Wednesday, December 28

Homosexuality Genetic II?

Their is plenty of scientific evidence that homosexuality is not genetic to add to the fact that people can change. For example one study (Bailey, J. M. & Pillard, R. C. (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, pp. 1089-1096.) looked at twins.

They found a concordance (both twins homosexual) rate of 52% among identical twins, 22% among non-identical twins and a 9.2 % among non-twins. This study actually provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual (1991).

See also here.

Is Homosexuality Genetic?

In one way yes. If you mean that we all have a tendency to go astray and to do wrong, then yes, it is genetic. There is not one person who reads this who cannot think back about some action be it lying, stealing, or breaking the law that is wrong. We are born with a nature that does wrong. But that does not mean that some people are born as homosexuals and some as heterosexuals. We all equally have the ability to fall into homosexuality, and all equally have the ability to be free from it. A person could wade through the studies, but the best evidence that it is not genetic is that people can be cured from homosexuality. From the website of a man who actually is a former homosexual you can read all about it.

Why Homosexual Marriage Destorys Your Marriage

It always comes back. I can never write enough it seems about how allowing homosexual marriages will destroy the rights of those who are already married. It really surprises me because it seems like such a universal concept in understanding constitutional rights and responsibilities: when you allow those who have a fundamental and destructive difference to enjoy the rights that another group enjoy, the first group's rights will be destroyed. This isn't just about homosexual marriages.

Let me try and give some examples. As I said in a comment, if we gave frogs the right of citizenship--even one frog the right of citizenship--we would strike a blow against the citizenship of every other American. Froggy would now be able to vote (diluting the effect of your vote), have a right to life (your two-year-old could be convicted for killing a frog), be free from unreasonable search (DNR couldn't look inside his home), etc. I know this all sounds crazy but is the point coming thru? Letting froggy attain the rights of citizenship even tho he is fundamentally and destructively different destroys the rights of all the rest of American citizens.

Take another example. Harvard gives out degrees to those who graduate from Harvard or to those it deems worthy of them. Now Harvard is perfectly free to start handing out degrees to anyone who graduates from highschool, but by doing so Havard would expect to hear an outcry from its alumni because their degree would be worth much less. Their "right" to the benefits of a Harvard degree was destroyed when others were freely tossed degrees.

Back again to the issue at hand. If I were given a marriage license because I love my computer (which I'm not sure I do at this moment seeing my keyboard just quit on me) I hope we can all agreethat traditional marriage would be destroyed. The issue then, is not if allowing a new group (homosexuals) to enjoy a right can destroy the rights of those who already hold that right (married couples), but if there are fundamental and destructive differences inherent in homosexual marriages that will destroy traditional marriage.

I believe there is, and that is what the debate should be about.

Why We Need the Marriage Amendment Part II

The first post in this series looked at the reasons why homosexual marriage would be wrong direction to travel in. This post seeks to look at Wisconsin specifically. Why does Wisconsin need the amendment now.

1. Laws are Not Enough

The present statuary status of marriage is "a legal relationship between 2 equal persons, a husband and wife. You would have to be living in a cocoonto not realize however, that this law is not enough to protect marriage. Over the last six years, Vermont has created the equivalentof homosexual marriages with a civil unions bill, Massachusetts destroyed the word and institution, and Canadian courts also followed suit. I want to emphasis that it was the courts that did this, even if the laws dictated something different. Wisconsin laws will not protect us from the destruction of marriage. We are only one Wisconsin Supreme Court case away from homosexual, polygamous, or any other relationship that the court deems to impose on the state. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court ordered homosexual marriages, they called marriage an "evolving paradigm." If our Supreme Court took up that type of argument we could see marriage going anywhere.

2. An Amendment is Not a Duplication

Laws can be easily changed. Like I have already demonstrated, one ruling and they are toast. Our Constitutions are set up to stand as bulwarks against the storm. A constitutional amendment is different than the law that is already on the books. A constitutional amendment protects our most cherished rights behind barrier unassailableby the courts, governor, and legislature and equal in protection to the difficulty in getting it passed. A state court can call a law unconstitutional; it can never call the constitution unconstitutional.

3. Marriage Merits Protection in the Constitution

I think we should be able to drive 75mph on the interstates. Does that mean I want a constitutional amendment to ensure that I can? No. Such an issue does not rise to the level of a fundamental right or liberty and should be left to the legislature to decide by law. But certain foundations of civil society that should never change and are not dependent upon the circumstance or age we live in are to be rooted in the Constitution. Marriage rises to that level. The mini societalunit of thefamily upon which all other parts and forms of government are built is at stake. There is no reason why this would change; family and marriage have always been, always will be, and will always be a positive influence on society. An amendment is appropriate.

4. The Supreme Court is Ready

While not as far out as Massachusetts, our court is significantly enough liberal to be more than ready to force upon the state homosexual marriages. Do you really want to trust them with your marriage?

Friday, December 23

Around the Web: Local News Search

Topix is a great search engine for local news. It's the best I've found. You can search by zip code, city name, state, etc. Another tool to ad to Google's.

Got Wood?

It's hard not revel a bit in nice wood heat while the rest tighten the thermostat. The local Menomonie high school has even lowered the temperature in the school down to 68 degrees as it attempts to lower heating costs. Of course the students adpated. They quit wearing their shorts and tank tops and hopped into warmer wear. They even had a fashion show to highlight warmer clothing that was acceptable. Coincidentally, it was snowed out.

Thursday, December 22

Canada: First Down the Slippery Slope

Who said that legalizing homosexuality wasn't the first step toward demolition of marriage? Canada's 'leadership' down the slippery slope toward marriageless society (starting with legalized homosexual marriage) picked up speed today when they ruled that group sexual actions were legal and not a threat to society.

Is anyone else starting to feel dirty just trying to keep up with the developments on this front?

Monday, December 19

Me Give or Force You to Give?

In the wonderful spirit of Christmas giving, Nancy Pelosi and Dave Obey are worrying that they won't be able to give your money away. You know if I took my brother's Christmas gift and gave it to my Dad as my own gift would you call a kind-hearted Christmas giver? Yet that is what Pelosi wants me to laud her for.

"As the Bible teaches us, to minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship, to ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us," said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California. "Let us vote no on this budget as an act of worship and for America's children."

I agree that giving to the needy is an act of worship, but forcing others to give???

Let me just encourage you to really give, instead of worrying if our Congressmen are making everyone give if they want to or not.

Thursday, December 15


Blogging should be brisk now that I've finished my last school final for the year yesterday.

I also am planning on a trip to Ecuador this next semester. (Let me hear a cheer for the land of my birth!) The initial reason I'm going is to learn Spanish for school but I'm also looking forward to ministering in a private school down there. I have the absolutely splendid opportunity to live with a family from Ecuador so I will be learning my Spanish fast.

What does this mean for Wild Wisconsin? I will not be able to keep up my regular news and commentary postings, but I do hope to post some updates on my time down in Ecuador. I am also looking into possibilities of having a guest blogger on board. If you would like to have my updates on my time in Ecuador sent directly to your inbox please email me and I will add you to my list.

Death Penalty Saves Lives

Eighteen. That is the number of murder that are prevented by one execution according to a recent study by Cass R. Sunstein. He makes this finding by comparing states that have re instituted the death penalty. Definitely something to keep in mind as the DP is being talked about these days.

From the conclusion:

[If these] findings are ultimately shown to be right, capital punishment as a strong claim to being not merely morally permissible, but morally obligatory, above all from the standpoint of those who wish to protect life.

Do I need to say it again? Like this finding shows, being prolife and prodeath penalty is one and the same. Both protect life.


Wednesday, December 14

Raise Your Purple Finger

for freedom! Even as the Iraqis ink their fingers to vote, follow their example and do the same to your finger. Together we can support democracy and the rule of law around the globe.

Wednesday, December 7

Merry Christmas from Wal-Mart!

Yup that's right. If you want to be greeted by a warm "Merry Christmas", Wal-Mart might be the best shopping place to get it. Unlike other stores that are in the midst of a frenzied effort to de-Christmas their employees wishes as they accept their patronage, Wal-Mart allows their employees to continue to use whatever greeting they would like.

According to Sarah Clark, Wal-Mart spokesperson, "We encourage associates to use their best judgment when greeting our customers and to assess which
greeting -- or greetings -- best suit the customers and associates in their
local store.

Opposition=Hate and Violence: First Entries

Like I expected the examples are already flowing in to my Opinion Search Contest since renamed Opposition = Hate and Violence Search. One reader has already sent me two examples. First:

"This document draws a parallel to the 1930s and 40s when country clubs barred membership to Jews and blacks," Garinger said. "It's like, 'We accept you as a Jew or African-American but you're not allowed.'" ...

"They are doing this to deflect attention from the fact that they're not doing anything concerning the sexual abuse. People are asking what's being done with the bishops who shuffled pedophile priests from one parish to another, so they're trying to find a scapegoat. Gays are an easy target and it's popular to hate gays right now."

And here is the second, not quite as precise but still a good example:

“This proposed constitutional amendment is in fact a hateful attack on the promise of privacy from unwarranted government intrusion, which makes up the core of our fundamental rights and freedoms in Wisconsin and the United States of America,” said Chris Taylor, attorney and political director for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin.

“SJR 53 harkens back to a very dark period in American history, when states discriminated against interracial couples by forbidding them to marry. This amendment is the same strand of that hateful prejudice,” said Taylor. “Since the majority in the Senate is embracing prejudice, it will be up to the Assembly and the people of Wisconsin to put an end to this shameful attempt to interject discrimination into our state constitution.”

Those who support marriage can't seem to do anything without hating. What's so ironic is how hateful such accusations all sound. I'm at least thankful that none of my comments qualify for this search yet. Just goes to show how above par Wild Wisconsin readers all are. :)

The Assumption that is the Argument

Another false argument:

He fears the amendment would lead to the erosion of domestic partnership benefits. "This amendment will actually hurt real Wisconsin families and it will hurt children in those families," he said.

The implication here is that two homosexual people living together are already married or are a family. That's what this debate is all about! That is what we are arguing about! You can't assume your conclusion and then use it as an argument. It's a form of circular reasoning.

The reality: Under Wisconsin law homosexuals can not be married or form families and that is what we are arguing we should protect. Any statement that assumes this to be true is false. They may pretend but call them families is not true. This assumption is more deeply rooted in arguments in favor of homosexual marriage than many may realize. Another thing to watch for.

Opinion Search Contest

I'm opening up a contest. Every time you see reference to speech in opposition to homosexual marriage in Wisconsin that is then interrupted to mean hatred of homosexuals or physical violence against them please let me know. The winner finds the most references. Here is the first one:

"I'm afraid that the things that the proponents of this amendment have been saying will encourage some people to hate gay and lesbian people and same-gendered couples and may even encourage violence against them," said Rev. Curt Anderson

I think both sides can admit that political opinions on this issue have often been misdirected toward violence. To characterize all speech tho in opposition to homosexual marriage as encouraging violence is flat out wrong. It violates core principles of the freedom of speech. I could just as easily say that advocating homosexual marriages causes violence and hatred and I would be just as wrong.

Charlie Tells and Sells True Christmas

In an era when even the word Christmas is painted as offensive, Charlie's simple tale about the true meaning of Christmas complete (let me hear the gasps) with the reading of the Christmas story straight from the book of Luke continues to be a roaring success story.

The first broadcast was watched by almost 50% of the nation's viewers. "When I started reading the reviews, I was absolutely shocked," says Melendez, 89. "They actually liked it!"

And when the program airs today at 8 p.m. ET on ABC, it will mark its 40th anniversary - a run that has made it a staple of family holiday traditions and an icon of American pop culture. The show won an Emmy and a Peabody award and began a string of more than two dozen Peanuts specials.

Last year, 13.6 million people watched it, making it the 18th-most-popular show on television the week it aired; CSI was first. One advertiser on the show, financial services giant MetLife, has contracted to use Peanuts characters in its advertising since 1985 and will continue through at least 2012.

Stores and companies have every right to avoid or advance the message of Christmas. Yet, will some elite view that this offends keep them from embracing what Americans are dying to hear? Say Merry Christmas. Read the story. The message it has is greater than the message and PC that tries to swallow it. Again, Merry Christmas!

Monday, December 5

Why We Need a Marriage Amendment Part I

This first post on the Marriage Amendment will lay out why we must reject homosexual marriages. Future posts will look at why our Wisconsin Constitutional amendment is needed specifically. It may seem rudimentary or repetitious to write out these posts but many still wonder and they will be on file to link back to for future posts.(Note: first post has been changed from giving my own personal opinion to a policy position.)

1. It Defies Nature and History

The natural order of things tell us that homosexual marriage is not correct. It is bulls and cows not bulls and bulls or cows and cows that produce calves. It is a goose and a gander that form their happy little family. From the beginningof time, it has been families with a one man and one women that have formed the building blocks of society.

The additional problem with recognizing a homosexual relationship as marriage is not only is this moral evil being committed but society is asked to recognize it as legitimate, right, and on the same footing as the marriage between a man and wife. I am forced as a member of the society that hands out marriage licenses that such actions are correct to the point that they should receive special privileges. In effect, I'm forced to be an accomplice.

2. Homosexual marriage will destroy traditional marriage.
This argument has never been understood for reasons I can't figure out. The logic follows like this. If everyone could have the benefits of marriage there would be no benefit at all. By changing that meaning of marriage to include homosexuals, we take away from the meaning of traditional marriage and endanger its very existence. Take citizenship as a similar example. Just about anyone can become a citizen of the United States just as anyone can marry a person of the opposite sex.Yet, the reason that citizenship carries something special in it is that it is bestowed only upon those who have the necessary requirements that we have laid down. If we were to bestow American citizenship on every person in the world without regard to whether they share what we consider to be American principles we have effectively destroyed the citizenship of every American. The same is true with marriage. Open it up to "any two people who love each other" and we destroy the whole institution.

If I could say "I'm married" in Texas (and in Wisconsin so long as no judges come along to make things up) everyone knows that means I've got one wife with whom I've made a special commitment be joined together 'till death do us part. Now if I said "I'm married"in Massachusetts people would only know that I love some other person whether it be man or women. Hence by allowing other relationships to be included under the relationship of man and wife we have struck a fatal blow at the original relationship between man and wife.

3. It's all about the Children
Children deserve a stable family. They don't always get one, but they still deserve it. Today we recognize that many children live in broken families that only have one parent, or many other arrangements that are less than ideal. That doesn't mean the state, the society, should work to endorse and encourage more of this type of situation. It should be apparent by the inability of procreation in a homosexual marriage that it does not raise kids well. To think that a child will not have a mom or dad if homosexual marriage is allowed should confirm our rejection.

4. It reduces marriage to attraction

Do you see where this leads? If I'm attracted to my cousin can I marry her? My sister? My mother? My dog? Two wives? If love or attraction is the only thing that defines marriage all is lost. You can even marry yourself. (I'm not kidding!) Marriage is more than just liking someone. Marriage is about forming a binding and lasting creating family that brings together the complimenting strengths of man and wife as one flesh. Again, doesn't this show how the whole institution of marriage is at stake?

I'm not talking about every man being divided from his wife, but the we are building the casket for an essential aspect of our society. If you have not already done so take a look at your family (you all have one) and see if it is worth protecting.

Note: I feel impelled by the way that many misinterpret the debate about homosexuality to add the obvious fact that while I may speak frankly about how wrong I feel the act to be, I will continue to have a brotherly love toward those who are still involved in these types of relationships, hoping all the while that they are freed from it. This debate is not against any group of people but against an action they commit.

State Senate Votes Tuesday on Marriage Amendment

If you have not done so already, call or email your senator and let them know that you support traditional marriage. Even if you know that they already do, please let them know that you stand with them. Think of your parents, look your wife or husband in the eye, take your child's trusting hand and ask yourself if marriage is something worth protecting.

Who's Wacking Wal-Mart

Understand who is really out to tip the price cutting giant.

But suppose Wal-Mart did look more like the company its detractors would like it to be, with overpaid workers, union work rules, and correspondingly higher prices on goods. It would not only be a less attractive place to shop, and hence a considerably smaller company. It would drive up the cost of living for the millions who shop there, thus hurting those in the bottom half of the income-distribution tables that Wal-Mart's critics claim to be speaking for. One might expect this fact to trouble the anti-Wal-Mart forces, except that their agenda is very different from what they profess it to be.

As our Holman W. Jenkins Jr. pointed out in a recent column, the vanguard of the Wal-Mart haters is composed of unions that have for decades kept retail wages and prices artificially high, especially in the supermarket business. Those unions have had next to no success organizing Wal-Mart employees and see Wal-Mart's push into groceries as a direct threat to their market position. And on that one score, they may be right.
(Emphasis mine)

HT: Worldmag blog.

Thursday, December 1

"Partial Victory" against RA Bible Ban

In a press release by the UW system, Kevin P. Reilly said that a committee would be formed to look into the issue of RA leading Bible studies. In the mean time, there is a temporary suspension of the Bible study least until there are "specific complaints." Reilly said that these are "serious and complex questions." Yup, the Chinese in their enforcement of their own broader based restriction on Bible studies would agree: 'tis tuff, while the founders would have been able to decide this one in a split second: 'tis free speech; free exercise.

From Cong. Green.

“Today’s announcement by UW-Eau Claire that it would, at least temporarily, reverse its practice of barring RAs from holding voluntary Bible studies in their dorm rooms was a major step in the right direction. However, the issue is by no means put to rest. Rather than eliminate this absurd practice once and for all, the UW System – in typical fashion – has opted to form a committee to evaluate the policy, leaving the matter unresolved, and its students’ constitutional rights still in jeopardy. The system, and its schools, should do what I’ve asked for since this controversy began. It should issue written rules specifically permitting these study groups. They shouldn’t need a commission and months of deliberations to tell them that.”

Christains Against Traditional Marriage

Anti-marriage groups appear willing to even use Christain faith as a reason to oppose traditional marriage. A group calling themselves Christians for Equality in Wisconsin and spearheaded by the First Congregational United Church in Madison will lead an assualt on marriage. Their reason? Christ commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves, hence we should support homosexual marriages. I wonder if "Christ's love" would also require us to support a marriage between a man and his dog....or why not his toaster?

In every contact with a legislature make your Christian/faith connection a key basis for opposition noting specifically the second part of the proposed amendment (emphasis mine).

Did they read the Amendemnt?

Those against protecting marriage spin the amendment around a Thanksgiving dinner:

As gay people and the families who love them gather around Thanksgiving tables, many of us will have fear and worry in the back of our minds. What will it mean to be singled out for discrimination in the state constitution?

Singled out for discrimination? Now that's pure written hyperbole. This isn't discriminating against anyone. Anyone one can marry a person of the opposite sex. Traditional marriage is open to anyone. Furthermore this is not just about homosexual relationships. This is about one man and three wives, two men and one wife or whatever other concoction you want to think up. As the amendment clearly says, this is just about protecting the marriage that civil societies have forever recognized as being essential to the preservation of a nation and state. As you gathered around your Thanksgiving table I hope you recognized that the family you love so dearly is the matter at stake.

Marriage Amendment Update

Family Research Institute appears to be leading the defense of marriage and the support of the Wisconsin constitutional amendment. They have a petition you can sign here. Find out how to get involved and stay updated here. Please also find you Representatives and ask them to support this. A quick email is all you need to send. Sent by many the message will come through loud and clear.

Another update: Wisconsin Coalition for Traditional Marriage is up and running as well. I just needed to search a bit better. Great start. I wonder if they would like to have a blog????