Savage again called gay parenting "child abuse"
On the June 7 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage called gay parenting, "child abuse," echoing remarks he made during the February 26 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation.
Savage made his comments while criticizing Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who, at a June 6 campaign event, reportedly referred to same-sex parenting as part of "the American way" and an example of "freedom of choice." Savage read from a June 6 Associated Press article reporting Romney's response to a lesbian mother who confronted him about his opposition to gay marriage:
A New Hampshire woman, frustrated with Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's opposition to gay marriage, made a point Wednesday of telling him about her personal experience.
"I am a gay woman and I have children. Your comment that you just made, it sort of invalidates my family," said Cynthia Fish, a mother of a 6- and 8-year-old. "... I wish you could explain to me more, why if we are sending our troops over to fight for liberty and justice for all throughout this country, why not for me? Why not for my family?"
Romney paused, asked Fish about her children and then praised her.
"Wonderful," Romney said. "I'm delighted that you have a family and you're happy with your family. That's the American way. ... People can live their lives as they choose and children can be a great source of joy, as you know. And I welcome that."
[...]
The former Massachusetts governor acknowledged other scenarios that raise children.
"There are other ways to raise kids that's fine: single moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples raising kids. That's the American way, to have people have their freedom of choice," he said.
Reacting to Romney's remarks, Savage said the "proper answer" would have been to tell the woman that gay parenting is "child abuse." He stated, "I need a conservative candidate all the way who would say to a gay woman: 'You know what? I'm very sorry for your children. I think it's child abuse for you to raise children.' " Savage added that his ideal candidate would have also said: "Marriage is a fragile institution and I think you're making a mockery of it in this manner by doing this."
As Media Matters for America noted, on the February 26 edition of his radio show, Savage said: "I want to puke when I hear about a woman married to a woman raising children because, frankly, I think that it's child abuse to do that to children without their permission." As Media Matters further noted, Savage was reportedly dropped by Hollywood's Creative Artists Agency (CAA) following those remarks -- which were directed at singer and CAA client Melissa Etheridge, who thanked her wife during an acceptance speech at the Academy Awards -- two days after it announced it had signed him as a client. A week later, he called Etheridge a "hack" and said, "I find it nauseating, the idea of a woman saying, 'my wife,' " and repeated his attack on gay parenting: " The idea of two women who are so-called married raising children, I think it's child abuse."
The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week according to Talkers Magazine, making it the third most-listened-to talk radio show in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
From the June 7 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: You know which story shocks me on my website? "Romney says gay couples raising kids is the American way." Did he really say that? Did he really do that? I don't believe it. Let's see. I really want to see this. Let me see. I'm going to look at that whole story now, while you're calling:
"A New Hampshire woman, frustrated with Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's opposition to gay marriage, made a point Wednesday of telling him about her personal experience.
" 'I am a gay woman and I have children. Your comment that you just made, it sort of invalidates my family,' said Cynthia Fish. "I wish you could explain to me more, why if we are sending our troops over to fight for liberty and justice for all throughout the country, why not for me? Why not for my family?'
"Romney paused, asked Fish about her children and then praised her.
" 'Wonderful,' Romney said. 'I'm delighted that you have a family and you're happy with your family. That's the American way. ... People can live their lives as they choose and children can be a great source of joy, as you know. And I welcome that.'
"But then Romney repeated his view of marriage."
Romney actually said this. He said this:
"Marriage is an institution which is designed to bring a man and woman together to raise a child and that the ideal setting for society at large is where there is a male and a female are associated with the development and nurturing a child."
So? Then he says:
"There are other ways to raise kids that's fine: single moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples raising kids. That's the American way, to have people have their freedom of choice."
All right, well, there it is. There went the culture warrior -- bingo -- out the door. I'm sorry. I need a conservative candidate all the way who would say to a gay woman: "You know what? I'm very sorry for your children. I think it's child abuse for you to raise children. And I don't mean to insult you personally, but this is a large cultural issue. The society is collapsing. Marriage is a fragile institution and I think you're making a mockery of it in this manner by doing this."
That would have been the proper answer.
I think it's child abuse to allow your child to listen to Michael Savage's radio show, or read any of his books.
You've got a pretty good point! This man has been preaching hatred and division for a long long time. It's probably best to ignore him, or use him as a teaching tool to show our children how NOT to be.
People like Savage will never stop spewing this garbage - they use it to incite and divide us. Take gay marriage, for example - they claim that it will "ruin" our country, destroy the concept of family and marriage, and on and on and on.
Sounds like they're afraid, not logical. The reality, though, is that the best way to defend rights and marriage is to get it completely out of the hands of government - so the politicians can't use it as a tool.
Well, that's my rant. Some follow-up reading if you're interested:
"Here's How to Defend Marriage" - click here
Ok, lets go with what your are saying Populist
"Sounds like they're afraid, not logical. The reality, though, is that the best way to defend rights and marriage is to get it completely out of the hands of government - so the politicians can't use it as a tool."
I've heard Savage say similar suggestions many times when debating gay marriage. Take the government away from marriage (even though it doesn't really work due to all the legal obligations it creates) and what you are left with is marriage left to those who started the practice, Religions.
Correct me if im wrong, but I have not heard of any major religion promote homosexuality let alone same-sex marriage.
Personally, I'm not sure if i beleive it is right to expose a child to parenting that may instill ideas that same-sex marriage may be a socialogical "normal" or "better" than the traditional idea of marriage and family. At the same time I do feel that parental status and sex are not the most important creditials for the privilege of being a parent., there are way too many children growing up in broken homes accross all parental demographics.
" This man has been preaching hatred and division for a long long time. " Im sorry but dispite what you guys think, I hear, more often than not, Savage's conservative views trying to bring Americans together through a common beliefs (His idea of American standards are Borders, Laguage, Culture) and standards, not through separation by race or sexual orientation which I see as tools exploited by "the left".
"what you are left with is marriage left to those who started the practice, Religions."
Religions did not "start" marriage.
"Correct me if im wrong, but I have not heard of any major religion promote homosexuality let alone same-sex marriage."
So what? Marriage is a legal institution, not just a religious tradition. You don't see major religion promoting getting married at the beach, but plenty of people do and their marriage is just s valid as one preformed by a minister in church.
"Personally, I'm not sure if i beleive it is right to expose a child to parenting that may instill ideas that same-sex marriage may be a socialogical "normal" or "better" than the traditional idea of marriage and family."
No one said same-sex marriage is better. It is not better or worse, just different. And what is "normal"? There is no such thing. We are all freaks, some people just happen to be gay freaks instead of being straight freaks.
"Im sorry but dispite what you guys think, I hear, more often than not, Savage's conservative views trying to bring Americans together through a common beliefs (His idea of American standards are Borders, Laguage, Culture)"
First of all- what is American culture? I don't know how Savage would define our culture, but I don't think there is one monolithic American culture. Our culture is multifaceted. And how exactly is he trying to unite people when he says things like:
"take the Constitution and stuff it up your ass."
women shouldn't be permitted to vote because "Their hormones rage; they are too emotional."
Described female High School student who volunteered to assist homeless people as "fresh white nookie" and stated that they were volunteering for the "thrill and possibility they'll be raped in a dumpster."
"You know something; I'm voting for Bush, I just made up my mind. There's nothing in this for me. I'm a white male, I'm a white, male, married heterosexual -- I don't want the Democrats. Everywhere I turn, there's another hot coal in my eye. For example, today's DNC calendar of public events included lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender meeting, the disability meeting, the ethnic meeting, the American Indian meeting, the Asian/Pacific Islander meeting, the Hispanic meeting, and the African American meeting -- God bless 'em, they're entitled to their meeting, I'm entitled to my vote, they're not my party, end of story. And that's it. I'm not voting for a party of ethnic minorities and women and immigrants."
"not through separation by race or sexual orientation which I see as tools exploited by "the left"."
Yeah, or it could be that some of us actually see how those who are not white or straight are disproportionately discriminated against and we actually care.
Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends or religious beliefs concerning the origins of marriage. - Wikipedia - history of marriage
Marriage is most commonly associated as a a religous practice. Show me "legal institutions " that practiced marriage before ancient Hebrews.
normal- conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm;
Just in case you were still wondering what the definition of normal was
Your quotes, first one ive never heard before, should be taken in context of the satire and sarcasm that was intended not as his beliefs.
"Yeah, or it could be that some of us actually see how those who are not white or straight are disproportionately discriminated against and we actually care."
Im sorry but I see stright white males as the new "monority" especially in my stat of California. Why are their civil rights always over looked in favor of an ethnic or sexual monority i.e. Duke LeCross team or white couple murdered by blacks [link to www.knoxnews.com]
Remember, those straight white men are the acestors of the many more that fought for, died for, and created this great nation. All men should be treated equal, why label yourself to be different if you dont want to be treated differently.
You say- Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history. So if marriage predates history, it was not "started" by religion.
Yes- I know what "normal" means; my point was that it is a very subjective term. Normal is always changing. 100 years ago it was normal to beat your wife. Now it is socially unacceptable, not normal.
As for Savage, I don't know how those quotes are satirical. Is everything he says supposed to be sarcastic? Are we supposed to take him seriously? I cannot imagine how saying a young girl is asking to be raped by helping the homeless is insightful at all.
White males may or may not be a statistical minority, but they are far from oppressed. Poor white guys. They just run the gov't, most corporations and most of the media. For every story you can dig up about white people getting the short end of the stick, there are hundreds of examples of just the opposite.
As for white guys building this country, I wouldn't give them all the credit. How much of this nation was built on the backs of slaves, the poor, women, immigrants, native Americans? Lewis and Clark would never have survived without Sacajawea.
As for Savage, I don't know how those quotes are satirical. Is everything he says supposed to be sarcastic? Are we supposed to take him seriously? I cannot imagine how saying a young girl is asking to be raped by helping the homeless is insightful at all.
It's the Krusty the Klown defense - (after telling the Simpson family he can have someone killed) "It was just a joke! Whenever you make that face, it's a joke!"
Oh- I get it now...clever...
My "Although institution of marriage..." is quoted from wikipedia's "History of marriage" no MY words. And while it exceeds recorded history, I beleive the Hebrews (some of the most ancient records) illistrate that marriage was seen as a religous cerimony not a "legal institution" as you put it.
As far as how you know when Savage, who uses sarcasm and satire daily, is being sarcastic, well you would have to actually listen to him, not just take quotes you find on anti savage websites and beleive as though they are dictation of his beleifs. Do you know how many actors, comidians and other entertainers can have their "entertainment" quoted out of context to convince people of their racism or biggotry?
I know you hate white males (even though you may be one) but my point was that this country was founded by their image of what America should be. Dispite slavery, dispite immigrant assimulation, anglo-saxon men had the dream of America, and your ancestors, along with all other immigrants, came here to be a part of that dream.
Yes, I know you were quoting wikipedia, I can read, but you said it to back up your claim, so you obviously believe it. My point was not that marriage has always been a legal institution, but that it is a legal institution now. You did not prove that religion 'started' marriage, just that religion adopted it at some point, which I never denied.
As for Savage- I have listened to his show recently and he seemed pretty angry and irrational to me. Again- how is saying a young girl is asking to be raped ever okay- even out of context?
I don't hate white males, I am married to one. I just can't stand it when some of them act like we owe them some undeserved respect just because they think the world would be in shambles without them. What have you done that is so important? White men are not oppressed, as much as you whine about it doesn't make it true. And I am native so from my perspective those white men also took my peoples land and created a genocide, but I don't hold that against people alive today because it is what it is now. Anglo-Saxon men like Thomas Jefferson also got some of their ideas about democracy from native cultures. Although they often get all the credit, these great men did not exist in a vacuum. And you say they were all heterosexual, but you don't know that for sure. If one of the founders had been gay would you think any less of him?
" i dont put a lot of stock into what the sham psych ppl say." --demented
Are you Tom Cruise?
The only time clowns like this will support gay is when it can be used as a weapon:
http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_159222541.html
Best case scenario:
Kids are raised in a loving environment with a Mom & Dad, who are married to each other.
After that, the loving environment is the most important ingredient, whether it be single parents, other relatives [Adult Sisters or Brothers, Grandparents/Grandparent, Aunts, Uncles, Cousins,...and yes two folks married or not of either gender]
While I still believe it could be rough on kids being raised by two Gay woman or men...it's rough because of the grief they will take from others.
Savage is of course entitled to spew anything he'd like about this or any other topic. Many of his listeners probably agree with him.
Best case scenario is they are loved... by anyone- gay, straight, or whatever... if ignorance by others makes the kids upbringing hard, change the BIGOTS, not the family...
MrL has a good point here, Jeter. To distinguish between different yet loving family types seems prejudicial. People shouldn't pass judgement such as; he/she comes from a family whose parents are homosexual; divorced; multi racial; etc. By saying that a certain type of family is the best option makes all other types second rate.
We should accept that which is acceptable, and teach this to our children. And, althought I'm no psych, It seems as though doing anything less could lead to emotional problems much worse than being raised by a loving family of any type.
far be it from me to defend jeter ( ;p ) I read him as saying the 'grief' would come from idiots outside the family imposing their bigotry and stupidities at the kids when they are to scared to deal with the adults who may be gay. I did not read him as saying gay/lesbian parenting was bad. It is just the 'best case' for the man and woman to be committed to the family. The alternative is a non-loving hetero or the death of one or both spouses or divorce. All of which without respect to gender identities involved will cause stress on the kid(s) involved...I know from experience.
Best case scenario:
Kids are raised in a loving environment with a Mom & Dad, who are married to each other. --Jeter
MrL has a good point here, Jeter. To distinguish between different yet loving family types seems prejudicial. People shouldn't pass judgement such as; he/she comes from a family whose parents are homosexual; divorced; multi racial; etc. By saying that a certain type of family is the best option makes all other types second rate.
We should accept that which is acceptable, and teach this to our children. And, althought I'm no psych, It seems as though doing anything less could lead to emotional problems much worse than being raised by a loving family of any type.
MrL has a good point here, Jeter. To distinguish between different yet loving family types seems prejudicial. People shouldn't pass judgement such as; he/she comes from a family whose parents are homosexual; divorced; multi racial; etc. By saying that a certain type of family is the best option makes all other types second rate.
We should accept that which is acceptable, and teach this to our children. And, althought I'm no psych, It seems as though doing anything less could lead to emotional problems much worse than being raised by a loving family of any type.
I'm not certain that I disagreed with Jeter about the points you mention. I don't even disagree his example of "best." Sometimes conveying a thought in this type of forum can be less clear than it should be. Let me try again.
I believe (and some may disagree with me) that attitudes should not reflect (especially onto the children involved) that some types of families are better than other types. All children deserve to feel loved and accepted for who they are, not who they live with.
I'm not sure if this is clearer, but whatever disagreement I may have about Jeters post is minor, I guess I was adding to both of them--thinking I was being profound. : )
This is wierd. I didn't put my previous post in there (twice) purposely. Sorry.
Could everyone please stop comparing homosexuality to things such as ethnicity, age, hair color, etc. Honestly... it is disgusting.
What experience do any of you have with the issues affecting gay parents/children of gay parents? Have you ever directly confronted the situation?
My mom "came out" to my family in 2003, even though I had suspected her lesbian activities prior to that (while she was still married to my father). I have run the entire spectrum (in my opinion) on this situation emotionally/mentally/spiritually. It's not like she told us, I freaked out, and vowed to be against gays ever since.
In fact, I was very accepting and even promoted by mom's lifestyle at first. I wore the gay pride ribbons, I supported LBGT groups at my college, I fumed at people who made any judgement on them.
Now, after experiencing for 4 years what this lifestyle includes (4 of my mom's "serious" partners, many more trivial flings), I am here to say that no matter how loving two gay parents are, it is still THE BEST situation for children to be raised with a Mom, and a Dad. If this isn't possible, then obviously the next healthiest choice should be chosen for the child. However, that DOES NOT mean that children should be brought into this world by homosexual couples.
I can see what O'Reilly meant, even if his comments were predictably out of taste. I feel like it was/is my mother's responsiblity to make the best choices for my brother and I since we are her highest priorities- and chosing to adpot a gay lifestyle and force that incredibly traumatic situation upon us is not the best choice she could have made. It was selfish and irresponsible.
Start listening to people who have been through these things. What better teacher exists than experience?
"What experience do any of you have with the issues affecting gay parents/children of gay parents? Have you ever directly confronted the situation?"
I have been a nanny for a lesbian couple, and I have two good friends who have lesbian parents, and they do not feel the way you do.
How about the kids? How do their kids feel? Do you know or even care? The way you write, it is more important that the parents are happy and it doesn't matter what the kids think.
Read more carefully. I said I have two friends who have lesbian mothers- they are the kids and they both think people who say gay people shouldn't be parent are ignorant.
And also- having been a nanny for a lesbian couple I spent a great deal of time with their children- which is what nannies do, you know. Those kids were well behaved, smart, happy, healthy and they really loved their parents. I asked one of hem how he felt about having two mommies, and he said he was happy they were his parents. Some days he would cry because he missed them so much while they were at work. They were better off with their moms than I ever was with my mom and dad, which proves that you can't generalize what is best for children. Every situation is unique.
Smit- Wouldn't you also be upset if your mother had broken up with your dad and started dating a lot of men and neglecting you and your bothers needs? It sounds more like you are upset about how your mom is behaving rather than her sexuality.
brothers needs....
Other types ARE second rate. If they weren't, nature would be set up differently.
Birth parents are better then adoptive (all things being equal) because of nature. The child and parents share common traits, habits and abilities.
It doens't mean other family dynamics can't be successful and wonderful.
I think your statements need much defending. There are many instances in nature (human and other mammals) that fly in the face of this. Again, I believe 'Dad-Mom-children' to be a darned good situation. But, why shouldn't other types of families be perceived as equal instead of something less?
I have hazel eyes, my wife's are blue, yet I don't look at those with brown eyes as being more or less than me. They're just different. Although this may be an oversimplification, perhaps those who disagree are making it more complicated than it is.
I think your statements need much defending. How can a family with outside parents be better or equal to birth parents(all things being equal)? Perceived prejudices cannot be considered expected, which is what you're demonstrating with your example.
Claiming that nature has many instances that 'fly in the face' of lolo's statement will require some proof. Do you have any? Keep in mind you said "many".
How can a family with outside parents be better or equal to birth parents(all things being equal)?
It seems to work for penguins.
Next time you see a penguin ask him/her if his/her gaurdians are better than their biological parents.
Next time you see an orphan, ask if they WANT parents.
By that remark do you mean you think orphans do not want to be in family's? That sure is a healthy attitude on adoption. Is that something you learned at the science-club meeting?
You should really read more carefully. Iflurry is saying orphans do want parents.
How can a family with outside parents be better or equal to birth parents(all things being equal)?
Biological parents can be abusive whereas adoptive parents can be loving and competent. I don't know what you mean by "all things being equal" because, unless you judge how much a person can love a child by their genitals, gender doesn't matter.
I think lolo was expressing that if you have loving biological parents caring for the child there is a bond that isn't present when loving adoptive parents care for the child....(all things being equal). And, I think that's why many adopted kids eventually try to seek out who their biological parents are and/or are curious of them.
Maybe you love people based on whether or not they share your genes, but that doesn't apply to everyone. If it really matters so much, the adoptive child can always go find their biological parents later in life.
If it really matters so much, the adoptive child can always go find their biological parents later in life.
Thank you for proving lolo's point. They can always 'find their biological parents later'. And why would that be? Because there is a 'bond' between biological parents/children. Now can we move on?
The point is that it's not an argument against gay adoption.
I don't think there is an arguement being made 'against' gay adoption. I think the arguement is that the normal father/mother situation is better for the child.
Other types ARE second rate. If they weren't, nature would be set up differently.
Birth parents are better then [sic] adoptive (all things being equal) because of nature. The child and parents share common traits, habits and abilities.--Lolo [Bold mine]
Please show that this is more than theory, because I don't remember any of this from my psychology or humanities classes. However, I admit that I didn't take every class offered.
I find your idealistic statement interesting. You mention "all things being equal" as if that is even the case in adoptive situations. Often adoptions occur because the children are unwanted, abused or the parents are dead. I would expect the "all things being equal" to be the exception.
Two of my adoptive children were born to a Thirteen year old crackhead mother (crackhead daddy ended up in jail last I heard) who failed to feed her two children adequately to the point they were taken to the emergency room in an emaciated condition after which the state intervened to take her children away.
It is nice to know that as an adoptive parent myself, I AM "second rate" in your eyes.
Nicely done.
Just a suggestion, if you don't want others to unfairly judge you as an adoptive parent, then I suggest you reserve passing judgement unfairly on the "crackhead" mom and "crackhead daddy."
The goodness of your loving/caring heart to adopt these children is overshadowed by your condescention and condemnation of their biological parents. Don't stifle the good you're doing.
I wonder what the politically correct term for crack smoker is?
As if calling a crack smoker a crackhead is so unfair. Give us a break, please.
I wonder what the politically correct term for crack smoker is?
Lawyer. More precise- ACLU lawyer
I think "fundamentalist" would be better.
It wasn't passing judgement. They really were quite literally "crackheads". I have read the supporting documentation of that fact. If that bit of truth offends you then I am sorry. Reality is a messy place at times.
I think you miss the point. Discussing this issue as if "all things being equal" is at all relevant is simply disingenuous. That is hardly ever the case in reality.
Best case scenario is a man-woman household where they are loved.
gays should be the last on the list. It's not "natural." and let's not pretend otherwise.
If it's a choice between foster care, homlessness, or worse then by all means, go to a loving gay household.
To say we should change the prejudice is fine, but to not acknowledege it's existence and the difficulty this can cause kids is just not thinking about the children's best interests first.
to clarify what I meant by "natural"...it's not natural that a gay couple would have kids. I wasn't referring to whether their gay relationship is "natural."
An extremely important clarification, thank you.
However, it seems to me like the argument about the children's "best interests" is faulty, mainly because it leads to a vicious cycle. How are you ever going to get rid of the prejudice if you accept that as a reason not to give gay people rights? First it's "you shouldn't give gay couples children because the kids will have a hard time" then it's "look, they won't let gay people raise children, what does that tell you?". It feeds into the prejudice. The only way to get out of that is to change the rules, and let society gradually get used to it.
The views will change over time. Children are not props to be usedto this end and their best interests should be taken into account.
Adopting children is not a "right" for anyone. Straight. Married. Single gay. Whatever. No one has the "right"to adopt children.
If people don't have the right to adopt children, how do they get adopted? You're not making a very clear point there.
I believe he's arguing that it's a privilege. My point is, if you're straight and healthy, getting kids is as easy as one night in the backseat of a car. If you're gay, suddenly it's all "WON'T SOMEBODY PLEEEEZE THINK OF THE CHILDREN????"
The views will change over time. Children are not props to be usedto this end and their best interests should be taken into account.
Sounds to me like you are the one using children as "props" by bowing to the hatred of bigots and denying children homes.
Adopting children is not a "right" for anyone. Straight. Married. Single gay. Whatever. No one has the "right"to adopt children.
If all it takes to make kids is a few working body parts, then I'd have to say adoption should be as easy as squirting out a kid of your own.
Sounds to me like you are the one using children as "props" by bowing to the hatred of bigots and denying children homes.
What do you care? You say adoptive children don't want to be adopted. You are very clueless.
If all it takes to make kids is a few working body parts, then I'd have to say adoption should be as easy as squirting out a kid of your own.
Apparantly, you're not the scientist you claim to be. You should already know how human children are made. You must have done a lot of partying while going to school, because it seems you missed a lot of important classes.
Where did he say adoptive children don't want to be adopted? You need reading for comprehension classes.
And how is saying "all it takes to make kids is a few working body parts" inaccurate? Sure, it's a little oversimplified, but it's not wrong. What was he supposed to do, start talking about the vas defrens, fallopian tubes and blastocysts?
Props to you. Keep on with your always unpopular opinions. We need more people like you to take a stand for these children who have no say in the sexual orientation of their parents- and speaking from experience, I will tell you that it is EXTREMELY traumatizing to have homosexual parents.
"speaking from experience"
It is your personal experience- not every child with gay parents has had the same experience you have.
I suppose you're also going to argue that infertile couples shouldn't adopt either, because it's not natural for them to have kids, either.
Oh, stop. Infertility is not the same as homosexulaity. Infertility still involves a man and woman, not two same-gendered people.
It's because of arguments like yours that the debate on this issue has become so messed up. You know that LoLo has never suggested anything even close to that ridiculous comment.
Actually he brings up a good point. You are sidestepping it.
Lolo didn't bring up that exact comparison, but she definitely argued that homosexuals are less desirable parents because they do not naturally produce children. Why would you have a different standard for heterosexuals with the same problem?
Best case scenario is a man-woman household where they are loved.
Correction: best case scenario is a household where they are loved.
gays should be the last on the list. It's not "natural." and let's not pretend otherwise.
Correction: bigots should be last on the list. It's not natural (no quotes needed). And let's not pretend otherwise.
To say we should change the prejudice is fine, but to not acknowledege it's existence and the difficulty this can cause kids is just not thinking about the children's best interests first.
Well then, maybe blacks and Mormons should be lower on the list of "ideal" parents, since they face prejudice and bigotry as well.
You actually dispute that a child having both a mother and a father is the best case scenario? A child needs to have both a mother and a father because it brings balance to his or her life. The father acts as the disciplinarian and the mother acts as the nurturer. Those are the gender roles that males and females have. A child needs to have both a nurturer and a disciplinarian in his or her life. A child who has two nurturers or two disciplinarians won't have the kind of balance that he or she needs. I support gay adoption as a last resort, but I think that traditional families should always get the first choice. If it comes down to a choice between having the child stay in the brutal foster care system or go home with two loving gay parents, I would rather have the kid go home with the gay parents. But it's obvious to any fair minded person that the ideal situation is for the child to have both a mother and a father.
Your post is rife with stereotypes. I don't know one single person whose family fits your 'leave it to beaver' scenario. Sometimes the father is the nurturer, and the mother is the disciplinarian. Most families I know, each parent is a little of both. I was a nanny for lesbian couple, and they both provided nurturing and discipline. I'm glad you see the benefit of gay adoption, but your reason for gay adoption as a last resort is based on stereotypes that are often untrue of even straight couples.
A child needs to have both a mother and a father because it brings balance to his or her life...The father acts as the disciplinarian and the mother acts as the nurturer.--Rino
Oh really? Are you saying there would be no balance in a single family or gay household?
But it's obvious to any fair minded person that the ideal situation is for the child to have both a mother and a father.--Rino
Oh really? This sounds as though you think that those who are accepting of other types of families are not fair minded people.
Please explain how any child in any type of careing and loving family is any better off than any other. That disciplinarian/nurturer (good cop/bad cop) thing sounds a bit like a tug of war to me. I can tell you, my Mom had no problem disciplining me. My daughter has 3 boys under 6, when she 'lays down the law.'
I can tell you, my Mom had no problem disciplining me.
That's a very good point. There needs to be a study on this. "Do kids whose mother disciplined them become liberals more often than not?" The answer to that could certainly go a long way in determining if there are harmful side effects from households that don't have a mother and father.
How do you know his father didn't discipline him also? Some parents actually share responsibilities equally instead of adhering to some narrow definition of gender roles.
Thank you, and agreed.
Nonsense. What is most important to a child is that they be raised by a LOVING family, that is all. Gender is irrelevant.
The only reason why a child suffers hardship when being raised by same sex parents is because of societal bigotry perpetrated by right-wing terrorists like Savage.
Mr. L & Blueblood,
I wrote that a loving environment was important BUT that the Best Case Scenario was for kids to be raised in a loving environment by Mom & Dad, who are married to each other.
You actually dispute THAT????
Please, find me data that says that's not the Best Case Scenario.
BTW, Best Case Scenario is my key point here--it's seems to have been missed or ignored by both of you....
There actually are studies that refute the idea that parents of the opposite sex are the best case scenario. In fact, I learned about these studies right here at MMFA.
[link to mediamatters.org] instance, as Colorado Media Matters has noted ([link to colorado.mediamatters.org] title="http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200610170001">here and [link to colorado.mediamatters.org] title="http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200611020005">here), the American Psychological Association (APA) concluded in a 2005 [link to colorado.mediamatters.org] title="http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgparenting.pdf#page=17">study of lesbian and gay parenting that "[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents." The study also found that "the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."
Man, I have no clue how to post link here. Just check out this article:
[link to mediamatters.org]
Uh, or not. Sorry about that mess, but I guess somebody's going to have to help me out here. I can't post a working link to save my life.
Type some words to denote the "title" you wish to give the link. "Select" or "highlight" that text.
Copy (ctrl-c) the url you wish to use as the target.
Click the "whole" chain-link in the pictographs above the post-box; that will open a dialogue with a field for the url (just paste it in); and a choice of whether to open in the same window (usually not good - that tends to "lose" the page from which the reader goes to your target) or new window (I like that better, since now I have two open windows, and can readily see both at once if desired, by sizing and positioning them); FINALLY, AND IMPORTANT: PREVIEW, to allow yourself to test the link prior to post - I was recently somewhat dismayed to find extraneous text in my posted link, although it was not visible in the copied url, and a resultant dead end "link".) There is no need known to me to supply anything for the "Title" box, but mileage may differ.
Text to use as "title": MORA
Hey, instead of researching very "scientific" studies, why don't survey children of straight couples, and those of homosexual couples?
I'll be willing to be that those of homosexual couples would agree (like myself) that it has been a major stumbling block for them to overcome. It is tragic, and unfair.
Have you ever considered you are projecting a bit?
I know several well-adjusted and happy adults who were raised by homosexuals.
There are good parents and bad ones. Perhaps you just got some bad ones and assume wrongly it is because they are gay.
Yes, Jeter- I DO dispute that! LOVING FAMILY IS BEST!! No matter what gender the parents are... extended family, blended family, nu-clear family, step family, what ever... as long as they are LOVED and provided for, that is the best...
Then you're saying nature is unimportant. That seems to fly in the face of common sense to me.
There are gay animals- my cat is gay. No kidding. It comes pretty "naturally" to him. Also- don't you know about the gay flamingos who adopted a baby. The diversity of nature is beautiful, yes?
Your cat won't "have" any kids. The flamingo is the only such example I've evr heard of.
I find it difficult to understand how this is even disputed.
I used to foster kittens and find them homes, and my cat would nurture them as if he were their mother. He would clean them and show them the litter box and food bowls, so in a sense he was a foster parent. And the kittens always loved him. So it may not be rare as you may think.
Actually Lolo, gay animals are very common.
Museum Exhibit
And although the graphic description of Penguin sex is a little much :)
Penguins
I believe the last list I looked at showed nearly 1,500 animals in which homosexual behavior can be found. For some its just a "bi-sexual" thing, to use human terms. For others such as the Penguins who bond for life, they form same sex relationships.
Nature occasionally makes siamese twins, etc. I guess these rare, "natural" occurences suggest that being born siamese is "just as natural" and just as "good" as being born a normal, healthy baby.
As long as kids are loved and healthy, who cares who parents them? There are so many orphans in the world- we should be happy when anyone wants to adopt a child to love and cherish.
Your cat also licks his ass. Do you perform the same act on yourself as a part of your hygeine regimen?
Cmon people, humans are supposed to have something that animals lack- morality. This is what separates us. Why have we forgotten that?
You can have morality and accept the natural fact of homosexuality. Trying to suppress who you really are for a bunch of bigots is absurd.
Imagine you were born into a world where 90% of people were gay, and heterosexuality is considered immoral. Would you change your heterosexuality to accomodate them?
I don't think you would. So much for morality.
Imagine you were born into a world where 90% of people were gay, and heterosexuality is considered immoral. Would you change your heterosexuality to accomodate them?
If that were the case, I would demand that they change all the rules and laws to accomodate me. Afterall, I would be the minority and should command such "rights". If they don't change the laws to accomodate me then they are all bigots and anybody who says differently are bigots also. Nobody is allowed to have an opinion negative towards my lifestyle or they are bigots. Sorry, no exceptions.
Is that what you want to hear?
You would demand equal rights for yourself, because you know it would be unfair to discriminate against you for the way you naturally are. People who refused to see things from your point of view would be bigots. Exactly! You got it!
Thank you for conceding the point.
"Your cat also licks his ass."
Ever heard of tossing salad? Well, some humans lick ass too......
Actually, just like in marriage, love is not always enough. Part of a parent's responsibility is to provide a stable, safe environment and to instil morality, values and the many other key tools for becoming a responsible adult.
While I will admit gay couples may be able to provide this, I hesitate to ask how many of them obtain the child for selfish reasons.
That's some hesitation you're exhibiting. If you're talking about pedophilia, it's not the same thing as homosexuality.
Straight couples actually MAKE NEW CHILDREN for selfish reasons all the time, and nobody raises a stink about it (well, the few who support zero growth population, like me, do):
http://www.vhemt.org/wbchart.htm
iflurry8094,
Thank you for supporting the culture of death. Consider this: if the generations before you believed the same thing you do, you would not exist. Why would you want the same thing for other potential life?
It's not a matter of "the more life the better". The number of lives influences the quality of life in general, obviously.
Imagine a world with 100 billion people, where getting food is a struggle. Would you say that population control was a "culture of death"?
Beanzrus71,
Amen.
And the grief they take from others is instilled by people like, guess who?
I sort of agree, but sort of don't.
I watched this special once, I can't remember the name of it, but it was on MSNBC, or some other news channel. What happened is, this guy was getting a divorce, which made him think about how it was going to affect his kids, his former wife, and himself. So he went about talking to several different families. One divorced family, one "regular" family (mom, dad, and 2 kids), and one gay couple. Sure, it was a small sample size, but the results were pretty good.
Overall, the gay couple were the most "normal" family if you looked at all of them. They had less issues in their relationship, and their kids were well adjusted, and their kids had no hard times being raised by 2 men, and their friends gave them little or no grief over it. I also go with the theory that gay people actually put more time into deciding whether or not they want children, because there is no chance of a gay couple becoming pregnant, so in lots of those cases, they do a lot of weighing, and pros and cons, and with this gay couple, and others that I have personally known that have adopted kids, they really really want children. This isn't to say that normal hetero couples don't really really want children, but sometimes, having kids is kind of "dropped" onto hetero couples, maybe through a little slip up in the love making department, or things like that.
I do think that the most important thing for kids growing up is to have a loving environment whether or not they are being raised by a gay couple, a single mom/dad. grandparents, or a normal nuclear family. They can, and all are, very acceptable means of raising kids.
How are you disagreeing with Jeter's post at all? Just curious.
I just don't fully agree that having to have a married Mom and Dad who are loving is the best case scenario is all. I think any family (whatever make up it is), as long as they are loving and caring for their family is the best case scenario. I don't agree that it has to be a Mom and a Dad. And just to add fuel to the fire, we could take care of the marriage part if we would allow gay folks to get married in the US.
I think Jeter said the extent the kids had problems from having gay parents in a loving environment came from narrow minded people who would give them grief. Its hard to argue that isnt true. I thought Jeters post was good.
The whole "children of gay parents will have it bad" argument against gay parenting is BS. Kids will find any reason to ostracize those they don't like.
This backhanded bigotry has to stop.
I agree kids are mean and have made the same argument. Having said that pretending this isnt an easy target for painful bigotry against a vulnerable child isnt dealing with what is real. I think Jeter made a good post. I dont think it is an argument against gay parenting nor is it bigotry soft or otherwise.
Solon,
Well said. I like your open mindedness on this issue.
Ah, I see. I may be wrong, but I believe Jeter's comment about "it's rough because of the grief they take from others" is an important qualifier here. That identifies the cause of any disparity as homophobes and other related jackasses, without which there may be nothing to distinguish heterosexual parenting as any better than gay parenting. In fact, I think the comment leaves the possibility open that without homophobia, gay parenting could still be better. The example you cited may not be representative of anything, but I'm certainly open to the possibility that the factors you list make for a healthy environment for children. If I'm misrepresenting Jeter, I apologize, but I'm not reading his comment precisely the same way you are.
As for gay marriage, hell yes. No argument there, for certain.
I think you have it right, and Jeter's point certainly does apply. I'll take it a step further though and note that it applies to what goes on in America. Here it's certainly true that cultural stereotypes will have some negative impact on gay parenting. What I always find "enlightening" is when you look at europe, where they as a whole are much more accepting of the idea, how come they don't have freakin' hurricanes and stuff destroying them as part of God's wrath?!?!?!?
I probably just opened up another can of worms, and we still haven't even asked why if the right believes gay is a choice that the government thinks it can create a "gay" bomb that via hormones and stuff will automatically turn you gay and make you want to hump your fellow soldier like a rabbit in heat!
I heard about the gay bomb this morning. five to seven million spent on this. Worthy of some discusion.
Or your can run in circles scrieking, "Yes they are insane!"
User choice may vary.
Snoopy,
You don't think Europe has a host of its own catastrophes (natural and otherwise)? That's ignorant to assume so...
uh, jeter did not say 'have to have' he simply stated what is the best case (death, divorce, dysfuntion being some of the reasons kids are up for adoption to real loving families) but I did not see him anywhere demand it only be hetro families. In fact above he embraced the concept of loving environment being the important part. he may have said it a bit awkwardly but he said nothing bad about gay/lesbian parents.
It was a backhanded way of criticizing gay and lesbian parents. If I say it's the "best case" for a child to have two white parents, wouldn't you agree that's racist?
If it wasn't the best case scenario then evolution would have dictated something different over the last 30-40 million years
Yes, we all know two people of the same sex can't create a child, but perhaps gay people serve a important societal function in caring for children who would otherwise be parent-less. Maybe gay people serve an evolutionary function in quelling over population- ever think of that?
That is a reasonable idea. It explains why homosexuality has existed despite the obvious handicap of largely not being able to reproduce itself.
Oh, I see how it is: You righties can use evolution when you WANT to use it (when it proves your point), but normally don't believe in it. Nice double standard.
Then how do they justify Cheney's daughter. Yup he's so proud of her, neither parent appeared in the photos of Cheney, his wife and grandkid. What hypocracy!
Why does MMFA waste space on Savage and his psycho rants? It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that Savage, while patriotic and desiring the best for America, has some serious anger issues and is really NOT worthy of legitimate attention from any site focused on news analysis and factual error checking.
He's got 8 million listeners, but he's not worth the attention.
OhhKay then.
Patriotic? How is he patriotic again? By talking about killing liberals, disparaging gays, and wanting to bomb foreign countries for no good reason. Yeah, he's patriotic alright, or wait, no, he's not, he's not even close.
To paraphrase the last "compassionate" conservative, Edmund Burke, evil triumphs when the good ignore it.
I would think conservatives like you would want this highlighted. Savage just makes you guys look bad, not all cons are nutjobs like Savage. I can't bring to mind who the "liberal" equivalent of Savage would be though.
That's easy. Think of a Democratic Party Presidential candidate. Bingo!
;-)
Yeah, because I see democratic party candidates disparaging hetero couples ALL OF THE TIME. Oh no, wait, we don't. You comparison, although I know tongue in cheek, bears no resemblence to Mr. Savage.
You're asking AnotherRepublican to do an analogy, and conservatives cannot do that. Bless his heart, AnotherRepublican is a black and white thinker...he can't help it.
See there you go. Pretending you are capable of thinking again. When you get the equipment that makes that possible get back to us.
I don't follow, please elaborate.
Ge - that was even more brain-dead than most of your posts.....
Relax everyone. It was a simple joke.
Well it certainly was simple that's for sure
"Relax everyone. It was a simple joke." AA
You should submit that to fox's 1/2 hr news hour. Its right up their alley.
We got that it was a joke, AA.
It's just that it's such a DUMBASS joke.
From a simple mind.
Regarding Savage's "patriotism", remember this famous quotation from Samuel Johnson:
Johnson was wrong in this regard: as it turns out, 'patriotism' is the FIRST refuge of a scoundrel.
If you doubt what I'm telling you, just watch Faux News for a couple of hours. The evidence is pretty overwhelming there.
How in the hell do you define "Patriotic"?
"Patriotic" is whatever the republican party tells us it is, didn't you know Worrierking?
Thanks McCain.
If that's the case, Ii'll have to check for the definition everyday. You know how the Republicans love to create a new reality whenever the sun comes up.
It sure is easy for the Savage Weiner to personally insult someone from a radio studio instead of to their face, isn't it? Weiner is a freakin' coward, just like all the other rightwing radio morons. When O'Reilly wants to personally insult and/or stalk someone, at least he sends his thug producer out with a cameraman to do it for him, but Weiner doesn't even have the cajones to do this.
Someone please tell me, just how fragile is Marriage? It has remained popular in virtually every culture for hundreds, if not thousands of years. It has endured empirical conquests, world wars, plagues, depressions, genocides and natural disasters, but gays are its biggest threat?
Very true. Savage would crumble like a house of cards if he ever had to debate a gay person face-to-face. He is a spineless coward, the man-behind-the curtain, who espouses hatred and bigotry from the protection of a studio. Let him do that crap in public in the communities of people he despises.
Sending someone else out to ambush and confront your subject shows cajones? Please explain your reasoning. To my way of thinking it's even more cowardly.
O'Reilly is still a coward, don't get me wrong, but he at least gets someone else to go out and do his dirty work. The Savage Weiner won't even go this far, he prefers to stay as far away from his targets as possible.
The people confonted are public officials who need to be held accountable for their actions. I don't see how that's cowardly.
The people I'm thinking of were all judges. It's been my experience that PLENTY of judges could use a little more accountability. As well as police officers and prosecutors for that matter. But that's another topic.
It's cowardly, Lolo, because O'Lielly lacks the stones to confront these people HIMSELF. Instead, he sends his little weasel of a producer to stalk & ambush people that O'Lielly has declared a vendetta upon. They then HEAVILY EDIT these confrontations in order to show their intended victim in the worst possible light. It is a cowardly & dishonest technique.
And all because they had the temerity to decline to appear on O'Lielly's little set-up of a show.
Now do you get it?
Actually, Savage here is calling out a politician for NOT telling off a lesbian parent to her face. Would Mikey do the same thing if he were in that candidates shoes? (reminds me of the Clinton years - would you admit to Congress you cheated on your wife?)
I was hoping someone would bring up Savages quote on tha fragility of marriage. Seems Ilike a pretty rugged institution when any two people try hard to make it work. People fail marriage, the institution may fail if it is defined wrongly, or the image becomes more important than the reality.
Weird isn't it. A child getting love from same sex parents but getting hate from society. Especially a Christian right wing dominated society where their founder teaches love thy neighbor, love thine enemies and the good Samaritan. If their founder returned today he would without question wonder why he even bothered to die on the cross.
If Jesus would have followed his own word about not casting pearls before swine he wouldn't have died on the cross. Such a death is wasted on the likes of Savage and his 8 million viewers.
Harlequin,
This is in response to your post about Savage and Christianity.
First of all, I do believe Savage is of Jewish origin and not Christian. That being said, I do not know, nor care, of his personal religiosity. However it is a mistaken assumption on your part that Savage speaks for Christians. It is my experience that many, many Christians (both right and left) do follow the golden rule and the teachings of Jesus including love they neighbor as thyself and to be good Samaritans.
To make such brash generalizations seems to me to show a bias against Christians by you and many who followed this line of discussion. It is ironic because it seems to me you are expressing a prejudice against a group and assigning some sort of negativity toward the whole group while castigating them for being prejudiced themselves. Is the kettle calling the pot black in this case?
I'm not claiming Christians are perfect. Far from it. After all, we are all sinners.
To say that Jesus's death is wasted among 8 million people who happen to listen to Savage runs completely counter the good news of Christ.
While not all religious fanatics are homophobes, most homophobes are relilgious fanatics.
I agree with you that many Christians love they neighbor as their-selves and are good Samaritans.
I would say the same about most atheists.
The point is valid. Anyone purporting to be a Christian and that listens to Savage for entertainment is suspect imo. I would call into question anyone's sincere religiosity who listens to hate radio no matter who the hater is. Unless hate has become a tenet of Christianity, then you'll tell me of course. Actively putting poison in your brain isn't holy any more than putting poison in your body.
Julia,
You wouldn't happen to have any demographics that breaks down Savage's listeners by religious affiliation would you?
It could be all 8 million are atheists.
It seems to me that too many paint the right with so many generalizations and biases and criticize them while exhibiting the same behavior.
Also, just because someone listens to a radio talk show does not mean they walk lock-step with that particular radio personality.
Yes, I'm just so sure that liberals just love the hater, Savage. And how many atheists are there per capita? My point was that people who "purport" to be Christian and listen to Savage should be called out. In my estimation, no real Christians would actually listen to the haters. But then there are a great many fake Christians running around and most of them happen to be in the Republican base. Do you really think hate radio people like Savage and Beck are trying to appeal to the liberals? I don't see anyone here who seems to enjoy the likes of Savage, et al.
Julia,
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I said that it liberals were listening to Savage. The point I wanted to make is that you don't know how many of the listeners are Christians, whether self described or not.
Just for discussion sake, it seems to me that even though you consider Savage to be full of 'hate speech', perhaps others, as evidenced by his listenership don't.
So for you to 'judge' others as (I'll use my term) 'bad Christians because they listen to a show you have 'judged' hateful, it seems to me you have set yourself up as the person doing the judging as to what is good and what is bad. In that sense, it seems to me that you are doing the same thing as Savage. The only difference is you both are simply judging different groups of people. Savage is judging homosexuals and you are judging Christians.
Yes, pity the poor Savage for being unjustly maligned. Give me a freakin' break, dude.
And someone who listens to the Savage on occasion to hear what a dimwit he's being is certainly different from a true beleiver who gets reinforced in their bigotry and hate. Sheesh.
Oh and that extends to his venal listeners as well. I have the habit of not being literal enough sometimes. That extends to my sarcastic use of liberal in my post as well, where you took me too literally. BTW I don't think any of Savages listeners are good or "bad" Christians. Just not Christian at all. I don't think "the good news of Christ" is coming out of Savages mouth. Just my opinion.
"Also, just because someone listens to a radio talk show does not mean they walk lock-step with that particular radio personality." --AA
Good point. I listen to Savage, Hannity, and Limbaugh some of the time. Anyone who is familiar with my posts would know that I am not in lock-step with any of them. Even HBL mentions that he listens to Limbaugh I believe.
I think it is good to hear what the other side is arguing. I don't think it is a crime to agree with them when they are occasionally right either (not saying they are correct about this).
That would be the "twice-a-day" principle, I imagine. I imagine, for I have never personally witnessed any of these creatures being right about anything, though I sufficiently grasp the concept of infinity to allow even this least-likely-of-all-possibilities.
I agree with Michael Savage. My perfect Republican candidate would be someone who accused a gay parent to her face of child abuse for being who she was. It is my fervent hope that they will nominate such a Culture Warrior.
Then why don't you go do that and see what happens.
If I could, i would. Because that candidate would insure a Democrat getting into the White House, and probably supermajorities in both houses of Congress.
Because that candidate would finally reduce the party to marginal minority status for a generation.
I tell you, I pray every night for such a candidate.
Can you post an example of your prayer. Would it go something like this:
Dear God,
Please send us a Republican Candidate that isn't afraid to hate others. That isn't afraid of taking over your job of judging others. That ignores your warning about judge not lest ye be judge. Thank you. PBG
I think PBG is being cynical, and is actually rooting for the good guys. From the way it sounds, PBG is hoping that the Republicans are stupid enough to nominate such a candidate, so the electorate will send them back to their caves where they belong. But, then, I could be wrong.
Bolton / Rumsfeld 2008! Woo hoo!
Darth Cheney/Ann Coulter 08
Never under Estimate the countries ability to Elect anumbskull. I never believed Bush would get the nod once let alone twice.
Numbskull... Sue? Is that you?
It was either numbskull or twit, unless I wanted to be flagged for obscenity.
NOT Sue
Just funnin, Monk. Of course I knew it wasn't!
I figured as much, no biggie.
Good point. I thought the same thing with Clinton. ;-)
Yeah, who could stand all that peace and prosperity. Luckily Bush came along a relieved us of all that.
After all, we're living in a country where Robert Tilton can build himself a mansion by convincing gullible people to send him money they can't afford....so that God will bless them financially.
And having one party marginalized for a century would be good because...? This is the problem with extremes on both sides. Too much of either is a bad thing.
If you think the other side's always wrong I have a poker expression for you. If you're sitting at a table and you don't know who the fish is, then the fish is you. Wake up!
If Romney supports gay families, terrific, I look forward to his campaigns through the bible belt. That should be entertaining. The idea that it's acceptable for homosexuals to raise children together, but not to be married is a bit of a head-scratcher though. Is he flip-flopping again, by any chance?
I raised the point not long ago that society becomes more liberal as time goes on because people gradually recognize those who are different as equal. If Romney really had such a revelation here, that would demonstrate the point perfectly. He sees the human face of an issue, and then recognizes the unfairness of discrimination. Even if he said it for political purposes, because he believes that's what people want to hear, then Romney seems to believe that the American public accepts gay families.
Either way, Romney appears to believe the tide is turning in favor of the gay community. Airport-runwayesque shoulders or not, that could become a serious problem for his campaign down the road.
Maybe he should look into his own life as well.
And what I mean by that is this; look at all of his fellow conservatives trashing him for what religion he is. Sort of along similar lines of Obama as well. Now, apparently, within the right wing pundocracy is it no longer good enough to be a Christian, you apparently have to be the "right kind" of Christian. Not that being a Mormon is comparable to being gay and the hate and bigotry that this provokes in a lot of people, but I'm sure he's faced discriminatory behavior just because of what religion he practices for certain.
Frankly I do not know who you are referring to who are supposedly trashing Romney because of his religion. Can you list some examples please?
As for Mormons, I may be wrong, but I believe they not are considered "Christians" by most Christians. Not that it matters except in a discussion where I am just pointing out what I believe to be an error on your part. I do know and have known many Mormons. The Mormons I know are very family oriented and wonderful, loving, and giving people and very family oriented.
Apparently the King of the Troglodytes, Pat Robertson, was all kissy-face with Romney at his sham Law School Commencement...so I guess he's okay with Romney's heresy. Of course, that's assuming that Pat even knows what day it is...
You're proving his point, AA.
Mormons are christians. Those of other faiths may say otherwise, but they believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God, and they believe in the Bible. At least they did when I was a Mormon (with Mitt Romney's brother as the bishop of my church, by the way, and George Romney in attendance most weeks). They believe in other books in addition to the Bible, but I don't see how that is any sort of disqualifier.
Brab,
Admittedly it was a small point on my part about Mormons considered as Christians.
As for your point about believing in Jesus, yes I know Mormons do believe in Jesus. The same can be said for Muslims. In both cases it is not that they don't believe in Jesus, it is that they have added other prophets and other doctrine beyond those found in Christianity.
However I am willing to be corrected.
As an aside, I grew up in Michigan and we even had George Romney visiting us at our house while he was running for Governor. While I haven't met his son, I did get a chance to meet George.
It seems a bit of a stretch to disqualify it based on that. A "prophet" is simply the head of the church, if that is an issue then Catholicism isn't Christian because the Pope is a holy figure as well. One argument I have seen is that Mormons believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost as separate (but identical in knowledge, intent and behavior) entities which make up the "Godhead", whereas the Bible dictates "one God". Supposedly this technical difference from the concept of the holy trinity is enough to denounce the Mormon church as a non-Christian one.
It seems to me that belief in Jesus Christ as God's son and belief in the Bible is what qualifies something as "Christian", no matter what else is thrown into the mix. The citation of Islam doesn't make much sense, as they have a different holy book.
I have often wondered why Paul is not considered a "prophet". Can you explain that to me? He expanded on Jesus' teachings, but also went into areas that Jesus never talked about at all IMO. It seems that although Jesus was a reformer in a historical sense, Paul was the reactionary who seems to think Jesus (or the implications of Jesus' words) went too far.
And it is at least partially due to the preachings of Paul that Christianity is as f*cked up as it has been the last 2000 years. Many Christians are really quite uncomfortable with the actual teachings of Christ, but find great comfort in the disapproving moralizings of Paul. This is why a faith based on love, forgiveness, meekness, absolute commitment to peace, & antimaterialism now so often celebrates anger, punishment, war, power, & wealth.
I feel much the same. Jesus warned us about false prophets coming after him. I can't help that Paul (and the other writers likely writing in his name) seems to fit that description.
mormons also believe some other stuff that falls outside Chritianity and, if you take the bible literally or even somewhat literally, then Mormonism is definitely heresy.
Shouldn;t matter in the good ole USA though.
What current tenets of the church are at odds with Christianity?
How about:
The weaving of politics and religion, ever been to Salt Lake City?
Electroshock therapy, shunning/ex-communicating the families of homosexuals if they don't cut off contact with their childern.
I'm not attacking Mormons per say, I believe they are free to believe whatever they want. Its just when their belief's influence the lives of non-Mormons, that's when I have an issue.
As a former Mormon and a strong opponent of organized religion in general, I'm not inclined to defend the actions of the church in the very least. We're talking about the definition of Christianity, where a religion that believes in Jesus as God's only begotten son and believes in the Bible is not considered "Christian". I find that odd, to say the least.
If religions have to align their views with the spirit of the teachings of Jesus in order to qualify as "Christian", I think the number of technical Christians would be decimated overnight, as their churches would be instantly disqualified.
If Romney doesn't backpedal from this comment, he's doomed. The Troglodyte Base of the Republican party will react much as Savage has. I expect a "clarification" from Mr. Tarmac Shoulders any day now. He gave the commencement speech at Pat Robertsons sham Law School, so you know he's pandering hard for that vote.
What Mitt should/could have said was that if marriage is a stabilizing force for hetero couples, it would be a stabilizing force for gays as well. On one hand these knuckle draggers say that gays are promiscuous and on the other, they don't want to grant them the same right as everybody else. But you know if this subject comes up enough, some idiot will say....but, but.. that paves the way for a person to marry an elephant or a doggie. Oh or that paves the way for polygymy. I've heard these arguments before and no doubt they'll come up again, inane as they are.
That is simply because opponents of gay marriage HAVE NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT. I've challenged them several times to come up with one, and they always fail.
I support gay marriage. I admit, I didn't used to, but then my opinion evolved and I figured, what the heck why not let gays be as miserable as the rest of us?
Oh, BTW, another strike against HRC in the liberal camp because she doesn't support gay marriage at the Federal level.
http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17379741&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=6
Absolutly
That is how I feel. I don't know why homosexuals would want to enter into a contract of marriage, but they are welcome to it and all of it's complexity -- especially when it fails.
I find it interesting that there are many people who criticize gays for being too promiscuous and thus spreading disease. I can't understand how those same people could oppose Gay Marriage, which is essentially the idea of gay monogamy. There is a state interest in promoting monogamy for everyone if not only to limit the spread of disease amongst both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Julia,
Uh.. aren't you bringing it up? ;-)
Seriously Jayne, the point you bring up is the redefinition of marriage which, correct me if I am wrong, has historically been the union of a man and a woman.
In the realm of moral relativism where everything is equal, just because you consider an argument inane, does not mean the next animal loving individual does not.
What I'd like to hear from you is the limits you'd put on the definition of marriage.
What is the purpose of marriage, in your view? I'm curious what valid answer you can give that disqualifies homosexuals from it, especially considering that marriage is a legal institution whether religion is involved or not.
It really doesn't matter what any animal-loving person thinks. Gay marriage is a bond between two consenting adults, not between a man and a goat or whatever other scenario. That is a very clear line that is in no danger of being crossed.
Marriage is between two people who love each other. Is that so hard? Or in Bruce's case, maybe not so much?
BTW, I actually didn't bring those scenarios up. It's been written about by conservatives who try to argue against gay marriage. Those two points were in an article written in the Dallas Morning News by conservatives. And like Branbanto said, there is no danger of animal/people marriage and polygymy laws have been on the books for a while. It just shows that these arguments are illogical.
Julia, you brought it up here. (However I understand your point.)
Thanks for splitting hairs. It's been a pleasure doing business with you.
I'm actually not married or divorced for that matter. Just happily single. But I do think gays should have the right to be blissfully happy or horribly miserable in their own marriages, however it works out for them. My guess is that half would end in divorce, just like the male-female ones.
AA,
What is the logical progression that leads you to believe that if two same sex people got married that it would then lead to beastiality?
How are these two things possibly related?
I never said it would. I never said anything about sex in any form. I am only asking questions regarding where one draws the line in redefining marriage.
"In the realm of moral relativism where everything is equal, just because you consider an argument inane, does not mean the next animal loving individual does not."
That sounds like you mean bestiality to me, otherwise what the hell is it there for?
Actually, the way we practice marriage is a redefinition of what marriage used to be. Remember that marriage is not based on any religion. Marriage is a civil union - a contract. In " Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe", (by John Boswell, Villard Books, New York, 1994) Boswell asserts that even though religion took over the institution of marriage, Catholic and Orthodox liturgies for same-sex unions have been discovered. However, same-sex unions are as old as time. Boswell traced same-sex unions from Platonic Greece, where the bonding of brotherly equals was considered the noblest form of human contact.
As humans have evolved (and in this case, I use this term "evolved' VERY loosely), they have changed the institution of marriage to suit them. The way we see marriage nowadays is quite different than the bonding found in Greece and the socio-economic reasons for same-sex marriage found during the Roman Empire. Moral ambivalence toward human sexuality in Christianized Europe gave way to intolerance (but not before the Church created liturgies to bless loving unions both straight and gay.
You people should really know what you're talking about before spewing your nonsense.
Marriage was more or less a property arrangement throughout most of history.
Marriage between a consenting man and woman is a relatively recent development.
The proposals to permit gay marriage also imply the consent of the two parties who petition to be married.
How could allowing gay marriage lead to anyone marrying an animal, a child or a plant if an animal, a child and a plant are not legally able to give consent.
Why does it have to be between two adults? What if one is under age?
Why does it have to be just two people? What about three or four or more?
Who's to say these limitations are preventing people from forming a 'holy' union?
You might want to read what I wrote a second time. Someone who is underage is not able to legally give consent.
I think you overestimate NAMBLA's abilities. Age of consent laws would apply as they always have. No one outside of NAMBLA is considering repealing them that I have seen, nor should they.
Why indeed. I am not at all opposed to polygamy (for other people - not personally) and I don't see how it is anyone's business. What is wrong with people doing what they think is best? Why is the government telling people they can't do it? It looks like another case of people enforcing their own opinions on a minority group to me without demonstrating a compelling state interest in doing so.
I respect if a Church, acting as an agent of the state or any other agent, refuses to perform a gay marriage ceremony. It doesn't have to be a "Holy" union, it is merely a kind of contract recognized by the state. If someone wants their marriage endorsed by a God of their choice, then that is a private negotiation.
Who's to say a man and a womean can't be a father and daughter or a brother and sister? Or any other sham of an argument? Get real and get honest.
That was to AA and his disingenuous argument.
There's a potential problem with the equal protection clause. It could be problematic.
That said, I'll go with the posts that say if the gays want to be miserable too, why not? Careful what you wish for.
I guess I'm very different in that I have a really good marriage and WOULD wish that upon a gay couple.
Thanks JuliaJayne. My partner and I have been in a monogamous, loving, successful relationship for the better part of 15 years. He's been a blessing in my life, and according to him, I have been the same to him.
Screw all of you who don't want us to be married. It's none of your business anyway.
Those here who haven't experienced the profundity of marriage just haven't found the right partner. Or they are not the right partner themselves. CSL, you obviously have found the right partner and should be as free as anyone to experience the blessings that marriage bestows. I probably sound a little corny for waxing so lyrical, but I have found marriage to be a blessing and a joy. I hope the same for you someday in the near future.
Actually no, it isnt accurate to say historically marriage has been between a man and a woman. It is accurate to say in Christian dominated culture it has been that way. Gay marriage was done in ancient times in Asia, in Europe before it became Christian at least as to the extent we can call their unions marriages. Among the Native Americans they didnt do marriage ceremonies per say but had bonding riturals and did them between those they called of the third spirit, today we would basically consider it a gay marriage. Historically until the sixties marriage between races was not allowed to the same extent gay marriage wasnt allowed. Virtually every argument I have ever seen against gay marriage is a rerun from those supporting miscegenation laws.
For those who are interested in the history of marriage, here is a somewhat detailed primer on the history of marriage.
Link
And I'm trying to find a book in my collection (lots of stored boxes), I read it a while ago. Its a historical look at marriage in Christian cultures. It points out that in the early days of the church, gay marriages (for property, inheritance, etc. ; just like heterosexual marriages at the time) were performed by the church.
In fact the idea of "Brides of Christ" seems to be the "modern*" equivalent of this in a way. The church had an issue with all these lesbians running around un-married (once they changed the rules) so they offered this option (possible the same with monks).
*By modern, I mean within the last 700+ years, very short period of time.
"What I'd like to hear from you is the limits you'd put on the definition of marriage." --aa
Marriage should be a contract consisting of legally consenting individuals in accordance with the sexual consent laws of each state as they apply equally to the sexes.
Does anyone find it ironic that Savage, a very self professed (through his words and actions) anti homosexual individual, lives in San Francisco? The place that he regularly derides, and a place where a lot of homosexuals call home? Hmm...
I'm starting to believe he puts on his leather chaps, and heads out in the Castro district most weekend nights. Sort of like Vito on the Sopranos.
You mean you think the Savage might "protest too much"?
I've been Savaged enough for today.
Of course he does. I guess we have had this discussion before, over and over again. But anyone who had a self professed crush on Alan Ginsberg, and did a lot of skinny dipping with said hippy, well... If the shoe fits and all. Not that there is anything wrong with that. If he would just come out of the closet, he'd be much happier I think, and maybe this is the root cause of all of his anger. Or it could all just be a simple well manipulated act, to get responses like ours up on boards like this, so he has something else to talk about on his show on a nightly basis. But then again, it probably is all real.
I wrote a letter to the local talk radio station that carries this arse, and they basically told me, thanks for the letter, but his ratings are so huge, we really can't justify getting rid of him. Ah, one of the downsides to living in the Southeastern US. Lots of bigots / racists / homophobes to listen in and give him credence (I'm not saying that everyone here is like that, but there is a perponderence of attitudes like Savage's).
The bottom line here is that the Savage Weiner is simply a raging closet case who wishes to divert attention from himself & his own self-perceived 'sins' by angrily pointing his stubby little finger at others.
If the Savage Weiner was a little more OK with himself, he wouldn't NEED to spew such hatred.
Magnolia,
You previously posted this comment: "Does anyone find it ironic that Savage, a very self professed (through his words and actions) anti homosexual individual, lives in San Francisco? The place that he regularly derides, and a place where a lot of homosexuals call home? Hmm..."
I just want to point out that I don't find it any more ironic than the fact that you are a liberal living in the middle of bigot/racist/homophobe central, the southeast. The fact of the matter is that people end up residing where they can make a living. I live in a big liberal city in a blue state, I hate it, but I have a good job here and a nice home...so you just gotta take the good with the bad.
AA:
The history of the nuclear family as defined by conservatives has a fairly short history as the majority. The extended family has a history at least as long. Death was a more comon visitor to all of us till we came up with ways to treat bacteria and viruses that had traditionally been very comon and uncurable. Life its self was much more danderous historically. Your parents could succomb, you'd be raised by relatives if you had them, they cared, and were able.
In the upper classes raising your own chidren was not keeping up with your class. If love had been more preasent, maybe our history would not be full of unloved children who took this out on society in many muderous ways.
Finally, attempting to equate a gay sexual identity with child abuse or worse is so bogus. A healthy hetro or homo is after an adult partner. Children are the sexual tagets of pedophiles. Some of these lie and say their gay or straight. You probably wouldn't believe them (gays) about much of anything. You'd probably believe a pedophile who said he or she was gay. As it would confirm your irrational anger at the gay comunity, it must be true ...... not.
You needn't waste your psychic abilities in defining what I do believe and what I don't.
Gotta run. Thanks everyone for the discussion.
My physic abilities have been under lockdown for a long time. Not a thing you should have to depend on in life.
Simple written exposition under my perhaps faulty examination. No tricks, or props, and no real reply from you to my statements.
This thread is a joke but illustrates beautifully what's really important to the left. The other threads have barely been touched, but put an unimportant topic like anything to do with Gays out there, and there's a stampede to post.
Wouldn't it be nice if the looney left took terrorism as seriously?
Speaking of terrorism, did you know that Depends are on sale at Costco this week?
Wouldn't it be nice if the Looney Right didn't swarm to the polls to vote on these unimportant issues, like gay marriage and the Ten Commandments?
Wouldn't it be nice if the resources we need to fight the "War against Terrorism" weren't being wasted in on optional occupation of Iraq?
Wouldn't it be nice?
You read 96 posts waiting for a punch line?
It would be nice if the current administration would fight terrorists as well. Where is the guy who took down the WTC and the Pentagon in 2001 again? Oh right, still free, running around the mountains of Pakistan no doubt.
Yeah, the so called looney left wanting people to respect others, and give others the same rights. Wow! That's some crazy looney stuff right there.
I love how anything that has to do with the lives of millions of Americans is "unimportant". That's some classic Taz right there.
Have you made a valid, substantive point on any thread, ever? I'm completely serious, I can't remember such an instance.
Actually I think it is Weinerdog. Most of his threads hit high numbers. What I think would be nice is if the ignorant RIGHT would stop being so STUPID on terrorism and actually fight IT instead of using it as an excuse for doing whatever they want
Defining marriage has always been a societal function. God has nothing to do with it, really. Isn't it interesting that "God", historically, tends to share the phobias and prejudices of those who pretend to speak for him? Marriage will be redefined to include gay people when the thinkers outnumber the non-thinkers...until then, ignorance and superstition will prevail.
I can agree that children will look for any reason to make fun of a kid they don't like. Sure having gay parents would certainly be fuel for them to use. If the kids doesn't have gay parents, they would still make fun of whatever they could. Believe me on that. I Grew up w/ the name Richard. Holy crap did certain people tease the hell out me. I'm 25 now and still get it sometimes. Who really cares if people want to be gay anyway. We have bigger fish to fry, like the war on drugs.
Yes! All of the crazy man posts have been deleted. So happy. How long before he/she is back here complaining about censorship? In, 3-2-1...
Savage is a dirty liar. He claims that he was denied a position as dean of UC Berkeley school of Journalism because of affirmative action. In "The Savage Nation" he claims 'affirmative action "almost destroyed my family and me," and in 1996 he sued UC-Berkeley when he was denied an interview for the job as dean of its graduate school of journalism. The reverse-discrimination case was eventually dropped.'
But the man who got the job was white.
He also said 'that the 'liberal media' was covering up the fact that James Byrd, the black Texan who was murdered and then dragged behind a truck, was a coke dealer, and his murder was an attempted sale gone bad.'
But this poor man was actually killed by white supremacists when they dragged him behind their truck and then dumped his dead mutilated body in a black cemetery.
Savage is despicable.
Now, now....AA will accuse you of being judgemental against the Savage. That Byrd incident happened here in Texas and was just dispicible. I never heard anything about it having to do with drugs. And we had a lot of press.
Well, anyone who can read those links and still defend Savage has a screw loose. Here in Louisiana we also had some coverage of the Byrd murder, and Savage is disgusting for saying what he said about Byrd. He died because of hatred, but to frame it as if his murder were his own fault in some way is lower than low. Just like what he said about that trans-gender murder. I don't know how Savage sleeps at night.
Seraphim, I don't know why people come here to defend this scum or defend the people who listen to him to reinforce their hatred and bigotry. It's absolutely unfathomable.
Agreed- Savage has no soul.
Remind me again why Weiner Savage lost his job at MSNBC. I think its because he's a racist homophobe and a flake. But that's just me.
This piece proves 2 things: Savage is on top of his game once again, and MMFA continues to prove they are nothing more than a gay smear sheet. Notice how there hasn't been any new articles on Savage since a few weeks back into May? It's because the topic of homosexuality hasn't really come up on his show. Interesting correlation here. I don't see how this can be labled conservative misinformation either, he hasn't gotten any facts wrong, only leveled opion against opinion. Also, I want to put in a request for MMFA that for the next year, when they do articles on Savage they refer to him as, "Michael Savage, recipient of the Freedom of Speech Award." Give credit where credit is due.
Marraige is between a man and a woman, like it has always been and always will be. Its been considered a sacrament of the church, and right now its under fire; but the people have spoken...have any of you looked at the results of November's state ballot initiatives? They were a major blow to the whole gay marriage racket. The only way to have a child is though a man and woman, proving it is naturally the best way to raise a child. There is no other way that is better or more natural; ANY other way (single parent, etc.) can be considered abusive towards the child.
Another Weinerdog worshipper heard from. Yeah Weinerdog is on top of his hatred and bigotry game. Sure this is a gay smear site that is why there are so many threads about gay issues, almost all of them, wait that isnt so, very few of them are. Hmmm. Well ignorance is the standard trait of the Weinerdog worshipper so why would I expect you to actually KNOW what you are talking about, I mean it rarely happens. No gay marriage has NOT always been between a man and a woman. I know you were programmed by your propaganda master to REPEAT that but it flat out isnt so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
Gay marriage is legal right now in Canada and some kind of civil unions between gay couples is legal in a dozen or so countries.
Yeah, and albanian muslims are killing serbian christians in kosovo...just cause something is going on in another country doesn't mean it is right. I fail to see what all the gay racket is about (besides wanting to push their perverted value system on America)...they enjoy every single freedom a straight person does. They just cannot enter into the holy union of men and women, marriage.
In the land of the free, why would one group want to force their way into another group's way of life? On the basis of this being a free country, why not just set up a new union system for homosexuals? Doesn't that make sense?
"Yeah, and albanian muslims are killing serbian christians in kosovo... just cause something is going on in another country doesn't mean its right." - John174541842
You can't be f*cking serious! You actually mean to compare murder committed for twisted religious purposes with people wishing to be consentually united in love? You don't recognize a bit of discrepancy in the two positions? This argument doesn't just strain logic... it ruptures it until its intestines are spilling out onto the floor in a slippery, slimey, mess. This analogy draws flies.
"In the land of the free, why would one group want to force their way into another groups way of life?" - John174541842
Why, indeed. Maybe you can enlighten us on this question. Why are certain right wing heterosexuals so intent upon forcing their concepts of morality upon others... in this case the gay community? That is the question you're asking, isn't it? Otherwise, your reference to 'the land of the free' would be a hilarious case of unintended irony. Not wishing to be discriminated against, after all, is hardly seeking to "... force their way into another group's way of life." I mean, THAT argument is eerily like the arguments that racists made back in the 50's & 60's about African Americans who resisted segregation & wished to avail themselves of the same public facilities as the white majority.
So, go ahead & edify me, John. I'm eagerly awaiting your answer.
Perhaps I should have just stated "Just because another country is doing something, doesn't make it right for all countries to do." Murder and gay love have nothing to do with each other, I simply was providing an example to support that statement, but apparently it gave you a heart attack.
"Why are certain right wing heterosexuals so intent upon forcing their concepts of morality upon others... in this case the gay community?"
My Answer: A.) My views are not limited to right wing heterosexuals, my democratic congressman has voted against gay marriage. B.) Those opposed to gay marriage are forcing nothing; we are simply defending OUR institution of marriage between a man and woman from being changed. The gay community is trying to force its same-sex unions into the heterosexual union of marriage. Any person, on either side of the debate, should be able to see that is what is going on.
Personally, I dont want gays to receive any benefits that married heterosexuals do, and I don't care who that may offend. It is the view of the overwhelming vast majority in this country, thank God; and until that changes we will fight to defend marriage and family from those who wish to change it.
Okay, John, since you are convinced that gay marriage would destroy the hallowed institution of marriage (an institution that is desperately abandoned by over 50% of the HETEROSEXUALS that attempt it), could you please explain to us HOW? How can the loving actions of people that YOU DON'T KNOW... & clearly you would NEVER WISH to know... affect you IN THE LEAST? Is your belief in marriage so shaky that it requires that EVERYBODY join in lockstep with your bigoted concepts in order for it to survive. Are you really that small & insecure?
Your proud declaration that you would deny all gay people the advantages to be found in marriage make you seem to be little more that a shrieking hysteric. It was a small, mean-spirited sort of remark to make, & one that reveals more than I suspect that you wished it to. It reveals your belief system to be so fragile that it can only really survive in an enforced vacuum.
Personally, I'm cool with the concept of gay marriage because IT COSTS ME NOTHING while it allows others to freely partake of those advantages that society has to offer. What's your real problem with gay people, John? Do you find their sexual practices offensive? Okay, then don't engage in them. Go ahead & live your own life as you see fit... as long as you're not interfering with the rights of others. But that's the problem here, John. You DO seek to interfere in the rights of others, by seeking to use the state to exclude them from your narrow little hetero bigot's club.
Just let them be, John. You'll be a happier man, I swear. They certainly will be, anyway. This need punish others for their inherent differences from you will only continue to lessen you as a human being.You'll never run ut of people who think, speak, & behave differently than you as long as there are other people in this world. It's far better to embrace mankind for it's infinite differences then to waste your time trying to push all into the same cookie-cutter molds.
Nice...according to the left, marriage is a "narrow little hetero bigot's club," did I get the quote right there? I like that. Bill Clinton and many other of your favorite left wingers are part of this club, I'm glad.
Allowing homosexual marriage has never resulted in a society becoming great or prosperous. When a homosexual enjoys every single freedom that I do, with the one exception being marriage...mainly because it is lawfully defined at the federal level and in most of the state as between a man and woman, I do not give them my sympathy.
You accept homosexuals and their plight, I dont. I dont care what two consenting adults do behind closed doors because it does not affect me. Its when these relationships come out from behind the closed doors that it does have an effect on everyone. What is so hard about understanding that it is wrong for gays to want to enter in to something that is lawfully recognized as strictly a heterosexual union? They should be looking to create their own separate form of homosexual union. This is NOT the same as "separate but equal" segregation because that was based simply on skin color. Homosexual "marriage" is based on a person's CHOICE to commit and spend a lifetime with another person. By its very nature, marriage is a CHOICE whether its hetero or gay, which is why this issue cannot be viewed as an absolute right afforded to a person like freedom of speech is.
Marriage is a choice, so it's not a right? Are you on drugs? Voting is a choice, you don't have to do it, but it's a right.
What would the separate type of union be? Would they have legal spousal rights? If not, why not? And if so, then why not just make it part of marriage? Churches don't have to perform them, and heterosexual marriages aren't harmed at all.
Felons in jail for life have the right to marry, but not to vote. Very interesting, yes?
voting is not a right.
I think what's missing here is the word "inalienable". If you are a citzen, if you are of age, if you aren't a felon, you have the right to vote. You don't send in an application, you send in a registration. It's not like driving where you have to prove your abilities to gain a privilege. It can still be a right and have legal limits, just like free speech.
"... according to the left, marriage is a 'narrow little hetero bigot's club,' did I get the quote right there?"
Now you're getting desperate, John.
I never said that marriage is a 'narrow little hetero bigots club.' I said that YOUR CONCEPT of marriage is such. There's a HUGE difference there, so... no, you DID NOT, in fact, get the quote right. Instead, you did what right wingers generally do when they don't have a legitimate response to another's argument: you purposefully DISTORTED what I said, in order to respond to a question that WASN'T ASKED!
Further more, I don't claim to speak for 'the left.' I speak for myself. I may be undeniably left wing, but I am hardly the ultimate arbiter of left wing thought. People on the left often take wildly differing positions. This sometimes serves as a weakness, because it often leaves us incapable of presenting a unified, seamless front on any particular position. However, it is also our greatest strength, because... by neccesity... we are intimately exposed to severely differing positions. We bicker & argue & debate every topic until we manage to establish an intellectual dialectic from which to precede.
And then we argue some more.
Leftists... unlike right wingers... are PROUD of our differences. We are proud of our intellectual independence. We may generally agree on certain philosophical precepts, but we hold profound differences on their practical, real world applications. We HAVE to make allowances for differing ideas.
And Bill Clinton? Dude, you don't know how tremblingly WEAK that tired old invocation makes you appear. Most Americans LOVE Bill Clinton, & long for the days when he was in charge. When conservatives smugly cite Clinton in their arguments, leftists correctly perceive this as essentially throwing in the towel. Saturday Night Live... in it's original incarnation... referred to that as "dropping the cow." Clinton ceased to have any serious negative rhetorical value YEARS ago. It may make wingnuts feel better to cite him as an example of ultimate evil, as they desperately cling to what they're still convinced were the glory days of impeachment, but most people just roll their eyes at the absolute witlessness of it.
So if despising people because of their differences from you floats your boat, then go ahead & stew in the juices of your own bitterness. The rest of us will continue to leave off harassing those who... in reality... do us no harm. We'll focus our energy & our resistance on those who... like you... continue to desperately stoke their dwindling egos by raging against those that they see as vulnerable.
"In the land of the free, why would one group want to force their way into another group's way of life?" -2930829034843 or whatever
Well than I suggest you don't have a gay relationship than, as some one who is so opposed to it.
"they enjoy every single freedom a straight person does." -whatever
Ah, no they do not. You make yourself look stupid there. Here's the argument, heterosexual couples can marry - gay couples can not, therefore they do not have every freedom heterosexual people have. simple logic, please keep up.
But my main point to you, gay couples are not trying to force churches to perform marriages for them. You seem to be confused about this, when you mention "its been considered a sacrament of the church,".
Gay couples are talking about government recognizing their unions. Not the church, no church would be forced to perform gay marriages. (Did you know, in this country you can get married without even having a church service??).
I won't waste a link for you, but there are currently 100 privileges and benefits of marriage that gay couples do not get?
I think the far greater abuse to children is denying these children the rights and freedoms of a loving couple and the benefits of said union. Without government sanctioned gay marriage, many children are not able to get health benefits of their other parent, children are left alone, scared, in hospitals because one parent is not able to stay with the child, since the state believes they are not a parent. Why so you hate children so much?
Yeah John, same-sex marriage is EXACTLY like murder. *headdesk*
"I fail to see what all the gay racket is about (besides wanting to push their perverted value system on America)...they enjoy every single freedom a straight person does. They just cannot enter into the holy union of men and women, marriage."
Way to not show your rampaging homophobia there, John. I suppose you think all gay men are pedophiles too, and lesbians are vampires with evil mind-control powers.
Wow, you are a very confused individual John. The Albanian thing was a complete non-sequitur so I will ignore it. YOU are not the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong so that meaningless bit of fluff can be ignored. What you SAID was that marriage had ALWAYS been between a man and woman. No it hasnt as the cited information showed not historically nor right now. You were flat out WRONG. What part of the fact your statement was flat out wrong are you having a problem comprehending?
Among the countless examples of what you fail to see (besides wanting to push YOUR perverted hatefilled view on America) this one might have something to do with thinking of it as a gay racket. No gay people do NOT enjoy all the rights everyone else does, many states dont allow them to adopt, they cannot marry who they choose. Your confusion is understandable, since you think the clearly insane Weinerdog actually makes sense it would be suprising if confusion were not your natural state.
Your last bit of illogic is deliciously ironic. Why do YOU want to force YOUR ideology on other people anyway? I know of no gay people anywhere that want to demand YOU enter into a gay marriage or be cured of your heterosexuality or be isolated from society despite your hateful bigotry. The real question here is a chicken/egg question. Is it that confused illogical people seek out the insane Weinerdog or does listening to the insane Weinerdog make so many people confused and illogical?
I guess I am confused...I cannot figure out why two gay men want to step into the heterosexual union known as marriage. Why wouldn't they want to have some kind of union exclusive to gay couples? Gays and straights are simply not equal in the area of sexual preference, so why would anyone want to unite the two under the same institution of union? IF the gays ever end up getting the same benefits of a married hetero couple, why would it be wrong to have it be a legal union that is separate from the institution of marriage?
Yes you are confused. YOU claiming it is an exclusively heterosexual institution does not make that definitive of reality. I showed you that not only has gay marriage been done but it IS being done right now in other countries. The burden of proof is on YOU to show why this right should be denied others and you need something more than you dont like the idea. Who would be hurt? Tangibly, hurt by allowing gay people the same right to marry the person of their choice, capable of consent, that is enjoyed by heterosexual couples? Making the FALSE claim that it has always been that way or claiming that you dont like the idea just dont cut the mustard
Associating a severe minority of cultures/time periods does not justify even questioning the fact that marriage has overwhelmingly been considered as a union of man and woman. The majority of the people in America share my viewpoint, and you don't agree with it...we could argue it until the day we die, or until an amendment is made that defines what constitutes a marriage in America.
You also dodged my question, so I'll restate it: "Gays and straights are simply not equal in the area of sexual preference, so why would anyone want to unite the two under the same institution of union? IF the gays ever end up getting the same benefits of a married hetero couple, why would it be wrong to have it be a legal union that is separate from the institution of marriage?"
What makes the difference in sexual preference "unequal"? Surely it doesn't have anything to do with the number of people who fall into that category, does it? By that logic, any minority would be "unequal".
The question appears to be utter garbage because it rests on a false premise. "Gay people aren't equal, therefore they shouldn't have equal rights". That's certainly how you are coming across, at least.
Now, if you're using "equal" as "similar", simply meaning that the nature of the two things are different, then what possible bearing does that have on them sharing the same rights to the institution of marriage?
That isnt your original claim, you are now moving the goalposts THIS is what you said originally
Marraige is between a man and a woman, like it has always been and always will be. >>>>>>>>>>
That statement is flat out false. Since that is NOT representative of reality you are now claiming that because the MAJORITY of the time should be the deciding factor. Had we taken that view in the 60's miscegenation laws would still be on the books. It doesnt rise to the level of a compelling argument. I evaded nothing I said straight out that YOU dont get to define your prejudices as reality. I dont know how much plainer I could possibly be. Just because YOU think it is this way doesnt MAKE it definitive of reality
"Notice how there hasn't been any new articles on Savage since a few weeks back into May? It's because the topic of homosexuality hasn't really come up on his show. Interesting correlation here. I don't see how this can be labled conservative misinformation either, he hasn't gotten any facts wrong, only leveled opion against opinion."
Actually, the last article on Savage was about the fairness doctrine, not his gay bashing. Also- it is mis-info because gay people having kids is not equivalent to child abuse, all evidence points to kids of gay parents being just as well adjusted as kids of heterosexual parents. So he is being dishonest and ignorant.
"the only way to have a child is though a man and woman proving it is naturally the best way to raise a child"
Wake up! Have you heard of a "sperm bank"? Maybe "invitrofertilzation"?
Thanks for making yourself look stupid. I stated that the only way to have a child is through a man and a woman, which is 100% correct even in the situations you just listed. You need sperm and an egg, man and woman. The actual act of creating the child might not consist of the man and woman being together, but even if you are a turkey baster baby, it still takes a man and woman.
More irony. Considering your brain dead rants, YOU calling someone else stupid is just laughable. Almost but not quite as laughable as your posts
"I stated that the only way to have a child is through a man and a woman, which is 100% correct even in the situations you just listed. You need sperm and an egg, man and woman."
That is a brain dead rant? Take a trip down to the local high school and sit in on the special ed. class where the kids cant add 2 & 2...that is where real brain dead rants take place.
Solon, I read your posts and links about how same sex relationships and "marriages" have occurred in the past, and I did not contest them. However, do you honestly think America became such a great nation by mimicking what was socially acceptable in other parts of the world throughout history? Granted, the immigrants have brough a lot of cultural enrichment here, but homosexual marriage was not part of it, and it will continue to be largely rejected in America.
Yes braindead rants describing gay people as perverted something mindless about a gay racket, braindead rants fits the description. American culture comes from many places but mostly Europe if you read the cited information you will see that Europe also had gay marriages though this whole sideways argument has zero relevance. What is VERY American is that people have the RIGHTS, that those rights are not dependent upon majority approval and that our individual rights are not to be taken from unpopular minorities. The question is what is right and what is wrong. What enhances individual freedom and what doesnt. What is a matter of a majority prejudice and what isnt. I have yet to hear a single argument against gay marriage that wasnt used to support miscegenation laws and that arument was LOST by the side of prejudice. When you can make a compelling argument about why gay people should not have the right to marry that doesnt rest on, I dont like it or we havent done it recently or tradition, I will listen and make a determination as of yet I havent heard that argument
“When you can make a compelling argument about why gay people should not have the right to marry that doesnt rest on, I dont like it or we havent done it recently or tradition, I will listen and make a determination as of yet I havent heard that argument.â€
Although I have been only stating my opinion on this issue, it comes with plenty of undeniable back up that I didn’t think I would have to specifically cite, but here it is. 37 states have passed laws defining marriage as a union between man and woman. The other 13 have no set definition of marriage, although some of them afford same sex couples with the same benefits of married couples, but do not recognize their union as “marriage.†4 states have passed Defense of Marriage Acts as constitutional amendments. As this issue grows bigger, I would expect more states to follow in this manner….if the elected legislators really represent what their people stand for. The passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 at the federal level defined marriage only as between a man and a woman for all purposes of federal law. ([link to clgs.org] and [link to en.wikipedia.org]
The few states that do have some provisions for same-sex unions have not made a definition of marriage…I can only assume this is because the federal government has set the example for it to be defined as only between men and women, and these states would rather be definition-less rather make a new definition to include gays…causing outrage in their citizens. I am a law-abiding citizen. I do not support people who break the laws, so why would I support gays getting married, when that act is not only illegal in my state, but also when the federal government does not recognize it as being legal?
Are you serious? Your argument as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry...is that they're not allowed to marry?
Read what you wrote. The question is, what valid reason is there for the laws that you are citing?
Reasons for these laws? How about government for the people and by the people, the American way. Overall, people are happy with the way things are. Americans do not want marriage being infiltrated by the homosexuals.
Marriage of any kind is not a "right" afforded to any person of any sexual orientation. Marriage is an institution of CHOICE. You CHOOSE to be joined together with the person you love for a lifetime. The government simply is not obligated to accommodate citizen's choices...The current laws are in line with the views and values of America, if you don't like America, go to Europe where you can have your gay marriage done on a beach in the nude if you like.
Funny, what was that I read once about life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? And by the people, for the people means all people, not just the majority. It's not a question of one way or another, where it has to be straight marriage or gay marriage, so the majority wins out. Both groups can have marriage.
People were happy with miscegenation laws too, at one point, were they not? Marriage was still a chioce, so they didn't have a right to it. I'm sure you would tell people then that they should go to Africa and get married, because we sure don't want it here.
And to add, the government is certainly obligated to accomodate marriage. It's a legal contract, whether it's a choice or not. It has to be recognized and tracked, because so many legal matters are dependent on that relationship.
Whatever you say, Brab. Right now the law is in place, and I am happy. I certainly have every right not to support, appreciate, or accept gays and their woes about marriage; and you have the right to support them as much as you want. So since we are never going to reach anything close to an understanding or agreement on this, I'm just going to sit back and support all laws and constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage.
I certainly can't prevent you from having an unsupportable position, that's true.
So as I said, it boils down to "it should be law because that is the law". That's brilliant. By that mode of thinking, no minority would ever gain a foothold in society. But you don't like gay people, so it's just fine, I guess.
What is so confusing about this for you? Gays cannot and should not be allowed to "marry" because marriage is defined lawfully as the union of a man and woman. That excludes them from "marriage," but it would not exclude them from creating a union of another nature defined as "between members of the same-sex" that would specifically exclude hetero unions from it. Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are 2 separate entities, it isnt discriminatory to acknowlegde that separation. It would only follow to have two different kinds of unions for these 2 different practices! Marriage for men and women, and something new for same sex couples.
And still, there's nothing about marriage that prevents it from being shared with homosexuals. You don't need a separate type of union, there's no damage done to the concept of marriage by letting any two adults partake in it. Sort of like, there's two different type of people, but they should have different drinking fountains, different restaurants...why?
What's confusing is you keep using this circular proof as if it was logical. The reason for the law can't be the existence of the law itself. It can't be the simple will of the people, either, or you would defend laws against atheists because it's such a small minority. Would you do that? I hope not! No, there has to be something else there. There has to be some societal reason for the law, or the law makes no sense. What is it?
"There has to be some societal reason for the law, or the law makes no sense. What is it?"
You keep using race discrimination as a comparison, and it is completely invalid because race and skin color is inherently genetic, and this is a known scientific fact. The science on homosexuality being inherently gentic is not conclusive or proven yet. Until it is proven, these laws are not wrong or discriminatory. I know science is pointing towards genetics being the cause of homosexuality, but it is not conclusive yet.
There is your societal reason for the law. Science to this point has not conclusively proven homosexuality to be genetic, like race, therefore we are not obligated under law to recognize people who behave homosexually the same way that we do people of minority races.
I don't think so. We're talking about American citizens here. Unless there's some reason to believe that the actions harm someone in some way, there's no valid reason to prevent it.
As for it being chosen behavior, common sense should tell you it's not. You didn't "choose" to be straight, you had a natural attraction to the opposite sex. If you made some choice that affected you adversely, if it alienated you from people, cost you respect, you would change your mind, surely. There's no sensible argument that it is a choice, therefore there's no reason to hold it up until science "proves" it, which may never happen to your satisfaction at all.
"Unless there's some reason to believe that the actions harm someone in some way, there's no valid reason to prevent it."
- It will be emotionally harming the majority of America that believes homosexuality is morally wrong and it certainly should not be accepted in the arena of marriage. I guess emotional harm is not considered unless the victim is in a minority group though.
"there's no reason to hold it up until science "proves" it, which may never happen to your satisfaction at all."
- I guess the left only uses science as an absolute, undeniable form of truth when it works in favor of their causes.
"It will be emotionally harming the majority of America that believes homosexuality is morally wrong..."
Wow, what a bunch of wussies. Emotionally harming them? Are you serious? People have no inalienable right to protection of their moral beliefs, for crying out loud. On the other side is second-class citizenship, a much more understandable concern.
As for science, it's not supposed to "prove" everything. It gives us a way of understanding the world as best we can, not necessarily beyond the shadow of a doubt. Considering some people are still disputing evolution, how long do you figure it will be before scientific "proof" of inherent homosexuality is accepted across the board? My guess is it's a long, long way off.
And the fact that an egg and sperm are needed to form a zygote prove what, exactly? Besides your own inane "life begins at conception!" boilerplate?
"And the fact that an egg and sperm are needed to form a zygote prove what, exactly?"
It proves that a male being and a female being are both needed at some point to create new life. It also proves that a homosexual relationship, as loving and monogomous as it may be is 100% incapable of reproducing without help from entities outside of the relationship. Hence, a homosexual society, as a separate entity, is a society doomed to extinction.
This is an argument against gay marriage how? Are you saying that women and men who cannot procreate should not be allowed to marry?
It may be true, but the fact that it's the natural order proves no such thing at all.
We formed an enlightened society because we're reasoned people. That took us to a level above the natural order. We don't leave our sick to die, we don't eat our young, we don't cannibalize, in general, like animals might. At this stage it's more than about mere survival in a harsh environment, as it was for ancient man. Even if homosexual child-raising was some sort of factor in survival in ancient times, our world is more civilized now, and has moved beyond that stage. Psychology, society, education and economy are the important concepts now, and therefore there's nothing that I can see in the behavior of gay people that puts them at any disadvantage in raising a healthy, well-adjusted child.
The male/female reproductive order is a matter of biology. It's universal (or with a few exceptions, perhaps, I haven't watched a lot of Animal Planet to be honest), and a matter of propagation of the species. Let's say for the sake of argument that homosexual couples are the best scenario. It's difficult to understand how evolution would adapt people (or any species) to reproduce within their own gender, unless everyone became a functional hermaphrodite ("It's your turn to have the baby this time..."). Otherwise, any difference in reproductive organs would instantly put the person in a different gender, obviously!
In other words, there seems to be no possible way for circumstances to fit the contrary view to your proof, therefore your proof is fallacious.
"We formed an enlightened society because we're reasoned people."
You mean [We] as in our hetrosexual, primarily white, Christian forefathers?!?
"We don't leave our sick to die, we don't eat our young, we don't cannibalize, in general, like animals might."
Gee, how many times have I heard the argument that homosexuality is natural because aimals do it.
"Even if homosexual child-raising was some sort of factor in survival in ancient times, our world is more civilized now, and has moved beyond that stage."
Well I dont know what you think, but in order for us to populate, births need to occur, well unless you expect millions of artificial childbirths as a new form of being "civilized"
"Psychology, society, education and economy are the important concepts now, and therefore there's nothing that I can see in the behavior of gay people that puts them at any disadvantage in raising a healthy, well-adjusted child."
Summary: Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This paper highlights some new and significant considerations that reflect on the question of those mental illnesses and on their possible sources. - [link to www.narth.com]
"In other words, there seems to be no possible way for circumstances to fit the contrary view to your proof, therefore your proof is fallacious."
I've provided at least the same amount of "disproof" to your argument to use the same logic as you, i.e. your proof is fallacious
"You mean [We] as in our hetrosexual, primarily white, Christian forefathers?!?"
Um, by and large, yes. Indicating what, that concerns for anyone outside of any of those classifications are not worthwhile?
"Gee, how many times have I heard the argument that homosexuality is natural because aimals do it."
How many times have you made an argument explaining why it's not a valid point? You think penguins watch too much HGTV, or what?
"Well I dont know what you think, but in order for us to populate, births need to occur, well unless you expect millions of artificial childbirths as a new form of being "civilized""
Funny, but I always hear about what a great minority homosexuals are. Now, we're at risk of not populating naturally at all if we give them rights? Are you telling me that if homosexuality were accepted, you believe everyone would become gay, including you? Not that there's anything wrong with that...
"Summary: Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This paper highlights some new and significant considerations that reflect on the question of those mental illnesses and on their possible sources."
It's clearly a great assumption to think that this is caused by something inherent to homosexuals. Perhaps it has something to do with the way they're treated by others, and by society?
"I've provided at least the same amount of "disproof" to your argument to use the same logic as you, i.e. your proof is fallacious"
You seem highly impaired logically. What are you saying that is actually disputing what I've said?
Could you make an attempt at a substantive, valid response, please?
Wow, you are so single minded, you dont even see that my arguments with YOUR quotes were just that, arguments.
I pointed to the irony of your statements and you still did not see it. Are you incapable of looking at things from other people's perspectives?
One example again you said "we evolved...we dont do things like animals" basicaly saying that we no longer do animalistic "abborations" but with the same breath you accept animal practice of homosexuality as a proof. That beleif contradicts itself
Not every homosexual is an automatic victim. People through all demographics have hard lives and deal with it. Dont expect pity from me as everyone has to live their own lives, not sit and wait for someone else to fix it for them.
My main point about how homosexual marriage and lifestyle is being FORCED upon the majority is actually making the matter worse.
"Wow, you are so single minded, you dont even see that my arguments with YOUR quotes were just that, arguments."
I understand you're making arguments, that doesn't automatically mean they have merit.
"I pointed to the irony of your statements and you still did not see it. Are you incapable of looking at things from other people's perspectives?"
On the contrary. As a white heterosexual male, I champion the causes of women, gays and people of all races. I'm not paid to do it, I actually empathize with others.
"One example again you said "we evolved...we dont do things like animals" basicaly saying that we no longer do animalistic "abborations" but with the same breath you accept animal practice of homosexuality as a proof. That beleif contradicts itself"
Talk about single-minded. Society is a construct that puts us over the harsh conditions of nature, it doesn't make it so we aren't born one way or another. I'll ask again, what societal or parenting factors could possibly create a gay animal? There are no cultural influences there whatsoever.
"Not every homosexual is an automatic victim. People through all demographics have hard lives and deal with it. Dont expect pity from me as everyone has to live their own lives, not sit and wait for someone else to fix it for them."
When the hard life is due to prejudice, that's not an issue of people being whiners. It's wrong. You could apply your argument to slavery as well, try to think about how well that works out for you.
"My main point about how homosexual marriage and lifestyle is being FORCED upon the majority is actually making the matter worse."
This is fallacious because it doesn't have anything to do with you. Highlighting "FORCED" as if that was the key principle, that nothing should be forced on people works against you, because what you're proposing is forcing restrictions on gay people.
Again, you could make that argument about any minority. "We shouldn't allow black people into the societal mainstream because that's forcing it on the majority. They should just deal with it, because I have problems too".
Do you believe people choose to live lives where they automatically become lesser citizens? Where they face humiliation, hatred and violence? If so, you have a very low opinion of gay people. If not, then why don't you put yourself in their shoes and explain how your right to get married affects any heterosexual person.
Either way, are you incapable of looking at things from someone else's perspective?
What is up with the "number" posters?
Maybe I should change my name to mccain45164587?
If I was more of a conspiracy theorist I would say these are tags for right wing groups. i.e. "for every hate filled post 174541842 makes he earns $20.00."
Waaaay overpaying them, based on what we have seen so far. In fact, *I* doubt their sponsors are even getting "2 cents worth". But, given talent and predisposition, one could possibly produce such a profusion of hate as to make a living even at those rates.
I was thinking of getting mine changed to 'alltrollswithnumberedusernamesmustdieNOW', myself, but it wouldn't fit on the submission form.
WOW
I never thought I would be living in Aldous Huxley's, "Brave New World".
O...K...I guess you thought that made sense. Well luckily for you guess what? You arent. Got something cogent to post?
My point is that those who have read that book and it seems apparent that you haven't, when comparing today's moral meltdown of our culture and society to that book, there is some very frightning similarities. Of course that is just my opnion.
Well YOUR idea of what constitutes a moral meltdown hardly defines the issue. Mine most likely would be quite different. However I dont really see the similarities. Are you being required to take drugs to control your passions? Are you somehow being denied the right to pursue your passions in a misguided attempt to steer you from strong emotions? Are you being denied the right to a monogomous relationship in order to keep away from jealousy and love? I dont see it. Perhaps you could explain your position better. I didnt see the point of Brave New World to be about moral meltdowns but the danger of micromanaging society in order to attempt to cure all societal ills. You may have gotten a different message. That is the point of good books. Different people might find differing lessons from them
Although I don't necessarily agree with John I think there has to be a compromise with this issue. Civil Unions seem to me to be the best answer. Like it or not the insitution of marriage in this country has always been between a man and a woman. We can debate whether this is a good thing or bad thing until the cows come home, but the fact remains that most Americans see the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman. I think gay couples have to realize that they should take what they can get. To expect a societal change to appease a small minority of people is not realistic. Homosexual couples should certaintly be afforded the recognition of certain legalities in terms of financial aspects, beneficiary status, etc. as seen in marriages. The issue is that people do in fact feel that the acceptance of homosexual marriage is being forced on them. Maybe that isn't true, but I think we should all realize that traditional values play a intregal part in society as a whole. Attempting to redifne the traditional marriage by inserting homosexual marriage as acceptable is a radical idea to alot of people. If two men or women who love each other want to spend their lives together then fine. Good for them. I just think that it is a bit irrational to expect a societal change so they can be married. How does the recognition of gay marriage further the common good? I don't think it does. Civil Unions, that is fair and the answer in my opinion.
"To expect a societal change to appease a small minority of people is not realistic."
It happened with black people, didn't it? Arguments about traditional ways fall to the wayside eventually, just like they did when opposing mixed marriages.
I agree that civil unions can be a stepping stone for sure, but that's not where it should end. The reason to have full rights and privileges for homosexuals is to stop marginalizing them and bring them into the mainstream where they belong. That is definitely healthy for society. The larger question is, what is the harm in granting these rights? It takes nothing from heterosexuals at all, the institution of marriage is purely a legal construct, so what's the problem with it? It may not be accepted enough at the moment to become standard, but without a genuine basis for objection it will eventually happen, you can be sure.
BRABANTIO,
You have a valid argument. I won't deny that. To me the difference is that interracial marriage was more readily accepted due to the simple fact that at least it wasn't a radical departure from the traditional norm of man and woman. For whatever reason, whether it be religious or simply societal norms, the country in general sees gay marriage as wrong. You indicate that changing society for a small minority happenned with blacks. Well, that is true to an extent. I think it is lacking due to the fact that over 12% of the American population is black and while that is certaitnly a minority it is a considerable number. I don't think that 12% of America is gay so I hold steadfast to my premise that it is unfair to expect the majority of America to change it's societal views to appease a "small" minority of people. Now, I could be dead wrong and I see your side of this argument. Maybe from a philosophical standpoint everyone should accept gay marriage. So I disagree with your assertion of what the larger question is. In any event I respect your view I just disagree.
I believe the percentage of gay/bisexual people in this country is roughly 10%. That's hardly a radical difference from the 12% you are citing. I'm sure many people viewed mixed marriages as radical at one point, yet here we are.
The actual number of people that it affects doesn't really matter either way, and I'll tell you why. It's a matter of principle where nobody else loses anything over it. Let's say there's a thousand gay people. Who cares if they get married? How much damage can that do? Downplaying their numbers doesn't mean anything, because they're still the same people no matter how many of them there are, and deserve the same rights. Let's say there's only a couple of thousand Mexicans in the country, all living in Texas. Let's say they want to have a big festival, but the state refuses to grant the land permits for no valid reason. Now that's wrong. That's a matter of principle that doesn't hurt anyone in the majority at all. So if there's 2,000 Mexicans, let them have their fun, who cares? Meanwhile, even if 5% of people are fully homosexual, that's 15 million people. That's well over the number of people in my entire state of Michigan. Would you discriminate against an entire state because it constitutes a small minority?
I understand that public opinion is strongly against it. That's not a basis for "harm" though, as far as I can see. It doesn't actually affect my life or their life in the slightest. Now I understand that making a change too soon may backfire, which is why I'm open to civil unions first, let people adjust to that, and then move on to the next step.
BRABANTIO,
Again I see your point. The numbers I cite by the way are dead on based on the most recent studies. The 10% you qualify is probably derived from the Kinsey studies which have been debunked. It is interesting that you use the 5% number which is the estimated number of homosexuals in America. Anyway, you seem to be oversimplifying this. I will agree that in reality that it does me no harm for two homosexuals to get married. Leaving the possible social ramifications aside there would certainly be no litigious personal harm done by homosexual marriage. That being said, I just plainly disagree with the thought of subjegating the majority to an ideology, that is plainly in conflict with traditional values, just to appease 5% of the population. The whole idea just wreaks of a minority pushing an agenda on the majority. I'm just telling you that people in general resent that. sometimes compromise is the only option.
So even though you're not arguing that homosexuality is a choice, even though you're admitting that what they do doesn't affect you in the least, it bothers you that you are "subjugated" by their ideology? That seems wildly inconsistent to me. Are you concerned for the feelings of bigots here?
Any agenda that is fair to everyone (as this one is), and which is healthy for society should be implemented. It's absurd to say that traditional views should have any bearing on the matter, no matter what the percentage of people is. We all know that tradition does not mean being right, and that is the basis for all social progress.
If the argument is simply that there are a lot of people who aren't making an effort to understand gay people or are clinging to some "sanctity of marriage" concept, that's fine. As I said, I'm fine with taking it in steps, starting with civil unions. Eventually, though, the tide will start to turn, and more and more people will favor gay marriage. Will you be one of them then?
And let me add to that something I was trying to point out to John above. By your framing, someone is having something forced on them no matter what. Either gay people are having second-class citizenship forced on them, or straight people are having the concept of marriage not being exclusively theirs forced on them. So in a choice between an option that has no impact on you, as opposed to an option that clearly has an impact on a group of people who have done nothing wrong, what option bothers you personally?
If you think about it that way, which I'm sure most people haven't, then the choice is obvious.
Brabantio
You've made a ton of arguments on this topic that were seamlessly logical, as well as being deeply compassionate. I admire the level of intellect that you have shared with us. You really should be proud of yourself.
This is, after all, the essential point to being a progressive.
Well done.
Many thanks! It's a subject I take very seriously, clearly.
SOLON, what would you say about this part in the book?
"Human beings use to be..."he hesitated;the blood rushed to his cheeks. "Well they used to be viviparous."
"Quite right." The director nodded approvingly.
"And when the babies were decanted..."
" 'Born,' " came the correction.
"Well, then they were the parents-I mean, not the babies, of course;the other ones." The poor boy was overwhelmed with confusion.
"In brief," the Director summed up, "the parents were the father and the mother," The smut that was really science fell with a crash into the boys' eye-avoiding silence. "Mother", he repeated loudly rubbing in the science;and, leaning back in his chair, "These," he said gravely, "are unpleasant facts, I know it. But then most historical facts ARE unpleasant."
Wouldn't you say that this type of mindset isn't very far down the road as far as we are going in this country?
I would say this mindset is nowhere in sight. So exactly where are the people that are advocating the state should raise children instead of parents?
The point I am trying to make is that already there are places, I think it is Holland, in which the use of "mother" and "father" are attempting to be banned and being changed to just "parent" so as to not offend gay couples. In Oakland, CA they are trying to do that as well. The article is on michaelsavage.com. It looks to me that that particular mindset as I mentioned in the previous post isn't too far down the road if things continue as it is.
Weiner is insane. I am not willing to accept his intepretation for anything. Cough up some credible evidence Oakland is trying to make it illegal to call parents mom or dad and we will talk. Again where are the people advocating the state raise children instead of parents? When you find them IF they are not marginal nutbags you will have a point until then I dont see it anywhere NEAR the horizon
I am the product of a gay and lesbian commune of the 60's. My 2 mommies hate football, I played without a helmet, and they danced. Flowers were to be picked fresh daily and worn. We listened to The Pixies, the early stuff. I left to find myself. The search was short. I discovered it in Boccie Mississippi just west of town. I throw pottery and sell it on E-bay with my wife and children. Caligula has shown us the way of the Progressive, strive!
I'll say this again: a homosexual lifestyle is not the same as eye color.
Please, start understanding this.
Your opinion is not the same as fact.
Please start understanding this.
"a homosexual lifestyle is not the same as eye color."
I only read one post where being gay was compared to eye color, so I am not sure why you are making such a big deal out of it. I think we all probably understood that it's not the same thing before your little lecture. The point of comparing eye color to being gay is that thy are both things that are inherent traits.