See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On December 7th, 2009 at 1:40 pm, letget said:

   You forgot the American taxpayers Michelle. We are paying that scum bag kevin’s salary. I loved the cartoon on ‘Day by Day’ today. It was about this guy. That was some list of companies donating to this group!
   L

2. #2
   On December 7th, 2009 at 1:43 pm, Dimsdale said:

   Would those same sponsors fund a bus proclaiming a right to life message.

   No, I don’t think so either.

3. #3
   On December 7th, 2009 at 1:48 pm, AlohaGuy said:

   DaimlerChrysler Corporation

   Tax money.

4. #4
   On December 7th, 2009 at 1:51 pm, AlohaGuy said:

   International Association of Gay and Lesbian Country Western Dance Clubs

   Yeah, must be a bunch of these…

5. #5
   On December 7th, 2009 at 1:52 pm, JP_Texan said:

   I thank God every day that he gave me the ability to send my children to conservative Catholic elementary and high schools.

6. #6
   On December 7th, 2009 at 1:54 pm, zyzzyg said:

   This is good to know.

   It is also good to know that GLSEN says that parents and teachers should make the determination before children should be allowed to read specific books from the list.

   Full disclosure is a good thing and not telling the complete story is a sin of ommission.

7. #7
   On December 7th, 2009 at 1:55 pm, AlohaGuy said:

   One constant about trolls – boring.

8. #8
   On December 7th, 2009 at 2:07 pm, greenfairie said:

   Apparently some people think child pornography is swell :/.

9. #9
   On December 7th, 2009 at 2:07 pm, Hangfire said:

   Huckleberry Finn on the list? Nah!

10. #10
    On December 7th, 2009 at 2:12 pm, stillontheroad said:

    Cold Fist and Warm Heart – A must read for all children between the ages of 5 and 10. This should gag every thinking parent as well as the populace at large.

11. #11
    On December 7th, 2009 at 2:16 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Obama is a lot of things I despise – but his war on children may be the most despicable.

12. #12
    On December 7th, 2009 at 2:25 pm, publiuswarmac9999 said:

    Homosexuals are sick people. They are hypersexual and narcissistic, and, therefore, driven toward youth for sexual purposes. It should be no surprise to anyone that they desire to gain access to the youngest and most vulnerable of our citizens – namely our children.

    For decades now, homosexuals have worked to desensitize the free and democratic populations of the Western world, and have largely succeeded. However, homosexual acceptance is a symptom of an undisciplined and chaotic society. The more acceptance homosexual behavior gets, the more destabilized the society becomes. In the end, the society is so weakened that it collapses into socialism or worse.

13. #13
    On December 7th, 2009 at 2:35 pm, tre said:

    Wonder how many of those sponsors would back a Christian group that tried to get literature in schools?

    None, I’d bet.

14. #14
    On December 7th, 2009 at 2:38 pm, jsr said:

    It is also good to know that GLSEN says that parents and teachers should make the determination before children should be allowed to read specific books from the list.

    Where did you see that? I looked on their website and all I could find was the following:

    All BookLink items are reviewed by GLSEN staff for quality and appropriateness of content. However, some titles for adolescent readers contain mature themes. We recommend that adults selecting books for youth review content for suitability.

    How many parents go to sites like this to select books for their children? On the other hand, they are sponsored by NEA and AFT so I would have to believe the reference to adults is more likely to be aimed at teachers and administrators than parents. In any case the word parent is not used.

15. #15
    On December 7th, 2009 at 2:47 pm, J S Ragman said:

    So it’s OK to recruit high schoolers for the gay/lesbian cause, but not for the military?

16. #16
    On December 7th, 2009 at 2:58 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    On December 7th, 2009 at 1:54 pm, zyzzyg said:
    This is good to know.

    It is also good to know that GLSEN says that parents and teachers should make the determination before children should be allowed to read specific books from the list.

    Full disclosure is a good thing and not telling the complete story is a sin of ommission.

    Hey Z, any cogent thoughts about “Fistgate”?

    (crickets)

17. #17
    On December 7th, 2009 at 2:59 pm, Mark x said:

    Thanks for the list of sponsors … I’ll let my WALLET do my talking…

18. #18
    On December 7th, 2009 at 3:04 pm, NestingHawk said:

    I don’t like something a college Linguistics teacher told me was called “eye dialect,” so no Huckleberry Finn for me. However, I would strongly recommend The Picture of Dorian Gray, maybe at age 13 or so, and I think we need more teachers willing and able to teach comedies, including the Shakespearian ones. I actually think Romeo and Juliet would benefit from being taught later than it usually is. The Merchant of Venice or one of the historical plays could be taught in the high school freshman year instead.

    I see the IBM Corporation is on that list, and I like computers a lot. Oh, no! My horrible depraved technology-infused lifestyle is directly related to horrible reading lists for children! If I don’t give up my unnatural computers right now, I am doomed!

19. #19
    On December 7th, 2009 at 3:19 pm, corkie said:

    It is also good to know that GLSEN says that parents and teachers should make the determination before children should be allowed to read specific books from the list.

    Full disclosure is a good thing and not telling the complete story is a sin of ommission.

    zyzzyg, the fine print doesn’t excuse them of anything. They are still recommending these books to teachers and parents.

    If this safe school czar had founded a skinhead group, then I wouldn’t fault the NYT for a story about a reading list which included Mein Kampf even if the NYT omitted the fact that the group “says that parents and teachers should make the determination before children should be allowed to read specific books from the list.”

20. #20
    On December 7th, 2009 at 3:25 pm, TanyaB said:

    Lord in heaven people, we have got to get rid of these people, from the top down, or there won’t be enough of our coountry left to recognise!!!

21. #21
    On December 7th, 2009 at 3:30 pm, nbarry said:

    I have long complained that foundations have accumulated too much power without having to answer for it and that Congress should tighten up the granting of tax exempt status. In this regard, I observe that Republican legislators have been as gullible as Democrats in caving into the “halo effect.”

22. #22
    On December 7th, 2009 at 3:34 pm, cheapseat said:

    the agenda never stops, it never retreats, it only shoves it in your face harder and more often. makes me want to consider taliban rule for a while.

23. #23
    On December 7th, 2009 at 3:38 pm, NestingHawk said:

    I think children should read the literature of tyranny when they’re old enough, with plenty of adult guidance and appropriate objective texts about the history of that tyranny in conjunction with it. I think more people would find danger in Obama if we’d been doing that all along.

    Good idea to read direct translations of what al Qaeda says, too. Is it just me, or do summaries and indirect references generally tone them down a lot?

    Obviously, recommending Mien Kampf or The Little Red Book as an actual guide to appropriate beliefs is a different issue altogether, but I just wanted to bring up the above.

24. #24
    On December 7th, 2009 at 3:44 pm, pdv said:

    On December 7th, 2009 at 1:51 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    International Association of Gay and Lesbian Country Western Dance Clubs

    Yeah, must be a bunch of these…

    An excuse to wear chaps.

25. #25
    On December 7th, 2009 at 4:15 pm, RedDog said:

    We are in a living nightmare. Clear to see that this is how civilizations fall.

    Many of the major corporations are bloody mercenaries with no morals, much less any patriotism. Redistribution, global warming, social perversions… They have already shown that they will sell out with very little prompting, but this is good to know when we reassert control over our country. The rats have shown themselves indeed.

26. #26
    On December 7th, 2009 at 4:40 pm, Dave Turson said:

    The “open letter to Mr.Obama” at Catholic Online (via Gateway Pundit) is a worthwhile read. I’m not Catholic, but a reporter with access to The One should ask for his reply.

27. #27
    On December 7th, 2009 at 4:43 pm, Freddy said:

    Somewhere along the line, the demands of these communities moved from tolerance to acceptance to mainstreaming.

    We need real leaders that will simply stand up and say that every pervsion that can be conceived by man is not acceptable. At some point, people NEED to be told to stay in the closet!

28. #28
    On December 7th, 2009 at 4:53 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On December 7th, 2009 at 2:38 pm, jsr said: #853481

    How many parents go to sites like this to select books for their children? On the other hand, they are sponsored by NEA and AFT so I would have to believe the reference to adults is more likely to be aimed at teachers and administrators than parents. In any case the word parent is not used.

    I would hope that people who are parents of school age children are adults. I would hope that all parents take an interest in what their children are reading (watching on television, music they are listening to, and video games they are playing).

    You are splitting hairs and are being entirely too Clinton-esque in parsing the fact that the word ‘parents’ is not used in the GLSEN caution. I accept that you liberals regularly do this, but I do not buy it.

    ‘Adults’ includes parents, teachers, administrators, columnists and any ‘grown-up’ with a moral compass and concious who cares about children.

    Moreover, in writing about this story, it is an extreme oversight not to mention that GLSEN does offer the caution you cut and pasted from their web site.

29. #29
    On December 7th, 2009 at 5:08 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On December 7th, 2009 at 2:58 pm, Rogue Cheddar said: #853489

    Hey Z, any cogent thoughts about “Fistgate”?

    I did not read it, though I am sure you did and found it thrilling. I will allow you to fill in others, because of your experience with it. I may or may not reveiw what you have to say on the subject. I am sure others are all excited and twitching in their seats waiting for your take on the subject.

    Your forthcoming cogent thoughts are no doubt giving others a thrill up their legs with anticipation of recieving your handi-work on the subject.

30. #30
    On December 7th, 2009 at 5:17 pm, jamesgreenidge said:

    I just don’t know. Seeing all those companies and organizations and even the U.N. deep steeped into this agenda stacked up against morality, I grimly wonder that we’re eventually going to lose anyway. Our clueless green atheistic coarse-valued grandkids will be living in a Brave New World.

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

31. #31
    On December 7th, 2009 at 6:53 pm, macmac1101 said:

    @publiuswarmac9999: Right on target. There’s something about the homosexual “lifestyle” that no one seems to talk about–their propensity to indulge in anonymous sex in public places. I remember when HIV/AIDS was first detected in the late 70′s==doctors who interviewed patients were astounded to find that the number of sexual partners numbered in the hundreds. No surprise to municipal policemen who patrol public parks, etc.

32. #32
    On December 7th, 2009 at 7:39 pm, corkie said:

    On December 7th, 2009 at 4:53 pm, zyzzyg said:

    ‘Adults’ includes parents, teachers, administrators, columnists and any ‘grown-up’ with a moral compass and concious who cares about children.

    Parents are simply a subset of adults. Your comment was deliberately misleading – which is pathetically hypocritical considering the very point of your comment.

    Moreover, in writing about this story, it is an extreme oversight not to mention that GLSEN does offer the caution you cut and pasted from their web site.

    No it’s not. This group is still recommending that these books for children to read! Don’t make yourself look stupid about this.

33. #33
    On December 7th, 2009 at 7:54 pm, publiuswarmac9999 said:

    If you read David Horowitz book “Radical Son” there is a discussion of the hypersexuality of the homosexuals in the bath houses of San Francisco. It was unbelievable what he describe about the anonymity of sex even though the homosexual community was aware of diseases – not just HIV/AIDS

    Numerous studies indicate that the average homosexual male has over 500 different sex partners and over 25% have in the thousands. Lesbians are not quite as promiscuous averaging 10 different sex partners. This number is well know to the scientific community and is much more reliable than the garbage being thrown around by the climate scientists and now the EPA.

34. #34
    On December 7th, 2009 at 8:38 pm, NestingHawk said:

    In evaluating any study on homosexual partnering habits, we must remember two things:

    1) The human tendency to “go for broke” once kicked out of respectable society. If somebody is going to be regarded as a horribly depraved person anyway, there’s a lot less keeping that person from genuinely depraved behavior.

    2) The more respectable and conservative the upbringing and/or environment, the more likely a homosexual person is going to be fully or partially in the closet, as opposed to being caught in public or being inclined to answer researchers’ questions in an honest way.

    But there’s no reason for those citing those studies not to provide titles, authors, time, links, and so on to the studies anyway, so that the rest of the readership can evaluate the studies’ likely accuracy for themselves. I’m not going to lower my opinion of homosexual people I have met who behave in excellent manners because of homosexual people who do not, or, for that matter, raise my opinion of heterosexual people who behave in horrible ways because of heterosexual people who do not. Taking people as individuals really works better.

35. #35
    On December 7th, 2009 at 8:43 pm, NestingHawk said:

    Of course, any study about homosexual behavior would have to have a heterosexual control group similar in all other factors possible, such as geographic area and age range, and San Francisco behavior probably isn’t typical no matter what demographic is used. Maybe New York, D.C., or Chicago would be better? I’m assuming a country or suburban area might not have an adequate uncloseted population for statistical research; otherwise, considering the make-up of the U.S., that would be the best way to go.

36. #36
    On December 7th, 2009 at 8:51 pm, shimauma2 said:

    I’m disgusted to know my tax dollars are being used to promote this perversive/deviant thought process, and more they continue to target children.

    It’s getting worse than the days of Noah folks. Best think about looking up.

37. #37
    On December 7th, 2009 at 9:01 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    On December 7th, 2009 at 5:08 pm, zyzzyg said:
    On December 7th, 2009 at 2:58 pm, Rogue Cheddar said: #853489

    Hey Z, any cogent thoughts about “Fistgate”?
    I did not read it, though I am sure you did and found it thrilling. I will allow you to fill in others, because of your experience with it. I may or may not reveiw what you have to say on the subject. I am sure others are all excited and twitching in their seats waiting for your take on the subject.

    Your forthcoming cogent thoughts are no doubt giving others a thrill up their legs with anticipation of recieving your handi-work on the subject.

    I simple no would’ve sufficed. (and also reduced your carbon footprint)

38. #38
    On December 7th, 2009 at 9:10 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On December 7th, 2009 at 9:01 pm, Rogue Cheddar said: #853719

    I simple no would’ve sufficed. (and also reduced your carbon footprint)

    LOL, a sense of humor. Good on you.

    OK, next time.

    Does this mean you aren’t going to share your cogent thoughts on “Fistgate”?

39. #39
    On December 7th, 2009 at 9:26 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    Chris Muir takes aim at GLSEN’s lurid manuals.

    Chris Muir’s an optimist. His cartoon assumes Obama will continue permitting homeschooling.

    All your children are belong to us!

40. #40
    On December 7th, 2009 at 10:59 pm, sbw999 said:

    This administration gives us a glimpse of the secular lurid hell that our Country would be, if these twisted soulless people gained permanent power. Obama is perhaps doing us a favor by exposing what a democrat in 2009 is really about; that is as long as we learn our lesson in 2010. But my God, have we strayed light years from what we once were.

41. #41
    On December 8th, 2009 at 12:43 am, Republicanvet said:

    At what point will a Republican in the House or Senate request a special order on C-SPAN and read aloud from a few books on Jennings list?

    …but then that would take guts.

42. #42
    On December 8th, 2009 at 12:50 am, frontierguy said:

    The gay establishment loses the gay marriage, why? They want to impose themselves militantly on everyone and most people do not want to be forced into adopting someone else’s views, especially when a group wants to use the courts to make them do it. California politicians have gotten the gay marriage prop 8 off of the ballot for next year because they do not want to be associated with a losing group when they themselves are so unpopular. So now the gay lobby wants to impose themselves onto a group (kids) that are not mature enough to say to leave us alone and let us be kids. I wonder how much of this influence may pressure kids into trying things that they will one day regret. This is even more cowardice than the gays in California protesting the Mormons and being too scared to march in the black and latino communities, the real reason they lost the marriage proposition.

    I would say the same thing to straight people who want to sexualize kids. I know that keeping sexually charged material away from children and teens will not stop some from experimenting, but that does not mean adults should present the material anyway as some sort of subliminal green light.

43. #43
    On December 8th, 2009 at 4:43 am, BigAnge said:

    michellemalkin.com exposes companies that support deviant homosexual behavior, sponsored by….Siemens.

    Too funny not to point out….

44. #44
    On December 8th, 2009 at 8:50 am, publiuswarmac9999 said:

    From Nesting Hawk: But there’s no reason for those citing those studies not to provide titles, authors, time, links, and so on to the studies anyway, so that the rest of the readership can evaluate the studies’ likely accuracy for themselves.
    ——————————–
    I have on numerous occasions referred readers to specific studies simply by using the Google search engine to find the studies. I assume that you can use Google but your reason for imposing the burden on others to do your research is that you know what the research says and, like with the global warming scam, want us all to just move along.

    Your second comment is even more ridiculous. There have been so many studies done of heterosexual behavior that virtually every setting and every circumstance imaginable have been addressed.

    I, for one, am tired of 2 percent of the population dictating the sexual mores of the rest of society – oh, by the way, you can check that number out when you do a search of the studies on homosexuality. As I said previously, homosexuality is a sickness, and one that does great damage to society, families and individuals.

45. #45
    On December 8th, 2009 at 9:00 am, Paul Revere said:

    Is THIS book on the reading list, too? Good grief.

46. #46
    On December 8th, 2009 at 9:04 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

    On December 7th, 2009 at 9:10 pm, zyzzyg said:
    Does this mean you aren’t going to share your cogent thoughts on “Fistgate”?

    Jim ‘Wash Out’ Pfaffenbach: I just got kicked out of the unit. My flight status has been withdrawn. I’m through, Dead Meat!
    Pete ‘Dead Meat’ Thompson: What happened?
    Jim ‘Wash Out’ Pfaffenbach: It’s my eyes. I’ve got walleye-vision.
    Pete ‘Dead Meat’ Thompson: Isn’t there something that can be done?
    Jim ‘Wash Out’ Pfaffenbach: Well, there’s a delicate corneal inversion procedure… a multi-opti-pupil-optomy. But, in order to keep from damaging the eye sockets, they’ve got to go in through the rectum. Ain’t no man going to take that route with me!

47. #47
    On December 8th, 2009 at 9:11 am, jangar said:

    Crisco Systems, Inc.

    Fixed.

48. #48
    On December 8th, 2009 at 9:36 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

    Ernst & Young Boys

    Also fixed.

49. #49
    On December 8th, 2009 at 9:46 am, jangar said:

    International Association of Gay and Lesbian Country Western Dance Clubs

    Yee-Haw! A BrokeBack HoeDown!

50. #50
    On December 8th, 2009 at 9:55 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

    Working Assets/CREDO

    mo better.

51. #51
    On December 8th, 2009 at 9:56 am, TigerLady said:

    Mark x said:
    Thanks for the list of sponsors … I’ll let my WALLET do my talking…

    Ditto

52. #52
    On December 8th, 2009 at 9:57 am, TigerLady said:

    Jangar and Rogue–on a roll.

    But you’re causing scary visuals–Crisco systems?

53. #53
    On December 8th, 2009 at 10:17 am, jangar said:

    Rogue Cheddar said:
    Working Assets/CREDO

    Thought about it, butt…

    I BM Corporation

    Ack!

54. #54
    On December 8th, 2009 at 10:19 am, jangar said:

    And last, but not least:

    Arcnus Foundation

    Good day-

55. #55
    On December 8th, 2009 at 10:44 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    Ford Foundation

    I knew something was up. My dealer wants to replace the F-150 logo with Tinkerbell.

56. #56
    On December 8th, 2009 at 11:38 am, rocketman said:

    ***
    NAMBLA!
    ***
    John Bibb
    ***

57. #57
    On December 8th, 2009 at 9:07 pm, NestingHawk said:

    On December 8th, 2009 at 8:50 am, publiuswarmac9999 said:
    From Nesting Hawk: But there’s no reason for those citing those studies not to provide titles, authors, time, links, and so on to the studies anyway, so that the rest of the readership can evaluate the studies’ likely accuracy for themselves.
    ——————————–
    I have on numerous occasions referred readers to specific studies simply by using the Google search engine to find the studies. I assume that you can use Google but your reason for imposing the burden on others to do your research is that you know what the research says and, like with the global warming scam, want us all to just move along.

    At least one other anti-homosexual individual I tried to give a fair shot to persuade me of his point of view also found me annoying and figured if I did not agree with him automatically I was being purposefully dense. Oh, well.

    If you want to reference the same study or studies frequently on the message board in support of your arguments, I suggest saving titles, names, years, and publications in the draft folder of your email and copying and pasting every time you cite it. That’s how we know it’s not from Fred Phelps or something. It is especially important when citing improbable numbers. 25% of male homosexuals having thousands of sex partners? Are there enough homosexual males in San Francisco to even sustain that kind of activity?

    I can certainly search Google myself, but it’s unlikely that I could find the specific studies you’re talking about without more detail. Some studies aren’t even online and accessible to everybody. I have no idea what the studies you reference say beyond what you told me. You say I want everyone to move on without more details when I am in fact pestering you for more details. Not taking any opinion you dictate to me as inevitable truth does not constitute trying to hide something. It constitutes having and using my own brain.

    When you’re trying to convince me of something specific that I disagree with, it’s YOUR research, not mine, by the way. I assume when you post here, you are trying to persuade readers of what you say. Perhaps I am wrong.

    Incidentally, I am not attached to either side of the global warming debate, but they recently provided a dramatization of the level of detail needed to maintain scientific credibility, didn’t they?

    Your second comment is even more ridiculous. There have been so many studies done of heterosexual behavior that virtually every setting and every circumstance imaginable have been addressed.

    A scientific study still isn’t the least bit valid without a properly studied control group. Surely the studies you’re referencing each had one?

    I, for one, am tired of 2 percent of the population dictating the sexual mores of the rest of society – oh, by the way, you can check that number out when you do a search of the studies on homosexuality. As I said previously, homosexuality is a sickness, and one that does great damage to society, families and individuals.

    I don’t actually care whether the number is .1%, 2%, 10%, or 20%. People are individual human beings and nothing about homosexual relations between consenting adults in and of itself steps on anyone else’s rights. People attempting to place other people into little boxes based on any accident of demographics, to use your words regarding your feelings about homosexuality, “is a sickness, and one that does great damage to society, families and individuals.” A society that demands people try to be things that God just didn’t make them to be causes immeasurable and irreparable harm.

    I’m not fond of one portion of the population dictating to the other in general. That’s why my politics run a bit Libertarian.

58. #58
    On December 8th, 2009 at 10:38 pm, Blackstone said:

    A society that demands people try to be things that God just didn’t make them to be causes immeasurable and irreparable harm.

    Would you mind explaining how it is you know that God made them that way? Did God make pedophiles the way they are, too?

59. #59
    On December 8th, 2009 at 11:47 pm, NestingHawk said:

    On December 8th, 2009 at 10:38 pm, Blackstone said:

    A society that demands people try to be things that God just didn’t make them to be causes immeasurable and irreparable harm.

    Would you mind explaining how it is you know that God made them that way? Did God make pedophiles the way they are, too?

    Delighted you brought it up, as it seems to be an actual sticking point in debates on this topic.

    Homosexuality and pedophilia are actually not alike at all. One automatically involves lack of consent, and thus automatically involves harm. (I believe, morally speaking, in cases of pedophilia the word “yes” means exactly nothing even in the rare cases it is uttered because the victim does not have the status necessary to consent. The law is pretty much in agreement with me, and I don’t think my stance is that controversial. I just wanted to clarify what I meant by consent.)

    Homosexual activity can easily involve consent, and sexual activity between two consenting and committed adults is not automatically harmful. Since the attraction is not a choice, and since a mature adult is a qualified lifetime companion and partner, I’m inclined to attribute it to God in the same way I attribute my hair color to God. Thus, I say God made them that way. It is my opinion. I do not claim a direct pipeline to God when I say that; you have your opinion, too. I don’t think you have a direct pipeline to God, either.

    Pedophilia involves a sickness of the mind because a child is in no way an equal partner and because the activity is automatically nonconsensual and thus automatically rape. The pedophile, consciously or otherwise, is not looking for a life partner and companion in that instance, but solely for a victim. It is a horrible sickness, with some similarities to that of any sexually themed serial killer. The relationship is that between a rapist and a victim, no more.

    Homosexuality involves equals who can consent to the activity and are as ready for it as other adults.

    I do think when society targets a demographic/behavior combination for no reason except that society desires conformity, it gets into trouble really fast. Many straight women have “masculine” traits, and many straight men have “feminine” traits, and instead of celebrating, say, the ability of a woman to fix plumbing or the ability of a man to sew, society tends to ignore, repress, and ridicule, at the expense of a good plumber, a good sewer, and the callings of two individual hearts.

    In the same way, society will run good partners and parents through the wringer if they happen to be a gender combination that looks “odd.” Society used to do the same thing with ethnic combinations that looked “odd,” and prior to that, economic or aristocratic standing combinations that looked “odd.” The collective loves to try to control individuals and try to build a human-made machine from people. The more the laws and the culture stand against this tendency, the more freedom there is.

60. #60
    On December 9th, 2009 at 12:09 am, YTZGal said:

    This whole issue makes me queasy, esp. the intent to sexualize children earlier and earlier … without the consent or knowledge of their parents.

    Kodak … had no idea. Yuck.

61. #61
    On December 9th, 2009 at 1:23 pm, Blackstone said:

    On December 8th, 2009 at 11:47 pm, NestingHawk said:

    Thus, I say God made them that way. It is my opinion. I do not claim a direct pipeline to God when I say that; you have your opinion, too. I don’t think you have a direct pipeline to God, either.

    No, I don’t. On the other hand, I’m not the one treating my opinion as fact. My mind’s a little more open to the possibility that homosexuality, at least in a substantial percentage of cases, is the result of some more earthly influence on a person sometime after birth. And if that’s the case, I’d seriously have to wonder if promoting it is a smart idea. Something about the idea of saying to kids, “Maybe you’ll grow up to marry a man, maybe you’ll grow up to marry a woman”, kinda makes me go Hmmm.

62. #62
    On December 10th, 2009 at 12:34 pm, NestingHawk said:

    I didn’t treat my opinion as fact any more than you did, Blackstone. Putting “I believe” in front of everything that is opinion may or may not be good practice, but it probably gets tiresome to read and some people, unfortunately, take it as a sign of weakness. Some teachers will purposely break students of that habit in opinion essays, not in the pursuit of misrepresenting that it’s an opinion, but in pursuit of not being repetitive.

    I do not agree with the book choices here, in case I didn’t make that clear. Much, much too explicit for children, and very disturbing insofar as what the authors seem to think is normal childhood behavior. However, some people seem to have taken one homosexual association’s approval and decided that all homosexual people must therefore agree, and that’s ridiculous. Does IBM’s mention on the list mean that everyone in the computer industry agrees? Obviously not-but it’s homosexuals who people really seem to enjoy bashing.

    I think homosexuality is completely a matter of genetics and hormones. I think it’s at least very obvious it’s not a choice. I’m straight and attracted to the opposite gender. I never sat down and said “Gee, which gender do I want to be attracted to?” and decided I wanted to be straight. I just am. I see no reason to think it’s not the same for homosexuals.

    I’d really, really hate to date someone who did not find me physically attractive, so I tend to consider homosexuals pretending to be heterosexual a huge problem in the heterosexual dating pool. I can’t blame them because of the way society treats homosexuals, and the way society keeps trying to tell them they can somehow become straight if only they do A or B or C or whatever else somebody made up, but it’s not actually good when people are dating people they cannot have romatic feelings for, whether you believe it’s in the hardware or the software.

    Giving homosexuals equal consideration for who they choose to partner with isn’t encouraging anything, it’s just abiding by equal treatment of all citizens under the law, and abiding by the idea that the government should not attempt to force people into comformity. Honestly, I would rather look at a child and think “Gee, I hope the child winds up in the healthiest relationship possible upon adulthood,” than get picky over the merely physical characteristics of that child’s future partner.

    I am curious what kind of “earthly influence” you think might change a person’s preference. Historically, both genders have been put into a lot of different situations, so you’d think there’d be a track record of something, somewhere, if some normal group of circumstances were likely to do it.

63. #63
    On December 10th, 2009 at 6:15 pm, Blackstone said:

    Putting “I believe” in front of everything that is opinion may or may not be good practice, but it probably gets tiresome to read and some people, unfortunately, take it as a sign of weakness. Some teachers will purposely break students of that habit in opinion essays, not in the pursuit of misrepresenting that it’s an opinion, but in pursuit of not being repetitive.

    When you’re talking about an opinion about a moral matter (such as saying it’s wrong to discriminate), then you’re correct that it usually would be better to leave out things like “I believe” or “I feel”. But when you’re talking about opinions on a question of fact, such as the etiology of sexual orientation, it would certainly wouldn’t hurt to make it clear that it’s an opinion and not an assertion of fact.

    I’m straight and attracted to the opposite gender. I never sat down and said “Gee, which gender do I want to be attracted to?” and decided I wanted to be straight. I just am. I see no reason to think it’s not the same for homosexuals.

    There aren’t only two possibilities – conscious choice versus genetic hardwiring. There is a third possibility, which is that there are largely unconscious influences on a person’s development, same as with many other aspects of our personality. Are the body shapes that we’re attracted to hardwired? Even though what’s considered attractive today is noticeably different from what it was 50 years ago? I’ll make a confession to you: I’m generally not attracted to black women. Is that genetic? I tend to doubt it. So I don’t know how it can be so certain that that’s not the case with gender attraction absent some stronger evidence to the contrary.

    Giving homosexuals equal consideration for who they choose to partner with isn’t encouraging anything, it’s just abiding by equal treatment of all citizens under the law, and abiding by the idea that the government should not attempt to force people into comformity.

    Well then I guess we should do away with marriage laws altogether, since after all we wouldn’t want to “force” anyone into the “conformity” of marriage.

    That might actually be your view, since many libertarians seem to lean towards it. Not saying it’s a bad view, but that doesn’t mean government’s being terribly tyrannical by not adopting it. And as it is, same-sex couples in nearly state in the union are capable of making intimate lives together unmolested by the state. The fact that most states don’t give special recognition to those relationships doesn’t mean they’re being oppressed.

64. #64
    On December 14th, 2009 at 7:06 pm, NestingHawk said:

    On December 10th, 2009 at 6:15 pm, Blackstone said:

    Putting “I believe” in front of everything that is opinion may or may not be good practice, but it probably gets tiresome to read and some people, unfortunately, take it as a sign of weakness. Some teachers will purposely break students of that habit in opinion essays, not in the pursuit of misrepresenting that it’s an opinion, but in pursuit of not being repetitive.

    When you’re talking about an opinion about a moral matter (such as saying it’s wrong to discriminate), then you’re correct that it usually would be better to leave out things like “I believe” or “I feel”. But when you’re talking about opinions on a question of fact, such as the etiology of sexual orientation, it would certainly wouldn’t hurt to make it clear that it’s an opinion and not an assertion of fact.

    You make a very good case for your point of view there.

    I’m straight and attracted to the opposite gender. I never sat down and said “Gee, which gender do I want to be attracted to?” and decided I wanted to be straight. I just am. I see no reason to think it’s not the same for homosexuals.

    There aren’t only two possibilities – conscious choice versus genetic hardwiring. There is a third possibility, which is that there are largely unconscious influences on a person’s development, same as with many other aspects of our personality. Are the body shapes that we’re attracted to hardwired? Even though what’s considered attractive today is noticeably different from what it was 50 years ago? I’ll make a confession to you: I’m generally not attracted to black women. Is that genetic? I tend to doubt it. So I don’t know how it can be so certain that that’s not the case with gender attraction absent some stronger evidence to the contrary.

    So, you would basically want more scientific study of both possibilities?

    What difference does it make to you if homosexuality, taking as a given that it’s not a choice in either case, originates from genetics or subliminal influences? This is a sincere question.

    Giving homosexuals equal consideration for who they choose to partner with isn’t encouraging anything, it’s just abiding by equal treatment of all citizens under the law, and abiding by the idea that the government should not attempt to force people into comformity.

    Well then I guess we should do away with marriage laws altogether, since after all we wouldn’t want to “force” anyone into the “conformity” of marriage.

    That might actually be your view, since many libertarians seem to lean towards it. Not saying it’s a bad view, but that doesn’t mean government’s being terribly tyrannical by not adopting it. And as it is, same-sex couples in nearly state in the union are capable of making intimate lives together unmolested by the state. The fact that most states don’t give special recognition to those relationships doesn’t mean they’re being oppressed.

    Admittedly, if I wrote a complete suggestion for marriage laws, it would probably be more flexible in other ways as well. For example, I would probably try to work in some acknowledgement of a domestic partnership with no implication of romantic entanglement. This would be to help people who live together in close family-like relationships without being legal family, especially if their legal families weren’t very close by in geography or relationship. They’d have to file for it, though. I’m mainly thinking of emergency medical situations.

    I’m not saying that marriage laws that I feel are a bit unfair turn us into some equivalent of Iran. Imperfect and evil aren’t the same thing. I just think if we had fair marriage laws, it would be even better. I think the United States is probably the best place for anyone to live on the entire globe. I just don’t think that’s any reason not to try to think of ideas to improve it even further.