posted on November 1, 2004 06:02:55 PM new
Robert Spitzer, M.D., one of the APA psychiatrists who originally worked to have homosexuality removed from the DSM in 1973, has discovered that individuals with same-sex attractions can change. His 16-month study of 247 individuals who had responded successfully to reorientation therapy was published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October, 2003, pages 403-417. [5]
Dr. Spitzer found that, contrary to most psychiatric opinion, individuals who have undergone reorientation therapy can experience positive changes from homosexual to heterosexual orientation. Of those he studied, most indicated that they still struggled with homosexual attractions to some degree, but 11% of the males and 37% of the females indicated a complete change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation.
Such change is clearly very difficult to achieve--but this very recent study, published by a prominent researcher in a prestigious publication, indicates that change does occur.
Did those undergoing reparative therapy find it harmful--as some psychiatrists allege? Not so, according to Dr. Spitzer. He found: "To the contrary, they reported that it was helpful in a variety of ways beyond changing sexual orientation itself."
Dr. Spitzer-- who has long been (and still is) a strong ally of the gay community--is now convinced that change is possible and can be beneficial.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Bigotry and prejudice -- these are assertions, not arguments. This is name-calling, not case-building.
posted on November 2, 2004 07:32:26 AM new
Your Doctor Spitzer is nothing but a flip flopper. His own study was biased and goes against everything he once believed in.
Spitzer acknowledges that this approach has numerous limitations and discusses several of them in the paper. However, a careful methodological assessment of how Spitzer’s study was conducted leads to the conclusion that its author’s claims are not warranted. The major issue is how was change assessed, which is problematic because of the following combination of reasons: (1)
reliance on self-report; (2) biased selection of the sample; (3) retrospective design of the study; (4) use of a telephone interview as the data collection method; (5) the way “harm” was operationalized; and (6) insufficient reporting of the findings. Even if the respondents’ reports were valid, the changes observed are not as big as the title of the report suggests. The paper’s discussion suggests what Spitzer could have done to do a better study, and then concludes with suggestions about what Spitzer should have done.
The paper critically analyzes the methodology of two studies: Spitzer’s data that claims sexual conversion, and another by Shidlo and Schroeder showing that sexual conversion therapies can harm some patients. The paper further examines the ethical issues involved in sexual orientation change, the question of efficacy, as well as some deficiencies in the methodology of the cited research. Extreme bias in subject selection is identified as the primary motivation for the subjects to claim that they have religiously converted from homosexual to heterosexual. Some strategies for countering the potentially harmful effects of the study are suggested.
Opponents of civil unions distorted the meaning of the Spitzer study, implying that its author had changed his mind about his historic role in deleting homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual. In response to requests from Finnish gay and lesbian civil rights groups, Spitzer wrote a letter to the Finnish parliament regarding the “misuse” of his study by “those who are against anti-discrimination laws and civil unions for gays and lesbians.” Spitzer said that being able to change is “probably quite rare, even for highly motivated homosexuals” and that it would be a serious mistake to conclude from his study that any highly motivated homosexual can change his or her sexual orientation or that his study shows that homosexuality is a “choice.” Spitzer’s letter was read in the plenary session of the Finnish Parliament and was published in the Finnish daily Helsingin Sanomat on September 26, 2001. On September 28, 2001 Finland’s Parliament voted 99 to 84 to pass the same-sex partnership bill.
Wrong once again Twinkle toes.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
----------------------------------
"Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
[ edited by logansdad on Nov 2, 2004 07:33 AM ]
posted on November 2, 2004 09:39:34 PM new
I wonder just how homosexual marriages or civil unions affect anyone but the two who got married ?
I know heterosexual people who are living together and it doesn't affect me at all.
I know people who got divorced and it didn't affect me at all.
I know people who are married and I know nothing about their sex life, don't want to know, and it doesn't affect me at all.
I've known couples, heterosexuals, who stayed married even though they hated each other's guts and it didn't affect me at all.
I have a male friend who's in love with another man and it doesn't affect me at all.
I have no right to become involved with any of these people and dictate how they should behave, nor do I want to.
I mind my own business and am not interested in ANYONE else's sex life.....must be a Repug thing.
posted on November 2, 2004 09:48:54 PM new
Fine it doesn't affect you you don't have the right it speak for others... others have decided if bothers them...
But then again why are you bothered about child abuse? Murder? After all it is not affecting you...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Bigotry and prejudice -- these are assertions, not arguments. This is name-calling, not case-building.
posted on November 2, 2004 10:43:40 PM new
Yes, twelve...it wonderful and CLEARLY shows how American's feel about gay marriage.....overwhelmingly.
-------------------
Oh brother did I ever have a good laugh over THIS lie....from the Queen of Liars....
I mind my own business and am not interested in ANYONE else's sex life.....must be a Repug thing.
She's more than once been VERY interested my my sex life... but then again we just never can believe anything she ever says because she has this discusting habit of lying.
posted on November 2, 2004 11:09:06 PM new
To quote crowfarm again....and to show his/her own interested in O'Reilly's sex life....even though she/he says:
I have no right to become involved with any of these people and dictate how they should behave, nor do I want to.
I mind my own business and am not interested in ANYONE else's sex life.....must be a Repug thing.
posted on November 3, 2004 05:11:48 AM newVoters in 11 States OK Gay-Marriage Ban
(AP) - Gay rights activists received a rebuke from the Deep South to North Dakota as voters in 11 states approved constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage in a clean sweep for proponents of traditional one-man, one-woman unions. "The results just go to show that the citizens ... clearly understand the value of natural marriage," said Christina Rondeau, director of the North Dakota Family Alliance, a group that supported the amendment.
Clean sweep WHOO HOO!
Life is grand this morning...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Bigotry and prejudice -- these are assertions, not arguments. This is name-calling, not case-building.
posted on November 3, 2004 05:58:29 AM new
Now that gay marriages are banned in Arkansas, the rednecks there can get laws making it legal again to have sex with their cousins and family memebers.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on November 3, 2004 09:10:57 AM newNow that gay marriages are banned in Arkansas.
not ONLY in Arkansas...but now all states (49) excluding Mass. And I'd bet in 2006 when the PEOPLE of Mass have a change to vote their will....they too will join the overwhelming majority and vote against gay marriages.
So...you'll be so busy, logansdad, finding little old biased and outdated insults to throw at ALL the United [on this issue] States, because it's NOT only AR that voted this way. All but one has.
The American people have voted, logansdad, and now they've been heard. Find something else to call your 'special unions'.
posted on November 3, 2004 09:23:40 AM new
WASHINGTON - Citigroup Inc. already included the words sexual orientation in its non-discrimination policy. The company has a gay employee resource group. It offers diversity training that includes sexual orientation, and it provides health insurance coverage to employees' same-sex partners. And now this year, the company specifically bans discrimination based on "gender identity and/or expression."
The new term covers not only gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) employees, and those who are transitioning from one sex to another, but also workers who might be chided for not acting male or female enough. In adopting it, Citigroup joins a growing number of corporations in expanding the reach of protections against discrimination related to sexual identity.
The recent growth of such provisions reflects both the persistence of gay rights groups seeking the protection and the conclusion of some companies that adopting the broader anti-discrimination policies is a good business decision and even a recruiting tool.
The first company to include gender identity or expression in its corporate policy was Lucent Technologies Inc. in 1997. In 2001, 10 companies included it, and today there are 52, according to the Gender Public Advocacy Coalition (GenderPAC), which measures and trains companies on gender policies.
In fact, 19 of the 28 companies that earned perfect scores on the Human Rights Campaign's annual "Corporate Equality Index" for the first time this year did so by adding gender identity to anti-discrimination policies. The number of companies that scored 100 percent doubled in one year to 56.
"It's another facet of things we recognized. Some people may feel it's already part of our [equal employment] policy. But it makes the dialogue richer. It builds inclusion," said Ana Duarte McCarthy, director of workforce diversity at Citigroup. "And HRC measures it. And as a result of having it within our policy, we got 100 percent on the corporate index."
Advocate calls ID clause 'an important mark'
The Human Rights Campaign, a Washington-based gay advocacy group, issues an annual report card on how corporate America treats its gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees. Companies were ranked for the third annual list by seven criteria: whether they have gay employee resource groups; offer benefits to same-sex partners; include the words "sexual orientation" in their primary written policies; have diversity training that includes sexual orientation; market to the gay community or provide support through corporate foundations; have no known anti-gay activities; and, now, include gender identity or expression on their non-discrimination policies.
Brad Salavich, program manager for GLBT workforce diversity at International Business Machines Corp., said that when the gay-friendly ratings were first released, it became clear that advocacy groups were looking for companies to have leading policies. "It was important for IBM to ensure that we were meeting or exceeding what other companies were doing and what the community was doing in terms of leading-edge policies," he said.
He called the gender identity clause "an important mark. It's really a bellwether statement that not just GLBT potential applicants look at, but we're also seeing it used as a bellwether for a broader set of employees."
Salavich cited a recruiting event in London at which Asian women approached an IBM table set up with GLBT materials. He recalled the women told him they were interested not because the materials affected them personally, but because "if you're the type of company with these policies, you also accept women and minorities."
"They used it as a benchmark," he said.
At Citigroup, this year's 100 percent rating on the Human Rights Campaign list will be included in the company's annual diversity report, which goes to employees, shareholders and community partners. The company will also use it as a recruiting tool. "It's something we felt would help to reaffirm ourselves as employer of choice," said McCarthy.
Many companies that added the term to their policies were approached by Human Rights Campaign or GenderPAC, officials said.
"This is almost a freebie" because it doesn't cost a company anything, unlike providing same-sex partner benefits, said Riki Wilchins, executive director of Washington-based GenderPAC, which spends much of its time training organizations on gender expression.
Larger companies are more likely to offer health care benefits for same-sex partners, according to recent figures. They show 42 percent of the Fortune 500 companies offer same-sex benefits, while a Society for Human Resource Management survey this year found 27 percent of 456 respondents offering domestic-partner benefits.
Ten years ago, "we couldn't even get corporations to talk to us" on the gender identity issue, Wilchins said.
The nation's courts already have ruled on a number of cases in which workers claimed discrimination based on how they expressed their gender.
In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled Pricewaterhouse discriminated because it enforced a sex stereotype when a top female accountant was terminated after senior managers told her she was too aggressive and too masculine. In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of an oil rig worker who said he was harassed and threatened at work for being effeminate. The Court declared same-sex harassment illegal under the Civil Rights Act.
In 2000, a truck driver for Winn-Dixie was fired after trying to squelch a rumor that he was gay by telling his manager he sometimes dressed as a woman outside of work. When he sued, a federal judge declared that Winn-Dixie had done nothing wrong because there was no law banning discrimination because of gender or sexual identity. That same year, a woman who had worked at Harrah's Reno for 21 years was fired because she refused to wear high heels and makeup. She sued, the courts ruled in favor of Harrah's, and an appeal is now pending.
Protection from lawsuits
Organizations that include gender identity and expression on their discrimination policies protect themselves from such lawsuits, Wilchins said. "Companies do this because it's the right thing. But it helps prevent them from also getting whacked with suits because employees are getting training."
But Chad A. Shultz, an employment attorney with Ford and Harrison based in Atlanta, said adding gender expression to a discrimination policy would create a protected class and potentially leave an employer susceptible to more lawsuits. "Now you're giving them a potential claim they didn't have last week," he said.
Joan C. Williams, director of American University's WorkLife Law program, thinks the addition to a policy is "a smart business practice because I think it's a very conventional belief that you should select and promote employees based on their work."
That is a large reason Citigroup added the definition to its policy in April, after some input from employees who wanted a larger and more specific discrimination protection, McCarthy said.
"Over the years," she said, "we've had feedback from employees not only in GLBT and transitioning, but also on the broader issue that the idea of gender identity is important to clearly articulate what we would not tolerate discrimination about."
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on November 3, 2004 09:26:58 AM newThe American people have voted, logansdad, and now they've been heard. Find something else to call your 'special unions'.
My definition of special unions will be imagining a mother and her son sharing a special intimate moment together
Doesn't matter what the states say. This matter will be left up to the Supreme Court to decide whether or not these laws are constitutional.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on November 3, 2004 10:20:52 AM new
It's statements like this that you make, logansdad, that show voters what people like you really think...."[i]My definition of special unions will be imagining a mother and her son sharing a special intimate moment together
[/i]
....this anything goes...no matter how morally wrong, no matter how vulgar, no matter how sick. And you statements only work to turn more and more against your cause.
---------------
Bush Victory Reflects Support for FMA Across Party Lines
Bush Victory Reflects Public Support for
Federal Marriage Amendment Across Party Lines
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WASHINGTON, DC -- President George Bush's leadership on the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) was reflected at the ballot box on Tuesday, according to CNN exit poll data indicating a critical bump in support among core Democratic voting groups favoring the FMA. This added to the already high support for AFM's Marriage Amendment among Republican voters and Independents.
"Among African-American voters in Ohio alone--a core Democratic voting group--President Bush nearly doubled his support over the 2000 election, from 9 to 16 percent," said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage. "He also improved his support among Catholics and women by 5 percent.
Indeed, America demonstrated broad-based strength and momentum for our Federal Marriage Amendment -- strength and momentum that transcends all racial, cultural, and religious boundary lines.
Meanwhile, at least ten states also approved state Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) initiatives on the ballot -- several in key battleground states, such as Ohio, Michigan, and Arkansas.
"Now with the election behind the real battle to protect marriage begins," said Daniels. "America will soon be hit by a wave of lawsuits intended to strike down marriage in different states across the country -- even states like Ohio, Michigan, and Arkansas where voters approved state DOMA initiatives on Election Day."
In fact, a federal lawsuit has already been filed in U.S. District Court seeking to declare the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. Smelt v. Orange County asks the Court to declare the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California marriage law to violate Due Process, Equal Protection, the Right to Privacy, and Full Faith and Credit under the U.S. Constitution.
"The marriage amendment drafted by AFM was introduced with bi-partisan support in the Congress over three years ago," said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage. "Our efforts to let the people decide the future of marriage in America preceded this election -- and will continue so long as activists strive to overcome public opinion by striking down our marriage laws in court."
"Ultimately, only our Federal Marriage Amendment will protect marriage -- while leaving all issues of benefits to the democratic process in the states," Daniels said. "AFM believes this centrist approach embodied in our amendment offers hope of a democratic solution to the debate that has been forced on America as a result of activist judges."
The Alliance for Marriage is a multicultural coalition whose Board of Advisors includes Rev. Walter Fauntroy -- the DC Coordinator for the March on Washington for Martin Luther King Jr. -- as well as other civil rights leaders, religious leaders and national legal experts.
---------
So, yes, I agree this will most likely end up in the USSC - years from now, and possibly with a more conservative or at least much more moderate group of Bush appointed/comfirmed judges. Especially since now the nominated judges won't have to pass kerry's litmus test where NO conservative judges would have EVER been placed. A USSC where I believe since all but ONE state has opposed gay marriage....they will most like be really listening to the majority of Americans on this issue.
posted on November 3, 2004 11:51:58 AM new
You want to protect marriage then outlaw divorce. You still are in denial about what has caused the breakdown of marriage. It is not gay marriages as you think. The Federal Marriage Amendment will not stop the increase in divorce rates, it will not stop the decrease in marriage rates, it will not stop single parent families. It will not stop couples have straying outside the family. It will not help couples that do not know how to communicate through their problems.
Gay marriages have not existed for 30 years and certainly did not cause the breakdown of the sanctity of marriage. Breeders have done it all by themselves and have no one else to blame.
Now try pinning your problems on another group because homosexuals should not be blamed for your people's problems.
The Republicans are the ones that want less intrusion by the government and here they want this law.
this anything goes...no matter how morally wrong, no matter how vulgar, no matter how sick
Don't tell me about morals. Women have no problem aborting a child, the government has no problem executing criminals. Both of these are morally wrong. Again you want it both ways, and you can't have it. Women would be the first group of people claiming their civil right are being violated if the government stopped abortions. Even if abortions were made illegal, do you think it would stop the practice, no it will still go on.
Religion should not be made into a political issue. Who gives you the right to stick your religious views on the rest of society?
Would you like it if America changes their religion to Islam? Would you like it if you were forced to stay home and wear a veil? Would you like it if you were not allowed to vote? I bet you wouldn't.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on November 3, 2004 12:09:25 PM newReligion should not be made into a political issue.
Yes, I understand you think any religious person has no right to their own moral code if it disagrees with what YOU want. But guess what? ALL, religious or not are intitled to their OWN moral/value systems.
Who gives you the right to stick your religious views on the rest of society?
My religious views? This is what you either don't GET or are ignoring. Voting on the issue is what makes the decision for the rest of society....just like most of our laws that we've passed. The vote of all the states [except Mass] that have decided they are united on this issue....whether or not they're religious.
Would you like it if America changes their religion to Islam?
I have no problem with other religions. If their religion continues to profess violence in our country...then I believe WE ALL will have a problem with that...NOT based on our religious convictions....based on our judgement of what's right and what's wrong. And just as in the gay marriage issue...I don't think there would be many who'd support violence....from any group.
Would you like it if you were forced to stay home and wear a veil? Would you like it if you were not allowed to vote? I bet you wouldn't. What silly questions....as with everything we would be voting on it. You as a gay man have all the rights that others do...you just want 'special' rights....want the acceptance of being under the umbrella of the meaning of 'marriage'. But you can't force that down other peoples throats....they rebel even more....like I'm sure some are very put off by your perverted statements about un-natural sexual relationships you always bring up.
But you've been out voted....not going to happen for a very long time, if ever.
posted on November 3, 2004 12:46:24 PM newYes, I understand you think any religious person has no right to their own moral code if it disagrees with what YOU want. But guess what? ALL, religious or not are intitled to their OWN moral/value systems.
People can decide for themselves what they deem to be moral and immoral. The government has the responsibility to protect people not set a standard of morals on the entire society.
I see you failed to answer my entire statement that dealt with the issue of abortion and the death penalty. I guess you feel these issues have nothing to do with morality? Either that or you chose to ignore them because they do not fit into your argument about morality and the government.
See it is because you want it both ways.
Furthermore if you want to talk about religious morality, bigamy which once was prevalent throughout the bible, is now illegal.
You want to use the Bible as the be all and end all of morality. It is not.
As far as marriage goes, you need to decide if it is a religious issue or a civil issue. If it a religious issue then, marriages should only be performed in only places of worship. The government should have no say who can or who can't get married. The government should also stop giving special privileges to married couples because it is a religious issue. Where in the Bible does it say married couples should be given tax discounts because of their marriage status?
If it is a civil issue, then the government should bestow the same rights and privileges to all it citizens. Any one that would like to get married should be able to?
What silly questions....as with everything we would be voting on it. You're stupid to believe every issue is subject to a vote. Did you get to vote when there were state and federal income tax increases? Did you get to vote on whether or not your state should have a death penalty? Did vote on the abortion issue.
The republican party is trying to decide this issue by a dictatorship. Why else would they be trying to pass a law that could not go before the Supreme Court? That goes against every principle this country was founded upon. I guess Bush does not like a system of checks and balances.
like I'm sure some are very put off by your perverted statements about un-natural sexual relationships you always bring up.
Just because people do not like what is said and may think it is wrong. It is not going to stop people who are in love from doing what they feel is right. So if you were in love with your cousin and felt deeply about it you would you stop just because someone else may not like what you do.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on November 3, 2004 02:24:58 PM newPeople can decide for themselves what they deem to be moral and immoral.
And they did...the last 11 states decided during this election. 3-1 in all states except Oregon..where it was 55% against.
The government has the responsibility to protect people not set a standard of morals on the entire society.
Our government has LONG passed laws based on moral standards. Where have you been all these years?
I see you failed to answer my entire statement that dealt with the issue of abortion and the death penalty. I guess you feel these issues have nothing to do with morality?
I didn't not fail to answer....I decided since I've answered them over and over to you and you still can't remember what I've said before...there's just no point in repeating myself again to someone who appears to be deaf.
Either that or you chose to ignore them because they do not fit into your argument about morality and the government. Not true - answered above.
See it is because you want it both ways. Again...face the facts there are both religious and non-religious that hold different views on different moral subjects.
[i]Furthermore if you want to talk about religious morality, bigamy which once was prevalent throughout the bible, is now illegal.
You want to use the Bible as the be all and end all of morality. It is not[/i]. Once again you're wrong. Boy you lefties sure have and use your imaginations all the time.
As far as marriage goes, you need to decide if it is a religious issue or a civil issue. If it a religious issue then, marriages should only be performed in only places of worship. The government should have no say who can or who can't get married. The government should also stop giving special privileges to married couples because it is a religious issue.
Maybe you've forgotten....WE are the government...the people.
And there are plenty of non-religious people who don't support gay marriages. One does not have to be religious to have morals.
Where in the Bible does it say married couples should be given tax discounts because of their marriage status? LOL another silly question. And believe it or not...I'm no Bible scholar. And in THIS country there NEVER has been gay marriage. You activists are trying to START something that the majority of people in America are against. Period....no need for Bible references.
If it is a civil issue, then the government should bestow the same rights and privileges to all it citizens. Any one that would like to get married should be able to? You have the same exact 'rights' every other citizen has....you CAN marry just as we all can - it's YOU who chose not to. It's that you want 'special privileges' because of your own choices.
You're stupid to believe every issue is subject to a vote. of course....always the insults... pity pity. We're TALKING about voting on the gay marriage issue....we, the citizens of each state, DID vote on it.
Did you get to vote when there were state and federal income tax increases? Did you get to vote on whether or not your state should have a death penalty? Did vote on the abortion issue.
The republican party is trying to decide this issue by a dictatorship.
What you also don't GET is it's not only republicans. Did you read about all the democrats who crossed their party line and voted for President Bush because they side with conservatives MORE than they do with their own party? It's a fact...you can ignore it and you have and most likely will continue doing so....but it's reality none the less.
Why else would they be trying to pass a law that could not go before the Supreme Court? That goes against every principle this country was founded upon. I guess Bush does not like a system of checks and balances. As this President has explained over and over and over...but YOU'RE STILL NOT 'GETTING' is that once the people vote...and then some activist judge [one person] changes the will of the people...that is NOT the way our Constitution says we do things. And this is why so much ends up in our USSC...for them to decide.
::your perverted statements about un-natural sexual relationships you always bring up::.
Just because people do not like what is said and may think it is wrong. It is not going to stop people who are in love from doing what they feel is right. So if you were in love with your cousin and felt deeply about it you would you stop just because someone else may not like what you do. That's right...I would not...because it is morally wrong and our society frowns on it...plus there are medical issues at stake.
It's your mindset that 'if I want to do ANYTHING...then no one should try and stop me' ....well...that's just not reality. When enough disagree....the behavior will be stopped.
posted on November 3, 2004 05:05:15 PM newDid you get to vote when there were state and federal income tax increases? Did you get to vote on whether or not your state should have a death penalty? Did vote on the abortion issue.
Show me where there was a vote on raising or lowering the national income tax. That is a bunch of BS and you know it. When did the American people get to vote on Bush's tax proposals 3 years ago.
You're stupid to believe every issue is subject to a vote. of course....always the insults... pity pity. We're TALKING about voting on the gay marriage issue....we, the citizens of each state, DID vote on it.
You are twisting words again. Stick to the question asked - People do not vote on every issue that is passed. Here in Illinois the former governor decided to put a moratorium the death penalty. This issue was not put before the people. So you are dead wrong that every issue is put before the people.
Maybe you've forgotten....WE are the government...the people.
We are the people....we are not the government. We do not make or enact laws. You need to take a civics class again Linda to learn the difference.
And there are plenty of non-religious people who don't support gay marriages. One does not have to be religious to have morals.
Yes you are right that one does not need to be religious to have morals. They learned their morals for their upbringing. You do not see the non-religious pushing their beliefs onto other people. Frankly it is just the opposite, the religious right wing is pushing their beliefs on to everyone - the non-religious, those with other religious beliefs different from theirs and now with Bush he is pushing his religious beliefs onto the people of other countries.
You are right, I could marry a woman if I wanted to. But then how will that protect the "sanctity of marriage" that you religious conservatives are trying so hard to protect. What would that do to the marriage statistics? Yes, it would increase the divorce rate, and if I decided to have kids, it would lead to one more kid growing up in a one parent household.
But that is what you want so I will do it. I will marry a woman and then divorce her later. Hey it didn't work that time so I will try it again because maybe I just did not find the right woman for me. Maybe I should try it a few times just to make sure.
Maybe I will marry an illegal immigrant that wants to stay in this country. That will help the sanctity of marriage. Afterall that is straight people do so it is OK, just like straight people get married for the health benefits not because they love each other.
Yeah Linda that is the right approach to this situation. Have a every gay person marry someone of the opposite sex just to please the religious right? But it is OK for you to marry and divorce as many men as you want because that is natural.
Next you will try blaming the high divorce rate on gay people.
There you go again bringing up the term activist judges.....laws have already been passed by generations before us. The judges do not make laws, they interpret them. You and Bush did not like the way the law was interpreted. Now Bush wants to create a law and prevent the Supreme Court from deter ming whether a law is constitutional or not. This country has not formed on that set of beliefs - were one person, one side of government has all the power. Again you should have learned that in your civics class. Linda, that form of government is a dictatorship. What else don't you get.
If you were a man, you and Hitler would have worked well together. You don't like something change it so people have no other choice put to obey your laws.
What you also don't GET is it's not only republicans.
What you failed to see is the fact that members of Congress, while they might have disagreed with marriages, did not favor supporting a constitutional amendment. Which led Bush to coming up with a new plan
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
----------------------------------
"Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
[ edited by logansdad on Nov 3, 2004 05:44 PM ]
posted on November 3, 2004 09:07:47 PM new
Hitler had a better solution for homosexuals than we can come up with... so there is some good in everyone... even you logansdad...
It must be a blow to the homosexual ego to know that you really are not accepted here...
Why do homosexuals fore go all of the legalities available to them, so that there partner can make decisions and be included?
Don't need marriage for that... but as you are learning marriage is not a "right"
I was surprsied, even the tree huggers passed their measure...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Bigotry and prejudice -- these are assertions, not arguments. This is name-calling, not case-building.
posted on November 4, 2004 06:08:10 AM newDon't need marriage for that... but as you are learning marriage is not a "right"
No it is not a right it is a privledge for the morally right baby makers - which tells me it is discrimination.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on November 4, 2004 08:06:24 PM new
There are many people that can't get married... no discrimination, the state has decided what is acceptable... You can always move to MA... better hurry though...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Bigotry and prejudice -- these are assertions, not arguments. This is name-calling, not case-building.
posted on November 5, 2004 07:57:40 AM newThere are many people that can't get married
Yeah, like who?
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
