When Getting What You Want is the Most Important Thing
May 24th, 2008 at 09:40am Mark Noonan
Then you will be pleased with the result regardless of how it is achieved. Gay Patriot seems very pleased with the recent California Supreme Court ruling overturning California law regarding what makes a marriage - and seems doubly pleased by this article noting that, ultimately, it has been Republicans who appointed the Justice who made it all possible. But there is this part of the article which is very disturbing for anyone who claims any sort of conservative world view, as Gay Patriot does - and so I hope I’ve misinterpreted Gay Patriot’s views, but here goes:
Schwarzenegger probably understood well the political culture of the judicial appointments when he vetoed gay-marriage bills in 2005 and 2007. “Schwarzenegger obviously sat down and thought it through,” says Darry Sragow, a Democratic political strategist. “[The vetoes] may have been a clever way to get around his party.”
Schwarzenegger has consistently stuck to one political line: He would never sign a gay-marriage bill that would overturn the voters’ will on Proposition 22, which defines marriage as a formal union between one man and one woman, and he would abide by the courts’ rulings if that ballot measure were found unconstitutional. State Democrats still attempted to force his hand, but Schwarzenegger refused to be outmaneuvered.
“I was certainly disappointed [in 2007],” says Assemblyman Mark Leno, who twice introduced the same-sex-marriage bill. “Here was a historic chance to embrace equality, and the governor failed us a second time.”
By 2007, though, it was becoming clear that gay-marriage lawsuits would almost certainly be headed for the California State Supreme Court. Schwarzenegger, who could not be reached for comment, may have waited for things to play out in the state’s highest court, as Darry Sragow suggests, knowing that at least a majority of the judges were social moderates with an old-fashioned Republican/libertarian streak — the kind of mindset that believes government should stay out of people’s pocketbooks and bedrooms.
According to Republican strategist Arnold Steinberg, this scenario isn’t all that hard to believe. “Schwarzenegger was always a closet (no pun intended) supporter of gay marriage,” writes Steinberg in an e-mail to the Weekly. “So he was probably happy to have an excuse to at least stay neutral, or, now, to actually oppose the November ballot measure.”
On the day of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Schwarzenegger released this statement: “I respect the court’s decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
What respect I had for Schwarzenegger is completely gone, if this is the actual scenario (and it does ring true). If you think that gay marriage should be legal, you should just come right out and say that - to do a political dance about it with a mind towards allowing un-elected judges to get you off the political hook is cowardice…and, also, destructive of our form of government. And that is what is so disturbing about someone as smart as Gay Patriot being pleased here…I can understand a person being happy his side won, but it should be kept in mind that what the Courth hath given, the Court may taketh away…meaning that if one Justice is later replaced by someone of a different view, then a new case on this issue could result in an exactly opposite ruling. No, the only sure way to enshrine something in American law is to go through the proper, constitutional procedures for modifying the law…to have four judges decide for everyone else is to trust tyranny to give you what you can’t get from the people. I’d rather trust the people, thanks very much.
This now will go before the people, and the gay marriage advocates are quite certain of defeating the ballot initiative to overturn this judicial usurpation - and they may be right. California is a pretty liberal State…on the other hand, I also know plenty of otherwise liberal people who are opposed to gay marriage. Call it what you will, but there seems to be an inherent distrust amongst the people for the very concept of two people of the same sex getting married. If, as I expect, the ballot initiative wins, then where will the advocates of gay marriage in California be? Behind the 8 ball - having to not just argue their case, but also go through the very long and difficult process of first repealing this initiative before they can get anything else done. The ‘hip hip hooray’ of May is foolhardy - and I do believe that the underlying conservative impulse of the American majority - even in California - is going to smack this down quite hard.
In the end, one either believes in America and its way of life, or one doesn’t - if one believes, then one has to accept the whole kit and kaboodle, including especially those parts least liked. To me, gay marriage is an absurdity - a pure negation of what marriage is for (it isn’t for love, dear people; neither is it for tax breaks…love and tax breaks are benefits of marriage, not the reasons for having it). I’ll fight against it - but I’ll also lay down a marker: just as soon as gay marriage advocates start advocating a ban on no-fault divorce, then I’ll start considering a modification of my position towards theirs. My brief, you see, is to strengthen marriage and family…and if I can get a bit of that by graciously giving in to an odd request or two, I’ll do it. On the other hand, I know I’m quite safe here…because gay rights people, for the most part, are of the left and thus will never, ever contemplate any action which actually makes people live up to their promise.
Meanwhile, those advocates of gay marriage who care at all about America should be outraged by this judicial usurpation - they can, of course, in good conscience fight against the November initiative to overturn, but they should also be demanding that the Court reverse itself, and leave it to the people to decide when the current California laws regarding marriage should be modified, and how.
UPDATE: Apology is due - Gay Patriot let me know that his view is in opposition to the judicial usurpation:
Mark — you actually did misrepresent my view of the California decision. Both myself and my co-blogger (CA resident, Dan) oppose judicial fiat against the will of the people.
I only posted the article you referenced as a way to piss off the liberal gays who constantly trash Republicans and label them as “bigots” because they oppose marriage.
I am delighted that I’m an idiot vis a vis Gay Patriot’s position - I’ve long respected him as a fellow American, blogger, thinker and conservative. I offer my heartfelt and complete apology, and my promise in future to get off the lazy duff and actually ask for clarification before I jump to conclusions.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Justice System, Life Issues, Popular Culture, Social Issues
75 Comments
1. neocon | May 24th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Seeing as though liberals are very concerned about our world image and trying to find the reasons why Muslims hate us so much, how do you suppose gay marriage will be viewed in the Muslim world?
Will they support it or oppose it? And shouldn’t we ask them for their opinion?
2. neocon | May 24th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I really do think we should ask the Muslim world about this gay marriage thing. I don’t want them to get mad at us again.
Right SAR?
3. Eric T | May 24th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Neocon-
I work with alot of Arabs and you’d be suprised at how conservative they are. Many of them lived in Europe for a while. They said they like it much better here in the U.S. Many talked about how in France, every channel on the T.V is porn, people having sex in the parks when they take the kids out to the park.
I think just about every religion, disagrees with the idea of gay marriage. This is really about people wanting health coverage, they want to be able to marry into wealth then get a divorce and take half of their stuff, when they get sick of each others shit. (no pun intended)
4. What? | May 24th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
So Mark,
What is marriage for?
5. Mark Noonan | May 24th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
what,
It is the fundamental building block of our Judeo-Christian civilization…it is the first step in the formation of family, and it is families which are the prime force in transmitting our civilization to the next generaion.
6. neocon | May 24th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
What?,
You said the following in an earlier post:
“Ending terrorism requires winning the hearts and minds of nations that act as terrorist breeding grounds.” - What?
Now, what if the “terrorist” nations vociferously oppose gay marriage, which they do, and would look upon the US with more disdain then they already do because of that?
Would you support gay marriage? And could that be considered one reason why they hate us?
7. Pain | May 24th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
3. Eric T | May 24th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Curiously, Eric T you just descibed the demise of about 54% of all opposite sex marriage.
6. neocon | May 24th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Do Muslims hate America because of the American way of life, or because America is a Liberal nation that allows gay marriage. If Islam is your fascist enemy is it not you duty to enact all laws to oppose and infuriate them?
Would you have gay marriage overturned in California to appease al Qaeda????
8. What? | May 24th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
So Mark,
Why don’t you have kids? Shouldn’t your wife be popping out babies? Taking your thinking to the logical end, people who don’t want kids or cannot have kids should not be allowed to marry.
Also, gay couples can adopt children or hire a surrogate mother or undergo artificial insemination. So they can raise families.
Also, marriage is not a Judeo-Chrisitian invention. It has existed in all cultures.
Keep trying.
Neocon, I’ll take care of you later.
9. What? | May 24th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Also,
Mark please delete Neocon’s recent comments (#75) on your recent post The Democrat’s Anti-War Views . You should not allow profanity on this site.
10. Mark Noonan | May 24th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
what,
We are open to the gift of life - as much as middle aged people can be.
At any rate, that is not what is at issue here, but whether or not gay marriage advocates should be pleased with this judicial usurpation.
11. neocon | May 24th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Pain,
Don’t we need to understand why they hate us???? Isn’t that important?
I wouldn’t know what I would do about gay marriage until I consulted with the Muslims. And isn’t the American way of life about supporting gay marriage and equal rights for all? Would they hate us for that?
“Neocon, I’ll take care of you later.” - What?
Please do baby. I knew you always wanted me.
12. neocon | May 24th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
“Mark please delete Neocon’s recent comments (#75) on your recent post..” - Pain
Did that offend you honey? I didn’t realize you were so sensitive. I’ll use KY next time.
13. bongoman | May 24th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
I’m sure they hate us a hell of a lot more for invading their countries, killing their people and projecting our imperial desire over their part of the world than our domestic arrangements.
Get a grip.
14. Pain | May 24th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
And this bunch wanted to create a permanent majority in Congress? They need to be able to all tell the same lie effectively first.
15. bongoman | May 24th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Love is not the reason for getting married? Lost me there.
16. neocon | May 24th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
“They need to be able to all tell the same lie effectively first.” - Pain
Do you mean like this lie?
“….if we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody was a good student of Government would know that wasn’t true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts…and people ate it up.”
bongo,
knocking up your girlfriend is the reason to get married bongo. At least in Pains family.
17. neocon | May 24th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Did the KY help with your sensitivity Pain?
18. Mark Noonan | May 24th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
bongoman,
Once you figure out what love is - and where it actually comes from - you’ll understand better. That giddy feeling you get some times around either a new person in your life or, from time to time, when you look at your spouse and your mind harkens back to those first days together? That isn’t love. Love isn’t mushy - love is hard as diamonds, and far more durable…you don’t “fall in love”; not in a real sense…you build love, over time.
19. bongoman | May 24th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Don’t patronise me - I’m happily married with two kids and the quality of my relationship with my wife is supremely important to me.
But heck, I married her because I loved her, and maintaining a loving connection between us is the ‘work’ of our relationship.
20. Pain | May 24th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
16. neocon | May 24th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Works for Us just as efectively as this: [asked by ABC's Martha Raddatz how that assessment comports with recent polls that show about two-thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq is not worth it] Cheney replied, “So?”
Politicians are skilled and crafty liars the truest measure is not political honesty but political harm that is done.
21. Jeremiah | May 24th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
At any rate, that is not what is at issue here, but whether or not gay marriage advocates should be pleased with this judicial usurpation.–Mark Noonan.
Sure enough, Mark, they don’t care….they don’t give one ioda about the truth. That is their initiative….and not only that, but they want to make a scene of it. They’ve lost control of their thoughts and reason.
And the Judges? Oh well, They’re more than glad to interpret the Constitution any way they see fit…but the thing is, they’re not reading the Constitution…it’s just their opinion and not a word of it in the Constitution, not one word.
This country’s in a shape.
22. Eric T | May 24th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
On this topic All three candidates have given the typical politican response to not step on toes. They all said “I’m for marraige between a man and a woman” but then say “Its a states issue” leaving the possibility open for it.
Being on both sides of issues is the standard for the left. But by being passive and moderate on this issue will have terrible end results, what happened in California with judges overturning the will of the voters, and forcing their will on a majority that disagrees. This will happen in all states with liberal judges. Even if 95% of the people disapprove of the rulings. This will open a mess of problems for people moving from state to state, non-gay marriage states will be pressured to accept the marriages and it will forced to become the norm.
Abe Lincoln seen the states splitting up and demanded that they stay Unified as one country and something as morally wrong as slavery must not be permitted in the U.S. Realizing that at times it is necessary to have Stronger Federal Power as opposed to individual state powers. Staying in the same vein, Mike Huckabee had the leadership skills to take a stand and propose a Federal Marriage Amendment to prevent judges from smearing feces all over the will of the people and the sacraments of marriage.
There really is no moderate answer. Your either for it or against it. By ignoring it your allowing, The liberal judges to have their way to make it the law of the land. In a few years it will be widespread across the country.
In my opionion, this will bring damnation on our country. It also shows how the liberal power has no regard for the will of the people.
23. Eric T | May 24th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
I don’t understand why the left makes such a big deal about peoples sexual preference. It seems to be one of their big issues.
How come my sexual preference is not a concern? If I’m a leg man, or like big breasted woman, or blondes, why don’t the leftists start passing some laws that promote what I like.
24. Jeremiah | May 24th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
On this topic All three candidates have given the typical politican response to not step on toes
Absolutlely right, Eric T.
They have no spine, no will to defend, and deathly afraid to offend.
We need somebody who has their feet on solid ground….
Oh well, we had that person…..too late now.
Just a little closer to civil war every day, one day at a time….but, maybe Jesus will come back before it get’s too bad, and good people won’t have to suffer.
25. What? | May 24th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Mark writes
“At any rate, that is not what is at issue here, but whether or not gay marriage advocates should be pleased with this judicial usurpation.”
Total. Cop. out.
26. Eric T | May 24th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Jeremiah
The worst part is that,It is a pretty large majority against it. But that is not a concern, spreading liberalism will be done at all costs, and
A few wimpy, limpwristed, unmanly leftists will force their preverse views on a nation. No one has the courage to stand up for what is right and stop it.
27. What? | May 24th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Neocon,
I am a little saddened that you have suddenly tried to debate me. You seem more at home with your insults.
First,
You assume terrorists hate us because we (most of us) do not stone gays.
I would ask you to prove terrorist hate us because of our tolerance of homosexuality.
Bin Laden dislikes America for the same reasons he disliked the Soviet Union. He opposes outside influence in the Middle East. This included Isreal as well as Saudi Arabia. His ultimate goal is to unify the Middle East under Islam.
I will, however, play along. Assuming the terrorists would not attack us if we didn’t allow gay marriage, I would not support such a ban. (I hope after reading this you realize how silly your hypothetical is. Also, you would have to explain why terrorists have not attacked other nations such as Canada, Belgium, and South Africa which all recognize gay marriage. )
I do not support appeasing terrorists or terrorist states. I support working with nations in the Middle East to defeat terrorism. I would do this through economic incentives and by improving our standing in these nations through investment.
Bush, to his credit, has done this in Africa, a continent where we are regarded with much higher standing. Clintion and Bush have also done a decent job containing Kim Jong Il.
Defeating terrorism requires marginalizing the terrorist movement. It requires convincing the populace in which the terrorists exist to reject such organizations’ ideas. Our war, despite your assertions to the contrary, has created terrorists. We are fighting people who became radicalized after watching us invade. Realize we are fighting a propaganda war.
I don’t like the government of Iran, but Iraq has shown us military invasion will not create a stable lasting government freindly to our interests. Our immediate goal with Iran, as it is with North Korea, is to keep talking and allow those nation’s citizens the chance to create political change.
This was our policy during the Cold War and that, by your own admission, worked out well. Our ultimate goal is to be embraced once poltical change occurs, just as we were at the end of the Cold War.
28. Jonathan | May 24th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Just a little closer to civil war every day, one day at a time….but, maybe Jesus will come back before it get’s too bad, and good people won’t have to suffer.
Jeremiah, what makes you believe the country is headed towards another civil war?
‘And maybe Jesus will come back before before it gets to bad?’ No comment.
29. What? | May 24th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Sorry Mark,
I will expand on what I said earlier. Your failure to procreate or adopt makes your marriage unnecessary by your own definition. If marriage is only an institution designed to promote families you should not be married because you either do not want or cannot have children.
In fact, a gay couple who adopts has more a right to marry than you do. They are using marriage for its appropriate purpose, raising a family.
30. Jeremiah | May 24th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
It is a pretty large majority against it.
Eric T,
Indeed, it is. And very bewildering to understand just what it is about such a large percentage of the population which disdains it, why they are not, or don’t have the courage to call left-wingers out on their preposturous claims and stand with some grit and ambition to put an end to it.
This is the very thing that is so dangerous, you see, people aren’t willing to put their God-given talents to work…..they are afraid to question. and the Leftists seek a vantage point in their preferences for non-dissenting opinions, and this is why they silence those whom they don’t agree with. We can’t call this “normal” … No, it is evil, no other word for it. It is evil to the core, and the decision that the California Supreme Court Judges ruled the other day is just that…Evil!!!
No one has the courage to stand up for what is right and stop it.
Exactly! And is why we need to be out encouraging people to engage in friendly debate, and helping them to understand the crisis that America is headed for if they don’t.
31. Jeremiah | May 25th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Along with the inability to question their opponents, I also find another in a list of underlying problems that might be working against the GOP… and that is, far too many people adopt the attitude that, “Ah! But my vote is what counts.” See? They really don’t give much thought as to what their colleagues are thinking, just so long as their vote “counts.” And that is the mistake all too often made.
The ballot box is essential, but unless the base is energized and spreading the message, and people that actually vote, but are otherwise not interested or don’t know enough about the candidate that holds their values in mind…then their vote may mean nothing at all, or it may mean everything, or it may mean just the difference. Every vote counts as either (Take your pick) one step closer to victory…. or step closer to defeat….when it’s “victory” then that means the collective is working and everyone has done their homework, and stuck to the plan.
Adopt a strategy, motivate people to become interested, inform them of what is happening to America through despotic judges ruling from the bench - like the ones in California.
Give people the information they need to be equipped, and you arm people for the victory, provided they are willing to fight.
However, it means more than just victory for the party…..It means victory or defeat for the survival of Western Civilization…..Again (take you pick).
32. JS | May 25th, 2008 at 12:38 am
you are a weak person what…you continue to attack mark for not having kids…and push deviant sexual behavior as superior to him when he defends moral behavior?….your life must really suck bad to have to hack on mark…month after month…for not having kids…i can tell you…i have kids…mark is right…the only thing you prove when you continue on this line is that you have no clue what a marraige really is…you are spiritually blind and morally ignorant…a pile of dung floating in a cesspoll of degradation and false pride…
33. JS | May 25th, 2008 at 12:45 am
so lets talk about procreating what…give some details about how two sodomites come up with a child in adoption court because someone lies about deviant sexual behavior being healthy….when 70 percent of them carry a deadly , contageous disease…..and that most of them have more sex partners than the average heterosexual does in a lifetime in a single year….your the smart boey here, right? smart boys have real answers, dont they….tell us about how many diseases affect people who live these deviant relationships compared to normal, healthy relationships….and then tell us about narth, and its stated intent to lower the age of consent so they can molest younger boys and girls and not go to jail….show us how that can be tied to the gay and lesbian clubs in our schools today…or are you as ignorant about the truth as you are of what marraige is….
lets go smart boy….show us facts…dont blow smoke up our arses and tell us its a forest fire.!!!
34. Jeremiah | May 25th, 2008 at 1:54 am
Jeremiah, what makes you believe the country is headed towards another civil war?
Jonathan,
The evidence is compelling….which is probably as much as can be said at this point in time.
How do I know?
First, you must look at the underlying factor as would be cause for war.
Is it an act? Ummm, No!
If you look at the Civil War….the wrong that was being committed is not what caused the Civil War….but simply… a difference of opinion.
Why? Becuz, becuz, becuuuuuz…..What comes before the act or fact? The opinion. Some thought slavery was “ok” … many seen it as abhorrent (and don’t take me wrong…I’m not trying to disparage nor make light of the slaves and the turmoil that they had to endure. It was tragic, nonetheless, that state of affairs.)
So, to start off again….when assessing opinions, which are based on primarily ‘preferences’ and barriers are set in place to block all dissent, one or a group of persons set a precedent for themselves so that their requirements are met….the problem in this case, is that it does not stem from the basic concept of morality … Therefore, setting a trap, under extreme pressure/tension.
Who set the trap? The handful of Judges in California, so they are just a tiny, minute part of millions of people that are of differing opinion morally speaking, and thus, they are the load bearers of their decision, an ENORMOUS load….
Now, the issue of sodomized marriage is just one in a huge list of issue that contribute to this keg of powder in which their is a stark difference of opinion morally. And depending on how the people choose their candidate this fall will determine if they can avoid springing the trap…
It’s my thinking that Obama would initialize a Civil War….He’s a snake in the grass.
Or…people can choose wisely, and start to undo these travesties that the Left-wing kooks are imposing on 300,000,000+ people.
***************
So, did you get the gist of my message?
It’s not what we do that determines a civil war, but what we think…because if you think about it, if everybody was in harmony on the thinking about slavery back then, then there would still be slaves today…..but, Thank Almighty God somebody had the intestinal fortitude to stand and say…’Not gonna have it.’ And if the people are smart, they will stand up and say to Sodomized marriage…..’Not gonna have it.’
We are Americans……Not no disgusting sodomites!
35. What? | May 25th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Hmm js,
It is pretty clear you are homophobic. I hope you come to terms with this. I would appreciate if you would back up your statements with evidence. You ask me to show facts yet you make accusation you cannot back up. I have not said anything that requires citing.
This is the first time I have ever talked about Mark’s home life and I think it is appropriate considering Mark claims marriage’s only use is to procreate and then fails to do so in his own marriage.
What Mark is doing is making an argument he doesn’t really believe in. You don’t believe in it either. You don’t actually believe marriage exists solely to procreate. You believe it exists as a demonstration of your love and as a commitment you made to stay faithful to your wife. This is not always what marriage represented but this is what it represents in modern times. A casual trip to the movie theater proves this.
If Mark admitted marriage’s true modern purpose he would be hard pressed to argue gay marriage should not be recognized. Why shouldn’t a man’s love for another man (or a woman’s love for another woman) be as respected as the love between a man and a woman?
Your ultimate problem is you believe homosexual love does not exist. You believe gays (but not lesbians apparently) are sexual deviants incapable of love. Convincing you otherwise would be a fruitless effort since you have clearly made up your mind. But ask yourself: “Why do homosexuals want to marry?”
The answer is that they want to demonstrate the love and commitment you have to your wife. If homosexuals were the sexual deviants you claim them to be, why would they want to make such a commitment?
Ball is in your court.
36. Jonathan | May 25th, 2008 at 2:15 am
It’s my thinking that Obama would initialize a Civil War….He’s a snake in the grass.
And what purpose would that serve him? Congress, let alone the American people, would not stand for such an extreme act, should he become President.
We’ve been hotly debating Roe v. Wade and abortion for decades now, and we haven’t ignited a bloody war becasue of it, Jeremiah. Cool your jets, man.
37. Jonathan | May 25th, 2008 at 2:23 am
….when 70 percent of them carry a deadly , contageous disease…
That’s an amazingly ignorant remark, js. Care to back up your ignorance with some cold, hard evidence?
38. Jeremiah | May 25th, 2008 at 2:34 am
America can defend our God-given Christian civilization by either of two means -
Either by democratic process or by war.
I prefer the democratic process.
If America chooses not to defend their God-given Christian civilization through the Democratic process then America will be like quick sand.
God only blesses those who uphold His commands - And that has been proven throughout time.
39. Faceplant | May 25th, 2008 at 6:51 am
“No, the only sure way to enshrine something in American law is to go through the proper, constitutional procedures for modifying the law…to have four judges decide for everyone else is to trust tyranny to give you what you can’t get from the people. I’d rather trust the people, thanks very much.”
Of course that isn’t how our democracy works. The people of California don’t get to approve laws that violate the state constitution. If you don’t like it, then change the state constitution.
40. Faceplant | May 25th, 2008 at 6:57 am
“At any rate, that is not what is at issue here, but whether or not gay marriage advocates should be pleased with this judicial usurpation.”
The problem is that you have yet to prove that this is any kind of judicial usurptation of power. We have a judicial branch for a reason. The public is NOT entitled to pass any law it wants.
What is truly sad, is that I’m fairly sure you are smart enough to realize this.
41. Faceplant | May 25th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Jeremiah,
“And the Judges? Oh well, They’re more than glad to interpret the Constitution any way they see fit…but the thing is, they’re not reading the Constitution…it’s just their opinion and not a word of it in the Constitution, not one word.”
And what exactly does the constution say in support of your argument?
42. Faceplant | May 25th, 2008 at 7:08 am
“A few wimpy, limpwristed, unmanly leftists will force their preverse views on a nation. No one has the courage to stand up for what is right and stop it.”
Unlike those paragons of manliness like Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity! Or any of the other neocons that never had the courage to actually put on a uniform, but consider themselves well qualified to slime those who actually did fight like John Kerry, Jack Murtha, Jim Webb, or Max Cleland.
43. JS | May 25th, 2008 at 8:14 am
sorry what
im not homophobic…i am not afraid of perverts who are in the midst of mental issues….the people wrapped up in that lifestyle are as much victims as they are predators….and they really should seek professional help because anyone who choses a lifestyle that pretty much guarantee’s to shorten your life by about 1/3 really needs help….but i am not going to pamper anyone about it….everything i posted IS FACT or near enough to it that i dont have to worry….and telling the truth does NOT make me homophobic….
and you are a a blatant liar….i have seen you hack on mark before…dont deny it…its your last resort shot at defending the sick and disgusting behavior you defend….and its also a lie the way you use it….not to mention the shadow of the turd its puts on your characture…
44. Eric T | May 25th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Faceplant-
My family is mostly democrats, on issues like good paying jobs, decent insurance, pensions, the democrats have strong cases and reasoning. Debating who gets the tax break and who gets soaked. Being moderate on these issues is OK.
When you start getting into taking away peoples guns, gay marriage, and abortion. There just is not much room for moderation.
45. js | May 25th, 2008 at 10:24 am
good paying jobs come from hard work, not the demoncrats….decent insurance is an illusion…ecspecially after 9-11 when they almost doubled auto insurance rates to recoup thier loss (which really was not a loss, but a return on investment for those who pay for thier service)…and we are still paying for it 61/2 years later…and pensions are not protected, or have you seen what the courts did for enron and american, who both dumped their responsibility to americans the easy way…no, democrats are not that great on those cases, or even viable answers to solve the problems that occur on the consumer market….but then again…we can tag the responsibility for americans current condition on government interference, which is strongly in the demoncrats corner….
46. Eric T | May 25th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Js + Faceplant-
I’m at work and lost my train of thought on the last post.
By definition a man acting, dressing, or taking it like a woman, is unmanly.
So FacePlant those guys you mentioned may be war heros, but if they are taking it like a woman they are unmanly.
47. Eric T | May 25th, 2008 at 11:26 am
js
good jobs can come from the democrats in the form of Affirmative action and quota hiring and that is what the pro-gay activists intentions are. Creating a new protected group that needs special preferential treatment based on their sexual preference.
Check out post #23 on this thread
48. What? | May 25th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
js,
I take your failure to cite any evidence of your accusations as an admission you have none.
Please also cite when I have discussed Mark’s home life prior to this post, which made it an issue.
Finally, don’t run from the issue through petty insults. Your fear of debate is only evidence of your lack of argument. C’mon js, if you think I am such an idiot, prove it.
49. What? | May 25th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
JS,
You homophobia is demonstrated by your errouneous belief homosexuals are sexual deviants and carriers of disease. You see them as a threat to society and therefore a threat to yourself.
I am also curious as to why you only seem concerned about gay males and not lesbians. Is lesbianism not as bad as two men having sex? If so, why is lesbianism more acceptable?
50. Jeremiah | May 25th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
You homophobia
What?
phobia, you say? It isn’t “phobia.” The word -”homophobia” is just another terminology invention for you to use to try to shut down debate.
There is no fear, friend, just plainly acknowledging the fact that homosexuality is extremely displeasing to God and that the Bible says that they ‘received within themselves the due penalty for their sin’ - What does that mean? It most likely means disease. For we find that STDs are more prominent among homosexuals. Why is this? Because they aren’t content, they are promiscuous in their sinful behavior, their mind is in disarray, torment. Some reports of homosexuals have shown that they have as many as 500 partners per year, and the highest close to a thousand. That tells you that something is wrong. We most often call these people reprobate - deceiving and being deceived. In shorter terms - They are sick.
So, in reality, it is the homosexuals that fear - what is it that they fear? The Godly Institution of marriage.
As this deviant lifestyle spreads, so will its harmful effects, leading to an entire society in disarray and eventual mass chaos leaving thousands upon thousands slain, possibly millions.
51. Jeremiah | May 25th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Well, my last comment, which would have been this post 51 went into moderation - I guess due to the number of links I posted.
However here is one of the links:
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet6.html
52. bongoman | May 25th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Have you actually ever met a homosexual? You accuse them of being sick but you also want to execute them? Is that what Jesus would do - execute homosexuals?
It’s not very Christian to go around killing sick people, no?
You’re aware of the study that showed that homophobic men were more aroused by homosexual imagery than non-homophobes?
Me thinks that Jeremiah protesteth too much.
53. Jeremiah | May 25th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Me thinks that Jeremiah protesteth too much.
Bongoman,
Well, Me thinks you are stupid.
Me also thinks you don’t have the foggiest idea you’re talking about.
The mere appearance of homosexuals is a turn-off in total disgust….so much so that I turn green in the face and could puke my guts out.
Me like pretty tan women.
54. Jonathan | May 25th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
i am not afraid of perverts who are in the midst of mental issues…the people wrapped up in that lifestyle are as much victims as they are predators…and they really should seek professional help because anyone who choses a lifestyle that pretty much guarantee’s to shorten your life by about 1/3 really needs help
No, your not homophobic, js….you’re just ignorant.
Homosexuality is not — I repeat, is not — a choice in lifestyle. A man or a woman doesn’t choose to be gay or lesbian. It’s something they’re born with.
As this deviant lifestyle spreads, so will its harmful effects, leading to an entire society in disarray and eventual mass chaos leaving thousands upon thousands slain, possibly millions.
There are plenty of gays around the world and so far, your apocalyptic vision hasn’t come to pass. Get over yourself.
55. Jeremiah | May 25th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
It’s something they’re born with.
Born with what, Jonathan?
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet5.html
56. bongoman | May 25th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Jeremiah, refresh my memory on what penalty gay people would be subjected under your vision of a theocracy?
If I recall, you would have them executed? Can you confirm this is your preferred option?
57. Jeremiah | May 25th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
If I recall, you would have them executed? Can you confirm this is your preferred option?
Bongoman,
Sure, I would be happy too.
First, there were three sentences which sodomites were given under the old law, or I call it the ’standard’ by which all other laws must be based - they were either burned at the stake, buried alive, and stoned.
This was to keep peace and order.
What would my sentence be? Death by way of hanging. It’s simple, easy, and effective. and it doesn’t cost the taxpayers one penny of their money.
So……Why not?
Afterall, any society that accepts it will have more of it, because they are continually calling for recruits, they want everybody to do it.
A society that does not accept has less of it, and a more happy prosperous society, with less crime. People are just happier.
Don’t you want a happy society?
If America doesn’t want a happy society….Oh well, my ‘arms’ as well as my brothers in ‘arms’ are waiting.
Have a great evening.
58. bongoman | May 25th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Thank you Jeremiah for clarifying your position.
What wonderful vision you have of a happy society.
59. Mark Noonan | May 25th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Jeremiah,
My brother, I will have to disagree with you on that - our brothers and sisters who have deep seated attractions to members of the same sex are to be treated with kindness and justice. We are to pray for them and assist them in any way we can in bearing their burden.
60. Mark Noonan | May 25th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Jonathan,
So they say, but there isn’t an iota of proof that people are born gay…someone saying they’ve “always” felt that way is a weak reed to base such a view on, and in spite of several attempts to show a biological basis of homosexuality, none has been forthcoming.
Meanwhile, we have a large number of people who are ex-gay. I know - they are denigrated by the gay rights movement, but the fact remains that there are people who were full out, completely gay in living and who are now not so…and not just in the sense of not engaging in homosexual sex, but in the sense of no longer having homosexual attractions.
Hard and fast is not the way to view such issues - from either side of the debate; other than things which are completely true, and known to be so - such as the self-evident truth that homosexual relations are inherently disordered.
61. Jeremiah | May 25th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
our brothers and sisters who have deep seated attractions to members of the same sex are to be treated with kindness and justice.
Mark,
We can.
How do we assist them? By two means -
By sharing with them how God feels about the sin of homosexuality.
Two - We show them we care by making the law against it. And in that, we show them that we not only care about their future, but about the future of America.
We don’t give in and say, “Well, it’s ok, but you can’t marry.”
No, we have must be against the act….Period.
Once you give in to the act, then they take it a step further and step further until they’ve got our elected officials brainwashed into thinking it’s “ok” and it’s not, and it never will be.
But that’s alright, Mark, everything’s copecetic, we’re square. We can agree to disagree. However, I’m not backing down from my position, that we can make heck of lot more headway toward curing society’s ills by not setting double standards. Any other way and it’s just going to happen.
62. Jonathan | May 25th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Oh yeah, Jeremiah. Way to show that good ol’ Christian compassion. I’m sure Mr. Jesus will be singing your praises. [/sarcasm off]
Earth to Jeremiah: We live in a nation where you are not discriminated against based on race, gender, religious affiliation, and sexual nature.
This is not a religious theocracy, no matter how much you and your bible-thumpin’, evangelical hate freaks try and make it so.
63. What? | May 25th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Jeremiah writes,
“So, in reality, it is the homosexuals that fear - what is it that they fear? The Godly Institution of marriage.”
Then why do they want to get married?
Mark,
I actually find your conversion solution just as disturbing as Jeremiah’s desire to execute gays. You seem to view homosexuality as a mental disorder. How would you go about converting/curing homosexuals? Would the government have anything to do with this curing/conversion process?
What if gays refuse your efforts? Do you continue to allow them contact with other gays you are trying to convert? Would not this frustrate your goal? As you said, the gay community is trying really hard to keep gay people gay.
Also, how do you know these converts you have read about don’t have homosexual attractions? If they did, do you think they would tell you? If they did they would be off to conversion boot camp (apparently something that actually exists in this country) or worse if Jeremiah had his way. (Inquistion, anyone?)
Also, in your opinion, are all people born heterosexual and somehow become gay or are we all born as clean slates?
64. Jeremiah | May 25th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Then why do they want to get married?
They want married so they can be covered under the law for protection from outside groups who disdain homosexuality, and once they do that, then they want to add more and more special privileges … by requesting that “hate crimes” laws be passed so they can silence dissent from the voice of reason within the Church. Homosexual marriage is not a “committment” and it can never be defined as “committment” it’s just a worldly contract, a piece of paper, just another leaf on the forest floor.
True marriage is what exists in the eyes of Almighty God, which is a dedicated relationship between mand and wife (One Man and One Woman).
I actually find your conversion solution just as disturbing as Jeremiah’s desire to execute gays. You seem to view homosexuality as a mental disorder. How would you go about converting/curing homosexuals?
Yes. What? Homosexuality is a disorder. And yes, it can be cured. But no one can do that for them, they must make that choice themselves.
But we can help them along in that respect…by having laws on the books that they can understand that we don’t allow it. Period. End of Story.
65. Pain | May 26th, 2008 at 12:12 am
64. Jeremiah | May 25th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
By more and more special privileges We take it that you mean the civil rights that everyone straight enjoys?
By your logic heterosexuality can be “cured” then also?
66. Jeremiah | May 26th, 2008 at 12:18 am
By your logic heterosexuality can be “cured” then also?
Pain,
No! Heterosexuality is not a disorder.
However, it can be gone about the wrong way, and taken overboard (Fornication, adultery, multiple partners etc, etc.)
That’s why we stress … One man and One woman for … Life.
67. Pain | May 26th, 2008 at 12:37 am
66. Jeremiah | May 26th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Keep pushing that rock up the hill brother. You do realize that there aren’t 1 million people in America that would agree with your views, right? But nevermind you will never listen to reason so there is no point.
68. Jeremiah | May 26th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Keep pushing that rock up the hill brother.
I will, Pain, just be sure and step out of the way when the rock comes your way….wouldn’t want to find your impression upon the earth.
69. bongoman | May 26th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Hey Jeremiah, ever tried googling for “will of god” ?
Interesting, very interesting.
70. Jeremiah | May 26th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Bongoman,
Yes. Here’s an ‘acceptable’ citation:
http://www.desiringgod.org/resourcelibrary/sermons/bydate/2004/179_What_Is_the_Will_of_God_and_How_Do_We_Know_It/
71. ViralNexus | May 26th, 2008 at 5:16 am
Here are some ideas on the debate of biological vs. choice in sexual orientation. While none of this is conclusive in support of either or it could also be stated that nothing supports the biological/environmental link between heterosexuality either. God said so really doesn’t count either…
Chromosome linkage studies
In 1993, Dean Hamer published findings from a linkage analysis of a sample of 76 gay brothers and their families. Hamer et al. (1993) found that the gay men had more gay male uncles and cousins on the maternal side of the family than on the paternal side. Gay brothers who showed this maternal pedigree were then tested for X chromosome linkage, using twenty-two markers on the X chromosome to test for similar alleles. Thirty-three of the forty sibling pairs tested were found to have similar alleles in the distal region of Xq28, which was significantly higher than the expected rates of 50% for fraternal brothers. A later analysis by Hu et al. revealed that 67% of gay brothers in a new saturated sample shared a marker on the X chromosome at Xq28. Sanders et al. (1998) replicated the study, finding 66% Xq28 marker sharing in 54 pairs of gay brothers. These studies only examined homosexuality in males.
However, two later studies (Bailey et al., 1999; McKnight and Malcolm, 2000) failed to find a preponderance of gay relatives in the maternal line of homosexual men. A study by Rice et al. in 1999 failed to replicate the Xq28 linkage. More recently, Mustanski (2005) failed to find the Xq28 marker in a complete genome scan of gay men’s DNA. Mustanski did however find autosomal markers at 7q36, 8p12 and 10q26.
The evidence for the Xq28 marker is therefore preliminary and has yet to be fully proved or disproved. Even at face value, the discovery of the Xq28 region would only show one genetic correlate of male homosexuality. Hamer’s study was important though, as it was the first experiment to claim such a correlation. These findings do not suggest that the Xq28 region is necessary for homosexuality or singularly causes homosexuality, but rather that it might be one of many factors which influence sexual orientation in some males.
A recent study supports X-linkage from a different perspective. Women have two X chromosomes, one of which is “switched off”. The inactivation of the X chromosome occurs randomly throughout the embryo, resulting in cells that are mosaic with respect to which chromosome is active. In some cases though, it appears that this switching off can occur in a non-random fashion. Bocklandt et al (2006) reported that the number of women with extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation is significantly higher in mothers of homosexual men than in age-matched controls without gay sons. 4% of controls showed extreme skewing compared to 13% of the mothers with gays sons and 23% of mothers with two or more gay sons.
Also, male homosexuality appears likely to be influenced by a complex genetic interaction which may be mediated by H-Y antigens in the mother’s immune system (see below). Whichever genes are implicated they almost certainly cause male brains to differentiate in a female typical direction.
As for female homosexuality, there remains little evidence from replicated genetic linkage studies.
Maternal linkage, birth order, and female fertility
Blanchard and Klassen (1997) reported that each older brother increases the odds of being gay by 33%. This is now “one of the most reliable epidemiological variables ever identified in the study of sexual orientation.” To explain this finding, it has been proposed that male fetuses provoke a maternal immune reaction that becomes stronger with each successive male fetus. Male fetuses produce HY antigens which are “almost certainly involved in the sexual differentiation of vertebrates.” It is this antigen which maternal H-Y antibodies are proposed to both react to and ‘remember’. Successive male fetuses are then attacked by H-Y antibodies which somehow decrease the ability of H-Y antigens to perform their usual function in brain masculinisation.
Bocklandt, Horvath, Vilain and Hamer (2006) reported that some mothers of gay babies have extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation. Using a sample of 97 mothers of homosexual men and 103 mothers of heterosexual men, the pattern of X inactivation was ascertained from blood assays. 4% of the mothers of straight men showed extreme skewing compared to 13% of the mothers of gay men. Mothers of two or more gay babies had extreme skewing of X inactivation of 23%. This extreme skewing may influence male sexual orientation through the fraternal birth order effect.
An alternate theory was proposed by Italian researchers in 2004 supported by a study of about 4,600 people who were the relatives of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men. Female relatives of the homosexual men tended to have more offspring than those of the heterosexual men. Female relatives of the homosexual men on their mother’s side tended to have more offspring than those on the father’s side. The researchers concluded that there was genetic material being passed down on the X chromosome which both promotes fertility in the mother and homosexuality in her male offspring. The connections discovered, however, would explain only 20% of the cases studied, indicating that this might not be the sole genetic factor determining sexual orientation.
Homosexuals of either sex are more likely than the general population to be non-right handed (see Handedness and sexual orientation)
Pheromones correlation
Recent research conducted in Sweden[24] has suggested that gay and straight men respond differently to two odors that are believed to be involved in sexual arousal. The research showed that when both heterosexual women (lesbians were included in the study, but the results regarding them were “somewhat confused”) and gay men are exposed to a testosterone derivative found in men’s sweat, a region in the hypothalamus is activated. Heterosexual men, on the other hand, have a similar response to an estrogen-like compound found in women’s urine. The conclusion, that sexual attraction, whether same-sex or opposite-sex oriented, operates similarly on a biological level, does not mean that there is necessarily a biological cause for homosexuality. Researchers have suggested that this possibility could be further explored by studying young subjects to see if similar responses in the hypothalamus are found and then correlating this data with adult sexual orientation.
Early fixation hypothesis
The early fixation hypothesis includes research into prenatal development and the environmental factors that control masculinization of the brain. Studies have concluded that there is empirical evidence to support this hypothesis, including the observed differences in brain structure and cognitive processing between homosexual and heterosexual men. One explanation for these differences is the idea that differential exposure to hormone levels in the womb during fetal development may block or exaggerate masculinization of the brain in homosexual men. The concentrations of these chemicals is thought to be influenced by fetal and maternal immune systems, maternal consumption of certain drugs, maternal stress, and direct injection. This hypothesis is also connected to the fraternal birth order research.
Imprinting/critical period
This type of theory holds that the formation of gender identity occurs in the first few years of life after birth. It argues that individuals can be predisposed to homosexual orientation by biological factors but are triggered in some cases by upbringing. Part of adopting a gender identity involves establishing the gender(s) of sexual attraction. This process is analogous to the “imprinting” process observed in animals. A baby duckling may be genetically programmed to “imprint” on a mother, but what entity it actually imprints upon depends on what objects it sees immediately after hatching. Most importantly, once this process has occurred, it cannot be reversed, any more than the duckling can hatch twice.
A sort of reverse sexual imprinting has been observed in heterosexual humans; see the section on the “Westermarck effect” in Behavioral imprinting.
Several different triggers for imprinting upon a particular sexual orientation have been proposed.
One hypothesis is that something about what young children see in the gender-roles behavior of adults, or some differences (possibly unconscious) in the way adults treat young children, somehow influences or determines a child’s eventual sexual orientation.
Exotic becomes erotic
Daryl Bem, a social psychologist at Cornell University, has theorized that the influence of biological factors on sexual orientation may be mediated by experiences in childhood. A child’s temperament predisposes the child to prefer certain activities over others. Because of their temperament, which is influenced by biological variables such as genetic factors, some children will be attracted to activities that are commonly enjoyed by other children of the same gender. Others will prefer activities that are typical of another gender. This will make a gender-conforming child feel different from opposite-gender children, while gender-nonconforming children will feel different from children of their own gender. According to Bem, this feeling of difference will evoke physiological arousal when the child is near members of the gender which it considers as being ‘different’. Bem theorizes that this physiological arousal will later be transformed into sexual arousal: children will become sexually attracted to the gender which they see as different (”exotic”). This theory is known as Exotic Becomes Erotic (EBE) theory.
The theory is based in part on the frequent finding that a majority of gay men and lesbians report being gender-nonconforming during their childhood years. A meta-analysis of 48 studies showed childhood gender nonconformity to be the strongest predictor of a homosexual orientation for both men and women. Fourteen studies published since Bailey & Zucker’s 1995 also show the same results. In one study by the Kinsey Institute of approximately 1000 gay men and lesbians (and a control group of 500 heterosexual men and women), 63% of both gay men and lesbians reported that they were gender nonconforming in childhood (i.e., did not like activities typical of their sex), compared with only 10-15% of heterosexual men and women. There are also six “prospective” studies–that is longitudinal studies that begin with gender-nonconforming boys at about age 7 and follow them up into adolescence and adulthood. These also show that a majority (63%) of the gender nonconforming boys become gay or bisexual as adults. There are very few prospective studies of gender nonconforming girls. In a group of eighteen behaviorally masculine girls (mean age of assessment: 9 years), all reported a homosexual sexual orientation at adolescence, and eight had requested sex reassignment.
I’m aware that EBE theory is the most attractive to those who refuse to consider biological links but something has to be said. One, from what I have read children that have grown up with a gay/lesbian parent(s) do not usually grow up to be gay/lesbian. Secondly, if EBE is a cause you have to realize that once behaviors are imprinted in humans they are nearly impossible to erase. The human brain is like a machine once it has been built there really is no concrete way of changing it. You can modify but it will often not act the way it should or just stops working. In the 50’s and 60′ when homosexuality first began to become an issue gays and lesbians tried drugs, psychotherapy, and religion to “change” their sexual orientation. The result was not quite what was expected and A LOT of people committed suicide mostly out of shame and guilt. Case in point with imprinting behaviors- people who have been brought up to believe that gays and lesbians are disease infected sexual deviants will never change that view. I would like to think people can change to at least be tolerant but that isn’t how it works. Yet if an ex KKK Grand Master Dragon can change and become an active supporter of the Civil Rights Movement then I guess there is some hope left.
72. Pain | May 26th, 2008 at 9:35 am
70. Jeremiah | May 26th, 2008 at 12:53 am
“Here’s an ‘acceptable’ citation”
Which means you deicde what is and is not appropriate? Ahh We love the smell of Theoconservatism in the morning.
73. FmrMarine | May 26th, 2008 at 11:36 am
vn
>>>Yet if an ex KKK Grand Master Dragon can change and become an active supporter of the Civil Rights Movement then I guess there is some hope left.<<
Dont you mean the entire southern democRAT party?
Homosexuality IS a vile filthy disease ridden lifestyle.To legitimize it is pure insanity.
I can hardly wait for the first dog/human marriage, we all know how much we love our pets.
74. FmrMarine | May 26th, 2008 at 11:40 am
check this site out
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1876122
75. Pain | May 26th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
73. FmrMarine | May 26th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Canines and other non sentient creatures cannot speak in defense of themselves and therfore cannot consent to sexual relations. That argument under the laws of every state in the Union is a non starter.
74. FmrMarine | May 26th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Nice talking point. That article is 24 years old and so outdated that any physician citing it in a scholarly work would be doing so only to point out how far Terran medicine has progressed since 1984.
Look, if you dislike homosexuals that is your business but opposite sex marriage is leading to far more child abuse cases, divorces and spousal battery incarcerations than same sex marriages in Massachusetts. Mean stupid people with agendas marry in churches every day and if you don not think that causes more harm to the “sanctity” of marriage than gay marriage well then you are just a close minded person in Our opinion.