Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Know Thy Neighbor Who???

Here we go again with another FAILED attempt by Know Thy Neighbor (KTN) to botch a signature collection drive to have a citizen initiated petition regarding marriage to be put on the ballot.

As of this past weekend, Floridians got word that their Marriage Protection Amendment will be put on the 2008 ballot to be voted on. KTN Florida has posted the names of those who signed the petition under the intentions to "promote open & meaningful conversations".
The Florida Division of Elections announced the good news Saturday evening to John Stemberger, State Chairman of the Florida4Marriage.org campaign. Read full story HERE.
"Promote open and meaningfull conversations"....Please!! Do we need to go down this fallacious and failed concept again with KTN??? Unless KTN wants to pay off those who signed the petition in order to capture their vote, same-sex "marriage" is going to be voted down, once again, and the sacred institution of Christ is going to be protected in yet ANOTHER state.
Massachusetts: Our turn is right around the corner as we replace those Benedict Arnolds on Beacon Hill who got paid off to switch their votes this past summer and then we will have a second chance to collect ANOTHER 170,000 signatures.
LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!!

46 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

From http://www.christchurchofpeace.org/ktnf/:

"The purpose of Know Thy Neighbor Florida is to provide meaningful access to public information in order to promote open and meaningful conversations regarding the anti-family, anti-equality Florida Marriage Protection Amendment."

The posting of the home addresses of petition signatories is completely orthogonal to the stated goal of having "open and meaningful conversations" regarding this issue.

Certainly, it is possible to have "open and meaningful conversations" without knowing anyone's home address. I would opine that this blog provides one such example. There is nothing in this blog that indicates the home address of any poster.

"Open" and "meaningful" seem to be the operative words here. Both have many different definitions. What exactly did KTN Florida mean when they used them? It would be at best a logical stretch to extrapolate from that and claim to logically arrive at a place where the home address of each signatory is needed (to be published on their website) so that "open and meaningful" dialogue could occur.

The word painting associated with such terms as "anti-family" and "anti-equality" is blatant. It is the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment. Let the editorializing begin in discussions such as this one, not in the language of those who deign to make us aware of the topic.

To overstate the obvious, the definition of "family" is at stake. The Biblical definition of family is (for the sake of brevity) that of one man and one woman. That definition has stood the test of millenia, and finds its ultimate credence in that God Himself ordained it so. One may not like what the Bible says about the topic, but what is says is (in my opinion) quite clear.

Let the "open and meaningful" conversation begin!

Jesus en mi vida...

YQME

11:58 AM, February 12, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Biblical definition of family is (for the sake of brevity) that of one man and one woman."... meant to say:

The Biblical definition of marriage is (for the sake of brevity) that of the matrimonial union between one man and one woman. In this context, the Biblical definition of family is that of husband (man), wife (woman) and any child(ren) resultant from the consummation of the marriage between the husband and his wife.

Not to be a nitpicking niggler (or a fastidious quibbler for that matter), I thought a little clarification was in order.

That said, I apologize for "scope creep". I'll do my best to stay on point (seeking to avoid ad hominem attacks and tangential thoughts).

Jesus en mi vida...

YKME

2:38 PM, February 12, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“The Biblical definition of marriage is…”

Maybe you should clarify that that with “The New Testament’s definition.” The Old Testament had a completely different view of sex and marriage.

Is there some reason we must follow the Biblical definition of family? If we live in a country with religious freedom aren’t we able to define our own families for ourselves? Marriage has evolved into something completely different today than what it was 50-100 years ago let alone 2000 years ago. Marriage equality is just another growing pain, much like the introduction of inter-faith marriage and inter-racial marriage. When both of those marriages started to take place many people couldn’t believe it; it was too different. Today they are commonplace. Many people used the argument that kids would be harmed in some way by those marriages and hence should be outlawed by the government; sound familiar?

Ken Weaver

5:31 AM, February 13, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Ken (et al),

Again I apologize for "scope creep" in my post. Most of it dealt with the topic at hand (the fact that KTN Florida published the names and home addresses of all the folks who signed the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment).

I believe it is good blog (perhaps otherwise in addition) etiquette to stick to the topic posted by the moderator. Let's to do that henceforth (though I'd greatly appreciate the moderator creating a separate thread to discuss the definition of marriage).

The last paragraph of my post dealt with one of the underlying points of contention: namely, the definition of marriage. However, the vast majority of it (none of which you addressed) deals with the aforementioned action of KTN Florida.

I contend the following about it, and do honestly hope to use this forum to discuss them with you and others (yes the following bullet points are largely repetitive of the first post; the purpose is to steer the conversation on this thread to the topic at hand):

* the posting of the home address of the petition signatories is completely orthogonal to the stated goal of having "open and meaningful conversations" regarding this issue

* it is possible to have "open and meaningful conversations" without knowing anyone's home address

* it would be helpful to the discussion to know exactly what KTN Florida meant when they used the words "open" and "meaningful"

* it is a logical stretch to extrapolate from any definition thereof and claim to logically arrive at a place where the home address of each (or any) signatory is needed so that "open and meaningful" dialogue could occur

* that the signatory information is part of the public record neither gives KTN Florida the moral imperative nor the requirement to publish it
on their website

Looking forward to your reply relative to the above bullet points. Mr. Moderator, would you please create a thread wherein we all could focus on discussing the definition of marriage?

Jesus en mi vida...

YQME

5:03 PM, February 13, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry YQME, but I have no real opinion on the issue of KTN. I have never met any of them and conversed only electronically with a few. I remember a while back there was a furor about the tactics used by the signature collectors. There was talk of them eliciting names by nefarious means. That reason alone was enough for me to agree with the listing of names so people could confirm easily that their name was either on the list or not at their convenience, and then deal with the issue accordingly.

Scia’s threads are famous for starting on one subject and depending on how the discussion evolved… into various others. Scia never had a problem with the change of subject before and I doubt he would have a problem with it now. I’m sure if he believes it has gotten out of hand he’ll let us know in his way.

Ken Weaver

7:01 PM, February 13, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Ken,

If your electronic communication with the KTN folks (you referenced in your most recent post) had anything to do with the KTN Florida action of posting the names and addresses of the signatories (and you are both at liberty and amenable to sharing at least your synopses of those exchanges in this thread) I for one would consider same germane to this conversation. Would you?

What do you think of the KTN Florida posting of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment signatories' addresses ?

Jesus en mi vida...

YQME

7:48 AM, February 14, 2008  
Anonymous Rufus said...

I find nothing wrong with posting the names. People should be held accountable for what they sign. It should give a person pause when they do decide to sign a petition. Do they feel strongly enough to put pen to paper knowing they will be held accountable. If I felt so strongly about an issue, I would gladly sign and welcome the opportunity to explain why if a neighbor questioned it.

I do understand the concern about the security of the posting of addresses, but I don't believe the intent of KTN was to harass or intimidate. Call me naive if you want. I don't believe there are any proven examples where anyone was actually harmed from the posting of the petition in Mass. Please correct me if I am wrong.

10:01 AM, February 14, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Rufus,

Fundamental to any debate such as this is the definition of terms.

* Exactly what do you have in mind when in your post you mention "accountability"?

* Accountable to whom?

* How do you envision such "accountability" to be gained?

There is certainly no legal imperative (nor is there a moral one in my opinion) for private citizens to be held accountable for petitions they sign (or votes they cast for that matter).

Our elected officials are, insofar as it concerns what petitions they sign (and/or votes they cast and/or legislation they draft/sponsor for that matter) while wearing their elected representative hat.

You (for example) are not entitled to know that I am going to sign the next Protection of Marriage Amendment petition that is circulated in MA (I am telling you out of courtesy). Nor is anyone entitled to know just which private citizens signed the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment petition in Florida.

You wrote: "I do understand the concern about the security of the posting of addresses, but I don't believe the intent of KTN was to harass or intimidate."

* What exactly is the concern about security that you understand?

* Beyond understanding it (whatever it is) do you believe it is a valid concern?

* Exactly how would you suppose the inclusion of the addresses of the signatories contributes to the goal of having "open and meaningful conversations" regarding this issue?

* Why don't you believe the intent of KTN Florida was to harass or intimidate?

(Note: by asking I'm not implying you should believe they are. I honestly seek your honest answer.)

* What do you believe was the intent of KTN Florida of including the addresses of the petition signatories?

Finally, you wrote: "I don't believe there are any proven examples where anyone was actually harmed from the posting of the petition in Mass. Please correct me if I am wrong."

First, I will say that absence of proof is NOT proof of absence. Next, we need to define "harm". What do you define as "harm" in the context of your post? Lastly, I contend that providing the addresses of the signatories makes it easier (ceteris paribus) for harm to be done to the signatories. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Jesus en mi vida,

YQME

5:43 PM, February 14, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

YQME, I’ve had no discussions with anyone at KTN regarding the posting of signatures in Florida, or anywhere else for that matter.

“What do you think of the KTN Florida posting of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment signatories' addresses ?”

It doesn’t really bother me. I signed a petition a while back to pass a law that would deny in-state tuition prices to illegal immigrants attending colleges. If a group were to post my name on the internet for signing that petition I would have worn it like a badge of honor.

“There is certainly no legal imperative (nor is there a moral one in my opinion) for private citizens to be held accountable for petitions they sign (or votes they cast for that matter).”

Even when those votes are made to limit or take away freedoms for American citizens and make by law discrimination into the constitution?

Ken Weaver

7:40 PM, February 14, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"Even when those votes are made to limit or take away freedoms for American citizens and make by law discrimination into the constitution?"

Not to answer for YQME, but to add to the conversation I would like to say that voting on marriage is not taking AWAY freedoms from the homosexual community. This is factual considering that homosexuals did not, and still do not, have the LEGAL right to marry those of the same-sex in MA. They do, on the other hand, share the same rights as heterosexuals if they want to marry someone of the opposite sex. In this manner both sexual orientations have the same rights as long as they follow the same rules of marrying someone of the opposite sex. As a result, both orientations are on the same boat.

You said in a previous comment on this post:

"Marriage equality is just another growing pain, much like the introduction of inter-faith marriage and inter-racial marriage."

You can not compare a sexual behaviors sin to the color of a persons skin or religious beliefs for that matter. In addition to this, inter-faith marriages and inter-racial marriages were NEVER a topic amongst homosexuals but was a topic amongst heterosexuals, so you are comparing apples and oranges again.

1:19 PM, February 15, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Ken (et al),

I'm still wondering what you think about KTN Florida's action of posting the addresses of the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment petition signatories. You've addressed the posting of the names a couple times, but still not the posting of the addresses.

Going back to my original post to this thread, I maintain the posting of the home addresses of petition signatories is completely orthogonal to the stated goal of having "open and meaningful conversations" about the issue. Do you agree or disagree with that contention?

It seems (to me) the question you asked of me was meant to be rhetorical (and/or that meant to editorialize with the way it was asked). Your question to which I'm referring:

"Even when those votes are made to limit or take away freedoms for American citizens and make by law discrimination into the constitution?"

This question was asked in response to my statement:

"There is certainly no legal imperative (nor is there a moral one in my opinion) for private citizens to be held accountable for petitions they sign (or votes they cast for that matter)."

* By your seemingly rhetorical question, did you mean to imply that for those in Florida to have signed the petition is tantamount to them having begun the process of having "limited" or "taken away" freedom from American citizens?

* By the same question, did you also mean to imply that should the proposed amendment be enacted into law that "discrimination" would be built into the Florida state constitution?

To repeat my earlier contention: Private citizens are neither legally nor morally (in my opinion) accountable for petitions they sign (or votes they cast for that matter). Period. Elected officials are (when acting in the capacity of their office(s)). Do you agree or disagree?

Jesus en mi vida...

YQME

7:00 PM, February 15, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“…voting on marriage is not taking AWAY freedoms from the homosexual community.”

So you don’t believe people should have the freedom to choose their own wedding partner? Sounds very 1700’s.

“…homosexuals did not, and still do not, have the LEGAL right to marry those of the same-sex in MA.”

Breakin the law, breakin the law!! You don’t know what it’s like!!

“They do, on the other hand, share the same rights as heterosexuals if they want to marry someone of the opposite sex.”

There was a “literary test” in the South that any person registering to vote must pass to be allowed to vote. It was written into law to keep black’s from voting because most did not have much of an education. Nonetheless every person registering to vote had to pass this test; was that law discriminatory?

“sexual behaviors sin”

I don’t believe it is sinful Scia!! There are rapes in the Bible that “god” blessed, yet I see rape as the ultimate crime for which there should NEVER be reprieve. Funny how a rape victim could be forced to marry their rapist in your old testament. And you want to claim homosexuality as a sin from the same book that would permit this!! And people say I’m screwed up!!

“In addition to this, inter-faith marriages and inter-racial marriages were NEVER a topic amongst homosexuals but was a topic amongst heterosexuals, so you are comparing apples and oranges again.”

Yet it’s okay for you to compare homosexuality to REAL crimes? Even if you disagree, I see a correlation between the discrimination of race and religion and homosexuality. If homosexuals are born that way it’s race; if chosen it’s religion. Take your pick scia it works either way.

Ken Weaver

8:27 AM, February 17, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Your losing steam.

You said:

"So you don’t believe people should have the freedom to choose their own wedding partner?"

Sure I do. A wedding partner of the opposite sex just like EVERYONE else has to do. What makes the homosexual community so special such that they do NOT have to follow this law??

You said in response to my fact of:
“…homosexuals did not, and still do not, have the LEGAL right to "marry" those of the same-sex in MA.”:::

"Breakin the law, breakin the law!! You don’t know what it’s like!!"

Need I say more.

You asked:

"was that law (literary tests amongst blacks in order to vote) discriminatory?"

Yes. What is discriminatory about the marriage laws we have in place today when you make your "comparison" with blacks??

You said:

"There are rapes in the Bible that “god” blessed..."

Can you please cite the scripture passage in which you found this lie?

You said in closing:

"If homosexuals are born that way it’s race;..."

Oh, can you please explain yourself why this is?

I look forward to your answers to the following questions as stated above:

1. What makes the homosexual community so special such that they do NOT have to follow this law (marriage laws of today)??

2. What is discriminatory about the marriage laws we have in place today when you make your "comparison" with blacks??

3. Can you please cite the scripture passage in which you found this lie (God blessing rape)?

4. Oh, can you please explain yourself why this is (homosexuality is a race)and please cite your sources?

11:45 AM, February 17, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

I have to smile when I look at the name of this website, then the name of this article. I get the impression you Know Thy Neighbor... ;)

The first phase of trying to undo social injustice was to try and get people talking about the petition so they wouldn't sign it. That part did fail in Massachusetts and barely in Florida, but not in Oregon. In Massachusetts we used the attention we got to gather support for equality, so we may have lost a battle with the petition, but we won the war. We have defended our freedom to marry whom we choose.

In fact, even websites like these that are designed to deconstruct everything we do and try to paint it in it's worst light possible still serve to bring attention to our cause. That attention is all we need since more people every day see the truth behind the lies.

BTW, marriage is not a "sacred institution of Christ", it's an institution for all cultures, mine included. Civil marriage was all that was in question, and that is being cleared up one state at a time.

It's also interesting to see Opine Editorials (YKME) contributing here under another name,yet again.

I'll try to check back and see how this conversation is going, but I give no promises since we are very busy. Until then you have my best wishes for peace for all.

10:14 AM, February 18, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"...we may have lost a battle with the petition, but we won the war."

If you have won the war,John, why is there legislation to make same-sex "marriage" legal in MA??

You said:

"Civil marriage was all that was in question, and that is being cleared up one state at a time."

Oh, why is it that 28 out of 50 states,so far 56%,have outlawed same-sex "marriage" then??

You said in closing:

"It's also interesting to see Opine Editorials (YKME) contributing here under another name,yet again."

What does it matter how people ID themselves as, as long as we all are engaging in "the first phase of trying to undo social injustice (which is) to try and get people talking" right...John???

2:20 PM, February 18, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Where do I begin?

"If you have won the war,John, why is there legislation to make same-sex "marriage" legal in MA??"

That would be because some people think unless we have an actual law on the books that specifically states gay people can be married that they aren't truly afforded that equal right. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you one of those people? I think it's strange that you would say same sex marriage is not truly legal because there is no law for it, then wonder why people are pushing to have one. Thankfully, most of us are satisfied to know we are so equal in Massachusetts that the equality is assumed, expected, and afforded.

"Oh, why is it that 28 out of 50 states,so far 56%,have outlawed same-sex "marriage" then??"

In 2000 there was only one state that had civil unions; Vermont. Only 8 years later we have Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey, Cailfornia, Washington, Washington DC, Hawaii, and Oregon. We have also seen the petition signature drive fail to meet its needs in two states, and we saw a vote that went directly to the public fail in Arizona. Look at your watch Scia, it won't be long now before you're living in the promised land MLK spoke of.

True equality breeds brotherly love and peace for all. The converse is also true. Divisiveness breeds fear and calamity.

"What does it matter how people ID themselves as, as long as we all are engaging in "the first phase of trying to undo social injustice (which is) to try and get people talking" right...John???"

It matters when people say they don't post under multiple IDs, yet do so. It's called being dishonest. You know what dishonesty is, right Scia? ;)
Let me know if you want me to cite some examples of dishonesty for you.

When people are dishonest they do society an injustice. Justice temporarily defeated is still more powerful than evil that is momentarily truimphant. That's because people eventually learn the truth and act on their enlightenment. They also hold it against those who decieved them, which is now happening in large numbers.

Deceptions are failing all around those who would lie to their fellow citizens, and those citizens now see the man behind the curtain. People should be judged by what their actions and intents say about them, not inherent traits they can't change.

On a side note, the article you wrote is rubbish. It is the meandering rave of a bitter pill, filled with emotion and devoid of fact.

"...who got paid off to switch their votes..."

Apparently when pappa Mineau says something as a speculation his minions take it as fact.

Now I remember why I don't waste my time posting on sites like this, you've lost it.

Honestly, "Know Thy Neighbor who?" Come on, you can't do better than that? KTN has had more traffic in ten minutes than this website (which you named after it) has ever had put together.

Websites like these and people like you are some of my best resources when trying to help people understand what's wrong with an absence of equality on this issue.

On a final note, you had your vote and you lost, get over it. This is not a direct democracy, it is a representative democracy, and you're vote ended with 151 against and 45 in favor. You couldn't muster even 25% of the vote because people see through the deceptions they've been told, and they made their voices heard;

"Don't even waste our time."

I really have to wonder what went so horribly wrong in your life that you would dedicate so much of your time spinning such devisiveness. Your motive here speaks volumes of your character, so do explain to your readers what that is. With all the things you could focus your time on, what is it about this one that has you so interested?

8:34 PM, February 18, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“You've addressed the posting of the names a couple times, but still not the posting of the addresses.”

YQME, I thought I had stated my position before which was that I have no opinion. I did state that I had signed a petition and if someone were to print my name AND address I would have been proud of it. I can see no reason if people truly believe in the petition they’re signing why they think it’s so terrible if others know how they feel on a particular issue.

“Going back to my original post to this thread, I maintain the posting of the home addresses of petition signatories is completely orthogonal to the stated goal of having "open and meaningful conversations" about the issue. Do you agree or disagree with that contention?”

“Orthogonal”?? I think I can gather what you were attempting to infer, but what does a relation to right angles or a description of crystal have to do with what we’ve been discussing? To answer your question; I disagree.

“* By your seemingly rhetorical question, did you mean to imply that for those in Florida to have signed the petition is tantamount to them having begun the process of having "limited" or "taken away" freedom from American citizens?”

“* By the same question, did you also mean to imply that should the proposed amendment be enacted into law that "discrimination" would be built into the Florida state constitution?”

Yes on both counts.

“Private citizens are neither legally nor morally (in my opinion) accountable for petitions they sign (or votes they cast for that matter).”

You’re correct, but when those votes go to discriminate individuals on such a seemingly insignificant aspect of their lives maybe people should be accountable.

Ken Weaver

4:03 AM, February 19, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“A wedding partner of the opposite sex just like EVERYONE else has to do.”

Not everyone likes vanilla ice cream Scia.

“What is discriminatory about the marriage laws we have in place today when you make your "comparison" with blacks??”

You’re stating that since the marriage laws apply to everyone it’s not discrimination, yet the literary tests were for everyone as well but that is discrimination??!!

“1. What makes the homosexual community so special such that they do NOT have to follow this law (marriage laws of today)??”

What makes blacks so special that they don’t have to pass a test to vote?

I said: If homosexuals are born that way it’s race; if chosen it’s religion. Take your pick scia it works either way.

scia replied with: Oh, can you please explain yourself why this is?

If there is an inborn causation to homosexuality it is comparable to race. If being the operative word. Do you understand now?

I said: There are rapes in the Bible that “god” blessed...

Scia replied with: Can you please cite the scripture passage in which you found this lie?

I most certainly can. How is it that I know more of the bible than many Christians? Could it be that most Christians just want to believe that god is loving and merciful that they don’t really look at the book they espouse so readily? Scia I don’t really feel obliged to cite that scripture as of yet since I have been waiting so patiently for you to get me your source for this statement:

“Every country that has legalized same-sex "marriages" 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.”

Ken Weaver

4:20 AM, February 19, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

Your entertaining at best. Thank-you.

You said:

"...and we saw a vote that went directly to the public fail in Arizona."

John, Arizona is going to vote on the issue this upcoming general election. Try and be aware of what is going on before you post comments.

You said:

"Look at your watch Scia, it won't be long now before you're living in the promised land MLK spoke of."

Please John, don't compare your sin to the color of skin. You look silly.

You said:

"...the article you wrote is rubbish. It is the meandering rave of a bitter pill, filled with emotion and devoid of fact."

O.K., then please refute these facts.

You said:

"...KTN has had more traffic in ten minutes than this website (which you named after it) has ever had put together."

Funny, ever since I sent out 700 of my e-newsletters this past weekend I have gained 33% more first time visitors and have had a return of 66% of returning visitors. I love how you blanket your opinion as fact without looking at everything on the table. It really makes you the person you are John.

You said in closing:

"...and you're vote ended with 151 against and 45 in favor."

Funny how that happened AFTER a landside vote in favor of the amendment a few months prior.

Good luck John. I hope you get closer to Christ in the near future. Speaking of which, you have not answered a question of mine that I posted to you about 3 months ago:

What is your interpretation of 1Corinthians 6:9? -

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" (1Cor 6:9-10; NKJV).

8:02 AM, February 19, 2008  
Anonymous KatieKat said...

" A wedding partner of the opposite sex just like EVERYONE else has to do."
Scia, do you understand that saying this is the same as telling you that you could marry someone of the same sex (assuming you're straight, that is)?
A wedding partner of the opposite sex would not be someone I could love - Why would I want to enter into a lifetime contract with someone I do not - or could not ever - love?

12:49 PM, February 19, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

In November 2006 Arizona voters defeated a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, becoming the first state in the country to reject such a measure. Purhaps it is you Scia that needs to check his (her?) facts before they speak. An upcoming vote does not change history. ;)

Scia said:
"Please John, don't compare your sin to the color of skin. You look silly."

I don't see where I mentioned color, could you point that out? In MLK I see a visionary leader who's work will one day help us save the world. Do you only see a black man? As far as sin goes, that's up to each individual and each religion to define for themselves. You don't get to dictate your beliefs as law for others.

Scia said:
"O.K., then please refute these facts."

I said your post was one of emotion and devoid of facts. You should pay attention so you don't come off so foolish.

Scia said:
"Funny, ever since I sent out 700 of my e-newsletters this past weekend I have gained 33% more first time visitors and have had a return of 66% of returning visitors.

Let's look at something together. Scroll down your page for me until you see a little knight in armor standing next to the number 004974. This is your LIFETIME total of unique visitors here since 2006. By your own counter you got 9 visitors today. If this is up 33% congratulations! ;)

KTN got two million visitors the first three days it was open, so you are not exactly in competition.

I noticed your buddy Tyler took his counter off because he was so embarassed about his pitiful traffic. Perhaps you should do the same so you can imply you have more? I'm sure you're far too honest for such a tactic, right Scia? ;)

Scia said:
"I love how you blanket your opinion as fact without looking at everything on the table. It really makes you the person you are John."

Would you care to qualify this statement with any facts or shall we just move on?

Scia said:
"Funny how that happened AFTER a landside vote in favor of the amendment a few months prior." (In reference to the legislator's vote of 151-45)

Like I said, we may have not won every battle, but we won the war. Your beloved petition to take away your neighbor's rights is in the trash bin, and there is no second attempt in the works. It's over, we won our equality in this state.

I will answer your quote from Corinthians with Romans 14:13

"Then let us no longer judge one another, but rather resolve never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother."

Christians are called to be the lving example of Christ. They are called to be His light that others might find peace in His love. Tell me, how it is that your type of Christian feels more comfortable forgiving a murderer on death row than a productive law biding gay man? It is not God's will you are doing, it is your own. If you were a true Christian you'd know that all people sin, and the way to attract sinners is through unconditional love. From a TRUE Christian I find another retort:

"May you be content knowing you are a child of God. Let this presence settle into your bones, and allow your soul the freedom to sing, dance, praise and love. May you use those gifts that you have received, and pass on the love that has been given to you." ~Mother Theresa

So are we ever going to hear why you are so intersted in gay people or not? I'm sure many of your readers wonder what the fascination is.

5:06 PM, February 19, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi all,

Apologies in advance for my deviating from the original post.

John: this is the first and only blog to which I have ever posted. I truly regret you have mistakenly identified me as someone else.

YQME, the name by which I go on here, is an initialism for Yo Quiero Mi Esposa. It is Spanish for "I love my wife", with the first letters of each word in caps simply for emphasis. The one time that I entered YKME was a mistake, plain and simple.

Ken: as an adjective, orthogonal means "not pertinent to the matter under consideration". Feel free to check out WordNet (Princeton University).

Ken: actually, you said "If a group were to post my name on the internet for signing that petition I would have worn it like a badge of honor."

Still looking for answers to the following as fundamental to any debate such as this is the definition of terms.

* Exactly what do you have in mind when in your post you mention "accountability"?

* Accountable to whom?

* How do you envision such "accountability" to be gained?

* Exactly how do you envision the publishing of the signatories' addresses as anything but orthogonal to the fostering of "open and meaningful conversations" regarding this issue?

Jesus en mi vida,

YQME

5:22 PM, February 19, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

YQME, I believe you are Jose from Opine Editorials, but I don't expect you to admit that. The Opiners are sworn to lie and cover their tracks right to the bitter end.

I'll point out that Spain is one of the few countries that is mostly Catholic yet have full marriage equality. This proves that people of strong faith don't have to feel threatened by gay people, we can all live in harmony. ¡desea España viva!

Amo a mi marido. ;)

6:30 PM, February 19, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“…as an adjective, orthogonal means "not pertinent to the matter under consideration"…”

My apologies YQME, I am acclimated to a more direct language.

“Exactly what do you have in mind when in your post you mention "accountability"?”

We are supposed to be guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, what can make a person happier than finding a connection with another person and wish to share their life with them? Is there anything more beautiful than that? When you look at your wife as I look at mine and you look to see the ring on your finger that symbolizes a commitment that is supposed to be no less than a life term do you not believe that the world would be a better place if we all could feel that way? I am accountable to myself that I step in and help other Americans that are not afforded the rights we are supposed to have. I am less an advocate for gay rights than I am an advocate for freedom to all citizens, even homosexuals, no… especially homosexuals; for the manner in which I treated them in my youth. I have no real idea how a law could be formed to make people accountable for their belief that marriage is a hetero only club, but I feel a need that people should have a true understanding of the consequences of their actions on others.

“Accountable to whom?”

To themselves. I saw a movie once in which a character says “Honor is a gift man gives to himself.” Cheesy, but true.

“How do you envision such "accountability" to be gained?”

There’s no way it could, but that does not mean that it should not be.

“Exactly how do you envision the publishing of the signatories' addresses as anything but orthogonal to the fostering of "open and meaningful conversations" regarding this issue?”

When I signed the petition I mentioned previously, if my neighbor wished to discuss that with me I would have had no problem doing so. Were there roving bands of homosexuals going from house to house looking for signers of that petition? I didn’t hear of any? However I have heard of roving bands of Christians targeting homosexuals. Maybe that's why the signers are so fearful; they know how easy it is to bully the weak.

Ken Weaver

8:53 PM, February 19, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

John,

How do you think that the posting of the signatories' addresses contributes to the stated goal of KTN-Florida to have "open and meaningful conversations" regarding this issue? I say it doesn't at all.

Ken,

Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure we know the signatories are "fearful", or that they have (no) reason to be.

I would also say that if your neighbor wanted to discuss the petition with you, they could have done so. If you wanted to discuss it with them, you could have initiated that discussion. You were not compelled to do so, nor were they (legally or otherwise).

Neighbor or not, they wouldn't need your address in order to discuss it with you (and even have that conversation be "open and meaningful").

Nobody needs your home address in order for you to be accountable to yourself. Since you seem to acknowledge that the "accountability" you say is gained by the publishing of the addresses cannot be determined I'll ask what value you see in them being published.

Jesus en mi vida...

YQME

1:12 PM, February 20, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Neighbor or not, they wouldn't need your address in order to discuss it with you (and even have that conversation be "open and meaningful").”

It’s unlikely any of my neighbors knew I signed the petition because… no one put my name and address online. The topic never came up in our daily conversations.

“I'll ask what value you see in them being published.”

If my neighbors were concerned about the petition it would have been easy for them to look and see if they knew anyone who had signed it and then initiated a conversation about it. And as I said before there were reports of the signature collectors giving misinformation to get people to sign this particular petition; so having the names and addresses published online could make it easy to see if someone were tricked into signing a petition they had no intention of doing.

Ken Weaver

6:39 AM, February 21, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

A signed petition is a public declaration of support, not a secret decision made at the ballot box. People who sign a petition should be aware that their signature and address are made public, this is no secret.

By taking this already public information and making it more easily accessible it is hoped that people will find others who they know and speak to them on the matter. Dialog is the bedrock upon which understanding and social change begins.

Not once in the history of KTN has anyone reported to the police any harassment asociated with their postings. Such has been the case since September 2005, and there is no reason to believe this will change.

The other coincidental good this does is it allows people to ensure their name was not put on this list in error, either deliberately or not. Whenever you have signatures gathered by people who are being paid per the signature you will always have a level of dishonesty. This was made clear by the Fox undercover story about Angela McElroy, and the link is provided by knowthyneighbor.org.

The process of getting people to talk has yielded great results in Massachusetts, and will yield the same where ever we have people sitting down to talk about the fears on one side, and the needs on the other.

I hope this clarifies why we should and are posting these names.

9:29 AM, February 22, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

1 Corinthians 6:9 -

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" (1Cor 6:9-10; NKJV).

You responded with:

Romans 14:13

"Then let us no longer judge one another, but rather resolve never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother."

How am I judging you John? God is judging you and your sin, not me.

You can not continuously take part in a sinful lifestyle, homosexuality in your case, and expect God to accept your sinfull lust for men. Yes, He will forgive you IF you walk away from homosexuality and ask Him for forgiveness. As a result of being forgiven, that does not mean you have an automatic license to continue living a sinful lifestyle.

When Christ said "...nor homosexuals...will inherit the kingdom of God" that means homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God unless they are forgiven by Him.

You can give me all the scripture double-talk you like John, but your sinful lifestyle is not going to be accepted by Christ. Ask for his forgiveness and walk away from your sin and be blessed by Christ.

God bless,

Scia

7:18 PM, February 22, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"Not once in the history of KTN has anyone reported to the police any harassment asociated with their postings."

It may of not been reported to the police per se, but KTN's moto of "open dialog" is nothing but double-talk especially when it comes to this case:

http://knowthyneighbor.blogs.com/home/2007/09/index.html

"The glory of free speech is hearing all sides of an issue, not trying to shout down one side or another with absurd insults."

Right John???

7:36 PM, February 22, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You asked:

"What makes blacks so special that they don’t have to pass a test to vote?"

Although these restrictions were most often directed at black voters, those that barred voting on the basis of literacy or ownership of property also affected poor whites. Many northerners supported suffrage restriction as well. Between 1889 and 1913, nine states outside the South added restrictions requiring voters to read English, and ostensible reforms like the secret ballot were often directed at pushing out foreign-born and illiterate voters.

How is this any different from today's standards when immigrants applying for U.S. citizenship, and therefore the right to vote in this country, have to be able to read and write in the English language?

The "literary tests" were not JUST directed at blacks Ken. So, I will ask you again, with clarification, why does the homosexual community not have to follow a law that ALSO includes them? If the homosexual community wishes to change this law, which they are trying to do eventhough their "right" to "marry" is "law" in Ma. then I am even more confused. Why would homosexuals change a law that EVERYONE has to follow regardless of their favorite flavor of ice-cream? Why do laws have to PLEASE everyone?

All laws “discriminate” in one way or another. Laws are enacted by societies that reflect the moral preferences of the citizenry that coincide with natural law. U.S. Practices such as bigamy and polygamy are sexual “relationships” which society ,for the most part, has deemed to be immoral and without legal justification and protections and therefore discriminated against.

Discrimination is not always a bad thing especially when it prevents dangerous behaviors, such as homosexuality or bigamy or polygamy, from being legally recognized because of their obvious consequences to socity.

Sorry, I will practice what I preach when stating the first rule when engaging in civil discourse:

ANSWER THE QUESTION AT HAND.

I said earlier without any citations:

“Every country that has legalized same-sex "marriages" has seen a significant decline in traditional marriage and the breakdown of the traditional family."

Go to:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/wm577.cfm

Sorry about that Ken. Thanks for bringing this UNANSWERED question up again. Sometimes this happens when administering a blog with many comments and questions. Good job.

So, can you please cite the scripture passage in which you found the lie of "God blessing rape"?

8:35 PM, February 22, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

First off, God is not here blogging, you are Scia, so please take responsibility for your own actions and not pass the buck. It is you who is saying that my sins are unforgivable, not God. If you were a true Christian you'd know not to judge others, but you just can't help yourself because this particular subject holds a special fascination for you. Are we ever going to find out what your special interest is, or are you going to continue to ignore that direct question? Your credibility hangs in the ballance.

Scia said:
"When Christ said "...nor homosexuals...will inherit the kingdom of God" that means homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God unless they are forgiven by Him."

This is a lie, Christ never said any such thing, and I dare you to cite the passage in which he did.

Christianity is a religion of love and inclusion, not one of fear and exclusion. This is why you see true Chrisitians breaking away from the teachings of the Holy See to join groups like the Unitarian Universalists, who understand that Love is God's primary concern. Love conquers all, heals all, and binds all.

Anyone that has been to KTN knows that they encourage open dialog. That dialog is free, and in many instances has resulted in those who fling insults being insulted back. If the heat is too much for those who would cast dispersions on their neighbors, they should stay out of the fray! ;)

Scia said:
"You can give me all the scripture double-talk you like John, but your sinful lifestyle is not going to be accepted by Christ. Ask for his forgiveness and walk away from your sin and be blessed by Christ."

There is no double talk in the scripture Scia, you must be confused. According to you this is the word of God, and God cannot be wrong, He is infallible. It is up to our weak human minds to figure out what He wants through what He has left us.

Since it is debatable whether or not He finds homosexuality a sin, I'll take my chances and simply be the best person I can be outside of that one point you wish to define me by.

I'll pray for you Scia. People like you desperately need to see past your bigotry and acknowledge the people around you for more than what you don't like about them. I'll pray that one day you can live in peace with those whom you disagree. Until then let your hate be the cross you bear; the obstacle you need to overcome in your journey to Christ.

8:23 AM, February 24, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

Psalm 119 (New International Version)

Aleph

1 [a] Blessed are they whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the LORD.

2 Blessed are they who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart.

3 They do nothing wrong;
they walk in his ways.

4 You have laid down precepts
that are to be fully obeyed.

5 Oh, that my ways were steadfast
in obeying your decrees!

6 Then I would not be put to shame
when I consider all your commands.

7 I will praise you with an upright heart as I learn your righteous laws.

8 I will obey your decrees;
do not utterly forsake me.

10:49 AM, February 25, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

We can hurl quotes from the Bible at each other all day long, but that gains us no understanding of how to live in a multi-denominational society now does it?

I would still appreciate you answering what your special interest in the GLBT world is. I'm begining to think there are only a couple of logical conclusions based on your deliberate avoidance of the question. You either do not wish to see that hateful part of yourself, or you have already seen it and wish to hide it from others. Neither is acceptable coming from someone who wants to sound like the voice of Christ.

The path to God is one of Love, not hate. Read all you want from the Bible but it will not change that truth. God wants us to get along in spite of our differences and be as loving neighbors should be. I'm sorry you have such a harsh opinion of what God wants of us, but I disagree. I guess we can either conduct ourselves with honor while we wait to see who is right, or you can act like you know God better than the rest of us, and try to shun me and other GLBT people from society.

That action you own, it has nothing to do with me, and speaks volumes of your character.

11:37 AM, February 25, 2008  
Anonymous Rufus said...

“Every country that has legalized same-sex "marriages" has seen a significant decline in traditional marriage and the breakdown of the traditional family."

I'm curious SCIA, can you actually provide REAL proof of this assertion? Using opinion from a particularly slanted website article does not help your case. Can you cite any article, paper or opinion not connected with a "family" or religious organization/website (who have their own agenda) to actually proove these assertions? It all seems like bad propaganda to me. The article you point to is also 4 years old, something more current would be helpful as well. You'd think there would be more (or less) data to proove your point as time goes by.

To be fair, I will try to find current information, not tied to a pro-gay website, to refute your assertion.

I think we would both find it difficult, but if you are up to the challenge...

12:24 PM, February 25, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry I’ve been gone for so long; I got pretty sick there and just didn’t have the compulsion to write.

“So, can you please cite the scripture passage in which you found the lie of "God blessing rape"?”

If Mexico or Canada was to invade the U.S. and were able to kill all the people except women who hadn’t yet “known” a man and take them back to their own countries, what do you think would happen to them? Do you honestly believe that these young girl virgins were taken from their country or nation or people for really good things? What would you call it if a girl you knew had her parents killed and taken and then “wed” to another person? I’d call it rape. How many times did god tell the Israelites to conquer another nation and kill all the people except the virgins? Did god only mean to be nice to the virgins? Were the Israelites going to let them go? Would they be enslaved? Or would they be passed around for ethnic cleansing purposes?

What would you call getting a girl so drunk she’d have sex with anyone? I’d call it rape. Yet after god destroyed Sodom for what some say is the crime of homosexuality Lot and his two virgin daughters escape and the Lot’s two daughters get him drunk and have sex with him because they don’t want his family line to end. So I guess god likes homosexuality less than incest. Nonetheless getting a person drunk or high or whatever so you can have your way with them is rape; there’s just no other way around it.

“How is this any different from today's standards when immigrants applying for U.S. citizenship, and therefore the right to vote in this country, have to be able to read and write in the English language?”

Because if you’re born here those tests don’t apply. To be able to vote you must be a citizen; to be a citizen you should have been born here or face a few tests. The test isn’t to vote, it’s for citizenship.

“Why would homosexuals change a law that EVERYONE has to follow regardless of their favorite flavor of ice-cream?”

Because as society evolves our views of right and wrong evolve. We used to think it was all well and good to use slaves to pick cotton, as our society evolved we started to realize that our previous view of righteousness was just the opposite. I just hope we don’t have to face a civil war for America to wake up and realize homosexuality isn’t “evil.”

“Practices such as bigamy and polygamy are sexual “relationships” which society ,for the most part, has deemed to be immoral and without legal justification and protections and therefore discriminated against.”

Yet the same book you use to condemn homosexuality allowed those other relationships.

“Discrimination is not always a bad thing especially when it prevents dangerous behaviors, such as homosexuality or bigamy or polygamy”

How are the last two dangerous? And do you really think a law preventing marriage equality will prevent homosexual behavior?

Ken Weaver

4:08 PM, March 09, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

Sorry to hear that you were feeling under the weather. I myself am just getting over the flu, which really kicked my butt. On top of that my doctor told me that I may have Pneumonia. I got a chest X-Ray today and will find out for sure tomorrow. Oh boy, I am exhausted!!


You said:

"Yet after god destroyed Sodom for what some say is the crime of homosexuality Lot and his two virgin daughters escape and the Lot’s two daughters get him drunk and have sex with him because they don’t want his family line to end. So I guess god likes homosexuality less than incest."

I am not sure why you think that just because Lot decided, NOT under the advice or approval of God, to PASSIVELY have sexual relations with his daughters in order for the family line to continue, that you think God approved Lots actions. Though Lot's role was mainly passive, he bore the basic responsibility for what happened to his daughters and reaped the harvest of his move toward Sodom.

In a nutshell, your comparison of Lot's decision and God NOT showing ANY approval of this decision is null and void. There is no comparision of Lot's situation and God aprroving rape. None what so ever.

Can you provide me scripture where God approves rape Ken?

You said:

"The test isn’t to vote, it’s for citizenship."

The test does involve an English exam in order to become a citizen in order to vote.

You said:

"I just hope we don’t have to face a civil war for America to wake up and realize homosexuality isn’t “evil.”

We would not have to do that because most Americans know that homosexuality IS wrong and are in the process of making Same-Sex "Marriages" illegal in their states.

You said:

"Yet the same book you use to condemn homosexuality allowed those other relationships.'

I think you are refering to the Bible when you state "...the same book." Please provide scripture where polygamy and bigamy are justified under the eyes of God.

You ask in closing:

"How are the last two (polygamy and bigomy) dangerous?

The best way for me to answer that is to refer to a study done in 2006 titled "The Revolution in Parenthood: The Emerging Global Clash Between Adult Rights and Children's Needs," which was authored by Elizabeth Marquardt.

Go to http://www.americanvalues.org/parenthood/parenthood.htm
for the complete download of the study.

Ms. Marquardt says it all in a nutshell when she found that the issue of same-sex marriage has also energized individuals and organizations that favor polyamory and polygamy as legitimate lifestyles. Polyamory "involves relationships of three or more people, any two of whom might or might not be married to one another," said Marquardt.

Marquardt warns: "This much is clear: When society changes marriage it changes parenthood. ... The legalization of same-sex marriage, while sometimes seen as a small change affecting just a few people, raises the startling prospect of fundamentally breaking the legal institution of marriage from any ties to biological parenthood."

6:08 PM, March 12, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“NOT under the advice or approval of God”

When they were taking virgins from conquered nations it was.

“he bore the basic responsibility for what happened to his daughters and reaped the harvest of his move toward Sodom.”

Are you one of those freaks that say if a woman goes into a bar wearing a short skirt and gets raped she was asking for it?

“The test does involve an English exam in order to become a citizen in order to vote.”

Yet we still have signs for voting in Spanish, so English isn’t a requirement to vote…only for citizenship.

“We would not have to do that because most Americans know that homosexuality IS wrong and are in the process of making Same-Sex "Marriages" illegal in their states.”

So might makes right? And I would say that most Americans mistakenly believe that homosexuality is wrong.

“Please provide scripture where polygamy and bigamy are justified under the eyes of God.”

How many wives and concubines did Solomon have, and didn’t he have the “god” gift of wisdom?

“…raises the startling prospect of fundamentally breaking the legal institution of marriage from any ties to biological parenthood."

People get married, have sex and sometimes kids come into the relationship that way. But you know life happens, and sometimes biology is less important than the way people feel for each other. My son will likely never know his biological father, and he seems quite content with that. His biological father may feel differently, but I’m okay with that.

Ken Weaver

2:08 AM, March 15, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"When they were taking virgins from conquered nations it was."

Again, your not proving anything with your opinion. Please provide facts in the form of scripture to back up your claim.

You said:

"Yet we still have signs for voting in Spanish, so English isn’t a requirement to vote…only for citizenship."

Good point Ken!! My point is that you can not become a legal citizen to vote in this country if you do not learn english.

You said:

"How many wives and concubines did Solomon have, and didn’t he have the “god” gift of wisdom?"

1 King 11:9-13

9 And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice,

10 And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded.

11 Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant.

12 Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father's sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son.

13 Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen.

7:14 AM, March 16, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Rufus,

I stated:

"Every country that has legalized same-sex "marriages" has seen a significant decline in traditional marriage and the breakdown of the traditional family."

I have provided you with facts on this statement in which you wish to not accept.

Here are some more facts to back-up my above statement:

1. http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402020917.asp

2. http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200406030910.asp

Do you have any facts to refute my above statement??

3:23 PM, March 17, 2008  
Anonymous Rufus said...

Hmmm, another OPINION piece. I have not accepted your "facts" in the past because they were opinion pieces from religious and ultra conservative web sites. None of these opinion pieces give actual legitimate sourses to base their opinions.

Kurtz is yet another conservative, although one with much better credentials than most of what you like to point to, with the same gloom and doom mentality. I could not use the links you provided, but I did find the articles, both from 2004. Maybe I'm missing it, but Kurtz doesn't provide the actual data he is using to come to his conclusions. He has lots of statistics, but where is the actual data to prove it. This is what I am looking for.

Here is a link for you to check out that refutes Kurtz's claims.

http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/

4:30 PM, March 17, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid52659.asp

4:39 PM, March 17, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Rufus,

You said:

"Maybe I'm missing it, but Kurtz doesn't provide the actual data he is using to come to his conclusions. He has lots of statistics, but where is the actual data to prove it. This is what I am looking for."

You need to Google or www.dogpile.com the stats. You will come up with a plethora of hits to look at.

9:24 AM, March 21, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

You gave a link, in which I passed right by because your comments were very brief, my appologies, that stated the following:

"Psychoanalysts' Organization Backs Same-Sex Marriage."

As reported on the Human Rights Campaign website:

"The American Psychoanalytic Association supports the position that the salient consideration in decisions about parenting, including conception, child rearing, adoption, visitation and custody is the best interest of the child. Accumulated evidence suggests the best interest of the child requires attachment to committed, nurturing and competent parents."

Can you, or the APsaA, prove to me with facts how having homosexual parents is in the better interest of the child, because your link does not in any way, shape or form prove anything to me or anyone else reading it.

Where are the websites citations to their claims, especially this one:

"Gary Grossman, former chair of the APsaA's Committee on Gay and Lesbian Issues, said in the statement, "As experts of emotional experience, the membership of the American Psychoanalytic Association has an obligation to clarify its position that same-sex marriage offers substantial mental health benefits for the nation's gays and lesbians and their loved ones, and the denial of marriage has psychologically detrimental consequences."

Weak opinion at best!!

7:08 AM, March 24, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not going to do your research for you. I'll give you the same advice you give Rufus, look it up.

7:56 AM, March 24, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...

Anonymous,

I found 1 (one) study on the APSA's website that discussed same-sex "marriages":

"An exploratory study of same-sex marriages: How legalization has influenced MA couples".

Do you think that since the "legalization" of same-sex "marriages" in 2004, that enough time had passed by to conclusively say that same-sex "marriages" are equivalent to traditional marriages. This topic can cover a large spectrum of issues, from effects on children, socio-economic affects, ect, ect.

All I saw on the American Psychoanalytic Association website were position statements on same-sex "marriages". No citations or sources to back up their claim of:

"...the American Psychoanalytic Association has an obligation to clarify its position that same-sex marriage offers substantial mental health benefits for the nation's gays and lesbians and their loved ones, and the denial of marriage has psychologically detrimental consequences."

NO facts with citations or sources of ANY kind, but PLENTY of opinions blanketed as fact.

Again, weak opinions at best!!

9:11 AM, March 24, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

I certainly value the APA's educated opinions over your uneducated ones.

10:44 AM, March 24, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

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