New York’s marriage scam

William Murchison's picture

Marriage in New York State, by act of its legislature, and in spite of everything you’ve always heard, is for everybody, and every combination of everybodies.

Except, you know what — it’s not. And, what’s more, won’t ever be.

For all the legislature’s grandeur and power, and the fervent encouragement of The New York Times, no aggregation of human beings enjoys the power to redefine marriage.

What New York has done, amid much trumpeting and self-congratulation, is create a secular-political institution and give it, spuriously, the name of marriage, according to whose regulations two men may join themselves to each other as may two women.

It’s a sad and shabby charade, with consequences that will likely prove proportionate to New York’s size, population and megalomania.

New York’s lawmakers have taken upon themselves an authority that all previous generations ascribed to God. The legislature’s calculation was that the 21st century has needs beyond the comprehension of generations that failed to see gay marriage as a matter of social justice.

After last month’s vote, The New York Times quoted Gov. Andrew Cuomo as thus compressing the matter. “Their love” — that is, the love of gay couples — “is worth the same as your love. Their partnership is worth the same as your partnership. And they are equal in your eyes to you. That is the driving issue.”

Yes, indeed — the issue driving the decision to set up a whole new institution and label it “marriage.” New York State’s decision enjoys standing and respect in the eyes of all who think Reality is a concept politicians can rejigger to their own satisfaction. No one else has any obligation to pay the New York megalomaniacs the slightest heed.

The normative understanding of marriage is rooted not in political pressure and horse-trading, but in what might quaintly be called the natural law: the law of that’s-how-things-are.

We ourselves are male and female. Male and female are different. So are they complementary. Brought together, they make up a whole. The marriage that’s in our bones, culturally speaking and religiously speaking, is the institution that perfects and maintains wholeness for the good of the couple and for the creation and projection of new life.

Formerly New York State understood this truth. Formerly all states did — all societies, all entities pretending to the attributes of civilization. Political entities no more than ratified and regulated what God and Nature were believed to have put firmly in place. The political fraternity had a certain becoming modesty in days of old.

What happened? A lot of things did, but the clamor that arose in the 1960s for individual autonomy (a/k/a “What I Say Goes!”) is a convenient starting point for examination.

An intellectually sloppy and devitalized era that valued Self more than it esteemed some-ol’-God-out-there-in-space couldn’t think of a single reason that people who clamored for “justice” shouldn’t have it. Same-sex marriage came under that heading once the political power of the gay lobby waxed and that of the religious community waned. Bring on the politicians! — the vote-seekers, the money-raisers, the Cuomos, the New York lawmakers in whose hungry mouths butter refused to melt as they pretended to reinvent marriage.

Thus, for the first time in history, two institutions, both known to their practitioners as marriage, lie oddly alongside each other: in New York and a growing if still gratifyingly small number of states. The institution that brings unity out of difference is of course the real one, rooted in Nature. The other is phonier than a Bernie Madoff cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die.

In the end, reality trumps fantasy, which is why New York’s experiment in moral Madoff-ism will shrivel and die. But how long before it does? And after what number of disasters in the lives of real human beings looking to their culture for guidance?

Playing with real people’s real lives and offering cheap and transitory satisfactions for the sake of political gain is more the mark of fascism than of American democracy. Or at least it once was.

[William Murchison writes from Dallas.] COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
It's okay to be gay or lesbian.

Just not okay to be sexually deviant.

That would Queer.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Marriage and freedom

"New York’s lawmakers have taken upon themselves an authority that all previous generations ascribed to God. The legislature’s calculation was that the 21st century has needs beyond the comprehension of generations that failed to see gay marriage as a matter of social justice."

Did God not give us our ability to reason? The right of the state to control our behavior is limited by our willingness to give it this control. It is the role of government to control social outcomes that inflict injury or infringe on another person’s rights. It is not the role of government to define “marriage” and it is not the right of the government to restrict its practice. The only reason government is involved in marriage is because it is a civil contract allowing two parties to agree on shared property and rights granted by such a contract.

Marriage in the religious sense is defined by the particular religion involved in the practice. So, a tribe in New Guinea may allow under religion guidance the marriage of a man or woman to a pig. Religion in the West may allow a marriage to more than one person. It is the state that makes such unions illegal. In the first case because a pig can’t agree contractually and in the second because……well just because.

So, are we free to make contracts between consenting parties? Are we free to determine within our religions what marriage is? Do these two things have anything to do with one another?

"At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has sometimes been disastrous, by giving to opponents just grounds of opposition." - Lord Acton

So friends, beware of what you ask for because there is no limit to the force that government can bring to bear on your lives if you let it.

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
My aversion to homosexual behavior . . .

. . . should not mean I can impose my values on gays and lesbians. If my neighbors included a gay couple, perhaps I would squirm while explaining to my kids. But my discomfort should not limit them from the advantages granted by the state to a couple that enters into the commitment of marriage. Those advantages include tax breaks, inheritance rights, the definition of “family” that matters when one is seriously ill, etc. As a conservative, it seems to me that reducing the state’s reach into our private life includes the right of gays and lesbians to marry if they choose, my personal distaste notwithstanding.

Evil Elvis
Evil Elvis's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2008
tgarlock, a true conservative

Conservatism should be about personal freedom and prosperity, not what people imagine their sweet baby Jesus wants.

A true Conservative considers abortion and homosexuality matters of personal liberty -- full stop.

I congratulate you on your ability to think clearly.

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
Evil butt,

we know what Jesus wants.

He spelled it out clearly and we don't have to imagine.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Yes

And sheriff's possees, public hangings, police state, rich get medals---poor get the shaft, expensive health insurance especially for those who can't afford it, no pensions from the government--except for veterans, no welfare except for beggars, no free lawyers--if you can't pay, go to jail or die, no tax on successful people who probably made most of it off others and the government, (but they are hard workers), and most of all we must kill all Liberals---they are dangerous---not like Wall Street Hedge Fund Managers, Bankers, Developers, and Smart people cheating dumb-asses!

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Exactly...

...his daughter and her PARTNER; not wife, or husband - whichever would be which, which makes the point that it's NOT a marriage. Those terms don't, and can't, apply. I hope they have a happy partnership; just hope they don't have a baby made in a petri dish and call it 'theirs' - it'd be a bald-faced lie.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
kcchiefandy

If two people love and cherish a child; provide it with hearth and food - the child is 'theirs'. Children adopted by hetero's belong to 'them'. Hetero couples that have problems conceiving and submit to a 'dish' procedure for help - their child belongs to THEM! THE 'LIE'' is in your perception of parenthood!

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Only through medical science...

...can barren couples conceive. This recent technology has been hijacked by homosexuals in an attempt to legitimize, popularize, and 'sell' their lifestyles as normal. In NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM can two homosexuals 'have' a child. They buy 'their' child, period. Those heterosexual couples that do so do it out of necessity for the pro-generation of their family(ies) when no other option is available. As for adoption, that is a completely different topic of a life already established and pointless for this discussion.

Evil Elvis
Evil Elvis's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2008
Psst

The man in the sky what has made you think all of these silly things doesn't really exist.

HTH

Evil Elvis
Evil Elvis's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2008
Alternatives to gay adoption

Read some of the horror stories of children who spend the majority of their childhood in foster care -- typically with a heterosexual couple -- and ask yourself it is better than a loving gay couple.

Google "Christian Choate". His heterosexual parents kept him locked in a cage until the heterosexual father beat him to death. But thankfully he was probably never exposed to deviant gays.

Humans are 99.9% similar. You are only .01% different than homosexuals, murderers, blacks, whatever.

The leftover American puritanism is perplexing in its hypocrisy.

I only wish that I could live long enough to see homo sapiens finally reject the old sky man and hobgoblin superstitions.

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
A case that happened about five years ago that I still cannot

get out of my mind. There were two boys and a girl in a family (not in GA) and a gay couple wanted to adopt them. One of the fine upstanding couples in the community fought to keep them from adopting the little girl and adopted her themselves. Why they in their warped mind thought it okay to have the boys adopted by this couple but not the girl was beyond my comprehension at the time. After the little girl had been with the family for a while it was learned that this fine upstanding pillar of the community had been sexually abusing this child all the time and the wife never intervened. When the child was returned to the foster system the gay couple who were raising the young boys who were thriving tried and tried once again to adopt this little girl. But the 'system' would not let them. So this child who could have been living in a loving home with her birth brothers was once again left in the system simply because (in my estimation at least) the powers to be could not/would not admit they had made a mistake. I wonder to this day what happened to that little girl and what her life will be like. As far as I am concerned, as long as people are loving and willing to make a good home for a child it doesn't matter if they are man and woman, woman and woman or man and man. This crazy notion, that gay people are perverts is so off base.

Dondol
Dondol's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
1.6% of the Population?

Its amazing what 1.6% of the population can get the rest of the 98.4% to do with some well placed whining and protesting.

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
Thank goodness we are not a democracy..

A democracy is two lions and an antelope voting on what to eat for dinner.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
as Socialism is...

...3 lions deciding what to do with the zebra the 4th lion killed. Communism is those 3 killing the 4th eating the zebra.

citizenal
citizenal's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2008
Missing the Point - Marriage has a settled definition

Homosexuality, like any vice or bad inclination of man, has been around for ever. Age does nothing to make it acceptable or desirable to our society. I think we have established that some of us see the practice as acceptable and some of us do not. This, however, is not the issue. The issue is the definition of marriage. There is a reason that all of us should look carefully at the redefinition of that term. I don't think it is ever wise to redefine a word for political reasons. I care much less what gets decided regarding homosexuals living together, making end of life decisions for their partners, or how employment benefits are awarded. I think it is economically stupid to give partner health benefits to homosexuals with proven disproportionate health risks but businesses can decide that how they want. It is even more economically stupid for government employers to give such benefits. And, ultimately, it is absurd for government to legislate definitions over a deeply divided public.

I invest a lot of concern when they try to call it marriage. We have a settled definition of marriage for many thousands of years spanning many cultures and religious beliefs. Homosexuals are not comfortable being different is the bottom line. They rant about the justice of their cause and walk naked in parades to show they don't care what others think yet they cannot be 'proud' to have a new definition applied to them. Would a new institution of 'Life Partners' be unreasonable? Seems odd they crave to be called married.

They sure know their tactics though. They are focused like a laser beam on government and children. Change the laws and change the next generation's perception. Not unlike every other contestant for power in history. I think we must learn from them and from history to wisely oppose this agenda. We really need to reach our children. How many recognize the brainwashing going on around us to desensitize our children; in government schools they push this agenda with no respect for differing beliefs, many venues on television press this agenda, and the list goes on. Do we engage this discussion with youth so they hear a more traditional and conservative voice and rationale? We are not likely to convince one another as adults. We have already formed our morals and beliefs and are rarely going to be 'enlightened' to something that will change us but we cannot, must not lose our children.

Thank you, Cal and The Citizen, for keeping the discussion going and bringing good things to us to stimulate our minds and hopefully our actions.

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
Many cultures define marriage as one man and many women...

Is that good with you too.

Frankly, I don't know why a man would want more than one.

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
Bravo, citizenal.

You have stated our position perfectly.

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
Partenership and marriage

are not interchangeable terms.

It is an insulting perversion of true marriage to refer to homosexual partnerships as marriages.

If they want to call it a "homosexual partnership" and give them every benefit of a heterosexual marriage, then fine.

But call it what it is and don't try to change the definition of marriage into a lie.

Only a damned fool would do that.

You can try to define a cat as a dog all you want but it just is not so and never will be.

Evil Elvis
Evil Elvis's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2008
"True Marriage"

As in ... Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley?

As in ... half of all marriages ending in divorce?

"Separate but equal" has never held water.

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
I should say

"the meaning of marriage".

The relationships that end in divorce are distorted relationships also.

The whole reason these are ending in divorce is that those people have LOST the meaning of marriage.

halfdollarandlost
halfdollarandlost's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/25/2009
BHH

Semantics.

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
I fail to see how two consenting adults of age

gettng married has any affect on my marriage at all. Men/men or women/women. I wish them well.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
It becomes worse...

...when 'they' (homosexual partners; I refuse the tag 'gay' - if you're so proud of what you do then don't make up names for it) 'have' children. I doubt I'll live to see the day when two boys parts or two girl parts work together to produce a living being. Entrance into this arena is simply narcissistic self-delution. This kind of sexual deviation goes beyond the pale. Homosexuality IS sexual deviation from the biological standpoint, just as pedophila and beastiality are, period. You can twist it and paint it anyway you want in our free society - anything goes! - but don't tell me it's 'normal' and try to shove it down my throat.

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
So when did you choose to be

a heterosexual? That does appear to be your leaning.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Oh goody, Neal Boortz checks in

The classic - when did you decide to be heterosexual? Might as well ask when someone decided to be an auto mechanic or a baseball player or a mother - oh wait, I know the answer to that one.

Girls grow up with the expectation of Prince Charming and being swept off their feet which is certainly heterosexual behavior. Some are passed over and live with it, others act on it and become lesbians.

If you want to explore the male side of this question ask Nuk or hutch or AtHome or some other old geezers. They will probably be able to trace their heterosexual decision time back to a certain episode of Mickey Mouse Club and one of the Mousketeers. I always liked Bobby Burgess, but I suspect (and hope) the old geezers will have a different answer.

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
Just because you can't answer..

doesn't mean that it's not legit. That's the beauty of the question, there is no answer.

Not that it matters, the question at hand is should "gay marriage" be legal. I for one, think gay folks should be able to be just as happy/miserable as the rest of us. :)

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
As I remember...

...it was when I felt a stirring and, - I suppose I'll call it - an elation when in the prescence of certain members of the opposite sex. I have had none such feelings in the prescence of men. Those who might have such in the prescence of their same sex can - and do - as they please but it is not within the bounds of my definition of normal human sexual behavior. Again, IMHO, not that of the American Psychiatric Association (I wonder when they deemed homosexuality as 'not a mental condition or disease' years ago, how many on that decision-making panel were practicing homosexuals?).

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
Well

What exactly is the problem then?

You don't think homosexuals could have the same feelings? Or do you just think they choose to have a lifestyle that gets them ridiculed at most every turn?

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
So andy, we'll just mark you down as anti-gay

and as I happen to agree with you, I won't get into all the mental gymnastics both political parties go through in order to include or exclude this small group of deviates. It is precisely the attention they get from political parties that enables a small inconsequential group of deviates to expand and convert normal people and to push their agenda onto the uncaring and disinterested.

Homosexuality has been around for 2,000 years, but was mostly ignored and only slightly ridiculed until the AIDS epidemic in the 1980's. That got all the do-gooders taking them under their wing and the church ladies up in arms against the deviates. Better they should be ignored (like before) than put up on some imaginary stage where they can act out their in-your-face farce.

Have you ever noticed the AJC - especially in the Homefinder section features a hugely disproportionate number of gays? Why is that? Democratic politics maybe?

Evil Elvis
Evil Elvis's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2008
Silly Mudcat

You're clever enough to know what went down in Sparta back in its heyday and typically consistent enough to see this as a matter of personal freedom rather than retarded theocratic dreams.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
MUD: 2000 years?

Wasn't there a bunch of such people around Greece maybe twice that long ago?
When did Sodom go down?

I didn't know before that democrats were gay and republicans were not! Thanks.

Where was Lesbos? Lot of those around who are truly married--part-time.
It seems to me sometimes that a lot of females trend that way.

Actually what this marriage thing is all about is a contract recognized by the government as having the same right to benefits as do a married man and woman.

One can carry the health insurance, one can work, both can inherit, etc.

It does seem to favor those benefits (the current law) for women only--except for two women.

Anyway, they do vote apparently!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Proud father

Former Vice President Dick Cheney has expressed his pride in his lesbIan daughter and her partner. He knows she didn't choose this lifestyle .

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
She sure did choose it, DM

the lifestyle choice she made was to be an out of the closet female homosexual (which is what a lesbian is) who is committed to one other female homosexual (the partner).

She chose from the following menu:
In the closet female homosexual
Out of the closet homosexual playing the field
Closet bi-sexual
Open bi-sexual
Frustrated heterosexual
and of course the style she chose - committed and out of the closet homosexual

All in all I think she made the right choice because all he other choices would make her and by extension her father seem hypocritical. If you choose that lifestyle, you might as well be honest about it and if you can keep it behind closed doors with just one other female homosexual - so much the better.

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
Mud, she did not choose her lifestyle, she chose to come out in

the open about it. As long as there have been human beings I am sure there have been homosexuals--maybe they were not called that but they were there. Unless you have grown up with someone who tried to fight their difference their whole life and have them take their life because they could not take what society did to them because of their difference, then you really do not have a right to speak for them. There are some who are exhibitionists and they would be that way regardless of their sexual preference and then there are homosexual couples who have lived quietly and faithfully with their partners for 30 or more years. Not too many years ago if you were believed to be a homosexual you stood the chance of being beaten and even killed because you were 'different." I do believe with some today they may look on it as a 'fad' but a person who has been born homosexual can no more change that than you can change your genetic make-up. It is not an easy road to walk as a homosexual even today and I really doubt that someone would 'choose' that path. You, nor I have any right to decide what is right for them just as I have no right to decide on the lifestyle you may have with your 'hubby'. As for Andy and the insurance issue he brings up--maybe insurance companies, including the government services, should think twice about insuring spouses who drink, smoke, drive recklessly, stay in the sun too long (skin cancer is deadly you kmow!) or eat at fast food places too often.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Mudcat

I understand what you are saying - but I didn't choose to be black and a heterosexual woman. It was in the gene pool. There is science that supports this. It would be frustrating for me to try to live as a 'white' homosexual. Why should anyone deny whom they really are - just to fit in? I've been exposed to children who in their teen years committed suicide because no matter what their religion or race, they just didn't have the 'normal' feelings that we all are supposed to have towards the 'opposite' sex. I was in school with Dr. Zulu (George Takei from Star Trek) and he just came out of the closet a few years ago after having a committed relationship with his partner for years. Lord knows, he didn't 'choose' to be a homosexual. My point: I didn't choose my sexual preference, gender, or race - nor did you. I live with the gene pool that I was dealt. If your point is that she is being honest about who she is – we agree.

Main Stream
Main Stream's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2006
gays don't "choose"... they just are.

Small-minded people (kcchief, citizenal, mudcat, BHH) will never grasp the fact that some people were actually born homosexual, unless they had/have a child or close relative that they could have observed, grow up, like Mr. Garlock has. My guess, is that they lack empathy... they lack the ability to put themselves in someone else's place and understand how another person might feel. If they did have empathy, they would understand that no one would "choose" the homosexual lifestyle and be subjected to ridicule, bullying, discrimination, etc.

DM, you're right, you didn't choose to be black or a woman just like homosexuals didn't choose to be gay. I get what you were saying, unlike some of the small-minded people on this blog. I commend New York for what they did and I believe that other states will do the same thing. The southern states will probably be the last ones to legalize gay marriage in the long run, because of their strong ties to fundamentalist religion. But that is slowly changing as well, for the better.

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
Any sex act or the lack of is by choice.

Deviant or otherwise unless by force is a choice.

If it isn't socially acceptable then choose abstinence.

Main Stream
Main Stream's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2006
BHH and "sex acts"

why in the world are YOU so concerned about what consenting adults do behind closed doors?! YOU are the one who is sounding like a deviant.

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
"Main Stream", Excuse me?

You cannot have this discussion without the topic of sex.

Hence the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual".

Deviant sex is what makes the homosexual queer.

In abstinence there is nothing queer.

If you don't want to be queer then profess abstinence instead of homosexuality.

"Marriage" implies a sexual relationship.

"Partnership" does not.

Do you see?

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Main Stream: Agreed

It's too bad that "live and let live" isn't followed much at all around these parts and people have no idea that Thomas Jefferson stated quite clearly that America "was not in any way founded on the principles of the Christian religion."

Main Stream
Main Stream's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2006
God hates shrimp too...

... that is in the bible. But y'all eat shrimp, and shellfish, and hooved animals. And modern women speak in church (they shouldn't ya know, it's in the bible). And y'all need to stone your mouthy teenagers to death, when they talk back, cuz it's in the bible.

Retards.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Mainstream: BHH

Most Christians only use the Old Testament (Jewish) to quote when it is to their liking.
When it is not, then they indicate that the New Testament only applies and is a new contract.

They are semi-hypocrites.

Many do not know that the "fish on Friday" thing for the Catholics came from the fish mongers doing badly in business. I remember it being OK
for the military to eat fish on Friday, I suppose since the military bought the fish that was blessed by a Rabbi!

Anything that man produces is usually for the benefit of man, not the Creator. I'm sure he gets a good laugh out of some of our ignorance.

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
Your Bible knowledge is extremely lacking.

And you obviously have no understanding of Christianity.

I would be happy to study with you at any time to see if and where our minds can meet.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
mainstream, I agree

It is genetic. It is no different than being born with any other abnormality. The difference is we torment them for it.

What most people don't realize is that we all carry the opposite sex hormones as well as our own. Males, have some female hormones and females have male hormones as well. Theirs just are out of kilt with their sex. In other words, they were born a man, but their hormones are over predomantly female.

I have a nephew born that way. I watched him grow up and I know he can't help it. We are from a small town and everyone knows the family. Long ago my nephew made a choice not to 'hurt' the family, not to be a disgrace.

My heart breaks for him. He lives alone, will never marry, and lives a life of quiet desperation. All for us. So people won't talk. He is one of the sweetest, funniest, and kind people you could ever meet.

It is so unfair.

Main Stream
Main Stream's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2006
suggarfoot, that is heartbreaking...

I feel sorry for your nephew and hope one day that he finds the love from others that he deserves. It's heartless that people would treat anyone this way, especially family. We have several homosexual friends and family members and we've always tried to include them in activities and be respectful of their lifestyle and their partners. This is also how we've taught our children to act towards the gay community... to be accepting and respectful. Teach your children well... "mean people breed little mean people"

I need to stop by your store one day and introduce myself... I almost did the other day but y'all were closed. :-)

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
Main Stream

I'm a retired airline person. I don't have a store. Sorry, wish I could meet some of yall.

I do feel that the attitude about gays is changing. But, sad to say, the changes will come too late for people like my nephew.

I don't think people are trying to me mean, they just don't understand people like my nephew wake up every day and wish they were like everyone else. My nephew remarked on several occations how lucky my child is to be 'normal'. And everytime he does, I know he would give anything to change places.

Main Stream
Main Stream's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/27/2006
sugarrfoot...

sorry, my mistake. I thought you had a shop in town.

love your profile pic!

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
Main Stream

I'm a retired airline person. I don't have a store. Sorry, wish I could meet some of yall.

I do feel that the attitude about gays is changing. But, sad to say, the changes will come too late for people like my nephew.

I don't think people are trying to me mean, they just don't understand people like my nephew wake up every day and wish they were like everyone else. My nephew remarked on several occations how lucky my child is to be 'normal'. And everytime he does, I know he would give anything to change places.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
I have no idea what being black has to do with it

Not everything is about race, don't you know. But if you insist, I will address that. Being black or white or anything else is not a choice. Like hair color, some types of obesity and propensity toward certain medical conditions, race is hereditary. Behavior, whether it be criminal or exemplary is enviornmental - meaning how you were raised and influenced by your parents and friends.
Homosexuality is behavior and therefore enviornmental as well. It is an advanced form of kids acting out to seek attention, just as teens rebel doing all sorts of things to get their parents goat or dissing society in general. It is a shame, but older homosexuals are always looking for new talent and frequently recruit from teens and younger before the target has made his or her own decision about sexuality.
You contention that homosexuality is hereditary - or genetic as you call it - please explain how that so-called homosexual gene is passed down. From the mother? The father? Right. So we are back to enviornmental.

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
mudcat, I'm with you on this.

It's not politically correct but it is correct.

Who cares about politics?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Mudcat - For

For your reading pleasure, search "genetic basis for homosexuality" on google, there you will find many more studies on the genetic origins of homosexuality.

http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

Live and learn Mudcat.

And NO, I am not gay.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

Sometimes facts are just too confusing. They say that ignorance is bliss. Some of us just don't like
to feel uncomfortable about a fact - therefore we just refuse to learn. Encouraging to see that those with different ideological beliefs can understand the science of this issue.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
I tried, PTCO, I really did try to read it

but when the opening talks about fruit flies, I just lose it. No, my mind is made up even though I am actually aware of many federally-funded studies that were designed to absolve homosexuals of any guilt they feel about their choice to be deviant. These Democrat sponsored and funded studies were designed solely to expand their voting base - you do know about the Big Tent technique, don't you?

So, when did you decide to be a non-gay?

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
Mud, as I said in a previous posting, un less you have lived

with someone who has struggled with the feelings they have you do not know what you are talking about. I watched these tendencies manifest themselves in my younger brother when he was 6-7 years old. He was never interested in the things boys were interested in--he grew up to be very talented and was very intelligent. As he matured it was more and more evident that he was 'different'. This wonderful, talented young man took his own life at a very early age because the world was full of small minded, bigoted people like you are showing yourself to be. You will never convince me that a child makes an informed effort to be different, nor does one as they mature chose to live a different live style or close themselves off from everyone. I am just sorry that he lived at a time when people's minds were more closed off than they are today. He might still be alive and a worthwhile addition to this world. Evidently you had sexual urges and desires, after all you are with your "hubby" or is yours just an intellectual coupling? Your efforts to be cute or provocative sometimes fall far from the mark. You know it was not too long ago that people who lived together without benefit of matrimony was held in the same contempt that some of you here seem to hold for homosexuals. Many people still feel that way.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
ok mudcat

I will give you MY 1st hand experience with what out of kilt hormones do.

When I went through 'the change' (54 and up), I had the classic things everyone else does. The most common, memory loss.

I wasn't real happy with this and went to a specialist in hormone replacement therapy.

What really runs everyone's bodies, are hormones. The reason for the memory loss is that as you get older, your body, both males and females, starts running out of hormones. When your body has less, it starts be very selective what it uses them for. One of the 1st things it cuts back on is memory.

When I went to the specialist she explained they would do test and see what I had left and replace both the male and female hormones I needed. Both run different things in our bodies. When you are a female, you have more female hormones...normally.

The MD regulated them and at one point, she gave me too much male hormone in the mix. How did we know? I got aggressive as hell and by no means was I a nice person. She re regulated them till we found the right mix.

What happens with gay people is that for some reason, they are born with a male's body, but their hormones are overwhelmingly female. Even though they are a male, they have very feminine traits.

This is how it starts for some, others, it is mental to some degree. For instance, I've heard of women that were either abused by their fathers as little girls, or had something really tragic happen with a man, and then they turn.

I've seen the ones that really flaunt it, and are overbearing. But some of us heterosexuals get pretty overbearing with our sex deal too.

What I'm trying to say is some of these people were born abnormal. I wouldn't judge them for it anymore than I would make fun of a child born without legs. It is just an unfair thing life has done to them.

I don't hate them for it, I feel for them. I'm just happy that God gave me everything right. Right hormones for the right body. My heart goes out to those that weren't so lucky. I don't think we as a group should try to hurt them more than nature has already.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
If it were really heredity, doctors would be all over that

by giving those hormone shots you speak of. Pretty simple really. Just show 15 year-olds photos of babes and hunks slightly older and measure the response. Not normal? Pump some male or female hormones into them and test again in 6 months. Quick, easy and simple. Certainly covered by most insurance plans. Are those shots affordable? Kind of like sexual Ritalin.

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Mudcat, I don't share your conviction . . .

. . . on the behavior vs genetics point, I'm still in the "I don't know" camp. But when you put federally funded studies on the matter in the suspicious category for being biased or even having pre-determined outcomes, you have a bullet-proof point in my book.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
pre-determined outcomes T Garlock

It is quite possible that government funded science has pre-determined outcomes based on continued funding; there is no denying this supposition.

However, to say there is no genetic basis to human behavior is a bit naive. Plenty of evidence exists for many genetic based markers for behavior, these markers have been found primarily by private/public companies seeking drug therapies for things like depression, OCDC, and HAD just to name a few. The economic need to explain "deviant" behavior and treat this behavior has driven much of the research into its genetic links. Most is not government funded research.

Here is a good paper giving an overview of the science (or lack of it) in sex based genetic research. It supports the notion of bias and the difficulty in determining the genetic basis of homosexuality.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/////shows/assault/genetics/nyrev...

I suppose that those who wish to believe that schizophrenia is a matter of choice are the same as those believing that nature plays no role in human sexuality.

However, Mr. Garlock your point concerning freedom is correct and freedom of sexual orientation is fundamental to the human condition. By itself it does not infringe anyone’s rights or property. We should not therefore use the force of government to enforce a particular behavior related to sexual orientation.

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
PTCO, I think we agree . . .

. . . though I remain in the "I don't know" camp. If I were pressured to answer the unanswerable question about genetics vs environment, I would probably appear to be currying favor on both sides by saying "probably some of both, depending on the individual." A better answer might be "too many variables," a weak counterpoint to the certainty preached by enthusiasts on either side. But my instinctive questions about any such study are, "Who is paying the bill, what is their motivation, do the researchers know what the hoped-for result is, does the livelihood of the researchers depend on contracted studies like this, how do all those things influence the design of the tests and the outcome?"

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Alas, Mr. Garlock

you are correct when you question, "Who is paying the bill, what is their motivation, do the researchers know what the hoped-for result is, does the livelihood of the researchers depend on contracted studies like this, how do all those things influence the design of the tests and the outcome?"

Make work programs that rely on government funded research like global warming (aka climate change), cancer research, predictive medicince (swine flu, bird flu, SARS, H1N1), oil reserve estimates, statistics on poverty, etc. etc. the list goes on and on. None of this stuff should be the role of govenment.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Mudcat - when

I started reading your posts, sounds way too dangerous to be gay.

If your mind is made up, it's made up. Don't let us confuse things with trival things like science, government funded or not. Choosing not to look at all the facts is your personal choice, just make certain that it doesn't infringe on other peoples lives. ;-)

Now on to more important subjects, like will the debt limit be raised?

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
MUD

Yes, there are homosexual fruit flys! Apes, even elephants. The genes get mixed up. However, they don't have to aggravate the "general" public as they do.

At least alcoholics hide it as best as is possible.

halfdollarandlost
halfdollarandlost's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/25/2009
DM

I believe you mean Sulu.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
halfdollarand lost

Thanks for the correction!

pomsmom
pomsmom's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/06/2008
Gay marriage

It don't look like a duck. It doesn't quack like a duck so no matter what you call it, it is not and will never be a duck!!!!

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
POM

Can they "four letter word?"

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
the four letter word

In many relationships - the four-letter word does not always achieve satisfaction and gratification. It is 'here' to achieve 'creation' - not recreation. But - that's another subject.

You know what? I don't like anyone exhibiting his or her personal affection habits in public - homo or hetero. Those that some here consider 'deviate' have been in existence since the beginning of time. There are cultures that acknowledge this behavior. Our culture has great difficulty with it. I have always considered 'marriage' a religious custom - but since states have the right to issue 'marriage licenses' - I guess this is where 'government' is involved. Many persons will get their license - and have a 'civil' ceremony. . . and they will be considered 'married'. I think statistics shows that these 'relationships' last longer than most condoned 'marriages'. I do believe that those who enter these relationships should have the same 'rights' as any other citizen. I don’t think that this practice of being honest about their relationship has influenced my children or grandchildren into adopting a homosexual lifestyle.

Recent Comments