Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Kevin McCullough :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why 'Sex' Is Not Equal To 'Race'
by Kevin McCullough
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



The sexual behavior that one chooses to engage in, will never be equal to the status of a person's race. Confusing these two truly different concepts is dishonest. And those who claim otherwise do so for manipulated outcome to redesign society.

Normal people have understood this since the beginning of time.

The activist California Supreme Court does not. In the court's recent ruling pertaining to the mandated attempt to redefine marriage - and to tyrannically force that redefinition upon the voters of California - four judges raised the choice of sexual desire, inclination, and behavior to the same level of class status as racial ethnicity.

In doing so they set themselves up for more problems than they can envision because of such a leap of logic, lack of scientific evidence, and the general willingness to override the votes of 63% of the Californian population. These four judges have equated, in the eyes of the law, the choice of who one chooses to bed as being equal to what color of skin a person is born with. In doing so they have now laid down future arguments for further redefinition of marriage to include nearly any sexual union in both number and combination that a person can imagine. By redefining marriage, but then limiting that redefined definition to only include "pairs" of persons, the court has opened itself to claims of discrimination from bi-sexual persons who may very easily wish to be in a legal sexual "relationship" that includes a person of both genders, not to mention heterosexual polygamists. Each of the groups, who choose sexual partners for whatever reasons they do - will be liable to claim that the State of California must end discrimination against additional "alternative" lifestyles, and extend a yet still more redefined view of "marriage" to them as well.

Yet it is simple to understand why the judges are so wrong.

Romantic actions, such as flirting, hitting on someone, soliciting a phone number, and being bashful in asking someone on a "date" are all volitional acts of conscience and of choice. Consensual sexual actions from simple hand-holding, to kissing, following all the way through the act of sexual consummation are again choice based. Choosing to act on those urges - defines the individual's sexual orientation. With large numbers of people even now championing the fact that they've chosen the choice they currently are involved with, sexual identity, practice, and enthusiasm have become increasingly fluid.

Pop culture tells us so. Consider the number two song in the country this week: Katy Parry's "I Kissed a Girl!"

I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chapstick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don't mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don't mean I'm in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it

The weekend's biggest movie Sex And The City is reinforcing this belief with a closing monologue from the film's main character Carrie Bradshaw: "It's not in the label of being husband/wife, bride and groom, or man and woman that's important... it's getting beyond the labels and seeing the person..."

Yet that is in essence the problem. We humans aren't mere collections of DNA, water, plasma, and bone. We are not in essence biologically "the same." Men and women serve distinct purposes, functions, and roles in the furtherance of society.

A woman who is African American, can no more be a white woman the next day regardless of how much she wished to (if she even would). Likewise a Latino man could not go to bed one night at 5'8" and wake up the next morning to find he was black, 7'2'', and the starting center for his local NBA franchise. Race and other truly genetic based parts of life - skin color, height, shape and forms of features are pieces of ourselves that only God Himself had the choice in determining.

Who we romance, date, move in with, and have sex with - is something He's left to our free will as a matter of choice.

The truth of the matter is we as humans have always had a natural urge to resist what is best for ourselves. The activists that argue for the redefining of marriage know this full well. But they love the pursuit of the perceived "forbidden" even more so. Over time, mere participation in private sexual matters does not satisfy and thus they have become more brazen in their attempt to radically change the face of human society. Their attempt is to make those who view non-traditional sexual arrangements as abnormal, the activists hope to force them to feel isolated, punished, and eventually silenced.

Yet one overwhelming fact stares them in the face at every turn. God designed it so that only the sexual union of a man and a woman can create a life - and therefore extend society and civilization.

If a black man and a white woman conceive a child - it will likely have a skin tone that mixes the look and characteristics of both racial make-ups. But two people of the same gender - through sexual expression - do not create a hybrid of what their two sets of genetic DNA consists of. Sexual orgasm by two people of the same gender - in fact - produces nothing.

Race is external, determined by an authority beyond humanity, and leaves the person no choice in adjusting it's existence, impact, or results in their life.

Romantic pursuit, formulation of relationships, and engagement of sexual activity are determined completely by the actions, choice, and decisions of the persons involved.

Make no mistake, many a hard working black man has been overlooked for a promotion that he fully deserved - because of his skin color. Yet no one should be able to even ascertain the bedroom habits of one's co-workers except for yet one more choice - the decision to talk about it.

Racial discrimination costs the households of people of color thousands of dollars per year. Those who form non-traditional "romantic" attachments, and engage in non-traditional sexual practices have nearly three times the amount of expendable income on average than the normal husband/wife household.

Ultimately the citizens of California are smarter than the four arrogant black robes who sought to push an agenda down the throats of the voters. Californians are able to assess that who a person calls on the phone, takes on a "date," or invites into their bedroom - has never been, nor will ever be close to equal to the color of a man's skin.

And as such - it is increasingly apparent that rights, status, and standing should not be given special consideration over those elements of our lives we can control.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Xtreme' Radio and columnist based in New York. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. His second book "The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be" is in stores now.

Be the first to read Kevin McCullough's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

con't
Kevin McCollugh is ALSO making a case against heterosexuals getting married if he's assuming what KIND of sex they are having.
But he couldn't know unless he's willing to have himself AND the government police bedrooms for ALL citizens.
And no one is doing that, so the pack of you who have decided that it's the sex that gay people are having is grounds enough for discrimination really don't know which country they've been living in all these years.
Nobody is assuming what kind the handicapped, those of disparate physical size and ability are having, or if they are compatible at all.
Nope, somehow gay couples get the slippery slope argument thrown at them about compatibility and procreation from people who don't have to prove their own IN COURT or to society at large.
How compatible a couple is or not is deeply private.
And it's none of your business whether that couple is gay or not.

con't
That gay couples have ALREADY committed to caring for each other and what children they have with the same primacy WITHOUT marriage, speaks to how seriously they take their relationships.

That gay couples AGREE to the basic tenets of TWO consenting adults for the primacy of custody of each other and their children within marriage makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the rest of us to disagree and try and make up all kinds of OTHER regulations that they DIDN'T agree to.
Gay people, just shy of pretending to be heterosexuals are committing to a REASONABLE standard that ALL other citizens agree to as well.
So gay people aren't doing anything against not already expected and allowed and legitimate.
It's people like Luis, and dreadnaught, et al..that are forgetting that.
And assuming this participation is going to do damage or destroy marriage is a stupid assumption when those factors that DO, still do not condemn those who fail marriage for those reasons, to never have the opportunity again. And again.
What part of EQUAL standards for gay people don't you get?

KevinMc is a hypocrite
From his opening statement, he's misrepresenting the historical context of race and sexual orientation. But he firmly believes that heterosexuality, NOT character within one's orientation is enough to accept without challenge.

Sexual orientation is LESS a choice than one's religion is, but to see the threads on the subject of homosexuality, those who are religious expect social primacy based on THAT.
And continue to argue that sexual orientation is a choice, when it is NOT for homosexual or heterosexual.
What the courts decided was a citizen cannot be discriminated against BASED on gender AND orientation.
And that equal STANDARDS under our laws could and are contradicted by that discrimination.
There is no COMPELLING and legitimate reason to maintain the discrimination.
And EVERY single reason brought up, contradicts doing so equally to heterosexuals.
It's THAT simple.
Eat your hearts out people. If you aren't ALSO willing to condemn heterosexuals for the SAME things in the law, and you don't and can't.
It's OVER. Done, period. You LOST all legitimate reasoning the way segregationists and misogynists did.

LOL at Luis
Well YOU seem to be paying close attention to me! And what makes you think I'm gay? It may surprise you to know that many clear-thinking, sane rational people are more offended by bigotry than by other people's sexual practices, or who they fall in love with. Like I said before, I wish we could get broader exposure of your silly views and the child-like way you express yourself. It would help speed same sex marriage along!

wjriii # 291
"I started out on punch cards and IBM JCL."

I started in IBM 7070 autocoder and punched tape in 1965, so probably not too much before you. Was pretty much the East Coast Expert on /360 JCL and link-editor when I was teaching at Brown. (My current license plate is OS-360.)

"Later, I programmed in PL/G on a Prime System mini-computer."

Not a great compiler. I was in the OS group at Prime for awhile, and the guy who ran the compiler group was right across the hall from me. They put a lot more effort into the FORTRAN compilers.

"My first personal computer was a MITS Altair 8800B"

That's about as "first" as you can get. PARC sometimes claims that the Alto was the first PC; I had one when I was at Xerox, serial #35. However, it was really a one-person minicomputer, like the Digital PDP-8.

Bob Munck:
You predate me by a bit.

I started out on punch cards and IBM JCL. I still have the decks. Then they went to Wylber, which was an IBM 3270-based editing system which treated lines in files as virtual punch cards.

How many know the following joke?

"Q: How do programmers have sex?
A: Nine edge down."

Later, I programmed in PL/G on a Prime System mini-computer.

I also programmed on a micro-programmable Burroughs 1800.

My first personal computer was a MITS Altair 8800B with 48K of memory which only ran Bill Gates' first product, Microsoft Basic. I was an expert at programming by flipping switches to load values into memory and reading 8080 split octal machine code from the LEDs.

Ahhh, the good old days! :-)

SJ Doc: Apologies
Paragraph one should have ended with "... not there does not exist ..."

Also, I didn't clean up my editing of the paragraph regarding reduced participation.

Rats!

SJ Doc: Polygamous marriage
You're looking at the adults.

What about the children? Traditional marriage is primarily to provide the best environment for the development of children, not that there exists terribly dysfunctional and abusive traditional households.

This is a social issue, not a fairness issue.

We both know what the other thinks about this.

Back to polygamy.

Most believe that children need both parents to show them either how to be an adult or to know how to choose a good person as a spouse.

The rest of this is more my opinion than established fact, but I believe it to be true due to experience, observation and rational thought.

A significant element of the traditional marriage relationship is the depth of the relationship which requires much effort and time.

If you've attended a few Church weddings, you probably heard the statement that "the two become one". That is tough enough with two people. It would seem to be MUCH harder if "the three/four/five/etc. become one".

Are the relationships as deep when the shared spouse's limited time and energy is split up into at least two pieces.? Why is this important?

How does this affect the other spouse? It would seem that the other spouse would have to compensate for the reduced participation of the shared spouse. It would be logical that the other spouse would have to compensate, affecting the children's development, possibly very little and maybe very much.

Might that environment affect the perceived level of security that the children feel?

The effect on the children might lie somewhere between the problems in a single-parent home to possibly identical to that of traditional marriage. A possible middle ground might involve the same dynamics as that of a divorced couple who share custody.

Of course, there will be exceptions to the rule.

That is only my opinion.

Too Many Zeroes
The Meta IV minicomputer was microprogrammed by physically scraping copper dots off of a printed circuit board. (A computer's microprogram is the (usually wired-in) program that implements (interprets) the instruction set.) The board was about 8" square and contained 256x256 dots, so this was a pretty finicky and error-prone operation.

We wrote a program (in PL/1) that manipulated the object microcode by moving code and data around in the address space, so as to minimize the number of zeros. This made microprogramming easy, at least when compared to our previous work on the Interdata Mod 3 where you weaved extremely fine wires in and out of tiny iron cores.

wjriii - On *Paint Your Wagon*
--
Asks wjriii:

"How did the relationship end in the movie *Paint Your Wagon*? (That's rhetorical)"


Not at all rhetorical. Elizabeth wanted to stay ("A Million Miles Away Behind the Door"), Pardner was willing to stay with her, and Ben Rumson couldn't stand living in one place any more ("The First Thing You Know" and "Wand'rin' Star").

Even in unconventional relationships, mutual incompatibility is more commonly the cause of break-ups than marital infidelity.

As for the viability of openly polygamous (as opposed to bigamous) marital arrangements, what gives you cause to conclude that they're any more necessarily liable to strife and dissolution than the average one-on-one game played in most American households?

Sex is not the be-all and end-all of establishing family, and really never has been. This is one of the reasons why marriages can and do survive the waning and eventual disappearance of sexual limerance (and physical capability, PDE-5 inhibitors notwithstanding) as age advances.

Nor is the conception of children (or the possibility of conception) necessary to marriage. There are plenty of purposefully or pathologically sterile heterosexual mariages, and these relationships not only hold together but frequently provide either safe harbor for fostered and adopted children or resources for the support of relatives' and neighbors' offspring.

(I have one patenal aunt who moved in with my maternal grandparents' family as a child, and grew up more as my mom's little sister than my dad's.)

The human being - un-meddled-with - is remarkably flexible.





==========
"Ben Rumson: You show me in them commandments where it says a woman cain't have two husbands.

"Pardner: There AIN'T no commandment like that."

-- Alan Jay Lerner (screenplay) *Paint Your Wagon* (1969)

wjriii - on Pointy-Haired Bosses...
--
Gawd, that one was exceptional. Posts wjriii:

"The 'high priest' from bonded stores accepted the materials to be placed in a highly secured location.

"Right in front of everyone, he proceeded to STAPLE the floppies to the printout!"


The best comparison up with which I can come is the story one of my patients told me about his PHB affixing a 5.25-inch floppy to a filing cabinet with a refrigerator magnet.





=========
"Ask a deeply religious Christian if he’d rather live next to a bearded Muslim that may or may not be plotting a terror attack, or an atheist that may or may not show him how to set up a wireless network in his house. On the scale of prejudice, atheists don’t seem so bad lately."

-- Scott Adams

MikeH:
*** "The point I was making was that, if were just using behavior as the standard, all marriages are the result of behavior. So one type of marriage couldn't be recognized and the other not according to that reasoning." ***

If sex is the behavior, might there be some interesting unintended consequences if marriage is extended to any group of people as long as sex is involved?

As for my operating system, I zeroed in immediately that those were the ones I wanted. But it was all for naught because it was used only once when the files were zeroed out by a singularly destructive virus which I removed because I have a zero-tolerance policy. :-)

wjriii
"We agree. However, I'll take their word for it. I don't absolutely demand to see the behavior. :-)"

I could not agree with you more on that point.

"The original issue was this; was it correct for the CA Supreme Court to declare homosexual marriage legal because inter-racial marriage is legal.

I would say that it was not correct because the nature of race is substantively different than the nature of sexual preference."

Let me say that I think same-sex marriage should stand or fall on its own merits. The point I was making was that, if were just using behavior as the standard, all marriages are the result of behavior. So one type of marriage couldn't be recognized and the other not according to that reasoning.

As for the zeros, I think they were the ones using me.

Jeff. why would anyone waste time
Jeff says: Subject: Read about
"reparative therapy" at this religious site:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm

It exposes the NARTH people for what they are.
_______________________________

Answer first why normal, decent, clear thinking people with common sense would pay any attention to a flaming homo who attempts to defend the indefensible, who doesn't understand the reason for the complementarity of the human genitalia????????? No one is going to waste any time going to a website recommended by homos. Why would anyone do that? Everyone has already heard the lib/lefty/homosexual/homosexulist line about why they need acceptance of their suicidal anal 'sex,' of all their perversions, of why they need 'marriage' to legitimize their perversions.

Jeff, here is your logic
Jeff says: Subject: Fully addressed?
I was looking for a logical argument, not just a statement that dismisses homosexuality as mere behavior, unrooted in any organic, uncontrollable source.
___________________________________

Here is your logical argument: Homos are confused about the complementarity of the human genitalia; homos are sterile, homosexuality is sterile, except for the disease homos produce and spread; nothing favors homos, nothing favors homosexuality; nothing recommends homos, nothing recommends homosexuality. Common sense does very well in this matter.

Jeff, you are a confused homo
Jeff says: Luis, check it out
Go to deism.com.....it's a laugh riot! It talks about all the blasphemy in the bible pertaining to God, and how murderous a lot of the characters are, etc.. They even have "Deist reality cards" that expose falsehoods that people believe about the bible, contradictions, etc. I gotta go to bed, late here in Michigan. Talk to ya later man.
___________________________________

Jeff, why would we pay any attention to a homo who is confused about one of the most basic human aspects, the complementarity of the human genitalia? You already have three strikes against you: You are out!

The 'male' homosexual suicidal anal 'sex' is especially funny, not that that is the only thing that causes normal people to laugh at homosexuals about. Of course, the 'female' homosexual use of cucumbers, bananas, toilet plunger handles, especially when they are surprised that no baby is produced, is equally hilarious.

Bob Munck: Bigamy vs. Polygamy
Bigamy is defined as polygamy with two spouses. The crime of bigamy refers to one person flitting between any number of possibly unsuspecting legally married spouses and their households.

Whether the polygamous family structure consists of one big household with everyone living together, or multiple households, the problems of strife between spouses and the sharing of the relationship with their spouse remains.

It may be that if there are few enough children in a single household, the kids could be nurtured enough as dad is always there. In those cases, the effect on the kids might be minimal or non-existent. I don't pretend to know the percentages.

Luis, check it out
Go to deism.com.....it's a laugh riot! It talks about all the blasphemy in the bible pertaining to God, and how murderous a lot of the characters are, etc.. They even have "Deist reality cards" that expose falsehoods that people believe about the bible, contradictions, etc. I gotta go to bed, late here in Michigan. Talk to ya later man.

Jeff, God gave man free will
Subject: PuupyChen
remember that this is a legal issue, not a religious one. It's always a little, um, presumptious anyhow, when humans try to speak for God. I wouldn't be so sure God didn't also make homosexuals. He might not take kindly to your judgment of his work.
__________________________

Jeff, you deserve better: The accurate Christian version regarding the perversion of homosexuality is that he created man and gave man free will, a great gift if one is a Christian, and the homo perverts abuse that free will with their homo perversions.

Jeff, you should have resisted
Jeff says: I can't resist!
"The Bible has been used for centuries by Christians as a weapon of control. To read it literally is to believe in a three-tiered universe, to condone slavery, to treat women as inferior creatures, to believe that sickness is caused by God's punishment and that mental disease and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession. When someone tells me that they believe the Bible is the 'literal and inerrant word of God,' I always ask, 'Have you ever read it'?"

Bishop John Shelby Spong
______________________________

You couldn't resist but you should have: Spong is about as nuts as a lib/lefty/homosexual/homosexualist/feminist/gaiaist can get. His nonsense is laughed at among clear thinking people.

Sighted Web Site, Cited Same
A little bête noire of mine.

I can't resist!
"The Bible has been used for centuries by Christians as a weapon of control. To read it literally is to believe in a three-tiered universe, to condone slavery, to treat women as inferior creatures, to believe that sickness is caused by God's punishment and that mental disease and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession. When someone tells me that they believe the Bible is the 'literal and inerrant word of God,' I always ask, 'Have you ever read it'?"

Bishop John Shelby Spong

More from religioiustolerance.org
"Conservative Christians often define homosexuality as something that people do; it is a chosen preference. It is a disorder caused by poor parenting, which be overcome through therapy and prayer. Gays, lesbians, religious liberals, and most therapists believe homosexuality is something that people are; it is a pre-determined orientation that is normal and natural for them, just as heterosexual orientation is normal and natural for heterosexuals. And they feel that it is fixed and unchangeable, perhaps genetically determined like gender and race."

From the website I just sited:
"As of 2006, all of the professional organizations in the field state that homosexuality is a normal, natural, and fixed sexual orientation, with the exception of a small group, The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality whose beliefs appear to be based on conservative Christian theology."

Read about
"reparative therapy" at this religious site:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm

It exposes the NARTH people for what they are.

wjriii # 270
"The shared parent' attention and time is split between multiple families to the detriment of the husband and wife relationship and the nurturing of the children."

That's not polygamy, that's bigamy. They're two very different things. In polygamy, there's one marriage and one family involving more than two adults. True, both a bigamist and a polygamist will have more than one spouse at a time, but for the bigamist there's more than one marriage and more than one family involved.

The christian church has long accepted a variant of polygamy called "serial polygamy." In it, each person is legally involved in only one marriage AT A TIME and with only one spouse. However, each individual may be involved in several such marriages over a lifetime, and many of the relationships of previous marriages may be continued, often in distorted form, after they are dissolved.

It's not clear what the definition of "family" is in serial polygamy. The participants will sometimes talk of their "extended family," but the children involved are generally unsure if any family exists at all.

PuupyChen
remember that this is a legal issue, not a religious one. It's always a little, um, presumptious anyhow, when humans try to speak for God. I wouldn't be so sure God didn't also make homosexuals. He might not take kindly to your judgment of his work.

SJ Doc: The harm of polygamy
The shared parent' attention and time is split between multiple families to the detriment of the husband and wife relationship and the nurturing of the children.

There may very well be people who are perfectly fine with sharing a spouse. There may very well be shared spouses who are able to spend enough "quality time" with whatever number of children that they might have.

I recognize that in the past, polygamy was accepted in many different societies. That may have worked for them, or not. That is not the issue. My concern is what works for us today.

You may very well claim that religion (Christianity at least) has squelched polygamy. I can just as well argue that through wisdom earned through experience tells us that as an institution, polygamy doesn't work for our society.

I do not seek to outlaw any number of females sharing any number of males. That is up to them. Ultimately, the participants are responsible for the rearing of their children.

We can all point to anecdotal evidence that there are exceptions to the rule, including homosexual, single-parent and possibly polygamist households, but it is the general consensus that polygamy is not as beneficial to our society as traditional marriage, and therefore, government should not promote it as equal to traditional marriage.

This is in no way different from my position on homosexual marriage. They are responsible for their actions and the rearing of their children, either natural or adopted.

You may argue that it is unfair to those who prefer polygamy as a way of life. It is not a matter of individual fairness, it is the issue of what is beneficial to society.

You may may not see it that way. That's fine. It's just not the consensus of the population.

BTW, How did the relationship end in the movie "Paint Your Wagon"? (That's rhetorical)

Bob Munck: Another true story
I used to work at JPL/NASA in Pasadena, CA. I was responsible for delivering the software for one of the two engineering computers onboard the Galileo spacecraft.

My team and I worked hard and we delivered that piece of software on time for the first time in the long and complicated history of the spacecraft.

At the delivery meeting, we turned over a mag tape of the development environment, a printout containing a listing of every file on the tape and two 8" floppies containing the binaries.

The "high priest" from bonded stores accepted the materials to be placed in a highly secured location.

Right in front of everyone, he proceeded to STAPLE the floppies to the printout!

BORN THAT WAY?
Homosexuality (male or female) is a disorder of psycho-sexual development leading to a pathological sexual addiction in the practitioner as he/she attempts to connect with lost masculinity/femininity by getting it on with their own sex.

Attached are links conclusively demonstrating this:

http://www.narth.com/docs/pieces.html

http://www.narth.com/docs/newbook2.html

Born that way? What a crock!

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve; or Eve and Eva.

Simple as that

wjriii # 260
"Because of you, I had to write an operating system with only ones!"

True story: I was once asked how much an operating system I was writing would weigh.

I explained carefully that because it would be in orbit (in the ESA Spacelab), the right question was not how much it would WEIGH, but how much it would MASS.

He went away to talk to his bosses and never came back. Too bad; I was going to tell him next that I'd use mostly 0s, but would have to raise my hourly rate.

love gay supporters
the gay crowd tells everybody to get on thier side.. They then proceed to work this process by having JUDGES make the final decision on who or WHAT is a RIGHT.

Soo they tell you to support thier position on gay rights and and then make sure YOU don't have a chance to vote on it or have your representative vote on it....
They must be real confident in thier abilities to persuade thier fellow citizens,,, NOT

Follow me,,,, and whether you do or don't does not matter because YOU HAVE NO SAY on the issue.
hahahahahaaaaa

More libtard thinking,,,

NOTHING BUT BACTERIAL LIFE
"Sexual orgasm by two people of the same gender - in fact - produces nothing."

Well not quite.

Heterosexual intercourse creates life. Homosexual intercourse creates nothing but bacterial life.

And lest sodomites say that not every sex act between a man and a woman is undertaken to makes babies and some acts can't, any sex act between a man and a woman uses their bodies for their natural and intended purpose: either: [1] procreation; or [2] 'good relationship' or creating a strong pair bond so that any resultant offspring can be raised and protected in the optimum two opposite sex parental environment.

sj doc
Why don't you support gays following societies past examples of RIGHTS,,
IE,, slavery, womens suffrage, interrace marriage, civil rights amendment etc.... ALL PASSED IN THE LEGISLATURE?

OHHHHH you would have to admit that those RIGHTS were recognized by the people,,, and the people don't THINK gays rights are rights,,,

Quite a problem you have, I know.

Sooo,,, Get a judge to determine an INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHT of HOMOSEXUALITY. YEAHHHHH that will change societies mind.

Libtards thinking is so colorful.

sj doc
says
From scooter's post at #236, he seems to think that rights are conferred upon "a minority" by government instead of intrinsic to human nature.

What is intrinsic in human nature about gay rights that is also NOT intrinsic in incest, pedophile, polygamy, bestial, necro RIGHTS?

OHHHH yes,,, your opinion. NICE

"life, liberty, and property" are inherant in all of us,,, and do exist prior to govt. BUT that in no way changes whether GAY MARRIAGE is any more relevant to any of the above than INCEST MARRIAGE.

doc says,
Given that there has been no sound argument offered to support the contention of pernicious externalities attending upon the extension of these privileges to a "gay marriage," the tendency of honest and honorable men (which automatically dismisses consideration of any legislature in this nation) is to accede to the justice of the homosexuals' position.

And thus DOC and other BIGOTS can discriminate on incests, bestials, pedophiles, polygamists, and necro's marriage because "HONORABLE MEN" must cede the JUST position of homosexuality.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA your comedy is getting better and better.

Homosexuality is JUST and incest, bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, and necro's are not,,, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Why is homosexuality JUSTICE and all or any of the others NOT?
Because YOU think so,,,, GREAT

What if a JUDGE tells you polygamy is JUST? Or any of the others.

HAHAHA,,, homosexuality is JUSTICE

Why don't YOU practice some justice and recognize others rights to marriage you give to GAYS.
Doing so will also help your problem with being a HYPOCRITE.

Homosexual rights is JUSTICE,,, hahahahahaha
That my friendly hypocrite is funny.




wjriii - And what's the case against...?
--
...polygamy?

Forget "the slippery slope," bunkie. Try climbing the greased pole you've set up for yourself, which is your present requirement to argue that polygamy is fraught with inescapably injurious qualities that require the officers of government to intervene with fire and sword against the practitioners thereof.

Your prize will be a DVD widescreen version of *Paint Your Wagon* (1969).






========
"Mrs. Fenty: You should read the Bible, Mr. Rumson.

>Ben Rumson: I have read the Bible, Mrs. Fenty.

>Mrs. Fenty: Didn't that discourage you about drinking?

>Ben Rumson: No, but it sure killed my appetite for readin'!"

-- Alan Jay Lerner (screenplay), *Paint Your Wagon* (1969)

SJ Doc
I didn't say that homosexual sex directly decreases birth rates.

I said that in a society which becomes more self-absorbed looking for self-gratification which deemphasizes families, birth rates decline. A part of this "liberated, enlightened" view is the _acceptance_ of homosexuality, not the _legality_.

Another effect of this societal slide is the increasing occurance and acceptance of marital infidelity and pre-marital sex.

MikeH: Ah Ha!
So YOU were the one who used up all of those zeros. Because of you, I had to write an operating system with only ones!


JeffreyRO5: Look at #233
It isn't whether you think you can choose. It's how you recognize the differences.

SJ Doc: Polygamy and the slippery slope
*** "Why, nothing at all. Polygyny, polyandry, whatever "arrangement for living" suits the participants' taste." ***

And voila! The slippery slope. Thank you for playing. We have some nice parting gifts for you.


Fully addressed?
I was looking for a logical argument, not just a statement that dismisses homosexuality as mere behavior, unrooted in any organic, uncontrollable source.

scooter - What the hell kind of...?
--
...conservative do you conceive yourself to be?

From scooter's post at #236, he seems to think that rights are conferred upon "a minority" by government instead of intrinsic to human nature.

Doesn't this seem to make scooter a "Liberal"? This is the socialists' approach to the subject of human rights, as privileges conferred upon (or withdrawn from) groups of people - never individuals as such - at the pleasure of government.

It seems appropriate to observe that if scooter is not an irremediable idiot, he/she really has to understand that rights (explicitly the "negative" rights to life, liberty, and property) exist prior to - and are superior to - the institution of government.

Agents of government - whether legislators, executive officers, or the "JUDGES" scooter seems so exercised over - can only recognize, respect, and/or violate those rights.

They have no legitimate power in fact or in law to confer them.

In the discussion of marriage as an institution in civil law, there are certain privileges conferred or recognized by government in these United States. The argument over "gay marriage" is whether or not the agents of government can equably deny those privileges to adults who claim them for marital relationships outside the previously accepted "one man, one woman" model with which "social" pseudoconservatives are comfortable.

Given that there has been no sound argument offered to support the contention of pernicious externalities attending upon the extension of these privileges to a "gay marriage," the tendency of honest and honorable men (which automatically dismisses consideration of any legislature in this nation) is to accede to the justice of the homosexuals' position.

--

JeffreyRO5 #251
Please read the full thread of my conversation. The issue of behavior and choice is addressed.

wjriii - On polygamy
--
Asks wjriii:

"All of your bluster aside, give me one legal argument which bars polygamous marriage which does not also apply to homosexual marriage?"


Why, nothing at all. Polygyny, polyandry, whatever "arrangement for living" suits the participants' taste.

Your approach is akin to an argument against limited liability companies based on no grounds other than the fact that you're accustomed to no business model other than that of the proprietorship.

I'm teaching the concept of "laissez faire" to someone who's supposed to be a conservative?





==========
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.

"There are just two rules of governance in a free society: Mind your own business. Keep your hands to yourself."

-- P.J. O'Rourke

Try birth control
Blaming gay sex for declining birth rates is about as weird as it gets. How about access to birth control? Let me guess, gay people are forcing heterosexuals to use birth control! How about people choosing not to have kids? And God only knows what the chemicals in our food are doing to fertility. It seems to me, if declining birth rates are a concern, we should encourage gays to get married and have kids.

wjriii - So you conceive gay sex...?
--
...to be so much more popular than intravaginal penile penetration that it seriously impacts the birth rate?

In #231, wjriii posts:

"Why are birth rates falling in the Western world? Because we as a society are more self-centered and interested in short-term gratification, including sexuality. Track the correlation between the acceptance of homosexuality, the decrease of marriage and birth rates."


So when customs loosen up enough for homosexuals to come out of the closet, you're saying that it's a sign that "marriage and birth rates" must fall, is that it?

Setting aside the thought that you're succumbing to post hoc ergo propter hoc, how does according "gay marriage" a status in law consistent with conventional matrimony either degrade marriage itself *OR* conduce to reduced "marriage and birth rates"?

It can't be assumed that straight marriages are any more monogamous than are "gay" long-term relationships; I've treated entirely too many heterosexual men and women for STDs they'd contracted outside the matrimonial bed to put any credence in heterosexual marital fidelity.

How does extending the privileges and immunities of marriage to homosexual couples dent the already much-battered image of heterosexual matrimony?

It's not enough to observe coindicentality (if such there be); the denial of such benefits under law needs must be predicated upon proof of *causality* for your argument to be justified.

Neither you nor anyone of like mind has been able to demonstrate that declining "marriage and birth rates" among heterosexuals has anything whatsoever to do with what *MIGHT* arguably be a parallel phenomenon.

Unless, of course, you credit closeted homosexuals with reproductive capacity, and taking themselves completely out of the generative rat race contributes to the falling birth rates.

Do you?

--

WJR, people don't choose
their sexual orientation. Orientation and behavior are not the same thing. If the court compared race to sexuality, it's because they're both something you didn't choose, but have to live with.

MikeH
*** "If you mean to say that an observer would need to see behavior before determining sexual preference whereas they certainly wouldn't need that to determine someone's race or gender, then I agree fully with you." ***

We agree. However, I'll take their word for it. I don't absolutely demand to see the behavior. :-)

*** "Now that we have that agreed upon, could you make you case as to why this should prevent recognition of homosexual marriages by the state?" ***

There are better reasons than behavior or no behavior to accept or deny homosexual marriage.

The original issue was this; was it correct for the CA Supreme Court to declare homosexual marriage legal because inter-racial marriage is legal.

I would say that it was not correct because the nature of race is substantively different than the nature of sexual preference.

Scooter, why the problem
with judges? Judges strike down legislation as unconstitutional all the time. It's part of their jobs. And everyone seems to understand that, which is why the anti-gay marriage crowd is pushing a ballot initiative in the state. Then judges won't have to strike down an unconstitutional law.

bob
You do understand that the REAL question is WHO should be determining RIGHTS.

Society thru thier elected representatives. Or Judges.

To debase a movements RIGHTS recognition to that of a Judge is to acknowledge that the movement is NOT accepted in society.

bob
There is no underlying reason for a court to recognize gay RIGHTS and then deny incest RIGHTS.

If they are the determiners of RIGHTS,,, which they now claim to be by approving gay rights. Then they need to tell us WHY incest rights are not valid.

If it's because gay rights are popular and incest rights are not,,, then why don't they just tell us?

bob
says,,,
Ca Fam § 2200: Marriages between parents and children, ancestors and descendants of every degree, and between brothers and sisters of the half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews, are incestuous, and void from the beginning, whether the relationship is legitimate or illegitimate.

Why considering 1 man and 1 woman marriage is discriminatory of gay marriage, is not INCEST laws discriminatory of incest marriage?

Why cannot a judge tomorrow tell you that CA FAM 2200: is discriminatory?

Considering changing 1 man and 1 woman for gays why have they not already?

What is it legally about incest that is so bad?

wjriii
"What is the core, primary thing you look at to identify something."

If you mean to say that an observer would need to see behavior before determining sexual preference whereas they certainly wouldn't need that to determine someone's race or gender, then I agree fully with you.

Now that we have that agreed upon, could you make you case as to why this should prevent recognition of homosexual marriages by the state?

sj doc
I gotta know,,,

Do you care HOW societies RIGHTS are recognized?

Or are you only concerned about the RIGHTS you want to see recognized, whatever the process?

Can you tell the difference?


wjriii # 240
"Would that be IPv4 or IPv6?"

Yes.

In my day, we didn't have your fancy IP addresses. We had to put stick-it notes on our email messages. We didn't even have both 1s and 0s. I wrote an entire airline reservation system using only 0s.

scooter # 238
give me one legal argument that bars INCEST MARRIAGE that does not also apply to HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE"

Ca Fam § 2200: Marriages between parents and children, ancestors and descendants of every degree, and between brothers and sisters of the half as well as the whole blood, and between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews, are incestuous, and void from the beginning, whether the relationship is legitimate or illegitimate.

sj doc
Your comedy grows,,,

Your example of mixed race marriage was LEGISLATIVELY voted on and passed by congress in 1965 in the civil rights act.

The same act that is today used by JUDGES and not the LEGISLATURE to determine GAY RIGHTS. (silly how nobody knew 50 years ago that the civil rights act was for gays)
Apparently GAYS had no civil rights until todays judges TOLD US SO.

Your supporting a process, Judges determining RIGHTS that is in exact opposite to how society did it in the past. (civil rights act was passed legislatively)

Your choice of mixed race marriage is way past IRONY my friend,,, it's EPIC.

Of course any other injustice of the past would likewise be EPIC,,, they all were changed LEGISLATIVELY.

PS,,, do you think your comments here would have any more COMEDY value if I referred to you in a white POINTY SHEET? Or how about some harry hands masturbating?

I'm curious to see if you think this helps. LOL

Bob Munck
Would that be IPv4 or IPv6? :-)

wjriii # 234
"What is the core, primary thing you look at to identify something."

Its IP Address.

bob
says
A lot of the thousand-odd legal rights and privileges that married couples enjoy would not or could not extend to more than two people. For example, my wife and I have final say on each other's medical care as next-of-kin when the other is unable to choose. If there were two of us making a decision on a third spouse, disagreements would quite likely arise and there wouldn't be any final authority.

The same process of legal ownership of companies can fill in nicely for more than 2 parties. BOB,,,
Very easy to do and done currently in business every day.

A better one is ,,,

"give me one legal argument that bars INCEST MARRIAGE that does not also apply to HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE"

HINT, there is none... support incest my friend.

sj doc
You want GAY rights,,,, GREAT,,, convince your fellow man and get senators and congressmen/women elected who feel the same, then change the law. (like other rights did thruout HISTORY)

Otherwise stew in your hypocrisy of YOUR gay agenda where YOU view gays as better than incests, polygamists, pedophiles, bestials, and necro's.
(nothing but YOUR opinion)

Society is only as good as the majority of it's citizens. Thank god your in the minority.
(thus your support of GAY RIGHTS that cannot get passed by the MAJORITY of citizens)

Smart sj,,, smart

Using stupid lines about mixed race marriage as examples of past bigotry and NOT UNDERSTANDING how we legislatively changed the laws to accomodate it is a little MORONIC on your part.

It makes me laugh to see you use such a slam dunk case example. Your a funny guy.

Only a real comedian could pull up a past example of societies wrongs (interace marriage) and not recognize HOW it was changed.

As homer would say,,, "DOHHHHHHHHHH"

sj doc
How was mixed race marriage overcome NUMNUTS? Was it thru the courts (where you currently pin your hopes) or was it done legislatively (you remember the 1965 civil rights act).

Mixed race marriage, slavery, womens suffrage, ETC.... ALL WERE CHANGED LEGISLATIVELY BY BALD MIDDLE AGED WHITE MEN!

If you are referring to GOING BACK IN TIME to a period when changes in this country occured thru the legislative course,,, then YES I DO.

If you are referring to the current time period when (thanks to gay rights example) JUDGES and not the people determine who is a minority, who is a group, and which sexual differences get recognized. Then,,, yeah,,, consider me a bit nostalgic for the GOOD OL DAYS.

The funny thing is YOU will be nostalgic for those GOOD OL DAYS when the LAW has no more basis to bar other rights than it did for GAYS.
(of course,,, getting gays rights today makes any of these other rights in the future ancillary)

You also assume that these other rights will not get traction because NOBODY is pushin for them today.
CONSIDER,,, these rights today have as much traction as YOUR gay rights did 30 years ago.

The slippery slope does not CARE what you or the rest of us think about other RIGHTS today,,,, it only cares about TIME, PROGRESS, and a process of JUDGES determining RIGHTS, not society.

Your counterpart 30 years ago said,,,, "don't punish for sodomy, gays will just keep to themselves and not look for societies acceptance by looking to get kids or get married. Don't believe the slippery slope stuff." YEP I'm sure CARLIN would have a field day with that.


wjriii # 232
"give me one legal argument which bars polygamous marriage which does not also apply to homosexual marriage?"

A lot of the thousand-odd legal rights and privileges that married couples enjoy would not or could not extend to more than two people. For example, my wife and I have final say on each other's medical care as next-of-kin when the other is unable to choose. If there were two of us making a decision on a third spouse, disagreements would quite likely arise and there wouldn't be any final authority.

MikeH: Determinant
Formally: That which determines.

MUCH less formally: What is the core, primary thing you look at to identify something.

wjriii
"It is not a matter of to whom one is attracted.

Behavior is not the crucial, definitive determinant of gender.

Behavior is not the crucial, definitive determinant of race.

Behavior _is_ the crucial, definitive determinant of sexual preference."

I have to laugh because we don't seem to be in as much disagreement as the length of our discussion would suggest. In fact, I think I agree with most of what you are saying here, but could you be more explicit with what you mean by "determinant."