Posted on 11/12/2005 4:07:04 PM PST by dvan
By 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
OAKLAND, California (Reuters) - As U.S. gays and lesbians prepare to battle a raft of state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage that will likely be on the ballot next fall, activists are recasting the issue as one that needs to be fought on moral rather than political grounds.
That is the message Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the oldest and leading U.S. grass-roots gay and lesbian coalition, has taken to more than 2,500 gay rights organizers at its annual conference held in Oakland this week.
"What I really want people to understand is rather than seeing these as political contests, these are really profound, unfair, bordering on immoral elections," Foreman told Reuters on Saturday. "Imagine if this was being done to a minority in Kosovo -- people would be outraged."
The conference, due to end on Sunday, is the first national gathering of gay and lesbian organizers since Tuesday's elections in which Texan voters approved, by nearly a 76 percent majority, a state constitutional amendment banning
Opponents, who believe marriage is only between a man and a woman, argue that same-sex marriage is unnatural and damaging to families.
If last year's conference, which came on the heels of elections in which 11 states approved changing their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage, was a time to vent anger and hurt over the defeats, this year the drive is to organize broad-based grass-roots campaigns to defeat more such votes, said Patrick Guerriero, president of the gay advocacy group Log Cabin Republicans.
"We've gone from some of the (2004) post-election anger to a movement that is optimistic about the future," Guerriero said in an interview.
"We need to be more mobilized as a community, more bipartisan in our message," Guerriero said, pointing to the need to engage people of faith, centrist Republicans and conservative Democrats.
UPHILL CLIMB
It will be a steep hill to climb, activists said.
"We're going to have another 10 to 12 anti-marriage, anti-family recognition constitutional amendments on the ballots next fall," Foreman said. "That's going to be an enormous challenge.'
Two key elements in the strategy to defeat more votes banning same-sex marriage will be reaching out to people of faith and demanding that Democrats, who have long counted on gays and lesbian as core supporters, stand up for the gay community, Foreman said.
"The Democrats' response to gay issues over the last few years has been incoherent and spineless, and that has only worked to their disadvantage," Foreman said. "There is a sense among large gay donors to the Democratic party that they need to have the party take a stand for us."
Somehow I fail to see the relevance?
...is as offensive to many as mother-son marriage, polygamy, sister-brother marriage, etc.
He thinks he shares victimhood with Albanian Muslims in Kosovo? As if they'd be kind to homosexuals!
Homosexuals are one of the few minorities who actually make a conscious choice that that is what they wish to be.
If your gay you can marry exept for these qualifications.
+
Good luck in Texas. The people of the State of Nebraska approved an amendment to the state constitution several years ago. It was a referendum since the politicians refused to pass it. The vote percentage was about the same in Texas, 3 to 1 or so. In one case, we beat the Texans. EVERY COUNTY in the State voted to approve it. The gays went to court and it was thrown out by a Federal Judge last year. Said that it violated the Federal Constitution. Funny, I don't remember reading about gay marriage in my copy of the Constitution. He did, though and that's all that counts.
The secret to any good strategy. First create a victim class.
Actually, I've been to Kosovo and several other third world places. Guess what? In none of those places was there a push for gay marriage or any other such nonsense. People are concerned with things like eating, and staying warm. Only in Western nations where people are well off with a lot of time on their hands do you see a call for trivialities such as gay rights.
Moral issue... hmmm....
Well, we know that after 25 years of trying, they haven't found any genetic evidence that people are "born this way." In fact, the strongest statement that I've heard from a geneticist, or neurologist, is people might be "inclined" towards their sexual activity, much like some people might be "inclined" to be a couch potatoe.
So, they cannot claim it's a moral issue because they are "born that way."
Worse for them, if this is simply a moral issue, then the discussion will turn to reclassifying a moral "wrong" to a moral "right". That will inevitably lead to comparisons with people / activities that we don't wish to reclassify (pedophiles?). I know from experience that such a comparison horrifys the gay/lesbian/transgender/Idunno/whatever camp.
It's not relevant -- and they know it.
There's NO REASON to permit same gender marriages and they know that too.
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Oh, so they want to fight morality using morality as a stick to beat us with? Almost laughable if the outcome were not so serious. Equating a person who likes to engage in same sex acts with a member of a particular race or religion is NOT going to go over well with racial minorities or most (actual) religious people.
Interesting to see how this plays out.
Freepmail me and DirtyHarryY2K if you want on/off this pinglist.
(Kind of reminds me of when people like Howeird Dean start talking religion....)
You don't see the relevance because the analogy makes no sense.
Homosexuals aren't victims because they are homosexuals. They are victims of screwed up genes. There's no fixing it either. Validating the screwed up sexual orientation by pretending that it ISN'T screwed up isn't going to fix it. Soceity shouldn't be forced to say something is normal when it's not. That doesn't make society a victimizer. It's just common sense.
Bottom line: Every society has the right to decide on the parameters of what consistutes a marriage. Heck, there are strict rules on who can DRIVE.
Something as profoundly important as marriage deserves a society's best efforts. Opening the doors to SAME-SEX marriage would open the door to polygamy, woman marrying multiple men, child marriage and Farsi marriages (anything goes but monther-son marrriage). Even the most foolish moron in the society knows that changing our laws on marriage would be opening Pandora's Box -- moral chaos would ensue.
Follow-through on the thinking:
For all the Muslim lovers out there, THEY would be the next in line asking for polygamy. We would then have to give it to them. The Mormons would rejoice. All those guys could get themselves a younger wife every two years. They could pretend to be Biblical patriarchs or harem collectors of Arab lore. How lovely for our women and all those children.
Homosexuals are abnormal. They DESPERATELY want society's validation that they are normal. "Marriage" is a validation of their profound abnormality.
SAME-SEX marriage is just wrong. Very simple.
I say we send em to Kosovo and find out, why imagine?
Not really. I'm opposed to homos in Kosovo getting "married" as well.
"......Today, on Maury Povich.......
He married his mother just to make his sister jealous, but is he really the father of her child?
'My Brother, My Son, My Nephew'
....Today on Maury....."
Morals and homosexuality? Perhaps they might want to reference that study in the Netherlands that revealed that married homosexuals had, on average, 8 extramarital partners per year per person.
Or perhaps we ought to examine what goes on in gay bars, nightclubs, bookshops, in gas stations, and whatever else you can think of.
If there is a group who has no moral ground to stand on whatsoever, it's this one. Having lived with gay roommates, I've seen it first hand. And it's pretty pathetic.
Moral grounds? LOL! Oh how blind they are.
In a moral world the gays would lose on a moral basis. In a leftist bizarro world 2+2=3.
"Imagine if this was being done to a minority in Kosovo -- people would be outraged."
He's trying to liken it to ethnic cleansing. I'm sure the MSM will buy that argument hook, line, and sinker.
Bump
I know why he picked this analogy. It was the ONLY comparison to a minority group he could think of that would not offend some PC sensibility or other. I'm surprised he didn't pick an Eskimo or whatever we're supposed to call those people these days.
If those all pass, that would make 29-31 states with traditional marriage constitutional amendments.
We're moving along.
Doggone historical realities.
Morals??? (snort). The gays are going to talk about Gay Marriage as moral???? SNORT. Hahaha. Maybe they can get Teddy Kennedy to help them. He's great on morals.
It's called "playing the victim card". They've gone from equating their struggles to the civil rights struggles of the 1950's and 1960's, to equating their struggles of the Kosovar's being bombed from 15,000 feet in the sky by General Weasel Clark.
There's nothing moral about gay marriages or the gay lifestyle either. It's an abomination.
They have no moral ground from which to stand on.
Considering the Marxist Islamic KLA is known for sex slavery and running heroin, I guess the liberal queers have the whole "morality" angle figured out.
Please, PLEASE, put the issue in MORAL terms! Save us who are on the side of families the work of framing the issue.
I never understood the significance of the debate between whether it's meaningful that homosexual instinct is innate (some folks are born that way), or if it is a taste that is developed for any number (or combination) of reasons.
Nature or nurture as some folks pose it.
It doesn't really matter what it is. To say that it is a natural instinct doesn't mean that it is to be required accomodation by our laws. People have plenty of perfectly natural instincts that don't serve public policy - that they are 'natural' isn't a reason to accomodate them.
That they are developed for whatever reason also isn't a reason to accomodate them.
I never understood the fixation on both sides of the argument with the nature/nurture debate. It really doesn't matter what the reason is - there's no particular need to change the longstanding institution of marriage for 100% of the culture to accomodate 1-2% of the culture.
That's not to say we should institutionally be mean to that 1-2%. We shouldn't. But the legal fact remains: every homosexual has the same right to get married as any heterosexual: find a person of the opposite sex to agree to marry you, fill out some forms, pay some money, have a ceremony, and you're good to go.
This is really weak.
Nobody is going to make the imaginary stupid connection being implied here.
I am afraid that homosexuals do not make a choice to be sexually or romantically attracted to the same gender. They can only choose to act on their desires or to resist them.
Much has been made of the recent study by Robert Spitzer on homosexuals who appear to have changed their sexual orientation to heterosexual. It is true that many of these persons have succeeded in living in heterosexual marriages, but only a minority of them reported no longer having same-sex desires. Moreover, the sample of individuals Spitzer studied were not randomly selected; they were volunteers. Spitzer has made it clear he believes that the large majority of gay men who try to change their orientation through therapy do not succeed.
Accordingly, I think there is a good case, based on compassion, to have limited legal recognition of same-sex unions. The only other reasonable alternative is of course celibacy (chastity) for gay men: but let us be realistic, most men are unable to follow this path. They may attempt a heterosexual marriage, which would have a high probability of failure (an arrangement not fair to any woman!). If they do choose to act on their homosexual desires, far better that they do so in the context of a caring, stable relationship. (Given that 25% of sexually active urban gay men have HIV, any reduction of homosexual promiscuity is to be welcomed. There is a minority of gay men who are in long-term monogamous relationships.)
There are other studies which prove quite different results. Johns-Hopkins' latest belief -- after they closed their Homosexual Studies Program (whatever it was really called) -- is that homosexuality thrives in a cohort situation. If people in your community are ok with it, it is much more likely to thrive. It is a behavior that is CHOSEN. It is a habit/ behavior reinforced by doing it many times, hence harder to break the more you do it. As the fight intensifies, watch for more 'research' to support homosexuality. Lies can be used in any field to prove anything, if you have an agenda.
But again, I would like to reiterate my skepticism that homosexuality is chosen. The behavior is chosen but not the underlying desire. Homosexuality for most gay men appears to originate in childhood, before puberty; no one is making a conscious choice to be gay, it happens before such a choice is possible. Some claim that homosexuality is the result of weak fathers, sexual abuse by adults, rejection by peers, or childhood sexual experiences with peers -- but the problem with each of these claims is that there are a lot of children who experience these things who turn out heterosexual, and it is still very unclear what actually sends one child down one path and other child the other path. Genetics may play a role (based on the Bailey and Pillard twin studies), but that's unclear as well. The key thing to understand is most gay men report that they have no conscious memory of when or how they became gay. Also, most gay men report that their same-sex desires are as deeply determined as most heterosexuals report their opposite-sex desires to be deeply determined.
The only situation where homosexuality apears to be chosen is in prison or similar situations. However, in these circumstances, homosexuality is almost always a substitute for heterosexual behavior; men who have been in prison for many years and who have had only homosexual contact for that time, will immediately revert to heterosexual contact when it becomes available to them.
I am wracking my brain trying to remember where I heard that. I would check with Exodus Intl: http://www.exodus-international.org/. They have a great speakers bureau, many well-educated people involved. Joseph Nicolosi, Phd, is on their board. I am sure you can find the study through Exodus.
No luck: I just tried the search on Google, 'johns-hopkins site:www.exodus-international.org'. Four links turned up, three of which mentioned a researcher, Dr. Money of Johns-Hopkins, who advanced the "blank slate" theory of sexuality. The first link that came up contained a quote from Money asserting that the theory that homosexuality was genetic had been discarded, but the reference for that statement dated to 1974.
With regards to homosexuality, the moral choice would be to help them overcome their lifestyle...not encourage it.
People of true faith, not of some contrived politically expedient variety, have been approving marriage protection referendums hands down in the past couple of years (Thank you, Texas!) What support do they think they'll find among this group?
...and demanding that Democrats, who have long counted on gays and lesbian as core supporters, stand up for the gay community.... "The Democrats' response to gay issues over the last few years has been incoherent and spineless, and that has only worked to their disadvantage..."
The sweet irony of this statement is LOL amusing. The Democratic Party, in embracing the homosexual agenda as an office platform issue, would almost surely condemn itself to further election losses and loss of relevance. Don't they realize that President Clinton and and a majority of Democrats in Congress signed DOMA into law for the reason that the majority of good, thinking Americans see this issue for what it is? And the Democrats loose the radical gay constituency if they remain "spineless"... what an interesting situation we're going to see over the next few years.
If this is true, how do you explain bisexuality?
True bisexuality does exist, but most homosexuals are not bisexual; most homosexual men experience little attraction to the fairer sex.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, some heterosexual men will find gratification in homosexual activity, in settings such as prison, but these men prefer sexual contact with women and will not participate in homosexual contact if heterosexual outlets are available. Conversely, there are men who are homosexual who are able to function in heterosexual marriages even though their strong preference is for homosexual sex. More than a few women find themselves married to such men; unfortunately, this sometimes leads to transmission of HIV to the wife, or to sad dramas such as a man being arrested for seeking furtive homosexual contact in a city park or restroom. (Any gay man who decides to attempt reparative therapy and who seeks marriage must be honest and open to his wife; a woman needs love and courage to enter into such a marriage.)
Research by the geneticist Dean Hamer indicates that true bisexuality is uncommon. He asked men various questions concerning their sexuality, e.g., "if you are walking down the street and you see someone attractive, what gender are they?". He was trying to get at their real sexual orientation, instead of their behavior. What he found was interesting: On the Kinsey scale (where 0=completely straight, 6=completely gay), it turns out most men are 0 or 1, or else 5 or 6. Few men are in the middle. (The distribution is "bimodal".) Hamer of course reached the conclusion that this indicates homosexuality is a trait, likely to have a genetic origin. He in fact claimed to have located a gene, on the X chromosome (and thus always inherited from the mother). But this result was not replicated, and the origins of homosexuality remain murky.
The above comments concern men. It is well-known that women seem to be less fixed in their sexuality than men. In fact, there's a joke that refers to "LUGs", women who are Lesbian Until Graduation. Also, there are fewer lesbians than gay men (the ratio seems to be two to one in favor of gay men.) Why this is so, no one knows.
Yes, but the Kosovars would be outraged that they were not allowed to kill homosexuals by toppling a wall on them, as sharia prescribes.
BEFORE the homosexuals were casting ALL objection to homosexual marriage was just RELIGIONS OVER MORALISM.
They ignored all non-religious objections.
SO like other homosexual efforts, they are trying to PROPAGANDA LIE that magically NOW religious moralism favors the promotion of soddomy.
This is ALL about a chosen recreational sex behavior being ecconomically rewarded.
If you just go to exodus and ask them about that, I am sure they will know about the J-H program and what happened with it. My source was good.
Bisexuality, homosexuality, chastity -- they are all decisions. Action is a decision. Desire is just a feeling. Moral codes override desires all the time -- your desire to have the last word with your boss, desire to pursue a flame outside of marriage, desire to stay in bed and not go to work, desire to eat the whole cheesecake instead of a small piece. Moral decisions, actions, taking the high road -- those are decisions of the will. They have nothing to do with what you want.
Actually I've read studies that up to 50% of homosexual men reported being sexually abused as a minor. This would indicate that there was a precipitating factor in their sexual preference.
Also, most gay men report that their same-sex desires are as deeply determined as most heterosexuals report their opposite-sex desires to be deeply determined.
If that's true, then I certainly hope the Vatican report on the ordination of homosexual men takes that into account that all homosexual tendencies are "deep-seated" and hence a bar to ordination.
There is no genetic component to Same-sex attraction disorder. Lots of studies have reported finding a link and all of them have been bedunked. It is entirely a mental illness.
It is caused by one of three primary causes. 1. Having a weak or absent relationship with one's father, 2. Being molested or abused. 3. Being relentlessly teased by one's peers during the formative years.
It is also curable. Reparative therapy, oth secular and religious has shown a cure rate at least equal to the cure rate for alcoholism. There are thousands of ex-homosexuals.
Read the homosexual agenda list of links for further details. (It's on freeper Scripter's profile page)
(I agree with the rest of your post)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.