Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 23, 2014, 12:29:38 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82992 Posts in 2257 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Gender, Gay, Lesbian
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 Print
Author Topic: Gender, Gay, Lesbian  (Read 100297 times)
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #450 on: February 17, 2012, 11:54:35 PM »

Home from a wonderful day one of the DBMA Winter Camp.  Impressive stuff from Kaju Dog on trauma care and from GM Art on , , , reality.

Quite a contrast to come home to , , , this.  GM, please put a muzzle on the personal comments.  JDN, unless I missed it, you have yet to answer the questions about polygamy.  (BD feel free to weigh in too)  What basis is there for limiting marriage to two?  After all, consenting adults and all , , ,

Concerning marriage of the very young-- if I am not mistaken, parental consent is required, yes?

I am glad to hear that went well, Guro.  I think I have addressed polygamy.  And, as for the "very young," it depends on the age and the state. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12073


« Reply #451 on: February 17, 2012, 11:55:30 PM »

To the best of your knowledge, do you know that the age at which individuals can participate in legally sanctioned behavior differs for the behavior?  16 years olds or so, depending on the state, can drive.  18 years old are no longer a minor.  Of course they still can't legally drink....  There are states that allow people as young as 14 (that I know of) to marry, which as YOU noted is a legal contract.  Are you trying to argue that those marriages are less legal than others? 

Do you think that the US is headed toward a norm of sanctioned incest because cousins can marry in some states?

To the best of my knowledge, they don't have the militant advocacy groups the homosexuals do. My question is, do blood relatives have the right to marry? Are incest laws unconstitutional? Are bigamy laws unconstitutional?


I am telling you that your blanket statement about me and your perception that I must be "politically correct" is something that you knew to be false when you said it.
I know that academia, especially in the social sciences is very PC and anyone who doesn't tow the line pays. Ask Larry Summers about even asking questions deemed un-pc.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #452 on: February 18, 2012, 12:02:52 AM »

You know from the outside.  You get all kinds of crappy when anyone from outside law enforcement tries to make, what to them, is a credible point that goes against something that you know from experience.  Shall I post all articles which paint LEOs poorly, and then decide I know something?  

Again, you make blanket statements.  I am in the social sciences, I support the 2nd Amendment very publicly, so you deciding that "anyone who doesn't tow the line pays" is not true.  Why don't you ask me?  Or rather, when you do ask me, and I have evidence to contradict your blanket claim, why can't you see that it is erroneous?
« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 04:30:42 PM by bigdog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12073


« Reply #453 on: February 18, 2012, 12:08:00 AM »

You know from the outside.  You all kinds of crappy when anyone from outside law enforcement tries to make, what to them, is a credible point that goes against something that you know from experience.  Shall I post all articles which paint LEOs poorly, and then decide I know something? 

Again, you make blanket statements.  I am in the social sciences, I support the 2nd Amendment very publicly, so you deciding that "anyone who doesn't tow the line pays" is not true.  Why don't you ask me?  Or rather, when you do ask me, and I have evidence to contradict your blanket claim, why can't you see that it is erroneous?

I might have some direct experiences from inside academia you aren't aware of.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #454 on: February 18, 2012, 12:10:40 AM »

And I, or others, might have experience inside the world of law enforcement that you aren't aware of, so that sounds like a cop out.  Now, back to the thread subject at hand, I am sure. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12073


« Reply #455 on: February 18, 2012, 12:21:24 AM »

And I, or others, might have experience inside the world of law enforcement that you aren't aware of, so that sounds like a cop out.  Now, back to the thread subject at hand, I am sure. 

Ok, back to it.

Are laws against incest and bigamy constitutional?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31503


« Reply #456 on: February 18, 2012, 11:03:02 AM »

I'm off to work boys and girls.  Play nicely now (ahem, GM).
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31503


« Reply #457 on: February 20, 2012, 02:49:40 PM »



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-sex-change-treatments-on-the-rise-among-children-teens/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12073


« Reply #458 on: February 20, 2012, 03:07:20 PM »


Welcome to post-modern, post-moral America.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5998


« Reply #459 on: February 21, 2012, 01:43:28 PM »

Wishing to drop the cultural issues for this election cycle, but so many questions are unresolved.  Jumping around with some quotes/excerpts here, hopefully keeping the original meaning as posted.

bigdog wrote: "You gents don't seem to get that marriage laws, like any other laws, can be changed."

This is a good point.  It is separate from the question of whether existing marriage laws are unconstitutional.

bigdog wrote:

"Gay marriage does NOT have to be compelled by the Constitution for it to be accepted by the Constitution."

Very true.  My question: is it compelled by the constitution?

bigdog continued: "... the 9th Amendment leaves open the possibility that there are other, unenumerated rights.  Privacy, of course, is one that has been recognized.  I know, from prior discussions with you (Crafty), that you acknowledge the right to privacy.  As JDN states, there could be an argument made that gay marriage could be allowed, based on privacy precedent. 

Public recognition of a gay union is the opposite of a right to privacy, is it not? 

bigdog:  "But, there could be, at least in theory, a stand alone right found in the 9th."

This is a good point. Some certainly see it that way.  Depends on which 9 people you ask.  It seems to me that if a standalone right is found for any citizen to be offered the designation of married, not just gay couples, isn't that the same as ending the public designation of married? 

I still fail to understand what rights are denied to a gay American who is in a loving, committed gay relationship that are also not denied to a single person who does not have a heterosexual partner consenting to marry.  In all cases you have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex with certain conditions applied, if and/or when those specific circumstances apply to you.

I asked JDN to no avail, but why does the 'equal protection under different circumstances' concept apply to all other areas of public policies including taxing, spending and regulating (see 2012 SOTU), but not apply to marriage? 

bigdog: "in some areas of civil rights, such as handicapped, special accommodations are exactly what they are entitled to."

Very true, but they are entitled to certain accommodations because a federal law was passed by the people's representatives and signed by the President.  It was not an unenumerated right found in the constitution. 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4144


« Reply #460 on: February 21, 2012, 02:07:15 PM »

"but they are entitled to certain accommodations because a federal law was passed by the people's representatives and signed by the President.  It was not an unenumerated right found in the constitution"

Exactly.  Accomodations that the majority now have to make for disabled minority is only because of laws passed by laws intended for compasionate reasons.   

A law can thus be passed that makes virtually anything an entitlement by people's "representatives".

In a way however this law does make the majority actually have ot make way for SPECIAL accomodations for the disabled.

I suppose laws that held for racial considerations in say college admissions could be also thus categorized.

I suppose that passing gay marriage into a law is not 'special' per se but allowing that minority the same government recognized privilege as non gays.

The gay marriage thing is a movement that will continue on ithrough infinity till they get what they insist on.

The majority can argue forever it is just a matter of time before the mority says al right we have had enough.

Here is what you want now will please stop the "reverse harrasment".

Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #461 on: February 21, 2012, 03:43:12 PM »

Doug said;
"I still fail to understand what rights are denied to a gay American who is in a loving, committed gay relationship that are also not denied to a single person who does not have a heterosexual partner consenting to marry.  In all cases you have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex with certain conditions applied, if and/or when those specific circumstances apply to you."

I think you are missing the point.  "Pursuit of happiness....."  As a heterosexual you have right to marry the person you love.  If you stay single, that too is your choice.  A gay person can stay single of course, but they do not have the right to pursue their happiness and marry the person of their choice.  It's like black and white.  And by not being able to marry the person of their choice, besides the personal issues, they are denied numerous other benefits of a married couple.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4144


« Reply #462 on: February 21, 2012, 04:01:53 PM »

"A gay person can stay single of course, but they do not have the right to pursue their happiness and marry the person of their choice.  It's like black and white.  And by not being able to marry the person of their choice, besides the personal issues, they are denied numerous other benefits of a married couple."

JDN,

You are missing the point.  They do have the right to live with whomever they want and persue their happiness.

But you hit the nail on the head about the benefits.  A lot of this is all about money.

It is not "black and white" which of course is always used as the argument.  It is not race.

I guess we could say it is gender.  Certainly exact gender equality IS an agenda with liberals.

The family structure is suffering from all this.  That is a price we are paying.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #463 on: February 21, 2012, 04:36:24 PM »


bigdog: "in some areas of civil rights, such as handicapped, special accommodations are exactly what they are entitled to."

Very true, but they are entitled to certain accommodations because a federal law was passed by the people's representatives and signed by the President.  It was not an unenumerated right found in the constitution. 

This is only sort of true, DMG, not "exactly" as ccp asserts.  Please see the link for several cases in which the Supreme Court clarified the meaning of the federal law.  Also, please note that these cases have actual policy impact.  This does not mean that they are legislating from the bench, it means that they are applying the law as it is written.

http://www.wnylc.com/resources/courts/supct.htm
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #464 on: February 21, 2012, 04:52:02 PM »

Doug, I for one think gender should b equal. No more but no less. R u implying gender equality is bad?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5998


« Reply #465 on: February 21, 2012, 06:45:43 PM »

BD, Thank you. I will read.

To JDN:  We all may be pursuing happiness but we all might face limits on our choices.  Your circumstances coincided with a definition of marriage, but individuals do not always either fall in love or marry get the person of your choice, only of mutual choice.  Without the other person's consent and all other conditions required, the opportunity in law is simply not available, hetero or gay.   A single person perhaps would confide their innermost thoughts to a closest sibling, but never will be granted spousal privilege for that relationship, no matter how close, and no matter the outcome of the gay marriage question.  Yes, we discriminate. I don't know how to explain any further or better that marriage laws still discriminate even if you add same gender relationships to it.  The choices we make in policy that affect different people differently.  Ending the special, government recognition of marriage has drawbacks too.

"...gender should b equal. No more but no less. R u implying gender equality is bad?"

One meaning of "equal" is "same".  Do I think both genders (are there only two?) are the same and we should ban all distinctions?  ... No!  How can you ever put woman and children first if all are defined as equal, same, comparable, identical, indistinguishable, matched, matching, one and the same, uniform, unvarying. *

You really don't get it that I (like Obama) think marriage involves a husband and wife (extremely gender specific distinctions terms) and that all kids in a perfect world deserve a shot at a mom and a dad (gender specific, even if some of them are lousy), married and in love with each other all under one roof.

The only good I can see coming out of a gender neutral society is that maybe we could have saved 163 million baby girls from gender selection killings in Asia.

Is there no situation where you would protect women and children first?  
-----------------------------------
* equal  from thesaurus.com
Definition:    alike
Synonyms:    according, balanced, break even, commensurate, comparable, coordinate, correspondent, corresponding, double, duplicate, egalitarian, equivalent, evenly matched, fifty-fifty, homologous, identic, identical, indistinguishable, invariable, level, look-alike, matched, matching, one and the same, parallel, proportionate, same, same difference, spit and image, stack up with, tantamount, to the same degree, two peas in pod, uniform, unvarying
Antonyms:    different, not alike, unequal, unlike, unmatched, variable, varying
----------------------------------
CCP:  Yes, there is FAR more to the activist agenda than the private pursuit of happiness.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2012, 01:49:07 AM by DougMacG » Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #466 on: February 21, 2012, 08:27:00 PM »

I had to go before I had a chance to reply to all of these issues.  Apologies.  And thanks, Doug, a nice synopsis of the discussion. 

Wishing to drop the cultural issues for this election cycle, but so many questions are unresolved.  Jumping around with some quotes/excerpts here, hopefully keeping the original meaning as posted.

bigdog wrote: "You gents don't seem to get that marriage laws, like any other laws, can be changed."

This is a good point.  It is separate from the question of whether existing marriage laws are unconstitutional.

Agreed.  It does not, by it self, answer the question.

bigdog wrote:

"Gay marriage does NOT have to be compelled by the Constitution for it to be accepted by the Constitution."

Very true.  My question: is it compelled by the constitution?

It might be, at least in some ways.  As GM and I (and I think Guro)noted elsewhere, for different reasons, but you did not take up here, there is a constitutional understanding that marriage is a contract.  If so, there is a strong argument to be made that states must recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states (in the same way that cousins are married everywhere if they are legally married somewhere).

bigdog continued: "... the 9th Amendment leaves open the possibility that there are other, unenumerated rights.  Privacy, of course, is one that has been recognized.  I know, from prior discussions with you (Crafty), that you acknowledge the right to privacy.  As JDN states, there could be an argument made that gay marriage could be allowed, based on privacy precedent. 

Public recognition of a gay union is the opposite of a right to privacy, is it not? 

Not necessarily.  Part of the rights of privacy are the rights of married couples to do as they will sexually (assuming consent, etc. etc.).  To this end, homosexual marriage rights and homosexual sexual rights are intertwined, though there may be a public component to their privacy... if that makes any sense.

bigdog:  "But, there could be, at least in theory, a stand alone right found in the 9th."

This is a good point. Some certainly see it that way.  Depends on which 9 people you ask.  It seems to me that if a standalone right is found for any citizen to be offered the designation of married, not just gay couples, isn't that the same as ending the public designation of married? 

I still fail to understand what rights are denied to a gay American who is in a loving, committed gay relationship that are also not denied to a single person who does not have a heterosexual partner consenting to marry.  In all cases you have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex with certain conditions applied, if and/or when those specific circumstances apply to you.

There are many, if I understand your point.  Insurance, legal visitation rights, and several other types of rights that are assumed by the legally wed man and wife.  These are, and have been, withheld from gay, committed life partners.

I asked JDN to no avail, but why does the 'equal protection under different circumstances' concept apply to all other areas of public policies including taxing, spending and regulating (see 2012 SOTU), but not apply to marriage? 

bigdog: "in some areas of civil rights, such as handicapped, special accommodations are exactly what they are entitled to."

Very true, but they are entitled to certain accommodations because a federal law was passed by the people's representatives and signed by the President.  It was not an unenumerated right found in the constitution. 

See earlier post.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5998


« Reply #467 on: February 22, 2012, 12:14:23 PM »

The readings referred by bigdog regarding the Disabilities Act remind of why it is much better top make private and charitable accommodations than to attempt to solve individual problems through an act of congress.  One example, the court became the governing body of the PGA Tour.  Even in professional sports they are no longer free to make and enforce their own rules.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4144


« Reply #468 on: February 22, 2012, 12:45:38 PM »

Bigdog,
There is no end to the situations that can arise.

One aspect of the the disability situation is the requirement for disabled parking places mandated.  And wheelchair access.

I was thinking a lot about this.   While it is a "nice" and compassionate I still don't get why everyone else is required to circumnavigate these accomodations and business entities must pay for all this for the minority disabled.

Yes, if I ever get stuck in a wheelchair I will think differently due to emotion...

I don't get the "entitlement" adjective to this.  Why are there so entitlements that cost many people money to pay for?

Why are not the payers entitled to their money?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4144


« Reply #469 on: February 22, 2012, 12:56:51 PM »

As a physician I know we are not loved.  Now we are part of the 1% (thanks to Columbia Univerity professor Jeff Sachs - who I am sure has donated every cent from his books, magazine writings, salary and MSNBC appearances to starving children all around the world). 

I don't complain much about malpractice and there are many excellent ethical attorneys.  But this?

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/01/05/prca0105.htm
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #470 on: February 22, 2012, 01:28:10 PM »

ccp (and Doug),

I hope you know that I am not trying to offend either of you.  I am also not saying, necessarily, that gay marriage is "right" or "wrong."  What I do want to say it that to understand "the Constitution" you need to understand the Constitution, and also that it has holes, and also that there has to be interpretation.  I do not think that the USSC has the only word, or even the last word... and not the best word, even.  But, if you ignore the interpretations of the Court, and that fact the Constitution must be interpreted you miss much of the necessary information.  Why is it the case that these entitlements are present?  Because the law, writ large, has said that they... and people and political institutions have accepted and acquiecsed. 
Bigdog,
There is no end to the situations that can arise.

One aspect of the the disability situation is the requirement for disabled parking places mandated.  And wheelchair access.

I was thinking a lot about this.   While it is a "nice" and compassionate I still don't get why everyone else is required to circumnavigate these accomodations and business entities must pay for all this for the minority disabled.

Yes, if I ever get stuck in a wheelchair I will think differently due to emotion...

I don't get the "entitlement" adjective to this.  Why are there so entitlements that cost many people money to pay for?

Why are not the payers entitled to their money?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4144


« Reply #471 on: February 22, 2012, 01:57:13 PM »

Bigdog,

No offense taken and your posts are very informative.

"law, writ large, has said that they... and people and political institutions have accepted and acquiecsed." 

My only question would be have the "people" really accepted and acquiesced.

The people don't have a say in Court decisions.   Most don't even know what is going on.  And I don't recall ever being asked if it was OK to hoist on the "majority" requirements for wheelchair parking spots and wheelchair ramps.

As for the disabilities thing I guess it is part legislative and part judicial.

As for the gay marriage issue I suppose it is part "the squeaky wheel" - gay infatada, mass media opinion, demogaguery, party politics.
I do not beleive most people in the US believe in gay marriage or adoption.  I do believe that most probably don't care about bothering gays otherwise.  A poll that is announced that most believe gay marriage is ok?  Oh comon!

But that is media manipulation. 

I am rambling here.

"the Constitution, and also that it has holes, and also that there has to be interpretation"

Back to your point - agreed.


Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #472 on: February 22, 2012, 04:55:38 PM »

Thank you for the kind words.  I think "the people" do have a say.  First, they elect (sort of, at least ) the president who nominates.  Second, they elect the senators who confirm.  Third, they have the ability, especially through interest groups or other bodies, to file amicus briefs with the Court.  Fourth, federal judges are appointed for life... with good behavior.  There is an impeachment mechanism in place, if "the people" were willing to push it.  Fifth, as noted elsewhere, Congress can change (appellate) jurisdiction.  The people could push for that.  This is a list off the top of my head.  I am sure I am missing something(s).

There is a difference in not paying attention and not having a say.  People don't care.  I realize that we, the participants of this forum, care a great deal.  That is the best part of coming here.  But, no matter our views or ideologies, we are decidely anomolous. 

Bigdog,

No offense taken and your posts are very informative.

"law, writ large, has said that they... and people and political institutions have accepted and acquiecsed." 

My only question would be have the "people" really accepted and acquiesced.

The people don't have a say in Court decisions.   Most don't even know what is going on.  And I don't recall ever being asked if it was OK to hoist on the "majority" requirements for wheelchair parking spots and wheelchair ramps.

As for the disabilities thing I guess it is part legislative and part judicial.

As for the gay marriage issue I suppose it is part "the squeaky wheel" - gay infatada, mass media opinion, demogaguery, party politics.
I do not beleive most people in the US believe in gay marriage or adoption.  I do believe that most probably don't care about bothering gays otherwise.  A poll that is announced that most believe gay marriage is ok?  Oh comon!

But that is media manipulation. 

I am rambling here.

"the Constitution, and also that it has holes, and also that there has to be interpretation"

Back to your point - agreed.



Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31503


« Reply #473 on: February 22, 2012, 05:34:37 PM »

I would add that the more and more the courts overrule the vot of the people (e.g. Prop 8 here in CA) the less motivation there is to participate.

I would add that the more and more the fourth branch of government, the burueaucracy, determines what the rules are either quasi-legislatively or quasi-judicially the less people can keep vote on what they do.

I would add that the more bureaucracies are beyond the reach of even Congress (e.g. the new Consumer Finance Protection agency the exact name of which I forget but which is now funded by the Fed instead of Congress!!!) the less even truth there is to the idea of a government of for and by the people.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #474 on: February 23, 2012, 05:19:23 AM »

The point, asserted by some at least, is that the judiciary is an institution for minoritarian protection.  As I've noted previously, I think that care has to be made in assertions, such as your first one, in particular, because it ignores history.  The push for civil rights in the 1950's and 1960s was extremely unpopular.  But, in cases such as Brown, Loving, Heart of Atlanta and many others, there was a devotion to racial equality not seen in the populace at large.

I think that it is important to dispell the myth, that I know you do not adhere to based on previous discussions elsewhere, that this country has "majority rule."  That is patently absurd and falseafiable on its face.  For example, there are many elections, in particular elections where there are three or more parties involved, in which someone is elected with less than 50% of the vote.  In the current GOP primaries, how many times has the "winner" won 30% or so? 

I do agree with your larger point, however.  I would add when the legislature does the same.  In my home state there was a ballot inititative whish was lawfully on the ballot, which recieved more than 50% of the vote, and was promptly overturned by the state legislature.  Given the signage on the roads leading to the capital city, people are still mad about this over a year later.

I would add that the more and more the courts overrule the vot of the people (e.g. Prop 8 here in CA) the less motivation there is to participate.

I would add that the more and more the fourth branch of government, the burueaucracy, determines what the rules are either quasi-legislatively or quasi-judicially the less people can keep vote on what they do.

I would add that the more bureaucracies are beyond the reach of even Congress (e.g. the new Consumer Finance Protection agency the exact name of which I forget but which is now funded by the Fed instead of Congress!!!) the less even truth there is to the idea of a government of for and by the people.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31503


« Reply #475 on: February 23, 2012, 08:52:48 AM »

I agree whole-heartedly that we have a Republic, not a Democracy and amend my comments to more clearly reflect that.  That said, in the Prop 8 case IMHO the result was and is not constitutionally compelled and is more accurately seen as a matter of a gay jurist who wanted to bypass the political process.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #476 on: May 14, 2012, 08:29:30 PM »

http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/05/11/same-sex-marriage-makes-a-lot-of-sense/

Both sides trade Bible verses, while often sharing an unbiblical—secularized—theological framework at a deeper level. If God exists for our happiness and self-fulfillment, validating our sovereign right to choose our identity, then opposition to same-sex marriage (or abortion) is just irrational prejudice.

Given the broader worldview that many Americans (including Christians) embrace—or at least assume, same-sex marriage is a right to which anyone is legally entitled. After all, traditional marriages in our society are largely treated as contractual rather than covenantal, means of mutual self-fulfillment more than serving a larger purpose ordained by God. The state of the traditional family is so precarious that one wonders how same-sex marriage can appreciably deprave it.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31503


« Reply #477 on: May 15, 2012, 09:14:57 AM »

"The state of the traditional family is so precarious that one wonders how same-sex marriage can appreciably deprave it."

And why is it that the state of the traditional family is so precarious? 

The massive propagandaziation of progressive values seems to me to be the major variable-- and the dilution of the definition of marriage is but another step along that road-- so for me to use the decline which it has caused as a reason to do even more of the same is not a persuasive argument.


Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12073


« Reply #478 on: May 15, 2012, 04:08:44 PM »

Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #479 on: May 15, 2012, 05:50:49 PM »

Fantastic comic, GM.  Good to hear from you!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31503


« Reply #480 on: May 16, 2012, 03:59:22 PM »


http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/16/video-new-sba-spot-skewers-obamas-war-on-women-meme/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31503


« Reply #481 on: May 17, 2012, 06:26:26 PM »

I don't agree with every single point made herein, but I find it thoughtful, and a number of passages to be quite on the mark.

===========================

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2006/12/29/gender-identity-the-homosexual-agenda-and-the-christian-response/

============

and, from more recently, here's this:

Alexander's Essay – May 17, 2012
Obama's Gay Political Play
The "Stupid Female Voter" Strategy
"Marriage is ... in its origin a contract of natural law... It is the parent, and not the child of society; the source of civility and a sort of seminary of the republic." --Justice Joseph Story
 
Gay Days at the White House

There was much gayety among some political constituencies this week.

In advance of his annual proclamation of June as "National Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month," or more accurately, "Gender Confusion Month," Barack Hussein Obama ceremonially announced his support for so-called "gay marriage." I note "ceremonially" because while this purely political announcement had no effect on the legal status of homosexual relationships, it certainly moved the needle to the left in regard to the moral status of such "unions."

This proclamation came on the heels of North Carolina joining 29 other states by resoundingly approving a state constitutional amendment affirming the natural definition of marriage. Obama barely won North Carolina in 2008, and Democrats are holding their national convention there this year as they endeavor to retain that state's electoral votes and pick up some around it. Thus, one would think his announcement was ill-timed, unless there is a larger strategy in the works -- and indeed there is.
So why did Obama really go public with his support for the gay marriage agenda?

Certainly not to win the votes of homosexuals -- Obama already has them kowtowing in reverence, particularly after repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban, and refusing to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act as duly passed by Congress and signed into law in 1996 by none other than Bill Clinton.

Most certainly not to win the votes of his sycophantic socialist cadres -- they will vote for Obama regardless of his position on social issues as long as his political platform is bent on redistributing wealth from income earners and delivering it to his most loyal constituents, those enslaved on the Democrats' government welfare plantation.

The calculus behind Obama's endorsement of "gay marriage" is twofold. First, he genuinely supports and identifies with homosexuals, and they with him -- indeed one in six of Obama's big-money "bundlers" is homosexual. He first signaled his desire to redefine this building block of human civilization back in 1996. But his identification with homosexuals is subordinate to his second motive, a political calculation that he believes will ensure his 2012 re-election -- and that re-election is critical to his macro agenda of "fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

Let's analyze Obama's reasoning on both counts.

Regarding his personal motive for promoting the homosexual agenda, Obama is an archetypal case study of Narcissistic Pathology Disorder, the almost universal underlying pathology of Leftist political leaders. Obama most certainly has a dominant though closeted homosexual predisposition, the ultimate expression of his unmitigated narcissism.

This psychological profile would surprise only those who are blinded, either by their cultish devotion to Obama or their shared pathology.
 
Newsweek Magazine certainly affirmed this diagnosis with its cover this week "outing" Obama's homosexual proclivity. It featured a photo of BO sporting a rainbow halo and the caption, "The First Gay President." In reality, however, there is nothing "gay" about gender disorientation.

Attempting to explain his rationale, Obama said, "[Michelle and I] are both practicing Christians and ... you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it's also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. ... I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people, the word 'marriage' was something that evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs and so forth."

He continued, "But I have to tell you ... when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together -- when I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf, and yet feel constrained even now that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is gone because they're not able to commit themselves in a marriage ... it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Responding to his first rationale, I'd be negligent if I didn't challenge Obama's incredibly narcissistic assertion that "soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors [are] fighting on my behalf," rather than correctly understanding that they are fighting in accordance with their solemn oaths to "support and defend" our Constitution. Obama, of course, has affirmed the same obligation by oath but has vigorously refused to honor it.

But the core problem with Obama's "golden rule" reasoning is that his "faith" as a "practicing Christian" was mentored by another pathological narcissist, Jeremiah Wright, with whom Obama identifies most closely as "a father figure." Wright inculcated Obama with the "Marxist social gospel of hate, the antithesis of genuine Christianity. Thus, Obama's understanding of Christianity assumes that Jesus was a socialist.

Moreover, as with all narcissists, the faith expression of Wright and Obama is self-centered -- nothing more than a manifestation shaped by their own deity.

Not only is Obama's faith deeply flawed in regard to homosexuality, but many people of authentic Christian upbringing are also confused about this issue. For a brief but comprehensive perspective on how Christians should respond to the notion of "gay marriage," read Gender Identity, The Homosexual Agenda and The Christian Response.

Regarding Obama's second and more important reason for announcing his support for the homosexual marriage agenda, Leftist Sen. Dick Durbin (D-ILL) concluded, "I don't think it was a political calculation. ... I think it was a matter of conscience." Of course, Durbin knows that this was both "a matter of conscience," as outlined previously, and "a political calculation."

The Obama campaign's internal polling numbers are not looking good, especially with the one group of voters who have represented more than half of all votes cast since 1960 -- women. The female vote will determine the victor in the 2012 presidential election.
Though a female majority elected Obama in 2008, the Democrats' gender advantage is declining. In the 2010 midterm elections, for the first time in recent history, a majority of women voted Republican. Given the estimate that women drive more than 60 percent of financial decisions in the home, Obama's dismal approval ratings on issues related to economic recovery may cost him the election. That is, unless he can regain a majority of women voters by diverting their focus to other issues -- especially what he sees as a "winning" issue among women, homosexual advocacy.

Thus, Obama's gay political play, at its core, cynically assumes that a majority of women are too stupid to rise above their emotive compassion for, and identity with, effeminate men -- like Obama. This assumption is the overarching political strategy behind Obama's announcement, and it is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt by Demo-gogue Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who fallaciously insists that "there's no political calculus" behind Obama's gay marriage endorsement.

How important is the "stupid women" strategy to Obama's long-term political objective?
 
The transformation of our nation into a Socialist state is predicated on the success of Obama's effort to destabilize the three pillars of Essential Liberty: Constitutional Liberty, Economic Liberty and Individual Liberty.

The Obama administration has done more to undermine constitutional Liberty than any Leftist since Woodrow Wilson.

The Obama administration has done more to undermine Economic Liberty than any Leftist since Franklin Roosevelt, with a plethora of policies designed to break the back of free enterprise and replace it with Democratic Socialism.

As for the third pillar, Obama knows that the most effective method of undermining Individual Liberty is to erode the integrity of faith and family. To the degree that our nation's faith foundation is undermined, the principle that Liberty is "endowed by our Creator" is enfeebled. To the extent that the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" are abjectly violated by redefining marriage, which in turn upends the basic building block of a free society, the family, the consequence is the decay of individual Liberty.

The notion that marriage and family are the foundation of society is older than Christ's teaching on the subject. In the words of Marcus Tullius Cicero (circa 50 B.C.), "[T]he first principle of society consists in the marriage tie, the next in children, the next in a family within one roof, where everything is in common. This society gives rise to the city, and is, as it were, the nursery of the commonwealth."

The bottom line for Obama and his Leftist cadres: Female voters will determine the outcome of the 2012 presidential election. Beyond all the topical rhetoric about redefining marriage, if Obama is correct in his calculation that a majority of women voters can be distracted from critical issues like Liberty and economy, his gambit on the gay political play will be a winner. Don't take that bet.
Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis
Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post



« Last Edit: May 17, 2012, 06:39:25 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31503


« Reply #482 on: May 19, 2012, 09:03:34 AM »

I'm not sure that I get the logic of why the study was so wrong-- how to achieve the desired levels measurabiilty given the nature of the subject matter-- or trust the source (POTH), but FWIW here it is:

============

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120519

PRINCETON, N.J. — The simple fact was that he had done something wrong, and at the end of a long and revolutionary career it didn’t matter how often he’d been right, how powerful he once was, or what it would mean for his legacy.
 
Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, considered by some to be the father of modern psychiatry, lay awake at 4 o’clock on a recent morning knowing he had to do the one thing that comes least naturally to him. He pushed himself up and staggered into the dark. His desk seemed impossibly far away; Dr. Spitzer, who turns 80 next week, suffers from Parkinson’s disease and has trouble walking, sitting, even holding his head upright.

The word he sometimes uses to describe these limitations — pathetic — is the same one that for decades he wielded like an ax to strike down dumb ideas, empty theorizing and junk studies.

Now here he was at his computer, ready to recant a study he had done himself, a poorly conceived 2003 investigation that supported the use of so-called reparative therapy to “cure” homosexuality for people strongly motivated to change.
What to say? The issue of gay marriage was rocking national politics yet again. The California State Legislature was debating a bill to ban the therapy outright as being dangerous. A magazine writer who had been through the therapy as a teenager recently visited his house, to explain how miserably disorienting the experience was.
And he would later learn that a World Health Organization report, released on Thursday, calls the therapy “a serious threat to the health and well-being — even the lives — of affected people.”
Dr. Spitzer’s fingers jerked over the keys, unreliably, as if choking on the words. And then it was done: a short letter to be published this month, in the same journal where the original study appeared.
“I believe,” it concludes, “I owe the gay community an apology.”
Disturber of the Peace
The idea to study reparative therapy at all was pure Spitzer, say those who know him, an effort to stick a finger in the eye of an orthodoxy that he himself had helped establish.
In the late 1990s as today, the psychiatric establishment considered the therapy to be a nonstarter. Few therapists thought of homosexuality as a disorder.
It was not always so. Up into the 1970s, the field’s diagnostic manual classified homosexuality as an illness, calling it a “sociopathic personality disturbance.” Many therapists offered treatment, including Freudian analysts who dominated the field at the time.
Advocates for gay people objected furiously, and in 1970, one year after the landmark Stonewall protests to stop police raids at a New York bar, a team of gay rights protesters heckled a meeting of behavioral therapists in New York to discuss the topic. The meeting broke up, but not before a young Columbia University professor sat down with the protesters to hear their case.
“I’ve always been drawn to controversy, and what I was hearing made sense,” said Dr. Spitzer, in an interview at his Princeton home last week. “And I began to think, well, if it is a mental disorder, then what makes it one?”
He compared homosexuality with other conditions defined as disorders, like depression and alcohol dependence, and saw immediately that the latter caused marked distress or impairment, while homosexuality often did not.
He also saw an opportunity to do something about it. Dr. Spitzer was then a junior member of on an American Psychiatric Association committee helping to rewrite the field’s diagnostic manual, and he promptly organized a symposium to discuss the place of homosexuality.
That kicked off a series of bitter debates, pitting Dr. Spitzer against a pair of influential senior psychiatrists who would not budge. In the end, the psychiatric association in 1973 sided with Dr. Spitzer, deciding to drop homosexuality from its manual and replace it with his alternative, “sexual orientation disturbance,” to identify people whose sexual orientation, gay or straight, caused them distress.
The arcane language notwithstanding, homosexuality was no longer a “disorder.” Dr. Spitzer achieved a civil rights breakthrough in record time.
“I wouldn’t say that Robert Spitzer became a household name among the broader gay movement, but the declassification of homosexuality was widely celebrated as a victory,” said Ronald Bayer of the Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health at Columbia. “ ‘Sick No More’ was a headline in some gay newspapers.”

Page 2 of 3)
Partly as a result, Dr. Spitzer took charge of the task of updating the diagnostic manual. Together with a colleague, Dr. Janet Williams, now his wife, he set to work. To an extent that is still not widely appreciated, his thinking about this one issue — homosexuality — drove a broader reconsideration of what mental illness is, of where to draw the line between normal and not.
Readers’ Comments
Share your thoughts.
•   Post a Comment »
•   Read All Comments (454) »
The new manual, a 567-page doorstop released in 1980, became an unlikely best seller, here and abroad. It instantly set the standard for future psychiatry manuals, and elevated its principal architect, then nearing 50, to the pinnacle of his field.
He was the keeper of the book, part headmaster, part ambassador, and part ornery cleric, growling over the phone at scientists, journalists, or policy makers he thought were out of order. He took to the role as if born to it, colleagues say, helping to bring order to a historically chaotic corner of science.
But power was its own kind of confinement. Dr. Spitzer could still disturb the peace, all right, but no longer from the flanks, as a rebel. Now he was the establishment. And in the late 1990s, friends say, he remained restless as ever, eager to challenge common assumptions.
That’s when he ran into another group of protesters, at the psychiatric association’s annual meeting in 1999: self-described ex-gays. Like the homosexual protesters in 1973, they too were outraged that psychiatry was denying their experience — and any therapy that might help.
Reparative Therapy
Reparative therapy, sometimes called “sexual reorientation” or “conversion” therapy, is rooted in Freud’s idea that people are born bisexual and can move along a continuum from one end to the other. Some therapists never let go of the theory, and one of Dr. Spitzer’s main rivals in the 1973 debate, Dr. Charles W. Socarides, founded an organization called the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, or Narth, in Southern California, to promote it.
By 1998, Narth had formed alliances with socially conservative advocacy groups and together they began an aggressive campaign, taking out full-page ads in major newspaper trumpeting success stories.
“People with a shared worldview basically came together and created their own set of experts to offer alternative policy views,” said Dr. Jack Drescher, a psychiatrist in New York and co-editor of “Ex-Gay Research: Analyzing the Spitzer Study and Its Relation to Science, Religion, Politics, and Culture.”
To Dr. Spitzer, the scientific question was at least worth asking: What was the effect of the therapy, if any? Previous studies had been biased and inconclusive. “People at the time did say to me, ‘Bob, you’re messing with your career, don’t do it,’ ” Dr. Spitzer said. “But I just didn’t feel vulnerable.”
He recruited 200 men and women, from the centers that were performing the therapy, including Exodus International, based in Florida, and Narth. He interviewed each in depth over the phone, asking about their sexual urges, feelings and behaviors before and after having the therapy, rating the answers on a scale.
He then compared the scores on this questionnaire, before and after therapy. “The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year,” his paper concluded.
The study — presented at a psychiatry meeting in 2001, before publication — immediately created a sensation, and ex-gay groups seized on it as solid evidence for their case. This was Dr. Spitzer, after all, the man who single-handedly removed homosexuality from the manual of mental disorders. No one could accuse him of bias.
But gay leaders accused him of betrayal, and they had their reasons.
The study had serious problems. It was based on what people remembered feeling years before — an often fuzzy record. It included some ex-gay advocates, who were politically active. And it did not test any particular therapy; only half of the participants engaged with a therapist at all, while the others worked with pastoral counselors, or in independent Bible study.
Several colleagues tried to stop the study in its tracks, and urged him not to publish it, Dr. Spitzer said.

Page 3 of 3)
Yet, heavily invested after all the work, he turned to a friend and former collaborator, Dr. Kenneth J. Zucker, psychologist in chief at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto and editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior, another influential journal.
Readers’ Comments
Share your thoughts.
•   Post a Comment »
•   Read All Comments (454) »
“I knew Bob and the quality of his work, and I agreed to publish it,” Dr. Zucker said in an interview last week. The paper did not go through the usual peer-review process, in which unnamed experts critique a manuscript before publication. “But I told him I would do it only if I also published commentaries” of response from other scientists to accompany the study, Dr. Zucker said.
Those commentaries, with a few exceptions, were merciless. One cited the Nuremberg Code of ethics to denounce the study as not only flawed but morally wrong. “We fear the repercussions of this study, including an increase in suffering, prejudice, and discrimination,” concluded a group of 15 researchers at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, where Dr. Spitzer was affiliated.
Dr. Spitzer in no way implied in the study that being gay was a choice, or that it was possible for anyone who wanted to change to do so in therapy. But that didn’t stop socially conservative groups from citing the paper in support of just those points, according to Wayne Besen, executive director of Truth Wins Out, a nonprofit group that fights antigay bias.
On one occasion, a politician in Finland held up the study in Parliament to argue against civil unions, according to Dr. Drescher.
“It needs to be said that when this study was misused for political purposes to say that gays should be cured — as it was, many times — Bob responded immediately, to correct misperceptions,” said Dr. Drescher, who is gay.
But Dr. Spitzer could not control how his study was interpreted by everyone, and he could not erase the biggest scientific flaw of them all, roundly attacked in many of the commentaries: Simply asking people whether they have changed is no evidence at all of real change. People lie, to themselves and others. They continually change their stories, to suit their needs and moods.
By almost any measure, in short, the study failed the test of scientific rigor that Dr. Spitzer himself was so instrumental in enforcing for so many years.
“As I read these commentaries, I knew this was a problem, a big problem, and one I couldn’t answer,” Dr. Spitzer said. “How do you know someone has really changed?”
Letting Go
It took 11 years for him to admit it publicly.
At first he clung to the idea that the study was exploratory, an attempt to prompt scientists to think twice about dismissing the therapy outright. Then he took refuge in the position that the study was focused less on the effectiveness of the therapy and more on how people engaging in it described changes in sexual orientation.
“Not a very interesting question,” he said. “But for a long time I thought maybe I wouldn’t have to face the bigger problem, about measuring change.”
After retiring in 2003, he remained active on many fronts, but the reparative study remained a staple of the culture wars and a personal regret that wouldn’t leave him be. The Parkinson’s symptoms have worsened in the past year, exhausting him mentally as well physically, making it still harder to fight back pangs of remorse.
And one day in March, Dr. Spitzer entertained a visitor. Gabriel Arana, a journalist at the magazine The American Prospect, interviewed Dr. Spitzer about the reparative therapy study. This was not just any interview; Mr. Arana went through reparative therapy himself as a teenager, and his therapist had recruited the young man for Dr. Spitzer’s study (Mr. Arana did not participate).
“I asked him about all his critics, and he just came out and said, ‘I think they’re largely correct,’ ” said Mr. Arana, who wrote about his own experience last month. Mr. Arana said that reparative therapy ultimately delayed his self-acceptance as a gay man and induced thoughts of suicide. “But at the time I was recruited for the Spitzer study, I was referred as a success story. I would have said I was making progress.”
That did it. The study that seemed at the time a mere footnote to a large life was growing into a chapter. And it needed a proper ending — a strong correction, directly from its author, not a journalist or colleague.
A draft of the letter has already leaked online and has been reported.
“You know, it’s the only regret I have; the only professional one,” Dr. Spitzer said of the study, near the end of a long interview. “And I think, in the history of psychiatry, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a scientist write a letter saying that the data were all there but were totally misinterpreted. Who admitted that and who apologized to his readers.”
He looked away and back again, his big eyes blurring with emotion. “That’s something, don’t you think?”
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4144


« Reply #483 on: May 21, 2012, 01:10:51 PM »

Coming from a former female CNN news anchor (most if not all of whom apper to me are usually left wing) this is a bit of a surprise:

Obama: Stop Condescending to WomenBy CAMPBELL BROWN
Published: May 19, 2012
 
WHEN I listen to President Obama speak to and about women, he sometimes sounds too paternalistic for my taste. In numerous appearances over the years — most recently at the Barnard graduation — he has made reference to how women are smarter than men. It’s all so tired, the kind of fake praise showered upon those one views as easy to impress. As I listen, I am always bracing for the old go-to cliché: “Behind every great man is a great woman.”

Enlarge This Image
 Peter Foley/European Pressphoto Agency
A Barnard graduate during President Barack Obama's commencement address.
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (655) »
Some women are smarter than men and some aren’t. But to suggest to women that they deserve dominance instead of equality is at best a cheap applause line.

My bigger concern is that in courting women, Mr. Obama’s campaign so far has seemed maddeningly off point. His message to the Barnard graduates was that they should fight for a “seat at the table” — the head seat, he made sure to add. He conceded that it’s a tough economy, but he told the grads, “I am convinced you are tougher” and “things will get better — they always do.”

Hardly reassuring words when you look at the reality. According to the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, about 53.6 percent of men and women under the age of 25 who hold bachelor’s degrees were jobless or underemployed last year, the most in at least 11 years. According to the Pew Research Center, if we broaden the age group to 18- to 29-year-olds, an estimated 37 percent are unemployed or out of the work force, the highest share in more than three decades.

The human faces shouldn’t get lost amid the statistics. I spent last weekend with a friend who attended excellent private schools and graduated from Tufts University two years ago. She’s intelligent, impressive and still looking for a full-time job.

The women I know who are struggling in this economy couldn’t be further from the fictional character of Julia, presented in Mr. Obama’s Web ad, “The Life of Julia,” a silly and embarrassing caricature based on the assumption that women look to government at every meaningful phase of their lives for help.

My cousin in Louisiana started a small company with a little savings, renovating houses. A single mom, she saved enough to buy a home and provide child care for her son. When the economy went belly up, so did her company. She was forced to sell her home and move in with her parents. She has found another job, but doesn’t make enough to move out. Family, not government, has been everything to her at this time of crisis. She, and they, wouldn’t have it any other way.

Another member of my family left her job at an adoption agency just before the economy crashed. Also a single mother, she has been looking for a way back to a full-time job ever since. She has been selling things on eBay to make ends meet. Friends and family, not government, have been there at the dire moments when she has asked them to be. Again, she, and they, wouldn’t have it any other way.

This is not to say that government doesn’t play a role in their lives. It does and it should. But it isn’t a dominant one, and certainly not an overwhelming factor in their daily existence.

It’s obvious why the president is doing a full-court press for the vote of college-educated women in particular. The Republican primaries probably did turn some women away. Rick Santorum did his party no favors when he spoke about women in combat (“I think that can be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission, because of other types of emotions that are involved”); when he described the birth of a child from rape as “a gift in a very broken way”; and how, if he was president, he would make the case for the damage caused by contraception.

But Mitt Romney will never be confused with Rick Santorum on these issues, and many women understand that. (I should disclose here that my husband is an adviser to Mr. Romney; I have no involvement with any campaign, and have been an independent journalist throughout my career.) The struggling women in my life all laughed when I asked them if contraception or abortion rights would be a major factor in their decision about this election. For them, and for most other women, the economy overwhelms everything else.

Another recent Pew Research Center survey found that voters, when thinking about whom to vote for in the fall, are most concerned about the economy (86 percent) and jobs (84 percent). Near the bottom of the list were some of the hot-button social issues.

Tiffany Dufu, who heads the White House Project, a nonpartisan group aimed at training young women for careers in politics and business, got a similar response when she informally polled young women in her organization. “The issues that have been defined as all women care about are way off — young women feel it has put them further in a box they don’t necessarily want to be in,” she told me. “Independence is what is so important to these women.”

I have always admired President Obama and I agree with him on some issues, like abortion rights. But the promise of his campaign four years ago has given way to something else — a failure to connect with tens of millions of Americans, many of them women, who feel economic opportunity is gone and are losing hope. In an effort to win them back, Mr. Obama is trying too hard. He’s employing a tone that can come across as grating and even condescending. He really ought to drop it. Most women don’t want to be patted on the head or treated as wards of the state. They simply want to be given a chance to succeed based on their talent and skills. To borrow a phrase from our president’s favorite president, Abraham Lincoln, they want “an open field and a fair chance.”

In the second decade of the 21st century, that isn’t asking too much.

Campbell Brown is a former news anchor for CNN and NBC.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on May 20, 2012, on page SR4 of the New York edition with the headline: Obama
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5998


« Reply #484 on: May 23, 2012, 12:14:50 PM »

There is a N. Carolina preacher rant in the news saying to round up and kill off gays. It should go without saying, I condemn that.  We all do.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/21/north-carolina-pastor-gay-rant-starvation_n_1533463.html

Over the past year or two I have come into acquaintance and friendship/respect with gay men and lesbian women as I have at other times in the past.  This reinforces my belief that all are entitled to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The above does not change the fact that words and institutions have meanings, such as that marriage is when a man and a woman become a husband and a wife, no matter how government chooses to treat that relationship.  Gay people have the same right as everyone else to pursue or decline an opposite gender relationship or to create a new institution of their own.

Somewhere unspoken in the LGBT movement is the strangeness of including Bisexual-Transexual while trying to say we are just like you, except for same sex attraction.  What is to be celebrated about bisexual if the argument is about committed, monogamous relationships?  We don't accept hetero-polygamy.  And what about trans-gender; what is the political issue there?  Can't we agree that is a dysfunction, not something in need of special accommodation.  Can't we, at some point, just ask people to keep their private life private?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31503


« Reply #485 on: May 24, 2012, 11:08:24 PM »

The mind boggles , , ,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9Z0DB2XOoHc
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31503


« Reply #486 on: May 25, 2012, 08:47:43 AM »

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/a_thought_experiment_about_marriage

A thought experiment about marriage
A world in which sexual intimacy could not produce children would never have come up with the idea of marriage.




In previous articles, I have asserted that if sex did not naturally lead to children, no one would ever have conceived the idea of marriage. My claim may be obvious to most people, but we live in a world in which people who never intend to have children get married; so, of course, do some people who want children but are infertile. In generations past, we felt compassion for those who married but did not have children, because it was presumed that they wanted children, since, after all, they married one another. No longer can we presume this. The era of contraception and surgical sterilization has altered the face, so to speak, of the childless couple, and consequently the face of the married couple.

The quest for same-sex marriage begins here. In a world where seeking marriage is seeking a community-endorsed way to have sex and bear children, the idea of same-sex marriage is like the idea of a square circle. The very idea of same-sex marriage is conceivable only in a world that is using the term “marriage” in a completely different way, to refer to something of a completely different nature.

Allow me, then, to make a case for my assertion about sex, children, and marriage through a “thought experiment”—a scenario in which human beings have no word for, no concept of, marriage.

CONTINUED
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 571


« Reply #487 on: June 08, 2012, 02:22:58 PM »

Marc - very thought-provoking article indeed - with entirely valid conclusions in one respect - the concept of marriage most probably arose among humans as a result of the special importance rightly placed on children and their welfare.  "Among humans" is the operative clause here, as clearly other species have no similar ritual recognition of such a union.  Such is the consequence of our ability to reason and contemplate abstract ideas.

I've never been passionately in favor of the idea of same-sex marriage, because from where I stand, the only advantage to it being recognized is that certain legal and inheritance rights flow from it in our society.  But the same could be accomplished - if a society wanted to confer those benefits on same-sex couples - by calling the arrangement a "civil union" or something else to recognize it, but simultaneously distinguish it from marriage.  It's certainly true that the civil society has a vested interest in promoting marriage, less so -if at all - in promoting same-sex unions.  It therefore becomes a matter of equal treatment under the law by my reasoning.  This equal treatment could be accomplished by revising laws that restrict visitation and inheritance rights to blood relatives or spouses in the traditional sense.

And here lies the crux of the problem (and really the only problem) I have with the author's argument:  It is very clear, in fact it has been observed and documented in hundreds of animal species to date, that same-sex couplings, though a definite minority - do form and often exist in a sexually-monogamous state.  It's also been the case throughout recorded history that about the same percentage of homosexual individuals have existed in human societies.  Clearly therefore - it is not simply a matter of a "thought error" on the part of human beings that some of us desire such couplings and the societal accommodation/recognition/respect which ought to logically accrue to same.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31503


« Reply #488 on: June 09, 2012, 11:24:05 AM »

Objectivist:

You express yourself very well.   Though I oppose gay marriage, I would regard the "civil unions" you propose a reasonable compromise.   However, I wonder if this compromise be a lasting compromise, or would it be seen like the military's DADT policy-- a step towards gay marriage. 

Perhaps the true and deeper question presented is this:  "Throughout recorded history" that some people find homosexual behavior , , , off-putting.  Does the State have the right to make this thought illegal?
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 571


« Reply #489 on: June 09, 2012, 12:23:19 PM »

Marc:

Thank you for the compliment.  I'm sure among some gay activists civil unions would be seen as only a step toward gay marriage.  I know individuals who believe that nothing less than extending the same nomenclature to the same-sex union would be acceptable.  I disagree strongly with that position.  My only concern is that I have equal protection under the law without being forced to spend thousands of dollars to have an attorney draft contracts to secure certain rights that still might not be recognized by the state.

I don't understand your question "does the state have the right to make this thought illegal?"  No one - certainly not I - is proposing that any thought be made illegal. There are plenty of people who believe today that blacks and Jews, for example, are inherently inferior in certain respects and/or evil, and such opinions are not illegal.  What IS illegal is violating another's right to life, liberty and property - racist opinions notwithstanding.  I have always strongly opposed the concept of "hate crimes" legislation for exactly this reason - it creates a "thought crime," making the identical crime more serious because it is committed against a member of a privileged group.  This is in direct opposition to the idea of equal justice under the law.  I might add that "some people" will always find certain behaviors objectionable. I'm not proposing outlawing opinions.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 12:28:33 PM by objectivist1 » Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 571


« Reply #490 on: June 11, 2012, 01:29:21 PM »

This is really quite something.  I look forward to reading this man's book.  Be sure to click on the video "trailer" where he explains his reasoning:

www.theblaze.com/stories/jesus-in-drag-this-is-why-a-straight-christian-lived-as-a-gay-man-for-one-year/
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5998


« Reply #491 on: September 25, 2012, 09:51:47 AM »

From Calif thread:

"This bill allows a child to have more than two legal parents."
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1897.msg65956#msg65956

The Federal Financial Student Aid App (FAFSA) already changed old words like mother and father to parent one and parent two.  Now even that is too narrow minded - non-inclusive bigotry.  After parent one and parent two, the next question needs to be: how many other parents, please attach additional pages if necessary.

Extremists in the gay agenda do not just want inclusion in marriage, but apparently the destruction of the traditional marriage and traditional family.  Gone are the words husband and wife, mother and father, and the desirability of a child having the opportunity to grow up in a house with a loving mother and father living together married under one roof.

In what way in God's natural creation could a newborn baby have chosen to live in a gay or multi-partner household?

Gay, like celibacy, deserves life, liberty and pursuit of happiness but includes the reality of not bearing offspring.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31503


« Reply #492 on: December 22, 2012, 10:03:48 PM »



http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/iowa-court-bosses-fire-irresistible-workers-18038838#.UNXDgXd4G_I
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5998


« Reply #493 on: June 19, 2013, 03:35:17 PM »

"In a comparison of unmarried and childless men and women between the ages of 35 and 43, women earn more: 108 cents on a man's dollar."
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2013/06/18/women_and_the_unequal_pay_myth_100407.html


President Glibness: "The day that the bill was signed into law, women earned 59 cents for every dollar a man earned on average. Today, it's about 77 cents," the president said. "Over the course of her career, a working woman with a college degree will earn on average hundreds of thousands of dollars less than a man who does the same work."
-------
Nonsense. The 77 percent figure is bogus because it averages all full-time women, no matter what education and profession, with all full-time men. Even with such averaging, the latest Labor Department figures show that women working full-time make 81 percent of full-time men's wages. For men and women who work 40 hours weekly, the ratio is 88 percent.

Unmarried childless women's salaries, however, often exceed men's. In a comparison of unmarried and childless men and women between the ages of 35 and 43, women earn more: 108 cents on a man's dollar.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4144


« Reply #494 on: June 19, 2013, 04:16:46 PM »

 All we are going to hear about in the liberal mass media is about women this and that until 2016 setting it up for Hillary.   I don't think Republicans can get their act together.

I have zero confidence in them.

Let's see.  If Bill says something like, "you know a woman can never get elected in the US" maybe the babes will turn to another female (C)rat.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5998


« Reply #495 on: August 23, 2013, 08:26:04 AM »

US govt removed the terms mother and father from FAFSA (college financial aid), replaced the discriminatory  terms with new discriminatory terms Parent 1 and Parent 2.  Now this.  Good grief.

Third Gender Option Introduced by Germany for Birth Certificates

Germany will permit parents to select a "third gender" on birth certificates for their children, should the child want to identify with a certain gender in the future.

http://m.christianpost.com/news/third-gender-option-introduced-by-germany-for-birth-certificates--102868/

Although some in Germany, including the newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, have heralded the new legislation, others have argued that it poses complications to other state-issued documents, such as passports and marriage licenses. Currently, passports require a "male" or "female" gender option, and some groups argue that travel will become difficult if a German's passport simply has a blank space under gender;
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31503


« Reply #496 on: August 25, 2013, 02:47:55 PM »

WTF?  Oy fg vey!   

Please post this in Politically (in)Correct as well.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31503


« Reply #497 on: October 16, 2013, 06:58:51 PM »

We have a similar law in CA too.

http://freepatriot.org/2013/10/15/colorado-high-school-transgender-boy-uses-restrooms-accused-harassment-school-threatens-girls/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5998


« Reply #498 on: January 23, 2014, 01:15:02 PM »

Bringing this forward.  It doesn't seem like people are aware of it:

"In a comparison of unmarried and childless men and women between the ages of 35 and 43, women earn more: 108 cents on a man's dollar."
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2013/06/18/women_and_the_unequal_pay_myth_100407.html


http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=23317
In a comparison of unmarried and childless men and women between the ages of 35 and 43, women earn more -- 108 cents on a man's dollar.

Comparing unmarried, childless women under 30: 
"the median full-time salaries of young women were 8% higher than for men in their peer group. In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, the median salary for women was 20% more than for men. In New York City, it was 17% more.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/04/09/are-women-catching-up-in-pay/

It's Time That We End the Equal Pay Myth
By Carrie Lukas
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/

WSJ: There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap
A study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30 found that women earned 8% more than men.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31503


« Reply #499 on: February 18, 2014, 09:16:07 AM »

EXCELLENT commentary by Pamela Geller below:


‘Kill the Gays’ Law Called for by Muslim Association in Malawi
Posted By Pamela Geller On February 17, 2014 @ 12:04 pm In Gay under Islamic law (sharia) | 18 Comments
  [1]AFDI ad in Washington, DC
‘Kill the Gays’ Law Called for in Malawi… [2]

It’s interesting to observe the selective outrage of the left and the LGBT community when it comes to, say, Russia’s anti-gay laws and anti-gay sharia. Russia is not calling for the execution of gays, as is required under Islamic law, but that hasn’t stopped the gay community and leftwing leaders (as powerful as Obama) from condemning and loudly speaking out against Russia’s largely toothless legislation.

Russia has been harshly criticized across the world for enacting a law that bans the distribution of “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations” to minors.  Leaders of foreign governments have condemned the law,  as have 27 Nobel Prize winners [3]from the fields of science and the arts.

The idea that the banning of pitching homosexuality to children is somehow so much more heinous and egregious than the death penalty for homosexuality best illustrates the hypocrisy and phoniness of the left and the LGBT community. That and their condemnation of my ads highlighting Muslims oppression of gays.

The Muslim world calls for the murder of gays. Where is the worldwide outcry?

Gay organizations in America say nothing, but loudly condemned my ad campaign highlighting Muslim oppression of gays under the sharia. Why haven’t we heard from SF City Council [4], the Human  [5]Rights Commission [5], SFHRC head Theresa Sparks [6], and the enemedia [7]? They called my ads [6] hate and issued a resolution against my organization for merely quoting Muslim political leaders, spiritual leaders and cultural voices in the Muslim community who call for the torture and death of gay people.
No, instead, I was denounced by gay and transgender leaders [6] in the US for our work to highlight the Muslim oppression of gays. The San Francisco [7] City council issued a resolution condemning [8] our AFDI ad campaign (the first of its kind) focusing on the vicious oppression and subjugation of gays under Islam.
Where are those “human rights” hypocrites now?
  [9]
Malawi’s Muslim Body Calls for Death Penalty for Homosexuals, Dr. Salmin Omar,
By Malawi Muslims [10], February 13, 2014 (thanks to Religion of Peace) [11]

As the debate on whether to decriminalize homosexuality in Malawi or not rages on, Muslim Association of Malawi (MAM) has suggested the need to revise the penalty of those found guilty of homosexuality to be condemned to death.

This suggestion comes at a time as some Civil Society Organisations (CSO) are pushing for the country to abolish the statute that penalise the act. Currently the maximum jail term sentence for those found guilty by the courts is 14 years.

MAM Secretary General Dr Salmin Omar Idrussi in an interview  said that ‘‘ though Malawi is regarded as a secular state but the country is blessed with God fearing citizens who can’t afford to deviate from God’s commandments for the sake of pleasing others who practice  the act.’’

‘‘Even animals like goats don’t do this, what more with Human beings like us who were blessed with wisdom by the Almighty God? The offenders need to be handed death penalty as a way of making sure that the issue is curbed.

Apparently some religious groupings are calling for the government to call for a referendum for Malawians to make a choice on the matter.

Sheikh  Idrussi said that much as his organisation is supporting the appeal of holding the referendum, but citizens should be asked whether to increase the penalty or not since  the law is already there which is in line with the citizenry’s religious ideology.

‘‘The majority obviously is against legalising this sinful act. Therefore it will be necessary for People to be asked whether they are happy with the current law which attracts a maximum penalty of a 14 year jail term.

Meanwhile Malawi’s Supreme Court of Appeal has granted Government a stay order stopping proceedings in which the High Court in the city of Blantyre was set to commence reviewing convictions of three men involved in homosexuality.

High court Judge Dustain Mwaungulu on January 20 this year threw out an application the Attorney General AG filed to halt the proceedings on the basis that the applicants did not get certification of the matter from the Chief Justice.

The presiding Judge argued it was not a mandatory and went on to set March 17, 2014 as a date for a panel of Judges to start hearing the case.

The three men convicted in 2011 by a Magistrate’s court in Blantyre are Amon Champyunu, Mathews Bello and Mussa Chiwisi .All are serving long jail term ranging from 10 to 14 years.

Gay activists want the court to declare the laws criminalising homosexuality unconstitutional.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!