DanKroh

"Actually, Dan you're rather behind the times on your evolutionary socio-biology." No doubt I am. Haven't really explored the area in depth since doing a paper on it in graduate school. However, what I was referring to is the usual argument that homosexuality is not "natural" because it is rare among all animal species (but not as rare as used to be thought). To which I was pointing out that monogamy is actually more rare among all animal species. "The point I made earlier, that scientific naturalism can offer NO reason whatsoever for compassion toward, or rights for, homosexual

"If youre going to criticize any data presented DanKroh, you have to do so with evidence, not just your opinion. If you claim that Camerons work on adolescence and same sex marriage is faulty, youre going to need to prove it, Im not content to take your word for it. " No, I don't. Cameron is a hack. Don't take my word for it, just read some research that is not presented (or misquoted) by a biased religious-based group like FRC, FoF, or NARTH. Not interested in doing your homework for you, sorry. "Furthermore, I found it curious that you made no comment on the fact that the vast majo

OK, Ed, since you presume to know what God "wants". Here is a parallel statement to yours that is just as "valid". If God had wanted my son to live, his heart would have worked properly. Tell me, Ed, why did God want my son to die in infancy? Does that mean that the doctors defied God's will in fixing his heart so he could live? For the record, I don't think God gives a hoot about the pieces of paper (i.e. marriage licenses) that people pass out to each other. And if this is about marriage being a "Sacrament", then lets ban all marriages that aren't performed in Churches. A

"Or maybe because it just ain't natural?????" Neither is monogamy. Best put a stop to that, too. "Does marrying improve the longevity of heterosexual relationships? It can, but there are no guarantees!" That's right, no point in even letting them try. I've got it, lets pass a constitutional amendment banning divorce. That should protect the sanctity of marriage! "If God had wanted homosexuals to marry, men would be able to give birth & women would be able to impregnate each other!" That's one of the most inane things I've read in a long time.

"P. Cameron and K. Cameron, "Homosexual Parents," Adolescence 31 (1996): 772." That would be Paul and Kirk Cameron of the Family Research Institute, who have been ostracized from the APA for their incredibly biased research. "The adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to have been more sexually adventurous and less chaste." Less chaste than what? Than conservative parents who try to force (unsuccessfully) chastity balls on their daughters? I would bet if they were compared to heterosexual couples who are themselves more liberal in their sexual ideas, t

"This group that you so easily dismiss as a "boogie man", has been connected to most Gay rights propositions/issues throughout the US (including the UN)." Ahh, now we've moved on to guilt by association. "So, are you defending their claim to "Civil rights" too? Maybe you should explain to those not in the know what NAMBLA is and what it's goals are?" NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association, for those who really don't know what it is) originally had the goal of trying to reduce/eliminate the penalties for homosexual relations involving a minor and an adult, in effect, to

Congrats! That's really wonderful. I bet your pack is just bursting with pride (as they should be!)

"And your point about being knocked down over time, sadly may be true. Subgroups of the Anti-8 crowd are gaining acceptance, and soon "anything goes" will be acceptable (and legal). Here comes NAMBLA and God only know what else." Ahh, the slippery slope fallacy. When all else fails, pull out the NAMBLA boogieman. Sorry, but we've had same-sex marriage in Mass for 5 years now, and there still aren't people trying to marry pets or group marriages. Nor has fire and brimstone rained down from the sky. "In other words, anyoneregardless of their biological identitywill be welcome in the me

"But freedom of going into any doctors office in the land and not having to pay, unsure of." Except that is not what "guaranteed access to health care" is going to mean for most Americans. Let me tell you a little story. A few years ago, there was a Boy Scout delivering popcorn on his bike. He was hit by a pickup truck, and even though he was wearing a helmet, he suffered a catastrophic brain injury. His family was comfortable and incredibly average American. Three kids (all in scouts), a house, good jobs, and good health insurance. However, that young scout reached his *lifetim

"Do the research on George Soros and you will see how one can be both a liberal elitist and a socialist. You had no problem questioning whether money spent on political matters would not have been better spent helping the poor. When I suggested Soros money might be better doing the same, you chose to dodge the question." I didn't dodge the question. I don't know how George Soros spends his money now, so how can I comment on whether it would be better spent? However, I notice you dodged my question of what rights of yours you think he is working to take away. I don't know what causes the m

Hmm. I think I missed another bout of censoring. Lisabob, Thanks. That's interesting to know.

"I guess you've never heard of Prohibition (i.e. the 18th Amendment)" Ignoring the condescending tone, that did cross my mind, but I'm not sure I would consider drinking a "civil right" on the same scale as marriage. But I'll give that one to you. After all, we all know how well taking away that right was received by the public. Edited to add: Perhaps a better way of putting it would be: Never before, to the best of my knowledge, has a right that a group of people already had, *been taken away* by a vote of the majority, yet retained by another group. Marriage has only been take

" Yah, da problem, DanKroh, is that they never had the "right" in the first place, eh?" So, by that logic, blacks and whites don't *really* have the right to marry each other in Virginia, because that was determined by the courts, never by the people, right? edited to add: I should add that personally, I think going to the court is the wrong thing to do (regardless of whatever legal standing they think they have). I think patience is the key. As that older voting block dies off, so will the opposition to same-sex marriage. But I can also understand the impatience of not being willing

"Perhaps you won't be offended (but then again, to use your phrase- too bad), if I "suggest" that the liberal elite such as George Soros should "redistribute their wealth" rather than spend their millions upon millions of dollars trying to take away my rights? Joe Biden tells us it's patriotic to redistribute the wealth. But his charitable donations are next to nothing." I don't care what you think he (George Soros) should do with his money. Don't know much about him, other than a lot of right-wing publications making him out to be a boogieman, and honestly, I don't care. What rights of y

"What happened to the hey, the proposition "won", the people have spoken, its time to move on? If the people in California do not want same sex marriages to be recognized by the state, why involve the courts, when is the will of the people to be obeyed, Obama is president and when is it to be ignored, Prop 8?" Because some people feel that the civil rights of others are not something that everyone should be voting on in the first place. As I said, when do we get to vote on the validity of your marriage? If the people of Pennsylvania "spoke" tomorrow and decided that heterosexuals sho

"Meanwhile, millions of dollars that could have served a better purpose has been squandered by both sides. How sad." Careful skeptic, I just got accused of being a socialist for suggesting the same thing on another thread!

Narraticong, No where did I say that I should be able to tell Mormons, or any other Americans, where or how to spend their money. My objection is the political involvement in this piece of legislation of the Mormon Church. Doing so violated the spirit, even if the letter of a violation has been carefully danced around, the tax law that grants them tax-exempt status. Ahh, again with the Socialism meme... Never gets old, does it? If my suggestion that the money could have been better spent elsewhere offends... well, too bad.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

I'm sure you're right, Bob White. I'm sure the Mormon Church has carefully crafted a source for the $20 million dollars that they allegedly funneled into the Yes on 8 campaign that does not endanger their tax-exempt status. Personally, in these economic times, I find in incredibly sad that $70 million dollars was spent on an issue that will have absolutely no effect on a single heterosexual marriage. I wonder how many destitute people could have been fed, clothed, and housed with all that money....(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

"I don't see anything wrong with the LDS church giving their support to a political issue." How about it's a violation of their tax-exempt status? From IRS Publication 1828, Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations (benefits and responsibilities under the federal tax law) http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf "To qualify for tax-exempt status, such an organization must meet the following requirements (covered in greater detail throughout this publication): no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation" I assume the Mormon

Yes, OGE, very sure. In June of this year, Janice filed a lawsuit against the hospital, but it is not clear that they actually broke any laws in denying her access. Google Janice's name, and you will find lots of information, including Janice's own blog where you can read the story in her own words. The one good thing that came out of this tragedy within a tragedy is that Lisa's heart was able to save the life of Florida man, who now corresponds regularly with Janice. Knowing Lisa lives on in another has been a great comfort to Janice and the couple's four children.

In February 2007, Janice Langbehn was denied access to her partner Lisa Marie Pond, when Pond suffered a massive stroke onboard a cruise ship and was rushed to Jackson Memorial Hospital, where administrators refused to let Langbehn into the Pond's hospital room. A social worker told them they were in an "anti-gay city and state." Pond, 39, was pronounced dead of a brain aneurysm about 18 hours after being admitted to Jackson's Ryder Trauma Center. Langbehn said she was allowed in to see her partner only for about five minutes, as a priest gave Pond the last rites. I'm sure Janice con

"Why not compromise with a civil union that has all the rights of marriage, with a different name?" Because there is no such thing. Civil unions do not have "all the rights of marriage". Right now, even same-sex marriages (in MA and CT) don't have the same rights as heterosexual marriages. There are over 1000 federal benefits that heterosexual married couples receive that same-sex couples, even if they are married, don't receive. That number is even higher when comparing marriage to civil unions. What we need in this country is civil marriage as the standard contract. Then let a coup

Good one, Rythos, that gave me a chuckle. "That there's funny, right there..."

"Sounds like you have a personal stake in the issue." Yes, I do. And before you start trying to make puerile innuendos about my sexuality (oops, too late!), I have no plans to marry again. To anyone. But yes, I have a personal stake--my loved ones. My 24 year old nephew, who would like to marry someday and have children (probably by adoption; oh wait, not if he lives in Arkansas now). My sister-in-law, who would like to marry her partner of 15 years, but can't in PA. My own son, who, if he is gay, still deserves to marry the person he loves and bless me with grandchildren. He's one o

It's very sad to see prop 8 pass. I can't imagine how the couples who now face the possibility of having their marriages declared null and void must feel today. But there is one thing that gives me hope for marriage equality, and that is the enormous generation gap revealed by the exit polls. Yes, among the 30+ crowd, they supported Prop 8 by an average of 55% for 30-64 year olds, and by 60% for the 65+ group. However, among the under 30 crowd, 60% opposed Prop 8. The tide is shifting. Marriage equality won't come today in CA (or the rest of the country), but it will come someday. That is