Thursday, October 26, 2006

New Jersey okays equal rights to gay couples

YAAAAY to New Jersey! In essence, New Jersey's Supreme Court stated that gay people must be given civil union rights, or gay marriage. In either case, their rights will be equal to marriage. This is excellent news for gay people of New Jersey and gay people of New York, who now have a neighboring state to move to (if they wish) where they will have equal rights. "The issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people," the court said in its 4-3 ruling." That is how I see the gay marriage debate. It is not about redefining marriage, but rather about equality, pure and simple. And today, equality won out. Good on New Jersey!

34 comments:

Thomas Forsyth said...

This is a great decision, and I think that this is the right way to accomplish equal opportunity for gay couples. I also think it is great how the court leaves it up to the Joisey legislature as they should determine the decision. I fully support same sex marriage, though my apporach is conservative and I want the process to be gradual as state after state allows same sex marriage and in time other states will follow suit. I also hope that the option of covenant marraiges is available so homosexual couples can put us heteros to shame with their stable unions.

NY state will follow suit with Gov Spitzer, though.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Marriage has been between a man and a woman since long before modern times.

Suddenly discovering constitutional rights that were never imagined by our founding fathers is not a good thing, just further proof that western cultural traditions are under attack by the left, and that liberals seek to undermine our laws by accomplishing thru judicial activism what they cannot accomplish thru the legislature.

Those of you who think this is about equal rights need to read between the lines of what the gays involved say when they are not on guard. This is about validation. Gays want to be validated. They know how messed up they are, but more than anything they want to be validated, and by having gay marriage/civil unions/whatever, they hopelessly think this will make them feel better about themselves. Many of the first "couples" openly said this was about being accepted as normal. They think if they can get a liberal judge to force ordinary people to recognize their "marriage", then they will be accepted. It is sad and deraged to think this way, but then, desperate people do desperate things.

Face the facts:
Men want to have lot's of lovers. The women in our lives say no, so we are faithful. We want our wives faithful too, so we have monogomous marriage.

But gay men, they don't have that constraint. I heard a statistic that 25% of gay men have had over 1,000 lovers!!! Holy cow!!! But over 50% have had hundreds. Obviously, gay men tend to love being able to do it with other men who are horndogs. Why would a gay man want to settle down with another gay man? Very few do.

Thoms, you are sad. Why would you want someone to put you to shame? Jewish guilt? Almost as quickly as there were some gay marriages, we started with the court cases for gay divorce. I remember within months of a lesbian marriage, these two women filed for divorce, then two more filed for divorce in another state. It was all part of a legal strategy, not about love and committment. Gays are much less stable than Hetero's Thomas, the rates of domestic abuse is higher than for heteros. Suicide is higher, drug abuse, alcoholism, all higher for homosexuals.

Kevin said...

I don't care if somebody is straight, bisexual, gay or lesbian. We all deserve equal rights in all aspects of life.
And how does legal gay marriage effect straight marriage ? Not one bit. Marriage hasn't always been defined as between a man and woman. That is a very recent development, in terms of historical context.
Denying people of same sex relationships the right to marry and have the same benefits as straight couples is homophobia in it's most basic form.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Kevin, you make a claim that heterosexual marriage is a very recent development. Prove it. See, this is what makes the rest of us want to classify all liberals as "moonbats", crazy statements like this.

And don't throw out the word "homophobia" so easily. You liberals like to use big words (that you obviously don't understand) to end conversation. Homophobia would be the guy who freaks out and hides in a corner every time he sees a gay.

Fear of homosexuals is a rare, rare phenominon. You go to far in implying that those of us who object to being FORCED to change a multi-millenia old custom to accomodate less than 5% of the population are somehow phobic. We just don't like having people try to FORCE us to accept what we don't want to accept.

Kevin said...

Thank you for labeling me as a liberal. As far as i was aware i have socialist working class background. To quote Red Tulips:
"as for marriage the question is not whether it is a tradition.
It is whether it is a tradition worth keeping
if a tradition was to stone women to death, that should be changed, even though it is a 'tradition'
see: iran
if a tradition is to have female circumcision - change it
see: Egypt
etc
seriously polygamy is traditional
monogamy is revolutionary
and in Greek society, homosexuality was the norm
older man/younger boy
that was the norm
what tradition is one to follow in his zeal for 'tradition'?
why is tradition per se always great?
one has to prove that tradition is GOOD prior to saying we should follow it."
Oh and i find it rather immature and stupid to resort to calling me a moonbat to get a point across.
Homophobia goes more deeply than other men hiding in corners going "Eww those dudes are kissing each other thats so wrong".
The issue of gay marriage should be settled through democratic and legal means. Not through name calling and making people who are gay out to be manwhores/sluts/sinners.
Not everyone shares my views on this issue, but nor do people share your views. Now i shall return to the moon on a broomstick so i can grab a bag full of moonfrogs and some nice cheese for my tea.

Red Tulips said...

Mr. Smarterthanyou:

This is what I wrote about gay marriage ages ago. It took me a while to dig it up:

-----

Last night I went to a debate on same sex marriages at my law school, entitled "Lawrence v. Texas, What's Next?" There were two people on one side advocating same sex marriage, and two people who were against it. I was sitting next to who I found out now is a gay friend of mine (hehe, we never really spoke about sexuality before, and he told me yesterday he was an officer in Outlaws, a gay student group, which is where it came up - I should have known he was gay because of his love of opera). The people saying that gay people should not get married had the following points to make about this all.

If we allow same sex marriage, what's next? OH NO! It opens the flood gates and soon we will have marriages with multiple people, and man marrying dogs.
To this I wonder if he has watched too much Jerry Springer. It is easy to define marriage as between two people, period. This would hardly be a radical reconfiguration of property law. You simply change 'husband and wife' to 'spouses' in the law. This is a rather easy change. In contrast, there would be a radical change to allow for man and dog or man and five wives.

Gay marriage leads to the breakdown of society. Incidentally, so does divorce, Howard Stern, Hugh Hefner, and Britney Spears's 50 hour wedding. Marriage is a sacred thing which involves a man and a woman, as it has been that way throughout history. HOW can you possibly turn your back on history? Most people in the world live in cultures which frown on gayness, as should America!
To this I say the speaker simply made no sense and contradicted himself. Rightly so, the speaker on the other side said that commercialism is what is leading to moral breakdown, not more sex. Britney Spears is part of the commercialized, meaninglessness, most base part of American culture, and yet she was allowed to marry. Moreover, it is this commodifcation of society that causes marriage to be debased, and not gay people. As far as marriage goes, in the age of Married by America, how sacred is that institution, really? And his saying that people should stay married and not get divorced ruins the little credibility he had. So in his mind, people should stay married and hate each other. Moreover, I see a different reading of history. He said the Seikhs in India were against homosexuality. They represent 2% of India. The Hindu culture of India has embraced homosexuality for thousands of years. Sapphic sculptures and paintings are in museums as we speak - done by Indian artists thousands of years ago. History has not been blanketly against gays - this is more a European thing. And just because some history has been against gay marriage, does that make it right? Until very recently, interracial marriages were not allowed. Is that right? Aren't we supposed to progress in history, not take steps backwards? And as for this "most cultures frown on gayness now" arguement, I would say he is right - most cultures frown on gayness - the backwards one. Go to Afghanistan and you could be killed for being gay. Go to Canada and two gay people can marry. Where would you rather live? Which country would you rather emulate?

It has not been shown that gayness is genetic, so you see, if we allow same sex marriage, then it will encourage people to be gay, and these people could otherwise be straight. JUST LOOK AT ANNE HECHE! It was the liberal society we live in which caused her to be gay with Ellen Degeneres, and then she realized she was straight. See, that leads to the moral breakdown of society.
It is irrelevant whether gayness can be chosen or not. It is an alternate lifestyle - no better or worse than the lifestyle straight people take, just different. If people want to be gay, what is wrong with letting them be gay? Is it better to live a lie and be in the closet?

There should be an amendment outlawing gay marriage everywhere, because judicial activism is stopping debate from happening in places like Massachusetts, and we have to let the legistlatures decide this issue. So an amendment to the constitution will stop all this nonsense.
This is saying we need to have a constitutional amendment because judges are stopping the debate. Hmm...there is no better way to stop the debate than to have a constitutional amendment. And why is judicial activism per se bad? I bet he wants to live in a segregated world. Without judicial activism there would be no Brown v. Board of Education. The country was set up so there could be judges ruling for fairness to a minority and rule against the very tyranny of the majority he is advocating.

Teachers want to teach students in high school and middle school health classes that it is normal to be gay. HOW HORRIBLE! Gay marriage would just further this. Imagine this: scores of people coming out of the closet because it is COOL to be gay. OHMIGOD THE GAYS WILL TAKE OVER!
In the age of Matthew Shephard, do we need more hate in this world? Since when is it bad to preach against hatred? Moreover, gay people are not gay because society is 'tolerant' of them. They are gay because they are born this way.

Anyway yeah. So that is my response to the main points from the gay marriage debate at my school.

------

Most of those points refer directly to Mr. Smarterthanyou's arguments. I will examine whether more is needed later. Right now, I have a book to read. When I finish, I will respond to everything else.

Thomas Forsyth said...

Maxwell Smarterthanyou> For the record, I grew up Catholic, though my faith was in intensive care for a whiel and passed on with the last Pope, but that is anoteh rtale, and yes Catholics have their own sense of guilt, especially ones with Irish moms, and mine could have a contest with a Jewish mother to see who can give her son the biggest guilt trip :)

Now, for gay marriage, I agree that tradition has not favored gay marriage, and I knwo that many people are not ready for it, and soem may never be, but old age will claim them.

Much of the negative behavior associated with homosexuality is more because of the closet, because it is so suppressed. The attitude people have about honosexuality has changed immensely in the last 50 years and while I don't see same sex marriage in the majority of US states in a year, I see it possibly in 15-20 years, but it will need to be done in a conservative, steady manner by state legislators as more and more of John and Jane Public relaize they have nothing to fear, plus homosexuals can decide where to engage in commerce and a state that affirms them will prosper.

I do feel a certain sadness when same sex couples divorce, and I find that it is very coiunterproductive, especially since same sex couples are being watched and they have an extra onus to make the marriage last, which will have a positive ripple effect on public concensus. I wish that any homosexual couple wishing to marry would go through something akin to pre-Cana or any maritail preparation class and know just what the hell they are getting into. Marriage is a huge commitment and should not be taken lightly, but sadly not enough care is given to it. In the Army, a soldier who gets married can get better accomadations and more money, but such marraiges are utter shams and I'm amazed any last more than five years, let alone a lifetime, and these are all heterosexual unions.

There are also homosexual couples who have been together for years and will die together. Why do they have less of a right to marry than Ted Kennedy?

And ultimately, in the realm of positive law, marriage is a legal contract. To me, when two legal adults want to engage in a contract and follow the contract and all obligations, that is perfectly acceptable and it is capitalism. I do believ that soem legal benefits in marriage (including hetero marraiges) are excessive, but I'm all for the basic contractual rights of any two adults above the legal age and in right mind.

Kevin> I would argue that what the Greeks had was not normal homosexuality. As there is a difference between gay and Mr. Garrison, man boy love is not the same as two consenting adults. Of course the age of consent is an issue up to debate.

Also, marriage is a tardition, and traditions eveolve. In fact, tradition is a bridge from the beginning to today and bridges will have rennovations done. I know that the rennovatiosn will come slowly and for some civil unions will be more iwthin a public comfort zone, but in time, that comfort zoen wil become more inclusive and states that allow civil uniosn will eventually allow marraige while the holdouts will evnetaully go to civil unions until a certain amount of tiem has passed.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Ugg, so much reading!!

First, while Greece turned kinda gay before its fall, they didn't have gay marriage. We know that hetero marriage has been the norm since the time of Christ, that is not really recent. The ancient egyptians didn't have gay marriage either, did they?

Yes, gay marriage should be settled by democratic means. Which means asshat liberal judges need to stop overturning petitions, laws, state constitutional ammendments to satisfy their own personal opinions about it!!!!

Yes, divorce also leads to a breakdown of society. But please let's be consistant. The same liberals who advocated so successfully for no-fault divorce, the concept that fathers aren't needed, the welfare state taking over for the father, domestic violence laws that require NO evidence of violence to destroy fathers are now advocating for gay marriage. Gay marriage is useful to the feminazis as another tool to destroy the "tyranny of marriage"

Regarding matthew shepard, I am sick of that crap. He was one of those gays who LIKED hitting on cowboys. What kind of dumb-ass goes to country bars in Wyoming and starts hitting on straight cowboys? His story is a bit more complex anyway. He had annoyed a bartender so bad the bartender hit him. Matt then filed false rape charges against this straight bartender!!! Matt was unstable, and no innocent flower.

What kills me though, is that same month, a 13 year old Arkansaw boy was kidnapped, tied up, raped over and over by two gay men and choked to death with his own underwear stuffed in his mouth. That story neve made the national press. Gays can only be portrayed as victims or heroes in the press, never as unstable.

Regarding "much of the negative behavior associated with gays comes from being forced in the closet".

Please think about this: Gayness is not remotely in the closet in San Francisco, or really any big city, yet San Fran has countless examples of serious freaks.

Homosexuality is a deviency from the norm. That doesn't make it bad, but it is abnormal. When you start an argument by stating falsly that it is perfectly normal, you deafen people to anything else you say on it, as your credibility is lost. Homosexuality also takes you out of the gene pool. Darwin would tell you that that is deviant, and a dead end. Homosexuality is a rejection of societal norms, and a rejection of normal male-female relationships. That at least hints at mental/emotional issues.

An antecdote, every gay person I have known really well, told me (or my ex) that they had been a victim of same sex molestation (one by a nun, ug) as a child. Don't tell me that some gays are not that way as a response to the emotional damage and cunfusion of molestation.

YOu guys all ignored my argument about same sex marriage being about validation vs. actual marriage. Such a shame, because I think it gets to the point.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

One last thought, but it is the best, and I think left and right should agree:

Undo the 17th amenment. Return us to a federal republic.

With senators being appointed by states, and not subject to the mass hysteria of voting (which has it's place), we would see states rights, and we would see states differentiate more. Think about it, if states rights were increased, if you want baby-killing in Massachussets, go for it. Legalize pot in California, go for it. The feds shouldnt be concerned about what happens in a state that is not covered in the constitution.

We could live in different states with the same basic rights, but otherwise, we could live our own ways. This would take much of the acrimony out of politics, because you don't want to live my way, and I would don't want to live yours. Currently, with so many things being decided in a one size fist all format, we are becoming a police state, and federal force is being misapplied. Quite frankly, with the current state of federal power, if a loony leftist gets in power, we could have a near civil war. You should have seen how people were stocking up on guns and ammo when we thought Al Gore could win. One good federal gun-grab, or maybe someone forcing homosexuality on our kids in a widespread fashion, and we could have a serious blowup. Yes, to city liberals and socialists, that sounds extreme, but socialism is unconstitutional, and liberalism is not something you can force on everyone without pushback.

Red Tulips said...

Mr. Smarterthanyou:

Why is tradition necessarily good?

You have yet to answer this question.

Just because something is a tradition does not mean it is something we should continue.

In Egypt, it is a 'tradition' to engage in female circumcision.

In Iran, it is a 'tradition' to stone women to death for infidelity.

In the US, it was a 'tradition' to not recognize mixed race marriages.

These are all traditions. These are all BAD THINGS. The mere fact that something has been done for a long time does not answer why it should continue today.

If one wanted to be 'traditional,' then polygamy would be allowed.

As far as your notion of gay people being sexually abused...um...please provide one shred of evidence to support this. I am a fag hag and I can assure you of the total inaccuracy of this. None of my gay friends were abused as kids, but I do have a straight friend who was abused. And in fact, if the abuse is going on, the real reason it went on is because of the fact that men, driven into the closet, are so sexually immature that they act out the most horrible of things.

Your notion of 'baby killing' in Massachusets is ludicrous. It assumes that abortion is 'baby killing.' And if it WERE 'baby killing,' then I fail to see why you would be okay with it, ANYWHERE!

Same sex marriage is not about 'vlidation.' It is about equality. It is that simple. It is about providing the same benefits to gay people that straight people receive. It is not about bringing down marriage. In fact, it is about saving marriage. No one wants to get married anymore, but gay people do! We should be HAPPY about this! And as far as gay divorce - of course there is gay divorce. You cannto expect all gay couples to remain married forever. But they WANT to get married. This is a good thing for marriage!

The bottom line...

How does gay marriage affect YOU? Last I checked, no one is forcing a cock down your throat. How is gay marriage likely to turn YOU gay? How is gay marriage likely to convert you?

And if gayness is not a choice, which it is not, then why should gay people be punished for being born different?

If you are against promiscuity in gay people, shouldn't you encourage marriage as a way to curb promiscuity?

Well, no, because according to you, gay people should just not exist.

Guess what? Gay people do exist. Society is not worse off for it. Massachusetts has not imploded after it has allowed gay marriage. Canada is not disintegrating because it allows gay marriage. Gay people are just like anyone else. They simply have sex with the same sex.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Don't you think that when someone wants to challenge tradition, they should provide the reasons? Isn't it a big arrogant to challenge a cornerstone of civilization by demanding that civilization defend itself.

Marriage IS the cornerstone of society. If people stop taking marriage seriously, it hurts kids, it hurts society. By allowing gay marriage, it makes marriage less serious. It takes the focus off of families.

Marriage started as a way to keep people from having knocked-up daughters with no man around for support, for protection, and for helping raise the offspring. Gays have none of these reasons for marriage. Their only reason is attempted validation. That reason is insufficient to alter one of societies most honored and most at-risk institutions.


Partial birth abortion IS baby killing. Pro-life absolutists think all abortion is murder too. The US constitution doesn't give the feds jurisdiction over murder, this is a state issue. I am not OK with baby killing, but it isn't a federal issue any more that pot grown, sold and smoked in California should be.

Maybe you should really talk with your gay friends. I bet more than you suspect had inappropriate sex with an adult when they were quite young.

You cannot simply dismiss my argument about validation. The gay marriage issue is far more about politics than it is a desire to be married.

You cannot just say gay people are born that way. There isn't enough evidence for an absolute like that. Frankly, evolution theory shows clearly that gayness is a dead end street as far as heredity is concerned (duh).

I would agree that some people are predispositioned to it, but also that life-events and social situations also push one way or the other. Critical events at a formative age can push a person one way or another, just as a fish will grow to the appropriate size for it's tank, people do have a certain amount of mind over matter.

Gay people are not just like anyone else. That is willful ignorance.

Gay men are FAR more likely to be drug users. They are FAR more promiscuous than Heteros. They are far more likely to work in roles that are more typical for the opposite sex. Gay men have a life expectancy of 44. Take away AIDS, and it only goes up to 46. They usually don't want kids, and I suspect that many of those that do , do it for political reasons, or to be trendy. Just like I think Madonna is adopting a black african baby to be trendy. Does this sound the same as anyone else? How about promiscuity? The avg gay man has had hundreds of lovers. That's nuts.

I do not hate gay people. Usually, I feel sorry for them because they are missing out. I don't advocate marginalizing them, or putting them away. But I object to children being spoon-fed gay political propoganda, I object to gays forcing themselves on the rest of us, to accept them.

If gays getting married was really about "committiment forever", then why on earth do they so desperately seek to alter an existing social construct to include them? Why not invent their own? Gays can just sign living wills, regular wills, then have their own ceremony with their friends.

How about my point that some of the feminists who have openly stated that they are for the destruction of marriage are also for gay marriage?

Steinham, Alred, Dworkin et all.
That alone should cause you to put your liberal outrage (liberals always seem outraged btw) and actually ponder why.

Jason said...

hahahaha, I'm gonna get married one day and mr. dumbass can't do anything about it.

Red Tulips said...

Mr. Smarterthanyou:

Ask any gay person whether they had a 'choice' to be gay. All of them would say NO. Do you have a 'choice' in being straight? Do you get turned on by two men making out, and then decided 'No, going to resist that!' I am betting the answer is NO to that.

We are talking about people who are born different. If they are born different, then it is not their fault they are gay, and they should be allowed equal rights. It is as if someone is born black. It is not their fault they are black - they should not be treated differently because of it.

Homosexuality exists in animals. It exists in monkeys and in penguins. There were gay penguins in the Central Park Zoo. Did they 'ask' to be gay? Hardly.

Homosexuality has existed in society since the dawn of mankind. It is not a recent aberration.

In contrast, monogamous marriage IS a recent abberation. The 'norm' is polygamy. You go for tradition, and yet you refuse to acknowledge this very basic fact.

I believe that tradition should only be followed when it is a good tradition. You have failed to show any benefit to denying gay people equal rights.

This is about curbing promiscuity. You are so against gay people being promiscuous, and yet you are against their being monogamous as well! That is the essence of homophobia. You are against their existence. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

----

Why do you think gay people are more likely to be promiscuous? They are not given the option of marriage. Why do you think gay people are more likely to commit suicide? They face rampant homophobia and hence self hatred. Why do you think they take drugs? Again, the same cause.

Yet, despite all this, you fail to show how the average gay lifespan is 46 years old. You spout some random figure and fail to provide a shred of proof about it.

You are simply engaging in the most base and ignorant stereotyping of gay people imaginable and then saying this is why they should not be able to get married.

----

Why not actually TALK to a gay person? I can assure you that they are not adopting kids to be trendy. It is about the base human need to have children and get married. It is about acceptance and being part of society.

You are most certainly not 'smarterthananyone' if you fail to recognize these very obvious truths.

----

Finally, you speak of partial birth abortion as 'murder.' I do not advocate partial birth abortion and neither does the ACLU! In fact, the problem I have and the ACLU has with partial birth abortion is the fact that the bill in question did not have a health of the mother exception. That is it! Only the most insane extremists of the pro choice movement actually say that women should be able to have a partial birth abortion if the mother's life is not endangered. But of course, you fail to recognize this obvious reality.

You fail to recognize many obvious realities.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Look, the stats that I quote are out there. Sorry if they dont match your kubaya world, but they are facts. Gay men are very promiscuous.

Gay men live a very short life.

I never said gay people make a concious choice to be gay, so why do you prop that straw man up, call it my view, then knock it down?

Gay penguins don't get married.
On that note, scientists have done studies that put rats and mice in overcrowded situations. They found that there were many behavioral components to overcrowding, including increased homosexual behavior. Is that supportive of the born gay theory? Is that supportive of the false concious choice argument? It is supportive of the idea that cultural/social influence having an impact on whether or not someone or something ends up gay.

How can the desire to have kids be normal, and at the same time the desire to completely avoid the relationships that generate kids be normal too?

I have spoken to gay people BTW, you must have skipped that part.

Whatever you do, don't ASSUME that my position is based on stupidity, cruelty or ignorance. By doing that, you prevent yourself from trying to actually understand my point of view. It is a point of view held by a majority of people in this country, and you city liberals often make the mistake of thinking people in flyover country are stupid, predjudiced and ignorant. You accuse me of demonizing jews, yet you seem to demonize conservatives. Guess demonizing others is a human weakness that even liberals are guilty of.

The following is NOT from a conservative group:

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657?ijkey=1ee23f2555c8e8aefdb8b3d2db82ab66cd296807&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Here you go, about promiscuity, research performed by a gay couple:
http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/5_May/053003_mn_gay_definition_of_marriage_is_not_the_equal_of_heterosexual_marriage.shtml

So who is ignorant? Me or you? Do you care to retract your accusation?

Regardless, If gays want to get married in Mass, fine, but gays are trying to force it everywhere. True federalism is the only way to have peace on this and many other issues.

Regarding partial birth abortion. All laws include physical health or life of the mother exceptions. But the liberal groups want mental health included, usually by just having a "health" expemtion. As we know, liberals love to redefine things as they see fit to suit their arguments. So "Health" includes mental trauma, such as the trauma of having a baby that you don't want!! The liberal health exemptions allows partial birth abortions (baby killing) if the mom changes her mind at the last minute. I swear I am not lying. That is the entire argument.

Additionally, no Dr. has yet been found willing to swear that partial birth abortion has ever been req'd so save a womans life. Why? Here is the procedure: Turn the baby around inside the mother, pull it out, except for the head, then stick something inside to scramble the brains, then pull it the rest of the way out. The difference between this and murder, according to the law as interpreted by liberal judges, is about 6 inches of distance, head in or out. If the birth was going to cause damage to the mother, letting creating a breech delivery is sure as hell going to kill her, it is a lot more stress on the mom vs. just popping the baby out headfirst.

Kevin said...

You are basically saying that all homosexual men should'nt do what is natural to them ? This therefore means you are against Homosexuality. Which means you are homophobic.
There is a biological need to reproduce, it is stronger in some people than others. There is probably an environmental and genetic role in the development of sexuality (of all flavours) in all species that are of mammalian origin, which Human beings are part of (Family of Hominidae, species Homo sapiens).
As for abortion ? I firmly believe it is the right of every woman to be allowed a choice in keeping a baby, giving it up for adoption or having an abortion.
No Doctor in the United States that carries out abortions will make comments about abortions outside medical journals as they are likely to be murdered by nutjob pro life campaigners. Though i guess you are against stem cell research, that uses left over fetuses from IVF treatments that are going to be destroyed anyway.
For somebody who proclaims to be smarterthanyou, you have to resort to unscientific arguements which border on verbal abuse to put forth your case against homosexuality and abortions.
I believe in the scientific method which means you have to provide unbiased data to prove or disprove a theory. Most of your stats/data is claptrap which is biased in favour of what you believe in. Science demands that one has an open mind about every subject/theory and that prejudices are left outside the lab door.

Red Tulips said...

Mr. 'Smarterthanyou' refuses to even examine my most basic of points...

He speaks of the so-called 'promiscuity' of gays, without realizing that the base cause of it is the inability of gay people to get married.

Marriage encourages monogamy. If Mr. Smarterthanyou was so against gay promiscuity he would be the biggest proponent of gay marriage.

Instead he is arguing against gay marriage. He is saying gay people should not exist. They cannot get married, and they should not be promiscuous. So, really, he is saying that gay people should disappear.

But that is not homophobia, right!

Then Mr. Smarterthanyou goes on...he says that somehow homosexuality is the result of 'overcrowding' without providing a shred of data to support it!

Such baseless accusations are also not the result of homophobia, of course!

----

Then Mr. Smarterthanyou speaks of partial birth abortion, and basically refuses to acknowledge several facts...

a) The partial birth abortion laws that have been enacted have NOT been worded well and were written so as to ban all abortion.

b) The partial birth abortion laws also did not include a health of the mother exception.

Obviously 'depression' is not an exception that counts as 'health of the mother.' 'Permanent paralysis' does count. 'Death counts.' And absolutely there are some instances when this is necessary to prevent either death or permanent paralysis.

The debate over partial birth abortion is wrought with lies and misstatements of facts.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1028

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldhansrd/vo030512/text/30512w05.htm#30512w05_sbhd0

The last link is from the UK - a representative from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist's (RCOG) describes how the procedure is used to prevent death or morbidity of the mother.

Jason said...

""""Gay men live a very short life.""""

My life expectancy seems intact so far. Aside from tourettes syndrome, I have no physical ailments.




"""""Whatever you do, don't ASSUME that my position is based on stupidity, cruelty or ignorance. """"

Then don't do so much to give that impression.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Kevin. Being against homosexuality is not homophobic. Look the word up. If you think I am borderline abusive, then cross back over the line from stupidity. Phobia means fear. Being "against" homosexuality is not equal to fear of it.

Embryonic stem cell research is just another way to make money on abortion. The most successful research is using cord blood right now. Embryonic cells mutate too much and show cancer like tendencies. This issue, just like partial birth abortion, is just part of the feminist plan to make damn sure abortion is ingrained in our society and legal.

Kevin, you wouldn't know the scientific theory if it bent you over in a rest stop men's room.

The first link that I posted was from a very pro-gay group trying to get more AIDS funding, the second one referenced all kinds of solid, even pro-gay sources.

Red, your theory that gay men are promiscuous only because they cannot get married is unfounded, effectivly countered by one of the links that I posted, and stupid. Do you have one shred of evidence? I presented evidence to the contrary, although your opinion is idiotic on it's face. Read the links that I posted, a GAY COUPLE did research and found that GAY MARRIED MEN ARE STILL SLUTS!!!!

But being a liberal, you will rant about the use of the word "slut" and ignore the data and feel smart about it.

What makes you so desperate to resort to such rediculous crap to defend this type of behavior, and to promote gay marriage? You can't find a man, and if you cannot get married, you want to screw up marriage for everyone?

You repeatedly misstate my positions and then call them baseless.

Like most liberals, you do not follow the scientific method. You arrive at a conclusion based on your feelings, then you dismiss all other evidence or logic as lies, ignorance or stupidity. Like most liberals, you probably imagine you are much smarter than you are, and so anyone who dissagrees with isn't worth listening to.

And yes, depression is not a good reason to murder a child that could be born healthy. I realise that in the liberal world that you live in, any selfishness of any woman needs to be endorsed by society. Your first point is wrong, they have worded laws specifically for partial birth abortion, and yet that still isn't good enough.

You liberals need to understand that your extremism is going to get all abortion banned. Your position on PBA is so disgusting I would rather say life begins at conception than allow it, and so would many people who would otherwise be moderately pro-choice.

Jason, so when studies show gay men tend to die younger, you ignore that data just because you still feel healthy? This is why when gay men get AIDS, many people say "so what, they asked for it". If you are really so naive and immature that you still think you are going to be the exception, why should I pay for your treatment later? Why should I want to see laws modified to accomodate people like you?

Seems you folks are just as unhinged as any liberals.

Red Tulips said...

Mr. Smarterthanyou:

Did you actually read my link? I explained in my links that the partial birth abortion laws were so ill written, that in fact they could easily be interpreted as banning all abortion.

So yes, I have a problem with it.

Also, the law plainly does NOT have a health of the mother exception. No one is advocating 'depression' as 'health of the mother.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenberg_v._Carhart

You are being intellectually dishonest. In fact, let me rephrase...there is no intellectualism in what you are saying at all.

----

As far as homosexuality...

I am not disagreeing that gay men are more promiscuous. From what I have seen this is true. But to that I say...yeah, and?

You have yet to refute the obvious point that marriage is an institution which OBVIOUSLY discourages promiscuity. You have yet to explain how you could be against gay marriage and yet be against promiscuity at the same time.

As far as your 'study' about the life span of gay men, it is ludicrous. The reason for the lower life span is due to AIDS/HIV. The study did not conclude that non-HIV/AIDS gay men are more likely to die sooner.

You are ignoring the data in your own scientic study.

----

As far as the stem cell debate...

No one yet knows the value of stem cells versus non stem cells. This does not mean there is no value. It means that it has not yet been proven. Surely, however, one values curing cancer, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. If stem cells are the path to the cure, then I fail to see the problem here. Let scientists utilize the resources at their disposal. If stem cells turn out not to work, fine. But how do you know they won't work unless stem cell research is explored?

Your non-scientific non-thought says 'Stem cells have not found a cure yet, so let's abandon them.'

By that non-reasoning, there would have been no cures for any diseases EVER uncovered.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

I am saying let's don't make money on baby parts, fetus parts, embryo parts.

It is sick and wrong. But again, you take my words, change them, attribute them to me, and then refute them. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Embryonic stem cell research is happening in the private sector. The folks doing such research have decided for their own reasons that it is not nearly as profitable as cord cell research. So forcing taxpayers to fund embryonic cell research is not needed, except to get the gov't to sanction more fetus killing.

There are other studies out there that factor out AIDS in gay life expectancy, but I am spending too much time researching this right now. Gay communities are a hotbed for TB, every STD in the book, plus are much more likely to be heavy drug users and to get themselves into dangerous situations.

Please comment on the FACT that long term gay couples are typically not monogomous, and explain why a "marriage" will make people faithful when you have redefined marriage to take out religious consideration?

Red Tulips said...

Mr. Smarterthanyou:

[b]Marriage as it stands is not a religious institution.[/b]

Since when do 'religious considerations' have anything to do with marriage???

Marriage is merely an institution to provide thousands of benefits and protections to a relationship between two individuals. THAT IS IT. PERIOD. Marriage is even performed by judges!

And moreover, the definition of 'marriage' is a modern invention! Historically, marriage was polgygamous. This is even in the bible. If you only want 'religious' marriage, then I assume you would advocate polygamy. But you do not. Hence, you are a hypocrite.

And I have explained over and over and over again that marriage encourages monogamy. That is the POINT of monogamous marriage! To encourage monogamy! Yet you ignore this point over and over and over again.

Will some gay people cheat? Sure. So do straight people. According to your logic, straight people should also be banned from marriage, because THEY are likely to stray as well! So according to your logic, only those who can PROVE they won't stray are allowed to get married. This is an impossibility as no one has a crystal ball.

---

As far as stem cell research. This is not 'baby parts.' It is embryos which would otherwise by discarded. Moreover, private institutions are very restrained in their ability to engage in embryonic stem cell research.

Most big research facilities accept government funding for one project or another. The Bush bill states that if an institution accepts ANY funding for ANY project, then they cannot research stem cells and keep their funding. So yeah, based on that, of COURSE there is very little stem cell research going on!

You claiming that somehow 'baby parts' are being researched is wrong and a disgusting lie.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Keep calling me a lier.

Meanwhile, some more evidence for you to ignore. Ever hear of "google"?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen111099.asp

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1306761/posts

Partial quote:
"While AGF charges for "services" per specimen, competitor Opening Lines, a company that handles only fetal tissue, was unavailable for comment. According to a fee schedule provided to the pro-life organization Life Dynamics Inc., of Denton, Texas, Opening Lines does not confuse its customers by using the word " specimen" but openly lists charges by the body part. For instance, it may charge as little as $150 for the retrieval of a liver or $500 for a trunk (with or without limbs); a spinal cord goes for $325.

The sale of "services" in the acquisition of body parts exploded after President Clinton signed the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993, effectively lifting the moratorium on federally funded research involving transplantation of fetal tissue from spontaneous or induced abortions. The taxpayer-funded legislation specifically allows for "research on the transplantation of human fetal tissue for therapeutic purposes." Since then, a rare breed of entrepreneurs have battled for a foothold in the newly created market of organ harvesting. "

Please feel free to admit that you have been ignorant of some very important facts surrounding the politics and profit of abortions, and that you were hasty to accuse me of a disgusting lie. Actually, you, and your liberal co-horts are guilty of disgusting ignorance, and of voting for scum.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Regarding your delusion that marriage and religion are separate, I don't see how I can comment other than to say it is funny how most marriages are and have been performed by religious authorities. Yes, Judges do it too, but marriage is part of Christianity.

Liberals are very arrogant to think they can redefine anything they want, anytime they find it convenient.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

http://www.voy.com/160745/7.html

Red Tulips said...

Mr. Smarterthanyou:

Stem cell research is not research from fetal body parts. It is research from discarded embryos. You are not speaking of stem cells when you speak of research on spinal cords and the like. You are outright confusing issues and outright lying.

http://stemcells.alphamedpress.org/

As far as the notion that fetal spinal cords are tested on - that is a seperate issue.

My thought is that if the alternative is medical waste, then I see no problem with testing discarded fetal spinal cords. I fail to see what the big problem is.

---

As far as marriage goes, it is a part of Christianity, but so what? So is polygamy. You have yet to explain why you believe in 'traditional' marriage and yet you refuse to accept polygamy. You are engaging in nonsense arguments.

Moreover, marriage as it stands now is distinct from religion. The reason marriage should be legalized for gay people is because it is MORE than a religious institution - it is a institution which also carries with it thousands of benefits accorded to the law.

If you only want religious marriage, then don't tie religious marriage to the state.

And lest we forget, the nation of the United States is NOT an officially Christian nation. The founders of the nation were not even uniformly Christian! One of the most important founders of the nation was Jewish - Hayim Solomon. He is known to have financed the American Revolutionary War. Some people have speculated that he even wrote the first draft to US Constitution.

http://jewishworldreview.com/jewish/salomon.asp

http://www.freemason.org/cfo/july_august_2001/juda.htm

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Oh Jesus,

You pull some jew we never heard of and say he financed the rev war? HUH?

He may have wrote the first version of the const?

He was one of the most important founding fathers?

Because there was a Jewish money man that cancels out all the Christians involved in founding the nation?

The country was still founded on Christian morals, made great by Christian morals and by the labor of Christians. Before you mention slavery, I'll mention that fundimentalist Christians were critical to ending the war and freeing the slaves.

Fetal stem cell research puts $ value on the earliest stages of human life.

And you still owe me an apology, as I clearly showed that baby parts are being researched.

You didn't comment on my graphics RE partial birth abortion. Not pretty?

Just because you jews and athiests have managed to drive wedges between marriage and religion doesn't in itself justify driving another wedge.

Stop trying to imply that I said Christianity is the official religion. I never said that, you are just being hysterical about it.

The facts of gay marriage that you still dance around:
a)The people, through their legislatures, govorners, and through their petitions, have shown in numerous states that they do not want gay marriage.
b) The constitution doesn't give the federal gov't authority over marriage, therefore it is not a US Constitutional issue.
c)The only reason why there is an attempt to get a US Constitutional amendment is because activist judges, with no clear jurisdiction, are intent on abusing their authority to oppose the will of the people.

Liberals have shown that they are willing to use democracy to get what they want, and when that doesn't work, they are happy to resort to tyranny, fraud and deception. The ends do not justify the means.

Red Tulips said...

Mr. Smarterthanyou:

I owe you no such apology. You owe me an apology. You refuse to look at facts.

The fact is that stem cell research is research on embryos, not 'baby parts.

The other sorts of research going on is not stem cell research.

That is the FACT.

Hayim Solomon most certainly was a chief financier of the Revolutionary War, and he most certainly is a Founding Father of this nation. He also was JEWISH.

Deny this all you want, but it is a proven FACT.

As far as gay marriage goes, this is about EQUALITY.

In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that states could not deny a marriage on the basis of race. Reason? Equality.

What is going on is nothing short of tyranny of the majority. The fact that a majority of people want something to be so does not make it right. And there absolutely is jurisdiction to rule on this issue. It is called the fourteenth amendment.

And let me add, in bold, you have yet to refute the obvious point that if you want 'Christian' marriages' and 'traditional' marriages, you would be in favor of polygamy, not monogamous marriage.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

So when in the last 2,000 years has polygamy been common in Christian countries? It hasn't been.

Embryos are baby parts. Oh, that's right, liberals reserve the right to define when it is an embryo, fetus, or baby by when it is most convenient to them. All forms of profiting from embryos on down the line to babies should not be allowed. It is an ethical thing.

I don't see your Jewish friend's signature on the Declaration, Constitution or the Bill of rights. That doesn't make him a leading founder, it makes him second or third string. It also doesn't change a damn thing about what I said.

Not destroying a long standing religious/social tradition honored by the majority is not tyranny. Gays are deviants, their lifestyle is sick, and the majority of the US is tired of the gay agenda. Stop trying to force us to pretend it is normal, because that is what it really is about.

Seems liberals are always getting upset over being denied this and that imagined right. Maybe the desire of the German majority for you to JUST SHUT UP was behind some of the anti-jew feeling.

Gays, athiests, jews, muslims, whatever, have the responsibility to try to get along with the majority. The majority Christians should respect the rights of others, and we do better than any other nation on earth, but we shouldn't have to sell what we believe in for a bunch of whiners and complainers.

Again, we need a more federalist system, so you can live in your fag/jew/socialist NY or CA or wherever, and I can live in free Idaho, without ever feeling the need to bear arms against people like you to preserve my nation and my rights and the future for my kids. You liberals need to learn to stop pushing when enough is enough. Tolerance is running out, and you keep shoving your socialist/gay aganda on the rest of us, and eventually we will show you what the 2nd Amendment is really all about, and maybe we will all learn the hard way how the holocaust happened.

You liberals are so afraid of muslims that you would sell your souls to appease them, maybe it is time to make you just as afraid of the right in America. You keep at us with your socialism, anti-white male descrimination, abortion, gay propoganda. All you need to do is add a serious gun grab and it will be Lexington all over again, because lord knows it makes no sense at all to argue with you.

I think I am going to do the best research that I can on jewish/ leftist public figures in pre-wwII Germany, see if I can find similar immorality and attacks on their Christian values.

Thanks for letting me know just how hopeless you all are.

Red Tulips said...

Mr. Smarterthanyou:

You have shown yourself to be a one man hate machine on par with my ex-friend, qrswave. You are a graphic example of how the far right is the exact same as the far left. Both are antisemitic and genocidal.

Just disgusting.

Kevin said...

Mr.Smarterthanyou i do not fear getting bum raped. Rape is a serious problem for both sexes. Male rape is under reported because of the negative consenquences of admitting to being raped by another man. You do fear homosexuality, otherwise you would not bat an eyelid towards what you see as the evils of homosexuality.
On the subject of stem cell research you are missing a few vital pieces of information:
1. America will be left behind in terms of scientific progress made by stem cell research. Which will harm American power. Name one medical advance that has not used objectionable techniques to further the understanding of the human body.
2. Not all stem cell research is carried out using embryos. Indeed they have grown a mini human liver using fluid from the umblical cord.
3. Adult stem cells are also being studied, one such study involves looking into the possiblity of using adult stem cells to regrow teeth that have been lost. The cells are derived from the persons own body.

On your bum rape point:
Human beings in general are violent. Violence shows no regard for sexuality, race or religion.

And for your information i have studied the laws of physics, chemistry and biology to A level standard. You are a short sighted fool who cannot see past your own fear of being bum raped by the evil gay men who are out to destroy america through vile deeds of a sexual nature.

And one final thought for you. If you want people to take you seriously do not descend to the level of using insults and shouting louder than other people to make sure their points of view are drowned out.

God Bless Liberal America.
Ich habe jetzt Ihre Tasten betätigt. Genießen Sie bitte, an der Öffnung zu schäumen.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Kevin, Umm, I never mentioned bum rape, my point on stem cells that was that the bets are on the other methods to succeed anyway. As a degreed engineer who is also highly qualified (according to the NCLB act) in math, general science, physical science and geography, and have taught US govt, US constitution and biology, I am pretty sure I am qualified to say I have pretty good qualifications to understand and talk about the issue of stem cell research.

regarding being taken seriously, too many voices on this blog have shown that on key issues, they have no interest in logic or fact that doesn't support them. SO there is no profit to patience. Just a suggestion that liberals and conservatives alike need to figure out a way to reinstate federalism before we are at each other's throats. It is in your best interest.

One one side, wimpy, whiney gays/jews/selfcentered liberals who don't believe in guns vs. people with an independent streak, a majority of vets, and familiarity with firearms and a love of something besides instant gratification-our families, our children and our country.

One side watches Patton for inspiration, the other side watches Steel Magnolias.

Who wins?
You guys need to stop pushing your crap at us. You keep using tyrannical judges to overturn the will of the people and the tree of liberty will need blood to stay strong.

Red Tulips said...

Mr. Smarterthanyou:

You are a bloated idiot, full of yourself.

This blog wholly stands against Islamofascism, as you can see if you actually READ IT. Moreover, I fully believe in the second amendment and never even implied otherwise. I am sure that Thomas, a military veteran, would say the same.

You could have all the degrees you want. I don't care. You are in favor of a genocide, and you repulse me. You also are anti-science to imply an embryo is a baby.

If anything, your multi-degreed status is further proof of the totally pathetic state of the American education system.

Go back to whatever hole you came from, your genocidal beliefs (eventually we will show you what the 2nd Amendment is really all about, and maybe we will all learn the hard way how the holocaust happened) are not wanted here.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

It is not a matter of science to determine when an embryo becomes a baby, it is a matter of opinion, as both words are defined by people. So much for the state of your opinion, perhaps you have one of those liberal arts degrees that leaves you knowing nothing but having an inflated opinion of your own intellect?

I am not genocidal, I want to protect my culture. You want to destroy it.

What does Thomas's military status mean? The old liberal argument that if you can find a vet who support liberals he is reasonable, but if a vet is conservative he is a nut? Guess I am a nut, because I served also.

Feel the change in the air. Liberals have been pushing too much, lying too much, usurping too much power. Election fraud is just the icing on the cake. Sooner or later there will be a pushback.

Steven said...

Mr. Smarterthanyou, you have supported genocide against Muslims, you have attempted to justify the Holocaust, you have even suggested that I agree with the people who refuse to call terrorists, terrorists.

If I may be so bold to say: all these things are against CultureForAll principles and values.

Your comments would be welcome if they were not so agressive and offensive in nature.

In my opinion your biggest NoNo's were supporting genocide against Muslims and your comments about the Holocaust:

"Tolerance is running out, and you keep shoving your socialist/gay aganda on the rest of us, and eventually we will show you what the 2nd Amendment is really all about, and maybe we will all learn the hard way how the holocaust happened."

I think you ought to question what you are doing with your time in this small community?