DanKroh
Members-
Posts
809 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Store
Everything posted by 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, homosexuals remains true. From an purely non-religious evolutionary point of view, exterminating homosexuals makes perfect biological sense!" I seem to remember reading something a while back (and if anyone has more details, my memory is rather sketchy here), that the evolutionary basis of homosexuality is that they contribute to the care and feeding of the tribe without producing more mouths to feed themselves. However, the familial tendency to homosexuality is continued by the siblings, whom the homosexual man helps to insure the survival of. In any case, the percentage of the total population seems to be in a steady-state, which you wouldn't see if they were being evolutionarily selected against.
-
"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 majority of same sex couples are not monogamous. This fact is one of the cornerstones of traditional marriage, the failure of which is grounds for divorce in traditional marriage. Not so however, with a 21st century redefinition." Actually, I did comment. By saying it means nothing unless you compare it similar (i.e. non-married) heterosexual couples. But curiously, you didn't include any of those statistics. Well, here's a little quick and dirty math: since over 50% of "traditional marriages" end in divorce, and I'm sure somewhere out there are statistics on the number of marriages that actually survive infidelity by one member, not to mention the ones who never get married, I would bet that the vast majority of heterosexual couples are not really monogamous, either. "The proponents' efforts of same sex marriage has never been about equality or tolerance, it is to push an agenda of acceptance, not only of marriage between people of the same sex, but to redefine the rules within marriage such as fidelity, monogamy, child raising, etc. Homosexuals dont want to join the marriage club, they want to take it over." Ahh, smell the fearmongering. Yes, just as blacks "redefined marriage" in the mid 1900s. Obviously, they've "taken it over". Must be part of that elusive, conspiratorial "gay agenda" I keep hearing about. "This redefinition certainly would welcome verbal and physical abuse, drug use, intoxication, and incest as a normal and acceptable part of marriage." Again, since none of this has happened in the one state where marriage equality has existed for 5 years and counting, I find this claim completely specious. As for the rest of your cut and paste, I agree that homosexuals as a group have a higher incidence of mental illness, drug use, and everything else you mentioned. So would you if you were constantly told you were an "abomination" by society, by your parents, by your church, and everyone else around you. But don't confuse correlation with causation. There is no evidence that being homosexual inherently causes these things, but rather, there is much support that it is society's constant abuse of the self-esteem of every homosexual that leads to such a state.
-
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. After all, it's what God wants, right?
-
"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, there would be no measurable difference. "Few homosexual relationships last longer than two years" Again, how does this compare to heterosexual relations? What percentage of heterosexual relationships last longer than two years. Of course, to make it fair, we need to compare heterosexual relationships that *didn't* lead to marriage, since that is not an option for homosexuals in most places. To make one of those unable to offend observations, every heterosexual I know had multiple sexual partners before marriage, and the vast majority of those were less than 2 years. Also, did it occur to you that homosexual relationships are under quite a bit more strain from social pressures than heterosexual relationships? Don't you think the longevity would only be improved by allowing them to marry? Spewing out data is not convincing unless you provide something to compare it with.
-
"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 eliminate the age of consent. Now, I don't happen to agree with that goal, although I do recognize that there is a disparity between the penalties for a minor/adult consensual heterosexual situation and a minor/adult consensual homosexual situation, which is discriminatory and should be rectified. Furthermore, the organization has become a haven to sexual predators, which the organization has not been very strident in purging. For this reason as well, NAMBLA has been ostracized by every gay rights group. But as we have been so strongly reminded by this very thread, everyone has the right to freedom of speech to support any issue they like, even if their support is not wanted by the majority. So yes, they are the boogie man that is generally pulled out to fearmonger when the all other logical arguments fail.
-
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 mens or ladies room, including cross-dressers, men who self-identify as women, women who self-identify as men, and people who havent made up their minds." Just for your edification, here is the correct terminology: men who self-identify as women = transwomen, transgender women, or MTF (male-to-female transgender people) women who self-identify as men = transmen, transgender men, or FTM (female-to-male transgender people) "Do you not think that sexual predators will use this new law to their advantage?" Yeah, because people who are going into a bathroom to break the law are really going to be concerned that they aren't breaking the law by going into the wrong bathroom.... Again, we've had laws like this in Boston for years, and have not seen any evidence of "sexual predators using this law to their advantage".
-
Now... Eleven Executive Priorities for Obama
DanKroh replied to SCOUTER-Terry's topic in Issues & Politics
"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 *lifetime* maximum benefits from that health insurance a week into his care. A week he was not supposed to survive, but miraculously did. A week after that, the family faced the choice of continuing to assume financial responsibility for his care, and keeping their house. In the end, they had to make a choice to "abandon" him (a legal maneuver), so that he could continue to receive care, but not compromise their financial ability to care for their other children, both in the short and long term. I can't even begin to imagine the what it must have taken out of these wonderful parents to do that. This young man was not supposed to live. Then, he was never supposed to recover cognitive function. He was never supposed to be able to walk again. Well, a year after his accident, he went to some national eagle scout event, which he credits with being his inspiration, his goal to not only survive, but exceed all expectations of his recovery. Last year, I had the pleasure of attending Wood Badge with this remarkable young man, and hearing his story from his father. Parents shouldn't have to abandon their children to the state to make sure they have access to livesaving care. That is the type of care that should be a right to all individuals, not whether or not I can get a free flu shot at my doctor's office. -
"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 man supports except that obviously you think they are "liberal" ones, whatever that might mean. Honestly, I applaud those with money who choose to use it to donate to charities, and yes, do wish that those who don't would. But again, their money, their choice, not mine. "As to Biden, I have not "spun" any statement. Both he and Obama have made it clear they believe it is right to take money away from some and give it to others. This is a redistribution of wealth and is clearly socialist in nature. Personally I am a flat tax proponent. No deductions, no loopholes, everyone pays the same percentage. Our current tax system is socialistic. Obama just wants to make it more so. Not if I can help it." First of all, you are making some very broad assumptions about my politics, which I don't appreciate, from one issue I have commented on, that I support marriage equality. Others on this forum have said that they also think that money wasted on politics could be better spent helping others, yet I have not seen you attack them as you have me. Why is that? "As to you DanKroh, I don't know if you are a liberal elitist, but I think your ideas are clearly socialist. And that is fine. In America, you are entitled to your opinion and to persuade others to think likewise. I find it interesting that socialists in America shy away from labeling themselves as such. In other countries they have no problem." That's right. All you know about me from what I've said here is that I support same-sex marriage and equal rights for homosexuals. Perhaps that leads you to believe I am a liberal or a Democrat. You would be wrong on both counts. You are entitled to believe I am a socialist, but that doesn't make it so, either. I can't say I would be ashamed (as you intimate) to be called any of those things, but they would still be incorrect. Personally, I shy away from all labels, except the one that really counts... human being. "I am not sure what you are disappointed about, but I hope you get over it." I'm disappointed that you choose to fixate on one comment that I think money spent on politics could be better used elsewhere (and I feel that way about all money spent on politics, not just Prop 8), and attack me for it by making mistaken assumptions and using terms that lately carry a pejorative note in this country and on this forum. And honestly, sir, I'm disappointed to see such behavior coming from a self-avowed Eagle scout. But rest assured, I will get over it. But will you?
-
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 taken away from a minority group, not everyone.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)
-
" 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 to wait another 30 years.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)
-
"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 yours do you think he is trying to take away? Spin Biden's tax comment any way you want. I'm part of the majority here in MA that just voted to keep our state income tax, so I don't think taxes are a boogieman, either. "Urban churches did not even pretend to dance around the issue of who to vote for. Maybe not so much money raised (although we might be surprised), but lots of political clout and votes garnered. Do you have an opinion there?" Any church that publicly, officially endorses or opposes a candidate or a specific piece of legislation should be stripped of their tax-exempt status. Period. Churches should be in the business of shepherding spirits, not leading sheeple to the polls. That's my opinion, all $0.02 of it. "Socialism? If it walks like a duck..." Oh, wait, am I a liberal elitist or a socialist now? I guess there's nothing that says I can't be both. But only in your mind. Frankly, sir, I'm disappointed.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)
-
"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 shouldn't be allowed to get married, and that your marriage would now be void, your wife is a loose woman, and your children are bastards, would you personally (disregarding the fact that you are part of a 90% majority) sit back and accept it as the will of the people? I know I sure wouldn't. The two things are not the same. Not by a long shot. 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.
-
"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 Church currently enjoys federal tax-exempt status, yes? I'm not a tax lawyer (Beavah?), but it seems to me that legally, their tax-exempt status could now be revoked.
-
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 considers visitation rights a non-issue. Actually, I consider the biggest issues to be inheritance, denial of survivor benefits for social security, and taxing of health benefits for same-sex spouses. But I can't say I consider visitation rights to be "off the table"
-
"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 couple get the blessing of a Church if they feel the need (and the Church is willing). But the Church blessing should carry no weight in civil matters. Besides, sitting in the back of the bus is just as good as sitting in the front, right? At least they still get to ride the bus. What was Rosa Parks' problem anyway? (This message has been edited by DanKroh)
-
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 of the lucky ones; if he stays in MA, it won't be an issue, even though MA same-sex marriages still do not enjoy federal recognition and the resultant benefits. So yes, it's very personal for me. So when do we get to vote on the validity of *your* marriage?(This message has been edited by DanKroh)
-
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 my hope, that is my dream.