NOM BLOG

Brian Brown talks about D.C.'s gay marriage bill

 

Video Clip of Brian discussing the DC marriage bill that was introduced on Tuesday
10/7/09
News Channel 8, Washington DC

67 Comments

  1. John
    Posted October 8, 2009 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    Way to go DC!!!!!!

  2. Wes
    Posted October 9, 2009 at 5:32 am | Permalink

    I think Brian performed brilliantly in that interview. He talked circles around that reporter.

  3. Michael
    Posted October 9, 2009 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    He talked in circles alright!

    And it was a peformance, indeed . . . . . Replete with rehearsed soundbites of twisted facts that are facially compelling but substantively flawed. If you have no regard for the truth, you can always out perform your opponent in a debate!

    By the way, it's racist to say that because some Black people say that same-sex marraige is not a civil rights issue then it must not be. That NOM can't see that is, well, it's not really that surprising, frankly.

  4. Posted October 9, 2009 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    I couldn't get the link to work in my browser either, here's a copy from Youtube:

  5. Posted October 9, 2009 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

    Part Two:

  6. Wanda
    Posted October 9, 2009 at 9:51 pm | Permalink

    I am a supporter for NOM. I thank God for individuals like Brian Brown who not only has made a stand for marriage but also for individuals who believe in the sanctity of marriage. It must be wonderful to be a useful tool in God's hands. God bless you, Brian!

  7. Jane
    Posted October 10, 2009 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    Are you kidding me! This is laughable!
    Brian Brown got pwned! Big time!

  8. Perry
    Posted October 10, 2009 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    I would love to see Brian present his so called arguments in ANY federal court.. A picture of Brian leaving the supreme court with his tail between his legs.. "Priceless"...

  9. Wes
    Posted October 10, 2009 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

    Traditional family values is NOT a civil rights violation. They are a set of values that help establish an ideal environment for the procreation and upbringing of children with a male and female role model - they are in no way meant to put down any other lifestyle at all whether it be polygamy, bigamy, incest, or homosexuality.

    I sincerly hope that gay marriage does not damage the traditional families in the states that have it, but it certainly will not make traditional marriages popular henceforth if the government views the traditional family values that support traditional marriages to be in the same league as segregation and/or slavery.

    That much can be seen by the decline of the number of marriages in the states and countries that have had SSM for a while!

  10. James K
    Posted October 10, 2009 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    "I would love to see Brian present his so called arguments in ANY federal court.. A picture of Brian leaving the supreme court with his tail between his legs.."

    Perry, you can continue to run your random rhetoric into the ground. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and more courts agree than not.

    Go Brian Brown!

  11. Shelley
    Posted October 10, 2009 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    I stood up and cheered! Great interview! I'm surprised you could get so many great points in, even with the obvious bias of the interviewer.

  12. Shelley
    Posted October 10, 2009 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

    Jane, I don't know what you're smokin' honey, but that was great! I had to watch it twice. Thanks!

  13. mcnally arboreen
    Posted October 10, 2009 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    that interviewer was obviously put out by the strength of Brian's answers. He tried to regroup a few times, but his charges lacked energy.

    I thought it was well done.

  14. John
    Posted October 10, 2009 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    Depuyt did a great job in this interview, he was prepared for the usual NOM blah-blah.

    Brown jumped the shark when he said the attorny general was wrong about DC's BEOE law that is pretty much straight forward.

    Shelly, I'm with you!

  15. John
    Posted October 10, 2009 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    BTW, Julian Bond, the chairman for the NAACP wrote this past friday:

    "The civil rights struggle for legal equality in America today is no less necessary, nor worthy, than a similar struggle fought by blacks several decades ago."

    If anyone gets to decide if this is a civil rights issue, I think Mr Bond far out qualifies Brian Brown of NOM.

  16. John
    Posted October 10, 2009 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

    Oops, I meant "Jane, I'm with you."

  17. Sandy
    Posted October 11, 2009 at 2:23 am | Permalink

    That was the 1st time I ever heard Brian speak. INCREDIBLE!!! He ruled the interview. We need him on TV more.

  18. george
    Posted October 11, 2009 at 2:58 am | Permalink

    John, please, you've got to be kidding. The civil rights movement was about ensuring equality. It was a noble fight. The promotion of homosexuality is not noble.

  19. Raynd
    Posted October 11, 2009 at 3:24 am | Permalink

    lol. the NAACP is a joke.

  20. Sandy
    Posted October 11, 2009 at 4:09 am | Permalink

    "Over thirty years of research confirms that children fare best when reared by their two biological parents in a loving low conflict marriage... This is, in part, because biology contributes to parent child bonding."

    -American College of Pediatricians

  21. Wes
    Posted October 11, 2009 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    For your information, the ACP started because pediatricians noticed a disturbing shift in the AAP that promoted social policy based on political correctness and the wants of adults over the needs of children.

    So the American College of Pediatricians was officially established and its work on behalf of children and their families was set in motion, one that had more of a moral compass.

    The fact that the ACP does not share your view that traditional family values are a civil rights violation is no cause to dismiss their crediibility.

  22. Henry Walton
    Posted October 11, 2009 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

    I think this is ridiculous.
    All the word Marriage is is a label.
    Why are we obsessing over that?
    Equality of rights is much more important than a simply word.
    If people like this have such a problem with a same sex couple getting "married", then let's just make up a word for ourselves.
    We can get mallied.
    As long as we have the same rights then I don't care what we call it.

    _Henry J. W.

  23. Sandy
    Posted October 11, 2009 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    Good question Henry! Why aren't civil unions enough?

  24. Sandy
    Posted October 11, 2009 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

    California gave every right they had to civil unions and we saw what they thought of them there didn't we?

  25. Wes
    Posted October 11, 2009 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

    This isn't about getting civil rights. It's about gaining power. When gay marriage is legalized, gay activists are able to launch attacks through lawsuits upon religious organizations and individuals who do not include homosexuality in their sets of values.

    It's their way of forcing themselves into the mainstream and ostrasizing anyone and anything who does not consider homosexuality to be the best thing since sliced bread.

  26. John
    Posted October 11, 2009 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    Wes, that is totally not true. Where did you get that heap of misinformation?

  27. Sandy
    Posted October 11, 2009 at 10:45 pm | Permalink

    John, that would be experience. We've been around long enough for stuff like this:

    http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/obamas-chai-feldblum-gay-sex-is-morally-good-government-has-a-duty-to-promote/

    or this:

    http://fireflydove.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/the-mask-is-off—enlightening-conversation-on-the-gay-agenda-in-our-schools/

    to stop surprising us.

  28. John
    Posted October 12, 2009 at 6:59 am | Permalink

    Sandy,

    What can I say? It's sad that someone would conjure such falsehoods, even more sad that people want to, choose to believe these things.

    I'm a Christian, I was raised in a loving Christian home. I know of no one that is out to get any religious organizations. What I read on these two sites are distortions and exaggerations, actions that are way below any Christian ethics I aware of.  But then again, there are those who believe that Obama is not a US citizen.

    If you are going to randomly pick anything anybody utters as truth, why not pick something that would make you happy, instead of angry?

  29. Sandy
    Posted October 12, 2009 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

    conjured? Interesting description for actual video footage and indisputed quotes.

  30. John
    Posted October 12, 2009 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    Sandy,

    Again, what can I say? This is still much like the fringe web sites you sent early... This is America where you are free to be Jewish, Islamic, Muslim , Buddhist, Hindu, Jehovah's Witness, Scientoligist, Pentecostal, Quaker, Agnostic, and Atheist. Where in the Constitution, or any U.S. law book that says you have to live by Christian standards?  Seriously, I don't want to hear that it's implied or see links to RW websites, I want links to law codes.

    What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is none of our business. And Homosexuality is not a crime.

  31. Wes
    Posted October 12, 2009 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

    I agree that what two consenting adults do in their bedroom is none of our business. But when you involve the government by having them hand out marriage licences to same-sex couples, it becomes everyone's business.

    Government backed SSM would cause higher medical and insurance premiums and higher taxes to pay for financial benefits of marriage to homosexuals.

    And from all the signs, it is clear that SSM will cause the government to move from simply permitting homosexuality to actually promoting it - a lifestyle that results in numerous health problems from AIDS, colon and rectal cancer, and hepatitis. The government will be taking an active role promoting and encouraging something that is known to get people sick and killed. That is just wrong!

  32. Sandy
    Posted October 12, 2009 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    There's nothing fringe about it. Obama's already nominated Chai Feldblum to a position in government. Her fringe positions are now going to be in the position of affecting all of us.

    It's not about looking for the positive in life. It's about choosing to fiddle while Rome burns. Given the facts, looking for the positive is just not an option.

  33. James K.
    Posted October 12, 2009 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    "President Barack Obama’s nominee Chai R. Feldblum for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission proclaims that, “Gay sex is morally good.” Further in the video she suggests the government has a duty to promote homosexuality, and it is as good as heterosexuality.

    Equality is a weapon?? Homosexuality morally good? And the government has a duty to promote it??

    Chai Feldblum believes that these LGBT rights should come even at the expense of religious liberties! This woman has no place being in government.

    Now, I don’t mind wacky people having wacky ideas, or even spouting their wacky ideas in public, but when people like this are being put into positions of power like this, that is when my alarm bells start going off."

    "why not pick something that would make you happy, instead of angry?"

    John, are you serious?? Look for the positive? LOL.

  34. James K.
    Posted October 12, 2009 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    I'm sorry, but that just sounds so muffled like an ostrich with its head in the sand.....

  35. Anne
    Posted October 12, 2009 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    That lady is seriously messed up. What's Obama doing nominating that kind of whack job to anything in government???

  36. John
    Posted October 12, 2009 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

    No Wes, it's none of your business all the time. And the cheap shots are just that.

    BTW, MRSA kills more people every year, what should your pitchfork and torch crowd attack?

  37. Wes
    Posted October 12, 2009 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    "No Wes, it’s none of your business all the time. And the cheap shots are just that."

    When we have to support homosexual relationships with our tax dollars, then how can it not be any of our business?

    "BTW, MRSA kills more people every year, what should your pitchfork and torch crowd attack?"

    I never said anything about attacking anyone or anything, least of all with torches and pitchforks. My overall point is that nobody should encourage and promote activity that gets people sick and killed, especially the government.

  38. Wes
    Posted October 12, 2009 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

    Studies have shown that children are better off being raised by both a mother and a father. They are far less likely to live in poverty, healthier physically and emotionally when they grow up, and do better academically and socially.

    The government should not endorse behavior that is usually harmful, even if you can find rare exceptions when it is not.

  39. Meorplip
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 2:20 am | Permalink

    John,

    Adultery and divorce aren't "crimes" either, but look what both have done to marriage, family, and society. How would homosexuality not follow the same pattern? Because of consent? If consent is all that is necessary to morally justify any action/behavior, then adultery and divorce, let alone homosexuality, wouldn't stigmatize society as they do. For that matter, would there be any action/behavior seen as needing vindication if consent makes everything permissible?

  40. John
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    Wes,

    I see the confusion, let me walk you through this.

    When gathering research on Judaism or Israel we do not consult with Neo-Nazis or anti-Semitic groups. We do not find them capable of objective research or credible findings.
    When gathering research on Africans or African-Americans we do not consult with the KKK or white supremacist groups. We do not find them capable of objective research or credible findings.

    So, as you can guess, we know that your group of anti-gay doctors are going to have biased findings, so, yes, we do not find the studies you bring forth as credible. The medical community at large is in disagreement with what you post.

  41. Adam
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    John, bias is a two way street friend. The best you can do to get around the pro gay bias is not to look at who is publishing the scientific data, but in what the scientific data tells and if it's peer reviewed hard science or just self reporting soft science.

  42. John
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    Adam,

    I work as a research associate with a huge research and statistical firm, I'm always interested in new research models. So please enlighten as to how the American College of Pediatricians findings so differ from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the AMA, the APA, WHO, etc.?

  43. Wes
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    "When gathering research on Judaism or Israel we do not consult with Neo-Nazis or anti-Semitic groups. We do not find them capable of objective research or credible findings.
    When gathering research on Africans or African-Americans we do not consult with the KKK or white supremacist groups. We do not find them capable of objective research or credible findings.
    So, as you can guess, we know that your group of anti-gay doctors are going to have biased findings, so, yes, we do not find the studies you bring forth as credible."

    So you consider traditional family values and placing the needs of children first to be in the same league as: slavery, segregation, genocide, lynchings, etc. Well, that just boosts you own credibility to new heights, doesn't it? If that's what legalizing gay marriage does to the family values that has made our nation strong for so many decades, then this is all the more reason to oppose it.

    "So please enlighten as to how the American College of Pediatricians findings so differ from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the AMA, the APA, WHO, etc.?"

    The AAP promotes social policy based on political correctness and the wants of adults over the needs of children. The American College of Pediatricians, however, promotes the well being of children and their families and has more of a moral compass, one that does not compare traditional family values to the worst crimes in history!

  44. Adam
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    Wes,

    Thats a good point . I think that is what we saw in Iowa. The couple that filed the case was picked specifically because they fit the exception. That exception was then used to decide marriage for everyone although it was one in a million gay couple.
    BTW someone else stole my name.:(

  45. John
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    Wes,

    You intentionally missed my point. It matters not what you research, it's whether or not that you did it objectively, or can do it objectively.  The ACP makes it clear that they are anti-gay, so there is no way there findings would  EVER come out fairly. And all of the outlandish "conspiracy theories" that these major health organizations are motivated to be "politically correct" or have gay lawyers forcing to say these things are laughable.

    We got it, Wes, you don't like Homosexuals. So the only reality is the one that caters to your feelings?  Don't you think that skews things just a tad?  You clearly don't care that the journal Adoption Quarterly reported these findings:  "Gay or straight, the sexual orientation of adoptive parents does not have an impact on the emotional development of their children, according to a new study."

  46. Adam Langlois
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    Sorry I didn't realize there was another Adam.....

  47. Adam Langlois
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

    John, if you truly are interested in truth without putting the cart before the horse in your hypothesis, then you would have to acknowledge the clear bias of the organizations you yourself are touting.

  48. Adam Langlois
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    the APA became pro-homosexual by VOTE not by scientific conclusion. Human opinion is worthless as a basis for finding truth. Truth can't be found by vote.

  49. Adam Langlois
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    John, So the only reality is the one that caters to your feelings?

    I could ask you the same thing. You claim Wes doesn't like homosexuals, but has he ever said that? or is it something you made up to make yourself look better? Can't your arguments stand on their own without lying about your fellow debater to make yourself look pious? Leave the straw men home.

  50. Wes
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    John

    When did the ACP ever claim that they are "anti-gay?" That's just your skewed interpretation of their pro family views. And who are you to accuse people of bias when your own feelings skews your own views to such an extent that you make no distinction between family values and civil and human rights violations? And then you have the gall to talk about being "fair?" It is clear that it is actually YOU who only grants credibility to anything that caters to your feelings, not me.

    And since when did being concerned about the health of homosexuals a sign of dislike? If I didn't like homosexuals, I would actually endorse SSM because I honestly can't think of any other way to get more homosexuals sick and killed than that - only I would be doing this knowingly instead of unwittingly.

  51. Samantha
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    Is the fight against same-sex marriage primarily one fought between religious groups and the gay community? Are there any issues that a secular society should consider in this fight? We have found at least eight negative sociological outcomes that could occur if same-sex marriage is legalized.

    The first impact would most likely affect the number of marriages in the United States. Fewer people would see marriage as the ultimate covenant between two people. The proof of this lies in the state of Massachusetts where only 43 percent of same-sex couples who cohabitate have utilized the state law which grants them marriage rights. Heterosexual couples in Massachusetts are more likely to marry (91 percent) but the degree to which same-sex couples marry devalues the commitment for all couples and the number is likely to decrease. In the Netherlands, only 12 percent of gay couples have chosen marriage; this low number is consistent with countries that have legalized same-sex marriages.

    A second impact that legalizing same-sex marriage would have on our society would be that monogamous and sexually faithful relationships would decrease. Fidelity among same-sex couples in countries that have legalized same-sex marriage is extremely low. Several studies in the Netherlands show shocking figures: homosexual men who have a steady partner have had an average of eight other sexual partners per year; lesbians were found to have more male partners over their lifetime than heterosexual women. This lack of fidelity affects the view of marriage by the society in general, no matter the sexual preference.

    Third, same-sex marriage would negatively impact the number of couples who would remain married throughout their lives. As the transient nature of homosexual relationships becomes a normative ingredient of a society, all marriages will be impacted. One of the studies mentioned above found that the average male homosexual partnership lasts only 1½ years. This is a direct result of the widespread promiscuity among the homosexual community.

    Next, the effect of same-sex marriage could be felt in the area of polygamy. Once society is afforded the opportunity to choose a spouse regardless of sex, the next step is to take the limit off the number of spouses a person may have. In case you think this is an unlikely scenario, one lawsuit has been filed in the courts using the argument we have stated above.

    Moving on from marriage, we can readily deduce that the next influence same-sex marriage would have would be on children. More children would grow up without both father and mother to influence their lives. The social sciences are replete with study after study that commands our attention to the positive effect married, biological parents have on their children. Children are more emotionally stable and achieve higher test scores when they are raised by a mother and a father. Creating permanent motherless or fatherless homes dares to suppress the best standards for the next generation. Allowing gay partners to adopt will deny innocent children (who are unable to choose for themselves) the benefit of a home with both a mother and a father.

    Another negative impact same-sex marriage would have on our families is that schools would be required to offer information about homosexuality as a choice to students. Sex education classes would purport that homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual ones. In Massachusetts, a lesbian sex education instructor told her 8th grade students how lesbians use “a sex toy” to have intercourse. Though this is shocking, more so is the fact that a kindergarten parents was jailed because he protested against a book that was distributed to his son describing same-sex partners.

    Next, the impact of same-sex marriage will have a negative impact on the economy. Once same-sex marriage is legalized, all employers, whether they are public or private, will be forced to provide a benefits package for same-sex couples. This will broadly affect every US citizen as our consumer goods and services will increase due to the increase cost of benefits that companies (large or small) will have to bear.

    Finally, the conscience of each citizen and our religious liberties would come under attack if same-sex marriage became legalized. Once a law has been made, the interpretation of that law is managed by the court system, which has often seen opinion rise over the will of the people. Religious schools, colleges, and organizations might face becoming stripped of their tax-exempt status if they do not hire and admit homosexuals. Social workers, psychologists, counselors and other professionals could have their licenses revoked because they have chosen to “discriminate” against homosexuals.

    The types of issues we have stated above have already been found to be true in the countries and states in which same-sex marriage has been legalized. If you are as vexed as I am over this issue, make a stand for marriage.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/HarryRJacksonJr/2009/10/12/what%E2%80%99s_the_vex_of_same-sex?page=2

  52. John
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

    Adam, the ACP is nothing but opinion. The APA has years of studies to back their claims. Here's a few:

    Reviews of Empirical Studies: Generally Related to the Fitness of Lesbians and Gay Men as Parents
    Amato, P. R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 355-370.

    Cochran, S. D. (2001). Emerging issues in research on lesbians' and gay men's mental health: Does sexual orientation really matter? American Psychologist, 56, 931-947.

    Gonsiorek, J. (1991). The empirical basis for the demise of the illness model of homosexuality. In J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D. Weinrich (Eds.),Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 115-136). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Herek, G. M. (1998). Bad science in the service of stigma: A critique of the Cameron group's survey studies. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. (pp. 223-255). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    This last one is a favorite of mine, it's one of many that discredits Cameron's work. A fave of your ACP.

  53. Jesse
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    After reading some comments, i can see why pro-marriage advocates do what they do. The anti-gays keep on attacking not only with religion, but with H8! Just like in these comments! Any rude response will prove me correct.

  54. Jesse
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    The fact that this web site exists is exactly why they needed the D.C. March on Equality. Wow, with all that Sam has written, is she really THIS fixated on assaulting poor gays and lesbians?

  55. Samantha
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

    What has hate got to do with anything Jesse?

  56. Samantha
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    screaming "HATE" in a crowded forum is hardly a replacement for thought, reason and debate.

  57. Samantha
    Posted October 13, 2009 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

    Since one of the aims of marriage as an institution is to encourage the best for children, forcing children into sub-par relationships would infringe on their rights would it not? Calling it equal doesn't make it so. Children do not get to choose, they are the ones being denied one gender's parental role by design. If your parents are divorced, or if one has died, then other relatives try to step in to fill the void, and kids are flexible, they can adjust in most cases. However, putting kids in a situation where they have to adjust isn't equal for them. It comes down to weighing kids rights over adult's preferences. I have not been convinced that SSM can do the job that marriage does for children, and the price is too high to experiment with.

    Wouldn't it be better to allow adults the freedom to be with who they choose to and pursue the missing legal advantages separate from marriage? Colorado has recently adopted a plan I think is quite a good one. It gives benefits to any significant relationship between adults living in the same home. It could be a grandmother living with her college age granddaughter, or two lesbians, or three elderly sisters. It gives government protection and encouragement not because of the potential for the creation of children, but because of the stability created when people have loving charge over one another. Utah has a similar law. I hope it spreads because committed people deserve rights and privileges. That's a cause I can get behind.

  58. Laura
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    Any heterosexual person who supports homosexual marriage must be out of his or her mind.

    I can understand insecure homosexuals, living in their own make-belief world, desperately trying to prove that they are just like everybody else. For them, their homosexuality is the essence of their existence. They do not care about the social consequences of their annihilistic and hedonistic crusade. They do not care about the kids who are deprived of a mom or dad from the start. They do not care about the mixed messages sent to our children about sexuality and about the importance of having a mom AND a dad. In fact, a complete transformation of our world in accordance with their own hedonistic and annihilistic vision is their ultimate goal.

    If the AIDS epidemic, which originated from homosexual activity, did not open people's eyes, what is it going to take? The annihilation of the entire human race -- just because we are too stupid/politically correct to say enough is enough?

  59. Mark Douglas
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Laura: AIDS did not originate from homosexual activity. That is a very ignorant thought. It originated in Africa from a now extinct species of primate. It manifested itself on Africans first, then the early 80's gay male population. Just need to set that fact, as I am a microbiologist, and have studied the virus for 20 years, now.

  60. ladyk
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    Jesse, your fallback position is that we're all about hate, but opposing gay marriage has nothing to do with fighting people. It has to do with fighting ideas. Some people who experience same sex attraction identify so completely with their moral ideas and actions that they say they “ARE” their moral choices. I don’t find that to be an accurate description. Who you ARE is a person, a human being, a child of God. Nothing can change that.

  61. John
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    Well this must be upsetting.....

    Judge in Gay Marriage Case: Ability to Procreate Not Required

    The battle over California’s gay marriage ban is set to continue at least through January.

    The WSJ’s Geoffrey Fowler reports that today in San Francisco, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker refused to grant a motion from backers of the ban, known as Prop. 8, to throw out a constitutional challenge to it filed earlier this year.
    -------

    There goes that whole, "it's all about making babies" argument.

  62. John
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 7:53 am | Permalink

    ladyk,

    I think you are confused on several levels. In the eyes of the law, gays are not deemed immoral. In fact, not all christians believe gays are immoral. So you are wrong to assert that this isn't a fight against people, you very well intend to target gays as less than worthy of rights afforded to others.

    The intent to defame is quite evident in the postings here. If I were to use Samantha's logic, every "Girls Gone Crazy" video is evidence that all woman are promiscuous women.

  63. ladyk
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 8:18 am | Permalink

    "In the eyes of the law, gays are not deemed immoral. In fact, not all christians believe gays are immoral. So you are wrong to assert that this isn’t a fight against people, you very well intend to target gays as less than worthy of rights afforded to others."

    I'm sorry. I don't follow your logic.
    The law doesn't believe in God
    Not all Christians believe in God
    ergo
    I hate gays?

  64. ladyk
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    My point was that you are not your sexuality. You are a human being. In my faith, you are a child of God. There is no hate there.

  65. John
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 8:38 am | Permalink

    ladyk,

    This statement of yours says volumes.

    "Some people who experience same sex attraction identify so completely with their moral ideas and actions that they say they “ARE” their moral choices. I don’t find that to be an accurate description."

    love the sinner not the sin is not acceptable, and still has nothing to do with civic law.

  66. John
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    ladyk, from my earlier post you come up with:

    "I’m sorry. I don’t follow your logic,  The law doesn’t believe in God, Not all Christians believe in God, ergo, I hate gays?"

    So you assert that you have to believe that gays are immoral to believe in God?  Your way or the highway? 

    Again, your religious viewpoints are, well, are yours. They have absolutely nothing to do with civil law. 

  67. Laura
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    Mark, your, at best, incomplete, description of how the AIDS epidemic started is a classic example of politically correct lunacy pervasive in this country. Just to educate you, a homosexual man, infected with HIV via bestiality, introduced the HIV virus into the homosexual community. Homosexuals, through anal intercourse, particularly conducive in transfer of blood and feces borne diseases, took it from there.

    Homosexual men are still, nearly 30 years later, the greatest contributors to the AIDS epidemic in this country. Not to mention syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis, etc. Really healthy lifestyle. Something that we should endorse, encourage and promote through the farce of homosexual "marriage."

    If you are a heterosexual supporting homosexual "marriage", you are either out of your mind or you are being handsomly paid for your support.