Creepily enthusiastic 14 yo girl asks MD Sen. to "ban gay marriage" for her birthday

A committee at the Maryland state senate, where equal marriage legislation is being considered, has heard the birthday wish of a 14-year-old girl: to keep the ban on gay marriage.

Home-schooled Sarah Crank told lawmakers it “would be the best birthday present ever if you would vote no on gay marriage”, the political blog ThinkProgress reports.

Maryland’s Democratic Governor Martin O’Malley introduced a bill last week which, if successful, would lift the ban on gay marriage in the US state of Maryland.

14-year-old Sarah told the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee: “I really feel bad for the kids who have two parents of the same gender. Even though some kids feel like it’s fine, they have no idea what kind of wonderful experiences they miss out on.

“I don’t want any more kids to get confused about what’s right and OK.

“I really don’t want to grow up in a world where marriage isn’t such a special thing any more. It’s rather scary to think that when I grow up the legislator or the court can change the definition of any word they want.

“If they can change the definition of marriage, then they could change the definition of any word.

“People have the choice to be gay, but I don’t want to be affected by their choice. People say they were just born that way, but I’ve met really nice adults who did change. So please vote ‘no’ on gay marriage.”

After being thanked for her testimony, the girl is asked where she is schooled. She replies that she is home-schooled.

When the recording began to draw attention on the blog, Crank’s mother waded in personally to support her child’s speech in the comments section, saying Sarah “and many others are affected by the one way tolerance that gays expect but won’t extend to others”.

She insisted her daughter wrote the speech herself and told one commenter “Your ill wishes toward her are the perfect example of the one way tolerance that is the norm.”

An attempt in 2011 to lift the gay marriage ban failed to pass through the state legislature.

Conversely, attempts to introduce a constitutional ban on gay marriage have also failed.

Last night, Washington’s state senate voted in favour of equal marriage rights for gays, making the passage of the law there a near-certainty.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/02/02/maryland-girl-for-my-birthday-ban-gay-marriage/

A link to the video is included on the page.

What a indoctrinated little madam! Speaking so gleefully about taking away people's rights...

 

To me, it's never been a choice. I knew from an early age that I was interested in the opposite sex. I have zero sexual interest in men.

So I always wonder about this "people have the choice to be gay" meme that permeates the regressives' anti-homosexual tactics. Perhaps the reason why they fear that more people will suddenly "turn gay" as soon as same-sex couples are allowed to marry is because these people are already gay and have been suppressing their natural desires as a result of the stigma attached to homosexuality in the culture in general.

Then there's the part about "I don't want to be affected by their choice." How exactly are you affected by their choice? Are you going to be forced to marry a person of the same-sex? Will the law force you to stand in their bedroom and watch as they physically consummate their marriage.

Last but certainly not least is the part about "I really don’t want to grow up in a world where marriage isn’t such a special thing any more." Sorry, but that ship sailed already and it wasn't the homosexuals who put it out to sea.

Just ask conservative favorite Newt Gingrich who thinks that marriage is so special that he had to do it 3 times.

Just ask conservative talkmost Rush Limbaugh who is a serial marrier but has yet to produce offspring. Two strikes, amiright?

So it's easy, if you don't like same-sex marriage, don't have one. That's the best way to not be affected by others choices.

 

Cant take away what they never had.

 

...the emergence of "plastic sexuality," "confluent love," and the "pure relationship" as democratic and desirable alternatives to a sexuality harnessed to reproduction, love based on addictive or co-dependent relationships, and the rights and obligations of traditional marriage. The separation of sexuality from procreation entails its freedom from heterosexuality and its emergence as an individual attribute, something individuals can develop, enjoy, change or project as part of their changing definition of the self. Sexuality becomes plastic because the self itself has broken the bounds of traditional institutional expectations and it is now free to constitute and reconstitute itself in a series of narratives answering to nothing else but the growing freedom of individuals to develop their potential.
http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/GIDDENS.TXT

Can sexual orientation change?
One of the strongest arguments against homosexuality
as an inborn, unalterable condition is change in sexual orientation. In
this chapter we describe how the scientific literature shows that
sexual orientation is not fixed but fluid. People move around on the
homosexual-heterosexual continuum to a surprising degree in both
directions, but a far greater proportion of homosexuals become
heterosexual than heterosexuals become homosexual. Some of the
change is therapeutically assisted, but in most cases it appears to
be circumstantial. Life itself can bring along the factors that make
the difference. This chapter looks at change and its proponents and
opponents.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch12.pdf

We also know that many genes, maybe hundreds, are involved
in human behaviours, and that behaviours affected by many genes
will change very slowly over very many generations (Chapter One).
That is, they will be very stable for centuries, with only minimal
changes from generation to generation. This is true not only in
families, but also in cultures. But if we look at homosexuality, we find none of the characteristics of genetic properties.

• There is a huge variety of homosexual practices between
cultures and even within them.
• The prevalence of homosexuality has varied considerably
in different cultures. In some cultures, it has been unknown; in
others, it has been obligatory for all males.
• There have been, and are, rapid changes in homosexual
behaviour, even over a lifetime. Not only that, but entire types
of homosexuality have disappeared over the course of just a
few centuries. In fact, anthropologists have found such huge variations
in heterosexual and homosexual practice from culture to culture, and
such sudden changes in sexual practice and orientation, even over
a single generation, that they mostly want to say that all sexual
behaviour is learned. In the words of one writer J. Rostand, “In the
secret coming together of two human bodies, all society is the third
presence.”
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch6.pdf

 

Thing is, Maryland already has a ban on SSM, so what this girl is asking for would amount to a constitutional ban - which in most states has meant the complete banning or removal of ANY marriage-like rights for same sex couples.

 

That could just as likely read:
...Heavily-indoctrinated Sarah Crank told lawmakers...

That girl doesn't have her own mind, just yet. It should be fairly obvious to most. Her views are likely the views of those who are "home-schooling" her.

 

The girl is a victim, but most people won't see that before it's later in her life.

 

That whole website is aimed at propagating an idea (based on a predetermined conclusion) that has been thoroughly rejected by mainstream science and psychology. The general consensus is that homosexuality is the complex result of genes, hormones and environment. It is unlikely (like many aspects of a persons personality) that it can be changed to any significant degree past a certain point - and no solid evidence exists that "conversion" therapy is effective; and plenty demonstrating just how harmful it can be to a person's mental health. It's revealing that even many "ex-gay" ministries have admitted that the majority of cases where someone has attempted to embrace a heterosexual relationship have ended in failure and "reversion" to their old ways.

Even if a person's sexuality can be influenced, the chances of taking someone who has absolutely zero interest in the opposite sex and making them 100% heterosexual is beyond ridiculous. At best, it may be possible to bring some latent bisexual urges to the surface, but I would say that in order for that to happen they would have to be at least somewhat 'bisexual' in the first place... Which for those claiming to be "ex-homosexuals" may well be the case. In essence there's a fair few explanations and possibilities beyond the pre-determined and obviously highly biased fringe conclusions of your source.

Whilst it might be possible for someone with 'slight' homosexual tendencies to suppress or ignore that urge, it would be an insurmountable challenge (and IMO simply impossible) for someone who has never slept with a member of the opposite sex and to whom the idea of doing so makes them feel nauseous, to become "heterosexual". There's no proof of this ever having occurred.

 

IMO, she can say this all she wants. Little does she know, she's going to get used. Her words really mean little in the large scheme of things. It's now just a cheap political move.

 

You are correct.

 

Yeah, the quoted exerpts discussed those enviromental factors. Enviromental factors that change over time.

 

Environmental factors having played a part in sexuality in the earlier stages of someone's life does not necessarily mean meaningful "change" is possible post-puberty. For example, it has been established that much of a person's core personality is "set" past a certain age. As the human brain grows during childhood it is likely some as of yet undetermined environmental factors combine with pre-existing biological factors (genes and prenatal conditions) and a person begins to consciously establish what sexuality they are based on what attractions they have. Labels are misleading because it's likely that a good proportion of society have varying degrees of bisexual tendencies or urges - as in they place somewhere on the wide spectrum of human sexuality. I've always said people identify with the end they are closest to. There is choice in what people wish to call themselves, but there is no real evidence to suggest that pure, lasting change is possible.

I suspect (*)in the future labels such as "gay" and "straight" will either disappear or become unimportant as people see ALL love as equal, uninhibited by religious shame or social "values" that seek to impose pointless limitations on those of us who happen to be different. Those differences shouldn't after all matter, not in a free society. Society is not free whilst it imposes tyranny on a 'minority' simply because of who they love.

 

The only thing that would satisfy the scientific criteria for proving "change" in human sexuality to be possible, would be to use devices that measure sexual responses to stimuli (porn) and test a group of people claiming to be "ex-homosexual"s. Or perhaps far more accurately testing a group of people prior to receiving "conversion therapy" and then afterwards to measure any changes. Something tells me however that prayer and psychological therapy would do very little to alter a person's deeply-ingrained sexual orientation.

These organisations teach people to live a lie... nothing more, nothing less. And they are doing more harm by leading gay people into marriages with the opposite sex and possibly having kids, only to end up in divorce when they realise the urges are still there and they simply cannot be happy. As is often the case.

 

???I made no assertions as to what stage in ones life these factors alter ones orientation and when it does is irrelevant to my point.

Sambia boys are taken at around age 10, and forced to give the older men blow jobs. As adults, they are all attracted to 10 yr old boys. That this was instilled early in their life as opposed to later is irrelevant to my point.

 

Then I don't see your point; much less why you would cite a website which purports that instaneous and lasting change is seemingly possible for anyone of any age.

Again, your point is not clear. If you are claiming that change is possible during the developmental period of human sexuality, then there are no relevant implications to either this topic, what the girl giving "testimony" claimed was possible, or anything relevant to same sex marriage or gay rights.

Time to make some actual clarifying statements instead of just being vague and posting sources and expecting us to interpret the relevant meaning to the topic at hand.

 

We invented the concepts. This idea that sexuality is some fixed inherent trait within an individual. And you are not excluded because of religious shame or social "values". Heterosexuals are included because they are the only ones making the babies.

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her"

Homosexuals exclude themselves, usually choosing not to engage in such an institution.

And you seem to be agreeing with my original post as to what we are moving towards. Specifically

Like bonobo chimps where sex is frequent, with many different partners of both sexes, and the raising of offspring is purely the domain of the women who give birth to them.

 

The parents should be jailed for child abuse. Brain washing children about sex is wrong. These people are sick.

 

Seeing as how this is America, their isn't really a legitimate reason for gay marriage not being allowed. What you have is two consenting adults who want to spend their life together and their's no reason anyone else should have a say in what they are allowed to do.

 

Basically.

 

I wouldn't call for them to "jailed"... but Americans really need to cease tolerating the scapegoating, vilification and bashing of homosexual people.

 

They are allowed to do whatever they like. The gays just want the tax breaks and governmental entitlements for doing so.

 

No, they are not allowed to do what you say; stop repeating that lie.

And the above... is just plain STUPID. You said something you cannot prove now, later or ever.

 

Couldn't we make the same arugment for heterosexual marriages then?

 

They want to obtain rights that affect their lives in many ways. It's ridiculous that in most states same-sex couples who've been together for decades are regarded as legal "strangers" to one another.

 

Not at all. The concept that one can be - for all intents and purposes - exclusively attracted to the same or the opposite sex is not an idea but a reality for billions of people. If you yourself acknowledge that your sexual attraction is focused exclusively on the opposite sex, then the same can of course be true for gay people. I only stipulate that there's far more bisexuals in the world than people admit.

The only evidence admissible that any amount of change is possible is, as I said - a sexual arousal test taken before and after "conversion therapy". So far this has not happened so the evidence that a person's sexuality can be changed to any meaningful degree is hearsay.

Not all heterosexuals do. And there is no upper age limit on marriage so clearly the state is not concerned with whether the couple entering the contract can procreate or not.

Posting one aspect of a word and how it came to be does nothing to further your argument against SSM, which exists in 6 US states and DC. You've quite literally bombarded us with this meaningless quote (along with others) in a bizarre and irksome repetitive fashion - as if we haven't heard it a million freakin' times already. You KNOW it has had zero impact on the debate every time you've copied and pasted it... Give it a rest!

The fact of the matter is the law can alter any legal term or lawful institution as it sees fit. In getting involved in marriage in the first place the state created its own separate definition which isn't bound or dictated by anything but the law itself.

Patently absurd. As stupid and ridiculous as saying interracial couples excluded themselves from marriage in the age of anti-miscegenation laws by their choice to be together.

I think that labels will become unimportant but this is not the same as saying sexual orientation can be changed - yes I think there's a scale but I don't believe significant or meaningful change (much less an absolute polar switch) is possible. There is no evidence for this - and even if it were possible I really don't find it any more relevant to "gay rights" than the fact one chooses their religion is to the question of religious freedom.