DYSPEPSIA GENERATION

We have seen the future, and it sucks.

Gay Marriage: 0 for 32 at the Polls

30th August 2012

Steve Sailer turns over a rock and watch what wiggles out.

Gay marriage has been put to a vote in 32 states. It is currently 0-32.

But nobody cares about that, least of all the ‘Democrat’ party.

I think that exemplifies the main driving force of modern liberalism. It’s not intellectual. In spirit, it’s more like the caste system in India. It’s a system for identifying new Untouchables whose very existence lifts the social status of the liberal. Gay marriage, for instance, is a trivial issue in real world terms, but it has become incredibly important to liberals precisely because it brands huge numbers of their fellow citizens as Dalits for them to hate and feel morally superior to.

Personally, I hate being touched by a liberal — you never know where that hand has been.

11 Responses to “Gay Marriage: 0 for 32 at the Polls”

  1. Dennis Nagle Says:

    “I think that exemplifies the main driving force of modern liberalism. It’s not intellectual.”
    As if the opposition to gay marriage is driven by pure reason.

    When it comes to designating Dalits, nobody does it better than the Right. Blacks. Gays. Jews (except for Israel, for reasons which escape me). ‘Liberals’. ‘Progressives’. Catholics, in the old days. Welfare recipients. Homeless people. Immigrants. The list goes on and on. Not a blanket designation, but including all of the sub-categories makes it a pretty big population.

    I frankly have no problem with folks who don’t like gays. I don’t particularly like them myself; they give me the creeps. But not liking someone is not enough justification to denying them equal rights under law. And it doesn’t matter how many votes you hold on the matter; rights denied by majority consent are still rights denied.

    In the end, it’s not a question of preference. It’s a question of justice.

  2. Whitehawk Says:

    @ Dennis. Wow, where to start…

    **As if the opposition to gay marriage is driven by pure reason.**

    Not pure reason but mostly reason. Civilization has been built on (in particular Western Civilization)the traditional family unit. Let’s throw that out the window. That homosexuality is a harmful behavior on all levels makes no difference either. Because, you see, in America it is an atrocity to mention that a behavior that brings someone pleasure can also harm them. Taking sexuality out of it’s intended place and function in ANY form is potentially harmful for the individual(s) and those around them.

    Gay activists want to redefine the proper place and function of sex (and marriage) without regard for the consequences to themselves and society. Do they have the right to change a societal norm without the consent of the majority?

    **When it comes to designating Dalits, nobody does it better than the Right. Blacks. Gays. Jews (except for Israel, for reasons which escape me). ‘Liberals’. ‘Progressives’. Catholics, in the old days. Welfare recipients. Homeless people. Immigrants.**

    Blacks? Really? Wasn’t it a Republican president that wrote the Emancipation Proclamation? Remember that without Republican’s, in a Democratic congress, the civil rights legislation would not have passed. Do you remember Senator Robert Byrd the former KKK member? The Left is far more guilty on this count than the Right.

    Gays? How many AIDS wards do you know of that are run by atheists? It is a meme that the right doesn’t “like” gays. The Christian right (we are on the right by the way) is commanded to love everyone. As such, we cannot “love” what they do to harm themselves or do nothing after they are harmed.

    Jews? The “Right” you speak of has done nothing but support Jews and Israel. The only derogatory comments about Jewish people I hear is from the left. We believe those who bless Israel will be blessed.

    ‘Liberals’. ‘Progressives’. Well… You got me there.

    Welfare recipients. Homeless people. Here again you have mis-characterized the reality of it. It’s not that we don’t like welfare recipients and homeless. It’s that we don’t want anyone to be categorized as such for long. FOR THEIR OWN SAKE. The Left depends on a significant number of people remaining in these conditions for life.

    Immigrants. You are, of course, referring to ILLEGAL immigrants. There are legal ways to get into this country in a process that culls those who would come here to do harm. Illegal immigrants subvert this process and leave everyone at risk for formerly eradicated diseases, crime (the likes of which would chill ones blood) and culturally/politically subversive forces. It is not a matter of not liking someone.

    **But not liking someone is not enough justification to denying them equal rights under law. And it doesn’t matter how many votes you hold on the matter; **

    Again, it’s not a matter of not liking someone. It is a matter of what is wholesome and healthy. As a nation we have a right and responsibility to decide what is wholesome and what is not and make public policy accordingly. It is not a matter of liking someone or not. Consider adultery. It is not about hating adulterers. It is about discouraging the harmful behavior that wrecks the lives of those involved and those around them.

    Carrying your point to its extreme, we regularly deny the “rights” of thieves to steal, hucksters to commit fraud, murderers to kill etc…

    **rights denied by majority consent are still rights denied.**

    Who decides what a “right” is? Does everyone have the “right” to do whatever they feel fulfills them?

    The profound importance of morality begins to emerge here. A moral framework is where a we begin to identify “rights” and see the need to articulate them in society and Law. “Inalienable rights” can only be named with a profound understanding of morality. (There are Moral Laws that should not be contradicted in societal law also. Our Founders understood this and penned our Founding Documents with this kind of guidance.)

    **In the end, it’s not a question of preference. It’s a question of justice.**

    Justice? Is it “just” to allow one group of a society to live with no sense or understanding of self responsibility then when the natural consequences of bad behavior arrive, and they will arrive, to send the tab to the group of society that has made sound choices? I’m not necessarily talking about homosexuality. Is it right to essentially say, “We will do what we want and you will get the bill for it.” It is a matter of preference. If what you prefer costs someone else financially (or otherwise), do you have a right to it? Is it just to send them the bill for your behavior?

  3. Dennis Nagle Says:

    “Civilization has been built on (in particular Western Civilization)the traditional family unit. Let’s throw that out the window.” So your argument is that heterosexual couples will decide to stop getting married because gays are allowed to marry? Absurd on its face. 0 for 1.

    “Gay activists want to redefine the proper place and function of sex” Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you, but that’s already been done. And gays had nothing to do with it. 0 for 2.

    “Do they have the right to change a societal norm without the consent of the majority?” The ‘majority’ (heterosexuals) have already changed that norm. See above. 0 for 3.

    “Wasn’t it a Republican president that wrote the Emancipation Proclamation?…Remember that without Republican’s, in a Democratic congress, the civil rights legislation would not have passed.” Yes. And without a Democratic president, said legislation would never even have come up for a vote. Republicans were once the party of equality; they ceased to be that somewere in the 1880′s when the rich hijacked the party. 0 for 4.

    “How many AIDS wards do you know of that are run by atheists?” Irrelevant. We are not discussing atheists.

    As I read through your extensive post, one theme comes through over and over again: It is the public’s obligation to protect people from behaviors that harm themselves and others. However, you haven’t made a case that a man having sex with another man or a woman with another woman harms any ‘others’, so you must be seeking to keep them from harming themselves. That’s the Nanny State in a nutshell. (Are you sure you aren’t a Closet Progressive?) After all, protecting people from themselves worked so well in the case of Prohibition–oh, wait…well, never mind.

    “Consider adultery. It is not about hating adulterers. It is about discouraging the harmful behavior that wrecks the lives of those involved and those around them.” Adultery isn’t against the law. It’s not even grounds for divorce anymore in a lot of states. So your example is not applicable.

    “Who decides what a “right” is?” The Constitution does. And it does it well.
    “Does everyone have the “right” to do whatever they feel fulfills them?” Why, yes, as a matter of fact, they do–so long as it doesn’t break the law. That’s what Libertarianism is all about.

    As for your polemic on ‘justice’, if behaving foolishly and sticking the rest of us with the tab is your major problem, then I assume you lobby for: helmet laws for motorcyclists; mandatory all around air bags in every vehicle; making drinking, smoking, and eating fatty foods illegal; forcing people to walk at least two miles every day. Again, the Nanny State.

    ‘Justice’, in this instance, lies in extending a legal status (marriage), with all the legal rights and responsibilities now recognized under law for that status, to a class of people who are not currently permitted to participate, especially when this extension would not materially lessen anyone else’s right to participate in that status.

    As I said, not reason but emotional hysteria drives the issue for the Right. You don’t want them to marry because you don’t want them to marry. You have no substantive argument other than It’s Always Been This Way, and that’s not good enough.

  4. Whitehawk Says:

    **“Civilization has been built on (in particular Western Civilization) the traditional family unit. Let’s throw that out the window.” So your argument is that heterosexual couples will decide to stop getting married because gays are allowed to marry? ** It does not help the discussion to make absurd assertions. Does it strengthen a civilization built on the traditional family to redefine the traditional family (that produces offspring in a unit designed to rear those offspring)? Gay “marriage” did not build Western Civilization. As the traditional family goes, so goes the nation. Normalization of extramarital sexuality and homosexuality contributes to the instability of a culture and societal decline as seen in Rome and Greece (you could throw in England and France.) http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/decline.html

    **“Gay activists want to redefine the proper place and function of sex” Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you, but that’s already been done. And gays had nothing to do with it.** I reject this on its face. Even cohabiting heterosexual couples do not consider their situation to be the moral standard. Even if it were true, further redefining of the proper place and function of sex by Gay Activists IS THE WRONG DIRECTION contributing further to the instability of society.

    **“Do they have the right to change a societal norm without the consent of the majority?” The ‘majority’ (heterosexuals) have already changed that norm.** What? Did I miss the vote? Not so. The majority has not redefined societal norms. The subject of this article supports this. By overwhelming majorities the population supports the institution of traditional marriage. It is easy to see that one man/one woman is considered to be the moral standard by a large majority. The size of the majorities and the way the subject being on the ballot drives out the vote are all convincing support for my assertion.

    **“Wasn’t it a Republican president that wrote the Emancipation Proclamation?…Remember that without Republican’s, in a Democratic congress, the civil rights legislation would not have passed.” Yes. And without a Democratic president, said legislation would never even have come up for a vote.** What no comment on Senator Byrd and his compatriots in congress?

    **Republicans were once the party of equality; they ceased to be that somewere in the 1880?s when the rich hijacked the party.** Your distain for successful people duly noted, at about the same time the Dems were think-tanking Jim Crow Laws. And that’s the party of equality?

    **“How many AIDS wards do you know of that are run by atheists?” Irrelevant. We are not discussing atheists.** Really? Atheists are undeniably part of the LEFT and definitely a vocal element of Progressives. You only borrow time here. So how many AIDS wards do you know of started by the Left/Progressives (excluding ones started with tax dollars). Talk about a group establishing a Dalit…

    **As I read through your extensive post, one theme comes through over and over again: It is the public’s obligation to protect people from behaviors that harm themselves and others. However, you haven’t made a case that a man having sex with another man or a woman with another woman harms any ‘others’, so you must be seeking to keep them from harming themselves.** Have you ever heard of the AIDS epidemic? Did you know that AIDS research and treatment receives more federal funding than heart disease (#1) and cancer (#2)? Still don’t see any harm? Still don’t think it affects the rest of us? What about suicide rates among practicing homosexuals? The rate of sexually transmitted diseases in men 18-25 who practice homosexuality is astronomical (approx. 80% of men in this group contract an STD.) No harm to themselves or society? The harm goes even farther to the children in a society that has no clear, consistent teaching on the roles of gender and sex.

    **That’s the Nanny State in a nutshell.**
    Trumpeting personal responsibility is the antithesis of the Nanny state.

    ** (Are you sure you aren’t a Closet Progressive?) After all, protecting people from themselves worked so well in the case of Prohibition–oh, wait…well, never mind.** You Libs just keep going back to Prohibition.

    **“Consider adultery. It is not about hating adulterers. It is about discouraging the harmful behavior that wrecks the lives of those involved and those around them.” Adultery isn’t against the law. It’s not even grounds for divorce anymore in a lot of states. So your example is not applicable.** Sodomy isn’t against the law anymore either. It’s an appropriate example.

    **“Who decides what a “right” is?” The Constitution does. And it does it well.** Wrong. The Constitution does not “decide what a right is.” The Bill of Rights, part of the Constitution, simply enumerates certain rights that the Founders (and subsequent generations) wanted a guaranty that the Federal Government would not violate or abridge. The Declaration of Independence, for instance, list “inalienable rights” not listed in The Bill of Rights. The Founders acknowledged many rights not enumerated in the Constitution. Your statement is precisely why many Founders did not want a “bill of rights.” They did not want anyone to think they had made a comprehensive list and that anything not on the list would not be a right protected from the federal government. The rights they acknowledged were an extension of the moral fabric that held early American culture together. Yes, Christianity. That an individual even had a “right” was a moral concept unique to Christianity at the time. The Declaration mentions: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitles them…” The Founders claimed a right to be free from the oppressive hand of the British endowed from God. In our system, rights are endowed from God. You atheists should give this another look. Where do your rights come from? Do you even have any?

    **“Does everyone have the “right” to do whatever they feel fulfills them?” Why, yes, as a matter of fact, they do–so long as it doesn’t break the law. That’s what Libertarianism is all about.** You have such a disagreeable way of agreeing with me. So a rapist does not have the right to do what fulfills him. I concur.

    **As for your polemic on ‘justice’, if behaving foolishly and sticking the rest of us with the tab is your major problem, then I assume you lobby for: helmet laws for motorcyclists; mandatory all around air bags in every vehicle; making drinking, smoking, and eating fatty foods illegal; forcing people to walk at least two miles every day. Again, the Nanny State. ** Your assumptions are of course projections. Ride your motorcycle without a helmet for all I care but make sure you are paying your own insurance. Personal responsibility is the antithesis to the Nanny State. And by the way, don’t mandate that my kid’s elementary school teach my kid that it is a perfectly normal, equitable, alternate riding style.

    **‘Justice’, in this instance, lies in extending a legal status (marriage), with all the legal rights and responsibilities now recognized under law for that status, to a class of people who are not currently permitted to participate, especially when this extension would not materially lessen anyone else’s right to participate in that status.** They already enjoy the same rights the rest of us do. They want a new legal precedent to force the rest of society to except the practice of homosexuality as normal and wholesome, including the right to teach my children the same. (This is where the emotion I mentioned above comes in to play.) Like I said above, they want to change societal norms.

  5. Dennis Nagle Says:

    It occurs to me that you have a grave misunderstanding of the nature of homosexuality.

    It is not contagious. You can’t ‘catch’ it from exposure. People don’t choose to be gay, any more than they choose to have red hair. You either are gay, or you are not. The triggers of attraction are automatic and not under your control. If you’re a boob man, you cannot ‘choose’ to be attracted to nice legs instead. If you don’t care for Asian women, you cannot ‘choose’ to be attracted to them even if your friends and neighbors think they’re the hottest thing going.

    If you are not gay, you will not follow a gay ‘lifestyle’. If you are gay, you cannot be prevented from following a gay ‘lifestyle’. Witnessing gays in public acting like gays will not incline anyone to experiment with ‘gayness’ if they are not already predisposed in that direction.

    Homosexuality occurs at a steady rate in human populations, and has from time immemorial. They are always a small proportion of the population, but they are always present. Not talking about them won’t make them go away, any more than not talking about sex will prevent kids from experimenting with it. Allowing gays to marry will not ‘spread’ homosexuality, nor will preventing them from marrying limit its rate of occurance.

    Not allowing gays to marry won’t prevent the spread of AIDS. Allowing them to marry may acutally slow the spread, as marriage presumes monogamy. If two homosexuals marry, and neither are HIV positive, there is no reason to presume that they will ‘inevitably’ develop AIDS if they honor their marriage vows.

    Your fears of some sort of general epidemic of moral depravity ensuing from gays marrying are utterly irrational and based in a complete misunderstanding of the condition.

    On the material side, I challenge you here and now to tell me specifically how gay marriage will harm you or anyone you know.

    Will you be less married, assuming you are?
    Will it disincline you to get married, assuming you are not?
    Will it cost you anything?

    If you can give me one concrete negative consequence to you, Whitehawk, from allowing gays to marry, I will be surprised. If you cannot, then all your arguments are just smoke up my ass.

    The ball’s in your court.

  6. Whitehawk Says:

    **It occurs to me that you have a grave misunderstanding of the nature of homosexuality.** In this statement you have laid bare the foundation of liberalism: The presumption of the other guy’s lack of understanding.

    **It is not contagious. You can’t ‘catch’ it from exposure. People don’t choose to be gay, any more than they choose to have red hair. You either are gay, or you are not. The triggers of attraction are automatic and not under your control. If you’re a boob man, you cannot ‘choose’ to be attracted to nice legs instead. If you don’t care for Asian women, you cannot ‘choose’ to be attracted to them even if your friends and neighbors think they’re the hottest thing going.** Your presumptions here are at best dangerous. To suggest that one has no choice in attraction or behavior is a dangerous line of thinking that I have addressed before on this site. The influences of attraction are complex and manifold and can be modified. (When I first tasted beer I was disgusted. By my sophomore years in college I was a connoisseur.) You are making the case for the rapist who prefers forcible, violent sex with innocent, unsuspecting victims. This line of thinking, if sustained, will undermine civilization itself. So if being gay is not a choice, then it is genetic? Is that what you are saying? If homosexuality is genetic how is that gene passed on if there is no choice in attraction?

    **If you are not gay, you will not follow a gay ‘lifestyle’. If you are gay, you cannot be prevented from following a gay ‘lifestyle’. Witnessing gays in public acting like gays will not incline anyone to experiment with ‘gayness’ if they are not already predisposed in that direction.** Your assumptions are completely wrong. If you think that witnessing gays in public (on TV) being gay has no influence on behavior you are kidding yourself. Corporations are wasting billions in advertising if seeing something portrayed in a favorable light on TV does not influence behavior. Experimentation with and acceptance of homosexuality is the objective.

    **Homosexuality occurs at a steady rate in human populations, and has from time immemorial. They are always a small proportion of the population, but they are always present. Not talking about them won’t make them go away, any more than not talking about sex will prevent kids from experimenting with it. Allowing gays to marry will not ‘spread’ homosexuality, nor will preventing them from marrying limit its rate of occurance.** (First, it is interesting in this context to see you say that people practicing homosexuality are a small proportion of the population.) Every other harmful behavior has been around for time immemorial. The problem that the Christian Right has with the gay activist is the attempt to redefine harmful behavior as normal and wholesome. In the attempt to do so, other institutions will have to be redefined also (marriage). Obviously I do not advocate the “don’t talk about it” strategy you are accusing me of. When it comes to your kids, all topics should be on the table and discussed by THE PARENTS in a proper setting.

    **Not allowing gays to marry won’t prevent the spread of AIDS. Allowing them to marry may acutally slow the spread, as marriage presumes monogamy. If two homosexuals marry, and neither are HIV positive, there is no reason to presume that they will ‘inevitably’ develop AIDS if they honor their marriage vows.** If this were only the case. The nature of the homosexual relationship will prove this a fallacy.

    **Your fears of some sort of general epidemic of moral depravity ensuing from gays marrying are utterly irrational and based in a complete misunderstanding of the condition.** Again, you speak standing on the foundation of liberalism.

    **On the material side, I challenge you here and now to tell me specifically how gay marriage will harm you or anyone you know.
    Will you be less married, assuming you are?
    Will it disincline you to get married, assuming you are not?
    Will it cost you anything?
    If you can give me one concrete negative consequence to you, Whitehawk, from allowing gays to marry, I will be surprised. If you cannot, then all your arguments are just smoke up my ass.
    The ball’s in your court.**

    Dennis, your hypocrisy and condescension are suffocating. Remember, you pulled this blade now I’m going to run you through with it. I challenge you to live by your own axiom. How does my opposition to gay marriage and defense of traditional marriage affect you PERSONALLY one whit. Give me concrete negative consequences to YOU from my opposition to gay marriage and supporting traditional marriage. If you cannot, then all your arguments are just smoke up my backside. Will you be more married? (I happen to remember that you said you were married on another post.) Will it cost you anything?

    According to your own axiom here if it doesn’t harm you “personally”, shut up. But…this only applies to conservative types. You know, only gays and libs have the sacred rite to influence culture. Bologna. Live by your own axiom.

    We both know that the culture we live in and grow up in affects everyone PERSONALLY. It is obviously profoundly important or you would not be wasting your time trying to get me to drop out of the discussion.

  7. Dennis Nagle Says:

    “Your presumptions here are at best dangerous. To suggest that one has no choice in attraction or behavior is a dangerous line of thinking” One has a choice in behavior. One has no choice in attraction. Conflating the two leads to fuzzy thinking. As I used to tell my sons, “You aren’t responsible for what you feel; that happens to you. But you are responsible for what you do about what you feel; that comes from you.” It was said in the context of fighting, but the principle is sound and applicable to this topic.

    “Your assumptions are completely wrong. If you think that witnessing gays in public (on TV) being gay has no influence on behavior you are kidding yourself” My assumptions are based on scientific studies and logic. Influence behaviour? Of course it may. It might lead people to treat gays as human beings instead of some sort of fungus to be scraped off your shoes. But cause people to become gay who otherwise wouldn’t be? No. That can’t happen. As I said, you either are gay, or you’re not. You can’t be ‘influenced’ to ‘change your mind’ on the subject.

    “(First, it is interesting in this context to see you say that people practicing homosexuality are a small proportion of the population.)” Why? It’s a fact. By ‘liberal’ estimates they constitute 10% of the population. By ‘conservative’ estimates, about 2%. I believe the number is somewhere in between, but that’s no matter. Did you think gays were hanging from the rafters just because you watch Glee? (Which is a most annoying program, BTW)

    “”if neither are HIV positive, there is no reason to presume that they will ‘inevitably’ develop AIDS” If this were only the case. The nature of the homosexual relationship will prove this a fallacy.”

    This is, in fact, the case. Show me where my logic is flawed. What is it about the ‘homosexual relationship’ that will inevitably lead to AIDS? You never stated no case for your assumption. And if that is so, it won’t matter if they’re married or not; they will develop AIDS either way (by your reasoning). So there’s no reason not to let them marry.

    “Again, you speak standing on the foundation of liberalism.” Which is not a refutation. Either come up with a counter-argument, or concede.

    “I challenge you to live by your own axiom.” Translation: I can’t think of any way in which I’ll be harmed, so I answer a question with a question.

    I’ll broaden the challenge. Give me a concrete example of how anyone will be harmed by allowing gays to marry. Anyone at all. You cannot.

    If it harms no one, and helps some, then in the interest of justice it should be done. That’s my stand. Prove me wrong.

    Translation: You cannot give me any concrete example of how allowing gays to marry will hurt you. Okay, we’ll broaden the field: Give me a concrete example of how allowing gays to marry will materially hurt anyone. Anyone at all.

    In the meantime, your willful misunderstanding of the nature of homosexuality is serving no good, either to yourself or to the gays you purport to want to ‘help’.

  8. Whitehawk Says:

    **One has a choice in behavior. One has no choice in attraction. Conflating the two leads to fuzzy thinking. As I used to tell my sons, “You aren’t responsible for what you feel; that happens to you. But you are responsible for what you do about what you feel; that comes from you.” It was said in the context of fighting, but the principle is sound and applicable to this topic.** I disagree. Attraction can be initiated or abandoned depending on what you associate with a given “attraction”. Setting attraction aside for a moment, I agree with your statement that just because you feel compelled to do something, doesn’t mean you have to act on it.

    **My assumptions are based on scientific studies and logic. Influence behaviour? Of course it may. It might lead people to treat gays as human beings instead of some sort of fungus to be scraped off your shoes. ** Scientific studies? Logic? Is one of your “assumptions” that I treat someone who practices homosexuality like “some sort of fungus”? If yes, this is a bad assumption not based on logic or science.

    **But cause people to become gay who otherwise wouldn’t be? No. That can’t happen. As I said, you either are gay, or you’re not. You can’t be ‘influenced’ to ‘change your mind’ on the subject.** Have you really thought this through? When does someone become “gay”? Really. After one thought, one encounter, one relationship? Then, according to you, you have to stay in the life style; you’re “gay” for the rest of your life? I know personally someone who was married, had 2 kids then left his wife for a “gay” relationship. Another who left a series of “gay” relationships to marry and have kids. Dennis, this is not as simple as you suppose. If I cheat on my wife (I am married FYI), do I have to continue to cheat on her for the rest of my life? Was I a cheat after the first thought? The first encounter? The first adulterous relationship? If my wife, for some unknown reason, reconciles with me do I have to continue to remain in a cheating lifestyle?

    **“”if neither are HIV positive, there is no reason to presume that they will ‘inevitably’ develop AIDS” If this were only the case. The nature of the homosexual relationship will prove this a fallacy.”
    This is, in fact, the case. Show me where my logic is flawed. What is it about the ‘homosexual relationship’ that will inevitably lead to AIDS? You never stated no case for your assumption. And if that is so, it won’t matter if they’re married or not; they will develop AIDS either way (by your reasoning). So there’s no reason not to let them marry.** Please, share with me how you know this is in fact the case. Gay marriage has not been around long enough or in great enough numbers in the US to make this conclusion. Gay marriage in other countries is not proving this out. The “life partners” that I know personally (about 6 couples) have not been sexually exclusive (they were very vocal about it). It is estimated that up to 60% of “life partner” relationships are not sexually exclusive. Will gay marriage be different? Sexual exclusivity is not the goal of establishing gay marriage. Remember, the objective of gay marriage is to force all of society to accept homosexuality as a normal, healthy alternate lifestyle.

    **Your fears of some sort of general epidemic of moral depravity ensuing from gays marrying are utterly irrational and based in a complete misunderstanding of the condition.— “Again, you speak standing on the foundation of liberalism.” —Which is not a refutation. Either come up with a counter-argument, or concede.** Sorry, I answered this already above. You must have missed it. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/decline.html My reference was to your certainty of my “misunderstanding of the condition,” (the foundation of liberalism being the assurance that the other guy doesn’t understand the situation).

    **“I challenge you to live by your own axiom.” Translation: I can’t think of any way in which I’ll be harmed, so I answer a question with a question.** Oh, this is sweet Dennis. You can’t live by your own rules. Isn’t that called….hypocrisy? Your non-response means you can’t think of ONE reason, NOT ONE REASON why my opposition to gay marriage and support for traditional marriage affects YOU personally. So you really should bow out. Now you are stuck like a bug on a pin and cannot do anything but wiggle and scream. I told you to remember, you pulled the blade first. Now I’ll give you your own ultimatum, give a response (how does my stance on gay marriage harm you personally?) or concede the point.

    To anyone else out there who may be following this thread I want to explain something. Dennis has made a play to shame me into shutting up on the gamble that I could not give one example of how gay marriage would harm me personally. He has not been paying much attention to my posts or has forgotten that he has made this challenge to me before and I have answered IMHO convincingly as to why I should be concerned personally, and so should everyone else who sees homosexuality as immoral. I usually use the word “harmful” rather than immoral to be sensitive to someone practicing homosexuality. I also try to avoid saying things like “he’s gay” (though I am not always consistent) because I have made a long journey personally from being what the Left would call a “homophobe” to someone who has a close family member practicing homosexuality and trying to understand them. The first light that went on for me was that they are not “gay” and only “gay”. They are first of all human beings who like many others, in different ways, who have found a source of pleasure and acceptance in something that is harmful. When you call someone “gay” it is too easy to think of them as “gay” and not a human being first.

    I have been made aware of people, through various organizations like Focus on the Family, who were caught in “the lifestyle” and wanted nothing more than to get out. The labeling of “gay” was a huge barrier to them. They were told wrongly that once gay always gay. To add to their circumstance another level of trappings like “marriage” would be ill advised at best and make the way out, for those who want out, even more difficult. In addition, those like me (and I am aware of many more like me) who believe homosexuality to be harmful or immoral based on religion, nature, or firsthand knowledge will be forced to except AND respect a “legal marriage” we know to be ill conceived.

    Two men who are “married” to each other will one day show up in my church and “request” membership which will force us into hiring legal counsel which we will not be able to afford. By fiat we will, as a church cease to exist or accept “gay’ marriage. If “gay” marriage or civil unions become ensconced in law, further legislation will be passed to keep anyone (including me personally) from teaching that it is harmful or immoral. What is legal cannot be called immoral in the eyes of the government. It will be deemed “hate speech”. Any teaching on biblical marriage will have to be accompanied by teaching on “gay” marriage. My son will be taught “alternate lifestyles” in his public school against my own beliefs and knowledge. And, if the above scenario happens in my church, he may even have it taught to him in Sunday School. If you think this is not possible or I’m being overly dramatic it may surprise you to know this is already happening in Canada. The voices in Canada that would have opposed the legalization of “gay” marriage were shamed into silence by people like Dennis who say they only want equality. Traditional marriage supporters will not be affected, they said, and they said it right up to the point where it became illegal to say that homosexuality is harmful or immoral.

    Further, the following people were personally affected by “gay” marriage. As Dennis stands up to be proxy for those practicing homosexuality and wish to “marry” their partner, I will stand in proxy for these: Peter Vidmar, Carrie Prejean, Rose Marie Belforti and Barbara Macewen.

    The legalization of same-sex marriage will add to these names anyone who dissents from the view that homosexuality is a wholesome, healthy lifestyle on all levels. In mainstreaming a harmful life choice we will, as a nation, put the “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” on a dangerous path.

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

    For more info about how same sex marriage can affect society at large see David Blankenhorn’s “The Future of Marriage”.

  9. Dennis Nagle Says:

    *sigh* We will never find a middle ground on this. When I said that you don’t understand the nature of the condition, I meant just that. Your subsequent posting has confirmed it.

    My position is that being gay is not volunatry. Your position is that it is completely voluntary. Hence your fear that normalizing gay marriage will somehow become to tool to recruit straight people into homosexuality, which is a rational conclusion given your position.

    I contend that such will not be the case, because ‘normal’ straight people cannot ‘choose’ to be gay.

    There was a study conducted among self-described bi-sexuals. Arousal is an autonomic response, not under conscious control. So they wired up these ‘bi-sexuals’ to monitor their body response and exposed them to stimulus in the form of both ‘straight’ porn and ‘gay’ porn. The result was that only a very small percentage of them actually responded positively (experienced arousal) to both stimuli. The majority of them exhibited arousal to either the ‘straight’ porn or the ‘gay’ porn, but not both. The conclusion: No matter what your conscious mind tells you, your body knows and can’t lie. You are either ‘straight’, or you are ‘gay’.

    I’d be happy to dig up the research if I thought it would make any difference, but your mind is already made up so there’s probably no point. So I’m finished with this conversation, except to answer a few points.

    “Then, according to you, you have to stay in the life style; you’re “gay” for the rest of your life?” Gays are gay for life, just as alcoholics are acoholic for life, even if they never drink again. Once can control it, but one cannot ‘cure’ it. You can pretend to be straight for the rest of your life, but you will know you are pretending only.

    “give a response (how does my stance on gay marriage harm you personally?) or concede the point.”

    You continue to avoid the question, as you cannot tell me how allowing gays to marry will harm you, personally. That’s because it will not. None of your rights or priveleges in marriage will be curtailed in any way. Nor will you be forced to pay for them.

    As for your generalized argument that allowing gay marriage will hurt ‘society’, I have the same answer. Permitting inequality under law for any one group jepordizes everyone’s security under law. If we permit one group to be legally discriminated against, then there is no bar to deciding in future that some other group–Christians, let’s say for argument–can be legaly denied equal rights under law. Then where does it end? Either freedom is all-inclusive, or it’s not freedom. See Martin Niemöller’s famous ‘First they came…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came

    “Two men who are “married” to each other will one day show up in my church and “request” membership” This is bullshit. Legal precedent has settled this issue. As a private organization, you are free to deny membership to anyone you please. (Whether it would be Christian to do so is a question you can better answer than I can, since I’m not a Christian, but my understanding of the faith is that it might not be.)

    “If “gay” marriage or civil unions become ensconced in law, further legislation will be passed to keep anyone (including me personally) from teaching that it is harmful or immoral.” Again, bullshit. You can teach morality in any way you choose. Just because discrimination against blacks is illegal doesn’t stop the skinheads from preaching against misogyny with niggers.

    And again, we disagree on this one point: You think allowing gay marriage will sanction and promote being gay. I disagree. I think it will merely be acknowledging reality. Gays exist. They are citizens. They have rights. Some of them want to marry. Most do not. So be it. Those who wish to enter into this legal status should be allowed to do so.

    This is another place where we will just have to agree to disagree.

    The true crux of your opposition, however, is that you don’t want to be subject to social censure for your views. Bigots never do. They want to espouse their position only when it’s easy, when the majority agree. But the fact that your viewpoint may become unpopular is not a justification for denying equal legal status to any given segment of the population.

    “Blessed are you when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you…Rejoice and be glad, for great is your reward in heaven.” Quit whining and start rejoicing.

  10. Whitehawk Says:

    **sigh* We will never find a middle ground on this. When I said that you don’t understand the nature of the condition, I meant just that. Your subsequent posting has confirmed it.** You again assume I don’t know the nature of the condition (Liberalism’s foundation). We will never find middle ground on this as long as you incorrectly assume homosexuality is innocuous, involuntary behavior. We cannot even agree on where we disagree.

    **My position is that being gay is not volunatry. Your position is that it is completely voluntary. Hence your fear that normalizing gay marriage will somehow become to tool to recruit straight people into homosexuality, which is a rational conclusion given your position.** All behavior is “voluntary” as you said so yourself in teaching you kids; “it’s what you do that you are responsible for”. If we have no choice in our behavior then we cannot be held responsible for it.

    **I contend that such will not be the case, because ‘normal’ straight people cannot ‘choose’ to be gay.** I contend that the line gay/straight is not so clear as you presume, that the line is crossed back and forth all the time. That homosexual behavior is harmful and based on self gratification to the point of self destructiveness. I content there are people living the homosexual lifestyle that want out but are considered “gay” and can’t get past the label and struggle, much like your alcoholic analogy below, with the temptation.

    **There was a study conducted among self-described bi-sexuals. Arousal is an autonomic response, not under conscious control. So they wired up these ‘bi-sexuals’ to monitor their body response and exposed them to stimulus in the form of both ‘straight’ porn and ‘gay’ porn. The result was that only a very small percentage of them actually responded positively (experienced arousal) to both stimuli. The majority of them exhibited arousal to either the ‘straight’ porn or the ‘gay’ porn, but not both. The conclusion: No matter what your conscious mind tells you, your body knows and can’t lie. You are either ‘straight’, or you are ‘gay’.** We all have “wiring” for things that can harm us. We can all be tempted with things that are destructive in the long run but that “ring our bell” in terms of pleasure. Doesn’t mean they are not under our control. I know too many people living the “gay” lifestyle that have kids from a previous, traditional marriage, my family member included.

    **I’d be happy to dig up the research if I thought it would make any difference, but your mind is already made up so there’s probably no point. So I’m finished with this conversation, except to answer a few points.** I am not arguing that there is no predisposition to a given “attraction.” What I am arguing is that everyone has this “wiring” and most learn to abandon or control destructive predispositions. Again, the way I see it is that you do not see homosexuality as harmful, self-destructive behavior.

    **“Then, according to you, you have to stay in the life style; you’re “gay” for the rest of your life?” Gays are gay for life, just as alcoholics are acoholic for life, even if they never drink again. Once can control it, but one cannot ‘cure’ it. You can pretend to be straight for the rest of your life, but you will know you are pretending only.** YES. YES. YES. Here you are getting close. Where we disagree (again, as I see it) is whether or not homosexuality is as harmful as alcoholism. Alcoholics are tempted by alcohol and some overcome the temptation to avoid the harms that come with addiction to alcohol. They prefer to be called recovering alcoholics. There is a definite effort to not be alcoholic for good reason. I’m telling you there are people practicing homosexuality with the same feeling toward the practice.- If homosexuality is harmful then why encourage them to harm themselves (and society) by sanctioning gay marriage? It would be the same as a group of alcoholics forming a group to force the government to grant them a special driver’s license to accommodate their drunk driving. Then they would have special protection under the law to drink and drive. You said gays can pretend they are straight? Do alcoholics pretend they are sober?

    “give a response (how does my stance on gay marriage harm you personally?) or concede the point.”

    **You continue to avoid the question, as you cannot tell me how allowing gays to marry will harm you, personally. That’s because it will not. None of your rights or priveleges in marriage will be curtailed in any way. Nor will you be forced to pay for them.** Again you have not responded to my question… see, it works both ways.

    **As for your generalized argument that allowing gay marriage will hurt ‘society’, I have the same answer. Permitting inequality under law for any one group jepordizes everyone’s security under law. If we permit one group to be legally discriminated against, then there is no bar to deciding in future that some other group–Christians, let’s say for argument–can be legaly denied equal rights under law. Then where does it end? Either freedom is all-inclusive, or it’s not freedom. See Martin Niemöller’s famous ‘First they came…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came…** Bull crap. It is not a matter of “will hurt”. Homosexuality HAS hurt society and calling it marriage will only embed the source of damage in law. I’m sure Martin Niemoller would agree with me, homosexuality is a group designated by a harmful behavior, not an ethnic or religious group. And to compare the opposition to gay marriage to Nazi oppression is ridiculous at best. The Nazi’s forced people out of their jobs (Carrie Prejean). Attacked their businesses (Hands On Originals) and brought them up on false charges (http://www.gazette.com/articles/hate-90658-crime-warned.html) Look, everyone has the same rights under the law. Nobody is being denied any rights as far as homosexuals are concerned. What is being sought here is a new right to redefine marriage. An ill advised venture at best. It’s anyone speaking out against homosexuality or gay marriage that should be concerned with Nazi-like oppression and hatred. Good grief.

    **“Two men who are “married” to each other will one day show up in my church and “request” membership” This is bullshit. Legal precedent has settled this issue. As a private organization, you are free to deny membership to anyone you please. (Whether it would be Christian to do so is a question you can better answer than I can, since I’m not a Christian, but my understanding of the faith is that it might not be.)** (Everyone is welcome at our church. Everyone. But members must agree to the codes of conduct and live by them.) It really does not matter if the matter has been “settled in court” or not Dennis. It won’t stop legal action by gay activist groups that will put small churches out of business. Hands On Origins did not have “legal defense for declining a job with a gay activist group” in their budget. Who knows if they will make it through the legal battle they are facing.

    **And again, we disagree on this one point: You think allowing gay marriage will sanction and promote being gay. I disagree. I think it will merely be acknowledging reality. Gays exist. They are citizens. They have rights. Some of them want to marry. Most do not. So be it. Those who wish to enter into this legal status should be allowed to do so.** So you don’t think the discussion of the gay lifestyle in grade school will influence anyone to try homosexuality or consider it. I don’t buy it. Once again, why would you teach alcoholism as a perfectly normal, wholesome lifestyle? And yes, they have the same rights you and I both have but they cannot redefine marriage as we have known it for centuries. No one has that right without a referendum. So far the referendum has said no thank you. (Gays exist? Really? Come on man!)

    This is another place where we will just have to agree to disagree.

    **The true crux of your opposition, however, is that you don’t want to be subject to social censure for your views. Bigots never do. They want to espouse their position only when it’s easy, when the majority agree. But the fact that your viewpoint may become unpopular is not a justification for denying equal legal status to any given segment of the population. ** See, we can’t even agree on where we disagree. I don’t want to be subject to social censure for my views so I’m a bigot. So it is ok to censure YOU socially, is that what you are saying, because you are not a bigot? Well, Dennis, if you’re not a bigot then stop posting consider yourself censured. This is ludicrous. Do you even see your condescension and hypocrisy here??? I would contend that my view is unpopular and I’m still holding my ground. And what you suggest is NOT the crux of my opposition. That was simply how this issue affects me personally. The crux of my opposition is that homosexuality is harmful by nature and should not be encouraged or given special status in law in the same way alcoholics should not be given special drivers licenses to accommodation their self-destructive behavior. Definition of bigot: : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. Sorry. I don’t qualify.

    **“Blessed are you when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you…Rejoice and be glad, for great is your reward in heaven.” Quit whining and start rejoicing.** Who says I am not rejoicing? If what I’m doing is whining then you stop whining first.

  11. Whitehawk Says:

    Only a liberal would propose to change the fundamental structure of society to include an inherently harmful behavior and expect no ill effects from the change.

    Only a liberal would (on the erroneous presumption that fundamental changes to societal structure won’t have personal effects on everyone) demand you “prove” that his influence on society will affect you personally and yet be utterly bankrupt of reasons how your influence on society will affect him personally.

    Only a liberal would accuse those who stand for traditional American values (the ones that where the back bone of the America that defeated Nazism) of being Nazi-like.

    This is where we are folks.