We hear a lot of nonsense from the right about the 'science' supporting their homophobic position. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find a single scientific study to date that supports their position that heterosexuality is more natural or innate than homosexuality, or bisexuality. In fact every single piece of scientific research that has been presented to support the view of sexuality and sexual orientation by the right has been either misrepresented, debunked as bad science, or is woefully out of date and has been superseded by more recent data which is consistently based on better and more rigorous use of the scientific methodology.
I had no idea what kind of senator you would make, Mr. Franken, when you were elected. In 2008 I just knew that I liked you a whole lot better than that other guy. You have exceeded my greatest expectations sir; and this is only one example of that. Keep up the good work!
I concur.
ReplyDeleteAs an independent voter, I evaluate all candidates ... Norm Coleman lost me due to his failures on the Foreign Relations Committee (failing to push for equal treatment for women, his reversal on Cuba, his support of John Bolton for UN Ambassador, etc.) but I was not thrilled with Al Franken ... nothing against Al, but I wanted someone with legislative experience ... for example, one of the problems in the MN Legislature and in Congress is the number of first-time lawmakers who have never served in school board or city or county position ... for example, if you sit on a five-member school board, the first lesson is to count to three ... you gotta find a way to compromise and somehow influence the legislation to make it a policy that you can live with.
I knew that Al was smart but his Iraq stance and healthcare stance just was too wishy-washy ... in the end, I debated “throwing away my vote” (you can read my Minnesota Central blogsite where my contemplated throwing my vote to Tim Walz) but in the end knowing that this election could be close, I voted for Al.
Boy, am I glad that I did.
It’s not just his stance on S 398 Respect For Marriage Act (Senator Franken was one of the original co-sponsors which now number 27), but also his fight on Healthcare Reform, Veterans, Military, Net Neutrality, protesting Comcast, etc ... and he has largely done this without media attention ... I don’t know if I have ever seen him on CNN, FOX, MSNBC or CSPAN interview programs ... except for his “Perry Mason discussion” and eye-rolling during Mitch McConnells’ speeches, Senator Franken seems to have avoided the limelight.
Contrast that with Rand Paul or Mike Lee ... heck, even Marco Rubio ... these freshmen Senators show up regularly ... and may even offer somewhat “mis”-informed commentary.
Conversely, what happened at the hearing on S 398 was a Senator doing what too many Senators don’t do ... read and research ... asking key questions, not grandstanding or throwing softballs.
Yes, I am one Minnesotan who is extremely pleased to have Al Franken as my Senator.
BTW, Senator Klobuchar needs to be encouraged to co-sponsor S 398 while Keith Ellison and Betty McCollum are the lone Minnesotans to co-sponsor HR 1116.
DG,
ReplyDeleteWithout question, heterosexuality is MORE inate than homosexuality because, quite simply far more people are heterosexual.
I think that your statement needs a little refinement.
Perhaps you mean to say you have yet to find anything which says homosexuality, like red hair or left handedness, is not part of the basic human condition. On that, I'd agree.
No, Pen, I think you misuse or misunderstand the meaning of the word innate - it means a quality or characteristic with which one is born, from the same root as natal, native, etc., and as distinct from acquired (after being born). How many people are born heterosexual or homosexual, does not alter that use of the word correctly. It means existing in one from birth, inborn, inherent, similar to instinct.
ReplyDeleteI used the term natural, because it occurs in fairly consistent percentages within species populations, although what that percentage is differs by species. What that suggests to me is that there is some reason we have yet to understand, to figure out, some desirable adaptation, some purpose that is served by this in species survival.
That makes the argument against the stupid and hateful notion that our sexual orientation is a choice, that it is exclusively acquired or learned, or that it can be unselected, or unlearned. Being homosexual is not something one can 'catch' by exposure, like the common cold, as advocated by the ignorant, anti-science right wing.
World English Dictionary
ReplyDeleteinnate (ɪˈneɪt, ˈɪneɪt)
— adj
1. existing in a person or animal from birth; congenital; inborn
2. being an essential part of the character of a person or thing
3. instinctive; not learned: innate capacities
[C15: from Latin, from innascī to be born in, from nascī to be born]
I hope my fondness for the history of our language might be indulged; it seems ironic to me that the words nation and national have the same root historically, given the national scope of the discussion of human sexuality, since one's original nationality is also something one is born with:
[C13: via Old French from Latin nātiō birth, tribe, from nascī to be born]
(from dictionary.com)
The acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marraiges will be determined in the courts, as such, the angst of the left (and right) is pointless... UNLESSS.. one side or the other attempts to circumvent the courts, which is precisely what DOMA did. It is an unconstitutional law, worse, it's odious. It desires/aims to strip the rights of states and the right of the courts to determine consitutionality of equal rights of homosexuals on their own by declaring that the constituion has no voice (by passing their own law usurping the 5th Amendment (and probabbly the 6th)). Such a claim is specious and should be seen now as a ludicrous, needless powergrab/knee-jerk reaction.
ReplyDeleteHi Pen,
ReplyDeleteThanks for offering your valuable insight.
Do you know if the Amendment 5 and 6 arguments were used in the Iowa Supreme Court ruling that allowed for same-sex marriage … or the California appeal case ?
Do you know if there have been any challenges from people that were legally married in one of the jurisdictions that permit same-sex marriage and have now moved to another state that does not permit it … it would seem to the non-lawyer in me, that this type of denial that would be the basis for overturning any existing DOMA laws … it would be one thing, if the state handled it like a driver’s license … (i.e., you get a driver’s license in Iowa and then move to Minnesota, you would have to get a new license that would be consistent with Minnesota’s laws [i.e. what may be acceptable vision in one state may not be the same in another] … thus if Minnesota required every new resident to get a Minnesota Marriage License to be afforded tax treatment, property ownership, etc, then they would have a case for establishing their own unique laws on sex, quantity of spouses, etc. … but if marriage licenses are treated the same regardless of state, they lose that argument. I wonder if Minnesota accepts marriage licenses if the age is different than their law … for example, in Iowa the age of consent is 16 but in Minnesota the age is 18.
Yet, it is interesting to me that I can never recall any governmental agency (or bank) ever asking to see my marriage license … and thinking about it now, I wonder if I possess a legal marriage license … my bride and I met in college … my job eventually took me to Indiana where I established legal residency but we opted to get married in Ohio so that our families would not have to travel for the wedding … my gut tells me that I probably used my parents address as my legal address, so I may have committed fraud … heck, who cares … after decades of wedded bliss, my bride is stuck with me as her common-law partner.
Lastly, leaving this to the Courts is scary … if the law was clear, then all decisions would be 9-0 but with many 5-4, it tell me that anything is possible. It’s one thing for an attorney to represent a client’s interests but when there are attorneys campaigning for President that seem to offer a different view of the US Constitution, it makes me wonder … for example Pawlenty has inferred his personal views of marriage which I presume would also be his legal views of the laws … of course, Minnesotans know that are more than one occasion Governor Pawlenty learned that the MN Supreme Court overruled his actions.
Regards,
Mac Hall