Comments by raggar

Congress as it stands is a product of a profound weakness in the system. The need for campaign contributions means that Congress is actually bought before a vote is cast. The average congressman spends 25 to 30% of his time in office raising money for the next election. This means that the people with spare cash are more likely to be heard. Now you have the added complication, that your Supreme Court has decided that corporations have the same rights as individuals which makes the money grubbing easier, but works against the interests of the individual.

If you take a hard look at many of the laws passed by Congress, supposedly on behalf of the American people, you will find a fair number which benefit Congress, and their financial supporters but not the people.

The USA has never been a democracy. It is a Republic. It was deliberately engineered to avoid the so called tyranny of the majority, Madisons words I believe. If you want to identify the principal purvayor of mischief look no further than Congress. They have exploited every weakness in your Constitution to their advantage ever since the country was founded. Oh! by the way they do appreciate your focus on Obama. It allows them to quietly do what they have always done.

No major religion has come out and openly questioned the texts let alone deny their veracity. Rather, they choose to either give them lip service or to ignore them. The idea that because the word homosexual was not know to the bible writers they did not recognise the condition is untrue. The statements are quite definite. This also calls into question the argument that the prohibitions are really meant to apply to promiscuity in general.

The real issue is that because of its investment in the past religion has difficulty in admitting that many of its sacred writings were produced in a state of ignorance.

"but their actions are going to effect everyone else" I am sure you appreciate that the same argument applies equally to religious people. Their demands end up affecting both the religious and non religious. As far as I am concerned homosexuals are entitled to the same considerations as everyone else. Homosexuality cannot be compared to incest. Incest we know has a high likelyhood of producing damaged offspring. The same cannot be said of homosexuals since they produce no offspring at all. However some religions which do not allow marriage outside the faith have over time become well springs of genetic diseases.

The following is an example of the declamations which illuminated the debate in North Carolina. I thought it might interest those living outside the USA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/21/north-carolina-pastor-gay-rant-...

It's very clear that there are two distinct camps in this discussion. The question is are either of them right? To make an intelligent decision we are compelled to look at the evidence. How much evidence is there for homosexuality in the animal kingdom? The answer is that there is a considerable body of evidence in a number of species that have been examined. Homosexuality exists in animals, fish, birds and insects. The insects are interesting because many of them like a cockroach have existed for hundreds of millions of years. They precede the dinosaurs. An interesting list which is well worth studying can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

One might then be tempted to ask, why is the prohibition of homosexuality only limited to human beings? Is it due to a misplaced idea of the position occupied by human beings in the animal kingdom?

It would seem reasonable to accept the fact that homosexuality is a continuous spectrum of activity which vastly predates the appearance of the human race.

Much is being made of the fact that homosexuals do not contribute to the furtherance of the human race. True they do not produce offspring, but they certainly add to the quality and survivability of life in many different ways.

Is homosexuality a matter of perverse choice? If it is, then we must admit that even the lowest forms of life are capable of making that choice. Since homosexuality exists in all levels of the animal kingdom.

The major religions consider homosexuality, a perversion which is worthy of death. No evidence is offered as to the reason, for the magnitude of this punishment. It is stated as just a fact. That fact has to be accepted without question. That acceptance can be difficult for people with a scientific turn of mind. However it seems to appeal to a large number of people. They normally bring forth the arguments of disease and the failure to promote the perpetuation of the human race. But are these arguments any more valid than the prohibition on eating pork? There is ample evidence that eating pork is no more harmful than eating any other meat providing that certain elementary precautions are taken. How different then is homosexuality there is plenty of evidence that it exists, widely, in creation and provided that certain elementary precautions are taken it can be practiced safely. Could it then be a matter of the religious majority feeling superior to homosexuals. Often in religion, people seem to be given reasons for feeling superior to others. God's chosen people would be one such example.

The real question is, whether people's attitude is based on established fact, or whether it is based on choosing to ignore facts which are considered unpalatable. Ignorance of the facts can be due to either lack of knowledge, or a willful refusal to accept, or examine the available facts. Unfortunately, a large number of contributors to this correspondence cling to an outmoded way of thinking which prevents them from a realisation of what is true. Often this involves, the misunderstanding or distortion of science. The following is but one example:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_in_animals_myth

In this technological age I'm sure the problem could be managed. Perhaps Congress should put resources into listening to the people rather than forcing the country into unnecessary wars.

Lobbying by organizations can give rise to unfair financial advantages to well heeled groups. For instance a company could still employ in house lobbyists who are on the payroll. The most democratic approach is to limit lobbying to the individual. I can approach Congress to express my own personal views but I should not be able to employ some one to present them for me.

Incedentally you may be interested in the following article from the New Yorker on the Citizens United case.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/21/120521fa_fact_toobin?curre...

I think we both agree that buying access to the government is fundamentally undemocratic. It is a pity that it took Citizens United to make the point. To me it seems clear that there is a difference between an interested individual lobbying Congress, and some one who is paid to conduct the busines of others on Congress's doorstep.

Strange reasoning. Stating that a conclusion is possible without any supporting evidence is strange even for political science. It is also strange that no attempt has been made over the years to verify it, even though data must now exist. It's almost as though Madison had a divine revelation.

Unfortunately neither Madison nor anyone else has produced any figures to support that contention. It would seem obvious to me, that any organisation, or person who can pay some one to make repeated personal representations to Congress, is in a more advantageous position than the average voter.

You are right about it not being instant. William Hull was employed by some members of the Continental Army in 1792 to lobby for increased compensation on their behalf. Paid lobbying has been a problem ever since. I think that indicates the glacial pace at which Congress acts against matters which are not in the public interest but benefit each and every member financially.

Precisely my point. Your Constitution and Bill of Rights give you little protection agaist a corrupt and venal Congress or activist judges on the Supreme Court. Something more is needed, to account for the fact that the determined will always find a way around a law, given sufficient time.

Democracy is as democracy does. Is the current mode of campaign financing in America democratic? Is paid lobbying democratic? Is the fact that Congress spends 25% or more of its time in office raising funds for the next election democratic? Do you see anything wrong that the bulk of the campaign money is spent on TV adverisements placed with the same companies who are the main news sources about Congresses actions? No conflict of interest there. Do you really think that corporations are persons? Perhaps the Bill of Rights is just a good cover.

I agree America is not a democracy and in fact never has been. However in order to amend the Constitution a majority is required, and in North Carolina a majority of the citizens passed the amendment. The point I was making is that the majority is not a gaurantee of correctness. Especially when its judgement is clouded by religion.

In a democracy there is no requirement that the majority has to be right or even reasoned in its arguments. It simply has to be the majority. Is this a strength or a weakness? North Carolina certainly makes one think.

The Greek word is used as a translation from the original Hebrew. Was there a careful distinction between the various modes of not being interested in the opposite sex, (ie eunuchs and homosexuals)? Or, was a single Hebrew word used to cover both?

You seem to have swallowed the religious line completely, without giving any thought as to how true it is. Isn't it likely that human beings were forming relationships and having children before religion was invented? Otherwise how are we here now? Since long before recorded time humans have been forming families, extended groups, and tribes. This was done for their mutual benefit and protection. With the advent of agriculture it became possible to build larger and larger groups which eventually developed into nations. These are relatively new developments in the overall timescale of things. During most of the time of human development there were no specific marriage ceremonies. I have read somewhere that the oldest reliably recorded ceremony occurred in Mesopotamia some 5000 years ago.

At that time and for good period thereafter marriage was a contract which was used to cement relations between groups. It involved forming alliances by the transfer of goods and chattels. The most important chattel was the wife, ownership of whom was transferred from the father to the husband. There was no religious component to this transfer. In today's terms it was a political or business arrangement.

For the Greeks and Romans there was no religious aspect to marriage. So when did the way the marriage was viewed change? Well, it didn't change with the advent of Christianity. During the early centuries after the death of Christ there was no requirement for a priest or clergyman to the present at a wedding. However, like so many other practices which have become accepted into church law, marriage could be used to make money for the church. In other words it became a fee-for-service product like intercessions for the dead, indulgences and a whole host of other services. Over time, a rationale was built up for each of these services. The church prospered financially and became more powerful. I believe that the final touches were not applied to the religious aspects of marriage until the Council of Trent in 1536. At that time it was declared to be a sacrement.

Perhaps, it is now time to go back and look at marriage simply as a contract as it was centuaries ago, before it was appropriated by religion.

Belief in something which is not supported by fact also blinds reason. All I ask is for you to give me some facts and figures to support your beliefs. Then we can have a reasoned argument. Make a start by googling the number of factual errors in the bible. Then lets talk about that. By the way you omitted dancing from your list of sins surely that would rank higher than football. After all it has a definite sexual display content

Paul was also consistent in his views about slavery. Social pressure was necessary to remove the evil of slavery. If you read the writings of William Wilberforce you will find many of the same arguments that he used are similar to those used in the gay struggle today. You will also find many of the same contra arguments used by the slave owners and their supporters as are used against gays today. The majority of them stem from the bible or involve God in some way or other.