It used to be that gays were in the closet. Now it seems that people who voted yes on California Proposition 8 are the ones in the closet. If you admit that you voted yes on 8 to define marriage as heterosexual only, then you are labeled a bigot and a hater. So you can’t tell your friends you voted yes on 8 because they won’t talk to you anymore. And there’s no having a civil conversation with gay marriage supporters to address legitimate reasons why someone might vote yes on 8.
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 5014 access attempts in the last 7 days.
If it’s a defect then it would tend to disappear over generations and be specific to a species. Last time I looked ungulates are not humans unless Paddy-O has been going out behind the paddock.
Or could Paddy-O be trolling? Let me get Occam’s Razor out…
#129 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>And this has to do with homosexuality being
>>a genetic defect how?
In the sense that (at least according to you), gays are hapless victims of cruel fate, unlike the evil perpetrators of childless marriages.
Since the only reason to call something a “marriage” is to crank out rug rats, anything else is, well, something else. And the gays have no say in the matter.
I would think your anger and discrimination would be directed first toward people who CAN have children but CHOOSE NOT TO. It’s one thing to be an evolutionary dead end when you have no choice, but to commit such a crime against nature VOLUNTARILY? I would think you’d demand jail time if those charlatans, those poseurs, tried to pawn off their unholy relationship as “marriage”!
#130 – ‘dro
>>Or are you going to belittle them because
>>their not “real gays”
Nope, but it’s nice to know that the “choicers” among the anti-gay-marriage contingent are really closet bisexuals.
Very enlightening.
#132 Mustard,
You’re babbling again.
Homosexuality is caused by a genetic defect. It has nothing to do with your repressed anger or views on marriage or views on whether you like the colour blue.
It is a defect. Someday, this defect will be detectable and repairable before birth.
Is fixing genetic defects a bad thing?
Well, I was trying to keep out of this discussion, but here goes…
I think the anger in the pro-gay marriage groups is a displacement of anger for their own failure to run a successful campaign. I live in Southern California, I saw plenty of TV adds and people on street corners in favor of Prop 8, but very little against it until the last couple of days.
As for “protecting the sanctity of marriage” , I think the divorce rate in the US kind-of kills the legitimacy of that argument.
My bottom line is that this issue is too important to be decided piecemeal, it needs to be done at a Federal level, with real legislation, not some court decision. To bad Congress (both parties) are to chicken-shit to deal with it.
Pres-Elect Obama said he was for civil unions but against gay marriage, I haven’t heard anyone on the pro-gay marriage side screaming about that.
#132 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>You’re babbling again.
Naw, your comprehension skills just leave something to be desired.
>>Is fixing genetic defects a bad thing?
Not if the fixee is on board, which would be difficult during gestation.
A lot of people enjoy the lifestyle. Just because they’re not overpopulating the earth at the rate you deep appropriate is no reason to go on a genetic cleansing rampage.
Do you suppose they could fix that extra bone the darkies have in their ankle, the one that allows them to move so blazingly fast?
You’re a douche bag, Paddy-RAMBO. Why don’t you just admit it. You don’t like gays, and anything that will stick it to them, you’re in favor of, be it right or wrong.
#136 – ‘dro
>>How’s that behaviour projection working
>>for ya?
Heh. Heh heh heh. {snicker}
# 137 Mister Mustard said, “Not if the fixee is on board, which would be difficult during gestation.”
So, that rules out abortion for you then.
Cool.
If civil rights in the USA were left to be decided to the majority the whole nation would have become the biggest FLDS compound in the world.
As individuals humans are smart but en masse they’re nothing but an angry, ignorant mob.
#139 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>So, that rules out abortion for you then.
I’ve never had one, and I never will. So yes, I guess that rules it out for me.
I let others make their own decision, as whether or not a clump of cells is really a “person” in utero is an undecided question.
However, if you go dicking around with that clump of cells in such a way that at full term it’s born with different genetic characteristics than nature intended, well that’s a whole different kettle of fish. Now you’re talking about something that everyone agrees is a full-fledged human (except for those of you who consider gays to be sub-human).
The problem you hatemongers have is that you have to come up with ad hoc arguments to defend the logical inconsistencies in your points of view, which generally have “hatred” and “control of others” as the common denominator.
Cursor_said, before you and every misinformed Bible quoters, lead every one astray, try this scripture on for size..Leviticus 18:22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” its not born in you, its abnormal and according to God its an abomination, period. Look at scripture before you misquote it please.
# 141 Mister Mustard said, “However, if you go dicking around with that clump of cells in such a way that at full term it’s born with different genetic characteristics than nature intended, well that’s a whole different kettle of fish. ”
Sorry to break it to ya, but legally, it’s settled law. Roe v. Wade decided this issue.
Now, with Obama getting stem cell research going again and Universal Healthcare, I can see that in the future, parents will have the tools & resources needed to correct genetic defects in the womb.
Thanks Obama!
>However, if you go dicking around with that clump of cells in such a way that at full term it’s born with different genetic characteristics than nature intended,
Why do you hate science so much?
This is all a big misunderstanding. There are two things called marriage. As it says on http://2tcm.org/ — One is a legally recognized agreement about property rights, child custody, taxes, and health benefits. The other is an agreement recognized by the church showing the union of a man and a woman before God. Would it be so terrible to just re-name one of them?
Again I will restate.
I had NO CHOICE. It was girls all the way.
Men make me sick. They have NOTHING, zero, zip, nada to offer. I don’t associate with them as much as possible. I have little in common with them. When they start talking sports I walk away. They talk autos or guns I would rather gas them. And when they start their “cocktales” about who they would like to screw or whom they have screwed I would rather stick skewers in both ears than listen to their hogwash.
The choice was made for me by nature. Straight as an arrow. I was offered twice in my life and turned it down both times. Men leave me cold as ice. Pure trogs.
Gays are nature made that way as no one would choose to suck the last chicken in the shop!
Cursor_
#143 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>Sorry to break it to ya, but legally, it’s settled law. Roe v. Wade decided this issue.
Am guessing MM was born pre-RvWade – pity.
#145,
Do you really think the church would want to call theirs a Holy Fuck Up or something like that?
Cow-Paddy, Ignorant Shit Talking Sociopath and Mall Rent-A-Cop,
I notice you not only screwed up with your Obama’s Civilian Armed Force on the Laid Off Engineer post, you went and did the same here. Get a life and quit the trolling.
#143 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>Sorry to break it to ya, but legally, it’s
>>settled law. Roe v. Wade decided this issue.
Paddy-RAMBO, when you complete Junior High civics class, you will know that Roe v Wade only pertains to abortion of a fertilized ovum, not to genetic dicking around with embryos that are going to become people. And you will recognize the difference between reproductive rights and the creation of Frankenhumans.
>>I can see that in the future, parents will
>>have the tools & resources needed to correct
>>genetic defects in the womb
I guess they will, provided they consider it a “defect”, AND they’re into eugenics. That worked out pretty well during the Holocaust, don’t you think? It will be a great technological advance for “parents” who e.g. want a boy, find out they’re getting a girl, then have an abortion.
>>Thanks Obama!
I imagine all of America will be saying that quite a bit for the next 8 years. And beyond.
#107
Actually, I only stated that the Proposition to ban gay marriage passed allowing the government to freely discriminate based on sexual preference. The causes for that passage are numerous however, the primary reason it passed is that intolerant, almost exclusively religious people voted in larger numbers than tolerant, non-religious types.
Gay people will commit to one another something akin to marriage regardless of this Proposition. The government can do nothing to stop that. However, what has happened is that the government is now allowed to confer benefits on a subset of unions based on sexual preference with no societal benefit.
If the government is not allowed to confer benefits on a subset of society based on gender or race, why would you think it is acceptable to do so based on sexual proclivities?
As someone aptly put it, CA voted in rights for chickens and vote out rights for humans.
#129
The current scientific thinking is that homosexual tendencies are not genetic or at least not predominately genetic. It is postulated that they are due to conditions during gestation.
#145
From the standpoint of the State, what’s the point? The State should simply recognize “civil unions” and nothing else. Individuals can call it marriage if they like and can even use the term in reference to religious ceremonies taken at the time of the union. However, from the State’s perspective, there is no point in having two terms for the same thing. Doing so would lead to the propensity, like now, of confer benefits and privileges to one type of union and not the other.
I’m an atheist, my wife is a wiccan. When we got married, we did so at the courthouse, not a church, for obvious reasons. Even so, we had to sign a piece of paper that said we were married “before God” or some such tripe before we were actually considered contractually linked. I went for a civil union, but ended up married, because that’s the only way we could have all the rights and privileges that married people get.
Somebody really oughta fix that, it’s not fair for us non-god-fearers to have to lie on record just to have the same rights as everyone else. Call it anything you want, just give people an option to become an American family regardless of their religion, or sexual preference for that matter.
Gay hate us for voting to ban gay marriage. Gay hate us for not accepting their life style. Gay hate us for not agree with them. And so on.
#155 – Bookie
All your base are belong to us…
#155, Booky,
And I suppose you hate them even more because of who they are.
#153, Thomas,
RE #129,
WOW. Thank you for setting me (us) straight. I confess I too held those beliefs. In fact, because I didn’t your statement so I have spent some time searching for something to bolster the gene argument or refute the behavior argument.
Plainly put, I was wrong.
#158,
I, too, have heard that argument.
Supposedly, the mother releases an overabundance of a certain hormone that affects the fetus’ brain in such a way as to determine sexual orientation. Heterosexuality is determined by the mother’s ability to keep that hormone balanced. Failure results in homosexuality.
From what I’ve read, they haven’t determined “what” that hormone is, but have found certain genetic markers in the mothers of homosexual offspring that are responsible for regulating certain hormones during pregnancy.
Research is ongoing.
The question then becomes, if they do find that hormone imbalance causes it, how many parents would opt for the pills and how many would not? How many of you straight “live and let live” individuals would opt for the pills if your doctor told you and your wife that your child would be homosexual but you could alter that outcome with a pill?
# 160 LibertyLover said, “How many of you straight “live and let live” individuals would opt for the pills if your doctor told you and your wife that your child would be homosexual but you could alter that outcome with a pill?”
Considering CA is the most lib state & over 50% there would probably choose that option, it would be much higher in the US as a whole.
#153 Thomas said “As someone aptly put it, CA voted in rights for chickens and vote out rights for humans.”
You right there, I just went back and checked the results:
Prop 2 Chicken Rights: Yes=7.3mil No=4.2mil
Prop 8 No Gay Marriage: Yes=6.2mil No=5.7mil
Amazing ain’t it…
#160, Liberty,
Yes, although we are straying from the topic to something I am far from an expert in and I think you too. What you ask might be getting into the realm of Science Fiction.
Too many years ago, I remember reading a short story which ended with the finding of a cure for homosexuality. I confess I was much less understanding then but I didn’t quite understand the ending where the homosexual community rebelled. Today I see them as being happy being who they are. Today, I respect their life, choice or fault.