Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Annulment of Same-sex Marriage
1 view
Skip to first unread message
David Hartung
Mar 21, 2013, 11:11:40 AM3/21/13
to
I don't expect this to change any minds, but the article does have some
interesting statistics. Below are a couple of excerpts, I encourage all
to read the entire article.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_annulment_of_same-sex_marriage.html
[...]
A day can't go by when the same sex marriage question is not portrayed
as a mainstream issue. With the Supreme Court set to rule on the
question, one must ask; who is pushing this agenda and what is at stake?
According to five studies compiled by Gary Gates of the Williams
Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA, the
United States has approximately four million homosexual adults
representing about 1.7 percent of the population. Other studies show the
U.S. Census Bureau finding that homosexual couples constitute less than
1% of American households while The Family Research Report says
homosexuals make up about 2.5% of the population, and the National Gay
and Lesbian Task Force estimates approximately 6% of the population is
homosexual.
Even if we take into account underreporting and bias, the high end
average of homosexuals in the U.S. would be approximately 3% of the
population. It is also reasonable to assume that same-sex couples are
the ones championing the cause to change the definition of marriage
since the issue most affects them. Furthermore, since not all
homosexuals believe in same sex marriage, homosexuals that actually wish
to redefine marriage diminish the already small numbers even further.
The most recent U.S. Census data reveal that in the last 15 years only
one in five or 150,000 same-sex couples have taken advantage of legal
recognition. This is less than six tenths of one percent of the
population. And since two-thirds of legally recognized same-sex couples
in the United States are female, the number of committed men seeking
marriage is about two tenths of one percent of the population.
[...]
Same-sex marriage is not a religious question. There are numerous forms
of worship that can reflect on partnerships, sexual orientation and
behaviors. People can choose a place of worship as a matter of their
personal faith and adhere to diverse religious tenets as long as laws
are not violated. Religious creeds celebrate weddings however, and they
do not have the power to set laws that impact every individual. All
institutions have the responsibility of promoting family and raising
children, but only the government holds the responsibility to sanction
marriage by licensing laws.
Majority rights with minority protections must be respected. But this
canon does not mean that minority demands must not be questioned. To
apply same-sex marriage to the 14th Amendment passed on behalf of freed
slaves who were previously considered property and not citizens is
intellectual malpractice. Every American has the same "equal
protections" in civil/criminal law, contract and property rights.
As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage rights.
No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the opposite
sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive behaviors
so as to conceive a child and start a family.
[...]
interesting statistics. Below are a couple of excerpts, I encourage all
to read the entire article.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_annulment_of_same-sex_marriage.html
[...]
A day can't go by when the same sex marriage question is not portrayed
as a mainstream issue. With the Supreme Court set to rule on the
question, one must ask; who is pushing this agenda and what is at stake?
According to five studies compiled by Gary Gates of the Williams
Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA, the
United States has approximately four million homosexual adults
representing about 1.7 percent of the population. Other studies show the
U.S. Census Bureau finding that homosexual couples constitute less than
1% of American households while The Family Research Report says
homosexuals make up about 2.5% of the population, and the National Gay
and Lesbian Task Force estimates approximately 6% of the population is
homosexual.
Even if we take into account underreporting and bias, the high end
average of homosexuals in the U.S. would be approximately 3% of the
population. It is also reasonable to assume that same-sex couples are
the ones championing the cause to change the definition of marriage
since the issue most affects them. Furthermore, since not all
homosexuals believe in same sex marriage, homosexuals that actually wish
to redefine marriage diminish the already small numbers even further.
The most recent U.S. Census data reveal that in the last 15 years only
one in five or 150,000 same-sex couples have taken advantage of legal
recognition. This is less than six tenths of one percent of the
population. And since two-thirds of legally recognized same-sex couples
in the United States are female, the number of committed men seeking
marriage is about two tenths of one percent of the population.
[...]
Same-sex marriage is not a religious question. There are numerous forms
of worship that can reflect on partnerships, sexual orientation and
behaviors. People can choose a place of worship as a matter of their
personal faith and adhere to diverse religious tenets as long as laws
are not violated. Religious creeds celebrate weddings however, and they
do not have the power to set laws that impact every individual. All
institutions have the responsibility of promoting family and raising
children, but only the government holds the responsibility to sanction
marriage by licensing laws.
Majority rights with minority protections must be respected. But this
canon does not mean that minority demands must not be questioned. To
apply same-sex marriage to the 14th Amendment passed on behalf of freed
slaves who were previously considered property and not citizens is
intellectual malpractice. Every American has the same "equal
protections" in civil/criminal law, contract and property rights.
As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage rights.
No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the opposite
sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive behaviors
so as to conceive a child and start a family.
[...]
wy
Mar 21, 2013, 11:33:47 AM3/21/13
to
On 21 Mar, 11:11, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> Furthermore, since not all homosexuals believe in same sex marriage,
> homosexuals that actually wish to redefine marriage diminish the already
> small numbers even further.
Is this supposed to be some sort of credible reason for ruling out
> Furthermore, since not all homosexuals believe in same sex marriage,
> homosexuals that actually wish to redefine marriage diminish the already
> small numbers even further.
marriage for gays, that not all of them believe in marriage? Well,
then you might as well rule out marriage for straights too because not
all of them believe in marriage either.
>
> The most recent U.S. Census data reveal that in the last 15 years only
> one in five or 150,000 same-sex couples have taken advantage of legal
> recognition. This is less than six tenths of one percent of the
> population.
religious wacko right wingnut bigot's tummy. Less than six-tenths of
one percent of the population only means that very few gay are allowed
to marry anywhere in the US, that's all it adds up to. It's not any
credible measure of there being no interest in gay marriage. Legalize
it and then watch those numbers skyrocket.
> Same-sex marriage is not a religious question.
marriage is.
> There are numerous forms
> of worship that can reflect on partnerships, sexual orientation and
> behaviors. People can choose a place of worship as a matter of their
> personal faith and adhere to diverse religious tenets as long as laws
> are not violated. Religious creeds celebrate weddings however, and they
> do not have the power to set laws that impact every individual. All
> institutions have the responsibility of promoting family and raising
> children, but only the government holds the responsibility to sanction
> marriage by licensing laws.
being selfish that way.
>
> Majority rights with minority protections must be respected. But this
> canon does not mean that minority demands must not be questioned. To
> apply same-sex marriage to the 14th Amendment passed on behalf of freed
> slaves who were previously considered property and not citizens is
> intellectual malpractice. Every American has the same "equal
> protections" in civil/criminal law, contract and property rights.
no?
>
> As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage rights.
> No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the opposite
> sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive behaviors
> so as to conceive a child and start a family.
the exact same marriage rights, which would assume gays do too, and
then it makes a 180 degree turn and specifies that no law prohibits
any man or woman from marrying a member of the opposite sex. But hey,
what about any man or woman marrying one of the same sex? What
happened? Didn't they just have the exact same marriage rights as
every America and now it's gone?
raven1
Mar 21, 2013, 11:51:22 AM3/21/13
to
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:11:40 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
wrote:
>Even if we take into account underreporting and bias, the high end
>average of homosexuals in the U.S. would be approximately 3% of the
>population. It is also reasonable to assume that same-sex couples are
>the ones championing the cause to change the definition of marriage
>since the issue most affects them.
Wow. Just wow.
I don't think I've seen a more concise illustration of right-wing
thinking in a long time. Translate this as "I support causes only if I
perceive that they directly benefit me, and I assume that everyone
else is as selfish as I am".
wrote:
>Even if we take into account underreporting and bias, the high end
>average of homosexuals in the U.S. would be approximately 3% of the
>population. It is also reasonable to assume that same-sex couples are
>the ones championing the cause to change the definition of marriage
>since the issue most affects them.
I don't think I've seen a more concise illustration of right-wing
thinking in a long time. Translate this as "I support causes only if I
perceive that they directly benefit me, and I assume that everyone
else is as selfish as I am".
Dakota
Mar 21, 2013, 12:20:45 PM3/21/13
to
"Government sponsorship of marriage sanctions biological fact with a
legal commitment between a man and a woman to form a family, procreate
and raise children."
There is no such legal commitment. If there was, infertile couples,
couples who do not wish to raise children, and couples to old to
procreate would not be granted a license to marry. Because those
people are permitted to marry, the argument fails. Ergo, the inability
of same-sex partners to procreate without the involvement of
surrogates should not be a barrier to marriage.
The author, Dean Kalahar, touts some statistics about the demographics
of homosexuals as though injustice shouldn't matter if it only applies
to a small number of people. Kalahar provides no links to the sources
of any of his statistics.
Kalahars's resistance to change is well established by the following
quote.
"Was there some moment of enlightenment that befell humanity to
discover that same-sex marriage was a right that had been ignored for
centuries? Or is it possible the thousands of years of marriage and
family institution stability settled any serious inquiry?"
Does Kalahar accept the time honored tradition of 'one husband, many
wives'?
Kalahar also uses the same sort of argument as that used to deny mixed
race couples the right to marry.
"As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage
rights. No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of
the opposite sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in
reproductive behaviors so as to conceive a child and start a family."
As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage
sex as long as they are of the same race.
Kalahar failed to present even a single example of the harm that would
result if same sex marriage were to be permitted.
Kalahar's argument is, essentially, that there are not enough gays to
bother with legalizing same-sex marriage and, besides, we've been
banning it for a long, long time so it must be okay.
David Hartung
Mar 21, 2013, 12:51:53 PM3/21/13
to
> Kalahars's resistance to change is well established by the following quote.
>
> "Was there some moment of enlightenment that befell humanity to discover
> that same-sex marriage was a right that had been ignored for centuries?
> Or is it possible the thousands of years of marriage and family
> institution stability settled any serious inquiry?"
>
> Does Kalahar accept the time honored tradition of 'one husband, many
> wives'?
>
> Kalahar also uses the same sort of argument as that used to deny mixed
> race couples the right to marry.
>
> "As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage rights.
> No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the opposite
> sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive behaviors
> so as to conceive a child and start a family."
As I said, I didn't expect to change any minds.
Kelsey Bjarnason
Mar 21, 2013, 1:11:32 PM3/21/13
to
[snips]
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:51:53 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>> "As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage
>> rights. No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the
>> opposite sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive
>> behaviors so as to conceive a child and start a family."
>
> A rational approach if you see the marriage as the core of a family.
So, you'd support denying marriage to couples who don't wish to have
kids? People should only be allowed to marry if the intent is to breed?
If yes, then your position - while at least consistent - won't garner a
lot of support, and if no, then you've just refuted your own argument.
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:51:53 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>> "As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage
>> rights. No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the
>> opposite sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive
>> behaviors so as to conceive a child and start a family."
>
> A rational approach if you see the marriage as the core of a family.
kids? People should only be allowed to marry if the intent is to breed?
If yes, then your position - while at least consistent - won't garner a
lot of support, and if no, then you've just refuted your own argument.
raven1
Mar 21, 2013, 1:15:49 PM3/21/13
to
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:51:53 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
wrote:
>> "As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage rights.
>> No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the opposite
>> sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive behaviors
>> so as to conceive a child and start a family."
>
>A rational approach if you see the marriage as the core of a family.
A very poor argument, actually. If we disallow same-sex marriage on
this basis, we should also prohibit opposite-sex couples who either
cannot or do not intend to reproduce from marrying, for the same
reason.
>As I said, I didn't expect to change any minds.
You certainly won't with arguments like the above.
wrote:
>> "As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage rights.
>> No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the opposite
>> sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive behaviors
>> so as to conceive a child and start a family."
>
>A rational approach if you see the marriage as the core of a family.
this basis, we should also prohibit opposite-sex couples who either
cannot or do not intend to reproduce from marrying, for the same
reason.
>As I said, I didn't expect to change any minds.
David Hartung
Mar 21, 2013, 1:27:37 PM3/21/13
to
the rest of us have made up your mind that you are right, and no facts
will change that.
sbalneav
Mar 21, 2013, 1:56:23 PM3/21/13
to
>> Kalahars's resistance to change is well established by the following quote.
>>
>> "Was there some moment of enlightenment that befell humanity to discover
>> that same-sex marriage was a right that had been ignored for centuries?
>> Or is it possible the thousands of years of marriage and family
>> institution stability settled any serious inquiry?"
>>
>> Does Kalahar accept the time honored tradition of 'one husband, many
>> wives'?
>>
>> Kalahar also uses the same sort of argument as that used to deny mixed
>> race couples the right to marry.
>>
>> "As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage rights.
>> No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the opposite
>> sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive behaviors
>> so as to conceive a child and start a family."
>
> A rational approach if you see the marriage as the core of a family.
>
> As I said, I didn't expect to change any minds.
--
(` |) | This is the first age that's paid much attention to the
_) |) | future, which is a little ironic since we may not have one.
a.a #2171 | -- Arthur C. Clarke
sbalneav
Mar 21, 2013, 1:57:46 PM3/21/13
to
In alt.atheism David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
When you get around to posting some facts, we'll consider them.
--
(` |) | I would rather discover one scientific fact
_) |) | than become King of Persia.
a.a #2171 | -- Democritus
David Hartung
Mar 21, 2013, 2:02:57 PM3/21/13
to
Facts were presented in this piece, you simply choose to not accept
them, and give as your reason, the fact that the author did not source
hie facts. You are the very stereotype of the Usenet poster.
sbalneav
Mar 21, 2013, 2:19:07 PM3/21/13
to
In alt.atheism David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 03/21/2013 12:57 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>> In alt.atheism David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>>> On 03/21/2013 12:15 PM, raven1 wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:51:53 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> "As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage rights.
>>>>>> No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the opposite
>>>>>> sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive behaviors
>>>>>> so as to conceive a child and start a family."
>>>>>
>>>>> A rational approach if you see the marriage as the core of a family.
>>>>
>>>> A very poor argument, actually. If we disallow same-sex marriage on
>>>> this basis, we should also prohibit opposite-sex couples who either
>>>> cannot or do not intend to reproduce from marrying, for the same
>>>> reason.
>>>>
>>>>> As I said, I didn't expect to change any minds.
>>>>
>>>> You certainly won't with arguments like the above.
>>>
>>> The truth is that in these forums, no one's mind is changed. You like
>>> the rest of us have made up your mind that you are right, and no facts
>>> will change that.
>>
>> So far, you've presented no fact, simply a (in your own words) "opinion piece".
>> When you get around to posting some facts, we'll consider them.
>
> I seriously doubt that.
Try us.
> On 03/21/2013 12:57 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>> In alt.atheism David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>>> On 03/21/2013 12:15 PM, raven1 wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:51:53 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> "As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage rights.
>>>>>> No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the opposite
>>>>>> sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive behaviors
>>>>>> so as to conceive a child and start a family."
>>>>>
>>>>> A rational approach if you see the marriage as the core of a family.
>>>>
>>>> A very poor argument, actually. If we disallow same-sex marriage on
>>>> this basis, we should also prohibit opposite-sex couples who either
>>>> cannot or do not intend to reproduce from marrying, for the same
>>>> reason.
>>>>
>>>>> As I said, I didn't expect to change any minds.
>>>>
>>>> You certainly won't with arguments like the above.
>>>
>>> The truth is that in these forums, no one's mind is changed. You like
>>> the rest of us have made up your mind that you are right, and no facts
>>> will change that.
>>
>> So far, you've presented no fact, simply a (in your own words) "opinion piece".
>> When you get around to posting some facts, we'll consider them.
>
> I seriously doubt that.
> Facts were presented in this piece, you simply choose to not accept
> them, and give as your reason, the fact that the author did not source
> hie facts.
remarks do not constitute fact.
> You are the very stereotype of the Usenet poster.
--
(` |) | We buy books because we believe we're
_) |) | buying the time to read them.
a.a #2171 | -- Warren Zevon
wy
Mar 21, 2013, 2:48:31 PM3/21/13
to
On 21 Mar, 12:51, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 03/21/2013 11:20 AM, Dakota wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/21/2013 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> >> I don't expect this to change any minds, but the article does have
> >> some interesting statistics. Below are a couple of excerpts, I
> >> encourage all to read the entire article.
>
> >>http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_annulment_of_same-sex_marr...
> On 03/21/2013 11:20 AM, Dakota wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/21/2013 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> >> I don't expect this to change any minds, but the article does have
> >> some interesting statistics. Below are a couple of excerpts, I
> >> encourage all to read the entire article.
>
interesting if they're not verifiably true or not?
> > Kalahars's resistance to change is well established by the following quote.
>
> > "Was there some moment of enlightenment that befell humanity to discover
> > that same-sex marriage was a right that had been ignored for centuries?
> > Or is it possible the thousands of years of marriage and family
> > institution stability settled any serious inquiry?"
>
> > Does Kalahar accept the time honored tradition of 'one husband, many
> > wives'?
>
> > Kalahar also uses the same sort of argument as that used to deny mixed
> > race couples the right to marry.
>
> > "As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage rights.
> > No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the opposite
> > sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive behaviors
> > so as to conceive a child and start a family."
>
> A rational approach if you see the marriage as the core of a family.
remarry in order to have that "core" of a family? It mustn't make her
feel that great if she's told she has no "core" to her family by being
a widow having to take care of kids on her own. You and your hodge
podge of thoughts.
raven1
Mar 21, 2013, 2:49:26 PM3/21/13
to
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:27:37 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
I'm normally open-minded enough to have it changed by a compelling,
rational argument. I haven't seen one presented by the other side
regarding this issue, and strongly suspect that the reason is that
there isn't one to be made.
rational argument. I haven't seen one presented by the other side
regarding this issue, and strongly suspect that the reason is that
there isn't one to be made.
wy
Mar 21, 2013, 2:49:58 PM3/21/13
to
Is that your idea of facts?
David Hartung
Mar 21, 2013, 2:51:11 PM3/21/13
to
sex marriage.
David Hartung
Mar 21, 2013, 2:51:45 PM3/21/13
to
raven1
Mar 21, 2013, 3:00:15 PM3/21/13
to
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:51:11 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
Extension of the same legal rights and protections afforded to
opposite-sex couples by marriage would seem to be rational and
compelling enough, as would the equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment. Pre-emptive note here: the 1st Amendment free exercise of
religion clause is not a suitable counter-argument, as no clergy would
be compelled to marry same-sex couples.
opposite-sex couples by marriage would seem to be rational and
compelling enough, as would the equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment. Pre-emptive note here: the 1st Amendment free exercise of
religion clause is not a suitable counter-argument, as no clergy would
be compelled to marry same-sex couples.
wy
Mar 21, 2013, 3:11:43 PM3/21/13
to
myself and others in this thread so far to ridicule its clueless
simple-mindedness wrought from an obvious biased and baseless point-of-
view that can't stand up to simple questions, like the one I asked
about a widow raising 3 kids and whether should could be considered as
a family unit or is her unit discredited as a family because it lacks
the "core" of a male presence. That sounds suspiciously sexist to me
if a "core" is only achievable within a family unit with a male
present in it.
Dreamer In Colore
Mar 21, 2013, 3:20:20 PM3/21/13
to
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:51:11 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
Other than the fact that gay couples are made up of human beings? Do
not all human beings deserve equal rights as such? Why would you want
to discriminate against them that way?
I defend gay marriage because it's hard enough to find love in this
world, and narrow-minded bigotry isn't going to solve the problem.
Same-sex couples deserve the same kinds of tax breaks that married
couples get, and the same kinds of other benefits as well.
You've got some kind of moral problem with homosexuality, which is in
fact a separate issue.
Cheers,
Dreamer
not all human beings deserve equal rights as such? Why would you want
to discriminate against them that way?
I defend gay marriage because it's hard enough to find love in this
world, and narrow-minded bigotry isn't going to solve the problem.
Same-sex couples deserve the same kinds of tax breaks that married
couples get, and the same kinds of other benefits as well.
You've got some kind of moral problem with homosexuality, which is in
fact a separate issue.
Cheers,
Dreamer
wy
Mar 21, 2013, 3:34:56 PM3/21/13
to
On 21 Mar, 15:20, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
Not only does he have a moral problem with homosexuality, but he has a
problem with love itself, claiming it's not needed for marriage. Put
the two together and bingo: gays don't need to get married. Wacko
logic only Hartung can come up with, who has admitted himself that his
thoughts on the subject are merely a hodge podge and not very well
articulated. So yeah, we can see where he stands - on wobbly knees.
But damn, he'll keep standing on those wobbly knees till it kills him
because seeing the light is simply not an option for his tunnelvision
view of life.
>
> Cheers,
> Dreamer
problem with love itself, claiming it's not needed for marriage. Put
the two together and bingo: gays don't need to get married. Wacko
logic only Hartung can come up with, who has admitted himself that his
thoughts on the subject are merely a hodge podge and not very well
articulated. So yeah, we can see where he stands - on wobbly knees.
But damn, he'll keep standing on those wobbly knees till it kills him
because seeing the light is simply not an option for his tunnelvision
view of life.
>
> Cheers,
> Dreamer
plainolamerican
Mar 21, 2013, 4:10:10 PM3/21/13
to
On Mar 21, 10:11 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> I don't expect this to change any minds, but the article does have some
> interesting statistics. Below are a couple of excerpts, I encourage all
> to read the entire article.
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_annulment_of_same-sex_marr...
> I don't expect this to change any minds, but the article does have some
> interesting statistics. Below are a couple of excerpts, I encourage all
> to read the entire article.
>
every American except gays.
only religious myth believers persecute homosexuals.
Syd M.
Mar 21, 2013, 4:46:22 PM3/21/13
to
PDW
David Hartung
Mar 21, 2013, 5:50:12 PM3/21/13
to
call your opponent a bigot.
wy
Mar 21, 2013, 6:13:21 PM3/21/13
to
marriage banished, so that there in itself really doesn't make him a
bigot. Yet, you do want to see it banished and keep repeating so in
every imaginable way you can word and reword it and by posting every
imaginable link to some loony tune article or another that you find
all warm and fuzzy to your anti-gay marriage tummy. So who's the real
bigot here again?
Jeanne Douglas
Mar 21, 2013, 6:14:56 PM3/21/13
to
In article <bqWdnS6nFYoCy9bM...@giganews.com>,
You don't find the Constitution a rational argument?
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Jeanne Douglas
Mar 21, 2013, 6:16:53 PM3/21/13
to
In article
<d9d85287-6c66-4616...@z4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
Well, that IS traditional marriage all over the globe for most of
history.
The selling of girls in marriage.
> Put
> the two together and bingo: gays don't need to get married. Wacko
> logic only Hartung can come up with, who has admitted himself that his
> thoughts on the subject are merely a hodge podge and not very well
> articulated. So yeah, we can see where he stands - on wobbly knees.
> But damn, he'll keep standing on those wobbly knees till it kills him
> because seeing the light is simply not an option for his tunnelvision
> view of life.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dreamer
<d9d85287-6c66-4616...@z4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
history.
The selling of girls in marriage.
> Put
> the two together and bingo: gays don't need to get married. Wacko
> logic only Hartung can come up with, who has admitted himself that his
> thoughts on the subject are merely a hodge podge and not very well
> articulated. So yeah, we can see where he stands - on wobbly knees.
> But damn, he'll keep standing on those wobbly knees till it kills him
> because seeing the light is simply not an option for his tunnelvision
> view of life.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dreamer
Jeanne Douglas
Mar 21, 2013, 6:17:43 PM3/21/13
to
In article <a4qdnYuUHrPM1tbM...@giganews.com>,
Because none of your "facts" were, indeed, facts.
> and give as your reason, the fact that the author did not source
> hie facts. You are the very stereotype of the Usenet poster.
> and give as your reason, the fact that the author did not source
> hie facts. You are the very stereotype of the Usenet poster.
wy
Mar 21, 2013, 6:18:12 PM3/21/13
to
On 21 Mar, 18:14, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <bqWdnS6nFYoCy9bMnZ2dnUVZ_jedn...@giganews.com>,
It only suits Hartung when it's to his own personal interests and in
the way he often has to misconstrue it to make it fit his own personal
interests. It becomes irrelevant to him when it applies to others'
interests.
> In article <bqWdnS6nFYoCy9bMnZ2dnUVZ_jedn...@giganews.com>,
the way he often has to misconstrue it to make it fit his own personal
interests. It becomes irrelevant to him when it applies to others'
interests.
Jeanne Douglas
Mar 21, 2013, 6:20:40 PM3/21/13
to
In article
<fc8aa171-4259-40cb...@m4g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> On 21 Mar, 11:11, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>
> > Furthermore, since not all homosexuals believe in same sex marriage,
> > homosexuals that actually wish to redefine marriage diminish the already
> > small numbers even further.
>
> Is this supposed to be some sort of credible reason for ruling out
> marriage for gays, that not all of them believe in marriage? Well,
> then you might as well rule out marriage for straights too because not
> all of them believe in marriage either.
> religious wacko right wingnut bigot's tummy. Less than six-tenths of
> one percent of the population only means that very few gay are allowed
> to marry anywhere in the US, that's all it adds up to. It's not any
> credible measure of there being no interest in gay marriage. Legalize
> it and then watch those numbers skyrocket.
Not to mention all the gay couples who have refused to marry themselves
until ALL gays have the right to marry.
<fc8aa171-4259-40cb...@m4g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> On 21 Mar, 11:11, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>
> > Furthermore, since not all homosexuals believe in same sex marriage,
> > homosexuals that actually wish to redefine marriage diminish the already
> > small numbers even further.
>
> marriage for gays, that not all of them believe in marriage? Well,
> then you might as well rule out marriage for straights too because not
> all of them believe in marriage either.
>
> >
> > The most recent U.S. Census data reveal that in the last 15 years only
> > one in five or 150,000 same-sex couples have taken advantage of legal
> > recognition. This is less than six tenths of one percent of the
> > population.
>
> Another stupid numbers game meant to be all warm and fuzzy in the
> >
> > The most recent U.S. Census data reveal that in the last 15 years only
> > one in five or 150,000 same-sex couples have taken advantage of legal
> > recognition. This is less than six tenths of one percent of the
> > population.
>
> religious wacko right wingnut bigot's tummy. Less than six-tenths of
> one percent of the population only means that very few gay are allowed
> to marry anywhere in the US, that's all it adds up to. It's not any
> credible measure of there being no interest in gay marriage. Legalize
> it and then watch those numbers skyrocket.
Not to mention all the gay couples who have refused to marry themselves
until ALL gays have the right to marry.
wy
Mar 21, 2013, 6:34:35 PM3/21/13
to
On 21 Mar, 18:16, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <d9d85287-6c66-4616-a330-2161a06fd...@z4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
> In article
marriage. Okay. Now I get it. It makes sense coming from him.
raven1
Mar 21, 2013, 7:09:22 PM3/21/13
to
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:50:12 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
Given that the arguments you have presented against same-sex marriage
thus far have all been thoroughly shredded on logical grounds, one
might begin to infer that your opposition might not be based on
reason, but on emotional animosity towards the idea of homosexual
unions being given the same legal standing as heterosexual unions.
Is that, in fact, the case?
If it is, then I'm sorry to say that the word "bigot" is appropriate,
no matter how much you want to cloak it in religious justification,
because there are many religious people who follow the same God as you
and don't see things that way. If it's not the case, and you still
think that what you've presented thus far is valid, then even more
bluntly, you really should take a course in logic, because not
grasping such easily recognizable fallacies leaves you easy prey to
every smoke-oil salesman that comes along.
Incidentally, this is not a "leftist" issue. Many principled
conservatives agree that sexual orientation is, quite frankly, no
one's business, and that no one should be denied the same legal rights
on that basis, including the right to marry one's chosen partner,
regardless of gender, as long as they are a consenting adult under the
law. The amicus curiae brief presented to the SCOTUS, signed by many
prominent Republicans, should be sufficient to establish that, if you
have any doubts about it.
---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight
thus far have all been thoroughly shredded on logical grounds, one
might begin to infer that your opposition might not be based on
reason, but on emotional animosity towards the idea of homosexual
unions being given the same legal standing as heterosexual unions.
Is that, in fact, the case?
If it is, then I'm sorry to say that the word "bigot" is appropriate,
no matter how much you want to cloak it in religious justification,
because there are many religious people who follow the same God as you
and don't see things that way. If it's not the case, and you still
think that what you've presented thus far is valid, then even more
bluntly, you really should take a course in logic, because not
grasping such easily recognizable fallacies leaves you easy prey to
every smoke-oil salesman that comes along.
Incidentally, this is not a "leftist" issue. Many principled
conservatives agree that sexual orientation is, quite frankly, no
one's business, and that no one should be denied the same legal rights
on that basis, including the right to marry one's chosen partner,
regardless of gender, as long as they are a consenting adult under the
law. The amicus curiae brief presented to the SCOTUS, signed by many
prominent Republicans, should be sufficient to establish that, if you
have any doubts about it.
---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight
Alex W.
Mar 21, 2013, 9:24:59 PM3/21/13
to
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:11:40 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
> I don't expect this to change any minds, but the article does have some
> interesting statistics. Below are a couple of excerpts, I encourage all
> to read the entire article.
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_annulment_of_same-sex_marriage.html
> I don't expect this to change any minds, but the article does have some
> interesting statistics. Below are a couple of excerpts, I encourage all
> to read the entire article.
>
> [...]
One quibble straight off: the percentages cited in that article
are potentially misleading. Given that marriage is an adult
affair and that sexuality is not fully established until nearing
adulthood, it is not appropriate to give percentages based on the
*entire* population of the US. As per the last census, a quarter
of the US population is below the age of 18, so any percentages
relating to the whole population need to be revised upwards.
> A day can't go by when the same sex marriage question is not portrayed
> as a mainstream issue. With the Supreme Court set to rule on the
> question, one must ask; who is pushing this agenda and what is at stake?
>
> According to five studies compiled by Gary Gates of the Williams
> Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA, the
> United States has approximately four million homosexual adults
> representing about 1.7 percent of the population. Other studies show the
> U.S. Census Bureau finding that homosexual couples constitute less than
> 1% of American households while The Family Research Report says
> homosexuals make up about 2.5% of the population, and the National Gay
> and Lesbian Task Force estimates approximately 6% of the population is
> homosexual.
>
> Even if we take into account underreporting and bias, the high end
> average of homosexuals in the U.S. would be approximately 3% of the
> population. It is also reasonable to assume that same-sex couples are
> the ones championing the cause to change the definition of marriage
> homosexuals believe in same sex marriage, homosexuals that actually wish
> to redefine marriage diminish the already small numbers even further.
Around 12 million Americans is a "small number"?
> to redefine marriage diminish the already small numbers even further.
> As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage rights.
> No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the opposite
> sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive behaviors
> so as to conceive a child and start a family.
This last paragraph betrays the ideological inclinations of the
authors. Marriage is for procreation? Really? In other words,
anyone unable to conceive by reason of medical disability or age
should be barred from marrying!
raven1
Mar 21, 2013, 9:32:50 PM3/21/13
to
8 and DOMA on 14th Amendment grounds, with both Roberts and Kennedy in
the majority, but likely making it a narrow ruling applicable only to
those cases.
wy
Mar 21, 2013, 9:47:26 PM3/21/13
to
On 21 Mar, 21:24, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:11:40 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
> > I don't expect this to change any minds, but the article does have some
> > interesting statistics. Below are a couple of excerpts, I encourage all
> > to read the entire article.
>
> >http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_annulment_of_same-sex_marr...
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:11:40 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
> > I don't expect this to change any minds, but the article does have some
> > interesting statistics. Below are a couple of excerpts, I encourage all
> > to read the entire article.
>
Imagine that, 4 times more gays than Mississippians. That's gotta
really freak him out now.
>
> > As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage rights.
> > No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the opposite
> > sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive behaviors
> > so as to conceive a child and start a family.
> > [...]
>
> This last paragraph betrays the ideological inclinations of the
> authors. Marriage is for procreation? Really? In other words,
> anyone unable to conceive by reason of medical disability or age
> should be barred from marrying!
then he'd simply invalidate the whole notion of what marriage is
supposed to be about to him and the writer of the article -
procreation. Yeah, Hartung is quite the comedian in this group.
Dakota
Mar 21, 2013, 10:46:05 PM3/21/13
to
On 3/21/2013 11:51 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 03/21/2013 11:20 AM, Dakota wrote:
> On 03/21/2013 11:20 AM, Dakota wrote:
>> On 3/21/2013 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> I don't expect this to change any minds, but the article does have
>>> some interesting statistics. Below are a couple of excerpts, I
>>> encourage all to read the entire article.
>>>
>>> http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_annulment_of_same-sex_marriage.html
>>> I don't expect this to change any minds, but the article does have
>>> some interesting statistics. Below are a couple of excerpts, I
>>> encourage all to read the entire article.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> A day can't go by when the same sex marriage question is not portrayed
>>> as a mainstream issue. With the Supreme Court set to rule on the
>>> question, one must ask; who is pushing this agenda and what is at
>>> stake?
>>>
>>> According to five studies compiled by Gary Gates of the Williams
>>> Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA, the
>>> United States has approximately four million homosexual adults
>>> representing about 1.7 percent of the population. Other studies show
>>> the U.S. Census Bureau finding that homosexual couples constitute less
>>> than 1% of American households while The Family Research Report says
>>> homosexuals make up about 2.5% of the population, and the National Gay
>>> and Lesbian Task Force estimates approximately 6% of the population is
>>> homosexual.
>>>
>>> Even if we take into account underreporting and bias, the high end
>>> average of homosexuals in the U.S. would be approximately 3% of the
>>> population. It is also reasonable to assume that same-sex couples are
>>> the ones championing the cause to change the definition of marriage
>>> since the issue most affects them. Furthermore, since not all
>>> homosexuals believe in same sex marriage, homosexuals that actually
>>> wish to redefine marriage diminish the already small numbers even
>>> further.
>>>
>>> as a mainstream issue. With the Supreme Court set to rule on the
>>> question, one must ask; who is pushing this agenda and what is at
>>> stake?
>>>
>>> According to five studies compiled by Gary Gates of the Williams
>>> Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA, the
>>> United States has approximately four million homosexual adults
>>> representing about 1.7 percent of the population. Other studies show
>>> the U.S. Census Bureau finding that homosexual couples constitute less
>>> than 1% of American households while The Family Research Report says
>>> homosexuals make up about 2.5% of the population, and the National Gay
>>> and Lesbian Task Force estimates approximately 6% of the population is
>>> homosexual.
>>>
>>> Even if we take into account underreporting and bias, the high end
>>> average of homosexuals in the U.S. would be approximately 3% of the
>>> population. It is also reasonable to assume that same-sex couples are
>>> the ones championing the cause to change the definition of marriage
>>> since the issue most affects them. Furthermore, since not all
>>> homosexuals believe in same sex marriage, homosexuals that actually
>>> wish to redefine marriage diminish the already small numbers even
>>> further.
>>>
>>> The most recent U.S. Census data reveal that in the last 15 years only
>>> one in five or 150,000 same-sex couples have taken advantage of legal
>>> recognition. This is less than six tenths of one percent of the
>>> one in five or 150,000 same-sex couples have taken advantage of legal
>>> recognition. This is less than six tenths of one percent of the
>>> population. And since two-thirds of legally recognized same-sex
>>> couples in the United States are female, the number of committed men
>>> seeking marriage is about two tenths of one percent of the population.
>>> [...]
>>> Same-sex marriage is not a religious question. There are numerous
>>> forms of worship that can reflect on partnerships, sexual orientation
>>> and behaviors. People can choose a place of worship as a matter of
>>> their personal faith and adhere to diverse religious tenets as long as
>>> laws are not violated. Religious creeds celebrate weddings however,
>>> and they do not have the power to set laws that impact every
>>> individual. All institutions have the responsibility of promoting
>>> family and raising children, but only the government holds the
>>> responsibility to sanction marriage by licensing laws.
>>>
>>> Majority rights with minority protections must be respected. But this
>>> canon does not mean that minority demands must not be questioned. To
>>> apply same-sex marriage to the 14th Amendment passed on behalf of
>>> freed slaves who were previously considered property and not citizens
>>> is intellectual malpractice. Every American has the same "equal
>>> protections" in civil/criminal law, contract and property rights.
>>>
>>> couples in the United States are female, the number of committed men
>>> seeking marriage is about two tenths of one percent of the population.
>>> [...]
>>> Same-sex marriage is not a religious question. There are numerous
>>> forms of worship that can reflect on partnerships, sexual orientation
>>> and behaviors. People can choose a place of worship as a matter of
>>> their personal faith and adhere to diverse religious tenets as long as
>>> laws are not violated. Religious creeds celebrate weddings however,
>>> and they do not have the power to set laws that impact every
>>> individual. All institutions have the responsibility of promoting
>>> family and raising children, but only the government holds the
>>> responsibility to sanction marriage by licensing laws.
>>>
>>> Majority rights with minority protections must be respected. But this
>>> canon does not mean that minority demands must not be questioned. To
>>> apply same-sex marriage to the 14th Amendment passed on behalf of
>>> freed slaves who were previously considered property and not citizens
>>> is intellectual malpractice. Every American has the same "equal
>>> protections" in civil/criminal law, contract and property rights.
>>>
>>> As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage
>>> rights. No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of
>>> the opposite sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in
>>> reproductive behaviors so as to conceive a child and start a family.
>>> [...]
>>
>>> rights. No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of
>>> the opposite sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in
>>> reproductive behaviors so as to conceive a child and start a family.
>>> [...]
>>
>> Very informative. Here are some of the many places the author fails.
>>
>> "Government sponsorship of marriage sanctions biological fact with a
>> legal commitment between a man and a woman to form a family, procreate
>> and raise children."
>>
>> There is no such legal commitment. If there was, infertile couples,
>> couples who do not wish to raise children, and couples to old to
>> procreate would not be granted a license to marry. Because those people
>> are permitted to marry, the argument fails. Ergo, the inability of
>> same-sex partners to procreate without the involvement of surrogates
>> should not be a barrier to marriage.
>
Don't have anything to say about this one, Dave?
>>
>> "Government sponsorship of marriage sanctions biological fact with a
>> legal commitment between a man and a woman to form a family, procreate
>> and raise children."
>>
>> There is no such legal commitment. If there was, infertile couples,
>> couples who do not wish to raise children, and couples to old to
>> procreate would not be granted a license to marry. Because those people
>> are permitted to marry, the argument fails. Ergo, the inability of
>> same-sex partners to procreate without the involvement of surrogates
>> should not be a barrier to marriage.
>
>
>> The author, Dean Kalahar, touts some statistics about the demographics
>> of homosexuals as though injustice shouldn't matter if it only applies
>> to a small number of people. Kalahar provides no links to the
>> sources of
>> any of his statistics.
>
> This is an opinion piece. How man opinion pieces cite sources?
>
Credible opinion pieces that use statistics as evidence cite their
>> The author, Dean Kalahar, touts some statistics about the demographics
>> of homosexuals as though injustice shouldn't matter if it only applies
>> to a small number of people. Kalahar provides no links to the
>> sources of
>> any of his statistics.
>
> This is an opinion piece. How man opinion pieces cite sources?
>
sources.
>
>> Kalahars's resistance to change is well established by the following
>> quote.
>>
>> "Was there some moment of enlightenment that befell humanity to
>> discover
>> that same-sex marriage was a right that had been ignored for centuries?
>> Or is it possible the thousands of years of marriage and family
>> institution stability settled any serious inquiry?"
>>
>> Does Kalahar accept the time honored tradition of 'one husband, many
>> wives'?
>
Or this one, Dave?
>> Kalahars's resistance to change is well established by the following
>> quote.
>>
>> "Was there some moment of enlightenment that befell humanity to
>> discover
>> that same-sex marriage was a right that had been ignored for centuries?
>> Or is it possible the thousands of years of marriage and family
>> institution stability settled any serious inquiry?"
>>
>> Does Kalahar accept the time honored tradition of 'one husband, many
>> wives'?
>
>
>> Kalahar also uses the same sort of argument as that used to deny mixed
>> race couples the right to marry.
>>
>> Kalahar also uses the same sort of argument as that used to deny mixed
>> race couples the right to marry.
>>
>> "As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage
>> rights.
>> No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the
>> opposite
>> sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive
>> behaviors
>> so as to conceive a child and start a family."
>
>> rights.
>> No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the
>> opposite
>> sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive
>> behaviors
>> so as to conceive a child and start a family."
>
> A rational approach if you see the marriage as the core of a family.
>
>
> As I said, I didn't expect to change any minds.
>
I do see marriage as the core of a family. That's why I want that core
>
to be available on an equal basis to all consenting adults aside from
very close relatives.
Dakota
Mar 21, 2013, 10:47:23 PM3/21/13
to
On 3/21/2013 12:27 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 03/21/2013 12:15 PM, raven1 wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:51:53 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
>> wrote:
>>
> On 03/21/2013 12:15 PM, raven1 wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:51:53 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> "As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage
>>>> rights.
>>>> No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the
>>>> opposite
>>>> sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive
>>>> behaviors
>>>> so as to conceive a child and start a family."
>>>
>>> A rational approach if you see the marriage as the core of a family.
>>
>>>> rights.
>>>> No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the
>>>> opposite
>>>> sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive
>>>> behaviors
>>>> so as to conceive a child and start a family."
>>>
>>> A rational approach if you see the marriage as the core of a family.
>>
>> A very poor argument, actually. If we disallow same-sex marriage on
>> this basis, we should also prohibit opposite-sex couples who either
>> cannot or do not intend to reproduce from marrying, for the same
>> reason.
>>
>> this basis, we should also prohibit opposite-sex couples who either
>> cannot or do not intend to reproduce from marrying, for the same
>> reason.
>>
>>> As I said, I didn't expect to change any minds.
>>
>>
>> You certainly won't with arguments like the above.
>
> The truth is that in these forums, no one's mind is changed. You like
> the rest of us have made up your mind that you are right, and no facts
> will change that.
>
Speak for yourself, Dave. I've often been disabused of false notions
>
> The truth is that in these forums, no one's mind is changed. You like
> the rest of us have made up your mind that you are right, and no facts
> will change that.
>
by well reasoned arguments here at alt.atheism.
Dakota
Mar 21, 2013, 10:56:58 PM3/21/13
to
there is a compelling reason to deny them. No compelling reason has
been put forward to deny same-sex partners the right to marry.
nature bats_last
Mar 21, 2013, 11:06:14 PM3/21/13
to
On Mar 21, 9:51 am, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 03/21/2013 11:20 AM, Dakota wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/21/2013 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> >> I don't expect this to change any minds, but the article does have
> >> some interesting statistics. Below are a couple of excerpts, I
> >> encourage all to read the entire article.
>
> >>http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_annulment_of_same-sex_marr...
> On 03/21/2013 11:20 AM, Dakota wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/21/2013 10:11 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> >> I don't expect this to change any minds, but the article does have
> >> some interesting statistics. Below are a couple of excerpts, I
> >> encourage all to read the entire article.
>
> >> As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage
> >> rights. No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of
> >> the opposite sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in
> >> reproductive behaviors so as to conceive a child and start a family.
> >> rights. No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of
> >> the opposite sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in
> >> reproductive behaviors so as to conceive a child and start a family.
> >> [...]
>
> > Very informative. Here are some of the many places the author fails.
>
> > "Government sponsorship of marriage sanctions biological fact with a
> > legal commitment between a man and a woman to form a family, procreate
> > and raise children."
>
> > There is no such legal commitment. If there was, infertile couples,
> > couples who do not wish to raise children, and couples to old to
> > procreate would not be granted a license to marry. Because those people
> > are permitted to marry, the argument fails. Ergo, the inability of
> > same-sex partners to procreate without the involvement of surrogates
> > should not be a barrier to marriage.
>
>
> > Very informative. Here are some of the many places the author fails.
>
> > "Government sponsorship of marriage sanctions biological fact with a
> > legal commitment between a man and a woman to form a family, procreate
> > and raise children."
>
> > There is no such legal commitment. If there was, infertile couples,
> > couples who do not wish to raise children, and couples to old to
> > procreate would not be granted a license to marry. Because those people
> > are permitted to marry, the argument fails. Ergo, the inability of
> > same-sex partners to procreate without the involvement of surrogates
> > should not be a barrier to marriage.
>
> > The author, Dean Kalahar, touts some statistics about the demographics
> > of homosexuals as though injustice shouldn't matter if it only applies
> > to a small number of people. Kalahar provides no links to the sources of
> > any of his statistics.
>
> This is an opinion piece. How man opinion pieces cite sources?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > of homosexuals as though injustice shouldn't matter if it only applies
> > to a small number of people. Kalahar provides no links to the sources of
> > any of his statistics.
>
> This is an opinion piece. How man opinion pieces cite sources?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kalahars's resistance to change is well established by the following quote.
>
> > "Was there some moment of enlightenment that befell humanity to discover
> > that same-sex marriage was a right that had been ignored for centuries?
> > Or is it possible the thousands of years of marriage and family
> > institution stability settled any serious inquiry?"
>
> > Does Kalahar accept the time honored tradition of 'one husband, many
> > wives'?
>
>
> > "Was there some moment of enlightenment that befell humanity to discover
> > that same-sex marriage was a right that had been ignored for centuries?
> > Or is it possible the thousands of years of marriage and family
> > institution stability settled any serious inquiry?"
>
> > Does Kalahar accept the time honored tradition of 'one husband, many
> > wives'?
>
> > Kalahar also uses the same sort of argument as that used to deny mixed
> > race couples the right to marry.
>
> > race couples the right to marry.
>
> > "As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage rights.
> > No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the opposite
> > sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive behaviors
> > so as to conceive a child and start a family."
;
> A rational approach if you see the marriage as the core of a family.
Is there some unfortunate but widespread
> > No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the opposite
> > sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive behaviors
> > so as to conceive a child and start a family."
;
> A rational approach if you see the marriage as the core of a family.
misconception that allowing gay marriage will
somehow bar heterosexual couples from marrying?
And even having kids?
NBL
wy
Mar 21, 2013, 11:12:02 PM3/21/13
to
a compelling enough reason? I'm sure Hartung would have a thing or
two to say about that to set you straight - if he can get past the
hodgepodge of thoughts he has about it and then manages to succeed at
elegantly articulating something out of them in a way that you might
be able to understand it ... if you stood upside down, backwards and
looked cock-eyed koo koo at his explanation.
David Hartung
Mar 21, 2013, 11:14:01 PM3/21/13
to
On 03/21/2013 08:24 PM, Alex W. wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:11:40 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
>> I don't expect this to change any minds, but the article does have some
>> interesting statistics. Below are a couple of excerpts, I encourage all
>> to read the entire article.
>>
>> http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_annulment_of_same-sex_marriage.html
>> [...]
>
> One quibble straight off: the percentages cited in that article
> are potentially misleading. Given that marriage is an adult
> affair and that sexuality is not fully established until nearing
> adulthood, it is not appropriate to give percentages based on the
> *entire* population of the US. As per the last census, a quarter
> of the US population is below the age of 18, so any percentages
> relating to the whole population need to be revised upwards.
Sexuality not fully established?
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:11:40 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
>> I don't expect this to change any minds, but the article does have some
>> interesting statistics. Below are a couple of excerpts, I encourage all
>> to read the entire article.
>>
>> http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_annulment_of_same-sex_marriage.html
>> [...]
>
> One quibble straight off: the percentages cited in that article
> are potentially misleading. Given that marriage is an adult
> affair and that sexuality is not fully established until nearing
> adulthood, it is not appropriate to give percentages based on the
> *entire* population of the US. As per the last census, a quarter
> of the US population is below the age of 18, so any percentages
> relating to the whole population need to be revised upwards.
What sort of garbage is that?
wy
Mar 21, 2013, 11:27:16 PM3/21/13
to
On 21 Mar, 23:14, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 03/21/2013 08:24 PM, Alex W. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:11:40 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
> >> I don't expect this to change any minds, but the article does have some
> >> interesting statistics. Below are a couple of excerpts, I encourage all
> >> to read the entire article.
>
> >>http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_annulment_of_same-sex_marr...
> On 03/21/2013 08:24 PM, Alex W. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:11:40 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
> >> I don't expect this to change any minds, but the article does have some
> >> interesting statistics. Below are a couple of excerpts, I encourage all
> >> to read the entire article.
>
> >> [...]
>
> > One quibble straight off: the percentages cited in that article
> > are potentially misleading. Given that marriage is an adult
> > affair and that sexuality is not fully established until nearing
> > adulthood, it is not appropriate to give percentages based on the
> > *entire* population of the US. As per the last census, a quarter
> > of the US population is below the age of 18, so any percentages
> > relating to the whole population need to be revised upwards.
>
> Sexuality not fully established?
>
> What sort of garbage is that?
How sexual is a 12-year-old compared to a 16-year-old compared to a 20-
>
> > One quibble straight off: the percentages cited in that article
> > are potentially misleading. Given that marriage is an adult
> > affair and that sexuality is not fully established until nearing
> > adulthood, it is not appropriate to give percentages based on the
> > *entire* population of the US. As per the last census, a quarter
> > of the US population is below the age of 18, so any percentages
> > relating to the whole population need to be revised upwards.
>
> Sexuality not fully established?
>
> What sort of garbage is that?
year-old and then compared to a 30-year-old? It's a learning process,
Hartung, something you obviously never went through.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Dakota
Mar 22, 2013, 1:56:39 AM3/22/13
to
thomas p.
Mar 22, 2013, 3:15:33 AM3/22/13
to
"David Hartung" <david@h0tm*il.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:buWdnVDwq6yU3tbM...@giganews.com...
that no facts will change our minds, yet you are the one ignoring attempts
to respond relevantly to your argument.
--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
news:buWdnVDwq6yU3tbM...@giganews.com...
> On 03/21/2013 12:15 PM, raven1 wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:51:53 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> "As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage
>>>> rights.
>>>> No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the
>>>> opposite
>>>> sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive
>>>> behaviors
>>>> so as to conceive a child and start a family."
>>>
>>> A rational approach if you see the marriage as the core of a family.
>>
>> A very poor argument, actually. If we disallow same-sex marriage on
>> this basis, we should also prohibit opposite-sex couples who either
>> cannot or do not intend to reproduce from marrying, for the same
>> reason.
>>
>>> As I said, I didn't expect to change any minds.
>>
>> You certainly won't with arguments like the above.
>
> The truth is that in these forums, no one's mind is changed. You like the
> rest of us have made up your mind that you are right, and no facts will
> change that.
>
A reason was given for rejecting your argument. You ignored it and insisted
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:51:53 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> "As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage
>>>> rights.
>>>> No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the
>>>> opposite
>>>> sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive
>>>> behaviors
>>>> so as to conceive a child and start a family."
>>>
>>> A rational approach if you see the marriage as the core of a family.
>>
>> A very poor argument, actually. If we disallow same-sex marriage on
>> this basis, we should also prohibit opposite-sex couples who either
>> cannot or do not intend to reproduce from marrying, for the same
>> reason.
>>
>>> As I said, I didn't expect to change any minds.
>>
>> You certainly won't with arguments like the above.
>
> The truth is that in these forums, no one's mind is changed. You like the
> rest of us have made up your mind that you are right, and no facts will
> change that.
>
that no facts will change our minds, yet you are the one ignoring attempts
to respond relevantly to your argument.
--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
thomas p.
Mar 22, 2013, 3:18:46 AM3/22/13
to
"David Hartung" <david@h0tm*il.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:a4qdnYuUHrPM1tbM...@giganews.com...
> On 03/21/2013 12:57 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>> In alt.atheism David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>> In alt.atheism David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
>>> On 03/21/2013 12:15 PM, raven1 wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:51:53 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> "As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage
>>>>>> rights.
>>>>>> No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the
>>>>>> opposite
>>>>>> sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive
>>>>>> behaviors
>>>>>> so as to conceive a child and start a family."
>>>>>
>>>>> A rational approach if you see the marriage as the core of a family.
>>>>
>>>> A very poor argument, actually. If we disallow same-sex marriage on
>>>> this basis, we should also prohibit opposite-sex couples who either
>>>> cannot or do not intend to reproduce from marrying, for the same
>>>> reason.
>>>>
>>>>> As I said, I didn't expect to change any minds.
>>>>
>>>> You certainly won't with arguments like the above.
>>>
>>> The truth is that in these forums, no one's mind is changed. You like
>>> the rest of us have made up your mind that you are right, and no facts
>>> will change that.
>>
>>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:51:53 -0500, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> "As for civil rights, every American has the exact same marriage
>>>>>> rights.
>>>>>> No law prohibits any man or woman from marrying a member of the
>>>>>> opposite
>>>>>> sex and, absent from medical reasons, engaging in reproductive
>>>>>> behaviors
>>>>>> so as to conceive a child and start a family."
>>>>>
>>>>> A rational approach if you see the marriage as the core of a family.
>>>>
>>>> A very poor argument, actually. If we disallow same-sex marriage on
>>>> this basis, we should also prohibit opposite-sex couples who either
>>>> cannot or do not intend to reproduce from marrying, for the same
>>>> reason.
>>>>
>>>>> As I said, I didn't expect to change any minds.
>>>>
>>>> You certainly won't with arguments like the above.
>>>
>>> The truth is that in these forums, no one's mind is changed. You like
>>> the rest of us have made up your mind that you are right, and no facts
>>> will change that.
>>
>> So far, you've presented no fact, simply a (in your own words) "opinion
>> piece".
>> When you get around to posting some facts, we'll consider them.
>
> I seriously doubt that.
>
> Facts were presented in this piece, you simply choose to not accept them,
>> piece".
>> When you get around to posting some facts, we'll consider them.
>
> I seriously doubt that.
>
> Facts were presented in this piece, you simply choose to not accept them,
> and give as your reason, the fact that the author did not source hie
> facts. You are the very stereotype of the Usenet poster.
>
First you claim that only opinions were offered so that asking for support
> facts. You are the very stereotype of the Usenet poster.
>
was not reasonable, but now you claim that facts were offered but imply that
it is wrong to ask for the sources. What actually was offered were
arguments based on unsupported assertions that were claimed to be facts.
linuxgal
Mar 22, 2013, 10:29:17 AM3/22/13
to
have sex with.
--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0
David Hartung
Mar 22, 2013, 9:45:49 AM3/22/13
to
orientation is something which we cannot control.
John Manning
Mar 22, 2013, 9:47:49 AM3/22/13
to
David Hartung
Mar 22, 2013, 10:38:51 AM3/22/13
to
in this forum so very often? The author published an opinion piece in a
journal of opinion, how is that bad?
wy
Mar 22, 2013, 10:52:37 AM3/22/13
to
findings?
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html
And never mind gays, you gotta wonder about how hermaphrodites even
materialize or how these aberrations of humanity ever got to see the
light of day:
http://hypervocal.com/culture/2012/blanche-dumas-juan-baptista-dos-santos-two-penises-vaginas/
Or why transgenders often go through the painful process of changing
their physical sex from one to the other because they don't feel like
the sex they were born as. You'd have to be going through some heavy-
duty psychological angst to do something that drastic and then
ultimately find happiness as the new old you.
It's all nature's aberrations on humanity, just as you're an
aberration compared to sane people and even some wackos.
Man of Mind
Mar 22, 2013, 11:01:42 AM3/22/13
to
On 3/22/2013 9:38 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 03/22/2013 08:47 AM, John Manning wrote:
..
> On 03/22/2013 08:47 AM, John Manning wrote:
>> 'American Thinker' is a notoriously fringe right wing rag.
>
> And just how is that worse than the notorious left wing sources
And what "notorious left wing sources" would you falsely be
>
> And just how is that worse than the notorious left wing sources
appealing to with your 'strawman' comparison?
--
"Conservatives have no ideas; just irritable mental
gestures which seek to resemble ideas"
-Lionel Trilling
David Hartung
Mar 22, 2013, 11:03:41 AM3/22/13
to
On 03/22/2013 10:01 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> On 3/22/2013 9:38 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 03/22/2013 08:47 AM, John Manning wrote:
> ..
>>> 'American Thinker' is a notoriously fringe right wing rag.
>>
>> And just how is that worse than the notorious left wing sources
>
> And what "notorious left wing sources" would you falsely be
> appealing to with your 'strawman' comparison?
I'm the one making "strawman" comparisons? You need to review the posting.
> On 3/22/2013 9:38 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 03/22/2013 08:47 AM, John Manning wrote:
> ..
>>> 'American Thinker' is a notoriously fringe right wing rag.
>>
>> And just how is that worse than the notorious left wing sources
>
> And what "notorious left wing sources" would you falsely be
> appealing to with your 'strawman' comparison?
wy
Mar 22, 2013, 11:09:09 AM3/22/13
to
On 22 Mar, 10:38, David Hartung <david@h0tm*il.com> wrote:
> On 03/22/2013 08:47 AM, John Manning wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/21/2013 10:24 PM, Alex W. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:11:40 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
> >>> I don't expect this to change any minds, but the article does have some
> >>> interesting statistics. Below are a couple of excerpts, I encourage all
> >>> to read the entire article.
>
> >>>http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_annulment_of_same-sex_marr...
> On 03/22/2013 08:47 AM, John Manning wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/21/2013 10:24 PM, Alex W. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:11:40 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
> >>> I don't expect this to change any minds, but the article does have some
> >>> interesting statistics. Below are a couple of excerpts, I encourage all
> >>> to read the entire article.
>
automatic right wingnut stamp of approval. I'd be a more serious
piece if it were published in a left wing journal, but then the editor
might have had to ask the writer to back up his sources, which would
put the writer in the position of actually having to defend any
erroneous information he wishes to present as fact or to actually
change his data because it doesn't fit his preconceived notion of what
is fact, which would only dilute his right wingnut message. So to
avoid all of that scrutiny, you go with your own kind where your own
kind will lap it up gullibly and unquestioningly as de facto fact.
Man of Mind
Mar 22, 2013, 11:29:09 AM3/22/13
to
On 3/22/2013 10:03 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 03/22/2013 10:01 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> On 3/22/2013 9:38 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 03/22/2013 08:47 AM, John Manning wrote:
....
> On 03/22/2013 10:01 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> On 3/22/2013 9:38 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 03/22/2013 08:47 AM, John Manning wrote:
>>>> 'American Thinker' is a notoriously fringe right wing rag.
>>>
>>> And just how is that worse than the notorious left wing sources
>>
>> And what "notorious left wing sources" would you falsely be
>> appealing to with your 'strawman' comparison?
>
> I'm the one making "strawman" comparisons?
Yup, and you've avoided the fact that American Stinker
>>>
>>> And just how is that worse than the notorious left wing sources
>>
>> And what "notorious left wing sources" would you falsely be
>> appealing to with your 'strawman' comparison?
>
> I'm the one making "strawman" comparisons?
is a notoriously fringe right wing publication..
John Manning
Mar 22, 2013, 11:42:25 AM3/22/13
to
On 3/22/2013 12:29 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> On 3/22/2013 10:03 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 03/22/2013 10:01 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2013 9:38 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 03/22/2013 08:47 AM, John Manning wrote:
> ....
>>>>> 'American Thinker' is a notoriously fringe right wing rag.
>>>>
>>>> And just how is that worse than the notorious left wing sources
>>>
>>> And what "notorious left wing sources" would you falsely be
>>> appealing to with your 'strawman' comparison?
>>
>> I'm the one making "strawman" comparisons?
>
> Yup, and you've avoided the fact that American Stinker
> is a notoriously fringe right wing publication..
>
Objective and credible sources seem to be unimportant
> On 3/22/2013 10:03 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 03/22/2013 10:01 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2013 9:38 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 03/22/2013 08:47 AM, John Manning wrote:
> ....
>>>>> 'American Thinker' is a notoriously fringe right wing rag.
>>>>
>>>> And just how is that worse than the notorious left wing sources
>>>
>>> And what "notorious left wing sources" would you falsely be
>>> appealing to with your 'strawman' comparison?
>>
>> I'm the one making "strawman" comparisons?
>
> Yup, and you've avoided the fact that American Stinker
> is a notoriously fringe right wing publication..
>
to Mr Hartung's perspective.
sully
Mar 22, 2013, 12:37:18 PM3/22/13
to
>
> Or why transgenders often go through the painful process of changing
> their physical sex from one to the other because they don't feel like
> the sex they were born as. You'd have to be going through some heavy-
> duty psychological angst to do something that drastic and then
> ultimately find happiness as the new old you.
>
> It's all nature's aberrations on humanity, just as you're an
> aberration compared to sane people and even some wackos.
Is extreme right wing thinking one of nature's aberrations?
> Or why transgenders often go through the painful process of changing
> their physical sex from one to the other because they don't feel like
> the sex they were born as. You'd have to be going through some heavy-
> duty psychological angst to do something that drastic and then
> ultimately find happiness as the new old you.
>
> It's all nature's aberrations on humanity, just as you're an
> aberration compared to sane people and even some wackos.
Free Lunch
Mar 22, 2013, 12:42:24 PM3/22/13
to
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 09:37:18 -0700 (PDT), sully <suls...@yahoo.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:
Thinking by an extreme right-winger is as rare as hen's teeth.
wrote in alt.atheism:
wy
Mar 22, 2013, 12:55:03 PM3/22/13
to
wy
Mar 22, 2013, 12:57:47 PM3/22/13
to
admitted "hodge podge thoughts" that he also admits he can't ever seem
to elegantly articulate to anyone's understanding. I guess that
pretty well says it all about him and how he thinks, in his own
words.
David Hartung
Mar 22, 2013, 2:16:32 PM3/22/13
to
The difference in brains does not speak to the cause of those
differences. In point of fact, there was research done years ago which
gave reason to believe male homosexuality might be due in part, to a
hormonal imbalance in the mother during pregnancy. This would make
homosexuality a disorder which we should treat.
David Hartung
Mar 22, 2013, 2:17:48 PM3/22/13
to
On 03/22/2013 10:29 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> On 3/22/2013 10:03 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 03/22/2013 10:01 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2013 9:38 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 03/22/2013 08:47 AM, John Manning wrote:
> ....
>>>>> 'American Thinker' is a notoriously fringe right wing rag.
>>>>
>>>> And just how is that worse than the notorious left wing sources
>>>
>>> And what "notorious left wing sources" would you falsely be
>>> appealing to with your 'strawman' comparison?
>>
>> I'm the one making "strawman" comparisons?
>
> Yup, and you've avoided the fact that American Stinker
> is a notoriously fringe right wing publication..
In you subjective opinion.
> On 3/22/2013 10:03 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 03/22/2013 10:01 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2013 9:38 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 03/22/2013 08:47 AM, John Manning wrote:
> ....
>>>>> 'American Thinker' is a notoriously fringe right wing rag.
>>>>
>>>> And just how is that worse than the notorious left wing sources
>>>
>>> And what "notorious left wing sources" would you falsely be
>>> appealing to with your 'strawman' comparison?
>>
>> I'm the one making "strawman" comparisons?
>
> Yup, and you've avoided the fact that American Stinker
> is a notoriously fringe right wing publication..
David Hartung
Mar 22, 2013, 2:18:22 PM3/22/13
to
sully
Mar 22, 2013, 2:59:39 PM3/22/13
to
The human genome has fewer active genes than an earthworm, which
was a huge surprise to researchers more than a decade ago when this
was seen.
What we've learned, is that environmental factors including what's
happening
in vitro cause great effect to our physiological makeups.
We know that how a child is nurtured affects the actual
brain development.
But before you decide it might be "treatable", I suggest you
go out and read the science about it first, and not reich wing
screeds from religious groups or conservapedia.
Just like we perceive by our senses that the world is likely
to be flat, we perceive that human sexuality is binary, it's
male or female. Instead, human sexuality is a
a rainbow of types, and not just human sexuality. This extends
to the animal kingdom as well, to creatures that seem not
to make conscious choices.
I also suggest, as others have here, to read up on cases of
androgyny. For many many years, our society HAS been
"treating" androgyny. They've done so with infant mutilation.
Come to some understanding of what people are really like
before you decide they must be 'fixed'. Else, when I
become czar of the world, I may decide to "fix" all right
wingers of their peculiar anti-social afflictions with well-placed
lobotomies.
In my younger days, I was a gay basher, typical macho
guy. Through my life meeting and getting to know many
gay men, who are as different from each other as I am from
them, I've not only learned tolerance, but have come to
appreciate who they are and the amazing gift many of them
bring to our society - I can't think of any of them I would
want to change.
I want to change people like YOU who make their lives
miserable.
I've been where you are at, I used to be a gay basher.
No, I'm not gay myself (many gay bashers are).
wy
Mar 22, 2013, 3:16:13 PM3/22/13
to
there's no wishful thinking conclusion of what causes homosexuality,
they're still studying the matter, so there's still no quick and easy
fix for it like hormone injections. If that were the case, all gays
would've been "cured" by now. Secondly, the Time article points to
the differences in the symmetry of brains between gays and straight
men and the similarities between gays and women. That symmetry is
something that can't be fixed.
Dakota
Mar 22, 2013, 3:35:54 PM3/22/13
to
Why do you suppose anyone would choose to be homosexual?
Dakota
Mar 22, 2013, 3:42:32 PM3/22/13
to
mean that homosexuality is a disorder.
It would, however, mean that homosexuality is not a choice thus
answering your earlier request for objective evidence. Here's what you
posted.
wy
Mar 22, 2013, 4:07:16 PM3/22/13
to
can be controlled, which includes switching at will, then I'd like to
see how easy it is for him to switch from being a heterosexual, or
more like asexual, to being gay, even just temporarily. If he has to
struggle with that one, you can only imagine the struggle that goes on
in a gay person's mind with "self-correction" if all he or she had to
do was merely "control" their sexual orientation.
David Hartung
Mar 22, 2013, 4:17:35 PM3/22/13
to
Man of Mind
Mar 22, 2013, 5:19:56 PM3/22/13
to
On 3/22/2013 12:17 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 03/22/2013 10:29 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> On 3/22/2013 10:03 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 03/22/2013 10:01 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2013 9:38 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 03/22/2013 08:47 AM, John Manning wrote:
......
> On 03/22/2013 10:29 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> On 3/22/2013 10:03 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 03/22/2013 10:01 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2013 9:38 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 03/22/2013 08:47 AM, John Manning wrote:
>>>>>> 'American Thinker' is a notoriously fringe right wing rag.
>>>>>
>>>>> And just how is that worse than the notorious left wing sources
>>>>
>>>> And what "notorious left wing sources" would you falsely be
>>>> appealing to with your 'strawman' comparison?
>>>
>>> I'm the one making "strawman" comparisons?
>>
>> Yup, and you've avoided the fact that American Stinker
>> is a notoriously fringe right wing publication..
>
> In you subjective opinion.
Nope, in my (and others) objective opinion..
>>>>>
>>>>> And just how is that worse than the notorious left wing sources
>>>>
>>>> And what "notorious left wing sources" would you falsely be
>>>> appealing to with your 'strawman' comparison?
>>>
>>> I'm the one making "strawman" comparisons?
>>
>> Yup, and you've avoided the fact that American Stinker
>> is a notoriously fringe right wing publication..
>
> In you subjective opinion.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Thinker
"American Thinker (AT) is a conservative daily internet
publication. According to it website, American Thinker
presents a "thoughtful exploration of issues of importance
to Americans."
There is ample evidence to support the notion that AT serves
as part of the right wing's echo chamber.
A good example of this can be found in a December 5th, 2007 piece
on the National Intelligence Estimate report on the state of Iran's
Nuclear weapon's program.
Writer Ed Lasky first refers to an Editorial in the New York
Sun inferring that the intelligence community is against
President Bush. Lasky concludes that "the National Intelligence
Estimate was cooked up by bureaucrats eager to embarrass George
Bush and transform US policy towards Iran." To substantiate
his argument he goes on to quote an editorial from the
Wall Street Journal which avers the authors of the NIE study
are: "former State Department officials with previous
reputations that should lead one to doubt their conclusions.
All three are ex-bureaucrats who, as is generally true of
State Department types, favor endless rounds of negotiation
and "diplomacy" and oppose confrontation. These three officials,
according to the Wall Street Journal, have 'reputations as
hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials'." This statement
"Hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials", restated as fact
in the AT article, is quoted and requoted by rightwing blogs
and news sources throughout the media.
Ultimately this type of statement winds up being echoed by
mainstream pundits such as Rush Limbaugh."
--
"Conservatives have no ideas; just irritable mental
-Lionel Trilling
John Manning
Mar 22, 2013, 4:46:21 PM3/22/13
to
right wing garbage that regularly spews from from 'American Thinker.'
The National Intelligence Estimate is in fact a summary of the
findings of the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.
"National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) are United States federal
government documents that are the authoritative assessment of the
Director of National Intelligence (DNI) on intelligence related to
a particular national security issue.
"NIEs are produced by the National Intelligence Council and express
the coordinated judgments of the United States Intelligence
Community, the group of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Estimate
David Hartung
Mar 22, 2013, 6:02:33 PM3/22/13
to
On 03/22/2013 04:19 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> On 3/22/2013 12:17 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 03/22/2013 10:29 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2013 10:03 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 03/22/2013 10:01 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>> On 3/22/2013 9:38 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/22/2013 08:47 AM, John Manning wrote:
> ......
>>>>>>> 'American Thinker' is a notoriously fringe right wing rag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And just how is that worse than the notorious left wing sources
>>>>>
>>>>> And what "notorious left wing sources" would you falsely be
>>>>> appealing to with your 'strawman' comparison?
>>>>
>>>> I'm the one making "strawman" comparisons?
>>>
>>> Yup, and you've avoided the fact that American Stinker
>>> is a notoriously fringe right wing publication..
>>
>> In you subjective opinion.
>
> Nope, in my (and others) objective opinion..
>
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Thinker
Source-watch is objective?
> On 3/22/2013 12:17 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 03/22/2013 10:29 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2013 10:03 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 03/22/2013 10:01 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>> On 3/22/2013 9:38 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/22/2013 08:47 AM, John Manning wrote:
> ......
>>>>>>> 'American Thinker' is a notoriously fringe right wing rag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And just how is that worse than the notorious left wing sources
>>>>>
>>>>> And what "notorious left wing sources" would you falsely be
>>>>> appealing to with your 'strawman' comparison?
>>>>
>>>> I'm the one making "strawman" comparisons?
>>>
>>> Yup, and you've avoided the fact that American Stinker
>>> is a notoriously fringe right wing publication..
>>
>> In you subjective opinion.
>
> Nope, in my (and others) objective opinion..
>
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Thinker
When did that happen?
wy
Mar 22, 2013, 6:04:17 PM3/22/13
to
irrelevant. That's like saying someone autistic can choose not to be
so, someone who's blind can choose not to be so, someone born as a
Siamese twin can choose to cut half of themselves off even if it just
might kill both of them. Choice. The solution to everything.
Hey, Hartung. Ever try choosing being smart over stupid? You can do
it. After all, it's easy, it's only choice that can make you that
way. So why do you persistently choose stupid over smart? Figure
that one out sometime. But oops, you'd have to choose to be smart to
figure that one out. Not that easy, is it?
wy
Mar 22, 2013, 6:05:29 PM3/22/13
to
Jeanne Douglas
Mar 22, 2013, 6:06:18 PM3/22/13
to
In article <kiibmr$3m1$2...@dont-email.me>, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:
Yeah, explain why so many gay teenagers are frantic t o find a way to
not be gay if being gay is something they chose. Some to the point of
suicide.
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
wrote:
not be gay if being gay is something they chose. Some to the point of
suicide.
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Man of Mind
Mar 22, 2013, 9:09:53 PM3/22/13
to
On 3/22/2013 4:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 03/22/2013 04:19 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> On 3/22/2013 12:17 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 03/22/2013 10:29 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2013 10:03 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 03/22/2013 10:01 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 9:38 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/22/2013 08:47 AM, John Manning wrote:
........
> On 03/22/2013 04:19 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> On 3/22/2013 12:17 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 03/22/2013 10:29 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2013 10:03 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 03/22/2013 10:01 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 9:38 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/22/2013 08:47 AM, John Manning wrote:
>>>>>>>> 'American Thinker' is a notoriously fringe right wing rag.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And just how is that worse than the notorious left wing sources
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what "notorious left wing sources" would you falsely be
>>>>>> appealing to with your 'strawman' comparison?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm the one making "strawman" comparisons?
>>>>
>>>> Yup, and you've avoided the fact that American Stinker
>>>> is a notoriously fringe right wing publication..
>>>
>>> In you subjective opinion.
>>
>> Nope, in my (and others) objective opinion..
>>
>> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Thinker
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And just how is that worse than the notorious left wing sources
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what "notorious left wing sources" would you falsely be
>>>>>> appealing to with your 'strawman' comparison?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm the one making "strawman" comparisons?
>>>>
>>>> Yup, and you've avoided the fact that American Stinker
>>>> is a notoriously fringe right wing publication..
>>>
>>> In you subjective opinion.
>>
>> Nope, in my (and others) objective opinion..
>>
>> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Thinker
Did you delete something?
Dakota
Mar 22, 2013, 9:16:23 PM3/22/13
to
snipped it from the post. In that claim, you weren't talking about
sexual acts. You were talking about sexual orientation. Here it is again.
Dakota
Mar 22, 2013, 9:19:27 PM3/22/13
to
nature bats_last
Mar 22, 2013, 10:32:36 PM3/22/13
to
morning and thought: hey, you know what? I think I'd like to
become a member of a despised minority"
NBL
David Hartung
Mar 22, 2013, 10:54:17 PM3/22/13
to
Man of Mind
Mar 22, 2013, 11:24:49 PM3/22/13
to
On 3/22/2013 9:54 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 03/22/2013 08:09 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> On 3/22/2013 4:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 03/22/2013 04:19 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2013 12:17 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 03/22/2013 10:29 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 10:03 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/22/2013 10:01 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 9:38 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 03/22/2013 08:47 AM, John Manning wrote:
..........
> On 03/22/2013 08:09 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> On 3/22/2013 4:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 03/22/2013 04:19 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2013 12:17 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 03/22/2013 10:29 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 10:03 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/22/2013 10:01 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 9:38 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 03/22/2013 08:47 AM, John Manning wrote:
to dismiss the source's objectivity by shooting the messenger..
How adroit of you.. /&^)
--
"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority
of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity
in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or
endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture."
--from Common Sense, by Thomas Paine
David Hartung
Mar 22, 2013, 11:37:33 PM3/22/13
to
Man of Mind
Mar 22, 2013, 11:52:15 PM3/22/13
to
On 3/22/2013 10:37 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 03/22/2013 10:24 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> On 3/22/2013 9:54 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 03/22/2013 08:09 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2013 4:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 03/22/2013 04:19 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 12:17 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/22/2013 10:29 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 10:03 AM, David Hartung wrote:
........
> On 03/22/2013 10:24 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> On 3/22/2013 9:54 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 03/22/2013 08:09 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2013 4:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 03/22/2013 04:19 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 12:17 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/22/2013 10:29 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 10:03 AM, David Hartung wrote:
In most cases, your 'messenger' was but a lie, dressed up in a
straw man suit, such as American Stinker, the Daily Squalor,
Whirled Nuts Dallied and Faux News (as Entertainment)..
And they were easy targets for my disgust with 'sheepublicans'..
thomas p.
Mar 23, 2013, 4:43:02 AM3/23/13
to
"David Hartung" <david@h0tm*il.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:i8KdnR4TjdAQ_dHM...@giganews.com...
choose to be gay for five minutes. See how easy that was?
--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
news:i8KdnR4TjdAQ_dHM...@giganews.com...
> On 03/22/2013 09:29 AM, linuxgal wrote:
>> Dakota wrote:
>>> On 3/21/2013 10:14 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 03/21/2013 08:24 PM, Alex W. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:11:40 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> One quibble straight off: the percentages cited in that article
>>>>> are potentially misleading. Given that marriage is an adult
>>>>> affair and that sexuality is not fully established until nearing
>>>>> adulthood, it is not appropriate to give percentages based on the
>>>>> *entire* population of the US. As per the last census, a quarter
>>>>> of the US population is below the age of 18, so any percentages
>>>>> relating to the whole population need to be revised upwards.
>>>>
>>>> Sexuality not fully established?
>>>>
>>>> What sort of garbage is that?
>>>>
>>> How old were you when you "chose" to be straight, Dave?
>>
>> I want a list of all the men he was attracted to that he chose not to
>> have sex with.
>
> While I would like to see objective data which demonstrates that sexual
> orientation is something which we cannot control.
>
You can demonstrate it to yourself. All you have to do is see if you can
>> Dakota wrote:
>>> On 3/21/2013 10:14 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 03/21/2013 08:24 PM, Alex W. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:11:40 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> One quibble straight off: the percentages cited in that article
>>>>> are potentially misleading. Given that marriage is an adult
>>>>> affair and that sexuality is not fully established until nearing
>>>>> adulthood, it is not appropriate to give percentages based on the
>>>>> *entire* population of the US. As per the last census, a quarter
>>>>> of the US population is below the age of 18, so any percentages
>>>>> relating to the whole population need to be revised upwards.
>>>>
>>>> Sexuality not fully established?
>>>>
>>>> What sort of garbage is that?
>>>>
>>> How old were you when you "chose" to be straight, Dave?
>>
>> I want a list of all the men he was attracted to that he chose not to
>> have sex with.
>
> While I would like to see objective data which demonstrates that sexual
> orientation is something which we cannot control.
>
choose to be gay for five minutes. See how easy that was?
--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
thomas p.
Mar 23, 2013, 4:45:04 AM3/23/13
to
"David Hartung" <david@h0tm*il.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:aK6dnSQW2r2cPdHM...@giganews.com...
thomas p.
Mar 23, 2013, 4:48:09 AM3/23/13
to
"David Hartung" <david@h0tm*il.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:T4udndBd7YrCIdHM...@giganews.com...
choose or that it is any of your business, or that it justifies
discrimination. Go ahead.
thomas p.
Mar 23, 2013, 4:51:54 AM3/23/13
to
"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:hlwdjsd2-F761A7...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
It seems likely that the very fact so many homophobes think it is a choice
is an example of projection, ie they have "chosen" to suppress their own
homosexuality and have "chosen" to be heterosexual.
>
> --
> JD
>
> "Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
news:hlwdjsd2-F761A7...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
is an example of projection, ie they have "chosen" to suppress their own
homosexuality and have "chosen" to be heterosexual.
>
> --
> JD
>
> "Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Jeanne Douglas
Mar 23, 2013, 5:31:06 AM3/23/13
to
In article <514d6d25$0$56789$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
Hmmm, very interesting point that I never thought of.
David Hartung
Mar 23, 2013, 7:21:15 AM3/23/13
to
Man of Mind
Mar 23, 2013, 9:46:08 AM3/23/13
to
On 3/23/2013 6:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 03/22/2013 10:52 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> On 3/22/2013 10:37 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 03/22/2013 10:24 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2013 9:54 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 03/22/2013 08:09 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 4:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:
.......
> On 03/22/2013 10:52 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> On 3/22/2013 10:37 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 03/22/2013 10:24 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2013 9:54 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 03/22/2013 08:09 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 4:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> Source-watch is objective?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you delete something?
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand
>>>>
>>>> So, in other words, you can't refute a single claim, and have
>>>> to dismiss the source's objectivity by shooting the messenger..
>>>
>>> Just as you have done
>>
>> That would be another 'false equivalency' on your part, David..
>>
>> In most cases, your 'messenger' was but a lie, dressed up in a
>> straw man suit, such as American Stinker, the Daily Squalor,
>> Whirled Nuts Dallied and Faux News (as Entertainment)..
>>
>> And they were easy targets for my disgust with 'sheepublicans'..
>
> And you continue.
Did you avoid the facts again?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you delete something?
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand
>>>>
>>>> So, in other words, you can't refute a single claim, and have
>>>> to dismiss the source's objectivity by shooting the messenger..
>>>
>>> Just as you have done
>>
>> That would be another 'false equivalency' on your part, David..
>>
>> In most cases, your 'messenger' was but a lie, dressed up in a
>> straw man suit, such as American Stinker, the Daily Squalor,
>> Whirled Nuts Dallied and Faux News (as Entertainment)..
>>
>> And they were easy targets for my disgust with 'sheepublicans'..
>
> And you continue.
David Hartung
Mar 23, 2013, 9:59:20 AM3/23/13
to
On 03/23/2013 08:46 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> On 3/23/2013 6:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 03/22/2013 10:52 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2013 10:37 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 03/22/2013 10:24 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>> On 3/22/2013 9:54 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/22/2013 08:09 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 4:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> .......
>>>>>>>> Source-watch is objective?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you delete something?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand
>>>>>
>>>>> So, in other words, you can't refute a single claim, and have
>>>>> to dismiss the source's objectivity by shooting the messenger..
>>>>
>>>> Just as you have done
>>>
>>> That would be another 'false equivalency' on your part, David..
>>>
>>> In most cases, your 'messenger' was but a lie, dressed up in a
>>> straw man suit, such as American Stinker, the Daily Squalor,
>>> Whirled Nuts Dallied and Faux News (as Entertainment)..
>>>
>>> And they were easy targets for my disgust with 'sheepublicans'..
>>
>> And you continue.
>
> Did you avoid the facts again?
>
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Thinker
No, I simply reject Sourcewatch as being any more credible than
> On 3/23/2013 6:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 03/22/2013 10:52 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2013 10:37 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 03/22/2013 10:24 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>> On 3/22/2013 9:54 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/22/2013 08:09 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 4:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> .......
>>>>>>>> Source-watch is objective?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you delete something?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand
>>>>>
>>>>> So, in other words, you can't refute a single claim, and have
>>>>> to dismiss the source's objectivity by shooting the messenger..
>>>>
>>>> Just as you have done
>>>
>>> That would be another 'false equivalency' on your part, David..
>>>
>>> In most cases, your 'messenger' was but a lie, dressed up in a
>>> straw man suit, such as American Stinker, the Daily Squalor,
>>> Whirled Nuts Dallied and Faux News (as Entertainment)..
>>>
>>> And they were easy targets for my disgust with 'sheepublicans'..
>>
>> And you continue.
>
> Did you avoid the facts again?
>
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Thinker
Americanthinker.
Man of Mind
Mar 23, 2013, 10:45:13 AM3/23/13
to
On 3/23/2013 8:59 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 03/23/2013 08:46 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> On 3/23/2013 6:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 03/22/2013 10:52 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2013 10:37 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 03/22/2013 10:24 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 9:54 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/22/2013 08:09 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 4:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:
.........
> On 03/23/2013 08:46 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> On 3/23/2013 6:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 03/22/2013 10:52 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2013 10:37 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 03/22/2013 10:24 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 9:54 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/22/2013 08:09 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 4:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Source-watch is objective?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did you delete something?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I understand
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, in other words, you can't refute a single claim, and have
>>>>>> to dismiss the source's objectivity by shooting the messenger..
>>>>>
>>>>> Just as you have done
>>>>
>>>> That would be another 'false equivalency' on your part, David..
>>>>
>>>> In most cases, your 'messenger' was but a lie, dressed up in a
>>>> straw man suit, such as American Stinker, the Daily Squalor,
>>>> Whirled Nuts Dallied and Faux News (as Entertainment)..
>>>>
>>>> And they were easy targets for my disgust with 'sheepublicans'..
>>>
>>> And you continue.
>>
>> Did you avoid the facts again?
>>
>> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Thinker
>
> No, I simply reject Sourcewatch
That's where we will have to agree to disagree. The text
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did you delete something?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I understand
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, in other words, you can't refute a single claim, and have
>>>>>> to dismiss the source's objectivity by shooting the messenger..
>>>>>
>>>>> Just as you have done
>>>>
>>>> That would be another 'false equivalency' on your part, David..
>>>>
>>>> In most cases, your 'messenger' was but a lie, dressed up in a
>>>> straw man suit, such as American Stinker, the Daily Squalor,
>>>> Whirled Nuts Dallied and Faux News (as Entertainment)..
>>>>
>>>> And they were easy targets for my disgust with 'sheepublicans'..
>>>
>>> And you continue.
>>
>> Did you avoid the facts again?
>>
>> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Thinker
>
> No, I simply reject Sourcewatch
that I quoted from SourceWatch amply explains why you
shouldn't trust "American Thinker" as being 'credible'..
That you deleted it and repeated your fallacy argument
is all I need to see from you to confirm this decision..
linuxgal
Mar 23, 2013, 11:48:20 AM3/23/13
to
thomas p. wrote:
> No it would not, anymore than left-handedness needs to be treated.
A Southpaw is a person with the "desire or behavior of preferring the
> No it would not, anymore than left-handedness needs to be treated.
use of the left hand". Left-handedness has a number of causal factors
that influence its ultimate origination in individuals, as well as a
variety of effects on society at large.
The word "sinister" is from the Latin for left, reflecting its evil
connotations. It is perhaps no coincidence that the socialists of the
Democratic Party refer to themselves as the Left.
In China the phrase "left path" stands for illegal or immoral means.
Although 13% of human beings openly choose the tragic Southpaw
lifestyle, many left-handed people remain in the closet in Muslim
countries due to the stigma associated with it there. Traditionally,
among desert nomads, the right hand was reserved for eating, while the
left hand was used exclusively to wipe bottoms. This could account for
the 53% correlation reported by the American Medican Association between
Southpaws and victims of anal cancer.
As late as the 20th Century there were "ex-Southpaw" ministries which
used aversion therapy to condition left-handed people away from their
tragic and filthy lifestyle choice. The high recidivism rate of
left-handedness can be laid at the door of the all-pervasive demonic
influence in the world. The only permanent solution is for Southpaws to
renounce their former lifestyle and accept the Lord Jesus Christ as
their personal Lord and Savior.
Prayer to receive him now:
"Jesus, I believe You are the Son of God and the Savior of the world.
Thank you for coming to Earth and dying so that I could have eternal
life. Please forgive all my sins. I am going to follow You with my life
now. Please fill me with Your Holy Spirit and direct my steps. In Jesus'
name, Amen."
--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0
wy
Mar 23, 2013, 10:50:27 AM3/23/13
to
as any more credible than American Thinker. Which means that
Sourcewatch is just as equally credible as American Thinker, so there
should be no reason for Hartung to deny the credibility of
Sourcewatch. Either that or both are just not credible since one is
no more credible than the other, according to Hartung. Yet, at the
same time, he gives American Thinker all the credibility he thinks it
deserves while negating Sourcewatch as credible, even though one isn't
more credible than the other, again according to Hartung. There goes
his hodgepodge thinking again that he can't elegantly articulate.
John Manning
Mar 23, 2013, 11:09:16 AM3/23/13
to
Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal - Questions Whether
It Is Latent Homosexuality Or A Response to Anxiety
Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia --the fear, anxiety, anger,
discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold
for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that
the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the
August issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the
American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical
evidence that is consistent with that theory.
Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment
involving 35 homophobic men and 29 non-homophobic men as measured
by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for
the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both
in terms of sexual arousal and experience.
Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli
consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but
not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was
measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures
and records male tumescence.
Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video
depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two
women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in
degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the
video depicting male homosexual sex: "The homophobic men showed a
significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual
video, but the control [non-homophobic] men did not."
Broken down further, the measurements showed that while 66% of the
non-homophobic group showed no significant tumescence while
watching the male homosexual video, only 20% of the homophobic
men showed little or no evidence of arousal. Similarly, while 24%
of the non-homophobic men showed definite tumescence while watching
the homosexual video, 54% of the homophobic men did.
When asked to give their own subjective assessment of the degree to
which they were aroused by watching each of the three videos, men in
both groups gave answers that tracked fairly closely with the results of
the objective physiological measurement, with one exception: the
homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by
the male homosexual video.
Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to
repressed homosexual urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their
findings are consistent with that theory, the authors note that
there is another, competing theoretical explanation: anxiety.
According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape
may have caused negative emotions (such as anxiety) in the
homophobic men, but not in the non-homophobic men.
As the authors note, "anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and
erection," and so it is also possible that "a response to homosexual
stimuli [in these men] is a function of the threat condition
rather than sexual arousal per se. These competing notions can
and should be evaluated by future research."
Reference:
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp 440-445.
Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?
by Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D.
and Bethany A. Lohr
Via: http://www.selfhelpmagazine.com/articles/glb/glbtphobia.html
Here are links to the paper and the questionnaire:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf
http://www.bgsu.edu/downloads/sa/file14259.pdf
Man of Mind
Mar 23, 2013, 11:29:45 AM3/23/13
to
On 3/23/2013 9:50 AM, wy wrote:
> On 23 Mar, 10:45, Man of Mind commented:
Yup, he contradicted himself with his fallacy argument..
I've seen this referred to as 'low-effort thinking', which
led to the tag-line I've appended to my sig-file now..
> On 23 Mar, 10:45, Man of Mind commented:
>> On 3/23/2013 8:59 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 03/23/2013 08:46 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>> On 3/23/2013 6:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 03/22/2013 10:52 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 10:37 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/22/2013 10:24 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 9:54 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 03/22/2013 08:09 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 4:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:
...........
>>> On 03/23/2013 08:46 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>> On 3/23/2013 6:21 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> On 03/22/2013 10:52 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 10:37 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/22/2013 10:24 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 9:54 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 03/22/2013 08:09 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2013 4:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:
I've seen this referred to as 'low-effort thinking', which
led to the tag-line I've appended to my sig-file now..
linuxgal
Mar 23, 2013, 1:50:40 PM3/23/13
to
David Hartung wrote:
> While I would like to see objective data which demonstrates that sexual
> orientation is something which we cannot control.
Me, I don't care if it is something we can control, or can't control, or
> While I would like to see objective data which demonstrates that sexual
> orientation is something which we cannot control.
some combination of the two. My sexuality is my business, and someone
else's sexuality is their business, and public policy needs to nose out.
Message has been deleted
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages