New ad from gay-rights group: Republicans support gay marriage too, you know

posted at 8:01 pm on February 20, 2013 by Allahpundit

Something new from the Respect for Marriage Coalition keyed to their splashy new poll about same-sex marriage. Want evidence of how much the phrasing of poll questions can influence the responses you get? Here you go:

Voters express strong support for the notion that the ability to marry the person you love is a fundamental freedom and Constitutional right for every American, including gays and lesbians. Three-quarters of voters (75%) believe that it is a Constitutional right, up from 71% in 2011. This sentiment spans across party lines, as 91% of Democrats, 75% of Independents, and 56% of Republican voters all believe the freedom to marry the person you love is a Constitutional right.

Fifty-six percent of Republicans now support gay marriage? Wow! Wait. No. Well, sort of. Here’s what Quinnipiac found in December when they asked the question more bluntly:

q

That result is more expected. In fact, according to the AP, just 21 of the 47 Republican legislators who’ve voted for gay marriage in the past three years are still in office.

In theory, the RFMC’s result is more germane to the gay-marriage debate than Quinnipiac’s. The Quinnipiac question could be interpreted by a respondent as a question about moral support; the RFMC is asking more specifically about legality. And yet, thus far, the results of state referenda more closely resemble Quinnipiac’s evenly divided topline number than the RFMC’s. There’s a messaging lesson in that for gay-marriage supporters: If you want to win over conservatives, speaking the language of the Constitution helps. Which, I assume, is what Ted Olson and David Boies are banking on if/when the Supreme Court rules in their favor on Prop 8. A constitutional ruling could soften pockets of resistance on the center-right; my hunch is that it’ll do the opposite if it ends up legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states in one fell swoop, but we’ll see. No doubt Anthony Kennedy is wrestling with that as we speak. (Interestingly, 70 percent of Republicans in the RFMC poll thought gay marriage would be legal within “the next couple of years,” whether or not they themselves support it.)

Here’s the ad followed by the longer clip of Cheney addressing gay marriage in 2009. If the RFMC is smart, they’ll do a separate ad devoted just to him; Laura Bush and Colin Powell will help with centrists, but only Cheney stands even the slightest chance of making a dent in opinion on the right. If anything, Powell’s inclusion here will firm up righty opposition. I’ll leave you with this provocative gauntlet-tossing from Ace, addressing the endless recent intraparty skirmishes:

I think a lot of people are in this party because it provides an intellectual and therefore socially acceptable basis for Judging and Scolding.

I’m sick of it. I’m sick to death of it. I’m sick of making excuses for it. I’m sick of pretending I don’t think it’s weird that people are still wigging out over the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex, and are still pushing some sort of “political” agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality.

If we’re going to have a war of all against all, let’s have it, honestly.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

The birth certificate is a public record to record BIOLOGICAL PARENTS- something two gays can never be;

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 9:49 AM

ORLY? I’m in Texas and we just got the new birth certificates for our adopted kids, listing us as the official parents. It’s not just for biological parents anymore. :)

TMOverbeck on February 21, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Freedom is for everyone but evangelical Christians. They need to be rounded up and dealt with once and for all. tom daschle concerned on February 20, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Yuuuup.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 10:19 AM

It’s impossible to order religious organizations of any description or creed to recognize and/or condone gay marriage without infringing their right to freedom of religion.
If a particular religion, religious group, finds they cannot condone gay marriage, as a matter of tenet or conscience, and they refuse to perform those ceremonies, that has to be respected.
Freedom of religion is one of the basic founding principles of this nation. It is one of our most revered underpinnings and, I might add, one of the reasons that we are a successful nation. Here, religions from all over the world manage to coexist.
As for those religions who could and would embrace gay marriage, fine, but no religion, no religious group, should be forced to comply. When we consider that the legal part of marriage is essentially a civil union, and that the marriage ceremony itself is in the purview of a religious organization, compliance may be ordered by the federal government as far as the civil union is concerned, but the marriage ceremony cannot be, and should not be by its nature, coerced.
thatsafactjack on February 20, 2013 at 9:27 PM

It’s nice to see my arguments being used and condoned, after the fact. ;)

Genuine on February 21, 2013 at 10:19 AM

But what exactly is it hurting if two people are having consensual sex in private? Why is it bad? I really don’t get it.
bluegill on February 21, 2013 at 9:24 AM

The issue for me is not what homosexuals do in private… I really do not care about this… However it is what they want to do in public that matters… They want to legislate homosexual marriage… This is against nature… Should we legislate polygamy? If not why not?… If we are breaking the traditional and natural marriage of one man and one woman by allowing gays to marry why not allow polygamy?… Once we go into this very dangerous path then the law cannot come up with an honest and legal reason why it allows gays marriage and not other type of perverted marriage…

mnjg on February 21, 2013 at 10:20 AM

I really don’t get it! Do you want to enforce a list of approved sexual practices?

bluegill on February 21, 2013 at 9:52 AM

bluegill, the days are LONG GONE when it was “two people having consensual sex in private”. As one wag said, “The Love-that-dare-not-speak-its-name now can’t seem to SHUT UP!”

The issue here isn’t about people simply having consensual sex in private. It’s about a politically powerful minority special interest group gaining political power in order to force the rest of society to redefine a centuries old institution in order to facilitate their sexual preferences.

And don’t kid yourself that this is about two people “loving one another”. Take away the sexual aspect of it and the issue disappears.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 10:21 AM

And just because they might be sexually dysfunctional doesn’t mean their rights have to be restricted or their sexual acts outlawed. (Unless children are targeted.)

TMOverbeck on February 21, 2013 at 10:15 AM

And I don’t even think the most strident voices are saying that gays should be jailed for having sex.

We can argue what a right actually is, because I don’t think “marriage” is a right. I believe states can regulate within reason who can marry i.e., relations etc. And please look at Baker v. Nelson before you throw the standard Loving v. Virginia response back at me.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 10:22 AM

And don’t kid yourself that this is about two people “loving one another”. Take away the sexual aspect of it and the issue disappears.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 10:21 AM

As I said before I do not give a damn about what homosexuals do in private but I am very muhc against what they want to do in public in particular forcing their gay marriage upon us… Moreover I agree that when it comes to gays you take the “sexual lust” out and there is nothing left… It is foolish to deny that the main driver of homosexual relationships is extreme sexual lust and more than anything else…

mnjg on February 21, 2013 at 10:26 AM

And just because they might be sexually dysfunctional doesn’t mean their rights have to be restricted or their sexual acts outlawed. (Unless children are targeted.)

TMOverbeck on February 21, 2013 at 10:15 AM

The narrative of the oppressed Western homosexual is a myth.

No one has the “right” to redefine a societal institution in order to facilitate their sexual preferences.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 10:27 AM

ORLY? I’m in Texas and we just got the new birth certificates for our adopted kids, listing us as the official parents. It’s not just for biological parents anymore. :)

TMOverbeck on February 21, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Yes but you had to actually “adopt” the child to get your name on the birth certificate. Get it? A gay spouse who does not have a biological link to a child is not going to be on a birth certificate unless they adopt the child. The only reason a husband is assumed the child’s father and on the birth certificate during a marriage is because it is BIOLOGICALLY ASSUMED that he is the child’s father. That will not be the case in a gay couple’s life, because there is always a third party donor involved.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 10:27 AM

ORLY? I’m in Texas and we just got the new birth certificates for our adopted kids, listing us as the official parents. It’s not just for biological parents anymore. :)

TMOverbeck on February 21, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Oh and BTW, there is still the original “real” birth certificate floating around somewhere on record showing biological parents.. Your birth certificate is for practical purposes like school registration, but the actual live birth record shows the bio mom and dad.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 10:33 AM

They want to legislate homosexual marriage… This is against nature… Should we legislate polygamy? If not why not?… If we are breaking the traditional and natural marriage of one man and one woman by allowing gays to marry why not allow polygamy?… Once we go into this very dangerous path then the law cannot come up with an honest and legal reason why it allows gays marriage and not other type of perverted marriage… mnjg on February 21, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Homosexuality has been observed in over 1,500 animal species including all Great Ape species (humans, orangutans, chimps, gorillas). The first record of homosexuality comes from cave drawings dating from 9000-5000 BC found in Addaura, Italy depicting same-sex pairs, and later artifacts (and literature) dating from Mesopotamia in 3,000 BC show that gay partnerships were celebrated. This is due to the fact that same-sex attractions are normal and natural in homo sapiens, and although we do no know the exact cause, scientific consensus has determined same-sex attract to be resultant from a combination of prenatal hormones and epigenetics, which has further been confirmed by all major professional medical and psychological organizations.

You are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to change fact.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Atleast thuja you are honest about your intentions. You are what all of us have been saying. You want to force the Church’s hand through lawsuits etc. The agenda is not live and let live. It is always been about forced acceptance. Thank you for being honest. It makes my decision in the mid 2000′s from being firmly in the pro-gay marriage camp to being firmly in the anti-gay marriage camp that much firmer.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 9:40 AM

I´m glad that I can help you feel firmer in your decision. But you may want to consider who started the coercion on sexual matters game. It was the early Christian emperors of Rome who started actually murdering gay people. And even today as you whine about my desire to take away your church´s tax exemption, Christians in more impoverished nation seek to criminalize homosexuality. Jesus said something about this:

Matthew 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

thuja on February 21, 2013 at 10:42 AM

I’m in Texas and we just got the new birth certificates for our adopted kids, listing us as the official parents. It’s not just for biological parents anymore. :)

TMOverbeck on February 21, 2013 at 10:18 AM

I got news for ya…it’s not a real BC if gay dudes are “substituted” for the real parents. No amount of wishing can change the biological facts.

HotAirian on February 21, 2013 at 10:42 AM

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Please identify the physiological reasons for Homosexuality.

kingsjester on February 21, 2013 at 10:43 AM

No one has the “right” to redefine a societal institution in order to facilitate their sexual preferences.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Sorry, dude, but we have already done the redefining. All that is left is the question of legal recognition of what has already been accomplished. We will succeed there also.

thuja on February 21, 2013 at 10:45 AM

This is due to the fact that same-sex attractions are normal and natural in homo sapiens, and although we do no know the exact cause, scientific consensus has determined same-sex attract to be resultant from a combination of prenatal hormones and epigenetics

Only normal in the sense that a certain number of birth defects in a given population is considered normal. An aberration that suppresses reproduction contributes to the extinction of a species. Not it’s healthy growth. “Celebrating” such an aberration would be expected of uneducated cave-men but an enlightened culture would be looking for a cure. I guess we haven’t quite arrived there yet.

HotAirian on February 21, 2013 at 10:47 AM

thuja on February 21, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Not Christian, So I can judge you all over the place.. I am some one that just wants to live and let live..and hope everyone does the same. Apparently that is NOT your philosophy.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM

You are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to change fact. ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM

I would additionally like to add that we have evidence of celebrate same-sex relationships in 3,000 BC Czech Republic, 2,400 BC Egypt, and even civilizations like the 800-1000 AD pre-Colombian Toltecs. But specifically pointing out these examples is disingenuous, because evidence of homosexuality is found in every culture world-wide since the beginning of recorded history. It’s a natural thing.

Even early Christians performed same-sex marriages, and the practice of adelphopoiesis (also see the Catholic Saints Sergius and Bacchus) has been thumbed as an example by some scholars. Opposition to same-sex realtions is only a recent thought stemming from some tenets of Abrahamic religions post ~ 350 AD; whereas marriage wasn’t even recognized as a sacrament until 1547 AD.

Please identify the physiological reasons for Homosexuality.

kingsjester on February 21, 2013 at 10:43 AM

“Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. … Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding.”

American Psychological Association

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Sorry, dude, but we have already done the redefining. All that is left is the question of legal recognition of what has already been accomplished. We will succeed there also.

thuja on February 21, 2013 at 10:45 AM

You get the point NOW, bluegill?

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 11:05 AM

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM

First off Zach, any good college Professor will tell you that Wiki is NOT a legitimate source. And most of your “gayness’ you see in the animal kingdom is standard domination. Some of the gayness is companionship that ends when the mating instinct kicks in. It is akin to friendship vs. sex. This happens to the Hawaiian bird(their name escapes me right now) that were made big to do about being gay. When it came time to mate they went and found the opposite sex. The gay penguins- yeah all gave up their long term partners when an opposite sex was introduced in their cages. Animal gayness is nothing but humans trying to project our bias on to animals. For example, A dog will hump anything. My female dog will hump my male dog like she is a boy.. Doesn’t mean she is suddenly a dominatrix dog.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 11:16 AM

They want to legislate homosexual marriage… This is against nature… Should we legislate polygamy? If not why not?… If we are breaking the traditional and natural marriage of one man and one woman by allowing gays to marry why not allow polygamy?… Once we go into this very dangerous path then the law cannot come up with an honest and legal reason why it allows gays marriage and not other type of perverted marriage… mnjg on February 21, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Homosexuality has been observed in over 1,500 animal species including all Great Ape species (humans, orangutans, chimps, gorillas). The first record of homosexuality comes from cave drawings dating from 9000-5000 BC found in Addaura, Italy depicting same-sex pairs, and later artifacts (and literature) dating from Mesopotamia in 3,000 BC show that gay partnerships were celebrated. This is due to the fact that same-sex attractions are normal and natural in homo sapiens, and although we do no know the exact cause, scientific consensus has determined same-sex attract to be resultant from a combination of prenatal hormones and epigenetics, which has further been confirmed by all major professional medical and psychological organizations.

You are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to change fact.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Infanticide,incestuous mating and cannibalism has been observed in other species besides humans as well…

As to ancient societies…Homo sexual practices were tolerated to a degree in Pagan Societies as was infanticide,human sacrifice,pederasty,prostitution,rape & pillage…

Homo sexual identity was virtually unknown and adult men were expected to marry and procreate to fulfill filial and cultural duty that sustained a balanced society,insured a legal transfer of property and promoted clan/tribal alliances through marriages.

workingclass artist on February 21, 2013 at 11:16 AM

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Bull.

Homosexuality is not found in nature. At least not as a deliberate choice to not mate, i.e. true homosexuality. Animals that “choose” to not mate do not pass on such proclivities. Such instincts are the definition of unfitness in nature.

Men that do not sleep with women do not make babies. Not without help. Nature does not have IVF.

If everyone chose to be homosexual, the human race would die out in a few generations. Homosexuality needs heterosexuality. The converse is not true.

Those are facts. Get your facts straight.

spmat on February 21, 2013 at 11:18 AM

That said, private is private. If something isn’t my business, it isn’t my business.

spmat on February 21, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Sorry, dude, but we have already done the redefining. All that is left is the question of legal recognition of what has already been accomplished. We will succeed there also.
thuja on February 21, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Sorry, dude, but no you haven’t.

And even if you do succeed in changing the legal definition of such… Well what has been written can be unwritten…

Skywise on February 21, 2013 at 11:22 AM

The first record of homosexuality comes from cave drawings dating from 9000-5000 BC found in Addaura, Italy depicting same-sex pairs, and later artifacts (and literature) dating from Mesopotamia in 3,000 BC show that gay partnerships were celebrated. This is due to the fact that same-sex attractions are normal and natural in homo sapiens, and although we do no know the exact cause, scientific consensus has determined same-sex attract to be resultant from a combination of prenatal hormones and epigenetics, which has further been confirmed by all major professional medical and psychological organizations.

Also, I wanted to address something else as well. History also shows that slavery has been shown to be celebrated. Man/boy pairings were celebrated. Man/child bride were celebrated. That doesn’t mean that these pair CONSIDERED normal or healthy just because they were recognized by history. It just shows that sexually people liked to get off that way.

And science hasn’t shown any such thing. Science is still unsure what makes someone attracted to anything. They are still guessing, because sexuality is a combination of things including choice, genetics, and enviroment. Sexuality is complex. And furthermore those same medical and psychological organizations are trying to say to get pedophilia mainstreamed, so forgive me if I don’t find them credible.

That all being said, I don’t care. Your lifestyle is yours. It doesn’t hurt me, and if it makes you happy meh.. More power to you. You don’t have to justify it to me for any reason as long as it doesn’t bleed into my life. Just don’t expect me to justify MY BELIEFS OR MY LIFESTYLE TO YOU.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Individuals are equal, but the unions they form are not. If a gay union was in fact equal to a heterosexual union, society should be indifferent as to whether someone decides on a same sex partner or an opposite sex partner.

The heterosexual union has the unique characteristic of creating new life. Birth rates are actually important and benefit society. This is beneficial to society. The homosexual union does not benefit society in any way. They are two different types of relationships so let’s call them two different names.

monalisa on February 21, 2013 at 11:25 AM

I’m sick of it. I’m sick to death of it. I’m sick of making excuses for it. I’m sick of pretending I don’t think it’s weird that people are still wigging out over the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex, and are still pushing some sort of “political” agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality.

If we’re going to have a war of all against all, let’s have it, honestly.

Well said. Who gives a f***. And even if you do are you really looking for the government to fix it? Bring on the war.

Dash on February 21, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Seems another of my posts was caught by all the links. It’ll probably appear in a second. If not, I linked to more examples of homosexuality in history, how early Christians practiced same-sex unions and replied to this.

Please identify the physiological reasons for Homosexuality. kingsjester on February 21, 2013 at 10:43 AM

“Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding.”

American Psychological Association

In short, if you dislike same-sex relations because of your personal opinion or religious beliefs, it would be best if you decided to skip modern medicine and hospitals and avoid medicinal and health professionals in your debates. You might find homeopathy and alternative medicines more fitting to your lifestyle.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Animal gayness is nothing but humans trying to project our bias on to animals. melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 11:16 AM

I suppose you’re the type of person to also reject evolution, but hey, that’s more of a failure of our public school system than anything.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 11:31 AM

I suppose you’re the type of person to also reject evolution, but hey, that’s more of a failure of our public school system than anything.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Says the person who uses Wikipedia as a source..

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 11:33 AM

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Well, look, if the argument is “animals do it”, let ‘em try running with that one.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 11:33 AM

American Psychological Association

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 11:28 AM

How many members of the APA are now practicing homosexuals?

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Well said. Who gives a f***. And even if you do are you really looking for the government to fix it? Bring on the war.

Dash on February 21, 2013 at 11:28 AM

That’s all this is. Same sex marriage is so gays can say to the all the people who spurred them through their life “see I am as good as you and now you have to accept me.” The problem with this thinking is that you cannot legislate acceptance. You can make people tolerate you, but you cannot make people accept something. And when you try to force acceptance there is usually a backlash. All this is is a childish attempt to bludgeon people who made a group of people feel bad about themselves.

See thuja’s post about how good she/he will feel when all the churches are forced to marry gays or lose their tax exempt status if you don’t believe me.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 11:36 AM

The real question is, when the societal approval of homosexual “marriage” fails to deliver the long sought after internal contentment its proponents seem to suggest it will, what will they turn to then?

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 11:39 AM

I suppose you’re the type of person to also reject evolution, but hey, that’s more of a failure of our public school system than anything.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Says the person who uses Wikipedia as a source..

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 11:33 AM

You wouldn’t read it otherwise. Indeed all of the facts that I’ve stated are sourced in the Wiki articles, and in actuality, I’d argue they are ideas well-known enough that they wouldn’t even need sources. However if you would like, you may search for the peer-reviewed articles in Google Scholar.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 11:39 AM

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Always looking for some external support, aren’t you, ZachV? Does it ever enter your mind that maybe the problem isn’t addressed externally or by getting some authority to say it’s ok?

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 11:42 AM

How many members of the APA are now practicing homosexuals? Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 11:35 AM

LMAO! I love the far-right. Every single professional mental health and medical organization in the country has endorsed same-sex relationships as natural and normal, so that must mean modern mental health professionals are “practicing homosexuals” versus the almost intolerable idea that you were raised believing the wrong things. You people are so whacked it’s almost humorous.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 11:44 AM

The heterosexual union has the unique characteristic of creating new life. Birth rates are actually important and benefit society. This is beneficial to society. The homosexual union does not benefit society in any way. They are two different types of relationships so let’s call them two different names.
monalisa on February 21, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Do you say the same of infertile heterosexual couples?

Honestly, this whole thing is stupid. Who the hell really cares if someone is into the same sex. Gays can raise children, or they can choose not to. Straight couples can raise children, or they can choose not to.

bluegill on February 21, 2013 at 11:45 AM

You wouldn’t read it otherwise. Indeed all of the facts that I’ve stated are sourced in the Wiki articles, and in actuality, I’d argue they are ideas well-known enough that they wouldn’t even need sources. However if you would like, you may search for the peer-reviewed articles in Google Scholar.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Did you look at the sources used to see if they were legit? Or did you just cite it because they fed into YOUR BIAS because you are such a superior evolution believing unbiased person. You being an educated person would know that NO college professor in the country takes Wikipedia as a legit. source.

LMAO! I love the far-right. Every single professional mental health and medical organization in the country has endorsed same-sex relationships as natural and normal, so that must mean modern mental health professionals are “practicing homosexuals” versus the almost intolerable idea that you were raised believing the wrong things. You people are so whacked it’s almost humorous.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 11:44 AM

And the same mental andd psychological community are trying to remove pedophilia from the DSM. Some in the communities are trying to get it out there that sex between children and adults are not detrimental to children. I suppose you support their efforts, because you defer to their expertise in all matters. You do realize that part of being a frickin Conservative is questioning authority of all kinds.. Not that I think you are conservative at all.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 11:53 AM

What about the “missing white vote?”
I think you look at the feelings and position of persuadable independent voters. We don’t care so much what the position is of hardcore Dems or Republicans who won’t change their vote either way. What about the missing white vote? Think about immigration and gay marriage. And the ChickFilA protests. Those two issues were our ticket to victory; instead, Romney et al downplayed them, tried to hush hush them when he should have made a big issue out of them. Hence, the missing white vote, the lack of enthusiasm, and defeat. Blame Romney of course.

anotherJoe on February 21, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Did you look at the sources used to see if they were legit? Or did you just cite it because they fed into YOUR BIAS because you are such a superior evolution believing unbiased person. You being an educated person would know that NO college professor in the country takes Wikipedia as a legit. source.

Yes. Being educated, I have spent a lot of time dedicated to researching this topic. It is no revelation to anyone that (1) homosexuality is found in thousands of both complex and simple organisms, (2) homosexuality has been found in human civilization from 9000 years before Christ to present day, and was celebrated in many different cultures and (3) today’s modern scientific and medical communities have endorsed unchoosable, unchangeable and nature-influenced homo- and hetero- sexual attraction via peer-reviewed evidence. This is not surprising except to perhaps to you and the American Family Association.

And the same mental andd psychological community are trying to remove pedophilia from the DSM. Some in the communities are trying to get it out there that sex between children and adults are not detrimental to children. I suppose you support their efforts, because you defer to their expertise in all matters. You do realize that part of being a frickin Conservative is questioning authority of all kinds.. Not that I think you are conservative at all. melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 11:53 AM

It’s funny, because I can only find one person advocating this (Richard Blanchard) and a follow up article saying the proposal was literally rejected outright by the APA.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 12:25 PM

You people are so whacked it’s almost humorous.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Um…coming from someone who thinks sodomy is normal, I’m not too worried about your opinion of me.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Honestly, this whole thing is stupid. Who the hell really cares if someone is into the same sex. Gays can raise children, or they can choose not to. Straight couples can raise children, or they can choose not to.

bluegill on February 21, 2013 at 11:45 AM

bluegill, are you really young or just dense?

“Raising” children is about more than providing a roof over their heads, food in their mouths, and clothes on their backs, you know.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 12:28 PM

homosexuality is found in thousands of both complex and simple organisms

LOL– Single celled organisms are homosexual.. OMG and you think I am uneducated. bwahhhahaaa..

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 12:32 PM

So want to see the slides where they show that viruses,bacteria,protozoa,algea and fungi are lesbian and gay.. LOL

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 12:34 PM

(3) today’s scientific and medical communities have endorsed unchoosable, unchangeable and nature-influenced homo- and hetero- sexual attraction

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Against which control group, are they measuring their findings?

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 12:35 PM

“Raising” children is about more than providing a roof over their heads, food in their mouths, and clothes on their backs, you know. Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Or take it from someone who knows much better than you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 12:35 PM

LOL– Single celled organisms are homosexual.. OMG and you think I am uneducated. bwahhhahaaa.. melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Wow. That’s all you can come up with? You are so completely bankrupt of any scientific evidence … that the only response you can come up with is that ‘simple organism’ specifically and only refers to single-cells? Lordy, you’re scraping the absolutism bottom of the barrel.

Well, I’ll support your rationalized attempt to make yourself feel better. Kisses dear. :*

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Or take it from someone who knows much better than you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 12:35 PM

He knows his own specific experience, nothing more. It’ll be nice when he matures a little and gains a bit more humility in thinking that one’s own experience does not give one leverage to speak about the whole of humanity.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Honestly, this whole thing is stupid. Who the hell really cares if someone is into the same sex. Gays can raise children, or they can choose not to. Straight couples can raise children, or they can choose not to.

bluegill on February 21, 2013 at 11:45 AM

If you honestly believe there is no difference between a child having a mother and father…and two dads or two moms…there is no help for you.

Go read what Elton John or Dolce and Gabbana have said about gay adoption. They recognize the importance of mothers; they know they are denying their child a mother and that it is less than ideal.

monalisa on February 21, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Or take it from someone who knows much better than YOU:

He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,
and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Matt. 19:4-6

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Wow. That’s all you can come up with? You are so completely bankrupt of any scientific evidence … that the only response you can come up with is that ‘simple organism’ specifically and only refers to single-cells? Lordy, you’re scraping the absolutism bottom of the barrel.

Well, I’ll support your rationalized attempt to make yourself feel better. Kisses dear. :*

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Zach do you know what simple organism are? Apparently not.. Here I will help you: They are viruses,bacteria,protozoa,algea and fungi. Now run along and look up how they actually “have sex and reproduce” mmkay and then come back to me child. If your “scientific” research can’t even get that right then the whole thing is fricking suspect.

He knows his own specific experience, nothing more. It’ll be nice when he matures a little and gains a bit more humility in thinking that one’s own experience does not give one leverage to speak about the whole of humanity.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Zach is young as well. He doesn’t understand the whole “bias” issue at all. A lot of his biological research that he is citing was done by gay biologists. That is why he doesn’t understand it when I say that they are projecting their biased on to history and animals, because Zach is projecting his own bias on to the research..

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 12:47 PM

If you honestly believe there is no difference between a child having a mother and father…and two dads or two moms…there is no help for you.

Go read what Elton John or Dolce and Gabbana have said about gay adoption. They recognize the importance of mothers; they know they are denying their child a mother and that it is less than ideal.

monalisa on February 21, 2013 at 12:43 PM

That is probably the biggest problem I have with the gay movement. Their inability to deal with the realism that moms or dads are not expendable. Their inability to deal with the fact that nature made the best choice when they biologically choose that a male and female create a child for a purpose.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 12:49 PM

He knows his own specific experience, nothing more. It’ll be nice when he matures a little and gains a bit more humility in thinking that one’s own experience does not give one leverage to speak about the whole of humanity.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 12:41 PM

“HEY! In my opinion, which is not based on any specific personal experiences, gays raising children are bad.” … presented with successful child raised by two lesbians .. “One single person’s experience doesn’t matter!”

Or you could listen to mental health and medical professionals, “there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children (Patterson, 2000, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999)”

But then I would be erring in supposing you had somehow joined reality and accepted evidence-based scientific research in the past 10 minutes.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM

“Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding.”

American Psychological Association

In short, if you dislike same-sex relations because of your personal opinion or religious beliefs, it would be best if you decided to skip modern medicine and hospitals and avoid medicinal and health professionals in your debates. You might find homeopathy and alternative medicines more fitting to your lifestyle.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 11:28 AM

The second very interesting brief was submitted by Professor Gerard Bradley of Notre Dame Law School on behalf of Dr. Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins University. Their brief is also about definitions, in this case the definition of homosexuality and sexual orientation.

McHugh is a remarkable man. For 26 years he headed the Johns Hopkins Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science. You may recall that this department was the place in America that initiated sex change operations under the notorious and now discredited Dr. John Money. One of McHugh’s first acts was to close down Money’s sex change unit.

Bradley and McHugh want to convince the court that homosexuals do not rise to the level of a “suspect class” deserving of “heighted scrutiny” protection
. Those in support of traditional marriage believe the people of California in the Proposition 8 case and that Congress in the Defense of Marriage Act all had “rational” reasons for their claims. It is a lower and much easier claim to defend. Prop 8 and DOMA plaintiffs want to claim “suspect class” which would force the defendants to make the much harder case that the state has a “compelling interest” in maintaining man-woman marriage.

February 18, 2013
On Two Compelling Legal Briefs that Challenge Same-Sex Marriage

by Austin Ruse
Supreme Court

During his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court, Judge Robert Bork said one of his attractions to the court was that it would be an “intellectual feast.” There is certainly a feast going over the impending Supreme Court consideration of same-sex marriage. A mountain of friend-of-the-court briefs has landed in the hands of the Supreme Court, some of them utterly fascinating.

Two of the briefs are notably interesting, one from Professor Robert George of Princeton and his talented young collaborators Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation and Sherif Girgis who is toiling on a law degree at Yale and a Ph.D in Philosophy at Princeton.

In a Harvard Law Review article, a book and now this brief, George, Ryan, and Girgis answer the question “what is marriage?” They describe two competing views; one they call “conjugal”, and the other “revisionist.” Allowing for the revisionist view “can cause corresponding social harms. It weakens the rational foundation (and hence social practice) of stabilizing marital norms on which social order depends: norms such as permanence, exclusivity, monogamy.”

George and his colleagues argue that marriage can only be “conjugal”, that is, a “comprehensive union joining spouses in body as well as in mind, it is begun by commitment and sealed by sexual intercourse. So completed in the acts by which new life is made, it is especially apt for and deepened by procreation and calls for that broad sharing uniquely fit for family life.” Such a comprehensive view of marriage is still available to sterile couples but not for homosexuals.

The authors explain that what they call the “revisionist” understanding of marriage “is essentially an emotional union, accompanied by any consensual activity. Such romantic unions are seen as valuable while the emotion lasts.” Men and women can have such “unions” just as same-sex couples can, “both involve intense emotional bonding, so both can (on this view) make a marriage. But comprehensive union is something only a man and woman can form.”

George says, “enacting same-sex marriage would not expand the institution of marriage” as proponents claim, but would redefine it. Such a redefinition would permanently harm the notion of marriage and sully the goods that come from marriage properly understood.

The second very interesting brief was submitted by Professor Gerard Bradley of Notre Dame Law School on behalf of Dr. Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins University. Their brief is also about definitions, in this case the definition of homosexuality and sexual orientation.

McHugh is a remarkable man. For 26 years he headed the Johns Hopkins Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science. You may recall that this department was the place in America that initiated sex change operations under the notorious and now discredited Dr. John Money. One of McHugh’s first acts was to close down Money’s sex change unit.

Bradley and McHugh want to convince the court that homosexuals do not rise to the level of a “suspect class” deserving of “heighted scrutiny” protection. Those in support of traditional marriage believe the people of California in the Proposition 8 case and that Congress in the Defense of Marriage Act all had “rational” reasons for their claims. It is a lower and much easier claim to defend. Prop 8 and DOMA plaintiffs want to claim “suspect class” which would force the defendants to make the much harder case that the state has a “compelling interest” in maintaining man-woman marriage.

In order to become a suspect class, however, homosexuals have to make the case that there is a history of discrimination against them, that they are politically powerless to fight back, and that theirs is a “discrete group” with “immutable characteristics.” This is not easy.

Bradley and McHugh make the case abundantly and perhaps surprisingly that the plaintiffs fail on the questions of both discreteness and immutability.

The definition of a suspect class requires the group be “discrete” or distinct and definable. Race is an accepted category, for instance, but the Court has rejected age and poverty as suspect classes. Bradley and McHugh assert that sexual orientation fails, too, because it “may characterize points along a continuum of sexual attraction, sexual behavior, and sexual identity where individual categories are anything but distinct. They cite the Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, “There is currently no scientific or popular consensus…that definitely ‘qualify’ an individual as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.” The authors cite more than a dozen such quotations from equally authoritative sources.

In fact, the authors go on for 28 pages showing there is no agreed upon definition of sexual orientation, that sexual orientation—at least among those who claim some sort of same sex attraction—far from being immutable is in fact plastic. Citing a plethora of social science research, they show that degrees of homosexuality change consistently through the life of most who claim same-sex attraction, particularly among women.

The authors also demonstrate that there is not a single repeated scientific study showing that homosexuality is genetic.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/on-two-compelling-legal-briefs-that-challenge-same-sex-marriage?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CrisisMagazine+%28Crisis+Magazine%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

workingclass artist on February 21, 2013 at 12:57 PM

“HEY! In my opinion, which is not based on any specific personal experiences, gays raising children are bad.” … presented with successful child raised by two lesbians .. “One single person’s experience doesn’t matter!”

Or you could listen to mental health and medical professionals, “there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children (Patterson, 2000, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999)”

But then I would be erring in supposing you had somehow joined reality and accepted evidence-based scientific research in the past 10 minutes.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM

And yet when Professors actually come out and say the opposite it is squashed with claims of bias just like I am saying your studies are.

http://www.advocate.com/society/education/2012/06/18/professor-stands-biased-gay-parenting-study

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Marriage: something exclusively performed by churches, mosques, temples etc.

Certificate of Civil Union: something issued by the State.

This doesn’t have to be hard, people.

Bruno Strozek on February 21, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Two studies released Sunday may act like brakes on popular social-science assertions that gay parents are the same as — or maybe better than — married mother-father parents.

“The empirical claim that no notable differences exist must go,” University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus said in his study in Social Science Research.

Using a “gold standard” data set of nearly 3,000 randomly selected American young adults, Mr. Regnerus looked at their lives on 40 measures of social, emotional and relationship outcomes.

He found that, when compared with adults raised in married, mother-father families, adults raised by lesbian mothers had negative outcomes in 24 of 40 categories, while adults raised by gay fathers had negative outcomes in 19 categories.

Findings like these contradict claims that there are no differences between gay parenting and heterosexual, married parents, said Mr. Regnerus, who helped develop the New Family Structures Study at the University of Texas.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/10/study-suggests-risks-from-same-sex-parenting/#ixzz2LYdvnr68
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Or take it from someone who knows much better than YOU:

He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,
and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Matt. 19:4-6

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 12:44 PM

The writers of your source believed that the Earth was flat and that humans died because of evil spirits, as they had not yet discovered astronomy, cancer or germs.

Also probably why the writers still believe that humans were only male and female.

No one had created the scientific knowledge yet to understand the numerous genetic, hormonal and prenatal factors that have lead to the 1% of the human population being neither male nor female. Conditions like Klinefelter’s, Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, etc.

If only the writer of Matthew 19:4-6 had lived in the 21st Century and had access to modern scientific knowledge! I mean, I can’t imagine anyone living in 2013 would be stupid enough to cite a document from 70 AD and take that as scientific fact. That would be absurd to the Nth degree.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 1:00 PM

“One single person’s experience doesn’t matter!”

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Nice strawman. I didn’t say his experience doesn’t MATTER , just that it’s not authoritative.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Marriage: something exclusively performed by churches, mosques, temples etc.

Certificate of Civil Union: something issued by the State.

This doesn’t have to be hard, people.

Bruno Strozek on February 21, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Actually at this point, I am fine with scrapping the whole thing. The state has made a mockery of marriage and has done more harm than good anyways.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 1:01 PM

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Scientism, as a life philosophy, has been rejected by just about every Sociologist out there, young man.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 1:03 PM

The writers of your source believed that the Earth was flat and that humans died because of evil spirits, as they had not yet discovered astronomy, cancer or germs.

Actually sweetie, there are several passages in the Bible that go against your assertion where they actually refer to the earth as spherical, but thanks for playing. Maybe you should brush up on your biblical knowledge as well as your scientific knowledge..

I’ll help you Isiah 40:21-22

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Zach is young as well. He doesn’t understand the whole “bias” issue at all. A lot of his biological research that he is citing was done by gay biologists. That is why he doesn’t understand it when I say that they are projecting their biased on to history and animals, because Zach is projecting his own bias on to the research..

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 12:47 PM

There goes the far-right conspiracy theory flag again. Modern science has been infiltrated by THE GHEYS, and all biologists are homosexuals, so we can’t possibly trust it.

While you’re at it melle, I’d love to hear how NASA didn’t land on the moon again while we smoke pot and wear tinfoil hats. The part about Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin being the founders of your delusional ‘gay mafia’ / ‘gayfia’ organization have always been a treat.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 1:06 PM

“Quite simply, growing up with gay parents was very difficult, and not because of prejudice from neighbors. People in our community didn’t really know what was going on in the house. To most outside observers, I was a well-raised, high-achieving child, finishing high school with straight A’s.

Inside, however, I was confused. When your home life is so drastically different from everyone around you, in a fundamental way striking at basic physical relations, you grow up weird. I have no mental health disorders or biological conditions. I just grew up in a house so unusual that I was destined to exist as a social outcast.

My peers learned all the unwritten rules of decorum and body language in their homes; they understood what was appropriate to say in certain settings and what wasn’t; they learned both traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine social mechanisms.

Even if my peers’ parents were divorced, and many of them were, they still grew up seeing male and female social models. They learned, typically, how to be bold and unflinching from male figures and how to write thank-you cards and be sensitive from female figures. These are stereotypes, of course, but stereotypes come in handy when you inevitably leave the safety of your lesbian mom’s trailer and have to work and survive in a world where everybody thinks in stereotypical terms, even gays.

I had no male figure at all to follow, and my mother and her partner were both unlike traditional fathers or traditional mothers. As a result, I had very few recognizable social cues to offer potential male or female friends, since I was neither confident nor sensitive to others. Thus I befriended people rarely and alienated others easily. Gay people who grew up in straight parents’ households may have struggled with their sexual orientation; but when it came to the vast social universe of adaptations not dealing with sexuality—how to act, how to speak, how to behave—they had the advantage of learning at home. Many gays don’t realize what a blessing it was to be reared in a traditional home…”

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065/

workingclass artist on February 21, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Actually at this point, I am fine with scrapping the whole thing. The state has made a mockery of marriage and has done more harm than good anyways.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 1:01 PM

At this point, I pretty much have myself. When a society gets this far along on the path of decline, there’s little evidence that it will ever come back. Now, for me, it’s simply a matter of irritating those who are wise in their own conceits.

“Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.”

Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.

Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood. ”

Revelation 22:11-15

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 1:09 PM

There goes the far-right conspiracy theory flag again. Modern science has been infiltrated by THE GHEYS, and all biologists are homosexuals, so we can’t possibly trust it.

While you’re at it melle, I’d love to hear how NASA didn’t land on the moon again while we smoke pot and wear tinfoil hats. The part about Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin being the founders of your delusional ‘gay mafia’ / ‘gayfia’ organization have always been a treat.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 1:06 PM

So you are saying that there is no political agenda behind skewing scientific etc. results? You are seriously deluding yourself Zach. Seriously. We see this all the time with global warming and other things, but apparently gays are immune to this pressure because they are saints or something. There is no agenda behind their actions. You really are ridiculous, you know that. I have more respect for thuja who is atleast honest in their intentions.

What I find funny is that YOU accuse the American family and Christians and everyone else of bias but poor gays don’t suffer from this same problem.

Have you learned what simple organism are yet from your public high school evolution laced biology text books yet?

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 1:13 PM

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 1:00 PM

The Bible is certainly not a book of science but it is the story of God and humans relationship, morality, and spirituality. The homosexual marriage is not about science but about the morality… If we allow homosexual marriage then we should allow polygamy marriage, etc… It is an extremely dangerous road to walk on…

PS: You have an arrogant attitude and you claim to be scientific and I am certain that you have some meaningless liberal arts degree… I bet that if I conduct and IQ test on you you will not score more than 105… Now go and f*** yourself…

mnjg on February 21, 2013 at 1:14 PM

” Outside are the dogs…”

Revelation 22:11-15

In 1st century Theological writings, the term “dog” was understood as referring to humans engaged in certain unmentionable behaviors and not their canine companions.

But today’s homosexuals like to point out that in the animal kingdom homosexuality is observed.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 1:14 PM

And yet when Professors actually come out and say the opposite it is squashed with claims of bias just like I am saying your studies are.

http://www.advocate.com/society/education/2012/06/18/professor-stands-biased-gay-parenting-study

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Uh, duh. Regnerus’ study was biased, rejected by both peer-review and evidence and he was exposed as a fraud. That’s the beauty of evidence and peer-review.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 1:15 PM

That’s the beauty of evidence and peer-review.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Anthropogenic Global Warming.

sharrukin on February 21, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Anthropogenic Global Warming.

sharrukin on February 21, 2013 at 1:20 PM

He doesn’t get it. Apparently all his evidence and sources are all stellar and unbiased, but anything we cite is from Narth or the American Family Council or Biblical and immediately suspect. And apparently there is no gay bias because gays cannot be bias.. You get that unbias gene when you get the gay gene- who knew?

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 1:23 PM

He doesn’t get it.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 1:23 PM

He gets it, he just doesn’t give a sh!t. He will use any source to bolster his agenda.

sharrukin on February 21, 2013 at 1:26 PM

The funny thing about all of this is this: I am the least fringish on this. I am not religious. I really don’t care, but people like Zach and Ace make me care, because I see the writing on the wall.

I think marriage is a state issue and should be voted on accordingly, but then I see what happens in Massachusetts to Catholic Charities, and all the businesses being sued and I know there is a higher agenda at work, and frankly it scared the bejezus out of me. The fact that Mass. is now punishing students if they don’t want to be in a locker room with transgender students and they cannot refuse to be in a locker room with opposite gender students is scary. It is bleeding over in the kids and into other’s lives.

It isn’t about equality and acceptance. It is about indoctrination and forced feeding… and that I will not tolerate.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 1:29 PM

I really don’t care, but people like Zach and Ace make me care, because I see the writing on the wall.

It isn’t about equality and acceptance. It is about indoctrination and forced feeding… and that I will not tolerate.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 1:29 PM

All legislation is codified morality. In an age where judging another is the ultimate sin many want to evade or escape the reality of that. They shy away from doing so and cede the field to the left who has no such hesitation. Someone’s morality will be legislated. I don’t believe in God and have never been a Christian, but I would far rather trust them given their track record than any of the leftists.

sharrukin on February 21, 2013 at 1:35 PM

The Bible is certainly not a book of science but it is the story of God and humans relationship, morality, and spirituality. The homosexual marriage is not about science but about the morality… If we allow homosexual marriage then we should allow polygamy marriage, etc… It is an extremely dangerous road to walk on…

PS: You have an arrogant attitude and you claim to be scientific and I am certain that you have some meaningless liberal arts degree… I bet that if I conduct and IQ test on you you will not score more than 105… Now go and f*** yourself…

mnjg on February 21, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Who Wrote the Bible documentary — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCXlFWBcxBo

The Old Testament originates from pagan writings that were later revised by the cult of Yahweh (ancient Hebrew god of war akin to Aries), which is why the Old Testament repeated refers to plural ‘gods’ and even name drops the Canaanite gods Elyon (Genesis 14.18–19), Asherah (Jer 44:17–19, 25; Isaiah 17:8), Ba’al (1 Kings 16:30-34 ). The Yahweh cultists were trying to reconcile and rewrite their ancient texts with the idea that Yahweh was the only god. They were largely successful at rewriting the texts (except for what I’ve mentioned) and the idea of a single God was established in about 600 BCE.

The New Testament is composed of Paul’s letters, all of which were written before the Gospels. This is why Jesus’ divinity and miracles are not mentioned in them — Paul did not know or believe in Christ’s divinity. Mark was the first Gospel written decades after Christ’s death by an unknown author who lived in Syria; it was revised into Matthew a few years later by another. Luke-Acts were written by a Greek a decade or two later, and John was originally an appendix to the Gospels circa 80-95 AD that stopped at John 20. I don’t believe we have figured out where the rest of it came from. – None of the authors, including Paul, witnessed any of the Biblical events and lived hundred to thousands of miles away and decades after these events.

I digress from the LGBT discussion.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 1:35 PM

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 1:35 PM

You digress from reality. All your sources are biased. Who is your Biblical History source? Please cite, so we can laugh.

kingsjester on February 21, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Maybe if AP and Ed could be a little clearer on their support for SSM ,these threads wouldn’t get hijacked by the homophobes..
They’ll be, as Ace says, ‘wigging out’ no matter what.
The SSM debate is just an opp for them to find and engage with ‘same hate partners’…

verbaluce on February 21, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Maybe if AP and Ed could be a little clearer on their support for SSM ,these threads wouldn’t get hijacked by the homophobes..

We already know that Allah supports SSM. I am not sure Ed does, but even if he does, so what. Wouldn’t change my opinion a bit. You use of the word homophobe is predictable and boring..

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Maybe if AP and Ed could be a little clearer on their support for SSM ,these threads wouldn’t get hijacked by the homophobes..
They’ll be, as Ace says, ‘wigging out’ no matter what.
The SSM debate is just an opp for them to find and engage with ‘same hate partners’…

verbaluce on February 21, 2013 at 1:48 PM

1: I’m sure it woulnd’t be hard to figure it out.
2: Conservatives don’t give f*cks over being called homophobes. Empty insults will get you nowhere. In fact, we should start making it a contest to get idiots like you to spew the worst bile you can.

nobar on February 21, 2013 at 1:56 PM

You use of the word homophobe is predictable and boring..

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Not sure you have much of a sense of what’s predictable and boring.

verbaluce on February 21, 2013 at 1:57 PM

He knows his own specific experience, nothing more. It’ll be nice when he matures a little and gains a bit more humility in thinking that one’s own experience does not give one leverage to speak about the whole of humanity.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 12:41 PM

And when you grow up?

verbaluce on February 21, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Conservatives don’t give f*cks over being called homophobes.

nobar on February 21, 2013 at 1:56 PM

I imagine the homophobic ones don’t object, sure.
Same with homophobic liberals.
And homophobic bus drivers.

verbaluce on February 21, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Not sure you have much of a sense of what’s predictable and boring.

verbaluce on February 21, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Let’s see a liberal calling a conservative a homophobe, a racist, a misogynist etc. to shut them up..yep predictable and boring..

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 2:04 PM

I digress from the LGBT discussion.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 1:35 PM

No you didn’t.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 2:09 PM

You digress from reality. All your sources are biased. Who is your Biblical History source? Please cite, so we can laugh.

kingsjester on February 21, 2013 at 1:39 PM

No single source. It’s summarized in what’s called the ‘Documentary Hypothesis’, which is derived from literary analysis (analysis of the written language, the word choice, narrative flow), archaeological evidence, supporting non-biblical documents, carbon-dating, etc. It is only theory that exists outside of the Christian theory of the origins of the Bible (e.g. Moses wrote the Torah, or Matthew/Mark/Luke/John actually existed as real people).

http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/doc-hyp.pdf
http://hebrew.wisc.edu/~rltroxel/Intro/hypoth.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/writers-bible.html
Lecture from Yale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy5ue0QPUOo

It’s really not worth arguing about, because Christianity has staked the position ‘inspired by God’. All evidence that has been brought to light by historians, Biblical scholars and scientists has readily be dismissed as “Humans are flawed, but were guided by the Holy Spirit in writing the Bible” regardless of how damning the evidence has been.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 2:13 PM

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 1:35 PM

You think that showing us a junk documentary is going to change the truth about the Bible?… You come here and insult billions of people by posting total lies about the origin of the Bible… As I said before you are an arrogant idiot with a meaningless liberal arts degree and think that you are much smarter than who you really are… I made a mistake when I said that your IQ would not exceed 105, in fact it would not exceed 95…

mnjg on February 21, 2013 at 2:23 PM

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 2:13 PM

As with your other “evidence”, for me to refute everthing you have claimed, using my set of experts, would be a waste time, for you are as set in your atheist/homoosexual-is-normal belief system as I am in my Christian faith, which is shared by 78% of Americans, according to Gallup.

kingsjester on February 21, 2013 at 2:25 PM

It’s really not worth arguing about, because Christianity has staked the position ‘inspired by God’. All evidence that has been brought to light by historians, Biblical scholars and scientists has readily be dismissed as “Humans are flawed, but were guided by the Holy Spirit in writing the Bible” regardless of how damning the evidence has been.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Faith requires no proof. Anyone who demands proof is never convinced.

nobar on February 21, 2013 at 2:25 PM

It’s really not worth arguing about, because Christianity has staked the position ‘inspired by God’. All evidence that has been brought to light by historians, Biblical scholars and scientists has readily be dismissed as “Humans are flawed, but were guided by the Holy Spirit in writing the Bible” regardless of how damning the evidence has been.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 2:13 PM

No, it’s not dismissed. It’s simply never proven itself superior to earlier and more authoritative sources.

Who should I believe about, say, the authorship of Revelation? A member of the Jesus Seminar, a late 20th century group of scholars and clearly a biased anti-Biblical group of skeptics or First and Second century sources?

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Dudesmoochery is a Malkavian prank – Dementation gone hysterically awry. F(;..;)F

Jeddite on February 21, 2013 at 2:38 PM

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 2:04 PM

The irony with your complaint, is that you’re the one casting the wide net.

verbaluce on February 21, 2013 at 2:43 PM

You think that showing us a junk documentary is going to change the truth about the Bible?… You come here and insult billions of people by posting total lies about the origin of the Bible… As I said before you are an arrogant idiot with a meaningless liberal arts degree and think that you are much smarter than who you really are… I made a mistake when I said that your IQ would not exceed 105, in fact it would not exceed 95…

mnjg on February 21, 2013 at 2:23 PM

I apologize if you are insulted. My only wish would be for you to read the Bible in its entirety (if you have not) and learn what the history of your beliefs are. The Yale lecture I linked to is one lecture of 24 dedicated to the origins of the Old Testament Bible. It’s a good resource among many sources, including another favorite of mine, a History of God by Karen Armstrong.

ZachV on February 21, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Who should I believe about, say, the authorship of Revelation? A member of the Jesus Seminar, a late 20th century group of scholars and clearly a biased anti-Biblical group of skeptics or First and Second century sources?

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Really…that’s your argument?
I assume you believe the first century sources more than the second century ones (those skeptical hacks!)…

verbaluce on February 21, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Really…that’s your argument?
I assume you believe the first century sources more than the second century ones (those skeptical hacks!)…

verbaluce on February 21, 2013 at 2:46 PM

It’s not an argument, knucklehead. It’s a question. A valid question. Let’s hear you answer.

Cleombrotus on February 21, 2013 at 2:56 PM

The irony with your complaint, is that you’re the one casting the wide net.

verbaluce on February 21, 2013 at 2:43 PM

No, a genuine conservative- conserves hence the name- so wouldn’t be for gay marriage.

A genuine libertarian is small government so wouldn’t be for creating bigger government to recognize another sexual relationship.

So that leaves you being a liberal.

And just because someone disagrees with legal recognition of a sexual relationship makes someone a hater or scared of a political group means that you are casting a wide net there sport.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 3:01 PM

No, a genuine conservative- conserves hence the name- so wouldn’t be for gay marriage.

A genuine libertarian is small government so wouldn’t be for creating bigger government to recognize another sexual relationship.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Well you’ve settled it for all.
Do you offer signed certificates of authenticity?

verbaluce on February 21, 2013 at 3:08 PM

verbaluce on February 21, 2013 at 3:08 PM

So what would you define yourself as?

Who did you vote for?

And if a COnservative isn’t a traditionalist or doesn’t conserve what does it do?

If a libertarian isn’t for small govenment, what is it for?

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 3:11 PM

If a libertarian isn’t for small govenment, what is it for?

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Just curious if you see gay marriage as a hindrance to small govt’ – or any marriage?
(Not talking about what churches, synagogues, mosques, secret clubs do or do not sanctify.)

verbaluce on February 21, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Just curious if you see gay marriage as a hindrance to small govt’ – or any marriage?
(Not talking about what churches, synagogues, mosques, secret clubs do or do not sanctify.)

verbaluce on February 21, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Generally marriage was to the state’s benefit, so that it could keep track of property and future tax payers. It has continued to benefit the state until they figured out that it could get more power becoming the daddy in the marriage and by breaking up the marriage in general hence no-fault divorce and the creation of welfare. Do I think that marriage in general is big government– yes. I think that at one time it was a necessary evil because the state saw that heterosexual legally paired naturally through biologically children and that it was to their benefit to encourage that. Now, not so much.

melle1228 on February 21, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4