Words mean happiness?

I’ve been thinking about this same-sex marriage issue for a while now.  It seems to me that there is this idea floating out there among posts promoting same-sex marriage that the title “Marriage” is all that stands between these couples and true happiness, and that I personally am among those preventing their personal happiness.  I wonder about that.  What is it about the change in title that leads people to believe true happiness will result?

I guess my deeper question is, first, are gay communities deeply unhappy?  What causes happiness?  Are there fundamental, universal laws that dictate when happiness can be felt?  Or does it really boil down to a perceived deficiency in the gay community that they feel will be remedied by formal acceptance of their lifestyle as demonstrated by inclusion in the term “marriage?”

Words mean things.  What is it that is so valuable to the gay community that they feel the need to abrogate marriage?



  1. chickerpen04 said,

    October 11, 2008 at 7:47 am

    As a English major, I like this argument. Does one word really capture all the happiness that alludes some people? Usually, if you are not happy without something, you are not much happier with it. I also don’t see why the meaning of that exact word needs to change as well, as part of the ownership, for the rest of us.

  2. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 11, 2008 at 2:59 pm

    Equality under the law.

  3. beetlebabee said,

    October 11, 2008 at 3:23 pm

    They have equality under the law already. All men are free, to marry a woman and call it marriage. All women are free to marry a man and call it marriage.

  4. beetlebabee said,

    October 11, 2008 at 4:03 pm

    Chickerpeno, I’ve wondered the same thing, there’s this idea that without the term, “Marriage”, gay couples remain second class citizens, though there is no difference legally under state law between same sex partners and married couples. My thought was, why abrogate marriage? Why not build up and celebrate your own term?

    I think the answer is because it is more about acceptance and the legal power they will gain with the term marriage. If they celebrate their own term, they’re subject to people choosing which to believe is better. Legally, they are in a strong position to have their moral stance foisted on society if the law considers their position to be marriage. They have to work to convince society for acceptance. It’s easier to convince four judges than society as a whole.

  5. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 11, 2008 at 4:09 pm

    chickerpen04, if you’re an English major it’s time you learned the difference between the homophones allude and elude (sorry that’s a pet niggle of mine).

    beetlebabee, it’s disingenuous to claim that a homosexual’s freedom to marry a person of the opposite sex constitutes equality under the law. Necessarily, a homosexual’s choice of life partner is of the same sex.

  6. chouchou said,

    October 11, 2008 at 4:29 pm

    Don’t same-sex couples already have equality under the law with domestic partnerships? I have yet to hear someone explain what rights they are actually missing out on if they can’t get married. I don’t believe it is legal equality that gays and lesbians are seeking through marriage, I believe it is moral equality. How can you force moral equality on a majority that doesn’t agree with it without infringing on freedom of religion and free speech?

  7. beetlebabee said,

    October 11, 2008 at 4:35 pm

    I don’t think it’s disingenuous at all Tony. It is what it is, equality under the law. To view it otherwise would be adding personal preference into the argument. Personal preference has no place, just as in the case of a man desiring to be called “mother” who rails against society for the inequality imposed on him by society for denying him that name. Is he then discriminated against?

  8. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 11, 2008 at 6:31 pm

    California’s domestic-partner registration law does provide all state-level benefits, but denies same-sex partners benefits under federal law.

  9. beetlebabee said,

    October 11, 2008 at 8:02 pm

    “I don’t believe it is legal equality that gays and lesbians are seeking through marriage, I believe it is moral equality. “

    Chouchou, I think that’s exactly the point. I don’t know if you’ve been following California’s fight, but the way the gay movement has framed the argument, they’ve blockaded themselves from scrutiny under the shield of protective laws surrounding civil rights. The gay lifestyle and claim on marriage is not a civil right, but it does open a whole can of worms if prop 8 fails. The court’s decision will inevitably lead to conflicts with religious liberty and free speech rights. Society will become more and more hostile to traditional beliefs about marriage and family, all while gay rights activists remain wrapped in the banner of civil rights protected speech.

  10. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 11, 2008 at 8:48 pm

    Yes, moral equality is a good word for it.

    Freedom from religiously motivated attacks on their integrity.

    Freedom of speech isn’t in danger; rather, the ability to deny somebody their rights as a citizen is in danger.

  11. chouchou said,

    October 11, 2008 at 10:59 pm

    Tony, California can not provide federal benefits — that is a federal issue, beyond the scope of states. I keep hearing that “rights” are in danger, but nobody on the No on 8 campaign has yet said exactly which rights are in danger. I agree with Beetlebabee, “The court’s decision will inevitably lead to conflicts with religious liberty and free speech rights.” I feel freedom of speech and religion are in far greater jeopardy than any rights same-sex couples enjoy today.

  12. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 11, 2008 at 11:49 pm

    chouchou, you’re evading my point. Someone who lives in California now and works for a Californian company may be moved to Denver or Orlando or Philadelphia. So federal law does matter.

    On rights, those who advocate Proposition 8 openly express their wish to discriminate against homosexuals. They wrongly believe that Proposition 8 would give them that right.

  13. mommyspy said,

    October 12, 2008 at 1:23 am

    Freedom from religiously motivated attacks on their integrity.

    Tony, what do you mean by this?

  14. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 12, 2008 at 5:18 am

    mommyspy, thanks for asking.

    By that I mean people attacking them on religious grounds. From the top of my head, an example is the case where a New Mexico company, Elane Photography refused to take custom because they believed their religion entitled them to treat the potential customers like second class citizens on the grounds of their sexuality.

    The couple took them to court and won; they’ll always win clear cases of discrimination, like this. But they should not have been subjected to such treatment in the preparations for their wedding.

  15. beetlebabee said,

    October 12, 2008 at 6:08 am

    I guess I see that story, or at least a similar one, from the other viewpoint since my sister just recently went through a similar ordeal, from the photographer’s point of view. I think the tragic thing is this mistaken idea that homosexual tendencies are something people are born with, ergo they are entitled to civil rights protections. I believe homosexuality isn’t inborn, and that it is more of a moral choice. Either way, asking someone to do something against their religious convictions is one thing, one can always politely decline. Threatening them with lawsuits and force is quite another. Freedom to practice religion is one of the founding principles of this nation. Are we to throw it away to assuage the hurt feelings of a few who freely choose to act differently? Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are things worth fighting for. That is why I support proposition 8 whole heartedly.

  16. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 12, 2008 at 6:46 am

    If “freedom to practise religion” extends as far as infringing on someone’s rights outside a church, there’s obviously something deeply wrong with your religion’s interface with the outside world.

    So you’re probably in for a bumpy ride.

  17. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 12, 2008 at 6:48 am

    And as I remarked earlier, gay marriage isn’t even legal in New Mexico, where the offence occurred. Proposition 8 will not change things as you appear to think it will.

  18. beetlebabee said,

    October 12, 2008 at 7:27 am

    Since when is religion something that is restricted to the four walls of a church?

    Religion is a code of values, a way of life. A person’s character and morals cannot be merely checked at the door or set aside for the convenience of a snapshot.

  19. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 12, 2008 at 7:47 am

    Well, if your religion ends up with your mistreating others, you should probably consider changing your religion.

  20. beetlebabee said,

    October 12, 2008 at 8:40 am

    Hm, mistreating…that’s a leap. Which part of politely declining is mistreatment??

  21. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 12, 2008 at 12:12 pm

    “We do not photograph same-sex weddings. But thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day!”

    That’s treating people like second class citizens because they are gay.

  22. beetlebabee said,

    October 12, 2008 at 3:27 pm

    I guess I would have to disagree with you there. If you believed that gayness was similar to skin color or disability, I could see your point, but if, as I believe, it is asking someone to implicitly condone your moral choices by participating in a wedding they think is immoral, than the participation itself has moral implications that ought not be forced on anyone.

  23. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 13, 2008 at 12:12 am

    Irrespective of what you think of somebody else, you don’t get to infringe their rights. Labelling your wish to do so as a religious belief doesn’t make it any more acceptable.

  24. beetlebabee said,

    October 13, 2008 at 12:28 am

    You’re arguing in circles. The law is what we make it. Four judges decided one way, a majority of Californians decided another way. The issue is far from final. The purpose of the argument is to decide on the merits, what the law ought to be. In fact, you make my point perfectly, that people will have to walk around on eggshells, curtailing their beliefs and convictions in living fear of somehow having their actions construed as hate speech or discrimination. That’s not freedom.

  25. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 13, 2008 at 2:07 am

    You still haven’t got the message. Proposition 8 will not give religious people the right to discriminate against other people because their church tells them that those people are bad.

  26. beetlebabee said,

    October 13, 2008 at 3:50 am

    Proposition 8 will help clarify the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior by putting into the law only one definition of marriage. It may not be the panacea of all associated problems, but it is a step in the right direction. I am under no delusion that this is a one battle war. In addition, I have to say that I am surprised and somewhat offended that you would assume anything about my personal religion telling me people are bad. In fact, just the opposite, I steadfastly believe beyond any doubt, that all people are no less than children of God, no matter what their choices in life.

  27. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 13, 2008 at 3:54 am

    Defining marriage one way or another won’t in any way justify any infringement of rights.

    If you treat people badly because the church teaches you that they’re doing bad things, it doesn’t matter whether you think they’re children of God or not. You should stop treating them badly.

  28. beetlebabee said,

    October 13, 2008 at 4:02 am

    So, here’s the scrimmage line—what is meant by treating people badly? Looking at them wrong? Pulling a funny face? Declining to take a picture? Throwing the offensive bugger out in the snow? or burning crosses on the lawn? There are degrees and variations. How sensitive do you think the law should be? In my book, declining a business opportunity that forces me to condone by participation, an activity I morally object to, is well within my right to practice religion as I see fit. No one should force me to do morally objectionable things, even if it hurts their feelings because hurt feelings are not higher than freedoms.

  29. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 13, 2008 at 5:49 am

    New Mexico state law forbids discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender, age, religion, national origin, disability or sexual orientation.

    There is probably a similar law in California.

    Also see Matthew 22:21.

  30. KrazyDave said,

    October 15, 2008 at 3:17 am

    Tony, you are assuming a great deal about the teachings of the christian church that we belong to. Our church teaches us not to discriminate against gays, but to love them inspite of the the choices that they have made. Does that mean that we condone your practices? No it dosent, but we will hold to our moral standards and hope that you will allow us to do so in peace. If someone has treated you badly in the name of religion than they were wrong to do so. And that is not our intention. You quoted Mathew 22:21. I fail to see the reason why. Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s and unto God the things that are Gods. So why is the gay community trying to create laws that essentialy give the government the right to tell a religion what they can and cannot believe.

  31. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 15, 2008 at 3:29 am

    If you church teaches you not to discriminate against homosexuals then don’t do so.

    The laws you complain of don’t tell you what to believe. They enforce non-discrimination against homosexuals, which is supposedly something your church agrees with anyway. This is not about what you think in your head, it’s about whether or not you mistreat other people.

  32. beetlebabee said,

    October 15, 2008 at 3:44 am

    actually, what you are talking about is a definition we don’t agree on. The principle is the same, only the definition lacks defining on your side.

  33. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 15, 2008 at 4:17 am

    If I’ve omitted to define something I’m talking about, please identify it and I’ll correct my omission.

  34. beetlebabee said,

    October 15, 2008 at 4:35 am

    So, here’s the scrimmage line—what is meant by treating people badly? Looking at them wrong? Pulling a funny face? Declining to take a picture? Throwing the offensive bugger out in the snow? or burning crosses on the lawn? There are degrees and variations. How sensitive do you think the law should be?

  35. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 15, 2008 at 4:41 am

    In the Elane Photography case, the bad treatment was refusing to provide a service on grounds of the customer’s sexuality.

  36. KrazyDave said,

    October 15, 2008 at 6:09 pm

    What this is boiling down to is wether or not homosexuality is a civil or moral issue. We beleive it to be a moral issue and not a question of ones civil rights. Marriage has always been a religious principal. It is one of the most sacred institutions ever created for man. The government has no right, according to the United States Constitution to dictate to a religion where to stand on any given moral issue. That is freedom of religion. You cannot expect us to lay aside our standards just so that your feelings won’t be hurt. Because of the fact that we will not lay aside our convictions and religious beliefs, you are trying to get the government to force us to do so. That my friend is suppression of religion. Which is wrong.

  37. KrazyDave said,

    October 15, 2008 at 6:32 pm

    Tony, you keep talking about how discriminatory we are towards homosexuals. I disagree on that point. For one to discriminate against another is for them to believe that they are better than that person whom they have mistreated. This is not the case. I have known quite a few homosexuals, sat with them, laughed with them at meals. I have learned from them and they from me. I am not better than they are and they know it. But when it comes down to their sexual orientation, they also know that i dissaprove of thier actions. That I in no way condone their homosexual life style. That is not discrimination, it is moral conviction.

  38. beetlebabee said,

    October 15, 2008 at 7:17 pm

    Law is not concrete, it is subject to interpretation and is in constant change. You’re actually making one of my points for me. To have the law interpreted as the photographer’s case was, or in my sister’s case is wrong. I ought to have the right to practice my religion and shouldn’t be forced to provide services for others in a way that undermines that sacred belief. It goes to motivation. You believe the action is motivated by something that ought to be curtailed, I believe it is motivated by personal integrity. Proposition 8 will not change how everyone interprets every law, but it is a step in the right direction toward affirming religious people’s freedom of religion. Hurt feelings should never provide ground for denying someone their right to politely practice as they believe.

  39. beetlebabee said,

    October 15, 2008 at 9:23 pm

    So, not that this is a funny issue, but it is good to find a little humor in amongst the thorns sometimes. It does illustrate how changed the law can get.

  40. Leslie said,

    October 15, 2008 at 10:27 pm

    Tony, you seem to be unable to distinguish between the doctrines or teachings of a church or religion, and the ability or willingness of its’ membership to follow those doctrines. Christ taught love for all, and condemned the sin. If I feel that my church doctrine teaches that homosexuality is a sin, I can still love the person whom I feel is sinning. My children have done some pretty rotten things to each other, but I love them and they love each other.
    I’ve had gay friends all my life (I’m from Marin county, and worked in as an Interior Designer for years). They are people with strenths and weaknesses like anyone else. No big deal. But I still believe that marriage was ordained of God to unite a man and a woman. That is what my church teaches, and I support that doctrine with everything I have. To me, this does not conflict with how I feel about my gay friends and their struggle for acceptance. I can accept without condoning.

  41. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 16, 2008 at 12:55 am

    You can practise your religion up to the point at which you do harm to somebody else.

    If your religion tells you to do harm to somebody, and you practise it, you are in the wrong. It doesn’t matter what your religion says. You might think you’re saving this person’s soul but if you’re doing objective harm to them it’s wrong.

    Some people above have suggested that discrimination is about thinking you’re better than somebody else, and Christians don’t so it’s okay. That’s wrong. Discrimination is about doing harm. If you’re doing harm it doesn’t matter whether you think your victim is the same as or better than you, you still have to stop.

  42. KrazyDave said,

    October 16, 2008 at 1:34 am

    Discrimination means that a persons civil rights have been violated. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, it is a moral issue. People have the right to stand up and what they will and will not do based on thier moral values. If that offends you, I am sorry, but you are going to have to excercise a little of the tolerance that the gay community talks about but from what I see does not practice.

  43. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 16, 2008 at 2:11 am

    I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m talking about. Beetlebabee evidently believes that Proposition 8 will not only outlaw gay marriage but will restore a right he believes he once had to discriminate against homosexuals.

    Of course it won’t make any difference. However at this point he and one or two others are simply defending the right to discriminate against homosexuals.

    That is absurd of course. They have no such right. The Elane Photography case (in New Mexico but most likely it would have played out the same here) is the basis on which I’ve been arguing. Elane Photography don’t have the right to discriminate against homosexuals.

  44. beetlebabee said,

    October 16, 2008 at 2:26 am

    Actually, I said law was up to interpretation and that I disagreed with the interpretation in the photographer case. I believe that a person ought to have the right to decline to do something against their religious convictions. I believe if a doctor doesn’t want to perform abortions that he can still be a doctor and ought to be able to have a license. I believe that is what freedom of religion is all about, protecting our freedom to act in accordance with our beliefs. I believe that the photography case was a miscarriage of justice based on the idea that gays have civil rights above those of everyone else, I don’t believe they do. I am fighting for proposition 8 because it furthers the idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman, that gayness is not a civil right, there is no civil right protections for gays, just as there are not for those who choose to marry multiple people. Those are moral decisions that have no place in law. This fight is bigger than prop 8. It is about fighting the idea that gays are a protected class, whose protections outweigh other’s.

  45. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 16, 2008 at 5:17 am

    You state: “there is no civil right protection for gays”.

    That statement is flatly wrong. Antidiscrimination on grounds of sexuality is marbled right through the California Code.

  46. spencer said,

    October 16, 2008 at 5:22 am

    Proposition 8 is more than same sex marriage its about protecting our sons and daughters from growing up in a world that teaches that being gay or lesbian is just as normal as being straight. I don’t want my sons and daughters being taught as young as five years old in school that it is okay to marry someone of their same sex. It is about the principle of religion. And protecting what God has set up as the correct way to replenish the earth. It is marriage between a Man and a Woman. God set Adam and Eve on earth to have their posterity fill the whole earth. It goes contrary to the laws set up by God himself. I have nothing against gay or lesbian individuals. I believe they can live their life how they please. I am against the teachings that go against the teachings of God. And we must fight to protect God’s holy ordinance of Marriage between one man and one woman.

    Please go to http://www.protectmarriage.com to read more about the benefits of proposition 8.

  47. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 16, 2008 at 7:11 am

    Okay, let’s try another angle. Addressing Beetlebaybee.

    Suppose you were a professional photographer advertising wedding services, and one day you were asked to photograph a Hindu wedding. Would you refuse on religious grounds?

  48. beetlebabee said,

    October 16, 2008 at 8:30 am

    What is and what ought to be are where we currently diverge Tony. Recent interpretations favor gays over freedom of religion, I am a product of the current backlash to that trend. In the case where a person’s civil rights clash with another’s freedom of religion, there are some courts that take it as a win all or lose all proposition. I don’t think that has to be or ought to be the case, especially where alternatives are readily available. It is outrageous that this gay couple felt so hurt that they had to persecute this photographer when there are many others who have no issue that they could select.

    If I am to have freedoms in this country, I have to defend them. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are being trampled on in the hurry to accommodate the feelings of the few.


    It is heartening that through this discussion, at least you acknowledge that these issues are more than mere windmills, shadows of the not quite real.

    I found a great libertarian author. I thought it was truly just outstanding in the way she analyzed human tendency in issues of societal change, where the outcome is surmised but largely unknown.

  49. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 16, 2008 at 8:49 am

    I understand if you don’t want to answer my question about the Hindu wedding, but if you were able to address it directly I’d be most grateful.

  50. KrazyDave said,

    October 16, 2008 at 12:32 pm

    I am sorry Tony, but you dont answer questions, or respond to comments quite often. It’s a two way road buddy. You choose to ignore many of the things said here for whatever purpose I don’t know. But photographing a Hindu wedding would not be a problem for many of the people who support prop 8. They arent threatening to brainwash our children into beleiving that something which is wrong, is right. Homosexuality isn’t a religion, it is a group of individuals who are trying to force everyone to believe that the wrongs that they are commiting are socialy acceptable when again, it is wrong. If you want to know why it is wrong, look up and read spencer’s comment.

  51. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 16, 2008 at 12:49 pm

    I’ll take your response in lieu of Beetlebabee’s, KrazyDave.

    You respond that you wouldn’t have a problem with photographing a Hindu wedding.

    Can you anticipate what my comment on that will be?

    Well, it’s to quote the first and second commandments:

    You shall have no other gods before me

    You shall not make for yourself an idol

    A Hindu wedding involves gods other than the Christian God, and idols are widely used in Hindu worship.

    So here is a ceremony in which two people will be going against two of the ten commandments.

    Earlier you said “I in no way condone their homosexual life style. That is not discrimination, it is moral conviction.”

    If photographing a gay wedding is endorsing homosexual behavior, photographing a Hindu wedding is endorsing the worship of other gods and idols. The only difference appears to be that you don’t mind facilitating these people’s breach of the commandments.

    Can you see the inconsistency?

    You also argue that “Homosexuality…is a group of individuals who are trying to force everyone to believe that the wrongs that they are commiting are socialy acceptable when again, it is wrong.”

    That doesn’t make it okay to discriminate against people on grounds of their sexuality, does it? Any more than it would be for me to say “nah, I’m not going to photograph your wedding because I don’t agree with your religion.”

  52. KrazyDave said,

    October 16, 2008 at 4:04 pm

    You are comparing apples to oranges here. Hindu is a religion, Homosexuality is not. Trying to compare yourself to them is inaccurate. Be that as it may, It is up to each individual to decide for themselves on how they want to interact with each group.

    I agree that discrimination is wrong. Refusing to photograph a gay wedding is not discrimination. That is holding to a moral code.

  53. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 16, 2008 at 4:08 pm

    Who says I’m comparing myself to Hindus?

    But you do appear to agree that if I refused to photograph a wedding because I didn’t like Hindus or thought they were breaking some of God’s commandments, that would be wrong.

    Now suppose two homosexual Hindus come to me and ask me to photograph their wedding.

    It’s still the same situation, isn’t it? They’re still sinners.

    So would it be right to refuse to photograph their wedding, and if so why?

  54. KrazyDave said,

    October 16, 2008 at 4:14 pm

    Prop 8 is not about discriminating against homosexuals, it is about protecting marriage, family and our children.

  55. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 16, 2008 at 4:24 pm

    Have you decided not to answer the question?

  56. beetlebabee said,

    October 16, 2008 at 5:06 pm

    We’re all sinners at some level. I agree with Dave, you’re going down a path that is not identical. I may be unable to articulate precisely why without more thought but the question is interesting. Thanks.

  57. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 16, 2008 at 5:44 pm

    Well you may not be able to articulate it, but my tongue certainly isn’t tied and I have no problem saying that you’re in favor of discriminating against people on the basis of sexuality but not religion, and the moral stance is just a mask that peeled off pretty easily as soon as I mentioned hinduism with its idolatry and false gods.

    In California law, you aren’t allowed to discriminate on grounds of either religion or sexuality. Proposition 8 will not change that. It will not stop teachers teaching about relationships involving homosexual couples, families with homosexual couples, and so on. Those who say that you should support Proposition 8 to stop these things from happening are lying to you.

  58. KrazyDave said,

    October 16, 2008 at 7:12 pm

    You don’t seem to be paying atention to what I have already said. Read back carefully over what has already been written and you should find the answer to your question.
    Your last comment about prop 8 is false. Teachers within the state of california are instructed to teach about marriage and what it is. Prop 8 will define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This does not include homosexual couples. Therefore while they may teach about homosexuality, they will not be able to teach it as equal to or the same as marriage.
    One more thing to add, if homosexuality is taught in schools, it is not an apropriate subject for kindergardners or any elementry school age child. If it is to be covered as course content in our schools, it should at least wait until high school. And as with other sex education courses, parental consent should be given before such subject matter is discussed in a classroom.

  59. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 17, 2008 at 5:31 am

    Proposition 8 won’t stop teachers teaching about same-sex headed families. Proposition 8 won’t stop teachers teaching acceptance of homosexuality. Proposition won’t stop teachers teaching that a same-sex headed family is as worthy of human respect as a heterosexual family.

    If you believe it does, you’re wrong.

    You state that teaching about homosexuality is inappropriate in elementary schools and kindergartens. This is incorrect. Childen from the earliest schools may have schoolfriends whose families are headed by same-sex couples. They will thus be taught about same-sex couples.

    Proposition 8 cannot stop that.

  60. beetlebabee said,

    October 17, 2008 at 7:06 am

    Ultimately no set of laws can or should prevent human choice in behavior. You can’t control people into utopia. You can, however, enact laws that are in line with your values and help create a society that shares those values. Proposition 8 does all of those things. I support it, whole heartedly.

  61. KrazyDave said,

    October 17, 2008 at 10:52 am

    Shouldn’t that be up to the parents of those children to decide? As previously stated, parental consent should be obtained before such material is covered. This gives the choice to the parents of each individual child.

    As far as what prop 8 will do, I will repeat my earlier statment. while they may teach about homosexuality and homosexual families, they will, by law, not be the same as traditional families headed by a mother and a father. That is the whole point of prop 8. It is not to “deny rights” to homosexuals, it is not about discrimination in any way shape or form. It is about protecting our families and our children.

  62. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 17, 2008 at 2:08 pm

    KrazyDave, as I think I’ve pointed out elsewhere in discussions of this very subject on this blog site, in California law you have to be notified of such teaching and you have the option of opting out.

    Obviously Proposition 8 is about discrimination. It does not protect the family or children from anything, for they are not under attack from same-sex marriage. You can even live under the same roof as a same-sex married couple, but it won’t do you or your marriage a bit of harm. It isn’t catching and it isn’t toxic.

  63. beetlebabee said,

    October 17, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    You know, it’s interesting, this argument actually goes back to the original post about happiness. The gay lobby wants us to believe that this is all they want in the whole world, that all they need to be happy is a word, a name, a title. They used the same arguments before on other issues, why do you think they would stop now? I think the agenda goes further than just marriage and proposition 8, as I’ve been exploring in some of my newer posts. The more I learn, the more I’m convinced it’s the time to stand up and say “Enough!” Our rights and culture have been eroded too far.

    Here’s a key passage from the Wall Street Journal article I posted yesterday.

    Proposition 8–Who’s Really Lying:

    “Opponents of Proposition 8 are spending millions of dollars on television commercials telling voters that the Yes on 8 campaign’s claim that gay marriage will be taught in public schools is a lie. Yet a review of public records filed with the First District Court of Appeal in Boston shows these same organizations who claim our statement is a lie fought to make it true in Massachusetts.”

    It’s obvious when you look into it, that the fight for same sex marriage is just another step in the anti-family gay agenda. Perhaps it is just a radical few, but those radical few are laying the legal groundwork for chaos. It’s got to be stopped.

  64. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 17, 2008 at 4:39 pm

    Beetlebabee, you know that this is false. Homosexuals do not want words. They want equality under the law.

    They will get it if it takes a hundred years (which seems unlikely in this case–I think another generation will do it).

    The real lie here is that the homosexual agenda is in any way opposed the family. By attempting to restrict the meaning of the word family, the Christian right is attempting, however futile that attempt may be, to attack the legitimacy of homosexual-headed families, families fully accepting of homosexual members.

    Beetlebabee, do you seriously believe that a good school will not teach children about the world as it is? As I speak now, homosexuals have the right of adoption in Guam, Andorra, Belgium, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, South Africa, Spain, some parts of Australia, Canada, some parts of the United States, my own country, the United Kingdom, and several other countries. Children will be taught these facts whether you want it or not (though sadly you have the right in California to prevent your own child from being taught the reality).

    Now tell me how a “radical few” achieved this in so many countries. These are matters that have been openly discussed and passed in my own legislature. It’s almost completely uncontroversial.

  65. KrazyDave said,

    October 17, 2008 at 5:21 pm

    Tony, you stated earlier that homosexuality isnt in any way hurting families. In a spiritual sense it is. To us, the spiritual and social dangers are as dangerous as any physical threat. We beleive in moral standards that help us to guide us and our children throught this life, and this movment of yours threatens the very core of those beliefs. You may not believe that to be true, but to us, the mainstreaming of homosexuality poses one of the greatest threats to our families that this generation has ever seen. That you believe that the homosexual movment is not apposed to the family, well my friend you are being duped into a huge falsehood. Someday you will come to realise that. Time will tell.

    You want to know how a “racical few” acheived so much in so many countries? The same way as how it happned here in California, by manipulation of the law by corrupt judges who happen to be a part of these radical few. The people voted on this issue 8 years ago and it was wrong of the california supreme court judges to overturn what the voice of the people had passed by a large majority.

  66. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 17, 2008 at 5:40 pm

    The key phrase in your first paragraph is “to us”. The spiritual harm you talk about isn’t self-evident, it’s something you apparently derived from a particular, rather restrictive, reading of a particular holy book belonging to a particular religion.

    And you know what? Not even all Christians agree. The bishops of the Episcopal diocese of California have denounced Proposition 8.

    You’re completely wrong about the “radical few”. Even our Conservative Party, finding itself divided on the issue of gay adoption, permitted a free vote. The Labour Party, in government, had proposed it. The Liberal Democratic Party supported it.

    Judges played no part in the decision.

  67. KrazyDave said,

    October 17, 2008 at 6:57 pm

    The judges had everything to do with the decision, for it was they who made it. It was they who decided to overturn the voice of the people. I agree that others influenced that decision, but the responsibility of the action falls on them.
    You cited the bishops of the episcopal church, you picked one corrupt group of people to represent christians as a whole. That is a very inacurate and unfair representation. You will find that the overwhelming majority of christians from many different faiths(including many episcopals) have put aside thier religious differences in an overwhelming support of prop 8. It is true that Christians do not agree with each other on different points of doctrine, but with the exeption of only a few, they agree on their support of prop 8.

  68. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 17, 2008 at 7:26 pm

    I think you’re getting a bit mixed up, KrazyDave. If homosexual emancipation has been advanced solely by a “radical few” in California (which I doubt very much) extending this claim to say that homosexual emancipation has been advanced by a “radical few” in other countries is preposterous.

    The main political party supported it. The third political party supported it. The second political party leader supported it but the party was divided so they permitted free vote.

  69. beetlebabee said,

    October 17, 2008 at 10:30 pm

    On the question of the difference between a Hindu wedding and a Gay wedding– I was thinking a little on this today. Participating in a Hindu wedding is affirming the sanctity of marriage in my eyes. There is good in it that I can support. If my Hindu friends were to ask me to participate in something immoral, like bowing before an idol, I would have to refrain on religious grounds. That would be condoning an idea I disagree with. I don’t disagree with their marrying.

    In the case of the same sex marriage, I would object to the marriage itself as immoral, so participating in the marriage would be condoning immoral behavior, which I could not do.

    To discriminate is to make distinctions between things. We all make healthy discriminations based on this or that set of criteria. Immoral discrimination is when you make those distinctions based on a group or classification rather than individual merit. However, in this instance, the decision was based on the individual circumstances, not group affiliation.

    1. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
    2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

    Discrimination based on moral choices people make is inherently different than discrimination based on things that cannot be changed like skin color. You wouldn’t invite a pedophile to your daughter’s overnight birthday party. That would be a healthy discriminating choice based on the moral choices made by that person as an individual. It goes to the heart of Christ’s teachings, love the sinner, not the sin—don’t judge people, judge actions.

  70. beetlebabee said,

    October 17, 2008 at 11:00 pm

    “It’s obvious when you look into it, that the fight for same sex marriage is just another step in the anti-family gay agenda. Perhaps it is just a radical few, but those radical few are laying the legal groundwork for chaos. It’s got to be stopped.’

    A clarification on my earlier comment. I was being generous about the radical few. I actually think it is more than a few that fanatically hold and radically promote the anti family agenda. Whether it is few or many, it still needs to be stopped.

    Tony, what do you envision as societal utopia?

  71. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 18, 2008 at 5:54 am

    I don’t believe in Utopia. I am confident that within a generation people with toxic ideas like yours will be as rare in California as they are in my own country. I look forward to that day. The harm caused by ignorance and prejudice will have been reduced when you die out and your children repudiate your hateful beliefs.

  72. beetlebabee said,

    October 18, 2008 at 6:25 am

    Wow. Toxic, ignorant, hateful….By hateful, do you mean your reaction to my beliefs? Or the beliefs themselves, because honestly I’m not sure you are clear on my actual beliefs—you couldn’t be, given the context of this comment. Here I was just starting to enjoy our little banter–even though your icon has steam coming from your eyes…. I even went to your agnostic website and poked around a bit researching your views. Actually, I have to admit, you did pretty well the last sixty posts or so. Usually same sex marriage proponents start right off with the derogatory terminology in lieu of proper arguments.

    Deeply hurt feelings and sarcasm aside, about Utopia….everyone has an idea of what their ideal society would be like. It was an honest question. I wondered what you imagined yours would be, if you could have politically and socially, everything you dreamed of, how would it work? Where would it take us?—-Let’s say in fifty years, after the scene where you dance on my grave and my children all repudiate my farcical beliefs…

  73. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 18, 2008 at 7:47 am

    No, I refer to your hateful religious beliefs.

    I think there’s good evidence that those beliefs are dying out, too:

    A poll last month by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for PBS’s Religion and Ethics NewsWeekly found that 26 per cent of young white evangelicals support allowing same-sex couples to marry. Only 9 percent of white evangelicals over 30 favor granting same sex couples full marriage rights.

    It’s a generational shift.

    I repeat: I don’t think there is such a thing as an ideal society.

  74. beetlebabee said,

    October 18, 2008 at 8:10 am

    “I repeat: I don’t think there is such a thing as an ideal society.”

    You know, I wondered about that because I noticed that you’re at your best when tearing down other’s beliefs, but you never honestly put forth any of your own. It’s an intellectually lazy position to be in, the perennial rebellious teenager sort of thing. Everyone stands for something. I guess it reinforces in my mind the idea that we’re on some whim of a joyride in this gay agenda. Who’s driving the train and where are we going?

    The answer is as I suspected. It doesn’t matter because the betterment of society is not the agenda. The agenda is for the gay rights activists to have what they want at any cost, regardless of the price to society—or as Mayor Newsom says…”Whether you like it or not!”

    Anyway, I thought I’d ask.

  75. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 18, 2008 at 8:22 am

    No, the reason I don’t believe in utopias, ideal societies and whatnot is because all societies are compromises between competing needs, and the needs change over time.

    Far from failing to put forward alternatives to what I’m knocking down, I advocate full equality of homosexuals before the law.

  76. beetlebabee said,

    October 18, 2008 at 8:26 am

    “the reason I don’t believe in utopias, ideal societies and whatnot is because all societies are compromises between competing needs, and the needs change over time.”

    Is this a commonly held belief among agnostics? because you believe that there are no set moral laws and codes? or for some other reason?

    Among the alternatives you didn’t put forth were the potential applications of “full equality before the law” for homosexuals (not that I agree they are being robbed of any equality) and what they would look like in society. Forget the word Utopia. Surely you have some….. goals? Perhaps that’s not the right word either….maybe visualizations? I’m just wondering because, and I’m sure you’re aware, in the immensely diverse history of this earth, there has never been a successful gay society.

  77. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 18, 2008 at 8:44 am

    The statement that “societies are compromises between competing needs, and the needs change over time” is a historical observation.

    The US Declaration of Independence contains a particularly appropriate statement of the inalienable rights of man, which include: “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. This phrase was quoted by the US Supreme Court in the case Loving v. Virginia (1967) in which the noisome anti-miscegenation statutes were struck down. That declaration applies to homosexuals, too.

  78. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 18, 2008 at 8:47 am

    “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.” Judge Leon Bazile, Commonwealth of Virginia, 1959.

    “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” -Earl Warren, opinion, Supreme Court, 1967.

  79. beetlebabee said,

    October 18, 2008 at 9:06 am

    I don’t think you can compare one man’s skin to another man’s sin. They’re apples and oranges. By your logic polyamory, and any number of increasingly deviant lifestyles would have the same claim to marriage and society’s stamp of normalcy and approbation. There are differences between moral lifestyle choices and rights.

  80. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 18, 2008 at 10:01 am

    There you go again with that “sin” thing.

    I don’t see any problem with polyamory. What other “deviant lifestyle” were you thinking of?

  81. beetlebabee said,

    October 18, 2008 at 4:09 pm

    It’s a pandora’s box, once you start including moral choices as human rights you can include sex with anyone, sex with anything…the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) has been arguing for years to get the age of consent down so they can carry on with their pedophilia out in the open. If choices are now rights, who is to deny them their rights to carry on with the children of their choosing? Why they could very well be the next second class citizens to see the opportunity of “free equality for all under the law.” I use the term law there loosely, because it would not be the law as known today.

    The point is, all those things are lining up in the queue behind same sex marriage under the same rationalizations.

  82. beetlebabee said,

    October 18, 2008 at 4:20 pm

    Where are you from Tony? UK? I hadn’t asked before but this came up:

    I wondered what you thought of it. He’s basically showing that all the things we’re talking about are happening in the UK and warning the US not to be lulled into complacency by the rhetoric that it won’t affect our marriages. I think the analogy of flooding the market with fake dollar bills really makes the point. Marriage is devalued as an institution in the UK, but here, you were saying all was just peachy keen. So, are rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, items on your concern list? or do they fall under the costs of promoting the gay agenda at all costs?

  83. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 18, 2008 at 5:06 pm

    I don’t have sound at the moment.

    There are still some religious crazies around in the UK still but nobody listens to them.

  84. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 19, 2008 at 9:36 am

    I got my sound working. Mike Judge sounds most convincing when he says that legalization of Civil Partnerships (which he correctly describes as “gay marriage in all but name”) in the UK created an “intimidating atmosphere in which criticism of homosexuality can result in an investigation by the police.

    He mentions several names. These are: Joe and Helen Roberts, or the Bishop of Chester, or Lynette Burroughs, or Stephen Green and Iris Robinson MP. He also mentions, Lilian Ladele, a registrar of births, deaths and marriages at Islington Town Hall, who was nearly fired for refusing to register civil unions.

    Armed with the names, I took a closer look at the cases. The Roberts, Burroughs and Robinson cases, as well as that involving Peter R. Forster, the Bishop of Chester.

    In the Roberts case an over-eager council worker took exception at a poorly worded letter and called the police. They made an investigation (as they’re required to do in such cases of hate crime allegations) and decided that no crime had been committed.

    In the Chester case the Bishop said, in a newspaper interview in the Chester Chronicle: “Some people who are primarily homosexual can reorientate themselves. I would encourage them to consider that as an option, but I would not set myself up as a medical specialist on the subject — that’s in the area of psychiatric health.” A repugnant opinion, certainly, but having an unpopular opinion is hardly a crime. The Chief Constable of Cheshire Police criticised him and pledged to investigate whether he had engaged in a hate crime. The Crown Prosecution Service told them that of course he hadn’t.

    Fulham Police investigated an incident in which, on a radio programme, Lynette Burrows implied that all gay adoptive parents were potential child molesters.

    An evangelical Christian, Stephen Green, distributed anti-gay pamphlets at a lesbian and gay festival in Cardiff attended by 40,000 people. He was arrested and charged with “using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.” This is a standard public order offence. The charge was later dropped; the Crown Prosecution Service cited insufficience of evidence.

    Iris Robinson, MP for Strangford in Northern Ireland, After a homophobic attack had been made on a gay man, she made grossly insensitive comments about homosexuality, and like the Bishop of Chester she recommended psychiatry.. When asked about her statements she made things worse by saying “Just as a murderer can be redeemed by the blood of Christ, so can a homosexual…” Over 100 separate complaints were made to the police about her comments.

    While under investigation, the “accident-prone” Ms Robinson made things much worse by saying “There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent children”. She said this in Stormont and later in the Belfast Telegraph.

    Needless to say the police had to investigate these complaints.

    Whilst I can see that these complaints can be seen as intimidation, there is a clear pattern of religiously motivated denigration of homosexuals. It isn’t what I would call any kind of crime, but it is obviously inflammatory and, equally obviously, deliberately so.

    These people are in effect complaining that people are complaining about the repugnant attacks. I’m not convinced by their antics.

    The Lilian Ladele case, I’m sad to say, was one in which a registrar successfully got away with refusing to do part of her job. She should obviously find another job if for personal reasons she finds herself unwilling to do what she is paid for.

    This all takes place against a backdrop of serious intimidation, physical and verbal attacks sometimes encompassing murder, on homosexuals, primarily justified by the hateful and loathsome words about homosexuality in the bible.

  85. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 19, 2008 at 9:43 am

    And before we get completely off the subject, I’d just like to point out that none of the above incidents seem to have had much at all to do with gay marriage. Just as passing Proposition 8 will not change the status of teaching about families in California schools, if the UK had not passed the Civil Partnership Act there would still be many people in the UK, gay and straight, who find the statements of religious people about homosexuality to be beyond that acceptable in civil discourse.

  86. beetlebabee said,

    October 19, 2008 at 10:04 am

    The whole concept of “thought police” is wrong. People ought to be free to think and speak as they choose. It appears to me that the bulk of these cases presented show exactly the correct point that these people were harassed by the state for personal opinions, not actions.

    In the case of the registrar, it seems reasonable for her to request an alternative in the situation that she would be asked to step across the line of her personal morals, especially when there are others for whom it is not a problem. We do that sort of thing all the time for handicapped employment, or for Muslim prayer times, or for Jewish holidays, there’s no reason to be rigid in this other than to break down this woman for her private beliefs, which hurt no one.

    If the UK is having a hard time with people being hurt, they should focus on that. Bodily harm, property harm, STEALING MY YARD SIGNS!!! those are all things the state ought to be involved in, hurt feelings?? No.

  87. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 19, 2008 at 10:38 am

    A lot of this is down to the differing approaches to free speech in the UK and the US. We don’t have a First Amendment with a history of very generous interpretation.

    In the UK we recognise that a lot of the physical harm that happens to homosexuals is due to the indoctrination that is done by religious people. Misguided people hurt and kill homosexuals believing that they are doing God’s work. In calling them abominations and saying that they deserve death, Christians bear an unacknowledged responsibility for this.

    So concentrating on how people express themselves does have the result of making the UK a much more peaceful society than many US states.

    This is really the end-point of a long journey. When, forty years ago, homosexuals still hid from view, they were the subject of frequent attacks and their behavior was criminalized. As they banded together and stood up, or “came out”, social atttitudes changed, and the laws changed with them. At this point, it is widely recognized that a return to the previous state of affairs would be objectively wrong because it would cause needless injuries and death, and millions of lives lived in pain, ignorance and misery. This is the legacy of religion in our country.

    Homosexuals now have full equality before the law in the UK and attempts to stuff them back into the closet are rightly resisted (and as we’ve seen above, there is sometimes an overreaction).

    Homosexuals will soon have full equality before the law in California, too, and increasingly across the USA. You can’t stop it with Proposition 8.

    I agree, reluctantly, that Lillian Ladele’s conscience could be accommodated. Another registrar could take the ceremony. Where the decision is wrong, in my opinion, is that her conscience in this cases leads to her treating others as second-class citizens. As a representative of the state, she should in now way ever be permitted to do that on work time.

  88. lahona said,

    October 19, 2008 at 11:13 am

    Homosexuals already have full equality under the law in california. The Whole prop 8 issue is to ensure that Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. This is not a civil rights issue, if it were, then the inequality would exist. This is a moral issue, therefore no inequality under the law exists by denying gays the title of marriage.

    I agree that people who hurt or kill homosexuals are misguided. And whats worse is that these people do it in the name of God and Christianity when their actions do not reflect the doctrine of Christ at all. It is frustrating when an entire religion is misinterpreted because of the actions of a misguided few.

  89. beetlebabee said,

    October 19, 2008 at 6:24 pm

    Hm. I smell a fallacy. So, all religious people are responsible for the actions of the fringe few like all homosexuals are responsible for the actions of pedophiles….right? Let’s see how that plays out in your statement with the roles reversed:

    In California we recognize that a lot of the physical harm that happens to children is due to the actions of pedophiles. Misguided pedophiles hurt and kill children believing that they are doing will make them happy. In calling them normal and saying that they deserve to be equal in their expressions, Homosexuals bear an unacknowledged responsibility for this.

    So refusing to normalize homosexuals’ socially deviant behavior does have the result of making California a much more peaceful society than the UK.”

    Were I to say such a thing, you’d rant and rave about discrimination. So, under your definitions, we’re the intolerant ones and you’re not?

  90. lahona said,

    October 19, 2008 at 8:40 pm

    It’s called a double standard. Hypocrisy is a better word for it. I know that it sounds harsh, but truth isn’t known for sugarcoating anything.

  91. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 20, 2008 at 3:52 am

    You can’t say “Homosexuals have equal rights in California” and in the next breath say they shouldn’t be able to marry one another.

    I recognize that most religious people do not condone any harm done to homosexuals. However those who continue to endorse parts of their scripture that advocate harm to homosexuals bear a responsibility for their actions in doing so. They should disown those scriptures, or at least avoid quoting them.

    Beetlebabee’s attempt to draw a link between homosexuality and pedophilia is unworthy of him and I shall ignore it for the sake of a more reasonable discussion.

  92. beetlebabee said,

    October 20, 2008 at 8:04 am

    It’s absolutely relevant. You’re avoiding your fallacious argument. Your reasoning can’t rest on a fallacious argument like that. Turn it around and try it again and you can see it doesn’t hold up. It’s just like the claim that all Muslims bear “unacknowledged responsibility” for terrorist attacks. Actions of the few are not equal to actions of the group. If that’s what your argument is for curtailing the religious liberties of the many, then your argument falls flat.

  93. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 20, 2008 at 8:17 am

    It is a fact that Christians promote verses of the bible advocating the violent suppression of homosexuality.

    It is not a fact that homosexuality is related to pedophilia.

    The attempt to draw a parallel between these issues is demeaning, but that’s not the point: it also fails to deflect my criticism of Christians who cite those bible verses.

  94. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 20, 2008 at 8:19 am

    I advocare no curtailment of religious liberty. Christians must, however, obey the laws that other people do. They don’t get to disobey the law simply because of their religious beliefs.

  95. beetlebabee said,

    October 20, 2008 at 8:32 am

    and if the law you advocate curtails their religious liberty? Isn’t the law just an outgrowth of anti-religious sentiment? What in the law makes it so infallible?

  96. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 20, 2008 at 9:13 am

    The law isn’t infallible, but if the law says we must respect one another’s rights and avoid attacking them or denying them equal treatment, on grounds of sexuality, we should all obey it.

    Moaning that your rights to express your religion by denying someone else their human rights isn’t going to convince anybody, frankly.

  97. lahona said,

    October 20, 2008 at 9:30 am

    “You can’t say “Homosexuals have equal rights in California” and in the next breath say they shouldn’t be able to marry one another.”

    I can say this because it is true. You ignored the rest of my comment. If the title of marriage were a civil right, then what you say would be true. However, marriage is a privlege, not a right.

  98. lahona said,

    October 20, 2008 at 10:05 am

    Tony, this information disproves your claim that homosexuality has no relation to pedophilia. Enjoy!

    Homosexuals are 10-25 times more likely to be child molestors.

    The number of homosexuals in essentially all surveys is less than 3%. (Statistics Canada found only 1% of the population who described themselves as homosexual.) However, the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%. (Blanchard R et al. Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2000; 29: 463-78.) Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10-25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations.

    Another more extensive survey was done of lots of other studies. Don’t be misled by the typo in the beginning paragraph, it unfortunately claims the opposite of what they are trying to show. I think it was just a mistake in the quote that they make as the rest of the paper makes clear.

  99. lahona said,

    October 20, 2008 at 5:07 pm

    Tony I am curious as to your thoughts on the above information.

  100. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 21, 2008 at 1:44 am

    See Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation at Dr. Gregory Herek’s page on sexual orientation,science and policy, ant the University of California at Davis.

    Who is Gregory Herek, you ask?

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Herek (Wikipedia)

    See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_toward_homosexuality#Association_with_child_abuse_and_pedophilia

    Paradoxically, most men who molest boys appear to be predominantly attracted to women.

  101. lahona said,

    October 21, 2008 at 10:00 am

    Tony, you are talking numbers. I am talking about percentages. Those with homosexual tendencies represent a very small percentage of the population. If they only represented a small part of the molestation cases, then there would be no link between the two. However, homosexuals represent 25% of molestation cases. Therefore, there is a definite link between Homosexual and pedophil tendencies. It is the same situation in teenage drivers. They represent some 15% of drivers in America, but are involved with almost 30% of the traffic accidents that occure. That is why so much focus is directed at teen drivers.

    Now I went to your links that you have posted. The information that I have is not Generalization, its not trying to make a scapegoat out of the gay community. I am only stating that there appears to be an alarming coralation btw homosexuals and pediphiles. Based on statistical research.

    Now lets go back to the comment that started this. It is unfair to lay the actions of a few misguided people who mistreat gays in the name of religion at the feet of the entire religious community. At the same time we do not blame all homosexuals for the actions of those homosexuals who molest children.
    You stated that there was no relation between the two. I provided studies showing that there is. Now we can move on.

  102. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 21, 2008 at 11:55 am

    lahona, I’m talking about the key question: are homosexuals more likely to be child molesters.

    The answer, based on methodical scientific research, is “no”.

    Now to get back to the original point: you cannot claim that homosexuals have equal rights and then say they should not be permitted to marry.

  103. lahona said,

    October 21, 2008 at 2:08 pm

    you didnt even look at the research did you…. oh well.

    Marriage is not a right. There is a definition for marriage that has stood for thousands of years…Between a man and a woman. If you cannot meet that criteria, than you cannot get married, plain and simple.

  104. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 22, 2008 at 2:54 am

    Of course I looked at the “research”.

    I countered with actual scientific research.

    You’re obviously quibbling when you say that marriage is not a right. The United States is a signatory (indeed was a principal drafter) to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which includes the right to marry.

  105. lahona said,

    October 22, 2008 at 4:13 am

    Both your research and mine appear to be scientific, we will just have to agree to dissagree on that point.

    ” Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.” -Universal Declaration of Human rights.”

    This does not include sexual preference. They were refering to marriage between a man and a woman. That is what the definition of marriage has always been. The right of a man and a woman to marry, is given to all, including those with homosexual tendancies. They can marry heterosexualy because that is what marriage is. So yes you are correct, marriage is a right. however unions between homosexuals is not marriage by deffinition because it doesn’t meet that deffinition. Therefore it is not a right.

  106. lahona said,

    October 22, 2008 at 4:16 am

    Tony I have to thankyou for that last comment, it helped me to clarify a few things. Nothing like a good healthy debate to gain a clearer understanding of your own views.

  107. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 22, 2008 at 6:21 am

    The UN declaration says nothing about sexual preference. It does not specifically define marriage–the form of marriage is not the same from country to country and changes over time.

    It does, however, list marriage as a right, and so we’re agreed on that.

  108. lahona said,

    October 27, 2008 at 3:18 am

    Yes marriage is a right. However “Gay marriage” is not because it doesn’t meet the definition of marriage.

  109. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 27, 2008 at 4:57 am

    The definition of marriage changes from time to time and from place to place; some biblical marriages are polygamous, for instance.

  110. lahona said,

    October 27, 2008 at 10:15 am

    Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. That has never changed. Polygomous marriages still meet the definition of “between man and woman”.

  111. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 28, 2008 at 10:58 pm

    Child marriages are not between a man and a woman. But then if you think polygamy involves only a man and a woman you’ll swallow the idea that an infant is a man or a woman.

  112. beetlebabee said,

    October 29, 2008 at 11:45 am

    As we’ve talked about before Tony, all adults have the privilege of marrying an adult of the opposite sex under US law, however, they do not have the privilege of marrying indiscriminately according to sexual preference or number preference, or many other preferences they may have. That is a choice, not a right. True rights are not choices, they are inherent. Children for instance have rights that come before adult rights of sexual preference.

    I’ve been looking into the French study done two years ago where France rejected same sex marriage because they found it violated a child’s inherent right to a mother and a father.

    “Referring to the rights of children as a human rights issue, the report argued that children ‘now have rights and to systematically give preference to adult aspirations over respect for these rights is not possible any more.’”

    In the report, the commission says that “the child represents the future of society.” The commission asks legislators to make sure that “children, confronted with mutations in family models, be fully taken into account and not suffer from situations imposed upon them by adults.” It adds: “The interest of the child must take precedence over adults’ exercise of their freedom (…) including with regards to parents’ lifestyle choices.”


  113. beetlebabee said,

    October 29, 2008 at 9:01 pm

    An Analogy:

    A man walks into a restaurant. He goes up to the counter and without looking at the menu orders a double bacon cheeseburger.

    The woman behind the counter smiles pleasantly and says, “Oh, I’m sorry. This is a vegetarian restaurant. We don’t serve meat here. However, there is a restaurant next door that does and one across the street that does as well. Also, just around the corner there is a restaurant that serves a bacon double cheeseburger that has been rated as the best in the whole state.”

    The man is irritated and says, “But I want to have one here. How can you judge me for eating meat?! You are discriminating against me for my choice to eat meat!!”

    The woman says, “No, I am not judging you at all. I feel that we all have the right to believe whatever we want. However, I feel that it is wrong to kill animals for food. I recognize that not everyone believes this. I have no problem with people who choose to eat meat, nor do I try to force my opinions on them. I have no desire to take away other people’s right to eat meat. I have simply made the decision that I will not serve meat at my restaurant. After all, I have spent a lot of time and money building up my restaurant. I feel that I should have the choice as to what I serve here.”

    The man is very angry. Red faced he leaves the restaurant yelling, “I have the right to eat meat!”

    One week later the man comes back to the vegetarian restaurant. He has a court order forcing the woman to serve the man a bacon double cheeseburger, even though she does not believe in eating meat.

    “What about my right to believe that eating meat is wrong?” asks the woman, incredulous that she is being forced to do something that goes against her beliefs. “It doesn’t harm this man for me to believe that, and I have given him several other options of places that will happily make him a cheeseburger.”

    You may think this story is silly and absurd. Of course nobody would ever force a person who has a moral belief against eating meat to cook a cheeseburger for them!

    1) Isn’t a society more diverse if it has people who believe entirely different things but have a mutual respect for one another? Yes. Diversity does not mean that we are all forced to eat the same thing or live the same way. It means that we create an environment where we can appreciate and love each other in spite of our differences. We can work together in the areas we are like-minded, and agree to disagree in the areas where we are not.

    2) Just by the fact that the woman chooses not to cook the man a cheeseburger, does that mean that she hates him? Does it mean she wants to force him to stop eating meat? No. She understands that she has a different belief, and she knows that there are many places he can get a cheeseburger, which she is fine with. She is not trying to force the restaurants that serve meat to close their doors.

    3) Shouldn’t the woman have more tolerance for the man by cooking him a cheeseburger? According to http://www.dictionary.com, Tolerance is defined as “a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.” This means that the woman should be tolerant of the man’s beliefs and desires by permitting him to have a cheeseburger elsewhere. Likewise, the man should be tolerant of the woman by permitting her to serve only vegetarian food in her restaurant. If there is nowhere for the man to get a cheeseburger, then we have a problem. If the woman is forced to cook cheeseburgers, then we have a problem. We need to foster an environment of mutual tolerance. That means tolerance for BOTH sides of the issue. Not a one-sided tolerance where the attitude is, “if you don’t believe what I do you are foolish, hateful, mean, intolerant, etc…”

    So it is with the marriage debate. I should not be forced to compromise my deeply held views because of yours. Thanks to Lisa for this post… http://lisalongll.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/an-analogy/

  114. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 30, 2008 at 6:26 am

    That was a very long story and I’m not clear what you’re trying to say with it.

    You have falsely claimed that you would be required to compromise your toxic, harmful views. On the contrary, you may retain your views. You may not, however, use them as an excuse to cause harm to other people.

  115. beetlebabee said,

    October 30, 2008 at 9:30 am

    I like it because it demonstrates quite clearly why the argument is not about civil rights, it is about moral choices and freedoms. If the law backs up one side of a moral issue and demonizes the other (as you frequently do), that is an infringement upon freedoms. It’s not an issue of civil rights, we all have the right to marry already. Gays in this state even have the right to all the legal benefits available to married couples under civil union and partner laws. This isn’t a civil rights issue, it’s a moral one. To have the gay community usurping the name of marriage and claiming an open definition, is clearly an attack on family in this country and an attempt at gaining wide acceptance for their unfortunate moral choices. Families must stand up in defense of their freedoms or lose them. It’s actually pretty simple.

  116. lahona said,

    October 30, 2008 at 10:57 am

    beettlebabee, good story, It describes the whole situation perfectly. If Tony doesn’t understand it, it is because he chooses not to. If he did understand it he would have to admit the wrongness of gay activists in seeking to redefine marriage. If for some reason Tony simply doesn’t get it then the following explaination should work. Marriage is our vegitarian restaurant, gay marriage is tony’s bacon cheeseburger. If he wants one, there are other institutions that serve bacon cheeseburgers. It is rediculous to believe that a restaurant should be forced to serve something that is not on the menu. So it is here, When it comes to Marriage, gay marriage is just not on the menu.

    (just so we are clear, I am not trying to demonize double bacon hamburgers, I think they are great!)

  117. Tony Sidaway said,

    October 30, 2008 at 4:40 pm

    I give up. You’re convinced that that diseased, suppurating ancient book gives you the right to harm others. It’s pure, unmitigated spite.

  118. beetlebabee said,

    October 30, 2008 at 11:19 pm

    There’s a scripture that I love, that talks about seeking learning by study and also by faith. I think it’s key. I have never presented to you an argument based solely on my religious faith. I find it interesting that you choose to bash these beliefs, when actually it’s only a very small part of the overall discussion. An important part yes, but only one of the pieces of the puzzle.

    Yet more curious is that in the middle of all this bashing language is the idea that I am the spiteful hateful one. Ironic isn’t it?

  119. lahona said,

    October 31, 2008 at 4:53 am

    If you choose to give up on this conversation that we have been having, thats fine. Go back and read our comments. They have not been hatefull, spitefull, or bigoted. Your giving up will be because you cannot find arguments to refute our own, not because we have been hatefull.

    My “ancient book”, is what has taught me not to hate. It has taught me to control my passions and to love others even though they may be different from me in thier beliefs. You speak of tolerance, that is the definition of it. To accept people for who they are when they are different than you for any reason. It does not mean I have to accept what they do, or how they are, again, that is what tolerance is. Do I think less of any person because they are homosexual or because of any other weakness? Of course not. My scripture has taught me to love them in spite of the differences that exist between us. Tony, I have enjoyed this conversation very much, you have helped me to polish my arguments and beliefs so that in the future, I can give better responses to others who ask questions of me on this topic. So I thankyou for that. As to our conversation here, if you wish to continue, that is fine. But if you wish it to end, then we may just have to agree to dissagree and move on. I wish you the best and perhaps we will run into each other on other blogs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: