Free Republic

The definition I posted was of perversion (i.e. behavior), not perverts (people), and he ignores how former homosexuals describe the lifestyle.

"Perversion" doesn't exist in a vacuum. The PERSON engages in the BEHAVIOR. It is the PERSON that upsets you---because he or she engages in the behavior.

This is another example of your desire to categorize entire groups of strangers, about whom you know nothing whatsoever. Most Americans believe in making judgments about INDIVIDUALS. We assign blame or guilt or make moral judgments about INDIVIDUALS whom we come to know as HUMAN BEINGS---not perjorative labels.

The content of one's character, one's moral and religious beliefs, one's values, one's political ideas and objectives --- these are all things that must be determined on an INDIVIDUAL basis --- not by a mindless group label or caricature.

If I want to know who "Scripter" is --- I must sit down and talk to Scripter. I can't know what is in Scripter's heart, mind, and soul simply by consulting a label or opening a dictionary.

By contrast, apparently you think individual judgments are inappropriate. It is easier (and more productive) to characterize an entire class of total strangers as depraved, sexual deviants who engage in and celebrate perversion. That exhausts every possible option you need to consider about those persons.

Shame on you!

And how many people need to stop and think about their position on same-sex siblings marrying. It's a logical conclusion to his position and a no-brainer for those who have nothing to hide

OK, we have established that YOU never need to stop and think about anything. We also have established that you engage in linear reasoning, i.e. certain things MUST follow from other things.

But your position presumes that no one ever adjusts their thinking to adapt to prevailing circumstances or unanticipated consequences. Example: many persons associate themselves with the so-called "pro-choice" position on abortion. Opponents often describe this as "abortion on demand". It would, therefore, be "logical" to assume that all "pro-choice" advocates would be opposed to parental notification laws for minors seeking abortion. However, polling shows that a very sizable chunk of the pro-choice side of the abortion debate, ACTUALLY DOES FAVOR parental notification laws! So, once again, this is an example of how your linear "logic" would cause you to arrive at a defective conclusion.

If, as you say, I am "hiding" something -- then it must be for a purpose. What would that purpose be?

Is there some group of people participating in this thread that eagerly await every new message I post in order to decide whether or not they will associate themselves with my position? Thus, I am "hiding" my true position so as not to alienate them?

I have already told you, explicitly, that I could decide to support same-sex sibling marriages after giving it consideration. From your standpoint---isn't that, by itself, sufficient grounds to attack me? So, if I was REALLY trying to "hide" --- why would I even give you that opening for an attack?

Suppose that during the next 24 hours, I decide to consider the pros and cons about this question. Suppose, further, that tomorrow I post a message saying: "Scripter, I have re-considered your question and I have decided that I DO NOT support same-sex sibling marriages." Wouldn't you then respond by telling me I am "lying"...because it is "the logical conclusion" to my position? So what possible difference does it make to you what I say in this regard? Your mind is already made up. Why ask questions if you won't accept any answer that doesn't conform to your pre-suppositions?

Honorable people can disagree with one another without engaging in ad hominem attacks.

What purpose would be served by me "lying"? Haven't I given you folks enough ammunition in this thread to vent your hostility toward gays?

What possible benefit would be derived from me "lying" about anything? Is there ANYONE in this thread that SUPPORTS my position? Whom, in this thread, am I attempting to influence by concealing my "true" position on some matter---so as not to alienate them? Is there ANYONE in this thread who has expressed any interest whatsoever in re-considering some of their own conclusions? Obviously not! So, tactically, what could I hope to achieve by "lying"?

In fact, hypothetically, is there ANYTHING I could have said AT ANY POINT that would have caused you to express admiration or respect for my point of view? Of course not! So why do you pretend that you have some genuine interest in civil discussion?

Incidentally, for the record, I did NOT begin this thread with the idea that I would be engaging in a "debate" about anything. Instead, I anticipated that perhaps 20 or 30 people might respond and provide THEIR predictions about the consequences of legalized same-sex marriages. From those responses, I thought I could compile a list of whatever most bothered critics of same-sex marriages. And, at some point, it would be possible to compare the predictions to what actually occurs in the U.S. or in other countries.

Early on, however, your side of this dispute started attacking my character. Some responses used crude and vulgar descriptions about gays. Other responses expressed undisguised visceral disgust against ALL gays---just for being gay. Nobody on your side of this discussion rebuked those persons. [If the reverse situation existed, I would not hesitate to rebuke any gay person who immediately engaged in hostile personal attacks.]

I recognize that deeply held beliefs can result in occasional hyperbole. I also recognize that some folks say things in the heat of debate that they subsequently regret saying. I have no problem acknowledging that such lapses should NOT necessarily be considered representative of a particular point of view. But, this constant attack on my character and integrity reveals more about YOU, my friend, than it does about me.

Just WHAT IS that "logical conclusion"?

I asked you: Why would you want to prevent two same-sex blood relatives from marrying? They can't have children so there's no risk of mental and physical disabilities in children, and you dodged.

For the benefit of anyone following this debate, even though Scripter does not wish to contribute further, I will answer his accusation.

Scripter says I "dodged" his question. But that presumes that I actually HAVE formed an opinion on this question and I am deliberately choosing not to answer him. One wonders what Scripter thinks I am hiding?

As I have explictly told Scripter on several occasions, I haven't thought about every nuance to every question he has posted in this thread. I sincerely don't understand why he thinks I'm "dodging" the question.

Scripter keeps asking this same question repeatedly i.e. why would I want to prevent two same-sex blood relatives from marrying? This question obviously is very important to him. However, I have never been asked this question prior to this thread and I have never thought about it before---so, contrary to Scripter's assumption, I don't have a position on it!

AFTER considering pro-and-con arguments, I might be opposed to such a marriage. OR, alternatively, maybe I would find such a marriage acceptable. I just don't know at this time. That is the simple truth of the matter! If I had an answer, I would be happy to share it. Apparently, Scripter has some un-stated reason for thinking that I am refusing to answer the question. It would be interesting to know what that reason is.

You've made your position very clear by your demonization and denigration of those who disagree with you. You have dodged, weaved and run from questions.

I have a different interpretation and conclusion.

When you first meet someone and know virtually nothing about their character, integrity, values, or beliefs --- then it is quite rude, hostile, unkind, and un-Christian to describe them as "pervert" or any other comparable pejorative term. Use of such language betokens a desire to demonize and de-humanize a person and make everything they have to say worthy of contemptuous dismissal. Such language makes impossible, from the beginning, a genuine conversation.

Your first message to me was #417. Our subsequent exchanges dealt with Paul Cameron. In NONE of my responses to you did I make ANY PERSONAL ATTACKS ON YOU WHATSOEVER.

However, your message #482 implied that I was a liar. Your exact comment: "This is a family friendly website that pushes conservativism, not lies."

Now what had I done to deserve that implied rebuke? I merely quoted from resolutions about Cameron by three professional organizations!

You concentrated on whether or not Paul Cameron had resigned from the APA but I focused on the fact that 3 different professional organizations dissociated themselves from Cameron. Which you did not dispute! One of them (ASA) described Cameron thusly: Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism. Obviously, this is a totally different issue from his APA standing. I also referred to a court decision which denounced Cameron.

The next time you and I exchanged messages started with #547. You responded to a message I sent to DirtyHarry. Commencing with this message, you started referring to ALL homosexuals as "perverts" and you cited a dictionary definition. Keep in mind: prior to this point I had made no derogatory comment about you whatsoever!

In message #545 you said you didn't see any hateful comments in DirtyHarry's messages. I responded in #546 by quoting the dictionary definition and synonyms from a thesaurus. However, while you had no problem applying the dictionary definition of "pervert", (certainly not a friendly term) you vigorously object to applying the dictionary definition of "hateful" (another unfriendly term). Apparently, in your scheme of things, you are free to use ANY UNFRIENDLY AND HOSTILE TERMINOLOGY that you like without objection being raised.

Most revealing of all, however, is your hostile response to my request for more information on your statistic. I didn't ask you to "hold my hand". I asked if you could cite a single journal article or website that I COULD CONSULT to find evidence to support your repeated use of a statement about the number of former homosexuals. And now you say that is just too burdensome for you! OK fine. As previously noted, I have already begun to contact persons whom are affiliated with the organizations cited in your messages----and I will summarize whatever data they send to me in a subsequent message.

Finally, with respect to your constant whining and moaning about me "misrepresenting" you (and others) and incorrectly inferring ulterior motives---I still don't understand what you object to. It certainly isn't my summation of your position on same-sex marriage: you obviously do oppose it under all circumstances, correct?

Perhaps you are referring to my repeated references to "persons who use language calculated to evoke fear, disgust, and revulsion about entire categories of other human beings"? If that, indeed, is what is offending you, then perhaps you might consider altering the way you engage in debate. For example: you could eliminate, altogther, your references to "pervert" or "perversion" and just stick to comments on why you think same-sex marriages or adoptions are undesirable.

Actually I did look at about 15 of the links in #602 when you originally posted that message. But they don't address the questions I raised regarding how to corroborate your repeated use of "tens of thousands" of "former homosexuals".

I am not "playing games" nor I am "ignoring questions". I take your comments seriously and I have been reading some of the material you have recommended. Which is precisely why I discussed the Bieber clinical study which I found on NARTH.

I have given you truthful answers to your questions. Perhaps the problem is that, unlike yourself, I have not spent huge amounts of time thinking about every conceivable nuance to the matters you bring up. Consequently, there are questions to which I do NOT currently have answers---and which I haven't even thought about! Significantly, when I honestly tell you that, you dismiss it as dishonesty! Which reveals more about YOU than it does about me.

As I mentioned early-on in this thread, this is the FIRST message I have ever posted anywhere on the topic of same-sex marriages. In fact, if you include my letter-to-the-editor that was published about 17 years ago, then this is only the second message I've ever posted in my lifetime about any "gay" issue! Which is why I love all the folks in this thread who describe me as a "gay activist" promoting a "gay agenda".

And I did read the former homosexual biographical statements you mentioned. But I don't see their relevance to the statistical questions I posed.

Finally, for now, I have begun to contact some of the sources YOU recommend (as well as sources recommended by those organizations). I have also contacted several persons associated with NARTH.

This morning I received one reply which I would like to share with you (copied below). After I have heard from whatever number will respond to my inquiries I will share, in this thread, whatever they all say about statistics on "former homosexuals". However, I don't anticipate posting any further information until sometime next week. In the reply copied below, it was suggested that I contact Exodus---which I have also done.

First response received:

Hi Ernie

You ask a difficult question. You have read the reserach on our site which refers to what percent of people may experience substantial change in their sexuality but that doesn't really answer your question. I believe your question is asking for a more absolute number of people who have experienced that change. I don't think I can answer that nor do I think anyone can.

I don't know of any study that has tried to calculate the number of clients ministries have had in total numbers either in an individual ministry or in a broader scale. One of the criticisms of this type of ministry is that we do not do very good follow up with our clients. That is a fair criticism.

In my opinion, without any numbers to back it up, it would not be a legitimate scientific statement to say that 'tens of thousands of homosexuals have converted to heterosexuality".

I know that Exodus in the US sometimes says things like 'thousands of people have changed'. I think that is an anecdotal statement though not a scientific one. If you want to contact them and find out for sure, here is their website http://exodus.to/default2.asp

I checked out the websites you provided. The NARTH site was the most helpful in terms of my inquiries to you.

While I could not find anything reflecting an aggregrate total number of "former homosexuals" which would support your estimate of "tens of thousands", nevertheless I did find several specific clinical studies which reported on results of therapeutic intervention. Many of these studies were conducted in the 1980's or early 1990's and often they reported upon very small numbers of patients (often less than a dozen).

One of the largest studies (Bieber, 106 persons, summary copied below) included a 5-year follow-up review--although the review was limited to only about 50% of the "successful" conversions (15 of 29 persons).

Obviously, there is no way to know if the Bieber study accurately reflects typical results from therapy but if it is in the general vicinity of accuracy about therapeutic effectiveness, then 73% of homosexuals and bisexuals CANNOT be converted to heterosexuality through therapy. In addition, based upon Bieber's 5-year follow-up study, we could expect 2% of initially successful converts to revert back from heterosexuality to homosexuality or bisexuality for a total of 75% non-successful therapy.

Consequently, if the "tens of thousands" statistic you use is accurate (and assuming there is no significant reduction to that number caused by post-therapy return to homosexual or bisexual behavior which has NOT been captured by follow-up studies), then one must presume that a huge number of homosexuals and bisexuals have sought, via therapy, to change their sexual orientation.

For example, if Bieber's 25% success rate is approximately accurate, then a minimum of 80,000+ persons must have been in therapy to produce 20,000+ conversions. 20,000 being the minimum number that could accurately be encompassed by the phrase "tens of thousands of former homosexuals".

Which leads to the next question: If such a huge number of persons have sought to convert from homosexuality to heterosexuality, where are all the LARGE studies (involving several hundred participants) to document the results? Or perhaps an accumulation of smaller but still substantial studies--such as Bieber's (i.e. 100-200)?

In other words, why do MOST of the clinical studies shown on NARTH discuss such miniscule samples of 4, 8, 10, 20 people?

See:

http://www.newdirection.ca/research/bieber.htm

Brief Description: This study compares 106 male homosexuals and 100 male heterosexuals, all in treatment with members of the Society of Medical Psychoanalysts

"Summary of Results:

1. Of the 72 patients who had been exclusively homosexual at the start of treatment:

* 42 remained exclusively homosexual

* 2 were sexually inactive

* 14 were bisexual

* 14 were exclusively heterosexual

2. Of the 30 patients who had been bisexual at the start of treatment:

* 2 were sexually inactive

* 13 remained bisexual

* 15 became exclusively heterosexual

3. Of the four homosexual patients who had been sexually inactive at the start of treatment:

* 1 was exclusively homosexual

* 2 remained sexually inactive

* 1 was bisexual (all data from Table XI-1, p. 276)

4. As discussed above, twelve of the fifteen patients who were followed for five years remained consistently heterosexual. According to Bieber (1987, p. 424), seven of these twelve had been exclusively homosexual before treatment. Thus, seven persons who were initially exclusively homosexual, remained exclusively heterosexual in behaviour for at least five years. (Note: Bieber 1967 does not distinguish between those who were initially exclusively homosexual and those who were initially bisexual.)

5. It is possible that some of the patients who were exclusively homosexual at the start of treatment experienced a partial or full shift in sexual orientation. However, based on the previous three items, there is no data to confirm or deny such a possibility.

Thus, at the time of the study, 29 patients who had been bisexual or exclusively homosexual had become exclusively heterosexual. A five-year follow-up was done on 15 of these patients: 12 of these continued to be exclusively heterosexual, and three "remained predominantly heterosexual, with sporadic homosexual episodes under situations of stress" (Bieber 1967, p. 972; Bieber 1987). "

You responded to my post but you didn't answer my question. My question was: Why would you want to prevent two same-sex blood relatives from marrying?

Maybe I just don't understand what you are getting at with this question.

I don't have an absolute, fixed position on this question nor does it occupy my thoughts as something important that I should think about and resolve.

If this developed into a major controversy which needed to be addressed in order to achieve agreement on the larger issue---then, I suppose I would listen to whatever arguments were presented and I then would make up my mind. Perhaps I would eventually agree with a proposal to permit same-sex marriage between blood relatives. Or, perhaps, I would encounter adverse information that seemed reasonable to me, and, consequently, I would decide against it.

Sorry--but I just don't have a definitive answer at this time. And, frankly, I don't understand what you are attempting to convey by linking this question to "threat to whom?" In general, ANY proposed change to our laws is a "threat" to whomever doesn't want to see ANY changes to the status quo, OR, at a minimum, in this specific context, a threat to anyone who prefers no changes that would give serious consideration to same-sex couples.

As for the younger generation being more tolerating of the homosexual lifestyle, of course they are. With GLSEN in the schools, MTVs pro-homosexual bias, TV programs with a very lopsided number of homosexuals compared to the actual homosexual populace, etc. None of which show the real facts of the homosexual lifestyle, which carries with it severe, contagious and deadly health hazards.

I doubt that any of the factors you list above have much impact on how judgments are arrived at about gays.

Maybe you could make a case that 2 or 3% of the age group 15-30 form their judgments based, to some degree, upon the factors you cite---but I doubt it. And what about all the countervailing factors that neutralize whatever outside influence you might perceive? Such as family teachings, church teachings, anti-gay peer pressure, hostility toward any pro-gay presentations?

Infinitely more important is first-hand experience with friends, relatives, co-workers, and any persons known to be gay whom they respect and/or admire ---not abstract ideas or MTV programs or perceived disproportionate number of gay characters on TV. Do you honestly think anyone says to themself: "Wow, gays and bisexuals are maybe 2% of our population but I have counted 5% gay characters on TV this past week, so that must mean homosexuality is a wonderful and even a desirable alternative lifestyle"?

Might I ask you how you came up with the numerical statistic you frequently use? i.e. With tens of thousands of former homosexuals testifying to the fact that homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle

(1) How did your sources arrive at that cumulative number of "former homosexuals"? Is there a journal article you can refer me to, or, perhaps a website with specific details?

(2) Was there some sort of survey sent to psychiatrists, psychologists, religious counsellors, etc. asking them to specify the number of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals who sought counselling during some specific period of time? If so, (a) what period of time does the statistic cover?and (b) how many people were surveyed?

(3) Was there any follow-up research done after the initial survey was completed? For example, suppose the statistical information was based upon data pertaining to 15,000 "former homosexuals" who, from 1995 to 1997, reported that they no longer engaged in homosexual activity after counselling. AFTER 1997, was there any follow-up study to determine what percentage of that 15,000 still reported no homosexual activity?

(4) How did the survey determine whether or not the respondents (i.e. the counsellors who provided the raw data about their success rate) were accurately reporting results? For example: how did the survey filter out possible exaggeration or even outright deception?

(5) What criteria were used to establish at what point the subjects were considered to be "former homosexuals"? For example: was it based upon 3-months or 6-months or 1-year of no homosexual activity? Or what?

(6)Was the survey result based exclusively on questions about homosexual ACTIVITY as opposed to homoerotic thoughts?

Being gay was extreme at some point in history just as my marriage suggestions are in my response. However, now you are calling my points extreme as if they are simply impossible.

Sorry, Squid, "being gay" has never been "extreme". There have ALWAYS been huge numbers of gays and bisexuals in society. In some societies, at some times in history, same-sex relationships were considered normal, and certainly NOT "perversion". By contrast, the couplings that you proposed are either extraordinarily rare or non-existent.

My point is, why draw a line of any kind if you are all about freedom. What makes you define something as extreme? Why is that wrong and the other right? Sounds like you are rolling with the times and simply bending rights and wrongs for other reasons.

From my reading of your comments, it appears that what troubles you most is the absence of absolute, no-exceptions rules, laws, or values.

"Why draw a line of any kind?..."

Because that is what human beings do! We attempt to make intelligent distinctions to arrive at reasoned and fair judgments.

I previously used the the following example: in law, morality, and consequences exacted, we make a distinction between: (a) murder, (b) manslaughter and (c) killing in self-defense --- even though all 3 involve taking human life.

If tomorrow morning I read a newspaper article about you having shot and killed a burglar in your home, should I thereafter describe you as a "murderer"? Is that a fair and accurate description?

Should you be subject to punishment as a "murderer"? Should you be perceived as a criminal because you "murdered" someone? NO! Because we make distinctions between the MOST EXTREME option (murder) and the other LESSER options. WE DRAW A LINE between the 3 situations that ALL involve taking human life.

Can we arrive at ABSOLUTE and INFALLIBLE judgments. Of course not. But Americans believe in inclusion and expanding liberty and they believe in the value of individuals---and not maligning entire categories of people whom are total strangers.

I asked you if you would allow your daughter to be one of 30 wives. Why not?

In your judgment, when we confront public policy decisions should we expend our intellectual energy on debating the LEAST-LIKELY possibilities? Or on the most probable scenarios? IF you could provide ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that there were large numbers of American men who wanted to have "30 wives" --- THEN and ONLY THEN -- would I be willing to expend energy debating whether or not a proposed law should take that situation into account.

I return to a previous analogy I used. I live very close to my city's airport. It is POSSIBLE that a jumbo jet will crash into my home (especially this week---terrible weather). But I DO NOT organize my thoughts, behavior, and decisions around that "possibility". Similarly, I would not expend any intellectual capital on the EXTREME hypotheticals you propose. Instead, let's concentrate on the primary issue before us. THAT IS DIFFICULT ENOUGH!

So my question was why? Why would you want to prevent two same-sex blood relatives from marrying. They can't have children so there's no risk of mental and physical disabilities in children.

There is a distinction between my personal beliefs (and how I might be persuaded to accept other types of marriage) versus what might be acceptable to a broad consensus within society. I suppose abortion opponents make the same kinds of distinctions when they accept and promote public policy options which don't fully conform to their philosophical or moral objections to abortion but, nevertheless, do address their primary objective.

With what America is saying across the nation in regards to same-sex marriage, I would think such a proposition would go over as well as a lead balloon.

(1) We wouldn't even be discussing this subject if it were not for the fact that public attitudes about homosexuality have already undergone a sea change of enormous proportions during the past 30-50 years.

(2) Thirty years ago it was EXTREMELY RARE for any prominent person to acknowledge his or her same-sex preference. In Hollywood, for example, phony marriages were arranged to hide true sexual preference (such as Charles Laughton to Elsa Lanchester). In politics, no candidate in their right mind would publicly announce their sexual orientation.

(3) From the polling data that I have seen, it appears that the least resistance to same sex marriage comes from younger people. Consequently, what the medium-term future produces could be dramatically different than the current situation.

(4) If you take a look at polling done in the late 1950's about various aspects of the race issue in this country, the negative responses with respect to integration were even more dramatic than the current adverse poll results regarding same-sex marriage or adoption. So what you are referring to is a "snapshot" in time. And that "snapshot" has already changed significantly even just during the past decade. As we have previously discussed, opposition to social change can be based upon false or grossly exaggerated ideas. There are always those among us who use language to promote fear, disgust, and revulsion toward other human beings and, thus, seek to create irreconciliable differences.

Fortunately, Americans instinctively understand the value of judging people as individuals---not as a group label. MOST Americans perceive "John" or "Ellen" as individual HUMAN BEINGS with specific qualities and characteristics. They don't BEGIN by perceiving John or Ellen as "pervert".

As Americans come to know John or Ellen as human beings, they make reasoned and informed judgments about their intelligence, character, and integrity. Once those judgments are made, no appeals to "dictionary definitions" will carry as much weight as first-hand personal experience---because we do not live our lives by rigid application of dictionary definitions whose only proponents have an animus against gays.

I agree that children should not be guinea pigs for social change. On the other hand, there are thousands of unwanted children who languish in institutions --or-- whom are shuttled from one foster home to another. If a gay couple can prove that they meet the same criteria as a straight couple, I do not believe they should be automatically and permanently rejected from providing a loving, nurturing home to a needy child. Furthermore, during the past 50 years, tens of thousands of gay men already HAVE HAD children. Their ability to be a loving, caring, and nurturing father has already been demonstrated. That ability does not just disappear because they subsequently divorce a woman and enter into a gay relationship. To paraphrase you, "what do the children (biological or adopted) of gay men or lesbians or bisexuals have to say about their parents?"

But why would you (just you) want to prevent two consenting adults related by blood from marrying? Why just "a monopoly" (your words) of two unrelated consenting adults?

Scripter, you already know the answer to this question so why do you bring it up? Obviously, there are increased risks of mental and physical disabilities in children produced from parents who are closely related by blood. Of course, nothing currently prevents closely related men and women from producing children, without anyone even knowing that the child's mother and father are related by blood.

In this discussion, I have been focusing on the "public policy" choices of the matter. In other words, I prefer to look for ways to accommodate critics of same-sex marriage so that an agreement can be reached that would permit legalization of gay marriage by a general consensus within our society.

By contrast, you apparently want to focus upon the IDEOLOGY behind public policy disputes. That is: focus on the most contentious aspects that bring out personal values or principles (often expressed in absolute, no-exceptions terms) that separate opponents in public policy debates---because as ideological arguments are made, there is dramatically less possibility of reaching consensus.

With respect to your larger question of "why limit marriage to only 2 persons?" (even if unrelated by blood), personally I have not thought about this hypothetical very much so I cannot offer you a fully-developed opinion. But given my first principles (previously stated), I might be persuaded that other types of marriages should be recognized--even if they involve 3 or more persons.

Early-on in this debate, someone posted a message asking why government should be involved at all in this question. That is actually an interesting question which might be explored.

After I posted my last message, I went back to review all of your comments and questions to me since message #618 on January 5th. Here is a summary of what I found:

Questions and concerns you indicated you wanted addressed:

621: Why stop at a marriage of two? Why not between
brothers, sisters, fathers and sons, etc -- as long
as they are adults?

My answer to you appeared in #628 which essentially repeated my answer to Squid in #626. I stated that I had no problem limiting marriage to two persons not related by blood.

627: You describe "nightmare scenarios" as "taking
your worldview to its logical conclusion."

I responded by pointing out that "nightmare scenarios" can be posed as "logical conclusions" but, nevertheless, be TOTALLY FALSE or GROSS EXAGGERATIONS. I gave an example of how that false reasoning worked with respect to 9/11.

I suggested that we should concentrate on "first principles" instead of hypothetical extreme examples which cannot even be quantified as a prediction of what MIGHT happen.

634: You repeat your concern that I already answered in
message #626 re: allowing siblings or others to
marry. You ask "why are they extreme examples?"

I responded in message #635 by repeating that we could limit marriage to two persons unrelated by blood.

I then answered your question about why such examples should be considered "extreme", i.e. because they do "nothing whatsoever to either clarify the dispute or help to move the discussion forward."

In message #623 to Squid and #626 to you I discussed the same topic. I pointed out that raising such concerns is just a debating strategy to raise the scariest possible scenarios in order to prevent discussion of the most likely scenarios.

I asked for evidence you had concerning other countries which would confirm that such "nightmare scenarios" ACTUALLY OCCUR after gay marriage or legal recognition of other same-sex couples arrangements have been approved. You PROVIDED NOTHING.

636: You repeat YET AGAIN your concern about siblings
being allowed to marry. You ask, AGAIN, why is it
an extreme example?

I replied YET AGAIN in #637. This time I deliberately arranged my answers in a specific format which I thought would end the repeated inquiries. I said:

"You ask: 'Why is it an extreme example'?"

and I replied: "The answer is because we have no evidence from our own country or anywhere else that siblings seek to marry one another. So proposing that example as deserving our immediate attention in order to resolve the larger issue is phony argumentation."

"You ask: 'To whom is this nightmare scenario a threat?'

and I replied: "...to all of the folks in this thread who constantly use these extreme hypothetical examples" because they "see them as 'a threat' to their monopoly on marriage."

Now, don't you think we pretty much exhausted that topic?

Nope!

Because in #638 you AGAIN REPEAT THE SAME QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS WHICH I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED 4 TIMES!

"...as you have consistently misrepresented my position as if you're ignoring everything I've said..."

Sorry, Scripter, you have totally lost me. You posed several questions in your message regarding so-called "nightmare scenarios" -- i.e. what limitations (if any) there should be on same-sex marriages. I then specifically answered those questions. Now you say I am "ignoring everything" you have said. To the contrary, I specifically addressed what you said. How have I "misrepresented" your position?

You also say that I have "consistently and quite incorrectly presumed" your position. But you don't specify to what you are referring.

I have said that YOUR position is that YOU OPPOSE same-sex marriage under ANY circumstances. If I am wrong, then please correct me now and do so in clear, precise language---i.e. under what circumstances would you agree to legalize same-sex marriage?

If you're arguing for same-sex marriage, why would you want to pass laws to prevent brothers from marrying each other?

Because I am willing to listen to and address the concerns which you and others have raised in this forum. You seem to be simultaneously criticizing me for both (a) responding appropriately to your stated concerns and (b) not responding to your concerns. Which is it?

Now you define a nightmare scenario as one without any evidence. That's an interesting term to describe the situation.

Apparently, from the intensity of the comments made in this thread, many opponents believe that huge numbers of siblings (or fathers-sons; grandfather and grandson, et al) are going to rush out and attempt to get married. Furthermore, numerous three-somes and four-somes etc. want to be married. Where is the evidence to suggest that is true?. What experience have European countries had in this regard? Or how about domestic partnerships in the United States?

Many critics of gays have said that domestic partnerships is merely "step 1" on the "gay agenda" toward marriage.

OK, if that is true, then let's hear about your evidence regarding siblings that have sought to register as domestic partners. What other evidence do you have re: domestic partners registrations that illustrate the other "nightmare" scenarios that have been predicted in this thread?

OK, maybe we have had a miscommunication here.

The term "nightmare scenario" is what I am using to characterize what various folks in this thread have repeatedly used as examples to express both their hostility toward gays and their absolute refusal to consider doing anything whatsoever to change current marriage laws.

You ask: "Why is it an extreme example?"

The answer is because we have no evidence from our own country or anywhere else that siblings seek to marry one another. So proposing that example as deserving our immediate attention in order to resolve the larger issue is phony argumentation.

You ask: "To whom is this nightmare scenario a threat?"

I presume you have some ulterior motive for this question. Obviously, all of the folks in this thread who constantly use these extreme hypothetical examples see them as "a threat" to their monopoly on marriage. Otherwise, why would we even be having this discussion?

Now, I then tried to specify how such concerns as these could be addressed in any proposed changes to our law. But you are still unalterably opposed---correct? So why do you even bring this stuff up since it is NOT your real concern about this matter.

I did no such thing. If same-sex marriage is not an issue for you, what about brothers marrying their own brothers, fathers marrying their sons? That's a logical conclusion given your interest in same-sex marriage.

And since same-sex marriage, by definition, is completely redefining the word marriage, which by definition means a man and a woman, why stop at same-sex marriage? Why stop there and block brothers from marrying each other?

You ask these questions as though they genuinely concern you. And as if you genuinely are open to some explanation which would cause you to re-think your position on same-sex marriages.

But we both know that is NOT the case. This is merely a rhetorical device on your part. Or, to use a term from other messages, it is MISDIRECTION.

However, if we took your questions seriously, we could propose via law that only persons NOT RELATED BY BLOOD could marry each other. We could further stipulate in law, that ONLY single couples (i.e. 2 people) could be married. That would address both of your immediate concerns.

But we both know that neither stipulation makes any difference because neither addresses your primary objection which is your ultimate "deal-breaker".

So raising these objections yet again does NOTHING WHATSOEVER to either clarify the dispute or help to move the discussion forward. Consequently, I do not see the value of discussing extreme hypotheticals---except, perhaps, as an intellectual exercise to hone debating skills.

You obviously have a hangup about what you often describe as "logical conclusion" of a position or the "natural progression" of an argument.

Human beings try to be consistent and make decisions based upon fixed principles and values. But we all confront circumstances in our lives that force us to choose between a rigid idea versus how that idea should be applied to flesh-and-blood beings in circumstances we may not have anticipated. [I am acquainted with someone, for example, whose life-long political views have been "extreme right". He previously told me that most contemporary government functions are unConstitutional and he opposed much of what the Federal Government spends in our name. After he got married, he and his wife had a child who has Down Syndrome. Suddenly, his politics changed because he doesn't see political ideas when he looks into the eyes of his baby nor does he want to engage in abstract philosophical arguments when he needs to comfort his wife. Consequently, now he sees a role for Government that never was apparent or thinkable before.]

Now please DON'T read into this next comment more than what is intended. We have a word in the English language for persons who NEVER make exceptions. Who NEVER compromise their beliefs or positions. Who ALWAYS insist on strict adherence to a particular set of principles or ideas. That word is "fanatic".

My position derives from two "first principles":

(1) I want minimum government intervention in the lives of my fellow citizens. I choose that principle because I do NOT believe that government has the wisdom or restraint to always make the best judgments about personal and private behavior. I arrive at that conclusion from my reading of history.

(2) I believe that whenever and wherever possible we should strive to be inclusive---i.e. not search for entire categories of people to exclude from the benefits and responsibilities of being a member of the American Family. I choose that principle because I think EVERYONE has value and I think my country will be stronger when all of its sons and daughters know they are valued members and have something to contribute.

I understand and respect those who have different views--especially when based upon their religious beliefs. But this issue has other dimensions. And just like we do not preclude atheists from getting married, we cannot always apply particular religious conventions to all of our public policy questions.

Finally, I'd like to briefly address previous messages which refer to me "promoting an agenda".

We ALL have "agendas". Want lower taxes or tax simplication? That's an agenda. Want to limit abortion and make it extremely rare? That's an agenda! Want your kids to go to good schools and have opportunities to be whatever they can be in life? That's an agenda!

Are you folks so convinced of your goodness and righteousness that you block out even the remotest self-awareness of YOUR OWN AGENDA? Do you honestly believe you and you alone represent everything that is good and decent, fair and just in this world?

Nightmare scenarios is a good description. As I've said many times now, it's merely taking your worldview to it's logical conclusion. Either you don't want to recognize where your worldview leads or your worldview prevents you from realizing where it leads. If you think that's a nightmare then perhaps you should rethink your position.

"Nightmare scenarios" can be "logical conclusions" but totally false or gross exaggerations. I recall, for example, on 9/11/01 that CNN reporters and (ABC News I think it was) were reporting that, typically, the World Trade Towers would have 12,000-15,000 workers and visitors at the time the planes hit. So there was speculation that we should prepare ourselves for 5-digit death tolls as a "logical" scenario.

But you danced around my question. Why raise the "nightmare scenarios" at all? Shouldn't we focus on what I describe as "first principles" instead and not be diverted into pointless arguments about extreme hypotheticals?

As I sit here writing this to you, a Boeing 747 might crash into my home. I live fairly close to our airport. But I don't organize my thoughts and everyday behavior or decisions around that "nightmare scenario".

You repeat the same questions that I previously addressed, i.e. your concern about limiting the number of people who can be "married" to each other. But, your real problem is NOT the "number" of people. It is the TYPE of person.

Whether the marriage is between only 2 people or 100 is irrelevant because your FIRST PRINCIPLE is that no same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. Period! End of discussion. Correct?

Nor is your real concern what their blood relationship might be: Father and son; brothers, sisters, etc. Again, you simply are opposed to SAME-SEX marriages. Period.

Incidentally, I've never thought about this before, but it just occurred to me that Adam and Eve had children. Whom did THEY marry -- if not their own siblings?

Ernie could care less about "Gay marriage" the homosexual lobby's goal is this... Quote from another Freeper...

Once gay marriage is legal, gays will lose interest. The point is to destroy marriage and force complete acceptance and legitimization of homosexuality. Once gay marriage is legal, homosexuality as a normal choice will be taught in schools (Homosexual indoctrination of children will be applied by law) and parents will have no standing to object.

The 3000+ same-sex couples who "married" in San Francisco did not do so because they "wanted to destroy marriage". Instead, they want the same benefits and responsibilities that heterosexual couples enjoy.

Personally, I am opposed to teaching anything in school (grades 1-12) about homosexuality EXCEPT to mention, when appropriately applicable, that many of the world's most famous personalities have been gay or bisexual.

The mention would simply be to offer an insight into their lives: perhaps, for example, so that students could seek to understand the motivations behind their accomplishments (such as the basis for writing a moving novel or poem or song) as well as understanding the problems they experienced in their lifetimes. The same things I would expect to learn about any prominent or accomplished figure in history.

If, however, even that is too onerous from your perspective, then perhaps private schools are the best option for those among us who find all kinds of objectionable stuff being taught in public schools. For example, I had a neighbor who strenuously objected to schools teaching anything about Martin Luther King Jr. until documents sealed by court order until 2027 are released.

I suppose, from his point of view, our schools were wrongfully "indoctrinating children" about King and the civil rights movement.

One final point:

Should you choose to respond to my message, might I ask you to amplify on this portion of your remarks?

All of the aforementioned FBI "quotes" stand in stark contrast to what the FBI told Robert Welch and the JBS leadership in the 60s

I presume you are referring to the numerous quotes by FBI officials that I presented in my Report. Aside from Hoover, I frequently quoted Assistant Directors in Charge of FBI Divisions as well as Section Chiefs within the Bureau's Domestic Intelligence Division--its primary internal security unit.

Your comment seems to suggest that you have seen documents that contradict the substance of what I have quoted. In particular, you seem to be suggesting that you have seen FBI letters addressed to Robert Welch which contradict what I have written. Is that what you intended to say?

If so, then please share more details. Since I have every letter written by J. Edgar Hoover to Robert Welch and every letter written by Robert Welch to Hoover, I am curious, to say the least, about what your comments mean.

In closing, I wonder if you would like to comment on why Mrs. Welch withdrew her support from the Birch Society after her husband died. Also, why so many prominent JBS members (including National Council members, lifetime members, Coordinators, and authors such as Gary Allen, Alan Stang, John Rees, and even Editor Scott Stanley Jr.,) all left in droves? Is it true that Cong. Larry McDonald announced plans for a thorough housecleaning at JBS HQ just before his death?

If you prefer to send me an email to discuss this further, please do so: Ernie1241@aol.com

P.S.:

(1) Incidentally, the California Factfinding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities went out of business about 30 years ago, so anyone wanting a copy of their Reports should submit an Inter-Library loan request via their local library (if not already in their library's holdings). Aside from the 1963 and 1965 Reports, I encourage interested parties to request the 1959 Report in order to see their discussion of Dr. Harry Overstreet--who was the subject of an incredibly dishonest Birch Society hatchet job.

(2) Anyone interested in reading the most recent edition of my JBS Report (now 35 pages in length) may contact me for a copy. I've expanded it to add new material. The next edition, which should be finished in 5-7 months, will add new Chapters to discuss data never previously available including

(a) Robert Welch's use (despite his early denials) of his "private letter" The Politician as a recruitment tool for the JBS in 1959 and 1960, and,

(b) A history of critical commentary on the JBS long before the so-called "mother article" appeared in a Communist newspaper in February 1961. The JBS has always claimed that this so-called "mother article" precipitated all the attacks on the JBS--i.e. our news media was just following Communist instructions! This is only believed by people who had neither the time or inclination to do research---which probably means 99.9% of Birchers.

(c) A much-expanded Chapter on "Birch Society Experts" which will reveal, for the first time, information concerning Dan Smoot's FBI service and post-FBI anti-Communist career plus new information on Julia Brown, Delmar Dennis, and Lola Belle Holmes--all of whom gave speeches under the auspices of the Birch Society's front groups.

I really don't care if you think homosexuality is "normal" or not. I only care that all Americans are treated fairly and with respect.

You seem to be of the opinion that sex, any sex with consenting adults is perfectly acceptable. I say that for a specific reason and it's not because of hatred for anybody. You're asking who's threatened by same-sex marriage yet you consistently run away from questions that are merely taking your worldview to its logical conclusion.

Why stop at a marraige of two? Why not three, four, five? Why not between brothers? Sisters? Father and son(s)? Fathers(s) and son? Father and daughter? Grandparents and grandchild? As long as they're adults, why not? Is the American Family (your term) ready for that? Are you? Is that a good environment to promote and celebrate for children?

Scripter, I have the same answer for you as my reply to Squid.

What, ultimately, is the reason you raise these nightmare scenarios? Is it:

(1) you just want assurance that marriage will NOT be permitted for those specified nightmares?

If so---laws could be written to exclude those options. But would you then be OK with same-sex marriage? From everything you have written thus far, the answer is a absolutely NO!

So why even bring up those extreme scenarios and expend energy debating them? It just confuses the basic issue if you have no intention of saying yes to same-sex marriages under any circumstances!

(2) Consequently, I interpret your questions to be merely a debating strategy to raise the spectre of unimaginable horror so as to permanently preclude consideration of any less-scary and more typical options---by conflating the two. In other words, the slippery slope argument.

(3) Incidentally, have you done much research into how France, Netherlands, and Denmark have dealt with the nightmare scenarios in their countries? Has there been an explosion of fathers marrying sons, siblings demanding to be married, grandparents and grand-children etc.?

For that matter, in our own country, is there evidence that domestic partnerships have resulted in the odd couplings that you have proposed as being a likely end result?

Squid: We both know that you were not asking a serious question. It was merely a rhetorical device to express your opposition to gay marriage.

I don't believe we can resolve serious problems by proposing the most extreme scenarios.

As fallible human beings, we cannot always arrive at perfect answers. Nor can we always anticipate EVERY consequence.

But we can propose that we live by general principles that apply to us all equally and, then, if a problem or unintended consequence develops, we can address them.

In another debate on another website on a different topic I used the analogy of telling General Motors, Ford, etc. that they will no longer be allowed to manufacture or sell vehicles because, repeatedly over decades, their vehicles have been recalled for serious defects---and some of them have caused death and severe injury. So despite 100 years of effort and innovation, we haven't perfected our cars, trucks, buses, etc. but no one suggests the answer to the imperfection is to prevent the automotive industry from operating.

What your scenario proposes is that we permanently reject ALL same-sex marriages because some unknown and unknowable number of other Americans whom may be objectionable subsequently might also request marriage status. In short, because heterosexuals were first in line when marriage statutes were developed, they should have a permanent monopoly.

I understand your concerns. I don't have an answer to every nightmare scenario you could suggest. I just don't think we should adopt a principle that states same-sex couples shall be treated differently from heterosexual couples based upon EXTREME HYPOTHETICAL OBJECTIONS. And I trust my countrymen to resolve whatever future problems or unanticipated consequences might develop.