With all the nonsense that's been going on with Nuke and ATWT, I thought it might be interesting to go behind enemy lines and see what kind of force we're dealing with. Somehow I'm not surprised by what I found, but on the other hand, I am to say the least a *little* peeved that this kind of blatant homophobia still exists </sarcasm>.
http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/
I think the link and following articles speak for themselves. Maybe the fight should be taken not to ATWT but to these so-called "traditional family value" groups. Just a thought...
Submitted by
Anonymous
on Sun, 2008-04-20 10:59.
This is just one of the many idiots
http://www.afajournal.org/2004/april/404don.asp
First, how the f**k did this women get a degree from Harvard. I am only 16 years old and I know more about this subject then her.
Let's start with her feelings towards the inception of gay marriage. Yes, costs of certain things would go up, but ask yourself, just because something would cost more, does that mean it's bad? TV, the internet, cars, immigration; these are all examples of things that have been put into place in the last 100 yrs. Be it technological, cultural, or in this case sociological, any movement ahead in our civilization comes with a cost, but that cost is NOT a reflection of that movements moral standing.
Looking at her second view of why gay marriage would be a bad decision, she really shows her true feeling toward GLBT people, an it's fair to say she doesn't like us.
She says and I quote " “Same-sex marriage,” she wrote, “will constitute a public, official endorsement of the following extraordinary claims made by the Massachusetts judges in the Goodridge case: that marriage is mainly an arrangement for the benefit of adults; that children do not need both a mother and a father; and that alternative family forms are just as good as a husband and wife raising kids together.” "
Well either she expects her audience to be dumb or she is quite dumb herself and didn't bother to look up one thing on this subject. The APA (American psychological association) has deemed that same-sex couples are equal to a normal couple when it comes to child-rearing. You think that she would have taken the time to see that not only are judges saying that but the APA is as well. And as for the fact that she calls gay marriage a special rights; she's a lawyer and should know that this mention has nothing to do with the law, but that it is her own opinion.
Then she goes onto say that gay marriage would destroy religion, well with respect to religion, I don't really care. But any idiot can see that that is a lie and a stupid one at that.
The Christian religion was used to defend the laws that allowed slavery. Because as many people don't know, according to the Christian god slavery is not only not a sin, but it's actually ok. In several parts of the bible new and old testament woman is seen as lesser then man, in fact in the book of Timothy it says women shouldn't even be aloud to speak in church because she should be blamed more for our exile from Eden. And don't even get me started on the Muslim religion. The fact is that anthropology and sociology have shown us that religions that do not adjust their norms, values and mores to fit with the generation gap of society are left behind. This is clear in the fact that we no longer offer up still beating hearts to a sun god to insure the sun will rise.
Christian know this, that is why when slavery fell out of favor they stopped teaching those beliefs, this is why women can now be priests (barring Catholics), this is why we don't hang those who practice Wicca, or stone disobedient children, or kill a women because she is not a virgin on her wedding night. If they don't want to change then yes they would likely be forgotten, but they wouldn't be the first e.g. roman, greek, egyptian, babylonian, assyrian, myan, summarian, norse, and a hell of a lot more. These people all probably thought that the collapse of their religion would usher the end of the world, but the fact is when a religion fails, humanity in it's ever exuberant nature either finds a new one or makes a new one. I know a lot of people are Christian but 10,000 yrs. from now it's likely that humans will be around and Christianity won't.
And finally what the hell is she going on about how we are so detrimental because we don't reproduce. I know she's a lawyer not a sociologist but you think she would have done her research. Straight married couples who choose not to have kids have raised 75%, while straight couples that do choose to have kids has only risen 8%. So if reproduction is the reason that we shouldn't be allowed to get married, then why should all of those straight couples that CHOOSE not to have children be allowed to get married. Not to mention, the couples that can't have children. This is a sorry old subject that people like her have been using for yrs. The fact is that it doesn't hold much ground when confronted by a logical person. Not to mention, unless I am in an alternate universe (where Kevin walker is marring holly) we can adopt children.
Remember she’s working at Harvard University, one of the most prestigious schools in the US, I on the other hand am just a high school sophomore with a lot of time on his hands. So I’m thinking that these schools have lowered the bar just a bit to much.
Please comment on my comment, I like criticism.
i admit i am.....
I admit that I am pretty ignorant when it comes to marriage and the legal aspects. I don't believe in marriage, I don't care who is doing it, so I tend to look the other way where it is concerned.
with that said, something caught my eye....you said costs of certain things would go up in terms of gay marriage. I never knew that. what sort of things? and why?
I am sorry, i didn't mean to
A study co-authored by the Williams Project, a think tank at UCLA School of Law, and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, found that the California state budget would see a net gain of about $25.6 million annually if marriage equality were legalized. This figure was calculated by adding the state’s increase in sales tax revenue and its savings from reduced enrollment in means-tested public benefit programs (since many recipients who qualify for such programs as individuals would no longer qualify when being assessed by their household income).
In addition, other studies confirm what we already know: Allowing same-sex couples to access one another’s health care plans, make joint medical decisions, inherit one another’s property, file joint tax returns, and provide for their children without fear of them falling into foster care should one partner pass away is not only humane but fiscally smart. Equality, fairness, and civil rights are good for business.
Hope this helps...
You can still be a bigot and have a degree
There's never been any shortage of people with advanced degrees who try to use them to rationalize anti-gay attitudes.
Of course the idea that children are entitled to a mother and father is a special right that only exists when the topic of same-sex marriage is being discussed. Throughout American history nobody has ever, for example, seriously held back men from going to war because their deaths would deprive their children of fathers. You don't hear them arguing now that members of the military, who may be sent to the Middle East for extended periods and may come back mentally or physically damaged, or in a coffin, should be denied the right to either marry or have children.
In these cases there is suddenly much talk about the value of extended families, additional role models and the adaptability of children. You know, the very things whose merits they deny when speaking about gay parents.
I also agree very strongly with the idea that they should put their own rights where their mouths are. For a long time I have said that will accept a federal Constitutional Ammendment banning same-sex marriage IF that same ammendment also rules that any opposite-sex marriage that is childless after 5 years will be summarily annulled and that divorce is not permitted except in cases of criminal violence.
But of course that would be taking things too far, since it restricts the rights of heterosexuals which of course you cannot do. Although many of these bigots argue that marriage is "all about children", they would never endorse making the legal benefits of marriage conditional on actually having children because that would impose restrictions on heterosexual freedom. Likewise, even though children with divorced parents vastly outnumber children with same-sex couples as parents, divorce is treated as the lesser problem, mostly because again a restriction of heterosexual freedom would be an issue.
Double-standards reign and their arguments are really one-dimensional. But they still gain legitimacy from having gone to school.