Gay Marriage is just fine, Prove me wrong

xrayspx's picture

A few years ago I wrote a rather ranty article about why, IMHO, gay marriage should be legalized.

One thing I never have gotten a satisfactory answer to is the question of why
this is such an issue for Republicans specifically, but many people of all
political stripes? To me, this is no different than racial or gender equality.
To me, it's not about "special rights", it's about equal rights for all Americans
under the law.

I'm pretty disinterested in biblical arguments, equally strong biblical arguments can
be made for:

  • The ownership of another human being
  • Subjugation of women and their treatment as property
  • The public murder of adulterers
  • The public murder of those who eat lobster, shrimp or scallops

Etc. etc. Leviticus...Leviticus... Leviticus is a Troll/Flamewar-inciter's best friend.

We'll never agree on the biblical arguments. What I'd like to know is: "How
would two men or women being married affect your life, day to day"?

I don't believe in civil union laws because they don't provide universal
survivorship rights. Besides, federalized Civil Unions will create the need
for Bigger Government. You'll have to have a bunch of people figuring who is
married, who is Civil Union'ed, etc, it would be more red-tape, we need less of

One thing I almost never saw in the debate over Massachusetts' marriage law
reform was the fact of the intent behind the infamous "1918 law". The "1918
Law" was passed when Massachusetts permitted interracial marriage, but many
southern states didn't. Mass didn't have the infrastructure to deal with all
these out of state couples flooding in to get married, so they wrote a law
stating "If it's not legal in your state, you can't get married here".

Think about how really puts things in perspective. Hopefully 90 years from now
we won't care if two women marry just as (most people) don't care if a black man marries a white woman today.


xrayspx's picture

Actually, as good as power of attorney is, and as good a thing is that some employers and insurance co's are coming around and permitting equal rights to people who they aren't even legally obliged to support, we're missing the point.

None of this is a reason why we shouldn't convey equal protection to all Americans under the law.

These people have committed no crime, yet they aren't permitted to live as equals.

Why would same sex marriage affect your day-to-day? Do you believe the country would be Judged and Punished? I'm not trying to get at "special treatment", just equality. I feel we've gotten sidetracked in discussions about Separate but Equal.

Separate but Equal doesn't work.

Anything else and you're just creating bureaucracy and "englarging government" to try to maintain one standard for heterosexuals and another standard for these so-called deviants. It's not worth it.

Not to get even further off track, but I have to tell you a short story. We had a close friend who was separated from his wife for 12 years. She did nothing but cause him grief and he was afraid to divorce her for what she would say or do to him. So he never divorced her. So one day he was walking on the street with his girlfriend-who was a wonderful person. He was rushed to the hospital by ambulance and then transferred. He was very ill. His wife and his girlfriend were both at the hospital but his wife was the only one allowed to make the decisions. Of course she made it very uncomfortable for the girlfriend. This went on for a few days and finally the girlfriend left as the wife would not let her see him. It was very sad because if conditions were normal, we know what he would have wanted. But he was in rough shape. He died in 3 months with his "wife" at his side, so of course we all know who inherited. So, the moral of the story is, if you are in a legal entanglement, make sure you do sign a durable power of attorney or have some legal document to make sure that what happens is what you want to happen!

BTW x, I think you started this whole thread just to get Peace going! And you did!

Why not have all unions between any sex be civil under the laws of the government and then if you are religious, get married under the guide lines of your religion. If you are gay and your religion accepts that than so be it. But keep government out of religion.
Wouldn’t this take care of the problem?


As that husband, I would DEFINITELY want a POA in place at that hospital. They COULD NOT ignore it, and would not then admit into the husband's quarters, a possible "unplugger". Especially when "a family member" has shown previous antagonism.


I don't believe for a minute that a Jackson Hospital employee would EVER use such language. Your blogger has hyped a lie into the Gay Agenda, just as you are doing in repeating it.

These people have committed no crime.

Just curious, but what crimes have they NOT committed? Are they, as a "protected group", ALL innocent of REAL sex crimes?

I'm not trying to get at "special treatment", just equality.

"Equality" would mean that everyone shares their health coverage equally.

That can't happen when a "Lifestyle" of two Gays (or more boys and girls, as below) enter "Marriage", then "cherry pick" a healthplan for coverage shared with normal folks whose lifespans are far healthier. Any "protected group" whose lifestyles are shortened by STDs shouldn't be entitled to funds provided by those whose lifestyles are health-wise.

The expensive regimens of prescriptive medicines necessary to fend off the spreading ever-changing HIV should NOT be shared by taxpayers OR by those with already-expensive health coverage.

There is no other disease so easily prevented as HIV/AIDS, yet we read of "homosexual sex parties" where needles are shared, methamphetamines are mixed with Sildenafil Citrate ("shared" by us). Look up "trail mix". AIDS groups are trying to stop these escapades.

You want to support AND PAY for this group's protection?

This "protected group" already enjoys taxpayer-funded sexchange operations by the City of San Francisco taxpayers whether the taxpayers want to pay or not. Worse, they pay again for the prescriptions to enable a life as a continuously sex-changed person.

Worse even yet, there is no "protected group" that is SO WEALTHY and have the ample funds to pay for all the sexual shenanigans they want.

What's FAIR about supporting wealthy Gays as a protected group?



xrayspx's picture

"...if you are in a legal entanglement, make sure you do sign a durable power of attorney or have some legal document to make sure that what happens is what you want to happen!"

Wow, this whole thread is making me feel very dumb for having never spoken to a lawyer about anything. I'm sorry to hear about your friend. Taking the medical industry and adding the legal system can almost never expedite anything (disclaimer: I work in the medical industry).

Oh, and nope, I'd never heard of Peace_through_Weakness before this thread. I actually started it so I wouldn't have to ask these questions of anyone I have to spend holidays with :-)

Why not have all unions between any sex be civil under the laws of the government and then if you are religious, get married under the guide lines of your religion. If you are gay and your religion accepts that than so be it. But keep government out of religion.
Wouldn’t this take care of the problem?

I couldn't agree more. If you want to get married in a church in the eyes of God, good, go do that, if you want to legally bind yourself to another person, you can go to a JP and get it done.


I agree that's a tough quote to believe, but the blog isn't misquoting it. The primary-source is the lawsuit, which is linked in the blog posting, I'll link it here as well for convenience. The quote is on page 11 of that badly created un-searchable PDF. I'm not claiming that the plaintiff didn't commit perjury, but it looks like that other blogger at least quoted it right. Honestly, that blog and the site that hosts the PDF (lambdalegal), appear to be very pro-gay sites. The document looks pretty complete though.

The rest of that argument, I'm sorry to say, sounds as if it comes directly out of 1986.

Your Insurance argument doesn't apply just to married people. Married people are the least of your problems. I think what you're saying is "Gay people should have to pay more for insurance", which I think is already illegal. I think they are supposed to take each case on as an individual. My ripped bodybuilder non-drinking non-smoking gay co-worker should certainly pay less than someone like me for instance.

There are people of all races and sexual persuasions who do staggeringly irresponsible things. Don't try to make HIV a "Gay Disease" in 2009 no, that doesn't fly. As for other diseases, 30% of citizens (all citizens) have herpes, estimates are as high as 75% for HPV.

Being gay does not inherently increase your risk of anything preventable (I'm not talking about maladies such as having your head bashed in with a rock, there's probably a higher risk factor there).

If you're in a committed long-term relationship, the type where people tend to get married, your risk factors are low.

Men having unprotected sex with men is the riskiest type of sex behavior going by the stats, and I'm not going to argue that.

I also won't argue that you'll probably see a certain bubble of "novelty marriages" of irresponsible morons getting married just because they can. I believe that happened in Mass. A lot of those will end in divorce.

Anyone having any type of unprotected sex party is a moron, but it's not just gay people doing it. On the other hand, have a pre-emptive Fulsom Street Fair for good luck.

Gay marriage is an extension of civil rights and nothing more. If the governor doesn't sign or allow the legislation to pass it will be imposed on us by the court system. It takes us a long time to accept change in this country. I am personally not against gay marriage.

If that blog and the site "appear to be very pro-homosexual sites", why would you quote THEIR BIAS for us readers?

You didn't ask your ripped bodybuilder non-drinking non-smoking coworker if he was a homosexual, did you? Homosexuals don't pay more for insurance because it's NOT LEGAL for insurors to inquire about the insureds' homosexuality.

Why should your homosexual coworker pay less than you, when we know that ACTIVE homosexuals lead briefer lives, and often have taxpayer-paid, protracted, disease-ridden, and painful deaths?

Do YOU use steroids? Most "ripped" people do.

Didn't you observe that homosexuals pushed for more court recognition and government funding, claiming AIDS as their own while at the same time denying that it was associated with homosexual sex?

Didn't homosexuals abuse the fear of AIDS to bring a general fear to the public and push for further political gain?

If homosexuals don't inherently increase the risk of anything preventable, where did AIDS, the gay disease, come from?

Were you in diapers when these facts were headlines?
You SURE weren't in 1980s Haiti, where US homosexuals paid boys for sex before Thailand became a popular pederast location!

HIV IS the "homosexual disease", even though we paid through the nose to mitigate it. (And the US just spent $400,000 of taxpayer money to study why unsafe sex occurs in the bars of Argentina, as though the subject NEEDED studying).

If males having unprotected sex with other males is the riskiest type of sex behavior, why would you SUPPORT pederasts?

Why did 70% of California's African-American population VOTE DOWN the state's "Homosexual Marriage" law?

Was it because it would hijack REAL civil rights, such as presently enjoyed by the REALLY victimized group of African-Americans?

Was it because civil rights SHOULDN'T be extended to still another protected group whose affiliation IS NOT obvious, and easily given over to fraud?

Do you approve of government intervention to protect the rights of "The Protected Homosexual Marriage Group" by creating college admissions requirements and government institution hiring practices?

Do you believe that homosexuals in the US have suffered the oppressions of slavery, lack of voting rights or economic disability, but only retain the social stigma of homosexual sex? OK, not economic disability, because you would have answered my PREVIOUSLY-asked question. Which WAS:

Should Hawaii's JANET LESSIN be granted "Homosexual Marriage" rights?

Do you agree that anti-homosexual laws WERE "Jim Crow" laws? OR do you agree that "Jim Crow" was an insulting analogy?

Would you agree that we are now a generation removed from the ORIGINAL discussion of homosexual marriage?

Would you also agree that young people have no historical reference and now accept homosexuals as a protected class under civil rights?

If "Homosexual Marriage" is an extension of civil rights, shouldn't it be found in the US Constitution somewhere?

Are you aware, that as a result of California's new law against homosexual marriage, that the term "Fascist" is being used to describe homosexuals who are vandalizing California churches (both black and white) and synagogues? Targeting homeowners, and putting proponents' names in newspapers?

OK, It's late, and I've run out of questions for now.



xrayspx's picture

I didn't blindly quote biased sites. I pointed out the bias of the site I was quoting from, but the actual item I quoted from was a court document, not original content of those sites. That's why I pointed to the page number of the court filing itself. As I mentioned before, this woman may easily have committed perjury, I only know the quote as written in the suit.

Unless this is another case of "Reality has a liberal bias", in which case I apologize.

-- In the early 80's in every major city, there was much promiscuity on every level. It's my belief that this disease could easily have taken a heterosexual route to mass infection. Intravenous drug users have a very high AIDS rate as well. Should they not be allowed to marry?

-- When I say it's not "inherently risky" to be a homosexual, well, let's put it this way: Two high-school-sweethearts fall in love and get married. Those two high-school-sweethearts are at no increased risk of HIV regardless of their sexual orientation. Sex parties, straight, gay, or otherwise, are dangerous behavior. Unprotected, promiscuous sex is always dangerous, but HIV doesn't just spring fully formed from the union of two gay men.

Lesbians would be at statistically lower risk (CDC Stats)than probably even heterosexuals. Should Lesbian marriages be permitted, assuming "HIV Risk" is to be a cited factor for equal rights?

--Re: Polygamy: We have established case-law on polygamy, I don't see where it enters into the debate here. Sure it's another case where a certain minority feels slighted, let someone else debate that. Sorry I didn't follow the reference in your earlier post. I'm having a hard enough time keeping up with 30 random factoids per post from you :-)

-- Heh, the dude should pay less than me for insurance because he's in incredible shape. I seriously doubt he'd ever use steroids because he was about the most anal retentive human being I've ever met. He wouldn't want anything to do with something that unnatural. He just spent a ton of time in the gym. We're talking "naturally big", not "posing weirdo bodybuilder" big. He probably got whatever creatine junk they had at GNC at the most.

-- California's 70% of black people probably voted down the amendment because they, and latinos, are seriously religious people with objections to the act. I get it. Africans and Latinos are some of the most devout church going folks you'll ever want to meet. That's one of the reasons I started the thread, because I want to know why it matters whether two other people get married in people's day to day lives, for me personally, the impact would be roughly "none". It makes my marriage no less valid.

-- Marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution, nor should it be. People have made note that there was no specific mention of slavery either, which is why it was allowed to persist for 87 years after the founding of the country. Women's suffrage, same thing.

-- I fail to see how I'm supporting child molesters here. There are all forms of child molesters, and the ones I seem to read the most about are female teachers raping boys in their own classes. Shall we legislate schools out of existence?

-- I also agree that Caribbean sex tours have historically been and continue to be a very risky activity.

I had an interesting (offline) conversation about this topic over the weekend, and it cleared up why I'll never understand this argument. The long and short was that, to many religious people, there aren't "degrees" of wrong-ness here. In the eyes of many religious folks, gay people are no different from pedophiles who are no different from zoophiles, who are no different from polyamorous/polygamists. I'm following the evangelical "Mormon's Aren't Really Christians" stance on that last one.

If you're ever in the Nashua area, drop me a line, I owe you a beer after this, we can sit, have a drink, and talk about...anything else :-)

xrayspx's picture

Firstly, I have to say this has been just about as civil a disagreement as any I've seen in my 20 years of Internet life, and especially about such a sensitive topic. I've seen instant angry vitriol over whether crunchy or creamy peanut butter is best.

I really appreciate that, honestly.

To expand my racial thought-experiment a bit. The black community has much higher rates of heart disease and diabetes, and they are uniquely susceptible to sickle cell disease. This is an absolute argument against interracial marriage. The offspring of a black/white interracial marriage is potentially susceptible to sickle cell disease, thus becoming a blight on our health care system requiring bone marrow transplants at worst. Therefore we shouldn't allow interracial marriage?

That's a provable case of known risk factors inherent to interracial marriage. Of course, it's silly to suggest we would ever re-outlaw such a thing, after all they're just two people in love, but at least there is some basis in science for their separation. There's just no place for that kind of separation in modern, free, compassionate society. You'd have to be kind of a monster to suggest that these people be barred from marriage. Sorry for the hackey stretch leading to that last sentence, but I figured I linked to a left-wing site earlier, so I'll link to a right-wing site now. Also, no one on either side seems to believe in equal rights for the Anchor Tag, bummer.

It's also been shown that several prominent Suffragettes were lesbians. Luckily their sexual politics didn't interfere with the movement forward or else women would be stuck home while the men go to the polls. Those particular suffragettes were British, I've found lots of stories of American suffragette lesbians, but those sites seem more skewed than I'd like to link to. Yep, even more skewed than the Guardian...

that your stated preference is ignored that religion NOT be discussed, that Suffrage would be impossible without homosexuals, that a state JUST GIDDY with homophiles and pedophiles would actually arrive and vote through the democratic process TO REJECT homosexual marriage, that male homosexuals are blameless for HIV, that intravenous drug users cannot marry, that "Triad Marriages" cannot possibly follow successful "Gay Marriage" laws, that GNC is harmless, that blacks acquired SCA through their behavior, that you CAN actually make an excellent argument against inter-racial marriage, that homosexuals dismiss heterosexuals as "breeders", that rights gained through a new protected class of wealthy homosexuals will NOT result in widespread fraudulent practices, that Lesbian and male homosexual health risks merely balance out, that homosexual marriage will NOT result in a tsunami of FOREIGN homosexuals marrying to gain American citizenship, that 90 years of fradulent American citizenships will be good for the country, that "high school sweetheart homosexuals" CAN NOT POSSIBLY BE due to pederast-aroused assaults using illegal drugs, that a Nazi site is an acceptable link for your argument, that the schools under Government control should permit homosexual "educational" literature, that you're surely familiar with the blatantly-biased newsprint of the Nashua Telegraph, AND that The Founders should have foreseen the power of homosexuality in TODAY'S press, I'd like an answer to ONLY one more question:

Why does Google return 743,000 hits for Matthew Shepard, yet only 4,000 hits for Jesse Dirkhising?



xrayspx's picture

I just think it would contaminate a policy discussion. I actually think I mentioned that I didn't want to quote the "women's suffrage charge led by lesbians in the US" stuff because it seemed really skewed. The article I did cite was just about some diaries, and pertained to the UK. The other one was basically "Women would have no rights at all if it weren't for our Lesbian overlords", and I wholly reject that sentiment.

That might have been the longest run-on sentence in the history of the internet.

Gay high-school sweethearts could certainly be the result of, I guess you're saying, a grown man raping and drugging both boys and corrupting them in some way. I think it's pretty unlikely.

It seems that part of what you reject is the ability of one man to love another man, or one woman to love another woman, without some kind of psychotic drug induced molestation having taken place. It also seems that you'd prefer to ignore the fact that homosexuality is currently legal, that these folks can get insurance already, and that all I'm in favor of is extending the same benefits that my wife and I currently enjoy, on an equal footing. I don't think that outlawing homosexuality will get any traction though, there's just too many.

I also doubt that aside from, again, an early bump, we'll see huge immigration problems for the purposes of US citizenship. I mean, there's a certain amount of that already with hetero couples, and I don't see people flooding the UK and Canada or Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, Belgium or Spain solely for their legalized buggery.

The problem I have getting into a religious debate is that a:) I'm not trying to "win", I really just want to understand the arguments, and b:)It's completely un-winnable from either side.

I can sit and show the Christian Hypocrisy which becomes evident after a reading of > 2 lines of Leviticus:

Leviticus 25:44-45 = Go buy slaves, feel free to own people

Leviticus 11:7 = Prohibition from eating pork or any cloven-hooved non-ruminant meat

Leviticus 18:22 = Well, you live in NH, hope you don't like lobster rolls or shrimp scampi.

We could go on about that all day. If you uncover evidence of your wife's having a period, you both should be deported.

The thing about Leviticus is that it's a list of common sense rules for people who don't know how to be clean. If you undercook shellfish, you can die. If you undercook pork, you can die. If you bathe wildly in menstrual blood, you could get sick. If a man has sex with a man, they can't conceive, and therefore aren't growing the population.

If we were to become a country of biblical literalists, we'd have to outlaw masturbation, outlaw pre-marital sex and outlaw Newicks. Basically, we'd all have to become Saudi. Except, that in Saudi Arabia, gay sex is /rampant/ among their young male class, since they are prohibited from mingling with women, all they ever see are each other, it's pretty much just like a prison video over there. Of course, if they get caught, they could be put to death, but it happens anyway.

As for poor Jesse Dirkhising's google ranking, there are many reasons for this, not least of which there are thousands of people named "matthew Shepard" and no one can even probably fucking spell Dirkishing, much less think of a single other human being with that name. If you search for his alternate name of "Jesse Yates", you get 709,000 hits.

I assume you meant "Why did Matthew Shepard get so much more airtime than this other kid who was brutally murdered"? There's a good reason for that as well. It's the same reason that caused the country to fly into an uproar over a couple of Texas rednecks dragging a black man to his death behind their truck. It's the same thing that causes news organizations to go on 24-hour Holy Shit Deathwatch over a missing blonde girl in Aruba, but not to care at all about all the random missing unattractive people at home.

It's sensational, it draws eyeballs. No matter which side of Matthew Shepard you're on, it becomes a rallying point. You get the Fred Phelpses of the world rallying to the point of how it was Divine Justice and you get the CNN's and MSNBC's getting on their pulpits and showing Modern America how backwards hillbillies are in all those unsophisticated fly-over states. I don't believe anyone's death should be used for an agenda in the crass way the news media does.

It was a rallying point for gays insofar as it highlights that there is /real/ prejudice, there is /real/ brutality toward them, and they need /real/ rights.

As I've said before, I'm torn about hate-crime laws. I lean toward "no", because I don't think one murder is worse than another murder. I don't think one ass-kicking is worse than another ass-kicking. If someone beats someone else up on the street, regardless of their color, it's not necessarily because they're racist or a homophobe, but it is necessarily a fact that they're an asshole.

So yeah, let loose the dogs of Religion, I can handle it, but you also must respect the fact that we live in a country of many religions, and that none can be more respected than another. That results in our laws necessarily being defined by equality and fact, not by a modern interpretation of an ancient text.

You end up with the same debate as those discussing ID vs. actual science. It's an ad-hominem slugfest that no one can win, because they're not arguing from the same base assumptions.

What a scientist sees as a difficult problem which must be studied and researched, an evangelical might see as "it's complicated, I don't get it, God did it". This is especially true in cases where there can be no answer, such as "what happened before the big bang"? Some people are comforted by their belief in a common (as long as you're not gay) purpose and creator. Some aren't.

You can't reconcile the two enough to make a relevant argument.

I'll leave you with this quote, which I haven'thad an opportunity to "fact-check" for myself:

Although murder and rape of children are not common events, they are extremely frightening and can greatly impact the communities in which they occur. As its most precious resource, our society takes great pains to protect children and to ensure their safety. Amazingly, our society is also at the vanguard of the pro-gay rights movement.

But consider: a group constituting perhaps 1% to 5% of men ....(1.3% in the 1996 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse; higher in Black, et al, Anderson & Stall, and Cameron & Cameron) generated 43% of those who were recorded in the most recent 14 years of news stories as having raped and killed children.

That this group also accounts for around a third of child molesters, commits between a third to two-thirds of child rapes, and may be involved in up to half of all murders, adds substance to the traditional belief that participation in homosexual activity is anti-social.

Just the folks we want to be granted "protected group" status.

Who would want to be proven RIGHT?



xrayspx's picture

Did the site eat your comment? I got like 5 thread update notices with the long one you posted earlier today, but I figured that was just you editing it, so it sent new notices. I'll try and look into that.

In fact, there are MANY studies done whose embarrassing results remain in Internet backwaters. Some studies of violence unfavorable to homosexuals are removed by moderators!

As one person, I could not possibly reproduce all the studies here. Perhaps that's why church groups collect the studies, yet are excoriated for it!

A different study:

"The conclusion arrived at by the researchers, based upon these figures, is that the rate of ABUSE between urban homosexual men in intimate relationships 'is a very serious public health problem.'"


"The study states that the most significant factor in male same-sex partner VIOLENCE is age: a 3.8% rate for 18-29 year olds, 3.9% among those between the ages of 30 and 39, and 2.7% in the 40-49-age bracket. Men under the age of 40 were found to be six times more likely to report abuse than those 60 or older, with subjects between 40 and 50 being four times as likely."

(The study does NOT begin at age 13, where death would be a likely outcome of homosexual-partner violence such as Jesse Dirkhising's horrific death).

The reason you never heard of Jesse Dirkhising (other than a misspelling of his name), is that the gruesome murder of a trusting neighbor's son by "two committed homosexuals" KNOWN TO HER to be homosexual, followed befriending, enticements, drugging, bondage, duct tape, repeated rapes, then a death by suffocation, WAS NEVER REPORTED in any New England media source!

(OR NEW YORK source, New England now being the advocacy-epicenter for groups demanding homosexual marriage as the newest "civil rights" group achieving "protected-group" status).

To parents of Dirkhising-aged boys (and prospective grandparents with their fingers crossed), the Dirkhising boy-rape is a textbook example of what "a committed relationship" of homosexual couples could become towards male children who just happen to be neighbors.

(You probably won't want to read scientific studies of serial killers being disproportionately homosexual males, either).

MALE homosexuals are just far more violent towards one another in "committed relationships", as strangers, and even towards the male children in their neighborhoods.

LESBIANS are so far down on the "violence list", that an excellent case could be made (and supported) for Lesbian marriages! (Your Suffragette example had the good sense to "closet" their proclivities, rather than shame the genuine Suffrage effort of the time).

In my previous "lost message", I asked that religion be kept out of the discussion directly after black and Latin church groups in California were put forward as homosexual-deniers.

I fault the INability to see that the beliefs of the many here who support homosexuals are indistinguishable FROM a religion.

Let's follow Logic, not Religion.

ONE good reason (back to your Prop-8 religious point) is that Mexicans living and voting in California have suffered a disproportionate number of boy-murder-rapes by Mexican homosexuals in recent years, even over those that boggle our minds in the US! (When they're reported, that is).

Rather than demand of voters, and with frequent deaths by AIDS-related diseases, there is even more reason to use EXISTING legal remedies. It is wrong that an AIDS-resistant homosexual (who could have infected the person having the inheritance-in-waiting), be allowed to legally "pull the plug". It should be Family First, but the existing legal PoA remedy is even more compelling.

Lawyers benefit from whatever social upheavals result, regardless.

In sum, I fault the media as well as the blinkered, juvenile, and myopic views of YOUR pop-culture generation, who've collectively "been absent" when it comes to any serious discussion of homosexual violent acts before granting protections for homosexual "rights".

With regard to the Boston Globe, their editorial staff is known to be entirely homosexual-male. Except in the Bible-Belt Midwest, the Dirkhising rape-murder was extensively "spiked" by the media.

When a sycophantic, gays-friendly media COULD have reported the Jesse Dirkhising NEWS, they instead reported the Matthew Shepard LEGEND.



xrayspx's picture

Feel free if you want to to post links, I won't remove your post. I tend to be really against that unless you post like "I'm going to go kill XXX at 5:30 today, I've cleaned my gun and I'm getting in my car".

Then I might have to think about removing a post :-)

If they're really under-hosted, get permission from their authors and researches and I'll host it up here. Though my little site is most definitely an embarrassing Internet backwater.

xrayspx's picture

As to your actual point, of course I'm interested in reading the full studies, post links, definitely.

As my initial post says, I'm interested in the actual reasons people are against what seems to me to be a slam-dunk civil rights issue. I'm not aware of these studies, either through their being repressed by the Liberal Media, or whatever other reason.

You've given good reasons, so of course I want to see the source material. More information the better.

This hasn't been easy, (plus, tags aren't taking) but the following are all new to this discussion.

Some will need more Googling by me. For example, Massachusett's first gay adoption resulted in the adoption of a boy who was being molested by his "parents" and his "parent's" friends. It was all over the Internet when it was news a few years ago, but it has disappeared in all the murkiness around "homosexual marriage".

Note the number of homosexuals in this list of Serial Killers. Ya think homosexuals got a bad image from that one "gay" pedophile in France with 800 rape-murders of boys?

Your statement that homosexuality is legal is supported by gays who want access to Priesthood!

TN State Rep saying molestation of adopted children occurs by homosexuals (like MA first gay-adoption).
Abortion-friendly site, you may want to shower afterwards).

"It is interesting to note that [defrocked priest] never had any difficulty in bridging that mythical gulf that is supposed to exist between [homosexual child rape] and adult homosexual relations. All pederasts and most homosexuals acknowledge the connection"

Homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.” — Camille Paglia

Borders bookshelves, "an ostensibly mainstream gay vehicle was put to the service of advocating pedophilia"

If you weren't reading horrific headlines twenty years ago, you'd be in favor of "homosexual marriage" today.

Book The Trojan Couch. "Additional research in such a complex, dynamic, and multivariate a subject is clearly warranted prior to major overhauling of fundamental social structures".

Out from Under, tells of homo-parentage misery. Homosexual "Father" eventually dies of AIDS.

Where Are the Arrests for Thousands of Sexually Murdered Boys?

Silencing Christians

This subculture has resulted in tragic consequences for children.

Assault on freedom of religion: the Catholic adoption agency must place children in homosexual homes regardless of their faith's teachings

Led astray by the Press?

"The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) recently boasted that although homosexuals are less than two percent of the population, three-fourths of the people who decide the content of the front page of the New York Times are homosexual," Reisman wrote.


"rarely did the media describe priestly sexual abuse as "homosexual" or "gay" activity – even though the worst incidents involved male-to-male contact, and a spate of investigative reports has revealed that the Vatican is concerned about an upsurge of homosexuals in seminary schools throughout the world. Post 8.

Of over 4000 studied, 99% of males molested children[8 % admit are exclusively gay].

With Gay Marriage, the "Spouse" cannot be called to testify in court, even in the murder case of a neighbor's boy, in which both homosexuals contributed willingly to his suffocation and death. (At 13).



It's so brutal, I can't bring myself to give a link to the Dirkhising homosexual-rape-murder case. You'll have to look for it yourself.



I work, I'll have more time to deal this weekend.

I'm sure you know that OMG The Gays are responsible for over 25% of all T crashes in Boston in the last year, right? :-)

That should give you something to chew on for the next 10-15 hours until I can get back to the site.

I also have to say before I head out; this woman died violently minutes from your house, don't use her as a prop, show some respect.

I'll be patient, but can't avoid adding some items on the legalization of perversions.

Beliefs aside, being a homosexual isn't against the law until pedophilia or pederasty is reported. (And reporting IS a problem, according to studies listed below).

Teaming with a second [co-habiting, not yet married] homosexual to assault and kill a neighbor's boy is NOT legal, but that was the result.

How would two men or women being married affect your life, day to day"? The murder didn't affect MY life, but I belong to a society that I wish SURVIVES this most recent assault on normal marriages.

Like most people, the parents of the victim KNEW, but TRUSTED their homosexual neighbors.


Texting while driving trains wasn't made illegal in MA until 15 instances occurred. Twenty-five were killed recently in California through a texter. Texting kills.


Legally making a spouse's testimony
"protected testimony"
within an already
"protected class"
already in our
"wealthiest American class"
is an unintended result of aggressive, if not naive, Gay Marriage advocacy.


A pilot who failed multiple trainings legally killed 50 passengers last month. A pilot with poorly learned piloting skills resulted in so many unnecessary deaths?


Among other local websites, speculation is unavoidably being fueled at THIS site. Except for an AG comment, I've stayed out of the topic there.



xrayspx's picture

It still sounds to me as if you're not arguing against marriage, you're arguing against the legality of homosexuality in general. That's a valid viewpoint, but stipulating that homosexuality is currently legal, and that we're talking about consenting non-molesting adults, I don't see the problem. The serial killer and child molester arguments are straw men and I can explain why.

Serial Killers:
In picking serial killers, you've picked a topic I know well. You're likely thinking of Dahmer and Gacy as archetypal Gay Killers. Baumeister jumped to the front of my mind also. The problem is, you neglect Bundy, Ramirez, Rader (BTK), DeSalvo (Boston Strangler), Ridgway (Green River Killer), Berkowitz (Son of Sam), I-70, Zodiac, etc. Those are just the high-profile ones. There's a pretty good list on Wikipedia. Many of them are gay, most aren't. However what there isn't is enough data to gain any real statistical truth. Of a nation of 300 million people, we're looking at list of like 100. You can't get anything meaningful from that in terms of behavioral breakdown. The one common thread is that they're almost all men. /THAT/ gives us something to work with, "why do men do these things".

Gacy and Ed Gein are good examples to work off of because I think they have similar pathologies. Gein isn't a serial killer of course, but he was a truly twisted bastard necrophiliac who killed at least one. The reason Gein /wasn't/ a serial killer was probably because he kind of liked them a little decomposed first (or a lot decomposed).

According to interviews with family and friends, Gacy was clearly gay when he was a boy, but had both an abusive father who berated and beat him for acting like a "sissy", and grew up in a time and place where such things would destroy him. As a young adult he was a pillar of his community and was a very active member of the Jaycees. Open gayness would demolish this life. He married, had kids, and hid.

Gein you might remember was the inspiration for Norman Bates in Psycho. His mother was similar to Gacy's dad. His mother wouldn't let him have friends, and all women were whores. When his mother passed away, he was 39, with no family, and released his pent up Crazy upon his town for 10 years.

The common thread is that we have two men with no outlet for their natural sexuality. Two men who were equally abused into pretending to be someone they weren't by abusive parents who beat their personal morality into them from the day they were born. When given the opportunity, these urges leak out in the only ways they feel they can. Someone like Gacy can't very well stroll into a bar and meet a man for fear he would tell someone and ruin his life. So he had to pick boys he could dominate. One boy told and got him imprisoned. The easy solution to that is "kill the boy afterwards".

Gein is much the same, he felt he had to hide his heterosexuality until the idea of it was built up so much that he couldn't relate to people, so he dug up women who couldn't abuse or embarrass him but could provide his sexual outlet. So much so that he kept a box full of vulvae in his room.

Homosexual Child Molesters:
In my highly trained opinion as a Network Engineer (read: talking out my ass because I'm not a psychiatrist), a similar line can be drawn to child molesters. I believe you have to draw an additional line, however, between pre-pubescent and post-pubescent offenders, we'll get to that.

Most abuse victims are abused by people they know and trust, and who are trusted by (or who are in) their immediate family. Fathers, uncles, coaches, family friends, etc. Most of those men would not self-identify as "Gay". Most are deeply closeted, many are married, they're hiding. You'd never know. Like Gacy, they have to choose victims they can completely dominate into being quiet, either because the kids trust them or fear them deeply.

There's an NIH study I can't read since I'm not paying for it, but the gist is that self-identifying "out" gays who have sex with underaged boys are typically going after the masculine traits of post-pubescent 16/17 year olds. The young kids being attacked by men looking for the more "feminine" pre-pubescent boys with no muscles and no development. Even in their depravity they still seem to be saying "he doesn't look /that/ manly, so I must not really be gay", at least in my mind.

Child Molestation in General:
I further believe that male adult/male child rape is likely over-represented because it's over-reported. We're seeing a lot more incidents with female adult/male child abuse coming up in the last 10 years or so (as I alluded to earlier in the thread). Often, it wouldn't be looked upon as particularly abusive for a 25 year old high school teacher to have sex with a 16 year old boy. That boy would be "the man", he often wouldn't feel the same shame as a male/male kid who was being raped against not only his will, but against his own heterosexuality. That kid is way more likely to come forward to someone.

Massachusetts Stats:
I can't find anything relating your story about how "The first married gay couple in Massachusetts raped their child". Do you mean the first who filed intent, which would be the women who initiated the lawsuit?

Anyway, the numbers from Mass offer a good rebuttal of your argument over illegal immigration:
10,500 - Marriages in the first four years of equal marriage rights
61% - Percentage of those marriages to take place within the first 6 months
1400 - Number of same-sex marriages in the last full year of reporting

This seems to support my "initial bump followed by statistical normalization" theory earlier in the thread. There aren't thousands of gay couples banging down Massachusetts' door constantly marrying each other. I have no reason to believe anything different would happen in a national context. What stops a gay frenchman (Why French? Because... They're French)...anyway, what stops a gay Frenchman from bribing a straight American woman to pretend to be his wife so he can get his greencard? It's not rocket science for God's sake. Just because gay marriage isn't legal doesn't mean gay people can't use the marriage clause to defraud the government just as well as anyone else.

In the end though:
In the end, it's all academic. Homosexuality is a legal lifestyle. Regardless of my armchair psych 101. You're building strawmen with the serial killer and child molester arguments. Of course no one wants serial killers, no one wants child molesters. I DO want my gay, non-child molesting, non serial-killing friends to get all the implied rights I get from our federal government.

You never answered my "Since Lesbians have a lower AIDS risk than even hetero couples, should they then not be allowed to marry, if that's your argument against equal marriage rights"?

Just like the founding fathers wanted.

That gets us to like a couple days ago...

xrayspx's picture

I like that we read the same article and came to entirely different conclusions:

If you choose to ignore the big bolded text that says ..."the total number of serial killers is too small to make statistically relevant statements about whether homosexuals are over- or under-represented among serial killers." and then click through to their list of studies which show that there can be no statistical differentiation, it might help to see why I agree with their conclusion that you can't draw sexual inclination statistics from the available data.

I've also been looking very hard for homosexual child rape statistics in queer-friendly countries. I am coming up blank. It's still my belief that when people are permitted by society to practice their (adult) homosexual tendencies, we should see a statistically relative drop in what I would think of as "crimes of shame" over the course of generations. Again, I have no proof of that. The only massive banks of stats I can find linking out homosexuals to child-rape are from places like the Family Research Council, which can't be trusted to meddle in the ways of statistical analysis. Articles from the NIH, for instance, are few and far between, and come to no major consensus.

I can't help but feel that between my searches tonight and my habit of +R'ing on /b/, I'm going to get a visit from the party van pretty soon.

xrayspx's picture

Jesse Dirkhising

I'm haven't ignored this case. I haven't responded in depth because I responded in brevity above. Who knows why the media does anything? Me, they do things because of ratings. Matthew Shepard was properly marketed to the media as a story which could engage sympathy and thus ratings. Beyond that, it was the "Coming Out" on the national stage of the Fred Phelps personality cult. I think that's when things really blew up for the Shepard case and gained this long tail. When people saw this group protesting with God Hates Fags signs at Shepard's funeral, that gave it that "hook" that was able to turn the story into a huge ass national outrage.

Unfortunately Phelps' whack-jobbery hasn't drawn further attention to the deaths of the American servicemen whose funerals he also protests. Soldiers deserve to be highlighted as well. The only stories I see are in reference to the Patriot Guard counter-protesters sticking up for the grieving families.

Of course the Shepard case was also a huge and legitimate rallying point for gays to say "this is the type of violence we have to put up with". There is a well-known history of beatings, and then here was this relatively gruesome murder. I define that as "Crucified alive and left to die, which took days" rather than a more "humane" murder such as getting shot in the head and buried in a hole.

Assertions from previous posts
Your statement that homosexuality is legal is supported by gays who want access to Priesthood!

My statement that homosexuality is legal is supported by the fact that...homosexuality is fuckin' legal... I don't get the ambiguity here at all. I absolutely do not believe that churches should be forced to accept behaviors that deviate from their religion. I do see that Gov. Lynch is holding up our own same-sex marriage law on just such grounds. I agree completely. It should be plainly spelled out in the statute that this law is confined to matters of state and equal legal protection, and in no way should be seen as a wedge to force churches to marry people they don't believe can marry in the eyes of God. This is exactly why we have an "Establishment Clause" in our constitution. I won't force my atheism unto you if you don't force your theism on me, however, all of us are equal in the eyes of the Law. That's one of the great tenets of our founding.

"TN State Rep saying molestation of adopted children occurs by homosexuals (like MA first gay-adoption).
Abortion-friendly site, you may want to shower afterwards).

I took your advice and avoided the rest of the site. The comment you linked to was removed by the time I got there, but I got the gist of the thread. I have to agree with those who say "why bother"? Why bother getting married then going through the screening processes to be allowed to adopt, then rape the adopted kid?

Just set the bait and wait instead:

I'm still unable to find an article on "The first gay adoptive couple in MA" issue, I know you can hook me up. Still, don't see the whole "adopting a kid" thing when you can just go grab one off the street for the low cost of $3 in candy and a hammer.

Here's a good balanced reference on my statistics hunting difficulties:

Of the "No" studies, I would immediately discard the first reference to Sean Cahill of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute, and the last, which appears to be "Some Wikipedia maintainer". I don't even know where to begin with the wrongness of not only blindly trusting Wikipedia, but trusting the statistics of an artist who maintains a LGBT Wiki page. Huh.

However the rest are researchers from Brown and the APA. The "Yes" column, well, I can't say I trust them any more than the LGBT activists to be statistically impartial. It's all "Family Research Council" and "Traditional Values Coalition". Any moron can skew stats to reflect whatever they want, so I'm unwilling to trust either fringe. Show me modern Ivy League research in defense of your stance and I'll soak it up.

Again, it's not me trying to justify my viewpoint, I'm trying to find the most statistically impartial judges of the raw data.

I'm really not "pro gay" or "anti gay". I just really don't care. I'm as much at ease with gay folks as I am anyone else(I was going to say "completely at ease", but that's a lie, I'm never completely at ease with anyone). I just don't see what's stopping them from enjoying the same freedom to Persue their Happiness I have.

Clearly you haven't been paying attention to PTW's other prolific posts.
This is your third affront to me as a member here. I AM NOT REQUIRED TO POST HERE.

If you use continue using "GayStapo" techniques, THIS debate is over.

It still sounds to me as if you're not arguing against marriage, you're arguing against the legality of homosexuality in general. That's a valid viewpoint

No, I'm arguing against creating a "legally protected class" out of whole cloth, giving rights not delineated in the Constitution to this country's "wealthiest class", which already enjoys sycophantic support within the written and visual media.

Only bad will come of this within a generation, especially as no one is advocating existing (and even stronger) LEGAL options that have been available for generations.

Follow the money: Marriage, adoption, criminal defense and divorce are moneymakers for which other, also wealthy, class of Americans?

I'm interested in reading the full studies, post links, definitely.

The APA revised their position just last week.


As of today, you're now on the wrong side of Obama, who stripped gay-marriage support from his White House website.

Matthew Shepard was properly marketed to the media as a story which could engage sympathy
If Matthew Shepard was "properly marketed", what rating would you give to the media regarding the Jesse Dirkhising case?


xrayspx's picture

I've seen some pretty wild statistical leaps of faith on your part during this discussion. Most gay people are regular people who just want to live their lives, however you are painting the whole group as a bunch of meth-addled child rapists. That is absolutely jumping to the same kind of conclusion you did in the other thread. For what it's worth, I happen agree with the conclusion to which you jumped in some logical sense. It seems to make sense that "no one is in danger" yet "we haven't arrested anyone".

Why so serious? (I just replaced a whole paragraph with that. It really does boil down to that.)

That said, I notice you're referring again to the Wealthiest Class. Might that not be because they're an Intelligent Class? A Driven Class and a Productive Class?

I don't know why being a "wealthy class" should be considered a negative trait. In fact it's why there are such things as Log Cabin Republicans.

I also don't particularly care about being on Obama's wrong side, but in reading the page, I note that it says "...Support for full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples..." How is that not what I'm arguing for?

No gay gene:
Big deal, that has nothing to do with marriage rights. I do believe people are "born that way".

I don't care how people come to be gay. I can be fairly sure that no one would choose such a lifestyle freely. Why would anyone choose to be a minority group and risk beating and murder, while having fewer rights than if you just "knocked it off and chose to be straight"? Why would so many gays commit suicide due to being so distraught? They could just "Not Be Gay". Brilliant. Yeah there's a strong involuntary component there. Genetic or not, let's not jump to the opposite conclusion that it must be curable.

And if a "...Relationship with Jesus Christ" is the best way to get "cured", well, someone should tell the Catholic church they should have saved three quarters of a billion dollars by sending their wayward priests to Evangelical Gay Curing Camp.

I guess their relationship with Christ wasn't strong enough.

xrayspx's picture

I was going to let you have the last word on this thread the other day. I'd gained what I wanted, which was actual logical counter-arguments to full rights.

You've done a good and in many cases, convincing, job of answering those questions.

The only reason I did post was because you perceived that I was "running away" and somehow losing some imaginary argument.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, as I've said, I just want to understand the opposition. There's not enough rational opposing media coverage (Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly and especially Beck, are not 'rational').

Anyway, you're once again welcome to the Final Word on Gay Rights. I'm going to go back to not starting threads though. Feel free to start new threads, etc.