Wednesday, December 07, 2011

Bestiality now OK in the U.S. military?

The Obama administration recently announced that they will use foreign aid to promote gay rights overseas

To the Obama administration, gay rights is apparently more important than true human rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech or freedom of the press (we keep giving billions of dollars to nations that regularly suppress these rights).

And speaking of homosexuality, in their efforts to support homosexuality in the military, the U.S. Senate recently overturned a provision in the U.S. Code of military justice that prohibits bestiality!  Apparently "alternative lifestyles" also includes having sex with dogs and goats now! 

What's next? Acceptance of pedophilia and incest as "alternative lifestyles"? Oh, I know--some will mock such an idea. But only 30 years ago the idea that homosexual sex would not only be accepted but promoted in our public schools, would have been considered outrageous. Until now, the idea that our Congress would allow bestiality in the military would have been mocked. And yet, here we are.

21 comments:

Sonia said...

Gay rights are human rights. Considering that gays exist in every society...

Dennis said...

Sonia,

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that whatever characteristic or behaviors exist in every society must be a human right?

Would you say the same thing about pedophilia or kleptomania?

Sonia said...

First off, bestiality or incest in no way hinders someones ability to serve in the military. To say that we should not let them serve because we do not agree with what they do is like not allowing liars into the military because what they do is "sin." What they do outside of the military is their own business, and it an example of government going to far when it decides it will infringe on people's privacy.

Second, gay rights, such as gay marriage is an extention of freedom of religion. The entire argument against homosexuality is a religous one, and freedom of religion should cover it. Homosexuality in no way hinders or infringes on anyone else rights or lives. They have the right to love and be with who they want, de facto, and de jure.

To address your point in your last comment, I am not suggesting we accept all behaviors in society as human rights. Being gay is very different from being a pedophile or a kleptomaniac. How does being gay harm anyone else? How does being gay hurt someone elses marriage or someone elses life? It doesn't. Pedophilia tramitizes children and treats them as objects for our sexual enjoyment. Obviously very bad things, illegal as well as morally. A similar argument can be made about about kleptomaniacs. So don't try and equate them as the same as homosexuality. They are not. It is a non sequitar argument, your conclusion about homosexuality does not follow any logical claims you make about linking it to other behavoirs.

Homosexuality is a human right because it doesn't harm anyone else and it is part of who they are. They have no choice in being gay. If you believe it is a choice, you obviously do not know anything about the modern scientifical views on the subject, and therefore it is useless to try and argue that point. It is the same reasons why we don't and shouldn't discriminate against women, blacks, latinos, or anyone else just because of a trait that is completely out of their control.

Dennis said...

Sonia,

Your thoughtful post requires a longer response than Blogger allows so I will have to make several posts.

You argued that bestiality or incest doesn’t hinder someone’s ability to serve in the military.

First, this misses the point. The point of our military is not to serve the service men and women—it is to serve the country. There are military people who argue that having openly gay people in the barracks and battlefield hinders our military’s ability to serve the country. You can disagree with their position but the fact is that gays serving openly in the military was something forced on the military for political reasons—not because everyone agreed that it would be good for the military.

Second, no one is arguing against gays serving in the military anymore. The argument is over Bill Clinton’s policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” In other words, the argument is over gays flaunting their homosexuality in public in the military.

You say that what gays do on their own time is their business and that the government is going too far by infringing on their privacy. First, if you are concerned about privacy, what about the privacy of the straight people in the barracks who have to shower with people who are sexually attracted to them?

Second, because the behavior of military personnel off base may reflect positively or negatively on the military, the government does not think it is going too far to regulate—to some degree—the behavior of military personnel off base.

You argued that gay rights is an extension of freedom of religion since the whole argument against homosexuality is a religious one.

First, that is factually in error. There are also serious legal, financial, social, and public health arguments against various aspects of gay rights.

Second, do you think incest should also be protected under freedom of religion since much of the argument against incest is a religious one?

Third, Freedom of Religion covers freedom of religious expression. There are no major religions (or even minor religions that I know of) in which sex with people of the same sex is part of the approved religious tradition or ceremonies of that religion.

Dennis said...

You said that “homosexuality in no way hinders or infringes on anyone else rights or lives.” I wish that were true. Unfortunately, in their hatred of Christianity, many gay rights advocates go out of their way to infringe on the rights of Christians.

If you really think homosexuality in no way hinders or infringes on anyone’s rights or lives, you should try telling that to the religious adoption agencies (and the children they adopt!) which have been forced to close because they could not violate their religious convictions by adopting to gay couples.

You should try telling that to the Christian psychologists who have been sued by gay people.

You should try telling that to the Christian photographers who have been sued by gay people just because those photographers could not violate their religious convictions by photographing a same-sex “wedding.”

You should try telling that to the church group which was sued by a gay couple for not making their private facilities available for a gay marriage.

You should try telling that to a California Christian school which was sued for expelling two gay students for behaviors clearly violating the student handbook (by which those students agreed to abide)!

You should try telling this to the churches that have been physically attacked by gay rights advocates—or the opponents of same-sex marriage who were targeted for revenge by gay rights advocates.

In the cases above, gay people had the option of selecting numerous other photographers, psychologists, schools, facilities or adoption agencies—but they chose to sue the Christians!

You said that gay people “have a right to love and be with who they want” in fact and in law. You’re absolutely right. I don’t know anyone who is trying to make homosexuality illegal, do you?

Dennis said...

I was glad to hear that you are not suggesting that we accept all behaviors as human rights. You then argued that being gay is not the same as being a pedophile or kleptomaniac because being gay doesn’t harm anyone else.

Sonia, you are missing the point (or slightly changing the argument). In your first post you argued that since gays exist in every society, gay rights are human rights. I responded by pointing out that pedophilia and kleptomaniacs exist in every society too, but that doesn’t make these behaviors or compulsions human rights. Neither does the fact that homosexuality exists in every culture make it a human right.

You then changed your argument (without acknowledging that I was right) saying that homosexuality is a human right because it doesn’t harm anyone else (you initially said it was a human right because it existed in every culture so you are now changing your rationale).

So if human rights are things which do not harm anyone, should it also be a fundamental human right to go to work nude? (After all, you could argue that nudity doesn’t hurt anyone). Is everything that doesn’t hurt someone else a fundamental human right?

You then equated homosexual rights with civil rights. You argued that “homosexuality is a human right because it doesn't harm anyone else and it is part of who they are. They have no choice in being gay.”

First, your equating of homosexuality with civil rights is deeply disturbing to many African Americans who argue that these are not the same things at all. Civil rights for African Americans—or other races or women—is about who people are. You can argue that gay rights is about who people are but the reality is that the gay rights movement is fundamentally tied to behavior. If you doubt this you need only refer to the debate about gays in the military. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was Bill Clinton’s way of allowing gay people to serve in the military as long as they didn’t make gay behavior an issue. This was not good enough for gay rights advocates. They want gay people to be open about their behavior. The sexual orientation or “who they are” is not the issue—the issue is behavior.

Second, if human rights is defined by “who they are”, then alcoholics, drug addicts, kleptomaniacs, and pedophilias could all argue that their behaviors should be considered a human right since (they could argue) “it is part of who they are.” Alcoholics can even point to studies showing that there is a genetic link to alcoholism! It seems to me that using your logic, anyone who has any kind of compulsion or genetic disposition to do anything could argue their compulsion is simply “who they are” and is therefore a fundamental human right.

Dennis said...

Sonia, if you are going to argue against my position, it would probably be helpful for you to actually understand my position.

I make a clear distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. I do not believe the Bible addresses sexual orientation, but the Bible absolutely addresses sexual behavior. I do not think people should be discriminated against or persecuted on the basis of sexual orientation. I strongly believe, however, that religious organizations must have the right to discriminate on the basis of behaviors they consider to be sinful.

Christian organizations must have the right to say, we will not allow those who are unrepentantly engaging in behaviors like adultery, pre-marital sex, sex with people of the same sex, theft, etc. to serve in our organizations. If Christian organizations cannot do this, they cease to be Christian in any meaningful way.

What this means is that churches, Christian mission organizations, Christian schools and colleges, and Christian charities must be able to establish behavior codes for employment or enrollment.

Unfortunately, many gay rights advocates would like to take away that religious right (in violation of the first amendment), and this is one of the core reasons why there is such a strong opposition to same sex marriage, i.e. because once same sex marriage is recognized as official U.S. public policy, all kinds of non-discrimination codes will take affect which will threaten the very existence of Christian organizations.

This is why same-sex marriage is such a big issue with those Christians who really understand the issues (and this is not just Christian paranoia. There are law school professors who say that the coming battle between “sexual freedom” and religious freedom is going to be a “train wreck.”

One of Obama’s appointees once said that in the fight between religious freedom and sexual freedom, she can imagine almost no case in which religious freedom should win.

This is deeply concerning for the future of America because America without religious freedom is not America.

Thank you for your reasoned responses and for not resorting to mockery or name calling which often characterizes discussions like this. We may disagree on the issues but I appreciate discussions which add more light than heat :-)

Sonia said...

Dennis, thank you for your thoughtful response. I had to sit down and think before responding, I just wanted to make sure everything comes out exactly the way I mean it.

As far as DADT is concerned, a majority of Americans supported the repeal, as well as a majority of military personnel, General Patraeus and Joint Chairman Admiral Mike McCullen all showed there support for the repeal. In addition, the Pentagon Review studied and came to the conclusion that allowing gays to openly serve would in no way hurt moral or troop cohesiveness. Plus we can look at many oversees examples of our allies allowing gays to openly serve with no adverse consequences.

With regards to "flaunting their homosexuality," sexuality is an integral part of someone's character and identity. It isn't about letting them hit on all of the men there, it is about not having to hide who they are. Straight men in the military regularly have pictures of girlfriends, and get letters, gifts, etc. But if a gay man does this, he use to risk being dishonorably and immediately discharged under DADT.

About straight men having to shower with gay men, gay men have always been in the military. Plus, it is arrogant of a straight man to assume that all gay men are sexually attracted to them. Do you believe all women are attracted to you? Also, gays shower with straight men all the time outside of the military as well. Anywhere there is a group shower, be it at the gym, pool, or after a game, gay men are there.

Plus, a gay man making unwanted sexual advances on a straight man is still sexual harassment, and should be dealt with accordingly.

Please tell me what financial, legal, and social arguments against gay rights are?

As far as the health issues, the dangers of consensual sex are the people's involved concern, and marriage would most like encourage monogamy and less promiscuity.

There are actually several religious groups that have no problem with homosexuality. Large numbers of Buddhist groups have no problem with homosexuality and even sometime defend the legality of it. Many Hindus are fine with it, as well as reform Jews. Unitarian Universalists started performing gay marriages years ago.

Sonia said...

About gays attacking Christians out of hatred, this is an ad hominem and does not mean they don't deserve rights. Just because a group of gay people, who are clearly extremist, went out and broke the law, it does not mean all gays do not deserve their rights and demonize Christian groups.

Concerning adoption agencies and religious schools, adoption agencies and school are allowed to discriminate against whoever they want, as long as they are completely autonomous groups. The issue arises when they receive federal money to accomplish their goals. At that point it is my tax dollars being used to discriminate against people, which is not ok. That is when it becomes a breach of separation of church and state. If they fund themselves, they can discriminate against gays all they want.

We currently have a culture of suing in this country, and just because someone sues someone else, does not mean it was a just case, and these cases shouldn't represent the gay rights argument as a whole. If they did, then should we ban coffee because a woman decided to sue McDonalds because her coffee burned her? Both show ridiculous situations where people try to get whatever they can, whether it is right or not.

Also, concerning your comment about knowing no one who is trying to make homosexuality illegal, I can think of several far right conservatives in this country who do want that. And we were talking about gay rights being pushed as a global issue, and several countries across the globe put people to death for being gay. Just look at Sharia law in the middle east to see this is true. This is also true in several African countries such as Uganda.

My initial post was a very instinctual post, and this, was not well articulated. I apologize.

I argued the point that being gay is and should be considered a human right because it is A) not a choice, and B) not harmful. Both of these things are needed for this to be true.

Any argument that does not use the fact that it is not a choice and it is not harmful, is null and void. (Being nude, though it is not harmful, is a choice, and being an alcoholic, though it may not be a choice and may be genetic, is harmful, etc).

Being gay is in no way a choice, tying it to behavior and saying the gay rights movement is about behavior that should not accepted, is in fact arguing for them to suppress their natural and not harmful behavior. It would be like asking all straight people to remain celibate and without any romantic involvement their entire lives with no hope of ever being allowed to indulge in their natural behavior.

Gay rights is still fundamentally about who they are. They are gay men and gay woman, just like their are black men and black woman. The only difference is that gay people are able to hide it a lot better. But in the end you are still asking them to just hide who they are, even if who they are is ok.

Sonia said...

I concede that under the 1st amendment, religious groups in this country have the right to discriminate against people, assuming they are autonomous like I said earlier. If you want proof that they can, just look at the Salvation Army, who regularly refuse to house gay couples in their homeless shelters as well as other discriminatory practices. Also, look at businesses that discriminate because of their religious beliefs (ex. Chick-fil-a).

But, gay people have Constitution rights as well. Look at the 14th amendment, the 1st, the full faith and credit clause, and the 9th amendment. Their are many places in the Constitution that gays can point to that protect their rights, and these also need to be considered.

Dennis said...

Regarding a majority of military personnel supporting the repeal of DADT, I don’t believe that is true.

I served in the military—albeit quite some time ago--and I’m quite convinced that if you surveyed all military personal, the reaction to having gays serve openly in the military would be overwhelmingly negative.

Regarding the generals supporting DADT—they didn’t get to be generals without knowing how to play politics. When your commander-in-chief insists on the repeal of Clinton’s DADT, most generals (and their subordinates) are going to go along if they know what’s politically good for them.

We’ll have to agree to disagree about “flaunting their homosexuality” and see what happens after DADT has been overturned for awhile.

Regarding gay men in the showers: I understand your point. I’m sure most women are not sexually attracted to me but I’m also quite sure that most men ARE attracted to naked women. Since I am not gay, I can only suspect what gay men think about naked men in the showers.

My point, however, was not really about military showers. It was about privacy. Your response seems to indicate that while you are concerned about privacy in some areas, you don’t think straight men are entitled to privacy (when it concerns others who may be sexually attracted to them) in military dorms or showers.

We are actually getting off in a tangent. My primary concern is about freedom of religion, not gays serving in the military.

Dennis said...

You asked about the financial, legal and social arguments against gay rights (did you mean gay marriage)? The legal arguments have to do with freedom of religion. As I mentioned, even some law professors say legalizing gay marriage will be a “train wreck” when it comes to freedom of religion.

Social arguments have to do with the fact that many believe that children should have both a woman and a man as parents (in my view, to say that either a man or a woman is not important in a marriage, is sexist).

The consequences for large numbers of children being raised by two men or two women will not be known for a generation or two—but whether we’re talking about divorce or gay marriage, people seem to be less and less concerned about consequences or potential consequences to children these days. All many people seem to care about is themselves and their desires.

I've actually wrote about all this in Recliner Commentaries before. Rather than going over it all again, if you will just click on "Homosexuality" in the subjects area, all the discussions and links to cases are there.

You wrote that the “dangers of consensual sex are the people’s involved concern.” I actually agree with you on this one. It is the liberals who want to regulate every area of our health lives from smoking to French fries to happy meals! They seem to want to regulate everything but sex!

I don’t want to regulate what two people do in their bedrooms—but when our schools and government actually start promoting sexual practices that are dangerous and may lead to dramatically higher health care costs for everyone, I think that is problematic. I also think it is cruel to encourage people to explore “alternative lifestyles” that could lead to their horrible deaths.

The idea that gay marriage would encourage monogamy and less promiscuity is a nice dream, but from everything I’ve read it is not true in practice. My understanding is that most people in gay “marriages” tend to have “open” or non-monogamous relationships.

Dennis said...

Your argument about religious groups that have no problem with homosexuality is completely irrelevant. The issue has to do with religious groups (Some Christians, some Jews and some Muslims) who have honest religious convictions against homosexual behavior.

In a free society, gay people should be free to do their thing, but no one should be forced to violate deeply held religious convictions as a result.

This is really the crux of the issue. I would think that the first amendment should protect this—but because liberals regularly twist the Constitution by interpreting it in light of contemporary “values”, religious convictions are often thrown under the bus. If there were a way to protect religious convictions, much of the controversy over gay marriage would evaporate.

You wrote, “About gays attacking Christians out of hatred, this is an ad hominem and does not mean they don't deserve rights.” You’re twisting my arguments. I didn’t say they don’t have rights. Of course they have rights. I didn’t say all gays demonize Christian groups.

I agree with you about the tax dollars. Unfortunately, gay people and groups are suing (with unnerving frequency) private individuals and private organizations. Many of these lawsuits are not dismissed as frivolous. Liberal judges are determining that private groups and organizations do not have constitutional protection for religious conscience!

But the real issue is that once same-sex marriage is a matter of U.S. public policy—none of these lawsuits will be seen as frivolous and freedom of religion will be shattered.

For example, there was a case in Massachusetts in which parents wanted to have their children opted out of mandatory gay brainwashing (my bias) in the public school. The school said no. The parents went to court. The judge said that since gay marriage was public policy in MA, the parent did not have the right to opt their children out of the classes! Once same sex marriage is federal public policy it’s going to be a legal train wreck!

Dennis said...

You said you can think of several far right conservatives who are trying to make homosexuality illegal? Can you name someone of any prominence?

I have regularly listened (and read) “far right” conservatives like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingrahm, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, Mike Gallagher, Michael Medved and others and I can’t think of a single conservative who has ever advocated making homosexuality illegal.

You wrote, “I argued the point that being gay is and should be considered a human right because it is A) not a choice, and B) not harmful. Both of these things are needed for this to be true.”

First, the fact is that anal sex IS harmful. It is the leading cause of AIDS.

Second, some perverts would argue that your definition would make pedophilia a human right since—they would argue—that they didn’t choose that orientation and—they would say—consensual sex with minors doesn’t hurt anyone.

Our Declaration of Independence said that all men are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights.” It could be argued that our rights either come from God—and the God of the Jewish, Christian or Muslims bibles did not give anyone the “right” to have sex with anyone of the same sex—OR human rights come from men.

If human rights come from men, then I guess a human right is whatever the majority decides (which is why so many people are proclaiming so many new “rights” that no one had ever heard of before). So if the majority determines that it is a human right for people to be able to marry people of the same sex, then I guess it will be so.

But this view is a two-edged sword. Societies change. Another society—like those in some Muslim countries you mentioned—may decide that it is a human right to be free of all gay influence and presence, just like the Nazis decided to be free of all Jewish presence.

Well, I think we're kind of going around in circles now and much of this is stuff I've already written on (see Recliner Commentaries subject of "homosexuality". Thanks for a good reasoned discussion. I really do appreciate the tone of the debate. I will give you the last word.

Z said...

Dennis...
If you study Human Rights law in the international spectrum all other industrialized nations have accepted that people of sexual preference minorities are protected by the UDHR, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Based on the premise of Legal Scholarship, the ruling by the European Court of Justice and various UN councils have made this idea of LGBTQ Human Rights International law. You may say that within 30 years pedophilia will also be legal, but science does not back up fetishes. Fetishes are psychological while orientation is biological. Although no research has directly proven this many researchers are on the cusp of discovery. It is accepted by many that sexual orientation is decided by the hormonal state of the mother during pregnancy. Moreover, research shows that gay men are not attracted to the visual stimulation that straight pornography provides. Also when one looks at the brains of homosexual men, heterosexual women, and heterosexual men the brains of homosexual men resemble woman's more than heterosexual men, especially when one observes the Sexually dimorphic nucleus of Pre Optic Area (the SDN-POA). Your bigotry may be backed up by religion and ignorance, but that does not hold up in debate, I am sorry to say. Furthermore, you say that marriage is between a man and a woman, but that is based on cultural relativism. The United States has repeatedly said that cultural relativism is not an acceptable excuse for the denial of Human Rights. Middle Eastern Nations attempt to say that their common acceptance Sharia law allows them to deny woman their Human Rights. China attempts to cite Confucius’s writings to justify their suppression of political dissent. This is because Confucius said that the whole is more important than the individual. Is it not hypocritical that you would attempt to say that the USA has the write to deny LGBTQ Human Rights equality based on cultural relativism even though they themselves criticize cultural relativism. Let me ask you. What supports your denial of LGBTQ rights when science, law, and the USA’s own comments support equality?

Dennis said...

Well, we’re off to an unfortunate start, Z. Your very first post not only misrepresents my position but also calls me bigoted and ignorant!

You make it sound like you think that everyone who disagrees with your “enlightened” position must be bigoted and ignorant, is that it?

Of course I could respond by saying that you are an intolerant anti-religious “bigot” for attacking over 3,000 years of societal and religious tradition—but where would name calling get us?

In response to your objections, first, I am not very impressed with U.N. councils. The UN has such a horrendous human rights record that I’m frankly a bit surprised that anyone would cite them as an authority on human rights.

Of course they only carry weight with you because they happen to support your position at the moment. Will you also support their position if the U.N human rights councils ever become dominated representatives from radical Muslim countries where they kill gay people?

Second, I did not say that within 30 years pedophilia will be legal. I was making the point that by Sonia’s definition of human rights, some could argue that pedophilia is a human right. I hope pedophilia is never legal but given the fact that the Obama administration has apparently overturned the military regulation against sex with animals, you have to wonder what’s next.

For example, once gay marriage is legal there is really no logical reason to prohibit marriage between, for example, two sisters (for civil benefits) or between multiple partners either. We’ve started down a very slippery slope.

Third, where did the argument about fetishes come from? I said nothing about fetishes and—read my posts on homosexuality—I have never argued against a possible biological or genetic basis for homosexuality.

We’ll have a much more productive debate if you argue against my actual positions rather than building up straw men that you can huff and puff and blow down.

Fourth, my position is absolutely NOT based on cultural relativism! In fact, you are the one whose position is based on cultural relativism! Up until very recently our culture has been very opposed to homosexuality (it wasn’t all that long ago that the American Psychological Association classified it as a mental disorder)! But the modern cultural relativism of political correctness—promoted by Hollywood and the public school system—is winning the day and millions of Americans who are too spineless to stand against the tide of cultural relativism have jumped right on the bandwagon.

My position that marriage is between a man and a woman is based on the Bible and a few thousand years of history. Even in Roman times when homosexuality was often practiced, they did not call it “marriage.”

My view that homosexuality should not be promoted by government and schools is also based on the scientific fact that anal sex is a leading cause of AIDS which leads to enormous health care costs for everyone and terrible deaths for some.

While a free society may have to tolerate homosexuality, it makes no more sense for government to promote it than for government to promote smoking, obesity or any other unhealthy behavior. Promoting such behaviors is not tolerant. It is cruel.

Dennis said...

Fifth, your arguments about denying LGBTQ rights is somewhat disingenuous. It implies that I’m trying to take away your rights. I can’t take away something you don’t have. Same-sex couples have never had the “right” to get “married.”

By the way, this is not just true of homosexual couples but of heterosexual couples as well. For example, two elderly heterosexual sisters who might want to get “married” for the tax and inheritance benefits have never had the right to do so. You could certainly argue that they should have that right but I can hardly “deny” a right that they don’t have. This debate is about whether new rights should be established. It is not about denying rights that people have. Neither the Constitution nor the laws of most states give people the right to marry someone of the same sex.

Finally, if you are going to criticize my position you should at least take time to understand it. For example, I do not hate homosexuals (I’ve had good friends who were gay).

I think gay people should be treated with kindness and respect just like anyone else.

I strongly stand against the harassment of gay people. And I would support the rights of gay people to jointly purchase homes, to have hospital visitation, and to NOT be discriminated against in non-religious jobs and organizations.

But rights are not absolute (my right to swing my arms ends where your nose begins). If people can be forced to violate their fundamental religious convictions they are not free.

Some religions have strong beliefs about sins like adultery, murder, robbery, drunkenness, abortion, or sex with people of the same sex. You may think these rules are bigoted and you are entitled to your opinion—but when you force people to violate their fundamental convictions, they are not free (this is not just true of religious convictions, by the way. An atheist, for example, should not be forced to pray publicly or recite some religious creed).

Religious organizations should not be forced to employ or enroll people who unrepentantly engage in behaviors that religious organizations believe is sinful. Religious people should not be forced to perform services (counseling, photography, adoption, making facilities available etc.) that would violate their conscience.

Why are so many gay people suing Christians in private companies and organizations who cannot in good conscience perform these services, when gay people have plenty of other options available to them?
And why are such lawsuits never condemned by the gay community?

These lawsuits appear to be motivated by intolerant, bigoted hatred on the part of those gay people who do this.

If gay rights advocates would agree that freedom NOT to violate one’s conscience is a fundamental human right (enshrined in the Bill of Rights as “Freedom of Religion,” I suspect that much of the hubbub over gay rights would evaporate.

Sonia said...

Dennis,
Sorry for the late reply.

Let me start with your earlier post before Z's comments.

As for your disbelief about military personnel support DADT repeal, I would direct you to the long awaited study conducted the Department of Defense:

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/7446-report-shows-military-support-for-dadt-repeal

As for attraction and privacy, I repeat what I said earlier. All gay men ARE NOT attracted to all naked women. This is just silly statement with no evidence or proof. And if a gay man is attracted to someone and makes an advance, it would be sexual harassment.

As for the social arguments against gay marriage. Yes, I suppose more studies are needed which we won’t have until decades from now. However, there are some studies from credible institutions (The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological Association) that show that children with gay parents do not differ than children with heterosexual parents in terms of emotional development and their interaction with their peers.

http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_with_lesbian_gay_bisexual_and_transgender_parents

http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.aspx

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100831091240.htm

Your doubt about gay marriage encourages less promiscuity is disturbing. I would like to know what studies you have read that support this. Your understanding that most “gay marriages tend to have open or non- monogamous relationships” is just simply a statement with no evidence behind it. (or at least none that I have read) It also implies and deems same -sex relationships as less worthy, less legitimate, and less valued.

The only reason I mentioned those certain religious groups that don’t seem to have a problem with homosexuality is because you made the statement in your previous post there are no major religions (or even minor religions that I know of) in which sex with people of the same sex is part of the approved religious tradition”

Obviously there are some perverts that would state pedophilia falls under my definition of human right because they didn’t choose their orientation. Unfortunately for them, there is no credible science that states that pedophilia isn’t a choice.

Sonia said...

As for rights, since 1888 the supreme court has ruled 14 times that the right to marry a person of your choice is a fundamental right. For example, the Missouri democratic legislature tried to pass a law stating that prison inmates couldn’t get married because since they were in prison they couldn’t have children. The supreme court struck that down stating that marriage is a fundamental right and everyone is entitled to it. I can’t take away your right to free speech. Or put it up to someone else’s dictate because that’s something that belongs to all of us. The supreme court has ruled that marriage is the same way. We also have the 14th amendment which guarantees equal rights and that we are not allowed to discriminate.

All of this and more was brought forth by Ted Olson and David Boies in the Prop 8 case in California. After listening to three weeks of testimony and evidence, it was concluded that there was no evidence to back up concerns frequently brought forth by opponents of gay marriage. In fact two witnesses that were called to testify on behalf of these opponents ended up siding with the other side saying they had no evidence that gay marriage would harm anyone.

Dennis said...

I also apologize for the late reply. I have simply been too busy to respond.

You linked to the DOD study on gays in the military. I would say that your faith in science is as strong as many people’s faith in God! But your faith is misplaced. It is not uncommon for so-called scientific studies to be manipulated to produce the desired results (of if they don’t produce the desired results, to be suppressed).

The fact is that the report you cited appears to be a highly manipulated spin job designed to produce results that support the desired political agenda. See http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40425

You wrote, “As for attraction and privacy, I repeat what I said earlier. All gay men ARE NOT attracted to all naked women. This is just silly statement with no evidence or proof.”

You’re right, it is a silly statement. I never said gay men are attracted to naked women! In fact, I’m sure that gay men are not attracted to all other men just like heterosexual men are not attracted to all women. So what are you talking about?

You wrote, “As for the social arguments against gay marriage. Yes, I suppose more studies are needed which we won’t have until decades from now.”

Precisely! So in the mean time we can risk destroying an entire generation of children just so gay activists can carry out their selfish, social experiment with gay “marriage.”

You wrote, “However, there are some studies from credible institutions (The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological Association) that show that children with gay parents do not differ than children with heterosexual parents....”

Sure, just like we had all kinds of experts saying that divorce had no lasting effects on children. The only problem is that they were all wrong! (See, for example, the studies by Judith Wallerstein and the book, Between Two Worlds by Elizabeth Marquardt). [And by the way, would that be the same APA that once said that homosexuality is a mental illness?]

Dennis said...

You wrote, “Your doubt about gay marriage encourages less promiscuity is disturbing. I would like to know what studies you have read that support this.”

The fact that “gay marriages” do not tend to be monogamous is a fact conceded even by many gay people. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

You wrote, “Obviously there are some perverts that would state pedophilia falls under my definition of human right because they didn’t choose their orientation. Unfortunately for them, there is no credible science that states that pedophilia isn’t a choice.”

That's only because—unlike gay activists--they don’t have a powerful, well-funded advocacy group (yet). Scientific studies are manipulated to produce the desired outcomes all the time.

You wrote, “As for rights, since 1888 the supreme court has ruled 14 times that the right to marry a person of your choice is a fundamental right.”

Your statement is so misleading as to border on dishonesty! You make it sound like the Supreme Court has ruled 14 times that people have a fundamental right to marry anyone they want. That is simply not true. The Supreme Court has not ruled that people can marry minors, or close relatives, or people of the same sex!

If we can’t trust you to quote the Supreme Court accurately, how can we trust you to quote all those so-called studies you cite?

You wrote, “We also have the 14th amendment which guarantees equal rights and that we are not allowed to discriminate.”

Of course we can discriminate! We do it all the time! Every time you go out to eat, you discriminate against all the other restaurants you chose not to eat at! Every time you watch a TV program you discriminate against all the other TV program (and their advertiser’s) you chose to ignore! The NFL discriminates against women and slow/weak men. The WNBA and WPGA discriminate against men. When hiring for professors, universities discriminate against people who don’t have degrees. Some police departments discriminate against people who don't meet height standards. Fire Departments discriminate against people who don't meet strength standards.

The issue is not whether you can discriminate—the issue is on what basis discrimination should be allowed. Discrimination should not be allowed for non-moral kinds of issues like race, skin color, etc. But non-discrimination laws should never be allowed to trump constitutional protections for freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Can we at least agree on that much?

You wrote, “In fact two witnesses that were called to testify on behalf of these opponents ended up siding with the other side saying they had no evidence that gay marriage would harm anyone.”

Tell that to the all the people who have been sued by gay rights activists! Tell that to the opponents of gay marriage in California whose addresses were made public and were threatened by gay rights terrorists. Tell that to the church members who have been threatened and whose church services have been disrupted by gay rights activists. Tell that to all the children who lost their chance to be adopted because gay rights activists have forced the closing of Christian adoption agencies in MA and IL. You simply ignore the facts and re-state the gay activist party line.

You really need to read my Recliner Commentary posts on homosexuality (see the right column) to become better informed.