Savage, on the day CAA reportedly dumped him following homophobic remarks: "Mike shall return"
On March 1, Hollywood's Creative Artists Agency (CAA) reportedly dropped conservative radio host Michael Savage two days after announcing that he had been signed as a client. CAA's reported decision followed Savage's comments -- documented by Media Matters for America -- attacking singer Melissa Etheridge, who thanked her wife at the Academy Awards, and asserting that married gay couples' raising of children amounts to "child abuse" and "makes me want to puke." Later on March 1, on his nationally syndicated radio, Savage did not directly address CAA's reported decision, but he did speak to "[t]hose of you who think I'm your enemy" and those "who are spending all your days and nights attacking Michael Savage." Savage went on to say: "You're mentally ill, and you need help. You need more help than you can imagine. ... I know you're mentally ill. I know that, and you can't help yourself. The mentally ill cannot heal themselves."
In the same broadcast, Savage said: "How [liberals] could have such hatred in their hearts for people like myself ... how they will take the side of the Islamic extremists over the president and over the troops, how they will take the side of the enemy in virtually every interchange could only be answered with one statement: liberalism is a mental disorder, and I don't have the cure for it." He added, "But I certainly will never relent in my desire to awaken America. With God's will -- and your listenership -- Mike shall return."
On February 27, Media Matters noted Savage's February 26 comments about Etheridge, and CAA announced that it had signed Savage "for representation in all areas." On the same day's broadcast of his radio show, Savage said of Media Matters: "I don't know why they're attacking me for what I believe in," and added, "I stick by every word I wrote." He later referred to Media Matters as "a gay website that attacks me every day."
From the March 1 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Those of you who think I'm your enemy -- if you think I'm a bigger enemy to you, for example -- let's start with this. For those of you who are obsessed with certain topics, and you think that I, a frank-speaking man, I, Michael Savage, am your biggest enemy, then you're proving to me that liberalism is a mental disorder. Why do I say that? Because I do not pose any direct threat to any of you. Who does pose a direct threat to you? Our common enemy. A common enemy would hang you, cut your throat, throw you down a well, anything they could do to you.
So, a man who speaks out trying to defend all of us becomes your enemy? Why? Because you're sick. You're mentally ill, and you need help. You need more help than you can imagine. But you'll be the last person to understand how sick you are. What it's going to take to wake you up is anyone's guess. I have a pretty good idea what it's going to take. You know, it'll be like 55,000 degrees over your city, and they'll be cheering throughout the Middle East. And then one of you or two of you who are spending all your days and nights attacking Michael Savage will come to understand that you have bigger problems and bigger enemies than me.
I don't expect you to change. I know you're mentally ill. I know you're mentally ill. I know that, and you can't help yourself. The mentally ill cannot heal themselves.
[...]
SAVAGE: Do you know what I'm talking about? All you snotty liberals, who look over all of these things like it means nothing; what's wrong with you? When did you lose your soul? When did it exactly happen? Was it the pot in high school? What exactly -- was it the coke in the '80s? When do you think, as a liberal, you lost your soul? What did it to you? When was the turning point? What was that tipping point in your life as a liberal, looking back, when you lost your soul and started to hate America, and you started to hate everything that was normal and sane about this country? When did you lose your perspective on reality, is what I'd like to ask you.
See, I don't hate liberals. I've got to make that very clear. Basically, they're not bad people by and large, they leave you alone. I don't like their politics, they don't like mine, but they're not harmful. Most of them are nice people, they're just pleasure-oriented. They like nice things, and they want to be left alone. I understand that.
But how they could have such hatred in their hearts for people like myself, who spend their every waking moment, and with every fiber in their being, trying to wake America up to the danger it is in, how they will take the side of the Islamic extremists over the president and over the troops, how they will take the side of the enemy in virtually every interchange can only be answered with one statement: liberalism is a mental disorder, and I don't have the cure for it. But I certainly will never relent in my desire to awaken America. With God's will -- and your listenership -- Mike shall return.
Oh, Mike. I don't hate you either. I just think you are scum sucking vermin.
He is scum sucking vermin, you're right. I agree except------
I HATE HIM
Savage is a punk, no doubt about it.
Hating someone is like drinking poison and hoping they get ill. Be that as it may, your anger couldn't be focused on a more worthy critter.
Hmmmmmm? My hate isn't misdirected. Sometimes there are things worthy of hate. He is worthy.
I disagree. Maybe we view hatred differently. I do not see it as having a rational basis. It also does not seem to allow for possibility redemption very easily. Hatred also seems to take its toll on people as Roundhouse insightfully tried to point out. You are too good to hate.
I am reminded of the words of Booker T. Washington:
"I will let no man drag me down so low as to make me hate him."
Perhaps we do view hate differently. My view (for myself, not preaching to others) is that hate is deeper a form of anger, and simply an emotion. I think it's natural to feel it. I would hopefuly never allow it to get out of control or to the point where I would act on it. I think it is as basic as sadness, joy, love, etc. Any emotion can be destructive if acted on inappropriately. But on the other hand, we're not Vulcans.
But he did return, and give a kick-ass show you scum-sucking RDDB vermin.
Return? When did he go away?
And the rat came back the very next day
the rat came back, they thought he was a goner
but the rat came back, he just wouldn't stay awayyyyyy......
And you, Mr. Weiner, did nothing to provoke the ire. Its a lesson in if you play, you pay.
Big deal. WTH was he gonna do there anyway? He's a great talk show host and that's good enough. Whether you like him or not is immaterial. He kicks lib butt when needed (every day) and no one comes close his psychological nudity (or sickological nutity if you prefer).
So you like to listen to a bigot that gives out incorrect information on this show. What does that say about you HI?
...and no one comes close his psychological nudity...
The words are all familiar, but I can't quite make out the meaning...
Was he humming "We'll Meet Again" as he turned and walked away?
"Strangers in the Night".
"Mike shall return" ...with a little promotion maybe.
Anna Nicolle is dead and buried... Howard K, Stern needs a new crazy client to promote. Give it some thought, MIkey...
I don't know if it is possible, but even Howard K. Stern may have a threshold of decency that would seem to exclude the possibility of representing Savage.
Savage Weiner: "So, a man who speaks out trying to defend all of us becomes your enemy?"
LMAO!
Dr. Weiner, please elaborate on exactly whom you refer to when you say "all of us".
at least he believes mental illness exists.
"...he believes mental illness exists."
Yea... but in bizarro Mikey World it's called "Virtue".
Savage: "Because I do not pose any direct threat to any of you. Who does pose a direct threat to you?"
Melissa Etheridge did not pose any threat to you, Mr. Savage. Yet YOU attacked HER.
Practice what you preach.
Are you kidding? She called another woman her WIFE!!! She's destroying marriage!
She called another woman her wife?!?!
No marv it doesn't destroy other marriages, just sort of makes a mockery of marriage in general. It's not normal, it's--queer. Now I'm not going to upchuck over it like Savage, but I might laugh my ass off. Two woman married with kids. HAHAHAHA!
You are welcome to your opinion. Heterosexuals seem to be doing a fine enough job of damaging the institution of marriage without any help from homosexuals. It will be nice to compare the rates of homosexual divorce someday (when enough of a sample can be collected) to the heterosexual rates. I would speculate that lesbians will have the lowest divorce rates of all.
Enlighten me, Taz: it makes a mockery of the institution of marriage... how? And are we talking about marriage as a legal institution, an institution specific to a particular religion, or are we speaking more broadly in historical and cultural terms? You name it -- I still challenge you to explain how two women marrying "mocks" anyone's institution.
Right on, Dave.
He says liberals are obsessed with some topics, but he was the one attacking someone for an acceptance speech at the Oscars Ceremony.
I mean, c'mon! How twisted is that?
I was half expecting him to start ranting about a liberal conspiracy to "sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids" to paraphrase Gen. Jank D. Ripper.
Well I guess the fight will continue, because we're not going to relent either, Mike. And destroying those who you don't approve of defends no one. This is a nation that includes every imaginable race, creed and orientation. That is what America is all about. We plan on defending that America against Fascists like you and your followers.
I don't think ANY of the founding fathers had homosexuality on their minds during the writing of the Constitution or bill of rights. I think you added 'orientation' to make it fit in your arguement. The gay lifestyle is a damnable one. I hope they repent before it's too late. I guess personal accountability is lost in this forum's political leaning.
"personal accountability"?
Personal accountability for what, PC? Why should there be "personal accountability" for how God made someone? Do people with red hair have to personally account for that? Left-handers, too? People who are born with a propensity for math? A natural talent for music? A photographic memory? God made all kinds of different people, PC. You should try to learn to love all God's children. And if you can't do that you should at least try to understand why some of them are different from you. But it takes a rational, contemporary thinking mind, not colored by ignorant superstition or an ancient religious text, to appreciate the world in 2007. Reality is a wonderful place, PC... you should visit sometime.
By the way, did you know that left-handers were once believed to be possessed by evil or some such other superstitious, religious nonsense? Funny how ignorantly superstitious people were at one time, huh? Not funny for left-handers, though...
" Why should there be "personal accountability" for how God made someone? "
Your arguement would make sense, however, there is NO scientific evidence that there is any type of a gene or DNA that makes you gay. The ONLY thing that makes you gay is choice. If you choose to disobey God's law, that's fine with me. It may not be with Him, so you better talk to God about how He feels on the matter. Although there is plenty spoken on the subject in His book. And according to what He has written, I don't think it is an approved lifestyle.
You make a great point. People just choose homosexuality because society thinks it is just so cool. Think of all the great benefits that you are passing up by not choosing homosexuality yourself. You are passing up the chance to be insulted by Savage and others of his mindset. You could be threatened with physical assault. You could sacrifice the opportunity to have children with your partner. You could be reviled by your church. I know that you are really into the heterosexual scene, but if you consider everything that homosexuality has to offer it is a choice that is hard to pass up.
Yeah, a tough choice. But, a choice just the same. No different than me choosing to be a Christian and having all sorts of hate directed at me by many liberals who are not Christians. And having the aclu constantly denagrate the religion because...well, no one really knows why they only do this to Christian religions and don't do any of the same restrictions to muslim religions. I guess we're being discriminated against. Isn't that against the law?
Everyone has choices to make. Some choose to murder, some choose to rape, some choose to be bankers, some choose to be lawyers. None of these people are born that way. They choose it. Who am I to guess WHY they do it. How many 'good' lawyer jokes you heard lately? Why do they choose to be lawyers knowing they will be harrassed and joked about daily?
So homosexuality is a profession? YOU are a joke. The ACLU does NOT denigrate Christianity that is a lie. They go to court with their own money to DEFEND Christians expressing their faith. Its sad to see someone so insecure in their faith that they need the governments imprimatuer on their religion or they think they are being attacked. Sad. Its also sad to see someone so desperate to pretend he is a martyr. WAAAHHHHH, I am picked on for being a Christian. Funny, I dont get that much flack for my religious beliefs, perhaps because I dont try to make them into law or shove them down anyones throat. I am a Christian and when I tell people that I am, like about 85% of Americans, I dont get called names. What ELSE is it you are doing to bring on such hostility? Or is it just that you are so desperate to portray yourself as a martyr that your persecution complex has gotten out of control?
" I am a Christian and when I tell people that I am, like about 85% of Americans, I dont get called names. "
IMHO I doubt you are a Christian because you're too busy calling people names and whinning about it. You are too judgemental to be a Christian. Or, as someone else called me...you are Christian in name only. It's obvious you practice NO 'Christian' values. Stop hiding behind morals when it's plain as day you have none.
HBL, I compare homosexuality to all other "choices" people have in their lives. Being gay is NO different than ANY of those choices. Perhaps you didn't understand that. There is no 'mechanic' gene, no 'straight' gene, no 'liberal' gene, no 'Christian' gene, NO 'GAY' gene. I hope that is a little better, for you. There's only so much that can be said about no gay gene, but many liberals just aren't that smart and have to be told over and over again.
You don't know there is no gay gene. There may be one that hasn't been isolated yet. We have not achieved Total Information Awareness about human genetics.
Your posts consist of nothing but guesswork and references to your chosen faith lifestyle.
" There may be one that hasn't been isolated yet. "
And you keep building your case on...? Your strawmen are no better than anyone elses. You, too, should stop making guesswork arguements then.
I'm not building my case on genetics. All I say is that being gay isn't a choice. Ask any gay person and they'll tell you.
It's not a choice. I didn't wake up one day and decide to be gay you moron. I grew up on a farm in the middle of no where Wisconsin and didn't even know what 'gay' was, but already knew that I was attracted to men. I wasn't molested, I wasn't over mothered and I wasn’t ignored by either of my parents. I'm tired of people like you that pick and choose selective parts of "God's word" to advance their own agenda because they claim to known. Could you be more arrogant? Could you be more transparent in your hypocrisy? Let me know when God handed you his cliff notes for the bible because you seem to be in the know on which parts your suppose to take in a literal sense and which ones your not. MAN wrote the bible and has twisted the bible throughout history to serve his own selfish needs. Even if it was inspired by god, man has changed and twisted the message over and over again for political purposes. Let me know which 'version' of god’s words your reading and let me know how you know for a fact that version is correct. Your like so many of the most vocal and judgmental of your group, your just plan ignorant and unwilling to learn question. Do you even know anything about the history of your own religion?You sir are nothing like the truly spiritual and religious folks I know.
"You are too judgemental to be a Christian."
Do you pay attention to what you're typing.. ever?
Seriously, if being judgemental invalidated a Christian's status in religious belief, you should not have that word in your online moniker.
ProudChristian, you can do better than whining about imaginary persecution and comparing sexual orientation to a profession. Can't you?
I've seen you post some well-thought-out comments here, even if I disagreed with them 100%. Don't get lazy.
I just want to know if proud christian remembers the day he/she decided to be a heterosexual. was there a ceremony or something? Or is it like a recovering alcoholic who takes it 'one day at a time' for you?
I personally don't remember the date myself, but I know a Playboy magazine was vaguely somehow involved. Although I don't really recall it being a choice as much as a reaction of sorts.
Give me a break! Did you choose heterosexuality? Did you debate the pros and cons of being straight or gay before picking one? Did you try having sex with men (I'm assuming you're a man) and then say, "Well, it was an educational experience, but, this homosexuality thing just isn't for me. Guess I'll only have sex with women from now on."?
Do you think young gay men who grow up in small towns populated by intolerant, fascist a$$holes like yourself choose to love other men, knowing that they'll be beaten or killed by their "friends" if they're found out? Do you think they enjoy sneaking around and having to hide from their own friends and family?
Whenever someone risks their own life to do something, they usually have very compelling reasons. Glibly saying "they could just as easily choose not to" when it's clear that they cannot is simply bulls**t.
You really spend too much time and effort remaining ignorant.
Christians have nothing to be proud about. Any enhanced relationship with God is thru grace, no? Pride is not a virtue in relationship to a spiritual life. Neither is "pretending" to be persecuted to feel even more puffed up with pride.
"The ONLY thing that makes you gay is choice."
Really? And where exactly is your scientific proof for that opinion?
So, if a man says that as far back as he began to experience sexual urges it was towards the opposite sex, then that's how he was born, that's how God made him. But if a gay man says that as far back as he began to experience sexual urges his attraction was always to the same sex, then that's not how God made him, that's not how he was born; he chose to be that way, you're saying. What about those youth he have confusing natural urges towards both sexes, you don't think they were born that way either? You believe that only people with natural, procreative sexual urges towards the opposite sex were born that way? Any sexual urge that deviate from that is a personal choice even though the persons who experienced those urges have always felt the urges as naturally occuring orientation.
More enlightened thought is that one is born with a sexual predisposition. How that sexual orientation is manifested, however, is greatly influenced by one's environment in formative stages of our development. A physically masculine gay high school football player may hide or deny his homosexual urges because of the scorn he would suffer. Another gay boy may have a domineering mother who instills or encourages her traits in him and the ackowledgment of his homosexuality may be easier. In any event, it is the personal acknowledgment that you are apparently calling the "choice". Whether htis has been scientifically "proven", i doubt if there is are any quantitative data, but talk to psychologists and gay people and you will hear something very much like what I am telling you.
The bottom line is that normal gay people who lead evreyday, normal lives are no threat to you. Yet you tale it upon yourself to pronounce scorn and condemnation on them because of your literal belief in ancient religious texts. The real world in 2007 is more complex than what's in ancient scrolls. I respect any value system that encourages people to do the right thing and helps others less fortunate... but your religion has obviously set you on a negative path. Perhaps you should spend as much introspective and analytical time on your religion rather than something as silly as denouncing fellow human beings who mean you and society no harm.
BTW, allow me to correct you, ancient holy texts were written by men, not God... unless you are saying God assumed corporeal form, took pen and ink in hand and wrote everything contained therein. (What language did he us, I womder? Did he display good penmanship?)
" You believe that only people with natural, procreative sexual urges towards the opposite sex were born that way? "
Your use of the word "natural" indicates you feel the same way. That it is un-natural to be gay.
" More enlightened thought is that one is born with a sexual predisposition. How that sexual orientation is manifested, however, is greatly influenced by one's environment in formative stages of our development. "
So, are you saying that gays who adopt children (since they can't recreate their own) are just harvesting a new crop of gay people? Since they aren't born that way, they need to be taught, is that what you are saying?
" The bottom line is that normal gay people who lead evreyday, normal lives are no threat to you. Yet you tale it upon yourself to pronounce scorn and condemnation on them because of your literal belief in ancient religious texts. "
It's my honor to praise God and to promote the teachings of God. God doesn't teach that homosexuality is ok. Liberalism teaches that, not God. You believe some kind of writings that help determin your beliefs, right? Why would your writings be better than my writings?
" Perhaps you should spend as much introspective and analytical time on your religion rather than something as silly as denouncing fellow human beings who mean you and society no harm. "
I am denouncing the practice of homosexuality, not the gay person. Get your facts right before you speak.
And, finally, YES I think God would have perfect penmenship. But, it would take a believer to actually believe God wrote. Since you make that statement, you don't seem to be a believer. In that case liberalism is the perfect religion for you....no personal accountability!
Your use of the word "natural" indicates you feel the same way. That it is un-natural to be gay.
No, by "natural" I mean that which occurs in the natural world, not something within a supernatural realm.
So, are you saying that gays who adopt children (since they can't recreate their own) are just harvesting a new crop of gay people? Since they aren't born that way, they need to be taught, is that what you are saying?
No, I nneither said nor implied that.
It's my honor to praise God and to promote the teachings of God. God doesn't teach that homosexuality is ok. Liberalism teaches that, not God. You believe some kind of writings that help determin your beliefs, right? Why would your writings be better than my writings?
Your "writings" purport to explain a supernatural realm that mankind, by it's very nature, is incapable of fully comprehending. Why do religions, throughout history, differ in their interpretations of the supernatural? Because the supernatural is not something within the realm our limited powers of comprehension. We can use reason; we can speculate; but we can never conclusively understand the supernatural. You not only profess to understand the nature of a superior entity but to also fully comprehend its intentions and motivations. To me, that represents a collective arrogance of a segment of humanity.
I am denouncing the practice of homosexuality, not the gay person. Get your facts right before you speak.
Fine... take a gay person to dinner.
And, finally, YES I think God would have perfect penmenship. But, it would take a believer to actually believe God wrote. Since you make that statement, you don't seem to be a believer. In that case liberalism is the perfect religion for you....no personal accountability!
You know hardly anything about my religious beliefs, except on the topic of homosexuality, yet you seem to assume that "non-believers" have no spiritual beliefs at all. This isn't about political "liberalism", in my opinion, it's about one's sense of right and wrong.
Throughout history there have been many men, far more intelligent and enlightened than I (and who have done great things), who reached some of the same spiritual conclusions I have despite their being born into and living in strongly dominant Christian culture.
Take comfort in your faith and enjoy practicing it... but it is not the final word for everyone. Some prefer to use the intelligence and powers of reason that they were given at birth and developed in life to figure out as much as our limited human condition allows us to... and we have reached different conclusions than yours.
To Proud-Christian: I am totally with Irony on this one. Luckily, in western tradition, and especially America, free speech is a protected right. Unfortunately, that gives you the right to say rediculous things which we all have to put up with. Firstly, with that in mind, I'm not sure how you can say that the ACLU is a discriminatory agency, as it protects the constitution. They have even defended people who would be considered enemies of whome you refer to as "liberals". Secondly, as I state again and again, "liberalism" is an interchangable misnomer that is often used in fallacies. People like you use it to clump leftist and progressive ideas all into one name. I could explain to you how "liberalism" has evolved, but I don't have the time to educate you. Thirdly, you may take your existential position on the choice of homosexuality, and you may be correct; perhaps it is a choice. However, I think that you are giving way too much power to the element of choice. Perhaps homosexuals are indeed so psychologically or biologically inclined to this harmless lifestyle, that choosing otherwise is not impossible, but very unlikely. Fourth, I still do not see what is wrong with that choice. Lastly, if you believe that the all of the bible is indeed the word of God, then you must believe that God has some pretty nasty ideas. In the old testimate, it says that anyone who lifts more than a stick on the sabbath day shall be stoned to death, and that anyone who sleeps with a beast shall be put to death. Following what you call, "the word of God" to the letter would lead to an extremest state very different from the America which you love.
I do, on occasion, take people who are gay to dinner. Apparently, you know nothing of me, also.
I've seen PC walking around with his other book "To Serve Gay Men".
I love how PC calls God into his argument. Would you care to offer your opinions on the Skeptic's Annotated Bible?
"The ONLY thing that makes you gay is choice. "
Why don't you add that to your daily brainwashing littany? That would be the lord's prayer you bigot.
Please tell us the day YOU chose to be heterosexual. I am certain the women of the world would love to make it a day of mourning. You know when I was eight, long before I had any inkling of sexuality. I went to the movies to see One Million BC. One of the worst movies ever made, its only purpose was to show of Raquel Welch's body in a skimpy outfit and I kept thinking I gotta get me one of those. Now the big hairy guy, for some reason he didnt really have that effect on me. Now lets go to your obvious logical fallacy. YOU want a reason to discriminate against homosexuals so you say they cant PROVE its not a choice. Since it is YOU claiming it is the burden of proof is on YOU to prove it is. Good luck with that, its counterintuitive. Why would anyone want to choose the harrassment, and ostrasization by bigots like you? Also I dont know ANYONE who says they CHOSE their sexual orientation its self evidently a natural thing from inside you. I KNOW it was for me. I have no reason to believe it isnt for everybody. YOU just keep repeating like a demented Myna bird that its a choice to give your bigotry cover. Tough sell that.
Oh, so the "bi" person can say they grew up lusting after both sexes equally? That's very convieniant for you to make claims you can't support, sounds like a lack of 'personal accountability', huh? Some believers know what God says about homosexuality and they try rationalize it by saying that "currently" it's ok in "the world". There is a ton of information of the "natural" homosexual, all you have to do is seek. I make claims that are backed up by science and you're too lazy to look.
No you dont. Nowhere is there any scientific study that shows sexual orientation to be a choice and of course bi people could have grown up lusting after both sexes. That goes without saying. I know what the bible says about homosexuality in about 7 verses. So, tell me, my mother keeps sewing cloth with two different types of thread, should we all get together to stone her to death or should it be a family gathering? My wife eats lobster, does that mean she is an abomination before God? I wanted to sell my daughter into slavery, what do you think would be a good price to ask for her. ALL of those things are also in the bible. Its hilarious to see you tell ME I claim things I cant back up since you post NOTHING but baseless assertions including this last post. Cough up the proof homosexuality is a choice or admit that once again as usual you just dont know what you are talking about.
" I know what the bible says about homosexuality in about 7 verses. "
Obviously, you DON'T know what the Bible says on homosexuality! Especially obvious when you come up with questions like 'should you stone your mother to death'. That must be your liberal way of denouncing something you know nothing about.
http://www.narth.com/docs/throckarticle.html
Of course I do. You just dont read very well.
Leviticus 19:19: Keep My decrees: Do not crossbreed your livestock with other species. Do not plant your field with different species of seeds. Do not wear garments that contain a forbidden mixture of fabrics (sha'atnez).
So since she is violating this levitican law shouldnt she be stoned?
As for Throckmorton you have GOT to be kidding I said scientific study, even HE called his OPINIONS a literature review and he is a joke.
Magellan Health Drops 'Ex-Gay' Therapist From Advisory Panel Magellan Health, the largest provider of behavioral health and employee assistance services in the US, recently dropped a notorious member of the fraudulent 'ex-gay' industry from its National Provider Advisory Council.Magellan dropped Warren Throckmorton, of the Christian Grove City College, because he mixes religion with matters of behavioral health science. His views are simply "too controversial" for them. And that's putting it mildly!http://mailtoblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/magellan-health-drops-ex-gay-therapist.html"There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of 'reparative therapy' as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation". American Psychiatric Association's 1997 Fact Sheet on Homosexual and Bisexual Issues.There is no documentary evidence showing someone’s sexual preference can be changed by therapy. There is only anecdotal evidence, mostly from the therapists themselves, claiming that what they do works. That’s not very scientific. On the other hand, there’s no scientific evidence to show that this is impossible...It hasn’t been studied." Dr. Robert Spitzer, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University. In 2001, after he made this statement, he reported on a study that he had made. It indicated that reparative therapy has as a high failure rate.http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod.htm#invThe leader of a reparative therapy ministry in the United Kingdom has come to the conclusion that the process doesn't work. "We are definitely wanting to be separated from the 'ex-gay' label and be more focused on supporting Christians who are gay," says Jeremy Marks, director of Courage, United Kingdom. Marks' personal experiences as a gay man, as well as a minister who has participated in conversion therapy for more than 14 years, led him gradually to the realization that the process simply does not work. "None of the people we've counseled have converted no matter how much effort and prayer they've put into it. There is much more benefit to the more honestview," he said. --- Barbara Dozetos, gay.comIn December of 1998 the American Psychiatric Association or APA went even farther and declared there is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy.At the APA’s 2001 National Convention, Spitzer presented prelimiary results of a study in which he interviewed 200 people by telephone who claim to have achieved at least some shift in their sexual orientation through ex-gay programs. Based on Spitzer’s criteria, only applicants who claimed success in conversion programs were eligible to participate in the study. However, Spitzer himself admitted such cases were extremely rare. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, “I suspect the vast majority of gay people would be unable to alter by much a firmly established homosexual orientation.”
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/02/an-ex-gay-watch-original-video-the-spitzer-study-methodological-flaws-and-abuse-in-anti-gay-politics/
So what we are back to is, as usual, ya got nothin
<!--mstheme--><!--msthemelist--><!--mstheme--><!--msthemelist-->PC,
Cite just one reputable study - just one - that supports your assertion that homosexuality is purely a matter of choice. Keep in mind that, like with the Bible, context is king. Speculative statements or questions by study authors do not count as evidence, nor do "studies" by organizations whose agenda is primarily to promote so-called Christian values.
While you're at it, cite just one reputable study - just one - that supports the common Evangelical assertion that homosexual parenting is detrimental to children. Same standards apply.
If you're honest with yourself when reading, you will realize that Christians who advance such nonsense (as you are now) have not one whit of scientific evidence. That is, your claim to be making claims backed by fact is complete bunk.
Bottom line, you know nothing of what you speak. Nor does anyone who espouses similar views (such as Savage). Your sad devotion to that ancient book of fiction has done nothing to improve you or your society. Go back to the 1st century, pal.
http://www.narth.com/docs/throckarticle.html
HAHAHAHAHA, did you even READ his criteria? Ya got nothin, The APA says no such research exists and Throckmorton has been widely debunked BY them. Even Spitzer whose study was LIMITED to those claiming conversion which itself is flawed methodology says it would be very rare and HE is one of the more vocal proponents. NOT EVEN CLOSE
PC,
Apparently you are even having difficulty understanding those who appear to agree with your position. Dr. Throckmorton, his hypothesis, research methods, and conclusions aside, does not support the assertion that homosexuality is a choice, even in this article.
In paragraph 4, Dr. Throckmorton states:
"...it suggests that sexual orientation, once thought to be an unchanging sexual trait, is actually quite flexible for many people, changing as a result of therapy for some, ministry for others and spontaneously for still others."
To put it in simpler terms, he's saying sexuality may be flexible. Personally, I have no problem with that part of the statement (though the idea that it can or should be "altered" hints at his religious prejudices).
Many of our preferences are flexible. Think of your favorite color. Did you choose it, or do you just like a particular color for no discernible reason? Maybe there is a genetic component that predisposes your eye cones (the part that gives you your color vision) to favor that color over others. Perhaps this was reinforced in the womb due to environmental factors. Once you were born, perhaps your mother was wearing that color hospital smock. You don't remember it consciously, but your mind unconsciously associates it with "good feelings, mother." Perhaps that color was that of your nursery, or your grandmother's walls - something that impacted you in ways that aren't consciously measurable, but led to your preference for that color.
Then, later in life, your preference for that color changed. Instead of bright red, you now prefer a deep green. Was that a conscious choice? Did you wake up one morning and think to yourself, "I think I'll start liking deep green beginning today." Of course not! Your preference changed, that's all.
Now, let's add cultural pressures. Suppose your favorite color is bright red. Yet you are taught from the beginning that those who favor bright red are defective; an abomination in the Lord's sight. Your parents, friends, or teachers impress upon you that a preference for bright red is not natural. Secretly, you know that means that you are an unnatural person that your God (whom you've been conditioned to believe in) rejects as an abomination. You witness or experience the intolerance for people who prefer bright red, even laughing at the "bright red people" jokes or poking fun at them yourself, and wish that your favorite color was something else - anything but bright red.
What would you do? Would you seek reparative therapy for your aberrant color preference? Perhaps you would. Your desire to be accepted, to be "normal," to be loved by your God, etc. might motivate you to try and change it.
Ultimately, however, you find that your preferences really haven't changed. You still like bright red, but you either hide it really well, or just abstain from experiencing bright red (i.e., you consciously choose a "safe" color and learn to like it). That is, you follow religious prescriptions or other types of "therapy" to become an Ex-Bright Red person.
Pretty silly, huh?
That's what I think about reparative therapy, and "scientists" such as Dr. Throckmorton who think it's just fine to mess around with the human psyche for the sake of God are horribly misguided. Basically, it's a question of control; mind control. Can the individual control his/her innate impulses to become Ex-Gay? Because that's all it is - controlling innate impulses by permitting a form of brainwashing to take place.
But I've gotten way off track here. The bottom line is that your study says nothing about whether homosexuality (defined as same-sex attraction) is a choice. All it says is that it's flexible and subject to therapy (which is a separate argument entirely).
Oddly enough, Dr. Throckmorton's review (which this article is about) contains a couple statements that demonstrate a certain integrity on his part that you don't seem to have. He stated "...the reports in this article do not provide proof that sexual orientation changes through religious mediation.” Not only that, but in the preface to his review, he states that “This review does not answer the controversial question, Do ex-gay ministries help people change sexual orientation?”
In short, try again.
" All it says is that it's flexible and subject to therapy (which is a separate argument entirely). "
Is eye color subject to therapy? Is nose shape subject to therapy? Give me a break, you agree with the main conclusion that it is choice. So don't bother argueing any longer.
We all know how well fundementalists take scietific facts that don't support thier agenda don't we? If you would like examples then see evolution, the creation of the universe, the world is round, the earth is not the center of the universe, etc....
So if I handed you a report that stated being gay was caused by genetics, what then? Are you going to interpret how you view the bible differently or are you going to come up with another reason to support your view?
"Is eye color subject to therapy?"
No, but other genetically-inclined traits are.
Let's take heart disease, for example. Milder forms of the disease may carry genetically, but still can be treated through modern practice to ensure that your body performs in a closer-to-peak condition that would be otherwise impossible, given genetic proclivities.
Sexuality is yet another trait that does not come by choice, but can be strictly modified through social engineering of sorts. Give a person enough motivation and they can go from hetero to homo, bi to hetero, homo to bi, whatever. Unlike treatment of heart disease, this re-engineering of an individual's sexuality rarely turns out well, because it's twisting something more fundamental to the human existence: the human spirit, and its capability for love.
" While you're at it, cite just one reputable study - just one - that supports the common Evangelical assertion that homosexual parenting is detrimental to children. Same standards apply. "
http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/2004_mar_apr/article_1.html
However, the "standards" you apply are unattainable. Everyone knows that to a liberal the only good study is one that only agrees with them. If there is disagreement, then the study must be flawed in some way. I'm sure you'll find a flaw somewhere.
As usual you are projecting what you no doubt were projecting from is that rightwingers only consider a source reputable IF they agree with their delusional fantasies. See to a liberal that asks for a SCIENTIFIC study, perhaps science MIGHT ought to be involved. YOU cited a group of women CRITICISING a scientific study, that constitutes a scientific study HOW? Did they do reserach? Was it a double blind? Was there a control group? Are you kidding me? Whatever your criteria for SCIENTIFIC study is on Planet Wingnut here in the reality based universe it usually involves ACTUAL REASEARCH AND ACTUAL RESEARCHERS. Not someone parroting your opinion. As usual YA GOT NOTHIN
Nice link, PC. I think this is my favorite "factoid" in an article about gay parenting;
"close to 60% of adolescent AIDS sufferers were infected by adult bisexual and homosexual men."
Aside from the fact that this has nothing to do with gay parents,I suppose you're much happier about the more than 40% who were infected by minors and heterosexuals.
If these web sites had "PROPAGANDA" written in red letters across the top of the page, I don't think it would discourage those who want to believe.
Yeah, that was a good one. lol But, I did offer the "one" link that other person asked for. And, as expected (and predicted) solon refused to accept it. Only because he/she is a liberal and liberals don't believe non-liberal literature.
However, the facts remain there are dangers inherant for children being raised by gay parents that normal children don't face. First, and foremost, the children aren't asked (or demanded) to become gay. They are probably taught that gay is ok from day one, even though the parents claim that gayness is in the genes and shouldn't have to be taught. Gay parents are the best example that there is no gay gene.
"However, the "standards" you apply are unattainable. Everyone knows that to a liberal the only good study is one that only agrees with them. If there is disagreement, then the study must be flawed in some way. I'm sure you'll find a flaw somewhere."
Nice dodge, PC. The standards were: 1) A reputable study that supports your assertion that 2) was not authored by an organization with a clearly religious agenda. Also, that speculative statements don't count as evidence.
This is not an unattainable set of standards. If the science does back you up, there will be studies by those who do not have a theological axe to grind but whose findings support your assertions. It's really that simple.
And incidentally, I'm not a liberal. I just can't stand religious foolishness.
Solon, you must be just slightly older than I am.
1 million years B.C.-- My big bro took me to the theater to see that, I thought I was getting the flu when Raquel came on the screen.
She certainly gave ME the shivers and I was 8, the thing is, that big hairy guy...not so much
I guess that's when I decided to jump on the Hetero-train. Although the Laugh-In dancing bikini girls influenced my decision as well.
What your magic book has to say about pride:
LEV 26:19 I will break down your stubborn pride and make the sky above you like iron and the ground beneath you like bronze.14 then your heart will become proud and you will forget the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
And here's one that seems to be just for you!!
JOB 11:5 If only you would be altogether silent! For you, that would be wisdom.
", there is NO scientific evidence that there is any type of a gene or DNA that makes you gay" _PC
How wrong you are, just so wrong.......Do some reading
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3735668.stm
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519
[link to en.wikipedia.org] I have not had time to read all of these, only bits and pieces)
I hope you actually believe in science and not just in faith.
there is NO scientific evidence that there is any type of a gene or DNA that makes you gay. Proud-Christian
Just like being straight, huh PC?
Yes, just like being straight. NO GENE! Why is it so hard for you to understand that? Oh, wait, I said why at the beginning...no personal accountability! That's why liberals hate organized religion(not you, but liberals you know), because they have to be accountable to someone. That's why liberals embrace the homosexual lifestyle, it allows them to do what they want and then blame someone else. No personal accountability. You know I'm right, you're just afraid to admit it in front of all your other liberal freinds.
You arent right, you are OPINIONATED, I hate to break it to you but its not the same thing. I know this weeks assignment for propaganda parrots is to put the words personal responsibility in everything you regurgitate but its not really contextual here. I dont think there is anything wrong with homosexuality so what would they be responsible for? YOU dont get to arbitrarily make the decision that there is something wrong with it so the whole responsibility thing is a non sequitar. Conservatives like you just want to keep repeating baseless assertions like virtually everything in every post you make like some demented Myna bird based on the sad delusion that if you say it enough times it will magically become true. It doesnt work that way though I get that the reality of that statement has as little chance of breaking through your citidel of delusions as the rest of the world of factual reality
Maybe I missed your point, ProudChristian. I thought that the lack of a gene to cause gay-ness was your attempt to say it doesn't exist or isn't natural.
I was only pointing out that, by that standard, heterosexuality doesn't exist. Unless there's a straight gene I don't know about.
As far as personal accountability, which seems to be the secret words today, I'm not sure who you think is gay and finding the need to "blame" anybody. I think we're all responsible for our behavior. We're accountable to our friends, families, society, co-workers in different ways.
This is part of what makes us human. Not that other animals don't behave socially, we are just alone in having a real understanding of this accountability, and being able to discuss it. Some people do it more through training and instinct than any sort of real conscience.Most human chldren develop an understanding of what's expected of us, and the majority follow the rules.
If you feel better having a supernatural reason for behaving, that's fine.You're in the vast majority on the planet. A small minority of us are able to live in this civilization based solely on natural, rational reasons for being responsible.We, along with many religious folks, simply see the rules as more closely tied to that Golden one.
(pssst... and please, stop embarassing me in front of all my liberal friends! ;D )
Poor Mikey... how embarrasing.
Can you imagine how embarrassed Mikey must be... being rejected because he was considered less important than a lesbian.
Maybe we should send him a card... I wonder if Hallmark has any for the occasion.
Maybe something along the lines of sorry you are such an insane loser? Perhaps, they have a lot of cards
"Mike shall return?" Has he gone somewhere?
What it's going to take to wake you up is anyone's guess. I have a pretty good idea what it's going to take. You know, it'll be like 55,000 degrees over your city...
Well, I'm glad weiner finally acknowledges global warming.
Say what what you like about Savage, but when he raps (and he has) the GOP, his listeners will consider it. He can get thru to them as only an insider can.
Didn't somebody in another thread say (I'm guessing WeinerRocks) that Savage wouldn't miss CAA? He sounds pretty bitter here.
I think he's talking himself out of a job rapidly. We should be so lucky!
Dear Mike,
For sometime now, I have suspected that I'm mentally ill. I have obsessed about our soldiers and the innocent people dying in Iraq. I have had uncontrollable desires to donate time and money to help the homeless and less fortunate. I have lost sleep over global warming. I have recently felt that all people (even minorities) are my equal. And I've found myself cursing the Bush administration when no one was watching. That's right--I strongly suspect that I have indeed become a Liberal.
It seems to be getting worse daily. I have an irrational feeling of acceptance toward gays and lesbians. I believe that animals should be treated humanely. I find myself enjoying Air America radio. I recycle. There, I said it--I really do recycle.
Democratic candidates are starting to make sense to me. The ACLU doesn't seem to be a danger. I like the Dixie Chicks.
Mike, I could go on and on. You were always there to protect me, and now I wonder if there's anything you can do. Is it too late for me? (I must confess, I don't hate myself any longer--is this normal?) Oh please Mike, tell me it's not too late.
TheRick
Sorry about the double, I didn't think I posted the first one.
It sounds a lot in this case that old Weiner boy is making himself out to be some victim. He says he doens't "hate" liberals, and yet he writes and entire book called, "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." Not to mention his daily attacks on any liberal out there who dares to digress from what he says. Yeah, get this Mike, we HATE you. And yes, liberals can hate, especially hate mongering, biggoted, racist idiots like yourself. If Savage got run over in the streets one day, I would probably have a party because ding dong, the dumb arse would be dead.
"Are you kidding? She called another woman her WIFE!!! She's destroying marriage!"
- bittermarv
HA HA HA HA HA.......... man BitterMarv, you're a crack up! Melissa Etheridge called another women her wife, that for sure will destroy marriage. Did she ruin yours, because after my wife heard that she filled for divorce!
I'd love to hear "your own" opinion on this, (not some bible pounding, right-wing rhetoric) but that would mean you'd have to kick your own ass afterwards for sounding like such a dumbass!!!
Considering Bittermarv's previous comments that I have read, I think it is safe to conclude he was actually being sarcastic.
A neologism called Poe's law seems to describe the phenomenon pretty well:
"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."
Now Taz likely wasn't being sarcastic (judging by his history) and is the real knuckledragger you should have directed your post towards.
Yes, Mikey, You should know a lot about mental illness. You are well versed in how they think because it stares you in the mirror every day. Paranoia, narcissism, xenophobia, delusions of grandeur. It is Picture book accurate of the mess you are.
Neon, Michael does acknowledge global warming. He's just against hte lie that it's manmade. If you listen to his show, he makes an extremely convincing argument for his position. I doubt that Al Gore would ever debate Michael on this issue. (Also, Gore paid his carbon offset to a company that he owns. What a scam artist!) Also, Michael is actually a friend of gays. Anybody who wants to fight the Islamofascists (who are for killing gays) is a friend of homosexuals.
TheRick, manmade global warming is a lie, and the homeless are bums who should get jobs. Also, if you care about innocent people dying in war, why didn't you raise a stink when Bill Clinton murdered innocent Serbians? Michael Savage opposed that war.
"(Also, Gore paid his carbon offset to a company that he owns. What a scam artist!)"
?? Since when is a person not allowed to use the services of their own company, especially if it's the only company that offers that service in your region?
For GOD'S SAKE. PLEASE come up with an actual criticism before posting next time.
Michael Savage is not a xenophobe. He's simply against illegal immigration. He actually DISAGREES with Bush's policy on the issue, whereas you liberals AGREE with Bush. So who's the Bushbot?
You are kind of going all over the place with this argument. I’ll try to address your points let me know if I left anything out. First, I am a Christian too and I cannot say that I have ever been criticized for being a Christian here or at anytime in my life for that matter. The problem that I have observed you encountering in your post is that using Christianity as the only basis for your argument is going to hit an impasse whenever you engage someone who does not share the same faith. At that point, you can only either agree to disagree or address the argument from another angle. In regards to the ACLU, the ACLU has no issue with practicing Christianity it only opposes the governmental sanctioning and promotion of Christianity. It also defends the free speech rights of street preachers who have faced restrictions. In regards to choice the point that I was making is there is no rational reason to choose Homosexuality. Your example of one choosing to be a lawyer is a good example. One could weigh the options of dealing with lawyer jokes versus engaging in a prestigious and potentially lucrative career and choose to be a lawyer. I don’t see the potential offsetting benefits of choosing homosexuality absent a strong biological impulse.
sorry to inform you layman, ann coulter explained the other day that all gays should be republicans because they all get rich and then pay less taxes because of repulican tax cuts. So, now we all know why someone would CHOOSE a homosexual orientation. Ann proves it.
Darned that Coulter. She is so brillant and insightful. It is as if she has our liberal playbook. First she let the cat out the bag about how we are using Global warming and energy efficiency enslave the middle class and wipe out Chad and Darfur. Now she tells the whole world about our secret subsidy program to promote homo-sexuality. How does she do it? She must be able to channel all of the energy that liberals devote hedonism toward research and insight while she saves herself for marriage. She must be stopped.
Once again, I love how Savage poisons the ears of those who listen to him by being so vague, and clumping many beliefs all into one ideology, which is given the misnomer of "liberalsim". I just love to hear how he stereotypes and assumes that anyone with progressive ideas believes that terrorism is not an issue to be dealt with. I absolutely adore how without any logical argumentation he progresses to the conclusion that people with progressive beliefs hate America. Yet most of all, I just love he continues to lie and set up false enimies to be hated, such as the "gay mafia" and "liberal elite" which are somehow destroying America. I love the false war which he is trying to instill in the minds of his listenrs. Hey Mike, I got news for you. There is no gay mafia, we have not decended below the levels of the apes. Finally, there aren't too many progressive thinkers that hate America. People do not hate their home, which has given them the liberty live and speak in certain ways, et cetera. Most of the people who you refer to do not want to bring America down, they just want to progress it, and save it from evil and ignorant biggots such as yourself!
I remember something about he who is without sin caste the first stone?
PC, are you without sin?
How about instead of attacking gay people, you deal with the fact that in a secular nation like this one, your personal religous views should not be FORCED on me because you think its horrible that I love a guy.
Furthermore, if you said some of the things you are saying to this group now a few hundred years ago, you would be burnt as a heretic. Claiming to knoww God's will, motives, and desires, and claiming to be a good christian were both capital crimes in europe.
PC, are you without sin?
It sounds like he has NEGATIVE sin, he's casting multiple stones.
Well he's got at least one major one - bearing false witness against the ACLU.
Not to mention
Pride - right there in the screen name
sloth - in developing good arguments
envy - of those who have the facts, as evedenced by the...
Anger in most posts
Greed - in hijacking threads with long rambling posts
Lust - OK, I don't have any evidence of that, probably sufficiently suppressed. Pro-war, I'm gonna count bloodl-ust
That's only 6 out of 7, so not a total skunk.That's why it stays, must be a glutton for punishment.
Oh, Gluttony. Batting .1000
Yeah, ya got nothing on avarice, thats gonna come back to haunt you
I think avarice and greed are both used, depending on whose version of the 7 deadlies you're looking at.
"The mentally ill cannot heal themselves." No kidding. I guess that is why Savage cannot help himself.
John
Savage went on to say: "You're mentally ill, and you need help. You need more help than you can imagine. ... I know you're mentally ill. I know that, and you can't help yourself. The mentally ill cannot heal themselves."
Has there ever been a clearer example of projection than an obviously insane Weiner saying this?
Yes there has, and is.
Every time you post and say Mike is insane/delusional/mentally ill, you my dear SOLON , are clearly "projecting" your sick, twisted thoughts.
You have NOTHING else to say, EVER. Now go back to room, turn on your radio, and wait for the psychological nudity to cleanse your brain.
Wow. Talk about irony-impaired...
Hey Proud-Christian, I've just gotta stick my two cents in here-- you said "God doesn't teach that homosexuality is ok. Liberalism teaches that, not God."
As much as I resent Weiner Savage, I resent denigration of Christianity in the name of politics or hate even more. God teaches love, not conditionally, but unconditionally. That's the whole point of Christianity. Further, if God is perfect, then he/she/it did not create any junk, and while I suppose I could point to Weiner to defeat that argument, I know that I'm wrong, even if I can't possibly fathom what in the hell he exists for. Anyway, if God doesn't create junk, then gay people are entitled to love and are absolutely entitled to live their lives.
The big problem with religion is that people tend to create and/or twist religious beliefs to fit their preconceived notions of what they want to be "correct", or whatever that means. This has been bugging me for years, the way people such as yourself decide what is "right" and then make accusations that people don't call you on, such as saying that liberals teach that homosexuality is okay, and God doesn't. Some people take your words at face value, because they don't have the time or inclination, or perhaps the intellect to analyze what words actually mean, and that's the pity for our society. The common verses that people such as yourself use to condem gays or gay sex probably more accurately condem giving in to all consuming lust and being irresponsible, rather than caring and loving. This doesn't matter whether you're gay or straight. How can God possibly condemn a loving, committed relationship based on attraction, compatibility, and a commitment to one another?
I just can't fathom why so many people think of Christianity or even organized religion as the exclusive property of the right. How does the Sermon on the Mount jive with executing people? How do Jesus teachings compare with Ann Coulter recommending that we invade Iraq and Iran, convert them to Christianity and then kill those that resist? How do you covet plasma TVs and Hummers and burning 40% of the world's energy with Jesus' teaching that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven? How does Sean Hannity claim to be a Christian and then ridicule the pastor of Obama's church for caring about the underpriviliged? How do you claim to be a Christian and then lie about why you invaded a soverign nation and killed untold thousands of people? I realize that this is off-topic, but the whole thing is part of a larger off-kilter something in society
I don't think that when Jesus said to love your enemy, he meant for us to kill them.
Amen, brother... well spoken.
I detect that one of PC's concerns is that gays "convert" people to the so-called gay lifestyle. When you look at how Christianity in America today has grown there is a component of "conversion", so to speak, involved... or maybe "born again" is the phrase I'm looking for, such as George Bush's religious awakening. There is a "choice" involved there. And I think that perhaps PC and others naturally apply that same reasoning or process to homosexuality.
The difference, though, is that sex is a biological urge. Except at the threat of violence, drugs or some sophisticated form of brainwashing of which I am unaware, I can't imagine anyone choosing to perform a homosexual act unless there was already present some biological urge to sexually couple with a member of the same gender. If there is an element of 'choice" it is only whether to accept one's sexual orientation or to deny it.
One last thing...
Someone help me out here... what was the name of the New York City Fire Department Chaplain (an Episcopal Priest, I think) who was killed on 9/11? After the first plane crashed into one of the towers he rushed to the scene and was struck by falling debris (or a falling body) and was killed. Reportedly He was greatly loved and admired by everyone who knew him, especially the members of the Fire Deaprtment. Much was written about him afterwards and what a great person he was. What was not immediately reported, however, was that, by his own admission, he was gay. He was quoted as saying that his natural sexual attraction was to men. However, he elected to remain celibate. So although he had chosen not to practice the so-called "gay lifestyle" (his reasons were not explained in the articles), he openly admitted he was gay.
So, PC, let's see if we can compromise and leave it at this: living a so-called "gay lifestyle" may be a "choice"... being gay is most likely how God created you.
I absolutely love how everyone here has this compulsory obsession with demanding science as proof for everything. Of course, science has played a critical role in developing our society and standards of living, but to constantly demand that every word spoken or feeling expressed needs to be backed up by it is a bit overboard. Mike Savage has a PhD in science...Do you consider his opions scientific evidence? However, you would accept the opion of any other scientist (and what if that scientist was an extreme conservative but you didn't know and you actually accepted his/her findings?). Think about it.
For example, a few posts up in this thread, someone posted links to websites that provided scientific evidence of how homosexuality might be genetically embedded in a person. After reading those articles, anyone should be able to come to the conclusion that these are just studies, and NOT ONE of them state that there is 100% conclusive evidence that homosexuality is genetic. This means that since nothing is conclusive, either "nature or nurture" may be correct, or it could be a combination of the two. Anybody posting here who says homosexuality is a choice is not 100% wrong. Anybody here who says homosexuality is built-in and not a choice is not 100% correct. The nagging about scientific evidence on this topic should stop until something with 100% certainty comes out of the scientific community.
I'll tell you with 100% certainty what IS a choice: When hundreds of gays shut down a major street in my city to have a pride parade where they can walk hand in hand with no shirts on. Well, since I live in a country that promotes equality, I would like to have a heterosexual pride parade. I want a major street closed down for the day while the whole city has to tolerate me celebrating my personal sexual preference. This whole debate over homosexually boils down to equality and tolerance. It just seems that lately, the gay crowd is more equal and the hetero crowd are the ones who have to do the tolerating.
Go ahead have a parade - you can probably get Weiner to lead it.
I think Braid should get all of his hetero guy friends, take their shirts off, and parade through the most conservative part of his town.
Here is the difference. The people saying it IS a choice want to discriminate against them so the burden of proof IS on them to back this claim up. IF someone wants to take a right from someone their REASONING needs to be valid and it should be verifyable its not enough to just make a CLAIM and then use that to justify discrimination.
Hello, MOST parades are heterosexual parades. Every single parade I have ever been in has been a heterosexual parade. IF you just dont like seeing gay men stay home this is their country every bit as much as yours and YOU have no right to demand THEY stay in the closet so that YOU dont feel uncomfortable. I dont have to PROVE that sexual orientation is a choice because I am saying let them do what they want its not hurting anyone. Since YOUR side is saying no they should marry or march in parades BECAUSE, then that because needs to be backed up by more than because I said so. Its completely reasonable for us to say hey that may be your CLAIM but since you want to take a proactive action based on it cough up some evidence its anything more than bigotry. It is also quite valid to point out that since it never seemed like a choice to me to be heterosexual it makes sense that it doesnt seem like a choice to them.
Having to endure the closure of a street for a parade is called an inconvenience.
Denying homosexual partners the same rights as heterosexual couples should be called a Constitutional violation.
Braid, how much effort does it take for you to be heterosexual?
Huntington -
Of course it takes no effort for me to be heterosexual. However, I have met gay people who had previously dated the opposite sex for quite a while and eventually started dating te same sex and decided they were gay; thats a choice. I have also met people who claim they have always had a preference for the same sex. Great. As I stated before there is no definitive answer that exists yet. My real point is that if I was sitting next to a gay guy and you didn't know either of us, you would not be able to tell which was straight and which was gay. The only way you could find out is if one of us told you our sexual preference. Personally (and I think this applies to most straight people), I don't go around letting people know that I am straight, or openly celebrating my heterosexual lifestyle. And even if I did, I wouldn't expect to receive special treatment for it. On the other hand when a gay person openly expresses their sexual preference, all the liberals/progressives think we need to celebrate it, and make sure they get special protections. Thats asinine. Look back to what all the leftist posters here tell the right wingers: "leave them alone, they aren't bothering or hurting you." I say right on! Leave them alone, they don't need special treatments or deserve any more rights that you or I deserve. If there is some bigot heckling a gay person for no reason other than hatred...we don't need special laws to punish that...just rough the guy up a little bit and I'll bet he'll think a little more before he opens his mouth again.
"when a gay person openly expresses their sexual preference, all the liberals/progressives think we need to celebrate it"
Jeeez... I must have missed that part somewhere. Sounds to me like you're just a typical reactionary who thinks that every time someone's rights are finally recognized that something is being taken away from YOU. Same thing happened in the South among conservatives regarding black people.
Actually, I think sex should be more celebrated in our society, regardless of orientation.
" I don't go around letting people know that I am straight, or openly celebrating my heterosexual lifestyle."
Are you married? If you are do you wear a ring? Have you ever held hands with your significant other in public? Kiss them on the street or while they are getting out of the car? Gone on a date in public?
I could add about a million things to this list that you probably take for granted because our culture celebrates the heterosexual lifestyle 24/7.
I'm not asking for a celebration, what I am asking for is that you mind you own F***ing buisness and keep your comment to yourself if I'm doing any of the activites listed above. Unless being gay is illegal now it is my right as an American corrrect? I don't care if it makes you uncomfortable.
I know your going to get upset with the St. Patrick's day parades that are going to come up soon. How dare those Irish parade around town blocking off street traffic? Who do they think they are?
Of course heterosexuals go around displaying their heterosexuality quite often. She is hot, look at that one. C'mon I hear that all the time. And they are not asking for SPECIAL rights only the SAME rights. Not to be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation the whole special rights canard is rightwing drivel.
Proud_Christian also goes by the name SinginRick on CBSNews.com, and I'm told he makes the rounds on blogs and websites preaching the false notion that homosexuality can be conflated with murder, rape, etc., etc. He forgets about the sin of human judgement, however, which is just as bad as any other sin. It is the mantra of the Pharisees and all others who have seen their reward already, and shall take their place at the back of the line on Judgement Day. The Christian Left is here to show these hypocrites and apolstles of the anti-Christ for what they really stand for.
LG..., ProudChristian showed up here a while ago, it tried to be civil and debate for a bit, then just lost it. It started preaching hateful BS, got its arse kicked on a regular basis, and just melted into another wack-job. The degeneration was really spectacular.
Its actually a fairly common pattern. They come in all condescending full of talking points from the screechmonkey of their choice and think they are gonna school us silly not to bright liberals. Problem is there are quite a few very intelligent liberals that post regularly on this site. So they get their talking points destroyed and shredded over and over. A common trait among this kind of conservative is a total inability to accept reality if it conflicts with their delusions. So they KNOW we are all illinformed dim bulbs Weiner or Limbaugh told them. They CANT question that or their weak and usually false talking points so the cognitive dissonace frustrates them. Now an adult might re-examine at least their tactics, they might study the subject matter and make a stab at actually getting some dim idea what they are talking about but this often doesnt occur to them, so they just leave, or melt down and act like petulant children devolving into trolls when they see they arent going to be treated like the gurus of wisdom as they thought would happen in their dreams. Its sad, but I have seen it several times.
TV career (terminated) Radio career (terminated) Sanity (long gone)...
Biter, party of one ^-^
I do not hate Weiner. I thank god that I am not a hater like he is. Actually, I feel sorry for him actually. His life is excrement, and he knows it deep down....
Savage's radio career hasn't been terminated. Please get your facts straight.
Irony is incorrect. Denying homosexual partners the same rights as heterosexual couples is not a constitutional violation, since being gay is just a lifestyle choice. Gays can easily turn straight. Thus gays already have as much a right to marry as anyone else in the entire United States.
Liberals say that we must prove that being gay is just a choice in order to deny rights. Well, then, liberals should have to prove that life doesn't begin at conception before denying the unborn the right to live.
There is no proof that people are born gay. Anyone who says differently is lying.
"There is no proof that people are born gay. Anyone who says differently is lying."
-----
My brother says he was. I believe him before I believe your unsupported, know-nothing crap.
Savage's own mental condition fascinates me. I'm particularly interested by his apparent obsession with children hearing their parents having sex through a wall (see his previous comments about children of gay parents). I think that if we could get to the bottom of this, we could learn a great deal about Weiner's psyche, and potentially prevent chjildren growing up to become hate-mongering megalomaniacs in the future.
"we could learn a great deal about Weiner's psyche"
Learn about Weiner's psyche? Please... it's Sunday morning and it's nice and sunny here today! Why would you want to impose something as twisted and ugly as Weiner's psyche into an otherwise nice weekend? ;>)
MICHAEL SAVAGE is as the "voice of one crying in the wilderness". We need more people like him, in the public eye, to "cry aloud, and spare not". We as "one nation under God" need to get on our knees and repent of our filth and abominations.
God is already bringing judgments on America and are we too blind to see it?? Wake up people, before it's eternally too late. God is sending warning after warning and we close our ears and eyes to them. Open your Bibles instead of going to a movie or turning on the TV or buying a "rag". Find out what the REAL truth is ... and repent!
I tend rather to think of this Biblical verse from Matthew 12 in connection with the Pharisaical Savage:
"O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. "
Another Weiner-dog worshipper heard from. Actually dude, Weiner is like the scruffy guy in the park who failed to take his thorazine ranting to anyone that would listen. He is demonstrably insane. Anyone that takes him seriously most likely could be cured by a the help of a mental health professional. I urge you to seek help immediatly
PROJECTION 101, again, and again...........
Chipper:
Take your sanctimonious bullsh*t and forcefully shove it where the sun doesn't shine... . I'm up to "here" with you religious fanatics.
Chipper, I'm a proud Liberal Christian Democrat. My family attended an evangelical church, (my parents still do) and I've got to tell you that there is nothing wrong with you that a few years with a good shrink can't fix. I don't mean this as an attack, or to be funny. Understand, getting help doesn't mean that you would have to give up your faith.
Imagine for just a moment how it would feel to lead a normal life without the self loathing, the irrational fear, and misguided shame. I have a hunch (since I don't know you personally) that you are a good person. But, no matter how good you are, you will never be the equal to Jesus. Yet that is the standard many good people are subjected to by pastors looking to keep their offering plates full. And no matter how much you give, the standard will never be met.
Follow your religion, and all it's good practices. But don't allow a Preacher to convince you that you will go to hell without being a part of his/her church. And, think about this: If sin were stamped out tomorrow, there would be no reason to go to a church next Sunday.
Open your Bibles instead of going to a movie or turning on the TV or buying a "rag".
I'd rather open "The God Delusion". Unless Keith Olbermann is on.
Solon and others -
The problem you have with conservatives coming on here, ranting for a while and then leaving is not because you crushed them in intellectual debate. It is because none of you accept our opinions to stand. While conservatives say "everyone is entitled to their opion," you liberals respond to our opions by labeling them as "bigoted, hateful, prejudiced and untrue because they are not backed up by proof." When the conservatives site history to back up their claims and beleifs you call it an uncredible source. History is probably the best source of information to base decisions from. When I point out that from America's beginnings up until recent times, gay marriage/adoption have never been such huge issues; that is a good indicator that the vast majority of Americans throughout history into current times don't want to accept this lifestlye out in the open. With 90% of the population being straight, it is completely normal for people to be against gay "marriage" and adoption. Why an extreme minority of people feel they are justified in trying push their agenda on everyone and change the age old definitions of marraige and family is beyond me. Our country did not become as strong as it is by exploring the meaning of marriage or what dictates a family. America is built on a marraige = man + woman, and family = mother + father + children. So I guess you are a product of a insensitive, bigoted, hateful country. It must suck for you to have to live everyday hating the history of your Country.
-- braid1626097 says:"Our country did not become as strong as it is by exploring the meaning of marriage or what dictates a family."
I say; "BINGO ! "
Mind giving us your opinion, then, on what DID make our country strong, and why it's mutually incompatible with gay rights?
Our country did not become as strong as it is by exploring the meaning of marriage /family. . . I said "Bingo" to suggest that government should not be deciding what goes on in our bedrooms or what constitutes a "marriage or family." It's none of their business. Our country's duty is to make certain that everyone's rights are upheld.
Our moments of weakness were when we bowed to bigotry and failed to protect the minority--whichever minority that was at any given time. Regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation, everyone here has the same rights.
Braid suggests that if a majority deems something to be an accepted practice it is therefore law. This is common misconception, (yet sometimes true). Laws are there to protect ALL regardless and particularly those who differ from the majority. We make many laws to protect the weakest among us.
Braid failed to acknowledge one small glitch in his/her twisted reasoning--a little thing we call THE CONSTITUTION! Perhaps that is because Braid can't seem to fit it into his/her side of the debate.
Sorry Rick, I confused you with another poster. That comment was also directed at Braid.
It's like a buffet! I'm quivering in anticipation!
Solon and others - The problem you have with conservatives coming on here, ranting for a while and then leaving is not because you crushed them in intellectual debate. It is because none of you accept our opinions to stand. While conservatives say "everyone is entitled to their opion," you liberals respond to our opions by labeling them as "bigoted, hateful, prejudiced and untrue because they are not backed up by proof."
When an opinion is not "backed up by proof", then it's called a delusion.
When the conservatives site history to back up their claims and beleifs you call it an uncredible source. History is probably the best source of information to base decisions from. When I point out that from America's beginnings up until recent times, gay marriage/adoption have never been such huge issues; that is a good indicator that the vast majority of Americans throughout history into current times don't want to accept this lifestlye out in the open.
You argue that our nation's history of bigotry supports bigotry in the future? And since when has history shown that discriminating against ANY group has been a good thing?
With 90% of the population being straight, it is completely normal for people to be against gay "marriage" and adoption.
I can think of a different 10% of the population that isn't going to agree with your "might makes right" policy.
Why an extreme minority of people feel they are justified in trying push their agenda on everyone and change the age old definitions of marraige and family is beyond me.
Equality is not an agenda. I still fail to see how gays and lesbians wanting to live as freely as straights is some kind of infringement upon the rights of straights. Is there a political freedom rationing going on, and you're only allowed so much liberty per person?
Our country did not become as strong as it is by exploring the meaning of marriage or what dictates a family.
Our country DID become as strong as it is by exploring the meaning of freedom.
America is built on a marraige = man + woman, and family = mother + father + children. So I guess you are a product of a insensitive, bigoted, hateful country.
Yep. Built by slaves on land stolen from natives, among other atrocities. I love my country, which is why I want to make a future for the US that's better than its bigoted past.
It must suck for you to have to live everyday hating the history of your Country.
Not really. I accept it was something not under my control, and that I must work for a better future.
Ahh the amazing mind reading again. I never said I had any 'problem' with conservatives coming giving their opinions then leaving. I said that is what they often do after we CRUSH them in debates. I dont care what they do, they can leave, stay or dress up in drag and dance the Macarana for all I care. The problem with citing history in support of doing something is that it doesnt go to the crux of whether it is right or wrong. Your argument was the same that was used to support miscegenation laws, thats the way its always been done. Its simply not good enough. It doesnt speak to the merits of the issue. I dont even get why you think we are obligated to ACCEPT your opinions. If you are saying you just feel that way fine, what do I care, if you think YOU feeling that way is an argument as to why WE ought to accept restrictions on someones rights its a non sequitar. It simply isnt an argument at all. I already explained why it is perfectly reasonable for us to expect something more than because I believe it and that settles it as some kind of rationale to restrict someones rights. Its weak, it doesnt come close to making sense. If you want to decide that a group of people should be stripped of a right to do a thing its certainly reasonable for us to say you need a good reason and thats the way you feel isnt anwhere near a good reason, so when you begin to make arguments like being gay is a choice its reasonable for us to ask you to prove this very questionable assertion. Its YOUR claim so its YOUR burden to prove it is so.
The last, inane and frankly stupid spewing of rhetoric about our country is just sad. Its not what I believe, its not what anyone I know believes if its what YOU believe thats sad for you. If its another attempt at using your amazing mind reading powers to discern what I believe you need to retire them, they dont exist. Its known as a strawman argument to build some stupid rhetorical device to argue instead of arguing what I actually SAID. As to calling peoples opinions racist or bigotted I usally only do that when the opinions are based on racism and bigotry. Excuse me for calling a spade a spade. For instance if someone in the midst of his tirade about gay people wanting to marry calls gay people sick clowns. I would say thats pretty much prima facie bigotry and will say so. By the way our country isnt that old historically gay marriage was accepted in places like ancient China and Europe before Christianity held sway there also among the Native Americans who didnt do marriage per say but had a joinging ceremony that they used to join those they called the third spirit or what we today would call gay people. So even your historical arguments is a subjective one and not an argument that totally supports your position
Salon--I dont care what they do, they can leave, stay or dress up in drag and dance the Macarana for all I care.
Wow. Word gets around fast.
"You argue that our nation's history of bigotry supports bigotry in the future? And since when has history shown that discriminating against ANY group has been a good thing?"
-Yes. By not putting women in the front lines of battle, and not allowing them to join our elite special forces units such as the SEALS and Army Rangers. It's discriminating because everyone is supposedly "equal."
"America is built on a marraige = man + woman, and family = mother + father + children. So I guess you are a product of a insensitive, bigoted, hateful country.
Yep. Built by slaves on land stolen from natives, among other atrocities."
-I do not see the need to apologize or feel bad about what our country did to get us so far. We have the highest living standard in the world...people risk their lives to come here illegally it's so good. If you don't like how we accomplished that, go live somewhere else. Besides, we already have policies such as affirmative action that has resulted billions or dollars in jobs and education.
"gay marriage was accepted in places like ancient China and Europe before Christianity held sway there also among the Native Americans who didnt do marriage per say but had a joinging ceremony that they used to join those they called the third spirit"
Great. The gays of today are pushing for marriage rights. In order for them to get that, the definition of marriage changes. That means that when I get married to a woman, it wont have the same legal meaning as it did for people who were previously married. Thats taking away my right to traditional legal marriage.
Gays are free to be gay and do whatever they want with their personal life, they are protected from assault and harrasment under the law just like a heterosexual...even more so becuase of "hate crimes." The only real beef they have left is the marriage thing. So in that light, answer this for me: Two people of the opposite sex joining together in marriage is different than to people of the same sex joining together for life. One is heterosexual, one is homosexual...two seperate entities. Why can't the gays push for a new term for their union that is specific to gays? Why do they have to redefine marriage for heterosexuals? To me, that just isn't fair or equal
-Yes. By not putting women in the front lines of battle, and not allowing them to join our elite special forces units such as the SEALS and Army Rangers. It's discriminating because everyone is supposedly "equal."
Women CAN join the military. And putting them on the front lines is a complex issue (for example, it may lower the birth rate). You fail to explain how this one issue, among so many instances of discrimination and oppression, relates to gay marriage.
-I do not see the need to apologize or feel bad about what our country did to get us so far.
Neither do I.
We have the highest living standard in the world...people risk their lives to come here illegally it's so good. If you don't like how we accomplished that, go live somewhere else.
So, because you choose to live here, then that means you LIKE slavery and genocide?
Besides, we already have policies such as affirmative action that has resulted billions or dollars in jobs and education.
Yes, we are taking steps to rectify our past atrocities.
Great. The gays of today are pushing for marriage rights. In order for them to get that, the definition of marriage changes. That means that when I get married to a woman, it wont have the same legal meaning as it did for people who were previously married. Thats taking away my right to traditional legal marriage.
As long as the marriage performs the same legal function, why should you care so much whether or not it's "traditional"? Isn't this the same thing as saying you have a right to stop gays from getting married?
Gays are free to be gay and do whatever they want with their personal life, they are protected from assault and harrasment under the law just like a heterosexual...even more so becuase of "hate crimes."
Gays aren't as free as you seem to think. Anti-sodomy laws in many states were in effect until struck down by a 2003 Supreme Court case. Wikipedia article. And "hate crime" applies (at least in theory) to crimes motivated against a group or community.
The only real beef they have left is the marriage thing.
What about parenthood and overall social acceptance?
So in that light, answer this for me: Two people of the opposite sex joining together in marriage is different than to people of the same sex joining together for life.
One is a marriage, and the other is a lifelong relationship. That's like saying a circle is different than an square.
One is heterosexual, one is homosexual...two seperate entities. Why can't the gays push for a new term for their union that is specific to gays?
"Separate but equal", anyone? Actually, if you're in favor of an institution that grants equal rights to gays and lesbians, but merely isn't called a "marriage", then why is the name so important to you?
Why do they have to redefine marriage for heterosexuals? To me, that just isn't fair or equal
I still fail to see how it affects different sexed marriages. Your rights are not infringed upon (I'd like to remind you, you do NOT have the right to stop gays from getting married).
"I still fail to see how it affects different sexed marriages. Your rights are not infringed upon (I'd like to remind you, you do NOT have the right to stop gays from getting married)."
-I'd like to remind you that those who are against gay marriage have a right to speak out against it and fight to preserve traditional marriage and family. Sadly for you and your progressive crew, this includes the overwhelming majority in America, so these so called "rights" that gay people have might be a little harder to get than you think it should be. Apparently, the State of New York does not believe gay people are entitled to any so called "right" that you think they have: [link to www.cnsnews.com]
I like how the one of the judges states that this issue needs to be decided through legislators elected by the people. Well, when most people are against gay marriage in America, its going to be hard to get legislators to go against their voter's beliefs. I'm sorry the liberal progressives have to be on the losing side of this one, but I just don't see the opposition buckling to the demands this time.
I found this article to be a very compelling argument against gay marriage. It's kind of long, but if your interested, it's here: [link to web.archive.org]
In the fullness of time we will see who wins this argument. The huge majority of people supported miscegenation laws once upon a time but we grew up. I think eventually this whole argument will be seen as a joke and people like you will be the punchline, but we will see. As for this canard about protecting some image you have of marriage, protect it from WHAT? What damage is going to come to marriage if gay people are allowed to partake in it. Are you going to tell your wife that it looks so good you are going to divorce her and try it? It is a chimera. Its a phantasm there is nothing to protect against except YOUR narrowmindedness. So let others do what they want it DOESNT EFFECT YOU. Its weird that just the thought that others might do something you disapprove of seems some kind of threat to you. The trend of the world is toward more tolerance. Toward more individual rights. 150 years ago we had slavery, 40 years ago there was Jim Crow, today racism has been driven mostly underground its anathema to decent society. You can keep believing that you are protecting something, that something is intolerance and bigotry. Good luck with that
The article I provided a link to spells out what marriage needs to be protected from and why you are wrong when you say that gays being able to marry "doesn't effect you." The reasons why it will are starting to surface in other countries where gay marriage exists.
NAME THESE ALEDGED COUNTRIES !
I'm sorry, but the article you linked to, Braids, is very biased towards your point of view. That is NOT to say I'm not reading it because I do not agree with its thesis. It is a list of talking points I have seen elsewhere. I'll just refute a sample to show why I'm not going to wade through it all.
Marriage is reduced to something of a partnership that provides attractive benefits and sexual convenience,
How is this different than straight marriage?
but cannot offer the intimacy described in Genesis.
The Bible is far to misogynistic for this to be taken seriously. I assume it means the Judeo-Christian creation myth, since most of the Bible ignores women altogether, but what kind of intimacy was there when Adam blamed Eve for giving him the fruit? And what about Cain taking a sister for a wife?
Cohabitation and short-term relationships are the inevitable result.
Massachusetts has both legal gay marriage and the lowest divorce rate in the US.
No it doesnt the article you linked to was a bunch of propagandistic bilge. Like your posts mostly baseless assertions that cannot possibly be backed up and dont stand on firm ground like THIS
We've already seen evidence from the Scandinavian countries that de-facto homosexual marriage destroys the real Mc Coy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No we havent marriage rates actually rose in the Netherlands after they legalized gay marriage.
http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2004/07/14/4
Stanley Kurtz is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank. His research on the ill effects of same-sex marriage has been published in articles like "The End of Marriage in Scandanavia," where he claimed registered same-sex partnerships established in the late 1980s contributed significantly to the decline of marriage in that region. His research has been cited in newspaper op-ed pieces as well as Wednesday's USA Today.
"His spin on the data is everywhere," said Badgett.
The PlanetOut Network was unable to contact Kurtz for comment by press time.
Among Badgett's findings:
"In the end, the Scandinavian and Dutch experience suggests that there is little reason to worry that heterosexual people will flee marriage if gay and lesbian couples get the same rights," Badgett concluded.
This is why we like it when conservatives at least attempt to back up their wild claims. They are so often flat out wrong when they cite facts. Then the article went on to the old unprovable and unsupportable canards about how it will lead to polygamy and all sorts of other boogeymen. No if you are going to CLAIM there is some destruction of marriage that claim needs to be backed up by more than "Hey I THINK it will lead to boils and raining frogs and the destruction of all mankind" The article was nothing more than the guys opinions he is welcome to them but they do NOT constitute reasonable arguments to justify denying gay people the same rights the rest of us have. I can have the OPINION that unless conservatives are denied the vote the great and wise Ancient civilization on Mars will invade and destroy us. Its my OPINION and I am welcome to it but its hardly unreasonable for conservatives to demand I cough up some evidence this might be true. You havent come within miles of meeting this obligation. The article you liked to didnt either.
In order for them to get that, the definition of marriage changes. That means that when I get married to a woman, it wont have the same legal meaning as it did for people who were previously married. Thats taking away my right to traditional legal marriage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No it doesnt the argument is ludicrous. You can be married in the same way as always extending that same right to someone else takes nothing from you, nothing. It just sticks in your craw that people you want to discriminate against will get something you want exclusive to people you see as like yourself YOU want to take from THEM what they do has no effect whatsoever on YOU.
Braid:
Lemme tell you what makes me so unreceptive to other people's religious beliefs when presented here. Normally, I very much enjoy talking to people one on one exchanging ideas that may even be diametrically opposite.However, whenever someone tries to convince me of some religious-based belief it someohow strangely gives me the same sensation I get from a telephone solicitor or someone trying to sell me encyclopedias. I'm not interested in buying. Aside from that, though, this is the real reason I'm so resistant to them:
There are religious leaders who have famously become political forces. I read a lot, and now and then I will read a similar concept from some of these religious/political leaders: that their goal is to create an America whose laws and customs are based on the Bible. I have to take them at their word that they are serious about this... and their increasing power in politics makes me believe even stronger that they are serious. I don't want to live in any sort of theocratic-type nation or community. I consider that a very bad thing. I consider it almost un-American and I will resist and oppose any effort, even small incremental steps, by them in furtherance of their goal to transform America into a Biblical state.
I am perfectly willing to tolerate an administration I disagree with, and even support it in times of crisis, but I draw the line at anyone trying to create a Bible-based America. And every little step, whether its prayer in schools, The Ten Commandments in public buildings, or more important things such as teaching creationism in schools as science, I oppose vigorously because I know that it's just one more building block in furtherance of the master plan of the religious/political leaders of whom I spoke.
It's a shame because non-religious people can actually be spiritual people, believe it or not, And it's a shame because religions, at least in theory, generally incorporate value systems that encourage people to do the right thing. And some religions help the poor. And I sincerely admire and respect that. But I don't want them running our country and trying create a Bible-based America.
Irony,
Point taken. However, I'm not sure if you fail to realize or just don't agree with the fact that our Nation was founded by protestant christians who based the Constitution and laws on their values (which basically stemmed from their religion) and their desire for freedom from religious persecution.
I also do not understand how most left-leaning people so vigorously defend "separation of church and state." That phrase or even that idea does not appear in the Constitution. The Constitution states that the people of America will enjoy freedom of religion and that the government has no power in regulating it, thats it...nothing about a mandatory separation of religion and politics. That means that when a prayer is said in a public school, the government cannot take that school's right to do that away. When the 10 commandments are displayed in a courthouse, nobody has the right to take that away. It's a fundamental right that anyone should be able to exercise even if you don't like it. You are, however, doing a great job at cutting these rights down...there is only one problem: Why did the Muslims at my PUBLIC high school get special rooms to go into to pray in? Why did they get a pass from having to go to the cafeteria at lunch hour during Ramadan? Why? If your going to battle the "bible politics" and christians, please just give me an equal battle against Islam and every other religion that may be publicly celebrated.
Braid, I saw your response to me the other day,didn't have time to respond. You told me that you're just out of high school (I had asked why you were just now considering going to Iraq)
If I was harsh on you, it wasn't just to be mean. I just see you spouting a lot of talking points, and if I'd known your age, I probably would have cut you some slack.
Several other posters have responded to your arguments in detail, so I won't, Do me a favor, though; actually read the responses before reflexively churning out more of the same old thing. You may feel that you're right about everything, and if so, you should be able to read opposing views and deal with them.
On the other hand, you might learn some things if you're willing.You may be challenged to come up with some logical arguments if you see your weak points exposed.
I will respond to a couple of your statements.
You argued that Homosexuality is a choice based on some anecdotal evidence- you know people who dated the opposite sex before "choosing" to be gay.Do you think social pressure may have played into the attempt to be straight?
In your last post (Church & state) you repeated a common talking point- that the words "separation of church and state" aren't in the founding documents. You're right, thry're not. The principle is.
Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...
Some pretty smart cats put this in because they'd left countries that had church and state all tangled up. The founding fathers were a pretty diverse group, theologically, contrary to what you've been told. There's plenty of research material out there, check it out.
You're young. There's hope for you. ;o)
Braid, this is the only life you have. Please don't lose it by going to Iraq. I would much rather debate with you than read your name on that long list. And as a consevative, you can do much more here to help bring this wretched war to a close. There are many causes worth dying for, but this isn't it. ***
"Nation was founded by protestant christians..."
...some of whom foght to ensure that religion would not dominate our new nation. Although Christianity was a powerful force and dominated the culture then, not all founding fathers were devout Christians. Thomas Jefferson, for example, did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, although he greatly admired Jesus as a teacher of moral principles.
I am becoming aware of the resentment towards Muslims receiving what is considered by some as special treatment in the practice of their faith. I don't know enough about it to render an informed opinion, but I will say that Islam is not the enormous political institution that Christianity has become in America... and therein, I think, lies a huge difference. I sincerely would like to have a better relationship with Christians because, person to person, many are very good people. It is the mixture of Christianity and conseervative Republican politics that disturbs me greatly. However, regardless of whichever political party it is that cynically translates Christianity as votes, I think politics are by their very natures incompatible. How can one impose morality through a system (politics) that is so inherently corrupt?
Correction: "I think politics are by their very natures..." should read:
I think politics and religion are by their vey natures incomaptibele..."
I have no problem with the special religious needs of any religion being catered to as reasonable. A special room to pray in is fine Muslims must pray at specific times and in specific ways. Thats fine. Christians can and do pray in school whenever they feel like it. Thats fine too. Just keep the government out of sponsering or advocating any religious activities.
"Just keep the government out of sponsering or advocating any religious activities".
And some of the real problems with that occur when it's done in a sneaky, subtle or implied fasion rather than openly and overtly. But I understand how some of the more openly religious inclusions occur in public schools in small communities, such as in Texas, Louisiana and Alabama where the culture of almost an entire small community can be of a fervent Christian mindset. They can't understand why they have to "change" the moment they walk through the school door. If there is one or two non-Christian in a class the Christians seem to feel that the non-Christian is getting preferred treatment by preventing them from openly including their Christianity in their routine school activities. But that's why I like the saying: School is for learning; Church is for praying. And if you want your children to have a religious education then send them to a religious private school.
No. You have no such rights. To demand the government put their imprimatuer and advocate YOUR religion. No establishment of religion. Period thats what the first amendment says. Therefore a government institution like a school cannot LEAD prayers, nor display the 10 commandments on the courthouse a building that belongs to ALL the people not just Christians but Pagans, Muslims, and those who worship the flying spaghetti monster.
The country was founded on enlightenment principles. The treaty of Tripoli says directly it was NOT founded on Christianity. Benjamin Franklin said once the lighthouses are more useful than churches and many if not most of who we think of as our founding fathers were deists not strictly Christians as you put it. They didnt want religion anywhere NEAR government
Thomas Jefferson
History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Baron von Humboldt, 1813; from George Seldes, ed
History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Baron von Humboldt, 1813; from George Seldes, ed
In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes. (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814; from George Seldes, ed
Across the ages, clergy have been interested [according to Jefferson] not in truth but only in wealth and power; when rational people have had difficulty swallowing "their impious heresies," then the clergy have, with the help of the state, forced "them down their throats." Five years later, he [Jefferson] wrote of "this loathsome combination of church and state" that for so many centuries reduced human beings to "dupes and drudges." (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 47. According to Gaustad, the first quotes are from a letter from Jefferson to William Baldwin, January 19, 1810; the second source is a letter from Jefferson to Charles Clay, January 29, 1815.)
James Madison
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize [sic], every expanded prospect. (James Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774, as quoted by Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 37.)
John Adams
Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind. (John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788]
Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law an oligarchy.
the rule of few over many.
heh. based on my priori knowledge, people who think imaginary people are out to get them and who insist that everyone around them needs help...
...are probably in serious need of help.
it is unfortunate that michael savage has chosen to focus merely on money as a salve for his self-loathing. it is promising for both us and him that perhaps he won't be allowed to damage himself with such vigor. at least not on our dimes.
On February 27, Media Matters noted Savage's February 26 comments about Etheridge, and CAA announced that it had signed Savage "for representation in all areas." On the same day's broadcast of his radio show, Savage said of Media Matters: "I don't know why they're attacking me for what I believe in," and added, "I stick by every word I wrote." He later referred to Media Matters as "a gay website that attacks me every day."
Reprinting your OWN WORDS is "attacking" you Mike? If telling non-listeners what you spew on a regular basis is "attacking" you then whose fault is that?
I don't consider you my "worst enemy". I consider you little more than a provider of hate speech that has a high demand these days. It seems you spend your "every waking moment.. with every fiber of [your] being trying to wake America up to the danger it is in..." from Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Democrats in general, "liberals", homosexuals, all Muslims, Hollywood performers, the "liberal" media AND the right wing media.
Clearly, it's your audience who consider the above persons and groups to be their "worst enemies". It's rare that I'll read of similar comments from you - on Media Matters or other sources - that spews such vitriol for actual terrorist organizations.
So no, Mike. I don't hate you. I just think your regular audience isn't particularly concerned about the true threats to this nation's safety. After all, the most likely terrorist targets - and already hit terrorist targets - are loaded with those "worst enemies" of theirs as it is.
"Mike. I don't hate you"
Particularly after reading some of these MMFA pieces about the offensive remarks of some public personalities, and reading posts by people who support or rationalize the offensive remarks, in my weaker moments I find myself beginning to hate humanity in general. ;>)
There's nothing more annoying than when a liberal non-Christian claims to know what Jesus' teachings are. Jesus was pretty clear in stating that he came to not destroy the Old Testament law but to fulfill it. In other words, the Old Testament law still stands. The death penalty still stands. War is not banned. In fact, Jesus never spoke against Roman military actions. "Blessed are the peacemakers" is not an outright ban on war. "Loving one another" doesn't mean accepting what everybody does as being okay. I mean, liberals certainly don't accept what conservatives do as being okay. As far as helping the underprivileged goes, no conservative is for making it illegal to donate money to the poor. Conservatives are simply against using taxpayer money to help bums. Conservative Christians (real Christians) are also nauseated by "churches" that only preach helping the poor but never preach morality or salvation. Savage's views are much more in line with Christianity than any "do-gooder" liberal's.
Because you are the ultimate authority on what Christianity is all about. Thanks, Jesus.
"There's nothing more annoying than when a liberal non-Christian claims to know what Jesus' teachings are."
... unless it's a neo-con pretending to be a Christian who knows next to nothing about the bible, unless he heard it from an evangelist's pulpit -- like yourself.
If your statements about the OT and Christ's sacrifice were correct, which they aren't, there's an entire book of Leviticus with dozens (hundreds, even) of obscure, irrelevant laws that have no bearing on modern life that would condemn 98% of Americans to Hell.
Add onto that that all men are guilty of sin, and there's nothing special about homosexuality as a sin (if it were a sin, which it isn't) that would make it any worse than any other sin that you and others who preach your filth commit every day.
"Savage's views are much more in line with Christianity than any "do-gooder" liberal's."
Excpet that Savage exudes evil...
I sincerely wish I had been born at an earlier time before all these extreme "progressive" thoughts took over the minds of so many people in this country. I wish I had been around when sodomy was something that just did not get talked about, it was wrong, and if you were doing it you had better keep it really private. I wish I had been around when you could go up to any person on the street and ask them about gay rights and they would look at you like you are crazy. I wish I had been around when our pop icons were stand up individuals, not britney spears or the rest of the filth in hollywood. I wish I had been around when our movie stars joined the military and fought for this country instead of sean penn staging anti-american protests in Washington. I wish I had been around when if a border patrol agent shot an illegal drug smuggler, we would have a parade to celebrate it...now they go to prison while the gays march in parades. I wish I had been around when you had to work to make it in this country and people would rather struggle to make ends meet than get help from the government. Mostly, I wish I had been around when all Americans loved and appreciated this country and shared a common value system and hard working way of life. If you think that makes America unsensitive, narrowminded, non multi-culti and non caring, good. Because America used to be a sovereign nation with a single identity. We will regain that identity over time. Go to Europe if you want multiculturalism, you can drive for 2 hours and be in 3 different countries. In the first one you can learn about a new culture, in the second you can get married to your gay partner and sodomize in the park, and in the third you can get blown up by a suicide bomber because that really is the end result of exchanging your national identity for cultural tolerance.
Bring on your hateful comments and remarks, because I stand by every word I said, along with millions of other decent Americans.
I as well stand behind EVERY WORD you wrote. Damn well written.
You should move to a country that's more to your liking, Braid. I hear Iran is right up your alley.
No, Iran is a dictatorship where the people have no voice. America is a democracy where people supposedly have a voice. When the clear cut majority of Americans are against gay marriage, yet that issue is still being progressively pushed on us, it makes me question what happened to the opinion of the people? It seems like the extreme minority has hijacked our opion and silenced our opposition under the guise of civil rights.
So you want everybody to have a voice, you just want them all to be saying the same thing.
Things are getting way out of hand Rusty. Take the ACLU. Yes, I am aware they prtect Civil Rights, and it IS important to keep certain peopl ein check. But where do they draw the line? The claim that Child Pron is protected under the First Amendment. "What you say, child pron protected?" As always, there is a motive. Read this.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54471
Who can you trust anymore? C.A.I.R? ACLU? Our Government? I trust about no one.
I to wish things where like when I grew up. With exception of course. Equality for woman and people of color. But lets not nitpick issues to the extreem. It is breaking down this country.
EL, the ACLU does not claim that child pornography is protected under the First Amendment.
As for CAIR, as far as I know the only people who pay any attention to them at all are the paranoids over at Little Green Noballs.
THat is not true Rusty. You see, my sister worked for a company that sued estavblishments that have ties to Terrorists organizations. I will not say who the company is, infact I never asked my sister anything about until she quit. It was all confidential. C.A.I.R has many ties, just most are to ignorant to find the ties, or evel look. And the real wopper, and no suprise to most semi intellegent poeople, Bush has more than most. That, is the reason she quit. But do not fool yourself, C.A.I.R. is on the side of the enemy of America and those that do NOT follow ISLAM. That does include you. Hey, I am just trying to bring awarness to those that refuse to believe. Follow the trail Rusty. C.A.I.R founded by the Muslim Brotherhood, who has ties to the PLO. C.A.I.R is a bunch of Hating Muslims.
I wasn't defending CAIR, EL.
Fricking perverts
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/internet/onlinefreespeech.html
EL, the COPA has nothing to do with child pornography.
COPA is about keeping kids from seeing adult naughty bits online, and reading about adult naughty bits online. It is NOT about protecting children from having their pictures taken.
How can you read that article and immediately make a mental jump to child porn? Did you actually read it?
I want majority to have a voice, because that makes logical sense, it's what most people want. I'm sorry but in order to uphold order and values, not everyone can get everything they want. "Progressive" movements boil down to a minority group of some nature wanting the whole system to bend to allow them to legally do what they want. I'm sorry but I don't know of any nation in the history of the world that let it's people get whatever they wanted. It undermines leadship and living standards.
Ya know, talking to many liberals, I have realized many are ignorant to which they defend. When it comes to Muslim groups like C.A.I.R, most defend them soley because they are a minority. Knowing about nothing of their background and ties to terrorist organizations. Illegal Aliens, always a race issue with most. However, most are not even aware of the Anchor Baby law. Ignorance is bliss my freind, very bliss.
"Equality for woman and people of color. But lets not nitpick issues to the extreem."- evillib
Exactly. It couldn't have been said better. What the liberals are doing is extending freedom beyond equality and basic rights. Freedom under a government is not the same as the dictionary definition of freedom. We already have equality to the point where large groups of people from different backgrounds can peacefully handle it. All these movements are just beginning to burst the peaceful seam.
So freedom is good, up to the point where you have as much of it as you want. At that precise point a delicate balance has been achieved that must be maintained at all costs.
I see.
Do you realize that on all state ballots in November that asked about gay marriage and/or illegal immigration, the vote was against those things? 100% of the states that asked about those things got an answer from their residents: WE DON"T WANT THAT HERE. Nation wide, the people have spoken. Why can't the liberals realize the people do not want to accept their agenda?
The exception was Arizona, if not mistaken.
So just because most people don't want something, the people who do want it should stop advocating for changes to the laws?
Do you realize that if it were left up to simple majorities, civil rights laws that took away seperate schools, drinking fountains, lunch stands, etc., and that approved unions between interracial couples would never have passed?
It is up to our government to step in when the majority of the country are behaving immorally in ways that negatively impact the welfare and lives of American citizens - that's a fact. Our founding fathers wrote on such things as the tyranny of the majority for a reason: They recognized the threat of a large majority voting block on the rights and freedoms of the few.
The majority ALWAYS has a voice. The Bill of Rights exists so that it is not the ONLY voice. I'm sorry that it causes you psychological discomfort when minorities advocate for their rights.
""Progressive" movements boil down to a minority group of some nature wanting the whole system to bend to allow them to legally do what they want."
Progressive movements like women's suffrage and civil rights? Oh, those darned minorities and their demand to get what the perceived majority are getting! How dare they infringe on the ruling majority's right to be special in the eyes of law and government?
Here's a tip, Braid: When the majority get the special right to do something like enter into marriage or adopt children and they deny a minority the same right, the minority is not asking for a right that the majority doesn't already have. Gay adoption is not a special right - it's an existing right that the majority of heterosexual adults already have. Gay marriage is not a special right - it's an existing right that the majority of heterosexual adults already have.
You, as a supposedly heterosexual, have these rights while others do not, and you firmly defend the idea that you get to keep those rights while it is denied to others. You are the one who is advocating for special rights for a select class. You are the one who is insisting on some invisible dividing line and the maintenance of a secondary lesser class of citizens based on a notion that should be entirely meaningless in the eyes of a secular government and judicial system.
"Iran is a dictatorship where the people have no voice."
Braid, you don't get to call a country a dictatorship just because you don't like their politics or their religion. Iran is a Repulic, whose leaders are elected through universal suffrage, also known as the right of all adult citizens to vote. They even have a constitution.
The people in Iran have as much of a voice in their government as the people of America do, and I'd wager that they take advantage of it just as often.
Would you not agree this is going to far? Thank god in America you could sue for this BS.
Use of ‘Mom’ and ‘Dad’ Too “Homophobic”, Scottish Nurses Told
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/feb/07021603.html
That is outrageous. It is also the perfect form of evidence or proof that the liberal posters on here keep demanding from us when we state that homosexual marriage will have a negative effect on our nation. Someone also asked me earlier in this thread to name a country where negative effects of homosexual marriage were becoming evident. Here is your answer buddy.
I must have missed it - what is the harm of this publication? Why is it "outrageous"?
The came from a f-ing mom and dad. I will myself hire a hit man to do away with someone if they EVER tried it here in the states. What is next? WTF is NEXT?
I meant to say, "They came from a mom and dad"... But how they soon forget it. If only sodomy could create children, this all may not happen. But you know what Rusty, it DOES NOT!
EL, what are you talking about? The story you linked to (not exactly an unbiased source, btw) describes new guidelines for Scottish health care workers. They provide a link to a pdf of the guidelines. I don't know why these guidelines outrage you and Braid so much.
Just the headline is enough. Nurses can no longer use the Term, Mom, Dad, Mother, Father. Why, it is too homophobic......
The headline appears to be a lie.
If you read past the headline, you'll recognize that it's a non-sequitur. There's nothing in the publication or even the article that supports what the headline is suggesting.
This is a common practice among extremist publications, EL, and if your claim to fairness holds any validity, you will come back here and acknowledge that you're posting inflammatory material that holds absolutely no water, and apologize for the same.
People do some REALLY stupid stuff in the name of PCness or in hopes of keeping a certain segment of the population happy, but this isn't a case of that - it's more right-wing extremist rhetoric disguised as "information."
Do you believe the use of the term mom/dad is homophobic?
No, and apparently nobody else does either. There is nothing in the "LifeSiteNews.com" story that backs up that headline, and from what I can tell of the Scottish publication, nothing in it that backs up the headline either.
EL, why would a health care provider need to refer to "Mom and Dad" when they are discussing a child's help with the child's two homosexual parents?
Aside from an intentional dig regarding the couple's relationship, it would just be confusing and make the HCP look like an absolute idiot. Are you arguing for an HCP's right to look like an idiot?
Browsing through the multitude of comments here, I can't help but notice that each defender of Sewage has to resort to their interpretation of RELIGIOUS texts to support the suppression and condemnation of homosexuals.
Then, those same defenders claim that they support freedom of conscience. Presumably, it's only their own freedom of conscience they choose. I fail to see just how same sex marriage is being "forced" on them.
And whenever I see a 'phobe's argument that homosexuality is "chosen", all I hear is that same phobe telling me that he, himself, has attraction to the same sex and has CHOSEN not to act on it, forcing himself to be heterosexual in action.
Since I've never had the experience of having to CHOOSE to act against my naturally occurring attractions, I can't relate to this argument.
I'm not entirely sure, however, why someone else's sex life is what these people consider to be an appropriate area of control when it involves only consenting adults. What controls are THEY feeling on their sex lives, exactly, that leads them to believe that such is a normal condition and normal concern for third parties?
We have all just witnessed the vicious cirle of closed mindedness that liberals display all the time despite their claim of acceptance of everything and open mindedness. The conservative is asked to back up an opinionated statement with evidence or fact. The conservative does so by posting a link to an article about how extreme sensitivity to gays has become in a country that is accepting of those relationships. The article even provides the source document it is refering to. The liberals here pass it off as rhetoric and invalid. Well, if that is what you think fine, but you "need some proof to back up what you think."
Go to page 7 of the NHS publication and you will see where it sets the guideline to refrain from using the term mom and dad. Obviously anyone with eyes would not use mom and dad when they are talking to a gay couple with a kid standing in front of them. However, this rule being put forth is taking the term mom and dad out of the health care center completely. This document's goal is sensitivity to gay people, so when they say don't use the term mom and dad...they are implying it is a homophobic term because it isn't proactively being sensitive to the gay crowd.
This whole PC/sensitivity issue is turning everyone into a bunch of whining little wimps. If you don't like how someone is talking to you or the words they are using, tell them to their face...deal with your own problems yourself. The government shouldn't have to ban the use of words to make people feel more comfortable (I wonder how many taxpayer dollars it took to print and distribute that guide book?). This incident in Scotland is the perfect reason why we cant allow things to go this extreme here at home. Cause a guy like me, and I know many others as well, will never stop using terms that some think are insensitive. Got a problem? Tell me to my face like a man or get the hell out. But the gay movement is destroying masculinity.
Go to page 7 of the NHS publication and you will see where it sets the guideline to refrain from using the term mom and dad.
You mean this statement?
"ParentingLGBT people can and do have children, sexual orientation or gender identity has nothing to do with good parenting or good child care.According to a Scottish wide survey, one fifth of LGBT people have children. Some children will have been born or adopted intoheterosexual relationships before a parent had ‘come out’ and some are born into samesex relationships or adopted by an LGBindividual. Individual circumstances lead to varied family structures and parenting arrangements. It is important to be aware ofthis. When talking to children, consider using "parents”, “carers” or “guardians” rather than “mother” or “father”."
Is that the one? It's on page 7.
However, this rule being put forth is taking the term mom and dad out of the health care center completely.
No it isn't. In fact, it isn't even a rule - it's a suggestion ("consider using..."). Nowhere does it say HCPs can't say "mom" or "dad."
This document's goal is sensitivity to gay people, so when they say don't use the term mom and dad...they are implying it is a homophobic term because it isn't proactively being sensitive to the gay crowd.
"Implying it is a homophobic term"? If that's what the authors thought they wouldn't imply it - they'd come right out and say it. They talk about real homophobic words elsewhere in the document. It's not implying anything like what you say it is.
Actually I'm a paleconservative like Savage, not a neo-con. Stop throwing around the word "neo-con" so much. Secondly, my statement about Jesus is correct. He came not to destroy the old law. The death penalty still stands. In fact, Jesus said that a man who causes a little one to sin should be drowned. Jesus wasn't the softy, hippie lib who he's made out to be. I mean, turning over tables in the temple is hardly "turning the other cheek." Homosexuality is a sin. God bless Michael Savage. Savage for President in 2008. Borders, language, culture. Savage will pardon the border patrol agents and the Pendleton Eight once he becomes President. Those will be the first two acts of office. God bless America.
The liberals in here should praise Savage for not being a Bushbot. Why is he bashed on this web site?
Rusty,
I'm sure that you imply that Mike Savage is a racist, homophobe, and bigot. But using your train of thought...If that's what he was he wouldnt imply it, he would flat out say it. You see, there are implications behind everything, words on paper imply certain things in most circumstances. But I guess when the implications disagree with a liberal's viewpoint, implications just disapear.
I came on this site recently to find out first hand if Savage was really correct when he constantly bashes liberals and their way of thinking. He is right. The conclusion I have drawn is that when the evidence works for your cause, it stands up as being solid. When there is evidence presented against your cause, it is invalid or it is a rhetorical device, or its simply opinion, or it is racist, or it simply doesn't exist, like the implication thing.