Thursday, January 19, 2006

Whats Happening?

It began with the state-wide elections, but it seems to be continuing still.... Why are Republicans losing all of these close elections? When I was down in Lynchburg two weeks ago, the playing field did not seem as though it would go 58 to 42. Harrington was talking about the right issues, and was running in a district that had previously been Republican. What Happened? Up here in the 33rd Senatorial , I congratulate Supervisor Mick Staton on winning the Republican nomination, but we are going to have an uphill battle to fight. With the district being mainly comprised of areas that are trending blue, Staton is going to have to reach out to others besides the regular Craddock and Black crew to win this. Is it national politics still playing into local elections? is it the candidates? or is it a lack of ideas? I can't understand why we're spending all our time and effort getting Senator Potts off of a Committee Chairmanship, as our own party will soon be losing it's majority.... How many losses can the VAGOP take before some substantial change comes???


At 1/19/2006 09:53:00 AM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...


Why not hold off of the "doom and gloom" and instead get behind your candidate? In the end it comes down to issues and candidates. If the Republican Party is right on the issues and puts forth candidates of quality, we have nothing to worry about. As for demographics, I see no reason to change based on that. Since when is it right to move to a bad policy decision just to make yourself more favorable in elections? If we are wrong on the issues, please tell us which ones we need to change on.

At 1/19/2006 10:22:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...


I am behind Staton 100%, and I never suggested I wasnt.

It's not about changing policy, but instead stressing issues which are conservative, and fit the district.

Many Republican candidates in moderate districts are still stressing gods, guns, and gays. This doesnt work anymore

At 1/19/2006 10:31:00 AM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...


Trite phrases aside, who is stressing God (singular or plural)? Family values perhaps, but not God per se.

I think the right to bear arms is still a very positive issue for Republicans all over Virginia. I also don't see it as a big issue Dems are using to hit us with.

Gays: Perhaps you are right in some parts of NOVA, but my belief here is it depends on how you package it. No one is "anti-gay" as far as I can tell. What matters here is you have a candidate that is smart enough and accomplished enough to successfully counteract the smear of the left on this issue. This is an important issue to many even in NOVA and it has to do with whether or not homosexual behavior should be promoted and supported by policy as opposed to remaining neutral on the issue. Unfortunately many on the left consider anything less than a full promotion of the gay lifestyle by our government as racist. This is in fact the lie and the extreme position btw.

At 1/19/2006 10:55:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...


Sadly-none of these issues are important in NOVA anymore. In Tidewater God, Gays can still be stressed, and in Richmond Metro all three.

You are also lost about some people being anti-gay.

At 1/19/2006 11:12:00 AM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

When I said "no one" I meant among the Republican candidates for office. My experience among this group is that they may be opposed to providing gay people with benefits based on their lifestyle, and they may personally be opposed to the lifestyle, but they are not anti-gay in the sense that they "hate" or want to harm people who are in that lifestyle. What the left tries to do is say most conservatives are "haters of gays" and that they would prefer to "eliminate" them if they had the opportunity. There is no basis of fact in these accusations and it is a smear to imply this.

Among people in general there are most certainly those who hate gays, just as there are those who hate people based on race, religion, or political views.

At 1/19/2006 11:23:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...

I still disagree with you-

There are republican candidates who hate gays.

While the left may try to smear our party that way..we give them all the ammo needed

At 1/19/2006 11:57:00 AM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Perhaps you can name those candidates? I for one am not happy about supporting a candidate who "hates" anyone. While I cannot vote for some, I certainly would like to know this so I can avoid sending money their way. Also, please provide proof of this rather than just your opinion.

At 1/19/2006 12:07:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

TC, it is this kind of painting with a broad brush which gives ammo to our enemies. I don't know of any Republican candidate who "hates gays"; I know many who "hate," i.e., oppose, the radical homosexual agenda, and homosexual acts. And they do so with the most profound love of all: knowledge of and concern for the inherent physical and psychological damage caused by homosexual behavior.

I think your confusion arises from the mistake of believing some of the rhetoric of the radical homosexual movement.

At 1/19/2006 12:23:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob FitsZimmonds hates gays and has said so in public.

At 1/19/2006 12:28:00 PM, Anonymous Suedehead said...

I'm not sure Bob F. hates gays; he probably only hates people that win elections. Since we are heading for (another) loss in Loudoun, Bob F. will have nothing but love for Staton, Black, Craddock, Chapman, and the rest of his merry band of extremist losers.

At 1/19/2006 12:36:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Well, I know Bob, Anon 12:23, and I've never heard him say that, or anything like it. Of course, I don't know you, and you (like suedehead) are smearing a man anonymously/pseudonymously. Even if Bob has said that, at least he's had the guts to stand by his conviction. What's your excuse?

At 1/19/2006 12:38:00 PM, Blogger James E. Martin said...

As a democrat all i can say is keep em coming.

BTW Mr. Young: How is are you not anti-gay when you say crap like: "concern for the inherent physical and psychological damage caused by homosexual behavior"


30 years from now 95% of the population wouldn’t vote for any person who says crap like that (though about 85% of the Republican Caucus believes it today.)

Welcome back home!

At 1/19/2006 12:46:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Thanks NOVA D-

JY-I don't really care if people hate gays..thats not my point.

The point of this post is that our party in Virginia has had some substantial losses.

After the election many republicans were saying..."well it was just because of national politics" ...well I say to's been almost 2 months since the election, and we're still losing.

Something needs to change

At 1/19/2006 02:14:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...


Once again, why the losses? Did we just have bad candidates, or was it bad issue positions?

I see nothing in the Republican platform that shouldn't do well in NOVA.

However, what I clearly see is a willingness of the Dems to smear legitimate policy positions as bigotry and then have the press work with them to maintain the smear in the public eye. We need candidates that will support our good issue positions and do it clearly and loudly enough to overcome those smears.

As to the gay issue, it seems to me it is those on the left that are being extreme and closed-minded on this. Whatever happened to valuing diversity? If someone disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle it makes them no more of a bigot than someone who supports monogamy, or opposes special rights for people who are into bestiality, or any other sexual lifestyle. There is no scientific or moral reason to support homosexuality as a protected status over any of these other types of behavior, some of which are illegal, like pedophilia. If you're in for a dime, you should be in for a dollar on this. There is no other logical conclusion.

Don't get me wrong. I do not hate gays or any other person. I no more want to exterminate them than I do an adulterer or someone who lives with their partner outside the bounds of marriage. This is not an issue of bigotry. However, don't tell me I have to have my government enforce rules to promote these lifestyles that I disagree with.

At 1/19/2006 02:38:00 PM, Anonymous NoVA Scout said...

TC: Welcome home. sounds like a wonderful trip.

A few points:

1) these specials are very quirky - very little time to develop issues, generally low turnouts. They have all the anomalies of primaries and then some. They're a lot like class officer elections in high school.

2)name recognition is very important to overcome some of the problems identified in point 1.

3) The 33rd Senate should be a very strong Republican opportunity. Although Minchew is more of a Mims-type than Staton, Staton is a known quantity in the district and has about as much name recognition as a candidate for one of these things could be expected to have.

4) Whatever one thinks of Dick Black (I'm not a fan), he has very devoted followers who will get behind Staton. Staton will have the added advantage with other voters of not being Dick Black, whatever the family relationship might be. Most voters don't know about that or don't care (as they shouldn't). So to the extent Black ran into problems becasue some voters just thought he had gone way over the top on certain social issues, that negative won't taint Staton.

4) in this particular election, voters' attitudes about development may come into play and could be a negative for Staton, given his position on the Board of Supervisors and his identification with the anti-York faction. I still perceive that Scott York is fairly popular in Loudoun and that efforts to drive him out of the GOP, coupled with other supervisors' designs to put a yoke on him have caused some resentment. BTW, if development issues come into play, there is no reason to assume that they would not have hurt Minchew as much as York, given Minchew's work for the developer community.

5) So I think there is a cogent argument that Staton has a lot of advantages that Rs in the other specials didn't have.

6) I've cautioned about making sweeping generalizations from a few Special Election results. If Staton won, it wouldn't tell anyone very much about how weel conservatives run in Northern Virginia, It will tell us that this particular conservative was electable in this particular election in this particular district. However, given the advantages that Staton and Republicans appear (at least to me) to have in the 33rd, and given the strong GOP presence in Loudoun generally (Kilgore and Bollings's losses there are anomalies, I think) a Staton loss in this one would have huge implications for the GOP in Virginia. It would say a lot about demographics and message. Staton is wisely toning down his Black-like similarities and is (as far as I can tell) really cooling his jets on social issues. If he loses despite this outward moderation, then you'll see a whole bunch of Northern Virginia worthies who have deemed "conservative" slogans to be their electoral meal ticket for the past few years start sidling, with what little grace they can preserve, toward some new constructs that will go over better with voters in the region before 2007.

At 1/19/2006 02:46:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eugene Delgaudio hates gays.

At 1/19/2006 02:54:00 PM, Blogger James E. Martin said...

I didnt post the last comment, but i was intrested into who this person was, so i googled him and i got...

At 1/19/2006 04:11:00 PM, Blogger AWCheney said...

I agree Nova Scout. The key to winning in these specials is hitting the ground running with a strong voter ID and get out the vote campaign. Given the results in the recent special in Lynchburg, it would also be prudent for Staton and his people not to underestimate turnout and proceed as if they are looking at getting out the votes in a normal State Senate election. A strong volunteer base is going to be key.

At 1/19/2006 04:30:00 PM, Anonymous getagrip said...

You don't think the Dick Black negative will taint Staton? He does seem to be trying to distance himself now. Does this mean that campaign manager Kellie is fired for the email that said a vote for Mick Staton will be a great favor to Dick Black?

At 1/19/2006 04:47:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm still trying to figure out what all these "close elections" are that we are losing.

Have any of the special elections switched parties?

At 1/19/2006 04:52:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

So, nova democrat, are you suggesting that homosexual sex practices do not cause physical and/or psychological damage? You really need to do your research, buddy. 'Might want to start with Michael Fumento's "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS." Then, maybe you can back up your ideological asssertions with just a few facts, or at least, have knowledge of the facts (like the construction of the sentence; I NEVER said homosexuality was a disease, though practicing it disproportionately spreads things like AIDS and GBS) that you apparently choose to ignore.

As for the future, we'll just see what we will see. Maybe 30 years from now, pedophiles, bigamists, polygamists, and necrophiliacs will have special "rights" to engage in their perverse sexual practices, too.

Hey, if it feels good, do it!

As for your rejoinder, TC, I tend to believe that these recent losses --- some in district's where the incumbent Republican had been preceded by a Democrat --- are still the result of national slanders. Are you telling me that the shrill Democrat assault of the last six years has somehow waned in the last two months? I'm more of the mind that what needs to change is Republicans simply sitting back and taking it. When Dems -- or even fellow Republicans -- attack tax-cutters for their "greed," we should respond, perhaps noting that Dems are beholden to public employees unions, etc. And I associate myself with rtwng's and --- sit down --- nova scout's and awcheney's comments. It's about technical political proficiency, not an out-of-touch agenda.

At 1/19/2006 06:23:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

I wouldn't worry about the losses, TC. Truth is, 2005 was an odd year. Odd year elections aren't worth cheating to win.

I'm sure in 2006, your party will pull out all the stops: keep people of voting records, add 30,000 Republican votes, stuff like that.

There's no way your party will allow itself to lose this year. If we have to attack ourselves again to cause another national crisis, so be it.

At 1/19/2006 06:26:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

James young: equating homosexuality to necrophilia, pedophilia, or beastiality won't work. They are entirely different things.

But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

At 1/19/2006 06:39:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow- seems Willis is a left-wing radical given those comments. And of course homosexual behavior is comparable to beastiality, pedophilia, etc... they all are sexual behaviors that deviate from our natural biological design (and invite a whole host of psychological and moral issues/problems as well as has already been pointed out). These are biological facts and no liberal spin machine can distort them. All they can do is scream "bigot" and end any hope for a rational conversation.

I just have to say... I read the comments here often and was really impressed by rtwng and james young's arguments... it is very interesting to just read the flow of the comments and see how they use reason to calmly respond to issues and push back squishy generalities promoted by TC and some of the other libs here. Thank you to you both- I really enjoyed it and it was eye opening to see this dialogue pan out.

At 1/19/2006 07:02:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

I've had this debate countless times, but for your benefit: homosexuality is between two consenting adults, and thus, cannot be categorized as similar to necrophilia, beastiality, or pedophilia, which are between an adult and something else that cannot consent under the law.

At 1/19/2006 07:34:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...


Because I want the Republican party to retain the majority of the Virginia Legislature I am a squishy lib?

ah you people

At 1/19/2006 08:38:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


What about polygamy between consenting adults? Isn't the restriction of 2 people as arbitrary as the one of male-female?

Why can't an animal grant consent, or for that fact why is consent even needed? All human parties of bestiality are consenting adults?

For that matter why limit it to adults? NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) thinks a man and a child can love each other... it's all about love isn't it? Why not allow that if a man and woman can get married before they are 18 with parental consent in some states... why not allow the same for gay men by legalizing pedophelia.

By destroying and fundamentally changing marriage and unrooting it from it's biological and moral foundation this is where we go... At least be intellectually honest and don't act as if this isn't a natural progression and somehow it stops with one adult man "marrying" another adult man... why not 3 adult men? Why not two adult men and a 16 year old boy? After all they all love each other right? It's just about love and commitment huh?

At 1/19/2006 08:41:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TC- if you want to retain a Republican majority but do so by selling out on the very principles that give the republican party meaning then what is the point?

We should grow a spine and run on the values that make our party great. And I don't mean just myopically focus on defending the unborn and marriage but that AND other fiscal common sense conservative principles. Don't get me wrong I want a GOP majority... but I want a GOP majority that means something.

If we have GOP in control but we're practically the same as the Dems than it all is useless anyway.

The VA Senate is a disgrace because of cowards like that.

At 1/19/2006 08:49:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

"The values that make the Republican party great" = gay hate.

What a world.

anon, it would be just as easy to limit marriage to between two consenting adults of either gender, as it is to limit it to one man, one woman. It is just as arbitrary, and just as easily enforceable.

The pandora's boxes you homophobics insist would be opened by allowing gay marriage, they simply wouldn't occur.

But I know you will continue to trumpet those talkings points to instill fear in the lemmings who might listen to you. Or maybe you are a lemming yourself. Hard to tell nowadays.

At 1/19/2006 09:09:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where did I say anything about "gay hate" or hating anyone for that matter?

I believe EVERY human life has intrinsic dignity and worth regardless of what sexual lifestyle they choose.

Talk about lemmings... you follow the usual liberal talking points in automatically labeling anyone who disagrees with your agenda (which you just defined as arbitrary above) as some sort of bigot, homophobe, etc. I have no irrational fear of individuals who choose to engage in homosexual behavior (i.e. homophobia). I have a perfectly rational belief that a homosexual lifestyle is bad for the individual and bad for society and should not be encouraged and rewarded through the social construct... now let's try and have a fair and open discussion on my rational belief rather than just attack me ad hominen as a bigot.

I recognize that humans have free will and the ability to choose which sexual activity to engage in (from priests who choose to abstain from any sexual activity to irresponsible kids who choose to have sex with multiple partners without protection). This is a fact. I believe we can and should have a discussion on the behavior in question rather than mindlessly attack those who dissagree with the action as if they hate the person. I disagree with masturbation and think it is unhealthy (due to medical studies that indicate it leads to sexual poblems as well as moral reasons) but I don't hate the person who masturbates. It's a fairly easy distinction to make.

I am comfortable having an open discussion on what sexual activities should be rewarded and encouraged by society- are you?

At 1/19/2006 09:15:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me further clarify:

While I hold strong beliefs on the issues being discussed here, I firmly believe in the universal and absolute dignity of all human life. We must be tolerant of all people, but not universally tolerant of all lifestyles and behaviors. Universal tolerance of harmful aberrations is not a virtue, but a vice.

At 1/19/2006 09:16:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Sure am. I masturbate often. I enjoy it.

And if some men enjoy engaging in responsible sex with other males, I say go for it (and same goes for women)! There is nothing intrinsically wrong with homosexuality, and society allowing it wouldn't create any problems at all.

Your abhorrence of it is rooted in irrational fear, driven by your obvious religious upbringing.

At 1/19/2006 09:18:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

anon- I agree with your comment on tolerance. We should not tolerate those things that are harmful to society.

That is why I have no respect for religion, especially fundamentalist christianity.

At 1/19/2006 09:33:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Anon (and I assume that it is the same Anon in the last few posts) stop wasting your time with Willis. He rejects ("has no respect for") Christianity and the considered wisdom of 5000 of civilized societies.

Trying to persuade such nihilists --- or even debate those who throw around terms like "bigot" and "homophobia," with the latter suggesting unreasonable fear, rather than recognizing considered opposition --- is an utter waste of time.

However, Willis does provide us with a fine example of the triumph of government education.

At 1/19/2006 09:33:00 PM, Anonymous Sophrosyne said...

Willis- you can read plenty of articles (AMA, etc) from peer-reviewed journals that document the potential negative impact of masturbation... it's not in the Bible, it is medical reality. Regardless, state or federal law thankfully doesn't encourage or reward this behavior and we're not discussing granting special protections or benefits to those who engage in it, so we can move on... point is my view isn't religious in nature and is purely rational.

Moving onto marriage, which is a pending legal issue... again the foundation of my view is not religious (although I would be lying if I didn't say my faith further strengthens my viewpoint)...

My thoughs on marriage and family: G.K. Chesterton called the family an “anarchistic institution.” He meant its existence flows from fixed realities in the nature of man. Dr. George (Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and former member of the US Civil Rights Commission) has been even more precise when he points out; marriage is the founding of a family "fundamentally actualized in the sexual acts that are reproductive in type", which make the man and woman participating one reproductive organism or unit. (Some may assert that this view doesn’t allow for a complete marriage between infertile heterosexual couples, this is simply not true. Normal, childbearing women are infertile for a great majority of the time, depending on where they are in their natural cycle. The sexual activity of a temporary or permanently barren man or woman is still reproductive in type, even if the effect of their act of procreation is absent. They are still joining together to create the complete human reproductive organism, something members of the same sex are not capable of doing.)

Basically It is clear the central purpose (naturally, i.e. biologically speaking) of sex is reproduction in the context of a family; this is only possible between the union of a man and a woman. Making homosexual couples the equivalent of married couples (which logically follows from granting the same benefits to each group) fundamentally alters the nature of marriage; severing the act of procreation from marriage and sex. Sexual intercourse based on the creation of the full reproductive human organism grounded in procreative purposes, would be changed to sex for purposes that arise from the desire to obtain physical pleasure or unity. As you can see there is more than an arbitrary distinction between man-woman sex and gay sex- contrary to your previous post.

This new designation of sex ultimately amounts to hedonism, and would have disastrous consequences in our world (as we can already see). We can see the results of separating both marriage and procreation from sexual activity in the consequences of the “sexual revolution” of the 20th century, which contributed to widespread conjugal infidelity, 1/2 of all marriages ending in divorce, ever-increasing domestic abuse, an explosion in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, not to mention the 43+ million unborn children that have been slaughtered.

Granting same-sex partner benefits or gay "marriage", can undoubtably be seen to lead to the alteration of the institution of marriage and only further devalues sex and fuels the damaging consequences of this devaluation. Permitting homosexual marriage opens a Pandora’s box of illicit sexual behavior. If marriage and sex is no longer confined to a man and a woman united completely, it becomes impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two or more partners of either sex. While you, Willis may disagree, I truly believe such criteria may eventually permit a host of sexual relationships, including bigamy, plural marriage, and polygamy.

It is for these reasons (NON RELIGIOUS), in order to prevent the collapse of the institution of marriage and to prevent the further devaluation of sex that I oppose granting same-sex partner benefits and subsidies that are reserved for married couples.

As you can see I have defined rational views... you might disagree but that doesn't mean they are irrational or bigoted and certainly not religious in nature.

NOTE: For clarity I will post under the name Sophrosyne rather than keep going anonymously...

At 1/19/2006 09:35:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Equally nonsensical, of course, is the notion that traditionalists should not push back against nihilists. Sadly, there are quite a few who seem to believe that unilateral disarmament is the appropriate response to the nihilists.

It wasn't correct with regard to Soviet expansionism, and it's not correct with regard to the radical homosexual agenda.

At 1/19/2006 09:53:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

James Young: you can call me a nihilist; I'll call myself a realist. Likewise, you can call yourself a far-right conservative; I will call you an angry lunatic.

Sophrosyne: your logic might make some sense if all children were born from married couples. The reality is that, more than half of all marriages fail, and a large percentage of children are now born out of wedlock. So, whatever pandora's box you are arguing would be opened by allowing gay marriage, has likely already been opened. Although I don't think there ever was one in the first place.

I am highly suspicious of your claim that experiments have proven that masturbation has negative effects. Provide your source, and I'm sure I can blow it out of the water, because that is nonsense.

While marriage, at one point, was needed socially to bring a child up in this society, it isn't necessary anymore. Moreover, with social pressures as they are, heterosexual and homosexual sex alike are both now done more for pleasure purposes than for any reproductive purpose. This wasn't because of any "pandora's box", it's just the way civilized society was bound to turn. Without environmental pressures to force people to worry about the health of their offspring first and foremost, this was bound to happen. The laws of our society need to reflect these changes. Homosexual and heterosexual sex for nothing more or less than pleasure is commonplace; given this, why is marriage allowed for heterosexuals and not homosexuals?? Reproduction has nothing to do with it anymore.

I'm a realist. I don't care for tradition, really. Marriage limited to heterosexuals might have been useful back in the day, as were certain religious beliefs. But this is anew day, with new problems, and neither religion nor a marriage limited to heterosexuals is useful, in any way, any more. We need to adapt with the times.

At 1/19/2006 09:57:00 PM, Blogger James E. Martin said...

BTW, i think the Surgeon General of the United States knows better than james young. Just an observation.

At 1/19/2006 10:20:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 1/19/2006 10:21:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Willis says I call myself a "far right conservative." Of course, that is false. "Far right" is a disparaging term used by the nihilistic far Left. He reveals his true colors, of course, when he calls me an "angry lunatic." 'Guess that's the answer to any rational argument you can't refute.

And nova democrat, I'd be interested in learning what the Surgeon General of the United States "knows better" than what I've said. I mean, sure, my degree is in law, not medicine, so I suppose there's a point there somewhere. But what have I said above that is disagreed with by the SG? I'm not the one who brough autoeroticism into the discussion (though I get a chuckle out of the obervation that "95% of those polled admit to the practice, and the other 5% are liars"), and have no comment on it, so if you're referring to Clinton's SG (who famously advocated teaching autoeroticism, as though it's something that needs to be taught), you're directing your aspersion in the wrong direction.

At 1/19/2006 10:24:00 PM, Anonymous Sophrosyne said...

Willis- as to the self-pleasure question. One medical specialists who I can immediately think of who has suggested a link between masturbation and physical abnormalities is Dr. David Horrobin, MD, PhD, Oxford University. I am not going to go any further on that topic since it is not germane to the discussion at hand and frankly seems odd.

As to your marriage comments... now we are getting somewhere. I agree with you that Pandora's box has been opened regardless of gay marriage and marriage and families are, and have been suffering. All one must do is look at some statistical trends over the past 50 years and you'll see an extremely dramatic change in the stability of families and births out of wedlock. But historically speaking this is a radical new change and not some long existent progression. It is a product of radical feminism.

I contend this (crumbling families and children being raised without a mom and a dad) is a bad thing and that the trend can be slowed or reveresed, as well as accelerated. Our laws and social norms have a huge impact on this and are responsible for a lot of what we've seen... gay "marriage" would, in my view, further accelerate things in a profound way.

This all brings us back to the what I feel is the true core issue... the procreative nature unique to true marriage between a man and a woman. Once this unique nature created a new life, I believe that child should NEVER be denied a loving male and female role model in their mom and dad. This is the best environment for healthy children and this is ultimately what society is supporting through marriage. This is an almost universally recognized by professionals in psychology and human development.

Basically- we were made male and female so we could not only unite in natural procreative in type intercourse, but so we could follow that up by together raising children with a mom and dad. I for one will not side with any law or legislation that supports the errosion of this- children should not be denied a dad or a mom. The well being of children should be paramount.

Are some moms and dads bad parents, of course. Are some gay couples capable of being loving role models for their specific gender, even though they would deny the child the second half of the natural pair? Yes of course. But the codified law should support the best and healthiest environment with a mom AND a dad- our kids deserve nothing less.

At 1/19/2006 10:36:00 PM, Blogger James E. Martin said...

Those who advocated against inter-racial marriage used basically the same argument that you and others are using to dismiss gay marriage (i say that in the nicest way Sophrosyne, your arguments were well reasoned). The belief that the family can not withstand further change is flaud, the family has gone through dramatic change throughout the centuries. During the 19th century woman took an active role in the family, during the 20th century blacks and white intermingled, and during the 21st century gays will be able to be part of families (with no more or less pain than with woman and interracial couples).

The fact is that there are very few families remaining, many single mothers and fathers now raise their kids without the influence of their previous partner (and though mr. young would disagree, for being from a broken home, bill Clinton did well for himself.) Homosexual relationships are very stable and offer the same care and love that heterosexual ones do. I think a child is better off with 2 loving people who provide him/her with positive examples than they are in an orphanage.
BTW, i know a gay couple out in CA, and their 2 kids would be nothing without their parents.

At 1/19/2006 10:52:00 PM, Anonymous the ghost of dick black said...

I predict that within ten years James Young and Eugene Delgaudio will be reduced to sereptitiously whispering their misinformed nonsense about "the gays" to each other in the corner of a dim, maloderous bar. Everyone else will be laughing at them.

At 1/19/2006 10:55:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

nova democrat says "Homosexual relationships are very stable and offer the same care and love that heterosexual ones do." Puh-lease! There are plenty of surveys about the promiscuity of homosexual men demonstrating that their activities are order of magnitude more promiscuous than heterosexuals. And notwithstanding the political agenda of legitimizing homosexual "marriage," there are surveys demonstrating that those demanding to enter into it have no intention of making the life-long commitment which marriage is supposed to be. Say what you will about the tattered state of real marriage: most people enter into it with at least the intention of being "'til death do us part." The same cannot be said of homosexuals.

And GDB, 'far as I know, neither Eugene nor I frequent bars.

At 1/19/2006 10:56:00 PM, Anonymous Sophrosyne said...

People opposed interacial marriage because they didn't want to deny children a male and female role model (i.e a mom and dad). I don't think so.

Families change but the fundamental core has ALWAYS been a mother and a father united together in a pro-creative relationship. Make no mistake- gay "marriage" is unlike any other transformation the family has seen and catagorically would alter the institution itself.

Anyways, I am enjoying this conversation free of the auto-bigot label. I at least appreciate the willingness to realize there are rational (at least on some level) reasons for views, on both sides. This is the kind of discourse we need on this critical issues.

At 1/19/2006 11:13:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

And BTW, GDB, some people have been "laughing at" Eugene Delgaudio for years. Since well before he was elected to public office.

At 1/19/2006 11:29:00 PM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

At 6:23 Willis Said:
I'm sure in 2006, your party will pull out all the stops: keep people of voting records, add 30,000 Republican votes, stuff like that.

There's no way your party will allow itself to lose this year. If we have to attack ourselves again to cause another national crisis, so be it.

That was kind of lost in all the gay talk, but it is hard to take a person seriously who believes that 9/11 was a self-inflicted attack.

And unsubstantiated claims that virginia republicans intend to break election law to win in 2006 add nothing to the discussion. If Willis has some evidence of these evil plans, he should leak them to the press.

At 1/19/2006 11:33:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Charles, I think the Germans referred to such thinking as "cloud-cuckoo land."

At 1/19/2006 11:56:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

criticallythinking: press doesn't cover it. If you want a debate about election fixing, we can have it. You name the place and the time. Same thing concerning 9-11.

Back to marriage: nova democrat makes a good point. Very similar arguments were used by your Republican ancestry to warn against interracial marriage. While I'm sure people like James Young still frown upon that practice, interracial marriage hasn't destroyed the fabric of our society, as many Republicans thought it would. Neither would gay marriage.

Soph: would you agree that a child having two male parents (or two female parents) is better than that child having one male or one female parent, as in the many single-parent households??

At 1/20/2006 12:20:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Uh, Willis, your history is as ill-informed as your philosophy. Anti-miscegenation statutes were passed and defended by a Democrat-controlled legislature. I know you far Lefties like to paint Republicans and conservatives as racist, since it's the nuclear bomb of political debate, but you're either ignorant or just lying.

And I'm particularly offended, since my son's godparents are an interracial couple.

But to take a page from you far Left slanderers, why are you so defensive about homos? Perhaps it's your own latent homosexuality?

At 1/20/2006 01:12:00 AM, Blogger Willis said...

Why are you so defensive of traditional marriage, James?? Latent homosexuality??

You can throw out these ridiculous statements all day James, and I can counter with just as ridiculous ones.

It's too bad your children will learn from a father with such misguided views. Hopefully, our progressive society can influence them.

At 1/20/2006 05:28:00 AM, Anonymous Sophrosyne said...

And just when I thought things were getting civil...

Willis- having a single parent or two male or female "parents" both deny a child of either a mother or a father... and that is unacceptable. Single parents don't teach (typically) unnatural sexual behavior but all in all the it boils down to a child being denied a mom or a dad. You may be OK supporting laws that put children in such unatural and unhealthy environments but the majority of us Americans' with commen sense aren't.

This is about rights- the right a child has to a loving mom and a dad. While this ideal is realized less and less in our society under attack from the left... it still is what our laws should support.

Thankfully Virginia will soon have a constitutional amendment protecting marriage. When that passes with 75% of the vote I'd love to hear you say that was rigged too... come on. Grow up and at least pay lip service to intellectual honesty.

I think you lose any credibility to talk on any of these issues when you imply that American's staged 9-11. Clearly you belong to the radical fringe of the sociocratic party.

At 1/20/2006 09:17:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

"Clearly you belong to the radical fringe of the sociocratic party."

Great comment, sophrosyne. Wish I'd said it. Might even borrow it, with your permission.

At 1/20/2006 09:37:00 AM, Anonymous Sophrosyne said...

Go right ahead! I am almost sorry I tried to engage in an open conversation with a closed minded radical like Willis... I just saw some of his other comments elsewhere on the blogosphere and it's pretty childish- sad.

At 1/20/2006 10:44:00 AM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Sophrosyne and Cirticially Thinking: I advise you not to go down the path with Willis on his "9-11 self-attack" conspiracy theories. It is a total waste of time, as I've experienced personally. He is wed to it despite the facts.

I do find Willis' post from 9:53 last night very revealing. He basically makes a great argument for what many conservatives view as these social changes leading to a complete destruction of the traditional family to be replaced by a socialist form of government which runs all of our lives as parent.

This along with his view of religion should make us all quiver in our boots about the state of government education today if that is indeed where Willis received his education.

At 1/20/2006 11:31:00 AM, Anonymous Sophrosyne said...

Good connection- I never really looked at it as destruction of the family to be replaced by the state... only the first component. The big picture is certainly scary.

At 1/20/2006 11:35:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

rtwng is exactly right, and I endorse his comments, adding that they also reflect an extreme positivist view of law. I used to be much more skeptical ("squishy moderate"?) about the "so-called" war on the family. But that was before homos started demanding societal endorsement of their liaisons as "marriage."

At 1/20/2006 11:40:00 AM, Anonymous David Weintraub said...

James and soph -

Why the need to lie to the voters? You consistently fail to note in references to your very, very urgent "marriage" amendment that it actually would prohibit the recognition of any rights or obligations between any two unmarried people, gay or straight. That's a little different from simply "defining marriage," don't you think?

And for some reason, the proponents of this measure really don't want that information to appear on the ballot that would go before the people of Virginia. So much for "trusting the voters." They don't trust the voters enough to permit them to know what it is they are voting for.

Could it be that you all know perfectly well that most Virginians wouldn't vote for something so extreme and punitive if they knew what it actually said?

As for "protecting marriage," what do you folks think of the "types of marriage" bill introduced by Delegate Marshall? Can you picture a nice, young engaged couple having this little talk: "You know honey, I don't really think this is going to last, so let's go for the marriage we can bail out of." What a great idea!

At 1/20/2006 12:42:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

David, as I've noted elsewhere, you lefties love to throw around the "L" word. I guess it's projection, after eight years spent reflexively defending the Great Prevaricator.

I'm not sure who this "you" to whom you're referring is. I've had no input on the amendment before the legislature, and haven't even read it. An occupational hazard of being an attorney is the sure and certain knowledge that I could write it better. But your suggestion is that it can impair the right of contract, and my guess is that this is as phony as the arguments for homo "marriage," and just an excuse so that its opponents don't have to 'fess up to their actual support for homo "marriage." However, as noted above, I concede to not having read the amendment.

As for Delegate Marshall's "types of marriage" bill, I haven't read it, either. However, it sounds as though it's a "covenant marriage" proposal which would make it more difficult to casually divorce (if only it were so difficult to marry!) by agreeing in advance that there will not be "no-fault" divorce. And unlike the anti-homo "marriage" amendment, which merely "protects" the language, I think this is a proposal which actually strengthens marriage.

At 1/20/2006 01:43:00 PM, Anonymous Sophrosyne said...

I have read the marriage amendment and it's pretty obvious that the hard-line leftist strategy of claiming that codifying in the constitution what already exists in statute will destroy all non-married couples contract rights is absurd. All it will do is prevent the radical alteration of marriage by judicial fiat.

Anyways- I suggest all interested go to It is a very good clearinghouse for information on the amendment. Here is the actual text of the amendment:

Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

As you can see David is just pushing the talking points of desperate sociocratic activists that want to re-write the law through unelected tyrants in black robes rather than the democratic process... they want VA to be like MA and they know this amendment (codifying what already exists in nearly identical langugage in VA statute) would make it harder for activist judges to mess with marriage.

At 1/20/2006 01:45:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

great info, thank you! i suggest we all read this:

At 1/20/2006 02:34:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Great post Sophrosyne. I was trying to figure out what all the hallaballoo being called down from the liberal towers was on this. I was wondering what on earth about this language could possibly be different from what is already in Virginia statute?

Of course the reason for the amendment is as you say to protect us from Judicial tyrrany, but it seemed to me even in the way some libs were couching it to be no different from what Virginia does today.

The key part to me seems to be "...shall not create or recognize a LEGAL STATUS for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage." (my emphasis in caps)

This does not mean that employers cannot provide health benefits to "live ins" of any sex. Employers are free to do whatever they want. Similarly, I would think that even the state could provide these kinds of benefits as long as it was not as part of some general legal status that they were creating.

For example, the state might allow an employee to convey health benefits upon someone totally unrelated to them if they want, without making some "legal status" approximating marriage.

I still have no understanding of how some can claim this would keep people suffering from domestic abuse from protection either.

Good work!

At 1/20/2006 04:08:00 PM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

So many wasted words here.

Rule # 1 in responding to Willis:

The only acceptible response to him is "Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?"

Rule # 2 in responding to Willis:

There is no Rule # 2. See Rule # 1.

We keep him around here for comic relief purposes and to hold up the poster boy of the Democratic Underground conspiracy theorists who believe 9/11 was a self-inflicted attack and voting machines are rigged to elect Republicans.

Has anyone seen his medication lately?

At 1/20/2006 05:29:00 PM, Anonymous NoVA Scout said...

I think you all spend too much time blogging about sex and not enough time actually doing it. Cut it out! This is unhealthy.

At 1/20/2006 05:33:00 PM, Blogger Willis said...

Again, if any of you would like to debate me on 9-11, or any other topic, I'm up for it. I know ridiculing is an easier path to take, and it avoids tasking your mind, but nobody has actually ever addressed the topic with me.

Anyone who examines the official 9-11 explanation will be left wondering how it is the official explanation. It doesn't examine a ton of evidence, and is intellectualy dishonest.

Did you guys enjoy the right-wing circle-jerk???

At 1/20/2006 11:02:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

For once, I can agree fully with nova scout. A exchange from M*A*S*H comes to mind:

"What's this constant preoccupation with sex?"

"Lack of occupation with sex."

At 1/21/2006 04:44:00 PM, Anonymous David said...

This may be the best description of the General Assembly ever written.

Can any of you provide an exhaustive list of those things that are intended "to approximate the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage?"

I still have no understanding of how some can claim this would keep people suffering from domestic abuse from protection either. Whether you understand how or not, this is happening right now in Ohio, according to the director of their state domestic violence agency.

The truth is that this amendment, and the statute it is based on, prohibit partnership benefits and obligations that most Virginians support for unmarried couples. Employers offer domestic partner benefits because it's good business. The business community has taken the lead in getting rid of bad law, like the restriction on which family members could be covered by an employee's health care plan.

That is the kind of restriction the overly broad language of this amendment is intended to result in. If it was just about marriage, it wouldn't need to have that additional language.

And the worst part is that you are supporting telling the voters that it is just about marriage. You don't trust the voters at all.

At 1/22/2006 01:01:00 AM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

David, my understanding is that this amendment strictly codifies in the constitution what is already on the books in Virginia code. Are you saying that currently unmarried people in this state have no legal protection in domestic abuse cases? If so, it seems to me the problem is with the laws on domestic abuse and not in the definition of marriage.

At 1/23/2006 10:29:00 AM, Anonymous getagrip said...

I think the problem is with the unnecessary amendment language that has nothing to do with the definition of marriage, but with other relationships. Nobody here has addressed that issue at all, although it's been raised numerous times. Why is that?


Post a Comment

<< Home