Friday, August 31, 2007

170,000 Signatures. Who Intimidated Us?

Massachusetts collected over 170,000 signatures for its Marriage Protection Amendment regardless of how Know Thy Neighbor intimidated and harassed the voters. 170,000: the largest in MA history for a citizen initiated petition. Keep it up because it means more voters are going to revolt against those who are against democracy. Thanks for the extra stimulus.

30 Comments:

Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Have you seen what happened in Iowa?

I put up some links over at my blog.

They appear to be haters of democracy by the way they get things done...tyranny is their preference, one would think?

7:35 AM, September 01, 2007  
Anonymous omd said...

Massachusetts was the bellwether state on this issue. The sheep are being separated from the goats. God is gathering his flock.

The church will pay a very heavy price for their silence. Yes 170,000 signatures is staggering but had all the churches professing Christians stood up instead of turning away there was no reason there shouldn't have been 340,000 signatures.

And you know what? That would not have phased the Legislature. The government is being transformed into a totalitarian government. The voice of the people is being systematically removed and AGAIN the people are doing nothing about it.

Evidenced in the election of Gov. Deval Patrick and the fact that no pro-homosexual legislator lost reelection.

The result - God is lifting his hand and giving the people what they want. It will not be until this seeming sweetness will turn sour in their bellies just as it has in Amsterdam.

Our job is now to pray and adorn the Full Armor of God.
The spiritual war has been stepped up to the next level. It is written that even the elect shall be deceived.

7:39 PM, September 01, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

OMD,

Fire it up!!

Tyler,

Iowa, what a disgrace.

9:13 AM, September 02, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And you know what? That would not have phased the Legislature. The government is being transformed into a totalitarian government. The voice of the people is being systematically removed and AGAIN the people are doing nothing about it."

Ya, just look at women and blacks with their rights and all. Bastards! Those legislators keep on ruining a perfectly good thing.

4:38 PM, September 04, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Anonymous, you know full well that none of us on the side of defending traditional marriage harbor any feelings of discrimination towards females and blacks, to name just a few groups that are considered to be "protected" by nature.

It is nurture - and choice - that leads a person to be a homosexual.

Don't believe me?

Check the facts.

9:10 AM, September 05, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“It is nurture - and choice - that leads a person to be a homosexual.”

Oh yes Tyler, nurture and choice. I’m sure you can certainly change your thought process and “decide” to suddenly become attracted to another man. I’m sure all homosexuals sat there and thought to themselves “I want to be gay! I want to have people criticize my lifestyle in their vain attempt to lead me to god. I want to hear people scream at me that god hates fags. I want to hear how my choice will lead me to hell and damnation.” Yes Tyler, a choice makes so much more sense than any other possibility.

But maybe, just maybe, there is something to the claims that some hormonal imbalance caused this odd attraction. Maybe a hormone meant for a male was denied somehow while in the womb and caused a male to be attracted to other males. I’m no scientist, but I can tell you which one makes more sense to me.

Overall it makes no real difference anyways. We are all thrust into this world screaming at the first use of our lungs and at that moment we begin to die. What we do in between is choose to hate or not, chose to love or not, choose to help others or not, choose a life of crime or not, choose to believe in god or not. I did not choose my hair color, but I can choose to temporarily change that color. I did not choose to be attracted to females, but I guess if I really worked hard on it I could have a homosexual encounter. But humans are inherently lazy, and I can’t fathom a person making a choice in which gender they prefer. I naturally am attracted to women as most men are. I’m sure most men are content with that attraction and have no urge to change it. But if I happened to be the other side of the coin while in my youth I would probably recognize it. And I would probably wish to change it, if for nothing else just so I could feel comfortable in my own skin and not be a social outcast.

Ken Weaver

10:42 PM, September 05, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Hey, Ken, I appreciate what you've said here.

The way I see it (and I may be completely blind...but I don't think so ;-) ) is that it isn't really a conscious choice, but a series of decisions, that leads a person to be a homosexual. Now, is there some genetic component? Possibly...but think about this one. We typically associate a lisp with homosexuality in men, but why? What does a speech impediment have to do with gender or sexual orientation? Nothing at all! But the poor kid that has a lisp growing up may be mocked for being "gay", and just maybe starts to believe it, and feels helpless because he's now been branded to be that way - so he gives in, and becomes a homosexual, fearing that it's the only possible solution to his "problem".

Now, don't imagine that I believe that all homosexual men have lisps, or that all people with lisps are homosexuals, but I've just painted one scenario.

Here's another one: Have you ever noticed how gay men usually have different gestures, mannerisms, and phrases that they use? Is that learned, or are they born that way?

If it's not learned...then why didn't they do that when they were still "in the closet"?

You are right, I don't think anyone fully consciously chooses to become a homosexual and to be mocked and ridiculed because of it. The mocking and ridiculing is something that we all need to change. The choice to be a homosexual - and I still firmly believe that it's a choice - is something that they can change, if they want to change it.

Do you agree or not? Even if it were 70% genetic, there's still the 30% that can be leveraged if the desire to change is born out of their will to change.

Factually speaking, it is more problematic to be homosexual - aids, depression, and suicide just being a few of the known problems that plague the homosexual community. The depression and suicide isn't simply to blame on society, either, because even in communities where they are fully accepted as homosexuals, there is still a higher rate of this occuring.

Just a few weeks ago in Brockton, a man stabbed his former "partner" to death - with a sculpting tool. It was a savage attack that probably arose out of lust and anger. Why is the emotion so intense?

You should look into some of the studies that have been done, and some of the research that has been conducted, regarding deadly assaults on homosexual partners. Police can usually tell if the victim was in a same sex relationship, simply by the brutality of the crime.

It is sad - and we should do all that we can to help those who want to be helped.

In the meantime, we need to stop telling our youth that they "may be gay" if they are feeling attractions to people of the same sex. I've seen girls 8-12 years old hugging girls, and finding boys to be gross.

They aren't "gay", they're just acting like normal pre-teen girls!

7:37 AM, September 06, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Have you ever noticed how gay men usually have different gestures, mannerisms, and phrases that they use? Is that learned, or are they born that way?”

I think those “feminine” mannerisms and phrases are a bit of both. Women and feminine homosexual men have similar gestures, as do masculine homosexual women to heterosexual men. I think some of it is learned and some of it is inborn.

“The choice to be a homosexual - and I still firmly believe that it's a choice - is something that they can change, if they want to change it.”

I think they could possibly change their actions, but inside they would still be homosexual. But that kind of denial of our most basic instinct has far reaching consequences. I believe the reason we hear of Catholic priests molesting young children is a manifestation of their denial of sexuality. We are not a celibate species, sex is important to not only our physical health, but our mental health as well. When we deny sex, it has consequences just as if we deny ourselves food or water. And the end result of any of those denials is not pretty.

“Police can usually tell if the victim was in a same sex relationship, simply by the brutality of the crime.”

I’ll look into that, do you know where I could start that search?

“In the meantime, we need to stop telling our youth that they "may be gay" if they are feeling attractions to people of the same sex. I've seen girls 8-12 years old hugging girls, and finding boys to be gross.

They aren't "gay", they're just acting like normal pre-teen girls!”

I would agree in general, but what if a young boy wants his walls painted pink along with a flowing fabric canopy in his bedroom. What if he wants to have tea parties instead of playing cowboys and Indians?

Ken Weaver

9:48 AM, September 06, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you Ken for bringing a dose of reality to the conversation.

Tyler, you seem to believe only what you want to believe, and find and believe only the "facts" that back up your opinion. This whole "subconscious choice" has no basis in fact, only your assertion.

Why does it have to be one way of the other anyway. Maybe there are people able to choose their own sexuality, and have the fluidity to be attracted to both sexes. It doesn't mean everyone else, the vast majority of the population, is able to choose which sex they will be attracted to. From what I have seen, and learned, by both looking at data collected by both sides of the debate, and talking to actual gay people (and a few ex-gays), there is more fact in stating people are "born" gay than stating people "choose".

No, there is no clear cut evidence to say it is not a choice, but common sense alone tells us it in not.

Rufus

1:40 PM, September 06, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

gdoRufus, how does common sense tell you that?

This whole "subconscious choice" has no basis in fact, only your assertion.

Well, that is just yourassertion, Rufus.

Ken, I think I found what I was looking for in this link.

It's still loading onto my computer.

8:33 AM, September 07, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

"Numerous authors have stated that homicides involving gay victims are harder to
solve. According to the findings of this study, this is not the case for Minneapolis from 1989
to 1999. The solvability rates were essentially the same for non-gay cases (66%) and gay
cases (68%). Misperceptions about gay homicide solvability may stem from assumptions
made about gay homicide characteristics. It is commonly understood that these cases are
more brutal and are exceptionally violent in nature compared to other homicides."

...from that paper

8:44 AM, September 07, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“It is commonly understood that these cases are
more brutal and are exceptionally violent in nature compared to other homicides."

Do you know of any theories as to why homosexual homicide is more brutal than other homicides? Did you happen to read that homosexual homicide while being more brutal is also less likely than heterosexual partner homicide?

That paper was very interesting. I didn’t have the opportunity to read it in its entirety yet but I found it odd that it is 4 times more likely that a married woman be murdered by her spouse if she has a child from a previous relationship. I know that has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion but I bring it up because my wife has a child from a previous relationship.

Ken Weaver

10:41 PM, September 07, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Ken -

That's an unsettling thought, for sure.

I thought that the rate of partner homicide was about equal, if not greater, among homosexuals. Either I'm mistaken, or you're using the 10% number rather than the much more accurate 3% number (of homosexuals in the general population).

Was this x4 data out of this study?

7:41 PM, September 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"gdoRufus, how does common sense tell you that?"

Common sense tell us being gay is not a choice because of all the reasons Ken outlined already. Who would choose the ostracization? Who would choose the ridicule and harrassment? Who would choose to be different when it makes so much more sense to be main stream? You said yourself it is more problematic to be gay (all the AIDS, depression and domestic violence). So who would make that choice, and why would they?

You have made the assertion of it being a "subconscious choice". No offense, but this just seems to be grasping at straws. How can something subconscious be a choice? Isn't the very notion of choice a conscious effort? I choose what to wear, what to eat, and, yes, even who to have sex with. But can you choose who to be attracted to? Can you change who you are attracted to? Ultimately I think the answer is no.

You can argue nature vs nurture all you want, as there are valid (and not so valid) reasons for these on both sides of the debate. You gave an example of a boy being teased and being called gay because of a lisp. Lets put aside this being a stereotype (I don't know any gay men with an actual lisp actually, do you?). Kids can be cruel, and teasing of all sorts is basically singling out another kid who is different. So are the bullies (those teasing) just picking up on the differences in another child who is born gay, or are they inadvertently leading to this child being gay because of the environment, in this case the teasing.

I have read from those on the nurture/environment side that an overbearing mother and uninterested father is a cause of being gay. Well, you could make the argument the child has more in common with the mother than the father when he is gay. Thus the boy and mother have a closer relationship. Depends on the point of view, doesn't it? In the end, isn't this just another stereotype?

Now you may say it doesn't matter anyway, since you believe, even if biology does play a part, these people can change, if they really want to and really try. I have looked into this, as I have alluded to in another thread, and have found no credible evidence people can change who they are ultimately attracted to. Like Ken said, they can change their behavior, remain celebate, or marry, even lead a so-called straight life, but does the attraction to men go away? If you were celebate, would you not still be attracted to women?

We can argue all day about this I suppose. My main contention is blanket statements on both sides of the issue. "There is a greater incidence of domestic violence in homosexual relationships." So, whether this is true or not, does this mean all gay relationships are violent? Should we judge all relationships based on a supposed statistic? Should we judge heterosexuality based on what we see at spring break? Should the incidents of wife battering mean marriage should be regulated? Of course not. Every person, every couple, gay or strait, should be taken on their own merits. I have seen strait couples who should never have married, and I have seen gay couples who deserve to be married.

Rufus

1:03 PM, September 10, 2007  
Blogger jennifer said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4:33 PM, September 10, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Rufus, how many children have you seen begging for negative attention?

4:34 PM, September 10, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don’t know what’s going on with either my computer or the website but I can’t seem to access the document today. I’ll try tomorrow and hopefully have better luck.

“Either I'm mistaken, or you're using the 10% number rather than the much more accurate 3% number (of homosexuals in the general population).”

I didn’t do any math at all Tyler. I got that information directly from that document. The author stated that homosexual domestic violence happens less on a percentage basis. Where he got his numbers from I don’t know.

“Was this x4 data out of this study?”

Yes, directly from it.

“Rufus, how many children have you seen begging for negative attention?”

I begged for negative attention! Not with my words but with my actions. I got no attention at all from my parents being the good kid. And my parents love to tell everyone that I was a real POS of a kid.

Ken Weaver

8:19 PM, September 10, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Would it stand to reason that some people - not all - come "out" for attention, negative or otherwise?

3:55 AM, September 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All this comes down to a simple point. Do any of us have a right to control our neighbor's behavior without first proving a need? The fight against GLBT equality cites "natural" law, but in a secular society, is that a viable reason?

6:13 AM, September 11, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

In your world, would equality allow pedophiles to marry children?

9:49 AM, September 11, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

The issue isn't about "controlling" our neighbors behavior. It is about respecting - and protecting - an institution that has very special meaning, and very significant influence on the culture within which we are living.

In a democracy - or a federalist republic - the people are given the power to enact change in their culture for the greater good.

When Massachusetts had the opportunity, the politicians subverted the will of their constituents in a total flip-flop of our will. While 75% of people in Massachusetts wanted to vote on marriage, 75% of their representatives - if you can call them that - said, "No!"

Why?

Is one person's "equality" more valuable than another's?

In Iowa, they ALMOST got it right, but the one couple slipped through the cracks. I can virtually guarantee you that this one couple will become the hinge around which the entire argument rotates. Because they were allowed to marry within that four hour window, other couples will - likely successfully - argue that they have been denied a fundamental right.

By the way - although I'm certain you will have already jumped on this by the time you get to this line - I didn't compare homosexuals to pedophiles. Read it again, and you'll see that no comparison was made. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the argument about equality.

When behavior dictates equality - then anyone has the fundamental right to do whatsoever they choose to do, so long as one sympathetic judge can draw an outline around that "right" and deem it to be protected.

9:56 AM, September 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“In your world, would equality allow pedophiles to marry children?”

No Tyler because it creates a victim. Homosexual couples are victimless.

“It is about respecting - and protecting - an institution that has very special meaning, and very significant influence on the culture within which we are living.”

Marriage has evolved throughout time, sometimes evolution is not without pain.

“In a democracy - or a federalist republic - the people are given the power to enact change in their culture for the greater good.”

Not when that power is to decide the rights of individual citizens.

“When Massachusetts had the opportunity, the politicians subverted the will of their constituents in a total flip-flop of our will. While 75% of people in Massachusetts wanted to vote on marriage, 75% of their representatives - if you can call them that - said, "No!"

Why?”

Because that vote would decide the rights for individual citizens.

“Is one person's "equality" more valuable than another's?”

No, but equality does not grant the majority the ability to oppress individual liberties for other citizens.

“When behavior dictates equality - then anyone has the fundamental right to do whatsoever they choose to do, so long as one sympathetic judge can draw an outline around that "right" and deem it to be protected.”

All citizens should have the right to do whatever they wish to do as long as it causes no one else harm. As Christianity has held the citizenry of the United States in a stranglehold for so long there are still many antiquated ideals and laws that the government should stay the heck away from. Many of those laws are still on the books like adultery or oral sex; it’s just that the government has stopped enforcing those laws. Someday soon I hope we’ll be able to have all of those “morality” laws put where they belong; in the trash.

Ken Weaver

8:31 PM, September 11, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Ken, I appreciate your point of view, however I don't happen to share it!

I see what you are saying but your argument comes, once again, to the "right" of a homosexual to marry.

You say - and rightly so - that pedophiles shouldn't be allowed to marry children because that creates a victim. Good answer!

Homosexual marriage may be victimless on the face, but on the whole, I don't see it that way, especially when it is changing the culture as dramatically as it is here in Massachusetts. Now that it is considered a "fundamental right" and it is legal, no other viewpoint seems to be allowed to enter into the minds of the children.

It's now indoctrination! What if I went through the schools preaching that Christianity is the only religion worth following because it's the only one that's right (I happen to agree with my statement, as a matter of fact) and I wouldn't allow anyone else to speak on behalf of their religion or system of beliefs?

That would be a very one-sided argument for me to present in schools, according to today's culture.

So why is it that schools have all kinds of endorsements for homosexuality now, but no one can come in and warn them of the dangers anymore? The opposition viewpoint simply isn't allowed...and that is a symptom of homosexual marriage in Massachusetts.

I believe that there are victims in this new social game, we just haven't been able to identify them yet.

3:43 AM, September 12, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“…your argument comes, once again, to the "right" of a homosexual to marry.”

Marriage is a right per the Supreme Court. A homosexual has no less a right to marry than a heterosexual; the argument comes when a homosexual wants to marry who he or she wishes that we have trouble. Try to imagine being unable to marry the person you want to because of society’s views on that marriage.

“It's now indoctrination!”

When a school preaches the bible to a child; that’s indoctrination, when parents tell their children that they’ll go to hell if they don’t believe in Christ as the savior; that’s indoctrination, when a child is forced to have genital mutilation because of the beliefs of the parents; that’s indoctrination, telling children that homosexuality is evil because the bible says so is indoctrination. Telling children that it’s a good thing to let people live as they wish when it is not causing them harm is NOT indoctrination; it is teaching good manners.

“So why is it that schools have all kinds of endorsements for homosexuality now, but no one can come in and warn them of the dangers anymore?”

I don’t know what the schools are teaching in Massachusetts, but in Arizona children were taught about the health dangers of any kind of sex; if that is what you wish for I am with you. As for “endorsing” homosexuality I have never been able to figure that one out. If people are going to children attempting to get them to become homosexual that would only go to strengthen your belief that sexuality is chosen. But I wonder about this word “endorsing.” I had a few family members out here that were up in arms about this issue of homosexuality in schools. They would tell me that all the children being taught that way would become gay. I wouldn’t believe it though. They tried to warn me that my son Zak would become gay if I wouldn’t start home schooling him. Ten years later I believe he is still hetero.

Ken Weaver

8:13 PM, September 12, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Telling children that it’s a good thing to let people live as they wish when it is not causing them harm is NOT indoctrination; it is teaching good manners.

Unfortunately, this isn't what is happening. Safe spaces are created where children are allowed to "come out", but these safe spaces are only populated with people that are already homosexual - which MAY mean that they are being pressured, and there has been indication that this is taking place.

It's not a safe space that tells a kid that they are a homosexual - and opens them up to everything that comes along with that sexual orientation. I believe that if a kid does have a sexual struggle, that isn't handled best by someone who tells them their struggle means that they are gay.

What's happening in schools in Massachusetts is a form of indoctrinatin, Ken. Just read SCIA's latest post on the Laramie Project taking place in Acton/Boxborough. I know that area well, I do a lot of product testing up there, and the majority of people up there are conservatives. So why is the school only giving one side of the story - and allowing it to be a very colored side?

5:17 AM, September 13, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Rufus, how many children have you seen begging for negative attention?" Are you suggesting some kids act gay/turn gay because they want attention??? If that is your argument, I think you are way off base. It is plausible that some kids, who are gay, flaunt it as a form of attention seeking, but I highly doubt they would seek sex with someone they were not attracted to just to get negative attention. Nice try though, show's you're thinking.

Ken is correct, informing students there are gay people in the world, and teaching them to let people live how they wish is not indoctrination. This is the secular view, and not a religious view, which you seem to want to teach the children of the public school system. Teaching the religious view is up to the parents of the child, and not the school. If the viewpoints of the parents are so oposed, they have the option of private schools or home schooling.

To say that a school is "endorsing homosexuality" is highly missleading. Just because they teach students that gay relationships exist, and teach them not to harass students who may be gay is not endorsement.

Rufus

5:58 AM, September 13, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Just because they teach students that gay relationships exist, and teach them not to harass students who may be gay is not endorsement.

If this were all they were doing, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But unless you aren't paying attention, much worse things are happening in the GayBay State.

10:25 AM, September 13, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If this were all they were doing, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But unless you aren't paying attention, much worse things are happening in the GayBay State."

Whether or not there are "worse" things happening is not the point. There do seem to be cases of things maybe going a little far, but not to the extreme you would have us believe. There are those who think that the very mention of the possibility of gay relationships being mentioned in school is too far. The fact there are in school support groups for gays is totally unacceptable. Any positive portrayal of homosexuality is just wrong, and is "indoctrination". I hope you are not of this ilk.

Rufus

10:49 AM, September 13, 2007  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Rufus, why should there be a positive portrayal of homosexuality in the schools? Is this really what kids need to be learning? If that viewpoint is expressed, it's OK as long as a group can come in and warn kids of the dangers of homosexuality. Then, we have equal access, and a viewpoint central message, to balance the information being given to the kids and temper it with a little truth from both sides of the spectrum.

6:10 AM, September 14, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Rufus, why should there be a positive portrayal of homosexuality in the schools? Is this really what kids need to be learning?"

Yes, I believe it is what the kids should be learning. They should know gay people exist in the world, and they should know not to treat them unkindly for simply being who they are. I believe showing positive gay roll models will, down the line, help those kids who come to the realization they are gay will help them make better decisions on what to do with their life. Since these are public school, the religious views of being gay and lesbian should not enter the building.

Conversely, when the kids are older (high school), they do need to learn some of the dangers that concern you. Promiscuity, drug use etc are not exclusive to "gay culture." Kids do need to learn the consequences of their actions, whatever their sexual orientation happens to be.

I do not believe the "dangers of homosexuality" you like to assert. This is just more propaganda from the "family values" folk to stifle any kind of protection or equal rights for gays and lesbians. These "dangers" are being projected onto an entire group of people, and that is just not fair. It's creating even more stereotypes, and gays have more than enough of those to begin with.

Now I am not denying some of the facts being said about gay culture. Is there more promiscuity, probably. Is there more drug use, maybe. I'm saying it is unfair to use supposed statistic to clasify everyone who is gay or lesbian.

And just maybe portraying gays and lesbians in a favorable truthful light (yes there are monogomous gay and lesbian couples, living a very "normal" life) to kids will only help those kids who realize they are gay not to embrace the dangerous side of life.

Rufus

8:19 AM, September 14, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

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