Archive for Saturday, November 25, 2006

Equal rights

November 25, 2006


To the editor:

The recent state bans on same-sex marriage are as discriminatory and unconstitutional as the Jim Crow laws and segregation, and they must be eliminated.

Before the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the country unconstitutionally denied African Americans the basic civil rights that every citizen should have. The same type of injustice is being committed today. The majority of Americans consider gays and lesbians as people undeserving of the same rights as the rest of us and think they should not be allowed to marry, simply because of who they are. Many states, as well as Kansas, have passed legislation that strips gay Americans of this right.

Fifty years ago, our country took a stand to stop this kind of unlawful discrimination. The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Brown v. Board of Education decision interpreted the 14th Amendment to truly allow "equal protection" for all Americans and eliminated the idea of "separate but equal." Yet, it seems as though we have all forgotten these important rulings as we continue to deny gay Americans the right to marry.

We have slipped back into another era of intolerance and disregard for constitutional law. Even the unlawful "separate but equal" stance has returned in the granting of supposedly equal civil unions for gay couples. The previous era started its downfall with the Brown decision, which was forced upon many Americans. It is time to make our own forceful decision and to do the right thing: legalize same-sex marriage.

Jim Krieger,



classclown 11 years, 3 months ago

It's a very big stretch to compare the fact that gays can't marry to what the blacks went through.

There aren't any "Straights Only" signs posted at any restaurants, water fountains, or restrooms. They're not made to go to specific schools away from straight people. You can use any laundromat you want, patronize any store, and are allowed to use the public swimming pool without being limited to certain times to make sure you don't mingle among straight people. Nor are you forced to sit at the back of the bus.

Lynchings aren't a normal occurance. I know some posters will bring up Mathew Sheppard, but those perpetrators were caught and punished, which as a rule did not happen to those that commited crimes against the blacks.

To compare your "plight" to the way blacks were made to live before the civil rights movement trivializes what they went through.

While I expect to be flamed by some(or all) of the gays here and there supporters, and probably being subjected to the tired cliches or "gay basher", "homophobe", and possibly even "racist" by those with nothing substantive to retort with, that's not what this is about.

I may not be as articulate as some, but my point is people will view this comparison as exaggerating your position, which in turn will only cause others to dismiss your arguments as unbelievable.

This probably didn't come out the way I wanted it to, but there it is.

Flame away.

crono 11 years, 3 months ago

Gays have every right to marry. If you define marriage as between one man and one woman, as many of us do.

Much turns on your definition of that word: "marriage".

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 11 years, 3 months ago

Right Thinker? If the state (which is suppose to be separate from any religion) recognizes same-sex marriage, they are not forcing any Christian church to conduct ceremonies. They are not forcing any Christian marriage counceling group to help same-sex couples. They are not forcing any Christians to even talk to someone who is gay. How are Christians being oppressed? What is your reasoning here? They aren't asking for special rights, they are just asking for the same rights.

Speakout 11 years, 3 months ago

The other argument I would raise against this LTE is that Blacks are born with their color just as Hispanics, Arabs, Indians, etc. There is no changing of their spots, as it were.

But Homosexuals CHOOSE to be homosexual so they know what they are headed for when they make that CHOICE.

I personally don't care if they spend their lives together as a "couple" but it doesn't follow most people's definition of marriage. Call it a civil union, because everyone who marries makes a civil union but not everyone who has a civil union is married.

The woman across the street from me has a "boyfirend" that visits at night then leaves at 6:00AM, sort of sneaks out of the house. That, to me, is a civil union. No sweat-ti-da.

mom_of_three 11 years, 3 months ago

I don't care what you call it - civil union or marriage - it just needs to be allowed. I don't see what everyone is so scared of. There are some large corporations which allow benefits to same sex couples (the same as to married couples) but that isn't enough. The government should also recognize these unions. Whatever happened to "all men created equal?"

Jamesaust 11 years, 3 months ago

" discriminatory and unconstitutional as the Jim Crow laws and segregation...."

An appalling display of historical ignorance and an inability to compare two things.

The author does more harm to his argument than if he had remained silent. (At least he didn't start spewing 'just like Hitler' comparisons.)

scarlets_talk 11 years, 3 months ago

Speakout: But Homosexuals CHOOSE to be homosexual so they know what they are headed for when they make that CHOICE.

How on earth would you know this? I find it hard to imagine that you have a lot of homosexual friends who have testified to this. I (a female) personally have been attracted to males since kindergarten and females since second grade, and I can assure you that my seven-year-old mind was not deliberately opting to have a crush on another girl. In fact, it took me years even to figure out that was I was feeling was indeed romantic. The only choice I am making now is not to allow my NATURAL desires to be trampled by an oppressive society.

Kelly Powell 11 years, 3 months ago

Once again everyone is arguing one sidedly....We can all probably admit that there is a substantial proportion of the gay community that is born gay....and that there is a percentage that are gay through envirement, lifestyle choices and whatnot....We are dealing with humans here people...It's fairly hard to find a one size fits all answer when dealing with humans....

craigers 11 years, 3 months ago

This is off the topic at hand, but I was watching CSI Miami on A&E and they keep running an advertisement about "What is all the gays went on strike?" Does anybody have any idea if this is an organized protest or is it just an advertisement to get people to watch their channel? I was just curious.


classclown 11 years, 3 months ago

You call it an "alternative lifestyle". That implies choice.

Speakout 11 years, 3 months ago

Mankinds sexuality is based upon procreation not pleasurable sex only. Therefore how can two men or two women procreate? They cannot. This makes many believe that homosexuality is clearly a chosen preferance not an inate one. I am sure the Darwinists here can attest to the fact that the survival of the fittest would apply. How can ones species survive if they cannot multiply?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 11 years, 3 months ago

"This makes many believe that homosexuality is clearly a chosen preferance not an inate one."

Given the persecution that homosexuals almost universally encounter, why would anyone "choose" to be homosexual? Do you think African-American slaves could have chosen not be slaves simply by choosing not to have black skin?

"How can ones species survive if they cannot multiply?"

There have been homosexuals in the human population throughout recorded history. Their existence does not seem to have hampered the growth in human population one iota, now headed toward 7 billion.

yourworstnightmare 11 years, 3 months ago

Either the government should recognize civil unions or it should not.

The benefits granted to those who marry should be applied equally to all, or they should exist for none.

Every couple is free to enter into legal contracts, so why should the state be involved? A man and a woman can get married in their church and then hire a lawyer to work out all of the details they want, such as inheritance, power of attorney, etc.

It is within the rights of any church to deny same sex marriage, but this is not the same thing as a civil union. The state should not be in the business of choosing who can and who cannot enter into a civil union. But every church has the right to choose who can and cannot marry in their church.

yourworstnightmare 11 years, 3 months ago

I could go either way on this one. I would be happy if the state remained neutral to marriage and civil unions and couples were required to enter into legal contracts. I would also be happpy if the state endorsed same-sex civil unions, and marrying was left to the churches.

The way things stand now, however, is discriminatory and is denying state-sponsored priveleges because of sexual orientation.

Godot 11 years, 3 months ago

Hear, Hear, yourworstnightmare. Well said. Especially the part about state-sponsored "priveleges" (sp).

Gays have every right that heteros do. The problem is they are not afforded the same benefits.

End the government benefits for married people, stop the social engineering through taxation, and we can all get along.

ksmoderate 11 years, 3 months ago


To all of you who believe being homosexual is a choice: When did you choose to be a heterosexual?

Jersey_Girl 11 years, 3 months ago

right_thinker - we meet again. It's not the liberals who are intolerant, it's the far-right-wingers who are intolerant. I dislike organized religion for precisely that reason. Each religion thinks they and they alone are more righteous than every one else. And it amuses me that Christians are so splintered in their beliefs. You have Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbytarians, Evangelics, Catholics and Pentacostals to name a few. And each and every one of these churches believes that their belief system is superior to all the others. And the bigger the Christian you are, the less tolerant you are of those who do not believe as you do. Does your Bible not teach tolerance?

classclown - society may be more discreet in their descrimination against homosexuals, especially in this time when everyone is sue-happy, than they were of black people, but it still descrimiates. The laws against descriminating against sexual preference are conciderably newer than the ones protecting other minorities. And our military only changed its policy from "no gays in the military" to "don't ask, don't tell" in the last administration.

Jersey_Girl 11 years, 3 months ago

crono - Webster's Dictionary defines marriage as "Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij Function: noun Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union

Same sex marriages are equal to opposite sex marriages in the dictionary.

Speakout 11 years, 3 months ago

Being heterosexual is natural. It is nature's way of procreating the species. To deviate from nature one must make a choice to do so.

Tychoman 11 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Speakout 11 years, 3 months ago

I just read back through these postings and Jerseygirl you lost your argument when you started name calling. When people have no facts they must resort to the best defense they can find: namecalling, mudslinging, etc. I would hope that all Homosexuals would move to their own country and be whoever they choose to be. That country would last about 40 years. think about it.

Jackson18 11 years, 3 months ago

One argument I keep hearing is how marriage needs to be protected. However no one has been able to tell me exactly how someone else getting married will damage their own marriage. How will your marriage suffer? So what is the big fear?

gr 11 years, 3 months ago

Tychoman: "Where did you get that idiot idea that it's a choice to be gay? Loon."

I am genetically predisposed to confront homosexuals about their choice of behavior. It is who I am. Do you think someone would choose to be called "Loon" and "Idiot"?

ywn: "The benefits granted to those who marry should be applied equally to all, or they should exist for none."

Should all government benefits be applied equally? Should the government encourage or discourage certain types of behavior?

"The state should not be in the business of choosing who can and who cannot enter into a civil union."

Should the state consider any guidelines concerning who can marry or not? Should the state "discriminate" against certain things?

scene: "There are myriad examples of homosexual behavior occurring in nature. Given that, your statement is false." (and again Das, a zoo is not natural. there's been lots of studies dealing with what happens when animals are caged up)

Please tell us how you established those individuals did not make a choice. Show how those "natural" individuals who are homosexuals can possibly pass their genes on to the next generation - in essence, fitness of their offspring.

ksmoderate 11 years, 3 months ago

gr: When did you choose to be heterosexual?

gr 11 years, 3 months ago

Das: " maybe it should also be mentioned that some species of vertebrates do not even have males:"

Not sure how this would be supportive of homosexuals, but it is interesting you brought it up.

"Since there is no genetic variation except that which occurs through mutation, the New Mexico Whiptail cannot evolve as other species do."

Our friend, Kodiac has suggested low variability ensures a very long life.

But, what's most interesting of what you've raised, is why are not more species that way, rather than just a few, and in this case, brought about by cross-breeding? For example, there are some snails and worms which are both sexes. They stumble upon each other, exchange their gametes, and then go their separate ways reproducing a recombined set of chromosomes.

Why, if evolution is true, is there a male and female? How would such a thing come about? Wouldn't it be much more efficient to be neither and just exchange gametes?

gr 11 years, 3 months ago

"Excepting a "divine" solution, can you answer your own question?"

I'm not sure why you said that. Can you answer that question without using evolution?

"Aside from your usual evolution baiting, the simplest answer is that having two sexes allows for larger numbers of offspring and/or greater care of offspring. In other words, it allows greater parental investment."

Isn't that what you implied by giving your links?

Can you answer that question WITH using evolution. Anyway, there are many species which have no "parental investment". I'm sure you can inform me if I'm wrong, but I believe that generally, it's only the higher life forms that have "parental investment". What would cause the sexes to evolve at the lower levels versus my suggestion of being more fit by both exchanging gametes?

Another question if you say lowerlife has "parental investment" - surely you believe the sexes happened before "parental investment". Which comes back to what caused such a large energy investment to result in separate sexes? Granted, once there are separate sexes, one could easily fanthom how separate parental rolls could lead to more fit offspring.

Emily Hadley 11 years, 3 months ago

I don't think we can judge individuals for marrying without the intent to procreate until we examine couples to ensure that:

A. The couple is both fully sexed AND gendered as only fully male or female, as many people are born "with genitalia and/or secondary sex characteristics determined as neither exclusively male nor female, or which combine features of the male and female sexes". Such exams could reveal, among other things: fetal exposure to progestins or androgens, hypospadias, Klinefelter's syndrome, vaginal agenesis, cryptophthalmos, cloacal exstrophy, Turner's syndrome, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, MRKH syndrome, full or partial AIS, chromosomal abnormalities, and the infinitely varying transgendering of individuals whose doctors or parents made arbitrary choices during the individual's childhood, thus receiving surgical procedures, hormone treatments, and psychological conditioning placing the child into a sex or gender in which the child did not naturally belong and over which the child had no understanding, control, or choice. None of this would not be acceptable for marriage, as it would introduce the slippery slope of same-sex marriage in the government-sanctioned institution.

B. The couple is attracted to one another for reasons relating to each person's respective gender. An attraction could be a sign that missed or yet undiscovered genetic mutations are present or that one or both individuals is experiencing a same-sex attraction to their potential spouse. Two straight men were married to one another in San Francisco; it is entirely possible that two people appearing to have a multi-sex marriage are in fact attempting something more closely related to same sex marriage, whether or not they are consciously aware of it. Once again, the slippery slope could pave the way for future legal precedent condoning same-sex marriage.

C. The couple should be determined to be reproductively compatible, including a test-tube fertilization using the couple's egg and sperm to eliminate fraud. Perhaps chromosome and DNA tests would be helpful in this step as well. As sexual attraction is accepted as the result of many biological processes (i.e. pheromone release and reproductive drive), it would be best to ensure that everyone is desiring sex (and thus marriage) for the appropriate biological reason and thus avoid later discovery of illness or latent homosexual tendency.

D. The couple should be determined by a federally-approved body to be willing to reproduce or be determined to have valid multi-sex marital intentions if reproduction is not to be included in their life plans. This could be enforced over time with possible repercussion to discourage fraud.

These are valid concerns in a society that fears same-sex marriage. If these minimal standards can not be provided to the public regarding others' private relationships, I don't see any grounds for selective, arbitrary discrimination.

gr 11 years, 3 months ago

"Nature is not a being--it doesn't have goals and motives, therefore it doesn't have "ways" and means, so your assessment that heterosexuality is a method for procreation is elementary."

Actually, if you approach it from an evolutionary viewpoint, you would be wrong. Nature does have a goal in producing the most fit individuals.

Homosexuals would not meet those goals. No offspring. No fitness.

"The black plague was natural as well...would you say that the plague was "nature's way" of exerting population control on the world?"

Again, from the evolutionary viewpoint, that would be correct. The most fit survive.

Surely, you know this, don't you?

Emily Hadley 11 years, 3 months ago

In agreement with the "classclown" post above, I oppose comparing Jim Crow laws to almost any other struggle, as they are so egregiously appalling. They are a sign of widespread intolerance in greater society, not just in government. I also feel that the marriage issue is enough in itself, but I had to examine why I felt so strongly about comparisons to those racist laws.

I feel we can compare "anti-miscegenation" statutes to current same-sex marriage debates. These laws forbade interracial marriage. I see both issues as "none of your business" fights, simple violations of privacy and expression.

Jim Crow laws went much, much further than just banning interracial marriage. In addition, and more importantly, black people couldn't vote during such legislation !! Being a minority citizen is very, very different than being disenfranchised for your skin color.

Refresh your memory on laws that would, for example, forbid hospitals to require a white nurse to enter a room with a black patient, regardless of medical need, and you will quickly see that while bigotry and ignorance play a huge part in both, they are not analogous.

Remember that difference again when you think of issues you feel strongly about, and exercise the right to call, email, speak with, or write your legislators, neighbors, family, and fellow citizens, then vote, because you can.

This is an important issue, but we can learn a lot about the unimaginable lengths discrimination can go in legislation by revisiting "Jim Crow" laws. Such enlightenment could save us from disaster at a time when our militarist regime is expanding its power and we are voting out our own civil rights.

Jersey_Girl 11 years, 3 months ago

Speakout - you feel that I lost my arguments by name calling and mudslinging? What mudslinging? And as for saying that any who believes that homosexuality is a choice must have choosen to an ignorant jackass, well, I can say is if the shoe fits...

gr - "I am genetically predisposed to confront homosexuals about their choice of behavior. It is who I am. Do you think someone would choose to be called 'Loon' and 'Idiot'?" So you're telling us that your parents are bigots too. Big surprise! Ignorance breeds ignorance.

Emily Hadley 11 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Emily Hadley 11 years, 3 months ago

'Next thing you know there'll be a "War on Christmas"...oh, wait, sorry!'

Here's your war on Christmas:

werekoala 11 years, 3 months ago

If homosexuality is a choice:

Please explain Haggard, the evangelical leader who was recently outed as paying for a male prostitute.

Seriously, if you're saying that the choice between gay and straight is no more than the choice between McDonald's and Burger King for lunch; why would an established and important man whose career was built around perfering the Wopper risk it all for a Big Mac?

werekoala 11 years, 3 months ago

Right_thinker: "Any idiot who has at least an 80 IQ has seen the secular-progressive movement to ban "God" from the Pledge of Allegiance"

The Pledge of Allegiance was composed in 1892, and did not include the words, "under God". It was changed to include those words after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus in 1954, in order to demonstrate how different we were from the "godless Soviets" by way of requiring a public prayer with each oath of allegiance to our country.

"or just the Pledge of Allegiance completely"

Hmm. Never heard anyone trying to ban the pledge. What I have heard of is people trying to end its mandatory recitation requirements for schoolchildren (ie, a kid can opt out if he's been reading a lot of Howard Zinn recently) .

Personally, I don't think it should be said at all by underaged children who don't understand it. I think it should be part of a formal ceremony, like taking the oath of office, that a person does not say until he or she gains full adult citizenship (even if that just means turning 18).

"displaying of the Ten Commandments"

for the ninety bajillionth time: YOU can display whatever the heck you want on your own property. If you want to get together with all your neighbors and build a block-long display of the ten commandments, you can do that as well.

What you can't do is use government funds to pay for it, or government installations to display it (unless, like a bulletin board, they allow any and all such displays, without prejudice.)

"public displaying of the Nativity"

You can display it - but you don't get to make the government display it or pay for it.

Arrrggh - how is not being able to force the government to promote your views discrimination? Go to Darfur if you want to see persecution!

"the use of the word "Christmas""

I'm not aware any government official tried to force walmart greeters to say "happy holidays" - it was a business decision (which has since been reversed, so you can get your knickers out of a bunch).

The reason I consider this one of the stupidest ideas ever put forth by John Gibson (and that's saying something):

I celebrate Christmas and New Years. That's two holidays, only a week apart. So a clerk can either say "Merry Christmas and Happy New Years" OR they can say "Happy Holidays". And when I'm shopping on Christmas Eve, anything you can do to speed up the process works for me.

Gah! I hate this "woe is me - someone didn't confirm my holiday specifically - I'm being repressed!" attitude.

"trying to remove any symbol of Christianity."

Yes, just this morning I saw a wrecking crew tearing down a church for being a symbol of christianity, right before I passed the cop writing a ticket to a girl for wearing a cross necklace. And in the background, City Hall was erecting a new billboard that says, "There is no God."

gr 11 years, 3 months ago

"Please explain Haggard, the evangelical leader who was recently outed as paying for a male prostitute."

Are you suggesting evangelical learders have no choice? Are you suggesting the Enron people had no choice in the matter and were merely acting on their genetics and therefore should not be held guilty?

Should everyone act on their desires?

Tychoman 11 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Leprechaunking13 11 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Katara 11 years, 3 months ago

Being heterosexual is natural. It is nature's way of procreating the species. To deviate from nature one must make a choice to do so. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Being an albino is a choice???

Jersey_Girl 11 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Jersey_Girl 11 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

ControlFreak 11 years, 3 months ago


If everyone in the species procreated than we would have a population boom that could not possibly be sustained by the environment. I'm not talking about over several generations, I'm talking immediately.

You are also making the assumption that all people wish to procreate or that sex for pleasure is unnatural. If sex where only for procreation, we would be a species that had procreations schedules (i.e. going into heat).

That sex is pleasurable is only an incentive to do it, thereby procreating for those who wish to do so.

Procreation is not a requirement for marriage, neither is marriage for procreation.

prioress 11 years, 3 months ago

"Being heterosexual is natural. It is nature's way of procreating the species. To deviate from nature one must make a choice to do so."

Give me a break; "I choose to be homosexual, so I can live a life of fear, be discriminated against, and be denied the same benefits given to others who 'chose' not to be homosexual?" I bet the Colorado preacher chose to be gay, while he was living his double life. PS: In 'nature' homosexual type behaviors are not uncommon in some circumstances, and some life forms switch from male to female and back. Scientists are trying to figure this one out. As Marion has said, we all start female in the womb, then parts of the brain are 'destroyed' making one male if the switches are turned on properly.

ControlFreak 11 years, 3 months ago


You are making an assumption about "lower" and "higher" lifeforms.

Those that study biology and evolution know that the male and female options are just one of many forms for sexual procreation.

It works well enough.

A male and female allow for more variation in the genetic pool than say asexual procreation.

The view of "male" and "female" is arbitrary in some cases anyway as sexual reproduction in most cases only requires to separate organisms of the same species. We, as humans, assign those two as "male" and "female" but it could just as easily be "male" and "male" or whatever.

Sometimes they are given + or - so as not to confuse the issue by adding genders. This is especially important for organisms without obvious sexual characteristics, such as bacteria.

Emily Hadley 11 years, 3 months ago

Wow, a lot of comments have been removed, including the joking one I made about having criteria for multi-sex marriage and the slippery slope that gender and sex issues contribute to the same-sex argument. I don't think I have ever had any comment removed before.

I am sorry if anyone felt that my and others' comments were in violation of posting terms or any other standards of good manners, but while I don't absorb every comment every time, I didn't read anything I found offensive in any of those comments that I remember, nothing other than the original comparison between Jim Crow laws and the same-sex marriage bans.

Could the fact that people found these comments so offensive be indicative of people finding same-sex marriage discussion so offensive? I'm stumped.

ControlFreak 11 years, 3 months ago


Like many of the discussion on LJW, they spark emotional and often times irrational responses from people.

Logic is right out, too.

No joking allowed either in such a violotile and ridiculous thread. :)

Smiling faces or other indicators may improve your chances of not being misinterpreted, but good luck with that.

werekoala 11 years, 3 months ago

gr -

"Are you suggesting evangelical learders have no choice? Are you suggesting the Enron people had no choice in the matter and were merely acting on their genetics and therefore should not be held guilty?

Should everyone act on their desires?"

Not sure I follow what you're asking in the first paragraph. Please restate.

In regards to your questions, I'm not speaking on whether a person should act on his or her desires, instead I am simply seeking a consistant position on the matter from the anti- side. You all say "it's a choice". Very well, please clarify that.

(in your opinion) Is being gay just a choice some people make, no more or less than choosing a favorite color or baseball team, as many have proposed? in which case, again, why would someone with so much to lose risk it all for something so "meaningless"?

Or is it something that most people have no desire to be a part of, but that for a small portion of the population is just as difficult to resist as the urge of hunger? In which case, how can you say that one "chooses" homosexuality when such a "choice" is obviously unequally meted out in terms of both strength and distribution??

ControlFreak 11 years, 3 months ago


I liked that, that was good...

"cockroaches do not breathe through their mouths..."


Steve Jacob 11 years, 3 months ago

FYI Guess whats next? If same sex can marry legally, I have read that next group will me the Mormans wanting to resume multiple marriges. And with a Morman running for president (Rommey) who's great grandparents moved to Mexico just to continue polygamy...

Kathy Theis-Getto 11 years, 3 months ago


You make good points, however, I am curious; Marion said nothing in this thread about starting out as a female. Are you a Marion worshipper, too?

LawrenceRes 11 years, 3 months ago

I am so sick of hearing the rant about gay marriage and people trying to push their views onto others, and worse onto the government!

It is an illigitimate arguement to say that not allowing gays to marry is protecting marriage. Protecting it from what? "Christians" have hurt marriage with adultury and divorce. We should either outlaw marriage for all or legalize it for all. No picking and choosing who is "worthy" of entering such a contract or sharing the same legal rights (not religious beliefs).

Gays are human beings and should be granted the same rights as the next. It should not be a matter of preference but a matter of equality.

Nobody is being forced to like or agree with it, just to acknowledge the same rights to a fellow human being.

As far as those arguing that heterosexuality is natural because of the basic need to procreate... Please, DO NOT HAVE SEX unless it is for that sole purpose. Do not get off by yourself, do not rent a porn that promotes sex for no reason other than pleasure, do not sodomize your wife or let your husband sodomize you, stay out of the strip clubs, pull your daughters off the stage and your sons out of the VIP room, and of course you waited until marriage to do it right? Of course, your sh*t doesn't stink does it?

Emily Hadley 11 years, 3 months ago

Oh you're right, thanks! The removed comment was just a Bill O'Reilly quote, not anything from me to anyone here.

Sorry, I must have forgotten the quotes. I'll shut up.

Tychoman 11 years, 3 months ago

Why on EARTH were my comments removed? If my posts are removed then I demand that gr's and Speakout's posts be removed to.

srj, don't believe everything you read, especially what speakout and gr are saying.

It's not a choice to be gay, it's NOTHING to be ashamed of and we deserve every right that heterosexual marriages are entitled to!

gr 11 years, 3 months ago

"Apparently you aren't aware that homosexuals are not sterile. Many homosexual couples use the sperm of a partner for a surrogate mother or the egg of a partner for artificial insemination."

The key word here, "artificial".

"I find the idea that an opinion could be genetically predisposed laughable." Why? Why do you think opinions are genetically derived? I had a desire. I acted upon that desire. Why are you making me out to be bad for acting on my genetically inherent desires?

"Being an albino is a choice???" Being an albino is a defect.

"We, as humans, assign those two as "male" and "female" but it could just as easily be "male" and "male" or whatever."

Specifically, you are incorrect. However, I caught what you are saying. But, that's not what I'm saying. Why does there need to be a "+ or -"?

"This is especially important for organisms without obvious sexual characteristics, such as bacteria."

So, what would cause these bacteria, as they "evolve" to the next step, to create a male or female, + or -?

"Is being gay just a choice some people make, " Actually, I was saying the behavior people make IS a choice. Otherwise, if choices are genetics, why would I risk being called and idiot and not understanding "well-reasoned and fool-proof" arguments (as if they were presented)?

Should we act upon our desires?

topekan7 11 years, 3 months ago

Marriage is an outdated notion. Gay couples are free to live together, share assets, and be happy. Why would they want their relationship sanctioned and regulated by the government? Why do straight couples want their marriages regulated by the government? Why do we need lawyers to terminate a relationship? I'm an advocate of removing all marriage laws from the books...neither straight nor gay couples may legally marry. A church service uniting a couple before God and their family is enough...if that is what you wish. Otherwise, live and let live.

Tychoman 11 years, 3 months ago

"Being an albino is a defect." A defect? It's a difference, not a defect. I see that gr's a fan of eugenics.

Topekan, some assets are only available through government-sanctioned marriage. Outdated or not, it's not going anywhere.

Kodiac 11 years, 3 months ago


You are a liar. Stop using my name to promote your lies. I dare you to go find those exact words that you have attributed to me. Otherwise you owe me an apology.

Your Friend Kodiac.....

Kodiac 11 years, 3 months ago

For the record, I never said that low genetic variability ensures a long life. I merely said that there are always exceptions to any "rule". Just because a species has low genetic variability does not ALWAYS mean they won't survive evolutionary speaking. For an example of this see the Wobelli Pine in Australia. Stop trying to mislead people Gr.

Emily Hadley 11 years, 3 months ago

Posted by Marion (Marion Lynn) on November 25, 2006 at 10:11 a.m.: Well, you see that the phrase "All men are created equal" is taken from a politcal speech and has no force of law.

Isn't that actually in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence? I thought that counted as law. If not, are we still a country?

Jersey_Girl 11 years, 3 months ago

Right on, Culture_Warrior!

gr - perhaps you are unaware of how many male/female couples are having to use artificial insemination these days or in-vetro fertilization to have children. As for your opinions being genetically predisposed, all you are telling us is that your parents are bigots, too. Your ignorance is showing again. Do you think all the descendents of the Nazis are now all White Supremasists? Opinions are ideas, ideas formed based on judgement. And we all know just how judgemental you fundamentalist Christians are. Isn't there a line in the Bible that runs along the lines of "Don't judge lest ye be judged"?

Jersey_Girl 11 years, 3 months ago

The right on was for a previous post of Warriors.

emily - it just looks to me like gr got pissy and requested the posts he didn't like be removed. You know, the ones that mention that he was born an ignorant jackass, he did not choose that lifestyle. (Let's see how fast he gets this one removed).

Emily Hadley 11 years, 3 months ago

So, "culture warrior" ... are my green eyes a birth defect?
They'd be based on recessive genes, since nobody else in my family has them, but I am pretty sure I inherited them.

Pretty silly stuff. Albinos are fully developed, they can see and touch things and their hair still keeps their neck warm.
Would you use that argument against the White Buffalo Woman?

Jersey_Girl 11 years, 3 months ago

I'm sorry, right_thinker, I have no idea what you are talking about. Who exactly are these "anti-God, secular-progressive, athiestic, Socialist, Ultra-liberals in America" that you speak of? I seemed to have missed that movement. I can't imagine that they are any more dangerous than Fred Phelps. There's a man that needs smiting!

werekoala 11 years, 3 months ago

you know where Christians are persecuted?

Darfur. China. Much of the Middle East.

You know where they aren't persecuted?

The USA.

So please, get over your whole persecution complex, and instead work to help the Christians who ARE actively being persecuted. Talking like you do only disrespects the faith and sacrifice of those brave souls who are actually being tortured for their beliefs.

And it's funny to watch some of the same posters who mock and belittle the culture of acceptance and kindness and PC and respect for everyone liberal cry-baby boogeyman, become themselves so incensed and offended that someone tells THEM what to do.

Here's the deal: just because you're not allowed to use the government to promote your views doesn't mean that you're being persecuted or discriminated against in this country. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and people of every religion other than Christianity have accepted the idea that THEY don't get to use the government in this country to impose their will - what makes you so special?

Instead, they use their families, communities, and social networks to instill their beliefs and values. And guess what? It works just fine.

So please, put away the "woe is me!" Chicken Little routine, and accept that your religion will not be treated any better or worse than any other religion by our government. And if you don't like that idea, perhaps you'd better think about what kind of country you'd really rather live in.

Linda Endicott 11 years, 3 months ago

"Gr: should we act on our desires?"

Well, let's you act on yours?

Have you ever had sex with a person of the opposite sex? If so, haven't you "acted" on your desires?

So what you're really saying is that it's okay for heterosexuals to act on their desires, but it's not okay for homosexuals to do the same thing.

I would assume that, at least once, your parents "acted" on their desires. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here.

And don't get started on the procreation thing now. If procreation were the only legitimate reason for marriage, half of the people who are married now shouldn't be.

Should people have to dissolve a marriage when the woman reaches an age where she can no longer have children?

If a couple marries and it's discovered that either the man or the woman is incapable of having children naturally, should their marriage be dissolved?

If a man and woman can't have children except through artificial means, should they have to dissolve the marriage if they don't have the money for those artificial means, or if the attempts aren't successful?

If a man or woman in a marriage is injured by some sort of accident and loses the ability to procreate, should their marriage be dissolved?

As Control Freak pointed out, procreation is not a requirement for marriage. Neither is marriage a requirement for procreation.

If that was true, all those squirrels would be in trouble.

Oh, no! We have a bunch of immoral, unmarried squirrels doing it in our parks!

Tychoman 11 years, 3 months ago

Rightthinker, what a load of tripe. All your whining about liberals wanting to destroy If that weren't such an old and untrue argument coming from a troll like you, it might be funny. Alas, it's not.

Emily Hadley 11 years, 3 months ago

Well, an arm of the government does decide whether your religion is a religion, a cult, incorporated, licensed, zoned, a non-501c3 eligible group, a crime, or just a joke. That does give some ground to the dominant ones, like the ones we are forced to chant about in formation every morning in school, in some aspects of governance. I mean, swearing on King James' version of the bible is supposed to usurp the threat of perjury, right?

Katara 11 years, 3 months ago

As bizarre as it is to compare albinism to gays, isn't it strange that 2 things that are supposedly not designed (if you go with the fundamentalist Christian thing) to reproduce or pass their genes on, somehow manage to do so to the point that both traits appear in all populations of species?

Just musing...

Godot 11 years, 3 months ago

Marriage should be a function of religion; it should not be a function of government. We should not allow our government to require us to report the status of our personal relationships via a tax return.

Jersey_Girl 11 years, 3 months ago

Really, right_thinker? You're no longer worried about the "anti-God, secular-progressive, athiestic, Socialist, Ultra-liberals" any more? Phew, that's a relief! You still haven't explained who these people are, though.

scetwe 11 years, 3 months ago

The marriage debate rests on a fundamental confusion of two quite different senses of the word. The socio-legal institution which amounts to a tripartite contract between a man, a woman, and the state ..or.. the long-term committed relationship entered into voluntarily by people who, because of their affection for one another, wish to pool resources and share the joys and burdens of life.

The sociol-legal sense permits only one rigidly narrow view of what is acceptable, based on ancient religious views which do not reflect much about human reality or need. In the relationship sense, the number and sexes of the mutual parties is no part of the definition, which turns solely on concepts of affection, choice and sharing.

Most people who wish to marry in the relationship sense assume they must do so by marrying in the socio-legal sense. To this mistake they add ignorance of history. The roots of socio-legal marriage lie in a profoundly sexist financial arrangement. Its originating aim was to constrain women's sexuality and fertility so that men could be sure they were bequeathing their property to their own offspring. In medieval Christianity a marriage of convenience existed between religious views about sex and social views about wealth. When poorer classes also began to acquire property, the requirements for premarital female chastity, and legal forms of marriage to make descent and property traceable, were extended to them too - notably in 18th century England, whose various marriage traditions were at last reduced by law to a single type.

These tendentious formalities are latecomers to the scene but human intimacy is as ancient as life itself. Marriage as a mutuality of true minds and tender hearts, so long as it lasts, is the happiest of states, whatever the number and gender of the parties to it; and the only effect that marriage in the socio-legal sense has had on marriage in this deeper sense, is usually to spoil it.

gr 11 years, 3 months ago


After reviewing your comments from various posts from the past:

" But evolutionary theory doesn't say they can't survive EVEN IF THEY HAVE LOW VARIABILITY. Think about Gr. What if you have a niche where you are extremely successful and you have the ability to avoid major catastrophic events because you have one hell of a tough nut to crack. Natural Selection is all about being able to survive to reproduce so if you can clone yourself and create highly resistant seeds and grow in well protected areas, you could live for a long time. You might not be very variable but hey you are still here right.

Variability is the main way to be able to adapt. But that is not what I was trying to talk about when I was talking about the pine. Do you understand that just because something is not variable doesn't mean that the genetics itself is there to be able to withstand extreme conditions.

What you need to be able to survive thousands of years. You would need a genetic make-up that would allow you to withstand extreme conditions. They doesn't necessarily mean that the genetics have to be variable, only that it is coded to create individuals that do survive those type of conditions.

So evolution isn't just about variability. It also about probabilities and being able to survive to reproduce. "

and then in light of my more recent comment:

"Our friend, Kodiac has suggested low variability ensures a very long life."

I see I have erred. Although I said, "suggested", I should have replaced the word "ensures" with "can result in". It has been a long time ago and I thought I remembered you saying evolution predicted populations with low variability existed a long time. As you can see, what I thought you said had been bothering me. I could not find that. Thank you for pointing out my error.


You are a liar. Stop using my name to promote your lies. I dare you to go find those exact words that you have attributed to me. Otherwise you owe me an apology.

Your Friend Kodiac....."

I'm not sure why you had to call me a liar. Would not your simple correction of my errant statement had sufficed?

gr 11 years, 3 months ago

logicsound04: "Yes, I used the word artificial, but the fact that both gay and straight people use artificial insemination is not proof that homosexuality is unnatural."

What a silly statement.

You had said before in response to my statement: "Homosexuals would not meet those goals. No offspring. No fitness."

Apparently you aren't aware that homosexuals are not sterile. Many homosexual couples use the sperm of a partner for a surrogate mother or the egg of a partner for artificial insemination. "

I said homosexuality is not of evolutionary nature. It does not produce fit offspring. You said "artificial" means allow them to produce pseudo offspring. It's artificial. What don't you understand? Just because someone else uses artificial means too, doesn't make it natural.

gr 11 years, 2 months ago

I believe I explained my comments clearly on the post of November 29, 2006 at 9:25 a.m. and stand by them.

Someone else talked about "procreation"

Kodiac 11 years, 2 months ago

"You have no clue what you are talking about in regards to evolutionary theory" -- Logic

Yes logic you are right. I am always learning about evolution and trying to get a better understanding of it. As I have said before that I am not an evolutionist (professionally I mean; obviously) so I may have ideas of how it works that are incorrect. I do hope I can become better at not only with understanding this concept but also being able to convey these concepts correctly to others. So I do thank-you for your comments.

"When referring to "survival" in evolutionary terms, you are referring to survival of a species, not an individual organism. Therefore, the increased/decreased probability of survival results from a relative abundance of (or lack thereof) variability within that species' genepool."-- Logic

But natural selection does not occur in order to benefit a population or a species. Natural selection occurs because some INDIVIDUALS (NOT SPECIES) survive better than do others, and reproduce their traits better. This MAY result in improved survival of the species -- for example, if a trait evolves because individuals with it can withstand cold temperatures better than others, this may be good for the species -- but may not ( ie. if the environment changes). The point is that traits that improve individual survival evolve regardless of their impact on the population or the species; whatever impact they end up having on the population or species is a side effect of this process.

So there are species of organisms such as the wollemi pine that have little or no variability in their genes. I understand that their genes can be a result of natural selection (such as environmental pressures) and genetic variability. I guess that wasn't the point I was trying to make. The point here is that a species like the Wollemi Pine (which has been suggested to have survived at least 200 million years) can have exceptionally low variability and yet survive for extremely long times because they do have traits that have high fitness in a variety of environments such as ice ages, droughts, fire ecology etc etc.


Kodiac 11 years, 2 months ago

It is possible for a species to survive (albeit rarely) for long periods of time because they contain individuals that have these traits. Your statement of "Therefore, the increased/decreased probability of survival results from a relative abundance of (or lack thereof) variability within that species' genepool." may be true but I think it is irrelevant to what I was talking about (not very well apparently). I guess I should have been referring to their "traits" that allow them to survive extreme conditions. It may be true the Wollemi Pine did acquire their encoding over centuries of genetic variability interacting with the local environment, the point here is that there is almost NO genetic variability in these species NOW meaning they are no longer evolving. The family that this pine belongs to has a history of exceptionally low genetic variability mainly because of the way they propagate themselves through a process known as coppicing (essentially cloning themselves). Of course this species is still being studied extensively and they are always learning new things about it so I would expect their ideas and questions to change as new data becomes available.

Kodiac 11 years, 2 months ago

Sorry that was way off of the subject of this letter but as many well know, I just love talking about evolution....

Kodiac 11 years, 2 months ago


Maybe you should take this sentence of "You also implied that since homosexuality has no ready means for procreation, it must therefore be unnatural."

and change it to...

You also implied that since homosexuality has no ready means for "producing offspring", it must therefore be unnatural."

Kodiac 11 years, 2 months ago


Your hyperbole might have been a little strong but I do appreciate your clarity and your ability to cut righ to the heart of the matter. I have a tendency to stumble around quite abit and oftentimes lose sight of what is being said or even miss the boat completely. I guess you can say that is my MO.

I also learn quite abit when reading the postings between Gr and people like you. Gr has a tendency to twist things around and present them like they were facts. I eventually will pick up on this and the sidestepping but usually I find myself frustrated by my inability to point right at it and say that is BS. For example trying to link this whole homosexuality to some kind of choice with misconceptions of evolution. Her real objection is obviously related to her own religious beliefs and have nothing to do with evolution. What is maddening is Gr doesn't even accept evolution as well-documented and supported science and has a history of trying to show psuedo evidence against this concept. Hence the reason why she trys to assign false ideas such as "higher and lower forms" and evolution having "goals" to the evolutionary theory.

So thank-you for your input and helping me solidify my BS alerter...

Time for me to go....

gr 11 years, 2 months ago

logicsound04: "And by the way, if you weren't talking about "procreation", then what, exactly, is the topic of this comment of yours?:"

Well, a certain such a person accused me of being unclear so that others didn't understand what I was saying. After clearly explaining my statements on November 29, 2006 at 9:25 a.m., I was perplexed why you could still not understand them. So, I was only offering that maybe you were confused as to who said what.

Your attempts of derailment through insemination, and then defending it as it not implying homosexuals are unnatural was unclear. Which, after thinking about it, it is quite clear procreation is what you had in mind before: "I bet evolution is steaming mad that homosexuals found a way to circumvent his/her goals..."

Which comes back to being artificial.

I will make a further attempt to "be clear" and understand what your issue is. Perhaps you are distinguishing between the words "natural" and "normal". But, if you define natural as anything occurring in nature, I think you need to ask your self if anything could be "unnatural". But, if you want to maintain a difference, then it may be "natural" for a bear to come into camp and maul all the campers, but it isn't "normal".

"They can still have natural offspring via methods that are used by both hetero- and homo- sexuals."

Which, I guess you could construe it as being "natural" since it offspring does happen, (even though they are only 'half' from homosexuals at most), and anything that happens in this world is of nature, but it still isn't "normal". Artificial insemination just isn't normal no matter how or why you do it.

Kodiac: "What is maddening is Gr doesn't even accept evolution as well-documented and supported science."

I believe in: inheritance mutation natural and artificial selection survival of the fitness change in allele frequencies

I believe that is something like what you once called "evolution"? Shall I call you a "liar" or just leave those tactics for you to do?

Kodiac, have you ever heard of "personifying nature"? Then a goal of "mother evolution" would be survival of the fitness. Are you that clouded you can't approach it from another viewpoint?

"For example trying to link this whole homosexuality to some kind of choice with misconceptions of evolution."

But, what you are really objecting to is how dare I use evolution. If someone believes in it, and then goes around saying homosexual actions are genetics, I'm only asking them to back it up. They have not.

So, as one believing in evolution, could you explain how homosexuals can naturally/normally reproduce offspring which are "fit"? That is, if they follow their genetics (if that's what it is), then how do they pass those genetics to their offspring allowing natural selection to act upon them?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.