The veto by Linda Lingle, a Republican, came after the bill had passed the state house, 31-20, and the state senate, 18-7. Now Lambda Legal will sue for civil unions in state court on state constitutional grounds.
The state constitution was amended in 1998 to give exclusive control over the definition of marriage to the state legislature. The amendment was spurred by the decision of the state supreme court in Baehr v. Lewin, holding that the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples is a form of sex discrimination. Because of the amendment, Lambda acknowledges that it cannot sue for SSM under the state constitution. But it will now apparently argue that the amendment does not prevent state courts from ordering the recognition of identical legal rights and obligations under a different status.
ShelbyC says:
Isn’t it pretty windy in Hawaii? You’d think she’d be smart enough to pee leeward.
July 6, 2010, 10:32 pmneurodoc says:
Why wasn’t the state constitution amended so as to settle the matter, defining marriage rather than giving exlusive control over the definition of marriage to the state legislature? Since the constitution did give that power to the legislature, then is it consistent to allow the governor veto power to frustrate the legislature’s decision unless a super-majority, which it appears there may not be (2/3 of both houses?), overrides the veto? And wouldn’t the “recognition of identical legal rights and obligations under a different status” by a state court without a legislative enactment amount to a sham and be inconsistent with the state constitution? This doesn’t seem to make much sense.
July 6, 2010, 10:40 pmAJK says:
Perhaps you could comment on the merits on this lawsuit?
July 6, 2010, 10:40 pmShelbyC says:
Only if you think civil unions are the same as marriage. And LL can’t argue both sides of that issue, can it? Maybe you can argue that marriage for purposes of the amendment is different that marriage for purposes of equal protection.
July 6, 2010, 10:45 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Libertarians everywhere must be outraged; how can they tolerate freedom-stifling Republicans and conservatives?
That great libertarian blog, Instapundit, has probably been so clogged with principled, liberty-loving condemnation of this nanny-stater outrage that not a single liberal or Democrat was taunted or bashed all day.
Right?
July 6, 2010, 11:01 pmDangerMouse says:
The Judicial Branch: when Democracy becomes inconvenient.
July 6, 2010, 11:04 pmOnHawaiianTime says:
FYI – Lingle’s official stance is that the issue is of such societal importance that it should be decided by a statewide ballot question.
July 6, 2010, 11:08 pmRikiTiki says:
Who is she to decide what issues merit a statewide ballot question? I’m sure there is already in place a process to put such matters to a statewide ballot and it seems that has yet to happen. The legislature is not allowed to act where the people have chosen not to actively participate? It’s fun how a representative democracy works until someone doesn’t like what it decides to do. Tyranny of the majority, alive and well.
July 6, 2010, 11:33 pmAllan Walstad says:
This is unfortunate. Civil unions are a good compromise, at least for the time being.
Arthur, when you’re a libertarian, there are so many pols to bash about so many things, and not nearly enough hours in the day.
July 6, 2010, 11:46 pmptt says:
Yeah, like the rights of Muslims or Mormons.
July 7, 2010, 12:02 amArthur Kirkland says:
And some self-proclaimed libertarians solve that vexing problem by restricting their targets to liberals and Democrats?
(Well, that and peddling curling irons, wrench sets, cheerleader calendars and special prices on push-up bras.)
You strike me as one of the few libertarians inhabiting these parts, Allan. Surely the Instaconservative doesn’t fool you. So far today, 12 swipes at President Obama, not a word about a Republican governor’s nanny-statism. All in a day’s conservative work . . .
July 7, 2010, 12:20 amSlake says:
“This decision should be made… behind the curtain of the voting booth,” says Lingle. Just like the decision was made to legalize interracial marriage….oh wait. (Loving v. Virginia)
July 7, 2010, 12:22 amSteven Den Beste says:
Seems like they’ve got the votes for a veto override in the legislature. Why aren’t they trying that?
July 7, 2010, 12:38 amHenry says:
The article “The Overhauling of Straight America” written by Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill, appeared for the first time in November 1987, in Guide Magazine an homosexual publication, written with the sole purpose of homosexualizing the culture, and demonize opponents opposed to the normalization of sodomy.
The authors begin by urging homosexuals to desensitize 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 preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.
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, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.
And to get to shoulder-shrug stage, gays as a class must cease to appear mysterious, alien, loathsome and contrary. A large-scale media campaign will be required in order to change the image of gays in America.” And any campaign to accomplish this turnaround should do six things.
STEP 1:Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.
July 7, 2010, 1:27 amSTEP 2: Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.
STEP 3: Give protectors a just cause.
STEP 4: Make gays look good.
STEP 5: Make the victimizers look bad.
STEP 6: Solicit funds: The buck stops here.
jab says:
So Henry…
What is your point?
Is there anything wrong with that?
Or are we supposed to read that and just freak out by the “homosexual agenda.”
In any case, looks like the plan worked… the under 30 crowd basically sees
July 7, 2010, 1:31 amhomosexuality as the moral equivalent of left-handedness.
Cornellian says:
Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.
It worked.
July 7, 2010, 1:42 amptt says:
see:
I always get a kick out of this “evidence” that the “homosexual agenda” is up to something nefarious and sinister. I realize that Henry and folks like him were and remain unlikely to pick up a “homosexual publication” at the newsstand, but it’s not like the Advocate
July 7, 2010, 2:45 amiswas a secret magazine. Why, I suspect the FBI and CIA had their own subscriptions.AJK says:
I think you might want to check your math!
July 7, 2010, 2:51 amThrobert McGee says:
Actually, it would be history-making, and could fundamentally alter the direction of this whole debate, if civil-union laws were actually created in Hawai’i (or any other state) by a direct popular referendum that clearly and decisively established “gay civil unions, but not gay marriage” as the majority preference — rather than having such CU laws forced through by the courts OR voted into existence by not-necessarily-representative Representatives of the People.
July 7, 2010, 3:01 amThrobert McGee says:
Unfortunately, the Rainbow Flag Community took Step 2: Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers and ran with it, and ran, and ran, and ran. And the “Oh, if only the bigots would stop victimizing us…” mindset has had a severely corrosive effect on the overall character of way too many gays — who are quick to blame OTHER PEOPLE’S HOMOPHOBIA!!! for any and all gay misbehavior and dysfunctionality, while ignoring the ways in which gay people act as completely terrible role models for other gay people (just to name one problem).
July 7, 2010, 3:22 amOwen H. says:
In other words, the state constitution was altered to prevent SSM or anything else from being created except by the legislature, but that has to be ignored when the legislature chose to do so. The Governor is ignoring the state constitution because it is now inconvenient. It is a classic progression; first say that the courts shouldn’t be making such important decisions, the legislature should. Then when the legislature does, say that only the people directly should. What’s next? Protect the people from their own folly by disallowing a referendum and making it an executive decision?
July 7, 2010, 6:21 amPatty Shundynide says:
True. Muslims and Mormons don’t get their preferred forms of marriage either. See Reynolds v. United States (upholding anti-bigamy law against First Amendment challenge).
July 7, 2010, 7:03 amOwen H. says:
You mean like the “democracy” that had the legislature pass this? That seems to be the real issue.
July 7, 2010, 7:19 amOwen H. says:
So if a majority decided to vote against the rights of gun owners, you’re ok with that too?
And what happened to the concept that such issues were of such societal importance that they should be left to the legislature instead of the courts? Oh wait, I know; that was only when the legislature wasn’t going to pass it. Now that they did, time to change the rules again.
July 7, 2010, 7:21 amAlessandra says:
This is why we never see any homosexuality zealot in these Internet discussions (and similar ones outside the Internet) take the initiative to inform anyone about any problem concerning homosexuals or bisexuals as perpetrators of aggression or violence. Either the homosexuality zealots outright lie, or they lie by omission, or they trivialize any related issues or data. And specially if the question involves heterosexuals or minors as victims, then the propaganda machine goes into full gear.
Thus they do form a profoundly irresponsible and damaging force in society, because as everybody knows, silence and denial about aggression and violence only further severely damage the victims, ensure the harmful dynamics continue unaddressed, and they give a green light to further violence by the perpetrators.
In particular, on the narrower subject of SSM (and not just any other behavior concerning homosexuals), I have never seen any proponent of SSM take the initiative to inform people that homosexuals shun marriage like the plague in countries where SSM has been legalized. It is another way homosexuality zealots lie by omission concerning problems with homosexuals, thus showing their dishonesty. Since the reasons for this marriage shunning involve dysfunctional attitudes found in a good number of homosexuals, the propaganda is put into to place to conceal reality.
There is a good amount of qualitative data on why homosexuals shun marriage. If taken to heart, marriage is incompatible with promiscuity, and non-committed or perverse and exploitative attitudes in personal relationships and sexuality. And that is incompatible with the psychological make-up of a great number of people with a homosexual problem. (Certainly not only a problem concerning homosexuals, but surely a major problem with this population).
Thus what I observe is a highly ridiculous situation. While we have a society full of homosexuals with damaging views and behaviors concerning relationships/marriages and sexuality, all of this is largely ignored or lied about, and endless energy and time is spent on the question of legalizing or not SSM. Not that the latter is a trivial question or one without profound consequences. However in light of all the cowardice to deal with exploitation and violence issues involving non-heterosexuals as perpetrators, it does reflect a larger dishonesty dynamics in the current panorama of American culture, which is in itself part of a larger denial problem to deal with such issues involving heterosexual perpetrators.
Homosexual propaganda fits like a glove in any highly violent and irresponsible society like the US that has endemic and epidemic sexuality and personal relationship issues.
July 7, 2010, 7:22 amFloridan says:
Alessandra: “However in light of all the cowardice to deal with exploitation and violence issues involving non-heterosexuals as perpetrators, it does reflect a larger dishonesty dynamics in the current panorama of American culture, which is in itself part of a larger denial problem to deal with such issues involving heterosexual perpetrators.”
Where do you get your information on this?
July 7, 2010, 7:55 amAlex J says:
@Alessandra
You are spot on. Just think of how many of Rush Limbaugh’s marriages alone were destroyed by “damaging views and behaviors” that are put forth by those who support the Homosexual Agenda®.
July 7, 2010, 9:04 amJon Rowe says:
I think I remember Alessandra. She’s one of these Protocols of the Elders of Zion types. Except replace Jews with gays. I think she’s been banned from most blogs she comments on.
July 7, 2010, 9:10 amOrenWithAnE says:
Because codifying a particular policy into a Constitution is unwise. Giving the power to the elected branch prevents any judicial undertaking while preserving the right of the people to change the policy.
July 7, 2010, 10:09 ambadlaw says:
I know this point doesn’t matter to the pro-SSM crowd, but is it really necessary to go through all this trouble so that the two dozen gay couples that live in Hawaii can apply for civil unions, if they even want them? (I’m not speaking literally, but it’s not that many in Hawaii) This seems to be more for gay activist lawyers and the ACLU more than addressing some actual need.
I’m in favor of civil unions, so I don’t agree with Gov. Lingle’s decision to veto the bill. But I doubt all the legislative options are done (try for a veto, initiative), and then, this just seems to be going to court to make something legal. That’s…not really the point of a court of law, though. I swear, ever since Roe v. Wade, activists think they can use the courts to make stuff legal. They want the court to force a different branch of government to, in effect, pass a bill. Ridiculous.
July 7, 2010, 10:20 amRandy says:
Henry: “And to get to shoulder-shrug stage, gays as a class must cease to appear mysterious, alien, loathsome and contrary.”
Well, Alessandra seems to be doing her best.
“This is why we never see any homosexuality zealot in these Internet discussions (and similar ones outside the Internet) take the initiative to inform anyone about any problem concerning homosexuals or bisexuals as perpetrators of aggression or violence. ”
Whenever I see Clay Aiken, I see a violent perpetrator of aggression.
July 7, 2010, 10:54 amcb72 says:
“I know this point doesn’t matter to the pro-SSM crowd, but is it really necessary to go through all this trouble so that the two dozen gay couples that live in Hawaii can apply for civil unions, if they even want them?”
Just for argument’s sake, replace a few words:
“I know this point doesn’t matter to the civil rights crowd, but is it really necessary to go through all this trouble so that the two dozen interracial couples that live in Hawaii can apply for civil unions, if they even want them?”
July 7, 2010, 10:54 amLymis says:
You mean, of course, as opposed to the obvious, and much easier method of simply allowing gay couples to get married like everyone else?
Funny how the really easy idea never gets mentioned by the people who always claim that going halfway and only granting partial rights is too much work and unnecessarily complicated.
July 7, 2010, 11:16 amRandy says:
And of course, if it it only two dozen couples, then why oppose the measure at all? Surely, it won’t affect anything at all, as Badlaw implies, so no reason to get all worked up about it.
July 7, 2010, 11:17 amHenry says:
In order to normalize the filthy perversion of sodomy, Sodomites began pulling the wool over the eyes of straight people in 1963, with the introduction of the homosexual agenda in public education. The sodomization of America is like fitting a square peg in a round hole it is like trying to equate the perversion of sodomy with the civil right movement, which is another perversion in itself. Normalizing the practice of sodomy is like trying to fly the ocean liner RMS Queen Mary through the air like a Boeing 747.
What most straight people fail to understand is the fact that filthy sodomites are homosexualizing the culture by deception, they are deceiving straight America with mass propaganda coming from all directions stating that the practice of sodomy is nothing but a normal, and widely accepted alternate lifestyle. For instance, in the issue of Gay Community News, sodomite Michael Swift published “The Homosexual Manifesto” an essay on the homosexual revolution. In November 1987 the sodomites published another article, this time in Guide Magazine titled, “The Overhauling of Straight America” by Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill, written with the sole purpose of homosexualizing the culture, and demonize opponents opposed to the promotion of sodomy.
Sodomites have infiltrated public education since the early sixties, right after the tyrannical Justices of the US Supreme Court declared the Holy Bible unconstitutional after being America’s main teaching manual for over two hundred and fifty years, in violations of what the founding fathers envisioned, and the First Commandment of God which states “You shall have no other gods before me,” thus, practicing, and worshiping sodomy as their god.
Immediately the Bible was replaced with the Theory of Evolution or Science Fiction, Sex Education or Sex Perversion, and with the inclusion of the homosexual agenda, which usurps parental rights in favor of forced indoctrination, successfully brainwashing millions of innocent children into accepting the practice of sodomy as another normal lifestyle. Now that these filthy sodomites have been emboldened by succeeding in legalizing Same Sex Marriage, there is nothing to prevent them from marrying mere children as soon as they succeed in lowering the age of consent through NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association.
I leave you with the cream of the crop of sodomite’s pride, found in the first paragraph of the Homosexual Manifesto, “We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of you shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us. Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep.”
July 7, 2010, 11:27 amOrenWithAnE says:
And yet somehow by the time I got to high school in the late 90s, blowjobs were plentiful.
I can only conclude that the RMS QM does, in fact, fly through the air multiple times in the upstairs bathroom during the lunch period — although, in fairness each flight didn’t last all that long.
July 7, 2010, 11:34 amyankee says:
I’m not sure, but I think it probably has to do with the fact that Hawai’i Supreme Court hadn’t actually struck down the law. It ruled that the SSM ban was a form of sex discrimination subject to intermediate scrutiny and remanded for consideration of whether the law met the standard.
There was an immediate reaction to Baehr v. Lewin, but (except in Hawai’i) it was statutory, rather than constitutional. The Feds passed the Defense of Marriage Act and most state legislatures enacted explicit statutory SSM bans; voters in the states that allow statutory voter initiatives also enacted statutory SSM bans.
Constitutional bans on same-sex marriage only became a priority after the Massachusetts court decided Goodridge in 2003, ten years after Baehr. Before Goodridge, only three states (Alaska,Nevada and Nebraska) had a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. In response, the voters of thirteen states enacted constitutional same-sex marriage bans in 2004, and another thirteen did so between 2005-2008.
July 7, 2010, 11:52 amRandy says:
Henry: “We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together.”
Hey! I’m missing out! How come I never get to join the party?
July 7, 2010, 12:40 pmJon Rowe says:
“Whenever I see Clay Aiken, I see a violent perpetrator of aggression.”
Don’t you know men who listen to show tunes are 5 more times likely to join a violent gang and commit armed robbery?
July 7, 2010, 12:40 pmJon Rowe says:
I see Alessandra is now calling herself “Henry.”
Sex change?
July 7, 2010, 12:43 pmzuch says:
Oh yes. That was indeed the start of the Fall. Oh, waiddaminit, that was when Adam started noshing on apples, and blamed it on Eve….
Yes, had we just left things alone, we’d be sitting in Eden (all of us), scratching out 140 character Twiggers onto leaves and passing them around, rather than using these Infernal Compoooters….
Cheers,
July 7, 2010, 12:59 pmShelbyC says:
So what you mean to say is:
Where the straight men at?!?
July 7, 2010, 1:11 pmLester Livio says:
Henry,
For your information, On VC, “homophobia” is a crime, while “homophilia” is a virtue! Never mind that both are philosophical postures that are defensible. Be prepared for the inevitable backlash!
VC ignored this news item:
“Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously upholds gay marriage ban.” Wisconsin State Journal, June 30, 2010.
July 7, 2010, 1:20 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Henry
I welcome your obviously heartfelt work on spiritual and moral issues, but in the end just about everything has a practical component, and individuals need to choose and vote to set America on the right path.
Which political party — Republican or Democrat — do you believe better tries to advance a good agenda?
Do you think conservatives or liberals better represent people trying to follow the right way of thinking and handling society’s problems?
It would be helpful to know your views on this. Thank you very much.
If Alessandra is reading this, your views would be welcomed, too. Thanks.
July 7, 2010, 1:25 pmFire and Brimstone says:
I am a self-righteous, religious pedant who feels the need to regulate the relationships and family lives of others to coerce them into behaving as I see fit. I do this even though the public policy consequences of trying to force homosexuals to live heterosexual lives are divorce, domestic discord and anonymous sex outside the marriage.
Rather than proposing a workable solution, such as civil unions, that would further the goals of society I pretend to favor, such as fidelity and commitment among couples, I prefer to avoid addressing the true nature of the world. I simply ignore that there are homosexuals among us and gay relationships that are valuable additions to society. That just doesn’t fit my narrative. And, God forbid, my children should learn that truth.
To argue my views, I slander gays with random nonsense I found on the internet. But, I don’t cite similar examples, such as Spring Break in Daytona Beach, Girls Gone Wild, Cops or Josef Fritzl to illustrate the “dangers of heterosexuality.” I also don’t post documents showing a systematic, clandestinely funded, church effort to cast gays as a “threat” to marriage and children, without any evidence of it.
Now that my mob has succeeded in keeping gays second-class citizens in Hawaii, I will start talking loudly about God’s love and how I would never treat anybody with unkindness. Because that’s the kind of bigot I am.
July 7, 2010, 1:34 pmslimslowslider says:
Good to see you again, Barb
July 7, 2010, 1:37 pmRandy says:
Lester: ” Never mind that both are philosophical postures that are defensible.”
I guess beheading gays is just a ‘philisophical posture’, right? Here.
July 7, 2010, 1:37 pmRob Berra says:
Henry, wipe your chin; you’re frothing.
Good grief: next to this guy, even my perpetual antagonist is a paragon of calm rationality…
July 7, 2010, 1:44 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Just for argument’s sake, note that analogizing other categories to race is often misleading. Separate bathrooms for men and women are not analogous to separate bathrooms for blacks and whites. One has to make an argument, not just say that since racial distinctions are bad, so is distinction X.
SSM is not treated the same as interracial marriage was. For one thing, states didn’t give interracial couples the option of civil unions, either. For another, Hawaii does not criminalize SSM as states did with interracial marriage. Mildred and Richard Loving were arrested, prosecuted, and given the choice between jail or leaving the state forthwith. Hawaii merely declines to recognize and give government benefits to SSMs.
July 7, 2010, 1:55 pmLester Livio says:
Comparing apples and oranges again. Eugenics, race “science” and prohibition of interracial marriage were all about children…avoiding mongrelization of the white race. The same cannot be said of homosexual marriage. Besides, no one was ever enslaved for being homosexual!
July 7, 2010, 2:16 pmLester Livio says:
All kinds of activists and non-activists get killed all the time around the world. For purposes of this discussion, there is a fundamental difference between speech and action. That is an elementary point. Unless you are one of those who equate speech and action and advocate banning so-called “hate speech.”
July 7, 2010, 2:22 pmCrunchy Frog says:
Unless the native Hawaiian population is akin to blacks in California (a normally solid Democratic votic bloc that happens to be anti-gay) then this veto makes no sense. Even so it appears politically unwise.
I wonder how civil unions poll in Hawaii. If they do well there should be no reason why the legislature couldn’t put an amendment on the ballot.
Then again, I’m fairly gobsmacked that a Republican could ever be elected Governor in Hawaii in the first place.
July 7, 2010, 3:07 pmChrisTS says:
Jon Rowe
Wonderful. Thanks for the laugh amidst this parade of horribles.
July 7, 2010, 3:56 pmChrisTS says:
I googled Homosexual Manifesto. Here is a brief explanation and the first line that Henry ommitted:
Here is the Homosexual Manifesto: written by Michael Swift, as originally printed in the Gay Community News, on Feb. 15-21, 1987 (reprinted from The Congressional Record, with preface restored)
“This essay is an outré madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.”
On the other hand, I would not expect Henry to appreciate satire any more than the suffering of those unlike himself.
July 7, 2010, 4:15 pmOrenWithAnE says:
FWIW (not much), all the institutions I went to with unisex bathrooms had no problems.
July 7, 2010, 4:27 pmRustyShackleford says:
What, exactly, is “sodomization”
I know what sodomy is, and what it means to sodomize someone, but who are these sodomizationists Henry keeps bringing up?
July 7, 2010, 4:54 pmAlessandra says:
When looking at the high levels of denial, invisibility, and trivializing of domestic violence issues, for example. Sexual harassment and prostitution as well; sexual exploitation or abuse involving minors.
July 7, 2010, 4:59 pmAlessandra says:
It’s interesting that those who support the homo agenda love to talk about Rush (and well they should), but they hate to talk about how much domestic violence there is among homo agenda supporters.
Exhibit A of what I said in my first little post in this thread.
July 7, 2010, 5:03 pmShelbyC says:
That’s funny. All of the ones I went to had problems with people oogling women and making inappropriate comments.
July 7, 2010, 5:10 pmAlessandra says:
They are two enormously corrupt political machines. Anyone who is not a crook must navigate in some shark-infested party waters, independently if they are Dems or Reps, although that may vary on individual circumstances and levels. Republicans have been stiffing social conservatives in increasingly foul ways. However, the break-up of the two-party monopoly is not a simple thing to put into practice, so what I feel mostly is a considerable lack of choice. Not having better alternatives, the choice that is left is very easy to make: “family, and healthy relationships/sexuality values” over “normalized destruction of family/healthy sexuality values” any day. But it’s still not because Republicans ***as a party*** are so marvelous and exemplary with their multiple agendas, such a mixed bag.
Why do you ask? You’re a liberal and a Democrat?
July 7, 2010, 5:29 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Hey, I said my anecdotal evidence might not be worth much.
At any rate, that’s quite unfortunate.
July 7, 2010, 5:30 pmAlessandra says:
As much as you are one of these Father Shanley types.
“I think she’s been banned from most blogs she comments on.”
Ah the dangerous thoughts of Alessandra. Even though they are expressed in a civil tone, they can be so threatening to hypocritical, narrow-minded liberals.
You know how people are, you show they are ignorant, they get upset. You don’t go along with their denials and lies, they get upset. What can I do? It’s not my fault people are so intolerant to having their stupidity highlighted…
Look at you, I post one little thing here and you’re already reaching for this Protocols of Zion thing. I have no clue what that is, but it must horrible. Protocol of Zion Elder Shmelder? Sounds terrible. It looks like I got a demonizing jab from Jon Rowe, a man who probably has so many views in common with the Father Shanleys of this world, he gets highly accepted in most liberal blogs he comments on. Congratulations!
Ehxibit B of what I was talking about in my first little post of this thread.
July 7, 2010, 6:05 pmyankee says:
“Sodomite” and “straight people” are not mutually exclusive categories. American sodomy laws banned both same-sex and opposite-sex sodomy until the 1970′s, when most states repealed them. A few states repealed their sodomy laws only as to opposite-sex sodomy, but most got rid of them entirely. The UCMJ also defines the crime of sodomy as applying to both same and opposite-sex sodomy (though I think the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has ruled it unconstitutional).
July 7, 2010, 6:12 pmHarryEagar says:
Been there, done that. The outcome was invalidated by the judges, but there is no question the voters understood what they were being asked and they voted 70+% to retain traditional marriage.
Possibly in the privacy of the voting booth, people behave differently than they do when people are watching.
July 7, 2010, 6:18 pmRandy says:
Lester: “For purposes of this discussion, there is a fundamental difference between speech and action.”
Well, now you are changing the argument. You originally said that the homophobia and homophilia are merely philosophical postures that are defensible. If a person kills another person just for being gay — and that happens quite often, actually, and the killer even admits it — that’s homophobia and not just a posture.
Alessandra: Please do give us cites about how much more violent gay people are than straight people. Also, if true, then how would you suggest we become more docile?
ChrisTS: In addition, that first line is omitted on all the anti-gay websites that purport to show the Manifesto, including the Traditional Values Coalition. Apparently, lying is a traditional value.
What is funny is that for people like Henry, that ‘manifesto’ reads like a really wild sexual fantasy for the repressed. It’s all about sodomizing men where ever they congregate, seducing them against their will — all that’s missing is the kissing and heavy breathing!
July 7, 2010, 6:23 pmHarryEagar says:
Heck, I can take you to a subdivision on Maui that has more than that.
July 7, 2010, 6:25 pmRandy says:
Harryeager: “Possibly in the privacy of the
voting boothbedroom, people behave differently than they do when people are watching.”Which, of course, is why we see so many anti-gay people actually having gay sex. I guess if you shout the loudest about how you hate the gays, no one will suspect your real attractions.
July 7, 2010, 6:25 pmOrenWithAnE says:
As has been discussed to death, 80% of the 95% of Americans that are straight are sodomites. That means that there are 15 hetero sodomites for each homo sodomite.
Be careful throwing stones at sodomites — 80% of the population is not keen to be stepped on by the every-more-shrill moralizers.
July 7, 2010, 6:38 pmAlessandra says:
Why don’t you post cites yourself of all kinds of data on different types of violence? I hope you are not mentally impaired…
July 7, 2010, 6:40 pmRandy says:
I’m rather grateful to Henry for exposing our nefarious Agenda. A little sunshine does some good, doesn’t it? We all know that a parody written in 1987 binds all gay people to it’s truth, even those who were born after it was written. It also binds all supporters of gays.
In that spirit, I would like to bring up the writtings of R.J. Rushdoony, a Christian Reconstructionist. Here’s what he had to say about about gays:
“God in His law requires the death penalty for homosexuals. [R.J. Rushdoony, Reconstructionist theologian, in a letter to Mel White]”
And then consider this article, reviewing another article by the same man:
“Among Reconstructionism’s highlights, the article cited support for laws “mandating the death penalty for homosexuals and drunkards.” The Rev. Rushdoony fired off a letter to the editor complaining that the article had got his followers’ views all wrong: They didn’t intend to put drunkards to death.
Ah, yes, accuracy does count. In a world run by Rushdoony followers, sots would escape capital punishment–which would make them happy exceptions indeed. Those who would face execution include not only gays but a very long list of others: blasphemers, heretics, apostate Christians, people who cursed or struck their parents, females guilty of “unchastity before marriage,” “incorrigible” juvenile delinquents, adulterers, and (probably) telephone psychics. And that’s to say nothing of murderers and those guilty of raping married women or “betrothed virgins.”
So, of course, now the truth comes out! Everyone who is against they gay agenda must of course subscribe to this manifesto that gays, among other sinners, all must be stoned to death.
And we needn’t look very far for it’s impact. Why, in Uganda, there is a bill right now that would mandate the death penalty for gays who are repeat offenders. Who helped draft the proposed law? None other than several pastors from the US!
Of course, Lester would claim that such a law is merely a philosophical posture that one can easily defend. But nonetheless, he must obviously agree with the death penalty for gays. AFter all, Henry is right — if someone writes anything at all, it means that everyone in the world agrees with it.
July 7, 2010, 6:43 pmJon Rowe says:
Alessandra:
Thank you for proving my point about you. The shoe clearly fits, so keep wearing it.
July 7, 2010, 6:43 pmAllan Walstad says:
Oh, the imagery! Sorry man, I just can’t read past that line. But can you explain to me why I should give a goddam that two men or two women would choose to have sex, move in and make a life together?
July 7, 2010, 6:57 pmAlessandra says:
I don’t think 95% of Americans are straight, but then nobody knows either. Certainly not in liberal groups, the percentage for straights is less than 95%. And that certainly goes for women. Which makes me question the numbers for men as well.
For example, in 2007, Cornell University, carrying out research into sexuality amongst a representative sample of more than 20 000 young Americans, published that 14.4% of young women self-identified as being sexual and either lesbian or bisexual, whilst 5.6% of young men self-identified as being sexual and either gay or bisexual. (and that’s not counting the ones who have a homo or bi psychology but don’t admit their own homosexual reality)
In my personal observation, there has been a huge increase in women developing a homo or bisexual psychology, as compared to one, but specially two or more, generations in the past.
July 7, 2010, 6:59 pmShelbyC says:
No way. Way more than 20% are married.
I suspect Henry “got” us all. Excellent parody, dude.
July 7, 2010, 7:21 pmAlessandra says:
Why should anyone care about what anyone else does in the world? There are multiple reasons, but perhaps the most fundamental one is that crap happens all over the place, including among and from people with a homosexual problem.
This is exactly what I was talking about:
“This is why we never see any homosexuality zealot in these Internet discussions (and similar ones outside the Internet) take the initiative to inform anyone about any problem concerning homosexuals or bisexuals as perpetrators of aggression or violence. Either the homosexuality zealots outright lie, or they lie by omission, or they trivialize any related issues or data. And specially if the question involves heterosexuals or minors as victims, then the propaganda machine goes into full gear. ”
What happens when any person, specially homo or bisexuals, commits an act of harassment, aggression, or violence, that is not just “moving in together?” Do you care?
It certainly doesn’t look like it.
July 7, 2010, 7:24 pmMichael Ejercito says:
I do not know.
The constitutional provision allowing the state to define marriage according to gender is relatively recent, and there is little jurisprudence on how that provision limits the acts of the state government.
That would depend on how the state creates civil unions.
They could, in theory, create an institution that grants the same rights to married couples and same-sex couples under different names.
What is the process for determining state constitutional rights in Hawaii?
The rights that we have under the United States Constitution is determined by a vote of two-thirds of the House and Senate and three-fourths of the states.
I have cited this ruling on other threads.
Also see Murphy v. Ramsey and Davis v. Beason.
and in fact, Justice Matthews wrote,
Note that Justice Harlan, who wrote the famous dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, went along with this ruling, instead of writing a concurring or dissenting opinion.
Murphy clearly permits states to define marriage as one man and one woman (although its application to laws against bigamous cohabitation may have been undercut by Lawrence v. Texas.)
No. Aside from my disagreement, that would run afoul of the Second Amendment, just like a law prohibiting criticism of the government would violate the First Amendment.
Until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, this was absolutely true regarding the states. (Even if the Ninth Amendment had protected a right to interracial marriage, the Bill of Rights did not restrict state acts before ratification of the 14th Amendment. (Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore)
It is not as extreme as Massachussetts electing a Republican to the U.S. Senate (albeit a Republican to the left of California’s Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger).
July 7, 2010, 8:06 pmRandy says:
Alessandra: “Why don’t you post cites yourself of all kinds of data on different types of violence?”
You are the one making the charges that gays are more violent that straight people. If you have evidence, please provide it.
” I hope you are not mentally impaired…”
Why the need for being gratuitously nasty?
“What happens when any person, specially homo or bisexuals, commits an act of harassment, aggression, or violence, that is not just “moving in together?” Do you care?”
I certainly do. And I also care about the straight people that commit acts of violence as well. Apparently, your point is that gays are somehow troubled (or have a homosexual problem, as you put it), which causes us to be more violent.
That’s a novel theory, and if you have any evidence at all to support it, please provide it. But of course you don’t, because I suspect your real motive is to convince people that gays somehow choose to be violent psychopaths (for whatever reason), and therefore should be condemned by society.
July 7, 2010, 8:13 pmOwen H. says:
Just for Allesandra, here it is, the Gay Agenda-
6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch
2:00 PM 1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments,
2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle,
3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages,
4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels,
5) Establish planetary chain of “homo breeding gulags” where over-medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership,
6) bulldoze all houses of worship, and
7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers.
2:30 PM Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest
July 7, 2010, 8:23 pm4:00 PM Cocktails
6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)
8:00 PM Theater
11:00 PM Bed (du jour)?
Owen H. says:
Or any other civil right? How about inter-racial marriage? Can a majority vote to ban it? After all, marriage isn’t even an enumerated right (even though it has been held to be a basic civil right numerous times).
Speaking of laws running afoul of the Constitution, the DOMA does. We’ll see how that one goes.
July 7, 2010, 8:27 pmAlessandra says:
Where? Why the need to lie about what I wrote? Why the cheap intellectual dishonesty?
Alessandra: I hope you are not mentally impaired…
randy: ”Why the need for being gratuitously nasty?
Guess what making some cheap strawman is?
July 7, 2010, 8:30 pmMichael Ejercito says:
Marriage is a basic civil right, inherited from English common law.
Before the 14th Amendment, states were free to ban interracial marriage (Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore)
So far, no federal appellate court overturned DOMA. And Assistant Attorney General Tony West made a great defense Of DOMA in Smelt v. United States.
Maybe Massachussetts’s Tenth Amendment based challenge would work.
July 7, 2010, 8:37 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Quibble with the numbers all you want, a vast vast majority of Americans practice sodomy on a regular basis. Throw stones at us at your own peril.
July 7, 2010, 9:19 pmzuch says:
Compleat balderdash can be expressed civilly, but that doesn’t remove the stench. Which means it’s best to avoid such. It’s not “threatening” or “dangerous” (despite the voices in your head); it’s just noisome.
But do you really think what you’ve said here is “civil”?
Cheers,
July 7, 2010, 9:21 pmPick Six for July 7, 2010 « The Hollow Horn says:
[...] legislature votes for civil unions, but governor Linda Lingle vetoes. [...]
July 7, 2010, 9:26 pmAlessandra says:
And why should we lie about numbers and trends in society? It’s not a question of quibbling. If society is producing an increasingly larger number of people with a homosexual or bisexual psychology that is a pretty significant fact.
July 7, 2010, 9:30 pmAlessandra says:
As much as “elders of whatever.” Or “stench” in your little remark above.
Cheers
July 7, 2010, 9:37 pmOwen H. says:
So why doesn’t the 14th also protect SSM? After all, isn’t it gender discrimination to say a man can marry a woman but that a woman can’t?
You do understand you didn’t actually answer the question, right? Are civil rights subject to popular opinion?
July 7, 2010, 9:59 pmOwen H. says:
QUibbling away in the guise of not quibbling. He didn’t say anything about homosexuality at all, bit sodomy. That is a specific set of acts, that many straight people also enjoy. Going after them too?
July 7, 2010, 10:00 pmLester Livio says:
Hold on a second!
Homophobia (defined in the popular lingo as fear of homosexuality/homosexuals) is a feeling, a belief or an attitude, not an action. Homophilia (love of homosexuality) is also a feeling, a belief or an attitude, not an action. Under the First Amendment the former is as legitimate as the latter. Your conflation of feelings, beliefs and actions might make sense in Europe but not in the U.S.
July 7, 2010, 10:08 pmptt says:
I suspect what you’re observing is that several people know you now claim to have homosexual or lesbian “psychology”. Perhaps they’re just saying that so you’ll stop interacting with them.
As per Gov. Lingle (R), referendum, I guess.
July 8, 2010, 12:41 amHenry says:
Furthermore, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II).
This decision was a significant victory for homosexual activists, and they have continued to claim that the APA based their decision on new scientific discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal and should be affirmed in our culture.
This is false and part of numerous homosexual urban legends that have infiltrated every aspect of our culture. The removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder has given homosexual activists credibility in the culture, and they have demanded that their sexual behavior be affirmed in society.
What Really Happened?
Numerous psychiatrists over the past decades have described what forces were really at work both inside and outside of the American Psychiatric Association-and what led to the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder.
Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. (1981)
In Chapter 4, “Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association,” Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA’s convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, “Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you.”
Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured.
Kameny had found an ally inside of the APA named Kent Robinson who helped the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexuality be removed from the DSM. At the 1972 convention, homosexual activists were permitted to set up a display booth, entitled “Gay, Proud and Healthy.”
Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists who were to discuss homosexuality. The effort to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, not scientific discoveries.
Prior to the APA’s 1973 convention, several psychiatrists attempted to organize opposition to the efforts of homosexuals to remove homosexual behavior from the DSM. Organizing this effort were Drs. Irving Bieber and Charles Socarides who formed the Ad Hoc Committee Against the Deletion of Homosexuality from DSM-II.
The DSM-II listed homosexuality as an abnormal behavior under section “302. Sexual
Dr. Charles Socarides has set the record straight on how homosexuals inside and outside of the APA forced this organization to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. This was done without any valid scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a disordered behavior.
Dr. Socarides, writing in Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality writes: “To declare a condition a ‘non-condition,’ a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved an out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years…”
Socarides continued: “For the next 18 years, the APA decision served as a Trojan horse, opening the gates to widespread psychological and social change in sexual customs and mores. The decision was to be used on numerous occasions for numerous purposes with the goal of normalizing homosexuality and elevating it to an esteemed status.
“To some American psychiatrists, this action remains a chilling reminder that if scientific principles are not fought for, they can be lost-a disillusioning warning that unless we make no exceptions to science, we are subject to the snares of political factionalism and the propagation of untruths to an unsuspecting and uninformed public, to the rest of the medical profession, and to the behavioral sciences.” Dr. Socarides’ report is available from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality: http://www.narth.com.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DSM
The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is the most widely used diagnostic reference book utilized by mental health professionals in the United States.
It’s a manual by which all diagnostic codes are derived for diagnosis and treatment – every single physician (an estimated 850,000*) in the United States refers to this book in order to code for a diagnosis. In plain English, what does this mean? It means that for over 30 years physicians have been prevented from properly diagnosing homosexuality as an aberrant behavior and thus, cannot, recommend a course of treatment for these individuals.
Prior to that time, homosexuality had been treated as a mental disorder under section “302. Sexual Deviations” in the DSM-II. Section 302 said, in part: “This category is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward objects other than people of the opposite sex, toward sexual acts … performed under bizarre circumstances. … Even though many find their practices distasteful, they remain unable to substitute normal sexual behavior for them.” Homosexuality was listed as the first sexual deviation under 302. Once that diagnostic code for homosexuality was removed, physicians, including psychiatrists, have been prevented from diagnosing homosexuality as a mental disorder for more than three decades.
*American Medical Association statistic, 2002.
A U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction regarding policies for retiring or separating service members due to physical disability was made public on June 20, 2006. The document, which lists homosexuality as a mental disorder, was made official in 1996 and recertified in 2003. The relevant portion of the document states: E5.1.2.9. Certain Mental Disorders including: E5.1.2.9.6. Homosexuality”
July 8, 2010, 1:23 amJune 20, 2006 Department of Defense
(Read a PDF of the DoD Instruction pages listing homosexuality as a mental disorder)
zuch says:
The quackster organisation NARTH and “Dr.” Socarides, eh? Might add in Paul Cameron as well and make it a full party. Oh, Henry, you have some issues you ought to resolve….
Cheers,
July 8, 2010, 1:40 amAlessandra says:
One can always suspect anything. Like Owen H. could suspect that the increase is caused by UFOs secretly invading the Earth or genetic mutation. But just suspecting without having any real basis to confirm your suspicions is not saying much, is it?
July 8, 2010, 3:03 amAlessandra says:
Henry: Furthermore, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II).
Homosexuality is not the only psychological dysfunction the APA removed from their DSM in 1973.
In the DSM-III, the American Psychiatric Association contended that merely acting upon one’s urges toward children was considered sufficient to generate a diagnosis of pedophilia. But then a few years later, in the DSM-IV, the APA changed its criteria so that a person who molested children was considered to have a psychiatric disorder only if his actions “caused clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.” In other words, a man who molested children without remorse, and without experiencing significant impairment in his social and work relationships, could be diagnosed by a clinician as a “psychologically normal” type of pedophile.
Who challenged the APA on their normalization of pedophilia?
I’ll give you a hint here, zuch, it wasn’t the quackster APA themselves.
I’ll give you another hint, the quacsters at APA were forced to rewrite their DSM.
I think that people throwing “having issues” stones at Henry, might have a couple of issues themselves.
July 8, 2010, 3:17 amAlessandra says:
Owen H. says:
“QUibbling away in the guise of not quibbling. He [Oren] didn’t say anything about homosexuality at all,”
OrenWithAnE: As has been discussed to death, 80% of the 95% of Americans that are straight are sodomites.
Like “straight” and “not straight” refer to how many people are fat, not sexuality, right?
July 8, 2010, 3:27 amyankee says:
Wouldn’t that be “95% of Americans who are round” then?
July 8, 2010, 3:39 amptt says:
Hey, at least I was just making a joke. You debate policy on the same terms.
July 8, 2010, 4:05 amAlessandra says:
The French have tried to completely criminalize thought AND speech, but they have somewhat failed. (so far)
Voltaire has had multiple post-mortem heart attacks in his grave, but times have changed. His ideas are completely despised and attacked in modern France and in several other European countries. One example was the Christian Vanneste saga.
http://www.philippebilger.com/blog/2008/11/la-cour-de-cassation-et-christian-vanneste-une-victoire.html
July 8, 2010, 4:17 amJon Rowe says:
The entire concept of “mental disorder” is relatively new and has nothing to do with the Bible or traditional morality. It’s a Freudian concept and uses morally relativistic terms.
Pedophilia is wrong because it harms children period. Whether one analyzes it under some pseudo-scientific rubric of “mental disorder” is irrelevant.
July 8, 2010, 9:00 amKen Arromdee says:
On the other hand it could be an example of something that existed before the Internet, but which the Internet has made us familiar with: people who say outrageous things and then add “but I was only joking”. Often “I was only joking” is used as an excuse to say things that the person really desires but finds that he can’t say in polite company and might need to disclaim later.
July 8, 2010, 9:29 amMatthew says:
July 8, 2010, 10:25 amMatthew says:
I like that comparison, a lot. And I hate to break it to the social cons, but plenty of us on the wrong side of 30 think the same.
And I especially like it because it illustrates the sad, absurd obsession that underlies all social conservatism — the need to treat tradition as some sort of commanding value in itself. My wife was naturally left-handed, but her father fell victim to the notion that it was somehow “wrong.” When she was a child, he insisted on taking objects out of her left hand and putting them in her right. To this day, it causes her needless cognitive dissonance.
I see my many, many gay friends the same way. They have a particular attribute that is the less common of two possibilities in the general population, and there is nothing else remarkable about them. And I have nothing to say to those who stand in the way of their happiness except that tradition just isn’t more important than love or reason. This is the rare issue on which I don’t think there is legitimate room for disagreement.
July 8, 2010, 10:41 amOrenWithAnE says:
I accepted your correction and noted that it doesn’t change the fact that American is a super-majority-sodomite nation.
Irrespective of whether there are 1%, 5% or 15% gays in our society, the percentage of sodomites — a population overwhelmingly dominated by straights — is in excess of 70%.
July 8, 2010, 10:50 amMichael Ejercito says:
The problem is that gender discrimination is not held to the same level of scrutiny as racial discrimination.
The Supreme Court has in the past upheld gender discrimination in cases where analogous racial discrimination would have been struck down (Minor v. Happersett, Baker v. Nelson, Rostker v. Goldberg, Michael M. v. Superior Court. Note that Minor’s application to suffrage laws was effectively gutted by the 19th Amendment.)
Protection of our civil rights is subject to the amendment processes of state constitutions and the United States Constitution. Popular opinion does affect the probability than a constitution would be amended to expand or reduce the scope of constitutional protections.
July 8, 2010, 11:24 amMichael Ejercito says:
The Catholic Church does teach that homosexuals are to be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.
July 8, 2010, 11:56 amRandy says:
Alessandra: “Where? Why the need to lie about what I wrote? Why the cheap intellectual dishonesty?”
I didn’t lie. Here is what you actually said: ”
This is why we never see any homosexuality zealot in these Internet discussions …. concerning homosexuals or bisexuals as perpetrators of aggression or violence.
[S]ilence and denial about aggression and violence only further severely damage the victims, ensure the harmful dynamics continue unaddressed, and they give a green light to further violence by the perpetrators.
Homosexual propaganda fits like a glove in any highly violent and irresponsible society like the US that has endemic and epidemic sexuality and personal relationship issues.”
If you have any evidence at all that gays are perpetrators of violence to any degree greater than the general population, then please provide it. That’s all I ask. You continually fail to do so. Therefore, we can only conclude that you just make this stuff up.
“Alessandra: I hope you are not mentally impaired…
randy: ”Why the need for being gratuitously nasty?
Guess what making some cheap strawman is?”
Wow. You insult me, and when called on it, you merely accuse me of raising a strawman?
July 8, 2010, 12:05 pmzuch says:
Are you saying that a person who engages in pedophile acts won’t have “significant impairment in his social and work relationships”?!?!?
Pedophilia (or acting on it) has never been decriminalised. The APA here, as it seems to have done in many places, is defining a disease, and it does that with respect to the individual involved. APA will never define shoplifting to be “normal” or “non-criminal” … that is not its job … but will understand that there are people who are “normal” psychologically who steal, and there are people who are kleptomaniacs. Both may well end up in prison (depending on the acts committed and the laws of the state), but in the one situation, any therapy ought to take into account the “diagnosis” of the individual, as that helps in designing appropriate therapy if any. After all, that’s the meaning of “DSM”: “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual”.
But you’re ignoring the quacksterism of NARTH, which claims that homosexuality is a disease and that it can (or even should) be cured.
I’m comfortable about my sexuality. And yours (or, oh, Henry’s) is not my bidness.
Cheers,
July 8, 2010, 12:10 pmRandy says:
Henry: “Dr. Charles Socarides has set the record straight on how homosexuals inside and outside of the APA forced this organization to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. This was done without any valid scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a disordered behavior.”
Sorry, Henry, but not at all true. Mr. Socarides (whose professional license was actually removed because of his continuous failure to abide by professional standards), is clearly lying.
The reason the APA removed homosexuality from the DPM is based upon extensive research conducted by Dr. Evelyn Hooker throughout the 1960s. Her work was peer reviewed and published in prestigious journals.
The APA website states all this quite clearly, in order to clear up the lies of the TVC and other anti-gay organizations. Apparently, you didn’t get the memo, preferring falsehoods that confirm your bias rather than the truth of what actually happened. But don’t believe me — just do your own research in to the matter.
Furthermore, since 1973, there have been more studies which have supported the pioneering work of Dr. Hooker, and there have been no studies, despite several attempts, to prove that homosexuality is any sort of mental disorder. Again, if you find any scientifically valid studies that prove otherwise, please provide it.
But I do find it amusing that people like you and Alessandra go to such great lengths to portray gay people as liars, mentally ill, disturbed, violent, and determined to destroy America’s cherished values. Fortunately, even among conservatives, a majority of Americans find nothing wrong with gays, according to recent polls. Especially among the younger generation, people simply don’t care whether some people are gay or not, and they don’t even care if it’s a choice or not. As others have said, why should anyone care what someone else does in their bedroom?
Yet, apparently, you and Alessandra do. And in an attempt to convince others of how evil gays are, you resort to comical portrayals that are so bizarre and unhinged that you only make yourselves look paranoid. If either of you think that you are convincing others of how evil or troubled gays are as a group, you aren’t. In fact, you are failing spectacularly. When today, almost half of all Americans believe gays should allowed to get married, up from almost nothing just 15 years ago, you are clearly failing.
July 8, 2010, 12:16 pmMichael Ejercito says:
So do you expect the gay “marriage” amendment in Colorado to pass?
July 8, 2010, 12:19 pmyankee says:
That’s not really the problem. It’s one thing to say that SSM bans are sex discrimination but they meet the intermediate scrutiny standard, and another to say they’re not forms of sex discrimination at all. Virtually every American court to consider the issue has rejected the argument that SSM bans are a form of sex discrimination, so they never reached the intermediate scrutiny issue. The only exception was the Hawai’i court in Baehr, which remanded rather than applying the intermediate scrutiny standard itself. The case was then mooted on remand by state constitutional amendment.
July 8, 2010, 12:26 pmyankee says:
Absolutely not. Even if Colorado were ready to legalize SSM (which I doubt) the wording of the initiative would mandate recognition of incestuous marriages in addition to same-sex marriages.
July 8, 2010, 12:31 pmBarb says:
From V’s post:
I thought Hawaii’s electorate had recently defined marriage as between a man and a woman. So their little supreme court had a different opinion and the legislature followed suit? And the governor is trying to help the will of the people prevail over the benighted minority who doesn’t see any difference between a man and a woman –and sees nothing wrong with establishing couples as heads of families who will adopt and use all kinds of artificial means to raise children who will follow in their sexperimental, sexually confused footsteps –and be denied BY NEW MARRIAGE DEFINITION what benefits children most: a father and a mother.
July 8, 2010, 12:52 pmMichael Ejercito says:
It is poorly written, I agree.
A state constitutional amendment stating that marriage is “defined as a union of two persons regardless of gender” and that “the state shall not deny the rights and privileges of marriage on the basis of gender” would not have this problem.
Their electorate passed an amendment that gives the legislature power to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The legislature could refuse to exercise this power, or even define marriage as between two (or more) persons regardless of gender.
So SSM bans are not discrimination at all. Which would be true, since no SSM ban had applied exclusively to women, or black people, or any identifiable group.
I would surmise though, that an SSM ban applying only to women would not even pass rational basis review.
July 8, 2010, 1:04 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Barb, the people of HI passed an amendment telling the judiciary not to interfere with the legislative definition of marriage. They did not codify a particular definition, they only assigned to a particular branch of government plenary authority to make that definition.
FWIW, I would have voted in favor of such an amendment, if it were presented to me.
July 8, 2010, 1:05 pmyankee says:
No. Hawai’i's pre-1993 marriage statute was passed by the legislature, not by the people. After the state supreme court’s decision in Baehr, the state constitution was amended to allow the legislature to restrict marriage to one man and one woman, which the legislature immediately did. The pre-Baehr marriage statute was never actually struck down because the amendment was passed before the lower court decided the issue on remand.
The Hawai’i amendment is the only U.S. marriage amendment that permits the legislature to allow same-sex marriages.
July 8, 2010, 1:14 pmBarb says:
If Dr. Socarides was so discredited professionally as Randy claims, why is the following statement true of him?
He died at 83 in 2005 –so he must have worked in his profession until age 74 by my figuring. Pretty good for someone discredited by the loony APA –whose members did not approve of what their leadership did on the subject of homosexuality –and since then, the APA, has more modestly and accurately asserted that the jury is still out on the cause of homosexuality. Therefore, they can’t also be sure that it isn’t mental illness nor discredit NARTH members who believe that homosexuals have a right to reparative therapy if they want it — nor discredit ex-gays as their PC leadership tried to do.
It’s certainly something gone awry between the ears when a person wants to experience sodomy in preference to normal sex for which the body is designed. Don’t people have enough trouble with that part of the body without trying to put things in where things are only supposed to come out? I suspect homosexuality is more of an affliction and disability to repair than either a choice or genetic/congenital condition. Though I would think that experimental choices can lead to early sex addiction and damaged sexual self-image –just as sexploitation by others can do to a youngster.
July 8, 2010, 1:16 pmyankee says:
I disagree about the merits of the sex discrimination argument, but the courts have not agreed with me. (Some) state supreme courts have found same-sex marriage bans to be discriminatory, but they’ve all found sexual orientation discrimination, not sex discrimination. Baehr is the only exception: it found sex discrimination but never reached the constitutionality question.
July 8, 2010, 1:21 pmBarb says:
I say there is no lack of rights for homosexuals: they have an equal civil RIGHT to marry someone of the opposite sex –according to the definition of marriage that has stood since the beginning of history. If they want a different arrangement, it isn’t marriage. “Marriage” has the potential of providing both mother and father for a child brought up by the married couple –barring death and divorce and age or other natural disability. Homosexual “marriage” by definition cannot produce or provide both parents to children brought into the home.
July 8, 2010, 1:24 pmyankee says:
I take it you’re A-OK with lesbians then? They’re not particularly into anal sex so far as I know.
July 8, 2010, 1:25 pmyankee says:
Should I take this to mean that you’re fine with civil unions? Going back to the OP, Lambda Legal is suing for civil unions, not marriage.
July 8, 2010, 1:28 pmHarryEagar says:
The state constitution of 1978 requires that every 10 years, the voters be asked whether to call a constitutional convention. So far, they always say no, by a large margin.
July 8, 2010, 1:32 pmBarb says:
NOt anal –oral maybe. Don’t kid yourself. 80% of married women surely do not allow anal sex perpetrated on them. Victimized and subjugated women, maybe. Normal, enlightened women are not sticking anything up there nor allowing it. I have a lot of women friends –and one kicked hubby to the curb for wanting to do this to her in his drunken stupors. They have also discussed lesbians they have known and agree that they don’t know many with gender identity disorder that they should want to be with a woman for that reason–but see them as women who found men to be disagreeable, insensitive louts –and had no moral convictions (in today’s climate of immorality) about a “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” arrangement with a girlfriend –and “we’ll share child-rearing tasks and expenses while we are at it.” A lesbian once said on line that straights would be surprised at how little sex activity lesbians engage in, living together.
July 8, 2010, 1:37 pmMichael Ejercito says:
I’ve no problems with civil union, domestic partnerships, or farriages.
My position on this issue is based upon the fact that I have been taught since childhood that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that marriage is the foundation of a family. Furthermore, said beliefs have never led to the conclusion that I must hate homosexuals or Mormons.
Furthermore, the idea that defining marriage between man and woman was created just to oppress homosexuals is belied by history. As the Supreme Court ruled in Murphy v. Ramsey,
Murphy had nothing to do with homosexuals or homosexuality. In fact, it does provide a precedential basis for states defining marriage as between one man and one woman (and for Congress doing the same in jurisdictions where it exercises police powers) to withstand intermediate and possibly strict scrutiny.
July 8, 2010, 1:40 pmyankee says:
I agree. Oral sex, however, is also a form of sodomy, and was covered under American sodomy laws until most of them were repealed in the 1970′s. So the point remains.
July 8, 2010, 1:42 pmBarb says:
I don’t think “civil unions” are necessary and breaking them will just clutter up the courts. There are other ways to have contractual benefits and agreements with partners of various sorts. Civil union is again a condoning of sodomy –of homosexual union. In our city, they make the couple STATE that theirs is a SEXUAL UNION –so again, the gov’t is in the business of condoning sodomy with civil unions, same as SSM.
July 8, 2010, 1:43 pmLester Livio says:
What most people (homophiles and homophobes) do not realize is that so-called “gay marriage” was invented –and equated with civil rights–by liberals and libertarians to domesticate homosexuality (It is a substantial government interest to reduce anonymous gay sex in seedy bathhouses and reduce the high rates of HIV and STDs among the gay male population).
The irony is that while heterosexuals are fleeing marriage in droves, homosexuals are being told “marriage” is the civil rights Nirvana! Very clever, conservative sleigh of hand indeed.
The problem with this domestication plan is that the majority of Americans did not read it.
July 8, 2010, 1:52 pmMichael Ejercito says:
Which is true.
However, civil union does not elicit the same emotional response in people as marriage. Consider this, why are civil unions not enough for some same-sex couples? Why do they insist on having their unions be called marriages? It is because marriage has a deep historical and traditional meaning in our society. And people who feel that legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would mean state approval of same-sex sodomy may feel that civil union is simply a bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo.
July 8, 2010, 1:55 pmBarb says:
What consenting adults do in their bedrooms would not be our business at all –unless injuries occur and we’re expected to pay for them. But we don’t quibble about that –in the name of compassion, I guess.
July 8, 2010, 1:57 pm“The marriage bed is undefiled” according to the Bible, so Christian counselors and sex educators pretty much say that whatever is mutually enjoyed by a married couple, between just him and her, is “undefiled.” But it’s pretty hard to keep the defilement out of anal sex and the tastes and smells out of either. And I truly do not know any women–except the one who endured anal sex just once. I suspect that sodomy of both kinds was NOT practiced by our grandparents’ generation at all. They didn’t have daily showers, after all. Sodomy is really a weird idea that is passed on by people telling others that this is all part of a healthy sex life. Our elders had a lot of dignity and self-control in the old days –with separate bedrooms even! After all, there wasn’t much good birth control either, so inhibitions were a good thing.
Barb says:
I know this is part of the motivation– but older homosexuals, in particular, are slowing down and want a faithful partner. I wonder if the younger gays are so eager to wed. Marriage is a pledge of commitment –and yes, the straights are unwilling to make that leap these days –wanting an easy out when the relationship goes sour. Homosexuals, however, ARE seeking legitimacy for what they do –wanting respect for their difference –and wanting young sexually confused people to enter into the gay life without reluctance, embarrassment, etc. But I think the reluctance and the embarrassment are positives if they keep some youth from making deadly mistakes with STD’s –and getting addicted to abnormal sex before they mature and find out they aren’t gay after all. I understand there is a percentage of young people who experiment and think themselves gay–until later 20′s and decide they can be normal after all.
July 8, 2010, 2:06 pmBarb says:
They’re sinning sodomites, too, by biblical definition –but I think there are very few “real” lesbians who prefer women over men for sexual intimacy –who really “turn on” to women. I suspect they are people who want sexual experience with someone non-objectionable and find most men who would have them, objectionable. They see themselves as unattractive and unfeminine to and with the opposite sex.
E.G. Rosie O’Donnel. She would’ve been happy to have Tom Cruise interested in her –but he wouldn’t be and she knew it –so she tried a woman. I think she always felt ‘different” and “unattractive” to men of interest. Same with a lesbian I know well.
July 8, 2010, 2:15 pmJon Rowe says:
Maybe some Christians counsel this way, but those influenced by Thomism (not just Roman Catholics btw) hold the “end” of sex is procreation which means no condoms, no pulling out and oral sex is permitted ONLY as a means to the end of procreative coitus and never as an end in itself.
Everything else is “sodomy.” Not sure if Christian couples ever lived up to this ideal; they sure aren’t living up to it today. But this is part and parcel of the same the traditional Christian ideal that frowns on homosexual sodomy.
It’s not for everyone; but there are plenty of women who enjoy anal sex. And heterosexual men who like to be penetrated in that area.
July 8, 2010, 2:29 pmJon Rowe says:
“If Dr. Socarides was so discredited professionally as Randy claims,…”
Have we mentioned yet his gay son who turned out to be one of the most notable gay rights activists of the Clinton era? If mother father relations cause homosexuality as Socarides claimed (and he puts the blame MORE ON THE FATHER) you’d think he of all people would be able to prevent it from happening to his own son.
July 8, 2010, 2:35 pmyankee says:
FWIW, until someone presents some actual evidence, all this stuff about how many women enjoy anal sex, how many women are “real” lesbians, how many straight men enjoy anal penetration, how many people had oral sex in the early 1900′s, etc. is all rank speculation.
July 8, 2010, 2:49 pmJon Rowe says:
“A lesbian once said on line that straights would be surprised at how little sex activity lesbians engage in, living together.”
There’s probably less sex in a lesbian relationship and more sex in a gay male relationship than with heterosexuals. Women have significantly lower testosterone levels than men and consequently libidos that, on average, aren’t as strong as men. Yes, there are all sorts of exceptions and folks on different ends of the bell curve. I’m talking about averages though. Women tend to be more heart/emotionally driven when it comes to mates, men more sexually driven. This might explain why women, more than men seem to have wavering sexual orientations. What the heart wants is more amorphous than what the libido wants.
July 8, 2010, 2:52 pmRandy says:
michael: “So do you expect the gay “marriage” amendment in Colorado to pass?”
Eventually, yes. When I don’t know. But it’s only a matter of time.
Lester: “What most people (homophiles and homophobes) do not realize is that so-called “gay marriage” was invented –and equated with civil rights–by liberals and libertarians to domesticate homosexuality.”
And if that were true (which it isn’t — gay marriage was invented so that gays could enjoy the same rights as straights do), so what?
I guess your point is that society should treat gays as lepers — discriminate against them, fire them from jobs, kick them out of the house if they are your kids. And it upsets you that people don’t hate gays as much as they used to. In other words, we are normalized as normal human beings.
Hey — no one’s saying you can’t hate gays or spit on our houses when you walk by. But we deserve the rights as anyone else. As SCOTUS says, merely animosity towards a group isn’t enough reason to deny them rights. Apparently, for you, mere animosity is enough.
July 8, 2010, 3:00 pmJon Rowe says:
“It’s certainly something gone awry between the ears when a person wants to experience sodomy in preference to normal sex for which the body is designed. Don’t people have enough trouble with that part of the body without trying to put things in where things are only supposed to come out?”
Well if the lack of desire to experience normal sex is a mental illness then Jesus was mentally ill, as are many of the notable celibate Saints in Christendom.
Re what the body was designed for, I think someone else pointed out the mouth was no more “designed” for sex than is the anus. The vast majority of heterosexuals (who have oral sex) must then be mentally ill.
July 8, 2010, 3:02 pmRandy says:
For some reason, this thread really brought all the loonies. There is a small but defiant crowd that insists that gays are mentally disturbed and therefore don’t deserve any rights. I say defiant, because it goes against all the research. But no matter — We are supposed to be hated, shunned, and denied all rights because of our supposed mental illness.
Interestingly, there ARE plenty of people who are mentally ill. Of all of those, I can’t think of a single one of them that people such as Lester, Henry, Alessandra, or Barb would say should be hated, shunned, drummed out of the family or denied rights.
And everyone of them — assuming they are straight — have marriage rights! Prisoners can marry, and so can the most mentally disturbed person on the planet. But gays? Apparently, we are so uniquely mentally ill that we are not allowed even basic rights to have sex.
Very bizarre.
July 8, 2010, 3:05 pmyankee says:
I don’t think it’s Christian doctrine that the saints were without libido; they simply resisted temptation. I’m not sure what Christians think of Jesus’s sex drive; did he resist the temptation to have sex just as he resisted other temptations?
July 8, 2010, 3:13 pmJon Rowe says:
I think a big problem is the idea of mental illness has been tainted with “ought” norms, when in principle, a mental illness is supposed to be an illness — something that has nothing to do with morality or social norms, like laving high cholesterol.
The Left is just as bad in terming things like homophobia or racism mental disorders. But the idea that we will take our traditional social norms and call them “mental disorders” is so transparent that it should be obvious.
I think Clayton Cramer — a regular commenter here — has a schizophrenic brother. If there is such a thing as “mental illness” that’s it. Now see how he feels lumping his brother in the same box with homosexuals and pedophiles because they are all “mentally ill.”
July 8, 2010, 3:14 pmyankee says:
It’s not just that they can marry, they have a constitutional right to do so, according to the Supreme Court.
July 8, 2010, 3:17 pmJon Rowe says:
Yankee,
I know you are a big social stats guy so you might take what I have to say with a grain of salt. I’m sure there are plenty of celibate saints who had normal heterosexual desires. But a disproportionate number of them (i.e., Roman Catholic Priests) probably had homosexual desires. Does that make them “mentally ill” because they didn’t desire to mate with members of the opposite but rather the same sex?
So I don’t think they were without libidos. I DO think that many of them had libidos directed towards members of the same sex.
July 8, 2010, 3:17 pmyankee says:
Where are the calls to add homophobia and racism to the DSM? Anti-gay activists are still protesting homosexuality’s removal.
July 8, 2010, 3:26 pmAlessandra says:
Alessandra: “Where? Why the need to lie about what I wrote? Why the cheap intellectual dishonesty?”
Randy: I didn’t lie.Here is what you actually said: ”
This is why we never see any homosexuality zealot in these Internet discussions (and similar ones outside the Internet) take the initiative to inform anyone about any problem concerning homosexuals or bisexuals as perpetrators of aggression or violence.
==========
Where did I compare rates of violence between homosexuals and heterosexuals above?
Alessandra: “Either the homosexuality zealots outright lie, or they lie by omission, or they trivialize any related issues or data. And specially if the question involves heterosexuals or minors as victims, then the propaganda machine goes into full gear. ”
Where did I compare rates of violence between homosexuals and heterosexuals above?
Alessandra: “[S]ilence and denial about aggression and violence only further severely damage the victims, ensure the harmful dynamics continue unaddressed, and they give a green light to further violence by the perpetrators.”
Where did I compare rates of violence between homosexuals and heterosexuals above?
Alessandra: “Homosexual propaganda fits like a glove in any highly violent and irresponsible society like the US that has endemic and epidemic sexuality and personal relationship issues.”
Where did I compare rates of violence between homosexuals and heterosexuals above?
===============
Randy: July 7, 2010, 8:13 pm
You are the one making the charges that gays are more violent that straight people.
Randy: If you have any evidence at all that gays are perpetrators of violence to any degree greater than the general population, then please provide it.That’s all I ask.
=========
Why do you insist on lying that I compared rates of violence between homosexuals and heterosexuals?
Guess what making some cheap strawman is? It’s plainly dishonest.
”Wow.You insult me, and when called on it, you merely accuse me of raising a strawman?
You made a cheap strawman, you insist on lying about it, and then you say I insulted you.
You’re sniffing glue like the twats in the other thread.
July 8, 2010, 3:52 pmAlessandra says:
But so was Father Shanley, very comfortable. In fact, he was probably even more comfortable with his homosexual pedophile sexuality than you are with yours (supposing it’s a tad different). You see, the more you lack a wholesome and healthy psychology, the more comfortable you are with violence or harmful attitudes and behaviors, whether they involve sexuality or not.
Thus claiming that one is comfortable with one’s sexuality as if that was deserving of some pedestal is only for ridiculous liberals who don’t understand much about dysfunctional psychology, nor that humans can actually be comfortable with murder, torture, rape, etc, depending on their psychological make-up. Stick a medal on your forehead if you haven’t figured that out yet.
It’s for this reason that I completely disagree with your attitude that other people’s sexuality are not anyone’s business. This is probably the most irresponsible attitude one can have in a society rife with violence and harmful behavior in just about any arena of sexuality and personal relationships. Sexuality and all its related problems are everybody’s business.
Unfortunately, you can care less, but silence and denial about aggression and violence only further severely damage the victims, ensure the harmful dynamics continue unaddressed, and they give a green light to further violence by the perpetrators.
July 8, 2010, 4:05 pmJon Rowe says:
And I understand Stalin was extremely comfortable with his heterosexuality.
July 8, 2010, 4:17 pmAlessandra says:
If only this were merely a question of quibbling with irrelevant numbers…
First, if the numbers of homo and bisexuals are increasing at significant rates, given that there has been a profound cultural normalization of homosexuality at the time, and this is just one more historical and anthropological example that human sexuality is highly impacted by culture (among other factors), and not determined by some nonexistent homosexuality gene, this is a very serious question.
It means that all those people claiming that homosexuality is caused by some UFO gene are too ignorant to understand how environment and personal history deform, impact, and shape psycho-sexual dynamics in a person’s mind. It also shows that every time these homo gene fundamentalists have called someone homophobic or loony or ignorant, because the latter did not think that homosexuality is biologically determined, it was in fact the loony gene theorists that were behaving like stinking bigots.
Not a trivial question at all.
July 8, 2010, 4:28 pmAlessandra says:
Good grief, this guy is completely loony…
Do we need to even answer this? Zuch, go read the profiles of child abusers. First, a significant majority are successful professionals, like judges, lawyers, policemen, teachers, salespersons, doctors, preachers. Secondly, if you are implying child abusers are mentally retarded, you’ve read the wrong description in the APA. There is nothing that prevents a child abuser to be smart, to escape detection and justice and have absolutely normal work and social relationships. Just like domestic violence perpetrators. And rapists. In fact, they could come on this thread and post that they love gay rights and you would think the world of them.
In fact, given your willful naiveté on the subject, it could well be that some of your friends have harassed, beaten or abused someone. Happens all the time. And if all your friends are obsessed with normalizing homosexuality like you are, how ironic is that?
July 8, 2010, 4:59 pmChrisTS says:
Alessandra:
Way to support the civility mantle.
It appears that you did not say that homosexuals (gays and lesbians) are more violent than straights. However, one can understand Randy’s assuming your intention to imply that. After all, why obsess about violence within a minority group if the same kinds of violence occur far more frequently within the majority group? And, of course, they will be more frequent in the latter group given the raw numbers.
If you are interested in real data, look at the statistics for violence against women by their male partners and relatives.
July 8, 2010, 5:17 pmAlessandra says:
Way to prove your level of hypocrisy and lameness about who is lacking civility here.
July 8, 2010, 5:27 pmOwen H. says:
On a related note, a US District Court Judge in Boston ruled today that the DOMA is unconstitutional, violating the 10th and 14th Amendments.
July 8, 2010, 5:33 pmAlessandra says:
It doesn’t simply appear, it’s an undeniable fact.
ChrisTS: “However, one can understand Randy’s assuming your intention to imply that.”
I agree with you that we can, easily. When you don’t have any arguments, you malign your opponent with the first made-up cheap shot you can think of.
ChrisTS: “After all, why obsess about violence within a minority group if the same kinds of violence occur far more frequently within the majority group?”
“Far more frequently,” says the glue sniffer.
As everybody knows, silence and denial about aggression and violence only further severely damage the victims, ensure the harmful dynamics continue unaddressed, and they give a green light to further violence by the perpetrators.
Again, here we have the typical situation where homosexuality zealots, who systematically lie about and consequently endorse sexual violence of all kinds, posit themselves as defenders of some laudable principle. And people who refuse to support this real web of violence and ignorance are mischaracterized as having some vile mind and some sort of perverted motive.
Such a warped mischaracterization.
ChrisTS: ” And, of course, they will be more frequent in the latter group given the raw numbers. If you are interested in real data, look at the statistics for violence against women by their male partners and relatives.”
I would wager by the low level of your response that I have looked much more at stats for violence against women or men than you have.
Apparently you have missed the glue sniffers being exposed for their irresponsible propaganda on the subject in a recent thread. Please educate yourself:
http://volokh.com/2010/06/16/prop-8-trial-closing-arguments/
July 8, 2010, 6:05 pmHenry says:
You are not only a bunch of perverts you are also a bunch of idiots. You keep asking me what’s my point. My point is that sodomy is not only a mental decease, sodomy is also a moral decease called sin, and all sodomites should be institutionalized. If all filthy sodomites would be threatened with banishment to a deserted island, or threatened with banishment to the farthest reaches of space, sodomites would immediately shut the hell up, and they would run back to the closets they came from, and where they most assuredly belong. My other point is that the filthy crap packing community doesn’t need any especial treatment under the law, since the have the same treatment under the law as everyone else. Keep sodomizing inside your closet until the crap comes out of your ears, but don’t try to homosexualize the culture.
The reason the sodomites gained so much ground is because they are being tolerated by the majority of so-called Christians who are not only immoral, they are also the dumbed-down good for nothing scum of the earth being led by the unscrupulous, and greedy Christian clergy of America, which have revived the doomed kingdoms of Sodom and Gomorrah by silencing the voice of Jesus Christ, and by gagging themselves through the IRS 501c3 Tax- Exempt Code for a mere pittance of thirty silver coins.
These deceiving wolves in sheep clothing are misguiding the church straight into hell, by failing to warn the wicked as commanded by Jesus Christ, that if they don’t repent, and turn away from their sins they will not inherit the kingdom of God, neither the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexual offenders, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, swindlers, and all those who fail to speak up against all US Government legalized evil abominations such as Separation of Church and State, Affirmative Action, the Theory of Evolution, Abortion on Demand, Euthanasia, Divorce, Sodomy, and Same Sex Marriage. Take heed to Jesus stern warning found in Luke 13: 3, “Unless you repent, you too will all perish.”
July 8, 2010, 6:48 pmMichael Ejercito says:
It could be up for the ballot as early as 2010.
Even so, the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not entitle prisoners to marry someone of the same sex (Baker v. Nelson), nor more than two people at a time (Reynolds v. United States, Davis v. Beason, Murphy v. Ramsey)
July 8, 2010, 8:31 pmJon Rowe says:
Why don’t you tell us how you really feel Henry?
And don’t you have a funeral protest to go to?
July 8, 2010, 8:41 pmOwen H. says:
Henry, you missed a bit of spittle there on your chin.
July 8, 2010, 10:41 pmOwen H. says:
I’m sorry, that was probably too subtle.
Henry, you are a frothing-at-the-mouth, raving lunatic. You are free to believe what you want, this is America. But I am free to call you on it.
July 8, 2010, 10:42 pmOrenWithAnE says:
I don’t doubt it. Let’s say I accept all that. Rising homosexuality and bisexuality.
It’s still a fact that most straights practice sodomy and therefore that straights constitute most of the sodomites.
(1) 80% of Americans are sodomites.
(2) If anyone is going to banish anyone, it’s going to be us sodomites banishing the squares to an island, not vice versa.
(3) The idea of 20% of the population institutionalizing the remaining 80% is so laughable that it bears repeating often: 80% of people are “institutionalized”, the 20% are the sane ones. Riiiight.
I bet you often find that dozens of people are driving the wrong way down the freeway too.
We’re all going to perish brother. Dust to dust, ashes to ashes. The rain falls on the guilty and the innocent alike. That sort of thing.
July 8, 2010, 10:45 pmAlessandra says:
But the issue I raised, Oren, is why do you insist on discussing sodomy ad naseum but you remain silent about sexual harassment, rape, and domestic violence, to name a few? After all, they were all raised in this thread.
The answer was in my first post here:
This is why we never see any homosexuality zealot in these Internet discussions take the initiative to inform anyone about any problem concerning homosexuals or bisexuals as perpetrators of aggression or violence.
Either the homosexuality zealots outright lie, or they lie by omission, or they trivialize any related issues or data. And specially if the question involves heterosexuals or minors as victims, then the propaganda machine goes into full gear.
Thus they do form a profoundly irresponsible and damaging force in society, because as everybody knows, silence and denial about aggression and violence only further severely damage the victims, ensure the harmful dynamics continue unaddressed, and they give a green light to further violence by the perpetrators. ”
Isn’t there a compelling state interest to stop lying about who is violent in society? The systematic cover-up the homosexuality fundamentalists engage in is profoundly corrupt.
Furthermore, if we compare who does more violence to homosexuals, is it homosexuals themselves or is it heterosexuals, the answer is homosexuals by whopping numbers. Obviously, one of the most blatant reasons why homosexuality zealots want to lie about these issue all the time and call other people “full of hate.”
Maybe they should take a look at themselves sometime.
July 9, 2010, 4:19 amOrenWithAnE says:
I insist on discussing it because you have numerous times now made reference to ‘sodomites’ as if it referred to homosexuals when the vast majority of straights are sodomites and the vast majority of sodomites are straight.
July 9, 2010, 7:01 amAlessandra says:
Except that I haven’t discussed anywhere whether sodomy or sodomites refers to anyone of any category.
The only phrase I quoted in my response that even included the word “sodomite” was written by you.
That’s what’s funny about how irrational these homosexuality fundamentalists are. The posts are here for everyone to see, and they just lie away.
July 9, 2010, 7:42 amRob Berra says:
OK, Alessandra, I’ll bite. Since DOMA is the subject of this discussion, surely you are raising these subjects in the context of this discussion, no? What should we be saying about sexual harassment, rape, and domestic violence (to name a few) as they relate to same-sex marriage?
OK, since I’m not a homosexuality zealot, what should people be saying about homosexuals or bisexuals as perpetrators of aggression or violence?
Absolutely. Please explain who is violent in society and why.
Well, as you know there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics,” so let’s tread carefully here; after all, the violence on heterosexuals is probably mostly by heterosexuals, too. What information do we need to know that’s not being shared?
July 9, 2010, 7:47 amOrenWithAnE says:
And I was taught at childhood that protons were fundamental particles until some jerk decided to smash them in to quarks.
July 9, 2010, 10:17 amold f*rt says:
Yeah, you’ve got to watch out for those quarks.:) What with leptons and bosons and morons, who knows what you’ve got in your atoms these days? All the more reason for supporters of gay marriage to proceed with GREAT caution.
July 9, 2010, 2:44 pmBarb says:
So the agenda is about quickies in the johns –just as I thought. Marriage? Meaningful relationships? Not really what you’re looking for, is it Oren? AT least, that’s not what homosexuality means to those looking for strangers in bathrooms.
If you are referring to “men who have sex with men” who don’t call themselves homosexuals –who prefer romance and marriage with women but who are “on the downlow,” as in prison population, you may be right that many “straight” people commit sodomy. But if you claim that any but the most damaged, downtrodden women enjoy anal sodomy, you don’t know women and their marriages –or their intolerance for this sort of painful, gross act. In fact, I marvel that anyone wants to be penetrated in the behind. Certainly not the first time –therefore, I suspect all first acts of anal sodomy are rape. I can’t think that women very often WANT to give oral sex either –Selfishly, people are willing to RECEIVE any act that feels good –but that doesn’t make all such acts healthy, normal, commendable or mutually enjoyed by the participants.
July 9, 2010, 3:22 pmBarb says:
and you were taught the truth –taught well. When we start to teach otherwise, as is happening now, we shall see a lot more sexperimenters exploring their sexuality and thinking they have a choice of gender and orientation. That never occured to you and me. It IS immorality.
July 9, 2010, 3:26 pmBarb says:
Could’ve fooled me!
July 9, 2010, 3:28 pmAlessandra says:
LOL! that was so nice! I’ll have to remember that one… :-)
July 9, 2010, 3:33 pmBarb says:
God said the man and woman would be “one flesh” and he called this “knowing” one another. So sex involves intimacy and there is nothing in the Bible that says man and wife should only come together for procreative purpose. IN fact, in the beginning, I don’t think they even KNEW how babies were made –they were just instinctively designed to come together as man with wife. Jesus reiterated the teaching that man and woman were created for one another –but I’m pretty sure I’m right to say it was Catholic teaching, not biblical teaching, that stipulated intercourse ONLY for procreation and not for pleasure or intimacy. Same way with birth control –People think a sovereign God wouldn’t want us interfering with the procreation process in marriage –but that’s not biblical either. Those are the fatalists who think mankind has no control over anything. ON the contrary, we are stewards of our lives, our resources, our bodies. And we are to be good stewards. That might not mean you HAVE to be willing to parent 20 children if God lets it happen in your marriage. You fix leaky roofs which protect you. No Biblical law against leak-proof condoms, etc. which protect a woman from too many pregnancies too close together.
July 9, 2010, 3:41 pmBarb says:
Correction above –I think if God lets you have 20 children, by all means PARENT them and thank the Lord for your full quiver –like the exemplary Duggar family on tv –but I’m saying I don’t think God will fault us for “family planning” , spacing children, as long as we aren’t killing our babies in the womb. I think He is in partnership with His followers for the babies that come to them. But there isn’t anything in the bible to suggest that sexual pleasure and intimacy aren’t also ends of intercourse. When God made Eve, He was looking for a helpmeet for Adam. And provided a woman. It doesn’t say her only purpose with Adam was procreation. And the 2 became one flesh. Wonderful!
July 9, 2010, 3:51 pmRob Berra says:
Well, I don’t think I’ll be putting “fooling Barb” on my list of Top Ten Intellectual Challenges Overcome…
But, you see, Barb, I’m really not a “homosexuality zealot” (whatever that is). I’m a fairness, equality, and justice zealot, and I offer no quarter to the enemies of those very American values.
Now, if you want to come out against those things–put your personal tastes, beliefs, and prejudices above those principles–feel free, but that will say some things about your character that I wouldn’t want said about mine. YMMV…
July 9, 2010, 5:01 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Neither a difficult feat nor a rare occurrence, in my judgment.
And while you are entitled to enjoy whatever level of kink pleases you, I am confident your god was no part of the partnership that produced my children. My wife and I flew solo. I actually looked around once in a while to be sure, particularly after the first child became ambulatory.
To your credit, your tolerance of condoms entitles you to assert that there are religious adherents with views even more extreme and destructive than yours.
July 9, 2010, 5:09 pmHenry says:
Soon, the sodomites will succeed in legalizing Pedophilia, the act of an adult engaging in sexual activities with a child or children, followed by Incest, the act of engaging in sexual activities between persons closely related, and Bestiality, the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal or animals, and they may even manage to legalize Necrophilia, the act of engaging in sexual relations with a corpse. Now that the sodomites have been emboldened for their success in legalizing Same Sex Marriage there is nothing to prevent them from marrying mere children as soon as they succeed in lowering the age of consent through NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association
July 9, 2010, 7:51 pmOrenWithAnE says:
This is the least wonderful thing I have read all day.
July 9, 2010, 9:18 pmBarb says:
And why should it be wonderful? I haven’t read anything by you (or anyone else) that I’d call wonderful. We’re not trying to write wonderfully, are we??? Hadn’t thought of it like that. The wonderful thing I was referencing was hetero marital union. If you can’t agree, I’m sorry for you.
July 10, 2010, 12:19 amBarb says:
Henry, I don’t think we are close to condoning these other perversions in the US –there still seems to be general condemnation for pedophiles, and those who would harm animals –but then, whoever thought we would be contemplating SSM in America? or anywhere else for that matter? Actually, we toyed with incest before and teacher student relations –as early as the 1970′s when they had some steamy made for tv movies –one featuring mother and son and one with female teacher and student (before the actual high profile cases.) And the Mrs. Robinson movie about older woman and young man. Our culture has been messed up for several decades –at least since the hippies and the infamous “sexual revolution” –and Roe vs. Wade in 1973.
July 10, 2010, 12:28 amBarb says:
Did it all on your own, eh? what we call the “miracle of life.” And you guys think I’m intellectually deprived….whooeee!
July 10, 2010, 12:38 amBarb says:
Of course there are –and I deny my views are destructive at all. I’m not the one voting for abortion –or encouraging youngsters to have gay sex by celebrating and condoning such unions. I’m not the one recommending female “circumcision” by a “surgical nick” to a young girl’s body. I don’t believe in murdering homosexuals as in Iran –even though their couplings are gross, unseemly, even repugnant to normal sensitivities. I’m not recommending unlimited porn such that our men are becoming addicts at a young age and segueing to become online predators, seeking teen girls. I’m not one who says drugs should be legal so we can quit jailing people for selling and using –so that even more people will try drugs and become addicts. I don’t believe in selling kids or anyone into sex slavery.
My views destructive? It’s liberals’ views that are destructive and corruptive.
July 10, 2010, 12:51 amHenry says:
While America burns, the Pastors of America peddle their latest self-centered books, DVD’s, and CD’s conceived inside the bowels of hell. Pastors today are nothing more than crowd pleasing self-gagged prostitutes of the Internal Revenue Service under the 501c3 Tax-Exempt Code, experts in deceiving the masses all across America, and the World.
The Clergy of America are blind, they all lack knowledge; they are all mute dogs, they cannot bark; they lie around and dream, they love to sleep. They are dogs with mighty appetites; they never have enough. They are shepherds who lack understanding; they all turn to their own way, each seeks his own gain. Come, each one cries, let me get wine let us drink our fill of beer and tomorrow will be like today, or even far better. But the Lord Almighty says, weep and wail, you shepherds; roll in the dust, you leaders of the flock. For your time to be slaughtered has come; you will fall and be shattered like fine pottery. The shepherds will have nowhere to flee, the leaders of the flock no place to escape.
The shepherds desecrate the Holy name of Jesus Christ for thirty silver coins. These hucksters peddle riches, health, prosperity, and happiness to millions of self centered greedy men and women whose tithes, and offerings they use to build their little kingdoms of greed, and for rebuilding the tower of Babel, or One World Government. Words like Repent, Hell, and Eternal Damnation are the dinosaurs of contemporary Christianity hidden away in the bowels of their IRS 501c3 Tax-Exempt Status.
Consequently, the wicked have taken over America, while nominal wimpy Christians are too preoccupied with their feelings, worshiping the trinity of self, composed of “ME, MYSELF, and I” in search for a Jesus that is more in touch with their feelings, and for a Jesus that is more harmonious with their perversions. They don’t see Jesus as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords; they see Jesus as the Wimp of Wimps and Dumb of Dumbs. These so-called wimpy Christians talk the talk, but they do not walk the walk. They know all the songs, and the Christian lingo, but they wobble and fall down when they are supposed to stand up against the wicked, therefore they are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, naked, and separated from the love of Christ.
Now Americans are reaping the bitter fruits of godlessness after sowing immorality for the last sixty-three years. Murderers can abort and euthanize legally, couples can divorce legally, sodomites can sodomize and marry legally, and the immoral losers of America have only excuses, excuses, and nothing but excuses. We cannot win the war on terror in the Middle East. We cannot fix the national debt and the poor state of the economy. We cannot fix the rampant unemployment. We cannot stop the murders in the inner cities. We cannot stop the violence in public schools. We cannot stop the influx of illegal aliens, and illegal drugs. We caused the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. We cannot stop the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, and we cannot, we cannot, we cannot…. No doubt, America is a country of losers, this is only the beginning and it will get much worse as surely as the sun rises in the morning.
America’s iniquities have separated her from her God, God has hidden his face from her, and he will not hear, because her hands are stained with blood, her fingers with guilt, her lips have spoken lies, and her tongue mutters wicked things. No one calls for justice; no one pleads his case with integrity, they rely on empty arguments and speak lies; they conceive trouble and give birth to evil. Apostate godless Americans are more dangerous than BP, Obama, Bin Laden, and Islam, and very shortly they will bring America down to total ruin
The evidence is everywhere. America is technologically advanced in the midst of religious gagged charlatans gone wild for profits, deceiving the spiritually undeveloped pew sitting dumbbells, who are also easily manipulated by the vultures of Washington DC, and the buffoons of the mainstream News Media. In Matthew 10: 16, Jesus said, “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves,” but today’s typical so-called Christian is not a lover of God, but a lover of money, and as gullible as a toddler, and as dumb as a house.
Therefore the Lord, the LORD Almighty, the Mighty One of Israel, declares: “Ah, I will get relief from my foes and avenge myself on my enemies. Rebels and sinners will both be broken, and those who forsake the Lord will perish. The mighty man will become tinder and his work a spark; both will burn together, with no one to quench the fire.”
July 10, 2010, 12:26 pmMichael Ejercito says:
I would have to agree with that, unfortunately.
Muslims, on average, are more devoted to God than Christians. When the Judgment comes, to whom will God say, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world”? To whom will God say, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels”? A lot of Christians may very well find themselves hearing the second phrase.
July 10, 2010, 11:44 pmHenry says:
Amen!
July 11, 2010, 11:14 pmAlessandra says:
Rob Berra says:
Quoth Alessandra:
But the issue I raised, Oren, is why do you insist on discussing sodomy ad naseum but you remain silent about sexual harassment, rape, and domestic violence, to name a few?
OK, Alessandra, I’ll bite.
===============
(was too busy to answer this earlier)
Rob: Since DOMA is the subject of this discussion, surely you are raising these subjects in the context of this discussion, no? What should we be saying about sexual harassment, rape, and domestic violence (to name a few) as they relate to same-sex marriage?
Evidently. That was exactly what my first post addressed here: what is the larger context that the DOMA debate takes place in society right now (of which the discussions on this forum are a mere small, but representative sample)?
See July 7, 2010, 7:22 am
Rob: OK, since I’m not a homosexuality zealot, what should people be saying about homosexuals or bisexuals as perpetrators of aggression or violence?
We can observe deliberate actions by homosexuality fundamentalists to abstain or outright lie about information concerning concerning homosexuals or bisexuals as perpetrators of aggression or violence. First of all, we observe an emphatic reinforcement of a “victim” stereotype for homosexuals. To a large degree, concerning bisexuals, there is a different largely popular attitude, an invisibility of the entire category of bisexuals, more than the hammering of the victim stereotype.
If you look at the mass media and popular discourses on homosexuals and homosexuality, homosexuals are often portrayed in an extremely simplistic way, as gentle, benign creatures, oppressed by the horrible conservatives who don’t accept and normalize their homosexuality. “All they want to do is love each other,” is a very popular meme. Another one is that “homosexuals aren’t violent (in any way),” “most child abusers are heterosexuals (to the point of implying that homosexuals are thus practically incapable of abusing children), “homosexuals do not sexually harass anyone, specially heterosexuals,” “a large number of homosexuals are driven to suicide because their homosexuality is not accepted, (thus, not only are they are more at risk of death by suicide than other vulnerable groups),” “homosexuals are in considerable personal danger everywhere because of the threat of ‘hate’ crimes, (and not because of how violent they are themselves to other homosexuals)” “homosexuals are discriminated against, but do not discriminate against others,” etc.
(Specially if the question involves heterosexuals or minors as victims, then the propaganda machine goes into full gear. )
Alessandra: Isn’t there a compelling state interest to stop lying about who is violent in society?
Absolutely. Please explain who is violent in society and why.
The graver consequence of reinforcing a stereotype of non-violent victims for a population that clearly includes a large number of perpetrators of aggression and crimes is that you victimize every single REAL victim of all this violence. As mentioned, this also ensures the harmful dynamics continue unaddressed, and it gives a green light to further violence by the perpetrators. Given that public resources are limited, and are employed to deal with different violence problems in society in part due to a hierarchy of cultural values, this is another way that spreading lies and myths about violence can and often hurts the victims who have less power in society, less organized lobbies, less millionaire coffers to buy their influence, change laws that affect them, etc.
In our society, we find that all three categories of sexual orientation (hetero, bi, homo) perpetrate all kinds of violence related to sexuality and personal relations. However, while society has come (after a long fight to crack its thick denial walls) to recognize that heterosexuals abuse children, for example, we observe an intense public misinformation campaign that suggests that homosexuals basically never abuse children and the bisexual category is never even mentioned usually in popular discourse. How does this impact cases of real abuse against children? If it is already a nightmare to bring to justice any case of child abuse, and get justice for it, then it becomes even more dire if the perpetrator is held by the public to be basically incapable of committing the crime, and, furthermore, the propaganda reaffirms that any suggestion of such a violent incident is due to “homophobia.” It’s exactly the same thing that the Catholic Church did for years: “priests just don’t do these kinds of things, they’re nice and wonderful people.” Who believed the victims?
Alessandra: Furthermore, if we compare who does more violence to homosexuals, is it homosexuals themselves or is it heterosexuals, the answer is homosexuals by whopping numbers.
Rob: Well, as you know there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics,” so let’s tread carefully here; after all, the violence on heterosexuals is probably mostly by heterosexuals, too. What information do we need to know that’s not being shared?
This was a comment that was partly written due to what happened in a recent thread. Homosexuality zealots repeat things like:
“Gays are subject to such rampant discrimination that they are the beaten and killed more than practically any other group in the United States (despite the fact that they are the smallest minority). ”
– Jamie Ward June 28, 2010, 2:25 am – http://volokh.com/2010/06/16/prop-8-trial-closing-arguments/
What a lie, and what a shameful lie. What the meme above implies is that “gays” are a group of non-violent, nice people, who are beaten and killed by heterosexuals because of the latter’s homophobia. Not only are they beaten and killed by the horrible homophobics (defined elsewhere as anyone who does not normalize homosexuality), the way this is said implies that the rate of such “hate” crimes is huge and that homosexuals are the greatest victims in the US ( “more than practically any other group”).
Zealots like Jamie Ward, by spreading such propaganda, present a completely warped picture of violence towards homosexuals in society and towards anyone else.
First, because the greatest number of crimes towards homosexuals are perpetrated by none other than homosexuals themselves. For example, the Gay Men’s Domestic Violence Project reports estimates of one in four homosexual men suffering domestic violence. And it’s not the only one to report very high numbers of dysfunctional, violent homosexuals.
http://www.gmdvp.org/
Using a very conservative estimate of the total male homosexuals in the country, that yields about 750,000 violent homosexuals in domestic violence cases. Compared to the number of sexual orientation “hate” crimes, it’s ridiculous (750,000 to 1,500). Out of these 1,500, only between 15–35 result in death (Jamie’s number – no source given). Compared to homicides against African-Americans or minors, it’s enormously less (this is obviously not a raw number comparison, but a percentage one). Compared to any estimate of how many homosexuals murder anyone else, it’s ridiculously small as well.
If homosexuality zealots were concerned with human rights in society, their priority would be to inform and educate the public about just how violent homosexuals are. Yet they do the opposite; their objective is to lie by inflating and sensationalizing any violence committed against homosexuals and denying and trivializing any violence committed by homosexuals.
The same problem is found concerning each kind of dysfunctional behavior or violence related to sexuality and personal relations in society, such as sexual harassment.
There is the completely irresponsible propaganda version by homosexuality zealots, and there is reality, where real victims are the ones who are severely hurt by all of this propaganda.
July 13, 2010, 6:31 pm