Why Bachman was Right About the Gay Myth

What's the point? Is there a minimum percentage you have to get to if you're in a minority before you get equal rights in this country?

Gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else in this country. We've been through this a dozen times and no one has shown what rights they are missing.


I've posted this before, so someone saying that no one has shown what rights they are missing is incorrect.

The right that is missing is equal treatment under the law for same-sex couples when compared to like situated different-sex couples without a compelling government interest in such different treatment based on the gender composition of the couple. To wit, law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult same-sex couples are treated differently than law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult different-sex couples in the area of Civil Marriage.



>>>>
 
You are issued a privilege license to get married. Although it's more like a penalty license with the marriage penalties you pay in taxes.

Rights...rights DON'T REQUIRE A LICENSE!


Wanna bet I could find states that require a permit/license to carry a firearm?


Carrying a firearm is a "privilege"?


>>>>
 
Then the Supreme Court is WRONG. There is nothing in the Constitution or legislated law that makes marriage a right, or else states sould not be able to deny it to ANYONE that wants to marry ANYONE else, be it with children, animals, groups or what have you.

Jumping Jimminy Cricket, you talk like you have never heard of the Dred Scott decision. Like that got changed this marriage bullshit will get changed too.


Given the bolding above, are you of the position then that all rights must be enumerated in the Constitution for them to exist for the citizens of this country?



>>>>
 
The Supreme Court of the United States of America has declared that marriage is a fundamental right on no less than three occasions. Those cases were:

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

It is, indeed, a privilege, not a right, to serve in the United States Armed Forces. All serving military members should be serving under the exact same rules and regulations though don't you think?

The thing is that it is not an absolute right. Otherwise, all the incest and polygamy laws could be struck down as well. The court has never shown a willingness to go that far.
 
Yes, it's been repeated so often, and many have told you of the rights that gays don't have.

Exept the typical list of whines I have seen are not about rights denied but privileges.

There is no right to marry, there is no right to serve in the military.

What these jerks are really demanding is approval from the rest of society and were it not for the neocons controling the GOP, this controversy would have been over twenty years ago.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America has declared that marriage is a fundamental right on no less than three occasions. Those cases were:

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

It is, indeed, a privilege, not a right, to serve in the United States Armed Forces. All serving military members should be serving under the exact same rules and regulations though don't you think?

From reading the three cases cited, it appears to me the Supreme Court based its rulings on the Due Process Clause contained in the 14th Amendment. The essence of which is :

the Court interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as providing substantive protection to private contracts and thus prohibiting a variety of social and economic regulation, under what was referred to as "freedom of contract". In the Law, marriage is a contract. A contract which has been entered into between two parties who have a meeting of the minds.

Since in this country, thankfully, we still live under these laws and not the bias of Church law, the interpretation should be that any two people of legal age who wish to marry may enter into a contract to do so, regardless of race, creed, national origin, religion or sexual orientation, without interference from non-interested parties.

What's up with people whose sole mission in life is to interfere in such personal matters? Might I suggest that these obnoxious busy-bodies first take long survey around their own bailiwicks before trying to control how other citizens live their lives. Just my opinion.
 
Since in this country, thankfully, we still live under these laws and not the bias of Church law, the interpretation should be that any two people of legal age who wish to marry may enter into a contract to do so, regardless of race, creed, national origin, religion or sexual orientation, without interference from non-interested parties.
Uh...wrong. The vast majority of our laws ARE based on Christian principles and the 10 Commandments!

The ones that have strayed from those principles are the ones that have done so much damage to our society!

Any two consenting adults can enter into a contract or partnership at their leisure....as long as it is LEGAL activity. However, the fed has NO jurisdiction over whether or not the government of a state is going to enshrine that activity into law. THAT is a violation of the Constitution!

Funny how some liberals are more than happy to have states decide when, where and how to issue privilege licenses for some activities and not others that are CLEARLY a states rights issue.

Some folks need to read the 10th Amendment and then cross reference it with the 9th!

You can marry who ever the hell you want. You just can't force the state to recognize it!
 
Since in this country, thankfully, we still live under these laws and not the bias of Church law, the interpretation should be that any two people of legal age who wish to marry may enter into a contract to do so, regardless of race, creed, national origin, religion or sexual orientation, without interference from non-interested parties.
Uh...wrong. The vast majority of our laws ARE based on Christian principles and the 10 Commandments!

What a load of crap.

The ones that have strayed from those principles are the ones that have done so much damage to our society!

Any two consenting adults can enter into a contract or partnership at their leisure....as long as it is LEGAL activity. However, the fed has NO jurisdiction over whether or not the government of a state is going to enshrine that activity into law. THAT is a violation of the Constitution!

Funny how some liberals are more than happy to have states decide when, where and how to issue privilege licenses for some activities and not others that are CLEARLY a states rights issue.

Some folks need to read the 10th Amendment and then cross reference it with the 9th!

You can marry who ever the hell you want. You just can't force the state to recognize it!
 
Since in this country, thankfully, we still live under these laws and not the bias of Church law, the interpretation should be that any two people of legal age who wish to marry may enter into a contract to do so, regardless of race, creed, national origin, religion or sexual orientation, without interference from non-interested parties.
Uh...wrong. The vast majority of our laws ARE based on Christian principles and the 10 Commandments!

The ones that have strayed from those principles are the ones that have done so much damage to our society!

Any two consenting adults can enter into a contract or partnership at their leisure....as long as it is LEGAL activity. However, the fed has NO jurisdiction over whether or not the government of a state is going to enshrine that activity into law. THAT is a violation of the Constitution!

Funny how some liberals are more than happy to have states decide when, where and how to issue privilege licenses for some activities and not others that are CLEARLY a states rights issue.

Some folks need to read the 10th Amendment and then cross reference it with the 9th!

You can marry who ever the hell you want. You just can't force the state to recognize it!


So you are saying that the SCOTUS should not have struck down the ban on interracial Civil Marriage because the federal governmental "has NO jurisdiction over whether or not the government of a state is going to enshrine that activity into law?



>>>>
 
I will encourage you to do some research on what being homosexual was like in 1948, when this study was first published. Homosexuality was considered to be a mental illness, until 1973. People were jailed for "homosexual relations". Undoubtedly, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals were lynched or murdered. (hey it still goes on, so there's no question that it was happening then.) Police would pull up to gay bars in paddywagons and arrest most of the men in the bar. In some states, sodomy is still on the books as illegal.

And so....with all this information (knowing that you might be arrested, murdered, placed in a psych hospital)...would you have been open about your sexuality in the 1940's?

Does anyone else think that Kinsey's study might be a bit dated to pertain to now?

Except people have examined Kinsey's study, which is the source for the 10% myth, and discovered that they over-counted dramatically, including for example prison inmates.
The truth is the gay population is about 3%.

Ok.... suppose it is 3%.... so? What's your point? That 3% of the people don't deserve their rights?

So much for protecting the minority against the tyranny of the majority. I love the way Conservatives continually throw the Constitution around like it's a wrecking ball, but then are so willing to throw it out the window when it involves an issue they don't like.... hypocrites.

I didn't see anyone saying that, because there are fewer of then than we thought, we should just kill them. When are you going to actually learn to read before you start typing?
 
What's the point? Is there a minimum percentage you have to get to if you're in a minority before you get equal rights in this country?

Gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else in this country. We've been through this a dozen times and no one has shown what rights they are missing.


I've posted this before, so someone saying that no one has shown what rights they are missing is incorrect.

The right that is missing is equal treatment under the law for same-sex couples when compared to like situated different-sex couples without a compelling government interest in such different treatment based on the gender composition of the couple. To wit, law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult same-sex couples are treated differently than law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adult different-sex couples in the area of Civil Marriage.



>>>>

Which is why we need to stop carving out legal privileges for married couple, or people with children.
 
My question. Why should it matter if it is 3% or 10% or 25%?

the economy sucks just as much for gay folks right now as it does for straight folks. Maybe they'll be happy that they can't get thrown out of the military thanks to Obama right now, (although most of the people thrown out under DADT outed themselves when they found out their recruiters lied about the color TV's) .

Our real problem is that the economy sucks and the middle class is disappearing and China is creeping up in our rear view mirror (objects are closer than they appear).

I want to hear what these guys are going to do about that. Most of it seems to be kow-towing to our new Overlords.

6a00d8341c630a53ef0128759fd303970c-600wi


This is the sort of thing we should be upset about.

1004af0e_Bush_Prince_Abdullah_kiss_hold_hands.jpeg


I have no problem with a young man bowing to an elderly statesman. I do have a problem with the president swapping spit with an Arab prince.

The pictures are PHOTOSHOPPED you STUPID, IGNORANT, COCK SUCKING MORON... just like THESE are if you want to play that IDIOT game...

o2.jpg


o1.jpg
 
So you are saying that the SCOTUS should not have struck down the ban on interracial Civil Marriage because the federal governmental "has NO jurisdiction over whether or not the government of a state is going to enshrine that activity into law?



>>>>
And just when was that struck down and just how many states had already stuck it down prior to that?

In our representative form of government, when society reaches a point where some issue...that is NOT defined as a right in the Constitution...reaches a point of public policy for the several states...THEN it is an issue to be considered on the federal level.

State's issues being dictated to the majority by a minority or a few activist inside the government is a subversion of the process and our Republican form of government!
 
Regardless of the "10%" being a lie or not, the fact remains that Bachman is a complete disgrace. Anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, skin color, hair color, gender, etc., should NOT be discriminated against. How many times does this country need to go through a civil revolution before the braindead part of the population wakes up?? Furthermore, any candidate that bases their campaign on homosexuality being a "sickness" and promoting a camp and treatment for this "sickness" is absolutely clueless to real issues at hand.

Let's point out the fact that Bachman has yet to make one intelligent point duing this whole presidential campaign. She has no place in politics and, in my opinion, in the public eye period.
 
This is funny.

Ok.... suppose it is 3%.... so? What's your point? That 3% of the people don't deserve their rights?

Here you leap to an unwarranted conclusion that absolutely NO ONE has suggested, and then...

So much for protecting the minority against the tyranny of the majority. I love the way Conservatives continually throw the Constitution around like it's a wrecking ball, but then are so willing to throw it out the window when it involves an issue they don't like.... hypocrites.

...you argue against your own presumption.

That is a combination of 'straw man', 'red herring' and 'unwarranted assertion' fallacies all rolled into one big lump of steaming jack-ass shyte.

Congratulations for posting the clearest shining example of how stupid Democrats have sunk to in pursuit of political correctness.

Apparently you don't spend much time on here.
 
Except people have examined Kinsey's study, which is the source for the 10% myth, and discovered that they over-counted dramatically, including for example prison inmates.
The truth is the gay population is about 3%.

Ok.... suppose it is 3%.... so? What's your point? That 3% of the people don't deserve their rights?

So much for protecting the minority against the tyranny of the majority. I love the way Conservatives continually throw the Constitution around like it's a wrecking ball, but then are so willing to throw it out the window when it involves an issue they don't like.... hypocrites.

I didn't see anyone saying that, because there are fewer of then than we thought, we should just kill them. When are you going to actually learn to read before you start typing?

Kill them??? Wow... quite the drama queen aren't we?
 
So you are saying that the SCOTUS should not have struck down the ban on interracial Civil Marriage because the federal governmental "has NO jurisdiction over whether or not the government of a state is going to enshrine that activity into law?



>>>>
And just when was that struck down and just how many states had already stuck it down prior to that?

1. 1967

2. Why does it matter how many states had repealed their laws prior to that. If one state wanted to keep it on the books, under the premise of your previous statements, the SCOTUS had no authority to strike down the law. Prior to the SCOTUS action it was a valid state law for the Commonwealth of Virginia.

In our representative form of government, when society reaches a point where some issue...that is NOT defined as a right in the Constitution...reaches a point of public policy for the several states...THEN it is an issue to be considered on the federal level.


I asked before, and didn't receive an answer, are you of the opinion that unless rights are enumerated in the Constitution that they are not held by the people?


State's issues being dictated to the majority by a minority or a few activist inside the government is a subversion of the process and our Republican form of government!


A majority (or at least a plurality) on the national level do support equal treatment under the law for homosexuals. We have polls that show this nationally and in the most recent state (New York) polls showed the same thing. So as a Republican form of government the legislature was correct in passing recognition of Same-sex Civil Marriage.



>>>>
 
Since in this country, thankfully, we still live under these laws and not the bias of Church law, the interpretation should be that any two people of legal age who wish to marry may enter into a contract to do so, regardless of race, creed, national origin, religion or sexual orientation, without interference from non-interested parties.
Uh...wrong. The vast majority of our laws ARE based on Christian principles and the 10 Commandments!

The ones that have strayed from those principles are the ones that have done so much damage to our society!

Any two consenting adults can enter into a contract or partnership at their leisure....as long as it is LEGAL activity. However, the fed has NO jurisdiction over whether or not the government of a state is going to enshrine that activity into law. THAT is a violation of the Constitution!

Funny how some liberals are more than happy to have states decide when, where and how to issue privilege licenses for some activities and not others that are CLEARLY a states rights issue.

Some folks need to read the 10th Amendment and then cross reference it with the 9th!

You can marry who ever the hell you want. You just can't force the state to recognize it!

What is with Christians continuously and erroneously declaring this country was founded on Christian principles. You need to read up on the founders, especially the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights - Thomas Jefferson

Here's what he had to say about that:

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

It is indeed unfortunate that Christians have such a problem discerning the difference between God and Jesus Christ. For a great many in this world they are not synonymous. In fact, for many the latter doesn't exist and if he does certainly not as the son of God.

It is indeed also unfortunate that Christians have a problem discerning that there is a total and complete separation of church and state as mandated in the Constitution.

There is no doubt that many of the tenets and principles set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights were derived from the Ten Commandments. However, they were given to Moses by God in the Old Testament. Jesus Christ wouldn't appear until 1000 years later and it would be in the New Testament.

The majority of people on earth believe in the One God, as did the country's founders. But this incessant prattle that this is a Christian nation simply cannot be substantiated because it is an untruth.

Adolf Hitler said If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed. Fortunately not by everyone, however,
 
Bachman told a gay supporter the other day that the factoid that 10% of the total population is gay is a myth, and people have been slamming her for being wrong on the topic. The media seems to simply presume the myth Bachman referred to is correct without discussion and referenced Kinsey's research to support their presumption.

The fact is that Kinsey's research support Bachman's claim. According to Kinsey, about 11% of males engage in K3+ sexual behavior which is basically bisexuals and those tending more toward exclusive homosexuality. What places one in this category is if one has engaged in that type of behavior for 3 or more years of their adult lives. So one could be exclusivley heterosexual in behavior from the age of 16 to 25, experiment with bisexuality from the age of 26 to 28, then go back to being exclusively heterosexual the rest of your life and you are still classified by Kinsy as bisexual or K3. Kinsey's research also showed that people driftin in and out of a sexual behavior category and into others for their entire lives.

Since gay advocates claim that 10% of the population is gay and people are born exclusively gay for their whole life, basically Kinsey's research refutes that completely.

So Bachman is once again correct, her critics imbeciles and all that is 'situation normal'.

As to Kinsey's research, it has been proven that he used a data sample that included about 25% felons, which should surprise no one that for at least three years 11% of those in his survey engaged in homosexual behavior. That is simply a thing that happens in prison. His defenders admitted to the data sampling error, but claimed later to have removed the felon derived data and still ended up with the same results. For that to be true, then one would have to accept that the prison population is no more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than the general population which is preposterous.

Also, Kinsey used volunteer data, which by its very nature opens one up to self selection bias.

So it is extremely likely that Kinsey's numbers are exagerated by several factors.

I wont even go into moral questions regarding his surveying people he knew to be active pedophiles but not reporting them to the police, and his own bias in his research as he was bisexual himself.

Yeah she was right, liberal emotionalism can't change facts.
 
Bachman told a gay supporter the other day that the factoid that 10% of the total population is gay is a myth, and people have been slamming her for being wrong on the topic. The media seems to simply presume the myth Bachman referred to is correct without discussion and referenced Kinsey's research to support their presumption.

The fact is that Kinsey's research support Bachman's claim. According to Kinsey, about 11% of males engage in K3+ sexual behavior which is basically bisexuals and those tending more toward exclusive homosexuality. What places one in this category is if one has engaged in that type of behavior for 3 or more years of their adult lives. So one could be exclusivley heterosexual in behavior from the age of 16 to 25, experiment with bisexuality from the age of 26 to 28, then go back to being exclusively heterosexual the rest of your life and you are still classified by Kinsy as bisexual or K3. Kinsey's research also showed that people driftin in and out of a sexual behavior category and into others for their entire lives.

Since gay advocates claim that 10% of the population is gay and people are born exclusively gay for their whole life, basically Kinsey's research refutes that completely.

So Bachman is once again correct, her critics imbeciles and all that is 'situation normal'.

As to Kinsey's research, it has been proven that he used a data sample that included about 25% felons, which should surprise no one that for at least three years 11% of those in his survey engaged in homosexual behavior. That is simply a thing that happens in prison. His defenders admitted to the data sampling error, but claimed later to have removed the felon derived data and still ended up with the same results. For that to be true, then one would have to accept that the prison population is no more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than the general population which is preposterous.

Also, Kinsey used volunteer data, which by its very nature opens one up to self selection bias.

So it is extremely likely that Kinsey's numbers are exagerated by several factors.

I wont even go into moral questions regarding his surveying people he knew to be active pedophiles but not reporting them to the police, and his own bias in his research as he was bisexual himself.

I will encourage you to do some research on what being homosexual was like in 1948, when this study was first published. Homosexuality was considered to be a mental illness, until 1973. People were jailed for "homosexual relations". Undoubtedly, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals were lynched or murdered. (hey it still goes on, so there's no question that it was happening then.) Police would pull up to gay bars in paddywagons and arrest most of the men in the bar. In some states, sodomy is still on the books as illegal.

And so....with all this information (knowing that you might be arrested, murdered, placed in a psych hospital)...would you have been open about your sexuality in the 1940's?

Does anyone else think that Kinsey's study might be a bit dated to pertain to now?

Except people have examined Kinsey's study, which is the source for the 10% myth, and discovered that they over-counted dramatically, including for example prison inmates.
The truth is the gay population is about 3%.

I don't know how many gays and lesbians are in the US. Rabbi, I doubt that you and I will know, definitively, in our lifetimes. We might have an idea; and that idea will probably be about 3%. And the reason that I say this, is because 3% is probably the percentage that is willing to openly admit it to another person. I know one person, well, that is gay, but says that he will never act upon those feelings, because he is also very religious. I know several men and women whom I stronly suspect are, but will never act upon it because of religious beliefs, or the stigma attached to it. (I understand this)

I have a few friends who have asked me to carry it to my grave (which I will) who have admitted to me of participating in gay or lesbian sex.

Does anyone else ever find themselves asking: "What relavence is this to national security, financial security, etc..of the US?" We need to scoot the "guns, God, and gays" out of the issues, until we can figure out a way to keep our country functioning.

An analogy: Worrying about some of these issues, to me, is like a nagging housewife who is trying to figure out how to keep her marble vanities, countertops, crystal chandaliers, and hardwood floors sparkling, when she doesn't have the money to pay the mortgage on the house that she's worried about. Sure those things are important, but if you aren't living in the house....it isn't going to matter, anymore.
 
Ok.... suppose it is 3%.... so? What's your point? That 3% of the people don't deserve their rights?

So much for protecting the minority against the tyranny of the majority. I love the way Conservatives continually throw the Constitution around like it's a wrecking ball, but then are so willing to throw it out the window when it involves an issue they don't like.... hypocrites.

I didn't see anyone saying that, because there are fewer of then than we thought, we should just kill them. When are you going to actually learn to read before you start typing?

Kill them??? Wow... quite the drama queen aren't we?

Upset that you got called on your stupidity?
 

Forum List

Back
Top