Initiative Filed To Redefine Marriage as One man to One Woman

by lewwaters

On the first meeting day of the 2012 legislature, Everett attorney Stephen Pidgeon has filed for an initiative “seeking to clarify the definition of marriage. ”

See proposed document here

Currently, marriage is considered as a “civil contract between a male and a female.” Pidgeon’s initiative would redefine marriage as “between one man and one woman.” Pidgeon, addressing the current strong push from our lame duck governor for homosexual marriage rights says he is concerned legalizing homosexual marriage “will lead to the liberalization of marriage laws to allow for polygamy and other forms of relationships.”

He adds, “We believe this issue is even more volatile than domestic partnerships. The voters should get to vote on it. Let’s see what they think.”

Democratic Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen seems to agree as she says “unwilling to support any gay-marriage bill that didn’t allow a vote of the people.”

Lame duck governor, Christine Gregoire recently came out in full support of homosexual marriage rights, placing it high on her list of priorities, demanding the legislature pass it and have it on her desk within the next 60 days the legislature will be in session. That the state still faces a $1.5 Billion budget gap an a Supreme Court decision saying the state has been derelict in their duty to fully fund education is of little concern as the full court press is on to legalize homosexual marriage rights in the State of Washington.

There has been some concern that lame duck governor Gregoire might include an emergency clause in the bill, making the bill effective immediately once signed by the governor and giving opponents no time to collect signatures for a referendum. Democratic Senator Ed Murray says there is no emergency clause in the bill. He expects it to be introduced Wednesday or Thursday, acknowledging he is short votes that would ensure it passing.

I will sign this petition as soon as I see one, totally ignoring the past efforts of GOP governors candidate Rob McKenna to ensure over 30 homosexual activist groups received the names and addresses of every person who signed the R-71 petitions that placed the last stepping stone to this effort, enhancing domestic partnership and laughingly referred to as “everything except marriage,” in order to facilitate homosexual activists “contacting” those they feel will sign again to “discuss” their intent, aggressively.

Attorney Pidgeon states that even if the legislature does not pass homosexual marriage rights this session, he will still push the initiative and saying, “We believe that the critical issue here is, does the word marriage have particularized meaning, and if so we need to secure that definition as a matter of law.”

I, for one, think if the idea of marriage is to be perverted as is planned, then it should be fully opened to all of legal age and of any sort desirable to those who want it.

I find it highly hypocritical of homosexual marriage right supporters to only support opening the door to a select few while slamming it shut on others.

If they can’t allow it for all of legal age, their cries of EQUALITY in Marriage is a lie!

If there is valid reason to do away the notion of one man and one woman, then there is no reason to slam the door shut on others.

Do it for all or leave it alone.

I will sign Stephen Pidgeon’s petition and vote for it too.

63 Comments to “Initiative Filed To Redefine Marriage as One man to One Woman”

  1. Lew,

    The majority of Washingtonians just like Oregon Citizens recently voted, will agree with us on keeping the defination of marriage as it has always been between 1 man and 1 woman!!! (D) Governor Gregoire has opened a hornets nest in Washington State. There has never been a state in America where the Citizens were able to vote that have ever supported Homosexual Marriage!!!

    Like

  2. That’s why, even though they claim majority support of voters, they will do everything they can to keep it from going to a vote.

    The concern now will be to intimidation and coercion you can expect thanks to Rob McKenna fighting so hard to make sure over 30 homosexual activist groups received all of the names, addresses and information on every signer of R-71.

    Everything they can do will be done to prevent people from signing the petition, or face repercussions afterward.

    Like

  3. Funny how today’s political morons always try to keep the people from voting on anything, isn’t it?

    Like

  4. I’m all for a vote on this initiative. If it loses, game over. If it wins, there’s still Constitutional challenge. If that loses then the time for gays has not yet come in Washington. That’s the way it’s supposed to work, and I agree to go along.

    Like

  5. I’ve contacted Mr. Pidgeon regarding getting copies of the petition down here.

    Like

  6. Gee Martin, we agree.

    Like

  7. I’ve contacted Mr. Pidgeon regarding getting copies of the petition down here. Will keep you posted.

    Like

  8. Carolyn, thank you. Last I heard it hasn’t been assigned a number yet. We’ll see how soon it meets approval and is assigned a number.

    Like

  9. To quote Thomas Jefferson from his first inaugural address “all . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.”

    Like

  10. If you really believe that, Greg, why don’t you apply it to Polygamists an all others who live a “alternate lifestyle” that might also desire to have their relationships legally recognized?

    As it stands, two gay brothers would not be permitted to marry or any other “alternate lifestyle,” not even first cousins, although the state would recognize first cousin marriage performed in a state were legal currently.

    If you really are pushing for “minority rights,” why do you and all others exclude other minorities of legal age of consent?

    Like

  11. Simon LeVay conducted another experiment regarding the hypothalamus of the human brain in 1991. LeVay, like Swaab and Allen also did a post-mortem examination on human brains; however, he did his examinations on patients who had died from AIDS-related illnesses. He examined 19 declared homosexual man, with a mean age of 38.2, 16 presumed heterosexual men, with a mean age of 42.8, and 6 presumed heterosexual women, with a mean age of 41.2 [3]. LeVay discovered that within the hypothalamus, the third interstitial notch of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3) was two to three times smaller in homosexual men then in heterosexual men. The women examined also exhibited this phenomenon. LeVay concluded the “homosexual and heterosexual men differ in the central neuronal mechanisms that control sexual behavior”, and like Allen and Swaab, agreed that this difference in anatomy was no product of upbringing or environment, but rather prenatal cerebral development and structural differentiation [2].

    and

    J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard also studied the gayness between MZ twins, DZ twins, and non-related adopted brothers. They examined how many of the sample population examined were gay and how many were straight. They found that 52% of MZ twins were both self-identified homosexuals, 22% of DZ twins were so, and only 5% of non-related adopted brothers were so. This evidence, repeated and found to be true a second time, showed to the biological camp that the more closely genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they both are to exhibit gay or straight tendencies. Later experimenters found similar evidence in females. One such scientist is Dean Hamer. Hamer examined the possibility of homosexuality being an X-linked trait. He examined the family trees of openly gay men, and thought he saw a maternal link, leading him to investigate his theory of X-linkage. He took 40 DNA samples from homosexual men, and genetically examined them. He found that there was a ‘remarkable concordance’ for 5 genetic markers on section of the X-Chromosome called Xq28 [2].

    Hamer hypothesized upon examining the family trees of the same men that on each subject’s mother’s side, there were markedly larger numbers of homosexual men, all stemming through the maternal lineages. This observation, along with his startling discovery on Xq28, led his findings to be dubbed the “gay gene study”. The statistical probability of the 5 genetic markers on Xq28 to have matched randomly was calculated to be 1/100,000 [2], lending even more support to his findings.

    This finding of a possible ‘gay gene’ prompts a look into two evolutionary concepts, and how they are affected. The Superior Heterozygote Theory states the phenotypic (actual) expression of homosexuality is the result of homozygosity for recessive (non-expressed but present) genes [11]. In simplification, if the person’s genetic code is heterozygotic (one homosexual gene and one heterosexual gene), if the homosexual allele (half of the genetic code) is the allele passed on to the next generation, it will become the phenotype. Heterozygotes are only capable of being passed through to the next generation by mothers (as the Y-chromosome is incapable of heterozygosity), this again links homosexuality to X-linkage.

    Like

  12. Greg, when you copy & paste, I would appreciate it if you also provide the link from where you are taking it from.

    In reply: http://www.narth.com/docs/exploding.html

    http://www.solargeneral.com/library/family-research-institute-educational-pamphlets.pdf

    Like

  13. Charles W. Socarides, M.D.
    Clinical Professor of Psychiatry

    Yes, there are many of these that dispute Hamer’s work. Note the difference: Hamer is a molecular biologist. Socarides is a Psychiatrist. That’s like comparing a podiatrist’s opinion to heart surgeon’s scientific studies. You are comparing behaviourists to scientists.

    And your second reference….really?

    Again…

    By Paul Cameron, Ph. D.

    Really?

    I listed the studies. This is scientific evidence, not a list of opinions.

    Environmental impacts resulting in future behaviour has been proven over and over and not in dispute here.

    There has been no specific gene related to left-handedness. Should we discriminate based on someone being left-handed?

    Case in point:

    My oldest son wanted to play baseball, partially because he liked it, but mostly because I introduced him to it and wanted him to play. Attempt after attempt to make him a better right-handed thrower failed time after time. Then, when we were playing catch, he missed and the ball went rolling past him. In frustration, as all kids do, he took off his glove and threw it at the ball. Once he got to the ball, he picked it up and threw it perfectly, with his LEFT HAND! Should I have chided him for that, and continued making him play right-handed? Of course not.

    You cannot compare the opinions of behaviourists with the scientific studies of molecular biologists. There is no comparison.

    Like

  14. You copied & pasted with no link back and just short selective comments to your liking.

    What about Geneticists? Do you think their opinions are not as relevant?

    Latest Twin Study Confirms
    Genetic Contribution To SSA Is Minor

    As in previous studies, identical twins usually differ for SSA.

    By N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D.

    Twin studies are favorites of mine because of the potential light they throw on the origins of same-sex attractions (SSA). The latest one (Santtila et al., 2008) is three times larger than any previous study – in fact, larger than all the rest put together.

    Does this latest study teach us something new? Quick answer: No. It confirms the best recent studies, which tell us that genetic factors are minor; non-genetic factors are major.

    The paper’s title is “Potential for Homosexual Response is Prevalent and Genetic.” This implies to the average reader that homosexuality is sometimes hidden, but commonly occurring, and that it is predominantly genetic. But we shall see this title is not representative of the study’s actual findings.

    http://www.narth.com/docs/isminor.html

    Since you quoted Simon LeVay, a Gay neuroscientist, I’m sure you aware of the caution he stated on his work, “LeVay cautioned against misinterpreting his findings in a 1994 interview: “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”

    As for Dean Hamer, “”Gay gene” researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:

    “Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors…not negate the psychosocial factors.”

    http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

    Seems even those you depended upon aren’t as certain as you are.

    Like

  15. Did you read my post?

    From my post, with the data:

    “They found that 52% of MZ twins were both self-identified homosexuals,”, which matches Dean Hamer’s statement in your post, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited.

    And from my post, I said,

    “Environmental impacts resulting in future behaviour has been proven over and over and not in dispute here.”

    Again, there hasn’t been a specific gene related to hair color, height, handedness, and many other physical attributes of humans. Should we discriminate based on any of these attributes? (Hitler tried it, look where it got him…I know lame Nazi reference…just following your lead).

    And, from your second reference, this interesting statement, which the author throws out, then summarily dismisses:

    “As usual in these studies, family upbringing (“shared environment”) was consistent with a zero percentage influence, ”

    On top of that, he says this:

    “Are genetic contribution results of say 27% important? No”

    So, we then have zero, which is to say, none, which he completely ignores, vs. 27%, which he says, is not important. Wait…what?

    The author of this article flails back and forth with statistics from studies from who? Where? All he has shown is inconsistencies with both method and results.

    Geneticists, they follow genetic patterns, and do not do actual scientific physiological testing.

    Lastly, Dean Hamer, and others like him, remain consistent in their search for answers. In recent pieces, he remains steadfast in him comparison of homosexual genetic research to that of evolution, and that it is the base theory of the vast majority of molecular biologists.

    Like

  16. I do have a question, and please take it as sincere and serious, as I am not trying to twist a personal experience of yours in any way, shape or form. I won’t take it personally if you choose not to answer.

    On another post, you stated that you had an experience as a boy where you said you were molested by an older man. You also stated that is when you decided not to be a homosexual. If that is the case, that you truly had to make that decision, does that mean that you are attracted to men, but just choose not to act on it?

    I ask this because, if you aren’t attracted to men, you never had homosexual tendencies, and there was no choice to actually be made, therefore in contradiction with your statement, and also shows that environment is often not the strongest cause for homosexual behaviour.

    If you say that you choose not to be attracted to men, how can that be? How can we choose our attractions? Did you choose to be attracted to your wife?

    I am really not trying to be facetious here, Lew, just trying to better understand your statement about when you decided not to be gay.

    Like

  17. Well, Greg, it’s obvious you aren’t reading any of the links I give you. You didn’t have time to actually read any of them.

    On the twins, Hamer vehemently defends his theory, but valid questions have been raised http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/04/22/health/main10885.shtml

    Also:

    One commonly used argument for the gay gene theory is identical twin studies. Here, it’s important to clarify that the term “identical” is somewhat of a misnomer. More properly, we should refer to monozygotic twin studies and note that the whole field of twin studies as they apply to behavior is very controversial. Even so, what these studies purport to show is that identical twins are more likely to be homosexual than two fraternal twins.

    Specifically, the most famous of these findings came in the early 1990s, when researchers J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard claimed that if a gay individual had an identical twin, there was a 52-percent chance that the twin would also be gay. If the individual had a fraternal twin, there was only a 22-percent chance. Since identical twins largely share the same DNA, the researchers concluded, this indicated that genetics played a role in homosexual development.

    Clearly, there are several problems with these conclusions. For starters, if anything, the results Bailey and Pillard cite point to the huge role that environment plays in influencing behavior. Beyond this, their study has never been replicated and, in fact, efforts to do so have yielded results showing even less genetic influence.

    For example, newer, more reliable twin research has even put “gay twin” concordance at a much lower rate, as in the case of a 2001 study by researchers Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Bruckner. This study found a concordance rate of only 6.7 for gay identical twins, compared to 7.2 percent for fraternal twins. The researchers concluded by remarking “social scientists and geneticists alike stress the obvious point that neither genes, nor hormones, nor specific social situations determine sexual behavior by themselves.”

    http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/science-doesnt-support-the-gay-gene-theory

    On LeVays study,

    In comparing the size of the INAH-3, he presumed that the 16 “heterosexual” men were, in fact, heterosexual. Only two of them had denied homosexual activities; for the rest, sexual histories were not available. Thus, he was actually comparing homosexual men with men of unknown sexual orientation! This, obviously, is a major flaw in scientific method.
    The volume of the INAH-3 may not be a relevant measure:
    Scientists disagree on the most accurate way to measure the INAH-3. LeVay measured the volume; other scientists claim it is more accurate to measure the actual number of neurons. Clarifying the potential problem, some have suggested that using a volume method to project impact on sexual orientation may be like trying to determine intelligence by a person’s hat size.
    When different laboratories have measured the four areas of the INAH (including INAH-3), their results conflicted. For example, Swaab and Fliers (1985) found that the INAH-1 was larger in men, while LeVay (1991) found no difference between men and women. Allen et al (1989) found the INAH-2 to be larger in men than in some women, while LeVay (1991) again found no difference. See Byne (1994), page 52.

    On Bailey & Pillards study on twin brothers,

    “In order for such a study to be meaningful, you’d have to look at twins raised apart,” says Anne Fausto Sterling, a biologist. The brothers in this study were raised together in their families.
    All the results were different from what one would expect if homosexuality was directly genetic:
    Because identical twin brothers share 100% of their genes overall, we would expect that if one was homosexual, the other would also be homosexual, 100% of the time. Instead, this study found that they were both homosexual only 52% of the time.
    Although completely unrelated genetically, adoptive brothers were more likely to both be gay than the biological brothers, who share half their genes! This piece of data prompted the journal Science to respond: “this . . . suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families” (Vol. 262 Dec.24, 1993).
    If homosexuality were genetic, one would expect each number in the column “Results from the B & P study” to be identical to the corresponding number in the “Expectation if genetic” column. Each one is significantly different!

    On Hamers’ study,

    Based on a simple genetic theory, one would expect 50%, or 20 pairs, to have the same markers. Why did 7 pairs of gay brothers not share a set of genetic markers?
    Hamer did not check to see if the heterosexual brothers of the homosexual men also had such a genetic marker. Thus, there was no control group in this study. Here too, this obviously is a major flaw in scientific method.
    Since that time, Science has reported that George Ebers, a researcher at the University of Western Ontario, has attempted to duplicate the study but found “no evidence, not even a trend,” for the “genetic link.” In the scientific world, that is a big problem. More recently, another study by Rice et al. has also stated that its results “do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality.”

    http://www2.nau.edu/~bio372-c/class/behavior/apbg.htm

    Like

  18. No Greg, it doesn’t mean I am attracted to men. It means I was coerced by an older homosexual to be still as he did his thing with me.

    First chance I got, I got away from him and was scared to death he had damaged me in some way (didn’t have the knowledge I have today)

    My reply that you read was in response to a facetious question “when did you decide to not be gay” and I gave the reply in a flippant manner.

    Like

  19. Like I said before Greg, maybe that “Gay Gene” got lost in your sofa cushions. Nobody else can find it either.

    Like

  20. Thanks for your very poignant contribution to the discussion, Jack. Another bulldozer?

    Again, Lew, you are presenting behaviourists vs. molecular biologistst. Next time I need a heart surgeon, should I consult a podiatrist?

    So, you really didn’t decide not to be gay at all, did you, Lew? You had no decision to make at all. Nice. So much for environmental vs. genetic causation, eh?

    You can’t support behaviour without science. It doesn’t exist. So many studies, so little time.

    What is it that you are afraid of, Lew? Why not accept people as they are and afford them the same rights that you have? Why is that so difficult for you? Tell me, Lew, how is it that you will be personally affected by the marriage of two committed people? How will your relationship with your wife, and those you love, be affected by someone else having the same relationship, and afforded the same rights?

    I told you this from the start….for every source you provide, I can provide an equal and much more scientific source that will be opposite it nature.

    History has sided on the side of human rights. It is time to accept the inevitable, Lew. Human rights will win out, and ancient bigory will continue to lose.

    I am done with this as well. Live will on your flat earth. May a witch never curse you….

    Like

  21. What you ignore Greg, is that these “behaviorists” as you label them give you your messiah’s own words denying they discovered a gay gene.

    As for what happened to me as a child, you weren’t there, you have no idea. But ask yourself, why is it so many young boys have no idea they are gay until shortly after going through similar molestations. All? No, but many.

    Next, show me a 3 year-old with an attraction to the same sex. If “born that way,” it’s there at a young age.

    And next, if you are reverting back to your “human rights’ argument, why do you still advocate denying basic human rights to all others who have alternate lifestyles that offend you?

    You stick with your own new flat earth, relying on junk biased science with a foregone conclusion.

    Everything your messiahs said was thoroughly refuted, had to bothered to read the links I gave you.

    Like

  22. Again, behaviourists vs real scientists. Podiatists vs. heart surgeons. Get a clue.

    Done.

    Like

  23. I’m glad you brought that up, Greg. Since Dean Hamer, the one you seem to cling to the most, is in cancer research, not matters of the brain.

    Do you enjoy shooting yourself in the foot like this?

    You also destroy your own argument by refusing to even look at what might be contrary to your preconceived views.

    You proved nothing.

    So, how about denials of the gay gene nonsense from gays themselves? Biology, my ass, Rejecting the Gay Brain (and choosing homosexuality), EXPLODING THE GENE MYTH.

    These and several more can be seen if you visit the website, “Queer by Choice”

    You sort of boxed yourself into a corner this time, Greg. Or, are you going to claim Gays are wrong, yet claim others Gays are right when it suits your notion?

    Like

  24. Please, Lew. Westview Baptist people must then be apostles in your view, then. Correct?

    Like

  25. So, as I thought, you won’t even bother to listen to what gays themselves have to say.

    Talk about preconceived notions and unwilling to listen to those who should know, gays themselves.

    You are getting worse with every comment, Greg. Maybe its time you went to bed.

    Like

  26. Lew, really. C’mon. First you lie about making a “homosexual decision”, then, when presented with behaviourist opinions vs. scientific research, you continue to support opinions of those that do no actual physiological research, then you present the Westview Baptist opinions of some fake gay people. Really?

    Fear is oppresive. Get over it.

    Again, history has shown that basic human rights win out over repressive 19th century attitudes.

    It will again.

    Like

  27. Greg, if you enjoy commenting here, you better rethink labeling me a liar, especially over such a thing as me being molested at a young age and what went through my mind. You don’t have a freakin clue.

    And again, if you really support basic human rights, why do you continue to advocate denial of basic human rights to all others?

    Oh, and Queer by Choice is not Westboro Baptist nor are they phony. But, it proves to what lengths you will go to hang on to a preconceived nothing.

    http://www.queerbychoice.com/myths.html

    http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/09/queer-by-choice-not-by-chance-against-being-born-this-way/244898/

    Watch your step or your ass is out of here.

    Like

  28. You’re one really sick puppy, Greg.

    Like

  29. hmm… Is Greg going to have another altar on the Sermon on the Mount?

    Thanks for all the great points, Lew. And trying to make a discussion with someone whose just trying to be argumentative.

    Like

  30. Lew,

    Greg Owens needs to join Exodus International to help his troubled mind!!! Lew, you have answered this discussion in a very professional manner and correct in what you have stated!!!

    Like

  31. Or better yet, Chuck, why not do what the Mormons have done until just recently….hook you up to electrodes and shock the gay out of you!

    Jeremy: Jesus, Himself, had nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality. And, if you believe in a physical Jesus, then you disagree with Paul (on whose writings many anti-gay people base their opinions), who only considered Jesus to be spiritual.

    And nice addition to the subject again,there Jack. Yet another bulldozer?

    Like

  32. “Watch your step or your ass is out of here.”

    Because calling you out on your own words wouldn’t be acceptable in the house of Lew?

    “My reply that you read was in response to a facetious question “when did you decide to not be gay” and I gave the reply in a flippant manner.”

    If you, indeed, were never attracted to me, then there was no decision on whether to be gay or not.

    Go ahead and join Madore on banning people that call you out when you are being disingenuous, Lew. Makes no difference to me.

    Like

  33. “men”, not “me”.

    Crap. Typing to fast. But that would apply also, I guess….

    Like

  34. No Greg, because I don’t put up with assholes calling me a liar over something they did not experience or haven’t a clue about.

    You didn’t “call anybody out,” you made a complete ass out of yourself.

    There is a lot I will tolerate, that is not one.

    Like

  35. Gee Greg, you put the bulldozer tracks on your own face with your cowardice against addressing the simple facts put to you. You don’t have the guts to admit that you’ve obviously lost every “argument” that you have raised here on this subject.

    Of course, that’s the “beauty” of Blog discussion – Everybody can see that you’ve lost the “arguments”, and your continued “avoidance” to acknowledge facts that you are unable to “get around” is out there for the world to see.

    And to top it all off, out of sheer desperation you throw a hysterical tantrum and call Lew a “liar” over something you know absolutely nothing about.

    Maybe you just need to go somewhere and have a “long talk” with yourself.

    Like

  36. I think its time to go back to the original discussion, eh?

    I think I’ll personal feelings out here and let the chips fall where they may. I’m not one of these people that put out a lot of facts on this subject, because its really rather simple for me.

    I have an over arching belief in this simple quotation:

    “Do unto others as YOU would want done on to you.” or for this case as Lew published, I believe in letting people do whatever they want as long as they hurt no one. If LGBT community wants to use a papermill certificate to get married, well let ’em.

    If they want to demand, special rights as it has been quoted around many different places, like minority statuses, special treatment preferential treatment to get into some school over someone else or on and on?

    Sorry BUD, get back in line just like every other single shepherded human in existence and you should get preferential treatment based on meritorious work, grades, income you bring into a university setting, patent or special considerations that are not based on sexual orientation, gender or other special considerations.

    We have set asides for special things for minority, income level and a few others. If you want to be treated just like any other American, please don’t ask for special favors and try to be like all of us. I don’t believe in future generations you’ll have to babysit your pet peeves or issues, it’s being indoctrinated out of the US population in successive generations.

    So quit stomping around and foaming at the bit and BECOME a part of our nation!

    Like

  37. Jeremy, I actually agree with this last post of yours, as does Bill Cosby (if that matters to you). I’m in support of the old adage, “the best revenge is living well.”

    To me, this means that everyone needs to overcome obstacles in their lives to be successful, in one way or another. I do not advocate special rights for anyone, but equal rights for everyone. Allowing homosexuals marriage, with all the rights and responsibilities therein, is equal rights. Beyond that, if I have a job available, it always goes to the best applicant, period. I will contract with the best contractor, period. The best students should be first in line for the best schools, period. Etc, etc.

    Jack, you really should start a construction company with all those “bulldozers”. Lew must be really impressed with the people that just regurgitate what he says without actually understanding the meaning of what he says….

    Like

  38. Gee Greg, I’m so sorry that you don’t have the “manhood” it takes to admit that you can’t refute the facts Lew and I have presented in this discussion.

    Btw, Lew is a “big boy” and so am I, and we can both kick your miserable ass either together, or separately, and have done so as “demonstrated”.

    Please feel free to insert another quarter and try again. Of course, you won’t get any extra points for whining, sniveling, or spinning.

    Like

  39. Btw Greg, how is it that you “advocate equal rights for everyone” if you won’t admit that polygamists, cousins, brothers and sisters of legal age don’t have just as much “right” to be “married” as Gays??

    Like

  40. Holy bungholes, Batman.

    “if you won’t admit that polygamists, cousins, brothers and sisters of legal age have just as much “right” to be “married” as Gays??”

    Like

  41. I am done with Lew and his less than dynamic shadow, hillbilly. This discussion is really not even necessary. Washington legislature will pass the marriage law; the referendum against it will fail (either by vote or being rendered uncostitutional just like Prop H8 in CA), and everyone can just go about their business. The sky won’t fall, and the US social structure won’t be destroyed.

    So, sleep well in your caves. You might try rubbing two sticks together…you just might create a fire to stay warm by.

    Oh, and Lew, keep repeating the same old tired non-argument in the Columbian comments section. It really is letting people see just how rediculous the opposition to gay marriage really is. Thanks. It is helping support the movement. We appreciate it.

    Like

  42. As I said, Greg, just because it is something you cannot counter, cannot deal with or admit that it shows your own bigotry, that does not make it a non-argument.

    That your only recourse is to label it a non-argument proves just how strong of an argument it is.

    Please, when you come back, do try to make some adult insults. My grandsons can do better than that.

    Like

  43. So far you haven’t proved a thing except your own ignorance, Greg. Save up your quarters and come back when you want more bulldozer tracks and bootprints on your miserable backside.

    “Argue with the best and you’ll cry like the rest”.

    Like

  44. Lew, most children can make better insults because they generally mature a lot faster than my generation of a short yore ago. (steve, tim and sam are just a few members of them…)

    Honestly, I tire of childish rants. Time to move back to the subject.

    Whether it’s political or not, I care less about someone’s gender qualification to marry. I think that is how I would sum up my feeling on it.

    Like

  45. Then you think it’s ok if 2 Gay brothers or sisters “marry”, Jeremy? What about multiple partners? What’s wrong with that?

    Like

  46. Lew,

    Gregg Owens agrees with Sodom & Gamorrah in support of Homosexual Marriage!!! We all know how well that worked out!!! Of course to Gregg S & G is just a fantasy. Lew it is impossible to communicate with someone who does not have a logical mind!!!

    Like

  47. Lew,

    Here are some facts that Gregg Owens will deny.

    According to the Associated Press, [reported in Christian News newspaper July 23, 2001 p. 3], the seven worst serial killers in the U.S.A. were all homosexual deviates: Donald Harvey – 37 murders; John Wayne Gacy – 33 murders; Patrick Kearney – 32 murders; Bruce Davis – 28 murders; Dean Corll, Elmer Wayne Henley, and David Owen Brooks – 27 murders. The top six male serial killers were homosexuals. 1) Donald Harvey claimed 37 victims. 2) John Wayne Gacy raped and killed 33 boys. 3) Patrick Kearney cut his 32 victims up into small pieces. 4) Bruce Davis molested and killed 27 young men and boys. 5) A homosexual sex-murder-torture ring of Corll, Henley and Brooks sent 27 men and boys to their grave. 6) Juan Corona murdered 25 migrant workers and molested the corpses. The worst female killer of 1992 was lesbian, Aileen Wuornos, killing seven. A study of 518 mass murders involving sex from 1966 to 1983 determined that 68% of the victims were killed by homosexuals, 44% of the murderers were bisexual or homosexual. Why so much cruelty from a small minority? Because deviant behavior is contagious and never affects only one person, it has a appetite. It is a known fact that many homosexuals can have numerous sex partners in one night.

    Like

  48. Lew,

    More facts on Homosexuality. The most famous city of all that allowed their activity first. Since San Francisco passed it’s gay-rights laws: Hepatitis A increased 100%, Hepatitis B 300% (casual contraction). In the last 10 years 85% of the people who were infected by the aids virus throughout the world were homosexual men. All one has to do is look to the Obituaries of men in homosexual journals to see the facts of their lifestyle. Most have a average age of death at 39 with AIDS, 42 without AIDS. The average age for lesbians is 45 or younger. 75 to 80% of straight married men live to be 65, while only 2% of homosexuals live to be past 65. A British study of 18,403 homosexuals found little improvement in lifespan if they married each other. So marriage may become a legality, but it will not change the consequences of their lifestyle.

    Homosexuals do not care about there dangerous lifestyle which spread diseases that can threaten our society affecting the innocent. The still incurable AIDS disease is now found in epidemic proportions and fatal to those contracting it. Yet homosexuals push to legalize the secrecy of this disease among themselves and want equal status in marriage. We need to ask if this is advantageous for our society.

    Like

  49. “Lew it is impossible to communicate with someone who does not have a logical mind!!!”

    Yep, 6,000 year-old earth, Noah’s ark, talking bushes, parting seas, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, genocide, etc, etc.

    You are exactly right, Chuck. It most certainly is.

    “reported in Christian News newspaper July 23, 2001 p. 3”

    That is enough to establish question, right there.

    However, here are global serial killers: Gary Ridgeway was hetero, and is #7. Gerald Stano, hetero, #5. Andrei Chikatilo, hetero, #4. Bruno Ludke, hetero, #3. Henry Lee Lucas, hetero, #2. And, at #1, Pedro Alonso Lopez, hetero.
    Source: http://homesecurity.net/serial-killers/

    Please list the sources for your disease data. I would like to review them.

    Thanks.

    I am done addressing the repetitive nonsense of Lew and hillbilly. However, I am interested to see if your sources and assumptions in your second post are as invalid as your first on serial killers.

    BTW, it is Greg, not Gregg.

    Like

  50. Greg, you might wish to consult the CDC for more information.

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/incidence.htm

    Even though the annual number of new HIV infections was stable overall during those years, there was an estimated 21% increase in HIV incidence for people aged 13-29 years, driven by a 34% increase in young MSM (the only group to experience a significant increase in incidence in this age range). Among MSM aged 13-29, HIV incidence among black/African American MSM increased significantly (48%) from 2006 through 2009 with a statistically significant 12.2% estimated annual percentage increase.

    The reasons for this increase are not fully known, but may include a high background prevalence of HIV in black MSM and societal factors, including stigma of HIV and homosexuality, limited access to health care, and poverty that may create an enabling environment for HIV infection.

    Overall, CDC’s new incidence estimates continue to show that

    Gay and bisexual men remain the population most heavily affected by HIV in the United States. CDC estimates MSM represent approximately 2% of the US population, but accounted for more than 50% of all new HIV infections annually from 2006 to 2009 –56% in 2006 (27,000), 58% in 2007 (32,300), 56% in 2008 (26,900) and 61% (29,300) in 2009.

    Like

  51. Thank you, Lew. I will. In addition, though, there are many assumptions made in Chuck’s second post that need to be addressed. I am waiting for his sources so I can do that as well. I appreciate your source data.

    Like

  52. Okay, Chucky….

    “Over the past few months we have learnt of a number of reports regarding a paper we published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the gay and bisexual life expectancy in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US and Finland to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.”

    “if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.”

    “It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive mesaure.”

    “In summary, the aim of our work was to assist health planners with the means of estimating the impact of HIV infection on groups, like gay and bisexual men, not necessarily captured by vital statistics data and not to hinder the rights of these groups worldwide. Overall, we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.”

    http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/1499.full

    Please read the entire piece.

    Also, on the obituary portion of your post:

    Referring to the so-called study by Paul Cameron, in conjunction with the Family Research Institute (another EXTREMELY biased source)

    “this method produces an unrepresentative sample that includes only those who die; gay men of the same generation who live longer aren’t in the sample at all! The sample also is biased toward urban gays who have AIDS and have come out of the closet.”

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.3/ross.html

    This is why I wanted your sources, Chucky. Again, please list your sources. If you choose not to, I can still sniff them out. It isn’t difficult to see where and from what bent they come from.

    How about we leave the scientificating to the scientists, eh?

    Like

  53. Gee Greg, don’t talk about “science” and “sources” to us when you can’t refute a few obvious FACTS as to why Homosexuality is NOT “genetic”.

    You can’t be “done” addressing the points and facts raised in this discussion by Lew and myself because YOU NEVER REFUTED THEM. Please put on your “man-shorts” and start admitting WHEN YOU’VE BEEN PROVEN WRONG instead of acting like a little punk sissy.

    Some day you just might GROW UP.

    Like

  54. It would be interesting to meet you in person, hillbilly. You sound like you might be all of 5’1 and 115 pounds, and all mouth.

    Like

  55. Let me reiterate, hillbilly. You haven’t added a single idea, opinion, fact, or source of your own. You have only repeated, and not very well, I might add, what Lew has stated.

    While I disagree with Chuck, Jeremy and Lew (and others) on this issue, at least they are giving their own opinions, ideas, facts, and sources. For this, they have my respect (not that it matters to any of them).

    Like

  56. Gee Greg, you really need to take off your smartass “blinders”. I have expressed my own opinions a lot, you apparently just can’t refute what I’ve posted, that’s all.

    Maybe you need to have your eyes “looked at” by an eye specialist because you only “see” what you “want to see”.

    Your “respect” and a dime won’t buy anybody a phone call. Nobody respects a guy that doesn’t have the “man-equipment” to admit that he’s lost the argument a long time ago.

    Greg, the “beauty” of a blog is that your mis-guided “brain” is “open” for everybody to see. Anybody can see that you’ve “avoided” any discussion of FACTS that show your “theories” are plainly WARPED.

    It doesn’t make any difference who or what I am. That has nothing to do with the FACT that you CAN’T REFUTE what I have posted.

    So go out and see if you can “find a pair” and either refute what I’ve posted or just sit there and continue to look like just another argumentative smartassed FOOL.

    Like

  57. Lew,

    Do you remember the Movie A Few Good Men? Jack Nicholson made a famous statement that I am going to say to Greg Owens. YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!! It does not make any difference how many facts put out there he refuses to acknowledge it!!! As far as I am concerned this disscussion is over!!!

    Like

  58. Chuck, I think I’ll let Greg & Jack peter out into their own divisive devoid. 🙂 (you might want to follow that too.)

    When the subjects gets back to DOMA initiative, I will start posting again.

    Like

  59. I have a “feeling” that there will be more than just one DOMA initiative, Jeremy. This is just the “opening shot”. We’ve seen the “Gay activists” downsize their “ambitions” with NAMBLA to focus their “thrusts” to just “Gay marriage”, but I don’t think anyone is so naive as to think they will stop at that. Their entire “goal” is the total perversion and absolute destruction of the American Culture as we know it now.

    Like

  60. Chuck, when you start presenting the truth, I’ll handle it just fine. Using models that start with incorrect data, using biased sources that don’t present all of the data, and then building assumptions from those is NOT the truth.

    Perhaps you should review proper scientific method, of which the base you should have understood in high school, before you start trying to post something for which you have no understanding.

    Jeremy, I’m done with hillbilly.

    Like

  61. That’s because you can’t refute my facts, Greg. You wouldn’t know “truth” or “proper scientific method” if either one bit you on the ass. Your smartass narcissism keeps you from seeing anything you don’t “want to see”.

    “Jeremy, I’m done with hillbilly”.

    That’s “nice” Greg, I’m “not done” with your smartass. I’m not chickensh*t and afraid of facts like you are.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: