Friday, January 05, 2007

Who is Focused on Hate???

Here are some of the pictures taken at the State House this past Tuesday during the Constitutional Convention. As I mentioned in my last post, most of the posters on the theme of hate and intolerance were property of the homosexual activists.

Why is it that those who are screaming for tolerance are so intolerant of those who share a different opinion then them?
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting Bigot (n.) One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Sorry, traditional marriage supporters are not intolerant. The homosexual activists are intolerant of "those who differ" in opinion regarding how democracy should work. Remember, everyone has a right to vote on this issue.
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting Can someone tell me HOW we became to be "bigots"? This sounds like a lot of emotional bantering than anything else because the use of words are simply used illogically. Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
A plethora of hate and no action via a petition. This is your government too, petition it already!! You would have 134 votes to put the petition on the ballot as a result of all the support you have in the State House!

Our Side Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

O.K., this is sarcastic, but it is factual! Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
A lot of stompping but no hate signs here. Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
A little fresh, but STILL no hatred signs seen yet. Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

If I had missed out on any other signs or events, as I was in the House Gallery for most of the afternoon, please share them with me. I want to get both sides of the story straight.

From what I experienced when I was outside in the morning, I just saw fallacious claims from gay marriage supporters and support for democracy from traditional marriage supporters.

LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!!

56 Comments:

Blogger Lynne said...

Thanks scia for the after-action report. I'm wondering why they hate democracy.

4:35 AM, January 06, 2007  
Anonymous OMD said...

Great reporting Scia. You have visually portrayed, with accuracy, the signs on each side.

As I stated in an earlier post BOTH side were hurling verbal stones BUT I heard no traditional marriage supporter hurling inflamatory, name calling stones as I walked the length of the sidewalk listening. I heard no angry conversation. All I heard was "Let the People Vote"

Let me ramble here for a second. It is disturbing how the language is being used. Bigot, Hate, Intolerant. In my almost 60 years it has become apparent to me that, usually, the very people doing the name calling are, unwittingly, describing themselves. Examples follow -
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bigot - A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.

Hate - noun ~ The emotion of hate; a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action.

Hate - verb ~ Dislike intensely; feel antipathy or aversion towards.

Intolerant - Unwilling to tolerate difference of opinion.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Understand, I am writing about what took place on one particular day i.e. January 2, 2007 and only what I witnessed.

I saw nor heard any bigotry, hate or intolerance from the supporters of traditional marriage. Traditional marriage supporters are defending the institution of marriage, a union of one man and one woman. One of the anchors of ALL society. To destroy this would... well let me put this way. Someone once said to me, "A river without banks is a, swamp." Think about it. Want a visual? New Orleans or the Mississippi River when it overflowed it banks 15 or so years ago.

I did see and hear bigoted slogans, hateful signs and chants and an intolerance of anothers opinions from the opposite side of the street.

An interesting observation; It seems a person who supports traditional marriage is automatically enrolled in the "Christian" camp. I saw a sign on the other side of the street "Act Like Christians"
There are plenty of people in our state and country that are not Christian that are ardent traditional marriage supporters.

So, you can see that this is indeed not only a social issue but is also a Christian bashing tactic. Apprantly 'Only Christians' would be so bigoted, hateful and intolerant of homosexal behavior, right?

People are people. Yes, there are many 'hateful' Christians out there BUT the majority do not hate a person because they chose homosexuality. And Yes, there are many 'hateful' homosexuals out there, too.
But not all homosexuals are that way.

In my humble opinion the best tactic traditional marriage supporters could have taken was "Silent Protest." No verbal stone throwing.

Picture a sidewalk of silent people simply gathered & praying for our government, it leaders and elected officials. Praying for the other side. Praying for an understanding of the otherside and their viewpoint. Praying, praying & praying in silent prayer or even led prayer.

I ask, When the news reported the happenings of the day just what would their cameras have reported when the country saw a group of people gathered in prayer and NOT engaged in banging drums and chanting? What would the country have witnessed if the only noise being made was from those with a different viewpoint than traditional marriage supporters?

6:56 AM, January 06, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

OMD,

You said:

"I ask, When the news reported the happenings of the day just what would their cameras have reported when the country saw a group of people gathered in prayer and NOT engaged in banging drums and chanting? What would the country have witnessed if the only noise being made was from those with a different viewpoint than traditional marriage supporters?"

THIS HAS TO BE DONE NEXT TIME AND I AM GOING TO ORCHASTRATE IT.

AWESOME, AWESOME idea

Scia

12:04 PM, January 06, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Lynne,

They hate democracy because it works for the people, regardless of your sexual orientation.

What I saw on Tuesday represents only a sliver of the 1-2% of radical homosexuals in this country.

MANY, MANY homosexuals do not want to get married and would vote against it. This is a fact that has been stated over and over again by the homosexual community.
Look throughout my blog for examples. I don't think you can go through a month of posts and not find comments or suggestions to the like.

Great question Lynne.

P.S. I still have you on my radar screen to give you "The Misfits" CDs. If you don't mind I will send them out to you after the 20th of January.

Scia

12:09 PM, January 06, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Denying the fact you are a bigot does not make it less true. Gay people are fine with living side by side with you, but only as equals. The fact of the matter is that the opponents of gay marriage can't do the same. It is not enough that they have their own freedom. They have to tell others they can't live by their own beliefs. That is why you are bigots and gays are not. You can call this anything you want, it won't change the truth.

5:26 PM, January 06, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You are making zero sense here. Try and listen to what you are saying.

Lets again start out with the definition of a bigot:

Bigot (n.) One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

You said:

"Gay people are fine with living side by side with you, but only as equals."

The mere fact that you continued with "but only as equals" defines MOST RADICAL homosexuals as bigots, Anonymous. You and I CAN live side by side. MOST RADICAL homosexuals are "strongly partial to [their] own group, religion, race, or politics and [are] intolerant of those who differ. Those who differ include me and those who believe that marriage is strickly between a man and a women.

I am not a bigot because I may be "strongly partial to [my] own group, religion, race, or politics.." BUT I am not intolerant of those who differ.

You don't even know me or know what I advocate for when it comes to homosexuals. All I am advocating for with the amendment process is to preserve the definition of traditional marriage. Please, do not tell me that is discriminatory for the Constitution to uphold. The laws of the Constitution discriminate in one way or another.

Laws are enacted by societies which reflect natural law and the moral preferences of the citizenry. Practices such as incest, bigamy, polygamy, homosexuality and pedophilia are all sexual "relationships" in which society has deemed to be immoral - and without legal justification and protections.

This does not mean that you do not have any rights, it means that the homosexual behavior is not beneficial to society and therefor not protected to marry under law. This is not discrimination, it is fact.

Prove to me that homosexuality is not dangerous and we can have a different conversation about same-sex marriages.

Marriage laws were not invented to persecute or deny specific rights to homosexuals. Marriage laws in our country reinforce an institution which over thousands of years in thousands of cultures provided the foundation for stable societies. (Maggie Gallagher, "What Marriage Is For," The Weekly Standard, Vol. 8, No. 45, 4 August 2003.)

The marriage amendment, once again, is not about heterosexualy, religion, OR HOMOsexuality. It is about democracy and the will of the people. You can spin it any way you like to Anonymous but your opinion, in which you pass off as fact, is misguided and biased based on what you ASSUME about others.

You said:

"They (traditional marriage proponents) have to tell others they can't live by their own beliefs. That is why you are bigots and gays are not."

No,....If this was the case Anonymous, then marriage supporters would be liers, not bigots. Not being able to live by your own beliefs has nothing to do with being a bigot. If a christian or an atheist can not live by their own beliefs then they are not a christian or an atheist. Your confusing apples and oranges.

I hope this clears up things on what the word bigot means.

Thanks for stopping by.

Scia

6:41 PM, January 06, 2007  
Anonymous OMD said...

If we are going to discuss homosexuality let's be clear what we are speaking of. Scia, you addressed this correctly.

The issue is not one of orientation but behavior. I am glad that you made that distinction in your reply to Anonymous. AND you are correct that it is society as a whole that determines the laws. Laws should reflect what is best for the common good of the whole community. This is why we have laws against murder, theft, incest, sodomy, polygamy, pedophilia, drunkeness, illegal drugs and on and on. Laws are made to protect society from itself and its fallen nature.

Anonymous, It is not YOU that society shuns. It is the associated sexual behavior that is not considered proper by society. It has been a documented and proven dangerous behavior and I don't want the children of this world taught that it is a normal and acceptable behavior. Again behavior is the issue NOT one's orientation.

OMD

10:17 PM, January 06, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

OMD,

Excellent pick-up. I stand corrected. It is the behaviors of homosexuality that is wrong not the orientation.

Thanks,

Scia

6:53 AM, January 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice try attempting to turn the tables on gay rights advocates. But they are not intolerant and prejudiced because they refuse to accept your intolerance and prejudice. What an unbelievably absurd argument. If I called the KKK a bunch of hateful bigots, would you call me a hateful bigot because I was intolerant of the KKK's beliefs and actions? If you don't like being labeled a bigot, maybe you should stop acting like one.

9:48 PM, January 10, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Lynne: Where do you get your information that "many many" homosexuals would vote against same-sex marriage? Are you kidding. You may find some gay people with no desire to marry (the same could be said for heterosexuals) but you'd be hard pressed to find many who would actually vote to write discrimination against themselves into the constitution!

9:50 PM, January 10, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scia and Lynne... your arguments are ridiculous. The fact the you speak of homosexuals as people that society needs to be protected from is an example of your bigotry and prejudice. Open your goddamn eyes! Stop trying to characterize it as a mere "difference of opinion". We are not talking about social security reform, the war, or wine sales in supermarkets! This is not a simple issue that effects everyone equally. You're talking about people's rights and their dignity. You're crusading against a group of people. Like it or not,the opinions of gay men and lesbians in this matter DO carry more weight than yours do. I refuse to be "tolerant" of someone who believes my rights should be restricted because I'm a threat to society.

9:57 PM, January 10, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

Let's define the word prejudice:

prejudice (n.) An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

1) How am I JUDGING anyone that is not based on FACTS about their dangerous lifestyle to society? We have laws against those who engage in pedophilia? Should the law not judge these people so they therefor can conduct their businses and desires without any restrictions via the law? How will that be beneficial to society?

Should society just let the behaviors of homosexuality run rampent without any restrictions on what institutions they can destroy without a voice from the people who make up that society?

If so, doesn't that sound a little tyranic?

I simply wish not to legalize dangerous behaviors. If that discriminates against those who engage in those dangerous behaviors then so be it. Society, as a whole, is better off.

If you don't like how the current Constitution discriminates against dangerous behaviors, then start a petition and change it.

2) What is BENEFICIAL about homosexual behavior to society? What FACTS do you have Anonymous?

Intolerance (n.) The quality or condition of being intolerant; lack of tolerance.

3) How am I being intolerant? Is it because I hold an opinion that is different than yours? Is it because my FACTS are code for "hate-monger"?

You said:

"If I called the KKK a bunch of hateful bigots, would you call me a hateful bigot because I was intolerant of the KKK's beliefs and actions?"

No, because MOST of society knows for a FACT that the beliefs of the KKK are hateful and full of bigotry. There are zero benefits for this group to exsist.

Yes, I strongly believe homosexuals SHOULD exsist. I am not making any comparison to the contrary. I would never advocate the elimination of a group of society. I will leave that up to Christ to handle.

People should be able to do what they want as long as it is not hurtful to others.

4) How is same-sex marriage NOT hurtful to others Anonymous?

You said:

"Like it or not,the opinions of gay men and lesbians in this matter DO carry more weight than yours do. I refuse to be "tolerant" of someone who believes my rights should be restricted because I'm a threat to society."

You contradict yourself within the same paragraph.

Gay men and lesbian women's opinions carry more weight than mine but yet you are intolerant of those who restrict your rights?? So, my right to vote on same-sex marriage, my opinion, has no comparable weight to your "right" to marry?? Doesn't that sound a little bit like:

Intolerance (n.) The quality or condition of being intolerant; lack of tolerance.

Your statement is a little confusing.

5) Where is it said that anyone, HETEROsexual or HOMOsexual has a "right" to marry?

I have posted five (5) questions for you. Answer them as I have answered your questions.

Good job Anonymous. I like your questions and ability to engage in a debate without depending on emotional bantering as I have experienced too much here on my blog.

Keep up the good work.

Scia

4:29 PM, January 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dangerous (used 4 times)
rampent
pedophilia
destroy
tyranic

"People should be able to do what they want as long as it is not hurtful to others."~SCIA

"Please answer them all and I will respond to them all."~SCIA

3:50 PM, December 01, 2006

Q: "Where is it said that marriage is a "right" or for that matter a privilage in which many pro-marriage advocates are screaming?"

A: US Supreme Court Loving v. Virginia 1967

This was never responded to, so are you going to keep your promise this time?

5:08 PM, January 18, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

This is the question that I proposed to you:

Q: "Where is it said that marriage is a "right" or for that matter a privilege in which many pro-marriage advocates are screaming?"

And you answered with:

A: US Supreme Court Loving v. Virginia 1967

My response to your answer:

Let me give you a HISTORY and FACTS lesson:

First of all, being of a particular race is nothing like having homosexual desire. Again, no academic institution in the world, nor any U.S. court has EVER established that homosexuality is given at birth and is a permanent feature of an individual like race, nationality and gender are. There are no former Blacks, Whites, Hispanics or Asian folks. There are hundreds of people documented who have happily and successfully left homosexuality. (Robert L. Spitzer, “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change From Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation,” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32 (2003): 403-17).

The Supreme Court of Minnesota, which ruled in 1971 that race and homosexuality are NOT similar. Based on Loving V. Virginia, the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case striking down state bans ON INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE - NOT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE- the Minnesota court said:

Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely on race and one based on the fundamental difference in sex. (Baker v. Nelson, Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1971.)

The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which refused to hear it, citing “appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.” (Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972).

The comparison of race and gender really implies that opponents to same-sex marriage are bigots, but this is not true. They simply believe that marriage is for men and women of whatever race.

What is more, polls consistently show African Americans in large numbers oppose same-sex marriage, indicating they don’t align themselves with the homosexual movement. (Ta-Nehisi Coates, “Queer Eye for the Black Guy,” The Village Voice, September 30, 2003). Many are deeply offended at the comparison of gay rights with civil rights when used by homosexual activists. (Alvin Williams, “Blacks Resent Comparison of Gay Rights to Civil Right,” The Charlotte Observer, April 23, 2004, p. 9A).

9:58 AM, January 19, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You have four (4)other questions of mine to answer.

Please refer to the 4:29 PM, January 11, 2007 post.

Thanks,

Scia

10:00 AM, January 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The US Supreme court did not comment on gay marriage because it did not exist back then. In 1967 we were still having a hard time convincing people that God did not put us on seperate continents to keep us from intermixing the races. This was the argument given against inter-racial marriage. To the letter of the ruling Loving v. Virginia did state that marriage was a civil right, and the ruling did not exclude gay marriage.

6:17 PM, January 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for taking down that terrible post with Saddam and a cat. That was in very poor taste and did not reflect well upon you at all.

6:18 PM, January 19, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"1) How am I JUDGING anyone that is not based on FACTS about their dangerous lifestyle to society? We have laws against those who engage in pedophilia? Should the law not judge these people so they therefor can conduct their businses and desires without any restrictions via the law? How will that be beneficial to society?"

A: You are not using facts because you are looking at people as a group and not as individuals. When you can look at me and tell me what specific actions I take that endanger people, then we can talk facts. Homosexuality is not a crime, and pedophelia is. The two should not be used in comparison because they are not the same, and many people use this comparison to suggest that gay people are pedophiles, but I know you are above that, right?

"2) What is BENEFICIAL about homosexual behavior to society? What FACTS do you have Anonymous?"

A: We have seen in the past many positive effects of evelating minorities to the level of equal in our society. There is also research that suggests that in other countries, gay equality is having a positive effect that is the opposite of what is accused. Try reading: http://volokh.com/posts/1162396316.shtml

We live in a country that promises to treat all people equal, and if we are going to violate this basic principle, we should have a solid reason for doing so. I don't see how my rights get in the way of yours. This is not just my opinion, but also that of the SJC; "...the Legislators, having failed in their responsibility to prove a need..."

"3) How am I being intolerant? Is it because I hold an opinion that is different than yours? Is it because my FACTS are code for "hate-monger"?"

A: You are addressing someone else who has decided to post anonymously, but I will try to answer this none the less. You are intolerant because you can't live and let live. You need to take action against your neighbors that you don't agree with. I don't see things your same way, but I won't stand in the way of your right to live by your own beliefs. That is what makes you the bigot, and not me.

"4) How is same-sex marriage NOT hurtful to others Anonymous?"

A: We live in a country where if you are going to accuse your neighbor of things, it is your responsibility to prove them, not mine to prove my innocence from an assumed position of guilt. Here is an easy test; if gay marriage is hurtful to others you should be able to tell whether or not I am married by the damage my marriage has caused. Am I married?

I am an individual, guilty of no crime against my fellow citizens, and innocent of any wickedness charged against me. I am deserving of my equality, and I demmand it.

9:48 AM, January 20, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

The US Supreme court did not comment on gay marriage because it did not exist back then.

Why does it exist now, in your mind, anonymous? If it didn't exist then, then it does not exist now because it was somehow always there. This new definition had to come from somewhere. Where did it come from, since 1967, if it wasn't in existence in 1967?

4:36 AM, January 22, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You said:

"The US Supreme court did not comment on gay marriage because it did not exist back then (1967)."

You need to read my FACT and HISTORY lesson a little more carefully:

The Supreme Court of Minnesota, which ruled in 1971 that race and homosexuality are NOT similar. Based on Loving V. Virginia, the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case striking down state bans ON INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE - NOT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE- the Minnesota court said:

Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely on race and one based on the fundamental difference in sex. (Baker v. Nelson, Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1971.)

You said:

"To the latter of the ruling Loving v. Virginia did state that marriage was a civil right, and the ruling did not exclude gay marriage."

It neither EXcludes polygamists or those who believe in polyamorous relationships. The key thing here Anonymous is that it does not INclude these groups. You are comparing apples (inter-racial marriages) with oranges (sexual orientation). It is a weak comparison that holds no ground for your argument of marriage rights for homosexuals.

1:16 PM, January 22, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tyler, I can't follow your point. Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts where I live. I don't think anyone is going to try to argue that it doesn't exist; that would be insane.

SCIA, let's re-visit your question, because I answered it correctly:

Q: "Where is it said that marriage is a "right" or for that matter a privilege in which many pro-marriage advocates are screaming?"

You simply asked where was it said that it was a right, and my answer remains correct. I did not read further into your question than your words allowed. You didn't ask where it said that gay marriage was a right, but I suspect that is what you meant. Be more clear in the future and you will get a more fitting answer the first time.

There is currently one state that allows gay marriage, and that is Massachusetts via the Goodridge decision.

Here is my question for you:

Why is it any of your business who your neighbor weds, and why is it only gay neighbors you are concerned with?

2:29 PM, January 22, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

There is currently one state that allows gay marriage, and that is Massachusetts via the Goodridge decision.

To answer your first question, about where I'm going with my point, you said that the Supreme Court didn't cover "gay marriage" because it didn't exist in 1967 - and you are correct. It was not an inherent definition of the word marriage to accomodate homosexual unions, and this is what I'm getting at.

The Goodridge Decision did not make "gay marriage" legal, it only said that there is no basis in the constitution of Massachusetts for prohibiting SSM because there's no language omitting it.

So if that is true, why didn't the SCOTUS cover that in 1967, if it was already there when the Massachusetts Constitution was written back in the 1700's?

Something isn't adding up, here, and I think that something tips the scales in favor of the current attempt to amend the constitution of Massachusetts per the people's petition addressing this issue.

10:08 AM, January 23, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Anonymous Hosty -

I said If it didn't exist then, then it does not exist now because it was somehow always there.

I think that's where you were confused. It isn't here now because it was somehow always there, it's here now because of a mistake in following the Constitution of our state, and that is the truth.

10:10 AM, January 23, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tyler, you can complain about how unfair Goodridge was, but the decision and gay marriage still exist.

Here is my question for you:

Why is it any of your business who your neighbor weds, and why is it only gay neighbors you are concerned with?

1:26 PM, January 23, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

You say that as if I have something personal against homosexuals?

If another group (NAMBLA or advocates of polygamy) had tried to change the laws, my voice would still be saying the same thing - that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. It isn't that I have something against homosexuals, it is that they are the first group to attempt to change the laws. If it were some other group, I would certainly be speaking out against them, as well.

Goodridge did not decide that homosexual marriage was legal. It ruled that there is no constitutional basis for prohibiting same sex marriages. The constitution still doesn't say that homosexual marriage is the same thing as heterosexual marriage, it just does not say that marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

Enter the petition...the people's right to decide the laws of their land...and all of a sudden, there is no equality for those who desire to exercise their right to vote on the issue.

Tolerance from the homosexual side has been quite lacking on this issue, I would say.

9:47 AM, January 24, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you are not against gays, why is your website dedicated to homosexuality? More than 50% of the posts are about gays, I would call that a fixation.

By not adding gay marriage into the wording of our laws, the Goodridge decision creates a powerful statement; gays are so equal we don't need to change anything in writing. It says that our current laws encompass the gay community too. Gay marriage is equal Tyler, there is nothing that you can say to change that fact. This is a three year reality that no amount of denial will take away. I know you wish this weren't true, but it is the current reality we live in.

I find it interesting that I am having an argument about the sanctity of marriage with a divorcee, who intends on marrying another divorcee. I think I can see how your mind works.

10:47 AM, January 24, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You said:

"You didn't ask where it said that gay marriage was a right, but I suspect that is what you meant."

You can spin and assume what I asked you.

I asked:

"Q: "Where is it said that marriage is a right..."

I meant marriage, as it is understood between a man and a women.

You answered:

Loving v. Virginia.

That is completely and utterly wrong as explained in my above comments. Again, you can spin the decision that the courts made regarding Loving v. Virginia, but the truth is clearly evident in the cases outcome.

You asked:

"Why is it any of your business who your neighbor weds, and why is it only gay neighbors you are concerned with?"

Tyler really hit the nail on the head with his answer. My response juxtaposes his thoughts.

Introducing same-sex marriages into our society is social suicide dressed up as a civil right. How will society benefit from such a radical redefinition of the institute of marriage? It will lead to “love” as being the ONLY reason to marry someone.

Why do we need to open the door to other kinds of relationships in order to please the homosexual community? Homosexuals are depending on the heterosexual community to protect them because heterosexuals feel that the gay community is being attacked and are therefore the “minority”. Why should we declassify a subgroup of people in order to make them a part of a minority group? When will this minority group become the majority and therefore redefine what a family is as is best explained by a comment by Michelangelo Signorile, an outright gay activist:

(Same-sex marriage offers)… “a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture…” Michelangelo Signorile, “I DO, I DO, I DO, I DO, I DO,” OUT, May 1996, pp. 30, 32.

1:56 PM, January 24, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You said:

"gays are so equal we don't need to change anything in writing."

All you have to do is know a few unelected officials to please your lawful needs.

Sorry John, democracy doesn't work this way in America no matter how you look at it.

You said:

"I find it interesting that I am having an argument about the sanctity of marriage with a divorcee, who intends on marrying another divorcee. I think I can see how your mind works."

This comment speaks for itself.

2:02 PM, January 24, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am flattered by the attempt of both your parts to out me as John Hosty, but we all know he posts under his own name. Your posting under a different name, so try showing some respect and leave that issue alone.

You can whine about gay marriage all you want, but it does not make it less real. Its now a three year tradition, so who are you to change tradition?

My last statement does speak for itself, and that stench that rises above the bigotry, its hypocracy. No one who breaks his or her own vows should be lecturing anyone about the sanctity of marriage. That would be asinine.

2:48 PM, January 24, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You said:

“You (meaning me, SCIA) are not using facts because you are looking at people as a group and not as individuals. When you can look at me and tell me what specific actions I take that endanger people, then we can talk facts.”

Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molester, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molester. Source: Psychological Reports.

73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age. Source: Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books.

Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States. They make up only 1-2% of the population. Source: "Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea." Lancet

Another study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year. The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime. Source: Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men." New England J. Med.

Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles historically accounting for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the "gay bowel syndrome" (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus. Source: United States Congressional Record,

Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne Source: Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA..

I have many more, but you get the point. So, yes, let’s debate your behavior.

You said:

“There is also research that suggests that in other countries, gay equality is having a positive effect that is the opposite of what is accused. Try reading: http://volokh.com/posts/1162396316.shtml.”

This website is contradictive at best and only surmises there research and attempts to pass it off as fact. Every country that has legalized same-sex marriage has seen a significant decline in traditional marriage and the breakdown of the traditional family. During the past decade, same-sex marriage has become law in Denmark, France, Hungary, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and most recently, Canada. Each county has seen a sharp increase in cohabitation, out of wedlock births, fatherless children, poverty, and drug use. These are FACTS not surmised notions.

This website hits the nail on the head by saying:

“Correlation is not causation, and it would presume too much from a mere correlation to conclude that a small number of gay marriages in these societies had a significant positive impact on marriage itself, just as it would presume too much from the opposite correlation (if one existed) that they had a significant negative effect on marriage.”

Yes, more research needs to be done to make CONCLUSIVE statements about the “benefits” of gay “marriage” or the consequences of them. There is one thing that has not been mentioned and that is there is more evidence to STRONGLY SUGGEST that gay “marriages” are dangerous to society than the reverse position.

You said:

“I don't see things your same way, but I won't stand in the way of your right to live by your own beliefs. That is what makes you the bigot, and not me.”

Bigot (noun): One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

How am I intolerant?

You asked in your closing statements:

“Am I married?”

Whether you are or not, your lifestyle alone, if you so happen to engage in homosexuality, will effect others around you regardless of if you notice it or not.

SCIA

2:55 PM, January 24, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

Yes, regardless of whom you are, that is not the point. I stand corrected and appologize for focusing on this non-sensual situation.

You said:

"Its now a three year tradition, so who are you to change tradition?"

I am changing tradition? What is happening to traditional marriage? It is in the process of being redefined Anonymous. How can you argue otherwise?

Please do not give me the "fear- factor" argument because that is such the typical disenvowement of the argument at hand.

You said:

"No one who breaks his or her own vows should be lecturing anyone about the sanctity of marriage. That would be asinine."

Oh, I did not know that you knew Tyler's situation. So, what really did happen Anonymous?

3:03 PM, January 24, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your argument proves your bigotry. This is not simply about marriage, you want to control homosexual behavior. You want to make gay sex illegal again, don't you? Why else would you quote statistics about the behavior being harmful. You were supposed to be telling me why gay marriage was bad for society, but you got overzealous and told me why I am bad for society instead. In doing so you made another mistake; again you look at me like one in a herd of cattle. I am no longer accountable and judged for my individual actions, I am simply part of the dirty, sub-human homosexual element that is ruining society. Nice picture you paint.

How much control over me do you want? What will it take for your side to relent its never ending attack on your neighbors who wish to live in peace with you?

You can quote statistics all you want, but I am a real man, not a number. I demmand to be judged on my own actions, and not on those of my peers. It's called due process. If I have done nothing wrong, then you have no right to stand in the way of my equal religious rights.

6:06 PM, January 24, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

If you are not against gays, why is your website dedicated to homosexuality? More than 50% of the posts are about gays, I would call that a fixation.

I believe that most of my posts are about homosexual marriage and the arguments against it, anonymous.

Yes, I got divorced. What's your point? Am I lecturing ----->you<----- on how to live your life, or am I saying that what is best for society is:

a) One man, one woman marriage
b) Following the laws of the nation and the state where we live
c) Granting the people the right of redress when it comes to their own laws

These are the things that I support and will work for, John. That's where my energies are focused on my blog.

4:43 AM, January 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tyler, I am not John Hosty, get over yourself. Trust me, you have earned many more critics than just Mr. Hosty, and for you to see him around every corner like you do is a little paranoid, don't you think?

I choose to remian anonymous after I see how you are posting people's IP addresses on your own website. That is something that could have easily been done to you, but we are above that sort of pettiness.

Your fixation with gays is legendary. There are many more things you could be doing with your time, and what you choose to spend that time on tells a lot about you. You once spent much time helping starving children. I would think that was a priority over stripping gays of civil liberties, but I guess you disagree.

Gay marriage has not brought the social harm that people accuse of it. How are we to be sure what you accuse is correct and not just a power play of a religious faction?

6:59 AM, January 25, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You said:

"Your argument proves your bigotry. This is not simply about marriage, you want to control homosexual behavior. You want to make gay sex illegal again, don't you?"

As I have stated many, many times here on Know Thy Facts, the issue of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with heterosexuality, homosexuality, or religion. This issue has to do with democracy and the voice of the people.

You said:

"Why else would you quote statistics about the behavior being harmful. You were supposed to be telling me why gay marriage was bad for society,..."

I stated the facts/statistics because you said:

“You are not using facts because you are looking at people as a group and not as individuals. When you can look at me and tell me what specific actions I take that endanger people, then we can talk facts.”

If you engage in a homosexual lifestyle some, not all, of these stats pertain to you.

No disrespect,I am just laying out the facts.

8:21 AM, January 25, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

I still spend time helping children. Does that mean that I can't have interest in other things, like defending democracy in a free country, and upholding the laws of my state, for the sake of protecting future generations of children? I don't think so...after all, what I'm doing here and elsewhere still benefits children

12:36 PM, January 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All that is accused against gay marriage is based on one assumption. Simply by existing, gay marriage will cause people to reconsider their traditional values. The gay community does not have to do anything wrong, simply existing as married equals is enough to cause the problem. How can you ask someone not to live their lives by their own beliefs based on this assumption when it is not based in fact?

2:36 PM, January 25, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Simply by existing, gay marriage will cause people to reconsider their traditional values.

In a way, you are correct. The homosexual community is asking people to reconsider their traditional values - which is OK at the face of it, because it requires us to inspect our value system and rethink what we hold dear.

We did that - but not because you asked us to evaluate our traditional values, but rather because you forced us to reconsider our traditional values.

We inspected what we held to be dear, and we determined that it was worth fighting for. We filed a petition, we collected signatures, we got the petition approved, we had the legislators vote, and we will continue our defense of marriage and our traditional values.

I am simply amazed that the homosexual community is so intolerant of our right of redress, and the constitution of our state, that they viciously attack the conservatives with rhetoric comparing them to Nazis, murderers, etc.

We will stand up for what we believe in, because it's worth standing for.

7:13 AM, January 26, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Tyler,

You said:

"...but rather because you forced us to reconsider our traditional values."

Right on the money!!

P.S. How are you bolding your words?? I am sure it is something simple (or maybe not). I am pretty good now with the template to the blog. Did you do something in it or just add something to your comments, like a command?

Interesting ;)

2:30 PM, January 26, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Bolding the words is easy...you know the greater than and less than symbols that are above the , and the . ? Well, in between those you write the word strong, and then after the words you write /strong in the same symbols. To do italics, it's em and /em inside those characters. Or, you can combine them to do strong italics, ie strong em (inside the symbols) followed by /strong and /em.

I can't show you the characters because as soon as the code behind this window goes to work generating the post, it finds those and tries to do something with them.

You know, I'm glad you agree with me on that point. It's nothing but the absolute, natural truth, yet ironically they don't want to admit that they brought the fight to us (by they I mean SSM advocates).

Have a great day, brother!

Tyler

:-D

8:48 AM, January 27, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The homosexual community is asking people to reconsider their traditional values"

I have done no such thing. You should continue exactly the way you were before gay marriage existed. Focus on your own happiness and leave me out of your life equation, and I will be glad to reciprocate. There is plenty of room for us to both live by our own values, and this premiss is the American Way. We live in a melting pot of many different values and cultures. You already have learned how to live with them and not dilute your values, so why is this so different?

3:54 PM, January 27, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Simply by existing, gay marriage will cause people to reconsider their traditional values.

"The homosexual community is asking people to reconsider their traditional values"

I have done no such thing.


Did I just fall off the reality wagon or something? You did say that, didn't you?

Listen, friend, being deceitful in this way isn't making for a good conversation, because if you can't even agree to what you said, we have no discussion worth persuing.

6:11 PM, January 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tyler, one of the things you do that is dishonest is you cherry pick what is said. Look back at the same post where you quoted me and you will see a full explanation of what I mean. Stop trying to twist people's words so that it suits your needs.

"You should continue exactly the way you were before gay marriage existed. Focus on your own happiness and leave me out of your life equation, and I will be glad to reciprocate. There is plenty of room for us to both live by our own values, and this premiss is the American Way."

I in no way want you to compromise your beliefs. Just don't ask me to compromise mine in return. Do I need to explain myself further, or do you understand what I am saying?

12:34 PM, January 29, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

It is indisputable that homosexuals have already forced me to compromise my beliefs, for the reasons you have stated.

A state issued marriage license bears my tacit approval, where I gave none.

My voice was never heard, according to the constitution of this state, and that is injustice.

7:49 AM, January 30, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A state issued marriage license bears my tacit approval, where I gave none."

Is that it? Is this the change in your life that is supposed to be so Earthshattering that no gay person in this state can be allowed to marry the person they love?

You say you are getting married for the second time, your marriage doesn't have my personal approval. I guess that gives me the right to thik I can take away marriage for all straight people now?

This was a REALLY weak point.

7:53 AM, January 30, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Here it is in full context.

I cherry picked nothing:

All that is accused against gay marriage is based on one assumption. Simply by existing, gay marriage will cause people to reconsider their traditional values. The gay community does not have to do anything wrong, simply existing as married equals is enough to cause the problem. How can you ask someone not to live their lives by their own beliefs based on this assumption when it is not based in fact?

I don't even know what you meant by your last sentence, but you see what I'm saying about your dishonesty, don't you?

Unless, of course, there are two anonymous posters...

7:54 AM, January 30, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Get a petition...propose an amendment...use the process...if you think it's worth it!

7:55 AM, January 30, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I don't even know what you meant by your last sentence, but you see what I'm saying about your dishonesty, don't you?"

If you don't know what I meant, how can you know it was dishonest?

7:41 PM, January 30, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

The point about your dishonesty, and the point I'm referring to, are two completely separate issues.

You support homosexual marriage...and I have reason to believe that you are in one yourself, by what you have said. By doing either or both of these two things, you are forcing me, as a resident of this state, to seriously evaluate my beliefs and compromising my beliefs by establishing a marriage that bears my tacit approval as a citizen of this state. The problem is, I never approved it - and that is why we are trying to amend the constitution. This process is legal and just, yet it has been met with much hostility by those who wish to say, "The justices made the law and it is wrong for you to change it now."

1) The justices made no law, in fact, there is still no law on the books that grants same sex marriage rights. It's just that there is no law that doesn't grant same sex marriage rights, so on that premise people have been allowed to marry against the constitution of this state.

2) The amendment does not take away existing marriages, it prevents future marriages. As far as voting on rights...all constitutional amendments are a form of voting on rights, my friend. That's America...we have the power to make and change our own laws.

God bless democracy and those that honored God enough to create it!

9:11 AM, January 31, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

I meant the point that you are referring to...

9:14 AM, January 31, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The amendment does not take away existing marriages, it prevents future marriages."

Well, do you intend on leaving them in peace?

4:57 PM, January 31, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

What do you mean, leaving them in peace? What could I possibly do to not leave them in peace? I may not agree with their "marriage" but there is nothing I can do about that. I can only do what I've done, what we are seeking to do, and that is to change the law so that it defines marriage as one man and one woman.

10:35 AM, February 02, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me be more clear. If your petition is passed into law and future gay marriages are banned, it is your intention to leave the gay people who are already married alone, or do you intend on seeking the nullification of those marriages?

11:11 AM, February 03, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

I believe that I already answered your question, anonymous. If there is no legal remedy - and there shouldn't be - then there is no action to be taken.

End of discussion.

10:07 AM, February 05, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But Tyler, you have said you were for civil unions, and you were for some gay rights. Yet when the news from Michigan came out that they were banning same sex insurance coverage, you thanked God. How can people believe that you really intend on leaving their marriages alone when you are clearly speaking one thing and doing another?

3:25 PM, February 06, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Who are you, anonymous, and when did I thank God?

I thanked Michigan for doing the right thing by denying same sex couples benefits. If you look at the statistics, same sex couple's healthcare is SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than that for the rest of society. Why should we bear the burden?

Are you trying to catch me in a lie of your own creation, anonymous? I stand by what I've said, and I'm leaving it at that.

Witch hunter...

9:41 AM, February 07, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com