|
|
|
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
![[Masthead]](http://www.marshallnews.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fair ~ High: 77°F ~ Low: 55°F Tuesday, May 21, 2013 |
|
(Gay) Wedding CrashersPosted Friday, May 15, 2009, at 1:53 PM
Yesterday, a group of people from Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., came to Columbia to protest the city's new domestic partnership registry created by a unanimous city council vote in April. They carried signs that read "God hates fags" and other such offensive language directed not only toward homosexuals, but also President Barack Obama and others.
Now, let me make it clear that I certainly support the rights of these, and all, protesters to peacefully assemble. But that does not mean I support their message. Besides their bigoted belief that gay and lesbian individuals are wicked, these church members are also threatened by what they see as an encroachment on the holy institution of marriage, so they are trying to push their religious agenda onto the affairs of the state. It is necessary to point out that, though marriage may have begun as a religious rite, it is now much more than that. For starters, marriages aren't legal without a license from the state. And, married couples are given special privileges under the law that unmarried couples just don't have: tax breaks, protection from testifying against each other in court and various rights in terms of health care, estates and child custody. By establishing a domestic partnership registry, the city of Columbia is trying to give its same-sex couples equal treatment under the law. And isn't that what America is all about? The Declaration of Independence says, "all men are created equal," which we now, thankfully, acknowledge to mean all people. And, lest we forget, this country also purports to believe in freedom of religion, which means that government should not choose to follow the dictates of one religion when creating laws. A few examples: What if Jehovah's Witnesses suddenly controlled Congress? Then life-saving blood transfusions could be made illegal. Or what about Hindus? Their reverence for cows would certainly put a damper on the American beef industry. Or even Catholics? They don't believe in any form of contraceptives, after all. Although I choose not to be active in a church, I do believe religion and its teachings have their place in American society; but that doesn't mean they need to have a place of power in American government as well. Let churches and pastors decide whom to marry and how, but gay and lesbian partnerships must have the same protections as heterosexual marriages under the law. Several states in the Northeast and Iowa have already realized this, making same-sex marriages perfectly legal by legislation and/or Supreme Court proceedings. If only the rest of the country would see the light. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Little Town Blues Goes to China  - Archives - Blog RSS feed ![[Feed icon]](http://www.marshallnews.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon} - Comments RSS feed - Send email to SYDNEY STONNER - Login Something about music. Something about small towns. Something about Hong Kong. Or maybe something else entirely.
Sydney is a former staff writer for the Democrat-News. She received degrees from University of Missouri in both music and magazine journalism. She played oboe with the Marshall Philharmonic Orchestra and the Marshall Municipal Band while she was in Marshall. Hot topics What a Difference a Year Makes(0 ~ 5:40 AM, May 22)
No Room for Shyness
Yes We Can (go to Japan)
The Doorman Always Rings Twice
The Disaster in Japan, as seen from Hong Kong
|
Email link
Read comments (37)
Blog archive
Here's a very interesting piece on Fred Phelps as a father:
http://hopeandpolitics.blogspot.com/2006...
H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill is a bill that has passed the House and is now being fast tracked through the Senate. This bill is now being called the pedophile protection act. What does this have to do with this topic?
By legitimizing homosexual marriage or "unions" we are giving a legal ground for the social acceptance of a deviation from biological purposes of human relationships. There is absolutely no purpose, biologically speaking, for a relationship between two members of the same sex. Therefore, it is a deviation from what is the norm. There is no genetic evidence that there is even a gene responsible for a person being homosexual and there is no "inheritance" of this trait in future generations either, if they utilize their body parts to reproduce with the help of some source outside of their relationship.
The "anti-hate" bill that is being considered in Congress give protections to ALL deviations from the biological purposes of the heterosexual relationship. This is the first step in gradual social modification of what is socially acceptable. If this bill passes, then all other "philias" would then have their first legal standing in our country.
While I despise the Westboro Church and their actions that they direct at our veterans funerals, more churches should be taking a stand in today's society and should be more willing to vocally and publically take a stand against things that go against the values of their churches.
The problem with our country is that we have become too comfortable in our economic standing and our society as a whole and only are concerned with what is around us in our "face." We do not want to take time out to deal with "politics" and stuff that does not affect our pocketbooks directly and we are not willing to acknowledge that our country was founded on the core principles of all religions not just Christianity, those being morals and virtures.
Homosexuality and other sexual deviations are NOT the norm and are a minority. However, unlike the color of your skin, gender, age, sexual deviations are not biological normalities and therefore should not be afforded equality.
Mrxray you narrowly define normal. Throughout many species including homo sapiens there are acts of homosexual union. Hence it is normal, just not predominate. Further it is obvious that you have not seen a large body of scientific evidence that does support a biological component to homosexual behavior. You are far too certain in your belief to have studied the issue.
Then there is common sense. If homosexuality is simply a choice there would not be so many willing to risk torture, condemnation, and even death for their "choice". That is unless all homosexuals also "choose" to be masochistic.
Plastics..
Politifact says that it is an outright lie that the hate crimes bill working its way through congress would protect pedophiles. You can believe Congressman Steve King speaking on Fox News, or you can believe Pulitzer Prize winning Politifact. Fair and balanced.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...
....and now the rest of the story.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...
Third Child is that advice for anyone in particular vis a vis "The Graduate"?
Oklahomey, the plastics we are being fed mimic estrogen. Do the math. More plastic. More gays. It breaks down the family structure. This is a plank of the Communist Manifesto. It isolates and divides the country. It gives an excuse to limit free speech with phony hate crime laws.
Fred Phelps is a plant. His object is to limit free speech. How obvious does it have to be?
The "need" for a "Hate" crime bill is a fraud.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_fil...
Here's a link to the fertility 'epidemic' we aren't being told about.
http://www.kitchendoctor.com/healthcondi...
Earth's Unisex Future?: Examining the Effects of
Estrogen Mimics
Chem 38, Fall 1998
http://www.bk.psu.edu/faculty/shibley/Es...
Ponder the existence of a unisex planet. Without sexual differentiation,
higher life would cease to exist. While this proposition may seem like just another
apocalypse theory, sexual transformation can be caused by environmental
pollutants. A specific group of these pollutants mimic estrogen, the female sex
hormone, and have already caused isolated populations to undergo shifts in
sexual composition.
Since higher forms of life are based of the sexual recombination of genes,
this issue is of dire importance to all members of both sexes. Feminization of the
male sex would affect every aspect of life on Earth. While life could evolve in
response to other forms of pollution, environmental estrogens affect sexual
differentiation, a necessary component of evolution.
Baby boomers:
How cancer virus got into your polio vaccine
In Lies We Trust Part 14 of 16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tM8gk8C6...
Third Child I don't think we are on the same path so I won't say anymore.
If you limit your discussions to only those on the same path, whatever that means, it's going to be a very boring discussion.
We may not be on the same path but I'll assure you that we are all in the same boat..
You are correct! I did define this narrowly. Biology can be proven and the sole purpose of interrelationships between humans is to reproduce. This is the case with all living beings. In the case of humans it takes a man and a woman. No two men or two women can reproduce naturally without outside, artificial interference. If we cannot reproduce then our species, or any species, will fail and become extinct. To ignore this FACT is illogical. We can twist any information to try to make any thing socially acceptable, but if we have biological norms, such as human sexual reproduction, then we cannot ignore them.
As for scientific "proof" that being gay is somehow a biological norm is a very false idea. A theory might exist that tries to say that it is somehow genetic, but there is no actual proof that this is the case. If it is the case that being homosexual is genetic, then it is an alteration of a "normal" gene and is therefore a mutation and outside the norm. So any way you look at it it is abnormal to not be heterosexual as a human.
If you want to look at this issue in a sociological aspect, then you can try to say that because there are gay people then you have to award them equal rights. But because this is abnormal behavior from the normal, biological behavior of human beings, then you have to ask the question, where do we draw the line? Do we stop with homosexual behavior or do we stop with beastiality and/or pedophilia? or other abnormal behaviors and allow any and all abnormal sexual deviations to have equal standing? To state that the abnormal homosexual behavior is less abnormal than other sexual deviations from "natural" human sexual behavior of reproduction, is illogical and unsupported by documented science.
Theories may exist but they are just that, theories that people try to push off on the majority or our nation in order to make people feel guilty.
As for someone stating that my information and/or opinion is somehow formed by foxnews... this is untrue and an arguement that is used in a feeble attempt to some how put down my opinions.
A fertility epidemic? As if we don't have enough to worry about what with swine flu and cancer viruses in our polio vaccine? What next? Oh, wait, I see - plastics make people gay.
Third child: If we "aren't being told about" the fertility epidemic, how is it that you are so well informed?
I Just have a few comments about your 'talking points' on this topic. The following 'facts/claims' have been put forth why we should be against gay marriage:
* "runs counter to God's plan;"
* "unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results;"
* "Persons wishing to enter into...marriages come from the "dregs of society."
* "stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage'
* "they cannot possibly have any progeny, . . . and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid their marriages."
* "necessarily involves the degradation" of conventional marriage;"
* "higher incidence of certain diseases."
(http://vfm.typepad.com/vermont_freedom_to_marry/files/Arguments_Against_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf)
OH WAIT......those were arguments used against interracial marriage. Does any of these phrases sound familiar?? Good work Sydney, keep up the great, thought provoking posts!
Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during past 50 years.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/article...
Abstract
OBJECTIVE--To investigate whether semen quality has changed during the past 50 years. DESIGN--Review of publications on semen quality in men without a history of infertility selected by means of Cumulated Index Medicus and Current List (1930-1965) and MEDLINE Silver Platter database (1966-August 1991). SUBJECTS--14,947 men included in a total of 61 papers published between 1938 and 1991. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Mean sperm density and mean seminal volume. RESULTS--Linear regression of data weighted by number of men in each study showed a significant decrease in mean sperm count from 113 x 10(6)/ml in 1940 to 66 x 10(6)/ml in 1990 (p < 0.0001) and in seminal volume from 3.40 ml to 2.75 ml (p = 0.027), indicating an even more pronounced decrease in sperm production than expressed by the decline in sperm density. CONCLUSIONS--There has been a genuine decline in semen quality over the past 50 years. As male fertility is to some extent correlated with sperm count the results may reflect an overall reduction in male fertility. The biological significance of these changes is emphasised by a concomitant increase in the incidence of genitourinary abnormalities such as testicular cancer and possibly also cryptorchidism and hypospadias, suggesting a growing impact of factors with serious effects on male gonadal function.
Followed your link and noticed two significant items:
1) The study suggests a decline in sperm quality appears to be related to smoking, which doesn't have anything to do with civil unions at all.
2) One portion of the study says this: "Evidence for decreasing quality of sperm: Presentation of data on sperm concentration was flawed."
Additional gender bending estrogenic chemicals:
http://www.skinbiology.com/toxicsunscree...
A small chart of common estrogenic toxins/intended uses and the subsequent effects:
DDT (Dichloro, diphenyl, trichloroethane) Insecticide, especially for mosquitoes
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and similar chemicals) Chemical by-product during manufacturing of insecticides and plastics
PCBs (Polychlorinated Biphenyls) Insulating oil for electrical transformers
2,4-D Broadleaf weed killer
Diethylstilbestrol (DES) A potent synthetic estrogen
Chemical Sunscreens Blocking ultraviolet rays on human skin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected Effects of Estrogenic Chemicals in Humans In Women Endometriosis
Migrane
Severe PMS
Erratic Periods
Increased Breast and Uterine Cancer
Fibrocystic breast disease
Uterine cysts
In Men Lowered Sperm Counts
Sexual Identity Confusion - Feminization
Breast Enlargement
Smaller then normal ***** size
More testicular cancer
Undescended testicles
Block or reduce fetal imprinting of male behavior pattern in brain
New Evidence That Endocrine Disruptors Block Sperm Function
http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/02-08-05....
Xenoestrogens the cause of Breast Cysts
http://www.nobreastcyst.com/xeno.html
NanaDot, I'm trying to understand all that you are saying. You say "old news" then merge into a 'what have YOU done' discussion.
It's not old news if people have never heard it. You may have known all of this but you presume that everyone else knows? I doubt that.
I'm also confused about this statement,
"Most disinformation watchers tend to want to dig into the mountain and shoot everyone else"
Who is the watcher and where is the disinformation? Who is shooting whom?
Speaking metaphorically, Nana, I think you got lost on the way to the well.. Ha!
What are *YOU* doing to square the world besides lobbying for gay rights? Have you done anything with your twenty year knowledge of all that chemical poisoning? Ever hear about the hepatitis vaccine and AIDS connection in the gay community? Everybody knows, right?
My thoughts on the last few posts--
There are well diggers and there are those who stand on the mountain and sound the trumpet. Both serve their purpose.
It is necessary and often enlightening to have the information spreaders (note I did not say manure spreaders -- ha). Not everyone has a shovel or the ability to "dig".
Aye, I know that. I'm a farmer. :-)
That was my roundabout way of saying everyone has his/her own opinion and way of doing things.
And in case some think I'm calling Third Child's posts "manure", I am not. I think she's hit the bullseye with some of her posts over the past few weeks.
I might be a Democrat but I'm a mighty conservative one.
Unfortunately, no matter how much logic you use against arguments like mrxray puts forward- it's pretty clear s/he is going to believe what they are going to believe.
Sydney this was a very interesting and provocative blog. I appreciate it! I have for quite sometime believed that God created homosexuals for the reason that he did not want everyone in the world procreating. Can you imagine if gay men and lesbians were also bringing more children in the world? (This is just a side thought. :))
Too bad, people like mrxray cling to their beliefs so tightly that they won't consider other arguments/thoughts (although I haven't any idea that mrxray hasn't considered other ideas- but I do strongly doubt that is the case.)
Yes, it's time that gays and lesbians in a committed relationship have the same rights and protection that married couples have. And when I say protection I mean being able to live without the fear that you can't be by your partner's side when they are in the hospital or not having to fear that if your partner does pass away your own estate could be in jeopary (plus the tax issue is a very legitimate argue.) Or the idea that other family members may try and step in when funeral arrangements need to be made and the funeral director will only listen to a biological family member. These are real and serious issues.
It's about time we recognize that people have the right to live equally in America when they don't agree with the values put forth by these fanatic christians like Fred Phelps (who by the way are anything but Christ like).
Nana, Don't you think that lobbying for the State sanction of gay sodomy and then calling it a human rights issue is a bit of a stretch?
It really warps the meaning of words.
"Most disinformation watchers tend to want to dig into the mountain and shoot everyone else"
"I am absolutely convinced AIDS was no accident of nature, but rather a planned experiment for absolutely insane reasons."
- Alan Cantwell Jr., M.D.
http://www.aidsbiowar.com/index.html
Third Child I am trying to follow you and what seems to be your predominant message and thoughts- but it's tough. I have gathered you're a conspiracy theorist. I am interested in your thoughts, and being on point, to Sydney's Gay Wedding Crashers' blog.
Wow! Some of these are certainly interesting responses to a well written blog! Bottom line is there are plenty of haters in this world. Let's leave the judgment to the hereafter! Any time you can find two people who love each other, more power to them. As for "Rev." Phelps, any credibility he had went out the window when he started disrupting the funerals of our fallen war heroes. He gives organized religion a bad name. By the way, I think his "church" consists of less than 20 people, mostly family members. I also know he is one of a handful of people who have been banned from entering England due to his bizarre behavior. Maybe America could revoke his citizenship!
NanaDot: A for effort on your part.
It is funny that because I disagree with your point of view that you have to attempt to belittle be by claiming that I am using religious views as a basis for my opinions.
First off, I have not stated if I am even religious. Second, if I were to be using religion as a basis for my beliefs or opinions, how is that bad? Third, there is just as much science on both sides of marriage/gay issues as there is for global warming. Point being, if you want to attempt to prove something, you can manipulate facts and situations and use them to support anything you want. So any pointing toward scientific studies to support this issue one way or the other is really pointless because the people backing the studies sway the outcomes.
No one has really made any arguement against the nature/biological purpose of a human relationship. Reproduction allows for new generations of the species. Since humans are not asexual, bisexual and are only able to reproduce heterosexually, then there is no natural or biological purpose for homosexuality and cannot do anything to further the species, there for no benefit.
A previous poster stated that gay people make up 2% of the US population. Whatever the exact number is, they are a severe minority. So this brings up the next point, where do we draw the line with deviations from the natural biological purpose of human sexuality? Do we stop with homosexuals? Do we stop with Polygamy, or maybe beastiality and pedophilia? Some people might say that this is not a possibility however do we stop with man-man and woman-woman relationships or do we allow marriages or civil unions between two men and a woman or 4 or more people of various sexes?
According to Mrxray heterosexuals who are barren shouldn't get married either because the entire idea of marriage is about the ability to produce an offspring.
I'd like to comment that the idea that because two people who love each other but cannot produce an offsping of are no benefit- which is what Mrxray believes (his last sentence of his third paragraph in his last comment) is absolutely offensive and preposterous.
Oh and by the way Mrxray- people as close minded as you should be shipped off to an island with the 9/11 terrorist (who are also close minded pigs) and be left to co-habitate together.
I never spoke of marriages. I never spoke of religious or traditional aspect of this issue. I only spoke to the factual, biological aspect. However, while on that topic, "marriages" or relationships between a man and woman that produces children, are the structure of and nurturing device of the "family" unit that should allow for the safe upbringing of those young.
Back to the biological purpose of human relationships.... just as with any problem, genetically, a couple who cannot procreate end their string of the gene pool. That is how nature weeds out the undesirable problems, biologically speaking. If a couple wants children and cannot have them it is sad and I feel bad for them.
As for something being offensive and preposterous, what is and how is it? Please explain why you think that instead of merely attempting to insult me by your last statement. As long as the island is in a warm climate and sandy beaches, I will live there with anyone!
To say that any citizen of the United States is second class and not worthy of the same rights and protections as every one else is just plain wrong!!!!
There are young men and women from this very community that are putting their lives on the line to fight for the rights of others in foreign countries, but yet we are discussing if we should allow legal discrimination????
If we should allow discrimination, in any way shape or form, then who should we discriminate against next??? My vote is for that wacko church in Witchita. Those nutjobs should not have a right to assemble and spread their manure at the funerals of soldiers!!!!!
Reader101 and others. I understand you comment about not discriminating against anyone. However, I again refer to a question that still remains unanswered. If we state that we will allow homosexuality and socially accept that behavior, even though there is no societal or biological benefit, then where do we draw the line? Do we revert back to allowing polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia, or other deviations from the biological norm?
The logic seems to say that all people should have equal rights, no matter their sexual orientation. This is the case even if biology states that there is not social benefit to a homosexual union because they cannot procreate. If our society disallows "marriage" and the equal rights that go along with marriage to man/man and woman/woman unions, then those that support homosexual marriages claims that our society is violating the civil rights of homosexual people.
So if we follow that logic, then the next step is that polygamists will start to use the same logic to claim that they should have equal and same rights within our society. In fact, if you do some research, New Hampshire already has this faction looking into law suits along this line of logic. If we allow homosexuals and polygamist then we will be forced to allow any type of sexual deviant behavior to become socially accepted and equal. Where do we draw the line? The logic of civil rights will have to allow any of these behaviors.
Nana, your point about divorce is valid and a problem. However I was not arguing specifically about polgamy. Merely that if we claim it is a civil rights issue and to disallow gay marriage is a violation of civil rights to those people, then based on that logic we must also allow any other deviation from the biological norm of heterosexual relations for human beings. Based on that logic, we would therefore have to allow polgamy, beastiality, pedophilia and other deviations. As I stated earlier, already in NH there has been the first step to utilize this arguement by polygamist groups.