The American Mind

As long as Republicans insist on politicizing people’s private behavior, people have a right to turn the technique back on them.

The first commenter on that patterico blog nails it:

“I have little sympathy with people who simultaneously (a) are gay and (b) publically denounce gay people as a class for political purposes.

I have more sympathy for gay people who are closeted, but wish that they would find the personal courage to stop being closeted; in this culture, I think keeping being gay a secret is a sign of personal weakness.

But I have *zero* sympathy for this type of political outing. Someone’s decision to remain closeted should remain their decision. Senator Craig’s sex life, until it crosses into the illegal, is none of my business.”

In the meantime, you know how you take away the “outing” tactic as a cynical political tool? Stop treating homosexuality like an abberration or “less valid” than heterosexuality. Treat it as equal and then no one will care.

By the way, according to that article, i’m an internet addict too. Posting here while i’m at work’s proof of that, i’m sure. *twitch*

“As long as Republicans insist on politicizing people’s private behavior, people have a right to turn the technique back on them”

Republicans don’t insist on and never have insisted on politicizing anyone’s private behavior.

Of course, you need to be more specific about what you are whining about Chet before I can comment effectively.

But, the Gay Marriage debate has nothing to do with politicising homosexual’s way of life. It has everything to do with keeping the integrity of marriage intact as well as sustaining the Traditional, American, Customs in our society.

Homosexuals are treated equal in America as Heterosexuals.

There are some isolated incidents where somebody is mistreated for being Gay/Lesbian. However, there are isolated incidents where Gays/Lesbians mistreat Heterosexual as well.

The truth is that as long as we have the LAWS in the books for victims to utilize in their defense of an unjust, it makes no sense to pretend that we live in a backwards society.

We actually live in a society miles ahead of any other on the planet.

Republicans don’t want to damage or hurt another’s way of life. They just want to preserve their own from being damaged or hurt.

There’s no weakness in a homosexual refusing to “out” themselves publicly, especially as public officials in the public eye.

Rather, it is a choice. It is a choice that most heterosexuals make.

Heterosexuals don’t parade around the streets announcing how “hetero” they are.

*****NEWS BULLETIN: President Bush is a Heterosexual. He likes women!********

It’s absurd.

I think Liberals are only beginning to realize that Homosexuals that are Republican/Conservative behave much differently than Liberal Homosexuals do.

Liberals (some) take offense to this different behavior of keeping one’s orientation closeted as a sign of weakness or lack of courage. That is far from the truth. It’s a sign of strength and courage to be yourself in the face of countless LGBT organizations imposing their views on all LGBTs that all LGBTs must act, behave, talk, and vote the same.

“Republicans don’t insist on and never have insisted on politicizing anyone’s private behavior.”

Nonsense. Republicans impeached a President for his private behavior. Nobody’s as obsessed with private behavior as you busybody moralist Republicans always seem to be. Most states in the South are regulating the possession of sex toys. And you’ll never hear Republicans whine so loudly as when the idea of legalizing pot - even if only for medical use - is raised.

You people are obssessed with the private, Jeff. It’s hilarious of you to try to deny it.

“Homosexuals are treated equal in America as Heterosexuals.”

Then why don’t the homosexuals feel that way? You’re hardly in a position to judge the equality of heterosexuals, especially if your position is “homosexuals can marry people of the opposite sex, too.” The simple truth is that a marriage of convinience between an avowed homosexual and someone else can be voided by the state - or by any third party who cares to challenge it. Not only is your position a ridiculous canard, a word-game - it’s not even true on its face. Being gay is enough to dissolve your hetero marriage as well as deny you a gay marriage.

“It has everything to do with keeping the integrity of marriage intact as well as sustaining the Traditional, American, Customs in our society.”

I don’t think Republicans, after suspending habeas corpus, have any business claiming to uphold American traditions.

“They just want to preserve their own from being damaged or hurt.”

If they could figure out a way to do that that didn’t require stamping on the rights of others, we’d be ok with it. But the way of life Republicans are whining about is a way of life where they demand the right to oppress others. They simply can’t be allowed to live that way.

OK, let’s go over the funny piece by piece here.

“Republicans don’t insist on and never have insisted on politicizing anyone’s private behavior.”

That’s bullshit and you know it. Well, you probably don’t know it because of your refusal to step outside your limited worldview and see things from a different perspective.

Republicans have made careers out of using sex and people’s private lives to manipulate voters and politicize issues. You want examples?

-Conservatives *decried* the supereme court decision to strike down anti-sodomy laws as unconstitutional. Check this out, from Patrick Buchanan’s website:

http://www.theamericancause.org/patsantorumbeforetheinquisition.htm

Santorum: “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to have consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

What?!? Mind you–Santorum is speaking out against the right to engage in any kind of *consentual sex* between *consenting adults* in the *privacy of your own home.* How is that not politicizing private bahavior?

-The Gay Marriage Amendment is all about politicizing private behavior! In fact, i maintain that your contention that this amendment is about “protecting the sancity of marriage” is grossly naive. It’s a cynical ploy by Republicans to fire up the evangelical base in order to make sure they don’t sit out these elections. Wisconsin has it on the ballot because Republicans know they’re going to need every vote they can get out the door to unseat Jim Doyle, as the always-tight polls suggest.

Don’t believe that the government would cynically exploit people’s religious beliefs? Ask evangelical conservative David Kuo. He put out a book you may have recently heard about:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15292065/site/newsweek/

“the Gay Marriage debate has nothing to do with politicising homosexual’s way of life. It has everything to do with keeping the integrity of marriage intact”

Then why isn’t divorce in danger of being outlawed? Ask Newt Gingrich about the sanctity of his, what, three marriages now? He sure takes his vows seriously, eh?

“Heterosexuals don’t parade around the streets announcing how “hetero” they are.”

Horseshit. Think about it, Jeff. Every time you walk down the street holding hands with a woman, you are announcing your heterosexuality. When you kiss your girlfriend hello on the street, you are declaring you are straight. Every time you engage in locker-room “man, i’d like to hit that” talk with other guys about the hot girl in accounting, you’re flaunting your heterosexuality. Whenever a gay person tries to do something just as innocent, such as merely holding hands with their partner in public, what do they hear? “Look, keep it in the bedroom; i don’t wanna see it.”

Think i’m lying? Ask my friends. I have a gay friend that was *berated* by his family for daring to slow dance with his partner at a family wedding. A SLOW DANCE! What the fuck!

Step outside yourself for a second and step into a gay person’s shoes, Jeff, and think about how the smallest expression of affection for someone of the same sex is looked down on by people and seen as “gross.” If you don’t believe it still happens, get out of your room and see the world, for pete’s sake. Sexuality and sexual orientation permeates our society more than you care to admit and more than most of us realize until we REALLY sit and think about it.

Testing. Testing. My last post was “submitted for moderation? and not immediately posted. Was that because i swore?

Let’s see what happens if i G-Rate my last post (sorry Sean, looks like your new system has some interesting new features i didn’t know about):

OK, let’s go over the funny piece by piece here.

“Republicans don’t insist on and never have insisted on politicizing anyone’s private behavior.”

That’s BS and you know it. Well, you probably don’t know it because of your refusal to step outside your limited worldview and see things from a different perspective.

Republicans have made careers out of using sex and people’s private lives to manipulate voters and politicize issues. You want examples?

-Conservatives *decried* the supereme court decision to strike down anti-sodomy laws as unconstitutional. Check this out, from Patrick Buchanan’s website:

http://www.theamericancause.org/patsantorumbeforetheinquisition.htm

Santorum: “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to have consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

What?!? Mind you–Santorum is speaking out against the right to engage in any kind of *consentual sex* between *consenting adults* in the *privacy of your own home.* How is that not politicizing private bahavior?

-The Gay Marriage Amendment is all about politicizing private behavior! In fact, i maintain that your contention that this amendment is about “protecting the sanctity of marriage” is grossly naive. It’s a cynical ploy by Republicans to fire up the evangelical base in order to make sure they don’t sit out these elections. Wisconsin has it on the ballot because Republicans know they’re going to need every vote they can get out the door to unseat Jim Doyle, as the always-tight polls suggest.

Don’t believe that the government would cynically exploit people’s religious beliefs? Ask evangelical conservative David Kuo. He put out a book you may have recently heard about:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15292065/site/newsweek/

“the Gay Marriage debate has nothing to do with politicising homosexual’s way of life. It has everything to do with keeping the integrity of marriage intact”

Then why isn’t divorce in danger of being outlawed? Ask Newt Gingrich about the sanctity of his, what, three marriages now? He sure takes his vows seriously, eh?

“Heterosexuals don’t parade around the streets announcing how “hetero” they are.”

BS. Think about it, Jeff. Every time you walk down the street holding hands with a woman, you are announcing your heterosexuality. When you kiss your girlfriend hello on the street, you are declaring you are straight. Every time you engage in locker-room “man, i’d like to hit that” talk with other guys about the hot girl in accounting, you’re flaunting your heterosexuality. Whenever a gay person tries to do something just as innocent, such as merely holding hands with their partner in public, what do they hear? “Look, keep it in the bedroom; i don’t wanna see it.”

Think i’m lying? Ask my friends. I have a gay friend that was *berated* by his family for daring to slow dance with his partner at a family wedding. A SLOW DANCE! What the heck!

Step outside yourself for a second and step into a gay person’s shoes, Jeff, and think about how the smallest expression of affection for someone of the same sex is looked down on by people and seen as “gross.” If you don’t believe it still happens, get out of your room and see the world, for pete’s sake. Sexuality and sexual orientation permeates our society more than you care to admit and more than most of us realize until we REALLY sit and think about it.

Let’s see what happens if i G-Rate my last post and take out the URLs (sorry Sean, looks like your new system has some interesting new features i didn’t know about):

OK, let’s go over the funny piece by piece here.

“Republicans don’t insist on and never have insisted on politicizing anyone’s private behavior.”

That’s BS and you know it. Well, you probably don’t know it because of your refusal to step outside your limited worldview and see things from a different perspective.

Republicans have made careers out of using sex and people’s private lives to manipulate voters and politicize issues. You want examples?

-Conservatives *decried* the supereme court decision to strike down anti-sodomy laws as unconstitutional. Check this out, from Patrick Buchanan’s website, The American Cause:

Santorum: “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to have consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

What?!? Mind you–Santorum is speaking out against the right to engage in any kind of *consentual sex* between *consenting adults* in the *privacy of your own home.* How is that not politicizing private bahavior?

-The Gay Marriage Amendment is all about politicizing private behavior! In fact, i maintain that your contention that this amendment is about “protecting the sanctity of marriage” is grossly naive. It’s a cynical ploy by Republicans to fire up the evangelical base in order to make sure they don’t sit out these elections. Wisconsin has it on the ballot because Republicans know they’re going to need every vote they can get out the door to unseat Jim Doyle, as the always-tight polls suggest.

Don’t believe that the government would cynically exploit people’s religious beliefs? Ask evangelical conservative David Kuo. He put out a book you may have recently heard about.

“the Gay Marriage debate has nothing to do with politicising homosexual’s way of life. It has everything to do with keeping the integrity of marriage intact”

Then why isn’t divorce in danger of being outlawed? Ask Newt Gingrich about the sanctity of his, what, three marriages now? He sure takes his vows seriously, eh?

“Heterosexuals don’t parade around the streets announcing how “hetero” they are.”

BS. Think about it, Jeff. Every time you walk down the street holding hands with a woman, you are announcing your heterosexuality. When you kiss your girlfriend hello on the street, you are declaring you are straight. Every time you engage in locker-room “man, i’d like to hit that” talk with other guys about the hot girl in accounting, you’re flaunting your heterosexuality. Whenever a gay person tries to do something just as innocent, such as merely holding hands with their partner in public, what do they hear? “Look, keep it in the bedroom; i don’t wanna see it.”

Think i’m lying? Ask my friends. I have a gay friend that was *berated* by his family for daring to slow dance with his partner at a family wedding. A SLOW DANCE! What the heck!

Step outside yourself for a second and step into a gay person’s shoes, Jeff, and think about how the smallest expression of affection for someone of the same sex is looked down on by people and seen as “gross.” If you don’t believe it still happens, get out of your room and see the world, for pete’s sake. Sexuality and sexual orientation permeates our society more than you care to admit and more than most of us realize until we REALLY sit and think about it.

Aha! That was it. Sean, apparently one can’t post a url in a comment without it being “subject to moderation.” Part of your spam filter, i’m guessing?

Apologies for all the extra posts.

DJ, one of criteria for going into the moderation queue is more than one link in a post. I don’t think there’s any cursing filters, but I hope this doesn’t mean f-bombs will be flying left and right. If that means Dick Cheney won’t come here anymore, so be it.

Um, so, if you want to go ahead and delete the second and third versions of that post, feel free. *sheepish look*

Chet wrote,

“Nonsense. Republicans impeached a President for his private behavior.”

WRONG!!!

He was impeached for lying under oath.

President Clinton did not lose his BAR status for having sex. He lost his BAR status as a lawyer for lying under oath.

As long as you liberals keep twisting logic so regularly and distorting history so vigorously, it really is tiresome to debate with you.

” Nobody’s as obsessed with private behavior as you busybody moralist Republicans always seem to be. Most states in the South are regulating the possession of sex toys. ”

States in South regulating Sex Toys?

Can you be more specific and provide a LINK to this?

If I am not mistaken not all southern states have Republican Governors (e.g.)

“And you’ll never hear Republicans whine so loudly as when the idea of legalizing pot - even if only for medical use - is raised.”

That has nothing to do with politicizing private behavior.

POT Smoking is far from a “private behavior” issue, especially when a POT smoker gets behind the wheel of a Car and endangers the lives of others.

I’ve seen POT smokers and the way they suddenly behave erratic and completely out of their minds due to the level of POT they smoke.

Drugs impacts other people’s lives, not just the PRIVATE person’s life.

There’s nothing PRIVATE about any Drug related issues.

POT has no business being legalized.

Medical reasons or otherwise… You Liberals want POT Smokers to grow POT and then “pretend” it’s for medical reasons.

POT is a HIGHLY addictive drug due to THP.

POT makes people want to get even higher as over the long term this addictive drug’s high starts to lesson.

I’ve experienced many POT Smokers casually smoke POT and then months later start talking about desperately needing higher drugs like Cocaine, Heroine, or Ecstasy.

POT Smokers that get off of the POT addiction (are very, very, lucky when they manage to do it on their own) have told me endlessly how grateful and relieved they are to be rid of the drug.

POT smoking is a bad drug for many reasons… It causes erratic behavior which can turn into fights, attitude changes, mood swings and so on.

To suggest POT Smoking for medical uses is a good enough of an excuse to outright Legalize this drug… This is completely irresponsible for the potential dangers…

People don’t intentionally abuse POT in excess… POT abuses People who intentionally smoke it just once.

Just one puff and you are more likely than not to become an excessive POT smoking fiend.

So give me a break.

And “having morals” is not only the common sense thing to have, it’s the American way.

DJ wrote,

“Republicans have made careers out of using sex and people’s private lives to manipulate voters and politicize issues. You want examples?

-Conservatives *decried* the supereme court decision to strike down anti-sodomy laws as unconstitutional. Check this out, from Patrick Buchanan’s website, The American Cause:”

Nice try but the concerns there were not PRIVATE concerns in nature as seen in the quote you gave.

The Concerns are that legalizing Sodomy could lead to cases where Sodomy happens (even with 2 consented Adults), that is indeed a criminal act of 1 having sex against the will of another.

If a 16 year old Boy, exposed to abuse as early as 12(but no one knows he was exposed to abuse as early as 12), says the sex with the 30+ year old man was consentual.

I mean there clearly, can easily, be a case where a 16 year old is traumatized enough in his life that he consents to sexual abuse with another Adult in the form of SODOMY and in fact it was consentual….

In fact the boy’s lying because he’s still in FEAR of the 30+ year old Man.

Republicans are not about DICTATING private behavior as you both wish they were about.

Republicans are merely concerned about protecting victims from possible crimes.

In The Quote you gave, it suggests Sodomy could lead to other things which also carry criminal considerations.

No one is saying two gay people of age 26-30, consenting to sex and having sex, should be politicized here.

Rather.. What is being said is the instance of a Teen Ager being sexually abused and having that become LEGALIZED because SODOMY is now legal.

“The Gay Marriage Amendment is all about politicizing private behavior! In fact, i maintain that your contention that this amendment is about “protecting the sanctity of marriage” is grossly naive. It’s a cynical ploy by Republicans to fire up the evangelical base in order to make sure they don’t sit out these elections. ”

Sorry DJ. I am a staunch Conservative and Republican Voter.

I’ve delt with the Gay Marriage issue for over a decade! I’ve debated and researched and argued both sides of the argument.

What it comes down to is this:

1) Marriage = Between a Man and a Woman as written in the Holy Bible and as society in America and elsewhere has treated it for Centuries.

2) Marriage = Giving Birth and raising a family.

YES… Not all marriages result in children.

But, the purpose of Marriage is to keep the integrity of Child Rearing through a stronger, legal, bond between couples.

Legalization of Marriage is a type of BOND.

This BOND holds plenty of obligations and implications in the rule of law and in society.

A Married Couple should have an easier time adopting a child than a Single Woman or a Single Man.

It’s simple. There’s an existing legal bond present for the purposes of protecting the future “Family.”

That’s how American Society has lived since the nation’s birth.

To throw open the doors that somehow MARRIAGE is meaningless as a BOND for child rearing and raising a family is what scares the daylights out of those who oppose Gay Marriage.

It has nothing to do with dictating whether or not Gays and Lesbians should be allowed to BOND.

If that were the case, then we wouldn’t see Republican Party Members supporting Civil Unions.

Most Anti-Gay Marriage proponents that vote Republican are not opposed to providing EQUAL benefits under a “Civil Union.”

Why would that be if the intent was to politicize private behavior?

Correcction to the above.

I meant to say most that I’ve spoken with.

“BS. Think about it, Jeff. Every time you walk down the street holding hands with a woman, you are announcing your heterosexuality. When you kiss your girlfriend hello on the street, you are declaring you are straight. Every time you engage in locker-room “man, i’d like to hit that” talk with other guys about the hot girl in accounting, you’re flaunting your heterosexuality. Whenever a gay person tries to do something just as innocent, such as merely holding hands with their partner in public, what do they hear? “Look, keep it in the bedroom; i don’t wanna see it.””

DJ, I am talking about “proclamations” here not mere hand holding or kissing.

First of all, Gays and Lesbians hand hold and what not just as often as heterosexuals do in my experience here in Michigan. Maybe Wisconsin’s different… Blame that on your Liberal Governor.

The fact of the matter is that LGBT organizations go around College Campuses Painting, Drawing, Bill Boarding their Sexual Orientation.

It is the POLITICIZING of their sexual orientation that is the behavior I am speaking about.

Heterosexuals do not politicize their sexual behavior.

My example previously was.

****NEWS BULLETIN: President Bush likes Women *****

We don’t see any Heterosexual Politicizing of Sexual behavior at all!

It just isn’t how people in American Society behave normally.

LGBT organizations, however, make it a big deal and peer pressure other LGBTs to make it a big deal to BILL BOARD their way of life everywhere.

It seems to me that Conservative LGBTs that do not wish to engage in the kinds of things that College Campus Liberal LGBTs do, they are left out in the cold.

They are mistreated by Liberal LGBTs because they disagree with LGBT organizations policitizing their sexual orientation as much as they do.

Another example is when an LGBT organization spokesperson says to the audience of LGBTs,

“Do not go out and Vote in this election because neither side supports us.”

It’s a flat out statement made as if its fact and usually made because of the Gay Marriage issue.

Not all LGBTs believe in Gay Marriage, though. This tottaly ignores the presence of any other opposing opinion from an LGBT.

It’s like Conservative LGBTs are simply invisible to the LIBERALS in society.

And as long as that continues, we will continue to see Liberals playing “Sick Games” of Outing LGBTs like they did Mark Foley and etc.

FYI: Al Gore opposes Gay Marriage.

See Presidential Debates between Al Gore versus President Bush.

Why should i care about what Al Gore thinks about Gay Marriage? How is that relevent?

“WRONG!!!

He was impeached for lying under oath.”

I love this line of reasoning. He lied under oath because he was being asked about an affair he had during an investigation of something else entirely to which the affair was irrelevent.

“The Concerns are that legalizing Sodomy could lead to cases where Sodomy happens (even with 2 consented Adults), that is indeed a criminal act of 1 having sex against the will of another.”

Um…what? This logic makes no sense. Are you saying that if sodomy is illegal, people are less likely to rape people in ways other than male/female vaginal sex? How much sense does that make?

(And be aware that anti-sodomy laws do not just outlaw homosexual sex…they outlaw oral sex, hetero anal sex…basically anything that’s not traditional vaginal sex. Look it up.)

Your logic makes no sense whatsoever, and if that really *is* the logic behind those laws (which i doubt…those laws are a relic from a much more puritan and backward age), it just shows how out of touch and ignorant the Republicans who fought against their repeal is.

Outlawing sex will not deter rape any more than outlawing drugs deters drug use. (And by the way, your opinions on pot smoking are completely backward and ridiculous. I can’t even start to poke holes on all the fallacies and half-truths you’re spewing up there.)

“No one is saying two gay people of age 26-30, consenting to sex and having sex, should be politicized here.

Rather.. What is being said is the instance of a Teen Ager being sexually abused and having that become LEGALIZED because SODOMY is now legal.”

You are wrong. Look up anti-sodomy laws and anti-rape laws. Sodomy = any kind of sex, consentual or otherwise, that is not traditional vaginal sex. Rape = Non-consentual sex.

Rape and sexual assaut are illegal regardless of what kind of sex it is. If a 33-year-old man forces a 16-year-old to blow him, it’s still rape and it’s still illegal because anti-rape laws will always stay on the books. You’re talking ignorant gibberish.

“Marriage = Between a Man and a Woman as written in the Holy Bible and as society in America and elsewhere has treated it for Centuries.”

The Holy Bible should be irrelevent in a society where Church and State are separated. Period. The idea that human morality comes from God is erroneous.

“A Married Couple should have an easier time adopting a child than a Single Woman or a Single Man.”

That’s ridiculous. By that logic an abusive married couple is more fit to adopt that a functional single parent. Your train of thought is stuck in the 1800s. (And don’t tell me that adoption agencies are so great at filtering out unfit parents. They’re not.)

Also, your unspoken assumption that straight married couples are better parents than gay parents is also erroneous, backward, and ignorant. You’ve said here before that you think kids raised by gay parents are more likely to be gay. Yeah, right…because every gay person in America had gay parents. Sure.

There are no statistics to back up any of this ignorant crap you’re spewing. It’s all conjecture.

“To throw open the doors that somehow MARRIAGE is meaningless as a BOND for child rearing and raising a family is what scares the daylights out of those who oppose Gay Marriage.”

Again, this is all rooted in the Bible. The Bible introduced the idea of marriage strictly as a child-rearing mechanism, and WE LIVE IN A SECULAR COUNTRY. Look, i’m sorry that not everyone agrees with your contention that Christianity is superior to everything else and should define the laws of our country, but that’s the beauty of the First Amendment.

“Most Anti-Gay Marriage proponents that vote Republican are not opposed to providing EQUAL benefits under a “Civil Union.””

Again, this is misleading. The Wisconsin Gay Marriage Amendment will also invalidate civil unions due to its wording. Granted, i have heard people like Charle Sykes say that they don’t support the amendment because of that, but why is it worded like that in the first place? Hrm?

“DJ, I am talking about “proclamations” here not mere hand holding or kissing.”

Any my point is that hand holding and kissing IS a proclamation. I guarantee you that for every gay person in Michigan who holds hands and kisses in public there’s some homophobe somewhere who wishes they would “keep it in the bedroom.”

Jeff, your attitudes are backward and dangerous. I strongly suggest you get out of your room and make some gay friends and ask them deep, probing questions about how they live their lives. You may be surprised at what they say.

I’m a republican and I’m not against the legalization of pot…

“I’m a republican and I’m not against the legalization of pot…”

It’s definitely a less dangerous drug than alcohol. There are no studies that prove it’s physically addicting at all (most people that claim to be “addicted” to pot are probably in severe need of NA and therapy as they have highly addictive personalities), and when’s the last time you heard of someone going through pot withdrawal?

But, since anyone and everyone can grow it and smoke it without buying it from the store, i doubt RJ Reynolds could make much money off it, so i’m sure we won’t see it legalized anytime soon (yes, i’ve been listening to lots of Bill Hicks lately).

Dj wrote,

“Why should i care about what Al Gore thinks about Gay Marriage? How is that relevent?”

That was directed more at CHET than you.

CHET’s statement,

“As long as Republicans insist on politicizing people’s private behavior, people have a right to turn the technique back on them. ”

Above… His statement clearly indicates that CHET thinks only REPUBLICANS are guilty of politicizing private behavior.

I just wanted to make it clear to CHET that he’s wrong and that issues like “Gay Marriage” defy Political Party affiliation.

There may be more Democrats than Republicans in support of Gay Marriage by Percentage population.

But the number of liberals who are against Gay Marriage is of sufficient number to warrant correcting CHET’s statement.

CHET seems to want to believe DEMOCRATS are of a pure 1 track mind on issues and REPUBLICANS are of a pure 1 track opposing mindset.

I think it would be smarter for CHET to start using terms like “Liberal” and “Conservative” instead of merely “Republican” and “Democrat.”

Less confusing.

DJ wrote,

“It’s (–editor “POT”) definitely a less dangerous drug than alcohol. There are no studies that prove it’s physically addicting at all (most people that claim to be “addicted” to pot are probably in severe need of NA and therapy as they have highly addictive personalities), and when’s the last time you heard of someone going through pot withdrawal?”

Everyone I knew that smoked POT (and I knew about a dozen plus) all went through POT withdrawal.

I can even drop names if you want me to, but I don’t think these people are internet searchable… So, it’s not like you can contact them and verify my statements.

But, POT smokers are addicts and they have massive cravings.

Back in my College Days in the year 2002-2003 (Senior Year) at Eastern Mich University…

I played Magic the Gathering with a bunch of POT Smokers.

There conversations have more often than not been about their struggles to get off of POT.

They mention getting off of POT for about 1 month and then going through a massive CRAVING and ending up back on POT.

Some have tried to get off the POT quite a number of times only to be back on it.

Out of all the POT smokers I met, easily over a baker’s dozen, only ONE that I knew was able to get off the POT on his own.

However, it seemed that he started BINGE ALCHOL drinking like never before as (what I saw) was a replacement of the POT cravings.

There’s plenty of evidence that shows that ALCOHOL acts as a replacement to POT Smokers…. POT Smokers use it to get HIGH when they don’t want to get high anymore off of POT.

One such POT smoker mentioned that he keeps trading off between Beer Binge Drinking until he’s drunk…. To Pot Smoking until he’s as high as he can get.

It is interesting to note that they don’t tend to MIX the alcohol drinking with the POT smoking at the same time. Rather they drink Alcohol one night, POT smoke the next.

I am not sure if this applies to all POT smokers, but it did to the ones I knew.

There’s a lot of scientific studies done proving that THP is addicting.

POT never used to have THP in it back in the 1950s/60’s. THP is the drug in POT that is not only addicting, but it creates the hallucinatory high.

One POT Smoker (eventually craving stronger drugs) got so HIGH off POT that he was completely out of his mind, floating on cloud nine.

He spoke in a slower tone of voice saying, “I’m a philosopher… I’m a deep thinker…” And other such nonsense. He wasn’t make any sense at all, nothing really coherrant.

He moved around very slowly and was basically completely out of it.

All of that… based on nothing more than POT smoking.

“Matt wrote:

I’m a republican and I’m not against the legalization of pot… ”

So? That says nothing about whether or not there exists “Conservatives” that are not against the legalization of POT.

As I remember from your previous posts, you seem to be a JOHN McCain, “Liberal,” Republican.

You sir are not a Conservative Republican on many of the issues you’ve discussed, including this one.

More Conservatives support a ban on POT.

Anyone that has exposure to POT smokers (over 13) as I have had in recent history would also be against POT.

Seeing what POT does to people, relationships, personal and public safety/security/health, and so on….

It is *shocking* to me how few people really know what POT smoking is about.

DJ wrote,

“Um…what? This logic makes no sense. Are you saying that if sodomy is illegal, people are less likely to rape people in ways other than male/female vaginal sex? How much sense does that make?”

No.. What I am saying is that it makes it MUCH MORE DIFFICULT (if not impossible) to prosecute someone for SODOMY against the will of another when SODOMY is legalized and the “other” in my previous example post is a 16 year old teenager having been abused and scared into lying about the sex being consentual.

I thought my post was perfectly clear on that.
It is funny how you misinterpret me and then ridicule your false intepretation of my words.

“your opinions on pot smoking are completely backward and ridiculous. I can’t even start to poke holes on all the fallacies and half-truths you’re spewing up there.)”

*Shrug* These aren’t my opinions. What I said comes straight out of the Mouthes of POT Smokers themselves.

They’ve all attested and agreed that POT smoking is addicting and highly difficult to get off of.

They’ve all agreed that they go through withdrawals.

Well.. There’s 1 exception…

There was a POT Smoker that smoked POT casually… Smoked it only a Few times on the Weekend.

This POT smoker claimed he was not addicted to POT and could quit anytime.

However, given his behavior in bringing up his POT smoking habit to me as often as he did and other such strange behavior…. I believe he was lying to himself and me.

“No one is saying two gay people of age 26-30, consenting to sex and having sex, should be politicized here.

Rather.. What is being said is the instance of a Teen Ager being sexually abused and having that become LEGALIZED because SODOMY is now legal.”

DJ wrote,

“You are wrong. Look up anti-sodomy laws and anti-rape laws. Sodomy = any kind of sex, consentual or otherwise, that is not traditional vaginal sex. Rape = Non-consentual sex.”

Of course the laws say that. It is rather meaningless to bring that up because it doesn’t affect my argument in the least.

There’s plenty of horror stories to go around concerning “non-traditional sex” being done against the will of a teen whose so traumatized that he LIES and PROTECTS the criminal from prosecution!

“Rape and sexual assaut are illegal regardless of what kind of sex it is. If a 33-year-old man forces a 16-year-old to blow him, it’s still rape and it’s still illegal because anti-rape laws will always stay on the books. You’re talking ignorant gibberish.”

No I am not. You are just too SIMPLE MINDED to get it, so I give up.

RAPE may be illegal but it requires a set of guidelines to prosecute.

It’s tough to prosecute an incident of rape if its consentual.

Yet.. if that consentual sex is of a non-traditional form, such as homosexual sex, in nature… Then it would bring up alarm bells for those relatives of the teenager involved.

And to attempt to push a case that the teenager is lying about it being consentual and that the type of sex was forced…

It’s difficult when virtually all sex acts of any kind have been legalized.

What he used Hand Cuffs?

Sorry that’s legal.

What he used a Stick?

Sorry… It’s legal.

What? It’s homo sexual in nature?

Sorry.. Legal..

A lot of cases are going to be boiled down to “He said, she said” now that its legalized.

“Marriage = Between a Man and a Woman as written in the Holy Bible and as society in America and elsewhere has treated it for Centuries.”

DJ wrote,

“The Holy Bible should be irrelevent in a society where Church and State are separated. Period. The idea that human morality comes from God is erroneous.”

I completely agree DJ.

America is not such a society, though, that believes in Separation of Church and State.

Politicians are allowed to exercise FAITH and have RELIGION.

Congressional volunteer Prayers are conducted regularly by a Chaplain.

Praying and Religious Chaplain in the Military exist for all or nearly all represented religions.

Our Money says, “In God we Trust.”

We say “One Nation, Under God, Indivisible with liberty and justice for all”

In our nation’s pledge of allegiance.

“The Creator” is mentioned multiple times in the Declaration of Indpendance.

Some Public Schools are slowly heading towards allowing Volunteer, Group, Prayer in Sporting events like football games.

Religious Symbols on Public Property is legal as long as all religions are represented within the community.

America has NEVER been a nation that separates CHURCH from STATE.

President BUSH conducts Bible Readinges and Prayers in the White House.

Politicians (Democrats included) go to Church to campaign.

DJ wrote,

“That’s ridiculous. By that logic an abusive married couple is more fit to adopt that a functional single parent.”

NOPE! No one that is abusive is more able to adopt than one that is not abusive.

Rather.. a Married Couple has higher standing than a SINGLE person.

This is as it should be for protecting children from RAPISTS who want to Adopt a victim.

” Your train of thought is stuck in the 1800s. (And don’t tell me that adoption agencies are so great at filtering out unfit parents. They’re not.)”

I never told you that….

But I will say that they should be “great” at filtering bad parents. They should conduct background checks.

They should do all the things necessary to filter bad parents.

There will always be room for improvement!

DJ wrote,

“Also, your unspoken assumption that straight married couples are better parents than gay parents is also erroneous, backward, and ignorant.”

I never made that statement.

In fact, I said that a CIVIL UNION deserves equal benefits with a MARRIAGE.

I stand by that. This means that gays who are CIVIL UNITED deserve the same treatment as Married Couples in the adoptions process.

” You’ve said here before that you think kids raised by gay parents are more likely to be gay. Yeah, right…because every gay person in America had gay parents. Sure. ”

NO! I never said that.

What I remember saying was that…

Gay Parents with Adopted Children will more often than not expose the Adopted Child to LGBTs more often than Straights, despite the child being straight.

I said that a Straight Child doesn’t get the extensive exposure and attention from Straights in a family with Gay Parents, because Gay Parents will have Gay Friends.

LGBTs tend to stick together. Straights make friends mostly with straights. Gays make friends mostly with Gays…

So, there is an issue regarding Gay Parents adopting a Child…

One thing is for sure, there exists Help Groups for adopted children dealing with tribulations related to being raised by Gay Parents (such as being made fun of and bullied by Straight Kids at school for having Gay parents).

DJ wrote,
“There are no statistics to back up any of this ignorant crap you’re spewing. It’s all conjecture.”

Well.. I am confused about what you want me to prove to you DJ.

You have misinterpreted everything I’ve said and everything I believe in.

I am not going to present statistics backing up what YOU THINK, I THINK.

However, I can provide statistics to back up what I *actually* think. But, you need to tell me specifically what you disagree with and want statistics for.

Jeff, your opinions on homosexuality all can be traced to the root belief that you think being straight is somehow superior or more desireable than being gay. Everything you say has that subtext. Example:

“Gay Parents with Adopted Children will more often than not expose the Adopted Child to LGBTs more often than Straights, despite the child being straight.”

You say this as if it’s a bad thing. Who’s to say it is? And hey, let’s see some statistics for that, by the way.

Re: all your anecdotes regarding people trying to get off pot–none of that anecdotal evidence speaks to a physically addictive quality to THC (what the hell is THP?). Cravings can easily be a mental thing. Give me some evidence of a heavy pot smoker going through severe detox–shakes, fever, etc. I’ll bet you can’t.

As for this nonsense:

“No.. What I am saying is that it makes it MUCH MORE DIFFICULT (if not impossible) to prosecute someone for SODOMY against the will of another when SODOMY is legalized and the “other” in my previous example post is a 16 year old teenager having been abused and scared into lying about the sex being consentual.”

This is completely ridiculous. By this logic, we should outlaw pre-marital sex because it would be easier to prosecute those rapists too. Of course, then that wouldn’t make it easier to prosecute a husband who rapes his wife, so how do we solve that dilemma? Your logic is completely messed up.

P.S. On a childish note, i would like to point out that you played Magic: The Gathering with potheads.

[nelson muntz voice]
HA HA!
[/nelson muntz voice]

NERD!

DJ Wrote,

“Jeff, your opinions on homosexuality all can be traced to the root belief that you think being straight is somehow superior or more desireable than being gay. Everything you say has that subtext. Example:

“Gay Parents with Adopted Children will more often than not expose the Adopted Child to LGBTs more often than Straights, despite the child being straight.”

You say this as if it’s a bad thing. Who’s to say it is? And hey, let’s see some statistics for that, by the way.”

1) You are WRONG! As usual!

I have NOT said that Straights are superior to Gays.

I do NOT believe Straights are superior to Gays.

I believe they every human being on the planet, Gay or Straight, is created equal by our Creator as it is written in the Holy Bible, and as it is writtin the Declaration of Independance that is one of our (America’s) founding documents!

2) IT IS a bad thing as there are organizations built to help straight kids with Gay Parents.

Look.

How does it make sense to introduce a GAY child to nothing but straight people? How is that GAY child to grow up and eventually find a mate?

If its NOT GOOD to expose a Gay Child to nothing but Straights….

Then it is NOT GOOD to expose a straight child to GAYS.

Now.. You ask me for statistics on this….

1) I have previously posted a Detroit News Article on this topic several months ago, and I am sorry that your “memory” fails you:

http://www.clearahead.com/colage.nsf/6c9d94ba96d3a79785256d390065d968/a84aa3890ecaa42b8525716900516d00?OpenDocument

The article above provides a pretty clear picture of what I am talking about.

Much of what you read in that article, I’ve said.

That article references in hits bibliography the following source material:

1. 1.Patterson CJ: Children of the lesbian baby boom: Behavioral adjustment, self-concept, and sex-role identity, in Greene B, Herek
2. 2. Benkov L:Reinventing the Family. New York, Crown Publications, 1994
5. 5. Bigner JJ, Jacobsen RB: The value of children to gay and heterosexual fathers. J Homosexual 1989;18:163
6. 6. Bigner JJ, Jacobsen RB: Parenting behaviors of homosexual and heterosexual fathers. J Homosexual1989;18:173
7. 7. Bozett FW: Gay fathers: A review of the literature. J Homosexual 1989;18:137
8. 8. Bozett FW: Gay and Lesbian Parents. New York, Praeger, 1987
9. 9.Patterson CJ: Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Dev 1992;63:1025
11. 11. Tasker FL, Golombok S: Growing Up in a Lesbian Family: Effects on Child Development. New York, Guilford Press, 1997
12. 12.Golombok S, Spencer A, Rutter M: Children in lesbian and single-parent households: Psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal. J Child Psychol Psychiatry1983;24:551
13. 13. Green R, Mandel JB, Hotvedt ME, et al: Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparison with solo parent heterosexual mothers and their children. Arch Sex Behav 1986;15:167
16. 16. Flaks DK, Ficher I, Masterpasqua F, et al: Lesbians choosing motherhood: A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their children. Dev Psychol 1995;31:105
17. 17. Steckel A: Psychosocial development of children of lesbian mothers, in Sozett FW (ed): Gay and Lesbian Parents.New York, Praeger Publications, 1987

Any single text listed above (I deleted all of the other reference texts as they are off-topic) are texts I highly recommend that you go to a library and spend 15 minutes skimming through.

You really only need to pick up and skim for 10-15 minutes one of the texts.

But.. my premise is that a Straight Child is better off with Straight Parents..

A (Gay) child is better off with Gay Parents.

A (Lesbian) child is better off with Lesbian Parents.

and etc.

It just makes sense that when you have parents and their children with the same sexual oriantation (daughter -> Mother) (Son –> Father) that life for them is better due to the exposure of like sexual orientated people and environment.

This does not suggest AT ALL that one type of Parents is better than the other. NOT AT ALL!

Use your head! for the love of God.

I thought Liberals were supposed to be “Nuanced.”

Thanks, i’ll go ahead and read those.

My question to you then:

If “a Straight Child is better off with Straight Parents..

A (Gay) child is better off with Gay Parents.

A (Lesbian) child is better off with Lesbian Parents.”

…Then how do we deal with gay kids born into straight homes?

And i’m not sure how you can actually espouse this belief and then say gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married. That makes no sense to me.

Clarification.

I am not suggesting “either” that there’s no such thing as exceptions.

In life there are exceptions to everything.

If a set of GAY Parents, just so happen to have a large amount of STRAIGHT friends and Relatives….

If these GAY parents expose their Children to a healthy environment where they can learn about and explore their sexual orientation with like minded individuals…

Like “cooler talk” among co-workers about a sexy intern (what-ever).

Then…Fine.. I would expect that the Gay Parents are able to raise Straight Children just as effectively as Straight Parents.

This does not take away from the fact that we still live in a society that Stigmatizes kids with Gay Parents (though).

So.. You have to realize that there are Societal problems….

There’s even Location problems.

If a Gay lives in a bad location where a lot of bullying and stigmatizing goes on against homosexual behavior (such as the city of Detroit), then the location for these types of problems could be quite dangerous for the child.

You raise a Straight child in a city where there’s mostly Gays/Lesbians who despise Straight People… Then the same type of stigmatizing will occur, and the same type of danger.

It’s rather simple…

It’s really about what you are exposing the child too. These things have to be considered by Adoption Clinics.

DJ wrote,

“Then how do we deal with gay kids born into straight homes?

And i’m not sure how you can actually espouse this belief and then say gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married. That makes no sense to me. ”

Gay/Lesbian kids born with Straight Parents require that the Straight Parents expose the Gay/Lesbian kids to other Gays/Lesbians.

It’s like this…

In my Small High School, we had 1 (pretty confident of this) just 1 Gay person.

If there were any other Gay kids in my High School they did not “come out.”

That GAY person was not exposed to any other GAYs and it did result in some stigmatizing and some problems.

And certainly there were some “immaturity” and “under-developed” issues.. Simply because the Gay kid was not getting enough exposure to those of the same mind set.

Now imagine that Gay person goes to College and joins an LGBT organization.

WAM! That gay kid is finally exposed to others who are Gay and is able to communicate with others who share the same perspective, same sexual orientation.

I mean…

Most of these LGBT organizations act and feel an awful lot like a Alcoholics Anonymous club, only in the sense that they sit around and discuss all of the “Trials” and “tribulations” they had to deal with while growing up.

Some LGBTs share stories that are clearly heart wrenching about what they went through.

It is obvious to me that these LGBTs could have had a better child hood under a better environment.

Bleh..

Just in case anyone’s wondering why I know so much about LGBT organizations..

I know quite a bit because I had a friend who was GAY and he encouraged me to attend a meeting to see what the LGBT organization was about.

So… Being as inquisitive as I am, I went to the organization and asked a bunch of questions.

It is clear to me that environment plays a role in child development and that should play a major role with an Adoption Agency and with Parents who want to raise their kids with a different sexual orientation.

OK, wait a minute.

I just read that entire article and read nothing that supports your contention that gay kids are better off with gay parents, straight kids are better off with straight parents, and so on. Seriously, i’m confused now. Please help. I just see stuff like this:

“Many empirical studies have found no significant differences between children raised in a household of gay, lesbian, or heterosexual parents with respect to emotional and social adaptation, self-esteem, gender identity, sexual behavior, or sexual orientation.”

I’m seriously asking you here. How does this article back up your contention? And how does this support the idea that gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married? The article seems to point more in the direction of legitimized homosexual relationships as beneficial to children regardless of the children’s orientation.

I know you said you are fine with “civil unions,” but why do you not want them to be able to get married? Apparently treating gays as second-class citizens is not good for their kids according to this article that you posted, so where are you going with this? Are you saying gays should get civil unions and straight people should get marriage? Separate but equal?

Or are you suggesting that marriage should be taken out of the hands of the state and be only a church-based thing, leaving “civil unions” as a government recognition of any kind of domestic partnership? Because i’d be cool with that.

Jeff,

Everything you just said in your last two posts seems like common sense to me. Obviously environment is a large component of upbringing, and obviously a child should be exposed to a melting pot of people while growing up: straight, gay, bi, black, white, etc.

Heck, i have a sister who is bisexual and lives in a threesome relationship where the three people (two girls, one guy) are raising my sister’s daughter. They have tons of different kinds of friends–gay, straight, black, white (heck, technically dad is straight and the moms are bi, so there you go). She’s not going to have any difficulty meeting different kinds of people. So I’m coming into this discussion with plenty of anecdotal knowhow as well.

It actually seems like you’re making more sense as this thread goes on and you keep clarifying yourself.

But i’m still confused. If you have no problem with differing familial units, why do you have a problem with gays being recognized as married?

Dj wrote,

“If you have no problem with differing familial units, why do you have a problem with gays being recognized as married? ”

Well, I do have some concerns about Gays/Lesbians raising straight kids…

And Straight Parents raising Lesbian/Gay kids…

If they do not expose them to a healthy environment.

The article I showed you, says this:

“During early and middle adolescence, when issues of identity and belonging are so central for all children, the notion that their family is structurally different from those of the majority of their peers and the mysteries surrounding its creation often result in further distress. As always, if parents and children have been successful in maintaining open communications about issues that concern them, these predictable developmental challenges (and others more unique) will be weathered successfully.”

These difficult developmental challenges?

Well of course they are challenges!!

There is stigmatization with straight kids having Gay/Lesbian Parents…

And there is problems in some cases where kids are not getting the approrpiate exposure and healthy environment with like minded sexual orientated people when they are an adolescent.

The article I gave you makes a point that it is during adolescence where the child starts to run into social problems…. It is then that they start to recognize implications of having different sexually orientated parents from other children.

But simply put…

GAY MARRIAGE

NO! It doesn’t make sense.

There’s no possible Biological Family Bond.

I feel the Biological Family Bond, which can only exist among Straights, is something that Marriage was defined as and set up as!

Historically, traditionally, it is customary that the preferred family is one where there are 2 parents (Mother and Father) raising their BIOLOGICAL children.

There are FEWER “developmental challenges” within this type of family. Therefore…

I oppose Gay Marriage because Gays… When they bond…

They bond into what is known as a

NON-BIOLOGICAL Family.

And it is best defined as a CIVIL UNION.

If my concerns are seen as nothing more than “language” then fine.

So be it.

I am upset over changing the definition of “marriage” in the English Dictionary..

Just as I get upset when I see,
“Getting Jiggy With It” in an English Dictionary.

“Well, I do have some concerns about Gays/Lesbians raising straight kids…

And Straight Parents raising Lesbian/Gay kids…

If they do not expose them to a healthy environment.”

Well, i mean…duh. You may as well say “i have issues with children being raised in an unhealthy environment.” Kids grow up in unhealthy environments all the time, be it straight kids with straight parents, gay kids with straight parents, whatever. Making sure the parents, no matter what their orientation, are able to deal with issues regarding sex and sexuality is of paramount importance as a child enters adolescence. We agree on this. The article you cited tells me nothing that i didn’t already know–that social acceptance of homosexuality has more to do with how it affects a kid’s upbringing than the actual orientation of the parents themselves. We agree! We’re just speaking two different languages, i think.

“There is stigmatization with straight kids having Gay/Lesbian Parents…”

Right. And we both seem to agree that that stigmatization is unfair. But that takes me back to the post i made (three times, oops) about the societal double-standards that gay people put up with (people not accepting innocent PDAs by gay couples on the street, etc.).

Treating homosexual couples as equals in every way to straight couples would send a strong message to society at large that the stigma is unfair. In a few generations, that stigma would be gone, or at least lessened, and children wouldn’t have to deal with it. See?

There are two ways we can, as a nation, say that gay couples are the equal to straight couples:

1) Legalize gay marriage, with all the same benefits as straight couples

2) Eliminate national recognition of marriage, leaving it to the churches, and only recognize civil unions (between couples of any gender) with regard to benefits, visitation rights, etc.

I’m fine with either of these options. The stigma will go away the sooner our society in all aspects says “we are all equal.” You seem to agree that gays and straights are equal, so where’s the problem?

“There’s no possible Biological Family Bond.

I feel the Biological Family Bond, which can only exist among Straights, is something that Marriage was defined as and set up as!”

Even if i were to concede this, there are plenty of ways to ensure a bond. Obviously there is the option of surrogate parenting, in which case one member of the couple donates their sperm or egg. No, both parents aren’t biologically related, but today, how much does that really matter? I can rattle off a laundry list of friends and relatives who have step-parents that are closer to them and have more of a bond with them than their biological parent ever did. I really think that the important factor here is that the kid is raised in a loving household, regardless of biology.

But, you’re concerned and think a biological bond is important. OK. I respect that. However, is the concern with having two biological parents so strong that it outweighs taking steps to eliminate that social stigma against homosexuality that gay children have to face every day of their lives?

Which do you really think causes more harm to a gay teenager–the social stigma surrounding gay people, or the chance that one of his parents (no matter if it’s a gay or straight couple) might not be the biological parent?

By your logic, you seem to think that it’s preferable to have, for example, both the biological mother and father rather than, say, the mother and a step-father (allowing that in all other areas, both men are fully functional–not abusive, etc.). OK, i will grant you that maybe there’s something to that. But i posit that the difference in upbringing (especially remembering the article you posted) is minute compared to the stigma that gay child will be subjected to vs. the more accepting and tolerant environment a gesture like the legalization of gay marriage could help foster. If you ask me, the benefits of legitimizing gay marriages (or eliminating marriagge from the government vernacular and returning it to the church) FAR outweighs the small drawbacks that come from having one parent that’s not biologically related to the child (which happens all the time in straight couples today as it is!).

Dj wrote,

“There are two ways we can, as a nation, say that gay couples are the equal to straight couples:

1) Legalize gay marriage, with all the same benefits as straight couples

2) Eliminate national recognition of marriage, leaving it to the churches, and only recognize civil unions (between couples of any gender) with regard to benefits, visitation rights, etc.

I’m fine with either of these options. ”

I am not fine with either of those options.

I am perfectly fine with CIVIL UNIONS as that is exactly what a Gay/Lesbian bond is.

There is no PROCREATION and so therefore it makes no sense to call it Marriage.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.
It’s been that way forever and forever it shall be.

Why? Because Gays/Lesbians can’t produce a biological family bond.

That disqualifies them from the definition, meaning, and legality of Marriage.

And to suggest that we get rid of the legality of Marriage in order to “appease” the liberal, LGBT, protesters is absurd.

As I said before there are conservative LGBTs who are also against Gay Marriage.

It doesn’t do anyone good to punish people (married couples) when they didn’t do anything to deserve being punished.

As long as Civil Unions and Marriages have the same benefits, there should be no complaints from either side.

“Gays/Lesbians can’t produce a biological family bond.

That disqualifies them from the definition, meaning, and legality of Marriage.”

Please find me a law on the books where procreation is a requirement of marriage. I mean, other than The Bible, which doesn’t count anyway.

“Please find me a law on the books where procreation is a requirement of marriage. I mean, other than The Bible, which doesn’t count anyway. ”

First of all.. It’s State Law and not Federal Law that decides and determines these things.

So, I can’t speak for Wisconsin’s state law..

But, Michigan just past a ballot initiative last election which put in its constitution that “Marriage is between a man and a woman”

Which outright disqualifies Gays/Lesbians from marriage.

Also…

Besides the Holy Bible establishing Marriage as an insitutional bond between a MAN and a WOMAN….

There’s the simple, iron clad fact, that that’s the way it’s been in Society here in America since her (our nation’s) birth.

Totally flushing down the toilet all of this historical, customary, traditional way of life here in America….. Because you see a ridiculous WRONG where there isn’t one…

It’s absurd!!!

The vast majority of Americans have stood by the customary practice that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman.

I don’t understand what’s so earth shakingly horrifying for Gays and Lesbian bonds to be called “civil unions” which they most certainly are.

If I were to say that I should called an “African American” despite the fact that I don’t have any African American blood in me…

Do you honestly think I will receive Protected Class Clause / Affirmative Action benefits?

Do you think that people can just Re-Define who they are on a whim?

Do you think that makes sense?

I don’t.

You (liberals) preach endlessly about the need for equality by re-defining Marriage for Gays and Lesbians.

How about you stop being a hypocrit and support getting rid of Affirmative Action so we can have Equality among Races and Genders?

“But, Michigan just past a ballot initiative last election which put in its constitution that “Marriage is between a man and a woman”

Which outright disqualifies Gays/Lesbians from marriage. ”

Right. I was asking about any sort of legal precedent that indicated the ability to procreate as a requirement for the recognition of a marriage.

I mean, sure, that would disquality infertile couples and women who wanted to marry later in life after menopause, but…

Look. You’re holding onto an antiquated definition of what makes a functional family unit. You think a biological bond is critically important. I don’t. There’s our impasse.

When have i ever said anything about Affirmative Action on this blog? Drop the straw man argument, dude, and stick to the topic at hand.

Dj wrote,

“Look. You’re holding onto an antiquated definition of what makes a functional family unit.”

See! That’s the problem right there.

You feel the need that customs and traditions and so on can “expire.”

I don’t have that kind of belief system.

If it’s a custom, if it’s tradition, and especially if it’s one that doesn’t hurt anyone, then that should never “expire.”

Traditional Values never get antiquated. They don’t.

It doesn’t make a lick of sense!

And I answered your question about laws in the books requiring procreation as marriage in the sense that only a MAN married to a WOMAN can procreate.

There’s no procreation in Gay or Lesbian bonds. None!

And to marginalize the significance of a biological family, is shameful.

Bleh.. I’m through with this topic IMHO and will not post anything more on it.

Bleh Ok I spoke too soon.

Just want to comment on

“When have i ever said anything about Affirmative Action on this blog? Drop the straw man argument, dude, and stick to the topic at hand. ”

A) I have stuck to the topic by coming up with yet another reason I don’t support Gay Marriage, which is that I believe in Equality.

And

B) I highly doubt you support getting rid of Affirmative Action, being that you are the extremist leftist on this web blog here.

We wouldn’t be engaged in so many dang debates if you were a walking, talking, breathing, conservative.

I can assume the heck out of your belief system just fine because I completely understand the entire MAKEUP of a liberal lefty and recite thousands of beliefs that represent that ideology.

I would strongly caution you against ever assuming you know anything about me, or about anyone, dude.

An ass out of you and me, and all that.

“If it’s a custom, if it’s tradition, and especially if it’s one that doesn’t hurt anyone, then that should never “expire.””

Just because something is old, doesn’t mean that it’s good. Slavery was a tradition, once.

“And I answered your question about laws in the books requiring procreation as marriage in the sense that only a MAN married to a WOMAN can procreate.”

Uh-huh. Then where do all the out-of-wedlock children come from, dumbass?

You’re astoundingly ignorant, Jeff. Absolutely muddle-headed on every single issue.