'The Daily Show': 'TV Has Never Been Gayer'
As NewsBusters reported, Vice President Joe Biden made a stupendously stupid comment on Sunday's Meet the Press about the NBC sitcom Will and Grace doing "more to educate the American public [about homosexuality] than almost anything anybody’s ever done."
The Daily Show marvelously lampooned this issue as well as the President's "evolving" position on same-sex marriage Tuesday with John Oliver making the accurate media comment, "TV has never been gayer" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
JON STEWART, HOST: For more I’m joined by John Oliver live at the White House. John, the president says his views on marriage equality are evolving. President’s 50 years old. What is he waiting for? Will and Grace not able to work their magic on the president?
JOHN OLIVER: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, Jon, don’t be so glib. You and I both know that views on these issues can be very deeply rooted and extremely personal. It's up to each and every individual which sitcom will inform their world view.
Hilarious, and sadly true. But it got better:
STEWART: I understand.
OLIVER: During the Will and Grace years, President Obama was less concerned about gay marriage and more concerned about Raymond and how many people loved him, and how exhausting that must have been for Raymond.
STEWART: Yes, it was exhausting.
OLIVER: It was.
STEWART: But has the president seen Modern Family?
OLIVER: He has, Jon. I'm not saying he is all the way there, but yes, even he has to admit Cam and Mitchell are just meant to be.
STEWART: They are. There is an undeniable chemistry there.
OLIVER: And ultimately they are both great parents.
STEWART: It's the writing and the acting.
OLIVER: It is.
STEWART: But the point is this: Is the president's entire view of gay marriage shaped by television?
OLIVER: No, no Jon, of course. If that were true he’d be a huge fan of gay marriage. Let's face it - TV has never been gayer.
STEWART: That’s true.
OLIVER: You’ve got Smash, you’ve got Glee, and you’ve got that sport where guys roll around and punch each other in the [bleep].
STEWART: I actually don't think that last one is considered gay.
OLIVER: What? What is not gay about that Jon? I think that might be the gayest thing I've ever seen. That's ancient Greek gay.
STEWART: Fine, fine.
OLIVER: I'm not going to argue about this. That’s a fact!
I'm sorry, but that's a little below the belt. I'm a HUGE fan of UFC. Just saying.
STEWART: According to your reporting, we're still a long way from the president actually supporting gay marriage.
OLIVER: Well, for the time being. But let's face it - evolution is unknowable, Jon. I mean, look at how far Barack Obama has come on this issue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Chicago’s Windy City Times has posted a copy of a 1996 questionnaire on its website that was filled out and signed by Mr. Obama when he was running for the Illinois state senate. He wrote, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEWART: Wow. I mean that's full on support. He supported it back then.
OLIVER: Absolutely. Unequivocally supported it, Jon. Then he evolved.
STEWART: Into what?
OLIVER: A candidate, Jon
STEWART: I get it.
And so do we: even the Obama-loving Stewart is seeing through the president's "evolving" position on this issue.
The only question is will it become easy material for other late night comedians that have since Inauguration Day had a difficult time bringing themselves to mock the president they adore?
Stay tuned.
(H/T Mediaite)
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Just so we're clear...
Submitted by Coldsnap on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 3:16am.
Am I happy right now because Obama is waffling on a topic or am I hopeful that the other news outlets will do a good job of making him look weak until he has to choose a side?
I'm not against gay marriage at this point in my life simply because I've got friends/family who fall into this category. I've seen the pain/shame they've endured, but I've also seen the promise of a better tomorrow for them slowly taking shape. When I was younger I was against it because of my Catholic upbringing and the warnings this would be a gateway to worse things in society. But having lived in many different countries since my small town upbringing, those teachings melted away quickly.
We're all here for such a limited time, just seems like we've got better things to do than worry about what two consenting adults do.
A little bit of Christmas magic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS4G2f2Xy3w
Sure, let's be clear
Submitted by DaMav on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 5:13am.
If homosexuality is “harmless” how come we keep hearing all the moaning, groaning, and carrying on about HIV, AIDS, Gay Bowel Syndrome, and a dozen other maladies too disgusting to mention?
And while we’re at it, if the lifestyle/genetic disease is “gay” how about all the depression and suicides?
And if people are so proud of it how come they jump off bridges when people find out they got it?
Bottom line: I’ll tolerate it, but don’t expect me to kneel at the altar of faggotry and pretend it is anything to be proud of or glorify. Just do your own thing on your own time in your own place and we’ll be fine :-) No, really. And quit tryna sell it to the kids at school.
This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the government trying to promote what is at best a genetic disease.
Well Said...
Submitted by packman on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 8:52am.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
The relationship between men & women has successfully advanced the human race for thousands of years. Suddenly, the liberals have found a better way - men with men and women with women. Yeah, right. Just don't try to sell it to me, I'm not interested.
"...Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread..." ~Thomas Jefferson
This is the very definition
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:24am.
This is the very definition of a Straw Man argument, and a truly transparent one at that. Where has any liberal claimed that homosexuality is a "better way of advancing" civilization or made the case that things will be better if we all adopt it? That would be lunacy, and to impute that rhetoric to the pro-gay movement is either deeply misguided or simply dishonest.
The fact is that gay people exist, and most of them are not going to be shamed back into the closet by "pray away the gay" programs. Sexual reproduction is the only thing they CAN'T do or contribute as well as us heterosexuals, and that should hardly be seen as a point of contention. In fact, we should be GLAD there is a group constitutionally unwilling/able to reproduce. Increased population is not something our culture needs.
Homosexuals exist
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:42am.
Tripe tripe tripe
Homosexuals exist, pedophiles exist, adulterers exist, murderers exist, rapists exist, robbers exist, etc. etc. etc. Lets excuse the behavior of them all because they exist.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Ah yes, the good old
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 12:05pm.
Ah yes, the good old "homosexual/pedophile" false comparison. Is that still a thing? I figured anti-gay conservatives would be tired of watching that cute little attempt at argument being so thoroughly and easily shot down.
Here's the (really obvious) rebuttal to your attempt at aligning homosexuality with a bunch of truly aberrant behaviors. Every other thing you name has, by definition, a real victim. The child who was violated and couldn't have legally given consent anyhow. The spouse who is cheated on. The person who is murdered, raped, or robbed. These are people who were forced to participate in the aberrant act against their will. Homosexuality, on the other hand, in and of itself, is nothing like any of these things in that sense. Of course it COULD be related to one of these other things. The same-sex molestation of a child, a la Sandusky, for instance. But that's really no different morally from an opposite sex molestation, is it?
Homosexuality's only affinity with these other acts/crimes is that you personally find it distasteful. To try to lump it in with real acts of criminal aggression is, frankly, embarrassing.
jasoncrap
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 12:13pm.
You said that since homosexuals exist they should be accepted and considered normal. All those other lifestyles exist so they should be accepted and considered normal also just because they do exist. Your usual claptrap reasoning falls apart again.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
You misread me, actually. I
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 12:22pm.
You misread me, actually. I didn't say they should be accepted merely because they exist. My "they exist" comment was in regard to the implication by a different poster that homosexuals exist largely because schools try to "sell" homosexuality to children. My response is that they already exist, and the least we can do is show other children that this does not make them open targets for shaming.
Now, do you have any with to reconsider lumping homosexuals in with pedophiles and adulterers? I have given you a pretty ironclad explanation of why that argument is foolish and falling out of favor.
jasoncrap
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 12:52pm.
"normalizing and mainstreaming homosexuality is the most logical way to address all of the ills".
That won't address the ills of AIDS, hepatitis and all the STDs associated with your chosen lifestyle.
By your own words you admit that homosexuality is an abnormal way of life. If you want to be a homo have at it but stay away from my grandkids with your mainstreaming. Take your deviant lifestyle and little mind elsewhere. Bawney Fwank will welcome you, he needs another worker in his apartment business. Just don't get behind in making appointments.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Because sin is sin, that's
Submitted by bretzysdude on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 12:14pm.
Because sin is sin, that's how it works.
jasoncrap
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 12:17pm.
Your posts should embarrass you.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
They would only embarrass me
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 12:35pm.
They would only embarrass me if they contained some glaring logical fallacy or betrayed that my position is based on deep-seated, pathological prejudices. But those are your posts.
If you're so certain that my argumentation is flawed, you might provide more than one dismissive sentence to show how this is the case. You may be right that "it exists, so we should tolerate it" is deeply-flawed reasoning when applied to any all behavior. But you are completely wrong to equate the behavior of homosexuality with rape (statutory and otherwise), theft, murder, and adultery. You have yet to even begin making a case for its inclusion with those other behaviors.
"...or betrayed that my
Submitted by bretzysdude on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 12:43pm.
"...or betrayed that my position is based on deep-seated, pathological prejudices."
You are against bible-believing Christians who think homosexuality is a sin, and does equate that sin with other sins.
Next.
➚ We don't care
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 12:51pm.
Jason, we don't care how "deep-seated" you are.
The "gay dillema"
Submitted by Mattheus on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:56pm.
When discussing homosexuality, there are at least logical reasons to question whether or not homosexuality is a "good", meaning whether or not it is proper to the human condition to have homosexual feelings. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not on equal footing in this sense.
We understand that reproduction is one of the natural drives of an organism; the body naturally has organs that function in order to create another human being. It is a logical question then, when inquiring about homosexuality, that if it is a good, what is its function?
Unfortunately however, the "gay dillema" has always been posed as: "Either it is natural, (naturally good), or it is a choice." This had only been emphasized by religious groups saying that homosexuality is a sin. So many people, having homosexual desires through no intellectual decision of their own, would then conclude that homosexuality is a natural good. With so many gay groups on campuses and cities nationwide, it is not hard to see why those with homosexual attractions would chose a "gay ideology".
But there are other "sexualities" that people don't choose, but we could ask about their "naturalness": those with a shoe fetish, those that are exclusively attracted to much older people, those that have sex with dead people? If we asked they would probably tell us that they didn't choose to be attracted to those things either, but can we say that having sex with dead people is a natural good?
Of course, when we talk about homosexuality, we can argue that the sex, (in the main), is between two consenting adults, they have feelings, they may even feel a great affection or love for the other. But we know that sex is for reproduction. That is a matter of biology, not of a religious belief. But to prove that homosexuality had a natural place in the biology of things would have proved a difficult if not impossible task. Therefore, it was much easier to create the word "gay", create the sense of a "gay people", a "gay identity", form a "class struggle" and recruit these people to fight for "gay rights".
But the fight for "gay marriage" is based on a falsehood: namely that heterosexuality and homosexuality are the same. They are not. Heterosexual acts can potentially lead to procreation, while homosexuals must act "unnatural" (to their own sexuality) in order to procreate, an extreme form of "planned parenthood".
The fight for "gay marriage" should give gay people, especially older gay people pause. The gay culture comments often about how boring the "breeder" lifestyle is. How ironic and telling that this "boring" lifestyle is exactly what they are fighting for.
The fight for "gay marriage" should give straight people pause. It is not merely a matter of "the individual" it is in fact a societal issue. Because it won't be called marriage and "gay marriage", it will just be called marriage. It will make no difference whether or not a child is naturally born of a mother and father, or whether that child was acquired through an anonymous sperm donor or surrogate parent. We won't be talking about "mother" and "father", but "parent A" and "parent B". This is just the logical conclusion of the false statement that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality.
To simplify the debate, I'll go with the plumbing demo.
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 10:56am.
When one can make a male-male pipe joint, and it actually works, we can say that homosexuality is normal and it "works". Or, not to be sexist, we can use the female-female example.
Until that happens, it's not "normal".
Oh, and "Increased population is not something our culture needs"? Are you proposing a one child law? I thought liberals were all about government and everyone else staying out of people's bedrooms.
I didn't use the word
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 11:53am.
I didn't use the word "normal." I'm also wary of an analogy that reduces the vastly complex spectrum of human sexuality and desire to plumbing.
No, I do not support a one child law at all. That's a heck of an extrapolation. But if there is a growing demographic of couples who are going to be more disposed to adopt than to create new lives (though this isn't always the case since many gay couples opt for surrogacy and such), that's hardly something to be scorned.
So
Submitted by HockeyKid on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 12:08pm.
you ARE claiming it's morally superior to adopt than to "create new life", i.e., homo is better than hetero. Why do you feel it necessary to deny your own position?
When evaluating moral positions, it's often instructive to extrapolate the position. In other words, "what if everybody did it"? For example, if everyone were to steal without compunction, society would become very combative and violent, whereas if no one were to steal, society would be a much better environment. Clearly, then, theft is detrimental to society. In the case of sexuality, if everyone were to engage in homosexual behavior, mankind would die out in one generation, whereas if no one did, mankind would go on as it has for millennia. Obviously, homosexuality is quite detrimental to society. It's not hard to understand, even from a secular perspective.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
By your reasoning, becoming a
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 12:29pm.
By your reasoning, becoming a carpenter is immoral, because if everyone was a carpenter there would be no teachers, cops, plumbers, or bankers, and society as we know it could not function.
While your claim may work for the sake of argument, the truth is that we are in NO DANGER of reproduction slowing to a detrimental rate - quite the opposite in fact - and since others on this message board have grumpily pointed out that homosexuals are really only 2-5% of the population, you really have nothing to worry about here. And if the problem is non-reproductivity, then you must, for the sake of consistency, call all heterosexuals who cannot or choose not to reproduce "immoral" as well. After all, if everyone ceased to reproduce, even if their sexual preference was hetero-, humanity would wither as well, no?
You infer to much from my comments. Having participated in reproduction, I am in no position to deem it immoral, and to do so would be silly anyhow. It is, after all, the basic act of human life. But to SMEAR a sexuality that doesn't reproduce for its non-reproductivity is pretty silly, especially in an overpopulated society, is rather silly as well.
JasonC, 1) Overpopulation?
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 12:57pm.
JasonC,
1) Overpopulation? eh?!! where do you get your "facts" from? Liberal "heaven"? Overpopulation is the biggest lie on planet Earth.
You are silly to believe and push Liberal propaganda which is not faced on facts. There is no such thing as overpopulation. Since the 60s Liberals have been screaming overpopulation even claiming that in the 90s there would be civil wars in the USA and other first world nations due to overpopulation. We all know how that went, right?
2) Hmmm....yes, people who choose not to reproduce and are married are doing something immoral. NO, people who cannot reproduce because their reproductive system does not work and they did not cause this on purpose are not doing anything immoral.
3) The FACT is that in nations of Europe under population is the problem. Nations like Spain, Italy, France, etc, etc, are NOT reproducing at a rate to repopulate their nations. What is happening is Muslims are moving in, but no serious scholar will claim that European nations, in fact most nations in the world, are having enough babies to at least replace their dead. In fact it is estimated that by 2050, birth vs. death rate continues, populations are going to decrease dramatically in most nations of the world.
4) Homsexuality is an abnormal behavior which has been accepted by way too many people because...."oh they are in love and who are we to deny love to anyone..." Well, are you then for spouses cheating on each other becauase they fell in love with someone else? If you are not, who are you to deny love between two people?
By the way, FACTS show that homosexuals, mainly homosexual males, have on average over 9 sexual partners a year. Geez, is this what you call a serious relationship?
Yes, heteroseuxal marriages are in trouble, but adding more problems to the already troubled marriage culture is not going to fix it.
As a Roman Catholic, I do not discriminate against homosexuals, I do not hate them, I do not think they are lower human beings. As God demands, we are to love ALL human beings. However, sin is sin, wrong is wrong. But a homosexual is suppose to control his/her homosexual sex urges, falling in love with someone of the same sex the SAME way that a heteroseuxla is suppose to before marriage or if married and falling in love with someone who is not your spouse.
But today we are reaping the disaster of the 60s.
Oh and by the way, as a heterosexual, I do not have the righ to marry someone of the same sex. So when it comes to civil unions, which is truly what the State does, homosexuals and heterosexuals have EXACTLY the same rights.
Nice post, Coldsnap. Mav,
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:15am.
Nice post, Coldsnap.
Mav, you're issues against homosexuality are bizarre at best. HIV & AIDS? These serious health issues have been relatively under control recently not only because of advances in medical science and epidemiology, but also because of an increase in cultural acceptance of gay men. As coming out of the closet becomes less traumatic and more likely to be met with acceptance, monogamous relationships of the sort that the TV-viewing public lauds in Modern Family begin to supplant the sort of more-common promiscuity that lead to an AIDS crisis in the 1980s. Not to mention, of course, that HIV can also be transmitted (albeit less efficiently) by heterosexual activities. Trying to implicate homosexuality as harmful because of this particular malady is simply disingenuous. If you're concerned about this as a health issue, then working toward mainstream gay acceptance should be your priority.
As for the other unfortunate possible health outcome you mention, that's like trying to discredit heterosexuality because sometimes women get UTIs or men get vasocongestion.
Tyler Clementi's suicide is hardly a representative incident, but suffice to say that he didn't kill himself because he was gay, he killed himself because he barely had one foot out of the closet when his roommate broadcast his activities to the entire dorm floor. Coming out is a big deal, and going from closeted to exposed-via-electronic-surveillance, while making the life adjustment to college was clearly traumatic. I'm not trying to make the perpetrator out to be evil; I think it was a mean-spirited prank that got out of control, and Clementi's behavior (bringing a much-older man he met on the internet back to a shared dorm) was highly inappropriate. No need to get into this argument; suffice to say, the fact that he liked his own gender sexually was CLEARLY not the reason for jumping off the GW bridge.
Your demand that homosexuality not be "sold" to children brings me back to my original point. Normalizing and mainstreaming homosexuality is the most logical way to address all of the ills that you yourself identify. Angst-driven suicide, disease, and promiscuity are the results of closeting. The more that people who are inexorably gay can be open about that without fear of reprisal or mockery, the less we will hear about deadly STDs and suicide.
jasoncrap
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:23am.
Defender of vile deviancy.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Great rebuttal. You've given
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 12:07pm.
Great rebuttal. You've given me a lot to think about.
Too bad your mind is so void
Submitted by bretzysdude on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 12:10pm.
Too bad your mind is so void of anything it will take you a lot of time to think about it.
Ah,
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 12:10pm.
If only you were capable,,,,
JasonC, Eh? normalizing
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 1:07pm.
JasonC,
Eh? normalizing homosexuality is going to decrease STDs? Talk about warped logic!
Normalizing heterosexual sex outside of marriage has only increased STDs, increased pregnancies out of wedlock, increased children living in single mother, many times leading to poverty, homes, increase in abortions than before sex outside of marriage was seen as no big deal.
I will whole heartly fight against anyone who wants to sell homosexual sex as a normal thing to my children. It is not normal, it will NEVER be normal. Hey, at least you can think of this, Nazis also thought like you, normalize the hatred of Jews amongst the young non-Jewish kids.
If you want to brainwash your kids telling them that abnormal, harmful and dangerous sexual behavior is normal, go for it, but don't you dare tell that to my kids.
But thanks for admitting what we Conservatives have been saying for a long time. The ultimate goal of the pro-homosexual, accept anything sexual crowd is to brainwash America's children into believinng that abnormal sexual behavior, like homosexual, is normal.
Why do you look to impose your sexual believes on America's children while screaming that you don't want anyone whom you disagree with in this subject to do it to you or your children? eh? WHY?! Incredible the hypocrisy from the Left, from the pro-homosexual crowd.
JasonS (for "spinner")
Submitted by MrShy on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 1:43pm.
"Trying to implicate homosexuality as harmful because of this particular malady is simply disingenuous."
No, implicating homosexuality as harmful primarily with regards to HIV/AIDS is simply..... THE NUMBERS BEARING IT OUT.
As for the rest of your make-homosexuality-mainstream agenda clap trap, it's like when a friend of mine who also defends / supports making this sexual behavior and lifestyle mainstream and embraced ("accepted") by the masses, uses the "Listen, it's never going away" argument. My reply? Yeah, and the vast majority of people on this planet who see it as a deviance, immoral, a perversion of sex and/or (or = meaning, any one of these if not a combination or all of them) not compatible with birth-giving and healthy families, are never going away.
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Mr. Shy, The problem with
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 1:57pm.
Mr. Shy,
The problem with Jason's argument is that it appeals to emotions, not logic, history, facts or morality.
Murderers are not going away, rapists are not going away, pedophiles are not going away, assasins are not going away, thieves are not going away, using Jason's logic, we should accept all of these.
What I find amusing about the militant pro-homosexuals is that they are doing everything in their power to shove down the throat of American's what they consider moral, while at the same time screaming back at anyone they feel is attempting to shove down their throat the morality that homosexuality is wrong.
Ultimately, this is all about the pro-homosexuals not wanting to hear from anyone that their sexual life is wrong. That their feelings towards a person of the same sex is wrong. This whole pro-homosexual "fight" is FAR from being about civil rights (which as a minority I find it insulting that anyone would attempt to use this to move their cause. I did not chose my skin color, I can chose who I have sex with). Rather it is about how the militant pro-homosexuals not wanting to feel bad, feel guilty. They simply do not want to hear from anyone that their life styel is wrong. Funny, these pro-homosexuals, like Dan Savage, have zero problem telling others that their life sytle is wrong.
Yeah,
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 2:34pm.
See the problem is, Jason hasn't been appealing to emotions-that's been the posters arguing with him. And if you want a logical argument, quit resorting to logical fallacies.
Let's talk about the straw man argument that has been the sole defense against Jason so far. His claims have been exaggerated and stretched at every turn.
The "it's not going away" argument was a) not even made by Jason in the way you're implying and b) has nothing to do with the other aberrant behaviors you're equating homosexuality with. If you wanted to, you could take that stupid argument the other way: "homosexuality's not going away, loving mothers aren't going away, puppies aren't going away, children's literature isn't going away-by 'Jason's logic' we should just accept these things".
That's no one's logic! So quit trying to make it his argument, coming in late, it makes him look like the only sane person in this discussion! Besides, he already addressed these absurd claims of moral equivalency-and that was just dismissed out right.
One unfortunate poster even implied that one should "extrapolate" every argument by applying it to the whole of mankind. "If everyone was gay then the world would end". This is absurd-no sane human being should use this "logic" in an argument. That sort of argument doesn't stand up to any sort of testing-so quit trying to use it to win this one!
And no one is implying that gay parents are BETTER-or that adoption is the "SUPERIOR" option. Quit stretching, folks!. There are arguments to be made on your side-why don't you actually try making them.
Good evening Bos
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 2:51pm.
The main problem is homosexuality is abnormal behavior and liberals are trying or normalize it. Liberals want to "mainstream" homosexuality by teaching youngsters that it is normal behavior and encouraging them to participate in it.
Homosexuality is NOT normal and stay away from my grandkids with degenerate teachings to the contrary.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Good evening Coco
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 3:22pm.
First off, despite numerous claims on this site to the contrary-no one is trying to encourage children to be homosexual. They may be encouraging them to be accepting of the practice-for which I can understand people's umbrage-but no one is trying to turn straight children gay.
Now, Normal is a weighty term. You're absolutely correct that homosexuality is abnormal behavior when you take into account the statistical definition of the word "normal". If you define the norm by the statistical average, as it traditionally is defined, then yes-homosexuality is certainly not the norm.
The problem is that you're attributing moral and ethical weight to the word-assuming that "normal" equals "good". Normal often is good-they aren't mutually exclusive. But normal is not, definitively, good. There have been many cases in human history where normal was not good.
But what it comes down to is popular opinion, that's what truly defines the norm. You are absolutely welcome to hold differing opinions on the subject. However the tide of popular opinion is turning in favor of accepting homosexuality-not as a "norm" but as something that isn't "degenerate". That is what is trying to be taught to children, not that's it's a better lifestyle, or one that's for them. But that it's not one to hate. And I completely understand if that's something that bothers you-as it does many people.
Bos
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 3:35pm.
It comes down to moral absolutes. At home some children are taught moral absolutes - right and wrong. At school they are taught that moral absolutes are wrong and are taught instead situational ethics. This undermines parental authority and religious teachings. You need to read some of the textbooks and class lessons that are in use.
You mention opinions and opinions should not replace common sense or morality.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Bos Tarus, Homosexuality is
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 4:43pm.
Bos Tarus,
Homosexuality is immoral, period end of story. Just because something is popular, just because a majority believes something is normal, it doesn't make it moral. I have no doubt that both of us can come up with countless of instances in human history where a majority of people in a nation believed that something was normal, but we know it was immoral. Slavery, Jew-killing, etc.
And you are wrong about what is being taught to children. In California, here in Illinois and in other States, public schools are teaching children that homosexual sex is moral and that if you think it is immoral, there is something wrong with you and your values.
And we are absolutely welcome to hold differing opinions on the subject? REALLY?! Think of hate-speech laws, hate-crime laws. While we already have the latter, the former is not here, YET, but it is already in place in Canada and in some European nations. In Canada minsters, priests, etc. have been sent to jail for saying to their congregation that homosexual sex acts are wrong!!
And in fact, here in the USA there have been cases of professors who have been fired from so called prestigious universities because they dared say that homosexual acts are wrong. Look up the case at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana where a professor was fired after a student complained. The professor's "crime", he was teaching a class about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches regarding homosexuality, that homosexual sex act is wrong. He was not telling anyone his personal beliefs, but rather what the Church teaches.
and the tide can turn all you want to accept homosexuality sex acts as the norm,( which that is what we are constantly being told, but we already have 30 States were homosexual marriage has been banned by the voters. If the norm is as you claim, why do a majority of the States of the Union show that the norm is not what you claim? Too much wishful thinking on your par) it does not mean we must accept it or not stand up hard against such abhorrent behavior and the desperate attempt from the Left, Liberals to force us and our children to not see homosexual sex act for what it is, a degenerate sexual act.
I would tweak this discussion
Submitted by Mattheus on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 10:42pm.
I would disagree with your first statement: "No one is trying to encourage children to be homosexual". That's simply not true. Schools and other state run institutions are encouraging children who have homosexual feelings that those feelings are natural and that they are "gay". Even sex educators will talk about the fluidity of sexuality, but there is an effort to have children "come out" at earlier and earlier ages, despite developing sexuality. I will agree that people aren't trying to make people that have heterosexual feelings become "gay", but as sexuality can be fluid in adolescence as well as confusing, this message is potentially damaging by making children choose a sexual identity at an early age.
But this notion of "straight" and "gay" is a political tool, not a biological reality. People have heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, asexual feelings, but identifying as "gay" or "straight" isn't the only logical conclusion, unlike what schools are teaching nowadays. But identifying as "gay" or "straight" helps liberals build yet another conflict, another struggle to be "overcome". By identifying as "gay", we come to a notion of a "gay people", and "gay rights". But while homosexuality is ancient, the notion of "gay" is a modern one.
My problem with the gay community is that they have no proof of their assertions that homosexuality is just a natural part of sexuality, that one is 'born' gay, etc.., and yet, this is the sort of thing that they are teaching in schools.
But as for your notion of normal and abnormal, it isn't merely a matter of statistics. From a biological point of view, one of the things we as creatures do is reproduce. We have organs developed specifically for this purpose. So it is quite logical to assume that a sexual attraction that by its very nature is against the reproductive act is abnormal. No one can say what the biological purpose for homosexuality is for, but we can say what the biological purpose of heterosexuality is for.
To reiterate Bos' earlier
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:07pm.
To reiterate Bos' earlier statement, you can certainly make a case for homosexuality being "abnormal" in that it is statistically less common. But if you're going to get into more abstract aspects of what constitutes "normalcy," well, that's not a game I'm going to play. We don't all just get to slap "normal" on our preferred lifestyles and attitudes.
You certainly have the right to determine how you want your grandkids to understand homosexuality (or at least those kids' parents/guardians do, and perhaps you are their guardian, I have no idea), but first of all, it gets a little dicey if they're in public schools that have decided they are going to disseminate the idea that gay people are not to be discriminated against.
And second, you do NOT have the right to insist that gay people remain invisible or closeted or hide the nature of their relationships from public. They quite simply have every right to publicly demonstrate their relationships to the same extent that straight couples do.
Finally, if you have serious issues with homosexuality, one might think you'd be able to articulate it without resorting to absurd claims that it's on par with pedophilia. I truly cannot believe that you even really think that's true.
Bos Tarus, Well, it is only
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 4:51pm.
Bos Tarus,
Well, it is only a stupid argument to the emotional, lack logic, appeal to insults individuals who can't make a decent, based on logic and morals argument.
No sane human being would ever make the argument that homosexuality is moral, but yet we have JasonC and other militant pro-homosexuals making such an argument. It shows how low the Left in America and some Republicans have gone.
And it all comes down to? Too many homosexuals do not want to hear that their sexual life is immoral. This what it boils down to, plain and simple. They don't want to feel guilty, they don't want to feel like they are doing something wrong. Solution? Silence the opposition, create hate-crime laws, hate-speech laws, indoctrinate children into believing homosexuality sex acts are not immoral.
The pro-homosexual crowd screams, cries, resists with all of their passion when they feel that anyone is attempting to impose moral values they disagree with on them, but the pro-homosexual crowd has ZERO problem imposing their "moral" values on everyone else.
Haha!
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 5:44pm.
Can you read your own statements? First off, I was mostly talking about making reasoned, logical arguments-and your first "logical" argument is an irrational bid for emotion. "Insane people believe B, only sane people believe A" is not a sound argument. I hope you don't think you've defeated me with your "clever" arguments. That's no different than me saying, Star Wars is better than Star Trek because only idiots like Star Trek.
Ha. And I love your lumping of logic and morals-when morals are ever shifting. I hope you realize that "Homosexuality is immoral. Period." is not a reasonable argument to make! It's your opinion, that's for sure, and it's shared by many. But an opinion is not fact.
THEN you discount my "majority rule" concept of "the norm" to argue against the polls that show the majority of Americans are now in favor of gay marriage-ONLY to completely go against that at the end and say that a majority of states don't allow gay marriage-therefore it can't be right. Ha!
Also, I'd love to hear about these priests imprisoned in Canada for preaching about homosexuality.
Basically, you counter my post about making irrational arguments and logically flawed cases-By spewing a series of irrational arguments and logically flawed cases! Too rich.
But you are right about one thing. Gay people don't like being told that their lifestyle is immoral. And I don't blame them-It'd irk me if people were telling me that my life was immoral based on some code of behavior that I don't subscribe to.
"Also, I'd love to hear about
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:03pm.
"Also, I'd love to hear about these priests imprisoned in Canada for preaching about homosexuality."
I haven't found Canada but found England and Sweden:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arre...
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2004/jul/04070505
Here's something from Canada, but it's not an arrest:
http://catholicexchange.com/canada-orders-pastor-to-renounce-his-faith/
Here's a rundown of civil cases in Canada, where people were found liable for speaking against homosexuality:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110217214341AAeAUKU
Thanks Tempus!
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:13pm.
I admit, I was doubtful of the claims, considering how they were given as established fact.
Though the implication was of police barging into churches and arresting priests and throwing them into jail for sermons. The first and third instances were for public comments not made in a church (the first especially, being a street preacher). Granted, that certainly doesn't make it right, but it is not as invasive as originally implied.
Either way, I can't defend or condone any other nation's attacks on the freedom speech. And though I may disagree with the statements, I firmly believe that everyone has the right to state them. I won't stand proxy for all of those who set an awful example.
I wasn't defending you
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:19pm.
If you read the Yahoo answers section completely you'll see that Canada doesn't have guaranteed free speech and some are of the opinion that people could be arrested for speaking out against homosexuality. They have hate speech laws, and those could be used against the clergy, in theory
I know you weren't defending
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:31pm.
I know you weren't defending me-but I appreciated that you addressed my question about a bold claim made by a previous poster.
And I understand that Canada and other nations don't share our enthusiasm for free speech-and I'm not defending that at all. BUT I have learned that yahoo answers is not always the most reliable source of information. People complain about wikipedia on this site... at least wikipedia has editors.
But no, I won't condone Canada cracking down on priests-and I hope you don't assume that's the argument I'm trying to make.
Double Post!
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:32pm.
oops.
OK gotcha
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:44pm.
.
Bos Taurus, Obviously you
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 8:05pm.
Bos Taurus,
Obviously you missed the fact that I used your words against you. The "sane" comment was originally used by....YOU. LOL I guess you can use it, but goodness if someone uses it at against you.
Again, homosexuality is immoral, period. Morality is always shifting for the moral relativists who have nothing to stand on. But in actually, morality doesn't shift. Funny, the Nazis used your logic to justify Nazi Germany. "Who are you pro-Jews to say killing Jews is wrong...morality is relative! What is good for you, your country is not good for Germany and the German people!" think logically before you speak such complete nonsense.
I did not discount the majority argument you made by pointing to my own majority argument. Reading and comprehension not your forte? You claimed that the majority of people are now seeing homosexuality as normal, thus it is normal. My contention with your statement is that the majority of States have ban on gay marriages voted on by a majority of people in those States. I was dimissing your claim that a majority of peopel support gay marriage. The FACTs do not support your claim that the majority of people support gay marriage. Understand? this doesn't make it Right or Wrong. I was NEVER claimed that homosexual marriages are wrong because a majority of the States banned these.
Learn to read and comprehend.
and I guess homosexuals, like Dan Savage, can go around and attack the Bible and tell Christians that their life styles are immoral, but no one can tell the Dan Savage-like homosexuals and other homosexuals that their life style is immoral? You are too brainwashed to see this hypocrisy, aren't you?
You only understand homosexuals who get upset when they are told that their life style is wrong based on a set of moral beliefs that they do not agree with. But you aren't tolerant enough to understand when Christians get upset when homosexuals and others tell Christians that their Bible and Christianity is wrong based on the moral beliefs that Christians do not subscribe to. Gotcha!
and I see that you were schooled on the facts of hate-speech and Christian ministers, preachers, priests paying a price for speaking against homosexuality.
Haha!
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:12pm.
You kill me! Who needs to work on their reading comprehension-I never said anything about those defending homosexuality being "sane". I was talking, abstractly, about the faulty logic in the particular argument-and saying that no sane debater would apply that logic to anything else (in this case, it was the particular argument that one needed to "extrapolate" every argument on a global scale... which is extremely illogical). So, you didn't really "use my words" against me as you'd like to believe.
And again, you're falling for some crazy bad logical fallacies in your arguments. Going straight to Nazis? Really? And morality doesn't shift often-but over the course of human development, it certainly has. Unless you're going to argue that for the majority of human history, people owned slaves despite knowing it was morally reprehensible.
And, I'm sorry, but a series of recent polls done this year now have the slim majority of Americans favoring gay marriage. Just because a number of states have laws on the books, doesn't mean it's the work of the actual, physical majority. And besides, most of the laws were enacted within the past decade-and this year is the first year that the pro-gay column seems to hold the slight majority. So a few years ago, you'd certainly be right.
Either way, when I was discussing the majority-i was talking about the "norm"... not "morals". Two similar, but different things. The norm is, by definition, decided by the majority. That's what makes it "the norm."
Lastly, obviously I can't speak for all gay activists... but when have they said that the Christian lifestyle was immoral? They may have said "hate speech" was immoral-but unless your Rev. Phelps, I'd like to think that your "hate speech" isn't your lifestyle. And even if they have said such absurd things, don't lump me in with them. I don't think Christians live an "immoral" lifestyle. I'm a Christian.
LibLies, Actually, millions
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:17pm.
LibLies,
Actually, millions upon millions of American humans would argue that homosexuality is not immoral. I guess we have a big mental health problem in this country.
Your accusation that I'm making appeals to emotion are puzzling. I am not the one engaging in "think of the children" hysterics or equating a substantial number of people who engage in legal acts that harm nobody to pedophiles and murderers. If you want to talk about logical arguments, please, at least take a stance on the latter point. Either throw your lot in with Coco or admit that I have laid waste to that bizarrely repeated argument.
And by the way, I was not claiming that overpopulation is some grandiose, imminent problem. I was simply saying that, given current population levels and resources, it's not like we NEED to reproduce at an increased rate. Therefore, berating homosexuals for their inability to reproduce is a rather specious argument.
JasonC, Yeap, I would agree,
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 8:19pm.
JasonC,
Yeap, I would agree, the USA has a mental health problem, there is also an educaiton problem and a morality problem. This problem infects millions of Americans who believe homosexual is not immoral.
But you aren't going to debate with me that because millions agree on something, it makes it moral, are you now?
I also see that you are equating legal with moral and good. Are you saying that becasue an act is legal it is not immoral?
Why can't you admit to this, the problem militant pro-homosexuals have is that they simply do not want to hear that their sexual acts are immoral. Additionally, they want to force people to agree with them. You want an honest argument, an honest debate, why don't you start with this.
Do you think it is a good thing that pro-homosexual groups are invited to speak to elementary school children about sex, sexual positions, sexual acts and the children given graphic drawings of these? Do you think this is a good thing?
Where do you want this whole pro-homosexual thing to go? That priests, ministers, rabbis, individuals like me can't state publicly, in our places of worships, with friends, at work that homosexual acts are wrong?
Why do homosexuals get to define marriage? Why not polygamists? Individuals involved in incestual relationships between two adults?
Honest JasonC? I am all ears.
The pro-homosexual militant movement is dishonest, vindictive, as we have seen with the likes of Dan Savage. Closed minded, radical.
I agree
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 8:51pm.
"The pro-homosexual militant movement is dishonest, vindictive, as we have seen with the likes of Dan Savage. Closed minded, radical."
I have nothing morally against gays, but they happen to be amongst the biggest a-holes I've ever met. Most are completely in the tank for the Democratic party, and argue liberal talking points strictly from an emotional standpoint. If one fudge packer wants to do another fp, I honestly don't care, I just don't like them as people
Millions of muslims believe
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 8:23pm.
it is not immoral to behead homosexuals. It is also legal in muslim countries.
Radical, LOL...well said.
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 8:47pm.
Radical,
LOL...well said.
but that is the mentality of too many Liberals, because millions agree or because it is legal, it is moral. WOW!
Homosexual sex acts are unnatural because no two people, EVER, of the same sex can EVER reproduce a child through their "sexual" acts. No matter how many homosexuals try, no two people of the same gender will ever get the other one pregnant.
By the way, I noticed how all the pro-homosexuals have ingored the FACT that the vast majority of homosexulas, especially gay men, have on average, 9 sexual partners of the same sex per year. yea, it is all about love (sarcasm off).
it is like my co-worker who was debating with my pro-homosexuality and that it is all about love and love this and love that. Then he gets a phone call from his partner, then he gets a phone call from the gay guy he is cheating with and then he gets a phone call from the other gay guy he is meeting later on at a gay bar for some "fun".
Or like my lesbian boss who claims she has a steady long lesbian relationship, yet she has cheated on her girlfriend quite a few times. But for her it is steady because they haven't seperated.
what I see is that homosexuals redefine words and actions so they do not feel guilty about their actions. And this is what it is all about. Not wanting to feel guilty. Plain and simple.
What if that means something else?
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:11am.
We're all here for such a limited time, just seems like we've got better things to do than worry about what two consenting adults do.
There can be no such thing as Gay Marriage. What can and is happening is a move to change the legal definition of the word "marriage."
So would you be ok with your statement if the word "consenting" had been legally changed to mean, "mostly willing" or "willingness by one party?"
What if "adult" had been legally redefined to mean "any mammal above the age of 7?" Before you just ignore this with no thought about it, did you ever think "marriage" would mean anything other than 1 man, 1 woman?
If "gay marriage" became the law of the land, it would still not satisfy some. If a line is not drawn, and if "marriage" no longer means 1 man, 1 woman, then it has any meaning you want it to have and it has no meaning at all.
Oh the horror
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:18am.
Having to endur shame for doing something shameful. They have the prospect of a very bitter tomorrow like those in those countries you visited. Maybe you should return to one of your choice since you don't like it here where we are too backward to understand how God could be so wrong about sin.
You are full of --it.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Fairies flouncing about on TV
Submitted by DaMav on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 5:08am.
Another reason not to bother watching it.
On the other hand, what a GREAT election night! Wow! Lugar down, Reps outvote Dems in WI, WVa Dems whack Obama, and most relevent to this article -- passage of Amendment 1 by a LANDSLIDE in NC.
I look forward to watching clips here of Lamestream talking heads in full whine. Homosexual marriage is not inevitable nor is the Tea Party dead. :-) :-) Lovin it!!
+1
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:50am.
.
2
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 8:36am.
: ]
~Amendment 1
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:06am.
It was SO worth packing four small children and an 8 day old into the minivan to go vote for that yesterday.
Hi WB!
Submitted by NOLAgirl on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 10:22am.
and congrats on the 8 day old :)
~Hey girl!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 4:00pm.
Thanks, it feels AWESOME to have myself back to myself, so to speak. :-D
Good eveninf Bru
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 4:16pm.
Nice to hear your voice. Pleased to know that you and yours are well. Hope you still speak to me after you read your PM.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
~Oh dear..
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 4:24pm.
I just looked at my inbox and there's 9 new messages to respond to, so it may take awhile!
It was indeed a trip
Submitted by acumen on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 2:35pm.
My disabled wife that walks with great difficulty/pain using a cane and myself were negotiating a handicap parking space at the polling place when a peron in a car behind us started honking her horn and raising her fist.
When I got parked in the disabled space, put the handicap sticker on the rear view mirror and helped my wife out of the car, the honker came running up apologizing. Her excuse was she had been in a wreck a few days earlier and was naturally being overcautious. I asked her how she caused the wreck.
When we got inside we happened to get behind this nutjob in line and heard her ask for a dem ballot. No suprise there. Ahhh, the tolerant left...I guess parking lot monitoring must be a real b!tch.
~Acumen
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 4:03pm.
One plus to living in a heavily Dem district is never having to wait in line to vote. I went at 4 in the afternoon and I was the only one in there. Needless to say, I got the rockstar parking spot right by the door.
WB, that's super. And now,
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:20pm.
WB, that's super. And now, having cast that vote to withhold basic civil rights from a substantial group of people, is your life quantifiably better? Did all the straight marriages in North Carolina just get a little stronger?
(Sarcasm aside, congrats on the new arrival. That is really exciting.)
Huh?
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 8:28pm.
What basic human rights, from whom?
Besides, you have made it plain evert since you first appeared on NB that the concept of indivdual liberties is something you find to be stupid, archaic, and outmoded. Instead, you want group rights: you want every American to be Balkanized into different groups of people who will be parceled out rights and privileges based on YOUR need to assauge YOUR guilt and to make you FEEL OH SO GOOD about yourself.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Aw, so patronizing. Jer
Submitted by JasonC on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 8:21pm.
Aw, so patronizing.
Jer already schooled you on the legal/civil rights aspect, so we'll leave that alone.
And actually, no, being in favor of gay marriage is quite the opposite of this balanization to which you refer. It seems to me you want to find any excuse to DENY rights and privileges to groups whose behaviors you find distasteful.
What exactly am I feeling guilty about, Mr. Psychoanalyst? My conscience is quite clear. Your claim that I find individual liberties outmoded &c. is laughable. Please at the very least give an example, if you're going to make sweeping judgments on years of forum posts. And besides, the accusation carries little weight coming from a poster who thinks anybody who doesn't advocate for complete and total deregulation while waving around The Complete Ayn Rand is basically a card-carrying Marxist. Oh, unless that person is in favor of the DEA, the government's apparently only useful branch. Because cracking down on pot smoking hippies is not at all Nanny Statism.
jason*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 8:39pm.
Marriage is not a right even for heterosexuals. Here is a link you might want to look at and try different states. It's called the APPLICATION process. That means at any point you can be denied.
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/louisiana/index.shtml
The terminological
Submitted by JasonC on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 11:00pm.
The terminological hair-splitting of "marriage isn't a right for anyone because you have to get a license for it" may be technically true, but invoking it as the case-closing argument against gay marriage is awfully simplistic. Realistically, as straight people, we can marry anyone who consents to marry us, can legally give consent, and isn't already married. Which is to say that the vast, vast majority of heterosexual couples don't have to think twice about the marriage license issue. It's just a formality for us, the thing you swing by town hall to do on your way to buying wedding party gifts. Being told that the person you want to commit to isn't acceptable because your genitals look the same and you can't make a baby together isn't something we have to think about.
JasonC, another emotionally
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 12:24am.
JasonC,
another emotionally based argument!
Hmmm....nope, wrong!
one of the reasons marriage licenses exist is to prevent pedophila "marriages", incestual "marriages", etc., etc., etc.
let me give you an example where applying for a license paid off....
A friend of mine fell in love with a beautiful girl, they went off to get married. They applied for the license. Waited....waited.....waited....waited.....and then boom, bomb hits. they were cousins and they didn't even know it!!!!! YUCK... (both set of parents had past away, they were adopted and grew up in seperate States, etc, etc.) needless to say, horrible experience for both. Geez, that evil State, how dare they discriminate against incestual relationships, how dare they.
Sorry, getting a license wasn't something my wife and I did on our way to get wedding gifts. It was something we both took off from work to do. It was something we took VERY seriously and took most of a day to do.
That's your problem and that of most pro-homosexuals, you have diminshed the great significance and importance of heterosexual marriage. Thus, you think that it is merely about commiting to someone you want to spend the rest of your life with. What a simple and shallow outlook of marriage.
ANd of course, it isn't only that you have the same genitals as you so flippantly put it. They day homosexual sex can produce a child, will be the day I will change my mine. Heterosexual sex has the possibility to produce a child, homosexual sex, NEVER!
the day you can explain how it is all about love, but gays have on average 9 sexual partners per year, will be the day you may start making sense.
just one simple question, why do you Liberals and pro-homosexuals get to define marriage? why?
cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 3:23am.
You state: "Marriage is not a right even for heterosexuals."
I'm sorry. You're wrong. You might just as well argue that "freedom of speech" is not a right inasmuch as broadcasters must be licensed, certain public assemblies are allowable only via the issuance of a permit, states and municipalities prescribe the area where abortion protesters must situate themselves near clinics, and legislatures and courts can define libel and slander.
Once again: Marriage is a right. Now, does it necessarily follow that "same sex marriages" are constitutionally permissible? No. The appropriate legal inquiry should focus on the nature of the right and the consequent burden the state must bear in support of its attempted regulation and/or infringement of such right.
Although acutely aware of your profound disagreement with the outcome, I would still recommend turning to the California Prop 8 case--jump to page 109--for a compelling analysis of the law in this area. By the way, the decision was affirmed on appeal, wherein the Court stated the following:
"...The People may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court."
Jer
Too bad you can't argue Binky's points with the same ferver.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 5:03am.
Binky Braveheart: The fact is that gay people exist, and most of them are not going to be shamed back into the closet by "pray away the gay" programs. --- RED HERRING.
Binky Braveheart: ...anti-gay conservatives would be... --- Yes. We are anti-gay now because we oppose same sex marriage.
Binky Braveheart: ...show other children that this does not make them open targets for shaming. --- Again, we shame homosexuals just because we deny them same sex marriage. What else would anti-gay people do?
Binky Braveheart: ...if...position is based on deep-seated, pathological prejudices. --- Yes. We are anti-gay and shaming and have deep-seated, patholigical prejudices because we offer the route of civil unions and deny gay people ursurping the rite of marriage.
Binky Braveheart: : But to SMEAR a sexuality that doesn't reproduce for its non-reproductivity... --- We oppose gay marriage so we are SMEARING and anti-gay and shaming of gays and have deep-seated, pathological prejudices.
Binky Braveheart: Tyler Clementi's suicide...he killed himself ...when his roommate broadcast his activities to the entire dorm floor. -- A LIE. A LIE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXPOSED BY JER. HIS LAWYER ---> Altman emphasised that there was no recording, no broadcast and no YouTube video of the encounter. The trial is over and the truth has come out. THERE WAS NEVER A BROADCAST OF ANY VIDEO. IT IS A VICIOUS LIE.
Binky Braveheart: Coming out is a big deal, and going from closeted to exposed-via-electronic-surveillance... --- MORE LIES. Mr. Clementi was not closeted prior to the incident Mr. Ravi was charged with. What if I were to inform Ms. DeGeneres that Tyler Clementi had already come out to his parents and was active on gay forums and hookup sites?
Binky Braveheart: ...the fact that he liked his own gender sexually was CLEARLY not the reason for jumping off the GW bridge. --- Ah, Binky can communicate with the dead now?
Binky Braveheart: ...you do NOT have the right to insist that gay people remain invisible or closeted or hide the nature of their relationships from public --- Straw Man. No one was insisting gay people remain invisible, closeted, or hiding. Or at least no one he was responding to when he made that post.
Binky Braveheart: ...Texas ...the second most aggressively culturally regressive in the union --- TAUNTING. Uncalled for insult where none was needed and no one had even come close to a similar insult.
Binky Braveheart: ...be consistent and go through this thread and give the same harsh words to... --- More whines when called out on his behavior.
Massive daiper filling rant. Too much to quote
Binky's lawyer was unaquainted with the statements
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 8:25am.
which the Vet has referenced:
Binky Braveheart: Tyler Clementi's suicide...he killed himself ...when his roommate broadcast his activities to the entire dorm floor. -- A LIE. A LIE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXPOSED BY JER. HIS LAWYER ---> Altman emphasised that there was no recording, no broadcast and no YouTube video of the encounter. The trial is over and the truth has come out. THERE WAS NEVER A BROADCAST OF ANY VIDEO. IT IS A VICIOUS LIE.
And while it does appear Jason's characterization of the incident was painted too broadly--there was no evidence, for example, that the "entire dorm floor" witnessed the encounter---the Vet should be careful when representing argumentation by defense counsel [Altman] to be indisputable fact. There was indeed video streaming from the defendant's webcam [which had been deliberately positioned for optimal viewing] to the laptop of defendant's friend, and snippets of the live video were seen by the defendant, his friend, and other students. Whether or not this technically constituted a "broadcast" may be debatable, but the prosecution described it as such and I would suggest the transmission could reasonably be classified as a "broadcast" or at least so closely related to one that your labeling the use of the term a "vicious lie" is glaringly hyperreactive.
Jer
I forget what show I saw it on.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 8:43am.
Maybe John Stossel. But if memory serves correctly. The video streaming, not broadcast, the video streaming was not set up for the purpose of catching the room mate in an indelicate situation. It was not snippets, plural. But snippet in that the camera was viewed, the defendant realized what was going on and immediately turned it off.
broadcast - To simultaneously send the same message to multiple recipients.
Not broadcast. One computer to another. Not broadcast.
He lied. Took a media bias lie and brought it here to a site that actively outs media bias lies.
Here it is, confirmation - ...Clementi's visitor was an older man who was not a student and who struck Ravi as "really shady" (so much so, Ravi claimed, that he set up the first viewing because he worried the man might steal his electronic equipment).
The Vet can probably find it faster than I can, but when
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 9:04am.
I previously commented on this case I sympathized with Ravi and hoped that his sentencing would not be unduly harsh.
That said, the "I was just trying to monitor and protect my property" [paraphrasing] excuse was laughable. Completely flunked the smell test.
Jer
That is your opinion.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 9:09am.
Let the jury know the prosecutor's statement is to be disregarded and stricken from the record. You have been warned cousel. I will not let that happen again.
Where did you get your information?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 9:05am.
Uncle Jer: ... the defendant, his friend, and other students.
My information has only the 2, Ravi and his girlfriend, viewing the video. There is a possibility the girlfriend turned the camera back on to show her friends. But Ravi was not present. You know Ravi? That man that was convicted?
Vet...I think there are references to additional
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 9:06am.
students who briefly viewed the vid in the link I just posted a few minutes ago.
Jer
It was in mine too.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 9:11am.
The orangey colors confuse you?
Right, Ravi was so taken aback and startled by the
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 9:28am.
unbeautiful encounter that he couldn't wait to tweet about the webcam/video stream he was planning for Tyler's next "date".
Jer
Sorrywut?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 12:28pm.
We were discussing the number of people and that both of our links spelled that out. How do we go from that to... well... What is your point? The man was convicted. I never claimed he did nothing wrong. My claim is Binky again brought lies to this site expecting us to buy into them. So your non sequitor does what now?
Re your source...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 9:16am.
As soon as I saw the subtitle "Tyler Makes A Splash" I had a sneaking suspicion it might not be the most objective account floating around in cyberspace.
Jer
And?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 12:21pm.
We are doing two things here.
1. Searching out the truth. (but we always do that)
2. Discussing Binky Braveheart's 2nd hand lies and mighty mighty mighty ESP powers form beyond the grave.
Objective. Not objective. As long as we can weed out the truth from the various sources. Who cares how snotty subtitles are. Why don't we stop with the objective talk because I for one have rarely mentioned the objectivity of a site as long as the truth can come out. Snotty subtitles don't turn the truth into lies or vice versa. So back to Binky and his lies ---
Binky Braveheart: Tyler Clementi's suicide is hardly a representative incident, but suffice to say that he didn't kill himself because he was gay, he killed himself because he barely had one foot out of the closet when his roommate broadcast his activities to the entire dorm floor. Coming out is a big deal, and going from closeted to exposed-via-electronic-surveillance, while making the life adjustment to college was clearly traumatic. I'm not trying to make the perpetrator out to be evil; I think it was a mean-spirited prank that got out of control, and Clementi's behavior (bringing a much-older man he met on the internet back to a shared dorm) was highly inappropriate. No need to get into this argument; suffice to say, the fact that he liked his own gender sexually was CLEARLY not the reason for jumping off the GW bridge.
...he didn't kill himself because he was gay -- Did Binky get the suicide note in the mail?
...he killed himself because he barely had one foot out of the closet --- LIE. He had been visiting gay porn and gay meeting sites since he was 14. And he was out to his parents.
...his roommate broadcast his activities to the entire dorm floor. --- LIE. Vicious LIE. It was narrowcast from one device to another.
Coming out is a big deal... --- And Binky would know this how again?
...going from closeted to exposed-via-electronic-surveillance... --- LIE Again. Visiting gay sites since 14, Already outed to parents. Bringing home a skeezy Mad Dog drinking bum to have sex in his dorm room and requesting the room mate leave for the skeezy Mad Dog gay bum sex is hardly closeted.
...while making the life adjustment to college was clearly traumatic. --- Non sequitor as the first part of his sentence was a lie.
I'm not trying to make the perpetrator out to be evil; --- Nah, just lying about him.
...Clementi's behavior (bringing a much-older man he met on the internet back to a shared dorm) was highly inappropriate. --- This after he said the closeted guy was exposed via electronic surveillance. Binky truly thinks you are too stupid not to notice the contrasting statements.
...fact that he liked his own gender sexually was CLEARLY not the reason for jumping off the GW bridge. --- Again. If Binky got the suicide note in the mail, he needs to turn that evidence in. Or quit pulling crap statements out of his ass.
Perhaps my use of the word
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 10:29pm.
Perhaps my use of the word "broadcast" was overblown.
However, first of all, you apparently don't know what coming out of the closet means. A person can be closeted and watch gay pornography. Being closeted may or may not mean that the person has acknowledged to him or herself that he or she is gay. A person could even cruise bars and go home with people of the same gender and still be considered closeted, in that he or she is still not out to family or friends. Thus, your hatefully articulated claim that "Bringing home a skeezy Mad Dog drinking bum to have sex in his dorm room and requesting the room mate leave for the skeezy Mad Dog gay bum sex is hardly closeted" is, like many of your more unhinged claims, completely off the mark.
Tyler had come out to his parents shortly before leaving for college. By all accounts, his mother was not happy about it. To what extent he was out to his new college acquaintances is vague. Thus my phrasing, that he had "one foot out."
You know perfectly well that the sequence of events in this case suggest that the suicide was in response to the exposure of his tryst, not to internalized self-hatred at his own homosexuality. The poster to whom I responded suggested that it was the latter, and I merely pointed out that the known facts of the case do not bear this out. If anyone was attempting to utilize "ESP" regarding Clementi's motivations, it was that poster, not me.
As for your statistics below, at first I thought "Oh man, did the Vet just show me up again with his research skills?" Then I saw the source. What a joke. I might as well have cited GLAAD.
Hmmm. I didn't think it was possible to be overblown.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 10:40pm.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Whatever freakshow.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:18am.
Binky Braveheart: Perhaps my use of the word "broadcast" was overblown.
Or maybe it was just rhetoric. Or just flippant. Yeah, don't matter that you clarified it with "to the entire dorm" Huh?
Binky Braveheart filling his diapers again: Thus, your hatefully articulated claim that "Bringing home a skeezy Mad Dog drinking bum to have sex in his dorm room and requesting the room mate leave for the skeezy Mad Dog gay bum sex is hardly closeted" is, like many of your more unhinged claims, completely off the mark.
Yeah, Binky spews some of the biggest load of hate on those on the other side of the ideological aisle, but I make a joke, it's HATE. HATES I tellz ya.
Binky Braveheart: Thus, your hatefully articulated claim that "Bringing home a skeezy Mad Dog drinking bum to have sex in his dorm room and requesting the room mate leave for the skeezy Mad Dog gay bum sex is hardly closeted" is, like many of your more unhinged claims, completely off the mark.
Of course if Binky had actually read anything of the case, he might have recognized the joke. But only Binky is allowed rhetoric and flippancy. Not us righties. Just Binky.
Oh Binky, where is the joke here?
Binky Braveheart: ...anti-gay conservatives would be... --- Yes. We are anti-gay now because we oppose same sex marriage.
Binky Braveheart: ...show other children that this does not make them open targets for shaming. --- Again, we shame homosexuals just because we deny them same sex marriage. What else would anti-gay people do?
Binky Braveheart: ...if...position is based on deep-seated, pathological prejudices. --- Yes. We are anti-gay and shaming and have deep-seated, patholigical prejudices because we offer the route of civil unions and deny gay people ursurping the rite of marriage.
Binky Braveheart: : But to SMEAR a sexuality that doesn't reproduce for its non-reproductivity... --- We oppose gay marriage so we are SMEARING and anti-gay and shaming of gays and have deep-seated, pathological prejudices.
Yes Binky. I make a joke about a skeezy Mad Dog drinking gay bum and I HATE. GAWD do I HATE!
Binky Braveheart: Thus, your hatefully articulated claim...
Or am I to await your non-apology statement two months from now that your "use of the word" "hate" "was overblown"?
Finally, sissytroll...
Binky Braveheart: As for your statistics below, at first I thought "Oh man, did the Vet just show me up again with his research skills?" Then I saw the source. What a joke. I might as well have cited GLAAD.
I have already seen posts here on this page that mention you NEVER source at all. If my source is wrong. PROVE IT. Sissy. You be the first troll ever that is gonna show The Vet is wrong with a link he brought to this page. The FIRST. News for you Binky. I don't link to the first thing I find. I link to the source that puts what I need to say most succinctly. So you pull down your diaper, whip out your nads, and find something that proves me wrong.
But whatever sissy. Which link did not live up to your standards? The Guardian link? The Nupoliticalreview? Or Reason.com? Because I will stand behind the information presented IN EVERY SINGLE LINK.
Now prove me wrong sissy. Or run away for another six months like you always do. Here is the information presented WITHOUT THE LINKS. Prove they are wrong Sissy. Or pack sand for six months.
1. Altman emphasised that there was no recording, no broadcast and no YouTube video of the encounter.
2. What if I were to inform Ms. DeGeneres that Tyler Clementi had already come out to his parents and was active on gay forums and hookup sites?
3. Clementi's visitor was an older man who was not a student and who struck Ravi as "really shady" (so much so, Ravi claimed, that he set up the first viewing because he worried the man might steal his electronic equipment).
Wait. Binky said below, whatever Binky, Those numbers after the sentences, they point you to a source for that information, yeah, Binky, whatever, the sourceless wonder demands an ever more higher standard for the information presented to him. ----
12. Xiridou, 1031.
13. A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).
14. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.
15. "Sex Survey Results," Genre (October 1996), quoted in "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January 1998: 20
source 12 from FRC confirmed.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:49am.
12. Xiridou, 1031
18Thus in the recent study in the Netherlands (see Maria Xiridou mentioned above in f.n. 9), 86% of the
new infections of HIV occur in steady relationships. Similar findings have been reported in the U.S. as
well; see G.L.Wagner, R.H. Remien, & A. Carballo-Dieguez, “Extramarital” sex: Is there an increased risk
for HIV transmission? A Study of male couples of mixed HIV status, AIDS Education & Prevention 10
(1998): 245-56. The same observation is also made by Sanny Y. Chen (see f.n. 17). Studies in 1980’s and
90’s showed a similar picture for gays in Italy, England and Spain; see Family Research Council, “Same
Sex Marriage,” p. 3.
In contrast, one study of 8000 couples in America showed that male couples lasted on average three and a half years, and lesbian couples, 2.2 years; see P. Plumstein and P. Schwartz, American
Couples: Money, Work, Sex (NY: William Morrow & Co., 1983). A recent study of gay couples in the
Netherlands reported the average as one and a half years; see Maria Xiridou in AIDS 17 (May 2, 2003):
1029-1038.
A real woman and a real study in the real land called "The Dutch".
If the real woman and the real study in the real land are wrong. Then state it, sissy, instead of your sissy whines about the source of my source.
"The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam". AIDS Magazine 17,7:1029-1038, 2003. Dr. Maria Xiridou with the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service.[Citation draws on content from 212] found that consensual infidelity was the norm amongst their study group. The average relationship lasted 1.5 years. Those in casual relationships averaged between 16 -28 sexual partners per year. Please ntoe this population group could not be said to be representative of the entire homosexual population, therei were group sampling limitations as the title of the study will indiciate, However, neither can it be said that the broader hoimosexual population would differ from this. It is a stand alone sample thst you must make your own interpretations from. A commentary in defence of the study is listed as source 217. Also notes, is the fact that 86% of the new HIV infections in Amsterdam occurred among those in steady relationships.
You know, I was gonna look up the rest of the sources for that article tonight but screw it, I will just farm it out for the next two or three weeks just like Binky does.
Up yours troll. And the same for the skeezy Mad Dog drinking gay bum sitting beside you.
Man, Binky packs a lot of stupid in a small space.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 9:18am.
Binky Braveheart: You know perfectly well that the sequence of events in this case suggest that the suicide was in response to the exposure of his tryst, not to internalized self-hatred at his own homosexuality.
Prove it Binky. Prove how perfectly well I knew. Yet more of the magical mystical mighty might mighty ESP powers of the Binkster.
I don't know why a perniscious troll like Binky constantly says stuff he can't back up let alone know why people off themselves. I do know this - BINKY LIES. Tyler Clementi left a suicide note and it was not brought up at the trial. Why?
It was not relevant.
Again, not relevant to the "sequence of events".
It's not surprising that the trial hasn’t shed any light on Clementi, who took his own life in September 2010 by jumping off the George Washington Bridge. The suicide note he left behind, along with three Word documents with telltale names—Gah.docx, sorry.docx, and Why is everything so painful.docx—haven’t been turned over to the defense or made public. (They’re not directly relevant to the case against Ravi.) Without the clues that may be in those files, the trial couldn’t hope to explain Clementi’s death.</a>
The state did not lay the blame on another 18 year old, but the vicious troll Binky wants to claim here that I KNOW PERFECTLY WELL that the suicide was the fault of another 18 year old.
All I know perfectly well is what a vicious nasty accusatory troll Binky Braveheart is. The worst here.
Oh, and also in that article ---
...his gay roommate’s hook-up with a “scruffy and homeless-looking and suspicious-looking” date.
So that whole "skeezy Mad Dog drinking gay bum", yeah, boy I don't know where that came from. That joke just came out of no where.
*******************UPDATE********************
Now we know why the suicide notes were not relevant at the trial. They PREDATED the incident.
There was his claim that he hated high school, and there were three files on his computer, written in July and early September, whose contents are unknown but whose file names are Gah.docx, sorry.docx, and Why is everything so painful.docx. It may be significant that, on his initiative, he and his mother had taken excursions to bridges around New York; he kept photographs he had taken of the George Washington Bridge on his phone. Paul Mainardi, the lawyer, wondered if Tyler was “in the thinking-about-suicide world” sometime before college.
Yeah Binky with the mad ESP skillz. I knew perfectly well, huh?
Jer, My son is making his
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 9:49am.
Jer,
My son is making his first Holy Communion today, so this will be my only post for the day. However, I will read your reply later on in the day. I won't be able to reply until tomorrow.
1) I do not and will never subscribe to the law=moral. I am unsure if that is what you are attempting to do with your post above. I could careless what a bunch of over paid, think they are gods individuals said while wearing black robes.
These are the same courts which allow the murder of a baby in the womb of a mother. The same courts which will favor the mother over a father, in a custody case, even if the mother is wacked out, druggy, who first cheated on the husband. These are the same courts were cops make a mockery of the court system, by testilying (As they say).
2) Marriage is not a right. You give the Freedom of speech case and having to get a license to broadcast it over radio. To say it in certain parts of a city, etc.
With the radio analogy, well we have the right to freedom of speech, but we do not have the right to broadcast it over the radio or television, etc. Radio stations are a businesses and thus need to meet certain law requirements, right? right. So, your broadcast analogy fails. I don't have the right to broadcast my speech over the radio waves. The government has to give me a license to do so. In this sense, yeap, you are right, my freedom of speech is limited, stifled by government.
As for cities having to give permits of where pro-lifers can protests, this is thanks in many parts to the anti-freedom of speech groups like NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood and others. I 100% disagree with these laws which were created to stiffle Freedom of Speech of pro-lifers. However, again, as the law exists, you are right, I don't have the freedom of speech to protest where ever I want to protest as a pro-lifers. Government has to give me permission. Thus, yes, you are right. I don't have the freedom of speech in the isntances you mentioned! Proving my point.
As a lawyer, you should know this things. I studied this a long time ago in a Constitution 101 class. how our Freedom of Speech has been limited by government through licenses, permits, etc. how Freedom of Speech is slowly, but surely being taken away as a Right, much like the 2nd amendment. Politicians, city officials, cops LOVE to limit speech and attacking this truly Right and Freedom.
So, with your example attempting to prove me wrong, you have proven me right, Jer. Thanks.
My Freedom of Speech today has been greatly limited and stifled by the government. The government now controls my speech, thus taking away, in many instances, this Freedom and Right.
Any time the government has to give anyone permission to do something, well, it is not a Right and Freedom.
I don't need permission from the government at all to go today with my son to a Holy Roman Cathollic Church and have us practice our religion, right? My son doesn't need any license from the government to receive his first Holy Communion does he? While I whole heartly believe that Freedom of Religion is being attacked in order to stifle it, much like Freedom of religion has, at least we still do not need permits to worship or not worship as each one of us living under the United States jurisdiction pleases.
Marriage is not a right, it stopped being a right the day government stepped in and started giving licenses which allow us to marry. The day the government gets out of the way and allows people to exercise marriage as they please, it will be the day it will be a right. And "allows" is even the wrong word. The government doesn't allow me to worship God as I please, it is suppose to get out of the way and not even care. The government's job is to protect Rights and Freedoms, not give licenses and permits that allow me to do things.
AND by the way, I don't even have the Right to marry under the Roman Catholic Church and if i am not mistaken, most religiosn are the same way. My pastor, the Church had to bless and allow
my wife and I to get marry.
Finally, and sorry for the long post. A gay couple can go to a church, religion, whatever that allows for gay couples to cohabitate together and have it bless this. Not that God will, but if it will make their cohabitation feel better.
What is at stake here is the definition of marriage, what marriage is, how it benefits society. This is something that the incredibly emotional JasonC has been unable to address. All he has done is claim that if love and commitment is there, why should two people with the same genetilia not be allowed to get married.
What neither he nor you have been able to prove is how homosexuals are not being allowed to do something I can do as a heterosexual in order to prove discrimination.
I can marry a heterosexual
A homosexual can marry a heterosexual
I can't marry a homosexual
A homosexual can't marry a heterosexual.
Explain again how the government or anyone else is forcing homosexuals not to do something I can do. Heterosexuals and homosexuals have equal acces to the law. Period end of story.
What neither one of you has been able to do is to prove that your definition of marriage is morally superior to the one that has existed for centuries.
What neither one of you has been to do is prove that you, the pro-homosexual community, hold the superior moral card and thus we should all bow down to the pro-homosexual morality.
You want to impose your definition of marriage on everyone living in the USA. Yet, you don't want anyone to impose the century old definition of marriage on the pro-homosexual crowd.
Ok, enough, i can go on and on forever.....
Liberallies...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 9:54am.
I know you, your son, and your entire family will always be blessed with God's grace and love.
Jer
Jer, Thank you!!! and
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 10:01am.
Jer,
Thank you!!!
and sorry, I made a mistake in the above post, it should say...
I can marry a heterosexual
A homosexual can marry a heterosexual
I can't marry a homosexual
A homosexual can't marry a homosexual
JasonC's answer to this was very emotional and not based on reason or logic. Maybe you can pick it up where he couldn't
Anyway, have to go, the wife is going to have my neck!!
take care and thanks again!
Have a great day LL*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 10:46am.
And watch your son carefully today. It is amazing that a brief ceremony makes these kids proud and gives them a sense of "growing up". Bless your son and your wonderful family.
~Jason
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 8:46pm.
Your rights as an American citizen delineate what the government cannot do to you or take from you, they do not direct the government to make new laws giving certain segments of the population the ability to do something never before done in history. Homosexuals have no right to demand that marriage be redefined to suit their proclivities.
Keep right no dreaming Jason
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 9:04pm.
Actually, Jer didn't school me, and neither did you.
Both you and Jer are desperate to live in an America where group rights are the norm, and every citizen gets special rights and privileges based on your classifications of people.
Both you AND Jer can go consult the Texas Constitution.
Here is my evidence that you think individual liberties are stupid and outmoded (and evidence for Jer too): your insistence and demanding that a certain group of people, who you consider to be deserving of special treatment, have a right that simply does not exist. I can try all I want but I cannot get married. And I am as straight as they come.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
That's awfully cryptic. Am I
Submitted by JasonC on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 9:20pm.
That's awfully cryptic. Am I supposed to bite and ask why you, a straight male, cannot wed? Better question: whatever reason this might be, is it a reason that gay couples would be able to bypass?
Um, no not special treatment. Exactly the same treatment as committed couples who happen to have reproductively-compatible genitalia. Big deal.
Stop with the game-playing; tell me in your own words what you want me to take from the Texas Constitution. I'm awfully curious as to how the charter of one out of 50 states - and perhaps the second most aggressively culturally regressive in the union - is relevant to a discussion of whether or not securing the privileges of matrimony is a "right."
JASON!!!
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 9:38pm.
You have shown that you are a typical liberal. Your post shows you to be arrogant, insulting, and condescending......."the state of Texas is the 2nd most aggressively culturally regressive in the union....."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_Texas
Texas has the most universities and colleges than anywhere in the country. And you should check out a few of them like Texas A&M, SMU, and Baylor. Some of the most well respected universities in the country.
Apparently you have never been to Texas especially Austin. You would be most welcome and comfortable there. They too are arrogant elitist snobs that know what is best for others as long as it doesnt affect them.
Oh, settle down, I was being
Submitted by JasonC on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 9:44pm.
Oh, settle down, I was being flippant. I mean, Perry certainly made TX look awful, but I know it's not that bad. And believe it or not, I HAVE been there, and not just to Austin.
Please be sure to show this level of umbrage and troll-accusation next time someone here slanders New England or any urban area of the country (e.g. the train wreck of a forum that coalesced around Ted Nugent last week).
Jason*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 9:49pm.
My "umbrage" is not related to territory or culture. It is related to the constant spew of arrogance and condescention that always infiltrates your opinionated rants..
Haha, oh yes, and that is
Submitted by JasonC on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 10:04pm.
Haha, oh yes, and that is such a rarity on NB. Let's be frank: you have a problem with me for being a liberal. That's all there really is to it. If etiquette and propriety were such concerns, you'd be calling out LibLies, Cocodrie, and MrShy with equal vigor. And that's just on THIS thread.
So argue with my points if you're feeling compelled to engage with my dastardly pro-gay views. But acting so very offended at my tone and conduct rings a little false when it is clearly par for the course in these discussions. I'm arguing with people who insistently equate homosexuality with pedophilia and swear up and down that to advocate gay marriage is to advocate for the destruction of marriage as a whole. Forgive me if I get a little worked up and snide. And at the VERY least, be consistent and go through this thread and give the same harsh words to people whose offensive demeanor goes well beyond phrases like "this state is culturally regressive".
Well Jason
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 10:20pm.
For the record, I sincerely believe that to advocate for gay marriage is to advocate for the destruction of marriage as a whole. It is not unreasonable to believe this.
there ya' go Jason*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 10:31pm.
You just made my point. See, it isn't always your opinion that gets you negative responses. This is a conservative web site. Dont expect anyone to agree with you. They will debate you on any liberal issues. However, you state your opinions as FACTS and throw out condescending insults with elitist snobbery and try to explain your position since you are soooo much more worldly and educated than any conservative regardless of where we reside. It is that attitude that gets negative comments. Get past your arrogance and ego and you may actually begin to debate positions and opinions on various issues. You tend to stay with the "gay" thing. Some conservatives have no problems with gay marriage, but most conservatives are Christians and there is a moral boundary. Try to focus on substance rather than your view of the world from your high horse.
I don't expect anyone to
Submitted by JasonC on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 10:42pm.
I don't expect anyone to agree with me. But you are being massively hypocritical by characterizing my posts as somehow beyond the pale of good taste when they are, frankly, quite tame and jocular compared to what is routinely thrown around on this site. I'm under no obligation to be the meek, Colmes-like liberal who, simply because he's outnumbered, has to be Mr. Turn-the-Other-Cheek. If you have to jump on the occasions in which I toss out a barb as evidence of "trolling," as opposed to engaging with the arguments that I've made, that indicates that my arguments are in fact quite logical. Now I confess that I'm being flippant with Unsane. Interesting though, that you pounce on me for a broad jab at TX, but are mute on the fact that he says I clearly hate individual liberties and somehow construes support of gay marriage as evidence of same; is that not condescending, superior, officious, and all the other things you accuse me of? And if you scroll down a bit, you will see a quite involved and not-at-all-insulting rebuttal to LibLies' claim that gays should pipe down, because after all, they're free to marry the opposite sex.
Please, either respond to my arguments or report me to the administrators if you find my comments so distasteful. This "you're an elitist troll" routine doesn't wash, especially given its incredibly selective targeting.
Aw we hurt your widdle feewings
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 11:16pm.
Cheer up. Things may get better when you get out of grade school.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Oh muumzietroll, Binky's diaper needs changing.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 12:27am.
Poor little baby Binky gets called on yet another lie and "Hey, it's just rhetoric. Juz bein' flippant." Not working any more troll.
Poor little baby Binky gets called on yet anothter lie and "Hey, tharz lots worse and nunz you guys complain about dem." Not working any more troll.
Poor little baby Binky demands his group get special treatment and "Hey, you hate gays and discriminate, and step on der rights. You not far." Not working any more troll.
Poor little baby Binky is told again and again that no one objects to homosexuals having a union, civil or otherwise, that have essentially the same privileges, rights, status, and treatment of marriage under the law. Just don't call it marriage. And "Iz not enough. Iz has to be included in your clubz. You bigot. You hate gaiz." Not working any more troll.
Poor little Binky the elitist troll whines because he is called an elitist troll. Do give it a rest elitist troll. You don't have to whine about it in every single post. And yes we get it, you are fully aware that the administrators do not read every single post by every single little poster. We do expect a poster that has been here six years would be aware of that. So knock off the whines to go tell it to an administrator too. Or just reference one of the other 400 posts you have said it and save us all some time. Baby. Binky. Baby Binky Braveheart the Baby Bottle Master.
OK. I stridently disagree.
Submitted by JasonC on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 10:49pm.
OK. I stridently disagree. And how is this going to happen? How are MORE instances of socially-sanctioned monogamy going to destroy the institution of socially-sanctioned monogamy?
Say gay marriage became legal in your state tomorrow, and all those gay couples that already live together made it official. Explain to me the short- and long-term consequences to marriage itself and to individuals' marriages.
I do hope this line of questioning isn't too terribly elitist or condescending. Last I heard, it's permissible to ask someone to clarify when she makes an apocalyptic claim.
Interesting Jason
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 11:07pm.
You refer to the destruction of marriage as "apocalyptic".
The basic unit of human society, through recorded history, is the family. A family of a mother, father, and children. Mother's and father's have different biologic and societal roles (although many of of the societal roles are based on biology). Men and women are simply not the same, and cannot fulfill the same roles in the life of a family. Yes, there are cases in which a parent dies and the children grow up fine, but this is not the norm. Children truly need two parents of the opposite sex.
I know the slippery slope argument makes liberals very upset, but it is a model that holds true. First we had abortion in the first trimester, then the second, now they are debating "post birth abortion". So if we allow "homosexual" marriage, there will be people calling for marriages of more than two people, of marriages of underage girls (already in muslim countries), and marriage between people and buildings (I saw this on ABC news presented seriously as a new type of gender preference). All of this destroys the basic family unit.
In the short term, schools will go even further in teaching acceptance of what many of us consider a sinful behavior, and very possibly those religions who teach that the behavior is sinful will find themselves punished by the government. This has happened to a student in high school who expressed his belief that homosexual behavior was sinful. A violation of church and state, since he is not free to express his religious beliefs.
By the way, if you don't want to be called out for being snarky, don't act that way.
Rad, I responded to you and
Submitted by JasonC on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 11:40pm.
Rad, I responded to you and Coco in a general way. I have some more specific follow-up questions for you. Thank you for your thoughtful post.
"Mother's and father's have different biologic and societal roles (although many of of the societal roles are based on biology). Men and women are simply not the same, and cannot fulfill the same roles in the life of a family."
Really? Still? This strikes me as ideologically-driven, not inherent. What roles, exactly, are so strictly bound to gender that the other gender couldn't perform them? I realize the idea is startling, but aside from the actual creation of the child, biology seems to me not necessarily that important. If this sort of thing is such an important issue, conservatives should be putting their energy into legislation that makes sure parents are parenting responsibly. But of course, that sounds suspiciously like "it takes a village." So apparently, the party line is to let parents parent however they see fit, so long as two people with the same chromosomal structure aren't doing it together? Kids are better off in foster homes?
"Yes, there are cases in which a parent dies and the children grow up fine, but this is not the norm."
Um, I think you're forgetting the huge issue of divorce. I realize it's commonplace to point out, but broken homes and abusive heterosexual parents are WAY more a detriment to kids' welfare than having two dads or two moms. One of the many reasons that pro-gay people roll their eyes at the "destruction of marriage" issue is that heterosexuals have already been screwing up the institution for a long time.
The Slippery Slope argument has merit sometimes. But your examples here are non-starters. Buildings and underage people CANNOT GIVE CONSENT and thus cannot enter into a marriage contract. Buildings will never be able to, and the underage are protected from this on so many levels and in so many ways not even related to marriage that I just think it's unrealistic to see it as the next step. To base your denial of marriage rights to grown people who are perfectly, legally capable of doing so because the next step might be these not-at-all-comparable situations is, frankly, a bit hysterical. (As for polygamy, I could not care less.)
But again, how does the existence of marriage configurations that you don't like "destroy the family unit"? It doesn't change anything about your family, right?
"In the short term, schools will go even further in teaching acceptance of what many of us consider a sinful behavior,"
And they absolutely should. In public, secular schools, there is indeed a responsibility that everyone should be accorded respect. That is what acceptance is. This idea that public schools are trying to "make students gay," if it's true, would indeed be cause for outrage. But it is not true. Schools are simply not in the business of ostracizing students who ARE gay, and subscribe to the well-supported idea that kids who are gay are generally not just "confused" or "going through a phase."
"and very possibly those religions who teach that the behavior is sinful will find themselves punished by the government."
Where is there any evidence that this would happen? Roe v. Wade is (tenuously) the law of the land, but that certainly doesn't stop religious institutions from being vocally pro-life. I don't know the details of this one high school student being punished for saying homosexuality was sinful, but that's a pretty vague description. I somehow doubt it's that simple. Another poster the other day said something about a minister being arrested for making anti-gay remarks, and it turned out to be a man in public, in another country, who was clearly arrested for disorderly conduct and harassing passerby. At any rate, please link me to the story you mentioned.
What tripe
Submitted by cocodrie on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 12:10am.
If you don't know the difference between the roles of motherhood and fatherhood study up on why the mother rather than the father breast feeds the child.
And yes Roe vs Wade did make infanticide legal but it didn't make it moral. Infanticide is infanticide no matter what you call it. You can call it a glob, a fetus or anything else but it's still a baby.
Tell me why I should accept degenerate abnormal behavior as a normal way of life.
What is this obsession of yours to be constantly campaigning for the acceptance of homosexuality? God says that homosexuality is abominable and I'll take Him at his word and obey His commandments. If you prefer to follow in the footsteps of Pelosi and Barney Frank be my guest.
Situational ethics where we decide what is moral is insanity. moral absolutes that have been in place for thousands of years must prevail.
Pray that God gives you some common sense.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
I'm not about to argue
Submitted by JasonC on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 12:25am.
I'm not about to argue abortion with you, but my point stands about the non-issue of religious leaders being arrested for speaking against it.
I believe Rad and I were talking about the social gender roles of mother and father. I'm not arguing that men can nurse children, or give birth to them. I'm arguing that the possession of a penis or vagina does not dictate what wisdom a parent can impart or what role they play in raising the kid. Or if it does so dictate, it's the result of social construction concerning gender roles.
What does normalcy and naturalness have to do with it? Are you so obsessed with these things in every day life? Or is it only the ickiness of the gays that inspires such a reaction.
And to answer your question, it's an issue I felt strongly about initially because of some friends and family members, and I now advocate for it not only because I think they absolutely deserve the benefits of gay acceptance, but also because I see it as an important, albeit largely symbolic (for me; for gay couples it is quite pragmatic and material) step toward our culture being just plain better. Much better, to my mind, than one in which perfectly decent people are looked down upon because of vague notions of morality and normalcy.
What was your last citation for Jesus' opposition to homosexuality? Exodus, was it?
Binky Braveheart does it again. Right through his green teeth.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 12:32am.
Binky Braveheart: Roe v. Wade is (tenuously) the law of the land...
Lie. Lie. Lie. Or is it just being flippant? Or is it just rhetoric?
Roe Vs Wade was a Supreme Court decision. Not a law. But you continue to argue all this as though you were some elitist factmaster on the whole subject, mmmmkay?
Don't be absurd, Vet...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 2:30am.
Roe v. Wade is indeed the law of the land. And it will remain so unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. One may quibble--as has Justice Alito--over whether or not even allegiance to the principle of stare decisis forces a view that Roe is "settled law" since any decision [and particularly one as controversial as Roe] may be overturned on some future occasion by an unsympathetic and constitutionally unpersuaded majority of SC Justices. But for now the determination made by the nation's highest court is controlling and is appropriately described as the "law", and your rhetorical hair splits neither change that reality nor advance this debate.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 2:55am.
Could you kindly define "unsympathetic" in the context of your post. I'd hate to think that my first interpretation of your use of the term is correct.
And, btw, I agree with Alito on stare decisis, (big surprise, I know), in that repeating bad law based on it infuriates me.
RESTLESS...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 3:46am.
I suspect your initial interpretation was incorrect, although, if so, it may very well have been due to my less than ideal phrasing.
In any event, I meant it only in the sense that a future court with a different composition--or perhaps the present composition for that matter--may be unsympathetic with the particular constitutional construction and legal underpinning employed by the original Roe majority. That's all.
Jer
Thanks Jer
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 05/13/2012 - 2:11am.
I thought you meant it in strictly legal terms, but, it could have been construed in other ways.
Appreciate the clarification.
I thought the Supreme Court clarified existing law.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 3:16am.
Looks like Binky was mostly correct.
And when have I ever advanced the debate with Binky Braveheart? Binky ain't here to debate. He is here to inform and insult from on high. Otherwise, he would not be going over this same ground for the 15th time. Shame on you. Do you not feel for Binky's friends and relatives? Shame on you.
Do note Binky's very first post here. Red Herrings. Insults. Inflated arguments. And insults. Binky only advances the debate when someone disregards his insulting behavior and makes an argument Binky thinks he can knock down.
Otherwise, he is off for another 6 months on one of his "sabbaticals" or "crying jag's over his friends and relatives" as we might call them.
JasonC, Are you serious?
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 12:34am.
JasonC,
Are you serious? the father's and mother's role in raising, in the upbringing of their offspring is interchangeable? are you serious with your radical Liberal propaganda?
are you a father?
I see it every day with my children how my wife and I play completely different roles in the raising of our children. Again, that's your problem, diminishing even biological roles in the family unit.
This is what is all about for you! Diminishing heterosexual marriage, claiming that it is not what it is so you can then turn around and equate it to homos "marrying".
There are distinct biological difference that a mother and father bring to a marriage that are incredibly important for the family unit. If this were not the case, why is it that study after study, after study, after study show and prove that kids who come from a single parent home, whether it is the father and mother, are less succesful in life, less happy, etc, etc than children who come from a home with both mom and dad living together?
A man cannot give a child what a woman can, sorry. No matter how much you pro-homosexuals attempt to claim that a man brings exactly the same thing into the family unit as a woman.
and no, someone else linked you to a story that was about a man getting arrested for disorderly conduct. I pointed out to the FACT that in countries like Canada saying that homosexulity is wrong can put you in jail. This is a FACt which you have obviously refused to research.
Jason
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 9:14pm.
First, a link, http://www.theblaze.com/stories/high-school-school-punishes-student-for-...
Punishing someone for their religious beliefs is wrong. And that is exactly what happened. I am baffled as to why public schools feel the need to give gay students elevated status, because that is exactly what they do. I know this because my daughter graduated in 2010 and she had some stories...Quite frankly, schools should not be involved in these issues at all, as no one working in schools has the training to handle issues of sexuality in children of any age.
The brains of men and women work differently, thus they have different roles in the family. Looking at studies of men in prison you will find that the majority of them come from homes without fathers. Similarly, many girls who grow up without a father enter into bad relationships or prostitution.
For the record
Submitted by BosTarus on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 2:06pm.
and disregarding the rest of this lengthy conversation (I was gone for the weekend, so I missed out on this enlightening debate!)...
The Slippery Slope is considered a logical fallacy, and is discouraged among debate circles. So it doesn't just make liberals upset, it makes all of those who favor reasoned debate upset.
Bos
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 2:10pm.
Really? Because in the abortion example I cited it sure as hell holds true.
jasoncrap
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 11:05pm.
You misrepresent the whole problem. The problem is you want to change the definition of marriage to be whatever degenerates want it to mean.
Marriage for thousands of years has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Marriage has never had any other definition. Why should we redefine it for you or any other degenerate?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Coco and Rad It also used to
Submitted by JasonC on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 11:16pm.
Coco and Rad
It also used to be a means of property exchange or of combining family interests. In some parts of the world it still is those things. Moving on to a state of affairs whereby matrimony wasn't simply a father "giving away" his daughter and thus all financial responsibility with her hasn't exactly destroyed the institution. Getting married is still considered a big deal, even among my generation and younger; the very people who will, inevitably, usher in nationwide gay marriage in the next few decades.
The idea that an institution is destroyed if it's modified (by which I mean modified in a way that the person making the claim happens to dislike) is, in and of itself, deeply flawed. Imagine applying that line of thinking to every other aspect of marriage, or other institutions. That's not to say that there aren't changes worth arguing against. It's merely to say that something's existence is not an argument for its perfection.
Cajun, Coco called me Jason Crap. Please chide him.
jasoncrap
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 11:22pm.
No matter what the dowery arrangements were marriage was a union between a man and a woman.
Cajun ain't gonna help you, maybe you better tell your mom.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Jason*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 11:22pm.
When Cocodrie makes an error, I will correct him...................................
Jason
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 11:28pm.
At essence marriage was about family. The family unit is what I described above. The combining of property or interests was to strengthen the family unit. Gay marriage weakens it. I don't believe in changing other aspects of marriage either. I'm into the whole faithful and until death do you part stuff.
"Gay marriage weakens [the
Submitted by JasonC on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 11:49pm.
"Gay marriage weakens [the family]."
How?!
How does a loving couple that has the same genitalia make for an inferior family? So inferior even to all the millions of crappy heterosexual parents out there, in fact, that we must act to prevent these travesties of the idea of "family" from ever coalescing?
My point about dynasties and so forth was simply that marriage has changed. The "it's been this way for all of human history" claim doesn't hold up.
There are laws against abusing children
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 12:00am.
That heterosexuals violate these laws means...what exactly.
Shall I post every incident of a gay parent abusing a child as rebuttal?
BTW, which societies defined marriage differently?
Jason
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 2:54pm.
Being male or female isn't just genitalia, the brains of men and women function differently also. So often gay couples look for a member of the opposite sex for their children to have a relationship with so that the child receives the type of nurturing that sex provides.
The Family Unit jason*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 12:16am.
This was a long term study on gangs in the US. Part of this study was the "normal" socialization of children by the traditional family unit. Then it discusses how society has changed the family unit and its devastating results. It is not simply a focus on gangs. It is a very interesting study regarding "the traditional family unit", its demise and the negative affects of those changes.
Just something for you to read at your leisure
http://people.missouristate.edu/michaelcarlie/what_i_learned_about/gangs...
ADD: We can argue all night about the purpose of traditional family like nurturing, morals, role models, discipline, confidence etc. May I suggest that you research Dr Janice Shaw Crouse. She is well known and respected in this area of study. Please do not dismiss her ideas because she is a conservative but she does offer a very intellectual and credible discussions on the purpose of traditional families and the negative effects of societies changes to the family unit.
JasonC, Just because you
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 9:55am.
JasonC,
Just because you find something offensive, doesn't mean that Cajun2 finds it equally offensive. What is with you Liberal that want other individuals to feel equally outraged at the things you find outrageous? LOL
Just because you don't like that some here have equated homosexuality with pedophilia, just because you don't like that fact that to advocate for gay marriage is to advocate for the destruction of marriage as a whole, it doesn't mean that Cajun2 or anyone else here agrees with you.
So, it is again very emotional and illogical of you to demand that Cajun2 or anyone else stand side by side with you and be outraged by the same things you find outrageous.
Again, you prove that your arguments are illogical and full of emotion.
Nice back-track, Jason.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 12:31am.
Of course, we all knew you were being flippant, we saw the wink, wink, nudge nudge in your post about Texas. Oh, wait, no we didn't, because you were dead serious until you were called on it.
Jason, you disappoint
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 05/13/2012 - 9:24pm.
It's not cryptic at all. I have no right to be married. None. Zero. Zip. NO ONE has a right to be married. To pretend that gays are somehow being oppressed because they don't have a right even I don't have is ludicrous.
And this is where, despite your protests, you are DEMANDING gays be given special rights and privileges for no other reason than because they are gay. (Do you EVER evaluate people in terms of being individuals or is that somehow too hard, or perhaps too silly, quaint and outmoded for you?)
The "second most aggressively culturally regressive (state) in the union?" Jason, every time I want to NOT call you an elitist snob, you go out and go well out of your way to earn the title! (What state would be #1?) I happen to like being in a state where such "culturally regressive" concepts like "personal responsibility", "limited government" and "common sense" are still the norm. Anyways, because you are being so nasty about it...I'm not going to connect the dots for you. Please consult the Texas Constitution. Read it very carefully.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I agree, Unsane...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 05/14/2012 - 2:32am.
You aren't being cryptic. On the contrary, your confusion is quite evident. You insist "no one has a right to be married". So tell me, what absolute right DO you--and we--possess? Second Amendment gun ownership? Then why can the state regulate and license it (as even Scalia acknowledges in Heller)? Speech? Then why can the state restrict it? Worship? Then why can the state proscribe certain religious practices?
Accordingly, the mere fact marriage must be licensed by the state does not therefore eliminate it from being regarded as a "right". Indeed, in the California Prop 8 case, both sides, i.e. including the proponents of Prop 8, acknowledged that marriage is a right. And despite your protests, gays aren't demanding special rights but rather that they be afforded the same right to marry which has heretofore been abridged solely because of the gender of the applicants. Now, it may be and has been argued same-sex marital advocates are attempting to carve out a new right--as was alleged by the defenders of Prop 8--but that still does not obviate the long-recognized view of marriage as a "right".
You have repeatedly referred to the Texas Constitution. I recall that when I first asked you--many months ago--to kindly link the relevant section of the document, I was instructed not to "bark orders" at you. My request still stands. [And, for the record, I love Texas.]
Jer
No confusion here.
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 05/15/2012 - 12:36am.
Jer, I linked to the Texas Constitution many months ago. If you elected not to click it, well, I can't help you. That's between you and the nerves in your arm, you eyes, and your brain.
You are the one trying to confuse things. But then, life to you is a courtroom. I at least acknowledge the classroom has a door and beyond that door, things change.
No one has the right to be married. Sorry. It's a very simple, unavoidable fact. What you and JasonC badly want is an America where gays are lavished with special rights and privileges no one else can have or dare ask for.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Sorry, I recall a link but not by you.
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 3:08am.
And I've looked but can't find it.
It's your argument, your source, and you repeatedly refer to it. So humor me. Cite the relevant clauses. Pretty please.
With few qualifications, I have a right to marry the person I love and hope to spend the rest of my life with and whose wishes are reciprocal Gays seek the same right--not a special one or a privileged status.
Jer
As Gays are not the 'same' as heterosexuals---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 3:49am.
how is it they seek the 'same' rights?
MD
Neither are Asians the same as Caucasians, nor are
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/16/2012 - 9:49pm.
conservatives the same as normal folk.*
But I would never deny any of them the right to marry.
Jer
* ;-)
Oh do knock it off.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 12:24am.
It ain't up to you now is it? We are talking about changing the law. You schooled me on what constitutes the "law of the land" here yet suddenly are oddly silent about the CURRENT legal definition of what marriage is.
Marriage --- The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.
I expect word games from Binky not Uncle Jer.
The only way gay people can claim the right to marriage is by changing the very definition of that right.
No it ain't, Vet...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 1:13am.
And it ain't up to you, either. So knock off the lectures, please.
The issue will make its way through the judicial system--the California District Court and Court of Appeals have already dealt the ban on same-sex marriages a serious setback although a temporary stay on issuing new licenses remains in effect--and the question in all likelihood will be ultimately resolved one way or the other by the Supreme Court. And barring a Constitutional amendment, that'll end it.
Jer
Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 1:34am.
Uncle Jer: Gays seek the same right--not a special one or a privileged status.
No. They are trying to modify the right, not seek it.
Uncle Jer: ...gays aren't demanding special rights but rather that they be afforded the same right to marry which has heretofore been abridged solely because of the gender of the applicants.
No. They are trying to modify the right, not be afforded it.
Oh, and who knew the right of marriage has been abridged all these centuries by the whole one free man and one free woman thing. Oh dear. I feel so dirty not realizing that one. What other of our rights have been abridged without our knowing it. What about that whole right to bear arms thing. If they were not so strict on abridging it to only devices that are used in defense, why I could claim my whole room full of hamsters is legal under the right to bear arms. The do keep me defended from a sudden invasion of cheerios after all.
Vet...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 1:47am.
And here's the prelude to the initial excerpt you quoted:
With few qualifications, I have a right to marry the person I love and hope to spend the rest of my life with and whose wishes are reciprocal. Gays seek the same right...
So who is playing word games?
Actually, we both are. But those word games largely reflect the respective arguments of the parties. We'll see who wins. I'm going way out on a limb and predicting a tossup.
Jer
Ah yes.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 2:05am.
Ah yes. "person I love". And that is quoted right out of the law books. Thanks JasonC.
Hey, question. Before you want to have intimate relations with the "person you love", do you have to excuse yourself to clear out the colon? You know, make sure nothing will get in the way.
Comedy gold, Vet...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 2:33am.
Better save that one to a file just in case of another archive disaster during the switch to Disqus.
Jer
Yeah, it is up to an unelected nancy boy to make the ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 05/17/2012 - 1:42am.
call as to what heterosexual Californians, through a legitimate vote, twice, can or cannot deem marriage to be.
Total bullshit; and if you truly believe that there is a likelihood that the Supreme Court will ultimately "resolve" this so as to "end" it, you are out of your mind.
The pushy GLAAD-GLBT & O bastards ain't about to back off when they have one of their own making legal decisions and another one of theirs camped out in the Oval Office.
MD
Jer, and it is not up to a
Submitted by Liberallies on Sun, 05/20/2012 - 11:45pm.
Jer,
and it is not up to a few men and women in black who have the letters J.D. next to their name and who seat in a bench in a court room to change God's definition of marriage.
Amazing how much Liberals love the judicial process, but these are the same people who once said Dred Scott wasn't a human being. Just because a few men and women in black robes redefine something, it doesn't mean that it should be followed or believed.
JasonC ran from the FACT that this is not about marriage, love, commitment, sacrifice, putting your spouse's interests and wants above yours.. If it were, why is it that the average homosexual has 9 sexual partners per year. Maybe you can address this since JasonC couldn't.
I am still waiting for someone to tell us all where will this stop. In Germany a brother and sister married. They have fought the German courts, using the homosexual marriage laws and saying that it is discrimination not to allow siblings to marry. Where does it end? Once you redefine marriage, marriage can be redefined by anyone using the same language that the radical, militant homosexuals are using.
Or...do homosexuals hold a superior moral code that we need to bow down to? Why should homosexuals get to redefine marriage and not polygamists, not incestual couples? why? tell us Jer, tell us JasonC, tell us pro-homosexual marriage supporters, where does it end?
Well
Submitted by BosTarus on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 10:31pm.
addressing your "9 partners a year" stat. First off, that statistic is 34 years old-so even if it were true then, it should not be taken as gospel truth 35 years later.
Secondly, the Bell Weinberg study (from which that statistic hails) has been called into question for it's sampling processes. Though the heterosexual couples in the study were successfully chosen at random, the homosexual couples were not randomized. In addition to that, the study failed to show comparative stats, and failed to present any form of a control group in its sampling.
Lastly, that statistic, if true, would be applied to "single" homosexuals. And considering the amount of stigma there was 35 years ago, most homosexuals were not in committed relationships. You speak as if even homosexuals in committed relationships have 9 partners a year, which doesn't make sense.
Either way, there are many single heterosexuals who have multiple partners a year, and it doesn't speak against them or their abilities to be in a committed monogamous relationship in the long run.
So quit throwing around an outdated, most likely inaccurate, and inapplicable statistic like it's some sort of written law that we all must accept as fact.
Statistics
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 10:44pm.
Do you have a more recent study or are you just using "logic" to disprove them. If it's logic I'd say you're all wrong. The fact that there was a stigma 35 years ago means it would have been harder to find other gay people, so they would have been more encouraged to stay monogamous, rather than less.
Sexual mores are becoming looser and looser, why would the gay community become less sexually active? Your arguments, taken without some statistical backing, make no sense.
The thread that keeps on giving
Submitted by BosTarus on Tue, 05/22/2012 - 4:12pm.
Your post betrays a complete lack of knowledge of the gay community. The stigma 35 years ago meant that living in a monogamous relationship was extremely challenging. Going on dates and sharing a living space were extremely embarrassing and frowned upon. Gay life was relegated to "hookup" culture at bars and clubs. Now that the stigma has been considerably lifted, it's far easier for couples to live together without as much hassle. Ask any homosexual man over the age of 40 and he'll tell you how much their community has changed in 3 decades.
Now, addressing the "logic" flaws. First off, many studies conclude that it's hard to pin an accurate figure on the exact "promiscuity" of gay people. However it's been accepted today that the Bell/Weinberg study is both inaccurate and out of date. This guy put together a series of the studies involved. The problem with the Bell/Weinberg study is that it compared a successfully random sampling of heterosexual couples, with a dense sampling of gay men from the active San Francisco bar and club scene. It failed to account for closeted gay men, gay men living in less dense areas-or even areas without as active a gay scene, and largely, lesbians.
http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html#prom
Lesbians are, in fact, suspected of being even less promiscuous than heterosexuals. And there is a higher rate of self imposed celibacy among gay men than heterosexuals. (24% vs 8%).
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3811388?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&ui...
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7uq274516744054/
In fact, many believe that the higher rate of promiscuity among gay men (it's typically not argued that there is a higher rate-though the "9-a-year" figure is often disputed) has more to do with gender differences than sexuality preferences (hence the lower rate of lesbian promiscuity).
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t164555432k50742/
Anyway, the point is; these statistics are hard to pin down. Many of these studies are just as likely to be inaccurate. However, Liberallies has been tossing around this single statistic from 1978 as if it has been accepted scientific law. And your assumption that it was easier to be gay and monogamous in the 70's than it is now is also deeply flawed.
The only thing necessary to "pin down", Bos, is ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 05/22/2012 - 9:38pm.
the certainty that the presented facts and figures, or anything pushed by militant Gays, lesbians, and their fawning supporters, has nothing to do with the heterosexual lifestyle.
Present away; all the while trying to pretend you are merely being socially conscientious.
You may have convinced yourself of that; but to those of us who read your drivel, who are not inclined in that direction, you are just another loquacious liberal lunatic.
NTTAWWT; in between some of your more inane bullshit comments, you are occasionally entertaining.
MD
I'm embarrassed
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 12:54pm.
to admit that I had to look up the definition of "NTTAWWT"... what kinda Seinfeld fan and/or self-respecting denizen of the net am I? Pathetic.
Thanks for confirming what Liberallies noted.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 12:08am.
BosTaurus: ...a dense sampling of gay men from the active San Francisco bar and club scene. It failed to account for...
Gay men, when an active bar and club scene is present, will copulate like bunnies with hundreds, thousands, of partners and spread deadly STD's rampantly.
There's no such thing
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 05/24/2012 - 9:11pm.
You can't deny them the right to marry. It's impossible to deny something that doesn't exist to begin with.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Scrolling up, it appears that is a reply to my comment.
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/24/2012 - 9:40pm.
If you meet the qualifications, you have a right to carry a firearm. If you meet the qualifications, you have a right to marry. Simple as that.
Jer
Jer, What are the
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 05/24/2012 - 9:57pm.
Jer,
What are the qualifications to get marry? Why do you get to define these? why do people who think like you get to re-define these?
Again, as much as Liberals want to demand that all of us accept it, two individuals with the same genetelia will NEVER meet the qualifications, even if some individuals with J.D. next to their name claim otherwise.
Qualification for marriage
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 05/24/2012 - 9:58pm.
one man plus one woman equals marriage
one man plus one man equals abomination
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
It would appear it depends, then, on who is ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 05/24/2012 - 10:01pm.
deciding what the 'qualifications" for marriage happen to be.
A marriage agreement must be a "living" document; much like the liberal view of the Constitution.
Yesterday, Jack and Jill were the component parts of a marriage..
Today, the nancy boys want Patrick Fitzgerald and Gerald Fitzpatrick to be the societal norm
Tomorrow, if the screechy militant types get their way, the norm may well be a melding of Susanna, Harold, a midget named Bernie, an Orangutan named Clyde, and a Shetland Pony.
It's a right, dontcha know.
MD
Yeap....what individuals like
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 05/24/2012 - 10:31pm.
Yeap....what individuals like Jer, Bos, JasonC refuse to admit is that in this case, the slippery slope argument is not a fallacy!
In Germany, for example, a brother and sister who married and have had children, are fighting German laws which outlaw incestual relationships. Guess what laws they are using to fight the German government?..............
If you said Germany's homosexual marriage laws and militant pro-homosexual key words (discrimination, phobia, hatred, why live under old definitions of marriage and relationships, etc.) you are right!!!!!!
JasonC, What basic civil
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 8:34pm.
JasonC,
What basic civil right was taken away from homosexuals that is enjoyed by heterosexuals in NC?
Can I as a heterosexual marry a person of my same gender? Nope
Can a homosexual marry a person of the same gender? Nope
Can I as a heteroseuxal marry a person fo the opposite gender? yeap
Can a homosexual marry a person of the opposite gender? yeap.
What right was denied?
and please do not insult me, a minority, by equating a sexual want, need, with the color of my skin. Stop acting like such a brainwashed Liberal.
And finally, what is the desperation. Marriage is not something most Liberals are interested in. The vast majority, not all, but most believe in free love, sex with whom ever. Talk to most Liberals and they will tell you that they prefer to live with their partner, same gender or not, than ever getting married and tied down.
As militant pro-homosexuals in the past have said so, which I have no doubt that you either have never heard of or if you know you will not admit, their goal is to destroy marriage. They use people, useful tools to make it seem it is all about compassion and giving others the same rights. But as you have proven, the pro-homosexual argument is an emotionally based argument with no sound logic or morality to back it up. Believe me, millions agreeing with you will not make homosexuality moral and right. Legalizing it won't either.
Hahaha!
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:27pm.
Oh man, you crack me up! "The Vast Majority?!?" Haha, I love how confidently you just pull this stuff out of your ass!
As a married liberal, and friends with many married liberals... I'd love to meet this ridiculous "vast majority" of liberals that never want to get married! Ha!
And their goal is to "destroy marriage"?!? Oh man, you don't stop! Listen, if you can even find me an example of a single nutjob that wants to "destroy marraige" I'll be impressed. But even then, that's a nutjob.
But you're right, millions agreeing that homosexuality is "moral and right" will not make it so. Neither will the law. But you know what, if it was legal, then we wouldn't have to have this absurd conversation anyhow-so it doesn't matter.
God evening Bos
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 4:45pm.
Marriage and family in the black community has been destroyed by liberals.
Get out in the real world and you will find that all of your preconceptions don't hold water. Maybe you should stuff your impressions back up yours.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Ugh. Does it make you feel
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 5:04pm.
Ugh. Does it make you feel better to assign all of societies ills on one convenient group? How convenient. For you.
Bal
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 5:13pm.
I do not have to accept degenerate homosexuality as a moral way of life and I'm tired of the likes of you telling me that I have to accept it as such. If you want to marry a man don't let me stop you but don't bother to invite me to the wedding. Your obsession with homosexual sex is getting the better of you.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Isn't that the point-he can't
Submitted by BosTarus on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 5:17pm.
Isn't that the point-he can't go marry a man? And you are, in fact, stopping him. I will say this, if you aren't invited, you're missing out. I'm sure it'd be a lovely affair.
Well that sounds pretty stereotypical
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 6:09pm.
Is that allowed if you're a liberal? Different rules?
I'm not saying you have to
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 5:21pm.
I'm not saying you have to accept it. I'm saying that it's way too easy and lazy to blame everything wrong in the world on liberals.
Sloppy.
Holy crap, Bal evolves; calls gay "wrong"!
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 5:31pm.
Congrats!
Liberals, Socialists, Communists
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 5:37pm.
Liberals, Socialists, Communists - same thing minor differences. Just a few of the leaders Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Chavez and yo hero BO.
The cause of most of the world's problems.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
You can't see me, but trust
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 5:55pm.
You can't see me, but trust me when I say I just sprained an optic muscle rolling my eyes as hard as possible.
Sprained an optic muscle? Why, did you finally
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 12:35am.
find the trial transcripts for Joanne Chesimard and Wesley Cook?
cocodrie, I agree with you
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 6:58pm.
cocodrie,
I agree with you for the most part. Many of the world's ills have been brought about by Liberals, Socialists, Communists, which are the same ideology, some are just most extreme than the other. Good old Rocky doesn't have the education to know this, thus he destroyed his optic nerves and muscles for nothing. LOL
However, i will add that it also has to do with people turning away from God and/or wanting a God that serves us and not accepting the Truth that we are here on Earth to serve and love God.
Where ever Liberalism, atheism, socialism, communis goes socieites fall.
Liberals know this, the best example is what is happening in Europe. Yet they refuse to accept what is right infront of their eyes. Europe is a Liberals, a socialist paradise and look where it is going, Greece, Spain, Portugal, France all quickly heading south morally and economically.
I
LibLies, Your breakdown of
Submitted by JasonC on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 9:18pm.
LibLies,
Your breakdown of who can marry who, concluding with a disingenuous "Gee whiz, what's the problem?" holds no water.
And in fact, it basically enunciates the exact nature of the problem, the idea that YOUR ideal version of sexuality is "normal" and everyone else's is aberrant. That's what we pro-gay elitists call heteronormativity. What you're saying is that gay people can get married, so long as they do so in a way that, at least on the surface, conforms to your comfort zone. So sure, they can go ahead and get married to the opposite sex, meaning they must either somehow change their fundamental desires (basically impossible) or repress them.
Jer has already astutely pointed out how the latter would be far more disastrous than two people of the same sex being wed, so we'll leave that be. As for the former, I realize this is not exactly a novel concept, but please perform a little thought experiment for me and ask yourself if you can make yourself attracted to men. Go ahead. Picture yourself having sex with a man, and MAKE yourself be non-repulsed by it. Why should it be any easier for homosexuals to do this? This is why your rejoinder that it's "just sexual desire" is so frustrating. Do you really think gayness is just a little fetish that a person can outgrow to be normal like you?
So can you not see how this breakdown of "well, gay people can get married; they just have to marry the opposite sex because that's 'normal'" might seem just a tad mean-spirited? And add to that the fact - yes, fact - that instituting gay marriage would have NO detrimental quantifiable consequences for anyone. Nor would the normalization of homosexuality.
Your claim that I am operating on pure emotion is, of course, total nonsense. Yet again, you completely fail to even attempt to provide an example of where I am relying on pathos instead of logic. I have provided my examples of your side doing so. Homosexuality = Pedophilia!!! (TM Homophobes Everywhere); "The Children!!!". And so forth.
While I'm sure that some fringe activist somewhere has stated an intention to "destroy marriage," that is not the intention of any pro-gay marriage advocate within a mile of the mainstream. There are people who think we should just nuke all Arab countries. There are Ron Paul supporters. All movements and ideologies have their extremists. But please, cite an example if you're so confident in this non-existent marriage-hating bogeyman. What exactly would we gain by "destroying marriage"? And how on earth does legislating in favor of more (not less) legally-sanctioned monogamy possibly seem to you anti-, rather than profoundly PRO-marriage?
As for your final, totally unexamined claim: Please explain to me what you mean when you say that homosexuality in general, and especially gay marriage, is immoral. No Bible verses please. The U.S.A. is not a theocracy, and your adherence to a particular mythology holds no more weight than my non-adherence to it.
Um, Jason
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 11:24pm.
People are born with many predilictions. Doesn't make them all healthy, or legal. Should we allow pedophiles to marry children simply because they are born that way, and can't help their preferences, (and no, I am not equating homosexuality with pedophilia, although both are likely phychological problems that should be researched),? Should we allow for schizphrenics to murder because they cannot help their disease?
No, I can't imagine having sex with a man. So what? I can't imagine having sex with Nancy Pelosi without being repulsed either.
BTW, OUR version of "normal" sexual desire has stood the test of time, and has proven to be normal for as long as humans have walked the earth. You need to quit confusing tolerance with acceptance.
Now, I don't much care if gays marry. I agree with the 0 on this. It's a state's rights issue, and should be decided state to state. So far, gay marriage is 0 for 32.
JasonC, 1) Explain why, if
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 11:55pm.
JasonC,
1) Explain why, if it is all about love and being together with one person, gay men on average have 9 sexual partners a year.
2) Fine, I will argue from a non-Biblical point of view when you stop argueing from a Liberal, pro-homosexual, emotional, Left-wing talking points point of view, deal? LOL
Funny, I haven't used the Bible or one Bible verse yet to say that homosexuality is wrong. But you seem to want to debate from where YOU feel comfortable. Sorry, you don't get to set the parameters from where anyone debates from.
And 100% agree the USA is not a theocracy, but it is a nation built on Judeo/Christian values. I hope you are intellectually honest not to deny this. Regardless, you don't get to set the rules of the debate. This is what you LIberals want. You want people to debate from your belief system, not from theirs.
3) So what who or what you are attracted to. Your "experiment" fails miserably. A pedophile can't imagine sleeping with anyone else, but a child. Using your very emotionally based "experiment" we should allow pedophiles to marry their victims!! You just argued from an emotional point and can't admit it.
A polygamist can't imagine having sex with just one individual for the rest of his/her life, using your logic, you silly, emotionally/sexual based experiment, polygamy should be legal.
There are those who can't imagine having sex with anyone else, but a sibling, another family member, using your silly, emotionally/sexual based experiment, incestual relationships should be legalized.
You are so blind to your emotionally based argument that you use them and then claim you are all about logic. C'mon now!
It is even all about sex for you. What experiment did you ask me to carry out? Imagining having sex with someone else. You couldn't even use the word love, care, SACRIFICE etc. in your experiment. You proved my point! Thank you.
And you may not like the truth, but the truth, which you refuse to accept, is the truth. Gayness is all about sex, pleasure. Again, if it is not, explain the 9 sexual partners on average per year of gays.
Why don't you start by defining what is marriage for you. Because you seem to believe that it is all about sex and pure emotion.
AND of course...no one can refute the facts
1) I, as a heterosexual, can marry another heterosexual.
2) A homosexual can also marry a heterosxual.
3) I, as a heterosexual, cannot marry a homosexual.
4) A homosexual cannot marry a homosexual.
Still waiting for a logical, reasoned based argument...tick, tock, tick, tock....
9 partners a year. Source
Submitted by JasonC on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 12:13am.
9 partners a year. Source please. And if you're so concerned about promiscuity, why do you wish to deny homosexuals an attempt to legitimize their monogamy?! And finally, I suppose promiscuity and infidelity are just unheard of among the upright and moral straight folks in our culture?
You misconstrue my thought experiment completely. Your repeated-three-times now table of who can and can't marry who is irrelevant because it seems to assume that people can change who they find attractive on a dime. Sorry to be vulgar, but a lot of that is based on sexuality. You would surely not marry someone to whom you could not be sexually attracted - especially if that person is not even the GENDER that you find appealing. We are in agreement that pedophiles, polygamists, practitioners of incest, etc., are likely also unable to change their preferences, but all you're doing is continuing the equivocating of different non-normative sexualities that are simply not comparable. For the one millionth time, very logical, multi-tiered laws exist to deny minors the ability to give consent, whether in terms of sexuality or a million other things. Allowing legally consenting adults of the same gender to marry has no logical effect on that. But so again, my "experiment" was meant merely to point out the dismissive step of saying "Of course they're not discriminated again, they can still get married." Surely the marriage of a closeted homosexual and an opposite sex partner would be far more of a stain on the institution of marriage than a gay marriage would be.
You're accusing ME of not adequately addressing your points?! You still refuse to state unambiguously whether you truly believe homosexuals to be morally equivalent to pedophiles! You keep putting them in the same sentence, but seem to be unable to actually make such an outrageous claim.
As for morality, YOU are the one who keeps slapping the label immoral on homosexuality, and I know that you are serious about your religion, so that your definition of morality would have Biblical precedents seemed logical. Clearly I erred. So I'll ask again. HOW is it immoral? The Catholic Church may take a hard line on it, but I don't recall the verse in which Jesus rants about how homosexuals were evil.
Since in every post your write, you accuse me of relying on emotion, please point out what I have said that is emotionally manipulative. I'm really dying to know.
Equivalency
Submitted by cocodrie on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 12:34am.
I will answer your question "Is homosexuality morally equivalent to pedophilia?" with a question
Is killing a person with knife morally equivalent to beating someone to death with a pipe?
Your thought experiment is more like the dream of a juvenile mind.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Why should anyone have to source anything, you don't.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 12:40am.
You seem to demand sourcing, yet you source very little, if anything.
UpNorth, yeap, typical
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 1:17am.
UpNorth,
yeap, typical Liberal demading what he doesn't give first.
And notice how he is all up in arms because he feels we want to impose the age old, traditional, well established that works definition of marriage on all Americans. However, he then turns around and wants to impose on us his definition of marriage.
He has yet to tell us all why his definiton of marriage is superior to ours. Why does he and other pro-homosexuals have the moral authority to redefine marriage?, Why is their morality superior to ours?
Source confirmed.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 12:44am.
The laziest troll here: : 9 partners a year. Source please.
Good lord!!!!
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 12:51am.
Over 1,000. I don't think I've even made eye contact with that many people!
Yeap, countless upon
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 1:11am.
Yeap, countless upon countless upon countless, upon countless of sexual partners for homosexuals per year and in a life time, but heck, it is all about "love and commitment".
Why is it that Liberals love to stick their head in the ground and deny reality.
Homosexuals sex IS about sexual pleasure and NOTHING to do with committing to someone else. To loving, carying, sacrificing, living for someone else.
The problem with JasonC and countless other pro-homosexuals is that they are 100% lying to themselves or very dishonest individuals.
You want to rail against an equivalence argument???
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 12:49am.
You have taken the position repeatedly here that men can teach girls how to be women, and that women can teach boys how to be men. Total bullshit. Study after study after study has shown that monogamous relationships between a man and a woman are the optimum for raising children.
MEN AN WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT, and not just because of genitalia. Men and women think differently, place importance on different things, react differently to situations, etc... This cannot even be argued. And it is biological, not societal, as these truths are apparent across societal lines.
Would you want to be a woman? Would your wife want to be a man? Bringing up statistically irrelevant instances doesn't change the narrative, so don't even go there.
Restless1, Tell me about
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 1:06am.
Restless1,
Tell me about it!!!
I never taught my daughter to like pink, to play with dolls, to be emotional. I never sat down with her and demanded that she like Disney princess. It just happened.
The same with my son, I never demanded that he play with cars, dislike pink, not play with Barbies, to love airplanes, trains, etc. It just happens.
Of course men and women are 100% different, studies even show that we have different brain waves!
But JasonC is doing what Liberals love to do, deny science, deny human nature. They deny anything that gets on the way of their emotionally driven arguments. JasonC has repeated quite a few times that it is about sex and commitment. And I believe this is his problem. He can't see beyond this and he has chosen to believe the ultra-Liberal propaganda that there is no difference between a man and a woman.
Remember that ultra-Liberal groups demanded and got another ultra-Liberal, a high ranking dean (it might have been the president) of Harvard, fired because he dared to say the truth shown in a very well done and detailed study. Men and women think differently, learn differently are better at different subject matters.
There it is
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 05/13/2012 - 9:31pm.
Ultimately, this is why I am not down with the idea of gay marriage. If children were not involved, I wouldn't care.
However, marriage IS in fact for children therefore based on the fact that today's children will most likely be managing my nursing home, I DO CARE a LOT.
One of the biggest things children get from a married couple that is raising them is, among many other things, ideas about how men and women not only behave in society, but also how they interact in society. So many little, tiny, fundamental things happen here people take for granted.
Leftists want to completely avoid the fundamentals because it they considered them for even a moment, they might see why people have a problem with anyone getting married other than one male and one female. (But then, when have Leftists ever shown any concern for children other than as human shields and props to score political points?)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
JasonC, 1) Please, don't be
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 1:00am.
JasonC,
1) Please, don't be the typical Liberal, pro-homosexual who speaks about what Jesus said or did not say when you clearly are clueless.
Jesus clearly stated that he came to fulfill the law, not to change it. There are other places where Jesus embraced the moral laws, (key, moral laws, because I know you'll start throwing leviticus and other ridiculous stuff) of what is now the Old Testament. Additionally, the Acts of the Apostles and other books of the New Testament, letters from the Apostles and followers of Christ, do speak against homosexuality.
And the Roman Catholic Church doesn't merely take a hard line against homosexual sex, (notice: not against homosexuals). It explains succinctly and in great detail why homosexual sex is wrong.
And the RCC can speak from experience since the vast majority, if not most, pedophile cases in the Church were all of homosexual nature.
The Church open its doors to homosexual priests back in the 60s and 70s and where did it get Her decades later? The pedophile scandal! The 800lb gorilla in the room that no one wants to talk about.
Everyone wants to talk about how evil the RCC is for the pedophile scandal, but no one wants to talk about the reasons, the whys! and I can assure you it has NOTHING to do with the vow of celibacy. What did happen is that the Church attempted to be modern, cool and sadly gave in to the criticism of the world. Oh, it was also during a time that countless of hardcore Liberals who wanted to escape the Vietnam draft entered the seminaries. Being a seminarian was one way to avoid the draft! (bet you didn't know this).
2) Logical, non-Biblican reason homosexuality is wrong. No amount of homosexual sex will ever produce a child, period end of story. There is ZERO possibility of all 6 billions inhabitants on Earth having homosexual sex and a child being the result of it. The same can't be said about heterosexual sex.
3) You keep on talking about commitment between two people having the same genitals. You are defining marriage merely as a commitment between two people. This is your first mistake. You and I do not see marriage the same way.
You are redefining marriage in a way that fits your way of thinking. Like many Liberals, redefining the norm so abnormality seems and appears normal. Which of course, it doesn't make it so.
4) You are the one who is saying homosexual sex is moral. So, why don't you go ahead and tell me where you get the moral authority to establish your definition of marriage over mine. Why is your definition of marraige superior to mine the one established for centuries?
5) Yes, heterosexuals cheat and screw up royaly in marriages. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China. Sorry, heterosexuals do not have an average of 9 sexual partners per year. There are heterosexuals who sleep around a lot, but this is not the average. The homosexual community has many more sexual partners per year than the heterosexual community.
AND heterosexual marriage is already in trouble, why add on another abnormality to it?
6) Refusing to say whether pedophila and homosexual sex are the same? Why do I have to defend an argument I never made! LOL Go have that debate with the individuals who made it.
I already told you what I know homosexual sex is, it is abnormal and immoral. It is wrong and it will never be Right, even if it is legalized nationwide. Legal doesn't equate to Moral.
Homosexual sex leads to countless other abnormalities which individuals like you love to ignore and deny. Nope, not equating homosexual sex to pedophilia. Hope you are smart enough to see that.
~Jason
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 3:57pm.
You and I have covered this topic a number of times in exhaustive detail, so I'll keep it brief.
Thank you; we're all really happy about our sweet little Juliette. After four little blonde copies of my husband I finally got a brunette. :-)
Bru...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 4:32pm.
1. Actually, it is. At least it has been defined as such by the Supreme Court.
2. Now there's a recipe for a healthy, stable relationship. Do you think the "gayness" should be disclosed to the prospective mate as part of the marital pitch? Do you support the issuance of a marriage license to a transgendered applicant?
3. So it was basically one of those "we mean what we say so don't get any funny ideas" deals?
4. A lot of "age-old institutions" have been redefined and the republic has not only survived but flourished.
Juliette's eyes...green? Or is it too early to declare?
In any event, congratulations. Amazing mom.
Jer
~Jer
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 5:30pm.
Dark blue so far. Thank you.
Sorry, dude...
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 7:19pm.
Actually, marriage is NOT a right. Never has been and never will be. If it is, well, my civil rights have been getting trampled on for decades.
Please also consult the TX Constitution.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I beg to differ, dude...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 7:31pm.
from Loving v. Virginia:
"....These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State...." [My italics]
Jer
Repetition does not make it so
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 10:38pm.
Quote that for me over and over again, counselor, until you are blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that marriage is NOT A RIGHT.
Please consult the Texas Constitution, and now, the NC Constitution.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
That doesn't appeal to me...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 10:57pm.
so why don't you just read it over and over until it sinks into your brain.
Jer
Jer, I, as a heterosexual,
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 7:14pm.
Jer,
I, as a heterosexual, can marry a person of the opposite sex
A homosexual can also marry a person of the opposite sex
I, as a heterosexual, cannot marry a person of the same sex
A homosexual cannot marry a person of the same sex
There is ZERO discrimination. Homosexuals can do exactly the same thing that I can and they are denied exactly the same thing that I am.
Marriage is not a civil right, it is not even a right.
I had to ask permission from the State of Illinois, from the City of Chicago to get married. (I also had to ask permission from my priest!)
When EVER I have to ask permission from the government to exercise something, it is not a right.
I don't have to ask permission from the government to go to church, practice my religion, speak freely, do I? of course not! Why? Because these ARE Rights.
As always, Liberals attempt to create rights that do not exist for anyone. The day that none of use have to ask for a marriage license from a city, State it will be the day that I may start agreeing with you on this. But Chicago, Illinois had to approve of my marriage, give me permission to get married before I could do it. Explain, then, how marriage is a right.
Marriage is also a rite. Performed in a church.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 1:05am.
Maybe Binky Braveheart can demand he and his partner have the right to that rite as well. And if denied, he can further his claim you are denying rights to the gaiz because you hate the gaiz. Gai hater.
It doesn't appeal to you because it shows you are wrong
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 05/11/2012 - 9:09pm.
I have read the Texas Constitution over and over again and it has sunk into my brain.
Maybe you ought to go sue the State of Texas, Jer, if you are so cock-sure.
Oh, wait, the language that so offends you has been in the Texas Constitution for SIX YEARS!!! You mean to tell me no one has done anything about it, even using your precious SCOTUS case, in SIX YEARS????
Repeat after me, Jer: marriage is not a right.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Even here, in the former bastion of liberalism, or
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 12:46am.
progressivism, Michigan, marriage is defined in the Constitution as between one man and one woman. In spite of the efforts of Granholm and the progs.
Well, isn't this all just
Submitted by malcum on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:10am.
Well, isn't this all just ducky?
taken words
Submitted by frank_andrini on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 2:41pm.
You took 'the (very) words' from out of my mouth malcum.
Same old song
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:26am.
Again, the left takes a small percentage of the population (around 1 or 2% in this case) and demands that they be included in 100% of our lives.
How so? They want gays front and center in marriage, in schools, in the military, in every church (well, they STILL let the Muslims hate and kill them), in every children's group (Cub Scouts, etc.), in every political position and on and on.
Again, it is elevation because you belong in a group, not because of competance or merit. Pure GroupThink and PCism.
Martin Luther King would be ashamed.
Lost in all the discussion and handwringing about
Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:41am.
"what two consenting adults want to do" is the effect it has on children. The reason that two-parent (To be clear; one male, one female) social structure is the ONLY permutation of humans that has stood the test of time throughout all of history is that it's the one best suited, by far, in which to raise children. A man and a woman bring different things to the task or raising happy, productive children, and neither can replace the other, no matter how they wish to emulate the opposite sex.
And don't even get me started on how bad bisexuality or transgender-ism is for children.
Have you ever noticed that for all the whining the left does about this evil or that evil, such as smoking or bullying, or anything else where they prop up a kid in front of their cause, you never hear them say how good this lesbian/gay/bifurcated/transmutation thing is for the chiiiiildren? That's because the BEST thing that they can say is that the children will adapt. Yeah, no sh*t...children will always adapt, but that's not any sort of ringing endorsement is it? Children will adapt to living on the street too, but it sure as hell ain't good for them.
For the record; I could care less what two confused adults do in the privacy of their own home, but don't ask me to like witnessing it when they choose to flaunt it in public, graphic ways.
"a little below the belt"
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:59am.
"a little below the belt" Noel?
Groan.....
Seriously, though, this is just more of Obama's "I'll have more flexibility after the election" two-step.
He's trying to have it both ways, intimating that he might change after he's elected, but refusing to make a stand now.
And as usual, his supporters will cover for him, just like they tried to do for Democrats who didn't want to say whether they would vote to invade Iraq: they insisted that their election shouldn't be sort of "held hostage" to which way they intended to vote after it. As if whether a candidate will support or oppose certain issues has no place in deciding how one votes.
A stupid argument, laughable on its face, but they used it.
And they're trying it again.
Not only gayer, but blacker too
Submitted by creekrat on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 8:29am.
Am I allowed to post this? Blacks are 13% of our population, no idea the % of gays, but TV seems saturated with both.....love to know who is behind it......doing a great job? Can't even watch poeple looking for a house on A & E without it being shoved down out throats. And anything you say that is not "mainstream" is now racist. I fear for our future.
TV seems saturated with black
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 10:57am.
TV seems saturated with black people? Really?
I do get tired of TV shows with the token gay person. But there are shows finally portraying gay people as not always prissy and fussy, such as "Happy Endings," where the guy is lazy, a poor dresser, etc.
Yes, really, Bal
Submitted by creekrat on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 11:54am.
Start keeping track of comercials or shows that have blacks and or gays, try to find some that do not, In the last few years the increase has been obvious to me, some one or some thing is behind it. Is it just Hollywood?
Wait, what commercials out
Submitted by JasonC on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 12:14pm.
Wait, what commercials out there explicitly depict or market to gay people? I truly can't think of a single one. I definitely missed that ad for heavy-duty paper towels that ends with "Perfect for busy moms and men who like to have sex with men."
As for blacks, this may be demonstratively true, but do you really think that advertisers do this out of some blind sense of political correctness as opposed to thorough focus-grouping and research designed to maximize product appeal in a free market?
Advertisers want to appeal to
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 1:09pm.
Advertisers want to appeal to a broad range of people.
As for TV shows, I haven't noticed a saturation of black people. There are, simply, black characters.
Balboa and JC, Hmmm...I am
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 1:48pm.
Balboa and JC,
Hmmm...I am not sure what you guys do for a living, are you in marketing, pr, etc.?
Advertisers want to appeal to the groups which are going to spend the most money on them. The LAST thing an advertiser want is to waste money on a campaign which is not directed to a specific audience. Granted, you want to get a lot of people in, so, in that sense, they may want to appeal to many, but all advertisers know that this is rare.
There has been a saturation of gay characters, shows on televion and this is NOT representative of the population at large. What it does represent is a minority of people, pro-homosexuals, attempting to shove down the throat of the majority of Americans that their life style is normal and no one should be judge. Which ultimately, this is what is about.
Homosexuals, which I honestly believe is not most of them, who are very active and do not want to hear that what they are doing is wrong. Of course, like hypocrite Dan Savage, they have ZERO problem juding others. But wow to him/her who judges the militant pro-homosexuals.
The militant pro-homosexuals are a small and i mean small minority, but they are loud, they enjoy threatening and doing everything they can to destroy anyone who dares question their life style.
One of my bosses is a Lesbian and she hates and does not get along at all with the pro-homosexual movement that demands, forces everyone to accept their life style. Her and i have had plenty of conversations and she understands that most people will never believe that they way someone choses to live is the right one. Live and let live. She has zero problem judging others, just like she has no problem others judging her. This is how it should be. But the Dan Savage-like love to judge others, but oh boy if anyone judges him. The Dan Savage-like want to force me, my children and anyone else who doesn't agree with them to believe like he does. Give me a break.
If the militant pro-homosexuals want to be left alone, STOP shoving down the throat of America your immorality. Live as you wish, but don't demand that I accept it as normal. Just like I will live as I wish and I am not demanding that the pro-homosexauls accept it as normal.
How true that is balboa!
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 5:21pm.
There's npot a saturation of black themed TV shows and characters because Hollywood is the most racist institution in this country. Blacks consist of about 25% of movie ticket buyers and yet there are few leading black actresses/actors. And like someone else said, name the second black woman to win the Oscar for best actress. They like the blacks on their liberal plantation, content with their handouts, but call the Tea Party racist
I don't think studio
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 8:09pm.
I don't think studio decisions are the results of racism.
Balboa
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 8:22pm.
Then why aren't there more primetime, black themed TV shows? Actors? Movies? Tyler Perry makes money hand over fist, because he's speaking to the black community. You'd think since he's making that much, there'd be imitators. But nooooooooooo (Steve Martin voice)
Because they're chicken, more
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 8:47pm.
Because they're chicken, more than anything. They don't like taking chances they can't justify to someone else. I'm sure they view Perry as serving a niche and not indicative of a larger more sustainable market.
That qualifies as racism
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 8:56pm.
by cowardice. And I'm not buying it. They seem to have plenty of courage when it comes to portraying gay life and gay characters.
Aren't gays a niche too? There are more gay themed TV shows and movies characters than there are black themed TV shows etc. And there are more blacks in our country than there are gays
The token black character and
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:08pm.
The token black character and token gay probably run at the same percentage, roughly.
I think there are more shows aimed at black people than gays.
Besides the Cleveland Show....
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:18pm.
...what, on primetime network TV? And my guess (never seen it) Cleveland is aimed more at fans of Family Guy, than blacks. How about movies? How many big budget black themed movies do we get? I can name several gay/LGBT movies: The Birdcage, Brokeback Mountain, To Wong Foo, Jeffrey etc.
Movies: Malcolm X Do the
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:29pm.
Movies:
Malcolm X
Do the Right Thing
Purple Rain
Preacher's Wife
What's Love Got to Do With It
Love and Basketball
...and so on.
Made by black filmmakers
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:34pm.
So basically we could probably come up with an equal number of gay themed and black themed movies. I'd be willing to bet that the total number of gay themed movies is roughly equal to the number of black themed over the last 30 years. What's wrong with that picture? Why does it prove my point?
You avoided the question about TV
Doesn't it prove that they're
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:47pm.
Doesn't it prove that they're both niche?
Network TV is definitely going through more of a gay phase right now, but it'll plateau. And I wasn't thinking just network TV.
Black themes are far from
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:52pm.
niche. African Americans make up a greater proportion of the American populace than gays and a greater percentage of the movie going public. But Hollywood is ignoring this potentially lucrative "niche", which I've read is up to 25% of their customers. THAT is racism. If they're ignoring that revenue stream in order to focus on gays that shows where their priorities lie
I should have said that
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:59pm.
I should have said that they're both treated as niche.
And I still say they do it for primarily financial reasons. I don't think execs are angels at all.
So bal are you saying that
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 10:08pm.
ignoring the culture, lifestyles and concerns of 25% of their customers is a sound financial decision? That sounds incredibly stupid to me. If I was a Hollywood exec and I was told "you'd make more money by targeting movies at an underserved segment of the population" I'd green light several black themed movies immediately. Not too long ago you never saw Spanish on products or signs. Now you see it everywhere. Why? Because corporations saw they could make boatloads of cash by catering to the needs of Hispanics. There's only two possible reasons why Hollywood isn't serving African-American needs more: gargantuan stupidity or racism. If they really were that stupid, how did they get to be in charge of a multi-billion dollar industry?
1. There are black-themed
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 10:17pm.
1. There are black-themed movies.
2. There aren't an overwhelming amount because the studios don't think it's a sound enough gamble.
3. There are black-themed TV shows, there are tons of products aimed at black people.
1. there are the same amount
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 10:37pm.
of gay themed movies, even though they don't spend as much money at the movies as blacks. Conclusion: racists 2. there aren't an overwhelming amount, even though it's proven that they make money (Tyler Perry). Conclusion: racists 3. there are black themed TV shows? Such as? How many on network (CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CW) primetime?
EDIT: I never said there weren't black targeted products. There would have to be hair care products at least. I made the contrast that since Hispanics are a growing market, and they have plenty of money to spend, manufacturers are targeting them. Hollywood would be smart to lay aside their racism to serve a market that wants to spend their money at movies
I'm normally cheerful
Submitted by frank_andrini on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 8:43am.
Wait...it means WHAT?
I actually agree here.
Submitted by c5then on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 8:49am.
TV has never been "gayer" and it is being forced on the American public. This is the entertainment industry, where probably as much as 30% are gay because they are drawn to that type of occupation, trying to make the rest of the country accept the deviants as "normal" when in the general population homosexuals account for around 1%.
Almost all of the shows on network channels and many on the cable channels are about sex, have heavy sexual over-tones or portray sex as something people casually do like social drinking, going to dinner with freinds, or hailing a cab in NYC. Along with that is the surreptitious inclusion of a gay person in almost every group and situation. It's called desensitization.
In fiction you can make any situation come out positive or negative. In real life, it is a different story.
In the 60's when sex was being desensitized to the american public they used the same method. It was done quietly, through innuendo and then slowly ramped up to be more blatant. Then the 70s went full steam ahead. Hollywood got their way and soon society changed and started thinking that sex was the point of relationships and that nothing else mattered. The result was people marrying for all the wrong reasons, and the resultant sky-rocketing in the divorce rate. Are we better off because of this. NO! We are much worse off. We have HUGE segments of the population now that have grown up in broken homes, been raised mostly in single parent families and sometimes serial marriages. We have a HUGE number of children living in homes where they have never had a father and don't know how one is supposed to behave. In short it has completely screwed up our society.
Now they are trying to do the same thing with homosexuality.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Amen
Submitted by frank_andrini on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:01am.
And I am seriously thinking of running for Congress from my home state. Were I to do so term limits would be a high priority so you can imagine how popular I would not be with my fellow reps were I to be elected.
Institutionalized laziness
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 12:56am.
So making lazy voters lazier would be a high priority for you?
Not a good idea.
Term limits suck.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
re: term limits suck
Submitted by frank_andrini on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 2:37pm.
OK then...how about Decimation?
Recall what Roman Veterans did to their Senate when the Pols cut the yearly stipend.
And of course this is just a theoretical discussion.
But recall that when My Country began the congress was made up of mostly farmers and OK 'other' landowners who in many cases served for a few years and then WENT HOME to work their land.
Cure for romanticism
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 05/13/2012 - 9:39pm.
But recall that when My Country began the congress was made up of mostly farmers and OK 'other' landowners who in many cases served for a few years and then WENT HOME to work their land. Spoken like a true romantic. You mean people like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, just to name a few?
There was once a time in this country when ex-presidents had post-presidential political careers!
Evil career politicians have existed since the ink was drying on the Constitution.
I would submit that if your target is the evil career politician (which can ONLY exist due to lazy voters), the BEST way to do that is to reduce their bennies to a paycheck. A paycheck only: no pensions like what Congress gets (just serve ONE Senate term or three HR terms and you get a pension ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION FOR LIFE!!!), no medical plans, no other goodies, NO NOTHING. Just one paycheck.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Next up, cross-species
Submitted by ex buff e-dub on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 8:56am.
Next up, cross-species relationships! Don't be a h8ter!
inter species connections
Submitted by frank_andrini on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:03am.
Firesign Theatre did a recording about that.
I probably have a view neither ideological side likes
Submitted by OffTheLows on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:01am.
To me, this gay marriage debate can be settled by simply saying from this point forward, states would recognize all marriages, gay or straight, as civil unions. If a couple wants a marriage certificate in addition, they would get that directly from the church, and the church would be entirely of their own will to recognize or not recognize gay marriage. Opponents of gay marriage would know that there is nothing from the state that would recognize gays as being married, while gays and those supporting their desire to have the same rights as straight married couples can get equal recognition from the government.
Sorry, Off, you don't get it.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 12:53am.
The churches would be forced to recognize and celebrate the gay marriages. It's not really all about the license, it's also about the recognition. The evil, rotten Christians have to be made to recognize and allow gay weddings in their churches, most especially the Catholic Church.
TV has never been gayer
Submitted by chiefpayne on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 9:33am.
And that is PRECISELY why I watch little or NO TV anymore.
DVDs of movies I like works just fine with me.
I only watch TV to get the weather anymore.
Ratings have never been lower . . .
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 11:58am.
Just a coincidence . . .
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Yes.
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 2:18pm.
Correlation is not causation. The real reasons for lower tv ratings are complicated and numerous. Usually attributed as the biggest cause of lower ratings is the greater array of diversions available to the user. Namely the internet, video game consoles, smart phones, netflix, etc. The viewer has more things to do now, than he/she did 20 years ago.
Also equally devastating to the ratings of a single network or program is a greater diversity of viewing options. With hundreds of flourishing cable channels catering to niche audiences, programs, on a whole, have smaller audiences than they did previously.
Anyway, you'd be hard pressed to find that a greater number of gay characters on television have had any serious impact on the total number of viewers. You could just as easily make the connection that the, i don't know-let's say rising number of ensemble romantic comedy films have been hurting television ratings.
Some reasons for lower ratings
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 5:34pm.
Lack of original ideas. Deliberately pissing off a large segment of the TV viewing public with constant liberal themes. Declines in moral standards. Lack of quality. Proliferation of reality shows.
If you're going to set out to deliberately mock the values of a large segment of your audience, it will have an effect. I don't watch primetime network TV because A) everything just basically sucks these days and B) I'm tired of getting a liberal political lesson on every TV show such as global warming; homosexuality; tea party is racist, ignorant, violent; Sarah Palin is stupid; Obama is the Messiah; all conservatives are inbred, redneck morons with gum disease who live in trailers etc
I watched 15 minutes of a Big Bang Theory rerun not long ago and liked it. Had a few funny moments. At the end of the show, after the credits was a long essay that had to be freeze framed to be read. It was a bucket list by the show's creator and the first topic was "live long enough to see a really cool, biracial man elected president who will end global warming....etc". A long love letter to Obama. I haven't watched it since
If every TV show was a constant litany of conservative themes would liberals continue tuning in?
Sure,
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 5:52pm.
that's why you don't watch tv-and perhaps why your friends and family don't watch much tv. But the fact is, that's not why the majority of Americans watch less tv. Well, actually, roughly the same amount of people still watch tv-but they watch mostly different things (hence the smaller audiences) and for less time (hence the overall downward trend). And most of that is due to a larger amount of time being spent online or playing video games (certainly among the key 18-34 crowd).
This site, however, is a positive feedback loop-connecting you with like minded individuals. That's why when you say you don't "watch the crap on tv" because of reason A, you'll get a ton of people saying "hell yeah!". Giving the false impression that there is a majority opinion being shared-when really, it's just the majority opinion of the politically active members of this group of people. The truth is, the bulk of America is largely apolitical, for most of the time.
BosTarus
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:12pm.
You've said plenty of dumb things to me, but this takes the cake as the dumbest you've ever said
"This site, however, is a positive feedback loop-connecting you with like minded individuals. That's why when you say you don't "watch the crap on tv" because of reason A, you'll get a ton of people saying "hell yeah!". "
My views, which you barely even know, are often at odds with what people say here. Read my profile, and you'll see that. I'm not in an echo chamber here. I've read plenty of things here I disagree with, but unlike you I don't get off on trolling. Do you work for Nielsen? Do you know EVERY reason why people are tuning out? There are plenty of reasons why people are tuning out network TV and I gave you some. Not all of them. I never said that my reasons were the only ones I said SOME. Maybe watching that child porn has softened your brain so much that you missed that.
My apologies
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:22pm.
"Like-minded" was not meant to imply unthinking clones. I was simply stating that this is a political site, and the bulk of the people on this site have, oftentimes, similar views on a variety of topics. I was, in no way, implying that you've agreed with everything that's ever been said here-that's an exaggeration of what I said.
You did, however, say that you've stopped watching tv because of the liberal bias in it's programming; a sentiment that has been shared on this site many times. Clearly not one shared by EVERYONE here, but it's certainly not an uncommon opinion to hold on Newsbusters.
I was just addressing that statement-and saying that, though that is not an uncommon opinion-I don't think it applies globally; and is not the major concern of content creators (which is an argument this site makes often).
I certainly never pretended to know EVERY REASON why people switched off the tv-but I do happen to know that statistically, there are many reasons for this-not the single reason that you seemed to have been implying.
Also, thanks-if that was the dumbest thing I've said here, then that's a pretty high low!
Seeing as how
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:41pm.
I've agreed with almost nothing you've said, that's just the dumbest of the dumb. So don't go congratulating yourself. I'd put that as equal to Obama congratualting himself for the least stupid of his 126 gaffes that Blonde has chronicled. I NEVER implied a single reason. My first reason, and the one I consider most important, is the lack of quality and originality. So don't go twisting my words. TV sucks and if I found something worth watching, then I might watch it. I gave the example of Big Bang Theory, so it's not I'm saying "everything sucks now, so I won't bother". I have an open mind, but if they inject liberal politics, then I'm off, as are many others.
So help me out here. Give me something good on network TV to watch tonight, As long as it isn't a talent competition, reality show, sleazy sitcom about 20 somethings trying to get laid, cop show, lawyer show, prime time soap, something Brent Bozell or another blogger has profiled as sleazy, anti-religion, militantly pro-gay, anything with "CSI" or "Law & Order" in the title (those go under the category of cop and lawyer shows), something that doesn't use gratuitous swipes at flyover country, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Republicans in general, southerners or something that doesn't glorify Obama. Good luck
I bet you could find an
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:48pm.
I bet you could find an episode of Leave It to Beaver somewhere.
Nah
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:10pm.
MASH or Cheers, thank you. Though Beaver was a very funny show
Ok
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:03pm.
Let's stop dealing in absolutes. I'm sorry if I've implied that I thought you believed only 1 thing is the cause yadda yadda yadda. I know you understand that there are a multitude of reasons-I was only addressing the one you offered first.
And I know you understand that I'm not trying to argue a single issue cause or that I'm pretending to know everything. So let's get that outta the way.
I actually didn't even get to address your complaint of quality, even though I feel like there's an awful lot of great tv on these days.
Let's see, Wednesday night? I'm assuming you aren't a fan of Modern Family. If you can get past the fact that there are 2 gay characters, the show is, on the whole, pretty devoid of politics and is just a tight, well written comedy. But I understand if the gay characters would cause you a moment's pause. Happy Endings, which used to follow Modern Family, is also quite funny-and there is a gay character there too, but he was far from the stereotype and is quite funny. I happen to think that Don't Trust the B--- (which currently follows MF) is quite funny. But you said to avoid shows profiled by NB.
But outside of Wednesday night: you've got New Girl, Raising Hope, Parks and Rec, Community, Mad Men, Justified, Homeland, Downton Abbey, Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, Awake (don't watch it, but I hear good things and the concept is cool), Boardwalk Empire, Friday Night Lights (just finished last season, but it's great if you haven't seen it), How I Met Your Mother-though it's been pretty bad this season..., Breaking Bad, Portlandia if you're into absurd sketch comedy...
Anyway, not all of those shows are currently on-but they're either coming back soon, or they just finished a season. That's a good place to start for some quality tv. I'm sure not all of that will be up your alley-but Raising Hope, Parks and Rec, Homeland, Downton Abbey, and Friday Night Lights are all pretty beloved across the spectrum.
I can dismiss a few of those right off the bat
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:26pm.
New Girl: that was already profiled here on NB and comes under the "20 somethings trying to get laid" category. I seem to remember at least two or three others you've brought up as being profiled here. How I Met Your Mother again, same category. I think every sitcom these days is in that category. I tried BBT, which also does, but at least it had socially awkward nerds, so it was more "20 somethings attempting, and failing, to get laid"
You're a walking TV Guide, ain't ya? Do you ever leave the house?
EDIT: one major reason I won't watch New Girl. I seriously hate Zooey Deschanel. She always plays a bohemian dingbat, like in Yes Man, or a character she was in Frasier (Roz's sister). If her stock character was real, she'd be a OWS protestor
Ha
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:32pm.
well, yeah-TV is a hobby of my wife and mine. We both love good movies and good tv. We don't have kids yet, so we might as well enjoy this time while we can! We save the "leaving the house" for the weekends... we both have jobs that go late, so we come home and crash on the couch.
edit: that's a fair point about Zooey Deschanel... alot of people find her irritating. I used to be irritated by her-and the show originally started out as a sort of "look at how quirky this girl is"... but luckily they've moved past that and she doesn't bother me anymore. But I totally understand why you'd dislike her-you aren't alone!
I love good movies and TV too
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:35pm.
Bought a 55" LED 3D for that. Unfortunately there's just very little of either these days. TCM, Antenna TV, sports and the First 48 are almost all that gets seen on it these days
Hope you have bluray
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:38pm.
Then you can at least watch all your favorite movies in super HD!
Blu Ray and
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:44pm.
1000 watt 7.1 home theater, Playstation 3 to watch 3D movies, Dish Network with Hopper(Tim Allen grunt). I'm a technophile. Love today's technology, but too bad creativity hasn't kept pace with it. The Third Man (see my signature line) looked great on Turner Classic Movies the other night
Color me jealous
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:53pm.
of your technical mastery... my system barely even begins to compete... I was just excited to finally get my tv wall mounted!
BosTarus
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 8:08pm.
At the risk of boring everyone, and to avoid future misunderstandings on this subject, I'll expound on the "lack of quality" subject. I've watched some recent TV shows, but found them seriously lacking. I liked the first few episodes of House, because of the medical show aspect, but then they started with the Cheers ripoff of the feuding coworkers really in love with each other. So I stopped watching that. I watched Grey's Anatomy with an ex-gf, but it was 5% medical show, 95% primetime soap. Next. I watched Lost, but that show just meandered, and got boring and weird. I already told you about BBT. I might've given that show another chance, even with the pro-Obama commercial, but I gather they do some serious Christian bashing as well, since Sheldon was raised by fundamentalists. I blew my top when you suggested that politics was my only reason, or primary reason, for turning off primetime TV because I really miss quality TV, and want to see some quality, but I'm just not finding it these days. My missus is a registered, albeit conservative, Democrat, and she always laughs when I say "I'm boycotting this because it's liberal". But she never watches primetime TV either because of, you got it, lack of quality. Actually very little offends me. I'm a fan of Will & Grace, but I never considered that show to be militantly pro-gay.
OK enough rambling. Sorry if I bored everyone here
One reason only
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 05/10/2012 - 7:22pm.
There is only one reason to watch Will & Grace.
Debra Messing.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I like "Person of Interest" and "The Mentalist" myself
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 2:00am.
Haven't detected anything overtly liberal or conservative in either yet. We'll see.
Liked "House", but it does get tedious. I will watch the final episodes just to justify my time spent watching it thus far. :)
I still like both iterations of NCIS, (the original and NCIS LA), but not necessarily for purely entertainment value, (Ziva David and Kensi Blye, yum).
Most times, I'm watching Discovery/History or the Food Channel. And of course, THE SAN ANTONIO SPURS!!!!
Guilty pleasure
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 05/13/2012 - 9:43pm.
My guilty pleasure now on mornings when I am getting ready to go to work is my favorite sitcom: Law & Order. And if they want to guarantee my attention will be fixed on the program, one of the following will have to be an assistant D.A. during a particular episode:
1) Alana de la Garza.
2) Angie Harmon.
3) Annie Parisse.
4) Jill Hennessy.
(Not necessarily in that order, may be subject to change. Except that 1) and 2) change amongst themselves, constantly.)
:)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
What the published literature says on this issue.
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 2:17pm.
CDC’s latest press release from 2011, at http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIVIncidencePressRelease.html, denotes the disparate levels of HIV among young Black gay and bisexual men and Latinos. Of particular importance is the alarming increase among Black men and women, which is by far a greater challenge. The same can be said of the Latino community where the rates of HIV infection are greater than the general population. As the press release notes, there are several possibilities as to why this happening. Both communities are strongly against gay marriage, as more recently demonstrated by the strength of their vote in the overall majority against the California gay marriage ballot issue in 2008 as evidenced by a Washington Post story at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR200811.... Most recently, the North Carolina marriage amendment referendum equally failed to receive majority support from the Black community at http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/05/marriage-amendment-still... despite attempts by NAACP officials otherwise. The majority of opposition to gay marriage is coming from the Black and Latino Christian communities, and changing this will not be as easy. Multiple sociological studies of the Black and Latino religious communities have noted little decade-over-decade change in their core attitudes towards homosexuality. This is strongly suggestive, as the CDC notes, that community attitudes towards homosexuality are part of the problem. There are few gay characters in more ethnically-focused programming for Latinos and Blacks, as an editorial by an openly gay writer notes at http://www.indianapolisrecorder.com/opinion/article_c82b0eb0-4ddb-11e1-b.... Even though this is just an opinion piece, it is relevant to the minority communities where the rate of HIV is increasing and where strong community opposition to homosexuality is not going to change anytime soon.
As to the notion that a young gay person seeing positive images on television will somehow help them with the sexual and emotional maelstrom that is adolescence, this remains to be more fully proven out in studies. There have been conflicting studies, as noted in the Institute of Medicine’s report on LGBT health at http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13128 , particularly the section on adolescents from pages 142-150 of same. The conflicting results and uneven methodology within the studies do not support a conclusion that suicides among younger gay, lesbian and gender-dysphoric youth will somehow be decreased by showing more gay positive characters on TV. As noted in many of the studies, acceptance by their communities and family seem to be more important than media depictions. As witnessed by other studies regarding media depictions of minority characters, there may be an “oversampling” effect which alters viewer perceptions incorrectly—there are not as many such people in real life as there are on a TV show, as asserted at http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/05/31/americans-beli.... TV does not reflect life, and the resulting implication is that TV characters have only limited and exaggerating effects on the TV audiences.
For those of us who practice in psychiatry, psychology and counseling/behavioral health, the conflicting literature does not suggest that having more gay characters on TV has done anything but create incorrect perceptions of reality and potentially increase tensions within minority communities that have a long history of opposition to homosexuality.
Good evening Doc Sam
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 2:34pm.
Thank you. As you know I am a radically opinionated religious extremist and would appreciate your opinion,
To what degree do you believe that some of these studies are geared to promote a predetermined conclusion?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Good evening Cocodrie.
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 6:33pm.
In general, psychiatrists consider social sciences studies (e. g. psychology, sociology, counseling, etc.) to be less rigorous in their methodology and not as robust as clinical trials which are conducted in a different manner. Some of the reasons for this are: 1) a lack of adequate controls upon which to measure different therapies vs no intervention; b) biases of observers, researchers, participants or patients; and c) imputed emotions of subjects by observers. Other factors include the lack of medical training on the part of social sciences researchers who frequently overlook organic causes (e.g. physical diseases) that are contributory to mental illness and poor statistical methodology resulting in erroneous conclusions.
Psychiatrists and other physicians would also say that most social science researchers are quick to pin their own personal opinions on study results which may not prove out their hypotheses. Examples of these studies are infamous, but among the many which are discarded and considered to be clinically useless are the various studies to look for physical differences between gay and straight people (the infamous "finger length" study), the constant studies that try to prove conservatives are somehow less intelligent than liberals (the definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" vary so much from study to study and from observer to observer as to be completely meaningless and definitely agenda-driven) and any studies where the statistical methodology uses the simplest types of comparisons rather than more robust tests. Another area that is considered to be basically fatuous by most medical professionals is anything that emanates from "family and consumer studies" departments (we used to call that home economics). In the words of one of my former faculty colleagues, "stick to cooking and clipping coupons!"
Many of the studies purporting to link increased suicide to bullying of gay adolescents have reached opposing conclusions, largely because it is difficult to discern and differentiate between forms of mental illness in an otherwise undiagnosed patient. The thesis is that every bullied kid is gay is vastly incorrect, just as is the assertion that every bully is straight. Adolescent psychiatry is simply not that easy. The literature on suicide is replete with analyses of those who complete the act and may or may not leave evidence indicating they did have a mental disorder (one would think that suicide alone is evidence enough, but alas it does not always tell us what motivated the patient) and those who simply threaten or plan suicide openly (primarily a manifestation of cluster B personality disorders and co-morbid mood disorder exacerbations). Add to this that many of these studies relied on a definition of the suicide victim's sexuality which is made by consensus when the stated sexual orientation was unknown at the time. It's not so much that the researchers may have deliberately made an error, it's just that their "educated guesses" reflect a lot of their personal biases. In other words, a young suicide victim whose sexuality may not have been known might have been assumed to have been gay based solely on superficial factors that are largely meaningless in adolescents.
In general, I have a healthy distrust of much of what social science produces largely because their conclusions would never withstand the highest level of proof required in medicine, namely that of the FDA and other regulatory agency study standards.
Thanks Doc
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 05/09/2012 - 7:01pm.
I appreciate you spending so much time to give me such a detailed answer. I'll have to read it a few times to digest everything. Thanks again
Alton
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Homosexuals have a right to be called heterosexuals.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 1:37am.
What? You disagree? Why, you are a gay hater and gay rights denier and you don't accept gays and you look down upon the gays and you are making Binky cry because of his family and friends being denied their rights.
Please. Don't make Binky Braveheart cry.
Binky filling his diaper: And to answer your question, it's an issue I felt strongly about initially because of some friends and family members, and I now advocate for it not only because I think they absolutely deserve the benefits of gay acceptance, but also because I see it as an important, albeit largely symbolic (for me; for gay couples it is quite pragmatic and material) step toward our culture being just plain better. Much better, to my mind, than one in which perfectly decent people are looked down upon because of vague notions of morality and normalcy.
Poor Jason
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 1:52am.
There is nothing vague about morality and normalcy. Wishful thinking on his part.
this whole THREA is "gay"
Submitted by frank_andrini on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 10:51am.
And I do NOT mean cheerful. You know "Methinks he doth protest too much" or something...give it a rest. With the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" there's at LEAST one guy who struts his Preference Out There with 'his' women's walk. I believe the term is 'catamite'. He tried his act on me.
As there was no interest and no open hostility on my part he eventually gave up. Now when I see 'him' my pity for 'his' lifestyle must be evident as 'he' can no longer look me in the eye. This country of ours is not a Theocracy Stop acting so 'gay' my Newsbusters friends. YHVH has the Final Word- not you.
D
Submitted by frank_andrini on Sat, 05/12/2012 - 10:57am.
a 'D' after THREA
LOST my regular glasses.
As well as your complete and
Submitted by bretzysdude on Thu, 06/14/2012 - 2:13pm.
As well as your complete and total mind. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, troll.