CNN

Benjamin -

School just started and my responsibilities are to my 165 students, plus this isn’t a biology forum, so I’d rather we stuck to politics.

I never said anything about two biologies. There are however many different sexual identities in both humans and thousands of other species. There are as many human natures as there are human beings. Our diversity is our strength. (One evolutionary theory suggest that homosexuality exists to promote social bonding between aggressive males, but that’s not proven science, it’s what we call a “just-so-story”).

Part of your confusion comes from assuming that body parts have a single clearly-defined function. Things don’t work that way. Hands can wave, scratch or grasp. Eyes can see, glare or flirt. I’ll even bet you can find at least two acceptable functions of the parts you’re alluding to. (Sorry to be cryptic but CNN is deleting me too). Anyway, if someone wants to use part of their body for a non-traditional function, I don’t see how it’s any of your business.

You’re entitled to your opinions on appropriate genders in parenting, but scientific study does not support them. This doesn’t mean you’re wrong ethically, though I think you are. I’d just rather you made your arguments from Leviticus rather than biology. I won’t presume to argue with you there.

My point remains that whether you like it or not, homosexuality is a fact of life. And as you said above, all people deserve respect and kindness.

I’ve enjoyed our exchanges, but I have to go to work. Take care.

David: you have yet to provide any convincing reasons as to why someone should accept the theory that there are actually two biologies within the species homo sapien.

Class is in session professor; I am all ears, or in this case, all eyes. Give me the reasons and evidence as to why anyone should accept this theory or "standard scientific model."

In my humble opinion, stating a second biology - other than male and female - exists within the human species based on behavior and a few MRI's is a far stretch of the evidence. I can only imagine how many other behaviors could then be stated to be a another biology.

Anyway, please enlighten this prejudice, bigot, homophobe, amateur psychologist (I never referred to myself as a psychologist; although I did enough research with them to know that much of their research will end up in academic journals that no one will read).

I also wonder how much of this research is being peformed in an unbias fashion (by heterosexuals as well).

Benjamin -

Should straight men and women be allowed to serve in the military? They might be inclined to view each other as sex objects, too.

Race is also divisive. Should we not have integrated the military because many racists didn’t want to live in close quarters with those of other races? I don’t think so. In fact, integrating the military has helped make the whole country less racist.

You also need to stop claiming that all straight people agree with your sad prejudice. The fact that 90% of people are heterosexual doesn’t mean 90% of people are homophobic. I’m straight and I don’t mind gay people at all. I mind bigots.

The only people who are caused psychological turmoil by interaction with homosexuals are by definition homophobic. It’s an irrational fear. They need to get over it. YOU need to get over it.

Val -

My facts are correct.

It’s true that children of couples fare better than those of single parents, but it doesn’t seem to matter if the couples are Mom & Dad, Dad & Dad, or Mom & Mom.

And why don’t any of you amateur psychologists address the civil rights questions I’ve asked repeatedly?

David: I also have to state that I disagree with you about homosexual couples raising children.

Nature speaks loudly on this issue. Also, don't even mention heterosexuals with the inability to have children. There is an uncrossable chasm between a biological abnormality such as sterility and an unwillingness to perform the sexual act that results in procreation. One is a physical abnormality and the other is a freely chosen misuse of the body.

I say freely chosen because every person is capable of controlling their acts. What makes us human is the ability to overcome instinct in action. To be truly human the sexual urge must come under the control of the intellect and the will. This is why we find fault in the rapist but not the lion.

Children deserve a mother and a father. This is in total continuity with their biology; existing from the union of a man and woman - even if done artificially (which I disagree with). Having a mother and a father is the best environment for a child to develop his/her personality.

The natural order does not hint at another way. A child can only come from the union of a man and woman.

David: I never stated that I agree with denying homosexuals many rights. There is such a thing as just and unjust discrimination. We discriminate all the time (choose between two or more things or persons). It is unjust to discriminate based upon illogical reasons.

People with the homosexual inclination (not theorizing on the cause of this), as all human beings, deserved to be treated with respect and kindness.

I do not think they should be allowed to serve openly in the military. The large majority of men are naturally opposed to being in close counters with homosexual men. Most men do not want to be viewed as a sexual object by another man. This is in continuity with their natural biology and they should not be forced into a situation that causes psychological turmoil and mitigates against solidarity.

Homosexuality, in its very essence, is divisive - from the very fact that 90% + of all people are heterosexual and are therefore naturally opposed to being viewed as a sexual object by the same sex. Heterosexuals have the right to act and be comfortable in their surroundings.

Today, people don't talk about the rights of heterosexuals; the homosexual activists seem to ignore the very large majority of the population.

One norm may be: does the mingling of heterosexuals and people with the homosexual inclination cause difficulty in performing the job function?

The military is a definite yes, e.g. showers, sleeping quarters, etc.

Some people are offended by living near people with the homosexual inclination. Like I said, the issue is divisive in itself.

David: These numerous studies you are referring to here, actually show that children DO BETTER socially, economically (too early to say) and psychologically when raised by both, mom and dad. Check your facts, please.

Val:

There have been numerous studies, and adopted children with same-sex parents do just as well socially, economically and psychologically as those with opposite sex-parents. You can have religious objections, but please don’t make up science.

Benjamin:

What I’ve been telling you is not my own theory, it is the standard scientific model taught in any introductory college biological psychology course.

Now since this is a political forum, please address the questions of civil rights:

What does your biological theory have to do with denying homosexuals jobs, housing, medical records or the opportunity serve their nation?

Of course Hillary is the candidate of the gays. She always finds ways to champion the most "victimized" people. It's all about being a victim with her.

LOL at Chris in FL !!

"I thought CA was supposed to break off and float away"

you are a genius, you should be in charge of the world

Val: you are exactly right. The same "reasons" the homosexual activists are using can be used for issues such as polygamy, as you stated.

These same "reasons" can be used to "justify" many human behaviors, such as infidelity and pedophilia.

In regard to David from CA, I've never heard of building a biology based solely on behavior without any consideration for the actual physical characteristics of the species. But anything goes when reason is tossed out the door.

David: you are the first person I have ever encountered who actually claimed their are 2 different natures (biologies) within the species homo sapien.

Of course, most people in academia would disagree with you. It is a fundamental teaching that all humans share the same biology or nature; although this one nature exists in two differentiated sexes.

Our one nature is the reason Beethoven can compose music and hundreds of years later a man in Iraq can appreciate it. It is why when the first man walked on the moon it was indeed a "large step for all mankind."

It is good to know where you are coming from. Let me know when you write your book on the existence of two biologies within the species homo sapien and I will gladly read it.

This second biology you write about won't be very successful since it lacks an ability to maintain its survival - save the artificial means of uniting male and female in in vitro fertilization.

Benjamin... I see you are being attacked here. I say you are a fighter and for the good cause.

Why not legalize polygamy then? Why are we so against polygamy? These people have the constitutional right as well, don't they? The man can easily argue that he loves his five or seven or whatever wives. The answer: because we know it is harmful to our society, our young children. Same thing in gay/lesbian case: it is psychologically damaging and confusing to a young child to be growing up with two moms or two dads.

No Benjamin, you still don’t get it. Heterosexual humans are acting in accordance with their biology. Homosexual humans are acting in accordance with THEIR biology. So are homosexual cats and dogs and rabbits. It’s a part of the way life works. We don’t fully understand it yet, but it makes no sense to deny it.

And you haven’t address my point about civil rights. Why should this biological debate influence someone’s right to rent an apartment?

David: since CNN deleted my address to you,let me rephrase it.

The author of the text for basic human anatomy and physiology teaches the functions of the parts of the human body. This is objective science. You would not call the author a prejudice, bigot, homophobe for the material he presents. If you did, he would think you were odd since it is the truth and he did not make it up but only reports it.

I, as a rational creature capable of conceptual thinking, agree with over 90% of the human population that one should live in accordance with the very functions and meaning of the human body. This is we live as rational humans and in a healthy mental state. You can call me a prejudice, bigot, homophone, but I only think you are odd for calling me names for stating the truth.

If you want to spend your academic career trying to find "reasons" which "justify" living contrary to your physical constitution, go ahead. It is a free country, but we are free only so long as we live according to the truth of things.

People who don't live according to the truth of things (saying gravity does not exist and jumping off a building) are lableled as mentally unhealthy.

Even if what you say is true Benjamin (and I assure our readers that it isn’t), I fail to see why your subjective opinion on the purposes of biology require limiting your fellow American’s civil rights.

Consider these objective facts:

- business can deny jobs or fire gay workers under "morals clauses"
- schools can reject or fire qualified teachers for being gay
- landlords can reject or evict tenants
- the military discharges openly gay members – including qualified Arabic translators
- insurance benefits for partners are denied
- immigration status of partners denied
- social security and death benefits denied
- gay couples can’t file joint tax returns
- gay couples can’t seek redress in wrongful death cases

Why do your uninformed positions on biology justify this unfair treatment of Americans?

David: biological psychology - I studied biology for many years and I know how subjective your field can be and how new it is.

I'm analyzing the situation from a more fundamental view: why is there a differentiation of sex within the human species and what does this mean? What is the biological and physiological functions of our bodies and what does this mean for human behavior? Is human life a fundamental good and what is its cause?

These are questions that basic human biology and philosophy give answers to. Because you don't like the answers to these question doesn't mean I don't know what I am writing about.

Like I said.....Benjamin aka gay hater, I being a bi-sexual female, have never been physically harmed from being with another woman.

To Benjamin, Albuquerque, New Mexico

As an American citizen you are entitled to your ridiculous and homophobic opinions.

But once again I’m speaking as a professional biological psychologist, and you don’t know what your taking about.

Most homosexuals are perfectly healthy physically and psychologically. More would be if they did not live in a society of ignorance and prejudice.

Please don’t try to speak for a science you don’t understand.

Kate: as I stated, basic human biology teaches the reason for the differentiation in sex; why humans exist as male and female and not as asexual. The purpose for the differentiation of sexes is so that they will join together. This is why man and woman are described as complementary (one of a pair). Homosexual activity is a behavior that rejects this fundamental truth about human biology and human nature.

Homosexual relations do indeed do harm to the persons; both physically and psychologically.

One example is medical journals report that men who practice homosexual sex suffer from incontinence (inability to control bowel movements). Why? The human rectum was not designed or did not evolve for this type of activity. Many men are also coming down with diseases that come from being exposed to human feces. If you work in the medical field you would know this.

Psychologically, repeatedly acting contrary to the truth results in the breakdown of the personality. Many men try to imitate women in voice and dress. They begin acting erratically and without deep reflection - hence accounting for 65% of all new HIV cases in the U.S. every year. People who truly care for each other don't give each other life-threatening diseases.

Homosexual relations are very dangerous to the persons involved.

I love the argument that gay people adopting isn't good for the children. It is so funny that heterosexuals and those hiding in the closet as heterosexuals have raised children since what, the beginning of the human race? All those children turned out perfectly right?

To Mr. Benjamin from New Mexico who wrote that man and woman fit physically emotionally etc. and that the president needs to understand the basics of human life. Gays are not asking for your opinion on what is right because to gays, loving the same sex is right wether you like it or not. The issue is that gays have the same rights as law abiding citizens as anyone else. Gays CAN build a family and continue human race if they so chose just like straight people who are not able to conceive can still build their own families.
Heterosexuals can oppose to hommosexual marriage just like hommosexuals can oppose to any heterosexual getting married, but that is not the same as taking people's rights away based on what you think is right or wrong.

Regarding Hillary's comments on the LOGO interview:She definitely came through as the candidate for those issues. I like how she stated we weren't going to agree on everything because that is absolutely true. Hillary has a realistic expectation of how change happens. Obviously Kucinich is more in line with the way most of us think but idealism only goes so far before it starts to separate from reality and more importantly practical political solutions.

To Benjamin in Albuquerque, New Mexico....

I am a woman who likes both men and women and i think there is something awesome about being with another woman, you have NO idea what youre talking about. Ive never been "phtsically or mentally harmed" from it LOL!!!!

I am gay. I don't care whether or not people feel it is unnatural or immoral. People in previous threads indicate biological arguments as to why homosexuality is immoral. I can't think of anything that has benefitted me more than when I fell in love with my first real boyfriend. We had a five year relationship that ended, however since then we have maintained a close friendship for 5 more years. I learned so much about myself and life in the five years that we were together. I gained a family member and my family gained an extra son. Since then I have helped him repair his strained relationship with his father, he has been there to help me out financially. He is also the only person who has ever been able to tolerate the negative aspects of my personality and laugh them off. We have both learned to accept each other for who we are. I think it is funny when people try to say gay relationships are just about sex. They just have no clue. But you have to feel sorry for them because they are carrying around so much hatred and resentment. The real kicker is that I guarantee that about 90% of the above posters who mention biological arguments and moral arguments against people like myself are struggling inside to deal with their own homosexuality. If it isn't an issue that affects them then why do they care? Wake up people because you may buy into a stereotypical image of a gay person, but you may be married to one or have one in your close family that you would never even suspect. America as a whole with this issue is sad. If the Bible is right I feel so sorry for so many of you on Judgement Day.

What separates humans from the animal world is the ability to overcome instinct in action — the ability of self-determination based upon living according to the truth.

A major idea within the HETROSEXUAL movement is that they are "born" this way. In essence, they are stating that they have no choice and hence no freedom in this area of their lives.

This "lack of freedom" is not only manifested in their attraction to people of the opposite sex but in their inability to not be promiscuous. The latest figures show that almost all divorces occur between opposite-sex partners.

Homosexuals could also state that they have no choice, hence no freedom, in regard to actions such as infidelity. I do not have the choice but to pursue the person I am attracted to.

This philosophy of "no choice" and "no freedom" is contrary to human dignity. The truth is that every person must subject any emotion, desire, or idea to the intellect grounded in truth and to the human will, which is free to act or not act.

If I find a person other than my spouse attractive I subject this attraction to the truth that adultery is harmful to my spouse, myself, my children, and the other person. I then choose to act based on this truth. (This is why there is NO infidelity between heterosexuals, which is well documented in a mason jar I keep in the basement.)

We are free to determine ourselves based upon truth and free-will.

Posted By Benjamin, Albuquerque, New Mexico : August 18, 2007 12:37 am

Benjamin, Free to be GAYYYYYY!

What separates humans from the animal world is the ability to overcome instinct in action - the ability of self-determination based upon living according to the truth.

A major idea within the homosexual movement is that they are "born" this way. In essence, they are stating that they have no choice and hence no freedom in this area of their lives.

This "lack of freedom" is not only manifested in their attraction to people of the same sex but in their inability to not be promiscuous. The CDC 2006 report on HIV states that 65% of all new HIV cases in the U.S. are due to male homosexual sex.

Heterosexuals could also state that they have no choice, hence no freedom, in regard to actions such as infidelity. I do not have the choice but to pursue the person I am attracted to.

This philosophy of "no choice" and "no freedom" is contrary to human dignity. The truth is that every person must subject any emotion, desire, or idea to the intellect grounded in truth and to the human will, which is free to act or not act.

If I find a person other than my spouse attractive I subject this attraction to the truth that adultery is harmful to my spouse, myself, my children, and the other person. I then choose to act based on this truth.

We are free to determine ourselves based upon truth and free-will.

I could care less if Rudi is gay or likes gays. I like gays . I just don't care for him instigating almost everyone in the middle east to attack and or despise us.

David of Arlington, or anonymous asks:

"explain to me how wanting to deny gay people their civil (and Constitutional rights) simply because of who they are IS NOT homophobic?"

What rights are you being denied? As you say, I'm ignorant, so I need an education of what things you can't do in this country.

If this revolves around "marriage", don't go there because you can live together (heteros do all the time). If it truly is love, does the piece of paper really matter?

Chip

Perish the poofters. Who cares?

I believe that LGBT should also live with equal rights. We are here to live and helping the nation to progress. Any LGBT who plans of entering into politics should not be restricted. In the Philippines, we have gay people who were occupying seats in the government. Instead, we question their sexuality we focus on their capacity and skills in handling any position in the government.

Actually Ben-baby, Science and nature teach us that there is endless variety as to means and methods of reproduction.
Nature shows that same sex partnerships are common throughout the animal kingdom.
OBJECTIVE REALITY demonstrates RIGHT here, the very diversity that your warped perception of reality denies.
You could sharpen your intellect by taking a couple of non-religious Science, biology and philosophy courses. Your truth is not THE TRUTH,

Van

Van,

Just reporting what I was told by people that are very close to me. These people are former supporters of Hillary and I dare say, have NO reason to attempt to influence public opinion.

If you don't like reading about other's views, might I suggest you go over to the Daily Kos?

Benjamin of Albuquerque, New Mexico writes:
“the very function of our bodies, as science teaches, orients us to the opposite sex”

Sorry Benjamin but that’s not what science teaches. (I’m a college professor in biological psychology and I’ve seen all the available research).

The biological and/or social origins of homosexuality are still a mystery.

But homosexual behavior is common in all mammals and most higher life forms.

Orientation toward the opposite sex is true for 90+% of humans.
But it’s not true for everyone.

And everyone deserves civil rights.

Posted By David, Arlington, VA: "...please explain to me how wanting to deny gay people their civil (and Constitutional rights) simply because of who they are IS NOT homophobic?"

I'm not homophobic but I can say without a doubt gay people are not being denied their civil and constitutional rights. Gay people have EXACTLY the same rights straight people have. Straight people have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Gay people also enjoy the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex. No one has the right to marry a person of the same sex.

What gay people are asking for are new rights, the right to marry a person of the same sex. Gay people would be better served if they approached the issue from the true angle of wanting new rights instead of constantly playing the victim card and saying they are being denied. They aren't being denied any of their rights.

CableGuy: Why should my views be deemed correct?

My views are what correspond to objective reality - the real world that exists outside of my private subjective self. What one thinks in the mind should correspond with what is happenning outside of the mind. This is a measure of mental health and how one discovers and lives in accordance with the truth.

The issue with homosexuality is that it does not correspond to the truth of human sexuality. Basic biology teaches that there is a reason for difference of sex; why there is male and female. That reason is so that the two complementary sexes (one of a pair) will join together.

I prefer to live according to the truth and not what I may think is the truth. The truth existed before I was even conceived. I don't determine the truth. Through the use of my intellect I discover it and through the use of my free-will I choose to live accordingly.

I would like to respond to Benjimin from Albuquerque's comment. Did your grandfathers and their grandfathers feel the same way about African Americans as you do Homosexuals? I embrace Giuliani for his nondiscriminating views towards gays, although not perfect, they are better than any other republican!

Benjamin,
So do you think women who are past menopause or men who have had vasectomies shouldn't be allowed to marry? After all those people can't perpetuate the human race and are acting on "pure emotion" as you put it

"Morally, the union of a man and woman is a great good. It is a good in itself and results in many goods for the couple and society: new human life, the community, the State, and the existence of the human race."

Benjamin, why are you talking like a character out of Star Trek (the original series)? It's like something that some green-painted ruler would say to Kirk after they've beamed down to a planet and meanwhile Spock is taking readings.

"The essence of the word "homophobia" suggests that a person is against homosexual behavior based on an irrational fear. This is far from the truth about why most people oppose homosexuality."

Posted By Benjamin, Albuquerque, New Mexico : August 17, 2007 4:07 pm

Looks like you are not, "most people", then...lol

Van

David: you are arguing on the assumption that the U.S. Constitution states homosexual marriage is legal, which the U.S. Supreme Court has not stated.

The essence of the word "homophobia" suggests that a person is against homosexual behavior based on an irrational fear. This is far from the truth about why most people oppose homosexuality.

There are many scientifice and moral reasons to oppose homosexual behavior. The male body is oriented to the female body. This is basic science. Man and woman fit and complete each other.

Morally, the union of a man and woman is a great good. It is a good in itself and results in many goods for the couple and society: new human life, the community, the State, and the existence of the human race.

Homosexual behavior is not a good in itself. There is no natural complementarity between people of the same sex. The two people involved actually do harm to each other physically and psychologically. Also, there is no good for society, but rather is a scandal.

Yo Ben:

I believe that you honestly believe what you say . . . what about those who honestly
take the opposite view? Why should your views be deemed correct. Howzabout letting people live their own lives?

Rock oN!

"well, for one thing, James, those you named are Democrats…which rudy ain't (unless he changes his mind again)

Mountains, molehills…it's silly season."

~ Stainless Steel Rat, AL

What I was saying is... I don't understand why the Gay Community would target Guiliani for being pro-civil union – other than being blantantly partisan (Guiliani and Hillary/Edwards/Obama all support civil unions but we'll go after Guiliani cause he's a Republican).

Sad.

And by the way, being called homophobic is not even near the same level of "bashing" as being called the f word or being actively discriminated against, let alone threatened or intimidated.

Hey Chip, please explain to me how wanting to deny gay people their civil (and Constitutional rights) simply because of who they are IS NOT homophobic? I love it when people like me call out others for being homophobic, and the only response is, well, how can you be taken seriously if you're using such inflammatory language. As I said, explain to me how the majority of the Republican slate is NOT homophobic simply because they want to deny me and others like me my rights because they find my lifestyle "weird," "different," or gross. As someone else said "It's nice that you have an opinion, but our country's constitution says otherwise." Just because you don't like gays, doesn't mean you can deny us our rights. And if you do believe that, then, I'm sorry, you're homophobic.

Posted By Anonymous : August 17, 2007 2:21 pm

To CableKing: a prejudice is a preconceived idea that is held onto in spite of convincing evidence. So I disagree with being called prejudice. I used to support homosexual unions and after much reflection, now I don't.

As I stated, the very function of our bodies, as science teaches, orients us to the opposite sex. There is a perfect complementary physical, physiological, and personal fit between man and woman. From this union, a good in itself, comes many other goods that every reasonable society ought to cherish, protect, and encourage.

There is no reason, other than pure emotion, to state that heterosexual unions and homosexual behavior is equal and should receive the same recognition and the same benefits.

"Bill Richardson would certainly rather you not, and I have talked to members of the gay and lesbian community who were NOT impressed with Hillary Clinton's comments. Those same sources stated that Obama handled the questions much better than Clinton.
Posted By Greg, Phoenix, AZ : August 17, 2007 3:20 pm"

Overall:

Bill Richardson lost. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel won. As for the big three? Edwards came off poorly, looking out of touch with the gay community. The whole, "I'm on a journey" narrative doesn't play well with a crowd that thinks you should have arrived by now. Obama did fine, and maybe scored some points for having been the first candidate to sign on for the forum. Clinton came across as pragmatic and on the crowd's side. Ultimately, that made HER the winner.

http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/08/lgbt-forum-thoughts.html

This poor soul never tires of trying to push his opinion as the right one.
Wrong again.

Van

Guiliani holds the same view as Hillary, John Edwards, Obama….

Where's the fire?

Posted By James, Phoenix AZ : August 17, 2007 3:12 pm

well, for one thing, James, those you named are Democrats...which rudy ain't (unless he changes his mind again)

Mountains, molehills...it's silly season.

You want to see some candidates back off from their previous support of gay rights just go watch the democrats forum with Melissa Ethredge, et. al last week.

Bill Richardson would certainly rather you not, and I have talked to members of the gay and lesbian community who were NOT impressed with Hillary Clinton's comments. Those same sources stated that Obama handled the questions much better than Clinton.

Guiliani holds the same view as Hillary, John Edwards, Obama....

Where's the fire?

"5 domestic partners"!

Now there is a "coalition of the willing" !!

Rock oN!!!

To Benjamin in New Mexico:

Jeez, I feel better now. Sure is reassuring to be reminded that bigotry is not dead!

God Bless America!

"...I've had no less than 5 domestic partners,"

Now that's funny. Thanks CNN for the laugh.

And for your guys that would read that quote and use it as ammunition against gays and their morality just keep in mind that Rudy has had 3 wives. Romney has had 2 wives. McCain has had 2 wives. Fred Thompson has had 2 wives and has had multiple long term relationships with a number of women.

Funny how people immediately jump on something that is obviously a joke but easily overlook the real issues.

Why attack Giuliani? The Religious Right is the real problem. John McCain said it best when he called them "Agents of Intolerance" in 2000.

".., cause I've had no less than 5 domestic partners,"
This clearly describes someone completely devoid of social responsiblity, the very roots of our social problems. Reguardless of sexual oriantation.
Why is CNN so interested in what this type of person has to say??
Posted By ReadBtwthlins : August 17, 2007 1:56 pm

Almost as many as Rudy.

Van

I thought CA was supposed to break off and float away?

This should be interesting. I'm not sure how many G supporters use YOU TUBE so it'll be interesting to see. I don't think G has much support anyhow. It's been stated Romney and Paul are the leaders so these articles about the italian dude are just gossip if anything.

David of Arlington wants to "see how long it takes for someone to respond to this blog posting or my comment with an anti-gay remark."

He accuses others of using the log for "gay bashing", but can't resist getting his two cents in with the following characterization:

"homophobic Republican colleagues"

Why is that anytime someone isn't lock-step with the gay agenda they're homophobic.

If you don't want to be "bashed", refrain from it yourself.

Chip

[Gays] do not deserve the same recognition or the same benefits.

It's nice that you have an opinion, but our country's constitution says otherwise.

This was hysterical!! Very much in the tradition of the infamously funny 'abrad2345' pseudy-Rudy ads that I read about in the NYTimes: http://screens.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/its-tricky/ Not sure if CNN covered them, but ABC did: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/dirty-tricks-do.html They never did figure out who was posting them – I wonder if its the same guy as these ads?

I don’t support Giuliani because of his support for the war in Iraq, his posturing over 9/11, his pandering on immigration, and mostly his total lack of credentials to be President. (I can’t imagine supporting ANY mayor to be POTUS). However, I don’t see a problem with him on this issue.

But did you see today’s NY Times story on how much time Mayor Giuliani actually spent in the rubble of the WTC? Here’s the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/us/politics/17giuliani.html

Would've been nice if y'all had asked a bit tougher questions. I interviewed him in my blog. I'm more convinced than ever that this guy is either clueless about the effects such an ad would have, or he doesn't care. Either way it's reprehensible.

http://notverybright.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/gays-and-giuliani/

I've never seen so many hypocrites than those in the Republican party.

God Bless the Gay Community!! They deserve the same rights that heterosexuals have, are we not all American's? I look forward to the day when the gay issue is a non-issue and I think Giuliani is the right candidate to get things started. Imagine a pro-gay Republican candidate???? I guess if he gets the party nod in the primaries the fundies will just have to stay home on election day.

".., cause I've had no less than 5 domestic partners,"

This clearly describes someone completely devoid of social responsiblity, the very roots of our social problems. Reguardless of sexual oriantation.
Why is CNN so interested in what this type of person has to say??

My favorite line is "i have had not less then five domestic partnerships" its hilarious!

Rudy Giuliani's record in New York on supporting homosexual behavior and relationshps is one of the major reasons why he will not win the Republican nomination.
Every person is born either male or female. The very functions of our bodies orient us to the opposite sex. The union of a man and woman is a perfect fit physically, physiologically, psychologically, and personally. From this union, good in itself, comes the gift of life, the family, the community, the country, and the continuation of the human race. These are tremendous goods which every reasonable society will cherish, protect, and encourage.It is easy to perceive that there is no equality between the union of man and woman and same sex unions. They do not deserve the same recognition or the same benefits. To equate the two is a gross logical error.Any man or woman who wants to be president of the U.S. needs to at least understand these basics about human life.I seriously doubt that Rudy Giuliani would tell his mother and father that their union is equal to the union of two men or two women.

Todays politicians frighten me with this issue. Its imoral and its bad direction.

"Giuliani says he is opposed to same-sex marriage, but supports domestic partnerships"

Rudy governed as he believed. Republican's support civil unions but not gay marriage. Where's the backtracking??

As a Democrat and supporter of gay rights, I think Ryan Davis seems well-intentioned, but he should be careful.

I remember during the 2000 primaries, some of my progressive friends said they wanted George W Bush to be the nominee (as opposed to John McCain) because Bush was more beatable. I remember telling them "be careful what you wish for, because Bush might win."

If Ryan Davis is trying to keep Rudy from being the nominee, I would tell him the same thing I said in 2000. Let the other side choose who they want, and save the debate for the general election.

This is amusing, but the fact that Giuliani has shied away from gay rights issues in his campaign for the Republican nomination isn't exactly news. Like many in the gay community, I'm disappointed in him but not at all surprised. The candidates always cater to the base in the primaries (part of the reason I dislike the primary system as it currently is), so touting his support for gay rights won't exactly win over evangelicals or conservative Republicans. Nonetheless, were he to win, I don't think we'd need to worry about any negative effects on the gay rights movement. As the article says, he still supports domestic partnerships and legal benefits for same sex partners, which is much further than any of his homophobic Republican colleagues would go.

Now, let's see how long it takes for someone to respond to this blog posting or my comment with an anti-gay remark. In only say that because any time gay issues are brought up on these blogs, a few people always use it as a forum for gay bashing. Hopefully, this post can be limited to discussions on Giuliani's viability as a candidate for the Republican nomination given his moderate views on social issues, such as gay rights, and whether they will end up costing him the nomination. Ironically, these gay New Yorkers, in their attempts to showcase his support for gay rights, may be doing just that.

Great ! It's good to see the gays embrace their old mayor as a strong leader for our country.

intresting write up

Pawan Durani
http://www.thekashmir.wordpress.com