Home > Marriage > You know what makes about as much sense as same sex “marriage”?

You know what makes about as much sense as same sex “marriage”?

October 23rd, 2010

This.

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
Categories: Marriage Tags:
  1. October 24th, 2010 at 10:33 | #1

    Same-person procreation, mating with yourself, is legal in 49 states too. Only Missouri prohibits creating people from stem cell derived gametes. it wouldn’t be a crime to mate with yourself using artificial opposite-sex gametes in 49 states. It isn’t cloning, but it would actually be even more risky because the offspring would wind up with many matching chromosome pairs. But a child born this way would have the same person as a biological mother and father, so by lots of people’s arguments here, that child’s biological parents should be married to each other.

  2. Sean
    October 24th, 2010 at 13:27 | #2

    Same-sex marriage actually makes a lot of sense: it would give gay couples and straight couples equal legal status, as befitting their equal contributions in society; it would make the children of same-sex couples more secure, by having married parents, and make them equal to the children of married opposite-sex couples; it would honor out nation’s constitution by affording equal protection to gay Americans as well as straight Americans; it would promote the idea that marriage is still a useful part of American culture. There are probably other good reasons, too.

  3. Bob Barnes
    October 24th, 2010 at 13:37 | #3

    Ari, it seems to match your entire scientific knowledge on homosexuality.

    Who exactly would enter the fray without knowledge? Sadly what makes a person shut down, reject facts, ignore the scientific and medical community? Someone who feels safer in the dark, I glean.

  4. Joe Bruce
    October 24th, 2010 at 15:19 | #4

    Well I know it sounds (and is) absurd but really why should single people be excluded from marriage? This goes right along with the reasoning of [liberal straight] people who say that they only want to “expand” the definition of marriage to make it more inclusive – but they don’t want to “change the definition of marriage” oh no-no-no I’m silly for worrying about that the definition of marriage won’t really be changed b/c i can still think of it as husband-wife in my own mind if i want to. The fact is whether they call it “expanding” or “inclusivizing” or whatever they want to call it, they are re-defining our shared societal definition of marriage and taking away its special and uniquely important meaning.

  5. Ari
    October 24th, 2010 at 15:33 | #5

    Bob,
    What can I say. I have very pale skin. The dark suits me much better.

  6. Sean
    October 24th, 2010 at 17:03 | #6

    “why should single people be excluded from marriage?”

    That’s an easy one: marriage is a contract, first and foremost, between people. You have to have at least two of them to have a contract. Plus, the benefits of marriage accrue to couples (or more than one person): for example, the right to not have to testify against a spouse in a legal proceeding. Individuals already have the right to excuse themselves from self-incrimination, so not having to testify against yourself is meaningless.

    Legalizing same-sex marriage is just extending the right to marry to same-sex couples, who can benefit greatly from marriage’s many benefits and rights, as would their children. Same-sex marriage is great for same-sex couples, great for the children of same-sex couples and therefore great for society. I don’t see what benefits society would get by letting individuals marry themselves, if it were even possible.

  7. Leo
    October 24th, 2010 at 17:53 | #7

    Self marriage would definitely be same sex marriage.

    I propose the word “numberism” as the term for discrimination based on number, e.g. favoring the number two over the numbers one and three.

    Would it be irrational to discriminate against irrational numbers?

  8. Al
    October 24th, 2010 at 18:09 | #8

    Question: You know what makes about as much sense as same sex “marriage”?

    Answer: Inter-species marriage?

  9. Ari
    October 24th, 2010 at 18:15 | #9

    Leo,
    How about if my wife and I began pretending that a certain fictitious individual was a member of our marriage. Would it mean that our marriage consisted of a complex number of members?

    2 + 1i

    Beat that, Leo!

  10. TAR
    October 24th, 2010 at 20:26 | #10

    @Bob Barnes
    Bob or anyone educated in the scientific and medical communities’ understanding of homosexuality,

    My opinion is the scientific and medical communities have actually done a great disservice to society and to those with same-sex attraction by acquiescing to what I call the militant persuasion of gay activists.

    My opinion is homosexuality has been accepted as something to be fostered instead of fixed more from political ideology than from good scientific understanding. Maybe my opinion is based on not knowing the latest scientific findings. So, help persuade me otherwise by telling me where I can find the latest research that answers the following question:

    What scientific method is used to identify a “born” homosexual from a “made” homosexual from one who chooses to live a homosexual lifestyle?

  11. Leo
    October 24th, 2010 at 21:31 | #11

    Ari,

    Excellent. I don’t think I can beat that. However, I would note that one is classified as a narcissistic number, a number with a length of n digits, which has the property of being the sum of the nth powers of its constituent digits. That certainly works in this context.

  12. Sean
    October 25th, 2010 at 06:28 | #12

    TAR, the reason reputable (that is, not associated with religious beliefs) medical organizations don’t consider homosexuality to be disordered is that it is natural and normal and so there is no pathology to treat.

    There is some research done that people who obsess about homosexuality may, in fact, have a disorder. I found a study yesterday that said that people who show the strongest dislike of homosexuality can actually be homosexual themselves, and just haven’t admitted it to themselves or don’t know it yet.

  13. Mark
    October 25th, 2010 at 06:38 | #13

    TAR: “What scientific method is used to identify a “born” homosexual from a “made” homosexual from one who chooses to live a homosexual lifestyle?”

    You could ask the same about the heterosexual lifestyle. Noone fully understands sexual orientation but studies do show it is not chosen. It is a complex mixture of genetics and hormonal fluctuations. Sexual orientation is a deeply, inborn characteristic of all of us, whether straight, gay or bisexual.

  14. Bob Barnes
    October 25th, 2010 at 09:00 | #14

    @TAR

    Tar, of course what you just rattled off is total nonsense, it’s just more “made-up” excuse to not accept years of research backed by tons of data.

    Again, you come to these debates with absolutely no intelligence on the underlying matters of these issue. You (collectively) are, however, well equipped with biased notions based on what you want to believe and what you refuse to believe. But I see no proof brought forward to the contrary.

    We just had that little Prop 8 trial, you remember? The one where all these allegations you are “programed” to repeat were brought up, but you had no proof or data to back your claims. We had several witnesses that did.

  15. Leland
    October 25th, 2010 at 15:20 | #15

    @Sean
    “…the reason reputable (that is, not associated with religious beliefs) medical organizations don’t consider homosexuality to be disordered is that it is natural and normal…” [Emphasis added.]

    Sean, you’ve been challenged on this at least once already and apparently could not come up with a response that works. Maybe by now you’ve had time to think of something. So I will ask you again: What connotation of ‘normal’ are you referring to? Are you asserting that homosexual behavior is statistically normal, or functionally normal? (And if it is the later then please explain.)

  16. October 25th, 2010 at 16:37 | #16

    Bob,

    Quotes? Citations?

  17. Sean
    October 25th, 2010 at 16:44 | #17

    Leland, I think homosexuality fits into any definition of normal. Do you think it’s not normal or something? You’ll have to define your terms, if you do.

  18. Leland
    October 25th, 2010 at 17:03 | #18

    @Sean
    What part of the term(s) statistical and/or functional do you not understand, Sean?

  19. bman
    October 25th, 2010 at 17:49 | #19

    Bob Barnes :
    We just had that little Prop 8 trial, you remember? The one where all these allegations you are “programed” to repeat were brought up, but you had no proof or data to back your claims. We had several witnesses that did.

    Many have complained the ruling was biased. When I first read the ruling I did not detect an overt bias, but I did detect that after I learned how badly Walker’s ruling misrepresented the defense.

    To see what I mean, read the article by Ed Whelan, Judge Walker and Supposed Lack of “Evidence”

  20. Sean
    October 25th, 2010 at 18:24 | #20

    Leland, homosexuality is normal. It’s a normal variation of human sexuality. What part of “normal” do you not understand?

  21. Sean
    October 25th, 2010 at 18:36 | #21

    Bman, the criticisms of Judge Walker are unfounded. It is ironic that he wanted the trial recorded for distribution on YouTube, for all to see, and the Prop 8 intervenors objected. It’s not likely that a judge with a bias and/or a pre-ordained outcome would want to display such bias to the world. Ask the Prop 8 defense why they didn’t want the world to see how the trial unfolded.

    The fact is, the Cooper defense offered little evidence for its many assertions about marriage. Nor did they explain how their insistence that marriage is about procreation precludes same-sex (like other infertile couples) couples from getting married. Few things have a single purpose and obviously marriage serves many purposes, not the least of which is the legalization of a committed adult relationships.

  22. Ari
    October 25th, 2010 at 20:19 | #22

    Sean,
    What exactly do you mean by “normal variation”? Do you mean that given a certain population, you will expect to see a certain number of that population with the variation? Is that what you mean by normal variation? Or do you mean something else?

  23. Leland
    October 25th, 2010 at 21:29 | #23

    @Sean
    Leland, homosexuality is normal. It’s a normal variation of human sexuality. What part of “normal” do you not understand?

    What I don’t understand is why you don’t want to tell us whether you are asserting that homosexual behavior is statistically normal, or functionally normal. (You probably should ask your self why you need to be so evasive about that, Sean…) Or do you think there is a third connotation of ‘normal’ that is applicable to your assertion?

  24. Mark
    October 25th, 2010 at 21:40 | #24

    Ari: “normal variation” – it’s like people having red hair or green eyes. Something that varies from the more common but normal none the less.

  25. Leland
    October 25th, 2010 at 22:40 | #25

    @Mark
    “Ari: “normal variation” – it’s like people having red hair or green eyes.”

    “Something that varies from the more common…”
    That would be statistically abnormal.

    “…but normal none the less.”
    If by that you mean functionally normal, that is. (Because they do what hair and eyes need to do for us.)

    Do you see how this works, Sean?

  26. bman
    October 26th, 2010 at 04:34 | #26

    Sean :
    Bman, the criticisms of Judge Walker are unfounded. It is ironic that he wanted the trial recorded for distribution on YouTube, for all to see, and the Prop 8 intervenors objected. It’s not likely that a judge with a bias and/or a pre-ordained outcome would want to display such bias to the world. Ask the Prop 8 defense why they didn’t want the world to see how the trial unfolded.
    The fact is, the Cooper defense offered little evidence for its many assertions about marriage. Nor did they explain how their insistence that marriage is about procreation precludes same-sex (like other infertile couples) couples from getting married. Few things have a single purpose and obviously marriage serves many purposes, not the least of which is the legalization of a committed adult relationships.

    Some think he wanted to make the trial famous via the video.

    But whatever the reason for the video, he still misrepresented defense.

    Here is a key excerpt from the link I provided.

    - begin quote-
    Walker: “I don’t have to have evidence?” [3040:2]

    Cooper: “You don’t have to have evidence of this point if one court after another has recognized—let me turn to the California cases on this.” [3040:3-5]

    Note that only the [italicized] portion [above] is what Walker quotes in his opinion.

    Cooper then proceeded to present California cases stating (in Cooper’s words, which may include direct quotations not reflected in the transcript’s punctuation) that the “first purpose of matrimony by the laws of nature and society is procreation,” that “the institution of marriage … channels biological drives … that might otherwise become socially destructive and … it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment,” and that (in a ruling just two years ago) “the sexual procreative and childrearing aspects of marriage go to the very essence of the marriage relation.” [3040]
    - end quote-

    As Whelan shows, Copper preetned case after case. He did not simply say, as Walker portrays it, that he did not need to provide evidence.

    Instead, he said the evidence was already in the cases he had cited and wetn on to shows many cases that supported his claim.

    When you said, “the Cooper defense offered little evidence for its many assertions..” you are merely repeating Walker’s misrepresentation of their defense.

  27. Mark
    October 26th, 2010 at 06:34 | #27

    Leland: “That would be statistically abnormal.”

    No, I do not believe people with red hair are abnormal. That is SO 1910.

    So, Leland, what exactly do you mean with the terms “statistically normal” or “functionally normal”? Statistically, homosexuals are in the minority (anyway from 2 – 10%). But they are still part of the overall norm of sexual orientation. And, by “functionally normal”, if you mean do the parts work, yes, as much as they work in the heterosexual population.

  28. TAR
    October 26th, 2010 at 08:56 | #28

    @Sean
    Sean, just because something is “natural” does not necessarily make it good. Cancer is natural.

    I am assuming by “normal” you are referring to the claim of homosexuality being a “normal variant of human sexuality.” To me this is just a play on words and a PC way of calling homosexuality a commonly found abnormal behavior. Saying something is a “normal variant” does not necessarily make it a good thing.

    Behavior is judged good or bad by the consequences it produces and I would argue the consequences of experimenting with homosexuality or adopting a homosexual lifestyle are on the whole negative for both the individual and the society that encourages such behavior.

    I will reiterate that when the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM it did so much more from the persuasive militancy of gay activists than overwhelming scientific data.

    I am not sure why you commented on the study about those who obsess on homosexuality, but will say I too have seen a recent article reporting something to this effect. Having not seen the research report myself, I really do not know the methods or relevance of such a study.

  29. TAR
    October 26th, 2010 at 09:52 | #29

    @Mark
    Mark, I would say that we do not have a very good understanding of same-sex sexual orientation, but our understanding of opposite-sex orientation is very good.

    The biology of male-female attraction is well documented and within our ability of reason. The male-female union is physically obvious and procreatively functional. The coupling of two men or two women is contrary to design and has absolutely no procreative function.

    Some may be born with a predisposition for same-sex attraction, but that does not mean a homosexual identity is a fait accompli. Sexual identity is formed from the interaction of biology, life experience, environment and ultimately personal choice.

    There is much science needs to discover about the etiology of homosexuality. Saying it is “complex” or “just about two people expressing their love for each other” is just not sufficient to justify the kind of paradigm shift currently being demanded of society.

  30. TAR
    October 26th, 2010 at 10:08 | #30

    @Bob Barnes
    Bob, One would think “… years of research backed by tons of data” would lend itself to a scientific method to distinguish a “born” homosexual from a “made” homosexual from one who chooses to live a homosexual lifestyle.

    I do remember the Prop 8 trial and I would recommend witholding judgment on how well the defense team did until the higher court has reviewed it. From what I have learned from reading this blog and other forums the defense team did a much better job than Judge Walker’s statements and subsequent ruling would indicate.

  31. Sean
    October 26th, 2010 at 10:58 | #31

    Bman,

    That whole “he misrepresented the defense” thing is ridiculous. Cooper offered no evidence; he cited court cases where previous judges made references to social beliefs that marriage is linked to procreation. Walker didn’t fall for it (he’s kind of smart) and said where’s the evidence? You can’t cite previous court cases that simply refer to social beliefs about marriage and procreation. You either need to show evidence, like a prohibition against infertile couples marrying, or marriages being dissolved if a couple remains childless after some period of time. That’s evidence. Everything else is just some previous judge’s opinion.

    “the cases he had cited and went on to shows many cases that supported his claim.”

    They did no such thing. See above. There was no evidence but rather legal or social references from previous decisions.

  32. Sean
    October 26th, 2010 at 11:00 | #32

    The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individual’s ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society. From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors. America’s premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.

  33. October 26th, 2010 at 12:14 | #33

    Sean, it certainly effects a person’s ability to conceive offspring with the person they love. And, conceiving offspring with the person of one’s choice is a fundamental human right, so we should do everything we can to make sure that everyone is able to do that by 1) reminding everyone that everyone has the right to be straight and marry someone of the other sex, and 2) minimizing the number of people who wind up gay and unable to do that.

    “You either need to show evidence, like a prohibition against infertile couples marrying…”

    Surely the prohibition on siblings marrying is evidence? Or the old anti-miscegenation laws that literally translate to “anti-mixing genes.” These all show that marriage is only available to couples that the state approves of procreating offspring together by mixing their genes.

  34. Leland
    October 26th, 2010 at 13:16 | #34

    @Mark
    “No, I do not believe people with red hair are abnormal. That is SO 1910.”

    Mark:

    I think you are equivocating.

    It was never so much as even implied that there is anything wrong (not functionally, and certainly not morally) with having physical attributes that vary from the norm. (That is all that I am talking about when I refer to what is statistically normal or abnormal.) Especially as such attributes are immutable.

    “So, Leland, what exactly do you mean with the terms “statistically normal” or “functionally normal”? Statistically, homosexuals are in the minority (anyway from 2 – 10%).”

    You basically answered the first part of your question yourself.

    “But they are still part of the overall norm of sexual orientation.”

    Only if you are just referring to their orientation (as homosexuals). But not as “…part of the overall norm of sexual orientation.” (You did just acknowledge a moment ago that “Statistically, homosexuals are in the minority”, didn’t you?)

    “And, by “functionally normal”, if you mean do the parts work, yes, as much as they work in the heterosexual population.”

    Well, that’s not exactly what I was talking about and it’s not true anyway. Or at least, if you think it is so, then maybe you could explain to us how in the world homosexual behavior would ever fulfill the function of our reproductive organs…

  35. Mark
    October 26th, 2010 at 13:37 | #35

    Tar: “Sexual identity is formed from the interaction of biology, life experience, environment and ultimately personal choice.”

    Actually, you are wrong. But let’s be clear on what we are talking about. Gender identity (whether one thinks of them self as a male or female) and sexual orientation are different things.

    As far as sexual orientation, there is no choice, period. Did you chose? Did you wake one day and say “I am gay” or “I am straight”? Of course not. It is an inborn part of a persons being. can we isolate a “gay gene”? No, but not everything in this world has one gene. Genes often work in tandem and there are biological influences that determine a persons sexual orientation.

    However, the forces of out society are so strong pushing people to marry, that many gay and lesbians will marry to: 1. appear like everyone else, 2. In the hopes the gay will be driven out, 3. to keep their job, 4. to keep their family, 5. to not be kicked out of their church. many of those individuals lead dual lives, having same sex relationships on the side. That’s what came out of the Prop 8 trial: the women that were given as evidence of the ability to change sexual orientation were either bi-sexual or so coerced by societal expectations that they married a man.

    “Behavior is judged good or bad by the consequences it produces and I would argue the consequences of experimenting with homosexuality or adopting a homosexual lifestyle are on the whole negative for both the individual and the society that encourages such behavior.”

    Then you need to expand your horizons and learn more. First, being gay or lesbian is not defined by behavior. Secondly, the vast majority of gays and lesbians I am acquainted with appear no differently than the heterosexuals I know. The homosexuals work, pay taxes, and, sometimes, try to raise a family. They are at no increase health risk nor at any increase determent to society than any one else. As I have said, if an alien from outer space would land next to a opium den and that was their only impression of heterosexuals, what a bias picture they would have and an incorrect one.

  36. Sean
    October 26th, 2010 at 13:38 | #36

    Gays aren’t bad because they’re in the minority. Harvard grads are a minority and I don’t think people think they’re bad. Left-handed people are a minority….oh what’s the use. If you want to hate gay people, no amount of reason is going to change your mind.

  37. Leland
    October 26th, 2010 at 14:21 | #37

    @Sean

    “Gays aren’t bad because they’re in the minority…”

    Sean, it’s put-up or shut-up time. Show us where on this thread (or this blog, for that matter) that anyone has asserted a person would ever be “…bad because they’re in the minority…”

    “If you want to hate gay people…”

    Repeating a straw-man attack over and over and over doesn’t impress anyone on this blog in the least, Sean. Seriously…

    “…no amount of reason is going to change your mind.”

    What ‘reason’ are you talking about, Sean? We’re trying to reason with you. But so far you’ve only reciprocated with false imputations and evasions. Whenever you’re ready to put aside the sophistry and engage the issue, we’ll be here waiting…

    And do feel free to start by telling us in what sense of the word you believe homosexual behavior to be ‘normal’. (Have you managed to come up with anything on that yet, Sean?)

  38. Mark
    October 26th, 2010 at 15:27 | #38

    Leland: “Only if you are just referring to their orientation (as homosexuals). But not as “…part of the overall norm of sexual orientation.” (You did just acknowledge a moment ago that “Statistically, homosexuals are in the minority”, didn’t you?)”

    You are mincing words. Sexual orientation has a normal range, usually referred to in medicine and science as a normal variance. Homosexual is as much a part of that normal variance as heterosexual. To use an example you used: red hair – ranges from dark auburn to orange – these are normal variants of red hair.

    “Well, that’s not exactly what I was talking about and it’s not true anyway.”

    Well, what were talking about? And penetration works for both straight and gay so the function is the same.

  39. Sean
    October 26th, 2010 at 16:00 | #39

    Homosexuality is perfectly normal:

    “The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individual’s ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society. From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors. America’s premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.”

    It’s also perfectly legal. I think the people claiming it is not normal have some ‘splainin’ to do!

  40. Sean
    October 26th, 2010 at 16:01 | #40

    “We’re trying to reason with you.”

    you think it’s reasonable to claim that marriage is necessarily limited to procreative couples as the reason to exclude gay couples, while elderly, infertile and other childless couples are free to marry? That’s your version of “reasonable”?

  41. Bob Barnes
    October 26th, 2010 at 17:34 | #41

    @bman

    I can find even more Religious or far-right “opinions” on the prop 8 trial than this, they are the usual biased grasping at straws. And look at this distortion you give me, like the National review is going to give me something balanced and fair?. I followed every moment of that trial and your side had an incredibly bad showing. You just didn’t have the proof to back up your words. http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202462767022

    Sorry they didn’t like the outcome but you had only two witnesses and Blankenhorn didn’t qualify as an expert.

    “The star witness for backers of Proposition 8 testified Tuesday that he’s confident – but has no evidence – that same-sex marriage would increase divorce rates and lower the rate of heterosexual marriage.”

    “Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker, who’s hearing the trial without a jury, allowed Blankenhorn’s testimony. But he said that based on the definition of an expert witness, it would have been a close call had this been a jury trial.”

    “Under cross-examination, Blankenhorn said he has not scientifically studied the impact of same-sex marriage on the institution of marriage in countries where it is now legal.”

    “He also said he knew of no study showing that children raised by gay parents are worse off than children raised by their biological mothers and fathers.”

    http://www.sacbee.com/2010/01/27/2492104/prop-8-poi-upoiu-opiu-poiu-poiupoi.html

    But we love the witness, Hak-Shing William Tam. The crazy, and I mean CRAZY cat with all sorts of outrageous claims.

    http://bayarea.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/same-sex-marriage-case-day-8-power-and-prejudice/

    I think this interview is the best overview of the trial so far.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/david-boies-on-how-the-prop-8-witnesses-fell-apart/59554/

    And since the State decided not to defend this, no one may have standing for appeal… wouldn’t that be sweet.

    http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202466582074

    Let the deflections begin.

  42. bman
    October 26th, 2010 at 18:23 | #42

    Sean :
    That whole “he misrepresented the defense” thing is ridiculous. Cooper offered no evidence…

    Ed Whelan already answered you on this point where he said, “…live witness testimony is merely one form of trial evidence. Exhibits submitted in evidence at trial are another form…

    Walker’s misrepresentation made it appear Cooper submitted no evidence at all, when in fact, he submitted a great deal of case law, legislative facts, binding authority from the Supreme court and the district court itself, in addition to historical evidence.

    So, its incorrect to say “no evidence” was offered by Cooper. What he didn’t offer on that particular point [the procreative purpose of marriage] was “live witness testimony,” but it should be noted he offered that at another point in the trial.

    Here is how Cooper explained it in his appeal to the 9th circuit:

    -begin quote-
    …the [Walker] district court focused almost exclusively on the oral testimony presented at trial. See Daggett v. Commission on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 172 F.3d 104, 112 (1st Cir. 1999) (Boudin, J.) (legislative facts “usually are not proved through trial evidence but rather by material set forth in the briefs”); Indiana H. B. R.R. Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 916 F.2d 1174, 1182 (7th Cir. 1990) (Posner, J.) (legislative facts “more often are facts reported in books and other documents not prepared specially for litigation”). The [Walker] district court’s treatment of the trial testimony, moreover, was likewise egregiously selective and one-sided. The district court eagerly and uncritically embraced the highly tendentious opinions offered by Plaintiffs’ experts and simply ignored important concessions by those witnesses that undermined Plaintiffs’ claims. And it just as consistently refused to credit (or even qualify) the two experts offered by Proponents—the only defense experts who were willing to appear at trial after the district court’s extraordinary attempts to video record and broadcast the trial proceedings. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 130 S. Ct. 705 (2010).
    –end quote–

    Sean: ….he cited court cases where previous judges made references to social beliefs that marriage is linked to procreation.

    Yes, but that’s because Copper’s strategy was to show case law already sided with the Prop 8 position.

    A judge cannot just ignore previous case law and start with blank slate as it were.

    Indeed, Cooper showed the court what was already on the slate. He says as much in his appeal to the 9th Circuit Court. Brackets added by myself for clarification.

    - begin quote-
    “Given that the [Walker] court did not cite a single case that had addressed these issues, one might think the court was deciding issues of first impression on a blank slate [as if no previous case law existed already]. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, though the [Walker] court held that the venerable definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Federal Constitution, every state or federal appellate court to address the issue—including the Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), and this Court in Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982)—has consistently rejected this conclusion….The [Walker] court did not confront the Supreme Court’s holding in Baker, binding authority from this Court, or any of the well established lines of authority opposed to its conclusions. It did not distinguish them. It did not explain why it believed they were wrongly decided. It did not even acknowledge their existence. It simply ignored them.”
    -end quote-

    And that, I think, is a very strong case.

  43. bman
    October 26th, 2010 at 18:45 | #43

    Sean :

    Sean :
    “The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individual’s ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society. From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.
    The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors. America’s premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.”

    I researched this and nearly the same wording occurs in numerous blog comments.

    Do you have links to the original sources?

  44. Sean
    October 27th, 2010 at 07:40 | #44

    @Leland

    “Sean, it’s put-up or shut-up time.”

    Wow, well I guess I’m getting called on my inane arguments that all Americans should be treated equally, that the children of same-sex couples deserve the same security as the children of opposite-sex couples, that prohibiting same-sex marriage encourages the homophobia that leads to violence against gay teens and sometimes even suicide.

    And I thought I could pull the wool over your eyes! What was I thinking?!

    “We’re trying to reason with you.”

    No you’re not. It’s not reasonable to claim that marriage is limited to opposite-sex couples because of “responsible procreation,” or because it’s long-time tradition, or it’s not the will of the people. Again and again your “arguments” are refuted and you just keep repeating them. And what’s the payoff?

    “Whenever you’re ready to put aside the sophistry and engage the issue, we’ll be here waiting…”

    I’m consistently supported my views in favor of marriage equality for same-sex couples. You have not supported your view of marriage inequality. Who’s the sophist?!

  45. Sean
    October 27th, 2010 at 07:53 | #45

    @bman

    Walker asked for evidence, not “expert witness hearsay.” That’s the difference. When he laid out the ground rules for the trial in the beginning, he said he wanted evidence, based on federal guidelines for courtroom evidence. Both sides agreed to this. And then, for some reason, the Cooper defense balked at submitting evidence, instead referring to previous court cases that referred to the state’s interest in promoting procreation or whatever. That doesn’t say WHY the state has an interest in procreation within marriage only, and how that creates an exclusion for non-procreative couples, like the elderly or same-sex couples, from marrying.

    This case wasn’t about whether or not the state has an interest in “responsible procreation,” but rather, can the state deny access to same-sex couples and not violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection. In any event, the state can very well have an interest in seeing procreative couples get married but that doesn’t mean that non-procreative couples can’t marry.

    “Do you have links to the original sources?”

    No. I invite you to visit the various websites for these medical organizations and read their statements on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

  46. Sean
    October 27th, 2010 at 10:39 | #46

    Bman,

    My list above didn’t include the American Medical Society, the country’s premier medical organization representing physicians. They have an extensive list of policy positions, including the following:

    H-65.992 Continued Support of Human Rights and Freedom. Our AMA continues (1) to support the dignity of the individual, human rights and the sanctity of human life, and (2) to oppose any discrimination based on an individual’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, religion, disability, ethnic origin, national origin or age and any other such reprehensible policies. (Sub. Res. 107, A-85; Modified by CLRPD Rep. 2, I-95; Reaffirmation A-00; Reaffirmation A-05; Modified: BOT Rep. 11, A-07)

    H-65.990 Civil Rights Restoration. The AMA reaffirms its long-standing policy that there is no basis for the denial to any human being of equal rights, privileges, and responsibilities commensurate with his or her individual capabilities and ethical character because of an individual’s sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or transgender status, race, religion, disability, ethnic origin, national origin, or age. (BOT Rep. LL, I-86; Amended by Sunset Report, I-96; Modified: Res. 410, A-03)

    I didn’t see anything specific to legalizing same-sex marriage though. I think when the country’s major medical and mental health organizations support the normalizing of homosexuality and equal treatment of homosexuals, I think that carries a lot of weight.

  47. October 27th, 2010 at 11:20 | #47

    Sean, there is no such thing as “non-procreative couples.” Couples can go to clinics and labs to have embryos made from their gametes and hire surrogate mothers to provide the womb. Even same-sex couples can do this now, although no clinic is offering it because they recognize that it would be too unethical and experimental and expensive, and mainly, because it would be bad PR, it could result in the whole field being prohibited before it has gotten a chance. They will wait on same-sex procreation until the science has progressed a little bit more and the public is more numb to new developments in reproduction.

    So, given that all couples are potentially procreative (and indeed, as I first noted in this thread, individuals are also potentially procreative with themselves) the whole topic of “infertile” and “elderly” couples is completely moot. What is not moot, though, is that we never allow marriage to couples that are prohibited from conceiving children together. We never allow siblings to marry, we never allow people to marry children, we never allow a man to marry a woman already married to another man, because we do not approve of procreation, we prohibit those couples from creating offspring together. In all cases, we allow marriage to couples that are allowed to procreate, and we don’t allow marriage to couples that are not allowed to procreate.

    The question is, should we allow people to procreate with someone of the same sex?

    Sean (and Mark) have already weighed in, they think there is a right to procreate with someone of the same sex, or to procreate as whichever sex one wants to, and that it is more important that same-sex couples have equal procreation rights than any of the other rights and protections in the form of a Civil Union defined as “marriage minus conception rights.”

    I’d love to know what people here at the Ruth Institute feel about same-sex procreation. Do they think there is any reason it should remain legal? Why aren’t they joining me in calling for a federal ban on genetic engineering designed babies and same-sex procreation experiments?

  48. Sean
    October 27th, 2010 at 12:41 | #48

    It looks like the AMA appears to support same-sex reproductive rights, too. I wasn’t looking for a specific policy on it, but they seem to be against distinctions made on gender and sexual orientation.

  49. TAR
    October 27th, 2010 at 14:02 | #49

    @Mark

    I stand by my statement, “Sexual identity is formed from the interaction of biology, life experience, environment and ultimately personal choice.”

    I do not refute the claim that biology may predispose a person for same-sex attraction, but I would refute the claim that biology alone determines one’s sexual identity. I understand how one can become confused with so many terms with very subtle differences—maybe this will help:
    From Wikipedia: (not my first choice of reference, but it will do)
    “sexual identity-describes how persons identify their own sexuality”
    “sexuality-is how people experience the erotic and express themselves as sexual beings.”

    I never said being gay or lesbian is defined by behavior, although I will say being gay or lesbian can only be identified by self-reporting and corroborating behavior.

    I too can say the gays and lesbians I am acquainted with are mostly affluent and functioning well in society; this is more of a statement on our social circles than a complete picture of the homosexual community as a whole. If functioning well in society was the only measure of whether one’s sexual preference was called an acceptable “normal variant” or an unacceptable “paraphilia,” then there would be very few if any “paraphilias” listed in the DSM.

    The increased health risks associated with homosexual behavior are well documented—just Google it.

    I have never claimed being a homosexual necessarily makes one a detriment to society. I do claim the statement: “Behavior is judged good or bad by the consequences it produces and I would argue the consequences of experimenting with homosexuality or adopting a homosexual lifestyle are on the whole negative for both the individual and the society that encourages such behavior.”

    Humans have a strong libido and will risk much to satisfy it. Every society must draw guidelines for what it deems acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior. One of the biggest lies being perpetrated on people today by a society that is becoming increasingly obsessed with sex is that sex is just a physical act about hedonistic pleasure and who or what you have sex with does not matter. Sex is far more than just a physical act and it certainly matters. It matters to those involved, to the children created, and to the society in which it all takes place.

    I firmly hold that the strength and success of American society is directly related to the fundamental values upon which it is built. For our discussion the most important of which is summed up in the old schoolyard ditty that says, “…First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes baby in a baby carriage….” For the record I saw this used in a similar context in another person’s blog, sorry I forgot whose, but found it to be poignant as it shows the place and function of marriage being instilled in children.

    Society did not restrict marriage to one man-one woman, God, or nature if you prefer, did when the formula to create life was divided between male and female. Society just recognizes and reveres that which has been ordered. There are many to blame for the downward spiral of marriage in society—the men who shirked their responsibility as husbands and fathers—the women who shirked their responsibilities as wives and mothers, the government welfare programs that enable having children outside the economic security of marriage, the feminists who set out to destroy an institution that they wrongly portray as being created by men for the purpose of subjugating women—the sexual revolutionists who encourage “free-love” and sexual experimentation—the gay activists who under the guise of civil rights are trying to force society into equating gay partnerships with marriages.

    I find it utterly sad that society has gone so far down the path of circumventing the natural law of procreation and destroying the portrait of the nuclear family that we are actually seriously debating whether the coupling of two men, or two women, is the equivalent of a marriage.

  50. October 27th, 2010 at 14:13 | #50

    Thus proving they are a silly and corrupt organization. They just see more opportunities to make money. IVF makes the doctors rich, same-sex procreation makes genetic engineers rich, leads to more IVF, etc. Doctors don’t make any money from natural procreation, they aren’t involved at all, often times heterosexual couples don’t even see a doctor for the birth. Same-sex couples probably visit the doctor 100 times for a pregnancy. And that might help the health of that surrogate and child, but crowds out the natural mothers, who didn’t elect to create the pregnancy unnecessarily in the first place. Is it a problem that IVF babies have twice the rate of birth defects? Not to the AMA, that’s twice as many opportunities to make money. Is it a problem that IVF misleads people into delaying pregnancy and becoming infertile? Not to doctors.

    Oh, and just to be clear, surely what they mean by “same-sex reproductive rights” is sperm donation and egg donation and surrogacy, not true “same-sex conception” which would use only the genes of the same-sex couple to create biological offspring. That would be a huge cash cow, but I doubt the AMA is on record about it yet. But you’re probably right, they’d embrace it.

  51. Chairm
    October 27th, 2010 at 20:10 | #51

    Bob Barnes, since you say you were paying rapt attention to the Prop 8 trial, did you notice the part where the anti-8 siude’s expert witness said his own research showed that a significant portion of homosexual people did NOT say they felt, believed, thought they were born homosexual?

    No mind. You have no hard science to show that gay identity is inborn. No socio-political identithy is inborn.

    Same-sex sexual attraction may — or may not — be inborn. However, unlike gay identity, it would not be socially constructed with the emphasis on the group over the individual’s identity. Indeed, gay identity politics declares that one’s true identity is defined by the group’s identity.

    It is complexed and requires the application of knowledge and intelligence, but surely you are steeped in gay identity politics, Bob, given your gay emphasis on the issue of marriage.

  52. Sean
    October 28th, 2010 at 06:22 | #52

    Well I don’t know a thing about gay identity politics but I do feel comfortable in the belief that sexual orientation isn’t determined by the individual. In terms of same-sex marriage, it shouldn’t make any difference whether sexual orientation is chosen or not, because if someone wants to marry someone of the same sex, that government can’t say “No” without a rational public interest. Not only is there no rational public purpose to prohibit same-sex marriage, there are many rational public purposes to legalizing same-sex marriage: create a more secure environment for the children of same-sex couples, create more stable family units, and diminish a homophobic environment where gay people are thought by some people to be less worthy than straight people.

    But since the reality is that homosexuality isn’t chosen, and gays and lesbians mate with a same-sex partner, it is critical that they be allowed to marry, especially if they are raising children.

  53. Mark
    October 28th, 2010 at 06:47 | #53

    Tar: I no doubt that you are sincere in your views. But, having studied sexual orientation and gender identification, I do need to respond.

    “I do not refute the claim that biology may predispose a person for same-sex attraction, but I would refute the claim that biology alone determines one’s sexual identity.”

    I realize some sites like Wikipedia blend the two issues but, to try to be more clear, I will use sexual orientation to describe same-sex attraction. Having just given a talk on the subject, I have been reviewing the current scientific information out there. It is true that no gay gene has been found. However, the studies that have been done show an inherent, inborn quality to sexual orientation. The studies that say it is chosen or caused by environmental factors (absent father, over domineering mother, etc.) do not demonstrate it. Couple this with the fact that sexual orientation is a continuum from hetero to homo with everything in between and it does get more cloudy. Further, when one adds in the religious / moral objections one can see why it is difficult to get a clear answer, especially, as you say, it is self reported. I always go back to the question: if being gay or lesbian is a choice, why would anyone chose it when, historically, it has a such strong negative correlation?

    “The increased health risks associated with homosexual behavior are well documented—just Google it.”

    These risks have less to do with homosexuality and more to do with sexual behavior that is deemed unsuitable by society. In other words, if society were more accepting of homosexuality, including allowing SSM, many of these health risks would diminish and be more equal to those of heterosexuals. The best example I can think of are the married men who seek same-sex encounters. Since these are stealth meetings, they are more risky. In addition, denying the legal recognitions of marriage may encourage more sexual encounters in gay individuals but I do not known if this has been shown. Decreasing promiscuity seems to be used as a reason to support traditional marriage.

    “Society did not restrict marriage to one man-one woman, God, or nature if you prefer, did when the formula to create life was divided between male and female. ”

    In actuality, looking at nature, the ideal (biologically) is one man and several females if the purpose is to create life. Even the Bible mentions one man and numerous women (and that includes Abraham and David). What has happen with society is that we have created laws that are tightly entwined with marriage. Since being gay or lesbian is an inborn, natural part of a persons being, excluding them from a relationship that offers numerous benefits is not right.

  54. October 28th, 2010 at 11:21 | #54

    Sean :
    Well I don’t know a thing about gay identity politics [...]

    Have no need, the person who wrote your comment seems to know exactly what gay identity politics is in gaming to neuter marriage, even if not by name…

    [H]omosexuality isn’t chosen, and gays and lesbians mate with a same-sex partner, it is critical that they be allowed to marry, especially if they are raising children.

    But that isn’t the only contradiction…

    I do feel comfortable in the belief that sexual orientation isn’t determined by the individual vs the reality is that homosexuality isn’t chosen (– emphasis in both are added by myself)

    Sean, and the writer of that comment should get to know each other better, and come to a more consistent conclusion.

  55. bman
    October 28th, 2010 at 20:11 | #55

    Sean :
    Same-sex marriage actually makes a lot of sense: it would give gay couples and straight couples equal legal status, as befitting their equal contributions in society; it would make the children of same-sex couples more secure, by having married parents, and make them equal to the children of married opposite-sex couples; it would honor out nation’s constitution by affording equal protection to gay Americans as well as straight Americans; it would promote the idea that marriage is still a useful part of American culture. There are probably other good reasons, too.

    Although there can be some benefits to a same sex marriage law, I think the drawbacks far outweigh them.

    It appears there would be such a sea change in law that militant gays could use the courts to mold society into their image against the will of the majority.

    This is explained and/or illustrated by material in the following two links:

    <a href'"A Letter to Maine’s Governor by Several Law Professors

    What
    same-sex “marriage” has done to Massachusetts
    .

    Examples include such as the following:

    If a Christian photographer refused to photograph a gay wedding ceremony because he did not want to violate God’s purpose for marriage, he could be heavily fined and even lose his business.

    If a religious college offered apartments to married students but not to gay married students, gays could sue the college for discrimination. The college would have to stop offering the apartments altogether.

    If gay activists want to institute “tolerance” training to elementary students using a male with male romance story, parents would have no right to exempt their children from such training, and no right to be notified when such training occurred.

    I also think a gay marriage law would act as a catalyst to desensitize society to morality, especially within the public school system. In May 2010 a public school administration saw no problem when it approved and defended a very vulgar theme play for 15 year old students. (Caution: the following link contains text from the play which is very disturbing. Parents get Attleboro High School to cancel offensive homosexual-themed play)

    More examples could be given, but whatever benefits a same sex marriage law might provide, it also seems to enable tyranny of the majority by a militant homosexual minority.

  56. bman
    October 28th, 2010 at 20:28 | #56

    TAR :
    My opinion is the scientific and medical communities have actually done a great disservice to society and to those with same-sex attraction by acquiescing to what I call the militant persuasion of gay activists.

    That agrees with the book, Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm”.

    The editors of the book are influential leaders in the APA and in their field. The book also includes chapters from expert contributors in a position to know what they are talking about .

    Here are some key extracts:

    “Psychology, psychiatry, and social work have been captured by an ultra-liberal agenda”

    “Misguided political correctness tethers our intellects”

    “Psychology and mental health have veered away from scientific integrity and open inquiry…”

    “The APA has chosen ideology over science, and thus has diminished its influence on the decision-makers in our society.”

    “…ever-proliferating therapies that are not only without validation but are irresponsible, and often later shown to be harmful….society spent a number of years sentencing fathers to prison based on false memories, followed by years of releasing them with the court’s apology, as accusers became aware of the implanted memories…”

    “…many [potential contributors to the book] declined to be included, fearing loss of tenure or stature, and citing previous ridicule and even vicious attacks…”

    “Political diversity is so absent in mental health circles that most psychologists and social workers live in a bubble. So seldom does anyone express ideological disagreement with colleagues that they believe all intelligent people think as they do.”

    “We must broaden the debate by reducing the ridicule and intimidation of ideas contrary to the thinking of the establishment in the field of psychology”

    “Much of the extant research that finds no negative effects of gay parenting on children has serious limitations, for example, small sample size, nonrepresentative and self-selected samples, reliance on self-reporting subject to social desirability biases, and lacking longitudinal data. These limitations are often downplayed by advocates, who also frequently fail to consider fully the potential importance of having both male and female nurturance and role models for children”

    “… medical and psychological diagnoses are subject to political fiat”

    “Warning: Psychiatry Can Be Hazardous to Your Mental Health”

    “The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association yielded suddenly and completely to political pressure when in 1973 it removed homosexuality as a treatable aberrant condition. A political firestorm had been created by gay activists within psychiatry, with intense opposition to normalizing homosexuality coming from a few outspoken psychiatrists who were demonized and even threatened, rather than scientifically refuted. Psychiatry’s House of Delegates sidestepped the conflict by putting the matter to a vote of the membership, marking the first time in the history of healthcare that a diagnosis or lack of diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather than scientific evidence”

  57. bman
    October 28th, 2010 at 21:50 | #57

    Bob Barnes :
    …like the National review is going to give me something balanced and fair?.

    Since you did not quote anything specifically from Ed Whelan’s article that was unbalanced or unfair but you just presumed it would be, that would indicate your approach is unbalanced and unfair, not his.

    When a writer explains his position with facts and reasoning, his position stands or falls upon those facts and that reasoning.

    If its proper for you to ignore the evidence and arguments of Ed Whelan because you think there is a bias, then its proper for everyone to ignore your evidence and arguments in this blog. After all, is Bob Barnes going to give something balanced and fair?

    When people ignore facts and reasoned argument because “the other side is biased,” they actually protect their own bias from facing facts and reasoned argument.

  58. bman
    October 28th, 2010 at 22:50 | #58

    Sean :

    Walker asked for evidence, not “expert witness hearsay.” That’s the difference.

    If its “hearsay” to quote case law or precedent, why is there so much of it quoted in court opinions? Are all these rulings just quoting a bunch of hearsay?

    The main reason Cooper quoted from various cases was to show precedent, which Walker was obliged to accept.

    Here is an excerpt from the law dictionary of law.com on “precedent:”

    precedent
    1) n. a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which establishes the legal rule (authority) in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment. Thus, “the rule in Fishbeck v. Gladfelter is precedent for the issue before the court in this case.” The doctrine that a lower court must follow a precedent is called stare decisis…

    As I understand it, Cooper argued to show that stare decisis applied to this case (the doctrine that a lower court must follow a precedent) but Walker dismissed it because he wanted trial testimony instead.

    Here again is what Cooper said.

    Cooper: …every state or federal appellate court to address the issue—including the Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), and this Court in Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982)—has consistently rejected [that marriage as the union of a man and a woman violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses]…The [Walker] court did not confront the Supreme Court’s holding in Baker, binding authority from this Court, or any of the well established lines of authority opposed to its conclusions. It did not distinguish them. It did not explain why it believed they were wrongly decided. It did not even acknowledge their existence. It simply ignored them.

    Notice the words “binding authority” above. This means Cooper argued for stare decisis which Walker should have accepted or explained away. Ignoring it was not an option. There is no rule that says stare decisis depends on live witness testimony. And so Cooper did not need live witness testimony.

    And, to me, that strategy seems much stronger than if Cooper had presented live witness opinion/testimony.

  59. bman
    October 28th, 2010 at 22:55 | #59

    Sean: Walker asked for evidence, not “expert witness hearsay.” That’s the difference.

    If its “hearsay” to quote case law or precedent, why is there so much of it quoted in court opinions? Are all these rulings just quoting a bunch of hearsay?

    The main reason Cooper quoted from various cases was to show precedent, which Walker was obliged to accept.

    Here is an excerpt from the law dictionary of law.com on “precedent:”

    precedent
    1) n. a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which establishes the legal rule (authority) in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment. Thus, “the rule in Fishbeck v. Gladfelter is precedent for the issue before the court in this case.” The doctrine that a lower court must follow a precedent is called stare decisis…

    As I understand it, Cooper argued to show that stare decisis applied to this case (the doctrine that a lower court must follow a precedent) but Walker dismissed it because he wanted trial testimony instead.

    Here again is what Cooper said.

    Cooper: …every state or federal appellate court to address the issue—including the Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), and this Court in Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982)—has consistently rejected [that marriage as the union of a man and a woman violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses]…The [Walker] court did not confront the Supreme Court’s holding in Baker, binding authority from this Court, or any of the well established lines of authority opposed to its conclusions. It did not distinguish them. It did not explain why it believed they were wrongly decided. It did not even acknowledge their existence. It simply ignored them.

    Notice the words “binding authority” above. This means Cooper argued for stare decisis which Walker should have accepted or explained away. Ignoring it was not an option. There is no rule that says stare decisis depends on live witness testimony. And so Cooper did not need live witness testimony for his case to succeed.

    And, to me, that strategy seems much stronger than if Cooper had presented live witness opinion/testimony.

  60. Mark
    October 29th, 2010 at 05:50 | #60

    bman: “When people ignore facts and reasoned argument because “the other side is biased,” they actually protect their own bias from facing facts and reasoned argument.”

    Couldn’t have said it better, Bman. Just remember that when you claim the APA was bullied into accepting homosexuality.

  61. Sean
    October 29th, 2010 at 07:52 | #61

    “the person who wrote your comment”

    Huh? If it says “Sean,” rest assured that Sean wrote the comment.

    “But that isn’t the only contradiction…”

    Where’s the contradiction in insisting that gay Americans be treated equally with straight Americans? It’s not my rule; I didn’t make it. It is, however, required by the US Constitution, whose 14th Amendment insists that all Americans be treated equally unless a compelling and rational public interest requires otherwise. Does anyone have a reason why gay Americans shouldn’t be allowed to marry, while straight Americans should? I know I can’t come up with anything.

    I don’t see any contradiction between noting that sexual orientation isn’t chosen or determined by the individual. What contradiction to you see, OnLawn?

  62. Sean
    October 29th, 2010 at 08:11 | #62

    “Although there can be some benefits to a same sex marriage law, I think the drawbacks far outweigh them.”

    I highly disagree. There are not too many drawbacks that outweigh what’s in the best interests of children, who would be much better off raised in a secure family environment, with married parents. But looking at your perceived drawbacks:

    “there would be such a sea change in law that militant gays could use the courts to mold society into their image against the will of the majority.”

    I don’t think gay people are really that powerful. Their agenda seems mostly to be treated equally as straight people, since they live and act pretty much like straight people, pay taxes like straight people, are law-abiding like straight people, etc. They don’t want to make you gay, or make you have sex with them.

    “If a Christian photographer refused to photograph a gay wedding ceremony because he did not want to violate God’s purpose for marriage, he could be heavily fined and even lose his business.”

    Then the solution is for Christians to avoid professions that require them to serve the public equally and fairly. Just like white supremacists who don’t want to serve black people should avoid opening restaurants. It is certainly a judgment call for a wedding photographer to decide that photographing a gay wedding violates his or her religion, and surely the Christian God doesn’t want people to not be able to earn a living. Plus you never hear about the Christian wedding photographer who refuses to photograph the weddings of adulterers, that is, people on their second or third marriages. Why is that? Is the objection to biblically incorrect marriage, or is it really just animosity toward gay people?

    Your other examples just highlight the disproportionate concern about homosexuality, while exercising lax and flexible beliefs about people who have pre-marital sex, commit adultery and get divorced. If colleges worry about not being able to refuse housing to gay married couples, do they similarly worry about being able to refuse housing to couples on their second or third marriage (that is, adulterers), divorced single students, students who have never married but aren’t’ virgins, etc. These other sinners don’t seem to be of much concern to Christians and it’s hard to understand why.

    “I also think a gay marriage law would act as a catalyst to desensitize society to morality, especially within the public school system.”

    It certainly isn’t immoral to be gay. It might be immoral, though, to create an environment hostile to gay people, one that leads to violence against gays and gay despair. Being gay is either ok, or not ok. If it’s ok, then let’s eliminate any stigma associated with it. If it’s not ok, then let’s be rational about why that would be the case. Personal prejudice or religious beliefs are not rational reasons to say homosexuality is bad.

  63. bman
    October 29th, 2010 at 11:09 | #63

    Mark :
    bman: “When people ignore facts and reasoned argument because “the other side is biased,” they actually protect their own bias from facing facts and reasoned argument.”

    mark: Couldn’t have said it better, Bman. Just remember that when you claim the APA was bullied into accepting homosexuality.

    This would not apply to me since no facts were presented to the contrary for me to ignore.

    On the other hand, facts were presented to you which you dismissed as “urban legend”.

    I provided two sources. First was th article Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders

    The second was the former president of the APA, Dr. Nicholas Cummings in the book he co-authored, “Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The well-intentioned path to harm” (by Rogers H. Wright and Nicolas A. Cummings, 2005).

    Here is what the book said about removing homosexuality from the list of disorders:

    - begin quote-
    The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association yielded suddenly and completely to political pressure when in 1973 it removed homosexuality as a treatable aberrant condition. A political firestorm had been created by gay activists within psychiatry, with intense opposition to normalizing homosexuality coming from a few outspoken psychiatrists who were demonized and even threatened, rather than scientifically refuted.

    Psychiatry’s House of Delegates sidestepped the conflict by putting the matter to a vote of the membership, marking the first time in the history of healthcare that a diagnosis or lack of diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather than scientific evidence (p. 9).
    - end quote-

    A review of the book is available at http://www.narth.com/docs/destructive.html

  64. Ruth
    October 29th, 2010 at 11:25 | #64

    “It certainly isn’t immoral to be gay.”
    Are you referring to a tendency toward, or homosexual activity?
    If the latter, I will take the Creator’s word for what is immoral, not yours.

  65. October 29th, 2010 at 11:29 | #65

    “I also think a gay marriage law would act as a catalyst to desensitize society to morality, especially within the public school system.”

    Would??? I understand the problem now, too many of the people who oppose a Compromise involving Civil Unions don’t realize that 5 states already allow same-sex marriages. My state of Massachusetts has had them for 6 years now. You must realize that, bman, right? I think Jennifer and On Lawn are in denial about it, they don’t appreciate that my compromise proposal involving Civil Unions would END SAME-SEX MARRIAGE in every state it exists. I’m not sure what their strategy is to end same-sex marriage in the US, other than pretend they don’t see it.

  66. October 29th, 2010 at 12:22 | #66

    Sean :
    “the person who wrote your comment”
    Huh? If it says “Sean,” rest assured that Sean wrote the comment.
    “But that isn’t the only contradiction…”
    Where’s the contradiction in insisting that gay Americans be treated equally with straight Americans?

    I don’t know, actually, since they are treated equally when everyone understands marriage is between a man and a woman.

    But you are just juggling facts again, part of your continued dishonest routine of switching out arguments to substitute for others. The contradiction that was noted is (to copy and paste)…

    I do feel comfortable in the belief that sexual orientation isn’t determined by the individual [vs] the reality is that homosexuality isn’t chosen (– emphasis in both are added by myself)

    In that, the conflict comes in how you call the exact same thing both a belief you are comfortable with, and then reality. It shows, in this case, your disparity in telling the difference between the two.

    It’s not my rule; I didn’t make it. It is, however, required by the US Constitution, whose 14th Amendment insists that all Americans be treated equally unless a compelling and rational public interest requires otherwise.

    Which is exactly why the 14th Amendment requires marriage to be between a man and a woman, because they need to be treated equally in marriage by being in the same marriage.

    The same way that blacks need to be treated equally in education — by requiring them to be in the same schools as whites.

    The 14th amendment is about integration, and so is marriage — between a man and a woman.

    Besides, you are wrong about the 14th requiring everyone to be treated equally, as examples of perfectly constitutional distinction have been shown to you throughout this discussion. Where did they go? No where, you just don’t seem to have replied to them or remember them any more (i.e. ignored the inconvenient reality of the examples that contradict what you claim to be true).

    Does anyone have a reason why gay Americans shouldn’t be allowed to marry, while straight Americans should? I know I can’t come up with anything.

    You should ask the commenter named “Sean” who has stated repeatedly (though I paraphrase) that a gay person cannot get married where marriage requires love and tolerance of someone of the other gender in a meaningful marital way.

    Maybe, now that you are armed with something from “Sean”, you can rest at ease. Either you agree with him, or you agree he is irrational in believing that gays cannot get married.

  67. Sean
    October 29th, 2010 at 13:43 | #67

    “The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association yielded suddenly and completely to political pressure”

    Aren’t efforts to prevent same-sex marriage “political pressure”? If fighting homophobia is political pressure, why is that wrong, but supporting it with political pressure (TV ads against judges in Iowa who do their jobs, for example) not political pressure?

  68. Sean
    October 29th, 2010 at 14:03 | #68

    “when everyone understands marriage is between a man and a woman.”

    Evidently Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa, DC, and several countries didn’t get the memo because they seem to think marriage is between two consenting adults. Plus about half the US population nationwide.

    “Which is exactly why the 14th Amendment requires marriage to be between a man and a woman, because they need to be treated equally in marriage by being in the same marriage.”

    Why not treat blacks and whites equally and require all marriages to be mixed race marriages?

    “The 14th amendment is about integration, and so is marriage — between a man and a woman.”

    Unfounded opinion. I already mentioned the places where same-sex marriage is legal. That means that the discussion can be about:

    1. Not wanting any more states to legalize same-sex marriage
    2. Whether or not the US constitution’s 14th Amendment requires all states to legalize same-sex marriage.

    What’s not up for discussion, thanks to Massachusetts, is whether marriage consists of opposite-sex only couples or opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

    “You should ask the commenter named “Sean” who has stated repeatedly (though I paraphrase) that a gay person cannot get married where marriage requires love and tolerance of someone of the other gender in a meaningful marital way.”

    Well, was Sean wrong in stating that a gay person cannot get married where marriage law requires an opposite-sex partner? There is no legal requirement to show love and tolerance in a marriage, to borrow your own stilted reasoning, by the way. I’m sure gay people have wonderfully loving and caring relationships with opposite-sex persons, but I think it’s rare that these relationships are romantic and sexual. Even if it’s possible, it still doesn’t answer the 800 pound gorilla in the room that “traditional” marriage folks love to ignore: how does this create an exclusion to same-sex marriage?

    “Either you agree with him, or you agree he is irrational in believing that gays cannot get married.”

    I agree with him that gays cannot get married, legally, in 44 states. I believe the Iowa Supreme Court, in its unanimous ruling, recognized that it is unreasonable to force gay people to marry someone of the opposite-sex, or no one at all. That’s unreasonably burdensome, and has a lot of social downsides, such as leaving the children of same-sex couples vulnerable, health risks to gay people, perpetuation of homophobia and consequent violence against gays, etc.

  69. bman
    October 29th, 2010 at 14:39 | #69

    Sean :
    “The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association yielded suddenly and completely to political pressure”
    Sean: Aren’t efforts to prevent same-sex marriage “political pressure”? If fighting homophobia is political pressure, why is that wrong, but supporting it with political pressure (TV ads against judges in Iowa who do their jobs, for example) not political pressure?

    I don’t think the piece was saying political pressure is necessarily bad in all cases, but that it was not a proper reason for the APA to remove homosexuality from the list of disorders because that should have been based on science, not politics.

  70. Mark
    October 29th, 2010 at 15:07 | #70

    bman: Really, you can find no other sites but NARTH to support your views? It really affects ones credibility to constantly only use one source.

    But, I will thank you. After reading your comments, I have found myself doing some research into your claims and the information is fascinating.

    “marking the first time in the history of healthcare that a diagnosis or lack of diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather than scientific evidence”

    Actually, this is not true. Evidence was presented at the time, research done by Kinsey and Evelyn Hooker, which showed no difference between homo and hetero sexuality.

    However, since you insists that a gay-mafia over powered the APA to get it’s way, let’s look at what was done away with: homosexuality classified as a disorder.

    Was the belief the homosexuality was a mental disorder based on good, scientific data? From what research I have done so far, the view of homosexuality being a disorder came from assumptions, often based on people with criminal records or religious based conflicts. As more and more research was done (not easy when your subjects could be arrested, jailed, lose their jobs, etc.), the idea homosexuality was a disorder began to fade. These newer studies began to show no more abnormal behavior than in heterosexuals. Even Freud actually said “Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness;”.

    Enter the 1970′s when people began to protest the status quo, and tear down long held beliefs which were not based on evidence. Homosexuals, of course, rebelled against such organizations as the APA since these organizations insisted that they were somehow defective. This was not a bad thing as the data at the time was already showing that homosexuality was not a disorder. I agree that a vote is not the best way to make a diagnostic decision, but since there was no empirical evidence to show the contrary, it seems very reasonable to have removed homosexuality as a disorder. I see the vote as a way to placate those who still did not want to accept the change even in face of growing evidence to the contrary.

  71. bman
    October 29th, 2010 at 15:22 | #71

    John Howard :
    bman: “I also think a gay marriage law would act as a catalyst to desensitize society to morality, especially within the public school system.”

    JH: Would??? I understand the problem now, too many of the people who oppose a Compromise involving Civil Unions don’t realize that 5 states already allow same-sex marriages. My state of Massachusetts has had them for 6 years now. You must realize that, bman, right? I think Jennifer and On Lawn are in denial about it, they don’t appreciate that my compromise proposal involving Civil Unions would END SAME-SEX MARRIAGE in every state it exists. I’m not sure what their strategy is to end same-sex marriage in the US, other than pretend they don’t see it.

    Add the word “national” to my comment so it reads, “…a [national] gay marriage law [or ruling] would act as a catalyst to desensitize society to morality…”

    I am not familiar with the details of your compromise solution. In general, however, I think gays are really seeking to normalize homosexuality and they regard civil unions as only a stepping stone toward redefining marriage.

    I also think civil unions are a slippery slope. They could potentially undermine marriage if they became popular among opposite sex couples.

  72. Sean
    October 29th, 2010 at 18:03 | #72

    “I don’t think the piece was saying political pressure is necessarily bad in all cases, but that it was not a proper reason for the APA to remove homosexuality from the list of disorders because that should have been based on science, not politics.”

    I thought I was making the same point: don’t remove judges just because you don’t like a decision (unanimous, at that!) they reached. That damages the nation’s legal system, implying that the people, not independent judges, determine what’s constitutional or not. And just so you know, there is nothing “disordered” about homosexuality, and the reason that it was ever included in the DSM was for political reasons. If there’s no pathology, there’s no disorder.

  73. Chairm
    October 29th, 2010 at 19:44 | #73

    Heh.

    The impossibility of the SSM idea is announced by the SSMer: “mate with a same-sex partner”.

  74. Chairm
    October 29th, 2010 at 19:57 | #74

    The fact is, under the man-woman criterion of marriage, and according to the sexual basis of marriage, Americans are free to marry one another regardless of sexual orientation and regardless of identity politics.

    The SSM idea would press both into marriage so as to negate the sexual basis of marriage and to negate equality under the law.

    Segregating the sexes, by orientation or by identity politics, under the auspcies of the social institution that integrates the sexes, regardless of those two key factors of the SSM idea, would be profoundly unjust.

    If SSMers demand a preferential status on par with marital status — a status based on either sexual orientation or identity group — then, let them make the rational argument for that very thing.

    They are invited to do so but instead they have chosen to detract from marriage — to make it mean less and less — and to issue false equivalencies that depend untterly on an adherence to the primacy of identity politics. They don’t argue for the societal significance and benefits of the SSM idea but rather they argue against the societal significance and benefits of the marriage idea.

  75. Chairm
    October 29th, 2010 at 20:02 | #75

    Note that nothing offered as a benefit of the SSM idea, thus far, is inapplicable to the rest of the nonmarriage category of types of relationships and types of living arrangements.

    Gayness does does not define nonmarriage; same-sex sexual behavior does not define nonmarriage; same-sex sexual attraction (or sexual orientation) does not define nonmarriage; but SSMers would have all of the above define the purpose of showing favoritism for the gay subset of nonmarriage.

    SSMers eventually admit that this is arbitrary because … they believe that lawmaking is arbitrary … they believe that marriage law is arbitrary … even though their complaint is that current marriage law is arbitrary. Thus the problems of promoting the SSM idea and the reliance on demoting the marriage idea.

  76. Chairm
    October 29th, 2010 at 20:10 | #76

    Heh.

    The SSMer acknowledges that his own argumention is “stilting” when his own rules of argumentation are thrown back at his feet:

    The SSMer said: “There is no legal requirement to show love and tolerance in a marriage, to borrow your own stilted reasoning, by the way.”

    So that legal-requirement-enforced-absolutely meme of SSM argumentation can be discarded. The SSMer was not using it sincerely anyway.

    Meanwhile marriage law does require both sexes and does require that people consent to marriage — all that it entails — including the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity, consummation, annulment, and divorce. That sexual basis is inapplicable to all one-sexed arrangements — gay or not, homosexualized or not.

  77. Chairm
    October 29th, 2010 at 20:18 | #77

    The SSMer said that:

    “What’s not up for discussion, thanks to Massachusetts, is whether marriage consists of opposite-sex only couples or opposite-sex and same-sex couples.”

    Thanks to the Goodridge pro-SSM opinion, you can state the purpose of marriage law in the state of Massachusetts, right?

    If you depend so much on that opinion, then, you can explain how the marriage law was changed. The judiciary is powerless to legislate and to rewrite unambiguous statutory law. The Massachusetts court acknowledged as much when it 1) asked the legislative branch to modify the statutory law, 2) admitted its own limitations, 3) emphasied that the marriage statutes are not ambiguous regarding the man-woman criterion.

    Of course, the statutory law has not been changed by the legislative branch.

    The Goodridge opinion is poor judicial reasoning. Also, the opinion lacked a majority on the question of unjust discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (3-4); and on the question of unjust discrimination on the basis of sex (1-6). Also, the majority opinion contradicted its own standards for rational basis review.

    The licensing of same-sex twosomes in Massachussets stands as an exercise in arbitrary governmental power. It lacks a rational basis. It transgresses the seperation of powers between the branches of government. It stands against the common law understanding of marriage by which the pro-SSM court opinion pretended to abide. It is full of profound flaws.

    So dependance on it is also profoundly flawed.

  78. Chairm
    October 29th, 2010 at 20:24 | #78

    Sean said:

    “And just so you know, there is nothing ‘disordered’ about homosexuality, and the reason that it was ever included in the DSM was for political reasons. If there’s no pathology, there’s no disorder.”

    The leaps of faith in that comment exemplify the adverse influence of gay identity politics.

  79. bman
    October 30th, 2010 at 00:00 | #79

    Sean:… in the best interests of children…

    In my view, a struggle goes on between the rational and the carnal sides of human nature. A same sex marriage law would effectively encourage youth to pursue the carnal side of their nature, which generally leads to a ruined life, and is not in their best interest.

    Indeed, society needs to promote the rational over the carnal through laws and social norms to survive and to thrive.

    Marriage between a man and woman formally mates two complimentary reproductive systems that complete each other. Law can, and should, formally approve the mating of a male and female because it satisfies rationality, morality, and the natural order needed for ordered liberty.

    No other sexual relationship is similarly situated in that regard.

    By contrast, homosex is about the carnal side prevailing. Its extremely irrational and carnal to mate the reproductive system of a man with the waste disposal system of another man. Law should not promote something so carnal and irrational to its citizens. Such a law would actually subvert ordered liberty by promoting carnality.

    The question is how long before harm from such a law would be measurable. It took about 40 years before we realized the serious damage caused to society by no fault divorce laws. It may take a similar amount of time before we know the damage caused by a same sex marriage law.

    We cannot predict the future with certainty, of course. But right now, at this very moment, we know its true that carnality ruins lives and that a same sex marriage law would encourage youth toward carnal behavior. That formula cannot be in the best interest of children in future generations or to society.

    bman: “If a Christian photographer refused to photograph a gay wedding ceremony because he did not want to violate God’s purpose for marriage, he could be heavily fined and even lose his business.”

    Sean: Then the solution is for Christians to avoid professions that require them to serve the public equally and fairly….

    I explained above why homosex is an irrational and carnal behavior.

    Christians should not have to contribute to the irrational and carnal behavior of others in order to pursue their livelihood. A law that required that would simply be a bad law.

    Plus you never hear about the Christian wedding photographer who refuses to photograph the weddings of adulterers, that is, people on their second or third marriages. Why is that Is the objection to biblically incorrect marriage, or is it really just animosity toward gay people?

    To a Christian, a same sex marriage is an affront to God’s design for marriage. People on their second or third marriage do not present a similar crisis especially if the Christian sees himself as helping them rebuild broken lives.

    Ask him to photograph adultery, though, and also make a new law that requires him to set aside his religion or be fined, and you will get a sense of why a same sex marriage law is a bad law to the Christian.

    bman: “I also think a gay marriage law would act as a catalyst to desensitize society to morality, especially within the public school system.”

    Sean: It certainly isn’t immoral to be gay.

    The Catholic Church teaches its not immoral to have unwanted homosexual desires, but that its immoral to indulge those desires.

    It might be immoral, though, to create an environment hostile to gay people, one that leads to violence against gays and gay despair. Being gay is either ok, or not ok. If it’s ok, then let’s eliminate any stigma associated with it. If it’s not ok, then let’s be rational about why that would be the case. Personal prejudice or religious beliefs are not rational reasons to say homosexuality is bad.

    I think most Christians are opposed to violence or ridicule against homosexual individuals. But Christians are obliged to oppose the falsehood promoted to youth that homosex is “healthy” “normal” and “cool.”

    On religious beliefs, the Pope was recently in England and stated that morality taught in religion can usually be arrived at through the use of reason.

    By use of reason we can see that homosex is an irrational and carnal behavior on its own merits. If its true that homosexuals cannot help how they feel, it still does not make homosex rational. Such an inability could be grounds for tolerance, but not for formal approval.

    And of course. if gays were not trying to impose acceptance of their lifestyle on the rest of the society, we wouldn’t be having this discussion now.

  80. bman
    October 30th, 2010 at 00:59 | #80

    Mark :
    Actually, this is not true. Evidence was presented at the time, research done by Kinsey and Evelyn Hooker, which showed no difference between homo and hetero sexuality.

    I thinks its correct that some psychologists who wanted to change the DSM cited Kinsey and Hooker’s writings.

    Hooker’s research, however, has various problems.

    Details are at:

    http://www.angelfire.com/vt/dbaet/evelynhookerstudy.htm

  81. Sean
    October 30th, 2010 at 07:09 | #81

    “The fact is, under the man-woman criterion of marriage, and according to the sexual basis of marriage, Americans are free to marry one another regardless of sexual orientation and regardless of identity politics.”

    Yes but the criterion is unreasonably burdensome to gay people, who create same-sex, not opposite-sex couples. Man-woman only marriage meets the needs of straight people, but not gay people. Since there is no particular public need to reward straight couples, but not gay couples, the gender distinction is needless and quite possibly unconstitutional. A different way to look at this is, if opposite-sex marriage were outlawed in favor of same-sex only marriage, would this be fair to straight people? If you don’t think it would, how can you believe that OSM is fair to gay people?

    “The SSM idea would press both into marriage so as to negate the sexual basis of marriage and to negate equality under the law.”

    Not at all. Whatever you perceive OSM to be, it will be unaffected by same-sex marriage.

    “If SSMers demand a preferential status on par with marital status…”

    But they aren’t demanding preferential status, but rather, equal status. Gay married couples will have no more rights or privileges than straight married couples.

    “They are invited to do so but instead they have chosen to detract from marriage — to make it mean less and less”

    That’s a perception in your mind: that if same-sex couples can marry, it will make marriage “mean less.” That just reflects your bigotry against gay people, like whites who don’t want blacks to move in down the street: “there goes the neighborhood!”

    “They don’t argue for the societal significance and benefits of the SSM idea”

    Well I do! Same-sex marriage strengthens gay couples’ relationships, creates a more secure environment for the children of same-sex couples, reduces homophobia in society be acknowledging the value of same-sex marriages, honors our nation’s constitutional guarantees of equal treatment for all citizens. I’m not sure what additional reasons are necessary. If legal same-sex marriage would cure cancer, I suspect you’d still be against it!

  82. Sean
    October 30th, 2010 at 07:25 | #82

    “SSMers eventually admit that this is arbitrary because … they believe that lawmaking is arbitrary … they believe that marriage law is arbitrary … even though their complaint is that current marriage law is arbitrary.”

    The complaint against marriage discrimination is that it is arbitrary to grant marriage licenses to straight, but not gay, couples, lacking a rational public purpose to do so. If there’s a good reason to strengthen straight couples’ relationships, but not gay couples’ relationships, tell us what it is.

    “Meanwhile marriage law does require both sexes and does require that people consent to marriage — all that it entails — including the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity, consummation, annulment, and divorce. That sexual basis is inapplicable to all one-sexed arrangements — gay or not, homosexualized or not.”

    Actually any sexual basis for marriage, heterosexualized or not, as well as procreational abilities, lies with the couple, not with marriage. If marriage encourages otherwise irresponsible straight people to take care of their children they create, more power to it. This doesn’t make marriage any less valuable to elderly couples or same-sex couples.

    “Thanks to the Goodridge pro-SSM opinion, you can state the purpose of marriage law in the state of Massachusetts, right?”

    Sure. It’s to legally join a committed couple for the purpose of creating a foundational family unit. This is the same reason that all states offer marriage licenses, not just Massachusetts!

    “The Goodridge opinion is poor judicial reasoning.”

    How so? State plainly what the flaw is. What about the New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii, Missouri, Iowa court decisions? Did they goof, too? What about the Maryland and Washington supreme courts, that permitted their states’ discriminatory marriage statutes to stand, with the barely veiled proviso that the legislature should “fix” the statute sooner than later, or the court would, if presented with another applicable case? Did they goof, too? The nation appears to be engulfed in a tide of judicial activism!

  83. October 30th, 2010 at 09:04 | #83

    bman:Add the word “national” to my comment so it reads, “…a [national] gay marriage law [or ruling] would act as a catalyst to desensitize society to morality…”

    Yeah, but it also would act as a catalyst to stopping gay marriage, because finally people in other states would realize that it was really here and would prefer a compromise. As it is, I think people in other states just think they can forget about Massachusetts and the other four states, but please don’t, it really exists here and kids are being desensitized as we speak. We need to end it in every state, not just try to stop it from spreading.

    I am not familiar with the details of your compromise solution. In general, however, I think gays are really seeking to normalize homosexuality and they regard civil unions as only a stepping stone toward redefining marriage.

    My proposal is three federal laws that together end same-sex marriage in the US. The first law is an “egg and sperm law” that prohibits same-sex procreation and genetic engineering. The second law recognizes state civil unions as marriages for federal purposes if they are defined as “marriage minus conception rights.” The third law protects the conception rights of marriage. Together they make it impossible for a state to call a same-sex couple married, so that these CU’s couldn’t be stepping stones to marriage. They also establish a fundamental difference so that children wouldn’t be confused and homosexuality wouldn’t be normalized.

    I also think civil unions are a slippery slope. They could potentially undermine marriage if they became popular among opposite sex couples.

    I think they would be slippery in the opposite direction, because my Compromise would end SSM progress, it would stop SSM in America and start us going in the opposite direction and strengthen and respect marriage and heterosexuality.

  84. bman
    October 30th, 2010 at 09:44 | #84

    Sean :
    bman: “I don’t think the piece was saying political pressure is necessarily bad in all cases, but that it was not a proper reason for the APA to remove homosexuality from the list of disorders because that should have been based on science, not politics.”

    Sean: I thought I was making the same point: don’t remove judges just because you don’t like a decision (unanimous, at that!) they reached. That damages the nation’s legal system, implying that the people, not independent judges, determine what’s constitutional or not.

    The political process in Iowa was designed so Judges could be voted upon. Its an established part of the legal process in Iowa that helps power remain with the people.

    It does indeed imply that the people, not independent judges, ultimately have the power to determine what’s constitutional or not.”

    It so that, as Abraham Lincoln said, “…government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

    The power of government ultimately belongs to the people. The judges in this case did not uphold the will of the people and so the people must decide whether or not to retain them.

    So, I disagree that it damages the political system. Rather, I think it helps to safeguard it.

  85. bman
    October 30th, 2010 at 10:40 | #85

    Sean :
    And just so you know, there is nothing “disordered” about homosexuality, and the reason that it was ever included in the DSM was for political reasons. If there’s no pathology, there’s no disorder.

    We know from reason that its irrational to mate the male reproductive system with that of another male, or to mate the reproductive system of male with the waste disposal system of another male.

    There seems to be only three options to explain it: its a disorder, its by choice, or its both.

    Whichever one it is, the behavior itself is contrary to reason, morality, and the natural order and should not be encouraged or formally approved to the public.

    The research by Evelyn Hooker in 1957 may have been the first to claim there is no pathology.

    However, her research only showed there was no pathology affecting areas that would show in inkblot tests.

    She also did two other tests that strongly suggested a pathology among homosexuals that only affects sexual ideation. That part of her research is not commonly known.

    Details at: http://www.angelfire.com/vt/dbaet/evelynhookerstudy.htm

  86. bman
    October 30th, 2010 at 16:04 | #86

    John Howard :
    My proposal is three federal laws that together end same-sex marriage in the US. The first law is an “egg and sperm law” that prohibits same-sex procreation and genetic engineering. The second law recognizes state civil unions as marriages for federal purposes if they are defined as “marriage minus conception rights.” The third law protects the conception rights of marriage. Together they make it impossible for a state to call a same-sex couple married, so that these CU’s couldn’t be stepping stones to marriage. They also establish a fundamental difference so that children wouldn’t be confused and homosexuality wouldn’t be normalized.

    I agree that confining the word marriage to a man and woman is extremely important to the development of children. It would protect their intuitive development from sexual disorientation attack and from moral desensitization.

    I detect possible problems with the second law, though. Civil unions, however carefully they are defined, might be leveraged as examples of “inequality” and serve as stepping stones to marriage that way. Even if they were equal in every respect except for the name, I think militant gays would say it made them feel like second class citizens.

    Your technical description of civil unions as “marriage minus procreation rights” seems to complicate things. I would prefer to distance civil unions from marriage as much as possible, maybe design them to resemble a business partnership.

  87. Sean
    October 30th, 2010 at 16:47 | #87

    “The judges in this case did not uphold the will of the people and so the people must decide whether or not to retain them.”

    You’re scaring me, bman! You really think that punishing judges for not ruling the way you want is the way to go? Judges aren’t there to reflect the will of the people but the will of the constitution. Geez. Are we a nation of laws or a nation of men? Which would you prefer?

    “We know from reason that its irrational to mate the male reproductive system with that of another male”

    We “know” nothing of the kind. Diverting a certain percentage of the population away from reproductive purposes may very well have a necessary purpose. It’s not like the human race is lacking for people, is it? Most of the time, humans are trying to avoid getting pregnant. In other words, same-sex couples are non-procreative 100% of the time; straight couples are non-procreative maybe 98% of the time (they use birth control, vasectomies, tied tubes, abortion, etc. to avoid pregnancy and ultimately, live birth).

    When you see what a small role reproduction has in a couple’s relationship, you realize that this magical, mystical role that marriage traditionalists see is really a pretty minor part of marriage.

    “Whichever one it is, the behavior itself is contrary to reason, morality, and the natural order and should not be encouraged or formally approved to the public.”

    All major reputable medical organizations disagree with you. What you meant was, you don’t happen to like homosexual behavior (that you know of) and therefore it shouldn’t be ok’d by society.

  88. bman
    October 30th, 2010 at 17:16 | #88

    Sean :
    Diverting a certain percentage of the population away from reproductive purposes may very well have a necessary purpose.

    Its not the diverting “away from” that is irrational.

    Its what its diverted “to” that is irrational.

    It’s not like the human race is lacking for people, is it? Most of the time, humans are trying to avoid getting pregnant. In other words, same-sex couples are non-procreative 100% of the time; straight couples are non-procreative maybe 98% of the time (they use birth control, vasectomies, tied tubes, abortion, etc. to avoid pregnancy and ultimately, live birth).
    When you see what a small role reproduction has in a couple’s relationship, you realize that this magical, mystical role that marriage traditionalists see is really a pretty minor part of marriage.
    “Whichever one it is, the behavior itself is contrary to reason, morality, and the natural order and should not be encouraged or formally approved to the public.”
    All major reputable medical organizations disagree with you. What you meant was, you don’t happen to like homosexual behavior (that you know of) and therefore it shouldn’t be ok’d by society.

  89. October 30th, 2010 at 17:42 | #89

    bman :
    I agree that confining the word marriage to a man and woman is extremely important to the development of children. It would protect their intuitive development from sexual disorientation attack and from moral desensitization.

    Yes, and that is happening to children in Massachusetts and four other states. It is extremely important that we do something to stop same-sex marriage in all these states immediately, and rolling them back to Civil Unions would be a much better situation than the status quo, even if your state doesn’t have SSM yet. It wouldn’t force other states to adopt CU’s, but it would probably result in most states doing so, but the thing is: there won’t be any same-sex marriages, the word will be reserved for man-woman couples and children won’t be confused about the future.

    I detect possible problems with the second law, though.

    What do you think about the first and third laws? Those are the most important and we need to get them enacted ASAP. You can push for those without supporting the Civil Unions, I’m only suggesting the CU’s to forge a consensus, and to highlight the essential right of marriage.

    Civil unions, however carefully they are defined, might be leveraged as examples of “inequality” and serve as stepping stones to marriage that way. Even if they were equal in every respect except for the name, I think militant gays would say it made them feel like second class citizens.

    Well, if they had all the same rights, then they’d have a point, but they would understand that there was a rational reason why they were not allowed to procreate together, it is unsafe and uses resources. This Compromise is a permanent barrier to same-sex marriage, as long as we keep the first and third laws.

    Your technical description of civil unions as “marriage minus procreation rights” seems to complicate things. I would prefer to distance civil unions from marriage as much as possible, maybe design them to resemble a business partnership.

    But it doesn’t complicate things! It’s simple. They’re just not allowed to try to make offspring together, like married couples are.

  90. bman
    October 30th, 2010 at 20:00 | #90

    Sean :
    bman: The judges in this case did not uphold the will of the people and so the people must decide whether or not to retain them.

    Sean: ….You really think that punishing judges for not ruling the way you want is the way to go?

    When you say it would be punishing judges for not ruling the way I want you blur the distinction between acting on “principle” and acting on “preference.”

    If you wish to say the principles I hold are merely my preferences, you would have to say that’s the case for everyone, to include yourself and the judges of Iowa.

    And in that case, a million people may disagree with me, but that’s just their preference! Why should their preference have authority instead of mine? Or why shouldn’t I vote the judges out since its merely a case of their preference versus mine?

    And so your argument gives the people of Iowa the absolute authority to act on their “preferences” since all that counts is who has the most votes.

    On the other hand, if you think “principle” should be worth more than the number of votes, you should stop making principle equal to preference. Otherwise, the number of votes is all that should matter.

  91. Sean
    October 30th, 2010 at 20:40 | #91

    Bman

    “If you wish to say the principles I hold are merely my preferences, you would have to say that’s the case for everyone, to include yourself and the judges of Iowa.”

    What’s “principles” did all seven supreme court judges violate that you think require that the three up for a retention vote lose their jobs? To punish the three judges, you must also wish to punish the other four, who ruled the same way, right? If all seven judges were up for retention votes, would you advocate that all seven lose their jobs for not ruling as you wished?

  92. Chairm
    October 31st, 2010 at 00:09 | #92

    Marital status is a preferential status. Demanding it in the name of gayness is demanding preferential status based on gayness.

    If the SSM idea did not rely in such a demand, then, it would easily be accomodated with the protectoin equality of provisions for designated beneficiaries that fit the broad nonmarriage category — including the gay subset for which SSMers show so much favoritism.

    The benefits listed for the imposing the SSM idea do not distinguish the gay subset form the rest of nonmarriage. So the question of societal benefits remains unanswered.

  93. Chairm
    October 31st, 2010 at 00:12 | #93

    Under the law, the imposition of a merger of SSM with marriage would negate the sexual basis of marriage — at law. The SSMer who has now tried to deny this is the same SSMer who continues to argue against the sexual basis of marriage, at law.

    That SSMer’s perceptions are self-referential and ignorant of the law of marriage in our legal system and traditions.

  94. Chairm
    October 31st, 2010 at 00:16 | #94

    Repeatedly, SSMers denounce the marriage idea as being too restrictive — or recently, too burdensome — and so obviously argue for making marriage mean less and less. This is obvious when SSMers say that marriage must mean less than the coherent whole of sex integration combined with provision for responsible procreation. They say, it can mean that but only if marriage means less than that. This is their method of deconstructing that to which they imagine a person (gay, in particular) cannot consent due to the marriage idea being more restrictive or more burdensome than the substnatively vaguer and lighter SSM idea.

  95. Chairm
    October 31st, 2010 at 00:21 | #95

    Since the marriage law does not grant something to ‘straights’ but rather to the social institution and those who enter it, as husband and wife, the SSMer’s tactic of asking why marriage exlcudes ‘gays’ is irrelevant.

    No one is denied entry due to a gay criterion of ineligiblity. This is a legal fact.

    SSMers want a gay-specific type of arrangement to be treated as a marriage-specific arrangement but for non-marriage reasons. This is fundamentally unjust. It is arbitrary. It is of no benefit to society.

  96. Chairm
    October 31st, 2010 at 00:25 | #96

    No court has imposed the SSM merger without reliance on the abuse of judicial review. The Goodridge example was raised by the SSMer, not by me, and so its flaws predate the other abuses of judicial review that produced pro-SSM opinions.

    Note: the opinions are the offered legal reasoning. The result is reached, supposedly, through such reasoning. Apart from the outcome, the reasoning was offered by the SSMer as something of great merit. Please note that the SSMer has failed to respond substantively. This is a significance concession by ommission.

  97. Chairm
    October 31st, 2010 at 00:27 | #97

    John Howard said: “We need to end it in every state, not just try to stop it from spreading.”

    I agree. SSM is analogous with slavery. Containment for now but this unjust merger must be opposed wherever it has been imposed in the country.

  98. Chairm
    October 31st, 2010 at 00:45 | #98

    The judiciary is not a kingship with the final say on all matters constitutional. No where in the US Constitution is the judicial branch made supreme over the other co-equal branches much less over the governed.

    The principled basis for abolishing the man-woman basis of marriage law does not exist. A judge who’d attempt such an abolition relies not on the law nor on the sound application of principles of judicial review but rather on his own will.

    That might be within bounds for the citizen in the legislative role, or to the citizen who cast his vote, but it is contrary to the rule of law and thus out of bounds for the citizen in the judicial role. Judges are citizens serving the governed. They are not self-referencing sovereigns.

    Rule by will of a judge, no matter his rank in government, manifests an abuse of judicial review.

    Clearly, there can be no right to marry without marriage being fundamental to our society. And what makes it fundamental is not the sayso of this or that judge nor this or that political advocate. Rather, there is a principled basis for the special status of marriage in our customs, traditions, and legal system. When a citizen in the judicial role abandons that principled basis in favor of his own policy preferences, then, he is justly subject to dismissal by vote of his fellow Iowa citizens.

    Can such a vote be abused? Sure. But when a majority of individuals, from different perspectives and from factions across society can be counted from legitimate elections, then, we assume, with good reason, that 1) better decisions are usually made and that 2) this is better than rule by a tyrannical minority — such as a self-referential judicial oligarchy. Reminding citizens who are in the judicial role of this very significant principle of self-governance is itself a very good idea and Iowans take it very seriously.

    Whether they dismiss these judges or not is rightly up to them. Perhaps the vote will be light duirng midterms, as usual, and citizens will show their indifference due, in no small part, to issue fatigue. Or they might be animated by a clearly unjust imposition via abuse of judicial review. We’ll see soon enough.

  99. bman
    October 31st, 2010 at 12:39 | #99

    Sean :
    bman: If you wish to say the principles I hold are merely my preferences, you would have to say that’s the case for everyone, to include yourself and the judges of Iowa.”

    Sean: What’s “principles” did all seven supreme court judges violate that you think require that the three up for a retention vote lose their jobs? To punish the three judges, you must also wish to punish the other four, who ruled the same way, right? If all seven judges were up for retention votes, would you advocate that all seven lose their jobs for not ruling as you wished?

    Self evident principles were not upheld. They interpreted the law as if it was independent of the people instead of interpreting law as the intent of the people. Their ruling was detached from practical reality, common sense, natural law, morality, decency, heritage, culture, history, and the Christian religion.

    It may help you get a sense of the extent of their transgression, if you imagined some judges who ruled that public decency laws violated the Constitutional rights of nudists since the very thing that defines nudists as a class is they do not wear clothing.

    It should be self evident to such judges that the Constitution cannot overrule the public decency standard of the people, because that is a fundamental part of the society and not merely a matter of government discretion.

    Marriage is like that as well, It belongs to the people. Government can enforce it, but it does not own it, just as it does not own decency standards.

    The people of Iowa want judges to interpret their laws as an expression of who they are, as reflecting their values, their heritage, their culture, and not as a dictate that usurps their identity, their values, their history, culture, natural law, and their future.

    The judges disregarded all these things and that is why they should not be retained.

    When judges rule they cannot ignore the fundamental identity of the people they serve.

  100. bman
    October 31st, 2010 at 13:12 | #100

    <

    Sean :
    If all seven judges were up for retention votes, would you advocate that all seven lose their jobs for not ruling as you wished?

    Your words, “not ruling as you wished” still blur the distinction between acting on principle and acting on preference.

    A less biased way to ask your question could have been, “Would you vote against retaining those judges based on principles you hold?”

    To which I reply, “yes.”

    By the way, also see Chairms post which explains various principles involved.

  101. TAR
    October 31st, 2010 at 15:01 | #101

    @Mark
    Mark, I think you and I can agree that human sexuality is a complex subject.

    I too struggle with the question: if being gay or lesbian is a choice, why would anyone choose it especially if one runs the risk of persecution?

    My conclusion is there are a number of variables (biological, experiential, environmental) that alone or in combination give people varying degrees of desire to have sex with a same-sex partner. While desire encourages behavior, it does not force it unless the desire becomes so strong that it overwhelms a person’s ability to reason and control behavior. Since I do not believe homosexuals are all irrational individuals who cannot control their behavior, I believe most must choose to engage in homosexual behavior because for them the perceived or real benefit of fulfilling the desire is greater than the cost they may pay.

    Humans engage in risky behavior all the time, smoking, sex outside of marriage, abusing alcohol or drugs….I think the answer for each individual as to why he or she engages in known risky behavior is as unique as the individual.

    The lack of good scientific understanding on the etiology of homosexuality gives me pause in accepting the argument that homosexuality is an inborn immutable characteristic. How can we label something an inborn immutable characteristic when we must rely on self identification to identify those who have the characteristic? If sexual orientation is an immutable inborn characteristic, how can identical twins claim different sexual orientations?

    What are we to make of the inborn immutable characteristic of those who once claimed a homosexual identity, but changed to a heterosexual identity—was their homosexuality just a phase, or was their inborn immutable characteristic not so inborn or immutable, or is their newfound heterosexuality just a phase? Explain a person like Meredith Baxter-Birney who lived 60+ years as heterosexual—married 3 times, mothered 5 children and then “realized” she is a lesbian? Was she repressing her inborn immutable characteristic for 60+ years?

    And as a side note, if Meredith is a lesbian, and she must be as she only needs to claim to be a lesbian to be considered as one, she stands as proof that society does not discriminate against homosexuals from marrying and even remarrying—they just have to meet the same one man-one woman standard as everyone else.

  102. bman
    October 31st, 2010 at 15:16 | #102

    JH: My proposal is three federal laws that together end same-sex marriage in the US. The first law is an “egg and sperm law” that prohibits same-sex procreation and genetic engineering. The second law recognizes state civil unions as marriages for federal purposes if they are defined as “marriage minus conception rights.” The third law protects the conception rights of marriage. Together they make it impossible for a state to call a same-sex couple married, so that these CU’s couldn’t be stepping stones to marriage. They also establish a fundamental difference so that children wouldn’t be confused and homosexuality wouldn’t be normalized.

    As I understand the first law you propose, “prohibiting same-sex procreation and genetic engineering” it would prevent using genetic material to create human clones of one self. I think that law is needed to preserve the natural order for its own sake.

    The first law would also mean the second law (civil unions with no procreative rights) and the third law (natural marriage with only natural procreative rights) were both crafted to protect the first law (no genetically engineered procreation), unless the first law excluded that possibility by itself.

    Altogether, it sounds like a law is needed to prevent the unethical practice of cloning humans.

    Well, if they had all the same rights, then they’d have a point, but they would understand that there was a rational reason why they were not allowed to procreate together, it is unsafe and uses resources. This Compromise is a permanent barrier to same-sex marriage, as long as we keep the first and third laws.

    If the first law made it clear that cloning was illegal, then it would also be illegal to clone within marriage and/or civil unions.

    And since there would be no legal difference between civil unions and marriage in that regard, a no cloning clause would not establish any need for “compromise.”

    bman: Your technical description of civil unions as “marriage minus procreation rights” seems to complicate things. I would prefer to distance civil unions from marriage as much as possible, maybe design them to resemble a business partnership.

    Sean: But it doesn’t complicate things! It’s simple. They’re just not allowed to try to make offspring together, like married couples are.

    Well, the word “marriage” would be associated with civil unions, which is one problem.

    It also seems like you could have two ideas overlapping here and I am not sure where you are going with them. They are: (1) prevent cloning in both cu’s and marriage, and (2) keep natural procreation within marriage.

    I was thinking you wanted to prevent artificial procreation (cloning) in cu’s and in marriage.

    Did you also intend to make it illegal for natural procreation within civil unions?

  103. TAR
    October 31st, 2010 at 15:57 | #103

    @Mark
    As for your claim that homosexuals will be healthier and happier when society affirms their behavior and partnerships—I don’t buy it. I read similar claims made by “experts” when no fault divorce reared its ugly head and opened the flood gates for divorce. The claim was that children of divorce suffer because society stigmatizes divorce and once divorce becomes acceptable in society, then the children’s suffering will abate. Divorce is certainly no longer stigmatized, but the children of divorced couples are no happier or healthier. The consequence of divorce on children is their hearts are torn in two—no amount of society approval can ease this pain.

    A child’s need for a mother and father does not end at conception; it lasts a lifetime and thus we have the purpose of marriage. When the male-female union takes place in the confines of marriage any life created comes into the world with two guardians set in place to provide the care and nurturing that every child needs and only a mother and father can provide. Children created and nurtured by both mother and father are dealt the best hand possible. Society should do everything in its power to ensure that children come into the world with mother and father in place.

  104. TAR
    October 31st, 2010 at 16:44 | #104

    @bman

    bman,

    Thanks for the book reference. I will probably order a copy. I hope you are using your knowledge and skill in other more public forums.

  105. bman
    October 31st, 2010 at 17:10 | #105

    TAR :
    As for your [Mark's] claim that homosexuals will be healthier and happier when society affirms their behavior and partnerships—I don’t buy it. …

    The following is from <a href="http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10102206.html<Lifesite News:

    “While the many suicides among “gay” youth are generally attributed to anti-gay bullying, pro-family advocates have said the severe mental repercussions are in fact caused by those who pressure such youth to identify as gay while yet unsure of their sexual identity. ”

    This next comment also comes from Lifesite News

    • It is claimed, that the high rates of mental illness among homosexuals are the result of ‘homophobia’. However, even in the Netherlands, which has been far more tolerant to same-sex relationships and which has recently legalised same-sex marriages,
    high levels of psychiatric illness, including major depression, bipolar disorder (‘manic depression’), agoraphobia , obsessive compulsive disorder and drug addiction are found. (Sandfort TG, et al. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders: findings
    from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001; 58 :85-91.)
    • Furthermore, if ‘homophobia’ and prejudices were the cause of the high rates of psychiatric disorders and suicide attempts among homosexuals, one would similarly expect to find higher rates of suicide attempts and suicide among ethnic minorities
    exposed to racism. However, this is not usually the case.

  106. October 31st, 2010 at 23:32 | #106

    @bman

    As I understand the first law you propose, “prohibiting same-sex procreation and genetic engineering” it would prevent using genetic material to create human clones of one self. I think that law is needed to preserve the natural order for its own sake.

    Yes, the law would prohibit cloning a person, and also creating genetically engineered people, it would only allow joining the sperm of a man and the egg of a woman to create people. Thus it would prohibit same-sex couples attempting to procreate. The law is needed ASAP, immediately, the sooner the better, delay is tragic and terrible.

    If the first law made it clear that cloning was illegal, then it would also be illegal to clone within marriage and/or civil unions.

    That’s true, just like incest is also be illegal within marriages.

    And since there would be no legal difference between civil unions and marriage in that regard, a no cloning clause would not establish any need for “compromise.”

    There is no need for a compromise, but a compromise is worth it in order to actually accomplish ending same-sex marriage. If you can end same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and stop genetic engineering without offering same-sex couples the things that courts in every state have said we have to give them, then, well, it would have been done by now. I don’t think you are appreciating how much would be achieved in exchange for letting a few same-sex couples collect social security survivor benefits or visit each other in the hospital: SSM would be ended in all fifty states!

    John: But it doesn’t complicate things! It’s simple. They’re just not allowed to try to make offspring together, like married couples are.

    Well, the word “marriage” would be associated with civil unions, which is one problem.

    It would be clearly distinct, though, in a very rational and important way. Yes, CU’s would be defined based on marriage, but the difference (literally “minus conception rights”) would help define marriage and help remind people that people should marry before sex and procreating.

    It also seems like you could have two ideas overlapping here and I am not sure where you are going with them. They are: (1) prevent cloning in both cu’s and marriage, and (2) keep natural procreation within marriage.

    They are: 1) Prohibit and prevent creating people by any means other than joining a man and a woman’s unmodified gametes. (whether married or CU’d or whatever) 2) Preserve everyone’s right to marry and every marriage’s right to procreate with their own genes. That would mean that people couldn’t marry someone of their same sex.

    I was thinking you wanted to prevent artificial procreation (cloning) in cu’s and in marriage.

    Yes, in CU’s, marriages, single people, Frankenstein cults, IVF clinics, everyone. The Egg and Sperm law would ban cloning and same-sex procreation and genetic engineering, regardless of marriage. And fyi, “cloning” is a very specific method of creating an embryo, it means using the genome of an existing specimen and starting a new life with it, a genetic twin. Same-sex procreation wouldn’t be cloning, it combines two genomes, first of all, and it also requires manipulating one of the genomes to be complementary, and it is proving to be even harder to accomplish (there are very few successful same-sex procreation experiments in animals, but cloning is now routine, because it is much easier).

    Did you also intend to make it illegal for natural procreation within civil unions?

    These Civil Unions would be like being unmarried, as far as having sex and procreation is concerned. So if a brother and sister were in a Civil Union, it would still be incest, they would still be prohibited by the incest law against having sex and procreating, just like same-sex couples in Civil Unions would be prohibited by the Egg and Sperm law against procreating. But if a couple eligible for marriage got a Civil Union, they would be allowed to procreate, since we don’t prohibit unmarried procreation.

  107. TAR
    November 1st, 2010 at 09:14 | #107

    @Mark

    As for the biological ideal being “one man and several females,” this is a very male centric “ideal.” Why does the “biological ideal” dictate the male’s gene pool is worthy of spreading far and wide, but the female’s is limited to just one male? Let’s say this ideal is true, it still could never be achieved in human society. First the world ratio of male-female is about 1:1, very slight male bias with China’s one child policy. Humans are not simple biological organisms void of emotion and attachments; we are driven by emotion and form very strong emotional attachments.

    Marriage has meant many things to many different people, but the definition I will defend is the loving union of one man and one woman who remain unconditionally devoted to each other and any life their loving union creates—till death do they part.

    Two men or two women can form very strong emotional attachments and they can have a very healthy and functional relationship, but when their relationship takes on a sexual component it becomes unhealthy and dysfunctional. A man is not designed to receive a man, nor is a woman designed to be received by a woman, but yet homosexuals desire such unions.

    Homosexuality is clearly against physical design and serves no procreative function. The obvious disconnect between a homosexual’s desire and design has got to be considered dysfunctional at some level. No computer scientist would ever call a computer whose hardware is incompatible with its programming fully functional and something society should foster instead of fix, but that is exactly what many in the medical and social sciences are saying about people whose physical designs (hardware) are incompatible with their desires (programming).

    I continue to hold that the APA gave homosexuality a scientific pass. A pass those sympathetic to the gay agenda are determined to hold onto by marginalizing any who dare disagree with the position of the establishment. Truth can withstand the most rigorous challenges and debate should be welcomed, but that is not what I am discovering from the organizations who have adopted pro-homosexual stances. Things that make one go hmmmm….

  108. Mark
    November 1st, 2010 at 10:42 | #108

    Tar: “Why does the “biological ideal” dictate the male’s gene pool is worthy of spreading far and wide, but the female’s is limited to just one male?”

    Because males can reproduce without interruption. A female is out of commission (in a sense) during her pregnancy.

    “Humans are not simple biological organisms void of emotion and attachments; we are driven by emotion and form very strong emotional attachments. ”

    I couldn’t agree with you more. And the same goes for same-sex couples.

    “Homosexuality is clearly against physical design and serves no procreative function. The obvious disconnect between a homosexual’s desire and design has got to be considered dysfunctional at some level. ”

    So the only thing that makes something worthy is it’s ability to procreate? That is what you are saying. So the Pope, nuns, priests and others who have chosen chastity have no worth? Could not their disconnect between desire and design be considered dysfunctional?

    “I continue to hold that the APA gave homosexuality a scientific pass. A pass those sympathetic to the gay agenda are determined to hold onto by marginalizing any who dare disagree with the position of the establishment. ”

    And you are welcome to this bias. I would advise you to look at other organizations than NARTH to get the full picture. And, if those who disprove of the APA position can produce reliable scientific information that counters what is currently accepted, I am sure the APA position will change.

    “Truth can withstand the most rigorous challenges and debate should be welcomed, but that is not what I am discovering from the organizations who have adopted pro-homosexual stances.”

    Then you need to look into those organizations, or others, more deeply. Or perhaps it’s how you define truth.

  109. bman
    November 1st, 2010 at 14:12 | #109

    Sean :
    All major reputable medical organizations disagree with you…”

    References to the actual research should be cited because political activism appears to be strong in many organizations.

    The following excerpt on The American Academy of Pediatrics is from: http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/social-issues/2SI0804E.pdf

    –begin quote–
    The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) announced in early February, 2002 “a growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.” Based on this, the AAP supports “legislative and legal efforts” to allow homosexuals to adopt their partner’s children.

    However, the AAP received strong reaction from its membership. An email memo from the lead author of the AAP’s Technical Report to select members of the Academy on the issue laments:

    …the AAP has received more messages-almost all of them CRITICAL-from members about the recent Policy Statement on coparent adoption than it has EVER received on any other topic… This is a serious problem, as it means that it will become harder to continue the work we have been doing to use the AAP as a vehicle for positive change.
    –end quote–

    The words, “…it will become harder to continue the work we have been doing to use the AAP as a vehicle for positive change..” point to a high level political activism that apparently did not represent the consensus of its membership.

    Something similar occurred in the APA also. The following is from http://www.narth.com/docs/annals.html:

    –begin quote–
    …. “sexual politics” may not in the long run prevail over science ..as evident in the result of a poll of 10,000 psychiatrists by Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality in late 1977. Of 2500 replies received, approximately 68 percent answered the question, “Is homosexuality usually a pathological adaptation (as opposed to a normal variation)?” in the affirmative. This strongly suggested to the interpreter, Dr. Harold I. Lief of the University of Pennsylvania, that the previous “A.P.A. vote was influenced by political and social considerations…in that the vote was perceived as a step toward stopping the denial of rights to homosexuals.”(20)
    –end quote–

    Here again the public policy on homosexuality of a major health organization did not mean necessarily mean it was the consensus view of its members.

    And so, public policy statements on this particular subject should be presumed suspect, unless underlying research has been cited and validated.

  110. Mark
    November 1st, 2010 at 15:28 | #110

    bman: “And so, public policy statements on this particular subject should be presumed suspect, unless underlying research has been cited and validated.”

    However, when most reputable medical organizations are in agreement, there is more reliability to the public policy statements. And, bman, you are basing your disbelieve of the validity of these public policy statements on ONE reference source (NARTH). So, logically if ONE source says one thing, but NUMEROUS sources say another, the numerous sources are probably correct.

    As far as children growing up with two lesbian parents, this study clearly states that they do just fine, which proves the AAP’ policy statement is correct:
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2009-3153v1

  111. Sean
    November 1st, 2010 at 18:05 | #111

    “References to the actual research should be cited because political activism appears to be strong in many organizations.”

    Given that this website is associated with a rapidly politically active anti-gay group, what makes you think political activism is automatically supportive of normalized homosexuality and gay civil rights? What could I cite from the AMA, the APA or any other prominent medical organization that you wouldn’t dismiss with “they’re just politicized!”? You believe what you want, regardless of the facts.

    With straight people in such a large majority in this country, how could gay people possibly use political power to impose their will or beliefs? I think truth must have prevailed along the line as some point.

  112. bman
    November 1st, 2010 at 22:10 | #112

    Mark :
    As far as children growing up with two lesbian parents, this study clearly states that they do just fine, which proves the AAP’ policy statement is correct:
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2009-3153v1

    The eletters by other researchers noted several flaws with the study .

    Here are some excerpts:

    - As it can be easily seen from Table 1, the populations in comparison are very different in race composition, socio-economic status of participants, and region of the country. The population of children from the conventional sample (Achenbach Normative CBCL Sample) has many times more minorities and many more children from the South…Also, I am surprised that the editorial board and reviewers did not pay attention to such an obvious deficiency of the study. In my opinion, above mentioned creates a strong doubt in the conclusions of the study.

    - The study conclusions were based solely on the parental responses to the Child Behavior Checklist. Parents who complete CBCL’s on their own children for a study that could potentially report negative findings on the outcomes of children raised in lesbian homes have a clear, self- serving bias.

  113. bman
    November 1st, 2010 at 22:12 | #113
  114. bman
    November 1st, 2010 at 22:29 | #114

    Here is an interesting letter exchange between Narth and the AMA. It essentially corrects the AMA on various point of fact regarding its position on homosexuality.

    NARTH Challenges AMA To Correct Misinformation In Medical Encyclopedia

    The American Medical Association Responds to NARTH Challenge

    NARTH Sends Second Letter
    To AMA Appealing For Correction In Encyclopedia

  115. bman
    November 2nd, 2010 at 09:35 | #115

    Sean :
    bman: References to the actual research should be cited because political activism appears to be strong in many organizations.”

    Sean:…What could I cite from the AMA, the APA or any other prominent medical organization that you wouldn’t dismiss with “they’re just politicized!”? You believe what you want, regardless of the facts.

    What you can supply is the “facts” instead of just the policy statements.

    There is nothing wrong in rejecting a policy statement that lacks facts.

    There is something wrong, however, in rejecting facts because they don’t agree with policy statements.

    I just provided you a link, for example, that confronts the AMA on points of fact.

    So when are you going to start looking at the facts instead dismissing them based on APA and AMA policy statements?

    …I think truth must have prevailed along the line as some point.

    Either the truth prevailed at some point, or a lie prevailed at some point.

    When one gets into the facts themselves, it appears the lie prevailed.

    I have already shown this many ways.

    For example, it wasn’t NARTH who said the following things:

    “Psychology, psychiatry, and social work have been captured by an ultra-liberal agenda”

    “Misguided political correctness tethers our intellects”

    “Psychology and mental health have veered away from scientific integrity and open inquiry…”

    “The APA has chosen ideology over science, and thus has diminished its influence on the decision-makers in our society.”

    “…many [potential contributors to the book] declined to be included, fearing loss of tenure or stature, and citing previous ridicule and even vicious attacks…”

    Those are statements by influential leaders in the APA made in their book, Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm.

    One of them, Dr. Nicholas Cummings, is a past president of the APA, as well.

    So, there is credible proof that something is amiss in the mental health field.

    I also pointed to the research of Stacey and Biblarz, both of whom support homosexual political rights.

    Even though they have a pro-gay bias, their study revealed that findings had been suppressed (1981 to 1998) because there was a political motivation to report “no difference” in children raised by homosexual parents.

    Since these pro gay researchers discovered political bias has caused false reporting and censorship, it also shows a lie has prevailed rather than the truth.

    I also refer you the famous 1957 report by Evelyn Hooker. To this day the APA and others cite it as proof there is no homosexual pathology. Yet, Evelyn Hooker herself said in the report that it did not exclude that.

    She said, “Another way of looking at the data from the projective tests may be that the homosexual “pathology” occurs only in an erotic situation and that the homosexual can function well in non-erotic situations such as the Rorschach, TAT, and MAPS. Thus, one could defend the hypothesis that homosexuality is symptomatic of pathology, but that the pathology is confined to one sector of behavior, namely, the sexual.”

    That part of her report is quite unknown. And so it confirms why we need to look at the research itself and not just the policy statements about the research.

  116. Mark
    November 2nd, 2010 at 16:55 | #116

    bman: Please, research some other sites besides NARTH. It is a one sided site that has been shown to have huge bias.

    “Here is an interesting letter exchange between Narth and the AMA. It essentially corrects the AMA on various point of fact regarding its position on homosexuality.”

    But NARTH is not accurate either. The percentage of people who are gay or lesbian is still in dispute (the NHSLS study is over 18 years old). Much of it is based on self reporting. Even in the NHSLS while only 2.8% were self identified as gay, almost 10% could be classified as gay using other study parameters. Today, many men who have sex exclusively with men do not call themselves gay or homosexual because they do not identify with those images. Does it make them less homosexual? Another example, there is a survey done every year of college freshman. Over the last few years, the incidence in smoking was decreasing because the survey asked if the person was a smoker. When it was rephrased to asked if a person ever smoked, a larger percentage said yes, but they considered themselves a social smoker. Course, some of them were smoking 1-2 packs per day, hardly “social smokers”.

    As far as the Spitzer study is concerned, it is so biased, even Spitzer commented it couldn’t be used to generalize anything as his sample was small and FAR from randomized.

    “For example, the sample consisted predominantly of activists recruited from “ex-gay” and anti-gay organizations. About two thirds were referred to Spitzer by so-called “ex-gay ministries,” such as Exodus, or by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Of those who participated, 78 percent had spoken publicly in favor of efforts to convert homosexuals to heterosexuality. ”
    http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html

    In it’s letter, NARTH goes on to day:
    “A person who is not disordered in some way will not experience high rates of drug and alcohol abuse, attempted suicides, promiscuous relationships, or engage in self-destructive sexual behaviors that place the person at high risk of acquiring an incurable STD or HIV.”

    NARTH classifies all homosexuals under this banner which is quite incorrect. People who are constantly told that their feelings are sinful or wrong, may become self destructive over time. But this reflects more in the societal effect on gays and lesbians than it does on being gay or lesbian. But NARTH wants to classify homosexuality as a disorder because some homosexuals react to the negativity that they are taught their entire life. It’s blaming the victim.

    And the comments regarding Evelyn Hooker’s study are taken out of context. No one can claim that there is absolutely no pathology. This includes in heterosexuals as well. What Evelyn Hooker was alluding to was that she could find no pathology in homosexuals but that she did not study them in a sexual / erotic environment. I am not aware of ANY studies that looks at homosexuality or heterosexuality in such an environment.

  117. bman
    November 2nd, 2010 at 18:26 | #117

    mark: The percentage of people who are gay or lesbian is still in dispute…while only 2.8% were self identified as gay, almost 10% could be classified as gay using other study parameters.

    What is the study that shows this 10% figure?

  118. Sean
    November 2nd, 2010 at 19:37 | #118

    bman:

    where are the facts for YOUR claims? In reading the article you linked to, it says the authors, regarding homosexuality, agree that it is not disordered or a pathology:

    “The authors do not complain about what was done, but rather, how it was done. The co-author (Cummings) of the chapter not only agrees with the outcome, but in 1974 introduced the successful resolution declaring that homosexuality was not a psychiatric condition. However, the resolution carried with it a “proscription that appropriate and needed research would be conducted to substantiate these decisions.” Cummings “watched with dismay as there was no effort on the part of APA to promote or even encourage such required research” (p. 9).”

    Did you think we wouldn’t read the link? The authors agree homosexuality is normal. If you think it’s a disease or ailment, that are its symptoms?

  119. bman
    November 2nd, 2010 at 20:05 | #119

    Mark: As far as the Spitzer study is concerned, it is so biased, even Spitzer commented it couldn’t be used to generalize anything as his sample was small and FAR from randomized. “For example, the sample consisted predominantly of activists recruited from “ex-gay” and anti-gay organizations. About two thirds were referred to Spitzer by so-called “ex-gay ministries,” such as Exodus, or by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Of those who participated, 78 percent had spoken publicly in favor of efforts to convert homosexuals to heterosexuality. ”

    I agree it was not random and there is indeed potential for bias in self reporting.

    The reason for the referrals you describe, however, is because the goal was to assess those who claimed to have changed, to see if their claim was credible.

    Its my understanding that Dr. Spitzer did not perform therapy to produce change. Rather, he designed a structured method to evaluate if change had actually occurred in those who claimed it.

    The following is from an interview with Dr. Robert Spitzer (by Warren Throckmorton, PhD):

    -begin quote-
    “It was a study of 200 people who had been homosexually oriented. In order to get into the study, they had to have had at least five years of a change, where they had previously been predominately homosexual, now are predominately heterosexual. What we learned was that the changes that were recorded were not just in behavior, but were in their feelings, their fantasies, what attracted them, and how they performed sexually. So it was a very meaningful change for the great majority…..

    ….Now, of course, this study was not a study of how often, because we only started with people who had made a change. My own sense of this is that we had a great deal of difficulty getting those 200. It took us about two years, and we had several sources where we could make it known that in the study we wanted people who had changed to participate. Since it was so hard to get those 200, and we were not flooded with hundreds of people, my own view and I, there’s no way that I can be sure, is that probably a relatively rare experience that people change as much as these people did.

    …It also important to realize that there were some of the people that we did not
    accept, because they had only changed in their behavior. There were those who said,
    well, I know now that I am heterosexual because God made me this way, but I still have
    homosexual feelings. Now even those people who we did not admit into this study, many
    of them felt that, by controlling their sexual behavior, which made it possible for them to
    live a life more in tune with their own values – religious values – that were very valuable.

    …..I’ve asked two of the more well known practitioners of this kind of therapy how often are they successful, and they say, well it depends on the way you define success, but if you define success in terms of a change in behavior, and in feelings, there’s about 30 percent or
    something like that. Now I suspect it’s much lower, but I could be wrong. So whether it’s
    2 %, 10%, or 15%, but what I am sure is that it’s not 0%. And that’s what this study was
    about, whether it’s actually 0 percent.
    -end quote-

    The full interview is at: http://www.drthrockmorton.com/interviewdrspitzer.pdf

  120. November 2nd, 2010 at 20:56 | #120

    Mark: > But NARTH is not accurate either. The percentage of people who are gay or lesbian is still in dispute (the NHSLS study is over 18 years old). Much of it is based on self reporting. Even in the NHSLS while only 2.8% were self identified as gay, almost 10% could be classified as gay using other study parameters.

    Mark, what percentage of the population cannot love, honor, and cherish someone of the other gender in any meaningful marital way? That is the current working indicator that someone is gay from yours and Sean’s absolute assertion that gays cannot get married.

    If you can do that then prove that percentage can’t with any scientific study that you can find. Then prove that you can tell the difference with some physical indicator that can predict which merely have same-sex attraction and which cannot love, honor and cherish someone in any meaningful marital way just because they are of the other gender.

  121. bman
    November 2nd, 2010 at 22:17 | #121

    Sean :
    where are the facts for YOUR claims? In reading the article you linked to, it says the authors, regarding homosexuality, agree that it is not disordered or a pathology:
    “The authors do not complain about what was done, but rather, how it was done. The co-author (Cummings) of the chapter not only agrees with the outcome, but in 1974 introduced the successful resolution declaring that homosexuality was not a psychiatric condition. However, the resolution carried with it a “proscription that appropriate and needed research would be conducted to substantiate these decisions.” Cummings “watched with dismay as there was no effort on the part of APA to promote or even encourage such required research” (p. 9).”
    Did you think we wouldn’t read the link? The authors agree homosexuality is normal. If you think it’s a disease or ailment, that are its symptoms?

    The claim I made when I quoted them was this, “References to the actual research should be cited because political activism appears to be strong in many organizations.”

    I then cited these comments from the book to support that claim: :

    –Psychology, psychiatry, and social work have been captured by an ultra-liberal agenda”
    –Misguided political correctness tethers our intellects”
    –Psychology and mental health have veered away from scientific integrity and open inquiry
    –The APA has chosen ideology over science, and thus has diminished its influence on the decision-makers in our society.”
    – many [potential contributors to the book] declined to be included, fearing loss of tenure or stature, and citing previous ridicule and even vicious attacks…”

    Now, the part you cited verifies all of that.

    It says that Cummings introduced a resolution in 1974 that homosexuality was not a psychiatric condition but, “the resolution carried with it a proscription that appropriate and needed research would be conducted to substantiate these decisions.

    Then it says, “Cummings watched with dismay as there was no effort on the part of APA to promote or even encourage such required research.”

    So, the “facts” are right there in the very text you cited. You have a former president of the APA, who believes homosexuality is not a pathology also saying the APA is not being fair handed with the research.

    Seems like that would make their claim all the more credible.

    in Although I argued elsewhere that did not quote them to prove a pathology existed, but to prove that political activism had made the policy statemetns suspect. was was not permithe reaserch was

  122. November 2nd, 2010 at 22:38 | #122

    @bman – Please let me know what you think after reading my comment #6. We need to stop same-sex marriage in my state and every state. We can stop it by stopping genetic engineering and protecting the right of marriage to procreate with the couple’s own genes. The discussions about NARTH and the origins of homosexuality will become much more fruitful and meaningful once we have established that same-sex procreation is not a right and people only have a right to procreate with someone of the other sex. And again, we don’t need to introduce Civil Unions to stop SSP and SSM, as long as there is an effective majority to achieve that. I just feel that ending same-sex marriage without any sort of Compromise won’t happen, and we need to offer Civil Unions (defined as “marriage minus conception rights” and therefore not stepping stones) in order to get enough support make it happen. The status quo is unacceptable though, it is harming young people, same-sex marriage needs to be ended ASAP.

  123. Sean
    November 3rd, 2010 at 04:36 | #123

    “That is the current working indicator that someone is gay from yours and Sean’s absolute assertion that gays cannot get married.”

    Well, let’s try this: same-sex couples who want to marry, can’t, in 44 states. Does this work better for you.

    I would love to learn why you think that encouraging gay people to marry other opposite-sex gay people, or opposite-sex straight people is a good idea for society. Mixed orientation marriages are more likely to end in divorce, because there is an inherent conflict in sexual desire and therefore the intimacy that goes with marriage. Two opposite-sex gay people getting married almost guarantees sexual infidelity, that is, going outside the marriage for sex. This weakens the marriage and in fact, redefines marriage from a union of a sexually faithful couple, to a union of people having sex outside of the union.

    I wonder, if you were a straight woman, would you be particularly interested in marrying a gay man? Would you like to see someone you care about, perhaps a son or daughter, or brother or sister, whom you know to be straight, marry a gay person? Do you think that’s a marriage that’s on solid footing, or rather, one that merely keeps up appearances and just looks like a traditional marriage? Do you believe married couples should aspire to confine their sexual relations to their marriage partner?

  124. Sean
    November 3rd, 2010 at 04:41 | #124

    bman, what kind of research is necessary to “prove” homosexuality is not a pathology? How do you prove a negative, in other words? Being left-handed isn’t a pathology either. So how would you prove it with research? The fact is, if there’s no evidence of pathology, it’s a pretty easy to say, homosexuality isn’t disordered or an ailment.” What research is required? There’s nothing to fix!

    The only people who think there’s something wrong with gay people are homophobic straight people. Is homophobia an ailment? I think if someone obsesses enough about it, it is.

  125. Mark
    November 3rd, 2010 at 05:45 | #125

    On Lawn: “Mark, what percentage of the population cannot love, honor, and cherish someone of the other gender in any meaningful marital way? That is the current working indicator that someone is gay from yours and Sean’s absolute assertion that gays cannot get married.”

    No, that is no the indicator of who is gay and who is straight. Sorry, On Lawn, it’s just not that simple.

    “If you can do that then prove that percentage can’t with any scientific study that you can find. Then prove that you can tell the difference with some physical indicator that can predict which merely have same-sex attraction and which cannot love, honor and cherish someone in any meaningful marital way just because they are of the other gender.”

    Sorry, this is another example of On Lawn’s game playing. On Lawn doesn’t understand the issue and attempts to inject non-issues to cloud the discussion.

    However, On Lawn, if you want to put up the money for the research, I’ll gladly do the studies to prove the specific, irrelevant questions you ask.

  126. TAR
    November 3rd, 2010 at 06:28 | #126

    @Mark

    Mark, I think we can agree that the “biological ideal” is rendered irrelevant by the human condition.

    I wrote:
    “Homosexuality is clearly against physical design and serves no procreative function. The obvious disconnect between a homosexual’s desire and design has got to be considered dysfunctional at some level. ”

    You Respond with:
    “So the only thing that makes something worthy is it’s ability to procreate? That is what you are saying. So the Pope, nuns, priests and others who have chosen chastity have no worth? Could not their disconnect between desire and design be considered dysfunctional?”

    I am wondering about the sincerity of your response. I do not know how you made the jump from what I wrote to your response. In case you are sincere let me make it clear. I do not value the worth of something according to its ability to procreate, but I do consider procreation a primary function of sex.

    As for the Pope, nuns, priests or any others who have chosen chastity, I do not see their desire and design as being disconnected, unless one or more of them claims to be homosexual, then I would see a disconnect between their desire for same-sex unions and their design for opposite-sex unions. Those who choose chastity do not lose their sexual desire they just choose to exercise full control over it.

    Thanks for recognizing and welcoming my bias. My question to you is do you recognize your own?

    Rest assured that I have not developed my bias from hearing and reading only one side of this debate. I welcome any and all relevant information and challenges to my opinions.

  127. Mark
    November 3rd, 2010 at 08:10 | #127

    TAR: I disagree with your comment that “Homosexuality is clearly against physical design”. It really does not make any sense. Various parts will fit into various openings which still maintain a “physical design” quality. It also makes mute this other sentence of yours: “The obvious disconnect between a homosexual’s desire and design has got to be considered dysfunctional at some level.” There is no dysfunction at all.

    Tar: “I do consider procreation a primary function of sex”

    I am not quite clear on what you mean. I believe you are saying that the primary reason to have sex is for procreation. If I am wrong, I apologize but this does fit with the general trend of your comments. I do not consider sex as only used for procreation. I think it is a way two people can express their feelings for each other.

    “Thanks for recognizing and welcoming my bias. My question to you is do you recognize your own? ”

    I do have a bias and I realize it. My bias is that I see all people as being equal, that they have the right to pursue their interests and their loves, and that they all deserve the same rights. We all have our imperfections but that God loves us for who we are as He created us as we are. Each of us must live our lives as He designed us. If others say we are wrong or evil, I believe we will each be judged accordingly. There is so much bitterness and unhappiness in the world. Why do some work so hard to prevent the happiness of others?

  128. November 3rd, 2010 at 11:08 | #128

    Sean :
    “That is the current working indicator that someone is gay from yours and Sean’s absolute assertion that gays cannot get married.”
    Well, let’s try this: same-sex couples who want to marry, can’t, in 44 states. Does this work better for you.

    Nope, you said gays can’t marry. Unless you wish to retract that statement now, you are only shuffling the deck-chairs on the Titanic.

    So since you didn’t answer, I’ll ask again. What percentage of people are gay, as in they cannot get married because they can’t love, honor and cherish someone of the other gender in any meaningful marital way?

  129. November 3rd, 2010 at 11:12 | #129

    Mark :
    On Lawn: “Mark, what percentage of the population cannot love, honor, and cherish someone of the other gender in any meaningful marital way? That is the current working indicator that someone is gay from yours and Sean’s absolute assertion that gays cannot get married.”
    No, that is no the indicator of who is gay and who is straight. Sorry, On Lawn, it’s just not that simple.

    Okay, then what percentage of gays cannot love, honor, and cherish the other gender in any meaningful marital way, or in other words what percentage of gays, in a state that requires equal gender representation and tolerance in each marriage, cannot get married?

    We’ll leave it at that question for now, and do leave the childish accusations to yourself, this is just about your beliefs about homosexuality that I’m trying to understand better.

  130. bman
    November 3rd, 2010 at 15:23 | #130

    John: We need to stop same-sex marriage in my state and every state. We can stop it by stopping genetic engineering….

    Here, you claim same sex marriage can be stopped by stopping genetic engineering.

    Of course, I am opposed to genetically engineered procreation.

    However, in states where same sex marriage has passed, I don’t recall genetic engineering being the reason for it.

    It was passed based on other claims such as due process, equality, benefits, sexual orientation, social animus, changed gender roles, etc.

    If genetically engineered procreation was outlawed it would keep that from becoming added to that list. It would not, though, remove or affect the other claims that have energized the same sex marriage movement.

    So, it does not seem likely that same sex marriage would be stopped or affected very much at all if genetically engineered procreation was stopped.

    Even if it was available, it would probably have about the same effect on the marriage debate as does adoption, surrogate motherhood, and lesbian mothers using sperm donor labs.

    John: The discussions about NARTH and the origins of homosexuality will become much more fruitful and meaningful once we have established that same-sex procreation is not a right and people only have a right to procreate with someone of the other sex. And again, we don’t need to introduce Civil Unions to stop SSP and SSM, as long as there is an effective majority to achieve that. I just feel that ending same-sex marriage without any sort of Compromise won’t happen, and we need to offer Civil Unions (defined as “marriage minus conception rights” and therefore not stepping stones) in order to get enough support make it happen. The status quo is unacceptable though, it is harming young people, same-sex marriage needs to be ended ASAP.

    I acknowledge your argument that a “civil union compromise” would not be needed given the proper majority.

    Even so, I think civil unions should not be defined as “marriage minus conception rights.” That facilitates the same kind of confusion for children we already discussed when the word marriage is used for same sex relationships.

    Besides, I think the clause, “minus procreation rights” accomplishes very little. It would not prevent surrogate motherhood or sperm donations used by lesbians. So how does that clause help anything? If it means “no genetic SSP permitted” that would already be prevented by the first law you proposed.

    The discussion on NARTH, in my view, is due more to the opposition trying to make things difficult. I am not trying to defend NARTH per se, but I am trying to uphold points of fact, regardless if they come from the APA or from NARTH.

  131. bman
    November 3rd, 2010 at 17:10 | #131

    Mark :
    And the comments regarding Evelyn Hooker’s study are taken out of context. No one can claim that there is absolutely no pathology. This includes in heterosexuals as well. What Evelyn Hooker was alluding to was that she could find no pathology in homosexuals but that she did not study them in a sexual / erotic environment. I am not aware of ANY studies that looks at homosexuality or heterosexuality in such an environment.

    Here again is the excerpt I quoted before:

    “Another way of looking at the data from the projective tests may be that the homosexual “pathology” occurs only in an erotic situation and that the homosexual can function well in non-erotic situations such as the Rorschach,TAT, and MAPS. Thus, one could defend the hypothesis that homosexuality is symptomatic of pathology, but that the pathology is confined to one sector of behavior, namely, the sexual.”

    Clearly, she is referring to homosexuality in an abstract sense and not the idea that some individual might have a pathology by way of exception.

    Your comment on research being unavailable is also of interest.

    Earlier I wrote this to Sean: “Cummings introduced a resolution in 1974 that homosexuality was not a psychiatric condition but the resolution carried with it a proscription that appropriate and needed research would be conducted to substantiate these decisions. …Cummings [then] watched with dismay as there was no effort on the part of APA to promote or even encourage such required research.”

    In other words, you and Cummings both agree the “required” studies are unavailable to show if a homosexual pathology exists in the very area it could most likely exist.

    Why is that?

    As Dr. Cumming’s explained in his book, the research needed to determine that has been blocked by the APA due to political activism.

    What Evelyn Hooker was alluding to was that she could find no pathology in homosexuals but that she did not study them in a sexual / erotic environment.

    I note, first, she said “the data” permits that hypothesis but she did not adopt it.

    With regard to “the data,” in the MAPS and TATS tests the subjects were presented with images and asked to create an imaginary story about them.

    After she administered these tests to both groups, the stories by the homosexual subjects were so filled with homosexual themes she had to delete the task where the judge would try to decide which stories belonged to which group.

    It was so obvious there was no point in performing that task.

    This would be a reason why the data itself alludes to the hypothesis she mentioned.

    Again, that part of her report is quite unknown. And so it confirms why we need to look at the research itself and not just the policy statements about the research.

  132. November 3rd, 2010 at 17:31 | #132

    bman: “Here, you claim same sex marriage can be stopped by stopping genetic engineering.”

    Right, in fact prohibiting genetic engineering/same-sex procreation is the only way to stop SSM, as long as it remains legal to do SSP, then courts will rule we must allow SSM. And the way it stops SSM is via the law that affirms that marriage protects the couple’s right to conceive offspring using their own genes.

    bman: “Of course, I am opposed to genetically engineered procreation.”

    Great, that means you oppose same-sex procreation, which requires GE.

    bman: “However, in states where same sex marriage has passed, I don’t recall genetic engineering being the reason for it.”

    You’re right, same-sex procreation, and the conception rights of marriage, have not been mentioned at all.

    bman: “It was passed based on other claims such as due process, equality, benefits, sexual orientation, social animus, changed gender roles, etc.”

    Yeah, but those claims were not applied to the real issue of marriage, they do not justify a right to create people from artificially created genetically modified gametes. Do changed gender roles mean we have to let labs make embryos from two men or two women? I think not, and therefore all those old decisions will be moot. However, the claims may still apply to the other rights and benefits, which may require CU’s defined as “marriage minus procreation rights.”

    bman “If genetically engineered procreation was outlawed it would keep that from becoming added to that list. It would not, though, remove or affect the other claims that have energized the same sex marriage movement.”

    Well, if it was outlawed it would mean that same-sex couples didn’t have the same rights, and the right to procreate together is an essential right of marriage. It’s true though that the other claims that have energized the movement would remain, but they would no longer be a claim for marriage rights.

    bman: “So, it does not seem likely that same sex marriage would be stopped or affected very much at all if genetically engineered procreation was stopped.”

    I’m certain that it would. It would be an essential part of the Compromise, it would be the crux of the Compromise, the understood agreement. And it would legally impossible for any state to allow same-sex marriage after the first and second laws are enacted.

    bman: “Even if it was available, it would probably have about the same effect on the marriage debate as does adoption, surrogate motherhood, and lesbian mothers using sperm donor labs.”

    Well, those have nothing to do with marriage, using surrogates and donors aren’t rights of marriage, and single people can use sperm donors and surrogates.

  133. bman
    November 3rd, 2010 at 17:34 | #133

    Sean :
    bman, what kind of research is necessary to “prove” homosexuality is not a pathology? How do you prove a negative, in other words? Being left-handed isn’t a pathology either. So how would you prove it with research? The fact is, if there’s no evidence of pathology, it’s a pretty easy to say, homosexuality isn’t disordered or an ailment.” What research is required? There’s nothing to fix!

    Please refer to my previous post to Mark.

  134. November 3rd, 2010 at 17:47 | #134

    bman: “I acknowledge your argument that a “civil union compromise” would not be needed given the proper majority.”

    Right, given the proper majority. So let’s work on stopping marriage immediately with an Egg and Sperm law to stop SSP and affirming the procreation rights of marriage. Have you tried that yet? Has On Lawn?

    bman: “Even so, I think civil unions should not be defined as “marriage minus conception rights.” That facilitates the same kind of confusion for children we already discussed when the word marriage is used for same sex relationships.”

    No way! It clarifies the difference for kids, it doesn’t confuse anyone. If you want to have children, it’ll have to be with someone of the other sex, and as the sex you are right now. The status quo is unacceptable, where kids don’t even know if they’ll be men or women when they grow up.

    bman: “Besides, I think the clause, “minus procreation rights” accomplishes very little. It would not prevent surrogate motherhood or sperm donations used by lesbians. So how does that clause help anything? If it means “no genetic SSP permitted” that would already be prevented by the first law you proposed. ”

    Right, it wouldn’t prohibit same-sex procreation, all it would do is differentiate CU’s from marriages so they are not stepping stones to marriage, and they make it possible to give all the other benefits and protections without giving procreation rights or stripping procreation rights from all marriages. Of course, if we are able to stop SSM and SSP without offering CU’s, then it doesn’t matter. But if we have to offer CU’s, this is the way to do it. It also helps in arguments with Sean and Mark to force them to acknowledge that they are assuming and demanding same-sex procreation rights, which is ridiculous.

    I feel I’m very close to getting Mark and Sean and others to accept the Compromise and accept that marriage is not for same-sex couples, but they are able to refuse the compromise and keep on arguing because people like On Lawn and Chairm are full time argument providers. I actually have proposed a solution, and we could end SSM in all 50 states right now if people would get on board the Compromise.

  135. Mark
    November 4th, 2010 at 10:09 | #135

    On Lawn: “Okay, then what percentage of gays cannot love, honor, and cherish the other gender in any meaningful marital way, or in other words what percentage of gays, in a state that requires equal gender representation and tolerance in each marriage, cannot get married?”

    So On Lawn is saying gays and lesbians should be forced to marry someone of the opposite sex in order for their marriage to be legal. What a farce. But, to answer his questions, I am aware of at least 4 men who are gay, who married women. They all had sex with men during the time they were married to women. But, in On Lawn’s eyes, I guess those were good marriages and something to strive for.

  136. Mark
    November 4th, 2010 at 10:16 | #136

    bman: “Clearly, she is referring to homosexuality in an abstract sense and not the idea that some individual might have a pathology by way of exception. ”

    No, she is saying homosexuality (remember this was at a time when homosexuality was considered a disorder) is normal. She, being a good scientist, throws in that she had not evaluate homosexuals in a sexual environment so she could not say in all case there was no pathology. But the same could be said for heterosexuals. I am not aware of any research on heterosexuals in a sexual setting to rule out pathology.

    Please, present some information from some other site than NARTH. You claim that all other professional societies are based on bias but continue to use only one site, which was set up to be biased.

  137. Mark
    November 4th, 2010 at 10:18 | #137

    John Howard: “I feel I’m very close to getting Mark and Sean and others to accept the Compromise and accept that marriage is not for same-sex couples, but they are able to refuse the compromise and keep on arguing because people like On Lawn and Chairm are full time argument providers. ”

    No, not even close, John. I do not comprehend your plan and, from what I can understand, find it too convoluted to be put into any practical application. It is not due to On Lawn Chairm but because I do not agree with your idea.

  138. November 4th, 2010 at 11:43 | #138

    Really? I felt I was making progress explaining to you and Sean why we should not allow same-sex procreation, and why marriage should continue to affirm and approve of the couple conceiving children together using their own genes.

    The Compromise part is up to you. If you refuse it, we will still have to stop same-sex procreation and preserve marriage without your help, and you will wind up worse off than you are now. My argument against SSM works just as well without the Compromise part. We have no obligation to provide any support or benefits to unmarried couples or couples that are ineligible to marry, as same-sex couples would be after the Egg and Sperm law is passed.

    But everyone here, On Lawn, bman, Chairm, JRM, I think everyone, agrees with me that same-sex procreation should be banned, and they are only balking at the idea of offering Civil Unions as a compromise. They are correct that no Civil Unions are required to achieve the goals of stopping SSM and human manufacture.

  139. November 4th, 2010 at 14:18 | #139

    Mark :
    On Lawn: “Okay, then what percentage of gays cannot love, honor, and cherish the other gender in any meaningful marital way, or in other words what percentage of gays, in a state that requires equal gender representation and tolerance in each marriage, cannot get married?”
    So On Lawn is saying[1] gays and lesbians should be forced to marry[2] someone of the opposite sex in order for their marriage to be legal[3]. What a farce. But, to answer his questions, I am aware of at least 4 men who are gay, who married women. They all had sex with men during the time they were married to women. But, in On Lawn’s eyes, I guess those were good marriages and something to strive for[4].

    1) Its a question not a statement. The question is to prompt you to make a statement.

    2) I don’t advocate forcing anyone to marry at all.

    3) Wrong, because CU’s and DP’s and private contracts legally recognize their marriages (hence they are not illegal). I advocate no change in that.

    4) I think it is up to them to decide that, don’t you? And no, that doesn’t answer my question. That wasn’t a percentage, for starters. Nor did it say if they were incapable of being married or not. Nor did it say if others could or couldn’t. All it told me was that four guys could be married and have sex with men at the same time. Which isn’t very useful information at all in contemplating what you said about about the percentage of gays.

    So I’ll ask again…

    [W]hat percentage of gays cannot love, honor, and cherish the other gender in any meaningful marital way, or in other words what percentage of gays, in a state that requires equal gender representation and tolerance in each marriage, cannot get married?

  140. bman
    November 4th, 2010 at 20:19 | #140

    @Mark

    bman: Clearly, she is referring to homosexuality in an abstract sense and not the idea that some individual might have a pathology by way of exception.

    Mark: No, she is saying homosexuality (remember this was at a time when homosexuality was considered a disorder) is normal. She, being a good scientist, throws in that she had not evaluate homosexuals in a sexual environment so she could not say in all case there was no pathology. But the same could be said for heterosexuals. I am not aware of any research on heterosexuals in a sexual setting to rule out pathology.

    I think you are just repeating your claim.

    Even so, I will try to add some additional argument.

    Her study can be found at this link.

    An opposing commentary on her study is also available here.

    A strong argument against your “exceptions” claim is that she had already used that idea when she defended her preferred hypothesis.

    The one she prefers includes the idea you mentioned, i.e, if she ignores that homosexuality itself could be a sign of pathology, she finds that homosexuals are otherwise well adapted but recognizes that some homosexual individuals could have a pathology. [BTW allowing that such exceptions can exist argues in favor of NARTH's position that there is a need for treatment in at last some cases]

    She then contrasts that hypothesis (where only some homosexuals have a pathology) with an alternative hypothesis which she admits as possible.

    The alternative hypothesis says homosexuals adapt well except in the area of sexual behavior.

    In the following excerpt, I added material in brackets to show how I interpret the context.

    -begin quote-
    “But before we accept this hypothesis [the one she prefers which says pathology occurs only for some homosexuals]…we must look carefully at the limitations of the evidence…It may be that the primary psychological defect, if there is one, in the homosexual [generally speaking] lies in a weakness of ego-function and control and that this [generally speaking] cannot be adequately diagnosed from projective test protocols. As one psychiatrist puts it, the material produced in the Rorschach [generally speaking] is like that produced on the analytic couch. Two men may produce very similar material on the couch, but the difference between them is that one – the normal gets up at the end of the hour and resumes his normal functioning, while the other does not. Another way of looking at the data from the projective tests [generally speaking] may be that the homosexual “pathology” occurs only in an erotic situation and that the homosexual [generally speaking] can function well in non-erotic situations such as the Rorschach, TAT, and MAPS. Thus, one could defend the hypothesis that homosexuality [generally speaking] is symptomatic of pathology, but that the pathology is confined to one sector of behavior, namely, the sexual.”
    - end quote-

    And so, your claim that she was dealing with “exceptions” would apply where she described her preferred hypothesis.

    But when she described the alternative hypothesis she was not referring to “the exceptions,” but was offering a totally different alternative in contrast to her preferred hypothesis.

    Please, present some information from some other site than NARTH. You claim that all other professional societies are based on bias but continue to use only one site, which was set up to be biased.

    When “points of fact” are at issue, it should not matter if they come from NARTH or the APA as long as they are adequately documented.

  141. bman
    November 5th, 2010 at 00:21 | #141

    @bman

    In addition to the quotes above that her research permits the alternative hypothesis, she repeated that same idea at the end of her report.

    She first asked this question,

    “What are the psychological implications of the hypothesis that homosexuality is not necessarily a symptom of pathology? I would very tentatively suggest the following

    And she gave this as a possible answer,

    “…..Even if one assumes that homosexuality represents a severe form of maladjustment to society in the sexual sector of behavior, this does not necessarily mean that the homosexual must be severely maladjusted in other sectors of his behavior. Or, if one assumes that homosexuality is a form of severe maladjustment internally, it may be that the disturbance is limited to the sexual sector alone.”

    So, in her view, whoever holds the alternative hypothesis (that homosexuality indicates pathology) she advises them to be open to the possibility it only applies to the sexual sector of behavior.

  142. Mark
    November 6th, 2010 at 08:56 | #142

    On Lawn: “[W]hat percentage of gays cannot love, honor, and cherish the other gender in any meaningful marital way, or in other words what percentage of gays, in a state that requires equal gender representation and tolerance in each marriage, cannot get married?”

    Troll alert. Once again, On Lawn asks a questions, disregards the answer and then asks the same question again. He provides no new information and is merely playing games. Sad.

  143. Mark
    November 6th, 2010 at 09:30 | #143

    bman: You provide this link (“An opposing commentary on her study is also available here. “) but do not reference where the article comes from.

    Reading about the author of this “opposing commentary”, I found out that Thomas Lansess is a neo-confederate (a reactionary movement with an ideology against modernity conceiving its ideas and politics within a historical framework of the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865) and the history of the American South. This includes more than a states’ rights ideology in opposition to civil rights for African-Americans, other ethnic minorities, women and gays, though it certainly includes all these things). He also advocates for the elimination of the Statue of Liberty because he disagrees with it’s message. Hardly a reliable resource.
    http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/ScottishAffairs.htm
    http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/tag/thomas-landess

    “But before we accept this hypothesis [the one she prefers which says pathology occurs only for some homosexuals]”

    Actually, this sentence follows a series of other ones. Sentences which actually say that homosexuality may not only be normal but “that some [homosexuals] may be quite superior individuals, not only devoid of pathology (unless one insists that homosexuality itself is a sign of pathology) but also functioning at a superior level.” In other words, her findings show that homosexuals are no more pathological than heterosexuals. Her exception is that homosexuals may show a pathology in erotic situations, just as heterosexuals may show a pathology in erotic situations – not all heterosexuals, just some.

    These are her points (it’s interesting that you leave the first two out of your discussion):
    ” 1. Homosexuality as a clinical entity does not exist. Its forms are as varied as are those of heterosexuality.

    2. Homosexuality may be a deviation in sexual pattern which is within the normal range. This has been suggested, on a biological level, by Ford and Beach (2).

    3. The role of particular forms of sexual desire and expression in personality structure and development may be less important than has frequently been assumed. Even if one assumes that homosexuality represents a severe form of maladjustment to society in the sexual sector of behavior, this does not necessarily mean that the homosexual must be severely maladjusted in other sectors of his behavior. Or, if one assumes that homosexuality is a form of severe maladjustment interna11y, it may be that the disturbance is limited to the sexual sector alone.”

    In other words, homosexuals are as normal as heterosexuals, who may also show disturbances in a sexual sector.

    “When “points of fact” are at issue, it should not matter if they come from NARTH or the APA as long as they are adequately documented.”

    But it does, bman. You disregard information that comes from APA but readily accept it from NARTH. So it obviously does matter to you where the information is documented. Does make me wonder if you follow any other advice from such organizations such as APA, AMA, AAP or AAFP.

  144. bman
    November 6th, 2010 at 14:45 | #144

    bman: When “points of fact” are at issue, it should not matter if they come from NARTH or the APA as long as they are adequately documented.

    Mark: But it does, bman. You disregard information that comes from APA but readily accept it from NARTH. So it obviously does matter to you where the information is documented. Does make me wonder if you follow any other advice from such organizations such as APA, AMA, AAP or AAFP.

    Rejecting “information” in the form of policy statements is not the same thing as rejecting “points of fact.”

    A point of fact is a single point, such as the percentage of homosexuals, which depends on evidence.

    Its proper, for example, to reject an AMA claim that its 10% when it ignores credible research to the contrary.

    There is nothing wrong with rejecting policy statements (“information”) that lack facts.

    There is something wrong with rejecting facts that don’t agree with policy statements.

  145. bman
    November 6th, 2010 at 15:56 | #145

    Reading about the author of this “opposing commentary”, I found out that Thomas Lansess is a neo-confederate…

    The Landess report on Evelyn Hooker was cited in an amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court in the Lawrence v. Texas case.

    Thomas Landess, The Evelyn Hooker Study and the Normalization of Homosexuality, 5 NARTH Bulletin 8 (Dec. 1997)………………………………………………………6, 7, 13

    The brief mentioned the report in the following comments:

    “Even in citing the Evelyn Hooker study, the…APA ignore[d] the fact…[it] still found evidence suggesting that homosexuality is a pathology, at least in the limited arena of human sexuality. See Thomas Landess, supra. Hooker, supra., at 30.”

    “In addition, individuals who proved unstable [in the Hooker study] were later deleted from the final sample.”

    Apart from the report itself, which can be judged true or false by comparing it to the Evelyn Hooker study, I am otherwise unfamiliar with the biography of the author.

  146. November 6th, 2010 at 16:02 | #146

    Mark :
    On Lawn: “[W]hat percentage of gays cannot love, honor, and cherish the other gender in any meaningful marital way, or in other words what percentage of gays, in a state that requires equal gender representation and tolerance in each marriage, cannot get married?”
    Troll alert. Once again, On Lawn asks a questions, disregards the answer and then asks the same question again. He provides no new information and is merely playing games. Sad.

    I do like to read Mark’s diversions.

    So really Mark, what is your answer? Its not trolling to call you on your own assertions.

    Can you, or can you not quote a percentage of gays that cannot get married because they lack the ability to love, honor, and cherish someone of the other gender in any meaningful marital way?

  147. bman
    November 6th, 2010 at 16:59 | #147

    Mark :
    These are her points (it’s interesting that you leave the first two out of your discussion):
    ” 1. Homosexuality as a clinical entity does not exist. Its forms are as varied as are those of heterosexuality.
    2. Homosexuality may be a deviation in sexual pattern which is within the normal range. This has been suggested, on a biological level, by Ford and Beach (2)……

    I left those out because (1) I chose to describe her preferred hypothesis to keep down the amount text (2) her preferred hypothesis was not in dispute but only the alternative hypothesis (3) I had linked the entire report so anyone could read it.

    3. The role of particular forms of sexual desire and expression in personality structure and development may be less important than has frequently been assumed. Even if one assumes that homosexuality represents a severe form of maladjustment to society in the sexual sector of behavior, this does not necessarily mean that the homosexual must be severely maladjusted in other sectors of his behavior. Or, if one assumes that homosexuality is a form of severe maladjustment internally, it may be that the disturbance is limited to the sexual sector alone.”

    In other words, homosexuals are as normal as heterosexuals, who may also show disturbances in a sexual sector.

    Since we still disagree and since at this point I can only repeat the same arguments I have already used, I rest my side of the discussion.

    Of course, if you have something more to addd you think might prove persuasive for your side, I will try to address it.

  148. Mark
    November 7th, 2010 at 07:25 | #148

    bman: “Apart from the report itself, which can be judged true or false by comparing it to the Evelyn Hooker study, I am otherwise unfamiliar with the biography of the author.”

    And that’s the problem with doing pseudo-research. People can go out to the internet and found all sorts of information. Without knowing sources or who wrote it, people accept all sorts of garbage as truth.

    Case in point: George Rekers, former NARTH board member, made a lot of money speaking as an expert on homosexuality only to be caught with his male call boy at an airport. None of what Rekers said ever had any merit but as long as NARTH assumed he was straight, they accepted everything he said without question. Now, his name has been removed from their site.

  149. Mark
    November 7th, 2010 at 07:26 | #149

    On Lawn: “Can you, or can you not quote a percentage of gays that cannot get married because they lack the ability to love, honor, and cherish someone of the other gender in any meaningful marital way?”

    And On Lawn continues to play games. This question was already answered as he is well aware.

    But, On Lawn, why not answer it yourself? Make sure you provide verifiable references to support your, er, claims.

  150. Mark
    November 7th, 2010 at 07:30 | #150

    bman: “Since we still disagree and since at this point I can only repeat the same arguments I have already used, I rest my side of the discussion. ”

    Then go out and do more research, preferably some other site than NARTH. Your exclusion of the first two points were an obvious indication that you either do not understand what she is saying or were trying to confuse/lie about the issue.

    But, I have seen from your other posts that you are ignorant of the fact that homosexuality is just a normal portion of human sexuality. I am not surprised you are afraid to look into any information that may shake that incorrect belief that homosexuality is abnormal.

  151. November 7th, 2010 at 20:04 | #151

    Mark :
    On Lawn: “Can you, or can you not quote a percentage of gays that cannot get married because they lack the ability to love, honor, and cherish someone of the other gender in any meaningful marital way?”
    [...] This question was already answered as he is well aware.

    For the sake of uplifting the commentary, I’m editing out Mark’s juvinile name calling and such and keeping only the things he says which can be verified.

    His answer shows that you can be gay, and married to a person of the other gender, with a small sampling of four.

    This contradicts what Mark wrote earlier that gays cannot get married, but it doesn’t answer the question with a percentage. This is particularly relevant since Mark and Bman are both arguing about two different percentages. To me the percentage of gays doesn’t matter, what is the percentage of gays that can’t be married because they are so intollerant of the other gender they cannot find one that they can love, honor and cherish in any meaningful marital way?

    But, On Lawn, why not answer it yourself? Make sure you provide verifiable references to support your, er, claims.

    Why should I answer it? I’m not proporting to be an expert on the subject, like you are against Bman. Are you an expert or not, or should you just concede the field that Bman’s assessments are as valuable as yours?

    But if you ask me, I’ll make a guess too. I say 0% of gays are incapable of loving, honoring, and cherishing someone of the other gender in any meaningful marital way. That of course assumes that their self-proclaimed status of gay doesn’t come with it a self-fullfilling prophesy that since they believe gay means they can’t, they are doomed to failure.

    In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that is the reason Mark is so afraid to pursue that question. Because right after it comes the one where you realize that the hunt for the one true gay (the one who really can’t tolerate the other gender in any meaningful marital way) is as unverifiable as a Big Foot sighting. Sure, they may think that is what they saw, but there is absolutely no way of indicating that it truely is impossible if the nature of their self-identity is self-defeat.

  152. bman
    November 7th, 2010 at 20:30 | #152

    Mark :
    bman: “Since we still disagree and since at this point I can only repeat the same arguments I have already used, I rest my side of the discussion. ”

    mark: Then go out and do more research, preferably some other site than NARTH.

    I meant you kept repeating your claim despite what I thought were good arguments to the contrary, so there was no sense in my repeating myself again.

  153. Mark
    November 9th, 2010 at 07:15 | #153

    On Lawn: “Can you, or can you not quote a percentage of gays that cannot get married because they lack the ability to love, honor, and cherish someone of the other gender in any meaningful marital way?”

    A baiting question because On Lawn fails to define what he means by “in any meaningful marital way”. Once On Lawn can clearly define this portion of the definition, I can attempt an answer.

  154. November 9th, 2010 at 12:16 | #154

    Mark :
    On Lawn: “Can you, or can you not quote a percentage of gays that cannot get married because they lack the ability to love, honor, and cherish someone of the other gender in any meaningful marital way?”
    A baiting question because On Lawn fails to define what he means by “in any meaningful marital way”. Once On Lawn can clearly define this portion of the definition, I can attempt an answer.

    Sure, by “marital” it means sharing the part of humanity with each other that creates a human life, and then developes a close relationship with the child they shared their identity with and the person they combined with to create that identity.

    By “meaningful” it means it has meaning to the participants, they aren’t just going through the motions but actually have a desire to participate in, and gain the satisfaction of, the institution.

    Put them together it means someone can expect enrichment to their lives by sharing not only their lives with someone but sharing the life they create and identify with in a loved, honored, and cherished partnership with the other identity in that child.

    So what percentage of gays are incapable of finding any meaning in such a relationship that would make marriage not worthwhile to them at all? Not because of why they think they are, but because of who they actually are.

  155. Mark
    November 9th, 2010 at 15:20 | #155

    On Lawn: “So what percentage of gays are incapable of finding any meaning in such a relationship that would make marriage not worthwhile to them at all?”

    I would say it is probably around 60 – 70%. Even with the massive amount of pro-marriage push in our society, the vast majority of gay men would not want to enter into a marriage relationship with a woman. I think the number of women is higher.

    In some ways, it is an interesting question – and based on some articles, the number of gay men in marriages can range from 5 – 40%.
    http://www.marriedgay.org/docs/pdf/When%20the%20Beard%20Is%20Too%20Painful%20to%20Remove.pdf
    http://www.webmd.com/sex/news/20060918/many-straight-men-have-gay-sex

    The problem is still with the last part of the question which is extremely subjective. Of my gay patients, I would say about 10% have or had been married. Some, remain married while living a gay lifestyle. Is this being married “in any meaningful marital way”? They are helping their wives raise their children, contribute to the household, and one even keeps his wife on his health insurance (they have now been divorced 2 years) even though they are having sex with men 90% of the time. Others are completely estranged from their ex-spouses (much like many of my divorced heterosexuals). It is an interesting question but it still comes back to, what good is it if one member of a marriage is living a lie? If they are merely going through the motions?

  156. Mark
    November 9th, 2010 at 15:22 | #156

    Now, a follow up question On Lawn: What percentage of straights are incapable of finding any meaning in such a relationship (i.e. married to someone who is gay) that would make marriage not worthwhile to them at all?

  157. November 9th, 2010 at 20:43 | #157

    Mark :
    [I]t is an interesting question but it still comes back to, what good is it if one member of a marriage is living a lie[1]? If they are merely going through the motions[1]?

    Thanks for the thoughtful response. I’ll give it some serious consideration. Those last two questions and the one below are answered below…

    Mark :
    Now, a follow up question On Lawn: What percentage of straights are incapable of finding any meaning in such a relationship (i.e. married to someone who is gay) that would make marriage not worthwhile to them at all[2]?

    1 ) I think the term “meaningful” is important here. Either they value what marriage means, and the kinship and identity they share together, or they don’t. But it is up to them if it is meaningful while indulging in gay sex or not.

    2) If I can take the risk, this looks like another form of the question, what percentage of straight people would not want to marry someone who is gay, considering the risks of infidelity (etc…) that it might bring?

    I’d guess the answer is pretty high, probably around 75% or more. I think if they fell in love first and decided that afterward, and we estimated how many people would let that be a deal breaker for an otherwise great relationship at the moment, I’d guess the inverse, probably only around 25% or less.

    I think some, perhaps as high as 5%, would even consider it a feature.

    Those are all guesses though.

  158. Mark
    November 10th, 2010 at 13:14 | #158

    On Lawn: “If I can take the risk, this looks like another form of the question, what percentage of straight people would not want to marry someone who is gay, considering the risks of infidelity (etc…) that it might bring?”

    Actually, that is NOT the question that was asked. But its’ interesting to see how you change it to one you can answer. And it’s insulting to imply that the person who is gay would be unfaithful but that is merely showing your bigotry, On Lawn.

    “Either they value what marriage means, and the kinship and identity they share together, or they don’t”

    What EXACTLY does marriage mean? Is it more than “the kinship and identity they share together”?

    However, I am glad you see the ridiculousness of your initial question.

  159. November 10th, 2010 at 15:49 | #159

    Mark :
    On Lawn: “If I can take the risk, this looks like another form of the question, what percentage of straight people would not want to marry someone who is gay, considering the risks of infidelity (etc…) that it might bring?”
    Actually, that is NOT the question that was asked. [... antics removed ...]. And it’s insulting to imply that the person who is gay would be unfaithful but that is merely showing
    your bigotry, On Lawn.

    I’m keeping that last bit of banter in there, because I think it will come in handy when someone tells me that gays marrying people of the other gender is inviting promiscuity. You saw it here.

    So could you rephrase the question so I can more clearly understand what you are looking for, Mark?

    “Either they value what marriage means, and the kinship and identity they share together, or they don’t”
    What EXACTLY does marriage mean[1]? Is it more than “the kinship and identity they share together”?

    1) The definition I have and maintain is a legal institution recognizing the union of a man and a woman.

    2) More than, not less than.

    [... antics removed ...]

  160. Mark
    November 11th, 2010 at 09:12 | #160

    On Lawn: The question is very simple, as long as someone does not add on a presumption.
    “What percentage of straights are incapable of finding any meaning in such a relationship (i.e. married to someone who is gay) that would make marriage not worthwhile to them at all?”

    It’s simply the reverse of the question you asked, On Lawn. However, it further proves the fact that you are aware of the ridiculousness of your initial question.

    “The definition I have and maintain is a legal institution recognizing the union of a man and a woman.”

    So, ANY man can marry ANY woman, that’s all it is On Lawn? So, incest is back on the table in your definition?

  161. November 11th, 2010 at 13:51 | #161

    Mark :
    On Lawn: The question is very simple, as long as someone does not add on a presumption.
    “What percentage of straights are incapable of finding any meaning in such a relationship (i.e. married to someone who is gay) that would make marriage not worthwhile to them at all?”
    It’s simply the reverse of the question you asked [... school yard antics continue, and are removed ...]

    Then please restate. The question I answered was the complementary question to the one I asked. I’m not seeing the distinction you are making.

    “The definition I have and maintain is a legal institution recognizing the union of a man and a woman.”
    So, ANY man can marry ANY woman, that’s all it is On Lawn? So, incest is back on the table in your definition?

    You bring up a question of regulation, not definition. A brother and sister are still a marriage by virtue of language, but it is one that is illegal by virtue of the legal regulation.

    I’m happy to call it a marriage, and I’m also happy to make it illegal for reasons of discouraging sexual behavior among siblings as well as the increased chances for genetic impairments to be manifested in the children.

  162. Mark
    November 11th, 2010 at 16:11 | #162

    On Lawn: “Then please restate. The question I answered was the complementary question to the one I asked. I’m not seeing the distinction you are making.”

    Hm, reading comprehension seems to be failing On Lawn as I had restated the question just before On Lawn’s response: “It’s simply the reverse of the question you asked [... school yard antics continue, and are removed ...]” Again, perhaps On Lawn shouldn’t be so quick to judge comments that he doesn’t understand and can’t respond to as “school yard antics”. On Lawn seems to missing details in abundance.

    On Lawn: “A brother and sister are still a marriage by virtue of language, but it is one that is illegal by virtue of the legal regulation.”

    LOL, and On Lawn contradicts himself in the same posting.

    “The definition I have and maintain is a legal institution recognizing the union of a man and a woman.”

    Sorry, but a brother and sister cannot be “a marriage” if it is illegal, which would mean their relationship is a non-legal institution and therefore not marriage.

    And then On Lawn does it again: “I’m happy to call it a marriage, and I’m also happy to make it illegal … ” Well, doesn’t the definition involve a LEGAL institution? So you can’t really make it illegal.

    But On Lawn will probably just say I am going all fascist by asking him to honor his own definition.

    Poor On Lawn is obvious getting all flustered.

  163. Chairm
    November 11th, 2010 at 18:58 | #163

    According to Census data and the HRC’s own analysis of that data, of the 5% of the adult population estimated to be homosexual, less than 10% reside in same-sex households (census term for a household led by two persons of the same sex presumed to be in a sexual domestic relationship); and about 95% of the adult homosexual population does not reside in such households with children.

    That is the virtual inverse of marriage in America — most people marry (and most do so during their childbearing years) and most marriages have children. About 90% marry and about 90% of marriages have children. And of married people, the vast majority do not resort to IVF/ARTs; and of those who do use such medical procedures, the vast majority (93%) do not depend upon “donated” gametes.

    Most of the children in same-sex households (a term of which SSM is but a subset since it includes civil union, domestic partnership, and other forms of registered and unregistered partnerships) — about 95% — came from the previously procreative relationships of their mom-dads (usually marriages or cohabitations). Maybe 5% were adopted or attained via “donor” gametes an IVF/ARTs.

    Again, this is the virtual inverse of marriage.

    So talk of percentages is interesting — especially when the guesstimates are sincere and based on reason — but I think we might also ask about participiation rates in the domestic model that SSMers want society to accord special status.

    Okay, SSMers may end-up declaring that participation rates are irrelevant because only the participants really matter. Yet, if SSM is a poor vehicle to delivery govern benefits to the gay identity group — whose members largely do not participate — then, that stands against the pro-
    SSM complaint in general.

  164. November 11th, 2010 at 20:55 | #164

    Mark :
    On Lawn: “Then please restate. The question I answered was the complementary question to the one I asked. I’m not seeing the distinction you are making.”
    [... more unfortunate antics removed ..] “It’s simply the reverse of the question you asked [...]”

    A restatement isn’t an attempted insult, or a complaint, or a “its the reverse of”.

    If you are interested in my answer, and my previous answer didn’t fit the bill, then go ahead and restate it more clearly.

    On Lawn: “A brother and sister are still a marriage by virtue of language, but it is one that is illegal by virtue of the legal regulation.”
    [... unsubstantiated baiting removed ...]

    Point stands, lacking any substantive response from Mark.

    “The definition I have and maintain is a legal institution recognizing the union of a man and a woman.”
    Sorry, but a brother and sister cannot be “a marriage” if it is illegal, which would mean their relationship is a non-legal institution and therefore not marriage.

    Definitions work by different laws than legislation. For instance, murder is illegal but that doesn’t stop us calling an act of killing someone murder.

    A marriage may be illegal, but still meet the definition of marriage.

    And then On Lawn does it again: “I’m happy to call it a marriage, and I’m also happy to make it illegal … ” Well, doesn’t the definition involve a LEGAL institution? So you can’t really make it illegal.

    Marriage is legally recognized, or it isn’t. But that is different than a marriage being illegal, meaning it is forbidden and prosecuted.

    [... more juvinile baiting removed ...]

  165. Mark
    November 15th, 2010 at 15:42 | #165

    On Lawn: “Definitions work by different laws than legislation. For instance, murder is illegal but that doesn’t stop us calling an act of killing someone murder.

    A marriage may be illegal, but still meet the definition of marriage.”

    So, killing someone is not illegal?

    LOL, up is really down, white is really black in On Lawn’s world.

    On Lawn, you truly are a troll.

  166. November 19th, 2010 at 13:35 | #166

    Mark :
    On Lawn: “Definitions work by different laws than legislation. For instance, murder is illegal but that doesn’t stop us calling an act of killing someone murder.
    A marriage may be illegal, but still meet the definition of marriage.”
    So, killing someone is not illegal?
    LOL, up is really down, white is really black in On Lawn’s world.
    On Lawn, you truly are a troll.

    No, a troll would be reading a statement like, “Definitions work by different laws than legislation. For instance, murder is illegal but that doesn’t stop us calling an act of killing someone murder” as saying killing someone isn’t illegal :)

  167. Mark
    November 19th, 2010 at 15:18 | #167

    On Lawn, continues to write more and more about less and less.

  168. November 21st, 2010 at 17:25 | #168

    i

    Mark :

    On Lawn :

    Mark :
    On Lawn: “Definitions work by different laws than legislation. For instance, murder is illegal but that doesn’t stop us calling an act of killing someone murder.
    A marriage may be illegal, but still meet the definition of marriage.”
    So, killing someone is not illegal?
    LOL, up is really down, white is really black in On Lawn’s world.
    On Lawn, you truly are a troll.

    No, a troll would be reading a statement like, “Definitions work by different laws than legislation. For instance, murder is illegal but that doesn’t stop us calling an act of killing someone murder” as saying killing someone isn’t illegal

    On Lawn, continues to write more and more about less and less.

    Mark’s use of generic insults speaks for itself, especially after he was shown to be a troll he continues to act like one even more :)

  169. Mark
    November 22nd, 2010 at 19:59 | #169

    When On Lawn can actually write something that makes logical sense and is truthful, I am sure that the VAST majority of people will no longer consider him a troll.

  170. November 24th, 2010 at 10:08 | #170

    Mark :
    When On Lawn can actually write something that makes logical sense and is truthful, I am sure that the VAST majority of people will no longer consider him a troll.

    Quick trivia question. At this site I’ve been called a troll by how many people?

    1? 2? 3? all?

Comments are closed.