Family Values Still Threaten GOP

[Brant Gaede]

For what it's worth, I was never molested as a child, and I'm queer as a coot (as Noel Coward used to put it).

It takes a shock to become imprinted with a foreign gender identity, but that foreign identity is only the symptom and it is impossible to deal with directly. It takes an unresolved emotional reaction to the shock to keep it there. Sometimes it's easier to choose to simply embrace that identity as your own and to live out your life with it rather than to choose to discover how it got there and what keeps it there. No matter which choice... each brings its own consequences.

Greg

I don't think you really know what you are talking about.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Not a hope in hell of rearranging anything in U.S. voting rights or the result.

In comparison to the election of 2008, about 1.7 million additional Black voters reported going to the polls in 2012, as did about 1.4 million additional Hispanics and about 550,000 additional Asians. The number of White voters decreased by about 2 million between 2008 and 2012. Since 1996, this is the only example of a race group showing a decrease in net voting from one presidential election to the next, and it indicates that the 2012 voting population expansion came primarily from minority voters. [Census Bureau]

[william.scherk]

For what it's worth, I was never molested as a child, and I'm queer as a coot (as Noel Coward used to put it). Depending on how strongly you assert the thesis, this is at best a piece of evidence against it and.at worst a drop-dead counterexample.

I am gay as a goose, and had no child sexual abuse, thus no hate against a male abuser to fail to work through, so another counter-example. Greg says child sexual abuse is the foundation of homosexuality. Not in my case, not it your case. Back to the drawing board for Greg? Er, nope.

As to the other theory, I no more chose my sexual orientation than I chose my handedness. I was occasionally bullied in my pre-puberty years for being a 'femme.' In my teen years, my emerging sexuality came as an upwelling urge, with the pole of attraction the male rather than the female. My teen friends/foes certainly gossiped the hell out of me. Some cruel, some not. No one expected me to find a female partner and spawn.

My stepmother years later told me she and my father knew I was 'different' at a young age, that homosexuality (at the time a terrible thing) was the 'difference' they detected long before I did.

Even if you could show a correlation, that is notoriously not enough to show causation. One possibility, were you to present the requested data, would be the one under examination: molestation causes homosexuality. Another, at least with victims subteen or older, would be that these children were so inclined in the first place.

We may be moving into permanent La-La land, where one can sit in a chair and pontificate about the origins of homosexuality while thoroughly rejecting real-world data.** If Greg (or Darrell) wanted to know if there were data standing against their notions, then they probably would have already looked at present-day research. At least with Greg, I don't see that he even understands that there might be research out there in the world -- plodding, step-by-step, rigorously checked rational inquiry -- that could falsify his theory to his own satisfaction. I think what he is dogmatically opposed to is precisely this rational, rigorous means of establishing an answer to his question: "Does male-on-male child sexual abuse provide the foundation of all adult homosexuality?" Since he has already said that he does not care what anyone says, that his theory is correct and damn the evidence, I set his opinions to one side as ignorant and unwarranted, if not subject to Scherkian ridicule.

Am I surprised that Greg merely proclaims his beliefs on the foundations of homosexuality, damn the evidence? Nope -- he only ever proclaims, and never checks 'the literature' on any other issue. (I think, from reading his garbled evangelizing on The Gays that any such evidence could only be socialist koolaid fool consensus rot, all wrong sight unseen. There goes science).

I am surprised that more of us here aren't challenging Greg (or Darrell) to come up with stronger evidence to support their respective theories. If Greg's abuse theory is correct (also, if Darrell's choice theory is correct) then the evidence must be there in great abundance, just waiting to be cited! If either gentleman believes that their theory is true, there should be no difficulty in finding scads of evidence, mountains of evidence -- and zero counter-evidence to account for.

I should mention that in testing one's favoured hypothesis, we don't go searching for supporting evidence -- we go out to find counter-evidence. We seek to overturn our theory by the harshest tests possible. If it survives the sternest, most powerful challenge, we can have a measure of confidence in our theory. If we do not test it, or account for counter-evidence, then our theory is mere conjecture, even if garbed in moralistic gabble or Camille Paglia.

-- thank you, Reidy, for donning The Breastplate of Reason. There have been some very direly bigoted and ignorant claims in this thread. I find it quite depressing that at a site where the only thing that unites us is respect for reason, such crippled reasoning is so evident. Greg exemplifies this logically-crippled, unworkable, indignantly arrogant epistemology, viz "Only the politically correct with the need to try to convince others of the collective societal consensus believe in data, numbers, and "studies".

I find this hilarious, sad, stupid, wrong-headed, even kooky. The Breastplate of Righteousness seems here to be thoroughly anti-knowledge. He also seems afraid to test his own guesses, not accepting the simple logical entailment that if his theory is true then the data, numbers and 'studies' will confirm.

Greg, that you don't bother to test your guess means you have zero actual confidence that the real world will confirm your guess. Are you really this afraid of a reality check? Are you really this afraid that reality will fail to confirm what you believe to be true?

Signed, Counter-evidence in Vancouver

____________

** what would represent real-world data? Well something like this: "97% of gay men, 67% of lesbian women report child sexual abuse" ... or "Sexual orientation as choice: the evidence is overwhelming."

Edited June 7, 2014 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

I often get the impression that your "you get what you deserve" mantra is a cover for your having been subjected to sexual abuse as a child. Unlike the global assertions you are making about an entire group of people you know nothing about, I am basing my "facts" on the roughly 1,000 posts I have read of yours (God help me),

This conclusion gives me a warm feeling inside, and that is good enough for me.

How nasty and yet nicely informative. Then again you have just a slight bit more evidence for your theory than does Greg for his. I will give you that for a straight guy he sure has a lot to say about The Gays. No doubt he can fork up anecdote after anecdote and even a few front-porch whittlin' sessions, but there is no sign he is going to be asking himself any more questions.

What makes a homosexual? Snick snick. Why, child sexual abuse, I figger, ever' danged time, it's the foundation, it's gotter be there ever' time. But wait, Uncle Festus, hadn't you oughter ask a certain number of homosexuals themselves before you get all fixed and set on your answer? Hadn't you oughter try to prove your answer? Naw, little fools, drink your koolaid, proving things is not in my nature.

Bless the lawd.

Okay, but Uncle, what if I go out and ask a whole buncha homosexuals if they were sexually abused as children and most of 'em say no? Don't make no difference. But Uncle, if they weren't sexually abused as children, doesn't that make your idea wrong?

Nope. Not one Bit. I am entirely right in ever' respect about the Gays.

But Uncle, if the truth is something else to your beliefs, then you telling you still got all the truth don't make any sense!

YOU fool kids get yourselves to remembering that I am a Man of God. Mine Righteous Eyes Have Seen. I don't care if all the gays and lesbians on earth deny they were sexually abused as children. The fact remains that they were! Or something sexual and bad. Or something to shock 'em sexual. Or something. I haven't figured it all out enough to makes sense in telling it, but I know more about homosexuals than they do and that is that. It`s a FACT. I am the authority on this one.

But, Uncle, that's just stupid. You are all over the map. You are getting worked up and confused. Tell us you wont' say such stupid things at cousin Judd and cousin Brick's wedding next Tuesday. Promise.

Argh! The Gays! Argh the molesters! Gargle gargle. Koolaid Consensus! Studies! NUMBERS! Testing a theory! You kids get inside. Soon it's gonna be Monster Time.

Edited June 7, 2014 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

Needs data, Greg. Numbers and from whence they came.

My conclusion is drawn from my own personal observations of the lives of others, and does not rely on collective politically correct societal consensus. So there's obviously no need for me to try to convince anyone to change their chosen view when only the objective reality of life possesses that power to convince. It's enough for me to clearly and simply state my view. What anyone else chooses to do with it is their own business and not mine, because they are the ones who get what they deserve as the consequence of their own free choice and not me. For each of us can only reap what they sow.

The problem of believing lies arises when people drink the politically correct kool aid instead of calmly observing the world for themselves and using their own common sense to see things as they are. It is this fundamental error which invites disaster into their own lives.

The combination of calm objective observation and trust in your own common sense is called wisdom. Even when the whole world around you is shrieking the collective lie, it's an acquired taste to choose to trust what you actually see for yourself instead of what others tell you...

...but this is that makes all the difference in how your life unfolds.

Greg

I suspect it was a while ago you changed from learning something important into just telling what you learned.

What I've learned is important... to me. Whether or not it is important to others is not my concern. So thanks for the offer, Brant... but I'll pass on the politically correct kool aid.

I don't think you learned the need to keep learning for you seem automatically reactive.

Non reactive is more accurate. I do learn... just not from what you or anyone else tells me about collective societal consensus. Rather, I trust what I see with my own eyes... and I've seen plenty.

The second part of your first sentence, btw, is completely disingenuous, a gross failure to back up your "most." You have no studies. You have no data. You have no numbers.

That's right, Brant... only my own observations of how the lives of others unfold. Only the politically correct with the need to try to convince others of the collective societal consensus believe in data, numbers, and "studies".

So I have a couple of questions for you to consider... How many "studies" have been subsequently overturned by other "studies"? Hmmm? And how many "studies" are driven by political correctness and government funding?

If you want to use "studies" as moral guidance for your life, please be my guest. Go right ahead. For no matter what you choose, it is impossible to escape getting exactly what you deserve. The process of correction is completely self inflicted. So your only real choice is whether to learn the easy way... or the hard way.

Greg

That's because studies are falsifiable. Your opinions as expressed are not. Also, I'm 70 years old now. I've seen plenty too. I'm not saying it doesn't count for something. That's reflective of your implicit either-or.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

There are yet no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for sexual orientation. [Wikipedia]

(You'd think if it existed, someone should have found it by now.)

[Darrell Hougen]

Great Britain has one of the most convincing histories of democratic rule. Other places that have had democratic institutions since Medieval times are the middle kingdoms such as Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland.

Among the "other places" you forgot to mention medieval Iceland (which David Friedman hung his hat on) and the Hanseatic League.

I marvel at your affection for Britain -- or rather, England -- which, to this day, is dogged by hereditary class privilege and during the American Revolution was tyrannical master of Scotland, Ireland, Canada, Australia, the West Indies and West Africa. The Crown and Lords were hereditary and Commons constituencies notoriously "rotten." The only thing our Founders took from England was their common law, which had no constitutional basis in Britain.

When Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty, he had trouble with some of his admirals at a strategy meeting. One of them accused him of having impugned the traditions of the Royal Navy, provoking the reply: 'And what are they? They are rum, sodomy and the lash'.

Of all the causes for the War of 1812, the impressment of American sailors into the Royal Navy was the most important for many Americans. The British practice of manning naval ships with "pressed" men, who were forcibly placed into service, was a common one in English history, dating back to medieval times. Under British law, the navy had the right, during time of war, to sweep through the streets of Great Britain, essentially arresting men and placing them in the Royal Navy. [source]

I did neglect to mention Iceland. I don't know as much about the Hanseatic League as I should, but I sort of had them in mind when I mentioned Belgium and the Netherlands. However, I was attempting to only list places that are still in existence today, or at least at the time of the Founding Fathers.

You say that England is "dogged" by hereditary class privilege and I have no doubt that there is resentment of hereditary titles, however my point was that sometimes undemocratic structures are necessary or useful in maintaining a certain amount of freedom. You could say that the democratic institutions of this country or the European countries are also "rotten" to the degree that they don't protect individual rights. Simply eliminating privilege doesn't necessarily eliminate rottenness if the end result is socialism.

So Britain had a sort of draft for its naval forces. Many countries including the U.S. have had a draft at one time or another. I'm not defending the draft, but having a draft didn't make Britain more rotten than other countries.

Darrell

[Wolf DeVoon]

Sorry. I thought you understood what is meant by "rotten" constituencies in England.

In the 1831 general election, out of 406 elected members, 152 were chosen by fewer than one hundred voters, and 88 by fewer than fifty voters. Rotten boroughs were a product of a system that did not want change, where fathers passed on constituencies (and the power as a MP that went with this) to their sons as if they were property (which many saw them as). Some rotten boroughs were so bizarre that they beggared belief and where the very few who voted could not vote for whom they wanted to due to the lack of a secret ballot or challenging candidate. The term rotten borough only came into use in the 18th century, and was used to mean a parliamentary borough with a tiny electorate, so small that voters were sure to be controlled in a variety of ways. Pocket boroughs were boroughs which could effectively be controlled by a single person who owned at least half of the burgage tenements, the tenants of which had a vote in the borough's parliamentary elections. As there was no secret ballot until 1872, the landowner could evict electors who did not vote for the man he wanted. Some rich individuals controlled several boroughs – the Duke of Newcastle is said to have had seven boroughs "in his pocket". [Wikipedia]

[moralist]

For what it's worth, I was never molested as a child, and I'm queer as a coot (as Noel Coward used to put it).

It takes a shock to become imprinted with a foreign gender identity, but that foreign identity is only the symptom and it is impossible to deal with directly. It takes an unresolved emotional reaction to the shock to keep it there. Sometimes it's easier to choose to simply embrace that identity as your own and to live out your life with it rather than to choose to discover how it got there and what keeps it there. No matter which choice... each brings its own consequences.

Greg

I don't think you really know what you are talking about.

It's ok to disagree, Brant...

You can have your politically correct societal consensus view... and I'll take my politically incorrect view.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

There are yet no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for sexual orientation. [Wikipedia]

(You'd think if it existed, someone should have found it by now.)

I didn't think there would be. The problem is studies for molestation causing homosexuality and as the prime cause. In any case I've no idea of the causes or cause but it seems more than mere choice or choices.

--Brant

[SoAMadDeathWish]

There are yet no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for sexual orientation. [Wikipedia]

(You'd think if it existed, someone should have found it by now.)

Did you even read that wikipedia article?

There is no consensus among scientists about why a person develops a particular sexual orientation;^[1] however, biologically-based theories for the cause of sexual orientation are favored by experts,^[16] which point to genetic factors, the early uterine environment, or both combinations.^[14] Moreover, there is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role when it comes to sexual orientation;^[14] when it comes to same-sex sexual behavior, shared or familial environment plays no role for men and minor role for women.^[17] Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the opposite sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.^[1]

[Brant Gaede]

For what it's worth, I was never molested as a child, and I'm queer as a coot (as Noel Coward used to put it).

It takes a shock to become imprinted with a foreign gender identity, but that foreign identity is only the symptom and it is impossible to deal with directly. It takes an unresolved emotional reaction to the shock to keep it there. Sometimes it's easier to choose to simply embrace that identity as your own and to live out your life with it rather than to choose to discover how it got there and what keeps it there. No matter which choice... each brings its own consequences.

Greg

I don't think you really know what you are talking about.

It's ok to disagree, Brant...

You can have your politically correct societal consensus view... and I'll take my politically incorrect view.

Greg

That's an argument from smell.

I'm not here for the views. I'm not here for ignorance. I'm here for reason or facts plus logic, aka, knowledge. You just want what you think or claim are facts, but can't demonstrate they really are facts, and go mantraing moral high-horsing here.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

There are yet no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for sexual orientation. [Wikipedia]

(You'd think if it existed, someone should have found it by now.)

Did you even read that wikipedia article?

There is no consensus among scientists about why a person develops a particular sexual orientation;^[1] however, biologically-based theories for the cause of sexual orientation are favored by experts,^[16] which point to genetic factors, the early uterine environment, or both combinations.^[14] Moreover, there is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role when it comes to sexual orientation;^[14] when it comes to same-sex sexual behavior, shared or familial environment plays no role for men and minor role for women.^[17] Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the opposite sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.^[1]

If that's an accurate abstract, Wolf is correct. (And the last sentence isn't even apropos the discussion.)

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

"Argument from smell" -- good one!

[Darrell Hougen]

We may be moving into permanent La-La land, where one can sit in a chair and pontificate about the origins of homosexuality while thoroughly rejecting real-world data.** If Greg (or Darrell) wanted to know if there were data standing against their notions, then they probably would have already looked at present-day research. At least with Greg, I don't see that he even understands that there might be research out there in the world -- plodding, step-by-step, rigorously checked rational inquiry -- that could falsify his theory to his own satisfaction. I think what he is dogmatically opposed to is precisely this rational, rigorous means of establishing an answer to his question: "Does male-on-male child sexual abuse provide the foundation of all adult homosexuality?" Since he has already said that he does not care what anyone says, that his theory is correct and damn the evidence, I set his opinions to one side as ignorant and unwarranted, if not subject to Scherkian ridicule.

Am I surprised that Greg merely proclaims his beliefs on the foundations of homosexuality, damn the evidence? Nope -- he only ever proclaims, and never checks 'the literature' on any other issue. (I think, from reading his garbled evangelizing on The Gays that any such evidence could only be socialist koolaid fool consensus rot, all wrong sight unseen. There goes science).

I am surprised that more of us here aren't challenging Greg (or Darrell) to come up with stronger evidence to support their respective theories. If Greg's abuse theory is correct (also, if Darrell's choice theory is correct) then the evidence must be there in great abundance, just waiting to be cited! If either gentleman believes that their theory is true, there should be no difficulty in finding scads of evidence, mountains of evidence -- and zero counter-evidence to account for.

William,

I am aware of some of the empirical evidence. It's actually not hard to find, this Wikipedia page, which is different from the one the Wolf linked above, provides some evidence from identical twin studies. Identical twin studies are important because if homosexuality is mainly genetic then one would expect identical twins to behave the same way most of the time. However, even the most supportive studies only show a homosexual coincidence of 50%.

A number of twin studies have attempted to compare the relative importance of genetics and environment in the determination of sexual orientation. In a 1991 study, Bailey and Pillard found that 52% of monozygotic (MZ) brothers and 22% of the dizygotic (DZ) twins were concordant for homosexuality.[4] 'MZ' indicates identical twins with the same sets of genes and 'DZ' indicates fraternal twins where genes are mixed to an extent similar to that of non-twin siblings. In 2000 Bailey, Dunne and Martin studied a larger sample of 4,901 Australian twins but reported less than half the level of concordance.[5] They found 20% concordance in the male identical or MZ twins and 24% concordance for the female identical or MZ twins. Self reported zygosity, sexual attraction, fantasy and behaviours were assessed by questionnaire and zygosity was serologically checked when in doubt. A meta-study by Hershberger (2001)[6] compares the results of eight different twin studies: among those, all but two showed MZ twins having much higher concordance of sexual orientation than DZ twins, suggesting a non-negligible genetic component.

Bearman and Brückner (2002) criticized early studies of concentrating on small, select samples[7] and non-representative selection of their subjects.[8] They studied 289 pairs of identical twins (monozygotic or from one fertilized egg) and 495 pairs of fraternal twins (dizygotic or from two fertilized eggs) and found concordance rates for same-sex attraction of only 7.7% for male identical twins and 5.3% for females, a pattern which they say "does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context."

The problem with looking for evidence of choice is that most scientists begin their studies with a preconceived notion that there is only nature and nurture, that humans have no capacity to make choices. But, if that is the starting point of a scientific study, how is the scientist ever going to find evidence for choice? Besides, in today's political climate, any scientist that entertains the notion that homosexuals have choices is likely to be branded a bigot and a homophobe. Look at the politics surrounding global warming funding and publication of unpopular results. The results is that there might or might not be a significant amount of scientific literature on sexual choice. You can't say it must exist. That's a non-sequitur.

Actually, we recently had a lengthy discussion on this forum about free will vs. determinism. Since we don't really even know how to convincingly prove that people have free will, how could we possibly prove that homosexuals made choices? Conversely, since you can't prove that the universe is deterministic, you can't prove that homosexuals didn't make choices. So, it becomes an appeal to common sense. If identical twins don't behave identically, then homosexuality is not merely genetic. Greg is trying to attribute homosexual behavior to environmental factors. However, we've seen counter examples for his theory. So, if it's not genetic and it's not environmental, what does that leave?

At this point, I'm not passing judgment on whether homosexuality is a good choice or a bad choice. I think whether it is good or bad is probably a function of individual circumstances. It may be a good choice for some people and a bad choice for other people. However, I can't stand our politically correct culture that says a person can't question someone else's choices and, by extension, can't even question his own.

One of the ways humans survive is by imitating other humans. If a person sees another person doing something, the natural question is, should I be doing the same thing? Well, if I can't subject the actions of the other person to any sort of internal criticism because that would make me a bigot and a homophobe, then how am I supposed to determine whether or not I should be imitating that person? Should I just leave it up to my feelings? Is reason banned from the domain of sexual orientation or sexual choices? To me, that sounds like a prescription for personal disaster.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Sorry. I thought you understood what is meant by "rotten" constituencies in England.

In the 1831 general election, out of 406 elected members, 152 were chosen by fewer than one hundred voters, and 88 by fewer than fifty voters. Rotten boroughs were a product of a system that did not want change, where fathers passed on constituencies (and the power as a MP that went with this) to their sons as if they were property (which many saw them as). Some rotten boroughs were so bizarre that they beggared belief and where the very few who voted could not vote for whom they wanted to due to the lack of a secret ballot or challenging candidate. The term rotten borough only came into use in the 18th century, and was used to mean a parliamentary borough with a tiny electorate, so small that voters were sure to be controlled in a variety of ways. Pocket boroughs were boroughs which could effectively be controlled by a single person who owned at least half of the burgage tenements, the tenants of which had a vote in the borough's parliamentary elections. As there was no secret ballot until 1872, the landowner could evict electors who did not vote for the man he wanted. Some rich individuals controlled several boroughs – the Duke of Newcastle is said to have had seven boroughs "in his pocket". [Wikipedia]

I was not aware that the term "rotten borough" had a specific meaning though I was aware that the borough system got pretty messed up after a while since it was never adjusted for population shifts. I read somewhere that the whole city of Manchester didn't even get to vote on a seat in parliament and therefore was completely unrepresented. Clearly, that situation needed to be remedied. However, my earlier comments still stand.

Darrell

[Wolf DeVoon]

Queers win again!

U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb (appointed by Jimmy Carter in 1979) ruled that a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which Wisconsin adopted in 2006, violates gay couples' fundamental right to marry.

I'm sure it's like totally coincidental that "barbara crabb" likes lesbian YouTube videos.

[Selene]

Queers win again!

U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb (appointed by Jimmy Carter in 1979) ruled that a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which Wisconsin adopted in 2006, violates gay couples' fundamental right to marry.

I'm sure it's like totally coincidental that "barbara crabb" likes lesbian YouTube videos.

Would that be one of those non-unaleinable rights?

I think it is hiding under that penumbra over yon rise...

[moralist]

That's an argument from smell.

Your clever expressions of disagreement have been noted, Brant.

And that's your perfect right to promote your view that homosexuality has nothing to do with morality. Turn around and take a look, and you'll find the whole politically correct culture standing right there behind you. The overwhelming popular consensus of collective society is in total agreement with you.

I'm not here for the views. I'm not here for ignorance. I'm here for reason or facts plus logic, aka, knowledge.

We each have knowledge. Different knowledge. Yours comes from data numbers and "studies"... while I derive my knowledge from my own direct personal observations of the lives of others around me. Understanding is non transferrable... and that's why I don't use words to try to convince others, but rather use my words simply to express my own view as well as to convey the fact that I am unconvinced by the words of others.

The experience of real life... now THAT has the power to convince!

You just want what you think or claim are facts

It's not a matter of wanting... but of actually seeing the workings of objective reality in the unfolding consequences of people's actions.

but can't demonstrate they really are facts,

That is quite true...

My own personal experience cannot be transferred to others, and this is why I'm ok with you believing in your data, numbers, and "studies". It's not for me to try to convince you otherwise. It cannot be done so I don't even bother wasting energy trying. It's the job of real life to convince you by the consequences of your own actions.

Instead of arguing... I'm taking the time to tell exactly what I'm doing... clearly and completely explaining what my approach is to the discussions here.

and go mantraing moral high-horsing here.

Each of us freely chooses how important a role morality plays in our own life. So I express my own choice... and that you are free to do whatever you wish.

Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

No guidance from Wikipedia on fundamental rights

The test usually articulated for determining fundamentality under the Due Process Clause is that the putative right must be 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty', or 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.' Following the 1937 Supreme Court decision in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, the right to contract became considerably less important in the context of substantive due process and restrictions on it were evaluated under the rational basis standard.

In striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, the Court declined to hold that the Constitution requires the federal government to recognize all same-sex marriages. Instead, it ruled that if a state itself opts to recognize such a union, federal law must respect that choice... But it seems to place principal responsibility to make that choice “within the realm and authority of the separate States,” rather than the federal courts. [scotusblog 2013]

Recent district court decisions by gay judges, overturning state constitutions, are making new law by fiat.

[moralist]

U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb (appointed by Jimmy Carter in 1979) ruled that a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which Wisconsin adopted in 2006, violates gay couples' fundamental right to marry.

The pendulum is gaining momentum now...

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

The right to marry--under the law--requires a law no one has a right to.

Marriage--legal marriage--is a form of slavery to the state and each partner to the other partner.

Marriage as a legally enforced contract is also a form of slavery, but quite debateable on that point.

Marriage through a religious or any kind of purely secular ceremony sans law is okay.

Thus is libertarianism. However, since almost all and sundry want legalized marriage, I say if gays want to enslave themselves one to the other they can go right ahead.

As a practical and moral manner, I say let each state decide what kind of marriage they will recognize. The Feds can butt out except for delimited and special cases falling outside individual state jurisdiction.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

I can't help but think that Evangelicals are going to quit politics, as gays continue to win court battles and Dems win elections. Much depends on the mid-terms in November, a last hurrah for the Tea Party movement. If they can't break the Senate majority, stop illegal immigration, repeal Obamacare and undo Roe v Wade, it's game over. Church attendance is declining and FSA Hispanics are solidly Democrat. Glenn Beck is slightly ahead of the curve "going Galt" to escape Sodom. Northern counties of California want to secede.

If Hillary wins in 2016, the End is Nigh.

[anthony]

I just don't get it.

It's well past time to remove the mystique from the verb "to marry".

(We are joined here, in the eyes of God - and government...)

All it is, is a contract between two (or more) individuals. What has the State to do with it - but to uphold its legality?

[Brant Gaede]

That's an argument from smell.

Your clever expressions of disagreement have been noted, Brant.

And that's your perfect right to promote your view that homosexuality has nothing to do with morality. Turn around and take a look, and you'll find the whole politically correct culture standing right there behind you. The overwhelming popular consensus of collective society is in total agreement with you.

I'm not here for the views. I'm not here for ignorance. I'm here for reason or facts plus logic, aka, knowledge.

We each have knowledge. Different knowledge. Yours comes from data numbers and "studies"... while I derive my knowledge from my own direct personal observations of the lives of others around me. Understanding is non transferrable... and that's why I don't use words to try to convince others, but rather use my words simply to express my own view as well as to convey the fact that I am unconvinced by the words of others.

The experience of real life... now THAT has the power to convince!

You just want what you think or claim are facts

It's not a matter of wanting... but of actually seeing the workings of objective reality in the unfolding consequences of people's actions.

but can't demonstrate they really are facts,

That is quite true...

My own personal experience cannot be transferred to others, and this is why I'm ok with you believing in your data, numbers, and "studies". It's not for me to try to convince you otherwise. It cannot be done so I don't even bother wasting energy trying. It's the job of real life to convince you by the consequences of your own actions.

Instead of arguing... I'm taking the time to tell exactly what I'm doing... clearly and completely explaining what my approach is to the discussions here.

and go mantraing moral high-horsing here.

Each of us freely chooses how important a role morality plays in our own life. So I express my own choice... and that you are free to do whatever you wish.

Greg

I have no "data numbers or 'studies'". Pay attention. You have "facts" that you also say aren't facts or at least demonstrable as facts.

No human activity is exempt from morality if choice is involved.

Your epistemology is without the use of verifiable facts, logic or reason and consists of implicit use of reason as a stolen concept. Not once in all your OL postings I'm aware of--I've read most of them--have you ever explicitly embraced reason or explicitly used reason in defence of any of your positions. Greasing yourself up with your "experiences" so you can slip and coast through these discussions without worrying about friction from dissent and demands for logic, if not real ratiocination, only begs the question of why you, a troll, is here. I know part of the answer, of course: we keep feeding you.

--Brant

I don't necessarily object to a troll for being a troll, but I would never be one unless I could collect tolls--or at least eat the occassional juicy passerby--but eventually, if they stick around, they all turn into satiated bores (that's my "experience")