Well, They Agree on One Thing

By Edward

It's a heartening photograph in these troubling times. At a table, come together Sheik Abed es- Salem Menasra, deputy mufti of Jerusalem; the Rev. Michel Sabbagh, the Latin patriarch; the Rev. Aris Shirvanian, the Armenian patriarch; Rabbi Shlomo Amar, the Sephardic chief rabbi; and Rabbi Yona Metzger, the Ashkenazi chief rabbi.

Or it would be heartening, if what brought them together was to offer some positive message of peace or hope. Instead, what brought them and other religious leaders together was a message of hate:

This is very ugly and very nasty to have these people come to Jerusalem.
---Abdel Aziz Bukhari, a Sufi sheik

They are creating a deep and terrible sorrow that is unbearable.
---Shlomo Amar, Israel's Sephardic chief rabbi

In case you haven't guessed yet, they're talking about gays. That's right, these men of God, who can't see past their own prejudices to come together to stop terrorism or poverty or war, can be united to speak out about a 10-day conference/festival (called WorldPride) to be held in Jerusalem that focuses on tolerance and diversity. Their comments get worse:

We can't permit anybody to come and make the Holy City dirty.
---Abdel Aziz Bukhari, a Sufi sheik

This is not the homo land, this is the Holy Land.
---Rabbi Yehuda Levin

The leaders came together with via a concerted effort by American Evangelical pastor, Rev. Leo Giovinetti, from San Diego:

California Pastor Leo Giovinetti, representing a coalition of U.S. Christian leaders, appeared at a press briefing together with former Tourism Minister Benny Elon and other Knesset members from various political parties.

"Millions of people around the world pray for the peace of Jerusalem and are heart-broken by misguided attempts to divide, inflame and sow disunity," Pastor Giovinetti said.

The organization that hosts WorldPride is indeed making a political statement by having it in Jerusalem, but it's not the message Giovenetti wants folks to believe it is:

Jerusalem WorldPride 2005 will gather people from all over the world to bring a message that is needed throughout the Middle East and beyond: that human rights transcend cultural and ethnic boundaries, that our differences can be respected peacefully, and that love knows no borders. There is no better place in the world than Jerusalem to make that statement, and perhaps no city that needs to hear it more.

And, not all religious leaders in Israel are against the festival:

Organizers of the gay pride event, Jerusalem WorldPride 2005, said that 75 non-Orthodox rabbis had signed a statement of support for the event, and that Christian and Muslim leaders as well as Israeli politicians were expected to announce their support soon. They said they were dismayed to see that what united their opponents was their objection to homosexuality.

"That is something new I've never witnessed before, such an attempt to globalize bigotry," said Hagai El-Ad, the executive director of Jerusalem Open House, a gay and lesbian group that is the host for the festival. "It's quite sad and ironic that these religious figures are coming together around such a negative message."

Personally, I think the choice of Jerusalem is inspired. The folks who look at WorldPride's choice of locations (the last one was held in Rome) and feel such provocation is unseemly or anti-religious could stand to brush up on their Martin Luther King. Just as King used "creative tension" in opening opportunities and promoting equal rights (this is a good overview), WorldPride is hoping to use it to open minds and promote tolerance. Indeed, King famously chose Good Friday "because of its symbolic significance" for a March in Birmingham, knowing that such "direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue." 

The whites who opposed King and his movement had no more moral claim to the symbolism of Good Friday than he did. Likewise, as a gay Christian, I feel I have as much claim to the symbolism of Jerusalem as any other Christian, regardless of their intolerance. Things will only get better when we insist they do. And in many ways, getting better they are:

Annual marches by homosexuals have become routine in Tel Aviv, a secular coastal city. For the past three years, gay parades have also been staged in Jerusalem. Religious groups have complained, but the police have issued permits for the events, which have been held without any serious incidents.

Comments

[wilfred]

As I said earlier today, I pray for the Pope to have a quiet passing because I won't sink down to his level.

[Jay C.]

IIJM, or is there more that just a little irony contained in this statement:

"Millions of people around the world pray for the peace of Jerusalem and are heart-broken by misguided attempts to divide, inflame and sow disunity," Pastor Giovinetti said."?

And, erm... exactly WHO is it that is "sowing disunity" here? Irony? Chutzpa might be a more appropriate term!

[votermom]

Edward, *hugs*.

[Catsy]

As I said earlier today, I pray for the Pope to have a quiet passing because I won't sink down to his level.

I prefer calling a spade a spade. Anyone capable of saying, in all seriousness, that gay marriages are "part of a new ideology of evil that is insidiously threatening society", is a waste of air and biological matter that I won't be sorry to see go.

When you're in a position of such enormous influence, you carry a responsibility to carefully measure your words and actions. Hundreds of millions of people look to you for guidance on how to live their lives. To take that power and use it to promote bigotry and hatred--to call the union of two people in a lifelong commitment to love "evil"--is evil itself.

[wilfred]

One of my fellow posters at Liberal Street Fight agrees with you Catsy:

I’ll never forget watching coverage of the “Holy Father” giving one of his speeches in Africa, in a country wracked by hunger and disease, and this odious relic of the dark ages, bedecked in finery, telling them that salvation required them to not use birth control, and that suffering was redemptive and a gift from God....I hope his God showers that gift on him in abundance...

as i said before, i just don't wish go there although i definitely share your anger.

[McDuff]

and italics off.

[Fitz]

Yikes
Wishing death on your political opponents.
Especially people as revered as Pope John Paul the II.
Jeeeshhhh. Get a grip.
Relax – not everyone shares your morbid “worldview” – get used to it!

[NeoDude]

They missed a church!

Holiness Codes & Holy Homosexuals: Interpreting Gay & Lesbian Christian Subculture

[Jesurgislac]

Fitz: Wishing death on your political opponents.

John Paul II is a man who has done much evil in his tenure as Pope. I wouldn't wish him dead, but I'm hardly sorry to see him go: we can always hope the next Pope will do less evil, and may even change some of the evil policies set and maintained in JPII's tenure.

[Tacitus]

Your "fellow posters at Liberal Street Fight" is a fool, wilfred. Lack of birth control did not cause any nation to be "wracked by hunger and disease," nor will its availability alleviate either problem.

But what do I know? I've only been across that benighted continent a few times....

On the broader question, anyone who thinks the Pope's opposition to homosexual marriage outweighs his role in bringing down Communism or protecting human life via his staunch and consistent opposition to abortion, the death penalty, war, "euthanasia," et al., is guilty of a skewed moral perspective indeed.

[R J Keefe]

The Pope's position on birth control has certainly fueled the ravages of AIDS in Africa - with plenty of help from the US.

The papacy itself is an institution that right-thinking people ought to repudiate. It is time for ecumenical Christianity to throw orthodoxy to the winds - and the Augustines and Jeromes of the church along with it.

[Edward]

This is about the Pope now?

OK.

I have a great deal of admiration for this Pope, although I'm dumbfounded on how he can get it so entirely wrong when it comes to homosexuality. Surely he has gay friends/acquaintances. Doesn't he respect them and wish them well?

[Wilfred]

Jes, as a lapsed Catholic I wish it were going to happen. Sadly, this Pope so packed the college of Cardinals with ultra conservatives that there is zero chance of that happening.

[Jesurgislac]

Edward: Doesn't he respect them and wish them well?

Possibly he thinks he does. But I fear this is the well-known fallacy of "Love the sinner, hate the sin". George W. Bush probably claims to believe that, too.

Tacitus: protecting human life via his staunch and consistent opposition to abortion,

And how many women have died as a result of this "staunch and consistent" opposition? I don't suppose the Pope either knows or cares.

[Jesurgislac]

Wilfred: Sadly, this Pope so packed the college of Cardinals with ultra conservatives that there is zero chance of that happening.

Not zero chance. Unexpected Popes have been elected in the past. I agree with you that there's not much of a chance.

[Wilfred]

Okay ObWi posters: You let Tacitus back on this site after the most egregious posting violations i've ever seen, returning after his banning that day to insult myself and another poster. And in my first dealing with him since he violates posting rules by name calling to my fellow LSF poster.

Enough. At what point is anyone here supposed to take your posting rules seriously? What a joke. Obviously his mea culpas were worthless, the proof is above.

[Wilfred]

is this about the Pope now?

I thought it was ok to bring in the Pope because of the section of your NY Times Link:

One day later, however, Pope John Paul II appeared on a balcony over St. Peter's Square and delivered a message expressing his "bitterness" that the gay festival had gone forward, calling it an "offense to the Christian values of a city that is so dear to the hearts of Catholics across the world."

[Frank]

Wilfred-

Come on! You don't seriously expect Republicans to frequent a site where they would be held to a standard of civil behavior?

You would do away with Obsidian Wings if you did that.

[Jesurgislac]

Wilfred: Suggest you e-mail the kitten whenever you think Tacitus has broken the posting rules, not start a metafight on whatever thread it happens on.

Frank: Suggest you not break the posting rules yourself. There's no reason to associate all Republicans with Tacitus.

*pause*

Me: Suggest I stay out of it.

[Fitz]

Yes, the current Pope selects the cardinals that choose his successor. However, one reason you can’t expect established church doctrine (on any matter and certainly not the sexual ethic) to change is that the Catholic Church is a global Church. Most of its outstanding growth is in Africa, South America, Asia, ect. What they call the “global south” made up of what they call “traditional societies”

“Pope will do less evil, and may even change some of the evil policies set and maintained in JPII's tenure”.
There not “policies” (much less evil ones) and their rooted in scripture tradition and reason. This is doctrine and it cannot be changed even by the Pope (any Pope) when it is rooted in scripture and natural law.

Oh – the Catholic Church is not against birth control, it is opposed to Artificial birth control.

And why no discussion of the other 6 or so faiths represented at this conference who also hold the same line on the permissibility of homosexual sex?
Is it not religion in general that sets itself against the current culturkamph?

[Francis]

Odd. On Talk of the Nation last night I heard Jeffrey Sachs talking about the causes of extreme poverty, and specifically in Africa.

Sachs mentioned that the lack of reliable health care led families to have as many children as possible, so that some would survive to adulthood. One fix is to reduce child mortality and concurrently provide family planning services. Birth rates plummet, freeing up the women to engage in economically useful activities, like making textiles, instead of being pregnant all their lives.

Oh, and young women then have time to get educated instead of taking care of their dying siblings, empowering them to be able to require that their partners use condoms thereby reducing AIDs.

Hmm, Tacitus oversimplifying things and being rude at the same time? Couldn't happen here.

[Wilfred]

Jes, backchanneling is not my thing. I'd prefer this all out in the open and not played out in the backroom. I thought all this blogging was for more tansparency and less old style politics that both sides claim to despise.

[Paul]

Much as might I disagree with him on many issues, I have a lot of respect for the Pope as well as for Christianity's contributions to world culture over the centuries. I'd dearly like to take an enlightened "live and let live" attitude toward religion. Hijinks like these, however, have me muttering "écrasez l’infâme" under my breath.

This part of the story, at least, is heartening:

"Organizers of the gay pride event, Jerusalem WorldPride 2005, said that 75 non-Orthodox rabbis had signed a statement of support for the event, and that Christian and Muslim leaders as well as Israeli politicians were expected to announce their support soon."

Meanwhile in my state, the legislature is discussing a constitutional amemdment banning Gay marriages. The money graf says:

"If the Senate approves the measure, S.C. voters would decide whether to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The amendment also would prohibit South Carolina from recognizing same-sex marriages approved in other states. S.C. law already bans gay marriage."

We're not just in the business of denying marriage to gays, in other words, we're gonna make sure none of those married out-of-state gays try to come here, either.

What amazing new levels of pettiness.

[IF]

Honestly, after looking at the picture, I assumed the one thing they agreed on was the importance of absurd head coverings.

This sort of thing always reminds me of the limits of empathy. I can only wonder, as flip as it might sound, "So what's that like? Being the sort-of person against whom divided groups can unify in hatred? What's that like?" Kind-of how there is a little part of me that is dismissive of claims of subtle racism, as I am too well placed in God's Crayon Box to have to experience -- much less worry about -- that sort of thing.

This gives me a barely perceptible sinking feeling.

I sort of wish I was right about the hat thing. We'd all be a little better off.

[Fitz]

Its not the PEOPLE who are being baned Paul.
Its the recognition of their marriages in S.C.

[kenB]

I'd prefer this all out in the open and not played out in the backroom.

That's as may be, but the owners of this establishment have requested that we not do our own finger-pointing (except for comments such as Jes's, directed at members of our own 'team' and intended to head off a fight).

[Jesurgislac]

IF: "So what's that like? Being the sort-of person against whom divided groups can unify in hatred? What's that like?"

It's kind of scary and kind of weird. I mean, these people don't even know me - why would they hate me? (I can totally understand someone hating me once they get to know me *grin*, but just deciding sight unseen that I'm "very ugly and very nasty", that I make cities "dirty"... it's almost too weird to be scary.

It becomes scarier than weird when people like that have real power over me. Fortunately, this bunch of People In Silly Hats don't.

[Wilfred]

Obviously Fitz no one is attempting to invalidate or prohibit your relationship. How lovely of you to attempt to validate the attacks on others.

[Slartibartfast]

to insult myself and another poster.

Odd, it seemed that he only insulted someone who, so far, hasn't appeared here. Maybe you could be more specific in your accusation?

[Fitz]

Prohibit a relationship" - well no
invalidate - well yes-sorta

If not extending marital rights to same sex couple is a invalidating them a married - then YES, myself (and many more) oppose such measures

Remember! If your against two brothers getting married, it doesn’t make you against brotherhood -It makes you for marriage!

[Tacitus]

Edward, the Pope may indeed. I do. It doesn't follow that either of us agree with your preferred position on particular issues.

wilfred, one assumes the posting rules don't protect your absent internet friends from calumny. In any case, on a thread where someone I like and respect -- the Pope, natch -- is being slandered, I find your griping risible. Don't run behind the teacher.

The Pope's position on birth control has certainly fueled the ravages of AIDS in Africa - with plenty of help from the US.

Ignorant nonsense on two major counts:

First, there is simply no meaningful data suggesting that Catholic opposition to birth control has been a major factor in the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. There is anecdotal evidence that some men have used it as an excuse to eschew condoms, but no epidemiological data has established this as a significant factor in its spread. There is, let us add, meaningful data that a major component of the Church's advocacy on sexual morality -- namely, abstinence -- is effective when advanced in the much-ballyhooed "ABC" public health combination.

Second, the suggestion that the United States has done anything but help alleviate the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa is profoundly wrong. While there is ample reason to critique various aspects of our HIV/AIDS policy there (even I am reexamining my opposition to some generics), this does not obscure the fact that the United States is the single most generous anti-AIDS entity in the world -- ever. For which you may thank George W. Bush. Not that most here will.

It is time for ecumenical Christianity to throw orthodoxy to the winds....

One might even think that a prerequisite of ecumenical Christianity.

And how many women have died as a result of this "staunch and consistent" opposition? I don't suppose the Pope either knows or cares.

Jesurgislac is welcome to provide the data he coyly hints at -- as well as the secret behind reading Karol Wotyla's mind.

Francis has listened to a single radio program with a single subject-matter expert and drawn some rather sweeping conclusions. I've been to the continent in question three times and work in public health. No disrespect to Dr Sachs, but I feel free in saying that his dumbed-down model (hint: most parents don't determine their childbearing according to calculations of child mortality) is neither the whole story nor the last word.

[Slartibartfast]

Jes is female, Tac. Not that it's relevant, but irrelevance is my specialty.

[Tacitus]

Thanks, Slarti. In that case, my best wishes that the Pope does not kill her.

[Fitz]

At this point the most enduring intellectual gratification I have received in reading this Blog/comments – is the link to Tacitus Blog

[Wilfred]

Tacitus, if you had read the above discussion with Jes and Ken you would know running to the teacher was precisely what I wasn't doing but name calling is exactly what you were doing so don't obfuscate. You can't be Harry when you're actions are Draco.

[lily]

I'm sorry, but there is simply no way to deny the problem of overpopulation, and there is no way to deny that lack of birth control contributes to overpopulation. Of course it is not ALL the Pope's fault. The responisbiity rests with everyone who interferes with the spread of contraceptive information to anyone who wants or needs the information.

[Slartibartfast]

So, Wilfred, you've made a charge, and I've invited you to support it. Got anything more detailed?

[Tacitus]

You can't be Harry when you're actions are Draco.

Huh. Figures.

I'm sorry, but there is simply no way to deny the problem of overpopulation....

It's actually quite easy to deny it. The problem in Africa is not "overpopulation" -- places like Zimbabwe and Ethiopia which suffer chronic famine do so because of misgovernance, not because of too many people on the land. Paging Sen.

[Paul]

Its not the PEOPLE who are being baned ...
Its the recognition of their marriages

Perhaps. But since I can't imagine any already married gay man or woman sacrificing their marriage for the delights of my state--trust me--it's the next best thing to banning them outright. Since this state already complains of having trouble attracting high-paying industries maybe it's not in our interest (besides the pettiness) to unnecessarily exclude anyone. But perhaps you, like our legislators, think that keeping TEH GAYS out of the treehouse is worth the cost. "Too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum," as James Petigru once said of my state.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Personally I'm not going to condemn Tacitus for noting foolishness, and especially not at the request of a person whose apparent idea of reasoned communication is to start the comments by praying for the Pope's death in response to a post which so far as I can tell is principally aimed at Muslim and Jewish leaders.

[Fitz]

Lilly, there are any number of ways to deny the problem of overpopulation. The birth rates in the west are actually below replacement levels. As the birthrates of the third worl are declining. (as their economies and overall health increase, women have less children
Most of the Scholarship bemoaning a population Bomb was done in the early 1970's and was debunked by reality. Modern day demographers talk about the population dearth.

As far as artificial birth control goes, it severs the link between sex and procreation and creates an overall moral atmosphere of wanton sexuality. (as it has done here in the U.S.)
This creates a myriad of social problems as well as doing nothing to bring down overall birth rates.

[Edward]

I thought it was ok to bring in the Pope because of the section of your NY Times Link:

It is perfectly OK wilfred. I was using that observation solely as transition.

I too thought about commenting on the headgear in the photo, but decided their rhetoric was infinitely more silly.

Edward, the Pope may indeed. I do. It doesn't follow that either of us agree with your preferred position on particular issues.

Disagreeing is certainly something friends/good acquaintances can do and expect to keep their relationship intact. Calling someone "evil" is not.

Its not the PEOPLE who are being baned Paul.
Its the recognition of their marriages in S.C.

That is a distinction without a difference, Fitz.

At this point the most enduring intellectual gratification I have received in reading this Blog/comments – is the link to Tacitus Blog.

Tacitus is a great blog. I enjoy it myself. I encourage you to spend time there. I suspect you'll learn a great deal. When you do, please come back and reassess what you're reading here. I suspect you'll be surprised at what you don't currently understand. Just sayin...

Huh. Figures.

Cultural elitism! Impressive. You might make a good liberal yet, Tac. ;p

[felixrayman]

as their economies and overall health increase, women have less children

How exactly do they accompish that? By having sex less often or some other way?

[Fitz]

Paul. First off a gay couple (if the legislature passes that bill- and it will) will sacrifice the legal rights of marriage if they move to S.C. If this is enough to mean that they also will sacrifice their relationship seems spurious.
Secondly- your State is not “unnecessarily” excluding anyone – what they are doing is preserving the traditional definition of marriage (and therefore the institution itself)
Thirdly – the only state in the union that presently permits gay “marriage” is Massachusetts. (Something unlikely to stand – I predict)
Finally – If all that can be said in opposition to this bill, is that industries will have a hard time attracting business, well hell, that’s totally lame.
Think of the myriad of states that also have such amendments currently – and all those states that have simple laws.

I love the Carolinas . – I vacation in Hilton Head and Charleston is supposed to be a booming area. I thought the economy was excellent down there.

[Tacitus]

Calling someone "evil" is not.

Though I understand you disagree, I strongly suspect that the Pope differentiates between condemning an act or institution, and condemning a person.

[Edward]

Fitz,

I guarantee you, if the Massachusetts law does not stand, your idyllic picture of things will be very rudely shaken.

[Jesurgislac]

Sebastian: a person whose apparent idea of reasoned communication is to start the comments by praying for the Pope's death

Be fair. Praying for someone who is dying to have a quiet passing is rather different from praying for their death. (I think it was rather a threadjack too, but let's not accuse Wilfred of something he didn't actually do.)

I actually think the Pope's opposition to same-sex marriage, though it may affect me more directly, is less evil than his opposition to the use of condoms for prevention of disease, and his opposition to safe legal abortion. So far, his opposition to same-sex marriage hasn't killed anyone.

Illegal abortions are a major cause of death among mothers in many countries in Latin America, an international conference on the subject has been told. cite

Official Roman Catholic teaching, as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is silent on the use of condoms against HIV/AIDS. However, Roman Catholic teaching opposes the use of condoms for artificial birth control, and many bishops’ conferences, Vatican officials, and theologians have interpreted this as an all-out ban on condom use for any purpose. Catholic leaders have repeatedly made public statements discouraging condom promotion. On World AIDS day in 2003, Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, president of the Pontifical Council for Health and Pastoral Care, stressed the importance of programs that focus on abstinence and fidelity.38 In addition, the Holy See has taken advantage of the unique level of access afforded by its non-member permanent observer status at the United Nations to lobby for the exclusion of references to condoms in U.N. policy documents. cite

Opposing safe legal abortions kills women. Opposing use of condoms to protect against the HIV virus kills men, women, and children. The current Pope has done both. I see no reason to celebrate such a life.

[Paul]

I love the Carolinas

<PeeWee>Well, then why don't you marry them!</PeeWee>

[Jesurgislac]

Felixrayman: How exactly do they accompish that? By having sex less often or some other way?

The more educated a woman is, the fewer children she is likely to have. This is a rule of thumb in developing countries as well as in richer ones. Usually, this means she's more likely to have access to contraception and/or safe legal abortion - and less likely to be forced not to use it. It's partly a matter of economic independence, but not wholly. (This is a summary of an essay I read on this matter when working at Oxfam, years ago. Sorry no cite.)

[Fitz]

Edward
Why it’s a huge difference (as big a difference as it comes)
If the PEOPLE are being banned than they would not be let into the state, or rounded up, arrested.. exedra
Whereas not recognizing same-sex marriages is simply not recognizing same-sex marriages.
(Im making a comment on the over inflated hyper bowl on the left that always seeks to paint defense of traditional marriage norms/laws as some kind of insidious plot to dehumanize gays – a tactic Paul is wont to use)

as their economies and overall health increase, women have less children
How exactly do they accompish that? By having sex less often or some other way?
Felixrayman
As someone stated above- women have children more often if the economy is poor – (kinda a social security measure)
Barring artificial birth control – less children are produced by: yes, less sex overall and less sex during periods of peek ovulation. (a few days a month)
This natural process is something women in the third world are acutely aware of as an inexpensive, unobtrusive, and always obtainable way to both have more or less children (i.e. – control the # of births)

[Jay C]

Thanks, Fitz, for your cogent observation that

"As far as artificial birth control goes, it severs the link between sex and procreation and creates an overall moral atmosphere of wanton sexuality. (as it has done here in the U.S.)"

So then, presumably the only thing we need do to "improve" the "moral atmosphere" in the nation is to, what? Ban all "artificial" birth control? Why stop there? Maybe we should criminalize non-marital sexual activity? Stigmatize bastardy, like in the "good old days" (maybe a red "B" tattooed on their foreheads might be useful)? - or maybe, enact draconian
laws to violently punish sexual "transgressors" (public executions might be cool: worked like a charm for the Taliban)?

"This creates a myriad of social problems as well as doing nothing to bring down overall birth rates."

Unless I am wildly mistaken, the overall US birth rate is just 2.1 per couple (just barely over replacement), which figure is skewed (in the US) by the presence of a large percentage of high-birthrate immigrant families in the social mix (and how many couples do YOU know who have three or more kids?) - the "natural" US birthrate is, today, just at "replacement" levels (still higher than most European countries, though).

[Katherine]

"Thirdly – the only state in the union that presently permits gay “marriage” is Massachusetts. (Something unlikely to stand – I predict)"

I predict you're wrong. And I've lived here for five years.

I predict our divorce rate will stay much, much lower than South Carolina's too. I predict that New York will join us in offering gay marriage sometime during Eliot Spitzer's governorship.

"severs the link between sex and procreation and creates an overall moral atmosphere of wanton sexuality"

I don't know exactly what an overall atmosphere of "moral atmosphere of wanton sexuality" is, but if it involves infidelity I know many, many, many couples that seem to be miraculously immune from this.

For opponents of gay marriage and of anti-discrimination laws, I have a question. The Board of Immigration Appeals has held, starting in United States v. Tobo-Alfonso, that a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of sexual orientation is grounds for asylum. In order to reach this result, they had to find, and did find, that sexual orientation was an immutable characteristic--a characteristic that either cannot be changed, or is so fundamental to the identity that one should not be required to change it.

Were they wrong?

[felixrayman]

less children are produced by: yes, less sex overall and less sex during periods of peek ovulation

Let's see, so we are relying on the rhythm method. You know what you call people who do that? Parents.

The real world answer is that as societies grow wealthier, women are able to restrict the number of children they have through birth control and abortion. Neither the pope nor fundamentalists be they Muslim or Christian may like it, but that's the way it goes.

As far as artificial birth control goes, it severs the link between sex and procreation and creates an overall moral atmosphere of wanton sexuality

I hear that women past childbearing years have sex also. Isn't that wicked?

[Tacitus]

Opposing safe legal abortions kills women.

As evidence for which you cite....a pro-abortion advocacy group of "Catholics." Convincing, that. Got a meaningful source? And on a broader scope, if I oppose act X, does it reasonably follow that the effect of my opposition upon the quality of act X is my moral responsibility? For example, are those who criminalize drugs morally responsible for deaths from drug use? Are those who make handguns illegal morally responsible for the deaths of the resultant defenseless citizens? I would say the thread of responsibility in both cases is thin indeed. (Neither of these, by the bye, are positions I hold.) Furthermore, you predictably fail to note that the Catholic Church typically does a great deal to provide abortion alternatives and reduce the demand for abortion, including foster care, prenatal care, adoption services, and various forms of pro-family advocacy (which, in the Church's view, includes promotion of a mild socialism you ought to approve of). When I was in government, my Combined Federal Campaign donation went to the Arlington, VA, diocese's program to provide single mothers who might otherwise choose abortion with basic care and support. These things -- directly reflective of the Pope's views -- radically alter your own hate-filled assessment of the man.

Your assessment of this issue is sadly simplistic -- and hence mostly wrong.

Opposing use of condoms to protect against the HIV virus kills men, women, and children.

Again, you have no data. None.

[Edward]

(Im making a comment on the over inflated hyper bowl on the left that always seeks to paint defense of traditional marriage norms/laws as some kind of insidious plot to dehumanize gays – a tactic Paul is wont to use)

What you're doing, to be extremely clear about it, in putting quotes around "marriage" (and hence dismissing it as it's currently defined in the state of Massachusetts) is insulting the people who have been LEGALLY married under that law. As a gay man, I find that beyond offensive. Consider someone putting your "marriage" in quotes for a moment and you'll understand why.

Katherine is right, though, all indications are that it will stand and New York will join Mass.

[Edward]

Opposing use of condoms to protect against the HIV virus kills men, women, and children.

Again, you have no data. None.

Is there data to the contrary? That opposing use of condoms lowers the spread of AIDS?

[Fitz]

Katharine-
I predict you're wrong. And I've lived here for five years.
I predict that New York will join us in offering gay marriage sometime during Eliot Spitzer's governorship.

How exactly (legally speaking) will N.Y. “join you in offering" gay marriage under whoever is Governor.

And how do you see the judicially imposed same sex marriage remaining the law of the land in Massachusetts. If it was such a great idea, why did you not vote on it yourself through your legislature?

Im serious- how do you see it playing out?

""United States v. Tobo-Alfonso, that a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of sexual orientation is grounds for asylum. In order to reach this result, they had to find, and did find, that sexual orientation was an immutable characteristic--a characteristic that either cannot be changed, or is so fundamental to the identity that one should not be required to change it.""

Yes I am against such a determination (initially – although I am not versed in the case law)
Why? Because I am not convinced that homosexuality is “immutable”.
There is no societal or scientific consensus on this being the case.
A fact denoted by you, (and/or the court) when you stated-----
""a characteristic that either cannot be changed, or is so fundamental to the identity that one should not be required to change it.""

Thanks

[hilzoy]

"the over inflated hyper bowl on the left"

Cool! Like the Super Bowl, only more so, I assume.

[Tacitus]

The real world answer is that as societies grow wealthier, women are able to restrict the number of children they have through birth control and abortion.

Er, no. The real real world answer is that women primarily restrict the number of children they have through birth control and economic empowerment. (If the latter needs explanation, suffice it to say that a woman who is not materially beholden to a man has far more bargaining power when it comes to her sexual relations.) Abortion is a factor, yes, but not nearly the factor that those two are.

[Jesurgislac]

Okay, backing off from a barney with Tacitus out of respect for ObWing:

Edward: Katherine is right, though, all indications are that it will stand and New York will join Mass.

*nods* The trend in Western Europe and North America is culturally very much towards same-sex marriage: I was sorting through some library books not long ago at work, and observed to a colleague that it was interesting that a book on international same-sex marriage/civil partnership legislation, published only five years ago, was already significantly out-of-date.

It's a snowball effect. The more countries make the legislative change, the more countries see that there is no reason not to make the legislative change. The difficulty with the US is the political power of the religious right, which got the so-called "Defense of Marriage" legislation into federal law, and which is encouraging the spread of so many anti-gay initiatives in state law.

It's really a question of how long it will take the US to realize that it must repeal this generation's equivalent of Prohibition. I suppose if anyone could persuade the Mafia to get involved in promoting gay marriage, this might speed it along.... ;-)

[sidereal]

To which I would add: conscious control of number of children is a fine and dandy thing, but it is not an absolute good. It must be balanced against the cost, which is -- in this case -- killing.

"This is not the homo land, this is the Holy Land."

What a jackass.

[Slartibartfast]

periods of peek ovulation

I think for the first time in my life, I'm actually afraid to ask.

[Slartibartfast]

Whatever a "barney" is, Jesurgislac, don't let consideration for me get in your way.

[Fitz]

Edward
You should not be so over-emotional; you know perfectly well that this forced debate has only begun.
The only people to decisively weigh in on the issue thus far are:
1. - 5 judges from Mass.
2 - The Mass. Legislature – In the first step of an amendment process.
3 - a boot load of the American people through their respective legislatures.

Which means we are still waiting on the Federal District Court, The Supreme Court of the U.S. and the will of the American people (as expressed through the U.S. Congress)

By putting marriage in quotes I am not trying to offend – I actually find it offensive when I see the word gay & marriage linked like that. It is an affront to marriages all over the world and an obvious and open attempt to change the well established definition of a word. {I consider this to be deeply subversive of a crucially important – they MOST important social institution of civilization}

[double-plus-ungood]

Whatever a "barney" is, Jesurgislac, don't let consideration for me get in your way.

A barney is a disagreement or argument, Slarti. Learn English already :-)

[nous_athanatos]

Fitz- Why? Because I am not convinced that homosexuality is “immutable”.
There is no societal or scientific consensus on this being the case.
A fact denoted by you, (and/or the court) when you stated-----
""a characteristic that either cannot be changed, or is so fundamental to the identity that one should not be required to change it.""

That was an either/or statement. Even if we grant that no consensus exists, are you then disagreeing with the assertion that it is 'so fundamental to the identity' as well? Or are you simply stating that socially constructed identities do not matter?

[Jesurgislac]

slarti: don't let consideration for me get in your way.

Never! ;-)

[Macallan]

A barney is a disagreement or argument

That would explain why I find that purple dinosaur so disagreeable…

[NeoDude]

Tacitus is "married"?

Wilfred is a man?

[hilzoy]

and now a "boot load"...

[Katherine]

"A fact denoted by you, (and/or the court) when you stated-----
""a characteristic that either cannot be changed, or is so fundamental to the identity that one should not be required to change it.""

No, that wasn't written for this case. It's actually originally more about religion and political opinion than sexual orientation.

I am quite convinced that sexual orientation is immutable, and I think you are quite wrong about scientific consensus. (There's not a pseudoscientic consensus but what else is new. Note that genetic and immutable are not synonomous.) Sexual & romantic behavior is not immutable, but as I've said about 500 times, the person you spend your life with is as fundamental to your identity as the God you pray to. In my case, and for many people I know, it is more fundamental.

But Fitz is honest and consistent: if a society wants to murder, torture, rape or imprison someone for being gay--and yes, this happens, every day it happens--our asylum laws offer that person no refuge.

I'm curious as to whether some others can stomach that.

I've gotta go now, but I'm ending with two Thomas Jefferson quotes:

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

I am well aware that Jefferson didn't apply this good sense to sexual orientation, that he favored castration and mutilation as punishments for sodomy. But that's Jefferson for you--the slaveowning author of the Declaration of Independence. As I've also said about 500 times, I prefer to keep to his ideals and not his many failures to live up to them.

[Tacitus]

Deploy the smokescreen.

Okay, backing off from a barney with Tacitus out of respect for ObWing....

Eh. Surely you can defend your arguments, such as they are, and continue to respect ObWi. Do try.

[Edward]

Yes I am against such a determination (initially – although I am not versed in the case law)
Why? Because I am not convinced that homosexuality is “immutable”.

Fitz,

Some context for your comments.

My partner is in the US on just such a determination. His saftey, indeed, his life, is infinitely more important than your opinion on the matter to me AND, fortunately, to the US State Department.

It is an affront to marriages all over the world and an obvious and open attempt to change the well established definition of a word.

No more than the Emancipation Proclamation was an attempt to change the established definition of the word "all" (as in "All men are created equal).

[Jesurgislac]

Fitz: It is an affront to marriages all over the world

See marriage legislation in the state of Massachusetts, Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada, and upcoming legislation in Spain. It cannot be an affront to marriage where it is marriage, after all. ;-)

and an obvious and open attempt to change the well established definition of a word

Believe it or not, I don't think changing the dictionary definition is what motivates most people who want to get married and can't. In any case, the dictionary definition has already been changed.

[Fitz]

nous_athanatos |

I’m not prepared to concede either That
#1: its immutable (assuming biological determination)
or #2. Its fundamental to identity
Some may make it #2, but either way- its bad immigration law and worse federal precedent
(and therefore should not stand)

[Jesurgislac]

Tacitus: Surely you can defend your arguments, such as they are, and continue to respect ObWi.

Oh, I can. But I'm not sure that I can get into an argument with you and both of us remain as civil as the posting rules require. I'll leave your arguments, such as they are, to be shredded by others, not by me.

[Katherine]

"By putting marriage in quotes I am not trying to offend – I actually find it offensive when I see the word gay & marriage linked like that. It is an affront to marriages all over the world and an obvious and open attempt to change the well established definition of a word"

And I find I consider it an affront to my marriage to have it used by cynical politicians and their supporters to attack my friends. If you think gay marriage insults or threatens your marriage, fine--I can't imagine why or how, but fine. But please leave mine out of it.

[double-plus-ungood]

I’m not prepared to concede either That
#1: its immutable (assuming biological determination)
or #2. Its fundamental to identity

Hmm. I assume, then, that you carefully considered the pros and cons of being homosexual before selecting your current sexual orientation? Or that you would be same person if you had chosen differently?

[Fitz]

Jesurgislac

In Mass. and Canada - it is not legislation but imposed by the courts.

In the Netherlands Belgium and Spain- It is not marriage but differing forms of civil unions (albeit adopted legitimately through the legislature)

The effects of those unions on the overall health of traditional marriage is also starting to show up.

[Edward]

The effects of those unions on the overall health of traditional marriage is also starting to show up.

cite?

[Fitz]

If you desire to know more about why marriage law has maintained its traditional meaning within the law- and its practical effects, well do your own research
but here is some help
The Rutgers University (the marriage project)
Scholars like Barbara Defoe Whitehead , Maggie Gallagher, Thomas Sowell and Midge Decker. Excellent work has been done by Stanley Kurtz on the devastating effects civil unions have had on Scandinavia in particular and the Netherlands in general. (along with regional support by local sociologists)
Philosophers like Roger Scruton and Michael Levin have defended traditional sexual morality in terms of a quasi-Kantian ethics and evolutionary psychology, respectively, rather than by appeal to any religious tradition or authority. (if that’s not your bag)
The effects of Divorce, Cohabitation, illegitimacy – are as close as next door, or even better, any American inner city.

However most of you seem either ignorant or obtuse (willfully ignorant) as to traditionalists arguments concerning family formation. So I offer this brief synopsis-

“”campaign by secular elites for homosexual marriage, traditional marriage is demeaned and comes to be perceived as just one more sexual arrangement among others. The symbolic link between marriage, procreation, and family is broken, and there is a rapid and persistent decline in heterosexual marriages. Families are begun by cohabiting couples, who break up significantly more often than married couples, leaving children in one-parent families. The evidence has long been clear that children raised in such families are much more likely to engage in crime, use drugs, and form unstable relationships of their own. These are pathologies that affect everyone in a community.
Homosexual marriage would prove harmful to individuals in other ways as well. By equating heterosexuality and homosexuality, by removing the last vestiges of moral stigma from same-sex couplings, such marriages will lead to an increase in the number of homosexuals. Particularly vulnerable will be young men and women who, as yet uncertain of and confused by their sexuality, may more easily be led into a homosexual life. Despite their use of the word “gay,” for many homosexuals life is anything but gay. Both physical and psychological disorders are far more prevalent among homosexual men than among heterosexual men. Attempted suicide rates, even in countries that are homosexual-friendly, are three to four times as high for homosexuals. Though it is frequently asserted by activists that high levels of internal distress in homosexual populations are caused by social disapproval, psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover has shown that no studies support this theory. Compassion, if nothing else, should urge us to avoid the consequences of making homosexuality seem a normal and acceptable choice for the young.
There is, finally, very real uncertainty about the forms of sexual arrangements that will follow from homosexual marriage. To quote William Bennett: “Say what they will, there are no principled grounds on which advocates of same-sex marriage can oppose the marriage of two consenting brothers. Nor can they (persuasively) explain why we ought to deny a marriage license to three men who want to marry. Or to a man who wants a consensual polygamous arrangement. Or to a father to his adult daughter.” Many consider such hypotheticals ridiculous, claiming that no one would want to be in a group marriage. The fact is that some people do, and they are urging that it be accepted. There is a movement for polyamory—sexual arrangements, including marriage, among three or more persons. The outlandishness of such notions is no guarantee that they will not become serious possibilities or actualities in the not-too-distant future. Ten years ago, the idea of a marriage between two men seemed preposterous, not something we needed to concern ourselves with. With same-sex marriage a line is being crossed, and no other line to separate moral and immoral consensual sex will hold. “”

[Tacitus]

Oh, I can.

Indeed, certainly! Do it.

But I'm not sure that I can get into an argument with you and both of us remain as civil as the posting rules require.

I believe in you. I think you can.

I'll leave your arguments, such as they are, to be shredded by others, not by me.

We both know that's not going to happen, ma'am. Take the lonely lead for truth, here.

[Macallan]

The effects of those unions on the overall health of traditional marriage is also starting to show up.

cite?

My wife has been pretty cranky lately, and we all know I'm so gosh darn sweet and charming it just can't be me...

[double-plus-ungood]

Goodness gracious, Fitz. Well, that certainly explains why here in Canada we're being rounded up by the authorities and forced into polygamous marriages with sheep and furniture. I'd noticed the collapse of the family some time ago and the accompanying riots in the streets, but hadn't connected the dots. It probably all started with Trudeau, who said "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." That certainly lead to tolerance of all kinds of bedroom hanky-panky.

I suggest that you outlaw divorce as well as preventing same-gender marriages. Slippery slope, my friends.

[hc]

Fitz, forgive me for saying so, but the stuff you posted is some of the most ridiculous crap I've ever seen.

It's compassionate in in a wholly Christian way to condemn gay relationships so that we don't afflict our children with the scourge of homosexuality? I seem to remember something about a mote and a plank I read somewhere...oh yeah, those were Jesus's words!

Approving of gay marriage might lead to more homosexuality? Egads! What on earth will we do then? I hope your basement is stocked with 55-gallon drums of water and canned food in preparation...

I also love the way that ployamory and gay marriage are conflated. Not to mention the way that all the ills caused by one-parent families and sinful cohabitation are obliquely attached to gay marriage as well. Who writes this stuff? Can you provide a link so I can go read it when I'm in need of a high-quality guffaw?

Seriously, if you want to hold your beliefs, go right ahead. But if you want to have a frank discussion about them, please find bases for them that aren't completely ridiculous.

[Paul]

Despite their use of the word “gay,” for many homosexuals life is anything but gay.

I'd like to just state for the record that I campaigned for the word "blithe."

[Tacitus]

Now, to mount a (partial) defense of Fitz, here, the contention that private morality is a matter of public interest is hardly novel or indefensible. To take a cue from double-plus-ungood, the liberalization of divorce laws (particularly in the form of no-fault divorce, which yes, I know Reagan helped pioneer) has had a demonstrably corrosive effect upon society which are only becoming clear a generation on.

[carpeicthus]

Fitz, those aren't scholars, they are hacks. Look up what Maggie Gallagher's been up to lately, for starters.

[Edward]

Fitz,

You're delightfully anachronistic, whether you realize it or not, but if, as you say, the debate has just begun, you're not doing your side any favors with this nonsense.

If you desire to know more about why marriage law has maintained its traditional meaning within the law- and its practical effects, well do your own research

I cite my arguments dude. It's considered both a courtesy and a path toward credibilty.

By the way, the Scandanavian reports (watch closely...this is how one cites something) have been explained here, by Republicans, no less, who note that "Some FMA supporters have distorted and misinterpreted statistics from Scandinavia in an attempt to bolster their position.":

"There is no evidence that giving partnership rights to same-sex couples had any impact on heterosexual marriage in Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands. Marriage rates, divorce rates, and non-marital birth rates have been changing in Scandinavia, Europe and the United States for the past thirty years. But those changes have occurred in all countries, regardless of whether or not they adopted same-sex partnership laws, and these trends were underway well before the passage of laws that gave same-sex couples rights."

"Divorce rates (in Scandinavia) have not risen since the passage of partnership laws and marriage rates have remained stable or actually increased."

"Non-marital birth rates have not risen faster in Scandinavia or the Netherlands since the passage of partnership laws. Although there has been a long-term trend toward the separation of sex, reproduction, and marriage in the industrialized west, this trend is unrelated to the legal recognition of same-sex couples."

"Non-marital birth rates changed just as much in countries without partnership laws as in countries that legally recognize same-sex couples' partnerships."

"The legal and cultural context in the United States gives many more incentives for heterosexual couples to marry than in Europe and those incentives will still exist even if same-sex couples can marry. Giving same-sex couples marriage or marriage-like rights has not undermined heterosexual marriage in Europe, and it is not likely to do so in the United States."

[Larv]

Fitz,

Remember! If your against two brothers getting married, it doesn’t make you against brotherhood -It makes you for marriage!

Umm, how do you figure? It seems to me that makes you against marriage for brothers, which is a form of "against marriage". How do you get from that to "for marriage"? I'm always confused by the opponents of gay marriage who insist that they're protecting marriage. This seems to presume some sort of threat to marriage is posed by allowing homosexuals to marry. What is the nature of this threat? Is marriage like an exclusive country club, and once they allow the riff-raff in there's no point in belonging anymore?

[double-plus-ungood]

...the liberalization of divorce laws (particularly in the form of no-fault divorce, which yes, I know Reagan helped pioneer) has had a demonstrably corrosive effect upon society which are only becoming clear a generation on.

Yes, there's nothing quite as beneficial to society as forcing dysfunctional couples to live together. What could be healthier? They may hate each other, but surely the children would benefit. After all, even a miserable marriage could be a good example of what to avoid.

[hc]

Tac, a cite, please, on all the evidence of the corrosive effects of no-fault divorce...

[Phil]

There is, let us add, meaningful data that a major component of the Church's advocacy on sexual morality -- namely, abstinence -- is effective when advanced in the much-ballyhooed "ABC" public health combination.

I thought I had seen recently that, within the context of the much-ballyhooed "ABC" public health combination, that the real data reflected that most people were avoiding the "A" while eagerly embracing "B" and "C." Did I imagine that, or did anyone else see it, or am I misremembering . . .? (Or some combination thereof?)

I actually find it offensive when I see the word gay & marriage linked like that. It is an affront to marriages all over the world and an obvious and open attempt to change the well established definition of a word.

1. My wife and I will be married 14 years in July. I'll thank you to refrain from being so arrogant as to lecture us on what will and what won't damage our marriage. We've been quite successful at it, and quite supportive of our gay friends who seek the same joy, without the intrusive stupidity of self-regarding moral busybodies.

2. If you want language to be static, unchanging and defined by authority, join L'Academie Francaise, kiddo.

3. "Great scholar Thomas Sowell?" >>snort<< The Kurtz thing has been well-examined elsewhere online, too. Google it up.

4. There is no such thing as "immoral consensual sex." Immoral sex is not consensual, and consensual sex is not immoral.

[Fitz]

Responses to (what I find to be perfectly reasonable arguments)center around the idea that---
"If homosexuality is more acceptable then more people will turn homosexual?""

And then go on to ignore the most precinct part of the paragraph.

""Particularly vulnerable will be young men and women who, as yet uncertain of and confused by their sexuality, may more easily be led into a homosexual life.""
Well the answer to the question is yes –
Q. -Why would someone seemingly willingly allow themselves to be drawn into the gay lifestyle?
A- Well, loneliness, a sense of belonging, wounded masculinity/femininity, and above all (for young men especially) easy access to sex.
Of coarse one of the most troublesome and underreported reasons is one that emerges from nearly all the literature on the subject, is this: homosexual men are significantly more likely—some researchers would say, much more likely—than heterosexual men to have been sexually abused or exploited as children and adolescents. According to a 1998 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Abused adolescents, particularly those victimized by males, were up to seven times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who have not been abused.”

Human sexuality is a delicate thing – A simplistic and naïve dichotomy of “your born straight or your born gay” cut & dry analysis, bemoans the real life complexity of life in this modern (overly sexed & sexually confused/confusing) world.
The choices individuals make have a lot to do with the overall moral environment they are cast into, and the expectations that engenders.

Surely - you must be aware of a strain of scholarship that runs contrary to your impulses.
You may consider it "ridiculous crap"
However.... Even as the celebrations of gay rights roar on, reality glowers in the corner like an unwanted guest. For the argument that homosexuality is “virtually normal” is bemoaned as a matter of established fact. By “fact” I mean by the most secular sources imaginable: social science, medical science, psychological studies, and more—including sources overtly friendly to the normalization of gay rights.

I’m afraid that 30 years of experience with fatherless families, divorce and the effect therein, have led mainstream thought as well as scholarship to be well weary of further manipulations of traditional family forms.
Just because you have dismissed the trend as counter to your agenda, does not cause it to go away. Why did the democratic party not enthusiastically embrace the SSM agenda? Why did the American people overwhelmingly reject it? Why are men of the left already calling it a “debacle”? It may stroke your ego and feed your narcissism to believe that its all just an irrational animus, pure bigotry and “homophobia”: but I suspect it is simple a long overdo defense of traditional- biologically rooted – family forms.

[gwendolyn]

It's funny, you know. Despite the fact that gays can legally marry in most of Canada, I haven't noticed any signs of impending social doom: heterosexual couples appear to be continuing to marry, despite the arguments that the marriages of gay couples somehow harms the marriages of straight couples.

Anecdote it may be, but I notice that although my roommate's father is now married to his (male) partner, her mother continues to be married happily to her stepfather, and she is in a committed straight relationship; my own parents and grandparents are still married, I personally am slowly working on my boyfriend via the traditional route to his heart (i.e., the stomach)... what effects on the health of "traditional" marriages are you talking about, Fitz? Aside from benefits and respect now extended to people who formerly didn't have it, I can't say I see any difference in society.

[Tacitus]

They may hate each other, but surely the children would benefit.

Er, there's actually studies that support precisely that. And Lord knows, I admit to a prejudice here, because I know the difference firsthand.

There are, I note, plenty of liberals, and even Canadians, who think that with a 50% failure rate, the bar to divorce might be set a little low. I don't really see this as a left/right issue.

[Katherine]

"Attempted suicide rates, even in countries that are homosexual-friendly, are three to four times as high for homosexuals. Though it is frequently asserted by activists that high levels of internal distress in homosexual populations are caused by social disapproval, psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover has shown that no studies support this theory. Compassion, if nothing else, should urge us to avoid the consequences of making homosexuality seem a normal and acceptable choice for the young."

Of all the lousy forms of pseudoscience, argument by assertion, and plain old prejudice used to justify discrimination against gay people, this has got to be the worst.

(Satinover is up to his neck in the "ex-gay" movement. He also wrote Cracking the Bible Code, which some might find relevant in assessing his scientific credibility:

The discovery that precise, descriptions of earth-shaking events seem to be encoded into the first five books of the Bible has captured the world's attention. No one in ancient times could have had such knowledge, but if no individual put the codes there, who did? If the codes are proven to be genuine, they would be tantamount to scientific proof of the existence of God.

Cracking the Bible Code is the first accurate account of the codes-a story far more stunning than has yet been told. Dr. Satinover traces the fascinating tradition of the codes, counters sensational and inaccurate representations, explains the controversy over their authenticity, and clarifies their implications for our view of God, faith, and fate. Sweeping from ancient history to cutting-edge science, this is must reading for anyone who seeks to make sense of the codes and their meaning for humankind.

)

Tac, what do you think about the asylum law question?

[felixrayman]

Oh no! If we allow gay marriage, our society will soon be in as poor shape as...as...as...the Netherlands! The horror.......the horror...

What a howl. I'm sticking around for this one because I figure pretty soon Fritz or someone is going to bust out singing, "Every sperm is sacred....".

[Edward]

homosexual men are significantly more likely—some researchers would say, much more likely—than heterosexual men to have been sexually abused or exploited as children and adolescents.

OK, any more nonsense like that and I'm cutting you off. This has left moonbat territory and entered tin-foil-hat land. Bring it down a notch Fitz.

[Tacitus]

Tac, what do you think about the asylum law question?

I haven't paid enough attention to it to have anything informed to say. I suppose as a rule of thumb, if sending someone back to X-istan is going to demonstrably result in his death or mutilation, we probably ought not do it.