George Will: ‘Sore winners’ in gay rights movement pushing too far

George Will should have been smarter.

Fielding a question from Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” about Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s veto of a bill that would have allowed private businesses to turn away customers based on the business owners’ religious beliefs, Will responded by implying that religious views actually deserve some respect.

georgewill0302The public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act requires businesses to serve all customers equally, Will acknowledged, as the courts have ruled in recent cases involving gay marriages.

“If you open your doors to business in the United States, you open it to everybody. That’s a settled issue,” Will said.

“That said, this too must be said: It’s a funny kind of winner in the gay rights movement that would say, ‘a photographer doesn’t want to photograph my wedding. I’ve got lots of other photographers I can go to, but I’m going to use the hammer of government to force them to do this.’

“It’s not neighborly and it’s not nice,” Will said. “The gay rights movement is winning. They should be, as I say, not sore winners.”

As smart as he is, Will is assuming far too much. The whole concept of “neighborly” – the implicit understanding that Americans in 2014 can respect the rights of their fellow citizens on their own steam, without the litigious hand of the state getting involved – isn’t much in vogue these days in Obama’s America.

Obamas set new record for vacation expenses; stonewalled documents finally released

It’s getting less in vogue with every passing case, whether it’s a baker in Oregon who has no right not to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding or a photographer in New Mexico who has to pay to settle a complaint about refusing to shoot a lesbian marriage.

The libs are already chortling at Will’s comment. The lefty website Raw Story is headlining its take on it: “George Will: It’s ‘not neighborly’ for LGBT people to ask for equal rights,” and it will be no surprise when the boringly predictable Bill Maher or The New York Times editorial page start making strained comparisons between borrowing cups of sugar and the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

The fact is, Obama liberals are using the hammer of government to pound away at religious liberty, whether it’s the Portland, Ore., bakers who lost their case, or the Little Sisters of the Poor, who are still waiting for the Supreme Court to hear theirs.

So Will really hit the nail on the head when he said they’re not nice and they’re not neighborly.

He just should have been smarter.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed

Joe Saunders

Joe Saunders, a 25-year newspaper veteran, is a staff writer and editor for BizPac Review who lives in Tallahassee and covers capital and Florida politics. Email Joe at jpjsaunders@gmail.com.
About Joe Saunders

Joe Saunders, a 25-year newspaper veteran, is a staff writer and editor for BizPac Review who lives in Tallahassee and covers capital and Florida politics. Email Joe at jpjsaunders@gmail.com.

  • Anthony

    Where’s EliseR to make stupid-ass comments on this one???

    • EliseR

      Not worth my time. Some of you will never understand the concept of treating people with respect and dignity regardless of their sexual orientation. Easier to just let you wallow in your hate while the rest of the country moves forward.

      • Sam

        You are wrong. It’s not about hate.

        • magister ludi

          Christians do. But 99% who claim to be Christians are hypocrites, liars, Paulians or all of the above.

      • Eric

        Its rich saying we wallow in hate when Ive seen you post hate yourself, Miss Hypocrite!!

      • Teresa

        Where ya moving forward to Elise? I don’t care who you have sex with. I just don’t want to hear it. I don’t go around saying, hey I am heterosexual. If I was bi-sexual I should be able to marry both of my partners, right?

        • magister ludi

          You are bisexual, as are all human beings. And yes, you should be allowed to marry both, or all, your partners. Why the hell not?

      • Theresa Easley

        Like you and your ilk wallow in your hate for Christians? What about treating Christians with respect and dignity? Why should they be forced to go against their beliefs? How would you like to be forced to go against something you believe strongly in?

        • magister ludi

          Nice try. I have plenty of Christian friends and have even accompanied them to their churches upon invitation. I respect anyone with a kind, loving heart.

          But I have absolutely NO respect for intolerant bigots and hypocrites who hide behind a false veneer of Christianity. They are the “brood of vipers” of whom Jesus spoke.

        • Sam

          Next they will call you an intolerant bigot. I don’t know why.

      • Pamela K. Cahoon Laub

        No respect or dignity is given to Christian business owners by gays. Bakers and photographers are willing to provide services to gays, just not services supporting “weddings”.

        • magister ludi

          Then close your business, go into the closet and pray in silent, as Jesus told you to do.

          There’s your “free exercise” of religion, you hypocrite.

      • Joey H

        Elsie, bless your heart. You still know what it means to be part of the human race.

      • AmyB123

        Respect and dignity go both ways EliseR. Have some respect for people’s religious beliefs and go find a different photographer, cake baker or whatever. That is the crux of the issue in a nutshell. The DEMAND that liberal views be respected while TRAMPLING on any opposing view. The religious right has as much right to their beliefs as the liberal left.

        • magister ludi

          Not according to the Constititution nor the repeated Supreme Court decisions from both conservative-leaning courts and more liberal ones, from the 19th century up until the present.

          The need to preserve the “good order” of society has always been given more weight than the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment.

          • AmyB123

            Really have no idea where you are going with that. Is that an attempt to “force” goodwill? This is a simple lesson most learn on the playground. You give respect, you get it in return. Simple. The only people who think they can force respect are also known as bullies. As usual those who gain an inch want to force a mile. You will never get a Christian to promote or accept homosexuality no matter how much you litigate so why try to force them to? Do you realize there are many states with old laws on the books that make any type of sex act other than man/woman missionary position illegal? Should we demand prosecutions? Of course not, it’s ridiculous – almost as ridiculous as demanding a Christian bake a cake for a gay wedding when there are thousands of other bakers out there. This isn’t about equality – it’s a blatant power grab.

        • corruptintenz

          If by liberal views, you mean equality and freedom, then yes.

          • Wraith

            New York Governor Dave Paterson made
            some curious remarks on the gay marriage issue yesterday. The gist of them, so
            far as I can understand it, was that (a) opponents of gay marriage are
            motivated by their religion, and (b) the present opposition is vitiated by
            failure to speak out against the hell on earth (“beaten and often brutalized”)
            that homosexual college students endured before … well, before some unspecified
            event that enlightened everyone and made it all stop. Gov. Paterson’s
            accession, perhaps.

            It’s all pretty incoherent, but
            that’s our Gov. for you. It did get me thinking, though, in the secular-right
            context, of the non-religious conservative case against gay marriage. There
            certainly is one, composed of some the following elements, mixed in proportions
            according to personal taste.

            (1) Anti-Minoritarianism. The majority has rights, too.

            (2) The social recognition of
            committed heterosexual bonding has been a constant for thousands of years. No-one of a conservative inclination wants to mess lightly with that. Counter-arguments like “so was slavery” are unconvincing, as the occasional slights suffered by homosexual couples are microscopic by comparison with the injustice
            of human beings buying and selling other human beings. Gay marriage proponents
            make much of the cruelty and injustices of the past. I must say, though, being old enough to remember some of that past, I am unimpressed. I was in college in the early 1960s. There were homosexual students, and nobody minded them. They seemed perfectly happy. Certainly they were not ”beaten and brutalized”; and if they had been, I assume the ordinary laws of assault and battery would have come into play. I can recall even further back, known homosexual couples keeping house together in my provincial English home town in the 1950s. People made jokes about it, but nobody bothered them

          • corruptintenz

            1) That the majority has rights does not prioritize the rights of the majority over the rights of the minority.

            2) Appeal to tradition = logical fallacy. Rejected.

          • Wraith

            The
            Founding Fathers didn’t mention anything about same gender unions. It was universally understood that a marriage was between a man & a woman. The term of domestic partnerships is a fallacy & it is still rejected by all societies around the globe. There is a reason why the institution of marriage
            was established the way it was established since the dawn of civilization. Your futile attempt to reconstruct the fabric of the social cluster will fail miserably in the end because it does not follow the biological divide of the
            sexes backed up by natural selection. You can’t fool nature itself. So you are the reject according to natural selection.

          • corruptintenz

            Can you show how your argument could be made without a reliance on appeal to tradition/logical fallacy?

            Admittedly, the Founding Fathers did not advocate same-sex marriage–it wasn’t an issue in 1776. Being a product of their times, when they wrote “All men are created equal,” they meant all land-owning white males. But the Founding Fathers did believe in the equality of all citizens. Alexander Hamilton wrote that “I desire above all things to see the equality of political rights exclusive of all hereditary distinction firmly established by a practical demonstration of its being consistent with the order and happiness of society.” Now that being a land-owning white male isn’t necessary in order to enjoy all of the rights enshrined in the Constitution, the Founding Fathers’ precepts apply to LGBT citizens as well.

          • Wraith

            : Happiness was not equal to homosexuality back in the day, so you are lying. The Founding Fathers didn’t endorse any sort of sodomy, or homosexuality at all. Their values are quite different from yours. LGBT are citizens, yes they are, but do
            they really benefit the State knowing that they don’t produce the future
            offspring that will preserve the State intact? Those questions have to be
            established.

            ARE MEN WHO MOLEST BOYS REALLY ‘HOMOSEXUALS’? Gay Apologists Insist on a Simplistic Stereotype of Pedophilia

            Central to the attempts to separate
            homosexuality from pedophilia is the claim that pedophiles cannot, by
            definition, be considered homosexuals. Relying upon a questionable
            methodology[23], the gay advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign published
            a “Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation and Child Abuse,” that states:
            “A sexual abuser who molests a child of the same sex is usually not
            considered homosexual.”[24]

            The basis for this claim is the view
            that pedophiles who molest boys cannot be considered homosexual if that
            individual has at any time been married or sexually involved with women.

            ‘Homosexual Pedophiles’: A Clinical
            Term

            The fact is, however, that the terms
            “homosexual” and “pedophile” are not mutually exclusive:
            they describe two intersecting types of sexual attraction. Webster’s
            Dictionary defines “homosexual” as someone who is sexually
            attracted to persons of the same sex. “Pedophile” is defined as
            “an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.” The former
            definition refers to the gender of the desired sexual object, while the
            latter refers to the age of the desired sexual object.

            A male “homosexual
            pedophile,” then, is defined as someone who is generally (but not
            exclusively, see below) sexually attracted to boys, while a female
            “homosexual pedophile” is sexually attracted to girls.[25]

            The term “homosexual
            pedophile” was first used in the early 20th century by the Viennese
            psychiatrist Dr. Richard von Krafft -Ebing, who pioneered the systematic study
            of sexual deviance. Krafft-Ebing described pedophiles as heterosexually,
            homosexually or bisexually oriented.[26] This division has been accepted by
            pedophiles themselves,[27] and is well attested in the literature:

            A study of child molesters in Behavior
            Research and Therapy found that “a homosexual and a heterosexual
            subgroup can be delineated among these offenders.”[28]

            The Journal of Sex and Marital
            Therapy published a study on the same topic, which discussed “the
            proportional prevalences of heterosexual and homosexual pedophilia.”[29]
            The study commented on a study that found that “the percentage of the
            homosexual pedophiles would be 45.8.” Even adjusted downward for
            exhibitionists, “this would still indicate a much higher percentage (34
            percent) of homosexuals among pedophiles than among men who prefer physically
            mature partners.”[30]

            In a review of studies on
            pedophilia, the Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa concluded:
            “The findings of previous studies report that pedophiles can be divided
            into heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles according to their erotic
            preference. . . . This was confirmed in this recent study.”[31] The
            article classified homosexual pedophilia into three types: the socially
            inadequate homosexual pedophile, the intrusive homosexual pedophile, and the
            undifferentiated homosexual pedophile.[32]

            A study of pedophiles in Behavior
            Research and Therapy concluded: “The second, and perhaps the most
            important observation we made, is that a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup
            can be delineated among these offenders. . . . Categorizing them in this way
            revealed important differences in the pattern of their sexual
            preferences.”[33]

            The International Journal of
            Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology refers to homosexual
            pedophiles as a “distinct group.” The victims of homosexual
            pedophiles “were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely
            to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the
            offence, and that they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual
            offences. . . . Other studies [showed a] greater risk of reoffending than those
            who had offended against girls” and that the “recidivism rate for
            male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders.”[34]

            Homosexuals and Homosexual
            Pedophiles Engage in a Wide Variety of Sexual Behavior that Belies Simplistic
            Categories

            Despite this evidence, in their
            efforts to divorce homosexuality from pedophilia, homosexual apologists insist
            on a rigid, narrow definition of the terms “homosexual” and
            “pedophile” that permits no overlap of the terms. They deny that
            homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys. They also claim that
            pedophiles cannot be classified as “homosexual” if at any time they have
            had sexual relations with women.

            However, such a narrow definition
            does not do justice to the complex nature of pedophilia. Researchers have long
            been aware that pedophiles exhibit a wide variety of sexual attractions and
            behavior–often to draw attention away from their primary lust for boys. A
            study on sex offenders in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and
            Comparative Criminology notes that “the reason child sexual abusers
            are successful at remaining undetected is because they do not fit a
            stereotype.”[35]

            The data indicates that both
            homosexuality and pedophilia are intersecting categories that admit to a wide
            variety of sexual behavior:

            Homosexual Males are Sexually
            Attracted to Underage Boys

            A study in Archives of Sexual
            Behavior found that homosexual men are attracted to young males. The study
            compared the sexual age preferences of heterosexual men, heterosexual women,
            homosexual men, and lesbians. The results showed that, in marked contrast to
            the other three categories, “all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred
            the youngest two male age categories,” which included males as young as
            age fifteen.[36]

            In The Gay Report, by homosexual
            researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young, the authors report data showing that 73
            percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys sixteen to
            nineteen years of age or younger.”

          • corruptintenz

            Are citizens only citizens if they ‘benefit the state’? If so, where is that codified?

            Pedophilia is a form of paraphilia (there are ~100 defined), and as such is discrete from the concept of homosexuality. This is to say one can be hetero and be a pedophile or have any range of paraphilia’s in addition. There have been no link shown between paraphilia and sexual orientation (or religion for that matter).

          • Wraith

            Pedophile Themes Abound in Gay
            Literature

            The late “beat” poet Allen
            Ginsberg illustrates the seamless connection between homosexuality and
            pedophilia. Many know Ginsberg as an illustrious “out” homosexual
            poet: fewer are aware that he was also a pedophile.

            Biographer Raymond-Jean Frontain
            refers to Ginsberg’s publications in both NAMBLA Bulletin and NAMBLA Journal.
            He discusses how Ginsberg’s biographers failed to discuss his poems that
            contained pederastic themes:

            Although both Shumacher and Barry Miles (Ginsberg’s initial
            biographer) frankly discuss Ginsberg’s sexual politics, neither refers to his
            involvement with the controversial North American Man/Boy Love Association. . .
            . I reread Collected Poems and Ginsberg’s two subsequent collections, surprised
            by the pattern of references to anal intercourse and to pederasty that
            emerged.[54]

            Ginsberg was one of the first of a
            growing number of homosexual writers who cater to the fascination with
            pedophilia in the gay community. Mary Eberstadt, writing in the Weekly
            Standard, documents how the taboo against sex with children continues to
            erode–with the impetus coming from homosexual writers.[55]

            Revealingly, the examples she
            provides of pedophilia in current literature come from gay fiction. Eberstadt
            cites the Village Voice, which states that “Gay fiction is rich
            with idyllic accounts of ‘intergenerational relationships,’ as such affairs are
            respectfully called these days.”[56] Other examples of pedophilia-themed
            gay fiction include:

            In the introduction of the
            “mainstream” homosexual anthology Penguin Book on International
            Gay Writing, David Leavitt notes matter-of-factly that “Another
            ‘forbidden’ topic from which European writers seem less likely to shrink is the
            love of older men for young boys.” Leavitt praises one book with a
            pedophilic theme included in the anthology as a “coolly assured narrative
            [which] compels the reader to imagine the world from a perspective he might
            ordinarily condemn.”[57]

            Several texts included in another anthology,
            The Gay Canon: Great Books Every Gay Man Should Read, feature scenes of
            man-boy sex. One such book is praised as “an operatic adventure into the
            realms of love, personality, ambition and art . . . a pure joy to read.”
            The protagonist is “a pedophile’s dream: the mind of a man in the body of
            a boy.”[58] Another novel which includes graphic descriptions of sexual
            violence against boys is said to “[tear] straight to the heart of one of
            the greatest sources, community-wide, of 1990′s gay angst: What to do with men
            who love boys?”[59]

            Yet another anthology of homosexual
            fiction, A History of Gay Literature: The Male Tradition, published by
            Yale University Press, includes “a longish chapter on ‘Boys and Boyhood’
            which is a seemingly definitive account of pro-pedophile literary
            works.”[60] The author appears more concerned with the feelings and
            emotions of the man than with his boy victim. He explores the question of
            “whether or not you regard [having sex with boys] as a way of retreating
            from life or, on the contrary, as a way of engaging with it at its most
            honest and least corrupted level.”[61]

            A significant percentage of books
            that have appeared on the Gay Men’s Press fiction bestseller list contain
            pedophilia themes, including:

            Some Boys: described
            as a “memoir of a lover of boys” that “evokes the author’s young
            friends across four decades.”[62]

            For a Lost Soldier:
            the story of a sexual relationship between a soldier and an eleven-year-old
            boy, set during World War II.[63]

            A Good Start, Considering: yet another story about an eleven-year-old boy (!) who
            suffers sexual abuse but is rescued by a teenager who “offers him love and
            affection”[64]

            Terre Haute: billed
            as “A poetic novel of sexual awakening in the American Midwest, tracing an
            adolescent’s journey from introspection to perilous desire.”

            Shiva and Arun: the
            story of two Indian adolescents who “discover early on the joys of
            sex.”

            Teardrops on My Drum:
            barefoot kids in 1920′s Liverpool search for “adventure, love and
            sex.”

            Pro-pedophilia Publications

            Recent years have seen the
            appearance of publications that lend a scholarly veneer to the fascination with
            pedophilia in the gay community. Such publications attempt to make the case for
            “intergenerational intimacy.” The nation’s largest gay publisher, Alyson
            Publications, which distributes Daddy’s Roommate and other homosexual
            books that promote homosexuality to children, publishes books advocating
            man-boy sex, including:

            Paedophilia: The Radical Case, which contains detailed information on how to engage in
            sexual relations with young boys.[65]

            The Age Taboo, another defense of pedophiliawhich claims: “Boy-lovers
            . . . are not child molesters. The child abusers are . . . parents who force
            their staid morality onto the young people in their custody.”[66]

            The Journal of Homosexuality and
            Pedophilia

            The Journal of Homosexuality is
            viewed as the premier “mainstream” English-language publication of
            the gay movement. One prominent editor is John DeCecco, a psychologist at San
            Francisco State University who also serves on the editorial board of the Dutch
            pedophile journal Paidika. It is therefore not surprising to see
            pedophilia promoted on its pages.

            In 1990 the Journal of
            Homosexuality published a series of essays on pedophilia that were
            eventually published as Male Inter-Generational Intimacy:Historical,
            Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives, edited by pedophile Edward
            Brongersma. None of the essays offered any substantive criticism of pedophilia:
            most blatantly promoted man-boy love as the natural right of homosexuals.

            In 1999 Helmut Graupner, wrote an
            article on pedophilia in the Journal of Homosexuality, in which he
            claims: “Man/boy and woman/girl relations without doubt are same-sex
            relations and they do constitute an aspect of gay and lesbian life.” Graupner
            argues that, as such, consensual sexual relations between adult homosexuals and
            youths as young as fourteen qualifies as a “gay rights issue.”[67]

            The fascination with pedophilia
            continues to be a cause of concern even within the gay community. Lesbian
            columnist Paula Martinac, writing in the homosexual newspaper Washington
            Blade, states:

            [S]ome gay men still maintain that an adult who has same-sex
            relations with someone under the legal age of consent is on some level doing
            the kid a favor by helping to bring him or her ‘out.’ It’s not pedophilia, this
            thinking goes–pedophilia refers only to little kids. Instead,
            adult-youth sex is viewed as an important aspect of gay culture, with a history
            dating back to ‘Greek love’ of ancient times. This romanticized version of
            adult-youth sexual relations has been a staple of gay literature and has made
            appearances, too, in gay-themed films.[68]

            Martinac adds that “When some
            gay men venerate adult-youth sex as affirming while simultaneously declaring
            ‘We’re not pedophiles,’ they send an inconsistent message to society. . . . The
            lesbian and gay community will never be successful in fighting the pedophile
            stereotype until we all stop condoning sex with young people.”[69]

          • Wraith

            Yours is a corruption of the social cluster.

          • corruptintenz

            Can you show this to be true rather than just declaring it so?

          • Wraith

            I am doing so; don’t you know how to read? What is so special about being LGBT? Again, according to natural selection, you people are the weakest link. There is a biological divide of the sexes, & it does serve the purpose of preserving the species intact, you are promoting human population control, or depopulation for that matter with this lifestyle. Go beyond love, justify your behavior.

          • corruptintenz

            Repeatedly declaring it to be so != showing it to be so. Cite your source. Hint: saying it again in all caps doesn’t constitute a source.

            Can you show what my behavior is or why even having done so I would need to justify it?

          • Wraith

            I will tell you as I tell all pro-gay advocates; I will not cite my sources. This is not a college level paper. & you people are so resentful, that you might get someone hurt or even fired. So no, don’t expect any cites from my part. Screw you!

          • Wraith

            Greetings Friends and
            Fellow Humans;

            I must say that I
            appreciate the painstaking detail you have put into your short dissertation. I
            am also quite interested to note that at the end of it, your response is the
            same non-scientific response that supporters of ‘gay science’ use to push the
            argument that homosexuality is anything more than behavioral choice.

            After more than 60 years
            of focused study, all really to promote an argument in favor of
            non-heterosexual behavior as normative in humans, the most scientific statement
            we can make is ‘Why would someone choose to be gay?’. That is unfortunate.

            Scientifically speaking,
            Sherlock Holmes (a fictional scientist), said quite often that after examining
            all possibilities as to a cause or solution to a puzzle, and finding no
            reasonable or logical answer, whatever remained, no matter how uncomfortable,
            illogical, or unreasonable it appear to be, must be the answer.

            We keep trying to look to
            logic and science to justify what is clearly emotional behavior. We’ve mapped
            the gene pool; we’ve studied hormone secretions and malfunctions of all kinds,
            brainwaves, brain size, brain structure, biological, bio-physical,
            bio-chemical, and psychiatric stratifications of various kinds. After all that,
            the best scientific answer we can muster is ‘Why would someone choose to be
            gay?’

            The answer, as
            uncomfortable as it may seem dear friends, is CHOICE itself. Why do I choose to
            be a vegetarian when steak and eggs abound? Why do I choose to be Buddhist
            rather than Muslim? Why do I choose milk over alcohol or drink only water? Even
            when threatened with torture and death, why do I choose to be a Christian? Some
            people (even parents) wonder why anyone in their right mind would choose to be
            a parent.

            Seriously now, we can find
            and illuminate some human proclivities and potential behavioral processes in
            Science. But there is no gene that makes us alcoholics or kleptomaniacs or
            Democrats or professional athletes. These are all matters of CHOICE when we are done. No getting it away from it, fellow ‘Matrix’ fans.

            In the absence of tangible
            evidence, after more than 3000 years of debate, science, philosophy, and
            religious review, the answer, as uncomfortable and as illogical as it may
            ‘feel’, is CHOICE.

            I really really really
            really really really hope that any responses to this are going to be
            expositions of evidence (All I’ve heard is theories up to now). I look forward
            to reading, seeing, and or testing it.

          • corruptintenz

            “After more than 60 years
            of focused study, all really to promote an argument in favor of
            non-heterosexual behavior as normative in humans, the most scientific statement
            we can make is ‘Why would someone choose to be gay?’. That is unfortunate.”

            Can you show this position to be true rather than just declaring it so?

          • Wraith

            A state cannot survive with a vast majority of homosexuals. It is true that a State can do just fine with heterosexual couples. In other words we don’t need you at all. I don’t need you. Can you justify homosexual behavior at all? Do so, I openly challenge you. How does the State benefit from the LGBT community at all, if we all know that nations do grow old? You are full of yourself.

    • Phil Davenport

      There she is, right on cue… You are a prophet, Anthony!

  • Wraith

    The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution came first than this movement. So I strongly disagree with George Will. The government might enforce it, but the people eventually will never forget what government did to them. People of faith cannot go against their conscious.

    • magister ludi

      People of faith have no conscience (and I suspect they may not be conscious, either). They really on ignorant interpretations of an ancient book instead of their own minds.

      That’s not called “conscience”; it’s called “blind obedience”. Sheep have no conscience.

      • Wraith

        People of this LGBT movement have no regards whatsoever
        for the rest of us. You have to understand that the Founding Fathers of this
        nation didn’t mention nothing whatsoever about same gender unions. I am deist
        the same as so many of them. I also hold so many of the values they held back
        in the day. I don’t use the Book whatsoever. I do know that there is a
        biological natural order of the divide of the sexes that is backed up by
        natural selection. Their lifestyle is promoting human population control. They want
        to live their lifestyle, fine, they can do so, but I still cannot acknowledge
        them because I know that in order to preserve a social cluster working, that
        social cluster needs by force heterosexual couples. A State can survive with
        heterosexual couples which constitutes the family nucleus, but a State cannot
        survive with a vast majority of homosexuals in their community. Just do the experiment,
        put a cluster of gays inside an island, just to see what will happen. You know
        that they will not stand a 100 years trying to preserve their civilization. In the
        end, they will grow old & will pass away. I am no sheep, I am a wolf. I am
        stating things that can be corroborated. Religion has nothing to do with it,
        but still, it is protected by the Constitution of the United States of America.
        Changing it will mean that this will no longer be a Democratic Republic at all.

        • corruptintenz

          If you are a wolf, then you are thankfully almost extinct in the US.

          The LGTB probably don’t even know you exist, nor do they care. The same way you shouldn’t care about them.

          The Founding Fathers did believe in the equality of all citizens. Alexander Hamilton wrote that “I desire above all things to see the equality of political rights exclusive of all hereditary distinction firmly established by a practical demonstration of its being consistent with the order and happiness of society.” The Founding Fathers’ precepts apply to LGBT citizens as well. This is one ‘value’ you don’t seem to share with them.

          I have much admiration for your scholarly work on the ‘social clusters’ and ‘gays on an island’. Where is it published? Can you show the data?

          What is the ‘it’ that you claim is protected by the constitution? Bigotry?

          • Wraith

            Homosexuals will surely go into extinction first, for none of you can have kids. You people are bigots against people of faith, or against people that don’t want to follow
            your trends. I am openly against you people. Why? If you keep it for
            yourselves, for adults, well, adults can make their own lives, but you people
            are invading other places like the Boy Scouts of America, or the California
            School districts with transgender & transsexual laws. Parents do have the
            right to teach their children their own values; you have no right to interfere
            with that process.

            Girls Threatened With Hate Crime
            Charges For Complaining About Transgender Bathroom

            Harassment

            School tells parents boy’s rights
            as transgender trump their daughter’s privacy rights

            October 14, 2013

            Female students at Florence High
            School in Colorado were threatened with hate crimes charges when they
            complained about being harassed by a transgender boy in the girls’ bathroom.

            Initial complaints about the
            transgender student’s behavior towards the girls were made by their parents,
            who were told by the school that the boy’s transgender rights trumped the
            privacy rights of their daughters.

            When the female students
            continued to complain about the harassment, the school threatened to kick them
            off the athletic team or even hit them with hate crimes charges if they didn’t
            stay silent.

            The Pacific Justice Institute
            sent a letter to the school warning them against prioritizing transgender
            rights over the privacy rights of female students.

            “We’re not going to stand by and
            let 99.7 percent of our students lose their privacy and free speech rights just
            because .3 percent of the population are gender-confused,” the letter stated.

            The school so adamantly sided
            with the transgender student that officials even suggested the girls give up
            access to most of their restrooms altogether, reported CBN News.

            Although Colorado’s treatment of
            transgender school children is determined by policy, California became the
            first U.S. state to mandate by law the right of girls and boys to choose which
            bathroom they would use regardless of their gender back in August when
            Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown signed AB 1266, otherwise known as the ‘Transgender
            Bathroom Bill’. The law takes effect on January 1st.

            The Pacific Justice Institute is
            circulating a petition that would force state officials to put the bill up for
            a referendum. If the group collects 500,000 signatures from Californians before
            November 10, the Bathroom Bill will be temporarily suspended until it is voted on
            at the next State general election in November of 2014.

            Californians “jolted by the
            mental image of children sharing lavatories and locker rooms with opposite-sex
            classmates,” are making concerted efforts to repeal the bill before it becomes
            law, reports Bloomberg. If the bill is suspended, it could set the precedent
            for other areas of the country.

            However, in states like
            Colorado, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Washington, students and parents are
            at the mercy of schools who have already instituted policies which exalt the
            rights of a tiny minority while violating the privacy rights of a huge majority
            of students who are being forced to share bathrooms with members of the
            opposite sex who identify as transgender.

            There, this should suffice. Yes, this is an
            elementary school in which the state passed a law that allows transsexual or
            transgender children into the restroom of girls. Boy this is going to cause a
            lot of problems in the long run! You can try & indoctrinate children, you
            are not going to succeed. Ultimately parents will have the last say on how they
            educated their children. No law will ever change that. Plus, you cannot change
            an individual internally, speaking of transsexual & transgender people. You
            cannot change their internal organs. A man will never have the internal organs
            of a woman, & vice versa, a woman will never have the internal &
            external organs of a man. They can inject all the hormones & pheromones
            they want, they can operate themselves to look alike, but they will never be
            what they want to be. You know this. You know it clearly. The girls clearly
            understand this & they do complain. They know that there is a boy inside
            their restroom. & that boy, no matter how feminine he is, or how feminine
            he looks, he will never be a girl. That is the cruel reality, but hey, you
            cannot go against nature. As for Uncle Sam, not every troop in the Boy Scouts
            of America are funded by the Federal government. There are troops that are
            funded by other types of entities, & they don’t agree either. Those groups
            already are taking measures. I only see a corrupt government corrupting &
            polluting the minds & hearts of young children. Ultimately it will be the
            parent that will have the last say. Governments will never eradicated the
            teachings, the ideals, the moral values of parents transmitted to their own
            kin.

          • corruptintenz

            You seem to be making the argument that in order to get a homosexual kid, you have to start with a homosexual parent.

            Can you show this to be true rather than just declaring it so?

          • Wraith

            Yes, it is true, it is a learned behavior. You people are attempting to program
            young kids to see this as being the norm, as being natural, but it isn’t. Can
            you justify homosexual tendencies or behavior? I openly challenge you to do so.

          • Wraith

            All Our Founding Fathers
            Opposed Homosexual Sin:

            Fearing God, and wanting
            the USA to be blessed by God and not cursed, our Founding Fathers made Christian
            laws for our nation. God says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.
            It is an abomination.” Obeying God, our Founding Fathers shamed sin.

            George Washington court
            martialed homosexuals. He forbid this sin in the military and said:

            “…the Commander in
            Chief… with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes [sodomy]…”

            The Ninth Law Made in
            America with the Laws of Virginia 1610 is:

            “No man shall commit the
            horrible and detestable sins of sodomy [homosexuality]…”

            Thomas Jefferson authored
            a bill to castrate rapsits and homosexuals. He wrote:

            “Crimes whose punishment
            goes to LIMB. 1. Rape 2. Sodomy } Dismemberment.”

            Noah Webster, the
            Schoolmaster of the Reublic, wrote in the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary that
            homosxual sin was agianst nature as God says in Romans 1. Noah Webster
            instructed Americans in the dictionary with:

            “Sodomy: A crime against
            nature.”

            The 1833 Encyclopedia
            Britannica taught:

            “The nameless crime,
            which was the disgrace of Greek and Roman civilization…”

            All 13 Colonies &
            All 50 States outlawed homosexual sin. Homosexuals are shamed throughout
            American history because God says such sin is an abomination. For example, New
            York’s law was based on the Holy Bible and said:

            “That if any man shall
            lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination…” Can you see that trying to “change” things in the USA rejects both God and our Founding Fathers? You either have Christianity and the real
            USA or you have the world and sin.
            You clearly don’t know your own U.S. history. I will give you more.

          • corruptintenz

            Appeal to tradition = logical fallacy = rejected!

          • Wraith

            Man + woman = kids = society. You lie, you are a liar. You are rejected. I will never acknowledge you at all, & I don’t stand alone, we are majority, you are not.

          • corruptintenz

            Non-sequitur = logical fallacy = rejection.

            I wish you better than you deserve.

          • Wraith

            Tua ratio est, fallacia.

            You are the liar, you think that by throwing some Latin you are going to scare me off. What is so absolute about homosexuality? What is so natural, so right about homosexual tendencies? Answer the question. I brand you as such, a social liar.

          • corruptintenz

            Non-sequitur has latin roots but is a part of colloquial english. Given your attraction to it, it is surprising you remain unaware of this.

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non-sequitur

          • Wraith

            You are the lier. You lie. You like it. Your words have no value whatsoever. Some LGBT are members of NAMBLA. I challenge you to state otherwise.

            Conversely, Homosexual Pedophiles
            are Often Attracted to Adult Males

            A study of sex offenders against
            male children in Behavior Research and Therapy found that male
            homosexual pedophiles are sexually attracted to “males of all ages.”
            Compared to non-offenders, the offenders showed “greater arousal” to
            slides of nude males as old as twenty-four: “As a group, the child
            molesters responsed [sp] with moderate sexual arousal . . . to the nude males
            of all ages.”[38]

            A study of Canadians imprisoned for
            pedophilia in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence noted that some of
            the adult male offenders engaged in homosexual acts with adult males.[39]

            Many pedophiles, in fact, consider
            themselves to be homosexual. A study of 229 convicted child molesters in Archives
            of Sexual Behavior found that “eighty-six percent of offenders against
            males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.”[40]

            Fr. John Harvey, founder and director
            of Courage, a support ministry for Catholics who struggle with same-sex
            attraction, explains that “the pedophile differs from the ordinary
            homosexual in that the former admires boyishness in the object of his
            affections, while the latter admires manliness.”[41] However, the
            categories are not completely separate:

            While granting that the majority of homosexuals are not
            aroused by young boys, the distinction between homosexuality and homosexual
            pedophilia is not quite absolute. In some cases the interest oscillates between
            young adolescents and adults, in others between boys and adolescents; in
            exceptional cases a man may be interested in boys at one time and adults at
            another.[42]

            Many Pedophiles are Attracted to
            Women, Marry, and Have Children

            Gay activists insist that pedophilia
            has nothing to do with homosexuality because pedophiles are only sexually
            interested in children, whereas homosexuals only have sexual relations with
            adults. We have already seen that this stereotypical view is not correct with regard
            to homosexuals. There is also abundant evidence demonstrating that, while
            primarily interested in children, pedophiles nevertheless exhibit a wide
            variety of sexual behaviors, including relationships with women:

            A study in Child Abuse and
            Neglect found that 48 percent of the offenders either were married or had
            been married at some time.[43]

            The Journal of Interpersonal
            Violence studied the sexual preferences of male pedophiles who sexually
            abused children. When they compared the sexual response of the pedophiles with
            the control group, they found, unexpectedly: “Surprisingly, the two groups
            did not differ in their response to the nude female stimuli.”[44]

            A study in the Psychiatric
            Journal of the University of Ottawa reported that “most of the
            middle-aged pedophiles have had significant adult sexual activity.”[45]
            Fifty-eight percent of the pedophiles in one study had at least one child,
            while other research indicated that “more than two-thirds of the married
            pedophiles in their sample had children, with an average of two to three
            children per subject.”[46]

            A report by the Department of
            Justice addressed the devious stratagems of pedophiles, who will go to great
            lengths to conceal their true desires: “Preferential sex offenders may be
            ‘pillars of the community’ and are often described as ‘nice guys.’ They almost
            always have a means of access to children (for example, through marriage,
            neighborhood, or occupation.)”[47]

            Thus, the evidence shows that
            homosexual pedophiles cannot be narrowly defined as individuals who are solely
            attracted to underage boys. In fact there is considerable overlap between
            homosexuality and pedophilia.

          • corruptintenz

            Does the burden of proof fall upon the person making the positive claim? If so, it is left to you to dwell within NAMBLA.

            The rest of this post seems to be spinning off in another random direction. Is there a point anywhere here?

          • Wraith

            I do get it, yours is just
            a trend, a lifestyle, a behavior. Nature does have rules, especially when it
            comes to biology, but as with everything else, there are those specimens that
            do not follow the norm. I follow no trends. But you do; good for you. You
            people are the sheeple ones, you belong to a herd; you believe everything they
            tell you. If they tell you to sing, you ask in what tone; if they tell you to
            run, you ask how far; if they tell you to jump, you will ask, from what
            height…& then you do it. I am not like you; I do seek concrete answers
            & do question things because I don’t believe in being a follower, much less
            a follower of trends. But I also believe there is an order, that order does go
            beyond anything that is established by government, religion, & even
            society. There are absolute truths established by nature itself that cannot be
            challenged or contested, not even by men. By all accounts, & by natural
            selection, all of you, still remain, the weakest link, because you just can’t
            handle women. No you just can’t, you people are attracted to other men, &
            biologically speaking, it serves you & the other one, but as a whole, it
            doesn’t serve the species, & that remains a fact.

          • corruptintenz

            You seem to be writing a love letter to my personal characteristics based on your quite possibly fallacious assumptions about me as an individual.

            Does one have to be a member of a group to recognize the rights of that group? If one is a member or non-member, how does that status effect whatever the argument for or against rights recognition?

          • Wraith

            I am well aware of
            human nature, a thing that you time & again neglect. You are trying to
            justify your lifestyle by blaming others. You still remain a social problem
            & that is not going to change. You still don’t follow the natural norm of
            the biological divide of the sexes, & that is not a lie. You should read
            Thomas Hobbs to truly understand why nations take the decisions they take. You
            should read Thomas Hobbs to understand how nations survive. Again, I do state
            that nations do just fine with heterosexuals. Nations don’t really need gays.
            Only powers like the U.S. that now have leisure at their disposal can allow
            such things to happen. Still your lifestyle does go against the natural order,
            & it does also promote depopulation. No, Thomas Hobbs understands the self
            preservation of the State. All extremes do destroy any nation. Even excessive
            freedom does destroy any nation. Your lifestyle does overstep the line. No
            Founding Father acknowledges your lifestyle. Not even Thomas Jefferson. So no,
            Thomas Hobbs does not attack the U.S. Constitution, which doesn’t mention
            anything about LGBT. The Constitution does mention the 1st, & I
            do recognize the 1st to be validated by every Founding Father, even
            Thomas Jefferson. That fact makes me rebut you. If the founding fathers did not
            acknowledge you, nor mention you at all, if other political scholars such as
            Thomas Hobbs don’t even acknowledge you at all, I don’t have to acknowledge you
            either. I do follow the political thinking of the Founders; I am not obligated
            to follow your trend, or your movement. No the will of We the People are not
            worthless, in that sense you are worthless for the rest of us. You have no
            validation whatsoever to claim that you can form a family. Your thinking is not
            based on a democratic republic, & if that is so, then you & I have a
            problem, because you are killing democracy & that is not acceptable for the
            rest of us Americans. You will have to face us then. Thomas Hobbs understands
            the State, the purpose of the nations. The Founding Fathers understood the
            importance of freedom of speech, freedom of faith, & even the freedom to
            bear arms to defend against any form of tyranny. I can acknowledge those
            things. I will not acknowledge you ever. You are never mentioned in any form in
            the U.S. Constitution. I know with great certainty that the Founding Fathers of
            the United States of America did not recognize same gender unions. It was
            clearly understood that a marriage was between a man & a woman. Otherwise
            this movement of yours would have started since the dawn of this nation, but we
            all know that didn’t happen at all. Since the Founding Fathers recognized
            traditional family as being the family nucleus, then I also adopt that as being
            the norm, in order to sustain, maintain, our State of the Union. You & I
            did not write the Constitution, but it was written by wise men, by leaned men,
            by sages, & they clearly knew what they were writing. I am not going to
            contend with that at all because if works. You on the other hand are still
            considered a social experiment. Call the Constitution of the United States what
            you want, but it is the law of the land. You people are changing that, a fact
            in which the problem resides. I am not obligated to adopt a social experiment.
            I already know it is going to fail. There is nothing that you can do or say to
            prove otherwise. I know that you don’t follow the laws of nature. & you as
            a human being cannot contend with the laws of nature itself. Trying to do so
            will always conduct you into oblivion. You really are stupid when you state
            that gays have been burned at the stake for millennia. Show the documentation.
            I do have documentation of people being burned because of witchcraft. I have
            documentation of people being persecuted because they were Jews. If you state
            such things, prove it with documentation, otherwise you have no prove of your
            claims. In the middle ages, the dark ages, the church was in power. & yes,
            many atrocities did occur because of the Roman Catholic Church, which is also
            true. You still try to play the victim here. & again, you neglect to
            mention that it is unlikely that people were thinking about homosexual behavior
            during the middle ages. Why? Because people were trying to survive. Women were
            trying to marry noblemen, just to insure their place in society, a safe place.
            Men were fighting wars, mostly the crusades. & if not that, then they were
            fleeing plagues, which actually killed them. No time for same sex thoughts.
            Your claims are nonsense. I don’t recognize any of your claims as being
            accurate at all. The interests of people during the middle ages were quite
            different from your lifespan. You cannot compare your life to those of those
            people that live back in the dark ages. They had no T.V. screens, or computers
            to learn homosexual behavior. Most of the people were religious people that
            believe that sodomy was a sin, & if they committed that sin, they would go
            to hell. That’s what people believed back in that time frame. So you lie. All
            of your accounts are lies. Asia was not cool with homosexuality. In India so
            many temples are dedicated to the Kama sutra, a man & a woman making love,
            not homosexual sex. You lie, you are full of yourself. You will fool anyone.
            Sappho was killed by the Greeks because of the way she thought. In the past the
            dominant gender was the male gender. It was patriarchs that dominated the
            political & military arena, not women. Men back then did not tolerate any
            sort of homosexual activity. Look, you talk too much, prove it, and show
            documentation. Otherwise it is your opinion. You have failed time & again
            to prove why should I accept you as being the biological natural norm. You are
            simply not the norm, you never be. I have challenged you to demonstrate if you
            can actually perpetuate the species & leave it intact without any consequence.
            You have failed to do that. You are wrong, I am right. There is a biological
            sexual divide that has the sole purpose of preserving the species & prolong
            it. That biological sexual divide is the one that maintains balance among any
            species. You do not conform that norm. You have presented no reason on why I
            should approve of you. Nature does not dictated ethics, but nature does dictate
            & established the natural biological order of the divide of the sexes for a
            purpose. You will not negate or neglect that fact. Yes, biological nature does
            have laws. You just don’t like them & choose to omit them. Nature is real.
            You go into the North Pole without protection, it will kill you. You face a
            bear; it will attack you, possibly kill you, & then eat you. A scorpion stings
            you, & without the antidote you die. You have unprotected sex with multiple
            men; you can get AIDS/HIV. Yes, nature does have rules. You have a population
            of all gays in a nation, that nation will die before 100 years have passed.
            Nature does have laws. Who do you want to fool, you jester? Half & half of
            the opposite sexes will create life, which is an absolute in the biology of
            mankind. You will not negate that either. I will not acknowledge you, period,
            you don’t follow the norm. It doesn’t matter how much you love your same sex
            partner, you will never produce offspring. That means that you will never &
            can never replenish with offspring any sort of State. States, Nations do grow
            old. That is a fact. Nations need to replenish their ranks, their numbers,
            otherwise that nation will die. Binary sexuality is essential; it is special
            because it produces offspring. You are not essential, but heterosexual couples
            are. You gay people cannot do without heterosexual couples replenishing the
            State with the new members of society, the young. You can only adopt, but you
            cannot produce. I know all too well my history, & I know that no ancient
            government recognized or even bother to acknowledge gayism within the social
            cluster. If they didn’t, then I don’t. They followed the preservation of the
            Nation, of the State, of the social cluster, you gays cannot offer that to the
            Nation, because you will never replenish their ranks with new members of
            society, with new numbers of population, the new generations of labor, workforce,
            taxpayers, members of government, & even the new members of the army. Your
            lifestyle is as matter of fact depopulation, or population control. I will not
            acknowledge you as being the norm.

          • corruptintenz

            Can you show my assertion that homosexuality is an absolute? Can you show that my assertion is that it is ‘so natural, so right’? By what means do you propose to coerce me into allowing you to speak for me?

          • Wraith

            It is corruption, & corruption does destroy any State or any nation as well. This is not a free for all. Rules are set to maintain an order, a balance, without that balance any societal cluster will fall, even this one. I do see that obama & his wealthy supporters do have an agenda, they all do. All of them are socialist, pro-muslim, extreme liberal wing democratic progressives. I see that all of them want to destroy the traditional
            family nucleus, & without that structure, that basis, no society can stand. If you change the format of the traditional family it will open the door for others to claim their rights as well. Again, all the rest, meaning polygamists, incestuous family members, pedophiles, what say you? They are out there, they also have rights, they are also citizens, but their lifestyles do pose a threat
            to the stability of the State itself. You allow gays to marry; the next step is
            to allow incest between gay consanguineal brothers, or lesbian consanguineal sisters. Or how about a marriage in a large group with gay men that want not only a partner, but several partners, in polygamy? Or a pedophile that wants to marry a 15 year old teen with the consent of his parents? So where does it
            stop? Where is the line drawn? It is amazing to see judges, supposedly learned people promote & allow the corruption of the social cluster, the corruption of the State. A State, any State without the new generations, without its youth, will eventually collapse. But it seems that no one foresees that coming.

          • corruptintenz

            Can you show how this response is related to the post it was written in response to?

          • Wraith

            When 2 adults do whatever they want it’s their problem. When you start invading the Boy Scouts of America, & when you start forcing young kids to acknowledge transsexual laws, then you do have a problem with the rest of us.

            America’s “firsts” aren’t what they used to
            be. Where they once included putting a man on the moon and heavier-than-air
            flight, now they’re trillion-dollar deficits, a trillion pieces of metadata
            NSA-processed, and six-trillion-dollar foreign military adventures. And coming
            to you straight from Maine is another fantastic first. Writes Yahoo News:

            School officials violated state
            anti-discrimination law when they would not allow a transgender fifth-grader to
            use the girls’ bathroom, according to a ruling by the highest court in Maine
            that’s believed to be the first of its kind.

            The family of student Nicole Maines and the
            Maine Human Rights Commission sued in 2009 after school officials required her
            [him] to use a staff, not student, restroom….

            The court concluded that the Orono school
            district’s actions violated the Maine Human Rights Act, which bans
            discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

            “Nicole” Maines is a boy originally named
            “Wyatt,” who changed his name in the fourth grade and has been trying to live
            as a girl (and wait till you hear the rest of his story — that’s for later).
            And what of the idea that he was subject to discrimination?

            First realize that government
            anti-discrimination law doesn’t actually ban discrimination, which is the
            process of choosing one or some from among many, and is something we all
            practice. After all, schools won’t allow boys (at least, those who still claim
            to be boys) to use girls’ facilities or play on girls’ teams, and employers
            discriminate on various bases when they hire new staff. What the state is doing
            is outlawing certain kinds of discrimination, declaring specific groups
            “protected,” implicit in which is that other groups are unprotected.

            Now, it’s bad enough that we’ve gone beyond
            the proposition that everyone should be treated equally under the law. It is
            worse still that this selective non-discrimination law is applied to the
            private sector and thus trumps freedom of association. But now this special
            status isn’t applied just to group designations that have a basis in objective
            reality — such as race or gender — but is being afforded to something completely
            subjective: “gender identity.”

            Note here that “gender” is not synonymous with
            “sex.” You’re born a certain sex just as you are a specific race, but “gender,”
            which used to refer just to words before it was co-opted by Newspeak Central
            (academia), refers to your perception of what you are.

            And there are eight million perceptions in the
            naked city. Consider the following
            list
            of “gender identities” from Genderqueerid.com, a site whose proprietor has a
            degree in “LGBT Studies” and has completed “San Francisco Sex Information’s sex
            educator training program”:

            • Agender

            • Androgyne

            • Bigender

            • (Nonbinary) Butch

            • Crossdresser

            • Demigirl

            • Demiguy

            • Epicene

            • (Nonbinary) Femme

            • Gender fluid

            • GenderF[**]k

            • Girlfag

            • Guydyke

            • Intergender

            • Neutrois

            • Pangender

            • Pomosexual

            • Third Gender

            • Trigender

            • Transmasculine

            • Transfeminine

            Now consider a term running through most
            definitions of the above. “Agender” can be “the feeling of having no gender,” a
            “demigirl” is someone “who feels but the barest association with … [a female
            birth] identification,” a “girlfag” is a woman who may “feel she is (fully or
            partly) a ‘gay man in a woman’s body,’” and “neutrois” is “an identity used by
            individuals who feel they fall outside the gender binary. Many feel Neutrois is
            a gender, like a third gender while others feel agendered.” Feel, feel, feel.
            And I’m feeling sick.

            Note also that Genderqueerid.com’s proprietor
            mentions that his list is not complete and writes, “If you have a term and
            definition for something that should be here please let me know.” Maybe a
            reader will — if he/she/it feels like it.

            But anyone can erect a website and post terms
            and definitions. What do mental-health “professionals” say? Here’s what Eve
            Glicksman wrote at the American Psychological Association’s website: “Treatment only is considered
            for transgender people who experience gender dysphoria — a feeling of intense
            distress that one’s body is not consistent with the gender he or she feels they
            are, explains Walter Bockting, PhD, a clinical psychologist and co-director of
            the LGBT Health Initiative at Columbia University Medical Center.” Not bad.
            “Feel/feelings” appeared only twice in that sentence.

            But don’t think these head shrinkers take this
            lightly. To be considered officially, authentically “transgender,” the feelings
            must be troublesome, the feelings must be persistent, and the feelings must be
            present for more than a year.

            And the feelings must be feelings.

            The point is that there is no physical test to
            determine that “gender dysphoria” has some kind of inborn basis and isn’t
            purely psychological — none. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

            This brings us to the rest of “Nicole” Maines’
            story. He is actually an identical twin; his brother is named Jonas. Now, this
            means that the two boys’ genetic makeup is identical (in fact, police cannot
            differentiate between such twins based on DNA evidence). It means they spent
            nine months side-by-side in the same womb. It means they were born at almost
            the same time.

            Yet what was inborn is supposedly different.

            After all, Jonas is normal.

            And, no, this doesn’t prove anything either
            way. But it is food for thought.

            Whatever the cause of “gender dysphoria,”
            however, we’re left with a striking fact about the “gender identity” category
            in law: People are being placed within it and afforded special status and
            “rights” based on feelings. And whose feelings will be the ultimate arbiter?
            Will we lend credence to all claims of “gender identity” even if they burgeon
            like our budget? Or will we defer to the “professionals’” feelings about what
            feelings are to be thought sufficiently “feelingy”? That sounds quite
            Orwellian: special legal status determined by mental-health practitioners.

            And rubber stamped by judges.

            One of these would be Justice Warren Silver,
            who wrote in the Maines case, “It has been clearly established that a student’s
            psychological well-being and educational success depend upon being permitted to
            use the communal bathroom consistent with her gender identity.” What’s clearly
            established is that the students in question have abnormal feelings; what’s not
            at all clearly established is why those feelings exist. And ruling out that they
            could be a purely psychological phenomenon and insisting they’re induced by a
            physical one — when no physical test can as yet demonstrate such a thing — is
            gross malpractice.

            Even if we were to accept that “transgender”
            is a legitimate and unique category just like “male” and “female,” however, why
            would giving such a person a separate bathroom constitute unjust
            discrimination? Is it considered so when we disallow boys and girls from using
            the opposite sex’s bathroom and instead give them separate ones? If you’re
            going to accept “transgender” as another “gender,” how is it out of bounds to
            have another bathroom?

            Ah, but then there’s that “psychological
            well-being.” But what about the psychological well-being of the innumerable
            girls affected by having boys enter their bathrooms? What about the social
            well-being of children whose grasp of reality can be twisted by making
            exceptions the author of norms? Whatever happened to “The good of the many
            outweighs the good of the few”?

            Some will claim that the quoted proposition is
            tyrannical. But the majority has every eternal right to institute laws and
            norms within the bounds of morality and the legal right to do so within the
            bounds established by the Constitution, which, of course, does a good job of
            outlining moral parameters. The only alternative to this is having a minority
            determine laws and norms, a thoroughly undemocratic idea.

            And if the minority that is mental-health
            practitioners can determine who gets special rights, will they, as in the
            former Soviet Union, one day be able to determine who doesn’t have rights, too?

          • corruptintenz

            What exactly are ‘transsexual laws’? Another irrational construct? I would only have a problem with you if your views were becoming law, which they are not. Even if they were I would have no problem with you, I would merely exercise the remedies at hand for dealing with such problems. I suggest you do the same.

            That the infantilized american culture struggles to deal with sexuality is a well documented issue. It can hardly be found as surprising that with the culture so fragmented over basic issues, that the legal realm has resulting churn.

            Its great that you are spending time with gender identity concepts. Its how culture shifts. By authentic you mean clinical. The clinical measure is the DSM which has changed in its most recent publication, but still lags behind culture in its dealign with gender identity issues. It would be great if they were leading the culture, but historically they haven’t really been more than a bellwether of where the culture was 10 years ago.

            The suggestion in the absence of evidence, that the two choices are inborn or psychological would be a good example of false dichotomy.

            The state is utterly unable to afford rights to an individual. If there is evidence of ‘special status’ afforded to groups, you may post such evidence.
            All the state can do is recognize and align itself to human rights nor not. The method the state uses for this is law (legal rights).

            It matters little if the state lends credence to claims of gender identity. The individual does not rely on the state for gender identity, nor does it rely on the state for natural human rights. If a state follows a rational process to align itself optimally to the rights of its citizens, this is to the states credit. The opposite is also true.

            If someone were making a case, besides you, for special legal status determined by mental health practitioners, it should be a trivial matter for you to supply evidence to show this.

          • Wraith

            Are you stupid or what? You that endorse LGBT don’t know
            about the transsexual laws that government is imposing over elementary schools?
            You are truly an utter idiot for not knowing.

            Transgender Student Law Takes Effect in California

            As of the start of the year, all California public school districts must allow transgender students to use facilities and play on sports teams according to the gender with which they identify. Supporters say the law will protect a vulnerable group of students. But opponents think voters should have a say.

            High School Junior Ashton Lee hustles between after school activities. First he makes a stop at the Gay Straight Alliance. There, as club president, he leads a discussion on how to handle holiday stress.

            Less than an hour later he’s speed walking across campus, hoping he’s not too late for Junior ROTC practice. He arrives on time. He falls in line and begins marching up and down the field with his squad.

            In many ways Ashton is a regular kid. But, at 16, he’s also dealing with a pretty adult situation. Ashton is transgender and has become the face of a new state law that requires public schools to let transgender students use bathrooms and locker rooms and to play on sports teams according to which gender they identify with, regardless of their biological sex.

            Before the law was passed Ashton testified in front of the state legislature and delivered petitions to Governor Jerry Brown’s office urging him to sign the legislation.

            “I knew what was …. what had to be done,” he says. “And I knew somebody had to do it.”

            Ashton knows he’s fortunate. His parents and friends were supportive when he came out as transgender last year. And his school has worked with him to make sure he’s comfortable and safe. For instance, Ashton is now allowed to use the boys’ restroom, which is a big victory after two years of just trying to avoid the school bathroom altogether.

            “It’s easier to be uncomfortable than to have to be afraid if you’re going to be hurt or you’re going to be in trouble,” he says.

            Researcher Emily Greytak says Ashton’s earlier experiences mirror those of other transgender kids. Two-thirds say they regularly feel unsafe at school. Greytak is with the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network and studies transgender youth. She says school can be a hostile and unwelcoming place for those kids who, as a result, often underperform academically.

            “The harassment and the assault they experience really limits, not only their access to education at the moment, but also their access to future educational and vocational opportunities,” says Greytak.

            Greytak says bathrooms and locker rooms are especially dangerous for transgender kids. She says inclusive polices can be helpful, if they are implemented correctly.

            But critics say the new California law is inadequate. It doesn’t clearly explain how districts should accommodate transgender students, just that they should. Brad Dacus is President of the Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative legal organization that handles religious based cases. The Institute opposes the law and is working to get the issue on next year’s ballot. Dacus says the measure puts the privacy of other students at risk and could leave school districts open to lawsuits.

            “It is a huge farce and misnomer for us to think for one moment that girls are not going to be uncomfortable for a biological boy, who they know is a biological boy, comes into their bathroom while they are using the bathroom facilities,” Dacus says.

            He says the state law could actually hurt transgender kids because it doesn’t require schools, counselors and parents to develop specific plans for transgender students. He says his organization will keep working to overturn the law.

            But similar policies may already be taking hold locally around California. Several school districts already have transgender student guidelines in place. And in 2012 the California Interscholastic Federation, which oversees high school sports, ruled students should have the opportunity to participate in CIF activities according to their gender identity.

            For Ashton, the outcome of such policies is clear.

            “I’m way more comfortable at school. I feel safer. I don’t have to worry. I can be who I am without having to worry about any repercussions,” he says. “It’s the… it’s the best thing since sliced bread.”

          • Wraith

            This is not acceptable. You can’t change the internal organs of an individual.
            America’s “firsts” aren’t what they used to be. Where they once included putting a man on the moon and heavier-than-air
            flight, now they’re trillion-dollar deficits, a trillion pieces of metadata
            NSA-processed, and six-trillion-dollar foreign military adventures. And coming to you straight from Maine is another fantastic first. Writes Yahoo News:

            School officials violated state
            anti-discrimination law when they would not allow a transgender fifth-grader to
            use the girls’ bathroom, according to a ruling by the highest court in Maine
            that’s believed to be the first of its kind.

            The family of student Nicole Maines and the
            Maine Human Rights Commission sued in 2009 after school officials required her
            [him] to use a staff, not student, restroom….

            The court concluded that the Orono school
            district’s actions violated the Maine Human Rights Act, which bans
            discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

            “Nicole” Maines is a boy originally named
            “Wyatt,” who changed his name in the fourth grade and has been trying to live
            as a girl (and wait till you hear the rest of his story — that’s for later).
            And what of the idea that he was subject to discrimination?

            First realize that government
            anti-discrimination law doesn’t actually ban discrimination, which is the
            process of choosing one or some from among many, and is something we all
            practice. After all, schools won’t allow boys (at least, those who still claim
            to be boys) to use girls’ facilities or play on girls’ teams, and employers
            discriminate on various bases when they hire new staff. What the state is doing
            is outlawing certain kinds of discrimination, declaring specific groups
            “protected,” implicit in which is that other groups are unprotected.

            Now, it’s bad enough that we’ve gone beyond
            the proposition that everyone should be treated equally under the law. It is
            worse still that this selective non-discrimination law is applied to the
            private sector and thus trumps freedom of association. But now this special
            status isn’t applied just to group designations that have a basis in objective
            reality — such as race or gender — but is being afforded to something completely
            subjective: “gender identity.”

            Note here that “gender” is not synonymous with
            “sex.” You’re born a certain sex just as you are a specific race, but “gender,”
            which used to refer just to words before it was co-opted by Newspeak Central
            (academia), refers to your perception of what you are.

            And there are eight million perceptions in the
            naked city. Consider the following
            list
            of “gender identities” from Genderqueerid.com, a site whose proprietor has a
            degree in “LGBT Studies” and has completed “San Francisco Sex Information’s sex
            educator training program”:

            • Agender

            • Androgyne

            • Bigender

            • (Nonbinary) Butch

            • Crossdresser

            • Demigirl

            • Demiguy

            • Epicene

            • (Nonbinary) Femme

            • Gender fluid

            • GenderF[**]k

            • Girlfag

            • Guydyke

            • Intergender

            • Neutrois

            • Pangender

            • Pomosexual

            • Third Gender

            • Trigender

            • Transmasculine

            • Transfeminine

            Now consider a term running through most
            definitions of the above. “Agender” can be “the feeling of having no gender,” a
            “demigirl” is someone “who feels but the barest association with … [a female
            birth] identification,” a “girlfag” is a woman who may “feel she is (fully or
            partly) a ‘gay man in a woman’s body,’” and “neutrois” is “an identity used by
            individuals who feel they fall outside the gender binary. Many feel Neutrois is
            a gender, like a third gender while others feel agendered.” Feel, feel, feel.
            And I’m feeling sick.

            Note also that Genderqueerid.com’s proprietor
            mentions that his list is not complete and writes, “If you have a term and
            definition for something that should be here please let me know.” Maybe a
            reader will — if he/she/it feels like it.

            But anyone can erect a website and post terms
            and definitions. What do mental-health “professionals” say? Here’s what Eve
            Glicksman wrote at the American Psychological Association’s website: “Treatment only is considered
            for transgender people who experience gender dysphoria — a feeling of intense
            distress that one’s body is not consistent with the gender he or she feels they
            are, explains Walter Bockting, PhD, a clinical psychologist and co-director of
            the LGBT Health Initiative at Columbia University Medical Center.” Not bad.
            “Feel/feelings” appeared only twice in that sentence.

            But don’t think these head shrinkers take this
            lightly. To be considered officially, authentically “transgender,” the feelings
            must be troublesome, the feelings must be persistent, and the feelings must be
            present for more than a year.

            And the feelings must be feelings.

            The point is that there is no physical test to
            determine that “gender dysphoria” has some kind of inborn basis and isn’t
            purely psychological — none. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

            This brings us to the rest of “Nicole” Maines’
            story. He is actually an identical twin; his brother is named Jonas. Now, this
            means that the two boys’ genetic makeup is identical (in fact, police cannot
            differentiate between such twins based on DNA evidence). It means they spent
            nine months side-by-side in the same womb. It means they were born at almost
            the same time.

            Yet what was inborn is supposedly different.

            After all, Jonas is normal.

            And, no, this doesn’t prove anything either
            way. But it is food for thought.

            Whatever the cause of “gender dysphoria,”
            however, we’re left with a striking fact about the “gender identity” category
            in law: People are being placed within it and afforded special status and
            “rights” based on feelings. And whose feelings will be the ultimate arbiter?
            Will we lend credence to all claims of “gender identity” even if they burgeon
            like our budget? Or will we defer to the “professionals’” feelings about what
            feelings are to be thought sufficiently “feelingy”? That sounds quite
            Orwellian: special legal status determined by mental-health practitioners.

            And rubber stamped by judges.

            One of these would be Justice Warren Silver,
            who wrote in the Maines case, “It has been clearly established that a student’s
            psychological well-being and educational success depend upon being permitted to
            use the communal bathroom consistent with her gender identity.” What’s clearly
            established is that the students in question have abnormal feelings; what’s not
            at all clearly established is why those feelings exist. And ruling out that they
            could be a purely psychological phenomenon and insisting they’re induced by a
            physical one — when no physical test can as yet demonstrate such a thing — is
            gross malpractice.

            Even if we were to accept that “transgender”
            is a legitimate and unique category just like “male” and “female,” however, why
            would giving such a person a separate bathroom constitute unjust
            discrimination? Is it considered so when we disallow boys and girls from using
            the opposite sex’s bathroom and instead give them separate ones? If you’re
            going to accept “transgender” as another “gender,” how is it out of bounds to
            have another bathroom?

            Ah, but then there’s that “psychological
            well-being.” But what about the psychological well-being of the innumerable
            girls affected by having boys enter their bathrooms? What about the social
            well-being of children whose grasp of reality can be twisted by making
            exceptions the author of norms? Whatever happened to “The good of the many
            outweighs the good of the few”?

            Some will claim that the quoted proposition is
            tyrannical. But the majority has every eternal right to institute laws and
            norms within the bounds of morality and the legal right to do so within the
            bounds established by the Constitution, which, of course, does a good job of
            outlining moral parameters. The only alternative to this is having a minority
            determine laws and norms, a thoroughly undemocratic idea.

            And if the minority that is mental-health
            practitioners can determine who gets special rights, will they, as in the
            former Soviet Union, one day be able to determine who doesn’t have rights, too?

          • Wraith

            Just to clarify I don’t go to church, it is a waste of time. I know my U.S. history & I know that none of the Founding Fathers did endorse this.
            When I ask a liberal upon what moral authority he relies when he reaches his pro-homosexual/same-sex marriage conclusions, inevitably the answer is the U.S. Constitution. In declaring government religious (mainly Christian) expression unconstitutional, the courts refer to the First Amendment, and they “interpret” that amendment through the
            words of Thomas Jefferson in a letter that he penned to the Danbury Baptists, which declared “a wall of separation between Church and State.”

            For over 70 years, time and again U.S. courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have referenced Jefferson’s “wall” in order to restrict religious (almost exclusively Christian) expression in America. Thus, as we weigh and debate marriage in the U.S., it would be an ironic travesty not to consider the words and deeds of our Founders as we draw our legal conclusions.

            I submit (with sad and stunning trepidation that such a submission is even necessary) that not one single Founder would give the notion that marriage is anything other than the union of one man and one woman
            more than a half-second’s thought before (rightly) concluding that such an idea is either a terrible joke or spoken by a lunatic.

            First of all, forget marriage; the idea that homosexuality should be considered normal and acceptable behavior would be deemed a wicked and ridiculous conclusion by our Founders. Under British law,
            sodomy was a capital crime. Sir William Blackstone was a favorite
            English jurist of our Founders, and
            his Commentaries on the Laws of England served as the basis of legal
            jurisprudence in America.

            As David Barton remarks, ”
            addressing sodomy (homosexuality), [Blackstone] found the subject so
            reprehensible that he was ashamed even to discuss it.” Nevertheless,
            Blackstone declared:

            What has been here observed … [is] the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as
            strictly and impartially punished. … I will not act so disagreeable part to
            my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy][.] … A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: … (where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments).

            THIS the voice of nature and of reason, and the express law of God, determined to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance, long before the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven: so that this is an universal, not merely a provincial, precept.

            Following the same moral precepts, each of the original 13 colonies treated homosexuality as a serious criminal offense. Jefferson himself authored such a law for the state of Virginia, prescribing that the punishment for sodomy was to be castration. (You think modern courts will look to this for guidance?)

            New York’s law read, “That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] … shall be from henceforth adjudged
            felony … and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict,
            confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged
            by the neck until he or she shall be dead.”

            Connecticut’s law read, ” if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with
            womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death.” Georgia’s law (surprisingly — at least for today’s liberals) did not call for the death penalty, but stated, ” … shall be
            punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable
            crime.”

            General George Washington dealt, at least once, directly with the issue of homosexual behavior in the Continental Army. A lieutenant
            Enslin was tried and convicted of attempting to commit sodomy with John Monhort, a soldier. The ruling declares, “His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return.”

            Liberals should not bother with the “but
            the Founders supported slavery” argument. First of all, many Founders did not support slavery, and it was hotly debated at our founding and beyond. (Also, it should be noted that it was Bible-believing Christians who led the abolition movement.) This is certainly not the case when it comes to homosexual behavior. Secondly, one can’t appeal to the Founders only when it is convenient.

            It is also noteworthy that the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (the Fourteenth Amendment being
            ratified in 1868) did nothing to prevent all 50 U.S. states, including each
            state that entered the union after 1868, from enacting laws against homosexual behavior. As recently as 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state in the U.S.

            In other words, for nearly 200 years and without any constitutional conflictions or any serious debate, homosexual behavior in America was seen as immoral and therefore illegal. Thus, we see that the Founders do nothing but support the traditional view of marriage.

          • corruptintenz

            Whether or not you go to church is ‘irrelevant.

            If you know your US history, it is not obvious in your replies thus far.

            None of the founding fathers held a position on Net Neutrality either. What’s your point?

            You seem to confuse the word liberal with the word atheist. Here are some observations: Not all liberals are atheists. Not all conservatives are christians. Some liberals are hetero. Some conservatives are gay. Not all religious are christian. Not even in the US.

            Can you show in what decision ‘the courts’ declare ‘government religious expression’ unconstitutional? Can you further show in which of those they directed the decision to affect ‘mainly christian’?

            It is true that Jefferson was very dismissive of the notion of the US as christian theocracy as expressed in the letter you mention, but more directly in the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, for which he was more widely recognized.

            Beyond that, Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, ratified by the Senate, states: ‘As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…’ Pretty clear-cut, no?

            Chief Justice Marshall wrote in 1829:
            “Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision.”

            Beyond all of this it seems telling that the Constitution itself is silent on gods. This constitution was ratified by the required number of states in 1788, and our constitutional government was founded in 1789 on this constitution that is silent on gods.

            The First Amendment clause, to which you refer, was part of the Bill of Rights, and broke the silence on religion (if not on gods), and came later in 1789, not ratified until 1791.

            So here we see a system of constitutional government that is neutral on gods. Interestingly one of its first changes is to underline that neutral stance with: “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

            You may call for a theocracy today, you might even succeed, but you can’t really claim it is an extension of the founding father’s vision for the US.

            Further, the ff did not intend for the state to become our religion as your statement about ‘words and deeds’ implies, but rather that the constitution was to be a living document that necessarily was modified or replaced generationally to best align the nation and its populace to human rights and duties with respect to the times of their day.

            Given this rejection of the state as a religion unto itself, it matters little if at all what the founding fathers thought about marriage, much in the same way we are not concerned with what they thought about net neutrality.

            While it may be true that sodomy was at one point in history a capital crime, so was horse theft, piracy, slave rebellions, arson, and rape. For that matter, criticizing the emperor taught St Sebastian an important lesson about capital crime at the end of a club. What is your point? Are you making an appeal to tradition? If so, are you undermining the credibility of your argument, given that doing so is a logical fallacy?

            Where exactly do ‘we’ have the destruction of two cities by ‘fire from heaven’?’ You’ may have that in a secular republic silent on religion, but ‘we’, the secular republic that is neutral on religion, do not have that.

            The examples of the position of the 13 colonies on sodomy are interesting but in the same way make poor supports for your argument, given the logically fallacious nature of the appeal to tradition.

            Again, Liberals != atheists. Not the same thing. There are conservative atheists, and liberal christians. There are both hetero sexual and homosexual christians as well. Given this, why should it be noted if it is true that ‘Bible-believing Christians’ were involved in abolition? Why is abolition being talked about here at all? Another appeal to tradition?

            One ought not to appeal to the ‘Founders’ at all, no? Ought not one to appeal to the justice system? Are you advocating for a nation-religion?

            It is noteworthy that your whole argument seems to rest on ‘everything we did yesterday was right because we did it esterday, therefore it should be continued forward into eternity and never revisisted, oh, except for christianity, which was never the religion of the US but should be in the future and we should also pretend that it has always been that way”.

            For support, appeal to tradition and a careful disregard for the most recent legal decisions that refute your position, and a reliance on historic legal decisions that support only a part of it.

            My hope is that we can do better than this going forward. Your thoughts?

          • Wraith

            The raging debate over homosexual marriage took another
            interesting turn this week when Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke
            Murdock struck down Maryland’s state law defining marriage as the union of one
            man and one woman. The decision, handed down Jan. 20, claimed that Family Law
            ?2-201 unfairly abridged the fundamental marriage rights of the nine homosexual
            couples who filed the lawsuit.

            Judge Murdock was not satisfied with merely striking down the
            state statute, however. In her written opinion, the circuit court judge went
            several steps further by claiming that the prohibition of same-sex marriage in
            no way “rationally relates to a legitimate state interest.” Murdock also
            dismissed the notion that same-sex marriage has any negative influence on traditional
            marriages or the nuclear family, or that “tradition and social values alone”
            can bolster what she deemed a “discriminatory statutory classification.”

            Regrettably, such rationale neglects one of the most critical
            elements in the emotionally charged debate over same-sex marriage and
            homosexual behavior in general – public health. As witnessed by Judge Murdock’s
            decision, the issue of health is often turned aside in favor of arguments that
            hinge more on politics than fact. The problem with such a trend is obvious –
            the health ramifications of homosexual behavior should be at the forefront of
            the public policy debate, not on the periphery.

            That is the principle reason conservatives should concentrate on
            both the cultural consequences of homosexual behavior and the public
            health ramifications. Such an argument will be a winner every time, especially
            when the facts are clearly presented.

            For those who doubt, consider the evidence:

            Sexually transmitted diseases –
            Research gathered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or
            CDC, has found significantly higher rates of rectal gonorrhea, HIV/AIDS
            and all three strains of Hepatitis among homosexuals. Other studies have
            likewise linked homosexuality with increased rates of Human Papillomavirus
            (the leading cause of cervical cancer worldwide), syphilis and anal
            cancer. Although self-identified homosexuals account for less than 5
            percent of the American population, they are the carriers of over 50
            percent of HIV/AIDS cases.

            Risky behaviors – Campaigns to
            foster so-called “safe sex” among homosexuals have done nothing to reduce
            risky behavior. A 1997 CDC report found that among homosexuals who had
            unprotected anal intercourse and multiple sexual partners, 68 percent were
            entirely unaware of the HIV status of their partners.

            Promiscuity – A large
            percentage of homosexual men have hundreds of sexual partners throughout
            their lifetime. According to a profile of 2,583 homosexuals published in
            the Journal of Sex Research, only 2.7 reported having had sexual relations
            with only one partner, compared to the largest percentage that claimed to
            have had between 101 and 500 partners over their lifetime. Compare that to
            the markedly lower promiscuity rates among married heterosexual couples.
            According to the latest statistics from the CDC, 92 percent of married
            males and 93 percent of married females reported having had only one
            sexual partner over the previous twelve months (presumably their spouses).

            Domestic abuse – A survey
            conducted by the Journal of Social Service Research found that more than
            half of lesbian respondents reported having been abused by a female
            partner or lover. Conversely, research has found that married heterosexual
            women experience the lowest rates of domestic abuse compared to other
            types of relationships.

            Life span – A 1997 study
            published in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that even
            under “the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban
            center are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced
            by all men in Canada in the year 1871.” The same study estimated that
            homosexual behavior reduces the lifespan of males by eight to 20 years.
            Comparatively, the CDC has found that male and female smokers lose an
            average of 13.2 to 14.5 years of life, respectively.

            These findings are not those of conservative pro-family advocacy
            groups, but of non-partisan, non-political medical journals and organizations
            devoted to protecting public health. What conclusion can logically be reached
            other than that homosexual behavior is both hazardous to the public at large
            and often deadly to those who practice it?

            For those who promote homosexual behavior in the name of love and
            tolerance, it’s time to take a hard look at the facts surrounding the
            lifestyle. If someone is suffering from terminal cancer, is hiding the
            diagnosis and potential treatments of the disease the loving thing to do?
            Homosexuality is a cancer that affects every area of life – from the
            psychological to the spiritual – yet the medical facts are commonly swept under
            the carpet by politically motivated medical organizations and liberalism as a
            whole.

            Those both inside and outside government ranks who truly value
            human beings created in the image of God will recognize the importance of being
            candid about the deadly health risks associated with homosexual behavior.
            Unlike modern interpretations of tolerance, true agape love has the
            ultimate physical, psychological and spiritual well-being of the individual at
            heart.

            The good news is change is possible, but it starts with honesty.
            Homosexuality is not a benign lifestyle preference, but a death-sentence made
            possible by government neglect of public health concerns. Tragically, Judge
            Murdock’s ruling is another despicable example of a jurisprudence that is eroding
            the public welfare in the name of tolerance.

      • Bob Paglione

        Sorry magister, you know not what you speak of. I am a person of faith, yet I do NOT try to force my beliefs upon others either by my voice or the courts. You talk about sheep, your the person who blindly follows what goes for common sense and is nothing more than tabloid fodder these days. People like you are the ones who led the Jews into the Nazi death camps because they believed Hitler was just some nut until it was too late.

    • corruptintenz

      Then they cannot run or work in businesses? Seems extreme, but lets go with it and see what happens.

      • Wraith

        Says who? YOU? Yes they can. People of faith do also have
        rights. Seems extreme, but I am not going to go against my personal conscience.
        I am not willing to negotiate. I am not willing to comply with a corrupt
        government system, nor a corrupt judicial progressive liberal system. The
        people of the United States of America do have voices. We are We the People.
        Like it or not, this is a Democratic Republic. The government still works for
        the people, by the people, & is composed by We the People. I am not willing
        to comply if I think that it is a moral wrong. So tell me, what is so special
        about gayism? I do expect an answer from you. You just engaged the wrong
        person.

        • corruptintenz

          Sounds like you want You the People Rather than We the people. The ultra right wing government in AZ shot it down. You are arguing with yourself, no?

          Given that there is no such thing as gayism, I am not sure how to answer.

          No, I will not be engaged to you. Keep your same sex desires to yourself. You can’t just require me to be engaged to you. Buy me a drink first!

          Your people have been fed up with the obama regime since before he took the oath. How long are you going to wait to see what happens?

          I will not tell you how to run your business. The rule of law will. This is a Democratic Republic. If you have a problem, you have the legal remedies to challenge what you think is wrong. Failing that you can suck it up and realize its We the People, in a Democratic Republic, not You the People in an Autocratic public. Or you can get out and/or rightly lose your business.

          There is no evidence to show that humans are heterosexual by nature and homosexuals are unnatural.

          Gay men cannot infect anyone with a virus that they do not have, ergo they are not a biohazard. There is nothing special about gay men or hetero men. Given the same behavior and risk taking they show the same rate of infection. Disease knows no prejudice. Unlike humans.

          • Wraith

            1. It Is Not Marriage

            Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

            The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

            Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

            2. It Violates Natural Law

            Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a
            relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

            Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

            Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the
            sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality. Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It
            applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids
            consistently, everywhere and always.

            3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

            It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of
            his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident
            difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a
            single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

            The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children
            of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be
            deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised
            by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived
            of either a mother or a father role model.

            Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

            4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

            In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only
            such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and
            transgender variants.

            Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society. As such, they
            play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of
            thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also
            profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

            Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain
            basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

            5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

            Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue
            similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

            This is false.

            First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A
            man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one
            may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other
            short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The
            two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature
            are respected.

            Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless
            of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry
            because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

            Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with
            non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the
            interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two
            individuals of the same sex.

            6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

            Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its
            end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using
            contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

            On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses”
            want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or
            employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create
            families.

            Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of
            true marriage.

            7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

            One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is
            that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for
            a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the
            upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This
            aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest
            of the State.

            Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose,
            objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose
            union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection
            the State extends to true marriage.

            8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

            By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active
            promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil
            ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and
            punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

            In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more
            than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

            9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

            In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual
            relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

            If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual
            “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

            The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes
            increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

            “The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed
            at changing people’s view of homosexuality.”

          • corruptintenz

            1. It is not marriage

            I agree with you that marriage defined as an institution that requires one man and one woman is a religious institution and this has no place in the public square. I support you in abolishing its status on our books, and returning it to whatever church it escaped from.

            It is only self-evident if you are a heterosexual christian, yes? If you are a homosexual, same sex attraction is self evident. Given this dismissal of religion as self evidence, proving the case is required rather than just declaring it.

            2. It violates natural law

            You make some interesting points about natural law but fail utterly to link your religious views on homosexuality and marriage to them. Given that failure, no response is necessary.

            3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

            If it is evident, then you should have no problem showing this to be true rather than just declaring this to be true.

            4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

            How? It is already valid. All the state can do is recognize its validity or not.

            Can you make your argument for the weakening of traditional marriage and morality? It is a counter-intuitive proposition you make so expansion on this topic would be useful.

            5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

            That the race of two people getting married is not an issue today ignores that only in the not to distant past (1967) miscegenation laws were held to be unconstitutional.

            Marriage is not a biological institution, it is a religious institution (as you are using it).

            Given the evidence that refutes your claim about homosexuality being changeable, you would have to show this to be true rather than just declare it so.

            6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

            Your argument rests on the bad assumption that same sex marriage only ever involves two people but we can leave that aside. Plenty of time for polyamory later.

            I agree with your position that we need to remove all references to marriage as defined religiously from public law and instead put forward a religion neutral law that confers rights equally to same sex and other types of unions thereby ensuring that no individual, adult or child is denied the recognition of their rights.

            7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

            You need to show this to be true rather than simply declaring it so.

            8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

            All the state is empowered to do is recognize human rights, or fail to do so.

            Inasmuch as some individuals identify with their religious prejudices more than they identify with their civic rights and duties, the state is right in discouraging their behavior, this ensuring that the rights of both parties are best secured. Protecting the bigot from the naturally resultant harm from their bigotry is a positive action when undertaken by the state.

            9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

            In the same way that the repeal of anti miscegenation laws led to the slippery slope of whites marrying not only blacks, but asians, iroquois, etc… It may be true that understanding of same sex relationships and the recognition of the rights of those who engage in them is not the end of the road.

            This being said, there is nothing in the recognition of the rights of same sex partners that requires an extension of enlightenment beyond same sex marriage. I you disagree with this, I invite you to make your argument.

            As a point of note, you may be interested to know that same sex couples are actually citizens of the US in some cases. They are the American people to which you refer. Are they railroading themselves?

          • Wraith

            This goes beyond your rights, it is about the preservation
            of the State. A State, any State, can’t do without its population. You are
            promoting depopulation here.

            The debate over homosexual “marriage” often becomes focused on whether homosexuality is a

            learned behavior or a genetic trait. Many homosexual activists insist that “science” has shown

            that homosexuality is inborn, cannot be changed, and that therefore they should have the “right

            to marry” each other.

            Beginning in the early 1990s, activists began arguing that scientific research has proven that

            homosexuality has a genetic or hormonal cause. A handful of studies, none of them replicated

            and all exposed as methodologically unsound or misrepresented, have linked sexual orientation

            to everything from differences in portions of the brain,

            1,2 to genes,3 finger length,4 inner ear

            differences,

            differences,

            5 eye-blinking,6 and “neuro-hormonal differentiation.”7

            Meanwhile, Columbia University Professor of Psychiatry Dr. Robert Spitzer, who was

            instrumental in removing homosexuality in 1973 from the American Psychiatric Association’s

            list of mental disorders, wrote a study published in the October 2003

            Meanwhile, Columbia University Professor of Psychiatry Dr. Robert Spitzer, who was

            instrumental in removing homosexuality in 1973 from the American Psychiatric Association’s

            list of mental disorders, wrote a study published in the October 2003

            Archives of Sexual Behavior.

            He contended that people can change their “sexual orientation” from homosexual to heterosexual.

            heterosexual.

            8 Spitzer interviewed more than 200 people, most of whom claimed that through

            reparative therapy counseling, their desires for same-sex partners either diminished significantly

            or they changed over to heterosexual orientation. Although still a proponent of homosexual

            activism, Spitzer has been attacked unmercifully by former admirers for this breach of the

            ideology that people are “born gay and can’t change.” Immutability is a central tenet of

            demands for “gay rights” and “gay marriage.”

            Because no single study can be regarded as definitive, more research on people who have

            overcome homosexuality needs to be done. But a considerable body of previous literature about

            change from homosexuality to heterosexuality has been compiled, and the sheer number of

            exceptions to the “born gay” theory should be a warning to researchers and media to proceed

            with caution before declaring that science has “proved” that homosexuality is genetic.

            reparative therapy counseling, their desires for same-sex partners either diminished significantly

            or they changed over to heterosexual orientation. Although still a proponent of homosexual

            activism, Spitzer has been attacked unmercifully by former admirers for this breach of the

            ideology that people are “born gay and can’t change.” Immutability is a central tenet of

            demands for “gay rights” and “gay marriage.”

            Because no single study can be regarded as definitive, more research on people who have

            overcome homosexuality needs to be done. But a considerable body of previous literature about

            change from homosexuality to heterosexuality has been compiled, and the sheer number of

            exceptions to the “born gay” theory should be a warning to researchers and media to proceed

            with caution before declaring that science has “proved” that homosexuality is genetic.

            9

            Other recent developments also suggest that homosexuality is not genetically determined.

            Other recent developments also suggest that homosexuality is not genetically determined.

            The

            Washington Post

            Washington Post

            reported that bisexuality is fashionable among many young teen girls, who go

            back and forth from being “straight” to “gay” to “bi” to “straight” again.

            back and forth from being “straight” to “gay” to “bi” to “straight” again.

            Reporter Laura Sessions Stepp writes:

            Recent studies among women suggest that female homosexuality may be grounded more in social interaction, may present itself as an emotional attraction in addition to or in place of a physical one, and may change over time.

            Recent studies among women suggest that female homosexuality may be grounded more in social interaction, may present itself as an emotional attraction in addition to or in place of a physical one, and may change over time.

            She cites one such study by Lisa M. Diamond, assistant professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah, who in 1994 began studying a group of females aged 16 to 23 who were attracted to other females.

            She cites one such study by Lisa M. Diamond, assistant professor of psychology and gender

            studies at the University of Utah, who in 1994 began studying a group of females aged 16 to 23 who were attracted to other females.

            12 Over the course of the study, “almost two-thirds have changed labels,” Stepp reports.

            Against increasing evidence that homosexual behavior is neither inevitable nor impossible to resist, a number of studies have been widely publicized as “proof” of a genetic component. But they are either poorly constructed or misreported as to their significance.

            In 1993, Columbia University psychiatry professors Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons examined the most prominent “gay gene” studies on brain structure and on identical twins, and published the results in the changed labels,” Stepp reports.

            Against increasing evidence that homosexual behavior is neither inevitable nor impossible to

            resist, a number of studies have been widely publicized as “proof” of a genetic component. But they are either poorly constructed or misreported as to their significance. In 1993, Columbia University psychiatry professors Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons examined the most prominent “gay gene” studies on brain structure and on identical twins, and published the results in the Archives of General Psychiatry. They found numerous methodological flaws in all of the studies, and concluded that:

            Methodological flaws in all of the studies, and concluded that: There is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory. … [T]he appeal of

            current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction

            with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of

            experimental data.

            There is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory. … [T]he appeal of

            current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction

            with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of

            experimental data.

            13

            After he was roundly attacked by homosexual activists, who accused him of providing

            ammunition for conservatives to challenge the gay rights/civil rights comparison based on

            immutability, Byne denounced the “false dichotomy: Biology or Choice?” and stated that he was

            also skeptical of environmental theories of sexual orientation. He wrote: “There is no compelling evidence to support any singular psychosocial explanation,” and that he would never “imply that one consciously decides one’s sexual orientation.”

            After he was roundly attacked by homosexual activists, who accused him of providing ammunition for conservatives to challenge the gay rights/civil rights comparison based on immutability, Byne denounced the “false dichotomy: Biology or Choice?” and stated that he was also skeptical of environmental theories of sexual orientation. He wrote: “There is no compelling evidence to support any singular psychosocial explanation,” and that he would never “imply that one consciously decides one’s sexual orientation.” But the fact remains that Dr. Byne has poked gaping holes in the most influential studies purporting to prove that homosexuality is inborn.

            In May 2000, the American Psychiatric Association issued a Fact Sheet, “Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues,” which includes this statement: “Currently, there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality.

            However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.”

            Beyond the false comfort that homosexuals need not seek to alter their behavior in any way, there may be another motive behind the release and enthusiastic reporting of these studies: political advantage. As Natalie Angier wrote in poked gaping holes in the most influential studies purporting to prove that homosexuality is inborn.

            In May 2000, the American Psychiatric Association issued a Fact Sheet, “Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues,” which includes this statement:

            “Currently, there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.”

            Beyond the false comfort that homosexuals need not seek to alter their behavior in any way, there may be another motive behind the release and enthusiastic reporting of these studies: political advantage. As Natalie Angier wrote in The New York Times on September 1, 1991:

            [P]roof of an inborn difference between gay and heterosexual men could provide further ammunition in the battle against discrimination. If homosexuality were viewed legally as a biological phenomenon, rather than a fuzzier matter of “choice” of “preference,” then gay people could no more rightfully be kept out of the military, a housing complex or a teaching job than could, say blacks. [P]roof of an inborn difference between gay and heterosexual men could provide further ammunition in the battle against discrimination. If homosexuality were viewed legally as a biological phenomenon, rather than a fuzzier matter of “choice” or “preference,” then gay people could no more rightfully be kept out of the military, a housing complex or a teaching job than could, say blacks.

            Simon LeVay, whose brain study in 1991 “jumped from the pages of the periodical Simon LeVay, whose brain study in 1991 “jumped from the pages of the periodical

            Science to The New York Times and Time, then to CNN and Nightline, and from there to the dinner tables and offices of the country,” according to writer Chandler Burr, was quite open in his assessment of the possible impact of his work. “[P]eople who think gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights.” and offices of the country,” according to writer Chandler Burr, was quite open in his assessment of the possible impact of his work. “[P]eople who think gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights.”

          • Wraith

            This is the main reason why I do openly & forcefully oppose same gender
            unions. You will NOT diminish the institution of marriage. Not on our watch. It’s
            quite simple, let’s see what the gay community has to say about the institution
            of marriage, shall we?

            Gay
            Marriage is a Lie: Destruction of Marriage, Masha Gessen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9M0xcs2Vw4

            Lesbian
            Activist: Gay Marriage Is a Lie

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

            Lesbian
            activist: ultimate goal is not gay marriage; it is destruction of traditional
            families http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go26c7zf0CM

            Gay Waitress NOT tipped Receipt Forgery
            ! Customers prove Dayna

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3mL8JvVqbw

            Lesbian waitress Dayna Morales accused
            of ‘fraud’ ‘scam’ & fabricating

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAX48NWcpGI

            Lesbian Waitress Dayna Morales Caught In
            Lie About Hateful Note

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1C_hOxkuHc

            Castro District Gays Attack A Christian Missionary

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Xb-au-wpU

            Preacher Attacked At Seattle Gay Pridefest 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm9QQebJxSU

            Gay Pride Event Turns Violent, Religious Protestor
            Attacked http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzS-QuSttfs

            Gays interrupt Mount Hope Church service, in Lansing
            Michigan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzFyPnvz-iI&list=PLE6AF0BE0B532ECC3

            Hateful Gays Attack Catholic Church in Chicago (June
            16th, 2013)

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1GCtK3rfZc

            Hitler,
            Homosexuality, Boy Scouts & Pederasts – With Bryan Fischer & Scott
            Lively

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqRg3tTEEVU

            Christian Schools Under Attack for Not Promoting

            Homosexuality as normal

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84OeMfeVijA

            Police physically assault Christians during
            pro-homosexual march

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_VJ5uKDCnI

            Homosexual Mafia Sues Christian Business For Refusing
            Service

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

            Homosexual Mafia Upset With The Minnesota Vikings

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re99XJlyrOc

            Military moving Christians out, hypermasculine
            aggressive homosexuals

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-eGM-1vl88

            American Christians Are
            Persecuted by Gays

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAfrP8oLB9c

            Fischer on CNN Attacks “Homosexual Lobby”

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F44KzlyoJM0

          • corruptintenz

            What do you mean by same gender unions? What do you mean by the institution of marriage?

            It seems that the religious by attempting to force a religious definition of marriage into public law have diminished (in their view) the institution by thus opening it to judicial and constitutional review. Why have they been such poor stewards of their passionately adored institution?

            Are these hapless stewards the same that are manning ‘our watch’? It should be a simple exercise then to simply turn to the left or right and watch one’s guilty god loving colleagues rather than peering over some conceptual wall waiting for an outside threat that doesn’t seem to exist.

          • Wraith

            What is the purpose for you gay people to demand same rights
            as everyone else? What do you plan to do with those rights? Abuse them against others? You are abusing your rights to step into other’s people’s rights. I am here to state to you that your rights end up when you start invading my rights. If that happens than you & I will have problems.

            In her recent Nov. 12 column, “Victory inevitable but we must fight,”
            Arianna Huffington compares
            discrimination against gays to racial discrimination against blacks. Is this a
            valid comparison? She cites the Emancipation Proclamation, which eventually led to the abolition of slavery; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which ensured blacks the right to vote; and Brown v. Board of Education, which ended racial
            segregation in public schools. There is one problem with these analogies — they do not and have never applied to gays. Gays were never enslaved, denied the right to vote, nor segregated in public schools.

            She also attempts to compare the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
            policy against gays to past discrimination experienced by African Americans. This, too, is faulty. While homosexual behavior has always been prohibited among soldiers going back to the Continental Army of 1776, conversely, African Americans have consistently been recruited and served openly in all of America’s wars, including the Revolutionary War and the Civil War.

            Race and sexual orientation are not comparable. One refers to physical characteristics, such as skin color and hair texture, the other to behavior, what one does. Suggesting that being black is comparable to being a homosexual is tantamount to saying that being white is comparable to being a pedophile — absurd, isn’t
            it?

            Racial discrimination was eventually deemed irrational because one’s physical appearance is irrelevant to one’s behavior and moral character. However, sexual orientation, or sexuality, by definition has everything to do with one’s behavior — and that we do have a right to judge. Our society has laws against incest, pedophilia, zoophilia and polygamy. Institutions have policies against intimacy between superiors and subordinates. And if a corporate executive embarrasses a company because of a sex scandal, he may be fired. These examples demonstrate the necessity of discriminating against sexual behavior deemed harmful, perverted or immoral.

            That is why laws defining marriage as a union of one male and one female should not be compared to racial discrimination, nor should the Boy Scouts’ policy of prohibiting homosexual troop leaders. It is incumbent on all of us to oppose
            the dishonest comparison of race and sexual orientation. And the African
            American community should be the most vocal. Under no circumstances should they permit the civil rights movement to be co-opted by homosexual advocates. Judging someone based upon race is wrong; judging them based upon sexual
            conduct is not.

          • corruptintenz

            That the conflict of rights within the framework of a social contract, which we all have been born into, creates tension between conflicting rights, is not a new concept nor are its remedies. None of those remedies include a check-in with you on what you are
            ‘stating’ or are having ‘a problem’ with.

          • Wraith

            You are part of one of these categories:

            a.
            Strict Separationists: These people want to
            completely nonreligious state, with the separation of traditional religion from
            all civic matters.

            b.
            Pluralistic Separationists: Those who fall into
            this category advocate a “neutral state,” but still allow religious values to
            influence government policy as long as the policy is considered a “public
            matter.”

            c.
            Institutional Separationists: The goal here is a
            “theocentric state,” with the government maintaining“benevolent neutrality”
            toward Judeo-Christian religious institutions & values.

            You clearly fall into one of those. As for your so called
            movement, we know this:

            Two bills were approved on July 15, 1997, by California’s
            Senate Judiciary Committee. AB 257 declared homosexuality to be an official
            “civil right” on an equal level with race & nationality. It also inserted
            the words sexual orientation into the Fair Employment & Housing Act (FEHA).
            AD 310 went even further, allowing authorities to investigate & prosecute
            “churches, religious schools, missions, & all permitted FEHA corporations
            that discriminate.” These investigation would not required a search warrant,
            just cause, or even a complaint on file. “Gay activists could apply for work at
            churches & sue for discrimination when turned down,” said Art Croney,
            executive director of the Sacramento-based Committee on Moral Concerns. In late
            1996, the U.S. Postal Service’s law enforcement division issued a code of
            conduct forbidding its 4,600 inspectors & police officers from discrimination
            against homosexuals, even during off-duty hours. The new code required
            employees to sign a statement agreeing to follow the code. One employee refused
            to sign because he said he believes that homosexuality is a sin. Another
            wouldn’t sing because he was afraid it would keep him from voicing his opinion
            against same-sex unions or homosexual pastors at his church.

            The antidiscrimination clause of this code of conduct
            declared:

            Employees acting in an official capacity will not directly
            or indirectly authorize, permit or participate in discrimination based on age,
            gender, ethnic origin, physical or mental disability or sexual orientation
            against anyone, whether or not they are employees. Because we are a law
            enforcement agency, off-duty conduct that demonstrates an inability to be fair,
            objective & unbiased in dealings with others will not be tolerated.

            Although all cabinet-level departments except the Pentagon
            already have rules barring discrimination based on sexual orientation, the
            Postal Service code is the only policy on sexual orientation, the Postal
            Service code is the only policy that extends to employees ‘off-duty hours. We
            do see a problem in here. This policy sends the message that “people who have
            deeply held moral beliefs…need not to apply for the federal jobs…This is
            reverse discrimination of the worst kind.

            Such discrimination and, increasingly, persecution of those
            who hold convictions different from this imposition, in matters affecting
            marriage & sexuality will be the order of the day in a system of government
            dominated by adherents of your new tolerance.

  • Cheryl Newcomb

    If I was a gay person I wouldn’t want to use a bakery that didn’t want my business. I’d find a more welcoming establishment. I wouldn’t like the fact that they were being strong armed by the Government.

    • Eric

      Ever seen in resturants “We Reserve the Right to deny service to anyone?” I have and I agree with it. Whoever owns a business has a right to serve whomever they so desire. Its called “freedom.”

      • Phil Davenport

        That’s right. Business, including restaurants, are PRIVATE property. Most of the assembly line types open their doors to riffraff and common people, but only because that’s their target clientele. Those worth going to are more selective about whom they allow to be seated. In a FREE COUNTRY, Private business owners and private citizens should never be told by government whom they MUST or MUST NOT serve. They should only be able to tell that to their employees, such as the IRS targeting vocal opponents of the administration… Oh, wait…

        • magister ludi

          Funny. Then why does so much of the business community oppose these legislative attempts to discriminate?

          Your freedom is to believe what you want; it is not to disregard your civil duties.

          • corruptintenz

            Nice to hear a shout out for duties and responsibility for a change. Nicely done, ML.

          • magister ludi

            Thank you, Sir.

            I’m tired of all these arch-conservatives constantly whining about their “freedoms” when the only rights they believe in are the “right” to discriminate, the right to shove their religion down other peoples’ throats, their right to make as much money as the want– regardless of how many people they trample, how much child and slave labor they promote, how many people in poor countries they exploit and how much ecological destruction they cause– AND, of course, their gun rights so they can try to frighten the rest of us from having our freedom.

            Capitalist lust is the only thing that differs between these right wing fanatics and the old Soviets. Why do you think they love ex-KGB hardliner Putin?

          • Wraith

            This
            is a common error made by those in the pro-homosexual movement. It is an error
            known as a category mistake. A category mistake is attributing the property of one thing to
            something else that does not have that property. For example, to say “Blue
            sleeps faster than Wednesday” is to confuse an attribute of color with
            speed and compare it to a name. This error is very common among proponents of
            homosexuality. Another example would be to say that “Gay sex is just
            love.” This confuses a sexual behavior with an emotional condition. They’re
            not the same thing. Besides, if they were, then there would have to be a whole
            lot of love going on, as this quote would demonstrate:

            “Bell
            and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual
            men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50
            or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more
            partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308.”
            (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

            HomoSEXuality
            is a behavior, an action. It is not the same thing as a genetic condition such as skin color, height, or
            gender. Homosexual intercourse (is there homosexuality without it?) is a
            behavior and is, therefore, something people choose to do. Actions are what
            people choose to do – whether or not they have a tendency. On the other hand, being born in black or white skin is not a choice and is not a behavior.

            Therefore, when homosexuals appeal to the argument that being born gay is like being born into a particular race, they don’t know what they’re talking about.

          • corruptintenz

            This seems to have no bearing whatever on the response of mine you link to. A mispost?

          • Wraith

            Then justify why people
            should even acknowledge you for marriage. I don’t even find any reason why. You people don’t even benefit the State. The only reason why this is going on is because big corporations are allowing it, imposing their moral views over the rest of us. The elite has to do with this movement of yours.

          • corruptintenz

            Again, this has no bearing on the topic at hand. I extend to you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are struggling with Disqus.

          • Wraith

            Is there nothing else you can say? Defend your homosexual posture. Why should we even acknowledge you at all? No, you will not dismiss my arguments, defend your posture, you are all talk no substance at all. Idiot. I will mark you, & will vex you, just for the fun of it.

          • corruptintenz

            Can you show how my posture is related to my sexual orientation? Can you show that my sexual orientation is homosexual?

            You are dismissing your own comments by not supporting them and posing them in irrational ways. It is not necessary for me to dismiss them.

            How exactly do you propose to mark and/or vex me, given that you have failed to do so thus far at the end of what can only be assumed to have been your best effort which was many posts back?

          • Wraith

            We can spend all day here man, do you have that time? I don’t
            believe in your religion of sexual orientation. I was college professor, &
            to tell you the truth, I rather go with biology & state that there is a
            reason why nature did divide the sexes, rather than go with a man’s explanation
            of why we should embrace homosexuality as being the norm.

          • corruptintenz

            What relation is there between your ‘belief’ and my religion and or sexual orientation?

            What does it matter if you were a college professor? Is that meant to lend some appeal to authority credence to your claims? Is appeal to authority not fallacious?

            Can you show that nature did divide the sexes (whatever that is meant to mean)? Were the sexes unified before?

            If man has a rational explanation, what gives ‘nature’ the priority especially when its claims are unsupported?

          • Wraith

            I have no religion, but you on the other hand do have a
            religion. Sexual orientation is a new emerging religion. You are not going to
            state otherwise.

            What
            Homosexuals Won’t Tell You: Exposing Common Falsehoods

            If you clicked on this article you’re either interested
            in finding out the truth or will write this off as just another homophobic
            article by a religious nut-job, either way I thank you for stopping by.

            You can’t go 10 minutes without being slapped in the face
            with homosexual images repeated articles about homosexual ‘marriage’ or another
            ‘famous’ person coming out. Why? What does it all mean?

            In this article we are going to expose the common
            falsehoods put out by the homosexual lobby. Let’s get started:

            Lie #1 People are born homosexual.

            This is the biggest lie put out by homosexuals, you’ll
            often hear “Why would I choose to be hated” or “Did you choose
            to be straight?” or another spin of the two. When you look closer you’ll
            see, it’s a lie.

            “After many years of intense research, a genetic
            component to homosexual desires has not been discovered. Twin studies show that
            identical twins do not consistently have the same sexual orientation. In fact,
            genetics probably explains very little about homosexual desires. How would a
            homosexual “gene” be passed on? Homosexuals don’t pass on anything because they
            don’t reproduce. The human genome project found no such gene. Then figure out
            how such a destructive and non productive gene would survive through thousands
            of generations. Second, the “born-that-way” claim is an argument from design”
            since God designed me with these desires, I ought to act on them.” But the
            people who say this overlook something more obvious they were also born with a
            specific gender. This raises the question: Why are you following your desires
            but not your gender? After all, we’re not sure if your desires were designed or
            the result of your upbringing, but we are certain that your anatomy is
            designed. So why not follow your anatomy rather than your desires? Ignoring
            your desires may be uncomfortable, but ignoring the natural design of your body
            is often fatal. Even IF desires are not a choice, sexual behavior always is. So
            even if a person honestly believes that he’s been born with homosexual desires,
            he is certainly capable of controlling his sexual behavior. If you claim that
            he is not—that sexual behavior is somehow uncontrollable—then you have made the
            absurd contention that no one can be morally responsible for any sexual crime,
            including rape, incest, and child molestation.” “IF you are born with a
            genetic predisposition to alcohol, does that mean God wants you to be an
            alcoholic? If someone has a genetic attraction to children, does that mean God
            wants you to be a pedophile? (According to pedophiles it does!) What homosexual
            activist would say that a genetic predisposition to anger justifies
            gay-bashing? (Born gay? What if the gay basher was born mean?) ” Frank
            Turek

            In fact homosexuals have tried anything and everything in
            order to try and ‘prove’ they are born homosexual. No ‘scientific’ study
            perform by homosexuals or homosexual advocates has made through the scientific
            method and has never been repeated, which leads us to believe homosexuals
            knowingly manipulate studies to come out as inclusive than they publish the
            very incoclusive study as absolute fact.

            “If homosexual orientation were completely genetic, one would expect that it
            would not change over the course of one’s life. For females, sexual preference
            does seem to change over time. A 5-year study of lesbians found that over a
            quarter of these women relinquished their lesbian/bisexual identities during
            this period: half reclaimed heterosexual identities and half gave up all
            identity labels. In a survey of young minority women (16-23 years of age), half
            of the participants changed their sexual identities more than once during the
            two-year survey period. In another study of subjects who were recruited from
            organizations that serve lesbian/gay/bisexual youths (ages 14 to 21 years) in
            New York City, the percentage that changed from a lesbian/gay/bisexual
            orientation to a heterosexual orientation was 5% over the period of just 12
            months (the length of the survey). Other studies have confirmed that sexual
            orientation is not fixed in all individuals, but can change over time,
            especially in women. A recent example of an orientation change occurred with
            The Advocate’s “Person of the Year” for 2005. Kerry Pacer was the
            youngest gay advocate, chosen for her initiation of a “gay-straight
            alliance” at White County High School in Cleveland, Georgia. However, four
            years later, she is raising her one year old daughter, along with the baby’s father.
            Obviously, for at least some individuals, being gay or straight is something
            they can choose.

            The growing number of former, recovered homosexual
            persons clearly establishes the fact that homosexuality is not an immutable
            characteristic, such as race or gender. Thus, there is no rational basis for
            setting aside centuries of legal precedent, religious teachings and good social
            order in order to give a preferential place in society to homosexual behavior.

            See more ex homosexuals here

            http://hubpages.com/hub/Correct-Not-Politically-Correct

            So no people are not born homosexual. The bible says we
            are born under a sin nature and a strong urge to rebel against our Creator, and
            that is manifested in many different ways(sins) homosexuality is one of them.

            Sources: Rosario M., E.W. Schrimshaw, J. Hunter, and L.
            Braun. 2006. Sexual identity development among gay, lesbian, and bisexual
            youths: consistency and change over time. J Sex Res.43: 46-58. Kinnish, K.K.,
            Strassberg, D.S., Turner, C.W., 2005. Sex differences in the flexibility of
            sexual orientation: a multidimensional retrospective assessment. Archives of
            Sexual Behavior 34, 173–183. Whoops! Lesbian ‘Person of the Year’ in Gay Press
            Goes Straight With Baby by Tim Graham

            Lie #2 There is no homosexual agenda.

            If you read the first link you now know how big of a lie
            that is. Homosexuals want absolute moral approve for their behavior.

            ·
            The
            homosexual agenda includes desensitizing the public: “The first order of
            business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay
            rights…..To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with
            indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights
            register differences in sexual preferences the way they register different
            tastes for ice cream or sports games….At least in the beginning, we are
            seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot
            expect a full ‘appreciation’ or ‘understanding’ of homosexuality from the
            average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that
            homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is
            just another thing…then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually
            won”.

            ·
            Part
            of the homosexual agenda is to get the public to affirm their filthy lifestyle,
            as one homosexual admitted in the October 1987 homosexual rally on Washington:
            “We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from
            wrong. We also have a right — as heterosexual Americans already have — to see
            government and society affirm our lives”.

            ·
            Part
            of the homosexual agenda is to turn people from Christianity: “The teaching
            that only male-female sexual activity within the bounds and constraints of
            marriage is the only acceptable form should be reason enough for any homosexual
            to denounce the Christian religion”.

            “Writing in their 1989 gay manifesto, After the
            Ball, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, Ph.D., offered the homosexual community
            the following strategy: “In the early stages of the campaign, the public should
            not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexualbehavior itself.
            Instead, the imagery of sex per se should be downplayed, and the issue of gay
            rights reduced, as far as possible, to an abstract social question”

            “Notice that homosexual activists cleverly avoid the
            real issue. When speaking of homosexuality, they always talk about rights
            rather than acts. They know they won’t win if they describe the acts that they
            want us to endorse through government-backed same-sex marriage. Since a
            majority of Americans find such acts unnatural, immoral, and repulsive, and
            have NO benefits to society. Homosexual activists hide the real truth about
            what they do behind the word “rights” because no one can be against that. This
            language manipulation extends to other terms they use (such as “gay” and
            “pride”) and is a common propaganda technique used by radical abortion rights
            proponents as well. It’s too difficult to advocate child dismemberment, so
            partial-birth abortion advocates talk about “choice.” We should ask the
            manipulators the following: “A right to choose what?” and “A right to do what?”
            They won’t call it what it is because the naked truth would hurt their case
            with most Americans.”

            Since those words were penned in the late 80s, gay
            activists have been extremely successful at instituting Kirk and Madsen’s
            advise. In large part, the legitimization of homosexuality has been achieved
            through efforts that conceal the realities of homosexual sex behind the
            rhetoric of civil rights, such as the enactment of special rights laws, “safe”
            school initiatives, and the positive portrayal of gays and lesbians in the media.
            The message the public consistently hears is that homosexuality is normal, and
            that homosexual acts are one aspect of the myriad of ways that human beings
            relate sexually.

            Yes THE BIGGEST LIE in the homosexual agenda is “our
            behaviors are not different from yours,”

            Let’s look deeper into “normal” behaviors of
            homosexuals.

            Anal Sex. Although it is certainly not exclusive to
            homosexuals, anal sex has a long history of association with male homosexual
            activity, and is considered one of the highest risk sexual behaviors for both
            men and women. According to the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA), “a
            significant percentage of MSMs—as many as one in three—have some incidence of
            unprotected anal sex.”

            According to a 2000-2002 study of HIV-positive MSM in 16
            states, 30 percent of sexually active MSM reported engaging exclusively in oral
            sex, and 13 percent reported engaging exclusively in anal sex at their last
            sexual encounter, while 55 percent reported both behaviors. Overall, 40 percent
            reported insertive anal intercourse at their last sexual encounter.

            Multiple Partners. Homosexuality is also associated with
            a higher number of lifetime sexual partners, which puts both men and women at
            an increased risk of disease. A 1995 Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavioral
            Surveillance found that gay, lesbian, and bisexual orientation was associated
            with having sexual intercourse before age 13, having four or more sexual
            partners in a lifetime, and experiencing sexual contact against their will.

            MSM enrolled in a study published in the American Journal
            of Public Health in 2003 reported a median number of seven male sex partners
            over the previous six months, with 42.2 percent reporting 10 or more male
            partners. A 1997 study of young gay and bisexual men found that 91 percent
            reported an average of 43 male sexual partners in their lifetime.

            ·
            Barebacking.
            A June 2006 article in the homosexual newspaper, The Washington Blade, examined
            the popularity of “barebacking” (anal sex without a condom) among some MSM.
            Barebacking is popular at gay circuit parties, which are weekend-long dance
            events for gay and bisexual men, where drugs and sex are prevalent. One study
            of MSM attending gay circuit-parties published in 2005 found that 29 percent
            reported multiple sexual partners over the weekend, with 47 percent of these
            reporting anal sex without a condom. A six-city study of homosexual men
            published in the American Journal of Public Healthin 2003 found that 48.0
            percent reported unprotected receptive anal sex, and 54.9 percent reported
            unprotected insertive anal sex.

            ·
            Bug
            chasing. Another disturbing phenomenon among some MSM involves HIV-negative MSM
            who actively seek HIV infection by engaging in high-risk sexual activities with
            infected male partners. A 2003 Rolling Stone article brought national attention
            to “bug-chasing,” which the article described as “an intricate underground
            world that has sprouted, driven almost completely by the Internet, in which men
            who want to be infected with HIV get together with those willing to infect them.”
            Carlos, a “bug chaser” who claimed to have had several hundred sexual partners
            and said he regularly had sex with three or four HIV-positive men a week, told
            Rolling Stone, “I know what the risks are…But I think it turns the other guy on
            to know that I’m negative and that they’re bringing me into the brotherhood.
            That gets me off, too.”

            ·
            Party
            Drugs. The use of various party drugs, such as methamphetamine (or “crystal
            meth”), is also on the rise among some MSM. Crystal meth is a highly addictive
            drug that affects the central nervous system and can be smoked, snorted, orally
            ingested, injected or used rectally. Meth use among MSM is such a growing
            problem that in 2006, the GLMA conducted its own study of the issue, concluding
            that “approximately 10 to 20 percent of gay men” reported meth use in the past
            six months, which is at least 10 times higher than the rate among the general
            population. The GLMA study found that 36 percent of MSM attending circuit
            parties reported using meth, as well as 28 percent of MSM ages 15-22 in major
            urban areas. According to the CDC, drugs like meth “may be used to decrease
            social inhibitions and enhance sexual experiences” and “are strongly associated
            with risky sexual practices among MSM.”

            It is generally assumed that female homosexuality is less
            risky than male homosexuality. Although it is true that MSM experience
            significantly more physical health risks than women who onlyhave sex with
            women, lesbians are not immune to STDs and experience other health concerns
            that are worthy of note.

            STDs. According to the CDC, there is little data
            available on the risk of STD transmission during female-to-female sexual
            activity.[xl] This may be due in part to the fact that the majority of lesbians
            have also had sex with men, which greatly increases their STD risk. The CDC
            reports that 53 percent to 99 percent of lesbians have had sex with men and
            “might continue to” have sex with men in the future. Compounding the risk is
            the fact that some lesbians who have sex with men also engage in other
            high-risk behaviors, such as sex with MSM, injection drug use, and exchange of
            sex for drugs or money

            Lesbians who only have sex with other women are still at
            risk for certain STDs. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human
            Services (DHHS), “lesbian women can transmit STDs to each other through
            skin-to-skin contact, mucosa contact, vaginal fluids, and menstrual blood,” as
            well as through the sharing of sex toys. Common STDs that can be passed between
            lesbians include: Bacterial vaginosis (BV); HPV, Trichomoniasis, Herpes; and
            syphilis. BV is more common in lesbian and bisexual women than in heterosexual
            women.

            “Cancer Risks. Certain cancers are more common among
            lesbians, specifically breast cancer and various gynecological cancers
            (uterine, cervical, endometrial and ovarian). According to the DHHS, factors
            that may increase the cancer risk among lesbians include: the fact that
            lesbians are generally less likely to bear children, and higher rates of
            alcohol use and obesity among lesbians.”

            “Although homosexuality is presented to society as a healthy—and sometimes
            even superior—alternative to heterosexuality, the truth is that homosexual
            behavior represents a serious threat to individual and public health.
            Homosexuality, particularly among males, is associated with dangerous behaviors
            and increased rates of disease ranging from certain cancers to a long list of
            STDs, including HIV/AIDS. As recent studies show, many homosexuals continue to
            engage in high-risk behaviors that ignore the very real consequences to their
            health and the health of others. The public deserves honest information about
            the sexual realities of the homosexual lifestyle and the serious health risks
            that come with it.”

            Alysse ElHage is the a senior research associate with the
            North Carolina Family Policy Council.

            Sources: “The
            Overhauling of Straight America.” Guide Magazine. November, 1987. United
            States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989, Advocate, 1985. Freeman, Geoffery,
            “Bug Chasers: The men who long to be HIV+,” Rolling Stone magazine, February 6,
            2003. GLMA, Breaking the Grip: Treating Crystal Methamphetamine Addiction Among
            Gay and Bisexual Men, November 2006, pg. i (executive summary). CDC, “HIV/AIDS
            Among Men Who Have Sex With Men,” CDC HIV/AIDS Fact Sheet, May 2007.Gay and
            Lesbian Medical Association, “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health:
            Findings and Concerns,” Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association,
            Vol. 4, no. 3 (2000), pg.114. CDC, “High-Risk Sexual Behavior by HIV-Positive
            Men Who Have Sex With Men—16 sites, United States, 2000-2002,” MMWR Weekly, v.
            53, no. 38, pgs. 891-894 (Oct. 2004). R. Garofalo et al., “The Association
            Between Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Orientation Among a School-based
            Sample of Adolescents,” Pediatrics, 101 (1998): pgs. 895-902. Cited in: Meeker,
            Meg, MD. Epidemic: How Teen Sex is Killing Our Kids, pg. 153. Koblin, et. al.,
            “High-Risk Behaviors Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in Six U.S. Cities:
            Baseline Data from the EXPLORE Study,” American Journal of Public Health, June
            2003, vol. 93, no. 6, pg. 928. Seage, George, Kenneth Mayer MD), et. al., “HIV
            and Hepatitis B Infection and Risk Behavior in Young Gay and Bisexual Men,”
            Public Health Reports, v. 112 (2) March-April 1997, pg. 161. Meeker, Meg, MD,
            “High-Risk Sex,” Epidemic: How Teen Sex is Killing Our Kids, Regnery
            Publishing, Washington, DC: 2002, pgs. 152.Klamecki, Bernard J. “Medical
            Perspective of the Homosexual Issue,” The Crisis of Homosexuality, Ed. J. Isamu
            Yamamoto, Christianity Today Publisher, 1990. See also: Medical Institute for
            Sexual Health, Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, A Monograph,
            1999, pg. 57.Op. Cit. Medical Institute, pg. 55-56. GLMA, “Lesbian, Gay,
            Bisexual and Transgender Health: Findings and Concerns,” Journal of the Gay and
            Lesbian Medical Association, Vol. 4, no. 3 (2000), pg.111. American Cancer
            Society, “What are the risks of anal cancer,” All About Anal Cancer.

          • corruptintenz

            I herby state otherwise. Now what?

          • Wraith

            Lie 3

            Matthew Shepard and Harvey milk were ‘gay’
            martyrs and hate crime against homosexuals are high.

            Victims homosexuals must play victim in order persuade
            straight America to their cause. Now I’m not saying the people NEVER harm
            homosexuals, but you see is nowhere near reality.

            FBI statistics show that there are actually very few
            “hate crimes” committed against homosexuals in the United States. Yet
            homosexuals claim they need federal legislation passed to protect them from
            what they maintain is an epidemic of hate against them.

            According to the FBI, in 1999 there were only 1,317 hate
            crimes directed against homosexuals and many of these were simple assault or
            intimidation. “Name-calling” rates equally with an assault in hate
            crime statistics.

            Investigative reporter Fred Dickey, writing in the Los
            Angeles Times Magazine, October 22, 2000, describes the reality of hate crimes
            in “The Perversion of Hate: Laws Against Hate Crimes Are An Idea Gone
            Sour. Prosecutors Apply Them Unfairly and the List of ‘Special Victims’ Keeps
            Growing.” According to Dickey, news reports in 1999 in Los Angeles
            screamed that the city’s hate crimes had risen by 11.7% from 1998. The
            implication was that the city was experiencing an epidemic of hate crimes. But
            Dickey points out that in Los Angeles County, an area with 10 million people,
            there were only 859 hate crimes committed. Most of these were gang related and
            only 98 resulted in felony charges. This is hardly an epidemic.

            Plus According to (U.S. Department of Justice, “Extent,
            Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence”, Office of Justice
            Programs, July, 2000. Hate crimes against homosexuals are committed by other
            homosexuals. Newsweek reported 50% of the calls to a hot line to report
            “queer bashing” involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating
            up other homosexuals).Same sex relationships are far more likely to involve
            abuse and violence. And this data is supported by other surveys and studies.
            The Bureau of Justice reports that women in traditional heterosexual marriages
            experience far lower rates of violence than women in any other type of
            relationship. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, “Intimate Partner
            Violence”, U.S. Department of Justice, May, 2000). Over and over again, studies
            reveal that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than
            traditional marital relationships. Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the
            New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the
            murders in large cities”

            “In one study, researchers found that 90% of surveyed lesbians said they
            had suffered verbal abuse and 31% said they had experienced physical abuse from
            their same sex partner. (Lettie L. Lockhart et al., “Letting out the Secret:
            Violence in Lesbian Relationships”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9, 1994).
            Another survey found that more than 50% of lesbians reported that they had been
            abused by their female partner. (Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier,
            “Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and
            Practice Implications”, Journal of Social Service Research 15, 1991).
            Additional studies confirm this level of abuse within lesbian relationships.
            One such study revealed that 54% of lesbian couples report 10 or more incidents
            of abuse, and 74% reported that the abuse grew worse over time. (William C.
            Nichols, et al, editors, “Handbook of Family Development and Intervention”, New
            York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2000). And male homosexual couples report
            similar abuse. One study found that gay men experience nearly two times the
            amount of violence (in the context of their relationships) than tradition
            heterosexual couples. (D. Island and P. Letellier, “Men Who Beat the Men Who
            Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence”, New York, Haworth Press,
            1991). These studies simply reveal the truth of the matter. Homosexual
            relationships are far more violent that heterosexual relationships, based on a
            number of different parameters and measurements”

            Hate crimes legislation is fundamentally unfair to
            victims. It deems some victims more important than others. It violates the
            fundamental constitutional principal of equal protection under the law.

            Hate crimes legislation can, and indeed has been used, to
            criminalize thought.

            Hate crimes legislation can, and has been used, to
            criminalize religious belief. The Bible is already being targeted in Canada as
            a “hateful” book.

            Hate crimes legislation as applied to “homosexual
            persons” is excessive on many fronts.

            The following information was provided by the Family
            Research Council (FRC), who gathered the information from FBI crime
            statistics.”

            Of every 20,000 murders, 4 were declared “hate
            crimes” against homosexuals (0.02%)

            Of every 20,000 aggravated assaults, 4 are “hate
            crimes” against homosexuals (0.02%)

            Of every 20,000 robberies, 2 are “hate crimes”
            against homosexuals (0.01%)

            Of every 80,000 rapes, less than 1 is a “hate
            crime” against homosexuals (0.00123%)

            The evidence for an epidemic of crimes against homosexual
            persons is non-existent, a part of the “noble victim” image which has
            been so successfully used to soften American attitudes toward homosexual
            behavior.

            Homosexual persons already have the same legal
            protections as all other Americans.

            Physical assault, murder, etc. are already crimes.

            Harvey Milk

            “Regardless of what Californians may or may not
            believe about GLTB rights, Harvey Milk was a painfully poor person to teach
            unsuspecting school kids to honor. The real Harvey Milk was a guy with a bad
            temper, who freely had sex with teenagers and, according to his biographer,
            “had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems.” The movie about
            Harvey Milk also conveniently leaves out the fact that Milk was a big supporter
            of Jim Jones – that same Jim Jones, leader of Peoples Temple, who led over 900
            people to their poisoned Kool-Aid deaths in Guyana merely nine days before Milk
            was slain.”

            According to Daniel J Flynn in City Journal:

            “Milk occasionally spoke at Jones’s San Francisco–based
            headquarters, promoted Jones through his newspaper columns, and defended the
            Peoples Temple from its growing legion of critics. Jones provided conscripted ‘volunteers’
            for Milk’s campaigns to distribute leaflets by the tens of thousands. Milk
            returned the favor by abusing his position of public trust on behalf of Jones’s
            criminal endeavors.”

          • corruptintenz

            Non-sequitur. Relate it to the topic or it remains unread.

          • Wraith

            Tu es mendax. You have no argument at all. So shut up.

          • corruptintenz

            I accept your retreat and wish you better than you deserve.

          • Wraith

            You are truly stupid, what makes you think that I am going to surrender. This is a war; we are waging a war against you. Who is stating that I will retreat, I am willing to follow you anywhere you go. Either you are wrong or I am wrong, but both of us cannot be right. So this means that you are quitting. Fine, quit. I will remain here, I am not going anywhere. We are not mgoing anywhere. You will suffer all of us. Homosexuality will not prevail.

            There is no quarter in here.

          • corruptintenz

            Call your complete abandonment of the field whatever you like. The effect is the same.

            As far as equal rights go, the battle does continue, but it is patently clear who is winning out and who is not.

          • Wraith

            No, you are wrong, all action has a reaction, all cause has an effect, and even your homosexual behavior does have an effect on both nature & human nature as well. You will never be acknowledged by the social
            cluster, even if you try to impose on people’s wills & conciseness. You don’t get it do you, you already have equal rights. No you are not winning, it is all an illusion. If you go outside of the U.S., others will not acknowledge you at all. Just go to Saudi Arabia, shouting that you are an American & that you are a gay, just to see what will happen. Of go to Iran, where they recently executed two young gay men. Or to Australia, where they have banned & re-banned gayism. Or even Russia, you know their story. Fool yourself that you are winning, no, you are not; especially if you impose over the free will of people through the judicial system.

          • Wraith

            No, you are wrong, all action has a reaction, all cause has an effect, and even your homosexual behavior does have an effect on both nature & human nature as well. You will never be acknowledged by the social
            cluster, even if you try to impose on people’s wills & conciseness. You don’t get it do you, you already have equal rights. No you are not winning, it is all an illusion. If you go outside of the U.S., others will not acknowledge you at all. Just go to Saudi Arabia, shouting that you are an American & that you are a gay, just to see what will happen. Of go to Iran, where they recently executed two young gay men. Or to Australia, where they have banned & re-banned gayism. Or even Russia, you know their story. Fool yourself that you are winning, no, you are not; especially if you impose over the free will of people through the judicial system.

          • magister ludi

            You wish to suggest that the only reason for my, or anyone’s, existence is to be useful to the State?

            I think I’ve heard this line if reasoning before. Ah yes, NAZI Germany, Stalinist Russia, Brave New World, 1984.

            I guess you’re right, homosexuals serve no function; they must be eradicated for the Greater Good of the State. Sieg Heil!

          • Wraith

            I am a Jew, your Nazi examples, I know them all.
            Indeed, you only want a partner that is just like
            you, & yes, you find that with a man. Again, I don’t consider myself an
            mere animal, I am more than a mere animal, & do aspire to be more because
            unlike the animals out there, we do have reason. They lack that reason. Animals
            act by instinct, men on the other hand do clearly understand right from wrong,
            cause & effect, action & reaction. Men do have the capacity of
            understanding concepts like science, math the language of the universe, music,
            among other things. An mere animal cannot understand such things. We are quite
            unique, & we should be able to understand the natural world. As for being
            born gay, I totally disagree with you. You have no empirical scientifically
            evidence to state such a thing. I can debate that as well. One of the arguments offered by those in support of
            homosexuality is that homosexuality is an orientation that people are born with
            and it has the same moral value as the hair color someone has at birth. The implication
            is that since they are said to be born gay, then it is normal and morally
            acceptable. The media seems to support this idea, and it is a common position
            held to justify the behavior. But there are two problems with this position.
            First of all, there are a plethora of studies with conflicting results and
            conclusions on both sides of the argument. Nevertheless, we could quickly
            consider studies that deal with identical twins. If genetics determines sexual
            orientation, then it should be manifested when studying twins who share the
            exact same genetic information. However, that isn’t the case. Consider this…
            “…If genetic influence were expressed in these data, MZ twins should
            have the highest concordance for same-sex erotic preference, and unrelated and
            half-siblings the lowest. Table 5 is based on pairs in which at least one
            respondent reports a same-sex romantic attraction (N=527 pairs)…there is
            no evidence for strong genetic influence on same-sex preference in this sample.
            Among MZ twins, 6.7 % are concordant. DZ twin
            pairs are 7.2% concordant. Full-siblings are 5.5 % concordant. Clearly,
            the observed concordance rates do not correspond to degrees of genetic
            similarity. None of the comparisons between MZ twins and others in table 5
            are even remotely significant17. If same-sex romantic attraction has a
            genetic component, it is massively overwhelmed by other factors. As argued
            above, it is more likely that any genetic influence, if present, can only be
            expressed in specific and circumscribed social structures.” In addition,
            genetic information that supports heterosexual attraction is more likely to be
            passed to offspring than would homosexual genetic information, since homosexual
            practice does not produce offspring. It would seem, as the study states, that
            homosexuality is not genetically based. Therefore, homosexuality is a learned
            behavior and should be called a preference, not an orientation. Second, if
            being born gay means that homosexuality is morally acceptable because it is
            natural to them, then it must also be morally acceptable for those who are born
            with a tendency to oppose homosexuality. It would mean that “heteros”
            should not be urged to change their “orientation,” nor should they be
            ridiculed for opposing homosexuality — since they are born that way. To be
            consistent, the homosexual community should support homophobia as a natural
            sexual orientation that they are born with. After all, it would seem more
            likely that heterosexuality is genetically based since heterosexual behavior
            produces offspring where homosexual behavior does not. So, heterosexual
            orientation must be genetically natural, should be supported as a normal
            behavior, should not be ridiculed, should have civil rights protection, and be
            promoted in schools and the media. And, homosexuals who accuse heteros of being
            homophobic should be labeled as heterphobes. Otherwise, the obvious
            double-standard offered by the homosexual community will once again rear its
            ugly head. Furthermore, to carry the excuse that homosexuality is genetically
            based to its logical conclusion, then men born with a natural attraction to
            young boys should also be considered as having a legitimate sexual orientation
            with its accompanying moral propriety. Or, are we to say that only homosexual
            attraction is genetic and morally good where pedophilia is not? If so, why the
            double standard? And, to step further into the abyss, what do we do with those
            who are born with the tendency to lie, covet, hate, and steal? Shouldn’t they
            all be morally acceptable as well, since that is how we are born? If not, why
            not? The problem with using genetics as an excuse to justify behavior is that
            whatever tendency we might be born with must be considered normal. This
            includes lying, pedophilia, homosexuality, and rape. But, such a logical
            inference will not be acceptable to the pro-homosexual community because
            selective statistics and discriminatory reasoning are offered to justify their
            behavior.

            As for animals changing sex, yes, it
            does happen in a few species that live on the face of the Earth, but I can tell
            you this much, I don’t think that is going to happen with humans. Again, an all
            gay cluster will grow old, died out, & go into extinction. This applies to
            humans; it is an absolute truth in humans. I am not stating that this applies
            to other species, but only humans, & animals similar to humans. & let
            me remind you that this Earth has had massive extinctions.

            As for religion, God
            is not religion, your personal relationship with God is not religion, and it is
            a personal relationship with Him. But if you go into reviewing religious books,
            none of the existent religions endorse homosexual behavior. Again, back in the
            day it was very difficult to conceive life, so much danger, so many diseases
            without any sort of medication, the risk of climate exposure, the risk of
            coming face to face with beasts of the wilderness. So many dangers out there,
            people did not have the luxury of living a life of leisure. Having kids was
            very important for all ancient civilizations. For so many religions not having
            offspring was considered to be a curse. A woman that was sterile was considered
            by many ancient peoples to be a cursed woman. People back a millennia ago were
            encouraged to have as many children as they could. & even in some cultures
            they had as many wives & concubines to accomplish this task. There was no
            time for homosexuality activity. I am giving you historical facts, not religious
            view. & even if you go to the biological reasoning of a millennia ago, all
            ancient civilizations did acknowledge that in order to preserve the social
            structure, it was necessary to legitimize marriage. As we all know marriage is
            a legal relationship between spouses: a legally
            recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between
            two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners, or so the
            definition states it. Back then traditional marriage was recognizes as being a
            legitimate marriage in order to preserve a social cluster. This served to
            protect that cluster from external threats, such as attacks from beasts, &
            even other men, in the form of clans or tribes. As civilization progressed into
            turning out to be cities, procreation served to create labor & armies as
            well. So homosexuality didn’t serve any social purpose back in the day, &
            it is possible that it will not serve any social purpose nowadays either. So
            yours is a quite interesting social experiment. Religion was established to
            maintain a certain order within the social cluster, that is the purpose of
            religion. Order must be maintained within any social cluster because too much
            of anything does cause anarchy, & even nihilism. Those are valid reasons I
            am giving you here. Those are the reasons why I don’t & I can’t validate
            homosexual unions as being matrimony because I do perceive them as not
            following the norm, nor the biological norm of mankind, nor the social norm to
            preserve the state. The other problem that I see is that ideals can be spread
            to other people. If that happens than you can turn an entire civilization to
            follow those ideals as natural norms. Suppose that you people do succeed,
            suppose that you people do implement your ways. What are you people teaching
            the next generations? What moral values are you people leaving as legacy to the
            next generations? If you succeed, then what? The risk of turning this country
            into a majority of LBGT people is still there because the youth will see it as
            the norm. Conduct, behavior, ideals, can be transferred to the next
            generations, & they are very difficult to eradicate. If a vast majority of
            a country turns LBGT then that will mean the ruin of that country. Again, I
            don’t expect you to understand, but as a history & social scholar, I have
            strong reasons to be concerned. I cannot acknowledge same gender unions as
            matrimony, because this goes beyond even religion, this can potentially affect
            the social cluster as su

      • Cheryl Newcomb

        Yup, no shoes, no shirts, no service.

    • magister ludi

      I’ll use your business and bring along a bunch of flamboyantly dressed drag queens. We’ll come every day and frighten away all the cowardly bigots and uncover all the married, churchgoing men we’ve slept with.

      Do you know where your husband goes for his lunch hour?

      • Cheryl Newcomb

        You know you’re not doing your cause any favors by responding in such a manner. You sound mean, ignorant and vindictive. Not good traits all around. I just hope you’re not representative of the majority of gays.

        • magister ludi

          Of what “cause” do you speak? I represent no one but myself.

          Specifically what in my post was mean or vindictive? When Y’shua turned over the tables of the money-changers, would you say he was mean and vindictive.

          Many of the hateful, intolerant right wing fanatics on here argue that they don’t want the government to force them to do their civil duty; or they complain about lawsuits.

          My comment suggested neither remedy. I argued for civil disobedience and peaceful protest, tactics I learned from the stories of the Nazarene; from the Boston Tea Party; from Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry; from Henry David Thoreau; from Gandhi and Martin Luther King; and with a bit of Abby Hoffman and Ken Kesey thrown in the mix.

          If you consider these tactics mean, vindictive and ignorant, then maybe I should just depend on the courts and the government to do the work for me.

          And if you didn’t like my comment about married men…well, I’d consider apologizing, but what would be the point? My comment is based quite firmly in repeated observation–both my own observations and those of a large number of gay men. I honestly suspect that more supposedly straight and married men engage in random homosexual encounters than openly gay men. Spend some time in an adult shop, nude beach or bathhouse and you will see what I mean.

          I always find it funny when I see men–somewhere in public with their wives and kids– men whom I have seen on their knees or bent over at one of the local gay hot spots. I always wonder if their wives even suspect.

          And by the way, I’m not gay. I’m openly — including with my girlfriend- quite happily bisexual. I do have a lot of gay friends, but I have almost no interest in the gay culture; not because I look down upon it, simply because it doesn’t interest me.

  • https://www.facebook.com/DefendersOfProsperity Mark Adams

    There is nothing in the Civil Rights act of 1964, nor any amendments to it, that is defined, for denying service based on sexual orientation, Mr Will.

    • Pamela K. Cahoon Laub

      The is nothing in the Civil Rights act supporting sexual orientation. It is about race. Homosexual is not a race.

      • https://www.facebook.com/DefendersOfProsperity Mark Adams

        True

      • corruptintenz

        This isn’t to say that same sex folks don’t have rights. It just means the Civil Rights act didn’t address the topic.

        • Wraith

          Despite numerous countries
          legalising it, the argument around gay marriage is still going on. With this in
          mind, it may be useful to consider whether there is any scientific rationale to oppose same-sex marriage. [Spoiler Warning: there isn't]

          The US is on track to legalise same-sex marriage and on Wednesday France
          sees its first gay marriage. Like most people who don’t think the universe
          should be set up to accommodate their personal preferences, I see this as a
          good thing. However, many do not, and their objections are getting louder and more surreal as the tide increasingly turns against them.

          While it is usually easy (and entertaining)
          to refute typical arguments against same-sex marriage, is there any scientific
          credibility to the view that same-sex marriage should not be allowed? Some
          possibilities are considered here.

          It is ‘unnatural’

          Presumably this argument is referring to the act of homosexual sex, which
          isn’t found in nature (except when it regularly is).

          Whatever your views on homosexual sex (and if you’re viewing it a lot while
          complaining about it, your objections are already somewhat questionable) applying the same rationale to same-sex marriage is farcical. Marriage in general is unnatural. A romantic union recognised in law and based in a traditional ceremony isn’t something non-humans have much time
          for. A lion does not fill out extensive legal documents whenever he mates with
          a lioness (good thing too, he’d never get anything done). Penguins may mate for life (except when they don’t)
          but to date none has ever been seen giving a best man’s speech. Rarely if ever will a male praying mantis walk his daughter down an aisle of some description, although there could be several reasons for this.

          As some of the above links show, our understanding of “natural”
          relationships often seem to be based largely on misinformation and myth, so
          trying to apply this notion to an entirely human construct makes little or no
          sense, scientifically.

          It will lead to more questionable unions becoming more common

          It has been argued that gay marriage will lead to a
          slippery slope of ever more questionable unions being legally recognised,
          such as between man and animal, woman and toaster, child and quasar,
          horse and the intangible concept of nostalgia, stuff like that. As a result,
          being legally recognised will make them more common, and traditional human
          relationships will become increasingly rare.

          There is no logical reason to assume this will happen. Animals and inanimate
          objects aren’t considered independent, rational individuals so cannot enter
          into legal contracts. If ducks were to suddenly mount an extensive and detailed campaign to be recognised as individuals in a legal sense, then perhaps this could come about (and if ducks were able to organise such a campaign, this would count as substantial evidence in their favour), but this is a separate
          issue. At present, there is no feasible mechanism known to science where the
          legalising of gay marriage would imbue animals with consciousness and a sense
          of individual rights.

          There is also the matter of more problematic human relationships like polygamy and incest. The argument being if same-sex relations are legally recognised, the same will have to happen to these. This is logically equivalent to saying that alcohol is legal, so heroin should be too. They are both chemical substances that can be used recreationally to alter the activity of the brain, so how can one be legal and not the other?

          Easily: the law is sophisticated enough to consider more than one possibility when it comes to recreational drugs. Presumably, the same can be
          said for interpersonal marriage arrangements.

          It will undermine existing marriages

          It could be the case that there is some hitherto unknown law or sociological
          pressure that imposes a cap on the number of marriages that can exist in a
          society. Although such a thing hasn’t been noticed before now, legalising gay
          marriage would cause a rapid increase in the number of marriages over a very
          short space of time. Whatever theoretical system exists to regulate the number
          of marriages extant at any one time may not be able to cope with the sudden
          surge and, like too much current through
          a fuse, may bring the whole thing grinding to a halt.

          What the consequences of such an occurrence would be are impossible to say, seeing as this whole concept is purely hypothetical and based on no known evidence. However, the argument “something extremely unlikely and
          completely unknown might end up happening” is no reason not to do
          something. Technically, these parameters apply to every possible human action.

          Technically, same-sex marriage could feasibly undermine the marriages of
          others if those marriages had stipulated such a thing in the initial union. If
          your marriage vows/documents specifically state something like “in
          sickness and in health, till death or the legally recognised same-sex unions of
          complete strangers do us part”, then yes, same-sex marriages could
          undermine your marriage. That’s more your fault than anyone else’s, though. Why put that in your marriage vows? There’s no reason to penalise others for your poor judgement.

          Same-sex marriage could hinder scientific progress

          Not an argument put forward by most anti-gay marriage protestors, but it is
          possible legalising gay marriage could hinder scientific progress. It has often
          been said that a scientific career and
          family life aren’t especially
          compatible. Inevitably, some scientists are going to put their career and
          research on hold to get married and start a family. In this instance, it could
          be homosexual scientists, unable to get legally married so continuing with
          their careers, which are picking up the slack and maintaining scientific
          progress.

          This scenario assumes that same-sex marriage not being legally recognised
          presents an impenetrable barrier to gay people hoping to enter into long term
          relationships and start families. However, anyone who is friends with, has met, or even been within the same postcode as an average homosexual should know this is clearly not the case. You may feel that homosexual relationships are not “real” relationships, and that’s your prerogative, but this is purely a subjective viewpoint and cannot be verified or supported by the available
          evidence.

          Same sex marriage is TOO natural

          It is possible that everyone is approaching this argument from the wrong direction. What if same-sex marriage is TOO natural? Judging from the arguments outlined above, the main arguments against same-sex marriage are based not on objective evidence but what a large number of people say is the case. If this is the criteria on which decisions about marriage should be based, there are also a substantial number of people who claim that men and women are very different, even different species. If “traditional” marriage is between two members of a different species, then same-sex marriage would constitute a romantic union between two members of the same subjective species. What filth!

          This may explain why Captain Kirk is admired for being a technical zoophile (he has engaged in physical relationships with non-humans) while Sulu is harangued for being in a committed relationship with a human of the same gender.

          And if anyone wants to protest that Kirk isn’t a pervert or anything because
          societal attitudes and norms are different in the future, please think about
          that for a few minutes.

          • corruptintenz

            Having agreed with your executive summary:

            “consider whether there is any scientific rationale to oppose same-sex marriage. [Spoiler Warning: there isn't]”

            …I have opted out of reading the rest of the post.

          • Wraith

            Yes there is, according to Thomas Hobbs, nations or the leviathan do grow old. You need younger generations in order to sustain the social cluster. Your homosexuals cannot do that for the State. Heterosexuals do bring a constant
            flow of young workers, young tax payers, a standing army, young social security payers, young medical care payers. Again, nations do grow old. Homosexuals cannot & never produce offspring. Some homosexuals do infect others with HIV/AIDS virus. This is true in 3rd world countries. So again, not everyone is willing to follow your trend. You will never be the norm. Especially, if it is a regime that imposes over the will of the people; people are not so easily forgetful, or even forgetting. You can’t even justify why we should recognize
            you at all.

  • CHARLES

    Mans freedoms lay within his heart, and you can write whatever you want to on a piece of paper, and you can call it whatever you want to when your done. But what is written on a mans heart is what will be his guide. And no government or nation how big and strong will be able to take it from him. though he maybe able to control him physically. They can never have his heart and whats in it, because he is what he is on the inside, he is still free,to choose and love and worship the LORD his GOD, to pray and praise and they can’t take that away. Because it comes from the heart, no law passed by any government can ever take that away, never, tho they may take your life. They can not take your soul and spirit which is the LORDS!!!

    • magister ludi

      Good for you! Keep your heart. It’s rotted and putrid anyway, so who would want it.

      That’s all you bigots have left: hope in a make-believe afterlife. Your days here are numbered.

      Of course, that Jesus fella didn’t care too much for hypocrites, so you might have trouble there, too.

      • CHARLES

        There is no peace to the wicked sayeth the Lord. And you can tell you are full of hate, just because you know you are wrong, Wrong is still wrong no matter how many are for it. and right is still right no matter how many be against it. i’am against what God is against, but I’am not about hating people. But you are full of hate, toward anybody that disagrees with you. You don’t want anybody else to have rights, and you want to step on them and cram your beliefs down their throats. You are right our days are numbered here on earth for the Lord is fixing to take the Christians out of here before He brings His wrath down on this unGodly world. Even so come LORD JESUS!!!!

        • magister ludi

          Where do you see hate in anything I have said? Because I challenge the hateful and hypocritical.

          Your last two sentences epitomize the hate you feel. You believe this world is wicked (probably because you never felt comfortable enough to express your homosexuality; poor boy!) and you just can’t wait for a wrathful God to destroy it.

          You hate the world itself and pray for its end. What could ever be more hateful.

          I do not hate those who disagree with me. If they make sense, I may change my opinion; but when they only spout nonsensical, hateful blather, I simply consider them irrelevant.

          I don’t hate a fly, but I might swat it if it pesters me too much.

          • Wraith

            The raging debate over homosexual marriage took another interesting turn this week when Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock struck down Maryland’s state law defining marriage as the union of one
            man and one woman. The decision, handed down Jan. 20, claimed that Family Law ?2-201 unfairly abridged the fundamental marriage rights of the nine homosexual couples who filed the lawsuit.

            Judge Murdock was not satisfied with merely striking down the state statute, however. In her written opinion, the circuit court judge went
            several steps further by claiming that the prohibition of same-sex marriage in
            no way “rationally relates to a legitimate state interest.” Murdock also
            dismissed the notion that same-sex marriage has any negative influence on traditional marriages or the nuclear family, or that “tradition and social values alone” can bolster what she deemed a “discriminatory statutory classification.”

            Regrettably, such rationale neglects one of the most critical elements in the emotionally charged debate over same-sex marriage and homosexual behavior in general – public health. As witnessed by Judge Murdock’s
            decision, the issue of health is often turned aside in favor of arguments that
            hinge more on politics than fact. The problem with such a trend is obvious –
            the health ramifications of homosexual behavior should be at the forefront of
            the public policy debate, not on the periphery.

            That is the principle reason conservatives should concentrate on
            both the cultural consequences of homosexual behavior and the public
            health ramifications. Such an argument will be a winner every time, especially
            when the facts are clearly presented.

            For those who doubt, consider the evidence:

            Sexually transmitted diseases –
            Research gathered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or
            CDC, has found significantly higher rates of rectal gonorrhea, HIV/AIDS
            and all three strains of Hepatitis among homosexuals. Other studies have
            likewise linked homosexuality with increased rates of Human Papillomavirus (the leading cause of cervical cancer worldwide), syphilis and anal cancer. Although self-identified homosexuals account for less than 5 percent of the American population, they are the carriers of over 50 percent of HIV/AIDS cases.

            Risky behaviors – Campaigns to
            foster so-called “safe sex” among homosexuals have done nothing to reduce
            risky behavior. A 1997 CDC report found that among homosexuals who had
            unprotected anal intercourse and multiple sexual partners, 68 percent were
            entirely unaware of the HIV status of their partners.

            Promiscuity – A large
            percentage of homosexual men have hundreds of sexual partners throughout
            their lifetime. According to a profile of 2,583 homosexuals published in
            the Journal of Sex Research, only 2.7 reported having had sexual relations
            with only one partner, compared to the largest percentage that claimed to
            have had between 101 and 500 partners over their lifetime. Compare that to
            the markedly lower promiscuity rates among married heterosexual couples.
            According to the latest statistics from the CDC, 92 percent of married
            males and 93 percent of married females reported having had only one
            sexual partner over the previous twelve months (presumably their spouses).

            Domestic abuse – A survey
            conducted by the Journal of Social Service Research found that more than
            half of lesbian respondents reported having been abused by a female
            partner or lover. Conversely, research has found that married heterosexual
            women experience the lowest rates of domestic abuse compared to other
            types of relationships.

            Life span – A 1997 study
            published in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that even
            under “the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban
            center are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced
            by all men in Canada in the year 1871.” The same study estimated that
            homosexual behavior reduces the lifespan of males by eight to 20 years.
            Comparatively, the CDC has found that male and female smokers lose an
            average of 13.2 to 14.5 years of life, respectively.

            These findings are not those of conservative pro-family advocacy
            groups, but of non-partisan, non-political medical journals and organizations
            devoted to protecting public health. What conclusion can logically be reached
            other than that homosexual behavior is both hazardous to the public at large
            and often deadly to those who practice it?

            For those who promote homosexual behavior in the name of love and
            tolerance, it’s time to take a hard look at the facts surrounding the
            lifestyle. If someone is suffering from terminal cancer, is hiding the
            diagnosis and potential treatments of the disease the loving thing to do?
            Homosexuality is a cancer that affects every area of life – from the
            psychological to the spiritual – yet the medical facts are commonly swept under
            the carpet by politically motivated medical organizations and liberalism as a
            whole.

            Those both inside and outside government ranks who truly value
            human beings created in the image of God will recognize the importance of being
            candid about the deadly health risks associated with homosexual behavior.
            Unlike modern interpretations of tolerance, true agape love has the
            ultimate physical, psychological and spiritual well-being of the individual at
            heart.

            The good news is change is possible, but it starts with honesty.
            Homosexuality is not a benign lifestyle preference, but a death-sentence made
            possible by government neglect of public health concerns. Tragically, Judge
            Murdock’s ruling is another despicable example of a jurisprudence that is eroding
            the public welfare in the name of tolerance.

          • CHARLES

            You may not know it, but you hate GOD, and everything GOD deems holy, you are either for him or against him. You are confused or don’t care about GOD and His word, I’m just agreeing with what He says and wrote. I would rather obey GOD, than man if it comes to that point. I just try to warn people about the wrath of GOD, thats going to come on (all) sinners who have not accepted JESUS CHRIST as their Saviour. Its not going to be a party nor funny at all. there has never been the destruction on this earth since the beginning of man, like what is fixing to happen in the Apocalypse, its coming because of the greatness of the wickedness of mankind the world over, How could anybody who has studied the Word of GOD and knows what is about to happen ever say they are happy about it, no but quiet the contrary but a brokenness in their very soul.

          • magister ludi

            I hate Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, too. The fat man for giving me a lump of coal and the rabbit for giving me rotten eggs.

            If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.

  • Eric

    Queers dont want equal rights. They want superior rights and they demand we ALL accept their perverted behavior. I dont accept it and to hell with ALL of them!

    • Parque_Hundido

      LOL you’re the reason we’re winning. Thanks for being you!

      • Theresa Easley

        See, that’s all it is to you gays is a competition. It’s not really about being treated equally. It hasn’t been about that for quite some time. All it is aboutnow is trying to force everyone to accept and support the homosexual lifestyle. Sorry to say that just isn’t going to happen. especially with steadfast Christians. Christians have faced far tougher adversaries then homosexuals.

        • Parque_Hundido

          LOL. You are also the reason we’re winning: ignorant extremist homophobic bigots aren’t exactly PR winners. And you don’t get to claim to be Christian unless you’re standing next to your brethren at the Westboro Baptist “Church”. LOL, you don’t even get to call yourself Christian any more, we own that too.

    • magister ludi

      You don’t convince anyone. You’re just like so many of the so-called real men who are constantly on their knees in the sex shops and late nights in the parks. My roommate’s constantly bringing home macho, married men home with him; the next day, they’re at the bar saying how much they hate “fa***ts”.

      I always wonder if these guys go home after swallowing man-seed and kiss their wives and children. They tend to leave rather quickly without washing up first.

      • corruptintenz

        Wow man. You are on fire. Going for popcorn.

        • magister ludi

          A Christian would call it “righteous indignation”.

        • Wraith

          What about you?!? You are on fire as well. I smell the burnt.

          • corruptintenz

            Thanks! Don’t give up. I suspect you have a point in there buried under the layers of irrationality. Keep trying. Have some popcorn!

          • Wraith

            You’re
            welcome. You already lost, you will not take people’s ideals, nor their faith
            away from them. You are the irrational, what arguments do you have to defend
            your posture. You have none. I already won. I know that in global scale, you
            people are not accepted, & will never be accepted. You will not take the
            values that the majority have, nor their ideals. You can’t kill ideals with
            bullets. Plus, your cause, it will never be our cause. Homosexuals will
            eventually go into extinction, literally. You will never pass your genome
            material to the next generation according to natural selection. There is
            nothing special about you, only that you neglect yourselves from your own kin. You have your popcorn, I have the roast been. So enjoy.

          • magister ludi

            The majority, for what it’s worth, support gay rights including gay marriage, both nationally and globally. Moreover, those under 30 are even more supportive; significantly so.

            Your old beliefs are dying rapidly. 10 more years and the issue will be all but dead.

          • Wraith

            You feel that we are intimidated by your B.S. guess again,
            you are wrong. People just support you. It is the judicial system that allows
            you to even exist in the U.S. My ways are the natural ways & they are
            recognized on a global scale. Only the U.S. is trying desperately to allow you
            lot of you.

            I am young & can kick your old fart ass. My moral values will be transmited to the next generations with my own offspring. You on the other hand have to borrow offspring from others because you can’t produce your own.

            “.. .by conversion
            [toward public acceptance of homosexuality] we mean… conversion of the
            average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological
            attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.”
            “…our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or
            proof.” – Kirk & Madsen, After the Ball, 1989, page 153.

            Earlier, I presented a
            partial list of action points of the “Gay Agenda,” without going into much
            detail about any one of them. In the present article, I draw your attention to
            a couple of publications in the late 1980s that have provided a blueprint for
            the homosexual movement to the present day, a plan of action for a massive and
            unrelenting propaganda campaign to win over the hearts and minds of the
            heterosexual majority. The success of the homosexual movement depends
            absolutely on the successful execution of this plan, because the entire gay-lesbian
            population is only about 1.5% of the general population and could not possibly
            wield much power and influence by itself. If you have been paying any attention
            at all to what has been going on around you regarding the issues of
            homosexuality, then you will recognize readily the relentless following of this
            plan by gay activists in America and elsewhere.

            Why would I bother to put
            this information together and publish it? Because, I believe that straight
            Americans, and in particular, the new generations of citizens, need to be
            aware, not only that we are being manipulated, but also how we
            are being manipulated, by the homosexual movement. With this knowledge, we
            should be better able to 1) keep ourselves from being negatively influenced or discouraged,
            and 2) stay the course in our opposition to the homosexual movement.

            The Homosexual Propaganda
            Campaign

            The primary source material
            for this article is found in two publications, both authored by two gay
            activists, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen: 1) A 1987 article entitled
            “The Overhauling of Straight America” and published in Guide, a
            homosexual publication, in 1987; and, 2) a book, entitled “After the Ball:
            How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s”,
            published in 1989. Keep in mind that the success of this homosexual propaganda
            campaign requires the eager cooperation of our overwhelmingly liberal media, in
            order to win over the heterosexual majority in America to their cause. The bulk
            of this information is presented here “in the authors’ own words”,
            via direct quotes, so as to discredit accusations of “right-wing,
            conservative, Christian bias” on my part.

            This “planned,
            psychological attack” involves six distinct strategies that I think you
            will recognize as current events and which can be summarized as follows:

            Desensitization: Talking
            about Gays and Gayness as Loudly and as Often as Possible

            And I quote: “To
            desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference
            instead of keen emotion. Desensitization aims at lowering the intensity of
            antigay emotional reactions to a level approximating sheer indifference. The
            way to benumb raw sensibilities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people
            talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. The masses
            should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior
            itself. If gays can live alongside straights, visibly but as inoffensively as
            possible, they will arouse a low-grade alert only, which, though annoying to
            straights, will eventually diminish. Straights will be desensitized.”

            And I quote: “While
            public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority
            is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two
            things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First we can use
            talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more
            moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative
            interpretation of Biblical teaching and exposing hatred and inconsistency. We
            can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as
            antiquated and backwards, badly out of step with the times and with the latest
            findings of psychology.”

            Another popular strategy
            used to undermine the moral authority of people that oppose the gay movement
            & of people of faith is to repeatedly point out the moral failings of
            denominations, churches and church leaders. Unfortunately, there are more than
            enough of such moral failings to keep the gay activists supplied with fresh
            ammunition.

            Jamming: Creating an
            “Incompatible Emotional Response”

            And I quote: “In
            Jamming, the target is shown a bigot being rejected by his crowd for his
            prejudice against gays. All normal people feel shame when they perceive that
            they are not thinking, feeling, or acting like one of the pack. The trick is to
            get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along
            with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be
            diluted or spoiled. Thus, propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic
            and homohating bigots being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays
            experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred — suffering
            of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause. The attack, therefore,
            is on self-image and on the pleasure in hating. Remember, a bigot seeks
            approval and liking from ‘his crowd.’ When he sees someone like himself being
            disapproved of and disliked by ordinary Joes, he will feel just what they feel
            – and transfer it to himself. This wrinkle effectively elicits shame and doubt,
            Jamming any pleasure he might normally feel. Our effect is achieved without
            reference to facts, logic, or proof.”

            Examples of
            “Jamming” would include: 1) the repeated use of name-calling, e.g.,
            “bigot”, “liar”, “fundie”,
            “bible-thumper” and “homophobe” to create a feeling of
            shame; and 2) the repeated use of potentially disturbing accusations, e.g.,
            “you are part of an ever-dwindling minority”, “more and more churches
            are supporting gay rights”, “you’re losing” and “all of the
            mental health and medical associations say that there is nothing wrong or bad
            about being gay”, all of which are designed to make the opposition –- such
            as LGBT opponents & people of faith — feel isolated, marginalized and out
            of the mainstream of society; 3) derogatory references to God as “your
            mythical sky fairy” and to His Word as the “buy-bull”; and 4)
            this trail of vitriolic comments from a single, pro-gay commenter concerning
            just one article about homosexuality published recently on a website, and I
            quote…

            “You have no right to
            interfere with the secular political culture of this country.”

            “You can believe this
            nonsense all you like but do it behind closed doors and in the

            privacy of your own homes and churches.”

            “I don’t want to hear
            another word about your weird cultish beliefs in the streets

            and public squares.”

            “All religious
            evangelism is assault.”

            “Americans do not
            share your views anymore.”

            “You are a reactionary
            post-modern convulsion.”

            Portray Gays as Victims,
            Not as Aggressive Challengers

            And I quote: “Gays
            must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be
            inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented,
            instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and
            deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that
            justifies resistance and oppression. A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim
            image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream’s sense of threat,
            which lower its guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In
            practical terms, this means that sympathetic

            figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be
            featured.”

            And I quote: “The
            mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most
            never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message
            must read: ‘As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born
            heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. They never made a choice,
            and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn’t willfully contrary – it’s
            only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!
            Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims. To this end,
            the persons featured in the public campaign should be decent and upright,
            appealing and admirable by straight standards, completely unexceptionable in
            appearance.”

            Witness here the
            bombardment of our visual media – TV, movies, comics, theater — with homosexual
            characters looking entirely normal and being fully approved and admired by
            heterosexual characters, and the continuing (bogus) claims that homosexuals are
            “born gay.” And the gay lobby is not content just to have homosexuals
            represented proportionally on TV. I did the math, and it turns out that they
            are already represented on TV shows at a rate that is nine times the percentage
            of homosexuals (1.5%) in the general population, and they are clamoring for
            more!

          • magister ludi

            You’re young you say? And already so set in your beliefs. And already on your way to having a coronary.

            Calm down, relax. No one’s going to force you to be gay. You’ll come out of the closet when YOU’RE ready. Or did your Boy Scout leader already diddle you a bit?

            So….are you young and cute or just young? My girlfriend and I like the feisty young ones, but we’re rather picky about looks. And if you really are a virgin to the pleasures of bisexuality, that’s even hotter.

          • Wraith

            LoL! I will outlast you, I can assure you that. I am not
            that old, I can kick your ass anytime, anywhere. You say that I already have a
            coronary, not true at all. Yes, my convictions are already set in; I have
            traveled the world, courtesy of the U.S. army, & have seen so much. I know
            that you are not going to persuade people that easily, much less if the U.S.
            government through the judicial system is imposing over the rest of us. So many
            people have voted against it, & the voters have won. Only through a corrupt
            government & a corrupt judicial system can such a thing as legalizing same
            gender marriage be happening right now, but not by the will of We the People.
            No, you are not going to force me to be gay, much less you are not going to
            persuade me to even acknowledge you against my will, or even my conscience. I
            am not even inside the closet gay man. I am straight, I love women, can’t do
            without them. You, I don’t even need. I am telling you in your face. I am not
            appealed by any of you to pock another man in the ass. There is nothing special
            about that. The State can do without you, & I can do without you as well.
            You calling me cute?!? If I find you, you will be picking your teeth from the
            street. My sexual life is not of your concern; I keep it to my own sick man. I am no bisexual. This nation does not need the looks of you at all. You do
            behave like an irrational animal. I rather think than be driven by cheer
            instinct, just like you. I rather live in polygamy with women, rather than be
            with another man. Clearly, you have no moral values, much less, no bounds to restrain you. Beware; you might get infected with a venereal disease. Keep your twisted ways, as well as your gay men, I don’t need them, I don’t need you at all.

          • magister ludi

            You may no longer be on fire, because your fuel long ago ran out. All that’s left is the smoldering ash of hate.

            It’s obvious you are a repressed homosexual because you take such an intetest in the topic. A man who is comfortable with his sexuality doesn’t concern themselves with what other men do between the sheets. You, on the other hand, have a fixation on homosexual behavior. I suggest you just go to the local bathhouse and appease your voyeuristic lust. Hey, maybe you’ll even grow the balls to join in!

          • Wraith

            I never join in with you people. I truly hate LGBT that are members of NAMBLA. Sigh… again with this B.S. that I have a repressed homosexual tendency. No, I love women, I can do without men. I don’t homosexuals at all. I am a man that worships women. So you are wrong.

            Scandals involving the sexual abuse
            of under-age boys by homosexual priests have rocked the Roman Catholic Church.
            At the same time, defenders of homosexuality argue that youth organizations
            such as the Boy Scouts should be forced to include homosexuals among their
            adult leaders. Similarly, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network
            (GLSEN), a homosexual activist organization that targets schools, has
            spearheaded the formation of “Gay-Straight Alliances” among students.
            GLSEN encourages homosexual teachers–even in the youngest grades–to be open
            about their sexuality, as a way of providing role models to “gay”
            students. In addition, laws or policies banning employment discrimination based
            on “sexual orientation” usually make no exception for those who work
            with children or youth.

            Many parents have become concerned
            that children may be molested, encouraged to become sexually active, or even
            “recruited” into adopting a homosexual identity and lifestyle. Gay
            activists dismiss such concerns–in part, by strenuously insisting that there
            is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children.

            However, despite efforts by
            homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there
            remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by
            definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many
            homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that
            disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual
            partners. In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking
            homosexuality to pedophilia:

            Pedophiles are invariably males: Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.

            Significant numbers of victims are
            males: Up to one-third of all sex crimes
            against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).

            The 10 percent fallacy: Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely
            accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1
            to 3 percent of the population.

            Homosexuals are overrepresented in
            child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent
            of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up
            to one-third of the sex crimes against children.

            Some homosexual activists defend the
            historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: Such activists consider the defense of
            “boy-lovers” to be a legitimate gay rights issue.

            Pedophile themes abound in
            homosexual literary culture: Gay
            fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote “intergenerational
            intimacy.”

            MALE HOMOSEXUALS COMMIT A
            DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES

            Homosexual apologists admit that
            some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are
            more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of
            child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in
            terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals
            comprise only a very small percentage of the population.

            The evidence indicates that
            homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at
            which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to
            connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men
            are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex
            abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the
            population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population
            (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual
            molestation.

            Men Account for Almost All Sexual
            Abuse of Children Cases

            An essay on adult sex offenders in
            the book Sexual Offending Against Children reported:”It is widely
            believed that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by males and
            that female sex offenders only account for a tiny proportion of offences.
            Indeed, with 3,000 adult male sex offenders in prison in England and Wales at
            any one time, the corresponding figure for female sex offenders is 12!”[1]

            Kee MacFarlane, et al., writing in Sexual
            Abuse of Young Children: Evaluation and Treatment report:”The large
            majority of sexual perpetrators appear to be males (Herman and Hirschman, 1981;
            Lindholm and Willey, 1983).”[2]

            A report by the American
            Professional Society on the Abuse of Children states: “In both clinical
            and non-clinical samples, the vast majority of offenders are male.”[3]

            A study in the Journal of Sex
            Research states that “pedophilia does not exist, or is extremely rare,
            in women.”[4]

            A Significant Percentage of Child
            Sexual Abuse Victims are Boys

            According to the Journal of Child
            Psychiatry: “It was commonly believed fifteen years ago that girls
            were abused in excess of boys in a ratio of about 9 to 1, but contemporary
            studies now indicate that the ratio of girls to boys abused has narrowed
            remarkably. . . . The majority of community studies suggest a . . . ratio . . .
            in the order of 2 to 4 girls to 1 boy.”[5] Another study found that
            “some authors now believe that boys may be sexually abused as commonly as
            girls (Groth, 1978; O’Brien, 1980).”[6]

            A study of 457 male sex offenders
            against children in Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy found that
            “approximately one-third of these sexual offenders directed their sexual
            activity against males.”[7]

            Sexual Abuse of Boys is
            Underreported

            The actual percentage of child
            sexual abuse victims who are boys very likely exceeds the above estimates. Many
            researchers echo the view of the Journal of Child Psychiatry study,
            which refers to the “under-reporting of the incidence and prevalence of
            sexual abuse in boys.”[8]

            Dr. Robert Johnson, in Medical
            Aspects of Human Sexuality, reports: “The vast majority of cases of
            male sexual molestation is not reported. As a result, these young men keep both
            the incidents and their feelings to themselves.”[9]

            The Department of Justice report on
            child sexual exploitation explains why the percentage of boy victims is
            underestimated: “Adolescent boy victims are highly likely to deny certain
            types of sexual activity. . . . They are embarrassed and ashamed of their behavior
            and rightfully believe that society will not understand their victimization. .
            . . No matter what the investigator does, most adolescent boys will deny they
            were victims.”[10]

            The Journal of Child Psychiatry adds:
            “Boys are usually encultured into an ethos where self-reliance,
            independence and sexual prowess are valued, while showing hurt or homosexuality
            are denigrated. . . . This may lead to powerful repression or deletion of the
            experience, with failure to report.”[11]

            Homosexuals Comprise Less than 3
            Percent of the Population

            Relying upon three large data sets:
            the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the
            U.S. census, a recent study in Demography estimates the number of
            exclusive male homosexuals in the general population at 2.5 percent, and the
            number of exclusive lesbians at 1.4 percent.[12]

            A study of the sexual behavior of
            men in the United States based on the National Survey of Men (a nationally
            representative sample comprised of 3,321 men aged twenty to thirty-nine,
            published in Family Planning Perspectives), found that “2 percent
            of sexually active men aged twenty to thirty-nine . . . had had any same-gender
            sexual activity during the last ten years. Approximately 1 percent of the men
            (1.3 percent among whites and 0.2 percent among blacks) reported having had
            exclusively homosexual activity.[13]

            J. Gordon Muir, writing in The
            Wall Street Journal, discusses a number of studies that have found that
            homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.[14]

            In a survey of studies on
            homosexuals in different populations, the Archives of Sexual Behavior reported
            a random sample of Hawaii State residents interviewed by telephone. The study
            found “just about 3 percent of males and 1.2 percent of females as having
            engaged in same-sex or bisexual activity.”[15] However, this relatively
            higher number is attributed to the fact that the study was not limited to
            exclusive homosexuals, but included all those who at some time in their lives
            engaged in same-sex activities.

            Homosexual Pedophiles are Vastly
            Overrepresented in Child Sex Abuse Cases

            Homosexual pedophiles sexually
            molest children at a far greater rate compared to the percentage of homosexuals
            in the general population. A study in the Journal of Sex Research found,
            as we have noted above, that “approximately one-third of [child sex
            offenders] had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls.” The
            authors then make a prescient observation: “Interestingly, this ratio
            differs substantially from the ratio of gynephiles (men who erotically prefer
            physically mature females) to androphiles (men who erotically prefer physically
            mature males), which is at least 20 to 1.”

            In other words, although
            heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual
            pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.

            Similarly, the Archives of Sexual
            Behavior also noted that homosexual pedophiles are significantly
            overrepresented in child sex offence cases:

            The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2 to 4
            percent of men attracted to adults prefer men (ACSF Investigators, 1992; Billy
            et al.,1993; Fay et al.,1989; Johnson et al.,1992); in contrast, around 25 to
            40 percent of men attracted to children prefer boys (Blanchard et al.,1999;
            Gebhard et al.,1965; Mohr et al.,1964). Thus, the rate of homosexual
            attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among pedophiles.”

            The stark imbalance between
            homosexual and heterosexual child molestationswas confirmed in the Archives
            of Sexual Behavior study itself, which divided 260 pedophile participants
            into three groups: “152 heterosexual pedophiles (men with offenses or
            self-reported attractions involving girls only), 43 bisexual pedophiles (boys
            and girls), and 65 homosexual pedophiles (boys only).”[19] In other words,
            25 percent of the offenders were homosexual pedophiles–or 41 percent if those
            who molest girls as well as boys are included.

            Other studies report an unusually
            high percentage of child molestations by homosexual pedophiles:

            A study on pedophilia in the Psychiatric
            Journal of the University of Ottawa reported: “According to the
            literature, findings of a two-to-one ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles
            have been documented.”

            The Journal of Sex Research reports
            a study that included “199 offenders against female children and 96
            offenders against male children. . . . This would indicate a proportional
            prevalence of 32 percent of homosexual offenders against children.”

            A study of male child sex offenders
            in Child Abuse and Neglect found that fourteen percent targeted only
            males, and a further 28 percent chose males as well as females as victims, thus
            indicating that 42 percent of male pedophiles engaged in homosexual
            molestation.

          • magister ludi

            Wow! You really are fixated on gays…and now pedophiles.

            Obviously, you’re trying to hide something.

            Perhaps, you feel if you can convince people that you’re not gay, they’ll trust you with their little boys.

            I have neither the time nor the interest to respond to all your cut and paste posts. Everything you say has been thoroughly debunked and positively refuted in the literature. Only a small handful of researchers would agree with you; you’re beating a dead horse.

            At any rate, you and your obsession with homosexuality and pedophilia are irrelevant. Gay rights are expanding rapidly. The genie’s been let out of the bottle and you’ll have a hell of a time getting it to go back in. Sorry, but you lose.

          • Wraith

            I have nothing to hide, your accusations are baseless. I am
            not interested in children. You are an utter idiot for attempting to state that
            I am part of NAMBLA, but some of you are part of NAMBLA, even if you are LGBT. No, I am not obsessed with LGBT, I just oppose you, and you are a social moral wrong. You are infertile. Tell me why should we even acknowledge you at all?

            Stating that I am just ranting & saying nonsense proves nothing from your part. We are more than mere animals. We do have reason; we have a brain that allows us to reason things. If you want to behave like an animal, then maybe you are no better than an animal. You can take into account
            society, but still we have a brain that allows us to reason. That is the reason
            why mankind invented sciences, to explain things. Your behavior does not follow the natural norm. There is a natural norm in order to preserve the species. You can put the social cluster into the equation, & still you will lose. No social cluster can survive with an all LGBT community within it. For
            millenniums social clusters have done well with heterosexual couples, which
            conform the family nucleus, which is the traditional family. Yes, we have to
            speak about natural selection; you cannot discard natural selection within the social cluster. Like it or not, nations do need labor; nations need tax payers; nations need a standing army; nations need youth because nations grow old.
            Clearly, you have not read Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbs, which deals with the treaty of how to sustain & maintain any nation, any State, the social
            cluster. Homosexuals don’t produce offspring, & other nations other than
            the U.S. need manpower. Nations also have to consider the fact of maintaining health. Allowing homosexual activity is to increase the risk of allowing sexual
            transmitted diseases. You clearly omit that part, don’t you? How convenient.
            Again, I am not going to provide any citation, colleges have been attacked;
            others have lost their jobs, not going to happen. Suffice to say that I will
            post what is necessary to post. Your sexual live is your own, & remember
            this, your freedom does end with you start interfering with the freedom of
            others. Your impositions over others are causing social problems. People do have the right to disagree with your lifestyle; you cannot take away that
            freedom of will against their wish, just to impose over them. That’s what we
            are fighting. The liberal media, politicians, & even the court system are attacking people that disagree. There are people that don’t want to live in promiscuity. That’s their problem, & that is their right as well. You have
            no right to take that away from them.
            You already lost, you won’t reproduce at all. You won’t even have your own biological offspring at all. What is so normal about homosexuality? Please, answer the question.

          • magister ludi

            I have answered the question: homosexuality is no more normal nor natural than heterosexuality; we are all bisexual. And bisexuals, whether they normally practice heterosexuality or homosexuality do reproduce. You yourself gave the example of the lady you mentioned who married, had a child with, then divorced some man.

            Furthermore, as I’ve stated quite clearly before, more supposed heterosexual men with children frequent the “hot spots” for anonymous gay sex than openly gay men. They already have reproduced.

          • Wraith

            & I have also established that there is a natural
            order of the human biology of the divide of the sexes that does serve a
            purpose. You will not take the right of people not to have their own biological
            children. Man & a woman are the natural norm. Homosexuality is not. Like it
            or not it is an absolute, & you a mere man is not going to change the rules
            that nature has already established. You see things in your humanistic mind,
            but make no mistake; you are not the center of the universe, much less the
            master of nature itself. Yes, people can practice whatever sexual behavior they
            want. Some do practice bisexuality, but still, man cannot do without woman,
            & vice versa, that is, if you want to preserve the species as it is. Homosexuals
            cannot reproduce, they will never reproduce, & you know this, who do you
            want to fool?

            Yes, but then again, Anne Heche did go back into the arms
            of another woman, she does hang out with men, & that is the reason why I
            gave that example. You tell me why.

            As for your statement, yes, and heterosexual men do abuse
            children, but then again, you people neglect to mention that there are people
            from the LGBT community that are also members of NAMBLA. How do you explain
            that? None of you can explain why you target the Boy Scouts of America, or why
            you are targeting small elementary children with transsexual laws in various
            states. You people have no excuse to do that at all. You are taking the rights
            of parents to educate their own kin as they see fit. You are imposing sexual
            orientation into young kids. No, two men & two women cannot & will
            never reproduce. You neglect biology, but you cannot fool nature itself.

    • corruptintenz

      We accept perverted behavior from everyone else, why leave the same sex out?

      • Wraith

        Anatomy 101, it ain’t rocket
        science.

        Homo-sex is an obvious perversion to
        the laws of nature, as evidenced by the many negative ramification’s:

        Sexually transmitted diseases –
        Research gathered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC,
        has found significantly higher rates of rectal gonorrhea, HIV/AIDS and all
        three strains of Hepatitis among homosexuals. Other studies have likewise
        linked homosexuality with increased rates of Human Papillomavirus (the leading
        cause of cervical cancer worldwide), syphilis and anal cancer. Although
        self-identified homosexuals account for less than 5 percent of the American
        population, they are the carriers of over 50 percent of HIV/AIDS cases.

        Risky behaviors – Campaigns to
        foster so-called “safe sex” among homosexuals have done nothing to reduce risky
        behavior. A 1997 CDC report found that among homosexuals who had unprotected
        anal intercourse and multiple sexual partners, 68 percent were entirely unaware
        of the HIV status of their partners.

        Promiscuity – A large percentage of
        homosexual men have hundreds of sexual partners throughout their lifetime.
        According to a profile of 2,583 homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex
        Research, only 2.7 reported having had sexual relations with only one partner,
        compared to the largest percentage that claimed to have had between 101 and 500
        partners over their lifetime. Compare that to the markedly lower promiscuity
        rates among married heterosexual couples. According to the latest statistics
        from the CDC, 92 percent of married males and 93 percent of married females
        reported having had only one sexual partner over the previous twelve months
        (presumably their spouses).

        Domestic abuse – A survey conducted
        by the Journal of Social Service Research found that more than half of lesbian
        respondents reported having been abused by a female partner or lover.
        Conversely, research has found that married heterosexual women experience the
        lowest rates of domestic abuse compared to other types of relationships.

        Life span – A 1997 study published
        in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that even under “the most
        liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center are now
        experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada
        in the year 1871.” The same study estimated that homosexual behavior reduces
        the lifespan of males by eight to 20 years. Comparatively, the CDC has found
        that male and female smokers lose an average of 13.2 to 14.5 years of life,
        respectively.

        • corruptintenz

          You can start by defining ‘homo-sex’. I am unfamiliar with the term.

          Anyone engaged in risk behaviors is equally susceptible to the consequences regardless of their sexual orientation. There has been no link whatever that has shown this to be not the case.

          HIV free monogamous same sex couples are at zero risk of infection (infection via sex anyhow) in the same way that hetero couples are.

          For your stat about homosexual risk behaviors to be interesting you would have to relate it to the number of heterosexuals having unprotected anal intercourse with multiple partners and their foreknowledge of the STD status of their partners, no? Remember, you are trying to argue that homosexuals are somehow different, not just that they seem interesting.

          In terms of promiscuity, it is interesting that the CDC bases its number on what folks report they do. It gets even more interesting when you use data to show that they actually do:

          Of 4 million match searches on Ok Cupid:

          45% of gay people have had 5 or fewer partners (vs. 44% for straights)

          98% of gay people have had 20 or fewer partners (vs. 99% for straights)

          You may cite your research on domestic abuse instead of just referring to it in the abstract.

          For your claim on lifespan of gay/bi men to be relevant you would have to link it to the topic at hand.

          • Wraith

            I don’t assume, I know what
            the ancients stated, if you didn’t get it then I feel pity for you. Yes, there
            is proof, the materials that I used where taught by ancient Greek philosophers. You are not going to supersede their teachings. Yes, there is a risk of spreading gayness in this American society, & the reason why is because people don’t read anymore, they don’t educated, & because we also have a progressive influence in our school systems. You people only weaken the State, which is a fact, a fact that you cannot even deny. No, you are totally wrong on your statement. You the idiot want to supersede what has been established by nature itself. There is a biological natural divide of the genders, not even
            you or I can change that fact. Homosexuality is learned. The gender divide cannot be neglected. There is a biological difference between man & a woman. You cannot neglect that either. The bodies of a man & a woman do produce different types of hormones that defy their gender. You cannot neglect that either.

            Man & woman do have different internal organs, you cannot deny that fact. A sex organ or primary saexual characteristic, as narrowly defined, is any anatomical part of the body involved in saexual reproduction and constituting the reproductive system in a complex organism, especially the external saex organs; the external saex organs are also commonly referred to as the gaenitalia or gaenitals. If you took human biology 101, you should know that there is a gaender divide for reproductive biological purposes. You know that biology does cover the human reproductive system, mammal male reproductive system, and mammal female reproductive system. The visible portion of the mammalian gaenitals for males consists of scrotum and a paenis; for females, it consists of the labia, clitoris and vagina. In humans, women have two gaenital orifices, the vag!na and urethra, while men have only one, the urethra. Male and female gaenitals have many nerve endings, resulting in pleasurable and highly sensitive touch. In most human societies, particularly in conservative ones, gaenitals are considered a public indecency and sometimes even illegal if left uncovered in public. We are using medical term in here.

            In mammals, sex organs include:

            Male: Bulbourethral glands, Epididymis, Pen!s, Foreskin, Frenulum of pen!s, Glans pen!s, Prostate,
            Scrotum, Seminal vesicles, test!cles.

            Female: Bartholin’s glands, Cervix, Cl!toris, Cl!toral frenulum, Cl!toral glans (glans clitoridis), Cl!toral hood, Fallopian tubes, labium, Labia majora, Labia minora, Frenulum
            of labia minora, Ovaries, Skene’s gland, uterus, vag!na, & vulva.

            Clearly nature did divide the saexes,
            or the genders. Clearly you cannot state that this is a social fabrication;
            there IS a clear biological divide of the sexes, of gender that serves a
            biological purpose.

          • magister ludi

            XX, XY, XXX, XXY, XYY. All chromosome pairings (or triplings) are tepresented in the population. Significantly, all have an X, the female chromosome. Anatomically, all fetuses start in the female form and then, depending on the relative proportions of testosterone present in the uterus either maintain this form or convert to the male anatomic form, although generally not completely.

            Between 1% and 1.7 live births are anatomically hermaphroditic, or intersex and some countries, including Australia and Germany now recognize a “third” gender classification. There have been at least 11 cases of “true hermaphrodites” who have become impregnated, including one case of an XY predominant who gave birth.

            So much for your clear division of the sexes.

          • Wraith

            Most
            of us fail to understand why anyone would want to engage in homosexual
            activity. To the average person, the very idea is either puzzling or repugnant.
            Indeed, a recent survey (1) indicated that
            only 14% of men and 10% of women imagined that such behavior could old any
            “possibility of enjoyment.”

            The
            peculiar nature of homosexual desire has led some people to conclude that this
            urge must be innate: that a certain number of people are “born that
            way,” that sexual preferences cannot be changed or even ended. What does
            the best research really indicate? Are homosexual proclivities natural or
            irresistible?

            At least
            three answers seem possible. The first, the answer of tradition, is as follows:
            homosexual behavior is a bad habit that people fall into because they are
            sexually permissive and experimental. This view holds rat homosexuals choose
            their lifestyle as the result of self-indulgence and an unwillingness to play
            by society rules. The second position is held by a number of psychoanalysts.
            According to them, homosexual behavior is a mental illness, symptomatic of
            arrested development. They believe that homosexuals have unnatural or perverse
            desires as a consequence of poor familial relations in childhood or some other
            trauma. The third view is “biological” and holds that such desires
            are genetic or hormonal in origin, and that there is no choice involved and no
            “childhood trauma” necessary.

            Which
            of these views is most consistent with the facts? Which tells us the most about
            homosexual behavior and its origins? The answer seems to be that homosexual
            behavior is learned.

          • magister ludi

            Have you read any unbiased research from the last 40 years?

            Pure gibberish.

            Let’s use your little island experiment, but in this we’ll take 100 newborn males. We will isolate them from the moment of birth and not allow them ANY interaction with any other humans, other than each other. They will never be spoken to, never see nor be touched by human hands. There physical needs– food, cleaning, shelter– shall be privided by silent machines.

            After 20 years, what will happen? Most likely they will develop some rudimentary form of language and social hierarchy and “culture” and they will engage in sexual activity. What would their “orientation” be? This, I think you can see, would be a natural development; independent of cultural influence.

            At the same time, however, we isolate 100 newborn females, all with the same conditions. Again, what would be their “orientation”?

            Now, to conclude the experiment, after 20 or perhaps 30 years would be better, we will bring these two groups into contact and allow them to intermingle freely.

            How long before some of the males “experiment” with the females? More importantly, how many of either the males or the females would convert to 100% hetetosexuals and never again engage in homosexual behavior? I would guess zero, but POSSIBLY one or two.

            Most likely, the majority would develop a bisexual orientation and a minority would remain strictly heterosexual, even repulsed by the opposite sex.

            And your claim that people’s repulsion to homosexual activity is somehow natural is absurd.

            In a completely dark room and without any other sensory information as to the gender of the other person, would you be able to distinguish between a male’s and a female’s mouth performing fellatio on you. Hardly.

            Would you know the difference between a female’s anus and a male’s if you were not able to touch any other part? No.

            And what is–naturally– so repulsive about performing fellatio on another male’s member? It is merely flesh over cartilage, not really any different than sucking a finger, male or female. The repulsion comes from your cultural/ environmental programming, not from nature.

            Try it. Like almost every “straight” guy who experiments even once, you’ll most certainly be back for more.

          • Wraith

            Science is not gibberish, science is not unbiased or biased, science is science & you cannot go against the biological divide of the sexes, which does serve a purpose & it is an absolute as well.

            The debate over homosexual “marriage” often becomes focused on whether homosexuality is a learned
            behavior or a genetic trait. Many homosexual activists insist that “science” has shown that
            homosexuality is inborn, cannot be changed, and that therefore they should have the “right to marry” each other. Beginning in the early 1990s, activists began arguing that
            scientific research has proven that homosexuality has a genetic or hormonal cause. A handful of studies, none of them replicated and all exposed as methodologically unsound or misrepresented, have linked sexual orientation to everything from differences in portions of the brain,1,2 to genes,3 finger length,4 inner ear differences,5 eye-blinking,6 and “neuro-hormonal differentiation.”7

            Meanwhile, Columbia University Professor of Psychiatry Dr. Robert Spitzer, who was instrumental
            in removing homosexuality in 1973 from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental disorders, wrote a study published in the October 2003 Archives of Sexual Behavior. He
            contended that people can change their “sexual orientation” from homosexual to heterosexual.8 Spitzer
            interviewed more than 200 people, most of whom claimed that through reparativ therapy counseling, their desires for same-sex partners either diminished significantly or they changed over to heterosexual orientation. Although still a proponent of homosexual activism, Spitzer has been attacked unmercifully by former admirers for this breach of
            the ideology that people are “born gay and can’t change.” Immutability is a central tenet of demands
            for “gay rights” and “gay marriage.” Because no single study can be regarded as definitive, more research on people who have overcome homosexuality needs to be
            done. But a considerable body of previous literature about change from
            homosexuality to heterosexuality has been compiled, and the sheer number of exceptions to the “born gay” theory should be a warning to researchers and media to proceed with caution before declaring that science has “proved” that homosexuality is genetic. Other recent developments also suggest that homosexuality is not genetically determined. The Washington Post reported that bisexuality is fashionable among many young teen girls, who go back and forth from being “straight” to “gay” to “bi” to “straight” again. Post
            reporter Laura Sessions Stepp writes: Recent studies among women suggest that female homosexuality may be grounded more in social interaction, may present itself as an emotional attraction in addition to or in place of a physical one, and may change over time.11

            She cites one such study by Lisa M. Diamond, assistant professor of psychology and gender studies
            at the University of Utah, who in 1994 began studying a group of females aged 16 to 23 who were attracted to other females. Over the course of the study, “almost two-thirds have changed labels,” Stepp reports. Against increasing evidence that homosexual behavior is
            neither inevitable nor impossible to resist, a number of studies have been
            widely publicized as “proof” of a genetic component. But they are either poorly constructed or misreported as to their significance. In 1993, Columbia
            University psychiatry professors Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons examined the most prominent “gay gene” studies on brain structure and on identical twins, and published the results in the Archives of General Psychiatry. They found numerous methodological flaws in all of the studies, and concluded that:

            There is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory. … [T]he appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body
            of experimental data. After he was roundly attacked by homosexual activists, who accused him of providing ammunition for conservatives to challenge the gay rights/civil rights comparison based on immutability, Byne denounced the “false dichotomy: Biology or Choice?” and stated that he was also skeptical of environmental theories of sexual orientation.
            He wrote: “There is no compelling evidence to support any singular psychosocial explanation,” and
            that he would never “imply that one consciously decides one’s sexual orientation.”14 But the fact remains that Dr. Byne has poked gaping holes in the most influential
            studies purporting to prove that homosexuality is inborn. In May 2000, the American Psychiatric Association issued a Fact Sheet, “Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues,” which includes this statement:

            “Currently, there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for
            homosexuality.

            However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology
            for homosexuality.” Beyond the false comfort that homosexuals need not seek to alter their behavior in any way, there may be another motive behind the release and enthusiastic reporting of these studies: political advantage. As Natalie Angier wrote in The New York Times on September 1, 1991: [P]roof of an inborn difference between
            gay and heterosexual men could provide further ammunition in the battle against discrimination. If homosexuality were viewed legally as a biological phenomenon,
            rather than a fuzzier matter of “choice” or “preference,” then gay people could no more rightfully be kept out of the military, a housing complex or a teaching job than could, say blacks. Simon LeVay, whose brain study in 1991 “jumped from the pages of the
            periodical Science to The New York Times and Time, then to CNN and Nightline, and from there to the dinner tables and offices of the country,” according to writer Chandler Burr, was
            quite open in his assessment of the possible impact of his work. “[P]eople who think gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights.”In his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover writes: We will see later the falsity of activists’ repeated assertions that homosexuality is immutable. They seek to create the impression that science has settled these questions, but it most certainly has not. Instead, the changes that have occurred
            in both public and professional opinion have resulted from politics, pressure, and public relations. Despite critical examination, as well as comments by the studies’ own authors that the “gay” research has been distorted or exaggerated, some of the studies are often cited as “proof” that “gays are born that way.”

          • magister ludi

            Your cutting and pasting is wearying. Thus, unless you present a qualitatively different line of argument, this shall be my last response. If overwhelming the opponent with quantity of garbage is your tactic, you have won by attrition. You can collect your trophy on the way out.

            I have never argued that “homosexuality” is natural or biological. If you would take the time to read responses, rather than just spend all your time searching the web for studies to cite or misrepresent, you might understand that.

            I assert that “bisexuality”, or more specifically the capacity to express all the various forms of sexual behavior (yes, even pedophilia), exists within all humans. Naturally, we are pansexual. Our culture, our environment, then nudges us to express our sexuality in one or a few of these “orientations”. Researchers looking for a biological “cause” of any one of these “orientations” or “preferences” are bound to be frustrated.

          • Wraith

            Does it bother you that I am prepared & you are not? You should have better prepared before deciding to enter into this game. We did prepare for months, just to face you down. ILook, it’s quite simple, remember Anne Heche? She decided to have her own biological kid. She understood that in order to accomplish that she had to dump Ellen DeGeneres & seek for a man. Finally she was able to find one, she got married, & she had a kid with him. Later on she did divorce. She is quite clever & cunning because she is using the system to claim child support from the biological father. So many women that are feminists do that. Especially those that are bi-sexual as you claim. They don’t believe in matrimony & want to abolish it. Just ask your lesbian sister Masha Gessen what she thinks about marriage.

            This is the main reason why I do openly & forcefully oppose same gender unions. You will NOT diminish the institution of marriage. Not on our watch. It’s quite simple, let’s see what the gay community has to say about the institution of marriage, shall we?

            Gay Marriage is a Lie: Destruction of Marriage, Masha Gessen
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9M0xcs2Vw4
            Lesbian Activist: Gay Marriage Is a Lie
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQeLiullhNQ

            Lesbian activist: ultimate goal is not gay marriage; it is destruction of traditional families http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go26c7zf0CM

          • magister ludi

            No. I have not prepared for months. Why should I? I am not as obssessed as you are with gays, lesbians, pedophiles or anyone else for that matter.

            I believe it that good ol’ American maxim: live and let live. I don’t care whether someone is gay, straight or anything else, be it due to biology/ genetics, nurturing, childhood trauma, exposure to pornography, indoctrination or simply free choice; if they want to s**k a d**k or do whatever else, more power to them.

            I think the gay rights “movement” has made an error in focusing on the “cause” of homosexuality.

            Freedom is freedom, whatever the reason.

            And by the way, I have no idea who these people you mention are, although I’ve heard of Ellen Degeneres.

            And your “watch” has already failed. State after state is losing the anti-gay marriage battle; soon the Supreme Court will put the final nail through its coffin. Time to move on to another foolish fight.

          • Wraith

            I will tell you what I believe in; I believe that this
            nation is a Democratic Republic. I believe that there is a reason why the
            Founding Fathers decided to create the 1st amendment of the U.S.
            Constitution protecting people of faith. I believe that back in the day these
            Founding Fathers decided knew clearly what a marriage is. I didn’t care at all,
            that was until you people decide to start targeting small children, and we are
            talking about elementary school children. So no, you are not keeping yourselves
            to your own bedroom, you are trying, you are attempting to indoctrinate small
            children, taking always the right of parents to do so themselves. In nature
            there is no straight, there is only what nature in its wisdom divided in
            biology the sexes. Yes, indeed, society does indoctrinate & people do have
            the free choice to choose whatever they want. But make no mistake; your freedom
            does end when you start interfering with other’s freedom. All action has a reaction,
            all cause has an effect. Not everything that you do is good for you or for the
            rest for that matter. If you want to do it with yourself, by all means, do so. But
            if you expect others to follow, now that is a different story. I am not willing
            to be a follower just because you say so.

            Just remember, extremes do destroy, & it is the same with too much freedom, which does create anarchy.

          • Wraith

            After a 100 years you & your LGBT will be gone. You are still the weakest link by natural selection standards. I will pass my biological genes to the next generation.

            I can only say this; I am not attracted to men. Too much testosterone. Plus we all men are ugly, that’s the way I see men. I love women on the other hand. I won’t complain, the more of you are out there, the more women for me. I just don’t enjoy the company of men, for me men are lame, boring, no substance, straightforward. Indeed, sex is sex, I prefer women for that, but not only that, I also prefer them for the company, for the substance they have to offer, for that tenderness, for that feminine side they have. A man will never offer me those things. Women complement me, women make
            me complete, women make me whole again. With a woman I am one with her. I understand ancient tablets form the city of Ur, when they stated that the
            annunaki came from the heavens, they saw the beauty of women, & decided to take women for their own, & thus the nephilim came to be. I understand
            that, & yes, it was recognized by all ancient civilizations as such. Even
            if you go to Greek mythology, Zeus, the all powerful patriarch god of the
            Olympians loved women so much that he had various ones. I understand that as well. Sex is sex, yes, in the natural world, but you are above animals, you do have reasoning. There is nothing a gay can offer me. I prefer the company of women, & yes, straight women are superior to gay men by all accounts.

            Give Heterosexual Protectors a Just Cause

            And I quote: “Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, but should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme. The right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of association, due process and equal protection of laws–these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign. It is
            especially important for the gay movement to hitch its cause to accepted standards of law and justice because its straight supporters must have at hand
            a cogent reply to the moral arguments of its enemies. The homophobes clothe
            their emotional revulsion in the daunting robes of religious dogma, so
            defenders of gay rights must be ready to counter dogma with principle.”

            Familiar examples would
            include couching “gay marriage” in terms of “civil rights”,
            insisting on adoption “rights” for homosexual couples and demanding
            that openly gay boys and teens be welcomed into the Boy Scouts of America because “it’s not their fault” that they like boys. All of these
            issues are being promoted in the name of “equality”, and, unfortunately, mainstream America is buying into it.

            Conversion: Make Gays Look
            Good to the Public

            And I quote: “In order
            to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual
            men and women, the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society:
            ‘Did you know that this Great Man (or Woman) was ____?’ Conversion aims at just
            this. We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will,
            through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the
            nation via the media. In Conversion, the bigot is repeatedly exposed in
            magazines, and on billboards and TV, to gays – explicitly labeled as such! –
            who are carefully selected to look either like the bigot and his friends, or
            like any one of his other stereotypes of all-right guys– the kind of people he
            already likes and admires.”

            Witness here the eagerness
            of the liberal press to publicize the gayness of popular celebrities, whether
            they are music stars, movie stars, TV stars, sports stars, politicians, etc.
            This tactic is designed to create an internal conflict within the fan: “Do
            I dislike the celebrity because of his/her homosexuality, or do I accept
            his/her homosexuality and continue to like the celebrity?” The average,
            uninformed or misinformed American is likely to choose the latter.

            And I quote: “But it
            makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us, because we’re using them
            to ethically good effect. In Conversion, the target is shown his crowd actually
            associating with gays in good fellowship. Once again, it’s very difficult for
            the average person, who, by nature and training, almost invariably feels what
            he sees his fellows feeling, not to respond in this knee-jerk fashion to a sufficiently
            calculated advertisement.”

            I’m sure you have noticed
            the bombardment of our mainstream, liberal media –- TV, movies, magazines,
            newspapers, comics, theater, billboards and the internet — with homosexual
            characters looking entirely normal and being fully approved and admired by
            heterosexual characters and/or praised through rhetoric. Of course, nothing is
            said of the deviant and unnatural sexual practices, of the serious health
            dangers or of the immorality of practicing homosexuality.

            Make the Anti-gay
            Victimizers Look Bad

            And I quote: “At a
            later stage of the media campaign for gay rights it will be time to get tough
            with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified. Our goal here is
            twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream’s self-righteous pride about
            its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the antigays
            look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from
            such types. The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary
            traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku
            Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern
            ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical
            and deranged; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were
            tortured and gassed.”

            Another common tactic used
            nowadays to vilify LGBT opponents & people of faith is to claim that the
            Bible approves of slavery, polygamy, incest, etc., in order to portray LGBT
            opponents & people of faith as rank “cherry picking” hypocrites
            for selectively condemning the practice of homosexuality. Yet another common
            tactic is “jamming”, as described above, where LGBT opponents &
            people of faith, in particular, are constantly subjected to name-calling, e.g., “bigot”, “liar”, “fundie”,
            “bible-thumper” and “homophobe.” And, of course, this strategy depends entirely upon the eager cooperation of our mainstream, liberal media – TV, movies, magazines, newspapers, comics, theater, billboards and the
            internet. And, as you will see below, even Christian websites are joining in.

          • Wraith

            1) No
            researcher has found provable biological or genitic differences between
            heterosexuals and homosexuals that weren’t caused by their behavior

            Occasionally
            you may read about a scientific study that suggests that homosexuality is an
            inherited tendency, but such studies have usually been discounted after careful
            scrutiny or attempts at replication. No one has found a single heredible
            genetic, hormonal or physical difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals
            - at least none that is replicable. (9, 12) While the absence
            of such a discovery doesn’t prove at inherited sexual tendencies aren’t
            possible, it suggests that none has been found because none exists.

            2)
            People tend to believe that their sexual desires and behaviors are learned

            Two large
            studies asked homosexual respondents to explain the origins of their desires
            and behaviors – how they “got that way.” The first of these studies
            was conducted by Kinsey in the 1940s and involved 1700 homosexuals. The second,
            in 1970, (4) involved 979
            homosexuals. Both were conducted prior to the period when the “gay
            rights” movement started to politicize the issue of homosexual origins.
            Both reported essentially the same findings: Homosexuals overwhelmingly
            believed their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental
            influences.

            In a 1983
            study conducted by the Family Research Institute (5) (FRI) involving a
            random sample of 147 homosexuals, 35% said their sexual desires were
            hereditary. Interestingly, almost 80% of the 3,400 heterosexuals in the same
            study said that their preferences and behavior were learned (see Table 1
            below).

            Table 1

            Reasons
            For Preferring:

            homosexuality
            (1940s and 1970)

            early homosexual experience(s) with
            adults and/or peers – 22%

            homosexual friends/ around
            homosexuals a lot – 16%

            poor relationship with mother – 15%

            unusual development (was a sissy,
            artistic, couldn’t get along with own sex, tom-boy, et cetera) – 15%

            poor relationship with father – 14%

            heterosexual partners unavailable -
            12%

            social ineptitude – 9%

            born that way – 9%

            heterosexuality (1983)

            I was around heterosexuals a lot -
            39%

            society teaches heterosexuality and
            I responded – 34%

            born that way – 22%

            my parents, marriage was so good I
            wanted to have what they had – 21%

            I tried it and liked it – 12%

            childhood heterosexual experiences
            with peers it was the ”in thing” in my crowd – 9%

            I was seduced by a heterosexual
            adult – 5%

            While
            these results aren’t conclusive, they tell something about the very recent
            tendency to believe that homosexual behavior is inherited or biologic. From the
            1930s (when Kinsey started collecting data) to the early 1970s, before a
            “politically correct” answer emerged, only about 10% of homosexuals
            claimed they were “born that way.” Heterosexuals apparently continue
            to believe that their behavior is primarily a result of social conditioning.

            3) Older
            homosexuals often approach the young

            There is
            evidence that homosexuality, like drug use is “handed down” from
            older individuals. The first homosexual encounter is usually initiated by an
            older person. In separate studies 60%, (6) 64%, (3) and 61% (10) of the
            respondents claimed that their first partner was someone older who initiated
            the sexual experience.

            How this
            happens is suggested by a nationwide random study from Britain: (17) 35% of boys and
            9% of girl said they were approached for sex by adult homosexuals. Whether for
            attention, curiosity, or by force, 2% of the boys and 1% of the girls
            succumbed. In the US, (1) 37% of males and
            9% of females reported having been approached for homosexual sex (65% of those
            doing the inviting were older). Likewise, a study of over 400 London teenagers
            reported that “for the boys, their first homosexual experience was very
            likely with someone older: half the boys’ first partner were 20 or older; for
            girls it was 43 percent.” (13) A quarter of
            homosexuals have admitted to sex with children and underaged teens, (6,5,8) suggesting the
            homosexuality is introduced to youngsters the same way other behaviors are
            learned – by experience.

            4) Early
            homosexual experiences influence adult patterns of behavior

            In the
            1980s, scholars (12) examined the
            early Kinsey data to determine whether or not childhood sexual experiences
            predicted adult behavior. The results were significant: Homosexual experience
            in the early year, particularly if it was one’s first sexual experience – was a
            strong predictor of adult homosexual behavior, both for males and females. A
            similar pattern appeared in the 1970 Kinsey Institute (4) study: there was
            a strong relationship between those whose first experience was homosexual and
            those who practiced homosexuality in later life. In the FRI study (5) two-thirds of the
            boys whose first experience was homosexual engaged in homosexual behavior as
            adults; 95% of those whose first experience was heterosexual were likewise
            heterosexual in their adult behavior. A similarly progressive pattern of sexual
            behavior was reported for females.

            It is
            remarkable that the three largest empirical studies of the question showed
            essentially the same pattern. A child’s first sexual experiences were strongly
            associated with his or her adult behavior.

            5)
            Sexual conduct is influenced by cultural factors – especially religious
            convictions

            Kinsey
            reported “less homosexual activity among devout groups whether they be
            Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, and more homosexual activity among religiously
            less active groups.” (2) The 1983 FRI
            study found those raised in irreligious homes to be over 4 times more likely to
            become homosexual than those from devout homes. These studies suggest that when
            people believe strongly that homosexual behavior is immoral, they are
            significantly less apt to be involved in such activity.

            Recently,
            because of the AIDS epidemic, it has been discovered that, relative to white
            males, twice as many black males are homosexual (14) and 4 times as
            many are bisexual. Perhaps it is related to the fact that 62% of black versus
            17% of white children are being raised in fatherless homes. But even the worst
            racist wouldn’t suggest that it is due to genetic predisposition.

            Were
            homosexual impulses truly inherited, we should be unable to find differences in
            homosexual practice due to religious upbringing or racial sub-culture.

            6) Many
            change their sexual preferences

            In a
            large random sample (5) 88% of women
            currently claiming lesbian attraction and 73% of men claiming to currently
            enjoy homosexual sex, said that they had been sexually aroused by the opposite
            sex,

            85% of these “lesbians”
            and 54% of these “homosexuals” reported sexual relations with
            someone of the opposite sex in adulthood,

            67% of lesbians and 54% of
            homosexuals reported current sexual attraction to the opposite sex, and

            82% of lesbians and 66% of
            homosexuals reported having been in love with a member of the opposite
            sex.

            Homosexuals
            experiment. They feel some normal impulses. Most have been sexually aroused by,
            had sexual relations with, and even fallen in love with someone of the opposite
            sex.

            Nationwide
            random samples (11) of 904 men were
            asked about their sex lives since age 21, and more specifically, in the last
            year. As the figure reveals, 1.3% reported sex with men in the past year and
            5.2% at some time in adulthood. Less than 1% of men had only had sex with men
            during their lives. And 6 of every 7 who had had sex with men, also reported
            sex with women.

            It’s a
            much different story with inherited characteristics. Race and gender are not
            optional lifestyles. They remain immutable. The switching and experimentation
            demonstrated in these two studies identifies homosexuality as a preference, not
            an inevitability.

            7) There
            are many ex-homosexuals

            Many
            engage in one or two homosexual experiences and never do it again–a pattern
            reported for a third of the males with homosexual experience in one study. (1) And then there
            are ex-homosexuals – those who have continued in homosexual liaisons for a
            number of years and then chose to change not only their habits, but also the
            object of their desire. Sometimes this alteration occurs as the result of
            psychotherapy; (10) in others it is
            prompted by a religious or spiritual conversion. (18) Similar to the
            kinds of “cures” achieved by drug addicts and alcoholics, these
            treatments do not always remove homosexual desire or temptation. Whatever the
            mechanism, in a 1984 study (5) almost 2% of
            heterosexuals reported that at one time they considered themselves to be
            homosexual. It is clear that a substantial number of people are reconsidering
            their sexual preferences at any given time.

            What causes homosexual
            desire?

            If
            homosexual impulses are not inherited, what kinds of influences do cause strong
            homosexual desires? No one answer is acceptable to all researchers in the
            field. Important factors, however, seem to fall into four categories. As with
            so many other odd sexual proclivities, males appear especially susceptible:

            1.
            Homosexual experience:

            any homosexual experience in
            childhood, especially if it is a first sexual experience or with an adult

            any homosexual contact with an
            adult, particularly with a relative or authority figure (in a random
            survey, 5% of adult homosexuals vs 0.8% of heterosexuals reported
            childhood sexual involvements with elementary or secondary school teachers
            (5).

            2. Family abnormality, including the following:

            a dominant, possessive, or
            rejecting mother

            an absent, distant, or rejecting
            father

            a parent with homosexual
            proclivities, particularly one who molests a child of the same sex

            a sibling with homosexual
            tendencies, particularly one who molests a brother or sister

            the lack of a religious home
            environment

            divorce, which often leads to
            sexual problems for both the children and the adults

            parents who model unconventional
            sex roles

            condoning homosexuality as a
            legitimate lifestyle– welcoming homosexuals (e.g., co-workers, friends)
            into the family circle

            3. Unusual sexual experience, particularly in early
            childhood:

            precocious or excessive masturbation

            exposure to pornography in
            childhood

            depersonalized sex (e.g., group
            sex, sex with animals)

            or girls, sexual interaction with
            adult males

            4. Cultural influences:

            a visible and socially approved
            homosexual sub-culture that invites curiosity and encourages exploration

            pro-homosexual sex education

            openly homosexual authority
            figures, such as teachers (4% of Kinsey’s and 4% of FRI’s gays reported
            that their first homosexual experience was with a teacher)

            societal and legal toleration of
            homosexual acts

            depictions of homosexuality as
            normal and/or desirable behavior

            Can homosexuality be
            changed?

            Certainly.
            As noted above, many people have turned away from homosexuality – almost as
            many people call themselves “gay.”

            Clearly
            the easier problem to eliminate is homosexual behavior. Just as many
            heterosexuals control their desires to engage in premarital or extramarital
            sex, so some with homosexual desires discipline themselves to abstain from
            homosexual contact.

            One thing
            seems to stand out: Associations are all-important. Anyone who wants to abstain
            from homosexual behavior should avoid the company of practicing homosexuals.
            There are organizations including “ex-gay ministries, ” (18) designed to help
            those who wish to reform their conduct. Psychotherapy claims about a 30% cure
            rate, and religious commitment seems to be the most helpful factor in avoiding
            homosexual habits.

        • magister ludi

          All based on faulty research and self-serving interpretation.

          Of course HIV is more common among homosexual men, but that is due to sexual practices; it has nothing substantial to do with homosexuality in and of itself. Monogamous homosexual men would have no higher incident rate than monogamous heterosexual men.

          Your statistics regarding risky behavior are the same for heterosexuals. Do you know your partner’s HIV status? When is the last time he or she (or yourself, for that matter) was checked?

          Your little promiscuity argument is both inaccurate and absurd. Married men (and women) quite frequently engage in extramarital affairs. How many, do you think, would report this activity, even in supposedly “confidential” studies?

          Furthermore (and this is the absurdity), how does promiscuity relate to “natural” or “unnatural” sex. Humans, as with all other primates, are polygamous. Anthropologists define the typical pair-bond relationship common amongst human populations as “serially monogamous”; that is, they partner, more or less exclusively, with one individual for a time, than move on to a different partner. The cultural, not natural, tradition of matrimony does not always correspond with this multiple partnering; a man or woman may continue to be married both by law and by tradition, yet their spouse is not his or her current sexual partner.

          The study you cite regarding domestic abuse is highly suspect and even the name if the journal sounds biased; but without further investigation, I cannot comment further on it at this time. I will say, however, that the domestic abuse rate amongst lesbian couples is unrelated to any definition of natural. Women fight. Men fight. That partnered women would fight is not surprising.

          Finally, your argument about life span is also irrelevant to homosexuality per se. Homosexuals may often live less healthful lives, but this has more to do with the alienation, discrimination and abuse– and the consequent depression and self-abusive behavior– than their sexual orientation.

          Much of what you cite here– if even correct– seems to argue more for the need to normalize homosexuality and to work to end discrimination.

          None of it proves that homosexuality is in any way unnatural; only that your preconceived notion biases your interpretation.

          • Wraith

            Yeah right! The raging debate over homosexual marriage took another
            interesting turn this week when Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock struck down Maryland’s state law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The decision, handed down Jan. 20, claimed that Family Law
            ?2-201 unfairly abridged the fundamental marriage rights of the nine homosexual couples who filed the lawsuit.

            Judge Murdock was not satisfied with merely striking down the
            state statute, however. In her written opinion, the circuit court judge went
            several steps further by claiming that the prohibition of same-sex marriage in
            no way “rationally relates to a legitimate state interest.” Murdock also
            dismissed the notion that same-sex marriage has any negative influence on traditional
            marriages or the nuclear family, or that “tradition and social values alone”
            can bolster what she deemed a “discriminatory statutory classification.”

            Regrettably, such rationale neglects one of the most critical
            elements in the emotionally charged debate over same-sex marriage and
            homosexual behavior in general – public health. As witnessed by Judge Murdock’s
            decision, the issue of health is often turned aside in favor of arguments that
            hinge more on politics than fact. The problem with such a trend is obvious –
            the health ramifications of homosexual behavior should be at the forefront of
            the public policy debate, not on the periphery.

            That is the principle reason conservatives should concentrate on
            both the cultural consequences of homosexual behavior and the public
            health ramifications. Such an argument will be a winner every time, especially
            when the facts are clearly presented.

            For those who doubt, consider the evidence:

            Sexually transmitted diseases –
            Research gathered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or
            CDC, has found significantly higher rates of rectal gonorrhea, HIV/AIDS
            and all three strains of Hepatitis among homosexuals. Other studies have
            likewise linked homosexuality with increased rates of Human Papillomavirus
            (the leading cause of cervical cancer worldwide), syphilis and anal
            cancer. Although self-identified homosexuals account for less than 5
            percent of the American population, they are the carriers of over 50
            percent of HIV/AIDS cases.

            Risky behaviors – Campaigns to
            foster so-called “safe sex” among homosexuals have done nothing to reduce risky behavior. A 1997 CDC report found that among homosexuals who had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple sexual partners, 68 percent were entirely unaware of the HIV status of their partners.

            Promiscuity – A large
            percentage of homosexual men have hundreds of sexual partners throughout their lifetime. According to a profile of 2,583 homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, only 2.7 reported having had sexual relations
            with only one partner, compared to the largest percentage that claimed to
            have had between 101 and 500 partners over their lifetime. Compare that to
            the markedly lower promiscuity rates among married heterosexual couples.
            According to the latest statistics from the CDC, 92 percent of married
            males and 93 percent of married females reported having had only one
            sexual partner over the previous twelve months (presumably their spouses).

            Domestic abuse – A survey
            conducted by the Journal of Social Service Research found that more than half of lesbian respondents reported having been abused by a female partner or lover. Conversely, research has found that married heterosexual
            women experience the lowest rates of domestic abuse compared to other
            types of relationships.

            Life span – A 1997 study
            published in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that even
            under “the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban
            center are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced
            by all men in Canada in the year 1871.” The same study estimated that
            homosexual behavior reduces the lifespan of males by eight to 20 years.
            Comparatively, the CDC has found that male and female smokers lose an
            average of 13.2 to 14.5 years of life, respectively.

            These findings are not those of conservative pro-family advocacy
            groups, but of non-partisan, non-political medical journals and organizations devoted to protecting public health. What conclusion can logically be reached other than that homosexual behavior is both hazardous to the public at large and often deadly to those who practice it?

            For those who promote homosexual behavior in the name of love and
            tolerance, it’s time to take a hard look at the facts surrounding the
            lifestyle. If someone is suffering from terminal cancer, is hiding the
            diagnosis and potential treatments of the disease the loving thing to do?
            Homosexuality is a cancer that affects every area of life – from the
            psychological to the spiritual – yet the medical facts are commonly swept under
            the carpet by politically motivated medical organizations and liberalism as a
            whole.

            Those both inside and outside government ranks who truly value
            human beings created in the image of God will recognize the importance of being
            candid about the deadly health risks associated with homosexual behavior.
            Unlike modern interpretations of tolerance, true agape love has the
            ultimate physical, psychological and spiritual well-being of the individual at
            heart.

            The good news is change is possible, but it starts with honesty.
            Homosexuality is not a benign lifestyle preference, but a death-sentence made possible by government neglect of public health concerns. Tragically, Judge Murdock’s ruling is another despicable example of a jurisprudence that is eroding the public welfare in the name of tolerance.

  • CHARLES

    Its been said, wrong is still wrong no matter how many may be for it. And right is still right no matter how many may be against it.

  • jewels

    Every time you give someone a right you take someone else s right away. There is no tolerance anymore. There used to be some caring about your fellow man. There is none anymore. Asses go to the courts and bog them down because your fellow man does not believe as you do. You are as the dick tater we have in office. Walk on your fellow man, because the courts say you are superior to the ones who want to abide by their beliefs. You are a bunch of selfish, spoiled brats who have never been taught tolerance and understanding of your fellow man.
    I may not like you, NOT because you are gay, but because you don’t like me because I am straight.

    • Parque_Hundido

      You offer so many reasons for others to dislike you, why do you believe it’s your sexual orientation rather than your arrogance, your poor writing skills, your inability to concatenate two logical thoughts or your insistence upon speaking down to others? Your lack of self awareness seems more likely than your alleged heterosexuality to be a cause of friction. Just some constructive feedback for you.

      • Theresa Easley

        You are accusing her of the exact same thing you are doing.

        • Parque_Hundido

          Uh, no. Shouldn’t posting be reserved for those who speak/write/understand English? Sorry for your issues.

        • Thomas Nelson Hicks

          Absolutely Theresa, that and nothing Parque-Hundido said was constructive ! Here’s my constructive thoughts;
          Read the Bible and take it to Heart ! What if we are right ? Which we are !
          Every willful filled man justifies his own sin because it gives him pleasure for a season and always to his own detriment, in the end !
          Pleasures of the flesh can take over your soul, leaving one unhealthy , and not close to being whole !

          • magister ludi

            Read your Bible. But read the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount if you believe yourself Christian.

            Of course, all you know are the words of the Roman impostor, Paul, and his co-conspirators. You are NOT Christian; you’re Paulian.

          • Thomas Nelson Hicks

            And of course you must be a Jewish descendant ! Probably the one’s who crucified Jesus Christ on the Cross ? Is my assumption correct ?

          • magister ludi

            Where in hell do you get that odd idea from? I know of no one in my family who has ever practiced the Jewish faith nor has any noticeableJJewish ancestry.

            And what is the relevance anyway? My comment stand as it is. Most so-called Christians pay more heed to Paul, James, Peter, et al– as well as some select and self-serving passages in the Old Testament– than they do to those passages which purport to be the very words of the Messiah.

            That is why I call them Paulians.

          • Thomas Nelson Hicks

            I agree with some of the things you say .except for you first throwing dirt at me like ” if you believe yourself Christian ” and ” You are NOT Christian ” When you don’t know me from dirt ! Maybe you need to look at your own sins for a season and ask Christ to get that chip off your shoulder before you try and preach to me or any one else ! If you have no pride or courage to stand in this forum behind your real name , how can any one take you serious ! I’m a Goy , a Gentile and a Baptist myself ! The worst sinner I know, Saved by Grace Alone !

          • magister ludi

            Fine. I may have misjudged you personally. I weary quickly of all the self-proclaimed, self-righteous Christians spewing their hatred and intolerance that I at times jump to conclusions with others who may be less hypocritical.

            But my “sins” I shall not look at, because I believe in no such concept. And the only chip on my shoulder is from all the c**p right wing fanatics throw around like warring chimpanzees.

            And neither lack of pride nor courage prevent me from using my real name; rather I cherish the anonymity of these forums because they hinder the well-poisoning and prejudicial bias so commonly employed in place of rational debate.

            I may be black, brown, white, yellow, purple or green. I can be a dog or a frog or a lesbian queen. Or a narc or a shark or a lady marine. I could be a 12 year old prodigy or a 70 year old retiree. I may be gay, straight, bisexual, transexual or a hermaphrodite. I may even be a Martian or a visitor from the future. I could be the Lord Krishna, the Buddha, Mahomet or Y’shua.

            The point is: all you have are my words to question, challenge or refute. The strength of my argument compels you.

    • magister ludi

      I don’t like you because you’re an old, ignorant, racist b***h. I couldn’t care less if you try to convince yourself or anyone else you’ve never thought about tasting another woman’s you-know-what. You know you have and I know you have.

      How can you possibly pine for some nonexistent time when people “cared about their fellow man” when what you are advocating is contempt and hatred of your fellow man? God, what an ignorant hypocrite!

      When was this magical, beautiful time you believe in? Back when they strung that Jesus of Nazareth dude up on a cross for sexually molesting naked youths? Or was it during the witch hunts, when Africans were kept as slaves, in the trenches of World War I, the Holocaust, the bombing of Hiroshima, the murder of civil rights leaders, McCarthyism, militia groups, the Oklahoma City bombing? When did this Golden Age exist?

      I have a lot of tolerance for my fellow human beings, but of course there is a limit; and that limit is I do not nor will not tolerate hatred or intolerance. You are neither man nor woman; you’re a worm.

  • Phil Davenport

    Wouldn’t you expect that for a gay marriage, they’d want to hire people who have a “queer eye”? What’s all this garbage about gays wanting to hire straight people who are disgusted by it to do the job? It’s a sham, I tell you.

    Besides all that, the veto was right-on and much ado about nothing, because the new law didn’t really change anything. Businesses under the current law already can refuse to serve anyone for almost any reason, and the new law wouldn’t have changed that fact.

  • Teresa

    They are not nice.I don’t believe anyone should be forced to be a part of a homosexual wedding. I would not do it either. If they came into my store to buy something or to be served there at my place of business I would serve them just like anyone else. But I would not make myself a part of their wedding.

    • Parque_Hundido

      I don’t believe there is a single case of anyone being forced to be a part of a same sex couple’s wedding. You get that don’t you?

      • Theresa Easley

        How do the pictures get taken without the photographer being there then? One of the lawsuits was against a photographer. You get that, don’t you?

        • Parque_Hundido

          She wasn’t in a wedding because (1) there was no wedding, as it wasn’t legal under NM law at the time and (2) being asked to serve as photographer is not the same as being in a ceremony. If i’m hired to serve food at a party, I’m not exactly part of the party. You really don’t get it, do you?

          If you want to pick and choose whom you serve, open up a religious organization. If you want government licenses and sanctions, you get to follow the law or be sued. That’s your decision to make.

          Typical right wing refusal to understand.

          • Teresa

            You are a typical queer that wants special privileges. You already have equal rights under the law. You can get married just like the rest of us. No one is stopping you. Homosexuality is perverted and sinful. If you are bi-sexual that means that you can be married to both partners. Where does it stop. Everybody sins, but some homosexuals know it is a sin and refrain from practicing. Any sin can be forgiven by God, not by me, but first you have to admit it is a sin. When I have sinned, I usually know I have done so and ask for forgiveness. I don’t have to be a part of someone else’s sin.

          • magister ludi

            There it is: the hatred. “A typical queer”. Poor thing, the little fantasy whitewashed world you believed in is being forced to face reality.

            Let me guess: your husband left you for another guy. Or you caught him down at the sex shop performing fellatio on several clients like SO VERY MANY married men do.

            You’re just a typical bigot.

          • corruptintenz

            In America, you can’t declare someone’s religion for them. If they do not share your religious beliefs they are not a sinner, and more than you are an apostate for not sharing their religious beliefs.

          • Parque_Hundido

            No, you are no Christian. No Christian would address others in the ignorant, bigoted and disrespectful manner you’ve chosen. You’re a Westboro Baptist. You will burn in hell.

          • SpeakTruth

            Special privileges? They want the same rights you have. They want to marry the person they love like you can do, they want the same marital tax benefits and legal protections which are granted to you if you are indeed married, they want a business to treat them as they treat you, they want the right to adopt children like your right to adopt. It seems you are the one with special privileges. Sin only exists in the minds of the religious. There are responsibilities one has towards his fellow man and the environment in which he lives. There is the moral code of reciprocity (treat other how you want to be treated). There are laws which govern a civil society. Sin is made up by the religious to outlaw that which you do not like.

    • magister ludi

      No one cares. Don’t open a bakery, then. Even that idiot, George Will, recognizes a business must provide equal service to all clients.

      Why do conservatives hate America so much?

    • corruptintenz

      Why would you imagine they want you in their wedding? They want you behind the bar or clearing the plates. Thats it.