Posted on 12/23/2004 7:40:45 AM PST by Ernie.cal
I have read many messages which object to same-sex marriage but I am still waiting to learn what specific adverse consequences opponents of gay marriage anticipate to result from its legalization.
In other words, suppose same-sex marriage becomes law during 2005. By 2010 or 2015 what specific indisputable adverse consequences to society do opponents predict to occur?
With respect to those critics of same-sex marriage who refer to "God's law" and "procreation" --- do they believe that heterosexual couples who cannot have children, or who do not wish to have children, should also NOT be allowed to marry?
The essence of a free society is choice---including the option of choosing private behavior that does not cause harm to another person. The alternative is coercion, i.e. using the coercive (and punitive) power of government through laws, bureaucrats, and police to dictate what choices are permissible.
Do opponents of same-sex marriage propose that our society should begin identifying areas where choices involving human intimacy should be regulated by government entities and thus dilute our commitment to the values inherent in a free society?
An excerpt from: Paglia: The energy mess and fascist gays
"... Which brings us to another subject, the furor this past month over a report by psychiatrist Robert Spitzer of Columbia University that, from his rather cursory interviews with 153 men and 47 women, the "reparative therapy" endorsed by conservative Protestant groups can in some cases change sexual orientation from gay to straight. That Spitzer had helped to persuade the American Psychiatric Association to drop the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 makes his current study harder to dismiss.
Nevertheless, screeching gay activists immediately descended on the media to denounce and defame Spitzer as a tool of the far right. This was a good example of the fascist policing of public discourse in this country by nominal liberals who have become as unthinkingly wedded to dogma as any junior member of the Spanish Inquisition. Why should the fluidity of sexual orientation threaten any gay secure in his or her identity?
What gay ideologues, inflated like pink balloons with poststructuralist hot air, can't admit, of course, is that heterosexuality is nature's norm, enforced by powerful hormonal cues at puberty. In the past decade, one shoddy book after another, rapturously applauded by p.c. reviewers, has exaggerated the incidence of homosexuality in the animal world and, without due regard for reproductive adaptations caused by environmental changes, toxins or population pressure, reductively interpreted bonding or hierarchical behavior as gay in the human sense.
Because of the unblushing dishonesty of strident activists and campus "queer theorists," whose general knowledge of science would fit into Marie Antoinette's thimble, we are ironically further from understanding homosexuality than we were in 1970, when popular culture was moving into the seductive gender-bending era typified by the brilliant David Bowie. With the emphasis on external "politics," all respect for psychology has been lost. Did no one notice the grotesquely misogynous dialogue put into gay men's mouths on "Queer as Folk"? That kind of catty aversion to the female body is learned, not inborn, and it can be partly traced to early family relations, before personal memory has even gelled.
My political philosophy as a libertarian says that government has no business intervening in any consensual private behavior. My professional ethic as a thinker and writer, however, says that self-knowledge is our ultimate responsibility. In vicious attacks like the one on Spitzer, gay activists, with all their good intentions, are aligning themselves with the forces of ignorance and repression. Too little reliable work is currently being done in homosexuality because free inquiry cannot be conducted in a politicized atmosphere of harassment and intimidation..."
"The results of a study conducted by Dr. Robert L. Spitzer have just been published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 403-417.
Spitzer's findings challenge the widely-held assumption that a homosexual orientation is "who one is" -- an intrinsic part of a person's identity that can never be changed.
The study has attracted particularly attention because its author, a prominent psychiatrist, is viewed as a historic champion of gay activism. Spitzer played a pivotal role in 1973 in removing homosexuality from the psychiatric manual of mental disorders...
Although examples of "complete" change in orientation were not common, the majority of participants did report change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year as a result of reparative therapy.
These results would seem to contradict the position statements of the major mental health organizations in the United States, which claim there is no scientific basis for believing psychotherapy effective in addressing same-sex attraction. Yet Spitzer reports evidence of change in both sexes, although female participants reported significantly more change than did male participants..."
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 am not "playing games" nor I am "ignoring questions"
That contracts your posting record. 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.
You've asked me to fight your battles for you. Battles you created by the games you play.
You have repeatedly misrepresented me and others.
You've incorrectly inferred ulterior motives.
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.
The above question is merely your own question turned around and you dodged it.
You've had to wipe egg off your face after inserting your foot in your mouth.
You apparently want me to hold your hand because you can't figure out how to find the information you seek, and this after you told me I have hatred and revulsion for homosexuals.
Indeed, you have made your position very well known. And if you really call your posting record here honest, then you just may have multiple personalities.
If, after reading all the posts and references many folks have pointed you towards, you still can't figure out the answer to your first question, I see little hope for you ever doing so.
As for the total number who have left the homosexual lifestyle, if the response you posted above refers to your exact question, you didn't get that right either. If you're really interested, I suggest you keep looking as I'm not going to hold your hand.
There are many organizations that have excellent followup programs. Many in our local area, and we're just starting our own program to help homosexuals leave the lifestyle. And yes, we have contacted organizations such as Narth and Exodus. Thank you.
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.
Apparently, and besides a plethora of other issues, one major issue for this guy is he has no idea what context is. Either that or he's playing games.
Yes the stats on that are never published in the media
He's still here?????
What are the moderators doing?
Isn't it too bad that wittle ernie doesn't wike the word "perversion". The nasty word hurts his wittle feelings.
It's like those who think it's evil to have photos of aborted babies, or to describe in detail the abortion procedure, but defend to the death the actual process of abortion.
You don't like the word because it fits the actions homosexuals engage in. You could change the word "pervert" to "gay" and it doesn't change the truth. The truth is that nature arranged sexual difference and harmony between a man and a woman for the good of all. Going against the laws of nature always, I repeat ALWAYS, has disastrous effects.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
It appears his posting integrity is similar to that of Dan Rather.
Context? Who needs steenking context?
In the universe of moral relativity, nothing really matters or has any real validity. Except what "they" say. It's really a way of saying "I am God and what I say goes".
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.
He's playing stupid games, not being honest, he's all pretense and falsity. And I'm not going to add his name in the "to" box even if I'm referring to him.
There's nothing I loathe more than a liar. It's like trying to grab smoke. You can't debate honestly with slime that lies.
Just WHAT IS that "logical conclusion"?
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.
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?
"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!
I wonder if he realizes that very loud sound he heard was my point going right over his head.
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.