Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: Laws create a stable society

Letter by Joseph B. Cristel , Carbonado on June 20, 2012 at 10:22 am with 100 Comments »
June 20, 2012 12:42 pm

Re:”We don’t live in a theocracy” (letter, 6-19).

Forget about “religious” interpretations of marriage. Whether you are religious or not, the concept of a man and a woman is the universally accepted criteria for marriage.

Today’s debate is not about extending basic human rights to all citizens. It’s about fundamentally changing the definition of marriage to fit a chosen lifestyle of a very small but vocal minority.

Homosexuals have the constitutional right to marry but not to redefine marriage. Homosexuals have married the opposite sex and never have been denied that right.

There are legal restrictions on who any of us can marry. You can’t already be married. You must be an adult and marry an adult. You can’t marry a close family member. You must marry someone of the opposite sex.

These laws keep homosexuals and heterosexuals from redefining marriage and create a stable society for our children.

Referendum 74 redefines civilization’s marriage culture.

Leave a comment Comments → 100
  1. “It’s about fundamentally changing the definition of marriage to fit a chosen lifestyle of a very small but vocal minority.”

    No it isn’t, it’s about the freedom and rights of every American citizen.

  2. The current legal restrictions on the basic human right to choose whom to marry are based on the Supreme Courts’ rulings that say the states may only restrict that right based on harm that a marriage causes to people in the marriage, to other people or to our democratic institutions.

    By changing the laws on who can marry whom over the centuries, the definition of marriage has been changed many times. It used to be considered “fundamental” to the definition of marriage that one could only marry within one’s race.

    Same-sex couples want to “stabilize” their relationships just like opposite-sex couples do, and marriage is the institution that assists the most in that stability.

  3. Joe, your very first sentence is a pre-conceived notion for which you can provide no proof. It makes the rest of your argument pure nonsense.

  4. billybushey says:

    By allowing a full, civilly recognized marriage between gay couples, we grant them what straight couples have in the way of legal rights: suvivorship, inheritance, joint ownership, taxation and child custody to name a few. That’s what gay marriage is about. Civil unions only go about 85% of the distance legally. Gay people have the right (civilly) to the same treatment otherwise we have codified discrimination and blessed 2nd class citizen ship.

  5. josephcristel says:

    Thanks for the feed back but I beg to differ on a few points.
    To Tuddo I would say that”one could only marry within one’s race” was certainly discrimatory butit did not redefine marriage as being other than between a man and a woman.
    To Publico’s assertion that my first statement was “a pre-conceived notion for which you can provide no proof” let’s see what I said.”the concept of a man and a woman is the universally accepted criteria for marriage”.Hmmm.No proof,huh. I’ll let the numbers of heterosexual marriages speak for themselves.No other type of union even comes close to this. Everyone might not agree but the overwhelming majority of earth inhabitants do.

  6. The conservative estimates have just under 50% of Americans in favor of Gay Marriage.

    That alone disproves “universally accepted criteria.”

    Add in the governments that have already allowed Gay Marriage, and now “universally accepted criteria” has been completely obliterated.

    The times they are a-changin’…

  7. surething says:

    Chosen. Get a life.

  8. josephcristel, religious folks used the “redefine marriage” argument all the way to the Supreme Court with interracial marriage. To them it was a fundamental part of the definition of marriage.

    Every single one of the arguments used against gay marriage has been tried with interracial marriage. People just choose what part of the restrictions on marriage they choose to say is fundamental to the definition.

    Marriage is a contract defined by secular laws, nothing more nothing less. Whatever the law says is marriage is the definition of marriage.

  9. josephcristel says:

    Well, one comment to Mr. Billybushy.I think the gay lobby could fill in all those “rights” your missing by using legal channels as they have with so many issues. But their main agenda is to confer upon their relationship the seal of marriage between a man and a woman.They thus become interlopers.They have no “right” to this heterosexual institution anymore than they have a “right” to force the Boy Scouts to allow them into their organization(which,as you know, the courts have ruled against gays on this).The only way gays can get marriage is by redefining it. What a wonderful way to run a society!

  10. josephcristel says:

    Yes krummm..just under 50 percent of americans favaor gay marriage(except in North Carolina! etc..)but 95% of those favoring gay marriages are heterosexuals who will establish the”univerally accepted criteria”.

  11. LeePHill says:

    ” Whether you are religious or not, the concept of a man and a woman is the universally accepted criteria for marriage”

    Except in countries and cultures where plural marriages are the norm

    Joseph, I’m not sure why you are so threatened by the ability for same sex people to marry, but since plural marriages are as old as mankind, I think the idea of a new marital concept isn’t going to ruin society, unless the restriction of only one spouse has already ruined the society that bless plural marriages.

    Now, in simpler language, Joseph, I’m really saying “mind your own business and leave people live their lives as you wish others would do with you.

  12. LeePHill says:

    Oh and Joseph, with the problems of pedophilia that have plagued organizations such as the Boy Scouts and since it’s been proven that pedophilia seems to be a heterosexual issue (see the study done in Denver), I doubt that homosexuals will be going out of their way to join the Boy Scouts and become the false whipping post for their pedophilia issues.

  13. truthbusterguy says:

    Mr. Cristel,

    Your letter is the best one yet that makes a logical argument why we must keep marriage between a man and a woman. An argument progressive liberals make all the time when they want to raise taxes, “it’s for the children”.

    Gays have all the same rights as anyone else. There is nothing or no one to stop a homosexual from marrying someone of the opposite sex it they so desire. The word Marriage has a specific meaning as does the word heterosexual. We don’t need to change the word “heterosexual” to be more inclusive.

    How about a nice civil union?

    Even if you think homosexuality is natural, how does that qualify it for marriage?

    Homosexuals don’t need to pretend anything. They need to understand that they do not qualify for state sanctioning of their unions due to the nature of their perverse affections.

  14. LeePHill says:

    As to the possible whims of the “majority”, I quote Thomas Jefferson:

    “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

    Civil rights are not to be legislated, Joseph.

  15. Scottc51 says:

    I’d like to marry my mom. We have so much in common and really both love each other. I think we should have that right.

  16. Joesph, I am a bit confused by your logic.

    The majority of marriages are hetero so that is the universally accepted definition of marriage that can not be changed?

    That is like saying, before the Supreme Court ruling, the vast majority of marriages are not interracial so the universally accepted definition of marriage is within one’s race?

    That is circular logic.

  17. “They thus become interlopers.They have no “right” to this heterosexual institution”

    Sorry but this is still America ans we all have the same ‘rights’ by LAW.
    You are wrong.

  18. “Your letter is the best one yet that makes a logical argument why we must keep marriage between a man and a woman.”

    How can you say that when there is no ‘logic’ in it?
    It nothing more than the same old worn out religious ‘argument’ glossed over and not obviously using religion.
    Face the facts, there is NO logical argument as American citizens, to ban same sex marriage.
    Marriage is a secular, civil contract, nothing more nothing less.
    The only ‘fundamental change’ is on the anti rights side by attempting to usurp a civil institution to a religious one.
    The state has controlled marriage far longer than the church and thus your ‘traditional’ marriage is in fact a civil one.

  19. heterosexuals do not own the rights to the word “marriage”.

    The, “its for the children argument” only works if you outlaw adoption by gay couples – or outlaw abortion and in vitro fertilization for anyone, hetero or gay.

  20. OOOOPS! That should read “outlaw ADOPTION and in vitro fertilization for everyone”

  21. averageJoseph says:

    Homosexual pedophiles preston.

  22. LeePHill says:

    Scott – just like homosexuals, you need to get the law changed so that you can marry your mom.

    Does she agree or is this an oedipus issue?

  23. after Scott marries his mom is he going to make her quit dating other guys?

  24. Joe, I stand by my comment, for all you have to do is look up the definitions of the word, universal. You cannot prove your pre-conceived notion and your letter’s content is still big time nonsense.
    One has to love the manuvering people attempt as they denounce gay rights while at the same time trying not to be too obvious about their homophobia.

  25. Mr. Cristel,
    Based on your responses here, I would strongly recommend that you consider the possibility of lacking good command of logic and critical thinking. Please make an effort to understand better the excellent responses to your letter.

    You may try to pay attention to what part of your statements are a wish/preference (“I really like it this way”) versus factual observation (“This way is beneficial”, preferably followed by “because of findings 1, 2, 3″).

    You vaguely make an attempt for a factual statement in “create a stable society for our children”; however, unfortunately, this line of argumentation has been found unsupported (to start with, marriage *will* increase stability for children in gay families).

  26. Laws and societies are not stable – they both change overtime.

  27. josephcristel says:

    Just a few last comments before I go to bed.To kluwer:Marriage predates both the organized church and the state..(“The history of human marriage”Edward Weastermarck)Those two entities are charged with preserving marriage not redefining it to suit individual preferences.
    To roussir: The American Psychiatric Association says that children in gay marriages more closely “resemble families in divorced or step families”. These relationships are fraught with problems.
    To Publico:Homophobia??Please. Let’s not resort to name calling.Let’s give our arguments and then evaluate them.That is where these discussions should begin and end. Thanks to all for your imput.

  28. bobcat1a says:

    ” the universally accepted criteria for marriage.”
    Joe, you’re a little out of date; many countries (at least 15 at last count) recognize same sex marriage and 7 soon to be 9 states in the US do as well. Sort of blows your whole argument out of the water. You should try to count the number of things that used to be “universally accepted” that are now thought of as barbarous behavior. Start with slavery, torture and wife-beating and keep going. You’ll be there a while.

  29. Where is the outrage for the parts of the world where these universally accepted marriages involve middle age men marrying eight year olds, or men who have multiple wives, who beat, murder, throw acid on or sell their wives into the slave trade when they tire of them? That is more disconcerting than homosexual marriage.

  30. @josephchr…? That study you quote was proven to be heavily flawed.

  31. bobcat1a says:

    So Joseph, if “The American Psychiatric Association says that children in gay marriages more closely ‘resemble families in divorced or step families’. These relationships are fraught with problems,” are you now going to crusade against those types of families and ban them?

  32. Or where marriages are arranged by the brides father.

  33. “:Marriage predates both the organized church and the state”

    Thank you for making my point, as you yourself claim neither church nor state ‘owns’ marriage then we as a society do ‘own’ it (Never mind that we own the state as well) then we can change it at any time we feel fit.

    Glad to see you coming around.

  34. I’m sure that JosephChristel’s and averageJoseph’s attempts to link homosexuality with pedophilia in spite of numerous sources that demonstrate that homosexuals actually have a lower percentage of pedophiles than heterosexuals has absolutely nothing to do with homophobia…..

  35. josephcristel, your statement is false: “To roussir: The American Psychiatric Association says that children in gay marriages more closely “resemble families in divorced or step families”. These relationships are fraught with problems.”

    Here is the APA’s actual policy statement since 1973:

    “Numerous studies have shown that the children of gay parents are as likely to be healthy and well adjusted as children raised in heterosexual households. Children raised in gay or lesbian households do not show any greater incidence of homosexuality or gender identity issues than other children.”


    I am afraid that you have bought into myths and scare tactics of those who seek to deny equal treatment of same-sex couples under the law and are presenting misleading and totally false information.

    So now you know and can share the real information.

  36. LeePHill says:

    Joseph – in your case, “homophobia” isn’t namecalling. It’s an accurate description. You ARE afraid of homosexuals.


    Since some fear reality, I’ll post the link.

  37. averageJoseph says:

    Well bB, spin how ever you like. IMO, if an adult male is persuing young males rather than young females, well, you get the picture. Besides, there are numerous sources that claim sexual preference is genetic and people are born that way… right?

    Which reminds me… who said the following > “Not all studies are accurate, not all studies have good methodology. Whether or not you saw the source doesn’t matter – what matters is if it was actually designed and conducted in a valid matter.”

  38. spotted1 says:

    Frida, the issues you cite in those countries are true. Sadly, and many people are opposed to them.
    bobcat1, yes, there are now countries that accept homosexual/gay marriage.
    However, there are many countries in the world, far more than accept gay marriage, that are opposed to gay marriage and treat the homosexual community far worse than we ever do. Including murder and execution of homosexuals.

    I have yet to see anyone truly give a good explanation of why “gay marriage” is a “Freedom and a Right” of a person of the USA.

    I still see this as a legal grab for rights because certain people want others to accept their lifestyle.

  39. scooter6139 says:

    average – You can do better than that. If someone provides facts that you disagree with you must provide your own to bolster your argument, rather than post hot air.

    Please, elaborate on what adult male is pursuing young males. Specifics please. (Catholic priests do not count. It’s called Alter Boy for a reason.) I would also love to see your convoluted reasoning for genetic predisposition and pedophilia. Again, sources please.

  40. averageJoseph says:

    Are you asking a question?

  41. averageJoseph says:

    Have you never heaqrd sexual preference is genetic or that people are born that way? (the question mark indicates I am asking a question… kooky huh?)

  42. averageJoseph says:

    heard ;)

  43. scooter6139 says:

    average – Yes, I have heard that and I agree with it. Do you? (See, that is a question! ;) kooky? No.)
    beerboy mocked your linking homosexuality with pedophilia and threw in an offhand homophobic comment. You called that spin and then posed a rhetorical question about genetics and predisposition that has nothing to do with pedophilia. Tuddo and LeePHill even posted links to disprove your disputed claim. You seem to disagree with them so I challenged you to back up your rhetoric and refute their links to facts and studies with some of your own.

  44. Spotted…

    What a coincidence. I have yet to see anyone truly give a good reason why Gay Marriage shouldn’t be allowed.

  45. aislander says:

    Good letter, Mr. Cristel, but the idea of maintaining a stable society is the main reason that all the cultural termites in this thread disagree with it…

    These people are ALL, to a greater of lesser degree, revolutionaries…

  46. Define “stable”.

  47. aislander, You have offered “maintaining a stab le society” as a reason to support voting against gay marriage. I suppose you mean that there is a possible negative consequence to gay marriage in instability. So is there anything to back it up, or just your own untested theory?

    I am assuming you agree with the studies that show marriage provides social stability. Studies have also shown that actions people claim cause social instability, like promiscuity, are reduced among gays when same-sex couples get married at the same rate as when opposite-sex couples get married.

    Please show any factual support that gay marriage reduces instead of increases social stability.

  48. spotted1, you say, “I have yet to see anyone truly give a good explanation of why “gay marriage” is a “Freedom and a Right” of a person of the USA.”

    In several decisions about marriage, SCOTUS has said that marriage is a basic civil right that predates the Constitution. They have said that there is a civil right to choose the person you want to marry, and the state cannot restrict that right based on any classification unless it can be shown that the marriage would cause harm. Any benefits given by the state to marriage must be given to everyone.

    I have elaborated on this in the past,and I would be glad to again provide links, but that is the “civil rights” argument for gay marriage at its most basic level.

    Unless a state can show that a gay marriage would cause harm, then states may not restrict the basic civil right to marry.

  49. “I have yet to see anyone truly give a good explanation of why “gay marriage” is a “Freedom and a Right” of a person of the USA.”

    It’s called the US Constitution, you should read it some time spotted.

  50. aislander says:

    Marriage cannot be a “basic civil right” because even if same-sex “marriage” is imposed by the courts, there will still be conditions imposed on the ability to marry.

    Besides, as you well know, the Supreme Court decision most often cited by cultural termites was rendered by a Court that had NO idea that the decision would be tortured to support this illogical leap…

  51. “the idea of maintaining a stable society is the main reason that all the cultural termites in this thread disagree with it…”

    So a******r can you show any, any evidence at all that nations that do allow freedom for it’s citizens to marry destabilizes their society?
    Or are you pulling your typical conservative ‘termite’ crap?

  52. What law school did you attend a******r?

  53. LeePHill says:

    There would be no issue of “gay marriage” if not for the discrimination by the existent law.

  54. spotted1 says:

    krumm, I agree with you that there really has been no logical arguement for why we should or should not support gay marriage. This we can agree upon.

    Tuddo, oh great scholar of the U.S. Constitution, as I am obviously ignorant of it. Please cite where in the Constitution marriage is clearly defined and use specific language showing that marriage is a right. None of this “predates the Constitution” line. Show me where the Constitution supports it.

    Everything about “predating” the Constitution as a right stuff is based on court decisions, not the Constitution.

    Just because you think you have the right to marry, does not mean you have the right to marry who you want, when you want. That has been placed on marriage well before the Constitution as well.

  55. IMO, if an adult male is persuing young males rather than young females, well, you get the picture.

    Everyone has an opinion aJ. But you shouldn’t confuse non-informed opinions (like yours) with evidence-based ones.

    the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.


  56. averageJoseph says:

    Yes, everyone does, even the fella who wrote the blog piece you cited )LOL). Curious tho… are you claiming in order for someone to be considered homo, hetero, or bi they must first be capable of a relationship with an adult?

    LMAO at how many times he used the beguiled term fact(s) yet cited no specific studies and admits the studies in this area are flawed.

    Anyway, I don’t get why it’s so hard to admit there are heterosexual pedophiles, homosexual pedophiles, and bisexual pedophiles. Heck, there’s probably transgender pedophiles.

    Hey, anybody remember NAMBLA?

    from wiki…

    NAMBLA has been defended by poet and rights advocate Allen Ginsberg[6][7] and gay rights activist Harry Hay.[8]

    Events such as Anita Bryant’s “Save Our Children” campaign in 1977, and a police raid of Toronto-area gay newspaper The Body Politic for publishing “Men Loving Boys Loving Men” set the stage for the founding of NAMBLA.[5]

    It’s really an iteresting read. NAMBLA people were very involved in the GLBT community and organizations for sometime.

  57. All moot points.

    There is no reason to limit the rights of an entire group because a small percentage of the group may be breaking the law. That is the logic the pro Gun Control Lobby uses to rationalize gun control. Someone may commit a crime with a gun some day so you can’t have a gun ever.

  58. spotted1, I’ll take SCOTUS’ interpretation of the Constitution over yours any day, especially since the Constitution gives them the final determination authority, not you.

  59. “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,'” Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888).

    Cited in Loving v. Virginia – 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

    “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

    Loving v. Virginia – 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

    The guaranty of “equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 118 U. S. 369.

    Cited in Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942)

  60. LeePHill says:


    Yeah, about as representational of gay America as Ted Haggard is to Christianity.

    Are all Christians meth smoking, prostitute hiring ministers?

    What is the difference between NAMBLA and religious organizations that endorse matching pubescent girls with middle aged men?

    Aside from the same sex issue, they both want the same thing.

    Now, keep in mind that Haggard was a regular visitor to the White House. I don’t think NAMBLA has that sort of representation.

  61. aislander says:

    tuddo writes: “…I’ll take SCOTUS’ interpretation of the Constitution …since the Constitution gives them the final determination authority…”


  62. “It’s about fundamentally changing the definition of marriage.”- Joseph

    Not really. It’s simply adding people to the list of who can legally marry. No definition change necessary.

  63. aislander, I mentioned before that you might want to take a civics class. The separate powers of the branches of government are discussed in such courses. The power of judicial review gives the Supreme Court, as the final court, the ultimate responsibility to determine what the Constitution means in terms of the application of laws.

    Read up on Marbury v Madison, 1803. The Founding Fathers
    wrote that the Supreme Court will assume this role even before the Constitution was written. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, both wrote about the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

    Hamilton wrote that the Court through the practice of judicial review would ensure that the intent of the Constitution would be supreme. The concept of judicial review is implicit in the Constitution.

    Madison wrote that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, not elected officials and that the system of a separate branch, headed by a supreme court would ensure proper interpretation of the Constitution.

    Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison asserted that the Supreme Court had an ultimate responsibilioty under judicial review to determine if legislation was in line with the Constitution. He said the Supreme Court had a responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation

    “It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is,” he declared.

    The Constitution is a living document, not a set of bylaws. Not even arch-conservatives argue that the Supreme Court does not have authority of judicial review just because those specific words are not written in the document.

  64. You keep going with your red herring which has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuals who wish to wed. But you keep up you B.S. so I will respond:

    The first documented opposition from LGBT organizations to NAMBLA occurred in the conference that organized the first gay march on Washington in 1979.

    By the mid-1980s, NAMBLA was virtually alone in its positions and found itself politically isolated.

    In 1994 the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) adopted a “Position Statement Regarding NAMBLA” saying GLAAD “deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association’s (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. These goals constitute a form of child abuse and are repugnant to GLAAD.”

  65. aislander says:

    Geez, tuds, what you said is in the Constitution ain’t IN the Constitution.

    I know all about Marbury. The Supreme Court arrogated to ITSELF the privilege of deciding constitutionality.

    I knew you’d take the…er…bait.

    Not that I was trolling…

  66. spotted – try looking up ‘equal protection.’ Married couples get up the 1400+ financial and legal rights and benifits.

  67. averageJoseph says:

    I know beerBoy… there was a long relationship and support between a homosexual pedophile organization and the GLBT community/organizations. The GLBT’s finally figured out it was political suicide to be associated with homosexual pedophiles. Hence, the divorce of a long term relationship…

  68. Evidence.

  69. averageJoseph says:

    You didn’t return the favor and follow MY link. Bad Boy… it’s there. I’m not your research monkey ;)

    May google be your friend.

  70. aislander, what I said is what I said. You are not the Supreme Court, so you do not get to interpret what I said or even what is in the Constitution.

    Judicial review is implicit in the constitution, and thus, the Constitution contains it. So says the Supreme Court. Again, I’ll take their interpretation of what is in the Constitution over yours any day.

    You can lay out any “bait” you want to. It just shows that you really do need to attend a civics class and learn some American government so you can stop embarrassing yourself on these threads.

  71. aislander says:

    An embarrassment of riches, tuds…

  72. aislander says:

    Actually, the Supreme Court’s affirming its self-granted authority IS rich…

    What a shocker!

  73. What link?

    I went to the same wikipedia entry as you.

    It says that NAMBLA was founded in 1977
    It also says that the first documented LGBT opposition to NAMBLA was two years later.

    Hardly evidence of a “longterm relationship”.

    Your attempt to emasculate me and intrinsically connect me to NAMBLA by bolding the “Boy” in my screen name is just……stupid.

  74. And, again, what evidence are you putting forward that same-sex marriage has any connection to NAMBLA?

  75. averageJoseph says:

    Oh shucks, I forgot the link. ( I understand my original point about GLBT and hetero pedophiles has long been lost ).

    Here ya go…


    NAMBLA has been defended by poet and rights advocate Allen Ginsberg[6][7] and gay rights activist Harry Hay.[8]

    NAMBLA’s website states that it is a political, civil rights, and educational organization whose goal is to end “the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships.”[9]

    Events such as Anita Bryant’s “Save Our Children” campaign in 1977, and a police raid of Toronto-area gay newspaper The Body Politic for publishing “Men Loving Boys Loving Men” set the stage for the founding of NAMBLA.[5]

    In December 1977, police raided a house in the Boston suburb of Revere. Twenty-four men were arrested and indicted on over 100 felony counts of the statutory rape of boys aged eight to fifteen. Suffolk County District Attorney Garrett Byrne found that the men used drugs and video games to lure the boys into a house, where they photographed them as they engaged in sexual activity. The men were members of a “sex ring”, and said that the arrest was only “the tip of the iceberg.”[5] The arrests sparked intense media coverage, and local newspapers published the photographs and personal information of the accused men. The “Boston-Boise Committee”, a gay rights organization, formed in response to these events and to protect the “rights of gay men” and promote “gay solidarity.” NAMBLA’s founding was inspired by this gay rights organization.[15] Kooky.

    In 1994 NAMBLA was expelled from the International Lesbian and Gay Association, having been the first US based organization to be a member.


  76. averageJoseph says:

    Oh, and I believe 20 years would qualify as a long term relationship in most people’s eyes… unless they suffer from cognitive dissonance.

  77. averageJ, I looked up the references to the Wiki article you linked to. The Allen Ginsberg link is not there. The Harry Hay article consistenly repeats that he was not embraced by any gay organizations and was a “political embarassment” when he tried to include NMBLA in gay rights parades. The author gives no support for any statement that said he was a “long-time supporter” of NMBLA. What the other articles have said about Hay is that he felt they had a freedom of speech right to exist and to be part of the discussion.

    Even if it were true that he agreed with NMBLA’s goals (which I seriously doubt), showing that two individuals may have supported NMBLA is hardly showing that there is a link between gay rights and pedophelia.

    Would you like some links to some prominent conservatives who supported the KKK or other hate groups so we can agree that there have been long-term links between conservatives and hate groups. Then we would have proof that they are one and the same? I’ve got many more than two people.

    Ridiculous? Yes, just like your arguments that being gay has anything to do with attraction to children or that pedophiles are gay.

  78. aislander says:

    It’s easy to scrub Wiki, tuds…

  79. aislander, it is easy to put nonsense in Wiki too, or link to it as proof of anything.

  80. penumbrage says:

    spotted1 – “I have yet to see anyone truly give a good explanation of why “gay marriage” is a “Freedom and a Right” of a person of the USA.”

    With the growing understanding of medical science in the last several decades that we share the country with millions of human beings who are born intersexed (not exclusively male nor female but covering the entire spectrum in between) the government has no choice but to update the definitions of civil marriage to protect the rights of those citizens who simply cannot be defined as ‘one man’ or ‘one woman’.
    Gays of choice and gays of circumstance aside, I have yet to hear an argument against these blameless individuals that doesn’t consist of ‘deny them the same rights the rest of us enjoy because they’re different’.
    Unless you have an answer for those folks born with male brains and female sex organs (or vice versa) – other than ‘you’re free to marry anyone as long as you’re not attracted to them’ – why not just accept that it may not be right for you but that there are innocent people out there for whom it’s the only thing that is right.

  81. If the US were a stable culture:

    Blacks would still be slaves.

    Women, blacks, and Indians could not vote.

    Women and all her real property would become the property of her husband.

    The standard workweek would be 60 plus hours, have no benefits and be at whatever wage the company wanted to pay.

    aJo – google is not your friend – it keeps giving you false info.

  82. What is kooky aJ is your only support is the wikipedia wording that turned the “Boston-Boise” Committee into “a gay rights committee” rather than what it was – a committee that was formed to defend the guilty parties and then grew into NAMBLA.

    The Boston-Boise group would then spawn the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). It would quickly become a pariah.

  83. More from the non-wikipedia source I provided:

    In 1979, the conference that organized the first gay march on Washington included “Full rights for gay youth, including revision of the age of consent laws” as one of its five demands. A contingent of lesbians at the National Coordinating Committee squashed that demand and substituted one that read: “Protect Lesbian and Gay Youth from any laws which are used to discriminate against, oppress, and/or harass them in their homes, schools, job and social environments.” It appears these women did not want to be associated with the pro-pedophilia movement.

    In 1980, another lesbian group called the Lesbian Caucus – Lesbian & Gay Pride March Committee urged women to separate themselves from the New York City Gay Pride March. They felt it was dominated by NAMBLA and NAMBLA supporters. A year later the Cornell University gay organization Gay PAC (Gay People At Cornell) rescinded an invitation to David Thorstad, founder of NAMBLA. He was to be the keynote speaker at the annual May Gay Festival. From then on, gay rights groups would take every opportunity they had to block NAMBLA from participating in gay pride parades. This motivated a leading gay rights figure, Harry Hay, to wear a sign saying “NAMBLA Walks With Me” in the 1986 gay pride march in Los Angeles.

    Because of the attacks they had received, labeling them as child molesters and of recruiting teenagers to a life of homosexuality, gay rights groups distanced themselves from NAMBLA and ended the radical inclusive attitude of the early years of the movement. Support for NAMBLA disappeared. However, one homosexual rights group still allowed NAMBLA as a member, and it would cost them a powerful position.

  84. The UN reversed its decision to grant the ILGA consultive status, and has refused to grant it to them since.

    BUT – what exactly does this have to do with same-sex marriage?

  85. aislander says:

    tuds: The Missing Link isn’t TO Wiki, it is FROM Wiki to an original source, and THAT is what has been scrubbed.

    I don’t know anyone who would link to Wiki as a stand-alone source…

  86. SandraKirstan says:

    NAMBLA is the same as a group that supports old men marrying young girls

  87. SandraKirstan says:

    Is Sandusky a NAMBLA member?

  88. aislander, There were four statements in the Wiki article that Allen Ginsberg was a NMBLA member and supporter. Two of the six links cited were broken.

    None of the original articles has any reference to Ginsberg whatsoever. He didn’t even appear in a film the Wiki article says he appeared in. I have no information myself about Ginsberg, and in looking at bios on line, they each reference the Wiki article as support for their statements about NMBLA which shows no such factual support for the claims.

    That is a perfect example of why one must be careful and not just use Wiki like averageJ did. (Since you say you don’t know anyone who uses Wiki as support, then I guess you totally missed averageJ’s posts.)

    What I did find in conservapedia, is a statement that I can’t fact check online by Ginsberg which does sound more like him than any personal issue with pedophilia:

    (NMBLA is) “a discussion society not a sex club. I joined NAMBLA in defense of free speech.”

  89. bobcat1a says:

    Aislander, Article III, section 2, clause 1: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution…” That’s about as explicit as can be.

  90. aislander says:

    A stable culture can be an evolving culture, but we seem to be in a constant state of emergency (necessary, I guess, for lefties to promote their loony schemes, since a tranquil society does not embrace radical change), and increasing entropy.

  91. aislander says:

    Sorry, bobcat1a, but that doesn’t say what you say it says. The clause refers to all “cases in law,” not to laws themselves…

    Besides, a large majority of legal scholars trace judicial revue of laws passed by Congress to Marbury v Madison. Why would that case have bearing if judicial revue already resided in the text of the Constitution?

  92. aislander, ah yes, tranquility over equality and freedom. Tyrrany can provide a lot of tranquility, enforced by the heavy hand of absolute power. I suppose you sigh when you remember the good old days of tranquility in the 1950’s when gay men like the esteemed mathematician Turing was sentenced to chemical castration in lieu of life in prison for the crime of being gay.

    The good old days without the “loonie” leftist idea of freedom and equality were hardly the good old days that reactionaries like you romanticize so much.

  93. aislander says:

    tuddo: Just keep imputing a lot of attitudes that are not ours, but if that is what you need to persuade yourself, have at it. Your straw men have nothing to do with reality…

  94. aislander: “a tranquil society does not embrace radical change”

    A tranquil society can be extremely progressive or extremely regressive. You choose to regress instead of progress. Calling something a “radical change” doesn’t impart any value to that action, unless you are a person who views any changes as a negative.

    Keeping a society tranquil by restricting the rights of a group of people just so the society does not have to change is a positive only to a a tyrranical government.

    The founders knew we would be in a constant quest for “a more perfect union”. Peaceful change that allows us to progress toward that goal is not disturbing to anyone, unless they have a fear of change itself or fear that someone different from them might be treated by society as equal to them.

    btw, what’s with: “Just keep imputing a lot of attitudes that are not ours” ? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Who are you speaking for besides yourself?

  95. Aislander – SCOTUS can only rule on a law when the law has been challanged in federal court and the suit reaches SCOTUS.

  96. Change that puts more power in the hands of a nameless, faceless bureaucracy and robs individuals of their freedom is never good, no matter how it comes about.

    When you cite the Turing case, tuddo, do you honestly believe that aislander and other “conservative” thinkers are suggesting that this was right? Surely not.

    The word, radical, derives from “root.” Radical change means at the root. The conservative thinkers I know (and read) understand that leading progressives want a change at the very root of American society. It’s not about how quickly it comes about, but that it would come about at all, ever.

    “Hope and Change” IMO were about this very kind of change, an attempt to move this country into an entirely new society. This is what I oppose and why I will vote conservative, and will continue to do so to prevent this “radical” change from occurring.

  97. sozo, there was a “radical change” made in the way gays were treated in the USA and Europe in the 1950’s and 1960’s. It didn’t come about by people being “tranquil”. It came about because of activism, riots, protests and turmoil.

    I truly think that if you and aislander were adults during that time you would have supported the status quo. That is what conservatives do on subjects like this.

    That’s what conservatives did during the Civil Rights era.

    William Buckley, whom we now think of as a moderate conservative, said this about a proposed Civil Rights law in 1961 when he was the leading opinion maker on the right:

    “Should we resort to convulsive measures that do violence to the traditions of our system in order to remove the forms of segregation in the South?” he asked. “I say no.”

    Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee and conservative darling for president at the time said that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a “grave threat” to the United States, echoing the advice he was given by his two legal advisors, William Rehnquist and Robert Bork.

    You say you are all against robbing people of their freedoms, but then you are going to vote against gay marriage because it is a radical change. I say that you are following the same path that conservatives have always taken, the path of obstruction to people gaining freedom and equality based on maintaining the status quo and worshipping “tradition”, and not based on any real or rational reason.

  98. Under conservatism, some people are more equal and more free than others.

  99. aislander says:

    That’s an interesting observation, xring. What do you mean by it, exactly?

    I see the root of a discussion that I would like to have, and am not trying to set you up for a gratuitous “shot.”

  100. penumbrage says:

    sozo – “Change that puts more power in the hands of a nameless, faceless bureaucracy and robs individuals of their freedom is never good, no matter how it comes about.”

    I changed my conservative mind on the issue of gays many years ago precisely because I found out that innocent individuals were being robbed of their freedoms and rights.
    However unforgiving one is about gays of choice and gays of circumstance (those so abused and traumatized by members of the opposite sex that normal relations are impossible for them) the unarguable fact remains that we share the country with millions of blameless people who have been born intersex.
    An individual or a church may have the option of condemning someone born with mismatched genetic, mental or physical genders (and unreasonably demand that a person born with a male mind and female sex organs must somehow force themselves to become a gay of choice and desire other men, just to satisfy their mistaken assumptions about males and females), but our government has an obligation to provide equal opportunities and rights to all it’s citizens.
    When doctors themselves can’t agree on whether some individuals should be considered male or female (or both, or neither), statements like ‘one man, one woman’ are either woefully ignorant of the realities of human reproduction or grossly prejudicial to an innocent segment of our population.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0