Apologies from the US to the UK

Well, Joe, setting aside your heavy sarcasm (I'm glad thatI for one, never engage in that ), ignoring Constitutional provisions is fine--just so long as moral, caring, community-organizing, Chicago-trained Democrats are at the helm.  The problem is the precedent one sets when (and I admit with all the "free" stuff being handed out by Obama, the likelihood is not great) those evil, immoral, heartless, oil-drilling, maggot-infested Republicans seize power once again.  As you say, "OMG!" 

I'm not sure what you were smoking when you came up with the part about denying "substantive" due process to women (I assume you meant to include procedural due process as well--when I get around to denying the civil rights of say, my wife and daughter, I would prefer to deprive them of all due process--depend upon it!   

But on a more serious note, what if one did want to deprive women--or blacks--or Hispanics--or handicapped persons of their civil rights as granted under the Constitution.  What would be the best way to go about it?  Well, to the extent that one had emasculated the Constitution by ignoring other of its provisions.  That would certainly make it easier to take the next step!  Does that make any sense at all to you?

Have a good night.  I need to get some sleep to prepare for tomorrow when once again, I seek to deprive women of their rights!

Russ

Greg: How right you are. There are other ways in which oft-cited data is misleading.  For example, I often hear about how Sweden, though socialist, is so much more productive and beneficial to its populace than the U.S.  Yet Sweden is an extremely homogeneous nation having a population (9 million or so?) which is probably not much larger than the illegal alien undocumented worker population of the state in which I live (27 million). 

Skip: Wow, thanks for the support, Podnuh!  Hell, Fire, Boy, it makes me want to buy me a gallon or so of Bert Wheeler's Private Stock and do a pilgrimage over to the Bush ranch at Crawford!  I disagree with you in only one respect, though.  I think it is fine for people with views like yours and mine to enter into dialog with our European friends.  Yes, we are different in many ways--and I think the more politicians talk (e.g., the United Nations) the worse it gets--maybe it is time for the citizens to start talking.  Maybe if nothing else, we can convince the folks in Paris that just a few more pay toilets in the Bois de BoIogne would prove to be worth their weight in Euros.  I don't expect to convert any of them nor they, me--but talking is always OK.  I did figure out in my journeys to the Continent that one of the reasons the Germans have been so warlike is that they just don't go to the bathroom often enough.  And the French go too much--but just out in public. 

Thanks again,

Russ

I'm not sure I understand this.

Who are the "them" that you will fight every step of the way ......? Presumably gays & lesbians.

Are they (gays & lesbians) against "teaching creationism in science classes or demanding that public schools engage in public prayer"?

Are they (gays & lesbians) the only people against this? Are they the most numerous group?

Do you support the teaching of creationism in science classes and the demand that public schools engage in public prayer?

`Even your Tories raise taxes!`

Skip,not true,we have a Right Wing Government that has just cut Welfare for the poorest in society (single parents,the disabled and unemployed for example) while at the same time cutting taxes for the wealthiest, apparently the Tories tell us we can`t afford the former but we can afford the latter!

Strangely, almost the entire cabinet are millionaires who will benefit enormously from the tax cuts, but I am not a conspiracy theorist so I have put that down to chance!

Adam: I see that I deleted a couple of lines of my post that would have greatly clarified my meaning.  No, I did not mean to pin gays and lesbians in any way with either the issues of school prayer or creationism.  Somehow, I mixed sentences up in my post.  What I mean is that I will fight the religious right in their attempts to demand that creationism instead of or on an equal par with established science or to have organized prayer in the public schools.  Sorry for the confusion--it did indeed sound strange.  In fact, of the very large number of gays and lesbians I have known over the last half century, I don't believe I have known even one who pushed either issue.

Best regards,

Russ

Russ - thanks for clarifying as I thought I'd missed something about American politics and pressure groups. It also then read as if you supported creationism as science.

Adam: No, American politics, as someone in the Nineteenth Century once misquoted Shakespeare: "... makes for strange bedfellows".  As a fiscal conservative and a bit of a hawk, I often find that to be true.  In the U.S., those on the right who agree with me on domestic policy and foreign affairs often also believe that the theory of evolution is invalid as contradicting Divine revelation.  I am absolutely OK with their believing that God has revealed this to them--so long as they do not expect me to take it seriously and require the public schools and universities to teach revealed "truth"!  I also feel that those on the left go a bit too far in policing public schools to do away with any semblance of prayer--but I completely agree that publicly funded education should not be a platform for organized sectarian prayer.  When I tell my more extreme right wing friends this, they tend to greet my opinion with about as much enthusiasm as my more extreme left-leaning friends meet my opinion that spending more money and building government is a bad thing.

Best regards,

Russ

I will add this--many years ago, I studied Philosophy until I could take it no more!  One aspect, especially of medieval thought, which almost exclusively involved Catholic priests and monks, was the absolute distinction between philosophically derived truth and that derived from revelation.  Most thought that one could, for example, prove the existence of God through philosophical exercise, but not anything about His nature--such as the Trinity.  That distinction did not really make it past the Protestant Reformation, it would appear.    Now, according to fundamentalists, one must believe truth only as God reveals it to them.  There is no place for science or philosophy!  I suppose it is true that the Inquisition would not tolerate the distinction if carried too far, without burning the scientist or philosopher at the stake.  But there was at least a bit of leeway to be had.

Russ

KR -

Right now, there is a critical shortage of both adoptive and foster parents in the United States. As a result, many children have no permanent homes, while others are forced to survive in an endless series of substandard foster homes. According to the ACLU, there are over 500,000 children in foster care nationally, and over 100,000 need to be adopted.  Last year, there were qualified adoptive parents available for only 20,000 of these children. Many of these children have historically been viewed as "unadoptable" because they are not healthy white infants. Instead, they are often minority children and/or adolescents, many with significant physical or psychological health problems.

Regardless, there are a few states in the US (Florida, Arkansas, Utah, Mississippi and Michigan) that ban adoption by Gay people.  The ACLU is challenging those laws.

Given the choice between Gay parents and no parents, which would you choose for an orphan?

Hook

I agree with you Hook, (odd as that may seem .) As I said--my only objection--and I mean my ONLY objection to the current gay/lesbian agenda, as I understand it is with any insistence on their part of the use of the word "marriage" to characterize their relationship.  I of course realize that in future years, the majority of the citizenry will reverse their opinion on this issue and at that point the nomenclature will be subject to change.  It's a small point, but I think a significant one.

It is my belief that children are best off in a committed heterosexual relationship so long as it is a healthy relationship.  Years ago, I would never have supported adoption by gay parents.  But having participated, as an attorney (admittedly years ago) in literally hundreds of divorces--all of course involving only heterosexual couples--I can tell you all (as if you didn't know) there are some really unhealthy, and yes, sick people out there in traditional marriages!  So my mind has been changed in that regard.  I have known a number of couples and single gays whom I think would be wonderful parents--at least better than bad heterosexual parents or no parents at all.

Now, having said that--a couple of additional thoughts: First, it has been my observation that I have known far more lesbian women than gay men whom I consider responsible enough to be parents.  Not across the board--but on average.  Of course, in generalizing to that degree, I think I am saying no more than that women in general--as compared to men--display more stable, truly caring, and responsible behavior--especially with respect to the kinds of values that make one likely to end up a good parent.  I still think it is preferable for children to be able to model themselves after heterosexual parents--male or female respectively.  Many gay couples who have adopted, I am told, agree with this and lesbian couples, for example, attempt to get men involved in the lives of their male children.

Best regards,

Russ

PR: I don't know what your native language is, but my goodness, your English is wonderful.  No need to apologize at all.  I see that my typing once again got ahead of my thinking--I in no way meant that children should be taken from unhealthy heterosexual couples (unless of course they are abused or neglected) and turned over to any foster or adoptive parents, of whatever sexual preference.  I was instead amplifying what Hook correctly says about there being a severe shortage of adoptive parents in the U.S.  I may be a bit behind the times, and he or others will correct me if I misstate these facts: While there are a huge number of parents wanting babies there are far fewer who want older, possibly more problematic children.  Generally, would-be adoptive parents want white babies who are very young.  I think the number of persons (whether black or brown) wanting minority children is much smaller.  And not having any parents is extremely debilitating to children.  I will not get into my position on the argument of whether being gay is a choice or a genetic condition--the argument goes no where.  What is important is that there are a lot of evil, mean-spirited, unqualified parents out there--whether gay or straight.  And conversely, some of the finest people I have ever known and loved are gay or lesbian--people I would trust with my life or my fortune (although as the right wing Attila the Hun you all know me to be, they do not necessarily agree with my stance on including sex-change operations as normally insurable surgeries ).  With that, if we do not allow qualified gay and lesbian couples in civil unions, or individuals to serve as adoptive parents, we are losing out on a real, and very valuable resource for children.

Government officials do try to do due diligence in placing children--both in foster care and in permanent homes, but it is a severe uphill battle.

Best regards, and whatever your native tongue, I wish I spoke it as well as you do English!

Russ

Russ -

I said before that I would leave this argument to others.  From my perspective, bigotry in any form is indefensible, and so I thought it would be fairly easy for others to argue against your point of view. But now it feels like you are calling me out personally, and so I now feel compelled to respond to you.

First of all, as you've all but admitted in one of your posts, this debate is basically over.  As soon as Justice Kagan quoted the House Report as saying that "Congress decided … to express moral disapproval of homosexuality",  DOMA was dead.  She made it clear to the public at large what everyone in the gay community has known for a long time:  that DOMA was a bigoted law designed to humiliate and oppress gay people.

But I do wish you would have conceded this defeat without resorting to hurtful remarks.  To begin with, there was:

"...My gay friends (and yes, I have some) tell me that their preference is almost purely genetic.  With all due respect, they cannot show me any substantial proof of that and I do not believe it.  Now, that doesn't mean, as I said before, that I care what they do to one another, and with what, but I do not want them teaching my grandchildren that it is normal..."

Oh my...where do I begin?  I'll start by questioning your use of the word friends.  Are these so-called gay friends of yours untrustworthy?  Are they liars?  On what possible basis would you question their heartfelt belief that that attraction to the same sex began at a very early age?  When a person says that their sexual orientation is genetic, what they mean is that they have always felt that way.  If you don't believe this is true, then you are implying that gayness is a learned behavior.  And from there, it is just one small step to believing that gay people can unlearn their gayness. Is that what you believe Russ?  Do you think that all gay people need is a little...deprogramming?

And gee Russ, when you say "what they do to one another, and with what", you are jnot making much of an effort to hide your disgust!  This is something I've never understood:  why is it that Republicans believe so strongly in freedom and personal liberty in all aspects of our lives...except for what goes on in the bedroom?  Why do you care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home?  And what makes you assume that what goes on in private between two gay people is any more or less deviant (your word) than that which takes place between certain segments of the heterosexual population?  Seriously, where is your evidence?

My views on human sexuality are obviously very different than yours.  And without dragging out your quotes on anal versus vaginal sex, suffice it for me to say that I believe that as long as no person is physically or mentally harmed, and so long as it makes the participants happy, then I think they should be free to share their bodies with whomever they choose, and in whatever way they choose.  It is none of my business! I also strongly believe that the existing laws that reach into our bedrooms represent an unnecessary intrusion by big government into our personal lives.  Would love to hear you argue against that point!

And as far as what is taught to children in school, I have a simple suggestion:  how about we teach them the facts?  The facts are that 1) gays exist, and that 2) somewhere between 4% and 7% of the population admits to being gay when polled.  What's wrong with telling children (once they've reached the age where they can understand human biology and human sexuality) what is meant by the term homosexual?  Kids are smart Russ, and they don't like being told by older people what is and is not "right" or "normal".  That's a value judgement that they prefer to make for themselves.  After all, what percentage of heterosexuals would you consider to be sexually normal?  Does everyone you know have sex in the same, normal-ish kind of way?

Do you understand Russ why it is that young people today reject the idea of DOMA, and reject the idea of treating gay people differently than straight people?  It's because they think in overwhelming numbers that it is not fair.  Fairness is a very strong concept -- it is ingrained in our culture.  It is the basis upon which civil rights have been expanded over the last half century.  And with gay rights, we have simply reached the next step.

Let's see, then you went on to drag out the old gay domino theory...

"... My question is this: If gays demand it, should the rapid change of moral standards support polygamy--both among heterosexual and homosexual groups?  Why not?...And finally, again, no disrespect meant to anyone, and if anyone is sensitive to vivid language, if "progress" due to secularization means that society must now equate the insertion of a man's sexual apparatus into that of a woman with anal intercourse among men--by naming it "marriage' on the certificate,then should not society recognize "marriage" between a man and, say, a Jersey heifer--or a sow?  If, as I suspect, that would be morally shocking to most secular supporters of gay marriage, I can only conclude that it would be due to the difficulty of obtaining consent, in the English language, from the cow."

When I first read this, I thought....where have I heard this before?  Then it struck me -- it was way back in 1967, when the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws as unconstitutional, and made interracial marriage fully legal in the US.  These exact same arguments were made to suggest that we had to hold the moral line at interracial marriage, lest the entire institution of marriage be brought into ruin!  Sound familiar?  This is the exact same argument being used by you and others to promote fear of and discrimination towards gays today. 

In the other terrorism thread, Winky criticized me for making it personal, but I am going to do so here again.  My sister-in-law is a Lesbian.  She has been in a committed monogamous relationship for 25 years, and her partner is a close friend of mine.  They are two of the nicest people I have ever met.  Both of these fine, successful ladies are convinced that their feelings for other girls started in early childhood.  They love each other very much, and guess what? They want to get married more than anything else in the world.

And they are just one of tens of millions of gays living as "married couples" (legally sanctioned or common law arrangements). So why should the GOP or anyone else get to say that their "marriage" can't be legal? If you had a "gay" child, would you tell him or her that they're a second-class citizen, and can't be married? Would you reject or disown your gay child? If you had the legislative power to prevent your own gay child from marrying, would you?

And what exactly is the worst thing that can happen if gays can legally marry? How does it diminish your marriage, or mine? In other words, I'm asking how we VALUE marriage. My wish is for more heterosexual couples to commit to each other through marriage.  I believe that marriage helps provide a good foundation for a relationship, and that it even helps to stabilize society. Why in the world would I want to exclude gays from participating in something I believe so strongly in, and believe so strongly benefits society at large?

I recently heard from another right-winger that the true purpose of a marriage is procreation, and that gays simply can not do that!  I reminded him that, technically speaking, Lesbians can do that using  artificial insemination...just like a lot of straight women do.  And a growing number of gay men can and do successfully adopt and raise children.  That is happening two doors down from me in my own neighborhood!  I also asked this guy what he thought of heterosexual women who aren't fertile? He became rather flustered when he realized that by his narrow definition of a marriage,  that a lot of straight women would be excluded as well.

Sorry Russ, but you say your only concern is about the definition of marriage -- this one simple word.  But it is clear to me from your written words that this is more about your own negative moral judgement of gays.  Not too many years ago, similar things were said about black men and white women.  But thank goodness times have changed, and a growing majority of Americans now believe that denying gays the ability to marry is indefensible, if only under the principles of equality for all.

Hook

Very good post Hook and well argued. I pretty much agree 100% with every point you developed so eloquently.

Best

tp

Congratulations Mr Hook, that is probably the most eloquent, thoughtful and thoroughly awesome riposte I've ever had the pleasure of reading on this forum. 

I've been planning my own reply to the bigoted, patronising, misinformed rhetoric I've been reading in this thread but my anger has prevented me from constructing a suitably rational reply. Thank you.

On a lighter note, New Zealand's laudable recent stance on same-sex marriage has produced this :- 

http://www.upworthy.com/this-n...speeches-on-record-2

Well put Hook.

Phenomenably well put Hook.

John

+1 Hook, wel said.

Brilliant post Hook.  Hopefully this will be enough to lay this bigoted and distasteful thread to rest.

Hook (and all),

I would not have said anything with the intent of hurting you or anyone else for the world.  I am sorry that my views are not in lock step with with your own. I am even sorrier that you and others consider me a bigot.  But I will survive, though I am saddened.

Whatever you may think of it, the majority of Americans now oppose gay "marriage".  Even one of the most liberal states in the United States--California has a law providing "domestic partnership" (of which I approve) affording the gay couple "the same rights, protections, and benefits, and... the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law..." as married spouses.  Yet California was unwilling to go beyond this, and passed Proposition 8, outlawing gay marriage, by a margin of 5 percent.  This was California--not Texas.  If you believe that a majority of the citizenry should prevail in their wishes, then you will think that this was sound law--if not, it is clear that you prefer the entire agenda of one group to prevail no matter what the rest of the people think.

I find nothing wrong with saying that my view is that the majority should rule--so long as basic Constitutional law is not violated.  To equate the right of gays the sanction of marriage with the Civil Rights movement is to me highly offensive.  If you disagree, so sorry!

As for myself, believe what you wish.  I support the right of gays to adopt, to insure each other, and to be protected by the laws from violence the same as other persons.  I do not support special "hate crimes" legislation, because I believe all persons should be protected equally.  Nor, because I personally believe that for the most part being gay is a choice, I do not support legislation that would use tax dollars for sex-change operations.  I do not believe that gays are sinners or that what they do with one another is an abomination.  I do wonder where the line will be drawn and I think it is legitimate to pose the question--no matter how many people hop on the bandwagon that to disagree with any minority group constitutes bigotry. 

If I speak in colorful and hyperbolic terms, ignore the color hyperbole and consider the basic questions.  Consider, for example, the laws forbidding a marriage between two people which would constitute incest--say between a mother and son.  The rationale behind these laws of course is to prevent incest.  However, where no such rationale exists--as between father and son--should the law of the land permit "marriage" for such a couple?  Outrageous you say?  Well, if a wealthy father wishes to leave his fortune of a billion dollars to his son in the United States--his estate will be taxed to the tune of several tens of millions of dollars--if not hundreds of millions.  But a spouse can leave virtually an unlimited amount to the other spouse and taxation will be delayed until the death of the second.  So, if that wealthy, unmarried father and his biological or adopted son apply for a marriage license, should it be granted?  If not, isn't there bigotry operating in the refusal?  Should a woman well past menopause be forbidden to marry her son?  Incest wouldn't matter in this regard.  Don't just lash out--think about it.  Societies have reasons for their laws--some valid, some not.  But  before anyone allows their agenda to trump every single law on the books--no matter what others may think--is more bigoted than those who disagree.

Gays who know me know that I am not bigoted against them, and what the lot of you think will not change.  The gays who know me also know that I disagree with them on some points--but have the integrity to allow some disagreement without becoming hysterical. 

I wish you all well,

Russ