA...

he's a character. :-)

"9 out of 10 doctors agree that flag burning is the number one killer of liberals."

Fundamental right

I'm SURE I saw that in the Constitution in, what was it? Article III, no wait... it's GOT to be in there somewhere... Maybe its near that fundamental right that 10% of the population gets to overturn the majority of the people in the state because it just feels so right... yeah, that's it. Look there.

Actually, it's more around

Actually, it's more around 3%.

 

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall.   -- Edgar Allan Poe

How about conservative talk?

" . . . a certain group will be -- will have their freedom of speech taken away from them, just because they're red heads."

How about conservatives?

Let's see how upset you are when the Fairness Doctrine is introduced, Georgie Boy.

To be fair, I thought that

To be fair, I thought that statement was referring to conservatives.  We're "red" not "blue," so conservative = redhead.  :)

Questions

Do you have a fundamental right to marry your child? Do you have a fundamental right to marry five other people? Do you have a fundamental right to marry someone, but to ignore sexual exclusiveness?

You don't have the right to define marriage as you see fit.

Note, also, the complete absence of details or reasons or arguments. All we get, instead, is a short montage of manipulative images and commentary, followed by a sympathetic interview with a pleasant celebrity, in which he is asked no tough questions or anything remotely resembling an argument. It's all mood and tone and feel. In other words, brainless ...

Would someone please remind Captain Sulu of a few things?

  1. He chose to be sexually deviant.
  2. He chose to publicize it.
  3. His faux "marriage" is safe, according to Attorney General Moonbeam of California.
  4. Redheads are (unless you're Lucille Ball) born that way.  If human beings were born sexually deviant, our species could not continue.

--Mike

www.thebrattonreport...

»→ Sulu

I can see the headline now.

Sulu Plot blocked by Captain's Log

  • Where's my welfare check?

A lighthearted Star Trek moment....

Capt. Kirk to Sulu:  Is that semen on the floor?

Sulu:  "yeth thir...!' laughs out loudly, walking out door.

McCoy to Kirk:  "Sulu's got a serious problem Jim."

Kirk:  "Get him to sick bay" (nods to Spock)

Spock, raised eyebrow and all:  "hmmmm....what is semen?" 

McCoy:  " You silly green blooded Vulcan, that's where you came from!" 

Just having some fun.  Enjoy the weekend! 

It's Mr. Sulu, err, Mrs.

It's Mr. Sulu, err, Mrs. Sulu now -- please don't give this gal a promotion.

 

And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.   -- Edgar Allan Poe

I'm a Trekker--I can't help it.

Sulu made it all the way to the rank of Captain.

He commanded the U.S.S. Excelsior--and, for what it's worth, fathered another member of Starfleet, Ensign Demora Sulu.

Surprising, eh? 

--Mike 

www.thebrattonreport...

I'm not a trekkie, but

Sulu commanded a Starship?  I don't recall this in the TV series of the movies.  I know Spock was promoted, and Kirk was promoted, then demoted.

 

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall.   -- Edgar Allan Poe

Star Trek 6

I believe hes a captain in Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country.

http://www.imdb.com/...

Choice

I must have been terribly mistaken. I always thought who (or what) you got in bed with was a CHOICE. Red hair, to some women is a choice too. Guess its just not in some people's nature to exercise their CHOICE is it?

I'm sooooo happy you

I'm sooooo happy you brought up the idea of homosexuality as a choice, because you are grossly misinformed.  If you look at comparative studies between humans and animals, in over 400 mammalian species homosexuality not only occurs but is very common (the majority of animals in many of the species are at least bisexual).  Animals don't have religion, or explicit rules about "culture", and I think we can agree that animal behavior is natural and doesn't have a liberal agenda, no?

Also, we wouldn't die out if homosexuality was genetic because while heterosexuality is clearly more common in humans, it's simply another form of evolutionary variation, which is necessary for survival.  Some humans are born homosexual because it promotes population control (much like heterosexuals who are unable to reproduce) and increases the likelihood of the offspring of family members survival because they use their resources to help raise them.  Most are born heterosexual because otherwise we would die out, but your argument lacks substance and supporting evidence. 

Marriage is a right as long as it is status granted by the government, and the constitution states that any social group membership that is naturally occurring cannot be denied the same rights as others as given by the state (e.g. marriage).  Yes, gay people can get married if they marry someone of the opposite sex, but scientific evidence suggests that by doing so they make many health and mental health sacrifices by not behaving in ways consistent with their natural inclinations.

If you have evidence that it's a choice, or any studies that disprove the findings I've mentioned I would really like to hear them. 

 

bi sexual is not the same

bi sexual is not the same as homosexual.  Just because we see animals having same sex, doesn't prove its biological to be gay...it just proves animals like to use whatever opportunity they have to get it on.

In which case it proves our point...if every animal is "bi-sexual", then its a choice, and in fact no rights are taken away from any "gay" because they can chose to marry the opposite sex, even if that isn't their preference.

The fact we define it as a preference implies choice my friend.

btw, it doesn't

btw, it doesn't biologically control the population, because if they have sex with the opposite sex, then they can get pregnant or get the girl pregnant ( all things being equal ).

And there are plenty of resources to go around, the more people we have working, the better for everyone.

Marriage is a priviledge.  I do not have the right to marry whomever I want.  Never had that right.

One more thing my fine

One more thing my fine evolutionary friend, why is it when a person is unable to have kids they go to the doctor to get fixed?  Because their body is not following what it is naturally designed to do.

Being gay is a psychological dis-order, but it isn't pc to call it what it is.

"Being gay is a

"Being gay is a psychological dis-order"

Haha, nope.  Check the DSM (diagnostic statistical manual, it's the official diagnostic manual of mental disorders).  Nice try, I'm a research psychologist, don't present your opinion as fact, if you have a valid reason to disagree I'd love to hear it, but you should read below: 

"In 1952, when the American Psychiatric Association published its first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, homosexuality was included as a disorder.6 Almost immediately, however, that classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in research funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. That study and subsequent research consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality, rather than a normal and healthy sexual orientation. 

In recognition of the scientific evidence, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973, stating that "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities."8 After thoroughly reviewing the scientific data, the American Psychological Association adopted the same position in 1975, and urged all mental health professionals "to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations."

So it's not that it's not politically correct, it's not accurate according to the people who determine what is a psychological disorder.  Try again.

I am well aware of the

I am well aware of the shift that so called experts have on the subject.  Doesn't change the fact that the science of psychology is the least objective of the sciences, and that it is run by several people who are more touchy feeling than who look at the world through the lense of hard science.  ( Hence tend to fall under the weight of political correctness ).  They stopped calling it a disorder because it became politcally incorrect to call it what it is.

Can a person who decides to act on the impulse of homosexual acts live a relatively "normal" life?  Certainly. Many mental disorders aren't extreme to the point of needing to be in an institution.

Fact is, the person still makes a choice.  And before you give me the lame argument that why would anyone choose to be a social outcast, I will kindly remind you in this day an age, its cool to be gay And there are cutters and other self harmers. People do dumb things.  And with every dumb thing, it is because they made the decision to do it.  To say otherwise would mean we are no different from animals who live on instinct alone.

Actually, that's a

Actually, that's a stereotype.  The touchy feely thing doesn't actually fly, and a lot of what we know about mental illness nowadays is uncovered by cognitive neuroscience, which is in no way a touchy feely unscientific discipline.  Again, I'm a psychologist so I'm well aware of the spectrum of severity of mental illness, and that you don't need to be in an institution to be mentally ill.  I'm just not sure you're familiar with the criteria used by mental health professionals to classify something of a mental illness.  So why exactly is homosexuality a mental illness, based on what criteria?

No, I wasn't going to say that people wouldn't choose to be an outcast, some do because yes, they believe it's cool.  But they are largely outnumbered by people who are actually gay.  I don't need semantic arguments like "who would choose to be an outcast", because that's a rhetorical question, my point is that there's scientific evidence that homosexuality is largely biological in nature, and therefore denying gay people the right to marry is, by the legal definition, discrimination. 

every marriage is

every marriage is discrimination.  When I married my wife, I discriminated against all the billions of ladies in the world.

And at the same time it isn't discrimination, because they are still able to get married, maybe not the one they want to, but they stillhave the ability to.

No one is denying them to live together, to do whatever...I don't really care.  Where I do draw the line is the normalization of it.

I realized I hurt your feelings with the stereotype, but its still a very subjective discipline.  Like you said, based on what criteria?  And that is where it is subjective, you can change the parameters of what the criteria is.  Fact is the act of homosexual acts, requires a decision.  Just like its a decision of a cutter to cut, an alcoholic to drink.  It is not the same as the need to urinate, eat, or sleep.  And it certainly isn't the same as the color of one skin.  And since it requires a decision, and its a deviant decision, than its a disorder of the mind.  A mental disorder.

Semantic games aren't going

Semantic games aren't going to work.  You know very well I was referring to definition of discrimination referring to unfair systemic bias, but you're referring to the definition of discrimination in being choosy.  Very funny.

So why do you draw the line of the normalization of same-sex marriage?  I would argue that it's perfectly normal, just not nearly as common as opposite-sex marriage.  I can point you to research that shows that children of gay couples are no more likely to be gay themselves than children of straight couples, and I can't speak for all heterosexual supporters of gay rights, but I don't really see many of us engaging in gay relationships just because it's legitimized.  Again, why would the normalization (or i would call it the legitimization) of same-sex marriages be harmful?  What's do you have against it, I'm not sure I understand what aspect of it you have a problem with.

In terms of your critique of psychology, you didn't hurt my feelings, it just happens to be inaccurate and it's far from the first time I've heard it.  All scientific results are interpreted by humans, and therefore has some element of subjectivity.  Our experimental methods are becoming more and more exact, and we are incorporating brain imaging studies to support our findings.  Plus, we have a rigorous peer review process and strict experimental methodology just like any other science.  You should check out some of our research journals sometime, you might find them to be much less biased than you imagine them.  Most of us actually want to find out the way things really are, not just promote some ideological agenda. 

Have to admit that after

Have to admit that after "Semantic games aren't going to work. " my mind turned off and your words became blah blah blah.  If you aren't going to be honest with your own semantics and twists than there is no point to further this debate with you.

You seem to think that humans are no better than computer programs, whose actions and behaviors are a sum of biological and environmental impulses.  And while that works to a degree when you describe biological and environmental influences, you deny the human spirit who despite the odds does the amazing.  

Until you can understant that as a human observer of human psychology that your own psychology clouds your judgement, then you will never be objective in your pursuit.  Fact is many in psychology have an agenda, and so purposely or subconsciencly define the psychology rules to fit their viewpoint.  Hence it isn't a hard science.  You can't apply A and B and get C, you can only say most of the time when we see an A and a B we see C.  On the other hand I have God.  Who gave us his law.  And in that law he defines homosexual acts as morally wrong, but that a man must cleave unto his wife and be one.  Hence that is where I start with my viewpoint.  I freely admit my bias, and since you refuse to admit yours, I can't trust you.

Good morning Voice

Just finished reading your comments to 444 and thoroughly agree with you. 444 wants to redefine marriage to mean something it has not meant in the history of mankind.

Of course I acknowledge

Of course I acknowledge that humans are biased, and as human scientists we are not immune to it.  If you look at my post, I said that you should read our journals and you would be surprised because there's a lot less bias than you may think.  Explicit, intentional bias is not published because peer review is designed to combat that, that's my point.  Our biases are subtle and implicit, and much of that is discussed when studies are published.  Even those who agree with the perspective of the researchers will openly discuss where there methodologies may have been untintentionally biased. 

And no, I don't believe that humans are just like computers, and everything that we do is biologically determined...I'm a social psychologist, which pertains to situational influences of human behavior.  My point is that in the case of sexual orientation, there is a growing consensus in the scientific community (be it endocrinology, genetics, neuroscience, or psychology) that there is a strong biological component to sexual orientation that has to do with the distribution of hormones in the womb, as well as possible genetic contributions.  No, not all human behavior has a strong biological basis, and many behaviors are the product of fundamentally different types of processes. 

As a scientist, my goal is accuracy and not just to confirm my own beliefs.  If I simply wanted to maintain my belief systems I would discuss this only with people I agree with.  I haven't insulted your beliefs, I'm challenging them to find out what concrete proof you guys actually have.  All I've seen here is either people questioning my credibility or motives, or religious/normative reasons (which are clearly subjective based on which culture/religion you are a part) for same-sex marriage being immoral or somehow bad.

 

LOL Liberals love to preach

LOL Liberals love to preach moral relativism. 

You got to love that they say "don't judge" yet judge conservatives for saying Homosexual acts are immoral. 

Then they say morals are relative, but then spends every effort to show conservatives discrimination over marriage to be immoral.

Then they say from science we claim that sexual deviants like child molesters can be rehabilitated through therapy, but ignore and become unhindged when the claim is made for homosexuals.

And last but not least, you claim there maybe a biological component, yet won't deny the environment aspect, yet can not make the logical conclusion that we are either beings who are programmed with certain responses...or are free to chose our actions, and thereby this whole issue of Gay marriage is not discrimination...because they can chose to marry the opposite sex if they wanted to.  The dirty little secret is, either they can chose how they live...or its like skin color, going to the bathroom or eating...they can't control themselves...they are prisoners of their biology.  And if its the former, then it isn't discrimination, its a choice they make on their own.

and do note, the eating and

and do note, the eating and going to the bathroom...there is proof that we can still control these urges...sex is a strong urge, but not as strong as the need to eat or go to the bathroom.

Yes, morals are relative,

Yes, morals are relative, which is why I'm simply providing you with evidence supporting my belief, and asking you to provide evidence supporting yours.  When debating an issue, it's pretty customary to challenge people's responses if you don't agree with the validity of their reasoning and ask for evidence that what they're claiming is true.  I'm not judging you for thinking that homosexuality is immoral, you have a right to your opinion, which I've stated before.  My point is that just because YOU (and other groups of people) think it's immoral doesn't mean it's legal to restrict other people's rights that may not subscribe to your belief system, based on that belief system itself.  I'm not judging you in that I think I'm absolutely right and I don't think anyone can prove me otherwise, I'm trying to understand your perspective and see if the information I have is compatible with the way you see the issues. 

I didn't say discrimination over marriage is immoral, I said it violates the constitution to limit the rights of citizens based on sexual orientation.  Our consitution provides people with equal protection, and that includes discrimination based on sexual orientation.  I can't tell you whether it's moral or not because I'm not making a moral argument, I'm making a pragmatic one, but I can tell you that not allowing gay people the right to marry violates their civil rights. 

And actually, your statement about not being able to decide if we're biologically determined to be a certain way or if it's a choice is not an accurate portrayal of the debate.  Scientists are well aware tha biology and the environment interact, so the debate isn't about which one is responsible for homosexuality, but which influence trumps the other.  We all agree that they both play a role, but the fact of the matter is, research shows that yes of course they can choose to engage in heterosexual relationships, but they do so by sacrificing their physical and mental health for not being able to live authentically as everyone else is.  There may be a few people out there who choose to be gay, and that's fine, but you have to acknowledge that there are many people out there who are simply gay and can't explain why, they're just not attracted to the opposite sex.  Nobody is claiming that they can't control their behavior, but the point is the scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that homosexuality is perfectly normal and natural, and that there's no reason for them to be prohibited from engaging in same-sex marriages simply because their type of relationships are not the norm. 

 

Yes, morals are relative,

Yes, morals are relative,

cool then i can have my own moral code and you will defend my having it?  who are you to constrict my freedom with your morals?

   “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

"i want my job back"  Mary

"i want my job back"  Mary Kay Letourneau

"me too"  Vince Young

well per kj444 all prisoners need to freed also

   “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

I think it's clear..

that morals are societal. Do you believe that it is acceptable for men to bugger little boys? Of course not, yet there is a segment of society that do (namely NAMBLA). The difference is, that in the U.S, these pervs have the right to do/think so. To me that is a failure of our system.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

You missed my point that it

You missed my point that it isnt a matter of which has more influence over homosexual behavior, its in the end is the person who puts that label on himself have the ability to make decisions...or are we all computer programs and thereby have no responsibility for our behavior? 

Let me spell it out.  People like you like to say its society's fault ( environmental forces ) and others like you say its the parents fault ( both biological and environmental forces ), but I ask a simple question, at what point do we say he must be responsible for himself?  Can we rise above the occasion?  Or are we trapped in this bio-computer?  Understand? ( Of course if we are all bio-computers than no one is at fault...why have any laws at all? )

I conclude that biology and environment certainly influences, but the individual still has control over his behavior.  And he can control how much he wants to change his behavior.  Hence he is not a bio-computer running on instinct and behavior modifications alone.

Once that conclusion is made the next question follows.  Given that the person who labels himself a homosexual, he can still control various urges that are very biological.  We all need to sleep, but we can control where and when to a degree.  We all need to eat, but we can control what and how much and when ( again to a degree ) and lastly when I need to use the restroom.  I don't immediately go and soil myself like a bird in its cage.  I can control the when and how ( again to a degree ).  I would argue that sexual urges, though quite powerful, are not as powerful as the need to sleep, eat, and use the restroom.  People can go years without even masterbating and be OK.  So given that they can control this, they certainly can get married to the opposite sex.  They can even have sex with the opposite sex.  Are they more turned on with same sex stimulous?  Sure.  But is that how we define our morality?  Based on how desirable something is?  I make more robbing banks than I do programming computers.  Would it be right for me to rob the banks then? Why are you discriminating my right to earn money?  Waa it says I have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Money makes me happy and feel more alive...waaaa.

There is no discimination over marriage and gays.  They have the ability to get married -- and even enjoy that marriage though there is no legal requirement to enjoy one's marriage or even be married.  Just not to a same gender person.  Just like I can't marry another person's wife...or a child molester marry a child.

You're trying to make a

You're trying to make a complex issue very simple, which is why the fundamental assumptions of your statements make it very difficult to even answer.  Biological bases for certain behaviors does NOT make you a computer that's not responsible for your actions, that's a blatant misunderstanding of the facts of the nature/nurture debate.  Once again, YES, people can control their behavior, but the point is that gay people have absolutely no reason to control their behavior because there is nothing wrong with it.  Yes, I know you have a problem with it, but in order to claim there is something wrong with it you need proof and I'm sorry, but it's not out there.  Doctors, psychologists, genetecists, sociologists, etc., all agree that it's a perfectly normal variation in sexual behavior. 

And no, "people like me" don't blame everything on society, I am a SCIENTIST and not a political partisan who is basing my beliefs on opinions, I'm basing it on scientific findings that I desperately wish you could read because you simply repeat the same things over and over again as if they're fact, when experts know that there is overwhelming evidence suggesting they are false.  I acknowledge that individual behavior is an interaction between environmental, societal, biological, genetic, and contextual factors, and that acknowledgement is not contrary to any point that I have made.  Sexual orientation is largely biological in nature, and scientific studies investigate how much of the variance of behavior is accounted for by these different factors; in some types of behavior, biology creates most of the variance, in others, behavior is largely contextually determined. 

And, your obsession with controlling people's behavior when it's not harmful to anyone is completely unfounded and absolutely mindboggling.  Once again, research shows that when gay people stay in the closet, or act as if they are heterosexual, OR aren't allowed to same rights as others they suffer physically and psychologically.  But hey, if you're ok with that when you can't come up with one concrete example why homosexuality is harmful, then I don't know what to tell you, I just think that's a bit messed up. 

not trying to control

not trying to control people's behavior, rather trying to explain to you as to why it isn't discrimination in the same way people discriminate skin color...skin color one can't control, marrying the opposite sex if they want to is something within their control.  Since we aren't bio-robots, a person can modify their behavior.  And thereby if they wanted to get married they can.  Hence NO discrimination.  Did say they HAD to get married to the opposite sex.  Rather if they want their relationship to have the legal standing of a marriage, then they have to follow the law.

Making it return to the foundation of what marriage is doesn't control their behavior either.  I could care less if two gay couples or a group of people engage in a gay orge.  What I do care about is the normalization of abnormal behavior.  Such as teaching kindergarden that gay sex is ok, without giving parents notice.  You seem to waffle back and forth between gays being bio-robots, with it they can't help it because its biology to admitting they could be influenced environmentally.  Well if the environment can influence one to engage in gay sex, then shouldn't we be careful with normalizing abnormal behavior?

Not asking them to go back in the closet.  They still have the same rights as everyone else.  If they want to get married then they have to marry the opposite sex, of a certain age, within the human species, who isn't married already, nor related kin.  ( seems like a whole lot of discrimination going on around here ) but if they don't want to live that way, I could careless.

You see, marriage is more than sex.  And its more than just living with someone you care about.  Its the ideal of how to raise a family.  And since by your own admission, nurture can cause someone to behave gay, I would like the opportunity and control on my kids nurturing and not give the state the authoritity to indoctronate their own religion and morality on my kids.  That is my job, and my job alone.  Its funny, the gay agenda crowd are the first to cry separation of church and state ( a misquote I might add, but they quote it nonetheless ) but that only applies to my religion...not to theirs.

Here is the thing, if gays want to be accepted, then they have to be acceptable...getting in my face, throwing bricks in my window ( people have had their widows broken by bricks because they had a vote yes for prop 8 in their yard --- a 11 year old girl had unopned bottles thrown at her from drive bys because she held a vote yes prop 8 sign ) is not being acceptable, and will cause a backlash.  If you want to be gay, fine...but there is no need to get hostile or parade around like an idiot and demand I be ok with it, or put in judges who write from the bench and overturn the voice of the people and force the issue.

In no way do I condone

In no way do I condone people throwing bricks in people's windows because of ideological differences, but I think we can both agree that it's not a phenomenon specific to gay people.  I hardly think there's a stereotype about gay people violently throwing things through people's windows, so that's not the reason why people don't want them to get married.  Let's stick to the issue here.  

And marriage isn't just about raising a family...there are plenty of married couples that choose not to have children, and they are granted the right to be considered married and aren't forced to have civil unions.  You have every right to indoctrinate your kids into whatever you want to teach them, and I agree that the state shouldn't have the right to teach your kids about religion or morality.  BUT, the fact of the matter is there are millions of Americans who belong to religions that don't believe that homosexuality or same-sex marriage is wrong, and you're asking the government to teach our entire nation that it is.  I'm sorry, but that's hypocritical.  Nobody is suggesting that kindergarteners be taught that being gay is normal, that was a smear run against the Obama campaign.  He was actually promoting teaching children as young as 5 years old how to avoid and escape from sexual predators, not giving them sex education or political position statements.  

Anyway, my point is that it's your opinion that homosexuality is abnormal, when you're adding a negative connotation to the accurate term which is less typical.  One common misunderstanding of social norms is that the most dominant groups (e.g. heterosexuals, christians, whites, etc.) have an actual majority, meaning represent more than 50% of the population.  However, most of the time it's actually referring to something like 40% of the population, but having the highest percentage for one group (other smaller groups comprising the remaining 60%).  So for many social categories, most people are NOT the norm, it's just that the norm is the largest single cohesive group in a given category.  Just because it's different from what the norm is does not make it bad or immoral, just different...full stop. 

Maybe you condone a mob of

Maybe you condone a mob of gay men pushing around a grandma holding a cross then?  I mean after all, morals are all subjective, just because its different doesn't mean its bad or immoral right?

Lets review some logic shall we?  Because until we can agree on the premises, we will never get anywhere.  You say you are a scientist, so pull back and look at this issue analytically.  I graduated in math, and have a fair amount of experience in the psychology field to know a few things such as psychology field is not a hard science.  Like I said, you can only say given A and B it is probable that we will see C.  If it were a hard science then you could say A + B = C.  There are a lot of theories and what not, and it all boils down to subjective anaylsis.  Hence it is prone to heavy bias from the Arch-Bishops of Psychology.  I use that term, because psychology has a lot of similarities to a religion.  You are putting your faith in psychology because for the most part it defines the world in a satisfactory way for you.

So given that it is like a religion, requiring faith of the patient and faith of the Bishops ( doctors ) that has a lot of opinion written by well educated people, but opinion none the less, I can read their opinions and adopt some of that faith into my own, or reject it out right.  Where your faith absolutely collides with my faith, I take it apon myself to declare you to be a "heretic" and vice versa.  Do we agree so far?

Second point, can we agree that we are not bio-robots?  That nature and nuture are some strong forces, but in the end there is a thing called personal responsibility and that the individual decides how he wants to behave.  And we know that changing ones behavior there is resistence, but it can be done.  Do not deny that people change nature and nurture all the time...alcoholics go sober, pedophiles no longer prey on kids, cutters who no longer cut....etc.  Does it cause some problems you say trying to convert a person who calls himself gay to not practice homosexual acts?  I think that is depending on the priest subscribing advice...The Psychology priest has been schooled to believe that one can not deny the "biology" of being gay, therefore encourage the person to embrace the homosexual side of themselves.  The Christian Priest may instead have the understanding that God has said wickedness was never happiness, and so will instead help that person to avoid the behavior.

Which leaves me with one final question?  Why is it your freedom of religion trumps mine?  Fact is gays have stormed into churches, does a congregation do the same to gay couples?  Fact is homosexuality is being taught in a number of classrooms as normal and such...and parents thrown in jail fordisagreeing with that policy.  Many churches fear that it will get to the point that we will be forced to perform gay marriages because to do otherwise would be hate speech.  ( which begs the other question, how is it their speech is more free than mine? )

Now this post is getting rather long, but I would like to challenge your last post.

And marriage isn't just about raising a family...there are plenty of
married couples that choose not to have children, and they are granted
the right to be considered married and aren't forced to have civil
unions.  

Marriage is all about the family.  Do couples decide to not to have children?  Sure.  Doesn't change the fact that marriage is about the family not about the couple.   A couple could just live together, and many do.  ( Again until you can agree with my basic premises, you will not be convinced that no rights are being taken away.  In fact marriage was never a right, its a privilege ). No one is forced to be in a marriage, or civil unions...so this argument is an emotional one.

You have every right to indoctrinate your kids into whatever
you want to teach them, and I agree that the state shouldn't have the
right to teach your kids about religion or morality.  BUT, the fact of
the matter is there are millions of Americans who belong to religions
that don't believe that homosexuality or same-sex marriage is wrong,
and you're asking the government to teach our entire nation that it is.
I'm sorry, but that's hypocritical.

 And yet in the world the gay community has forced the issue that parents do not have that right.  California came pretty darn close with the judge ruling parents didn't have the right to home school.  The state does teach morality, and there are a number of issues where kindergarders are being fed that same sex marriage is no big deal.  There is nothing hypocritical to not bring the subject up and let parents actually hold the responsibility alone.

 Nobody is suggesting that
kindergarteners be taught that being gay is normal, that was a smear
run against the Obama campaign.  He was actually promoting teaching
children as young as 5 years old how to avoid and escape from sexual
predators, not giving them sex education or political position
statements.  

You are confusing that story with what I am talking about.  I have seen an interview of parents in MA who were appalled that their kid was taught that it was no big deal, in kindergarden, and weren't notified.  The schools response was, we don't have to notify you, gay marriage is legal, thereby the school reserves the right what is taught, how and when.

The threat of churches being sued because of their "hate" speech or for not performing gay marriages is a reality.

A paradigm of neo-liberal drivel.

1. Homo sapiens would go extinct if all of us engaged in this behavior.  That is why governments have "granted" marriage with a special "status."  Marriage is the foundation the most primative societal unit and propagation of society.  The "status" comes with responsibility.

2. A vagina is designed for a penis, and vice versa.

3. A rectum is designed for evacuation of the toxic byproducts of metabolism in a muticelluar organism.

4. Mammalian males may have isolated homosexual contacts, but exclusive homosexual behavior would be soon eradictated via natural selection.  There is no absolutely no survival advantage.  Sperm die in a rectum.  And, from my own empircal observation, I have yet to ever witness such behavior, demonstrating that it is indeed "anomalous," and therefore by definition not normal.

5. From a purely naturalistic perspective, homo sapiens societies have always shunned this behavior over the millennia of recorded history.  Otherwise, we would not even be having this modern debate about "homosexual marriage" as a "right."  The only reason homosexual "marriage" is even an "issue" on the table is because we have the luxury to engage in it.

 

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall.   -- Edgar Allan Poe

or a paradigm of a research scientist, either way

1.  Making same-sex marriage legal wouldn't mean that all people would then be gay.  As I said, most people are NOT gay.  That's a fallacy used to scare people.  I'm heterosexual, and if I was allowed to marry a woman I still would not want to because I am naturally straight.

2.  Just because a vagina is designed for a penis does not make that a requirement, it's just a requirement in order to procreate.  But, since humans have such big brains, we've found a way to procreate artificially, which many heterosexual couples take advantage of if they are unable to conceive naturally.  So you're only applying the natural argument where it supports your point.

3.  Mouths are for eating and breathing, but many heterosexual couples engage in oral sex (the mouth was not made for a penis), but somehow it's wrong to do the same in a different orifice if you're gay. 

4.  Most animals do not engage in monogamous relationships, where the males more often engage in short-term strategies and spread their seed to as many females as possible to ensure greater chance of survival of at least some of their offspring.  Also, some heterosexual couples choose not to have children, clearly not a survival advantage for passing on their genes, so people who lack the instinct to have children are the same as gay people, but they're allowed to get married.  Just because it may not be adaptive in only one sense (survival of individual vs. survival of family) doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Just because most people aren't doing it doesn't mean it should be illegal.  If something isn't the norm, that doesn't make it bad unless it causes concretely bad outcomes.  I still haven't heard of any from opponents of same-sex marriage.

5.  History is not a justification for denying civil rights.  Historically, black people in this country were slaves, and just because that's how it was done from the beginning doesn't mean we can't change it to accommodate modernity and our changing views on human rights today. 

rebuttals

1. You missed this point entirely.  In fact, you've missed the point of my entire list, which were all aimed at refuting the claim that homosexual marriage is natural.  It is not.  So, back to this point, I'll say again, if all of us behaved this way, our species would cease to exist.  This suggests that there is something inherently disordered, something "inorganic," with this behavior.

2. Yes, we, with our big brains, are quite capable of abusing the organs of our bodies.  Off the top of my head: Lungs are designed for respiration, but that doesn't mean people can't choose to injest nicotine via carcinogenic particulate matter called smoke -- some would argue this is self-abuse, and indeed, we find a very powerful lobby today seeking to ban the behavior.  But that doesn't change the fact their organic purpose is the support and continuation of life through respiration.

3. Lips are a very erogenous area of the body.  That is one of their purposes -- in fact, do they have another purpose?  They are used for sexual arousal.  Kissing is probably the most basic method for conveying intimacy, something we learn from the earliest age.  The tongue is also erogenous, and taste (along with smell) can convey intimacy.  So yes, the mouth was made for intimacy.

4. Yes, that's what animals do.  Are you advocating that, based on the behavior  of male mammals, men should be sowing their wild oats, and that they should insist on no contraception?  The point here was a rebuttal to the notion that because we have isolated cases of male mammals engaging in homosexual behavior (and I'm guessing because of some sort of arousal confusion on their part), that doesn't justify exclusive homosexual behavior in humans to be somehow "natural" and "normal."

5. That's completely true, actually.  However, my point was to provide evidence that traditional marriage is the natural behavior of humans -- it was there from the beginning of recorded history, and it is trans-cultural.  But, it must also be said that there is not moral equivalence between slavery and traditional marriage.  Marriage has been the foundation of human societies (i.e., the nuclear family is where the most intimate of relationships are held).  And if a marriage suffers discord, so do all parties involved, including children, families, and finally society at large.  Marriage is more than just copulation.  It is meant to be the base unit of society, the means for propagation of society.  That is why I said that the "status" is granted by governments because of this most profound responsibility.

 

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall.   -- Edgar Allan Poe

The cases of animal

The cases of animal homosexuality are not actually isolated if you actually read the literature on animal sexual behavior.  It happens with males and females in hundreds of species (more often in males), and a large percentage of individuals in each species engage in sexual behavior with the same sex.  Homosexuality has been around as long as heterosexuality, it's just been considered taboo once we evolved into cultural creatures because marriage was created to promote child-rearing for the future of the state.  That's a social reason for the nuclear family, and I have absolutely no problem with that, it's the exclusion of any alternative which will seriously not dominate over marriages where they have complementary reproductive organs for conceiving.   There is clearly an adaptive advantage for our species to be outnumbered by heterosexuals, and since genetecists don't believe there is a heterosexual gene, but possibly a mutation, it will not be passed on by gay people even having biological children.

No, I'm not advocating promiscuity or the collapse of close relationships or families, what I'm suggesting is that we expand our definition of family and close relationships to include gay people.  I still haven't heard one reason why allowing same-sex marriages would harm opposite-sex relationships, or society in general.  Even if homosexuality is a choice, people have a right to love whoever they want as long as there is no harm involved (e.g. children, etc.).  Nobody seems to be able to answer me when I ask what the reason is to deny gay people the right to have the state acknowledge their relationships as equal. 

Nobody is saying that all relationships should be homosexual, and your false assumption that same-sex marriage would lead to all of us being gay and therefore our species would go extinct is not a valid point.  Some people are gay, most people are straight.  It's not an either or discussion, so don't frame it that way...the variation in people's behavior is not that dichotomous, it's much more complex.

Good grief 444

GO TAP YOUR FOOT IN THE BUS STATION, GET A PARTNER AND GO OFF SOMEWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know, it must be painful

I know, it must be painful to hear facts that contradict your opinion. Living in a bubble of hatred is so much easier. 

And funny you should bring up the foot tapping, that was actually done by Senator Larry Craig...you know, that Republican senator who was one of the most outspoken opponent of gay rights...and hmmm, turns out HE'S GAY!  It's interesting that the people who hate gay people the most keep turning out to be gay.  I'm straight and have no problem with gay people because I'm not worried that if same-sex marriage is legal I'm going to let myself succomb to my gay tendencies because unlike some, I actually don't have them.  I simply care about all humans...yes, including Republicans.

Good for you 444

I said nothing about hatred. You are the one obsessed with homosexuality and seem to have an intense desire for it.

nope, good try.  not

nope, good try.  not obsessed with homosexuality, but social justice and civil rights.  that happens to be what i do for a living, and gay people just so happen to have had their rights legally stripped away last week.

one more try

"The cases of animal homosexuality are not actually isolated if you actually read the literature on animal sexual behavior.  It happens with males and females in hundreds of species (more often in males), and a large percentage of individuals in each species engage in sexual behavior with the same sex."

1. They are indeed isolated.  Of course, by saying isolated I was not making a statement on the number of species, but rather referring to the frequency.  I'm not doubting that these behaviors occur, but they are well outside of the statistical norms.  I grew up around animals, and I have yet to even once witness a hint of homosexual behavior -- in fact, just the opposite is what typically occurs (e.g., fierce aggression amongst males).  And I'm not the only one who would testify to this.  The most I've ever seen will be a confused dog trying to hump a leg -- does that make the dog "gay"?

2. Secondly, given the existence of such occurences (something I would have to trust "authories" on), I would still wonder, based on my knowledge of how sexual arousal typically occurs, on what would cause the mixed signal.  But let's be clear, such behaviors are not because these animals "prefer" the same sex.

"once we evolved into cultural creatures because marriage was created to promote child-rearing for the future"

Precisely.  This is the purpose of marriage.  Homosexual behavior does not qualify.

"I still haven't heard one reason why allowing same-sex marriages would harm opposite-sex relationships, or society in general."

Because, allowing same-sex marriages radically, and for the first time since recorded history, dilutes (i.e., weakens) the definition of marriage from a social institution ordered to the stability and propagation of society, to whatever we arbitrarily choose it to be.

"Even if homosexuality is a choice, people have a right to love whoever they want as long as there is no harm involved"

Although I believe it is a disordered behavior, I have not argued that people cannot live with one another or do what they want in their privacy.  But marriage it is not.

"Nobody seems to be able to answer me when I ask what the reason is to deny gay people the right to have the state acknowledge their relationships as equal."

But clearly their relationships are not equal -- they are, by definition, different.  The idea of "civil union" is arguable from this standpoint (the state acknowledging the relationship), but not marriage.

"false assumption that same-sex marriage would lead to all of us being gay"

Where did I assume this?

"It's not an either or discussion"

Uh, yes it is.  One is free to either publically commit to a monogamous, heterosexual relationship (i.e., marriage) or refrain from doing so.  It's that simple and needs no equivocating.

 

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall.   -- Edgar Allan Poe

I'm sorry, but just because

I'm sorry, but just because you grew up around animals does not make you qualified to judge the statistical frequency of animal behavior.   First of all, you don't have a large enough sample of animals; scientists study thousands upon thousands of animals of each species over decades, and the effects I'm referring to are across hundreds of species.  I highly doubt you have that kind of access.  Your evidence is what's referred to as anecdotal, and absolutely no scientific studies rely on anecdotal data, especially of such small samples. 

Also, the damage you're saying same-sex marriage causes is to the definition of a WORD.  Language constantly changes over time to encompass changes in the social climate, and guess what, it's never actually harmed anything.  The word citizen used to exclude women and blacks, and guess what, that word is not diluted for including them now. 

Bottom line, I really tried to have a civil, rational discussion about this issue with my ideological opposites, and the bottom line is that you guys are just intolerant of anything outside of the norm for no reason other than that's the way you are, and you believe that everyone should be the same way.  People are harmed by being excluded on arbitrary reasons, and you guys are worried about the harm to the definition of a damn word.  I'm sorry, but it's too exhausting trying to have a reasonable debate with people who are dead set on just hating whatever is different. 

Not one person replying to me has cited any reputable source of information other than Your Opinion, et al.  This country's in a lot of trouble, we are in desperate need of education reform. 

sorry, but you know nothing about me, so judge not

1. FYI, I too am a research scientist.  Make a fine living of it, actually, and I'm doing something I always loved from my childhood.  Grew up in a rural area, but now live in one of the major U.S. metro areas where science research opportunity knocks.  I guess that makes me an uppity hick.  I am not one to tout this, but just wanted you to know that I am quite aware about descriptive statistics and sample sizes.  I am also quite capable of rational discourse, which I have engaged in thus far with you, although you may not like it.  I'll confess that my initial tone was a bit brash, and for that I'm sorry (it's not generally my intention), but please recognize that we get plenty of trolls here and I thought you were yet another.

2. In this vein, my "anecdotal" observations I believe to contain statistical significance (i.e., I did not just get lucky, and there are indeed significance measures for small samples), although I'll grant you I have not demonstrated this here -- I do not have the time or resources, although it still falls under my purview as a responsible, thinking citizen.  But from my observations, I am highly skeptical of any suggestion that homosexual behavior is "normal."  If it were "normal," then statistical probability would dictate that I (and those in my social circle) would have encountered it numerous times in our "normal" encounters with animals.  Most of these animals are the ones very close to us genetically (e.g., mammals).  The fact that I have never even encountered one instance of animal homosexual behavior leads me to believe such occurences are statistical outliers.

3. Who's talking about a "word"?  I thought we were talking about the proposal of a radical, legally binding departure in well-established social custom?

"Bottom line, I really tried to have a civil, rational discussion about this issue with my ideological opposites, and the bottom line is that you guys are just intolerant of anything outside of the norm for no reason other than that's the way you are, and you believe that everyone should be the same way.  People are harmed by being excluded on arbitrary reasons, and you guys are worried about the harm to the definition of a damn word.  I'm sorry, but it's too exhausting trying to have a reasonable debate with people who are dead set on just hating whatever is different."

Right back at you.

Actually, I take that back -- just trying to make a point, though.  Please let it be known here that I've been quite civil and rational with you.  Some of my "colleagues" here may have been less gracious, and for that I'm sorry, but I'm sure these same would be treated far worse in the opposing ideologues' territory.

Again, trust me, I am quite educated and then some.  It is precisely my understanding of science and history that leads me to recognize that the only reason why we can even have a debate about "homosexual marriage" is because we have the luxury to do so. This country is in a lot of trouble, I'll agree -- it gravely suffers from prosperity disease.

 

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall.   -- Edgar Allan Poe

I really appreciate your

I really appreciate your honesty and openness, and of course my accusation of your unwillingness to have a reasonable discourse was primarily due to your initial tone and the response of others.  I'm perfectly willing to admit that your responses since then have been rational arguments that I may not agree with, but that's exactly why I chose to come on here instead of staying on liberal sites that simply agree with each other all the time and do their own fair share of bashing of their ideological opposites.  I truly believe this is a conflict of ideas and not people, I have many many ultra conservative friends and we get into heated discussions on these issues often, and I simply thought maybe we could all realize that liberals and conservatives are all Americans, and even though we disagree we should do so based on concrete reasons rather than ideological biases.  I went to college in an amazingly rural town that was about a half a mile long and had farms for miles on either side, so I'm in no way an elite effete snob.  Actually, I was a scholarship kid from parents who didn't go to college.  But anyway, I appreciate your willingness to have a respectful debate, and I apologize if my frustration with some of the other comments were directed towards you.  And I'm really not a partisan, so I acknowledge that many on my end of the political fence are completely intolerant of views outside of their own and if you folks went onto our sites you would most likely be met with the same treatment (not far worse, there's research out there suggesting that people on both sides of the isle view their ideological opposites as way more radical and intolerant as they are, and since both sides believe so it's pretty biased in both directions).

So anyway, if you do have evidence that contradicts my views I would really love it if you could provide me with some citations of any published works so I can read it.  I agree that you can reach statistical significance with small samples, but I'm cautious about using that type of information to generalize to species as a whole.  As a scientist, I know that you're fully aware that when small samples reach significance it can be due to unrepresentative sampling, and if your colleagues have seen similar effects it may be because of similar farm environments (considering they're in your social circle and may have similar sized farms and number of animals, etc), and that in the wild things may be a bit different.  This, of course, is not based on any data, but I'm just wondering if you've considered this alternative interpretation of your results?

One last point:  I think our main disagreement is that just because same-sex marriage would be a radical change from a well-established social custom does not mean that custom is inherently good and should be kept simply because that's the way things have always been done.  Slavery is part of our history both nationally and globally, and may be one of the oldest social institutions of humans, but I think we can all agree that when we granted citizenship to slaves that was a move in the right direction.   In terms of research on humans (I think we might have to agree to disagree in regards to the animals), I've seen extensive research showing that even granting civil unions has profoundly negative effects on the physical and mental well-being of gay people because of the consequences of being given lower status in society.  Also, the children of gay families that aren't allowed to get married suffer tremendously as well.  Finally, children of same-sex parents are no more likely to be gay themselves, do not suffer developmentally from not having the typical nuclear family, and live normal lives like every other child.  I lived in San Francisco for a while (I know, shocking) and coached youth sports at a community center when I first graduated from college.  I used to believe that marriage should be for a man and a woman, and I worried about the children of same-sex parents.  However, when dozens of my kids had same-sex parents and I saw what a loving couple they were and how well adjusted the kids were I completely changed my mind.  I remember a little 5 year old on my soccer team asking if she can go use the bathroom, and I asked her if her mommy was there to take her...her teammate and friend replied "both her mommies are here!", and it really affected me.  Gay people are just like us, and it's amazing how similar their parenting styles are to ours.  I guess I'll just never understand the argument against allowing people the same path to happiness as others enjoy simply because that's the way things have always been.  

No need to apologize --

No need to apologize -- totally understand how frustrating and draining it can be to debate in hostile territory.  Again, speaking for myself, I find myself growing weary of trolls and so I sometimes write curt responses, not even expecting it to get read by the person it's directed at, but just so they go unanswered on the public web forum.  But I do respect those "on the other side" who venture into here with the intent to have a dialogue.  Sounds like we come from very similar backgrounds, too.

Unfortunately, I do not have any published evidence at this time, and I am well aware that you are correct about my observations being anecdotal -- there was no systematic approach, just informal observations from everyday experience.  And yes, it is true that the sample was pretty much domesticated animals, so I'm assuming that they are representative of the natural populations, which may not be valid.  However, as I've implied, this nevertheless does not disqualify these observations (to me or anyone else who has observed the same) and thus nevertheless leads me to have a "commonsense" about (typical) natural sexual behavior.  This, along with a basic knowledge of anatomy (e.g., organs do have specific organic functions) leads me to be highly skeptical of any statement suggesting that "homosexual behavior in humans is both natural and normal."

Lastly, you are also right that "well-established customs" are not necessarily just or moral, and there is more than just slavery to demonstrate this.  By the same token, we also ought to be very careful and still humbly consider things from the standpoint of history.  So I would have to clarify that "marriage" is one of those good customs, one that has formed the base unit of cultural societies.  Is it discriminatory?  Yes.  Does that make it unjust?  I don't think so.  Single people can't be married.  More than two people can't be married.  Family members can't be married.  Catholic priests and nuns can't be married.  Children can't be married.  Animals can't marry humans.  Is it enough to define it as "two people who love each other"?  No, because that would admit pretty much all these cases, discriminating only on numbers.  Obviously, there is something more than "love" involved.

I also feel your empathy, for I too have gay friends.  But it doesn't change my mind about what a marriage is.  Gotta run now.  Thanks for your willingness to dialogue.

 

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall.   -- Edgar Allan Poe

Yes, you seem happy

Just a note that that you seem to be curiously well informed on the subject of gay marriage, but forget one inescapable fact.

It's still wrong!

funny you should say curious

nothing curious about why i know so much about the issue, i'm a social scientist who studies social norms and intergroup attitudes.  i'm just trying to understand different sides of the issue and find out specific examples of how you guys think same-sex marriage creates any concrete harm. 

if it's an inescapable fact that it's wrong, please tell me what that fact is.  explain to me why it's actually, wrong if it doesn't cause harm, or give me an example of how it does cause direct harm. i'm really not trying to pick fights, this is nothing personal, i'm deeply interested in how people reason about these issues.  i'm really not a liberal partisan, i'm actually interested in what people here have to say when presented with evidence supporting the other side of the argument. 

Reply to your question

Well, besides the fact that God doesn't like it, there are other things to consider:

Gays don't have the right equipment to make babies.

Gay sex is dirty and can make you sick if you're not careful. That's not a problem with boy-girl relationships.

It doesn't make sense that if boy-boy relationships are natural, then why do girls exist?

Plus the fact that it's just plain disgusting!

Now, that may or may not prove anything, but let me throw the ball back in your court. Can you prove to me that gay sex, and for that matter, gay marriage IS natural?

Good luck with that one!

 

I wana know also kj

Thanks

 

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

There are so many false

There are so many false assumptions in your argument.  First of all, perhaps YOUR god doesn't like it, and in this country we are entitled to religious freedom, and no one religion can be made law. 

Gay people DO have the right equipment to make babies, they simply have sexual tendencies that make reproduction impossible without reproductive technology (again, which straight couples use as well).

I'm not sure what you mean by gay sex being "dirty", but any sex not engaged in responsibly can make you sick, including heterosexual sex.  Also not sure where you got your (mis)information about gay sex being more likely to make you sick than straight sex, especially considering many straight couples apparently engage in anal and oral sex as well, which is not different than when gay people engage in it. 

In terms of boy-boy relationships being natural, guess what, both boy-boy and boy-girl relationships are natural, which is why both sexes exist.  One has a selective advantage for survival of the species in general, because otherwise the species would eventually die out.   That's like saying, if chocolate is so good, then why does vanilla exist?  Well, some people just prefer it. 

Please give me an example of why gay sex is disgusting, and straight sex is not.  YOU find gay sex disgusting because you're not gay, so guess what, if you find it so gross don't have it.

I've already commented on how gay sex is natural, because we aren't the only animal that engages in it naturally, there are hundreds upon hundreds of species of animals that engage in it, and again, animals do not have a liberal agenda.

Absolutely no form of marriage is natural, just as culture is not natural but man-made; marriage is a social construction for the purpose of creating social and economic order in society.  I cannot even prove to you that heterosexual marriage is natural because it is not.  If you can come up with any actual valid evidence that heterosexual marriage, or marriage in general, is in fact natural, without making reference to god or to "the way we've always done things", I'll be very surprised.

What I CAN prove to you is that if heterosexual people's relationships are legitimized by the state, then it is unconstitutional to deny others the same right to an officially recognized and protected family if it can be shown that the discrimination is based on a distinction that cannot be changed by the person without sacrificing the ability to live authentically.  That's why, when it was illegal to engage in an interracial marriage, the courts deemed it illegal to deny equal protection based on social categories that are biological in nature (such as race).  If you'd like, I can provide you with citations of case law that lay out the legal considerations applied to equal protection/discrimination law. 

Listen, you don't have to like gay relationships, you don't have to be friends with gay people, but there is no evidence that gay relationships harm straight relationships or the children of gay relationships, but all the evidence suggests that children of same-sex parents are worse off if their parents are denied the rights to marriage just like everyone else.  There are a lot of things people do that I don't agree with and find odd, but that's my particular comfort level and, if it's not harmful we have no right to make our personal or religious preferences law.

Are you playing games?

“Gay people DO have the right equipment to make babies, they simply have sexual tendencies that make reproduction impossible without reproductive technology”

 

You’re playing games. You know full well what I meant.

 

“I'm not sure what you mean by gay sex being "dirty" –

 

You’re playing games again. Ever heard of the Hershey Highway? Come on, get serious.

 

“In terms of boy-boy relationships being natural, guess what, both boy-boy and boy-girl relationships are natural, which is why both sexes exist.”

 

In my last post, I mentioned something about you proving that. And your proof is … what?

 

“there is no evidence that gay relationships harm straight relationships or the children of gay relationships”

 

You know what? You might be right about that (and yet, I don’t think so), but gay sex/marriage still not natural, unless you can come up with that proof I keep asking for.

 

I’ll go a step further than that – I’ll bet that even gays don’t believe it’s natural. I say that because gays are just like everyone else in the “smarts” department. I think it’s just a matter of what gays want. Freedom to be deviant, and societal acceptance of that behavior.

 

I know, I know, I can’t prove that either. And I could be wrong. I just don’t think I am.

 

Now…you’re proof?

Give me an email address to

Give me an email address to send it to.  I have a document over 100 pages long with an overview of the research on homosexuality, discrimination, and civil rights.  You should read it and then tell me what you think.  I also have a supreme court decision that lays out what the law states, and why making same-sex marriage illegal is a violation of gay people's rights to equal protection. 

These are the findings of hundreds of experts in the field, so it's definitely worth reading.  If you want evidence, then I can give it to you.

San Francisco by 2015

I now pronounce you man and lamb. You may shear the bride.

Too Funny

Mica, RMAOFLOL!!!!!!!!!!

:-) 

George

No one is taking your right to live with whomever you want.  No one is taking your right to marry a female.  We aren't taking your right of speech to say you are married to your gay friend ( anymore do we lock kids up who "get married" in fantasyland ) The only thing we are reinstating is the legal definition of marriage.  Because it has legal implications, especially in regards to family law and what is taught as normal in kindergarden.

But nice of you to join the fray in attacking the LDS church for urging ( not forcing ) its members to get involved. I thought get out and vote was a good thing Takei?

Change

well, maybe it IS time for that change. Lets start with the gay marriages, then pedarsty, the necrophilia, then beastiality. We can have men marrying lamp posts, horses, dogs, sheep. It FEELS good, it MUST be right, right?

 

AND WHERE'S THE CHANGE???

I dated

a mailbox for 3 years.  Didn't work out. She had an affair with the UPS guy 

I would rather be a Conservative nut job, than a Liberal with no nuts and no job

Sulu Plot blocked by Captain's Log

Thanks for THAT visual.  Even a proctologist would vomit. 

I read somewhere that Obama is gay. 

Discuss 

I would rather be a Conservative nut job, than a Liberal with no nuts and no job

»→ Well Miller

His Chief of STAFF did once don the leotard of the ballet.

Surrounding himself with employees who are "light on their feet" shall we say?

  • Where's my welfare check?

Miller, I read where a man

Miller, I read where a man was waiting for his encounter with Obama to be reported...but it never was, of course. Was it coke snorting and sex in the back of a limo? Geez, it's been about a year ago or more since I read about it...my recollection is way hazy. Sorry, I am so getting senile!

Love your name

ProPalin - will make a nice on-line game name.  Mind if I borrow it ?

I would rather be a Conservative nut job, than a Liberal with no nuts and no job

Despicable Sexual Deviants

BigSpoon65

In order to accellerate the social acceptance of their perverted lifestyles, these miscreants are perfectly willing to sacrifice our childrens minds. Instead of just sticking to the biology of how the plumbing works to procreate, they seek to play a destructive role in freeing our childrens minds from the morals we try to teach them.  Wouldn't want to put any moral or biblical constraints on the behavior of our children.  They (gay rights advocates) seek to offer them the plethora of immoral choices that history and science have proven to be destructive to civilizations.  Why would they sacrifice our children to advance their selfish decadent lifestyles?  Because your children will be categorized as acceptable losses (casualties) in their culture war against us.  Perhaps dog lovers will join the fight next.  As long as the dog is willing then its between two consenting species right?  How could you stand between the rights to pursue happiness with Scruffy?  Where will the abominations end?         

Thomas Jefferson~ "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them".

What about

cats ? I mean theres pu$$y and theres PU$$Y.

I would rather be a Conservative nut job, than a Liberal with no nuts and no job

Kudos to the Mormons!

Hats off to the Mormon church for standing up to what they believe...that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman.  Since most liberal garbage starts in California and moves east, the LDS have done us all a huge favor for putting themselves out front of this issue.

Eat poop and die, Mike Hucksterbee!

Jeff Lebowski

www.angrywhitedude.c...

 

Kudos to the LDS.  Looks

Kudos to the LDS.  Looks like more persecution is coming their way.

 

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall.   -- Edgar Allan Poe

CBS Pushing fake data as well

Opponents of Prop 8 have consistently mis-stated the source of money as coming from the Mormon Church rather than individual Mormons. Above, CBS claims "the church" poured $15 Million into the effort. Apparently, they believe that if you belong to a Church, you lose the right to engage in the process as an individual. That money came from individuals, not the Mormon Church.

Excellent Point

The liberal media is doing their best to pin this on the Mormon church to support the gay agenda's argument that the church needs to be stripped of its tax exempt status. This is why they keep lying about the donations.

Fight all you want

The people of California have spoken...and this time the California Supreme Court can't help you.

ONLY a federal court could...and this is a VERY sticky area they would be treading in if they decide to overturn a State Constitutional amendment.  I doubt they'd do it myself.

Like you like to tell us who voted for McCain...GET OVER IT. 

:-)

George Takei: "Well, we

George Takei: "Well, we feel that our marriage is valid, that there's no language in Proposition 8 that says it's retroactive."

Proposition 8:  "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Consequently, Takei's so-called "marriage" is void.  His "marriage" is neither "valid" nor "recognized" in California according to the actual words of the California Constitution.

I don't like Obama in the

I don't like Obama in the White House, but I respect the votes from the people; these marxists should do the same. What they want is democracy on their terms but then that's not democracy but totalitarianism.

It's a shame.

It's a shame that gays can't keep their sickness out of the mainstream, and try overtly to (1) normalize their behavior in the public view, and to (2) gain acceptance among the normal population. Oh, what a dream to witness a son introduce his gay fiance (another male) to his parents and see the pride and joy in their eyes. It's sick, but gays are a fact of life. The thing to understand is not to hate, abuse, or physically attack them, but to change this new modern phenomenon of public acceptance and force them back into shameful hiding of their unnatural lust, lest we begin the next step; the normalization and total acceptance of Man\Boy love.

From Pres. Ezra T. Benson,

From Pres. Ezra T. Benson, 1988.

"I testify that as the forces of evil increase under Lucifer's
leadership and as the forces of good increase under the leadership
of Jesus Christ, there will be growing battles between the two
until the final confrontation. As the issues become clearer and
more obvious, all mankind will eventually be required to align
themselves either for the kingdom of God or for the kingdom of the
devil. As these conflicts rage, either secretly or openly, the
righteous will be tested."

No matter what one may think of the LDS church, this was chillingly prophetic.

Pres Ezra is wrong

First of all the Kingdom of God is a spiritual Kingdom and does not truly run any government today.  secondly, the LDS are not a true christian church they deny the deity of Jesus Christ at his first coming, they teach a different Jesus (as the brother of Lucifer), and they deny his blood for atonement of sins.

Jesus Christ will bring in his earthly Kingdom at the end of the Great Tribulation which is yet to come.  no amount of man trying to bring in the Kingdom will ever happen.

Once the true church disappears off the face of the earth and many reading this post will see it happen very soon will wonder what happened. then a man arises to fill the Gap and tells them they were removed for some reason and they will beleive it.  but the truth is that will mark the beginning of the Great Trib and the march to Armageddon.  7 years latter Jesus Will distroy the armies of the world gathered around to destroy Jerusalem and he will then set up His earthly kingdom

so Tell Pres Ezra to get his Biblical facts straight before trying to show two duling kingdoms today. the only one ruling now is the kingdom of the god of this world and as St Paul noted it is Satan and LDS is part of that kingdom not Gods.

as far as the gay's protesting.  they are just sensationalizing for their own purpose.  and chosing to criticize the most Vocal but more money was paid by the Roman Catholic church and their members than LDS

Do not play this game. 

Do not play this game.  The forces of evil and good are what they are.  He didn't say the LDS Church is the Good Force exclusively, and that the evil forces is everything outside the LDS Church.  If we get into whose Church is more true argument, we all lose.  All of us who fight for what is right and good should stand united, despite our petty differences.

And comparing how much people donated as a measure of who is more righteous?  Wow, please read the widows mite.

Sorry

Sorry I had not answered back for awhile, been sick lately, but as for your request for my email address, so that you can send proof (or was it expert opinions from esteemed scholars, priests, or philosophers, and so on), I have to decline. It would do no good for me to read what you're offering to send. You see, there are only three forms of proof (that being gay is natural) I am willing to accept (and expert opinions are just that .. opinions). (1) proof that man-on-man sex can produce a child (boys only - girls not required) and have been doing so since the dawn of man, and (2) show evidence that girls do not exist, and never have, and (3) show me where in the Bible it talks about the gay act being accepted by God - and in reference to a comment you recently made - your God as well as mine since there is only one God.