Two reports from NPR caught my attention this year. We are told that 2013 was both the gayest year ever and the year that gun control freaks lost big.
With that in mind, I post the logo of the Pink Pistols:
As a straight man, that image and motto please me no end. I talk about gun rights and gay rights a good deal on this weblog. That’s because I favor the freedom of the individual.
Another beautiful result of this year is that marijuana is becoming more and more legal in this country and elsewhere.
While I’m pessimistic by nature, these victories of freedom give me hope. We’re learning more and more that letting people make their own choices is fundamentally a good idea. If those choices harm innocents, we have laws to deal with that, but otherwise, the wisdom of a free society is that when people are making decisions on their own, they come up with solutions to problems that a rigid society can’t produce.
Next year promises to be an opportunity for new victories for freedom. But as we’ve seen in places like Egypt, people must keep the pressure on governments to do the right thing, to defend the freedom of us all. Take heart, and stand up.
Greg Camp's Weblog 
http://takimag.com/article/the_straight_dope_on_homosexuality_elizabeth_mccaw/print
I’ll leave that link to show how silly some people are. But let’s observe that people have sex for lots of reasons, quite often not to make children, so unless the author is claiming that only reproductively viable couples should engage in such activity, the initial premise of the article is false. It goes downhill from there.
Since that was not the premise, lets see your evidence that disputes the facts presented.
But, since we agree that reproduction is not the only reason for sex, where is the freedom for those who have sex with animals, children and corpses?
Children are not at the age of majority, so sex with them is wrong. We’re talking about consenting adults. As for corpses or animals, if those belong to a person, who else is going to know?
“Children are not at the age of majority, so sex with them is wrong”
So, for just one example, you are against freedom of religion.
How do you own a corpse?
Where is your evidence disputing the facts from the link I provided.
Orlin, you didn’t present evidence. You presented an article with a bunch of bullshit quotes from questionable sources. The article refers to gays as perverse, but that’s based on false assumptions about what we’re supposed to be and do. But let’s make one thing clear: I do not agree with these assertions about gays
So questionable sources (bullshit) are the CDC, NIH, USC, TIME, NY Times, National Review, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Section of Medical Statistics, University of Oslo, Norway, Gallup, Wikipedia, etc., etc., etc.? Okay, if you say so.
So, again, confirm that you believe everyone of these source are BS and provide evidence.
So far all you have done is deny the right of freedom of religion.
Several billions of followers of the Old Testament, New Testament, Koran, say you are full of it!
Let’s not go through another lengthy discussion without a purpose. You’ve made your point; I’ve made mine. I support gay rights, and I don’t see gays as being any different in any important way from straight people. Straights have their own share of bad actions, as do gays. But both groups have plenty of good people, too.
For example, I knew a gay man and a lesbian couple when I was living in Nashville who were some of the most decent human beings I’ve ever met. I judge people one at a time, not by what groups they belong to.
The only one dragging anything out is you, my friend. I simply supplied a link without comment. You called it BS. I asked you what part was BS, now you evade answering.
You are for gay rights but not the right to religious freedom.
And since you are real big on stuff benefiting society in our discussions, what benefit to society do gays bring?
Orlin, stop lying about me. I support religious freedom as well. But a religious person has no right to impose that religion on another.
But in a world of more than seven billion people using the resources of this planet, having children is certainly not the only way to benefit a society.
Many religions and cultures allow and support marriages of young girls. Yet you said,”“Children are not at the age of majority, so sex with them is wrong”
Again, clearly, you would deny the freedom of their religion and/or cultural beliefs.
No lie there.
But the questions remain, what was BS in the link I provided and what benefit is gay rights to society?
Religions do not have the right to impose themselves on other, and children have the right to grow up first.
The nonsense assertion of that site I already addressed. It’s the idea that gays are particularly “perverse.” They are no more so than the general population.
“Religions do not have the right to impose themselves on other, and children have the right to grow up first.”
I’m quite sure that many in Utah would say that it is an honor for their children to become the wife of a spiritual leader, or a billion Muslims whose leader, Mohammed, married a 9 year-old girl.
Why is it that, Native Americans celebrate menarche as the passage to womanhood? Yet you, an outsider, want to determine when they can marry or bear a child with a husband.
Let’s look at who imposes what on whom:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/12/soros-funded-group-protest-stops-bob.html
“It’s the idea that gays are particularly “perverse.” They are no more so than the general population.”
Again, several billion followers of the Old Testament, New Testament, Koran, and others say you are full of it.
Reminder: You still have not pointed out any BS from the link with any evidence, nor have you given any benefits to society.
I remind you, you’ve been told to stop going on and on. My patience with you is growing thin. You had your say. Move on or get moved out.
This from the guy who proclaimed himself an absolutist when it comes to free speech over at Mikebs.
The only one going on and on is you avoiding questions you can’t answer.
I’m not going to debate settled matters with you. You want to disagree with science? That’s your business. You want to tell me that some groups within some religions oppose homosexuality? Next you’ll inform me that the sky is blue on a clear day. They are welcome to their beliefs, so long as those beliefs aren’t forced on others.
It’s not that you disagree with me. It’s the fact that you keep on and on about things where you’ve said your piece and I’ve said mine. You’re not adding anything new.
It is evident that you think more laws mean more freedom. That the cultural Marxism running rampant in Corruptionville-on-the-Potomac should be forced on the states thereby, further eroding and intruding on the rights of the people and the states to determine how they run their own states. You don’t think the people and the states have the right to determine for themselves what constitutes marriage. You think the small businessman in Frostbite, MN should be told by the centralized Federal Government that he doesn’t have the right to freely associate and to hire whomever he wants if some if some gay or gayess happens to apply.
In your view, this is freedom. In your view, some special, protected class has more rights than the state and its people to determine what rules and laws they want to live by.
And by your own inaction to name one benefit gays provide to society, the right of the people and the states to determine their own laws is being denied which means that this special, protected group is denying the kind of society the people want in their states. In other words, most states don’t want a perverted society, run by a protected pervert class.
That’s what you call freedom.
Yes, it’s the job of government at all levels to protect the freedoms of all of us. When state governments fail to live up to that duty, the federal government has to step in.
You’re not harmed in any way when a gay couple gets married. That couple or a gay individual are under no obligation to show you any benefit to you or to society for being who they are. You have to show real harm to have any cause to object to them.
And no matter what slurs you use, you can’t show real harm.
“Yes, it’s the job of government at all levels to protect the freedoms of all of us. When state governments fail to live up to that duty, the federal government has to step in.”
Show me where in the Constitution the Feds are to be involved in marriage.
The 9th & 10th amendments give the states or the people the right to determine what their respective laws will be. Most states in this country do not have gay marriage because it is considered immoral and a perversion.
A traditional marriage is a benefit to society if for no other reason it allows society to grow and renew itself, whereas spreading AIDS/HIV is detrimental to society.
Gays want benefits from the government, that is the bottom line.
Obviously a protected special class does harm and take benefits away from the entire rest of society just like every other protected class.
These people can call a Camaro a Mustang, but that doesn’t make it so. Marriage has always been and always will be a union between one man and one woman.
Your views are of a cultural Marxist and have nothing to do with equal rights or individual liberty.
Then what is your point? If that’s what you believe, enjoy your delusions.
But let’s take your “points”:
1. A couple getting married in no way infringes on your rights. You have shown no actual harm being done to you.
2. You whine about rights, but apparently that only applies to rights that you support. That makes you no better than people like Mikeb.
3. HIV is not exclusive to any one group, and blaming gays for that disease is nonsense.
4. Of course, gay couples want the same benefits that straight couples get. You should be pleased, since it’s less tax money to the government.
5. Are you seriously unaware that marriage used to be among a man and multiple women? Or are you unaware of societies that accepted gay marriage?
6. In a world of seven billion people, we’re hardly in need of more births than happen already.
7. I am not a Marxist, and you can let that lie go.
1. A couple getting married in no way infringes on your rights. You have shown no actual harm being done to you.
It undermines the the norms of society, and makes norms arbitrary which is harmful to our society and in turn undermines traditional marriage and implies that morals are arbitrary or nonexistent.
2. You whine about rights, but apparently that only applies to rights that you support. That makes you no better than people like Mikeb.
Anything that needs a government permission slip or license or approval is not a right. Natural right are unalienable.
3. HIV is not exclusive to any one group, and blaming gays for that disease is nonsense.
It is extremely prevalent in one group.
4. Of course, gay couples want the same benefits that straight couples get. You should be pleased, since it’s less tax money to the government.
Straight couple that simply live together without a permission slip do not get benefits and don’t whine about it.
5. Are you seriously unaware that marriage used to be among a man and multiple women? Or are you unaware of societies that accepted gay marriage?
Gay relationships or gay marriage? I know of no society that married homosexuals. And obviously, any gay society would go the way of the dodo bird.
6. In a world of seven billion people, we’re hardly in need of more births than happen already.
Okay Mr. Malthus.
7. I am not a Marxist, and you can let that lie go.
I said cultural Marxist and that is not a lie.
I look forward to the new Reality Shows that will appear on TV, like Gay Divorce Court. I can hardly wait to hear the court telling the spouse he has to give up 50% of his income and savings because he was out dick-hunting. Nearly everyone knows that it is damn near impossible for gays to live in a monogamous relationship, married or not.
1. You defend individual rights, then you whine about social norms? That makes you a defender of social tyranny, rather than governmental.
2. Rights are inalienable, but the proper role of government is to defend and enhance rights.
3. There’s more HIV in straights than gays. The virus got its start among straights.
4. It’s in our social interest to promote households, and since you oppose taxes, you should support more people playing the system.
5. Do you seriously believe that we’d ever have a society in which a high enough number of people would be gay to risk depopulation? But no response about how marriage used to be a bunch of wives?
6. Malthus was right.
7. Nearly everyone knows? No, there are lots of rumors that amount to a bunch of bigoted nonsense.
1. To paraphrase you, Words have meanings, you can’t just change the meanings of a word to suit your needs.
In our society and culture the word ‘marriage’ refers to the union of one man and one woman.
Time to heed your own words.
2. The role of government is to follow the Constitution. Now show me where in that document it gives itself the authority to involve itself in a spiritual or voluntary contract between two private consenting individuals? That is a question I’m asking you.
3. “…we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that.” — Matt Foreman, former executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force
Although MSM (Men who have sex with men) represent about 7% of the male population in the United States, in 2010 MSM accounted for 78% of the new HIV infections among males.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/surveillance/incidence/index.html
Let me repeat that: in 2010 MSM accounted for 78% of the new HIV infections among males.
4. Are you suggesting households are only ‘married’ people?
5.Your comment simply confirms that gay marriage is of no benefit to society. A society of gays, as I said, would go the way of the dodo bird.
Were they multiple wives or concubines? Neither the Greek nor Roman Empires recognized multiple wives, it was illegal. Theocracy is not our form of governance.
6. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHAHHAAHHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAH
7. 28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: “Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308.” (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: “The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309.” (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: “In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.” (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
1978 study, 78% of gay men ad more than 100 partners, 28% more than 1000: “A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.” (catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html)
There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex,” 170. This is extracted from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)
1. You’re free to use marriage however you wish. But marriage has always meant joining into a household with a sexual union, and that didn’t always mean one man and one woman. Polygamy, for example, has a long tradition.
2. Marriage is a element of the common law originally. The benefits that are relevant to this discussion are tax statuses, insurance, and inheritance. Those are part of the government’s power to tax.
3. Percentage of new infections does not equate to percentage of the total group.
4. No, but if you read one of my early articles on this subject, you’ll see what I mean by a household.
5. You’re asking irrelevant questions again. Many societies recognized or still recognize polygamy. Besides, we should change how the law sees groups of people in an effort to increase freedom.
6. You’re citing sources that are mostly decades old. But who cares? You claim to believe in freedom. That should include the right to have as many consentual sexual partners as a person wants.
1. Show me a universally accepted definition that adheres to that definition, if you can’t, you are full of crap. Household has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage, matrimony or wedlock.
2. Again, you are full of crap. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find any thing pertaining to authority or power over marriage.
3. As the gays said, it’s the gay disease. This entire conversation has been like Judge Judy said, you are pissing on my leg and trying to tell me it’s raining.
4. I’ll pass.
5. There’s a good idea. Let’s forget taboos and allow mothers and sons to marry, or dad and son, or mom and daughter, let’s make sure Sheepherder and his favorite sheep vagina get special protected status.
6. And the benefit to society is what?
7. What in the hell is with the moderation?
Since you once again have fallen into absurdity and insults, I’m done reasoning with you.
Regarding moderation, that’s not me. I presume WordPress holds large comments with links for moderation. Ask them.
Forget the issue, the entire thing boils down to this:
My belief is, as someone stated, “The government is best which governs least.” Your position is, Government is best which governs most.
Any new law means more government, not less. My position against gay marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage, but their desire to use government force to get their way. I don’t care if you prefer anuses to vaginas, What I do care about is using government force to get your way,
orlin, out