Is the media pushing gay rights as civil rights?

[cb88]

I debated on putting this in p/cp or here...however it is one of the key issues driving this election, behind war and the economy, so I chose to put it here.

Is the media pushing gay rights as civil rights?

Friday, May 21, 2004


By Dan Zanoza

Excerpt:

OPINION -- Initially, the issue of homosexuality involved a moral and legal question of whether consenting adults could participate in certain types of sexual behavior behind the privacy of closed doors.



Last year, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law, thereby making the practice of sodomy legal in all 50 states.



Those familiar with the slippery slope theory, when it comes to the advancement of liberal issues, have witnessed a quantum leap surrounding the subject of homosexual rights in less than a year.



In a short period of time, we have seen a push for government employers and private businesses to provide benefits for same sex couples. In fact, it got so ridiculous that businesses who refused to offer same sex benefits to their employees could not conduct business with some municipalities.



The recent ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court has now opened the door for "marriage" between homosexuals and most political observers believe other states will soon follow suit.



The progression of the homosexual agenda America has experienced in recent years has not been a result of a public ground swell of support. In fact, the Massachusetts high court struck down the will of the people who had passed a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in that state, ruling such legislation unconstitutional.



So, if, as polling indicates, the American people do not support homosexual "marriage," just who and what is the driving force behind this social agenda?



The answer to that question was made evident last Monday by what took place in downtown Chicago.



A number of homosexuals, celebrating the first day of the implementation of the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision, were arrested at the Cook County Clerk's marriage license bureau. The same sex couples, who demanded marriage licenses be issued, were denied and a group of supporters refused to leave in an act of public disobedience, protesting Illinois law.

Some in the press said these actions were reminiscent of the civil disobedience initiated by Martin Luther King, Jr., in the early days of the civil rights movement of the 1960s.



The same day, a press conference, titled the "Coalition to Protect Marriage," was held in front of the Thompson Center by a number of pro-family groups including Concerned Women for America, Catholic Citizens of Illinois and the Walsh Forum. A former lesbian, Linda Jernigan, represented RescuingHomosexuals.org.



"We had about ten TV news cameras at our press conference," said Peter LaBarbera, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute. "But the day's coverage was still overwhelmingly pro-gay. The media is lockstep behind this as a 'civil rights' issue."



Later in the day, LaBarbera was interviewed by Phil Ponce on Chicago Tonight (WTTW Channel 11 PBS Chicago affiliate). Other guests included Cook County Clerk David Orr and homosexual activist Deborah Mell. Mell is the daughter of Chicago Alderman Richard Mell and sister-in-law of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. cb88 note: I guess if you want to push your agenda, just get your family elected.



"Homosexuality is wrong," said Kathy Valente of Concerned Women for America during the Monday morning press conference. "In fact our opinion is it is deadly, it is dangerous, it is unhealthy. The government itself has no business condoning behavior that is hurting people."



Valente's quote was aired on Channel 7's (WLS-TV ABC affiliate) midday news.



The gay and lesbian movement gets high organizational marks for its advocacy of this issue. With the help of the mainstream media, a subject that was once a topic for the privacy of one's bedroom has been elevated into a civil rights issue.



Subsequently, though Valente's comments concerning health issues involving the practice of homosexuality are based in fact, the mainstream press essentially glosses over such remarks as though they were trivial or simply political rhetoric.



And though a vast majority of African-Americans rail at the comparison between the homosexual movement and the issue of civil rights for blacks, the press continues to buy into this analogy.



A common line we hear from homosexual activists goes something like this: At one time, whites were not allowed to marry blacks in this country. In fact, in many states, it was against the law.

I cannot count the number of times I have heard this statement made by homosexuals and aired on a mainstream newscast or published in a major newspaper. Essentially, the press has bought into the concept.

Rest of the story: http://illinoisleader.com/columnists...ew.asp?c=15085

[Woodmonkey]

Good article, cb.

If this is a matter of discrimination, then someone needs to explain to me why a bisexual man, who would like to marry two partners, cannot do so in Massachusetts. Or perhaps, as the slippery slope concept has proven many times, that scenario may be just around the corner.

Bill O'Reilly says this a lot on his tv show. It's a good point.

I think that when marriage is everything to everybody (like the Democratic Party), then it is nothing. Is that the end goal here?

If there was balance in the mainstream media, we would be seeing the "other" side get coverage too. Another point...just when did people who value traditional marriage which is proven to work, get shunted off as the "other" side?

[cb88]

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

Good article, cb.


Bill O'Reilly says this a lot on his tv show. It's a good point.

I think that when marriage is everything to everybody (like the Democratic Party), then it is nothing. Is that the end goal here?

If there was balance in the mainstream media, we would be seeing the "other" side get coverage too. Another point...just when did people who value traditional marriage which is proven to work, get shunted off as the "other" side?

I think it's a very slippery slope we've started down. I hate to see in the next 5 years what this will lead to.

[BrianK]

This post is more due to my curiosity. The issue of gay marriage is based on what? For most it is the belief that marriage is defined in a dictionary as the union of a man & a woman. Using Encarta as a dictionary reference source.

http://encarta.msn.com

The definition in Encarta leaves room for interpretation of the "understood meaning" of marriage. 1&2 mention spouses but 3,4,& 5 aren’t specific. Spouses is defined as man & wife. #’s 3,4 &5 part of the definition doesn’t mention spouse so conceivably there could be an argument made that what is generally understood really is open to interpretation.

mar·riage [ mérrij ] (plural mar·riages)

noun

1. legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners.

2. particular marriage relationship: a married relationship between two particular people, or an individual’s relationship with an individual spouse.

3. joining in wedlock: the joining together in wedlock of two people

4. marriage ceremony: the ceremony in which two people are joined together formally in wedlock

5. union of two things: a close union, blend, or mixture of two things Civilization is based on the marriage of tradition and innovation.



Then I looked up Marry

mar·ry [ mérree ] (past mar·ried, past participle mar·ried, present participle mar·ry·ing, 3rd person present singular mar·ries)



verb

1. transitive and intransitive verb take somebody in marriage: to commit yourself to somebody, or yourselves to each other, formally in marriage.

2. transitive verb law religion join in marriage: to officiate at somebody’s marriage ceremony and give legal sanction or a religious blessing to the marriage.

3. transitive verb law give in marriage: to give somebody, usually a child or ward, to somebody in marriage, or bring about his or her marriage to somebody.

4. transitive verb acquire by marriage: to acquire something, especially money, by marrying somebody who has it wanted to marry wealth and power, and got both.

Here again I see the opening for interpretation. #2 particularly with the wording of legal sanction or a religious blessing. The word "or" separates the whole intent of marry IMO.

The last thing I did out of curiosity was to look up gay weddings on the web.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...marriage_x.htm

I looked for the word spouse to be used in the ceremony of the 1st. gay couple. Wasn’t used this is the wording I found.

[quote]

At 9:15 a.m., Cambridge City Clerk Margaret Drury told the couple: "I now pronounce you married under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."

I looked for mention of man & wife. This is what I found.

[quote]

They were pronounced "partners for life" at the end of the ceremony.

I looked up partners

part·ner [ partner ]

noun (plural part·ners)

1. somebody who shares activity: somebody who takes part in an activity or undertaking with somebody else.

2. member of relationship: either member of an established couple in a relationship.

3. fellow participant in sexual activity: either of two people who have or have had sex together.

Seems to me that using partner in the ceremony fits.

If we are to believe what we read as definition & as wording in a civil marriage ceremony that in no way conflicts with the religious marriage ceremony then the Massachusetts court decided correctly. Whether or not we agree is a matter of personal opinion.

If the Pope can excuse priests & the Baptist church can accept a gay for leadership then is only the liberal press that is pushing the issue of acceptance of gays? Isn't this more an issue of human rights than civil rights?

I had to edit the Encarta reference because the word editor edited out a portion of the words namely dictionary

[kruser79]

I think this is only part of something that the gay community has been hoping and working for for quite some time. The more they are included into "rights" fights, the less abnormal they seem, and the more credibility they gain. Of course the liberal media plays no small part by giving them ample air time while snidely remarking on "the anti-gay, pro-life, conservative Christians" (ever notice? They always seem to lump them together, while tagging them as wackos, unable to let go of the past).

Sorry, call me anything you want. But I don't particularly care if you're a pole-smoker, that doesn't bother me. Buddy, you go ahead and do your thing, I'll do mine. But it really rubs me raw that they want to equate their "relationship, life partnership, whatever" to something that has been considered the norm for thousands of years. I don't believe us to be "becoming enlightened" or "opening our eyes to other possibilities in the human dynamic." Gays have just forced themselves on society for so long, and so rudely, that many are just getting used to them and tolerating their demands of equality.

I say ship all these same-sex couples off to deserted islands. Let's see how long those societies survive.

[BrianK]

The Japanese have conducted an experiment with lab mice. They used the female eggs of one mouse to fertilize the eggs of another female. The experiment produced mice with the genetic properties of both. The experiment I think was generated by the fact that worms are not male & female & they reproduce.

We know evolution happens. Mankind adapts, I guess if gays were shipped off to an island science would monitor them like lab mice.

Since treatment of societies criminal element have rights such as medical & the rest then the island for gays would be fully equipped to sustain life as we know it now. Suppose there was the possibility of humans reproducing by egg to egg insemination, men would die off but women would be the survivors. What happens if some of those born under those circumstances were not gay? Would they be allowed back ?

An article explains this.

Mice created with 2 genetic moms, no dad
(AP)
Updated: 2004-04-22 16:16



Just ahead of Mother's Day, scientists have found a way to cut dads out of the picture, at least among rodents: They have produced mice with two genetic moms ¡ª and no father. It is the first time the feat has been accomplished in mammals.




Lab mice: Scientists have succeeded in producing a mouse without the aid of sperm or cloning, according to the British scientific review, Nature. [AFP/file] Scientists said the technique cannot be used on people, for reasons both technical and ethical. In fact, one of the mouse mothers was a mutant newborn, whose DNA had been altered to make it act like a male's contribution to an embryo.

But the new work sheds light on why people, mice and other mammals normally need a male's DNA for reproduction, and some experts say it also has implications for the idea of using stem cells to treat disease.

The feat is reported in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature by Tomohiro Kono of the Tokyo University of Agriculture in Japan, with colleagues there and in Korea.

They say they produced two mice, one of which grew to maturity and gave birth. Kono said this mouse, named Kaguya after a Japanese fairy tale character, appears healthy.

Some lizards and other animals reproduce with only maternal genes, but mammals do not.

Kono, in an e-mail, said the new technique might be useful with animals for agricultural and scientific purposes. When asked if he saw any reason to produce humans this way, he dismissed the question as "senseless."

Experts said ethical concerns and current technology would pose barriers to duplicating the technique in people. For one thing, scientists do not know how to create the precise DNA mutation in humans. Experts also noted that it took hundreds of eggs to produce just two mice and that the health risks are unknown.

However, the study provides new evidence for the standard explanation for why mammals normally need a male's DNA.

Scientists say that in an embryo, some mammal genes behave differently if inherited from the father rather than the mother, and that this paternal activity pattern is needed for normal development.

Relatively few genes act in that way, and they are said to be "imprinted." In some cases these genes are active only if inherited from the father, not the mother, and in other cases it is the other way around.

For the study described in Nature, the researchers got around the need for male-derived DNA by turning to mutant mice. The female mice were missing a chunk of DNA, and as a result, two of their genes would behave in an embryo as if they had come from a male.

What's more, the scientists took this mutated DNA from the egg cells of newborns, because at such a young age the DNA has not yet taken on the full "female" imprinting seen in mature eggs.

That DNA was combined with genes from ordinary female mice to make reconstructed eggs. Only two of 457 such eggs produced living mice.

Marisa Bartolomei, who studies imprinting at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, said she was "stunned" that manipulating just the two genes removed the roadblock to producing live mice.

In fact, an array of other imprinted genes had also somehow taken on their normal levels of activity, as if there had been a standard fertilization. The researchers said they do not know how that happened.

Gerald Schatten, a stem cell researcher at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, said the work shows that scientists need to thoroughly understand imprinting in human embryonic stem cells, which are recovered from early embryos. Otherwise, such cells might behave abnormally when used for treating diseases like diabetes or Parkinson's, he said.





Some scientists hope to produce human stem cells by stimulating unfertilized eggs.

Kent Vrana, a researcher at Pennsylvania State University who is studying the unfertilized-egg approach, said the Nature study is encouraging for that technology. If a healthy, fertile mouse can be produced without a father's DNA, he said, that gives hope that stem cells from a similar process would behave normally.


Given that the one mouse was a mutant in order to accomplish this if gays were to be banished from society wouldn't it be reasonable to believe they would want science to cause a mutation in them? If a dying inmate in California could get a million dollar heart transplant at taxpayers expense no doubt in my mind that some gay genetisists would demand access to every known bit of info & technology.

[cb88]

The point to that experiment, Brian, is that science had to help them along and "force" the issue....it did NOT occur naturally.


See, in order for the gays to win the "minority" thing, it needs to be something they are "born with" (in otherwords they don't have a choice) but they don't want that, to them it is a choice, and one we should readily accept as "normal". It's NOT normal.

So, what's next??? Child molesters get their equality? Because, after all, they can't help it. There is already a huge push in that direction.