Thanks. some wonderful infos. here keep up Culinary Skills Egg Salad Recipe French Onion Soup Recipe the good work. I cannot genuinely provide a more optimistic commentary as i’m abit out of my deph but i will be checking back here for further updates.

That aside, interracial marriage and same-sex marriage actually are very comparable as the same amount of “choice” is involved in both. Afterall, while people don’t choose their race, nor do they choose their orientation (I’d be interested to see when you chose yours), people do choose their marital partners. Of course, unlike you, I realize that people don’t choose who they are attracted to, but regardless, I fully believe that the choice should be ours alone.

Lastly, no, there are no ex-gay people. There are people with mild same-sex attractions who try same-sex relationships because they’ve had some bad experiences in opposite-sex relationships, and there are bisexual people who are predominately oriented to the opposite sex but think themselves gay for a time perhaps in some attempt to be different, and there are people who are so ridden with shame and guilt that they will try every sort of “therapy” they can find to”cure” themselves of an innate orientation and their attempts to do so fails, but there are no “ex-gay” people anymore than there are ex-hetero people or ex-interracially coupled people.

I’m not bashing religion at all. Merely using hyperbole – and a little joke – to make a point. Sorry if I offended you. All that I wrote is quite valid. I will definitely bash any that attempt to force their own values (religious or not) on others. The notion that marriage should only be between a man and a woman is almost always associated with and defended by religious beliefs, so it’s not unreasonable to bring religion into the argument.

That is incorrect. You may believe this from a theological point of view, but that would still be limited to your religion and those religions which share that belief. Even if ALL the world’s religions shared this view, which they don’t, this would still only be from a theological perspective.

Some religious authorities used to argue (some still do) against inter-religious marriages. Some pastors used to refuse to marry interracial couples on the grounds it defies “God’s plan”. They can debate such issues until they are blue in the face. But it isn’t churches that decide civil marriage in this country, it is the government that decides this.

To elaborate further, some religious bodies and civilizations accept(ed) polygamous marriages. You can choose to reject those as being ‘improper’, but their society embraced them. That makes their view relevant and renders your and mine moot.

And while I won’t go into detail about it because I’m sure you can fill in your own details, the structure of marriages, the role of the partners in marriages, the sort of conditions which must be met to make a marriage binding, the conditions on which a marriage can be annulled have all changed substantially over the millennia from culture to culture and time period to time period. Really, this notion of some timeless institution that has always been the same is a myth. So, no, actually, marriage isn’t just an “is” that societies simply recognize as some universal constant, marriage IS what authorities determine that it is.

~”FYI, it isn’t just christians who want to keep the age old institution of marriage between one man and one woman. Japan is one of the least religious countries in the world and that nation has outlawed gay marriage.”~

When I see this sort of argument I always wonder just what sort of spin will be offered when one of these examples legalizes same-sex marriage… You can certainly attempt to argue that we should look to the Japanese as an example why same-sex marriage should be banned, but your opponents can just as easily cite countries in which same-sex marriage is legal…

~”They want additional rights, not equal rights. Gay people like the douche-bag Hilton, would love to deny people the right to free speech on the issue.”~

What a BS sweeping generalization you’ve discovered. I can agree that Perez Hilton is a narcissistic douche-bag, yes, but Perez Hilton no more represents the gay community than Carrie Prejean represents Christendom.

I will definitely take you to task if you intend to argue that all gay people seek to deny others the right to free speech… Honestly, this coming from the likes of you who are advocating that homosexuals be denied equal access to the same rights and privileges that heterosexuals enjoy. What ironic hypocrisy.

~”Gay people have the same rights and freedoms that everyone else in America has. They have the right and freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex; however, they choose not to make use of that freedom. Therefore, the real issue is not about denying homosexuals the right to marry, but about denying them additional rights.”~

Let’s apply this rationale to the most comparable example to same-sex marriage and see what happens when interracial marriage is the issue:

: : People involved in interracial relationships have the same rights and freedoms that everyone else in America has. They have the right and freedom to marry someone of the same race; however, they choose not to make use of that freedom. Therefore, the real issue is not about denying minorities or interracial couples the right to marry, but about denying them additional rights. : :

When anti-miscegenation laws were removed or overruled, this did not afford “additional rights” to minorities, it established that race, or the racial make-up of a couple, could not be used as a disqualification for their marriage. Now one could look at it differently. One could say that allowing interracial marriage gave an “additional right” to racial minorities or to interracial couples, but this would be incorrect. Allowing interracial marriage does not A) deny any rights to non-interracial couples or marriages, B) does not exclude the majority race or non-interracial couples from participating.

In other words, you & everyone else are free to engage in an interracial marriage. You & everyone else are free not to. The choice is there for all, no one is excluded. That’s fair, that’s equal, that’s egalitarian. To simply deny interracial marriage, however, though it may mean nothing to those couples who are racially similar, would deny couples who are racially different and want to commit to a marriage the right to do so. That would be unfair, unreasonable, and as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1967, unconstitutional.

The same applies here. No one is forcing you to participate in a same-sex marriage. Rather, same-sex couples are seeking to have the legal ability to choose to participate in it themselves. Something which people like yourself want to continue to deny them. It truly is that simple.

Really, it is ironic that you bring up “additional rights” when the reality here is that you are in point of fact advocating that marriage be exclusive to opposite-sex couples and heterosexuals only. This would, by default, establish marriage as an additional right for heterosexuals that homosexuals are effectively denied. And, no, it isn’t legitimate to expect homosexuals to somehow develop a romantic attraction for opposite-sex persons anymore than it would be to expect you to develop a romantic attraction to same-sex persons or to expect interracial couples to go find a partner of a similar race. Individuals fall in love with those whom their innate sensibilities draw them to.

If you are going to deny equal protection under the law and due process to homosexuals and same-sex couples you really need a much stronger argument than your own personal comfort level, your religious beliefs, or your opinions on what is traditional.

Grammie says:
November 12, 2009 at 8:12 pm

~”I don’t mean to slash cold water on your self righteous screed BUT it is only your opinion that thousands of years of western civilization (and many older and other civilizations) adherence to marriage as a union of a man and a woman only is something that is intrinsically wrong.”~

Did you know that same-sex marriages did take place in the ancient world, including Greece and Rome? The Codex Theodosianus of early Christian Rome prohibited same-sex marriage under penalty of death, and it is unlikely that this was merely an attempt to be proactive in case such a marriage should ever happen, hypothetically. There is also 17th century China, 19th century Africa and evidence of same-sex marriages in other parts of Europe.

Rare? I’ll give you that. But not non-existent as some folks like to believe. The concept most definitely was not invented in the 20th century.

By the way, slavery used to be common among the civilizations of the world. And pretty common down South not so long ago, as well. Fortunately, a segment of the nation fought to get rid of slavery, and had to thwart “state’s rights” in the process. But, I’d argue, we’re a better country for it.

A segment of the nation, also fought segregation. There was much kicking and screaming and gnashing of teeth, but, this injustice too, was eventually eliminated one difficult step at a time.

The legislative bodies of some states removed anti-miscegenation laws prior to the Supreme Court case that would eliminate it from the nation as a whole (though recently a justice of the peace in Louisiana still thought he had a duty to impose it). And in California some “activist judges” overruled the anti-miscegenation laws there. Unfortunately, bans on interracial marriage or interracial cohabiting, though not always consistently enforced, were still on the books in more than 18 states. And that’s just how many conservative, tradition-lovin’ folk wanted to keep it.

Again, fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court managed to strike down anti-miscegenation laws nationwide in 1967. There was certainly much doom and gloom and invoking tradition and religion that accompanied this observance of egalitarianism, but, the sky didn’t fall and while interracial marriage is fairly common these days, I, for one, don’t think we’re a bit worse for it.

You, like others, keep invoking the necessity of strictly enforcing this male/female marriage paradigm on the basis that it is “the best way for a society to function and provide for the future of all its people”. Impossible though it may be for you to comprehend, I think it’s more than safe to say that the population of the United States, as well as every other nation on this planet, is in no danger of dying off due to same-sex relationships nor same-sex marriage. Now I can’t prove that, other than to point to those countries which have legalized same-sex MARRIAGE and draw to your attention that they are not now rampant with same-sex marriage, opposite-sex marriage hasn’t been outlawed, and procreation is still taking place in abundance…

I would add that no one could have probably made an airtight case that allowing interracial marriage would not immediately lead to the elimination of “racial purity”. Quite the opposite, many scientists theorize that in time racial distinction will be a thing of the past. A lot of racists are very upset about this inevitability, but fortunately they’ll all be dead by then.

Gary Williams: the answer to a question nobody asked.

Dwindling? Maybe, maybe not. As more Latinos and African-Americans exercise their right to vote as evidenced in the last election, gay marriage was not an issue they were in favor of.

Also, keep your religion bashing crap to yourself, I didn’t make any mention of religion.

Thanks Gar-bear. But next time you just copy/paste something from a blue-blog, just give us the think. It saves space and time… and lets everyone know that you’ve abdicated your thought to another group of people.

If I wanted to post as KOS, I’d do that. Try to keep their stuff there… but thanks for playing.

A small sample of the scientific literature:

“It appears that conservatism has pathological dimensions manifested in violence and distorted psycho-sexual development” (Boshier, 1983, p. 159). This is supported by a study conducted by Walker, Rowe, and Quincey (1993) in which there was a direct correlation between authoritarianism and sexually aggressive behavior. An investigation done by Muehlenhard (1988) revealed that rape justification and aggression toward subordinate individuals was much higher in traditional (conservative personality) than non-traditional personalities.

Boshier noted that by scoring high on the C-Scale, the conservative seemed to be demonstrating his hostility toward others, which was also a characteristic demonstrated by most criminal offenders.

Persons who had a dogmatic belief in religions and adhered to the teachings of absolutist and perfectionistic religious groups, tended to be more frequently and more intensely emotionally disturbed than those who followed less dogmatic religion (Ellis, 1986). Authoritarianism and religious fundamentalism were positively correlated, with scores on authoritarianism significantly related to those on ethnic and racial prejudice, hostility toward homosexuals, and punitiveness. According to Parker, dogmatism and orthodox belief were incompatible with ethical acuity.

McClosky noted that, “Conservatism is not the doctrine of the intellectual elite or of the more intelligent segments of the population, but the reverse. By every measure available to us, conservative beliefs are found most frequently among the uniformed, the poorly educated, and the less intelligent”.

Boshier found that conservatism was inversely related to the educational level of the offender. The more highly educated tended to be less conservative. The more that an individual was educated the less conservative he/she was likely to become. “The negative association between educational level and measures of conservatism have been recognized for years” (Schuman, Bobo, and Krysan, 1992, p. 379).

Sanford related the data of Adelson in which “he found that early adolescents are highly authoritarian, with significant reduction occurring in middle and late adolescence-largely because of cognitive development” (p. 163). Since the offender had limited cognitive development, the educational efforts would conceivably have assisted in reducing the conservatism of that offender. At that point in time, rather than reduce the amount of conservatism of the offender, the prison environment tended to increase it by its emphasis on many of the characteristics found in the conservative personality.

McClosky, H. (1958). Conservatism and personality. American Political Science Review, 52, 27-45.

Muehlenhard, C. (1988). Misinterpreted dating behaviors and the risk of date rape. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6(1), 2-37.

Sanford, N. (1973). Authoritarian personality in contemporary perspective. In J. N. Knutson (Ed.), Handbook of Political Psychology (pp. 139-170). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wilson, G. (1973). The psychology of conservatism. New York: Academic Press.

Wylie, L., & Forest, J. (1992). Religious fundamentalism, rightwing authoritarianism and prejudice. Psychological Reports, 71, 1291-1298.

Erroneous facts like evolution I take it? And what about the Constitution or Bill Of Rights? How did the interpretation that they somehow give Christians the right to impose their will on others get squeezed out of that?”

“For instance wherever Creationism is the official doctrine ( Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Congo, etc.) you’ll also find their stand on homosexuality is precisely what US conservatives want to see.”

Gary, what is all this about creationism and the onerous effect of religion on governments and society you are in the wrong place.

I assumed that you were a man of at least average intelligence and worded my reply to you based on that obviously flawed assessment of you. So, let me lay it out to you as I would if I was talking to someone who needs every i dotted and t crossed or they can’t follow the argument.

I don’t mean to slash cold water on your self righteous screed BUT it is only your opinion that thousands of years of western civilization (and many older and other civilizations) adherence to marriage as a union of a man and a woman only is something that is intrinsically wrong. Virtually every civilization throughout history has ordered itself around the construct that heterosexual marriage is the best way for a society to function and provide for the future of all its people.

Homosexual unions OTOH need not worry about a genetically defective child ever being born. What they want out of society is simply the same rights to inheritance law;, to write off taxes; or jointly pay into insurance plans, or any of the other benefits that society has deemed useful to grant life-partners of more traditional unions. That’s all they want and that’s what you conspire to deny them. You want to penalize them for not conforming to your own beliefs. Their beliefs do not hurt you in any way other than your psychological distaste for their lifestyle. The solution to that is simple. Don’t think about them! They’ll get along just fine without your interference in their affairs.

How did the interpretation that they somehow give Christians the right to impose their will on others get squeezed out of that?

FYI, it isn’t just christians who want to keep the age old institution of marriage between one man and one woman. Japan is one of the least religious countries in the world and that nation has outlawed gay marriage.

The government doesn’t afford anyone the right to marry their sibling, their child, or more than one person, and because of this no doubt those who engage in incestuous relationships, pedophiles, and polygamists are quite disappointed. Its discrimination to say that two people of the same sex can’t marry each other in the same way that its discrimination to say a man can’t marry his sister, but this type of discrimination is appropriate based on the purpose and nature of marriage itself. In light of this fact, on what basis should the right to marry a person of the same sex be given to the homosexual? They want additional rights, not equal rights. Gay people like the douche-bag Hilton, would love to deny people the right to free speech on the issue.

I’m sure glad you were not the deciding the vote when our forefathers wrote our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Sheesh, no wonder we are in such a mess.

I don’t mean to slash cold water on your self righteous screed BUT it is only your opinion that thousands of years of western civilization has been based on erroneous “facts”.

If you are opposed to same-sex marriage, then don’t marry someone of the same sex. But don’t try and force your religious values on others.

It’s astonishing to me how much of the media breathlessly reports every one of Ms. Prejean’s latest revelations, triumphantly trumpeting every sordid detail as yet another nail in the coffin of conservatism.

Memo to the media: Ms. Prejean is nobody. She is not a leader, not a party representative, not a government official. Neither her rise nor fall represents anything beyond the media’s ambivilance toward substance.

Its strange how the morals of a young girl with no real power merit national headlines, yet the daily dalliances and illegal indiscretions of no less than Congressman and Committee Chair Barney Frank are irrelevant and off limits.

Check this out, I just got a Robo call from ACORN babbling about Fox News and the Right Wing. LoL

This is not a matter of opinion, it’s a fact. Proposition 8 sought to nullify thousands of legal marriages.>>

She does want to protect actual marriage. She, like the majority of us in the United States do not recognize gay marriage as a legitimate marriage. She’s no hypocrite on that case. She is trying to protect actual marriage against the destructive forces in this country like the evil CA Supreme Court who invalidated the will of the people in May of 2008 by a 4-3 vote.

—
California first explicitly defined marriage as a state between a man and woman in 1977.[9] That year, the California State Legislature passed a law that said that marriage is a “personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman”. While no previous California legislation contained explicit language regarding sex or gender, California law prior to 1959 explicitly prohibited marriage between people of different races. Many other states prohibited interracial marriage until 1967, when the United States Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional, in the case Loving v. Virginia. [10]

In 2000, voters passed ballot initiative Proposition 22 with a margin of 61%, which changed California Family Code to formally define marriage in California between a man and a woman. Prop. 22 was a statutory change via the initiative process, not a constitutional change via the initiative process.

In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom performed same-sex marriages in his city, which were subsequently judicially annulled. This case, and some others, eventually led to a decision announced on May 15, 2008 of the California Supreme Court, which by a 4-3 vote struck down Proposition 22.[11]

Prior to the May 2008 state supreme court decision, opponents of same-sex marriage had already begun their efforts to qualify Prop. 8 for the ballot. Their reasoning at the time was that since Prop. 22 was only a statute, it was subject to judicial review in a way that an amendment to the constitution would not be.[12],[13],[14]

http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_8_%282008%29

Miss South Carolina also said, “I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, um, some people out there in our nation don’t have maps and, uh, I believe that our, uh, education like such as, uh, South Africa and, uh, the Iraq and everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should, uh, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, should help South Africa and should help Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future.”

… I don’t think they always know what they are saying at that particular moment.