| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/14/2004 11:16:48 AM PST by Lead Moderator, reason:
Since discussion of the issues and article ended long ago, the rest of the discussion ends now. Those who were continuing the flame war consider this your warning- I don’t care who drew first blood. That was pulled and it should have ended it. Both sides were continuing it, and neither side has a single thing to whine about when I end up suspending of banning you. So don’t push it. |
Posted on 02/13/2004 11:22:02 AM PST by eccentric
A caller to Rush Limbaugh today (Friday) compared gay marriage to inter-racial marriage. While it is easy to take offense to the comparison (as Rush did), there is some truthfulness in it. For people of 50 years ago, who who not bigots, what was their major objection to inter-racial and even inter-cultural marriage? What was the first concern they expressed to their children when faced with this possiblity? "What about the children?" And years ago, and in someways, even today, this is a very real concern. Children in inter-racial and inter-cultural homes had a much more difficult social situation to deal with.
And that is what the push for legal homosexual marriage is all about: the children. When Heather has 2 mommies, both mommies want equal standing in custody, school, medical care.... When Heather wants an abortion ---no, strike that. She wouldn't go to mom for permission for that. When Heather wants her ears peirced, both moms want equal rights to give consent. When the moms get divorced, they want equal standing in the court for custody and child support.
So what? This shouldn't concern my family.... yes, it does. When given equal standing with man-woman marriage, homosexual couple demand the right to adopt and foster other people's children. This has already happened for one mother who placed her baby for adoption and then found he was given to a homosexual couple. The courts told her she had relinquinshed her right to object to who raised her birth-son.
So you wouldn't place your child for adoption, but what about foster care? Suppose you were traveling out of state. You are injured in a car accident and hospitalized. Thankfully, your child is uninjured but needs someplace to stay until relatives can come get him/her. Would you want your child placed in a homosexual home? Even overnight?
This whole issue IS about children and having equal rights to raise someone else's children. But unlike inter-racial marriage, homosexuality is defined by a behavior, not an appearance.
No, I meant that with all sincereity and respect. It would be nice if you could be gracious enough to give me the benefit of the doubt.
I believe people have a choice in how they respond to adversity, that's all I'm saying.
I don't blame you as those quotes are extremely damaging to the pro-homosexual cause, but I gave you the cite to the Levay quote. It's from Discover Magazine, the March 1994 issue. Here's everything you need: Source.
You can purchase the article online as I did at Discover's website. Before I made the purchase I googled and googled and kept finding the source as Discover. Not once did I find a quote stating anything other than the above.
I won't accuse you of fabricating these quotes, but I think you too credulously believe anything you read that supports your beliefs rather than thinking critically and objectively. You have a conclusion in mind and seek to support it, rather than seeking to understand.
Thanks for the vote of confidence! ;-) If you knew me you'd know something I repeat quite often: context is everything. I will do whatever it takes to find the context of something before I quote it.
You can find the Spitzer quote here: Historic Gay Advocate Now Believes Change is Possible
I rigorously researched this information as well and even found the quote at gay sites. From what I can tell, no where is this quote denied. Google it if you want, and please let me know if you find anything to the contrary.
Hey - how about extending me the same courtesy! :-)
I believe people have a choice in how they respond to adversity, that's all I'm saying.
You're right . . . to a point . . . and I apologize. I've tag-teamed with you on other threads and I should've known you meant nothing personally.
But I made my story short and sweet on purpose. Besides the announcement my brother also did all kinds of things harmful to his family . . . especially after our father died . . . and I just didn't want to get into it. I'll just say that I went from being single to being able to claim five on my W-2. I'm thankful now but I would've preferred it if the choice had been 100% mine.
Adversity? I'm not sure this should be called "adversity." Those of us who believe homosexuality is a sin should be strong enough to speak up . . . then back up our convictions with actions. Otherwise those we find perverse will win by default.
IMHO this includes parents when they deal with their children. If one of my nieces comes to me and says she's a lesbian, the first thing I'd do is call my preacher. Then I'd search on the iternet for some help. But I wouldn't blindly accept it. Niece, dependent, or stranger -- regardless of how much I loved them.
Dr. Spitzer was skeptical, but he decided to find out for himself if sexual orientation was changeable. He developed a 45-minute telephone interview which he personally admistered to all the subjects. Most had been referred to him by The National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality [note: the anti-gay NARTH organization founded by Dr. Paul Cameron, who was expelled from the APA for substandard research practices] and by Exodus, a ministry for homosexual strugglers.Tell me, can you see any potential flaws in this research methodology???
You're smart enough to know how this works. At least I think you are. If you make a contention, the burden is on you to be able to prove it conclusively. Otherwise, you could send those who question you on endless wild goose chases trying to refute everything you throw out.
So, until you can back up what you post with some legitimate, objective citations, I'll continue to remain skeptical.
I think that's an erroneous contention. Hopefully it was a mistake and not intentional. Rather than a 180 degree reversal, Spitzer has merely softened his position and conceded that it may, in some limited cases with highly motivated subjects, be possible to change their orientation.
But if he concluded that based on the research methodology desribed above, it's also highly likely that he was relying on very faulty data in coming to that conclusion.
On the issue of interracial/interethnic mating, isn't it amazing that the homosapien is the only creature willing to do that? Why don't rabbits mate with skunks? Or, better yet, why don't cardinals mate with crows? Are the lower class creatures more concerned with propagation of their own species than the homosapiens are? Just MHO. Flame away.......
Rabbits and skunks are different species. Blacks, whites, and asians are part of the same species. Race in humans is closer to breeds in dogs- dogs will indeed mate with other breeds of dogs when given a chance. What high school biology class did you drop out of? Or are you just here to start trouble?
What that means is that if a person is not in here behaving like some backwoods, illiterate offspring of first cousins, that person is branded a "queer".
Your arguments carry all the weight and intelligence of middle school adolescents arguing during recess, and that's insulting most non-inbred middle school adolescents.
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.