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
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


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.

Change is inevitable
Kevin wrote: "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."
---

Well, Kevin, a European science council met and estimated that it will be another 5-10 years before it will be possible to make male gametes (sperm) from female cells. Scientists know much of what is required to trigger sexual differentiation and all that is required is to induce meiosis to create a haploid gamete. Interestingly, all gametes from females (naturally occurring eggs as well as induced sperm)will contain an X chromosome. To remind you, XX is female, XY is male. Get the picture? One wonders what God will have to say about this.

You're right
My sexuality is not the same someone's race. Kevin, I don't think that anyone is kicked out of the house in which they are born because they happen to be of the same race of the couple that were responsible for their birth. Kevin, I did not choose my sexuality. I did choose to be in the closet and celibate for over 25 years and last year I nearly took my own life ......... because I would not talk about my sexuality. The narrow-mindedness of people such as yourself truly astound me.

Well, Mr McCullough,
look out for the screamers who will insist that "feelings" rather than complementary bodies and minds should define who may marry, rather than that marriage has been and will be confined only to those who may participate.

Nobody cares what anyone does in the privacy of his home. Nobody is interested in the lesbians down the street unless they happen to be really bad neighbors. But don't call it marriage, or force the rest of us to do so, when it clearly is not.

BTW, God also instituted government. See Genesis 3.

Swampfox
It's truly too bad you felt that suicide seemed the only way out.

But do not blame it on us. Your acceptance of your sexuality is neither our fault nor our problem. It certainly is none of our business. "We" did nothing to contribute to your confusion and despair.

Presumably you sought and got help through therapy. OK, fine. I'm glad you didn't ultimately take your life and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way. But part of restoration has to do with coming to terms with the fact that people are going to think what people are going to think-and the obligation to deal with it and be who you are rests with you alone, not with other people or by the power of law.




Marriage is good for the Republic
Why has the republic made marriage an approved institution? Because stable male female marriage is provably the best place to raise kids. Gay marriage harms the republic in that it destroys any definition of marriage. Kevin does make the point that gay marriage destroys any real definition of marriage. If marriage is not between one man and one woman, but simply an arrangement between whoever says that they love each other then why not 3 people? Or 4? Or whatever? If marriage is primarily what adults desire, then the doors are open for any arrangements.

The question remains is traditional marriage good for society? Should we encourage it and support it? Did you want a mommy and daddy? Do you want your kids to have that? If you say no, then prove to me that a functioning society can work without the nuclear family. I personally don't believe it, and I am scared for our country if we continue to try social engineering of new families on kids.

Born or made, permanent or changeable?
Isn't that, after all, the important question? If someone like Swampfox feels like his sexual identity was ALWAYS different, how do we explain the fact that more self-proclaimed homosexuals were abused by men when they were children? How important are 'feelings' and 'desires' when it comes to creating stable families in which to raise children?
This experiment we are conducting (basically allowing anyone to proclaim and change their sexual identity at will) has been tried before. Whether you believe that God condemns these types of relationships, or if you simply look at the statistics on life expectancy, fidelity, or other measures of health, or even if you want to appease jihadists, you may come to a reasoned decision that you do not want to promote a lifestyle choice not in the best interest of our society.
Why gay marriage harms, Robert? Because male-female relationships place a higher value on children than male-male or female-female. Because it sets a seal of approval to a lifestyle that does not have the natural ability to create life that is required for the continuation of humanity. Just because we can implant embryos and such, or have a 'man' get pregnant after a partial sex change, doesn't make it the right thing to do. How many same-sex couples actually want babies?
Just watch; despite the current claim that same-sex attraction is inborn and permanent in between 3 and 10 percent of the population, watch that number change dramatically once these relationships are given the same value as the marital bond. When half of teenage girls decide that they like sleeping with their best friends better than those stinky boys, or when half of the horny boys decide that they don't have to pay for dinner and a movie to make it with their buddy, will you finally notice that our very existence is threatened? Isn't Europe with its negative population growth example enough?

Swampfox
I am sorry, Swampfox, that you suffer so. Many people suffer from having desires that are not in their best interest. And I have no wish to see you disowned by your family, removed from a job, or treated as anything other than a child of God. If you were my child, I would always have a place for you in my life, and even welcome someone you were in a relationship with. I would only ask that you respect the value of the bond that created you by keeping what you do in your private life...private.

This column...
... really labors in trying to make a point, but I'm not sure what it is.
I agree that the state gets to define marriage & set the licensing requirements, just as it does for a driving license or a plumbing license. I further agree that the California court over-stepped its bounds. But toss-off generalizations like: "Racial discrimination costs the households of people of color thousands of dollars per year..." really cloud the issue.

'Gay Rights' is the third-wave of the civil rights movement, and, like the 'Women's Rights' movement, has taken discussion about individual rights into areas never contemplated by the Constitution. I think it is important not to conflate the rhetoric of race, gender & sexual-orientation on these questions, but instead deal with each on its merits.

Non-starter
I don't know why Kevin bothers with these columns. They are all the same. He begins by defining his "sexual orientation" straw man. Surely we can all agree that we can choose who we have sex with, where we have sex, when we have sex, and how we have sex. Nobody is arguing these points, but here comes McCullough pretending that the issue turns on the points of agreement.

I'm sure we all can remember back when we were pre-teens and were asked if we had a girlfriend or boyfriend. When we showed our disgust at the thought, the adult would say something like "just wait, you'll feel differently sooner than you think." This interaction is proof that none of us really believes sexual orientation is something that someone does. We all know that the "sooner than you think" refers to a state of mind that occurs naturally, without choice. Consider that no one ever hears "just wait, you'll choose differently soon." McCullough is perfectly free to fight his one man battle, but he needs to understand that falsely defining the issue is a non-starter for any thinking person.

Straws...
Family Research Institute in Colorado has a series of pamphlets on the gay sexual questions -- noting that Canadian and American studies indicate 80-90 percent of gays will remain single for a lifetime of a variety of partners... and that the homosexual lifestyle impinges on the general welfare of people by introducing medical hazards such as HIV, Hepatitis C and other things to the general public as well as the physicians treating them.

The fallacy in the California decision
In overturning Prop 22, that marriage is only between a man and a woman, the California Supreme Court has discriminated against religious peoples that hold the Marriage Sacrament to be Holy and a primary practice that sanctifies sexual intercourse between a man and woman.

The Court's rationale is based on the homosexual "Sexual Orientation" theory which includes the proclaimed "glbt" designations of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender populations.

The fallacy in the Court's finding is obvious: Bisexuals and Transgender people are not discriminated against because they are prohibited from marrying. They typically have no need to marry in a same-sex relationship. Further, the Bisexual population subscribes to a fully promiscuous lifestyle and represents by far the largest group of the Homosexual Classification. A prominent number of Bisexuals are married in heterosexual relationships and deceitfully violate the marriage commitment with tragic results.

Beyond these contradictions, the Court's decision fully authenticates the social implications of the Homosexual Agenda that has politically enacted programs to indoctrinate children in schools on the homosexual lifestyle in the false name of toleration. For these reasons, and others, a referendum will be placed on the ballot to "amend" and provide the Constitutional basis to change the Court's unfortunate finding.

Excellent column! But this is quickly
going to turn into a food fight!

Being "gay" isn't a
civil right, maybe some are born that way, but to equate it with being born black is insulting to black people or should be.

That is yet another attempt to force the rest of us to accept deviant behavior as normal and to expose impressionable young people to this "lifestyle" should not be on an agenda, it should be criminal.

This "lifestyle" coupled with PC is what brought us the aids epidemic and we all know it.
We used to quarantine mumps patients and other diseases for the public good, yet these perverts will actually play russian roulette so to speak with a known HIV carrier.... don't tell me they're normal and they want to be around kids?

Normal
Sexual orgasm by two people of the same gender - in fact - produces nothing.
Normal is defined as acting or preforming in accordance with one's design.

Here we go again...
McCulloch's obsession with homosexuality results in yet another tiresome article... I've said it before and I'll say it again - he protests too much. I wonder about people who seem to spend most of their time obsessing about homosexual sex - like Kevin does. I mean, what is going through his mind all day? Nothing but man on man lovemaking. Personally, and also rather strangely, I don't give homosexuality a moment's though until I see McCulloch's column, if you'll excuse the expression. He clearly thinks about little else. Anyway, being homosexual is not a choice. Did McCulloch sit down as a young man and make a conscious decision about his sexuality? Actually, maybe he did and still can't make his mind up... but for anyone with a flly functioning brain, it's not a choice, it's the way you are. Live and let live is a healthy way to go about life Kevin - you ought to give it a try some day.

To Seawolf & Atilla
Seawolf writes, " Being "gay" isn't a civil right, maybe some are born that way, but to equate it with being born black is insulting to black people or should be." I did not say it was like be born black. Being "born" gay is unique.

Atilla writes, "Sexual orgasm by two people of the same gender - in fact - produces nothing.
Normal is defined as acting or preforming in accordance with one's design." Heterosexuals thwart what their sexual act is "designed to do" all the time with condoms, birth control pills and other birth control devices. Being gay is part of the normal range of human sexual activity.

'Normal'?
"Normal people have understood this since the beginning of time."

'Normal' people also believed the sun rotated around the earth. 'Normal' people also burned individuals at the stake for their religous convictions. Because something is normal doesn't necessarily make it right.
While I believe the California Court's decision was flawed(there is no constitutional right to be a homosexual in either our State constitution or the Federal one)I can't stand idiots like McCulloch who spew this anti gay venom.


Always it comes down to religion.
--
Always.

It's how you can tell a "social" pseudoconservative from an honest-to-God *REAL* American conservative.

The real conservative looks at individual rights, and even if he finds that the conduct under examination is distasteful and ugly, as long as it doesn't violate those rights, the honest conservative will shake his head and say: "Go ahead, putzie; knock yourself out."

Not the "social" pseudoconservative, who claimes to be channeling the absolute and incontrovertable will of God every time he opens his mouth.

Says Mr. McCullough:

"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."


And reproduction is the key criterion?

Something that can be humped into existence with as little thought as it takes to plan fifteen seconds of sweaty breathlessness in the back seat of an SUV is the "social" pseudoconservative's sanctified miracle of creation, right?

And the hard-won skill of the quietly closeted homosexual perinatologist who keeps mother and child alive and well through confinement and delivery counts for *NOTHING* to "society and civilization" by Mr. Gallagher's lights, right?

Religious bigots who hate homosexuals with as little thought as they devote to a postprandial belch really need to understand the "division of labor" principle.

Which is what makes "society and civilization" desirable.

The biological function of combining sperm and ovum requires no skill whatsoever. Even a Democrat can do it.

The hundreds of thousands of other services and goods that the resulting child is going to require during his time on Earth can and will be provided by people of every sexual persuasion you can imagine, from algolagniacs to zoophiles.

And this fact soars over Mr. McCullough's head like the pigeon who's just crapped on his scalp.

--

It isn't Kevin that is obsessed
All of the effort to get same sex marriage legitimized is only for one purpose: to make their lifestyle acceptable. And hollywood and television is completely in their corner to cram respectablity down everyone's throats. There is no tolerance or room for respectful disagreement. Those who find this lifestyle abhorrent are branded as hateful. It threatens the right to have a conscience contrary to that dictated by the politically correct.
What one does in the privacy of their own bedroom does not have to become common knowledge but the obsessed must continue to talk about it and rant and rave about how their rights are being violated.

"Marriage" is just a word
And not a Christian word at that. "Marriage" has been around for far longer than Christianity (Alexander the Great was married at least three times, ore than 300 years before Jesus was born) and marraige existed in cultures that could not have had any contact with pre-Christian European societies (Moctezuma had two wives by the time Cortes turned up). So why should marriage have to be defined with a Christian interpretation? Just as society evolves, so should its institutions.
Besides, almost all types of "marriage" are legal anyway. Even polygamy, in all but name. There is nothing to stop, say, three or even twenty consenting adult women from living with one man and all having children with him. They just can't be "married" in the church and state-sanctioned manner. So in effect what the law does is allow that situation (why shouldn't it if they are all consenting and adult) but prevents those women from having the same rights as women who are in a "marriage". But there is nothing to stop them drawing up a contract. They can refer to the man as their husband, and he may refer to the women as his wives. So it might as well be called marriage. What else are you going to call it? A Grand Ole Party might be appropriate... I'm not suggesting that this wold be a wise life choice, but there is nothing illegal about it so long as they don't want the state or church to sanction their partnership.
One only has to look at divorce rates to see just how far the sanctity of marriage has fallen among heterosexual, single-partner relationships. It clearly means diddly squat to at least half of the people who do it in the first place, so frankly I fail to understand what the fuss is about.

O’Reilly gay marriage interview

Is there a rational, non-religious reason to oppose gay marriage?

WATCH

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/is-there-a-rationa l-non-religious-reason-to-oppose-gay-marriage

Sexual practice is always a choice
and not a DNA determination.

*Love* has only since 19th C. Romanticism been a means of marrying, and only in the West. In many countries today, parents still contract marriages for their children in childhood. The same was true for Westerners well into the 19th C.

And, *love,* or sexual attraction, has proven fairly disastrous as a marriage basis, producing a huge divorce rate, child neglect and abandonment, 50% chance of living in poverty for a former wife and her chilren after divorce, and the onus of odds being against success for the children of poverty.

I am not advocating a return to parental contracting of marriages for newborns, but I am emphasizing the legal ramifications and social consequences of marriage that has been considered so important to society for millennia that it has often been considered too important to leave to fleeting mutual attraction that passes today for *love.*

Homosexuals have always had the 14th Amend. for due process, the 1st Amend. for free expression, the right to contract partnerships, appoint powers of attorney, bequesath estates, buy private insurance, buy property jointly, share leases, and practice and avail themselves of all the rights and privileges of ordinary citizens.

But states can reserve the right to grant licenses to teachers and hair dressers and therapists; ergo, they have the right to define who qualifies for a marriage contract and who not.



Make It So
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature. That's why there's AIDS.

Maybe the California Supreme Court can outlaw AIDS. Just hand down a ruling saying that AIDS must go away. Yes, that's right. Do that.

We're entitled to our own reality, so if that's what the people want, issue a ruling. It's that simple.

Normal is not a dirty word
As much as our society denies the concept "normal" is not a dirty word.

For normal people to tolerate (which means "put up with" not "celebrate"), a certain degree of eccentricity or oddity so long as it does not impinge upon the smooth functioning of society is a virtue.

To pretend that oddities, eccentricity, and downright perversions ARE normal -- thus defining "normal" out of existence -- is destructive beyond belief.

That a man and a woman marry and raise a family is the foundation of society. Destroy the foundation -- through casual divorce, co-habitation, and the radical promotion of so-called "alternative lifestyles -- and society WILL fall.

Making choices...
Being gay isn't a choice?

Following that logic:
Being a self-indulgent narcissist isn't a choice; being a masochist;
Being a pedophile; Being a pederast; Being a rapist; Being a prostitute; Being a practicioner of bestiality...
Just simply uncontrollable sexual desires ingrained in the DNA make up of individuals.

Therefore being a politician isn't a choice either...corrupt, lying, thief? Just the way I was made.

Good grief what absolute nonsense.

So Mother of 4
Do you recommend we also outlaw divorce? Seems to me that's a much bigger threat to marriage than same sex marriage. Why is it that marriage becomes this hallowed "foundation of society" institution only when the topic of same sex marriage comes along?

Huh Parker?
Parker says:

"Being gay isn't a choice?

Following that logic:
Being a self-indulgent narcissist isn't a choice; being a masochist;
Being a pedophile; Being a pederast; Being a rapist; Being a prostitute; Being a practicioner of bestiality...
Just simply uncontrollable sexual desires ingrained in the DNA make up of individuals.

Good grief what absolute nonsense."

Wow, surreal. If it's choice, why on earth would someone choose it? What's the payoff? In any event, the comparisons to other behaviors is dishonest and specious. Homosexual behavior between consenting adults isn't harmful to anyone, not to animals or to children. If homosexuality is a choice, then so is being left-handed. And society used to try to make lefties act like righties. It stopped doing so and seems to be applying similar logic to homosexuality.

Jd's best Looking Son
"That's why there's AIDS"????? What is that supposed to mean? That AIDS is divine retribution from mother nature, or god or whatever, for homosexuality? Even though it is very easily transferred between men and women engaged in heterosexual sex too? And that the safest section of society, as far as infection is concerned, are lesbians? AIDS is not retribution for anything - it is a disease that reduces the immune system's ability to fight infection. Jeez - I thought attitudes like yours died in the 1980's, but obviously not.

To JD
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature. That's why there's AIDS.

JD's handsome son wrote, "Maybe the California Supreme Court can outlaw AIDS. Just hand down a ruling saying that AIDS must go away. Yes, that's right. Do that.

We're entitled to our own reality, so if that's what the people want, issue a ruling. It's that simple."

No you can't fool around with Mother Nature. Remember the 1918-19 influenza pandemic, the black plague, those childhood polio outbreaks before the vaccine and those other hosts of venereal diseases that we can cure with antibiotics.

Sorry Jeffrey...
The main argument of the GLBT lobby is the genetic make up of individuals, (not pairs) results in sexual behaviours, proclivities and desires which are uncontrolled by any free choice, and hence, they should be free and not discriminated against when they act upon their ingrained urges.

It has nothing to do with consent, divorce or which hand one eats with. It all rests upon the argument that one's sexual desires (therefore all sexual desires) are outside the confines of any active choice, ie uncontrollable, due to genetic programming. Therefore, it is simple deduction that all sexual choice must be the result of this same overriding factor. You cannot conclude otherwise, unless you choose to ignore the premise and it's inescapable conclusion.

Perhaps you cannot help yourself?




Yes Logic!
"If it's choice, why on earth would someone choose it?"

Because they like it!

"What's the payoff?"

Sexual Gratification!

"If homosexuality is a choice, then so is being left-handed."

That argument is dishonest and specious!

The real problem boils down to the fact that there are some people who choose to be different, but then don't want to feel as if they are different in doing so.

And to facilitate that desire they will attempt to force others to abandon their culture and beleifs in order to Get Their Way.

(Anyone remember Christmas Pagents when they went to school?)

It's really that simple. Tolerance wasn't enough. Acceptance is now the rally cry, and soon, they will seek elevation!

As I see it.

jd





Reality Check
Kevin McCullough wrote: "Choosing to act on those urges - defines the individual's sexual orientation."

Er, no it doesn't. Having those urges in the first place defines an individual's sexual orientation. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand?

Sexual orientation isn't a matter of choice. Think about it: how could one "choose" to be gay, unless he already were? In which case no choice would be necessary, or even possible.


-CB-

HUH???
Did you make a point there? I'll try again. Sexual attraction is beyond someone's control. You didn't practice or learn to be a heterosexual, right? Do you think it's different for gay people?

Yes I Remember
"No you can't fool around with Mother Nature. Remember the 1918-19 influenza pandemic, the black plague, those childhood polio outbreaks before the vaccine and those other hosts of venereal diseases that we can cure with antibiotics."

Yes, and didn't they aslo include BEHAVIORIAL changes as well, things like washing hands, separating people from the things that attracted rats, etc.

Yes, behavior changes!

jd

Religious gene?
Has anyone found the gene that requires that humans to believe God? Our choice of a religion is most certainly a choice. There are many denominations of Christianity. Some accept the homosexuality as normal .... the vast majority do not. Two major protestant religions that accept homosexuals are the Episcopalians and the Lutherans.

It was not too long ago that Catholics when married were married for life. There was no divorce. Also the Catholic church still prohibits the use of unnatural birth control methods. But someone tells me that a lot of Catholics aren't obeying their Church on that issue.

Jaydee think about it
Yes, good one, people have sex because they like it. Wow, inspired. Yet we're still left with wondering why people would choose to be attracted sexually to someone of the same sex since as we know from these postings: it's unGodly, it's gross, it undermines society, it's unnatural, it spreads disease, etc. etc. Why don't you advocate making homosexual behavior illegal then?

Maybe it would help everyone if you would tell us your own story about how you decided to be heterosexual. Did you sit down with your parents and ask for their advice? Your spiritual advisor? We all know the pitfalls when it comes to choosing a sexuality. Better to get good advice.

Jeffrey
Mother of 4 did mention casual divorce as a threat to marriage.

We should be able to do whatever we want
I am a strong supporter of the GLBT movement. All of us gay want the same thing. We want our freedom to do whatever we want to do. I want freedom from God, freedom from religion, freedom from the so-called God's laws. What's the big deal if it's consensual? Consensual is all that matters. Consensual freedom! Consensual should be the driving force of defining what is right or what is wrong. My consensual freedom isn't hurting anybody. This is a new age. It's time to declare freedom from the tyranny of Judeo-Christian values. These values just screw up a lot of people. All of us need to stop judging other people. We need to just get along. LIVE and LET LIVE! That should be everyone's motto instead of "In God We Trust" - which is just a bunch of old-fashion, narrow-minded whooey! Anything goes just as long as it is consensual. I was born this way and should be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want, whereever I want. How can anybody disagree with this simple logic? FREEEEEDOM!!!

Damaging to children
Put on your thinking cap and think what it must be like to be a gay teen growing up being told the following:

-You chose your sexuality
-You are going to hell
-Don't dare tell your parents, they might disclaim you
-Don't tell your childhood friends, you know full well what they think about gays and lesbians
-If you don't at least learn to act like a normal person(date and make jokes about gays), you will be teased

To those confused
about the relevancy of this article - McCullough presumes that the readers are familiar with the rationale used by the judges for their decision: equating sexual orientation with race. He makes a good case about the distinction between the two, and the weakness of their argument.

So what DLB7?
She says it's a threat but doesn't advocate making it illegal. Let's use her logic, then, and consider same sex marriage a threat and make it legal in all 50 states, just like divorce. I bet gay couples would happily agree to such an arrangement.

Good point, Fred
And their rationale was not in whether race and sexuality were in some way organically equal. Their argument was how society treats members of a class or group. And how society can't say it won't discriminate against one group and then turn around and discriminate against another group. The state is offering a legal right to some couples and not to others, despite laws that prohibit discrimination. It is up to the state to justify the discrimination and the judges reasoned that California didn't do a very good job of that.

To Jaydee
Jaydee writes, "Yes, and didn't they aslo include BEHAVIORIAL changes as well, things like washing hands, separating people from the things that attracted rats, etc.

Yes, behavior changes!"

Oh, yeah only behavior changes developed the polio vaccine, antibiotics, etal. Learning how a virus is transmitted can certainly lessen the impact. No one really knows where these new viruses come from. Humans have had to contend with AIDS and Hepatitis C. Dogs now have to contend with parvo and heartwooms.

You're getting there, Parker
Sounds like you're warming up to the idea of same sex marriage. You still haven't answered the issue of choice: why do people "choose" these behaviors you describe? Not choose to do them, but choose to WANT to do them. The answer is, they don't. It just happens. Society doesn't permit most of the sordid practices you want to associate gay sex with because someone gets hurt: a child (pedophilia), a dead person (necrophilia), etc. That's the key test: is it mutual consensual behavior. Gay sex is. Pedophilia isn't. There's no "domino affect" to worry about. That seems to be the main argument of the anti-gay marriage crowd: we have to stop it before it leads to other things. A completely false proposition.

Swampwater, what else can be expected?
You're right
My sexuality is not the same someone's race. Kevin, I don't think that anyone is kicked out of the house in which they are born because they happen to be of the same race of the couple that were responsible for their birth. Kevin, I did not choose my sexuality. I did choose to be in the closet and celibate for over 25 years and last year I nearly took my own life ......... because I would not talk about my sexuality. The narrow-mindedness of people such as yourself truly astound me.
__________________________________

Explain, Swampwater, please, how not being able to talk about your confusion about something so simple, the intentions that God or evolution had and have for the complementary genitals, almost led to your suicide.

Don't bother, actually, you are trying too hard to justify the unjustifiable.

We can tell you what the problem is, and McCullough mentions it in the article: YOU ARE FRUSTRATED, DOUBLY SO, THAT HOMOSEXUAL 'SEX' DOES NOT DO WHAT NORMAL SEX DOES IN TERMS OF FULFILLMENT; HOMOSEXUAL 'SEX' IS STERILE, AND YOU, WHO ARE VIRGIN AND CELIBATE, DON'T PARTICIPATE EVEN IN THE STERILE HOMOSEXUAL 'SEX,' WHAT ELSE CAN BE EXPECTED BUT INCLINATIONS TO SUICIDE?

OFFICIAL MESSAGE TO CAPT WOBBIE

Subject: But this article doesnt say
..why gay marriage is bad...what/how does it harm The Republic?

Robert

OFFICIAL MESSAGE TO CAPTAIN WOBBIE, United Spaces Navy, c3p0, R6d48:

We have told you 5,678,943 times that when homosexuals need to destroy one of the institutions which made this country the greatest in the history of man, THAT makes all of their efforts to gain, not tolerance, but acceptance, rejectable. Marriage will continue to be between two normal people, we will see to that. The four judges will find themselves next to Rosie Bird and Cruzie Reynoso picking up used condoms from the homosexuals' 'safe' 'sex' at Ikea's Bath House in Hollywood very soon.

To Parker
Parker writes, "As to the question of, "Why would someone choose to be gay?"
Oh come on...Why would someone choose being tied up, flaggelated, ridiculed, demeaned and urinated on? Why would someone be obsessed with fecal matter? Why would someone like being suffocated?

I can't imagine why."

So those two lesbian and gay couples down the street like to engage in all these activities, too? Homosexuals just must not have the great will power of heterosexuals to be morally straight. Perhaps Hitler was right in including them as a group that deserved to exterminated?

Jeffrey, Jeffrey...
I have never stated my opposition or favor regarding the matter.

I am speaking to the legal 'logic' applied in the matter.

My statements are not an attempt to equate certain sexual behavior with homosexual behavior. They are references to specific, known sexual behaviors, which, if the legal 'logic' applied by the courts is accepted, will by necessity, become applicable arguments toward legalizing all sexual behavior, whether one believes them to be perversions or socially aberrant. It will not matter. Pick your poison.

This may or may not be something homosexuals want to see, but it is the inescapable conclusion of the matter from a logical and a legal standpoint. If sexual behavior 'a' is uncontrollable, then 'b' is likewise. If 'b' then 'c'. You cannot have it conclude any other way. While the ultimate end may seem ad absurdum, there are those who would have argued 50 years ago the same regarding the issue at hand. It is only a matter of time or of some professional deciding to render a decision toward that end.


Critical, don't wonder any more
Here we go again...
McCulloch's obsession with homosexuality results in yet another tiresome article... I've said it before and I'll say it again - he protests too much. I wonder about people who seem to spend most of their time obsessing about homosexual sex - like Kevin does. I mean, what is going through his mind all day? Nothing but man on man lovemaking.
____________________________________

Critical, don't wonder about people who seem to spend most of their time concerned about homosexual 'sex' any more: We are concerned about homosexual 'sex' because of the homosexual suicidal anal 'sex' produces and spreads sickness and disease and has consequent social costs, because homosexual 'sex' needs to destroy marriage in order to advance the homosexual causes, because it requires the proselytizing of children, because the homosexuals publicly flaunt their homosexual perversions, because homosexuals never cease whining for special rights.

Wow
I don't think I have seen worse logic in years. And I read McCullough's articles a lot.

"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."

"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."

The problem with this is that, according to McCullough, all romantic actions are choice based. If that's the case, then it is a black man's choice to marry a white woman, and vice versa. If people can choice to stick to their own race, then why should anti-miscegenation laws be taken off the books? If a black man is attracted to a white woman or a white woman is attracted to a white woman, but they both have the choice as to whether or not act on their attraction, then why should one be legal and the other not?

Homosexuals "Love" Little Boys
JeffreyRO5 writes, " That's the key test: is it mutual consensual behavior. Gay sex is. Pedophilia isn't. There's no "domino affect" to worry about."

Sir, the overwhelming majority of child abuse cases within the Catholic church in the last 40 years were committed by admitted homosexual priests against prepubescent and teenage boys. Now that may not tell the homosexual community anything, but it certainly tells the straight community a whole lot about most homosexuals' predeliction for young boys.

Nor is it an accident that the main driving force in many states to lower the age of consent is comes from the powerful homosexual lobby in our state legislatures and Congress.


Parker, Parker
I don't think you're seeing the issues here correctly. The legal argument is about discriminating against groups of people who are otherwise not breaking any laws. It is not illegal to engage in homosexual behavior. And I would hope that no one is arguing to make it illegal. It is illegal to engage in sex with a corpse, with a child, with an animal. That's the difference. And that's why these silly arguments about polygamy, pedophila, etc. are so unfounded. Same sex marriage is simply recognizing an adult relationship that society already recognizes as de facto. To make gay marriage illegal, you almost have to gay sex illegal, which would make gay marriage moot.

it's very simple
its' very simple

homosexuals are sterile

homosexuality is sterile

nothing favors homosexuals

nothing favors homosexuality

nothing recommends homosexuals

nothing recommends homosexuality

Kevin McC is no expert
and considering his assertion, then WHY are those who are religius given ANY consideration within the laws that elevate the CHOICE of religion as a class protection?

To pontificate on SEXUAL ORIENTATION at least in the discussion on gay people exclusively, one's sexuality takes on choice.
Sexual orientation is ALSO heterosexual and there are four known categories, but heterosexuality is discussed as if it's a virtue.
That's the wrong assumption from the outset. And it's from this mistaken assumption all discussions on gay people flow.

So, if one's chosen lifestyle is cause enough to withdraw Constitutional or Bill of Rights protections, than each and every one of you, including Kevin McC would be at the forefront of removing protected status for YOURSELVES.

Arguing over and over again that choosing to NEVER have sex, or an intimate and loving relationship with another gay person is a fair and viable option is not only unrealistic, but intentionally cruel.
The only reason that is done is to remove responsibility for the negative consequences of that assertion, and they are many.

However, blaming gay people for the misinformtation that McCoullough spreads is like blaming black people for the information the KKK spread.
When you don't care to believe gay people or acknowledge their humanity as not so different from your own, or you support the hypocrisy of class protection for a religious lifestyle, then don't get upset at those who can easily call you on it.

Wow, health care
That catholic priests may or may not be homo or hetero pedophiles is a meaningless statistic. Pedophilia has nothing to do with gay marriage, the topic of this post. There are hetero pedophiles and homo pedophiles. No one wants to outlaw opposite sex marriage because of hetero pedophiles. To equate homosexuality in any way with pedophilia displays the utmost ignorance, sir.

Jeff is trying too hard
Subject: HUH???
Did you make a point there? I'll try again. Sexual attraction is beyond someone's control. You didn't practice or learn to be a heterosexual, right? Do you think it's different for gay people?
______________________________

You are trying too hard: Homosexuals may have the distraction of thinking that they are attracted to the same sex, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO ACT ON IT. It is the acting on the attraction that causes the production and spreading of homosexual diseases and other social problems.

I was born this way!!
Angry, depressed, mean, selfish, porn-addicted, alcholic, co-dependent, obsessive, compulsive, materialistic, anxious, fearful, hyper-critical, rebellious, needy, insecure, narcisstic, immature, irresponsible, lazy, slothful, philanderer, disloyal, screwed-up, pedophile, polygamist, liar, thief, manipulator, envious, greedy, lustful, violent, bully, cowardly, uncontrolled, undisciplined, unfocused, risky, type-A, and gay and proud of it! I was born this way and I just can't help myself. I don't need a bunch of laws to regulate and micromanage my behaviour or lifestyle. Time to get over it all you religionists! There are no absolutes. There is no best moral text or guidance. Follow your own conscience, follow your own guiding light, freedom of choice to be whoever you were meant to be. Fulfill, gratify, and satisfy your own desires you were born with! Live and Let Live! Anything goes just as long as it doesn't cause bodily, property harm to others and it is consensual. Freedom from religion, freedom from God, freedom from so-called laws of God, freedom, license to do whatever you want. Vote Libertarian. Pursue Freedom, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness any way you want. Drugs work too - just be careful and responsible. Go for it! Be bold, daring, cross dress, it's cool man! Whatever makes you feel good!! You were born that way!

letmeatfreehealthcare
Well, that was certainly a stupid and irresponsible statement.
I work in law enforcement, and Catholic priests abused FEMALES as well. But few women and girls are part of the discussion.
The reason for the higher incidence of abuse of boys, is because BOYS were concentrated more in Church DUTIES. And young males were mostly mentored (with the Church's support) by OTHER males, not WOMEN. Only recently have girls participated in altar service.
And the Church has vowed to punish any church that ordains women priests.
Gay men do NOT have a higher prediliction for boys as lesbians do not for girls.
Adults, period, who are pedophiles are not scrutinized discriminated against rightly. Gender and orientation bias makes it VERY difficult for law enforcers to inform the public effectively on this.

Fight, how about freedom from hs disease
We should be able to do whatever we want
I am a strong supporter of the GLBT movement. All of us gay want the same thing. We want our freedom to do whatever we want to do. I want freedom from God, freedom from religion, freedom from the so-called God's laws. What's the big deal if it's consensual? Consensual is all that matters. Consensual freedom! Consensual should be the driving force of defining what is right or what is wrong. My consensual freedom isn't hurting anybody. This is a new age. It's time to declare freedom from the tyranny of Judeo-Christian values. These values just screw up a lot of people. All of us need to stop judging other people. We need to just get along. LIVE and LET LIVE! That should be everyone's motto instead of "In God We Trust" - which is just a bunch of old-fashion, narrow-minded whooey! Anything goes just as long as it is consensual. I was born this way and should be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want, whereever I want. How can anybody disagree with this simple logic? FREEEEEDOM!!!
_______________________________

Right, how about freedom from homosexual diseases being spread by the suicidal anal 'sex'? How about freedom from children being proseylitized by homosexuals? How about freedom from homosexual whining for special rights? How about freedom from homosexual public flaunting of homosexual perversions?

con't
Adult women pedophiles who engage teen boys are practically congratulated and heterosexual men who commit rape are rarely punished to the full extent of the law. The law being even more reluctant if the victim becomes pregnant.
However, because of bias against gay men, often the innocent are arrested or punished, or are punished more and longer for a comparable crime.
The concentration of boys to priests looks like a higher predicliction, but the case is actually demographics.
This kind of bias doesn't help us who deal with crime. It works against public trust and effectiveness in our work.
Children are MORE at risk because of it, and innocent gay men and women's lives destroyed unfairly.

Kevin McC is spreading more of that bias and his lame and not too intelligent article passes as gospel for some of you.
Most of whom have only superficial or abstract experience around gay people.
That makes YOU more dangerous, not the subject he's writing about.
Being black isn't like being a Jew, like being a woman like being gay.
But the TREATMENT of any one in those groups wouldn't have the SAME legacy if he were right.
There is no more justification for treating gay people with such animus than there would be if it were Jews we were talking about.

To Fight on
You're a smart @ss. I wonder if that is genetic or a learned trait? Meanwhile gays and lesbians are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan to give you the right to attempt to be so darn funny.

No Luis, it's effortless!
Luis, the postings in here are so lame, I'm not even breaking a sweat. As usual, you criticize homosexual behavior, yet this particular issue is not about whether homosexual behavior is "good" or "bad." It's about whether same sex couples should have the right to marry. If you want homosexual behavior outlawed, say so. Your concerns about disease, as irrelevant and hateful as they are, would have more impact on M/M couples than on F/F couples. You ok with a couple of dykes tying the knot then?

Jeffrey, Jeffrey...
"It is not illegal to engage in homosexual behavior... It is illegal to engage in sex with a corpse, with a child, with an animal. That's the difference."

It is not illegal to engage in homosexual behavior now, however, at one time it was.

Homosexuality was also thought to be a mental disorder by every single member of the psychiatric community. It isn't any longer, but the conclusion of the court is/was based upon the theory of genetic predisposition.

I am not missing anything. You are dancing back, forth, up and down around the general premise that sexual behavior is not a choice. I am merely following the logic of the argument. I am agreeing with your argument. I am accepting your premise and merely carrying it out to it's logical end. You may not like the result of your argument but, the court ageed with the premise as well, and concluded it to be equal to an individuals race. The basis of their decision is clearly predicated upon this comparative analysis, which lead them to their conclusion.

It is an argument or position which ultimately leads to the conclusion that, ALL sexual behavior is predetermined by ones genetic profile which can and will lead to these other obvious comparative conclusions. Perhaps not tomorrow afternoon, but eventually. Unless, of course, being consistent is unimportant in matters of law or logic.

Parker your argument is a waste
of time.
You're going to get the last answer you'll ever need for your questions.
1. To MARRY, requires consent. Signature, understanding of the responsibility of marriage, filing papers and taking an oath. Anything that isn't another adult human being can't do that.

2. The NUMBER of spouses is not WHAT KIND of spouse. Other prohibitions are related to KINSHIP. Already married, or already closely related. Since state law has no restrictions on inheritance or blood kin PRIMACY, then MARRIAGE isn't a requirement for a benefit ALREADY given.

3. Marriage is for the PURPOSE of making TWO non related, non married adults, first of kin and primary custodian of the other. A gay couple doesn't change that.

4. The polygamists or the incestuous never had to wait for gay equality to make THEIR stand. And their cases don't have any merit for the afforementioned reasons. This is about being gay, not marrying ANYTHING and ANYBODY, just somebody.
Courts know the difference.
You GET IT now?
</