| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
16 Feb 2005 11:56:30 PM |
| Object: |
Does a "gay gene" really exist? |
Does a "gay gene" really exist?
Nathan Tabor
February 16, 2005
"Wonderful Husband. Loving Father. Former Homosexual.
So read the billboards sponsored by Stephen Bennett, the head of a
Christian family advocacy group based in Huntingdon, Connecticut. The
ad, part of a nationwide campaign last year opposed to same-sex
marriage, features a large photo of Bennett with his lovely wife and
two children.
Some advertising companies refused to accept Bennett's ads because of
their "controversial content." Wherever the ads were posted, gay rights
activists rose up in anger to protest the very idea that homosexuals
can change, or even should want to.
But Bennett is one of thousands of practicing homosexuals who has
reversed his sexual orientation and found fulfillment in heterosexual
marriage. His message is simple: unhappy gays do have hope because real
change is possible.
Why do the radical gay activists resent Bennett's message so much?
Because it clearly refutes the urban myth they have so carefully
crafted: the lie that about 10 percent of the population is "born gay"
and simply can't help it. Many today are being taught to believe that
homosexuality is a genetic condition, like skin or eye color. This
deception has been nurtured over the years by the pro-homosexual major
media. But like other urban myths, this is a lie. (To learn more about
how this myth got started, go to
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html.)
Supporters of this "born gay" thesis frequently refer to a series of
scientific studies in the 1990s, particularly one by a homosexual
activist researcher named Dr. Dean Hamer of the National Cancer
Institute, a study that supposedly identified an "X chromosome"
possibly linked to homosexuality. Published in the journal Science back
in July of 1993, that report said merely that researchers were studying
the linkage between certain genes and homosexual behavior.
National Public Radio quickly trumpeted the news, followed by the Wall
Street Journal and other major newspapers. Next Newsweek emblazoned
"Gay Gene?" across its cover. The average layperson reading these
reports clearly got the message that science had discovered a gene that
causes or determines homosexual behavior. But that is not what the
research actually revealed, as even Dr. Hamer himself admitted.
Establishing a possible linkage does not prove causality, as all real
scientists know.
In their Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation (published in 2000), the
American Psychiatric Association contradicts the "born gay" claim.
"There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific
biological etiology for homosexuality," the APA said. So much for the
pseudo-science of the New Gay '90s.
We should remember that until 1973, the APA classified homosexuality as
a deviant mental disorder. But 1973 was not a good year for morals and
values in America, being the year that abortion was legalized and the
APA revised its DSSM manual.
Then, in ironic twist of fate, Dr. Robert Spitzer, the very same doctor
who got the APA to change its stance on homosexuality in 1973, came
back in 2003 and changed his own mind. Why did this formerly zealous
pro-homosexual reformer have a change of heart? Because - although he
described himself as "initially skeptical" - he personally
interviewed more than 200 former homosexuals who had changed to
heterosexual through what he called "reparative therapy"!
To his credit, Dr. Spitzer dared to tell the truth about his findings,
despite the rabid rantings of the radical gay activists who foresaw the
dire implications of this revelation. Dr. Spitzer's report, entitled
"200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual
Orientation," was published in the October 2003 edition of the
prominent journal Archives of Sexual Behaviour.
"Almost all of the participants reported substantive changes to the
core aspects of sexual orientation, not merely overt behaviour," Dr.
Spitzer wrote. In other words, they didn't just change their homosexual
actions, but their unnatural attractions as well!
What's more, they were better off mentally for doing so. "For the
participants in our study, there was no evidence of harm," he added.
Dr. Spitzer described these 200 conversion decisions as a "rational,
self-directed goal" that was achieved. Not a single one committed
suicide through guilt-induced self-loathing.
"Mental health professionals should stop moving in the direction of
banning therapy that has as its goal a change in sexual orientation,"
Dr. Spitzer concluded. "Many patients can make a rational choice toward
developing their heterosexual potential and minimizing their homosexual
attractions."
Coming from the man who was responsible for redefining homosexual
deviancy as "normal" more than three decades ago, that's quite a
turnaround.
Conservatives need to stand up and hold homosexuals accountable to the
facts. They will have to acknowledge that their lifestyles are personal
choices, before anyone else should be expected to grant them the
legitimacy they seek.
The Gay Gene doesn't exist. Whether it's through "reparative therapy"
or through a higher power, the fact remains: homosexuals CAN change . .
.. if they want to.
.
|
|
| User: "Spanky" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
19 Feb 2005 12:47:25 PM |
|
|
--
SBC 383
"Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RYzRd.9624$kS6.9505@attbi_s52...
"Proud Sponsor of the 2004 Conservative Mandate"
< > wrote in message
news:1108764137.120311.289690@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Boy Toy wrote:
On 17 Feb 2005 20:51:20 -0800,
wrote in
message
<1108702280.531075.249630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
Kate wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:45:28 -0800, "Spanky"
<Spanky@send.your.spam.to
gov@wa.gov> wrote:
SBC 383
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pKSdnfhsDPM0confRVn-qg@comcast.com...
I've posed this many times without a response...
Imagine a large group of people who truly want to
believe
that they are the Messiah. And, they truly believe
with all
their
hearts that it is bad to not believe that they are
the Messiah.
Just one is enough..
Manson believed that by starting a cult, and
manipulating his
followers with drugs and mental suggestion he would
get them to
think
he was the next messiah, and force them into doing
anything he
said,
he was right.
Oh, your talking about gays.. That group that quietly
supports
incestual marriage, Oh wait, they find it morally
objectable,
dam..
thats the argument they say society cannot use
against their
lifestyle
choice... maybe Manson is the better choice after
all...
Apparently you don't have a clue what incest means.
I think what he's trying to do is imply that support for
gay
marriage
destroys arguments against incestual marriage.
If the fundies want to legalize their incestuous
proclivities, let
them file their own lawsuits.
If that were there intention, they'd be pushing for gay
marriage.
Why? One thing has positively nothing to do with the other.
When gay marriage is legalized, it would still be illegal
for brother and sister to marry, or two sisters for that
matter.
What then makes the law against incestual marriage retain its validity
after running it through the argument that makes same sex marriage
legal. That's all I'm asking..
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
20 Feb 2005 05:19:00 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:47:25 -0800, "Spanky" <Spanky@send.your.spam.to
gov@wa.gov> wrote:
SBC 383
"Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RYzRd.9624$kS6.9505@attbi_s52...
"Proud Sponsor of the 2004 Conservative Mandate"
< > wrote in message
news:1108764137.120311.289690@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Boy Toy wrote:
On 17 Feb 2005 20:51:20 -0800,
wrote in
message
<1108702280.531075.249630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
Kate wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:45:28 -0800, "Spanky"
<Spanky@send.your.spam.to
gov@wa.gov> wrote:
SBC 383
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pKSdnfhsDPM0confRVn-qg@comcast.com...
I've posed this many times without a response...
Imagine a large group of people who truly want to
believe
that they are the Messiah. And, they truly believe
with all
their
hearts that it is bad to not believe that they are
the Messiah.
Just one is enough..
Manson believed that by starting a cult, and
manipulating his
followers with drugs and mental suggestion he would
get them to
think
he was the next messiah, and force them into doing
anything he
said,
he was right.
Oh, your talking about gays.. That group that quietly
supports
incestual marriage, Oh wait, they find it morally
objectable,
dam..
thats the argument they say society cannot use
against their
lifestyle
choice... maybe Manson is the better choice after
all...
Apparently you don't have a clue what incest means.
I think what he's trying to do is imply that support for
gay
marriage
destroys arguments against incestual marriage.
If the fundies want to legalize their incestuous
proclivities, let
them file their own lawsuits.
If that were there intention, they'd be pushing for gay
marriage.
Why? One thing has positively nothing to do with the other.
When gay marriage is legalized, it would still be illegal
for brother and sister to marry, or two sisters for that
matter.
What then makes the law against incestual marriage retain its validity
after running it through the argument that makes same sex marriage
legal. That's all I'm asking..
They are two separate issues. If someone wants to marry their
sister/brother, he/she is free to challenge the laws against such a
marriage in court; where they will be able to present their arguments.
The existence of laws against incestual marriage, whether or not the
reasons for them are valid, is not a reason for denying homosexuals
their right to marry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
20 Feb 2005 09:31:33 AM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:oqrg11ho45qfgat06g91re2htu4b8bhvg9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:47:25 -0800, "Spanky" <Spanky@send.your.spam.to
gov@wa.gov> wrote:
What then makes the law against incestual marriage retain its validity
after running it through the argument that makes same sex marriage
legal. That's all I'm asking..
They are two separate issues.
He knows it.
He is merely trying to scare people.
Susan
If someone wants to marry their
sister/brother, he/she is free to challenge the laws against such a
marriage in court; where they will be able to present their arguments.
The existence of laws against incestual marriage, whether or not the
reasons for them are valid, is not a reason for denying homosexuals
their right to marry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
20 Feb 2005 10:10:55 AM |
|
|
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:p32Sd.4594$EL5.2594@trnddc05...
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:oqrg11ho45qfgat06g91re2htu4b8bhvg9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:47:25 -0800, "Spanky" <Spanky@send.your.spam.to
gov@wa.gov> wrote:
What then makes the law against incestual marriage retain its validity
after running it through the argument that makes same sex marriage
legal. That's all I'm asking..
They are two separate issues.
Another example of giving special status to homosexuals.
--
I come here not to argue, persuade nor respond
to displays of immaturity, but only to inform from
the annals of history.
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
20 Feb 2005 07:52:14 PM |
|
|
"Maverick" <justgopublic@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:jE2Sd.2580825$B07.407653@news.easynews.com...
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:p32Sd.4594$EL5.2594@trnddc05...
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:oqrg11ho45qfgat06g91re2htu4b8bhvg9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:47:25 -0800, "Spanky" <Spanky@send.your.spam.to
gov@wa.gov> wrote:
What then makes the law against incestual marriage retain its validity
after running it through the argument that makes same sex marriage
legal. That's all I'm asking..
They are two separate issues.
Another example of giving special status to homosexuals.
Not at all.
It's an example of trying to give them the same rights everyone else has.
But you knew that already.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spanky" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
20 Feb 2005 10:38:54 AM |
|
|
--
SBC 383
"Maverick" <justgopublic@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:jE2Sd.2580825$B07.407653@news.easynews.com...
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:p32Sd.4594$EL5.2594@trnddc05...
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:oqrg11ho45qfgat06g91re2htu4b8bhvg9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:47:25 -0800, "Spanky"
<Spanky@send.your.spam.to
gov@wa.gov> wrote:
What then makes the law against incestual marriage retain its
validity
after running it through the argument that makes same sex
marriage
legal. That's all I'm asking..
They are two separate issues.
Another example of giving special status to homosexuals.
That conclusion I am trying to avoid, yet it seems to remain.
Special Rights, not Equal Rights, and so the query continues..
--
I come here not to argue, persuade nor respond
to displays of immaturity, but only to inform from
the annals of history.
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
20 Feb 2005 08:11:54 PM |
|
|
"Spanky" <Spanky@send.your.spam.to gov@wa.gov> wrote:
"Maverick" <justgopublic@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:jE2Sd.2580825$B07.407653@news.easynews.com...
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:p32Sd.4594$EL5.2594@trnddc05...
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:oqrg11ho45qfgat06g91re2htu4b8bhvg9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:47:25 -0800, "Spanky"
<Spanky@send.your.spam.to gov@wa.gov> wrote:
[..]
What then makes the law against incestual marriage retain its
validity after running it through the argument that makes same sex
marriage legal. That's all I'm asking..
They are two separate issues.
Another example of giving special status to homosexuals.
That conclusion I am trying to avoid, yet it seems to remain. Special
Rights, not Equal Rights, and so the query continues..
Wrong. You're arguing that two sets of *people* have different rights,
but the reality is that there are two sets of *laws:* Anti-gay-marriage
laws, and anti-incestual-marriage laws. If a non-incestuous gay couple
wants to get married, they can fight the gay marriage law, without
fighting the incestuous marriage law. If a brother and sister want to
marry, they can fight the incestuous marriage law, but not the gay
marriage law.
That's how equal protection works: You argue your right to equal
protection in order to overturn *specific laws.* If the specific law in
question is seen as unfairly discriminatory, it is overturned.
If the courts rule that anti-gay-marriage laws are unconstitutional,
then the anti-incestual-marriage laws would still remain. And since
everyone has the equal right to equal protection, same-family couples
are free to argue their case, if they want to. Whether they'd get their
wish remains to be seen.
And the idea that gay couples (and any other romantic combination you
can think of) have a right to equal protection is what's spooking the
right wing. That's why they keep passing DOMA laws, amending their state
constitutions, and wanting an amendment to the US constitution to
prevent gays (and whoever else) from having their day in court.
--
"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats who don't know what's
going on." -- Robert Kennedy, Jr.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spanky" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
20 Feb 2005 08:29:59 PM |
|
|
--
SBC 383
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gsan7b.ez5n6zcxntyzN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
"Spanky" <Spanky@send.your.spam.to gov@wa.gov> wrote:
<snipped>
And the idea that gay couples (and any other romantic combination
you
can think of) have a right to equal protection is what's spooking
the
right wing. That's why they keep passing DOMA laws, amending their
state
constitutions, and wanting an amendment to the US constitution to
prevent gays (and whoever else) from having their day in court.
Are you saying that the gay community would not in turn jump upon the
bandwagon
with the right wingers if/when the equal rights argument has its day?
What strange bedfellows indeed, I got to get me a ticket to that show.
--
"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats who don't know
what's
going on." -- Robert Kennedy, Jr.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
21 Feb 2005 04:30:27 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:29:59 -0800, "Spanky" <Spanky@send.your.spam.to
gov@wa.gov> said in alt.atheism:
Are you saying that the gay community would not in turn jump upon the
bandwagon with the right wingers if/when the equal rights argument has its day?
What "equal rights argument"? There are many of them. The argument
to allow gay marriage is one of them.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spanky" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
21 Feb 2005 08:58:25 PM |
|
|
--
SBC 383
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:96ok11te5sub4c9k6lgkl05et3qrakgvgl@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:29:59 -0800, "Spanky"
<Spanky@send.your.spam.to
gov@wa.gov> said in alt.atheism:
Are you saying that the gay community would not in turn jump upon
the
bandwagon with the right wingers if/when the equal rights argument
has its day?
What "equal rights argument"? There are many of them. The argument
to allow gay marriage is one of them.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
Incestuous Marriage
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
21 Feb 2005 09:25:21 PM |
|
|
"Spanky" <Spanky@send.your.spam.to gov@wa.gov> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:96ok11te5sub4c9k6lgkl05et3qrakgvgl@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:29:59 -0800, "Spanky" <Spanky@send.your.spam.to
gov@wa.gov> said in alt.atheism:
Are you saying that the gay community would not in turn jump upon the
bandwagon with the right wingers if/when the equal rights argument has
its day?
What "equal rights argument"? There are many of them. The argument to
allow gay marriage is one of them.
Incestuous Marriage
I explained this to you already, Spanky. Do you just not want to learn?
It's true that everyone has a right to equal protection, regardless of
their sexual orientation or proclivity. Siblings who want to get married
have legal recourse against the laws which prohibit them from getting
married. That doesn't mean they'll get those laws overturned, but it
means they have a right to try.
Does that strike you as dangerous?
Anyway... A conservative would look to the constitution and say, "They
have a right to equal protection, so they should have their day in
court." A liberal would look at the constitution and say, "They have a
right to equal protection, so they should have their day in court."
A reactionary would say, "OH MY GOD! THE QUEERS AND INCESTUOUS AND
PEDOPHILES AND BESTIO-PHILES WANT TO GET MARRIED! HOW WILL WE EVER
SURVIVE THIS MORAL DECAY??!"
Thus, you're a reactionary.
--
"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats who don't know what's
going on." -- Robert Kennedy, Jr.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spanky" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
22 Feb 2005 06:01:57 AM |
|
|
--
SBC 383
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gsclko.doz5um16gw4fsN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
"Spanky" <Spanky@send.your.spam.to gov@wa.gov> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:96ok11te5sub4c9k6lgkl05et3qrakgvgl@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:29:59 -0800, "Spanky"
<Spanky@send.your.spam.to
gov@wa.gov> said in alt.atheism:
Are you saying that the gay community would not in turn jump
upon the
bandwagon with the right wingers if/when the equal rights
argument has
its day?
What "equal rights argument"? There are many of them. The
argument to
allow gay marriage is one of them.
Incestuous Marriage
I explained this to you already, Spanky. Do you just not want to
learn?
It's true that everyone has a right to equal protection, regardless
of
their sexual orientation or proclivity. Siblings who want to get
married
have legal recourse against the laws which prohibit them from
getting
married. That doesn't mean they'll get those laws overturned, but it
means they have a right to try.
Does that strike you as dangerous?
Whats dangerous about exercising ones rights? Only danger I can be
wary of, is when judges make law.
Anyway... A conservative would look to the constitution and say,
"They
have a right to equal protection, so they should have their day in
court." A liberal would look at the constitution and say, "They have
a
right to equal protection, so they should have their day in court."
A reactionary would say, "OH MY GOD! THE QUEERS AND INCESTUOUS AND
PEDOPHILES AND BESTIO-PHILES WANT TO GET MARRIED! HOW WILL WE EVER
SURVIVE THIS MORAL DECAY??!"
Thus, you're a reactionary.
None of the above, I'm doing a paper for this course and I find that
observation is the best method to validate. Somewhere in this box are
quotes from the Gay Community drivers over the incestuous marriage
question that they respond to as finding it "morally objectionable".
It is that choice of words used that I find most interesting
--
"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats who don't know
what's
going on." -- Robert Kennedy, Jr.
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
22 Feb 2005 07:57:36 AM |
|
|
Spanky wrote:
SBC 383
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gsclko.doz5um16gw4fsN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
"Spanky" <Spanky@send.your.spam.to gov@wa.gov> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:96ok11te5sub4c9k6lgkl05et3qrakgvgl@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:29:59 -0800, "Spanky"
<Spanky@send.your.spam.to
gov@wa.gov> said in alt.atheism:
<snip>
I explained this to you already, Spanky. Do you just not want to
learn?
It's true that everyone has a right to equal protection, regardless
of
their sexual orientation or proclivity. Siblings who want to get
married
have legal recourse against the laws which prohibit them from
getting
married. That doesn't mean they'll get those laws overturned, but it
means they have a right to try.
Does that strike you as dangerous?
Whats dangerous about exercising ones rights? Only danger I can be
wary of, is when judges make law.
Judges are making law? Can you verify that by posting any of the
regulations/statutes [with regulation/statute numbers] that Judges have
made for us to see? TIA.
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
22 Feb 2005 08:24:06 AM |
|
|
"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:_emdnTV2jqnRp4bfRVn-1A@golden.net...
Spanky wrote:
SBC 383
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gsclko.doz5um16gw4fsN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
"Spanky" <Spanky@send.your.spam.to gov@wa.gov> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:96ok11te5sub4c9k6lgkl05et3qrakgvgl@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:29:59 -0800, "Spanky"
<Spanky@send.your.spam.to
gov@wa.gov> said in alt.atheism:
<snip>
I explained this to you already, Spanky. Do you just not want to
learn?
It's true that everyone has a right to equal protection, regardless
of
their sexual orientation or proclivity. Siblings who want to get
married
have legal recourse against the laws which prohibit them from
getting
married. That doesn't mean they'll get those laws overturned, but it
means they have a right to try.
Does that strike you as dangerous?
Whats dangerous about exercising ones rights? Only danger I can be
wary of, is when judges make law.
Judges are making law? Can you verify that by posting any of the
regulations/statutes [with regulation/statute numbers] that Judges have
made for us to see? TIA.
Judges making law is a manner of speaking. Decisions made by judges that
become law are not assigned numbers. Some interesting cases for review would
include United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, Wickard v.
Filburn and many others that are referred to in the William J. Watkins, Jr.
book "Reclaiming the American Revolution"
One particularly egregious decision that resulted in new law is the one in
which the Supreme Court ruled that an individual farmer could not grow wheat
on his own land for his own consumption because if many farmers did likewise
the market for wheat would collapse. Prior to this ruling, individual
farmers could always grow wheat, and other crops, for their own consumption.
The judges made new law.
--
I come here not to argue, persuade nor respond
to displays of immaturity, but only to inform from
the annals of history.
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spanky" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
22 Feb 2005 07:12:48 PM |
|
|
--
SBC 383
"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:_emdnTV2jqnRp4bfRVn-1A@golden.net...
Whats dangerous about exercising ones rights? Only danger I can be
wary of, is when judges make law.
Judges are making law? Can you verify that by posting any of the
regulations/statutes [with regulation/statute numbers] that Judges
have
made for us to see? TIA.
I, well lets see, Ill leave it to the following for you to argue over.
SPINA, J. (dissenting, with whom Sosman and Cordy, JJ., join).Mass
case, you look it up
To qualify as "fundamental" the asserted right must be "objectively,
'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,' [Moore v. East
Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977)
The court has extruded a new right from principles of substantive due
process, and in doing so it has distorted the meaning and purpose of
due process.
<snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid
E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
22 Feb 2005 08:46:13 PM |
|
|
Spanky wrote:
SPINA, J. (dissenting, with whom Sosman and Cordy, JJ., join).Mass
case, you look it up
To qualify as "fundamental" the asserted right must be "objectively,
'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,' [Moore v. East
Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977)
The court has extruded a new right from principles of substantive due
process, and in doing so it has distorted the meaning and purpose of
due process.
From Hernandez v. Robles:
'For purposes of due process analysis, the question is not, as defendant
and amici formulate it, whether same-sex marriage is so rooted in our
traditions that it is a fundamental right (it is not so rooted, of
course). Indeed, to ask whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental
right is to make the mistake the Supreme Court criticized in Lawrence
when it overruled Bowers ... The Bowers Court: ... "The issue presented
is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon
homosexuals to engage in sodomy." ... The Lawrence Court explained such
a formulation of the issue "discloses the Court's failure to appreciate
the extent of the liberty at stake." ... the question that the Bowers
Court should have asked [is] whether consensual sodomy between adults
was embraced by the "constitutional protection [afforded] to personal
decisions" ... Similarly in the present case, the "liberty at stake"
that is fundamental is the freedom of choose one's spouse.'
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff North" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
22 Feb 2005 06:41:19 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 19:25:21 -0800, in alt.politics.homosexuality
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
| "Spanky" <Spanky@send.your.spam.to gov@wa.gov> wrote:
|
| > "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
| > news:96ok11te5sub4c9k6lgkl05et3qrakgvgl@4ax.com...
| > > On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:29:59 -0800, "Spanky" <Spanky@send.your.spam.to
| > > gov@wa.gov> said in alt.atheism:
| > >
| > > >Are you saying that the gay community would not in turn jump upon the
| > > >bandwagon with the right wingers if/when the equal rights argument has
| > > >its day?
| > >
| > > What "equal rights argument"? There are many of them. The argument to
| > > allow gay marriage is one of them.
| >
| > Incestuous Marriage
|
| I explained this to you already, Spanky. Do you just not want to learn?
|
| It's true that everyone has a right to equal protection, regardless of
| their sexual orientation or proclivity. Siblings who want to get married
| have legal recourse against the laws which prohibit them from getting
| married. That doesn't mean they'll get those laws overturned, but it
| means they have a right to try.
What these morons don't realise is that marriage is for the legal
recognition of the union of 2 (non-related) people.
What additional legal benefits would be obtained by a brother and
sister marrying that they don't already have? Answer: None.
| Does that strike you as dangerous?
|
| Anyway... A conservative would look to the constitution and say, "They
| have a right to equal protection, so they should have their day in
| court." A liberal would look at the constitution and say, "They have a
| right to equal protection, so they should have their day in court."
|
| A reactionary would say, "OH MY GOD! THE QUEERS AND INCESTUOUS AND
| PEDOPHILES AND BESTIO-PHILES WANT TO GET MARRIED! HOW WILL WE EVER
| SURVIVE THIS MORAL DECAY??!"
|
| Thus, you're a reactionary.
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorthau@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
22 Feb 2005 10:58:27 AM |
|
|
"Jeff North" <jnorth@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:tv9m11tnl6m5779vr6bbs2oa65gfj1adn9@4ax.com...
What these morons don't realise is that marriage is for the legal
recognition of the union of 2 (non-related) people.
What additional legal benefits would be obtained by a brother and
sister marrying that they don't already have? Answer: None.
I suppose I'm a moron because I never looked at it this way :-)
Thanks for spelling it out.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff North" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
22 Feb 2005 03:53:43 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:58:27 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality "Susan
Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote:
|
| "Jeff North" <jnorth@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
| news:tv9m11tnl6m5779vr6bbs2oa65gfj1adn9@4ax.com...
| >
| > What these morons don't realise is that marriage is for the legal
| > recognition of the union of 2 (non-related) people.
| >
| > What additional legal benefits would be obtained by a brother and
| > sister marrying that they don't already have? Answer: None.
|
| I suppose I'm a moron because I never looked at it this way :-)
| Thanks for spelling it out.
You just need to think a bit more laterally :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorthau@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
22 Feb 2005 05:48:57 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:41:19 GMT, Jeff North <jnorth@bigpond.net.au>
said in alt.atheism:
What these morons don't realise is that marriage is for the legal
recognition of the union of 2 (non-related) people.
What additional legal benefits would be obtained by a brother and
sister marrying that they don't already have? Answer: None.
Answers:
Financial. (Husbands and wives have many financial benefits over
unmarried couples.)
Medical. (Aside from insurance, a spouse is the last one kept from a
patient's bedside, even if siblings are, and spouses are given special
rights wrt making decisions for their spouses. See the Terri Schiavo
case.)
Legal. (Assumption of right to decide, in cases of mental
incompetence, almost automatic power of attorney in some states, etc.)
The possibility of genetic damage in offspring is a serious
consideration, though, and possibly serious enough to preclude sibling
marriage. (Although marriage between first cousins has been legal in
some places for decades.)
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spanky" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
22 Feb 2005 06:55:53 PM |
|
|
SBC 383
"Jeff North" <jnorth@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:tv9m11tnl6m5779vr6bbs2oa65gfj1adn9@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 19:25:21 -0800, in alt.politics.homosexuality
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
| "Spanky" <Spanky@send.your.spam.to gov@wa.gov> wrote:
|
| > "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
| > news:96ok11te5sub4c9k6lgkl05et3qrakgvgl@4ax.com...
| > > On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:29:59 -0800, "Spanky"
<Spanky@send.your.spam.to
| > > gov@wa.gov> said in alt.atheism:
| > >
| > > >Are you saying that the gay community would not in turn jump
upon the
| > > >bandwagon with the right wingers if/when the equal rights
argument has
| > > >its day?
| > >
| > > What "equal rights argument"? There are many of them. The
argument to
| > > allow gay marriage is one of them.
| >
| > Incestuous Marriage
|
| I explained this to you already, Spanky. Do you just not want to
learn?
|
| It's true that everyone has a right to equal protection,
regardless of
| their sexual orientation or proclivity. Siblings who want to get
married
| have legal recourse against the laws which prohibit them from
getting
| married. That doesn't mean they'll get those laws overturned, but
it
| means they have a right to try.
What these morons don't realise is that marriage is for the legal
recognition of the union of 2 (non-related) people.
What additional legal benefits would be obtained by a brother and
sister marrying that they don't already have? Answer: None.
Medical Insurance benifits, just to toss in one
| Does that strike you as dangerous?
|
| Anyway... A conservative would look to the constitution and say,
"They
| have a right to equal protection, so they should have their day
in
| court." A liberal would look at the constitution and say, "They
have a
| right to equal protection, so they should have their day in
court."
|
| A reactionary would say, "OH MY GOD! THE QUEERS AND INCESTUOUS
AND
| PEDOPHILES AND BESTIO-PHILES WANT TO GET MARRIED! HOW WILL WE
EVER
| SURVIVE THIS MORAL DECAY??!"
|
| Thus, you're a reactionary.
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorthau@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff North" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
22 Feb 2005 11:37:54 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:55:53 -0800, in alt.politics.homosexuality
"Spanky" <Spanky@send.your.spam.to gov@wa.gov> wrote:
| "Jeff North" <jnorth@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
[snip]
| >
| > What these morons don't realise is that marriage is for the legal
| > recognition of the union of 2 (non-related) people.
| >
| > What additional legal benefits would be obtained by a brother and
| > sister marrying that they don't already have? Answer: None.
|
| Medical Insurance benifits, just to toss in one
As adults are they not covered as individuals?
As dependant upon their parents are they not also covered?
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorthau@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
21 Feb 2005 11:47:13 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:58:25 -0800, "Spanky" <Spanky@send.your.spam.to
gov@wa.gov> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:96ok11te5sub4c9k6lgkl05et3qrakgvgl@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:29:59 -0800, "Spanky"
<Spanky@send.your.spam.to
gov@wa.gov> said in alt.atheism:
Are you saying that the gay community would not in turn jump upon the
bandwagon with the right wingers if/when the equal rights argument has its day?
What "equal rights argument"? There are many of them. The argument
to allow gay marriage is one of them.
Incestuous Marriage
I wasn't aware of any such "argument" in progress.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
21 Feb 2005 12:57:14 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:38:54 -0800, "Spanky" <Spanky@send.your.spam.to
gov@wa.gov> wrote:
SBC 383
"Maverick" <justgopublic@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:jE2Sd.2580825$B07.407653@news.easynews.com...
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:p32Sd.4594$EL5.2594@trnddc05...
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:oqrg11ho45qfgat06g91re2htu4b8bhvg9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:47:25 -0800, "Spanky"
<Spanky@send.your.spam.to
gov@wa.gov> wrote:
What then makes the law against incestual marriage retain its
validity
after running it through the argument that makes same sex
marriage
legal. That's all I'm asking..
They are two separate issues.
Another example of giving special status to homosexuals.
That conclusion I am trying to avoid, yet it seems to remain.
Special Rights, not Equal Rights, and so the query continues..
He was responding to my post, in which I implied absolutely nothing
about special rights; nor did he even try to point out where I had. I
wonder if he or you even bothered to read what I wrote.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
20 Feb 2005 11:36:05 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:10:55 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopublic@nomail.com>
wrote:
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:p32Sd.4594$EL5.2594@trnddc05...
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:oqrg11ho45qfgat06g91re2htu4b8bhvg9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:47:25 -0800, "Spanky" <Spanky@send.your.spam.to
gov@wa.gov> wrote:
What then makes the law against incestual marriage retain its validity
after running it through the argument that makes same sex marriage
legal. That's all I'm asking..
They are two separate issues.
Another example of giving special status to homosexuals.
Since, as I pointed out in the part of my post you cut out, both of
them have exactly the same right to challenge the law in court and
argue their case. Below you can see the part you (no doubt)
accidentally cut:
They are two separate issues. If someone wants to marry their
sister/brother, he/she is free to challenge the laws against such a
marriage in court; where they will be able to present their arguments.
The existence of laws against incestual marriage, whether or not the
reasons for them are valid, is not a reason for denying homosexuals
their right to marry.
As you can see, I expressed no view on either kind of marriage; except
that people have the legal right to argue for either kind in court.
They also have the right to push for legislation that would accomplish
their ends. No special status was implied for anybody.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
20 Feb 2005 01:20:49 PM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:c9ih11p1nag2l74k4kbqj3l19e59kr6ki1@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:10:55 GMT, "Maverick" <justgopublic@nomail.com>
wrote:
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:p32Sd.4594$EL5.2594@trnddc05...
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:oqrg11ho45qfgat06g91re2htu4b8bhvg9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:47:25 -0800, "Spanky" <Spanky@send.your.spam.to
gov@wa.gov> wrote:
What then makes the law against incestual marriage retain its validity
after running it through the argument that makes same sex marriage
legal. That's all I'm asking..
They are two separate issues.
Another example of giving special status to homosexuals.
Since, as I pointed out in the part of my post you cut out,
The "cut out" was not due to any attempt to address a particular point, or
rebut one. It was simply to point out that the "two separate issues" makes
clear that things are being done to "separate" homosexuals from others and
granting special status to homosexuals.
It's the same thing that occurs with race. We pat ourselves on the back for
being "color blind" now days. But every day you have "he's the first black
to...", "she's the first black woman to..." etc. We have become a society
that is afraid to proclaim our personal likes and dislikes and prejudices.
There is no dishonor in being open about a dislike for blacks, or whites or
straights or homosexuals. If Mother nature would have meant for us to all be
the same, why were we originally put in different parts of the world
according to our race?
--
I come here not to argue, persuade nor respond
to displays of immaturity, but only to inform from
the annals of history.
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spanky" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
20 Feb 2005 02:56:26 PM |
|
|
--
SBC 383
"Maverick" <justgopublic@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:lq5Sd.2594784$B07.410183@news.easynews.com...
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:c9ih11p1nag2l74k4kbqj3l19e59kr6ki1@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:10:55 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopublic@nomail.com>
wrote:
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:p32Sd.4594$EL5.2594@trnddc05...
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:oqrg11ho45qfgat06g91re2htu4b8bhvg9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:47:25 -0800, "Spanky"
<Spanky@send.your.spam.to
gov@wa.gov> wrote:
What then makes the law against incestual marriage retain its
validity
after running it through the argument that makes same sex
marriage
legal. That's all I'm asking..
They are two separate issues.
Another example of giving special status to homosexuals.
Since, as I pointed out in the part of my post you cut out,
The "cut out" was not due to any attempt to address a particular
point, or
rebut one. It was simply to point out that the "two separate issues"
makes
clear that things are being done to "separate" homosexuals from
others and
granting special status to homosexuals.
It's the same thing that occurs with race. We pat ourselves on the
back for
being "color blind" now days. But every day you have "he's the first
black
to...", "she's the first black woman to..." etc. We have become a
society
that is afraid to proclaim our personal likes and dislikes and
prejudices.
There is no dishonor in being open about a dislike for blacks, or
whites or
straights or homosexuals. If Mother nature would have meant for us
to all be
the same, why were we originally put in different parts of the world
according to our race?
Worse yet from the recent company "Diversity Training" is that
maintaining a neutral position towards those who engage in behaviors
one finds distasteful is offensive to that party. Not enough to leave
ones bias at the door upon entering the workplace, you must now
acknowledge and accept their diversity. So should you pass in the
factory one known to be, say a homosexual, not only must you keep your
opinion to yourself, you will not act to hurt their feelings by
maintaince of the neutral position. So its either give public
falsehood or get fired. So in keeping with the spirit of good will I
always give my nose a quick wipe by hand prior to, with smile on face,
shake the hand of and acknowledge their presence.
--
I come here not to argue, persuade nor respond
to displays of immaturity, but only to inform from
the annals of history.
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
20 Feb 2005 05:31:50 PM |
|
|
"Spanky" <Spanky@send.your.spam.to gov@wa.gov> wrote in message
news:cvathm01get@enews3.newsguy.com...
--
SBC 383
"Maverick" <justgopublic@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:lq5Sd.2594784$B07.410183@news.easynews.com...
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:c9ih11p1nag2l74k4kbqj3l19e59kr6ki1@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:10:55 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopublic@nomail.com>
wrote:
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:p32Sd.4594$EL5.2594@trnddc05...
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:oqrg11ho45qfgat06g91re2htu4b8bhvg9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:47:25 -0800, "Spanky"
<Spanky@send.your.spam.to
gov@wa.gov> wrote:
What then makes the law against incestual marriage retain its
validity
after running it through the argument that makes same sex
marriage
legal. That's all I'm asking..
They are two separate issues.
Another example of giving special status to homosexuals.
Since, as I pointed out in the part of my post you cut out,
The "cut out" was not due to any attempt to address a particular
point, or
rebut one. It was simply to point out that the "two separate issues"
makes
clear that things are being done to "separate" homosexuals from
others and
granting special status to homosexuals.
It's the same thing that occurs with race. We pat ourselves on the
back for
being "color blind" now days. But every day you have "he's the first
black
to...", "she's the first black woman to..." etc. We have become a
society
that is afraid to proclaim our personal likes and dislikes and
prejudices.
There is no dishonor in being open about a dislike for blacks, or
whites or
straights or homosexuals. If Mother nature would have meant for us
to all be
the same, why were we originally put in different parts of the world
according to our race?
Worse yet from the recent company "Diversity Training" is that
maintaining a neutral position towards those who engage in behaviors
one finds distasteful is offensive to that party. Not enough to leave
ones bias at the door upon entering the workplace, you must now
acknowledge and accept their diversity. So should you pass in the
factory one known to be, say a homosexual, not only must you keep your
opinion to yourself, you will not act to hurt their feelings by
maintaince of the neutral position. So its either give public
falsehood or get fired. So in keeping with the spirit of good will I
always give my nose a quick wipe by hand prior to, with smile on face,
shake the hand of and acknowledge their presence.
It is quite telling that a group, in this case the homosexual community,
proclaiming they want to be treated exactly like everyone else yet they
applaud their own segregation through the Gay High School in New York. Only
one of the many reasons they fail to gain much sympathy for their cause.
--
I come here not to argue, persuade nor respond
to displays of immaturity, but only to inform from
the annals of history.
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
21 Feb 2005 08:43:14 AM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
"Spanky" <Spanky@send.your.spam.to gov@wa.gov> wrote in message
news:cvathm01get@enews3.newsguy.com...
--
SBC 383
"Maverick" <justgopublic@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:lq5Sd.2594784$B07.410183@news.easynews.com...
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:c9ih11p1nag2l74k4kbqj3l19e59kr6ki1@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:10:55 GMT, "Maverick"
<justgopublic@nomail.com>
wrote:
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:p32Sd.4594$EL5.2594@trnddc05...
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:oqrg11ho45qfgat06g91re2htu4b8bhvg9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:47:25 -0800, "Spanky"
<Spanky@send.your.spam.to
gov@wa.gov> wrote:
What then makes the law against incestual marriage retain its
validity
after running it through the argument that makes same sex
marriage
legal. That's all I'm asking..
They are two separate issues.
Another example of giving special status to homosexuals.
Since, as I pointed out in the part of my post you cut out,
The "cut out" was not due to any attempt to address a particular
point, or
rebut one. It was simply to point out that the "two separate issues"
makes
clear that things are being done to "separate" homosexuals from
others and
granting special status to homosexuals.
It's the same thing that occurs with race. We pat ourselves on the
back for
being "color blind" now days. But every day you have "he's the first
black
to...", "she's the first black woman to..." etc. We have become a
society
that is afraid to proclaim our personal likes and dislikes and
prejudices.
There is no dishonor in being open about a dislike for blacks, or
whites or
straights or homosexuals. If Mother nature would have meant for us
to all be
the same, why were we originally put in different parts of the world
according to our race?
Worse yet from the recent company "Diversity Training" is that
maintaining a neutral position towards those who engage in behaviors
one finds distasteful is offensive to that party. Not enough to leave
ones bias at the door upon entering the workplace, you must now
acknowledge and accept their diversity. So should you pass in the
factory one known to be, say a homosexual, not only must you keep your
opinion to yourself, you will not act to hurt their feelings by
maintaince of the neutral position. So its either give public
falsehood or get fired. So in keeping with the spirit of good will I
always give my nose a quick wipe by hand prior to, with smile on face,
shake the hand of and acknowledge their presence.
It is quite telling that a group, in this case the homosexual community,
proclaiming they want to be treated exactly like everyone else yet they
applaud their own segregation through the Gay High School in New York. Only
one of the many reasons they fail to gain much sympathy for their cause.
I think they call that 'blaming the victim'.
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Ex-Gay Challenge |
21 Feb 2005 08:54:50 PM |
|
|
"Fritz" <fsmith@bcjdnuypoispl.net> wrote in message
news:4219F382.AD69EB1@bcjdnuypoispl.net...
Maverick wrote:
It is quite telling that a group, in this case the homosexual community,
proclaiming they want to be treated exactly like everyone else yet they
applaud their own segregation through the Gay High School in New York.
Only
one of the many reasons they fail to gain much sympathy for their cause.
I think they call that 'blaming the victim'.
I know I do.
All that he described was "damned if they do & damned if they don't."
Susan
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
