Here's something to think about when voting this November.

Although President Bush is now being credited with our current circumstances, it might be good to note that he has been in office for seven plus years; it is only now that all our economic woes have surfaced... do you think possibly there might be something else involved?
In just one year. Remember the election in 2006?

Thought you might like to read the following:
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $4.00 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!

Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.

You're behind him? Bambi talks out of his ass and you're behind him?

When you men get home and face an anti-war protestor, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend because she knows she’s dating a pussy… ~ Attributed to General Tommy Franks

You ever notice that these fools always blame the repubs and Bush for every problem, but never ever factually state how the repubs or Bush did it? They just say its their fault, and then throw insults when others tell them their full of shit? Or criticize one's spelling or grammer. They are a prime example of brainwashed people. Convinced they are right, but can't put into words why they are right. Most seem to get their talking points from the Islamo facist wing of the democratic party, or the socialist wing of the democractic party.

one's mind and flip flopping? Please enlighten me, so that when McCain "changes his mind", I can throw your definition right back into your face's.

The majority in this country have come to appreciate how gay people deserve the same individual rights and liberties enjoyed by all Americans. These individual rights and liberties include the right to choose where to live, be educated, obtain health care, and work (so long as the work place isn't a religious institution whose doctrine prohibits same-sex behavior). Integral to such rights is being treated with courtesy, respect, and kindness, which form the core of any civilized and democratic society.

Just like all citizens, gay people deserve these rights because they're human. Indeed, these are the very inalienable rights described in the Constitution because they exist irrespective of what people do, say, believe, or act, so long as the actions don't infringe on the rights of others or the welfare of society.

For this reason, it's important to distinguish between the person and what the person does. A person simply is. He/she has no ability to be anything but a person, and is, therefore, deserving of rights which no one can remove by vote or decree. The natural and immutable – or fixed – conditions of race and gender fall into this category.

A person's behavior is another matter. Unlike the human condition, which is beyond our control, human behavior is not. Instead, it begins with an urge, which we act on by choice. Sometimes the act is beneficial; sometimes it's not.

Therefore, in accordance with the Constitution, the public or its elected representatives have the right to pass laws governing human behavior. In general, the intent of such laws ranges from prohibiting to encouraging different behaviors, based on their merits or lack of them. For example, some behaviors furnish positive benefits to individuals and society, and should, therefore, be encouraged with financial and legal benefits. Examples in this first category would include going to college, starting a business, buying a home, giving to charities, and entering into marriage. Other behaviors have the potential for harm but banning them would cause an undue burden on personal liberty. So, we limit these behaviors to consenting adults. Examples in this second category would be smoking, drinking, gambling, and human sexual relations outside marriage. Finally, some behaviors are so egregious that we prohibit them. Examples in this third category would be the taking of life or property.

For some behaviors, the facts are supportive, indicating why they should be placed in the first behavioral category and encouraged with legal and financial benefits. For example take traditional marriage between a man and a woman. In this relationship, people of differing genders offer psychological and health benefits to both partners and to offspring. Among these are reduced stress, increased lifespan, and the best environment for raising children. Heterosexual marriage also greatly reduces (if not eliminates) promiscuity and the potential for STDs, AIDS, and AIDS-related diseases.[1][1],[2][2]

But homosexual unions would not offer these benefits, nor would they stop promiscuity among gay males or increase stability among lesbians. Among males, the average relationship lasts about 1-½ years, yet still includes up to 8 casual partners per year in addition to the "committed" partner. Indeed, according to one study, only seven couples out of 156 had no outside encounters, while being committed for less than 5 years. Among females, the potential for divorce exceeds that of heterosexual women.[3][3],[4][4],[5][5],[6][6],[7][7]

The effect on marriage would be problematic, according to a study on divorce patterns among Scandinavian same-sex couples. In Norway and Sweden, the likelihood of divorce between gay men was 1.35 to 1.5 times that of heterosexuals. For lesbians, this rate was even higher, even though women have a tendency to be much less promiscuous than men. In these same Scandinavian countries, married lesbians were 2 to 2.67 times more likely to divorce than married heterosexual women.[8][8]

These factors contradict those who agitate for gay marriage, saying it would not impact the institution of marriage in this country. On the contrary, given the findings of the Scandinavian study, homosexual marriage would diminish the institution below its already weakened state, further burden the already overtaxed court system, and saddle children (if any are involved) with the emotional baggage that often comes with divorce.

But divorce would not be the only impact to children. The other is parental influence and its affect on children and societal views. Homosexual parents of children are more likely to abuse or assault one another.[9][9],[10][10],[11][11],[12][12].[13][13],[14][14] In either case, children involved in such relationships would be more likely to live in abusive settings or with single parents. Also children living in homosexual households are more likely to learn that same-sex behavior is acceptable and to practice it themselves. Neither outcome would be healthy for children. Finally, on a societal basis, this potential increases in a culture that erroneously teaches or considers homosexual behavior to be normal and beneficial.

The basis for this view is American Psychological Association (APA), which supports mainstreaming homosexual behavior. According to this organization, homosexual behavior originates from biological, cognitive, and cultural factors, which vary in significance among individuals. The biological factor indicates a heightened potential for, but not a guarantee of, homosexual orientation. The other two factors are external in nature, with cognitive indicating what a person learns and cultural indicating what he or she absorbs from society. For adults, we’ve seen how the sexual revolution undid cultural and cognitive factors that controlled our biological predisposition for heterosexual outside marriage. Consequently, it follows that a society, which approves or encourages homosexuality, would trigger the biological proclivity for the behavioral urge, making those with this tendency more likely to act upon it.

The ability to resist such urges is generally dependent upon age. Having experienced the consequences of bad decisions and a better understanding of right and wrong, adults are better equipped to resist harmful urges. In comparison, children are more susceptible to negative influences because they have yet to fully develop the ability to think, reason, or distinguish between right and wrong.

Information on children raised by same-sex parents is especially important. According to a study conducted by two researchers at USC, 25% of the adults raised by lesbian parents had a homosexual relationship. In comparison, none of the children raised by heterosexual parents had such a relationship. Based on another statistic, 64% of young adults raised in lesbian households report having considered same-sex relationships (in the past, now, or in the future), compared with only 17% raised in heterosexual families.[15][15]

These findings are important, since homosexuals, primarily males, are disproportionately at risk for serious disease, making them ineligible to donate blood or organs. For males, these diseases are HIV/AIDS (to which they’re nine times more susceptible than straight males), Kaposi’s Sarcoma, human papilloma virus, hepatitis A and B, anal cancer, non-hodgkins lymphoma, hodgkins disease, gonorrhea, syphilis, proctitis, proctocolitis, and enteritis. In fact, in terms of AIDS, male homosexuals comprise a small percentage of the population but comprise about 50% of all HIV/AIDS in the U.S. and over 70% of the ailment among American men.[16][16] Prophylactics offer males mitigation of, but not complete protection from, these diseases.[17][17],[18][18],[19][19],[20][20],[21][21]

In comparison, lesbians are generally at lesser risk for disease but are still more prone than heterosexual women to some health concerns. Examples include breast cancer, ovarian cancer, HPV, BV, chlamydia, syphillis, trichomoniasis, and even AIDS/HIV. Of these diseases, HPV is at least as common in lesbians as in single heterosexual women, while BV is more so[22][22],[23][23],[24][24],[25][25]

But disease is not the only risk associated with homosexual behavior. The others include physical damage for males and mental illness for both sexes. Among males, the majority of homosexual activity involves anal receptive intercourse, which has a tendency to damage the voluntary and involuntary muscles surrounding the rectal area, including the lining of this area.[26][26], [27][27] Further, male homosexuals have a greater tendency to experience bowel control issues later in life. For both sexes, homosexuals have a greater tendency to experience mental and emotional disorders, such as major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and substance abuse/ dependence.[28][28]

Though the source of these disorders is not clear, social stigma is considered a possibility. Yet two studies appear to cast some doubt on this source. Showing no statistical significance, one study was inconclusive as to whether homosexuals early in life were more vulnerable to psychological morbidity caused by social stress. The other study showed that Dutch homosexuals were as likely to experience psychological morbidity as their American counterparts, even though the Dutch are either more tolerant of it or more likely to consider homosexuality an equal of heterosexuality.24

In either case, this elevated potential for psychological morbidity in homosexuals appears to contradict the position of the APA. Based on studies conducted in the late 1950’s, showing little to no prevalence of psychological disorders among homosexuals, the APA de-listed homosexuality as a pathology in the early 1970’s. Doing so, the APA turned from previous studies, suggesting that homosexuality was related to parental neglect.[29][29]

Yet recent research suggests otherwise. In one paper, a researcher indicates that “…early experiences with childhood maltreatment may influence adult sexual orientation." In other words, current research suggests validity to earlier studies showing that parental neglect, primarily among fathers, heightened the potential for homosexuality. 24

So, unlike immutable traits, such as race or gender, homosexuality is not due solely to biological factors, nor is it a natural and fixed condition, over which individuals have no control. Instead, unlike these traits, homosexuality is a behavioral urge that is acted upon by choice, making it no different than any other human behavior – all of which is subject to law enacted through the democratic process – not judicial fiat. Further, like all other behaviors, the likelihood for it to occur is heightened through parental and societal approval - the cognitive and cultural factors mentioned earlier in this article.

For all of these reasons, society shouldn’t codify same-sex behavior in marriage. For, in doing so, we’re saying that same-sex behavior is positive because marriage is positive, and is, therefore, a behavior that is to be practiced. Quite clearly, the evidence concerning same-sex behavior says the exact opposite, as it does for other problematic behaviors, like smoking. For this behavior (smoking), the government has spent millions trying to discourage it but is now poised to promote another problematic behavior – same-sex behavior - through marriage. A governmental policy encouraging and legally sanctioning same-sex behavior as “marriage” is contradictory, inconsistent, with the goal of a healthy and stable public order and, therefore, makes no sense. Consequently, the government should remain neutral on same sex behavior and recognize that it belongs within the second category of human activity, allowed but not legally encouraged (which State-recognized marriage does), where it can be practiced among consenting adults.

________________________________________

I live in Norway and it was in June of this year (2008) that marriage between gays became legal. Your posting here claims that there is research about the "divorce" rate among gays in Norway and Sweden, but I don't see how that can be possible since marriage between gays has only become possible a few weeks ago.

Also, I don't see how making same-sex marriage legal would both "allow" and "encourage" it. I'm straight, and when gays can marry, I don't intend to become gay, nor would I perceive the law as encouraging me to do so.

Why don't we just say that the state and the church have different values and different agendae. Churches shouldn't be forced to marry anyone they don't want to, and the state should set up a way for any individual to enter into a reciprocal relationship with one other individual and award certain rights to that relationship. Morality isn't relevant here, just the interests of the state, which obviously are served by stable relationships.