Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Gay by Force
Legal equality does not mean requiring universal acceptance of homosexuality.
Last month, on the same day the California Supreme Court agreed to review a state ban on same-sex marriage, the online matchmaker eHarmony settled a New Jersey discrimination complaint by agreeing to serve gay singles. The following week, a Florida judge ruled that a state ban on adoption by homosexuals is unconstitutional.
To the average social conservative, these developments represent a campaign to force "the gay agenda" on people who are morally opposed to homosexuality. To the average gay rights activist, they represent a just struggle for equal treatment under the law. If there is any room for common ground between these two seemingly irreconcilable perspectives, it lies in recognizing the crucial distinction between public and private discrimination.
The adoption issue should be the easiest to resolve, since policies like Florida's hurt children as well as would-be parents. In the case that prompted Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman to override the state's ban on gay adoptive parents, Martin Gill and his partner had been raising two brothers, now 4 and 8, since 2004, when the state took them from their homes because of neglect and placed them in foster care.
No one disputed that the two men were excellent parents or that the boys were thriving in their care. Yet state law prevented Gill from adopting the brothers and giving them a permanent home simply because of his sexual orientation.
By threatening these boys with separation from the only decent parents they've ever known, this law elevates anti-gay ideology above children's welfare, which is supposed to be the state's paramount concern in adoption cases. More generally, by artificially limiting the pool of adoptive parents, the law makes it harder for children to find permanent homes.
Whether or not Florida's policy is "illogical to the point of irrationality"—the basis by which Judge Lederman ruled that it violates the right of equal protection—the state legislature clearly should have changed it long ago. Doing so does not require moral approval of homosexuality; it merely requires the recognition that being gay does not automatically make someone an unfit parent.
One of the arguments for barring gay couples from adopting is that they tend to be less stable than heterosexual couples. If so, banning gay marriage hardly helps.
In November, California voters approved Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and woman, thereby reversing a May 15 decision in which the state Supreme Court declared an earlier ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The legal logic underlying both the challenge to Proposition 8 and the decision it overturned is shaky. Yet as a matter of fundamental fairness (which is not always the same as the demands of a particular constitution), the package of legal arrangements known as civil marriage should be available to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.
Ideally, the government would leave marriage to private institutions, which managed to maintain it for almost all of its history. Short of that, those institutions and the individuals who follow their teachings should be free to accept or reject gay unions as they see fit, which means they should not have to worry about being sued for unlawful discrimination.
Such fears played a conspicuous role in the Proposition 8 campaign, and the eHarmony case shows they're not fanciful. Eric McKinley, the gay man who filed the New Jersey civil rights complaint that forced eHarmony to start matching same-sex couples, says the company's straights-only strategy was "very hurtful" and made him feel like "a second-class citizen."
Unlike a government that claims exclusive authority to approve adoptions or marriages, eHarmony has plenty of competitors, including online matchmakers that advertise themselves as gay-friendly alternatives. Yet McKinley could not bear the thought that one of many dating services chose to focus on heterosexuals. Such intolerance of diversity undermines the struggle for gay rights by feeding fears that equal treatment by the government means equal treatment by everyone.
© Copyright 2008 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
|12.3.08 @ 7:14AM|#
Yet as a matter of fundamental fairness (which is not always
the same as the demands of a particular constitution), the package
of legal arrangements known as civil marriage should be available
to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.
There is, of course, no reason to limit the package of legal
arrangements known as civil marriage to couples. Any number of
consenting adults should be allowed to incorporate as a household,
with all the privileges and responsibilities that currently hold
for civil marriage.
|12.3.08 @ 7:19AM|#
In a world with a much smaller government, a much more
conservative legal system, and no federal or state control over
schools, gay marriage would be much easier for social conservatives
to accept.
Basically, most people want to be left alone to form communities as
they see fit. State intrusion into their communities is what drives
social conservatives to enter politics in the first place.
Art-P.O.G.|12.3.08 @ 7:37AM|#
State intrusion into their communities is what drives social conservatives to enter politics in the first place.
You've described some of the "decent" social conservatives. Alas, not all social conservatives are so decent (nor are all progressives so altruistic).
|12.3.08 @ 7:51AM|#
Is there a gay only match-making site? Has any heterosexual successfully sued such a site because it is "very hurtful" and made them feel like "a second-class citizen."?
|12.3.08 @ 7:55AM|#
This argument faltered after the
"Behind closed doors" findings 40 years ago.
When can we expect the eventual justification
of special Gay "hate" crime legislation
to mirror the VAWA delusions based on The Duluth Model,
special laws for "accommodation" echoing the stupider
aspects of Americans with Disabilities Act., and special
Welfare laws providing
"Safety Nets" including "gay" amongst those finding themselves
single by choice "adoptive" parents living off abused WIC
and similar attempts at FREE RIDE?
Sorry, there's just no more money left for
expansion of "Welfare Queen" contestants. It has been my
observation that "If you build it, they will come...".
If my personal observation
of the "gay,lesbian,and their allies community"
hadn't reflected such a dismal rate of seperation, and
extra-"marital" behavior, I might see it differently.
I've seen FAR more stability (slightly better than married
heterosexual demographic)amongst simply homosexual mature couples
that eschew the public drama, and make no demands for
special public accommodation.
The eternal "Daddy democracy said NO! so go ask ONE Maternal judge,
pre-selected, and "re-educated"
behind-closed-doors-at-tropical-retreats,
usually with inherited assets,.. to proclaim a contrary
fiat"
gets tiresome from six year olds in desperate quest for a toy that
MIGHT artificially raise their self esteem, for two days, amongst
their peers at middle class sub urban public school.
Warty|12.3.08 @ 8:05AM|#
I have no idea what CaptDMO's last sentence could possibly mean, but I like its flow.
|12.3.08 @ 8:07AM|#
There is, of course, no reason to limit the package of legal arrangements known as civil marriage to couples. Any number of consenting adults should be allowed to incorporate as a household, with all the privileges and responsibilities that currently hold for civil marriage.
Strangely, this legal entity currently exists, however,it actually
requires an above average amount of "homework", and
MINIMAL lawyer participation, to bring to fruition. Therein lies
the rub.
|12.3.08 @ 8:13AM|#
I have no idea what CaptDMO's last sentence could possibly mean, but I like its flow. Sorry, too many truisms referenced in one place.
I'll try to type slower next time.
KipEsquire|12.3.08 @ 8:33AM|#
Sullum is right to highlight the public / private distinction,
of course. But he overlooks another important distinction between
gay adoption / gay marriage on the one hand and eHarmony on the
other: In the former, "activist" judges are striking down laws,
initiatives, amendments, etc. -- while in the latter the
"deferential" judges are upholding the laws of "activist"
legislators.
New Jersey's "Law Against Discrimination" (like California's "Unruh
Act," which eHarmony was also being sued for violating) were, for
better or worse, duly enacted laws, both of which unambiguously
apply to eHarmony (and will also apply, as has been noted upthread,
to gay-only personals sites -- be careful what you wish
for?).
Bottom line: The Defenders of Traditional Bigotry™ can't really
invoke their standard "Will of the People"™ drivel with the
eHarmony incident.
|12.3.08 @ 8:39AM|#
I have no idea what CaptDMO's last sentence could possibly
mean, but I like its flow.
I think it had something to do with forum shopping. But I wouldn't
bet lunch on it.
rhywun|12.3.08 @ 8:50AM|#
The eHarmony incident smacks of a self-indulgent lawyer trying to make a name for himself. I don't think it's really fair to lump it in with matters like gay marriage and adoption as representative of issues that gays care about. Much like rare "late-term" abortions took over the abortion debate a few years ago.
Art-P.O.G.|12.3.08 @ 8:51AM|#
I think it had something to do with forum shopping. But I wouldn't bet lunch on it.
It's esoteric and stream-of-consciousness enough to cause Thomas Pynchon to curl up into a fetal position and curse the day he was born.
|12.3.08 @ 9:09AM|#
I like CaptDMO's particular form of dementia. It makes for some
interesting reading. Dude, can you tell us, in that fashion, why
Moby Dick is a subversive homosexual text?
Also, explain Top
Gun.
Mad Max|12.3.08 @ 9:10AM|#
"Bottom line: The Defenders of Traditional Bigotry™ can't really
invoke their standard "Will of the People"™ drivel with the
eHarmony incident."
The people are fully capable of being stupid, but judges are not
authorized to be stupid in the behalf, absent a legal mandate to do
so. Such a mandate may exist in the "anti-discrimination" laws,
although I would be interested in knowing by what authority a state
undertakes to regulate commercial transactions outside that
state.
Mad Max|12.3.08 @ 9:11AM|#
not authorized to be stupid *on behalf of the people* unless there's a legal mandate to do so.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 9:11AM|#
In a world with a much smaller government, a much more
conservative legal system, and no federal or state control over
schools, gay marriage would be much easier for social conservatives
to accept.
It's not that it would be easier for them to accept so much as they
wouldn't have much to say about it besides the traditional moral
whining.
And when private discrimination leads to denial of services for a
class of person, is it not legitimate to legislate? We have this
thingee, called the fourteenth amendment...
Bingo|12.3.08 @ 9:11AM|#
I just wanted to post this in response to Jay. There's plenty of gay match-making sites, I don't know if they are as high profile as eHarmony though!
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 9:13AM|#
Dude, can you tell us, in that fashion, why Moby Dick is a
subversive homosexual text?
Don't leave out The Old Man and the Sea.
Gayest. Book. EVAR.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 9:17AM|#
Has any heterosexual successfully sued such a site because
it is "very hurtful" and made them feel like "a second-class
citizen."?
Would there be any point to pointing out that such a suit would be
absurd on its face since the alleged aggrieved population is ~93%
of the total population and holds massive political power in
comparison to their supposed oppressors?
Of course not. We deal only in abstractions and absolutes.
Mad Max|12.3.08 @ 9:21AM|#
"The eHarmony incident smacks of a self-indulgent lawyer trying
to make a name for himself. I don't think it's really fair to lump
it in with matters like gay marriage and adoption as representative
of issues that gays care about. Much like rare "late-term"
abortions took over the abortion debate a few years ago."
Employment-discrimination litigation, especially against private
employers, is
a major activity of the leading gay-liberation organization
Lambda Legal. Check the link, and you will see that "to this day,
workplace concerns remain the number one topic for our Help Desk
callers."
Lambda didn't do the eHarmony case, but they did win a settlement
against the Cirque de Soleil, in which they paid compensation for
firing an HIV-positive acrobat. Does this sound like a low-profile
case?
Art-P.O.G.|12.3.08 @ 9:21AM|#
Gayest. Book. EVAR.
Is there something inherently homoerotic about being asea?
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 9:25AM|#
Is there something inherently homoerotic about being
asea?
Let's ask the naval officers.
Fellas?
|12.3.08 @ 9:25AM|#
There is, of course, no reason to limit the package of legal
arrangements known as civil marriage to couples. Any number of
consenting adults should be allowed to incorporate as a household,
with all the privileges and responsibilities that currently hold
for civil marriage.
No, just no. While I would support a state initiative to begin
expanding civil marriage into polyamorous unions, there are many
aspects of the privileges and responsibilities that can only apply
to a single person such as power of attorney. The thing can't just
simply be declared to apply to groups.
|12.3.08 @ 9:26AM|#
Now just how is The Old Man and the Sea gay? Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that Jake Barnes got his balls shot off during the war. Unproven!
|12.3.08 @ 9:29AM|#
In a world with a much smaller government, a much more
conservative legal system, and no federal or state control over
schools, gay marriage would be much easier for social conservatives
to accept.
W...T...F?
How did you get to that conclusion? Can you offer any concrete
examples of SoCon's offering this sort of bargain? Even if they
would, rights are not negotiable.
BTW, the whole eHarmony situation sucks. The suit was (obviously)
brought by the victim-mongering liberal wing of the GLBT movement.
eHarmony didn't help matters as they bullshitted about how "we
aren't set up for teh gays, they are so different."
However, one of the main reasons that the gays overwhelmingly vote
blue is that animus towards gays is a core principal of the GOP.
They could change this, but have not yet reached the point where
they're willing to stand up to their fundagelical base.
|12.3.08 @ 9:33AM|#
Inside the most recent rolling stone it lists the eharmony case
as a "with us" on their "with us - against us" scale. I really
thought most people could realize that infringing on eharmony's
freedom is far more odious than simply moving to a different dating
site.
I used to firmly state there is no "homosexual agenda" and the
religious types were just being paranoid. However, now I see that
there are a select bunch-o-folks who may or may not even be gay
that feel the need to push the homosexual-rights issue out into
everyone's face even where there isn't any true discrimination or
abuse. *sigh*
It's disheartening what freedom-abridging lengths people will go to
in the spirit of the "progressive" movement. Asshats, I tell yah,
asshats.
|12.3.08 @ 9:35AM|#
Let's ask the naval officers.
Horatio Hornblower? Horn...blower? Come on. They're not even trying
to be subtle.
They could change this, but have not yet reached the point
where they're willing to stand up to their fundagelical
base
The fundies aren't going to change, because the Bible tells them
that fags are bad, mm'kay? The GOP would have to repudiate them
wholesale to get rid of the animus. I doubt it will happen.
|12.3.08 @ 9:41AM|#
Hornblower is not gay, you bastard. I think that captain from
the Master & Commander series is, however.
Coincidentally, I'm currently re-reading the non-gay Hornblower
books, a bunch of which I recently acquired at a non-gay garage
sale.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 9:45AM|#
Now just how is The Old Man and the Sea gay?
That fish was playing hard to get.
Heh...here come the Faithful-phobes.
From Ceiling Cat's Cheezburger Recipe bequeathed to Matthew,
Chapter 7:
Look out for peeplz who tellz teh fyoochur but duz it rong. Dey
wair tech clothez of sheepz but dey is wolvz insied. Bad wolvz. U
know what dey iz by dey frootz. I bet u didn know wolvz had frootz.
Good treez haz good frootz. Bad treez haz bad frootz. Evri tree wif
bad frootz will be cutted down an throwed in teh fier. Liek I sez,
look at teh frootz.
If a religion causes a man to hate, it is rotten, and should be
thrown into the fire. So sez Jesus, son of Ceiling Cat.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 9:46AM|#
I think that captain from the Master & Commander series
is, however.
Nah, just Aussie. Easy mistake to make.
Alice Bowie|12.3.08 @ 9:47AM|#
What we need is the it's not of your business Amendment
to the constitution.
This one amendment will solve many problems like the:
1. Homo thing
2. Abortion thing
3. The getting high thing
4. The 'i want to commit suicide' thing
5. Adoption thing
6. Gay marriage thing
Someone needs to stand up and CALL the so-called Socail
Conservatives 'IN THEIR FACE' what they really are ... EX-Jim Crow
Racists !!!
Jess Fields|12.3.08 @ 9:49AM|#
Government should not be involved in the marriage issue, but if
they must be, it ought to be at the state, not the federal,
level.
This really comes down to a 10th amendment issue, from a
Constitutional standpoint, on "gay marriage". But legal equality is
just as important as federalism, and so you must have some
provisions for equal rights under the law, including adoption.
|12.3.08 @ 9:49AM|#
There is, of course, no reason to limit the package of legal
arrangements known as civil marriage to couples. Any number of
consenting adults should be allowed to incorporate as a household,
with all the privileges and responsibilities that currently hold
for civil marriage.
Only one problem is that the right to protection from
self-incrimination extends to spouses. There would need to be some
sort of tempering of this if you were to extend marriage to
multiples. Otherwise, you'll see criminal organizations of mobsters
"married" to each other.
|12.3.08 @ 9:50AM|#
LMNOP
I think the LOL Cat Bible is the best religious parody ev-er. It's
even better than the Church of the Sub Genius, and the Flying
Spaghetti Monster. It exposes so much of the failings of faith
without even trying.
Mad Max|12.3.08 @ 9:50AM|#
phalkor,
Private employment discrimination against "GLBT persons and
transgendered persons" is one of the key fronts of the
gay-liberation battles. Libertarians are clearly on what the
activists regard as the wrong side of history.
Libertarians can protest all they want about how they support
*true* equality for gay people, how they hate the Religious Right,
etc., but in the end it will come down to, "how could these
libertarians defend bigoted employers? We thought these guys were
cool, but really they're just a bunch of haters!"
If there is a ballot proposition in, say, California safeguarding
the prerogatives of private employers, and that proposition passes
with the support of the Reason foundation, perhaps you will even
see the howling mobs of love and tolerance congregating outside the
Reason Foundation's doors.
Mad Max|12.3.08 @ 9:52AM|#
On a related note, check out the adventures which libertarians had with Ann ("How do I know you're not racist") Althouse. She says her friends thought it ought to have been obvious that defenders of employer/businessowner prerogatives must be racists.
|12.3.08 @ 9:52AM|#
Only one problem is...
Mo,
That is a problem, but there are many others. See my 9:25
comment.
|12.3.08 @ 9:55AM|#
Elemenope,
Dude, that's the actor from the movie. The character Jack Aubrey
was, I'm pretty sure, English, in both the books and the film.
Bingo|12.3.08 @ 9:58AM|#
If we outlaw gay marriage then the numbers of cohabiting unmarried couples will skyrocket! Has anyone told the fundies this? We need to do something about this moral decay to protect our children future's.
hamilton|12.3.08 @ 9:59AM|#
Aubrey from the books is not gay given his many um failures of
the flesh. Might be bi though. The homoerotic tension between
Aubrey and Maturin certainly exists.
Now, Russel Crowe.... No comment.
|12.3.08 @ 10:00AM|#
You're misreading me, Epi. My original post was not as clear as
I would have
liked. I agree that the fundies are unlikely to change their minds
about this.
What I was trying to say is that eventually the GOP will reach the
tipping point where the fundies are more of a liability than an
asset. This will probably happen later, rather than sooner given
that SoCons are THE core constituency of the party.
|12.3.08 @ 10:02AM|#
Warren,
But how would you do it? Do you have lines on the marriage
certificate "Power of Attorney spouse", "Spousal Privilege spouse",
etc? Also, the basis of spousal privilege is based on the
conversations that one has with their spouse that are considered
personal and private and that one would not have with others. In a
legit poly marriage, spousal privilege would be legit for all
members. If you treat all your wives/husbands equally, then they're
all privy to the same info. I guess the only practical way is to
have exceptions for "sham" marriages, using things like a lack of
consummation and such. The way INS does it.
|12.3.08 @ 10:06AM|#
Alice Bowie-
How about the everyone can keep their property thing? How about the
elimination of the IRS and all of the other alphabet soup big
brother agencies?
Ex-Jim Crow racists? So, do you mean that the so-called social
conservatives used to be racists? Of course, only those of them
over the age of at least 54 and 1/2(those born before May 17, 1954)
could have been actual Jim Crow racists, right?
|12.3.08 @ 10:06AM|#
What I was trying to say is that eventually the GOP will
reach the tipping point where the fundies are more of a liability
than an asset. This will probably happen later, rather than sooner
given that SoCons are THE core constituency of the
party.
Gotcha. And I think that it is going to be much later considering
that the GOP is driving fiscal conservatives out of their midst in
droves, making the fundies even more powerful as a core.
Plus, isn't evangelicalism on the rise? I thought I heard that. If
so, that's...disturbing.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 10:07AM|#
Dude, that's the actor from the movie. The character Jack
Aubrey was, I'm pretty sure, English, in both the books and the
film.
Dude, I was kidding. ;)
I think the LOL Cat Bible is the best religious parody ev-er.
It's even better than the Church of the Sub Genius, and the Flying
Spaghetti Monster. It exposes so much of the failings of faith
without even trying.
My current policy when quoting the Bible is to do so only in
LOLspeak.
It's funny, I don't think of it as a parody so much as a clever
antidote to bibliolatry. Especially *translation* idolatry. If done
properly, a LOLspeak translation is in every way as accurate as any
other natural language translation of the Bible, but it wrings
absolutely all the pomposity out of the words. If the message is
good, it should still make sense, even when conveyed by silly
words. To its credit, often the Bible still makes some sense in
that frame.
Those who are offended by it should be just as offended by
Gutenberg, or King James, or even the committee of seventy Rabbis
that penned the Greek Septuagint...but are not. Pointing out
inconsistencies in people's feelings towards the *appearance* of
cherished fetishes is kinda fun.
|12.3.08 @ 10:08AM|#
It is interesting how everyone on this thread acts like white
conservative Christians are the only ones who object to gay
marriage or anti-gay discrimination laws. Last I checked blacks and
hispanics object to both by overwelming numbers. Proposition 8
passed in America's most liberal state in no small part because of
the large black turnout to support Obama.
Gay rights are going nowhere in this country as long as the stuff
white people like are the only ones who care about it. It is the
only issue I can think of where a major, important constituency in
both parties (black Democrats and Christian Republicans) object to
it. Gays overwelming vote Democratic but are a fraction of the
votes that Hispanics and Blacks are. They won't get anymore love
from the Dems than they do from the Republicans.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 10:08AM|#
...or even the committee of seventy Rabbis that penned the
Greek Septuagint
For accuracy's sake, I ought to throw an "apocryphally" in between
"that" and "penned".
Ishmael|12.3.08 @ 10:09AM|#
Is there something inherently homoerotic about being
asea?
Thar he bloooows!
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 10:11AM|#
It is interesting how everyone on this thread acts like
white conservative Christians are the only ones who object to gay
marriage or anti-gay discrimination laws. Last I checked blacks and
hispanics object to both by overwelming numbers.
Last I checked, blacks and hispanics were more likely than average
to be conservative Christians. Not conservatives, mind
you, in the contemporary political sense, but conservative in their
social outlook due to a socially-conservative brand of
Christianity.
And who brought up white-folk? Why, that would roughly be you. When
I write or speak about the inanity of some Christian policy, I'm
not omitting the Christians who look different. They're bigots,
too.
|12.3.08 @ 10:11AM|#
Ah, the will of the people. Ever notice that the phrase is only invoked when the speaker is one of the two wolves who voted to eat a sheep for lunch?
|12.3.08 @ 10:13AM|#
Elemenope,
You weren't kidding. I'm aware of your hidden agenda to insert
gayness into manly sea yarns. Yes, you and your buddy Episiarch.
What's gay about men living together on a ship for months at a
time? Bathing together, working together, getting beaten together?
Being English together. . . .
Wait, maybe you're right!
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 10:13AM|#
Proposition 8 passed in America's most liberal state in no
small part because of the large black turnout to support
Obama.
And, incidentally, I take personal offense at you calling
California the most liberal state in the country. That is madness.
It's a tie-breaker between Massachusetts and Rhode Island (the two
states which consistently have the highest Dem margins in every
presidential election for something like the last four
decades).
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 10:13AM|#
Ever notice that the phrase is only invoked when the speaker
is one of the two wolves who voted to eat a sheep for
lunch?
Yum.
classwarrior|12.3.08 @ 10:15AM|#
It's worth noting here in Canada that the legislation recognizing same-sex marriage specifically stated that no religeous organization would be forced to perform these ceremonies if it conflicted with their belief system (and no one was even pressing for this in the first place). When advocating for marriage equality, people should be respectful of religeous freedom too.
|12.3.08 @ 10:16AM|#
mad max,
but these activists are bigots. Why is it right to coerce a private
entity to adhere (at least in policy, but not spirit) to a
particular world view? The liberal view of what measures are
allowable to enforce "fairness" makes me shudder.
That Amy Althouse thing was pretty good. Her concept of civil
rights doesn't seem logically sound as she necessarily requires the
abridgement of one group's right to promote the other's.
Shit, I guess I'm a horribly racist, ex-jim crow, neo-nazi.
Liberals make me feel bad.
MAX HATS|12.3.08 @ 10:16AM|#
Did you see, I wrote my handle in really big letters! That means I'm totally serious.
|12.3.08 @ 10:16AM|#
Bathing together, working together, getting beaten
together?
Now I'm getting excited. The hidden gay agenda is turning me gay!
Or maybe it's just my masochism.
concerned observer|12.3.08 @ 10:18AM|#
I have a strong urge now to go read some seaman literature. Heh. Seaman.*sucking sound*
concerned observer|12.3.08 @ 10:19AM|#
Master and Commander. Get it. "Master" then just add "baiter".
|12.3.08 @ 10:20AM|#
Elemenope-10:07
"pointing out inconsistencies in people's feelings towards the
"appearance" of cherished fetishes is kinda fun."
"Kinda fun?" For me, it is downright orgasmic!
concerned observer|12.3.08 @ 10:21AM|#
"Shit, I guess I'm a horribly racist, ex-jim crow, neo-nazi.
Liberals make me feel bad."
And I'm a progressive soocialist puss. Go ahead, punish me!
Gay Marriage|12.3.08 @ 10:22AM|#
Hahaha ! I'm the most important libertarian issue now that the government will fund stem cell research.
|12.3.08 @ 10:23AM|#
Pro,
As far as gayness and sea novels, you have to remember, "It is not
gay if its away."
|12.3.08 @ 10:23AM|#
Sorry Pro. That would be "It is not gay if its underway". So by definition, no sea novel can ever be gay.
|12.3.08 @ 10:25AM|#
Episiarch,
It's just your masochism. Saturday Night Live, with the help of
Michael Palin, explored the manliness of seamen in The
Adventures of Miles Cowperthwaite.
|12.3.08 @ 10:27AM|#
"And who brought up white-folk? Why, that would roughly be you.
When I write or speak about the inanity of some Christian policy,
I'm not omitting the Christians who look different. They're bigots,
too."
Because only Christians object to gay marriage. No one else does
for any other reason. It is a good thing you don't stereotype or
anything.
You have such a hostile attitude towards religion. That is your
right. It is a free country. But, you are not helping your cause
very much. Sullum is right. A lot Christians get pissed off over
gay marriage not becuase they care that gays get married but more
because they don't trust people like you to stop there and not do
away with religious freedom in this country in the name of
"tolerance".
The Joker|12.3.08 @ 10:27AM|#
You have just seen a disturbing take on concerned observer's sexuality.
a name before submitting the f|12.3.08 @ 10:30AM|#
the key to reconciling these perspectives lies in recognizing the crucial distinction between public and private discrimination.
That will not reconcile anything because the real crucial
distinction is between equal protection for individual rights and
equal protection of couple rights.
The concept of equal protection for couple rights is innovative.
All couples are not equally protected under the law. A couple
consisting of close relatives, a couple consisting of an adult and
a small child, or a couple consisting of two persons of the same
sex are not equally protected as a couple of married adults. Not to
mention those citizens who are not part of a couple at all and are
single.
Equal protection of individual rights is not a new concept and gays
do have equal protection of their individual rights.
If you want to argue that gays need to be able to get married to
each other you are arguing for the equal protection of couple
rights. Go ahead and argue that if you want, just be aware that
that concept is innovative.
Kolohe|12.3.08 @ 10:32AM|#
"It is not gay if its away."
But this also works, as there's another saying, "what happens on
Westpac, stays on Westpac," which predates Vegas's use by
years.
|12.3.08 @ 10:34AM|#
...I see that there are a select bunch-o-folks who may or
may not even be gay that feel the need to push the
homosexual-rights issue out into everyone's face even where there
isn't any true discrimination or abuse.
Please, the proper phrase is: Shoving The Gay Agenda Down Our
Throats(R).
As I wrote earlier, this is a function of left-wing victim politics
and not intrinsic to the GLBT movement. The GOP had an opportunity
to be the party of equality, but they didn't exercise that option,
so the scruffy leftists did. Now that this issue is gaining
traction, the leftists are predictably overreaching, moving beyond
equality to vengeance. It's human nature. It's politics. It isn't
pretty, but it always happens.
I feel that the eHarmony is on the slippery slope. Consider an
analgous situation: Let's say you're black, in Farmville VA (wiki
it), in 1964. You want to eat at a downtown lunch counter, but
there is a clearly posted sign saying "No Colored." Sure there are
other lunch counters in town, some with signs reading "Colored
Only." So, what's the problem? Please compare and contrast this to
the eHarmony case, with particular attention to the concept of
"place of public accommodation."
|12.3.08 @ 10:37AM|#
Dude, can you tell us, in that fashion, why Moby Dick is a
subversive homosexual text?
Ahab has a rabid lust to "harpoon" a sperm whale. At least
give me a difficult one.
Kolohe|12.3.08 @ 10:37AM|#
the crucial distinction between public and private
discrimination
This has been hopelessly conflated ever since a Woolworth's lunch
counter was given the same 'public accommodation' status as the
Greensboro public schools. From a utilitarian point of view, this
has probably been for the best, but the tradeoff is that there are
no boundaries anymore, as seen by, for example, various ADA actions
and smoking bans.
|12.3.08 @ 10:38AM|#
State intrusion into their communities is what drives social
conservatives to enter politics in the first place.
You've described some of the "decent" social conservatives. Alas,
not all social conservatives are so decent (nor are all
progressives so altruistic).
Art-P.O.G. -- I find it's best to not try and base legislation on
the premise that people are decent and altruistic. Freedom must
include the right to be an asshat -- and suffer the
consequences.
Prop 8 failed narrowly, 52-48, because it didn't try to accomodate
the concerns of the decent social conservatives, of which there are
many. I know quite a few LDS members, and there's some wiggle room
to get to legal equality, so long as the words "gay" and "marriage"
are left out of the discussion.
Draw up a package of legal rights in a legal relationship that
individuals can voluntarily agree to, and don't call that package
"marriage", and don't drag in other non-consenting parties (such as
by requiring employers to offer health insurance) and you'll have
the decent so-cons grudgingly accepting it.
It's just a bad idea, strategically, to piss off the decent
so-cons, especially the LDS ones, as Prop 8 so amply illustrated.
Take their genuine concerns into account, and it's much easier to
get legislation enacted that gets gays virtually the same legal
contractual rights as married couples.
|12.3.08 @ 10:38AM|#
"I feel that the eHarmony is on the slippery slope. Consider an
analgous situation: Let's say you're black, in Farmville VA (wiki
it), in 1964. You want to eat at a downtown lunch counter, but
there is a clearly posted sign saying "No Colored." Sure there are
other lunch counters in town, some with signs reading "Colored
Only." So, what's the problem? Please compare and contrast this to
the eHarmony case, with particular attention to the concept of
"place of public accommodation."
No one ever said a gay person couldn't use e-harmony. They just
couldn't get a date with the same sex and would have to swing to
the other team. A black person in virginia didn't have the option
of becoming white.
Beyond that sexual preference is not race. Having a Catholics only
or gay only or straight ony dating site is not the same as having a
whites only restaurant. The inability for some people to understand
that is one of the reasons why blacks are so unsympathetic to the
gay rights cause.
The Angry Homosexual|12.3.08 @ 10:40AM|#
"just couldn't get a date with the same sex and would have to
swing to the other team"
See, John's perpetuating the big meanie idea that sexual
orientation is chosen. BIG MEANIE! You're also probably fat!
Kolohe|12.3.08 @ 10:41AM|#
A legal fiction.
A fiction that will get your ass sued into compliance or
bankruptcy.
|12.3.08 @ 10:42AM|#
Pro Libertate,
If Ahab didn't know one way or the other, it's at least 50% gay.
But it was named Moby Dick, so I consider the matter
settled.
|12.3.08 @ 10:45AM|#
You know, I've read that neuroscience has not established that
homosexuality is determined by genetics and that what
genetic evidence there is only applies to male homosexuality. I'm
no scholar on the topic, but it strikes me that there's a huge
political motive for making gays into the blacks of the 21st
century rather than keeping the fight where it belongs, in the
realm of human choice.
Incidentally, I don't care much about this whole issue, unless it
involves gays entering my sea stories. There I draw the line.
|12.3.08 @ 10:45AM|#
No one ever said a gay person couldn't use e-harmony. They
just couldn't get a date with the same sex and would have to swing
to the other team. A black person in virginia didn't have the
option of becoming white.
To the gay liberals I know, the very thought that a gay person
could "swing for the other team" makes you a hate-mongering bigot
who doesn't understand that sexuality is not a choice.
To them, there is no difference. To you, there is. This is the
fundamental chasm, methinks.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 10:47AM|#
You have such a hostile attitude towards
religion.
I really don't. I have a hostile attitude towards bigotry. When it
comes clothed in scripture, it is twice as sinister because it is
dressed as something holy. In fact, that Matthew passage I quoted
starts appropriately enough about wolves in sheep's clothing.
Since many religious bodies have seen fit to *institutionalize*
their bigotry, towards other religions, towards unbelievers,
towards people who don't look like the average member or those who
want to copulate in a way that seems gross to them, I have little
trouble criticizing them for that institutionalization.
If it weren't so serious, it would be hilarious the way people
contort a religion of peace and holiness and forgiveness into a
bitter Sunday-morning club of exclusion and self-congratulatory
preening piety. But it is serious, and so it's not funny. It's
terrifying, and sad, and infuriating.
Not every Christian and not every church succumb to such baser,
profane instincts, and I love those few for it. One does not have
to be a believer to appreciate the transformational and healing
effects of belief, good works, etc.. I am not an Atheist who
believes that the fruit of all religion is poisoned. Philosophy
(and hence, science and the modern world) has its roots in
religion, and any ideology that even pays lip-service to human
worth and dignity is better than the likely nihilism that would
prevail absent such structures.
For what it's worth, the only religious position I scorn without
hesitation is unreflective agnosticism.
|12.3.08 @ 10:47AM|#
Classwarrior,
When advocating for marriage equality, people should be
respectful of religeous freedom too.
That is such a canard. Please come up with a single concrete
example of a gay couple trying to force a religious group to
perform a gay marriage.
I can think of ONE case that comes close, but misses the mark.
There was a gazebo on the boardwalk in somewhere in California
which was owned by a local church. The church had a long history of
renting the gazebo out to the general public (not just their own
members) for weddings and other functions. When approached by a gay
couple who wanted to rent the gazebo for a wedding (NOT to be
performed by the church), the church refused. The church was
offering the Gazebo as a place of public accommodation, and
effectively operating it as a business. The worst-case scenario is
that the church was forced to either rent to the gays or restrict
rental to their own members. Waaaaah....
|12.3.08 @ 10:49AM|#
No one ever said a gay person couldn't use e-harmony. They
just couldn't get a date with the same sex and would have to swing
to the other team
There are very specific legitimate reasons why the eHarmony thing
was stupid and an affront to property rights. The above argument
isn't one of them, John.
rhywun|12.3.08 @ 10:50AM|#
Nice try, Mad Max, but the eHarmony case has nothing to do with employment discrimination.
|12.3.08 @ 10:50AM|#
SugarFree,
If you were to eat groaty dick on Guy Fawkes Day, would that make
you gay? No. Well, maybe.
Moby-Dick was derived from Mocha Dick, which referred to a whale
named Dick, which was frequently seen near the isle of Mocha.
|12.3.08 @ 10:51AM|#
A "whites only" restaurant in 1964 was a viable business
strategy. It would be a lot more difficult to make that work in
2008, except in some niche markets.
IMO, we could get more freedom now by repealing legislation
requiring restaurants and whatnot to be oh-so-PC, and instead let
prejudiced people run discriminatory businesses for the handful of
people who would put up with such dickish behavior.
If a restaurant in Harlem wants to run a "blacks only" restaurant,
they should be allowed to cater to their racist clientele. It's not
like there won't be competitors with more enlightened views vying
for your business.
|12.3.08 @ 10:52AM|#
For what it's worth, the only religious position I scorn
without hesitation is unreflective agnosticism.
What, refusing to take a position is a problem for you?
|12.3.08 @ 10:53AM|#
Moby-Dick was derived from Mocha Dick, which referred to a
whale named Dick, which was frequently seen near the isle of
Mocha.
You know a lot about huge white dicks, ProL.
|12.3.08 @ 10:56AM|#
Sexuality is not a choice.
Epi doesn't choose to be an emetophile. Pro Libertate didn't choose
to be a plushie. Fluffy didn't choose to be a menophilic. Elmenope
didn't choose to be a dacrylagnic coulrophilic. I didn't choose to
be a vorarephilic.
Live and let live people.
|12.3.08 @ 10:58AM|#
Sorry, Episiarch, but it seemed like the ideal time to test my
joe spoofing.
SugarFree,
I was blissfully unaware of what you just attributed to me. .
.until now. Icky.
|12.3.08 @ 11:00AM|#
No, like the one I used on your sister last night. I love how I loom so large in your heads. If I send you an autographed picture of my junk, will that satisfy you?
Karlh|12.3.08 @ 11:01AM|#
I have a solution to this:
Marriage: A spiritual and civil union between two adults performed
by a religious institution
Civil Union: A legally binding contract between two parties
recognized by the state.
Churches are free to marry whomever they wish so long as the
teachings of the church are in line with the parties being married.
The state may create any civil union it so desires as it does not
answer to any particular deity.
Matters of child custody and child support will still be decided by
the regular courts. Marriages however must be dissolved by a court
created and maintained by the church since the Government has no
authority over the church and the contracts it creates with
deities.
Any church performing a marriage that is against the teaching of
their religion would lose their tax exempt status. If a church
feels it would like to break with traditions and perform said
marriages it must separate from any churches it has affiliations
with that do not agree, then it must reproduce new materials (ie
bibles, Quorans, what ever they use) with the disagreeing teachings
marked in red strike through. They can then reapply for Tax exempt
status as a new church.
As for eHarmony, they advertise as assisting people by finding only
those people they are most compatible with. The purpose of which is
to provide a long term stable relationship. And eHarmony does
reject people based on contradictions and conflicts that appear
during the profile process. Since I believe they may be able to
show there is a difference in the psychological profile they do for
heterosexuals v homosexuals would it not be within their rights to
create a different set of parameters and rewrite the software to
accommodate homosexual interests? Of course the cost of doing such
a thing is a matter of concern and one the courts should allow to
be passed on to the customer. If I buy a car and the dealer makes
additions in order to suit my needs then those costs are
transferred to me. The gay rights movement would then have to
choose to pursue the matter under the ADA and that would mean
saying that homosexuality is a disability.
I Only wish the gay rights movement could step back and look at
their protest and parades with a critical eye and ask if they are
not their own worst enemies. I really think prop 8 was a backlash
at the gay community and the actions of the activists, more than it
was about protecting marriage.
|12.3.08 @ 11:01AM|#
"There are very specific legitimate reasons why the eHarmony
thing was stupid and an affront to property rights. The above
argument isn't one of them, John."
Why not? Unless homosexuality really is a genetic property beyond
choice like being black, how is making e-harmony run gay ads any
different than making vegetarian restaurants serve meat? As an
ominivore I feel like a second class citizen whenever I am in one
of those places.
|12.3.08 @ 11:04AM|#
If you were to eat groaty dick on Guy Fawkes Day, would that
make you gay? No. Well, maybe.
Maybe, but I know eating a spotted dick is a bad idea any day of
the year.
|12.3.08 @ 11:04AM|#
Oh, that's much improved from yesterday. Bravo, Episiarch,
bravo.
I guess your only option when I'm kicking your ass this badly is to
agree with me. Typical.
|12.3.08 @ 11:06AM|#
Can a ski area forbid snowboarding? I ask, because it is
typically allowed, and yet, people don't choose to be a snowboarder
or skier, you're just born one way or the other. Some people a bi,
but generally trend one way.
I can think of at least two ski areas that forbid snowboarding, and
in many ways, they are better ski areas for it.
I am such a bigot.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 11:06AM|#
Crying clowns get me hot.
But only female clowns! I'm not weird, or anything.
|12.3.08 @ 11:06AM|#
As a career sailor who has spent many a month at sea, I am
somewhat dismayed that this hasn't been posted yet.
"Men" By Martin Mull & Steve Martin©
It's great to be on a ship with men and sail across the sea-o,
We don't know where we'll land or when, but it's great to be with men
It's great to be with men
'Cause men can sweat and men can stink and no one seems to care-o,
We'll throw the dishes in the sink and clog the drain with hair-o,
(Clog the drain with hair-o)
Men, men, men.
It's a ship all filled with men.
So batten down the ladies room; there's no one here but men
Men, Men, Men, Men
Men, Men, Men, Men
There's men above, there's men below, there's men down in the galley,
There's Butch and Spike And Buzz and Biff
And one guy we call Sally
(And one guy we call Sally)
Men, men, men.
It's a ship all filled with men.
You'll never have to lift the seat; there's no one here but men
Men, Men, Men, Men
Men, Men, Men, Men
We're men and friends until the end and none of us are sissies,
At night we sleep in separate beds and blow each other kissies
(And blow each other kissies)
Men, men, men.
It's a ship all filled with men.
So throw your rubbers overboard; there's no one here but men
Ahhhhhhhhh, Mennnnn.
___________________________________________________
The article pretty much nailed the whole gay discrimination
thingee. It is none of the government's business is gays want to
get married or if E-Harmony doesn't wish to have a queer
section.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 11:08AM|#
These days, you can choose whether you wish to be male or
female. Surgery can overturn genetic predestination.
So...is it OK to discriminate against men or women? After all, if
they wanted to, they could make a different "choice".
Yes, that's exactly how stupid all this sounds.
dhex|12.3.08 @ 11:08AM|#
i don't think i've ever heard anyone say "and then we'll force
the catholic church to perform gay weddings!"
though it'd be funny if someone did say that and then had to yell
"father flanagan, no! put the altar boy down!"
ahem.
John C Jackson|12.3.08 @ 11:10AM|#
I would say around 90% of all people are idiots and around 90% of all people want a government law against anything that they personally dislike. This applies to this and almost all issues. People just see nothing wrong with legislating their personal agendas and also a large % of Godnuts believe that the law must follow the Bible. For some reason they have a specific fetish for homosexuality out of all the other God laws.
|12.3.08 @ 11:11AM|#
SugarFree,
I think I may be ill.
Episiarch,
No, I think you went to far with "typical". Where's Judge joe on
this?
By the way, before you adopt vorarephilia, you may want to consider
what it's also known called: phagophilia. Now that's
gay.
J sub D,
Well, I did post a link to the SNL skit on manly men at sea. A
classic with Pythonian support, no less.
Elemenope,
You haven't got a womb! Where's the fetus going to gestate?
Kolohe|12.3.08 @ 11:12AM|#
And now I don't have to worry about making breakfast! Merçi
Monsieur Sans Sucre!
For those playing the home game this helps: So You Really
Think You Know Your -Philias from Your -Phobias?
One stumper: menophilic. Love of comic book mutants? Seriously
that's the
first few google hits.
|12.3.08 @ 11:12AM|#
Elemenope,
Now you sound stupid. We discriminate against people on the basis
of choices all of the time. Vegitarian restaurants discriminate
against me because I like meat. As pointed out above, ski resorts
descriminate against vile punk snow boarders. Homosexuality is a
choice and a moral issue. Some people think it is an immoral
choice. I don't. But I respect the rights of those who do to have
an opinion.
|12.3.08 @ 11:12AM|#
I would say around 90% of all people are idiots and around
90% of all people want a government law against anything that they
personally dislike.
There should be a law against this!
Alice Bowie|12.3.08 @ 11:14AM|#
BULLSHIT TO ALL OF YOU.
Religions that DISCRIMINATE or TEACH HATE should NOT BE
TOLERATED !!!
Should we tolerate the Racist Black Religion called the NATION OF
ISRAEL...which preaches that WHITE PEOPLE are DEVILS ?
Should we tolerate the RACIST White Religion of the ARIAN
BROTHERHOOD or the KKK...which preaches that non-white people are
like roaches and jews are DEVILS?
Then why should we tolerate the BIGOTRY feature of ANY
RELIGION.
Virgil|12.3.08 @ 11:15AM|#
"Homosexuality is a choice...."
Wow, John, thanks a lot for settling that long-standing controversy
so completely. I guess we all should have just come and asked you
in the first place.
Talk about sounding stupid.
Kolohe|12.3.08 @ 11:16AM|#
Can a ski area forbid snowboarding?
Park City has three resorts: one that is only snowboards (canyons),
one that is only skis (deer valley), and one that is mixed (park
city mountain).
But it is the most cosmo city in Utah.
|12.3.08 @ 11:17AM|#
I think that people can be bigots all they want as long as they
do not infringe on the personal rights of others. I condemn the
invocation of government or law to do so.
Do I get my libertarian card now?
|12.3.08 @ 11:17AM|#
By the way, before you adopt vorarephilia, you may want to
consider what it's also known called: phagophilia. Now that's
gay.
"If you die first, I am definitely going to eat you, but the
question is, if I die, what are you going to do?"
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 11:18AM|#
You haven't got a womb! Where's the fetus going to
gestate?
Who said anything about procreation? I'm talking about vaginas,
man! Vaginas!
...
And Virgil beat me to the
slapping-John-for-asserting-baldly-as-fact-something-which-is-his-opinion
thing. Damn you, Virgil, and your fast typing.
|12.3.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Shit, this is why joke handles are a pain. Reason should design an "alternate handle" feature for posting, considering how much we use joke handles here. It'd be innovative! Fark would follow suit!
Alice Bowie|12.3.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Kolohe...I'm glad ski areas can forbid snowboarding.
I saw the most deadliest accident between a snowboarder and a
pie-like-rookie skier at the Canyons in Utah. The snowboarder
slammed into the rookie at about 40mph...and lost his eye....the
snowboarder ... that is.
|12.3.08 @ 11:21AM|#
Virgil,
As pro liberate pointed out above there is no scientific evidence
establishing homosexuality as a genetic quality. The little
evidence there is seems to only apply to male homosexuality. Until
there is clear scientific evidence, what possible reason is there
not to assume it is a choice other than you say so? If so why stop
there? Why not snow boarders? If you have ever been to a ski
resort, you would know that there is pretty compelling anicdotal
evidence that boarders and skiers are just not the same
species.
|12.3.08 @ 11:22AM|#
Kolohe, you're wrong.
Those three ski areas are owned and operated separately. Also
Canyons is mixed. No ski area I know of forbids skiing in favor of
snowboarding.
The oft-cited reasons in favor of banning snowboarding are safety
and trail-maintenaince concerns. Snowboarders tend to fuck up mogul
runs and push the softer top layer of snow to the edges of the
slope.
My list of ski areas that do not allow snowbaording: Elk Mountain
(near scranton pa), Alta (Utah) Deer Valley (Utah). With the
exception of Deer Valley (which is like a country club) these ski
areas offer superior snow to their local competition.
Yay for discrimination!
rhywun|12.3.08 @ 11:22AM|#
Private employment discrimination against "GLBT persons and transgendered persons" is one of the key fronts of the gay-liberation battles.
I don't see a lot of libertarians out there demanding an end to
age, race, and sex discrimination at the workplace. Why is
that?
Homosexuality is a choice
The jury is still out on that one, as evidence continues to
accumulate that it is in fact genetic.
|12.3.08 @ 11:23AM|#
As pro liberate pointed out above there is no scientific
evidence establishing homosexuality as a genetic quality. The
little evidence there is seems to only apply to male
homosexuality.
Nice standard.
I supposed as long as science can't prove the existence of God I
can be as bigoted and discrimintory against Christians as I
want?
|12.3.08 @ 11:25AM|#
Threadjack: snowboarding sucks. It's slower than skis, you can't jump as far, and when you wipe out, you don't have bindings to release your legs from getting twisted around. Plus, no moguls (at least not properly).
Jordan|12.3.08 @ 11:26AM|#
Should we tolerate the Racist Black Religion called the NATION OF ISRAEL...which preaches that WHITE PEOPLE are DEVILS ?
Should we tolerate the RACIST White Religion of the ARIAN BROTHERHOOD or the KKK...which preaches that non-white people are like roaches and jews are DEVILS?
Yes, if by tolerate you mean allow them to practice their
religion.
P.S. The CAPS LOCK key is NOT an I-Win BUTTON.
dhex|12.3.08 @ 11:27AM|#
"Vegitarian restaurants discriminate against me because I like
meat."
so any restaurant that makes food you don't like is discriminating
against you?
|12.3.08 @ 11:27AM|#
"I supposed as long as science can't prove the existence of God
I can be as bigoted and discrimintory against Christians as I
want?"
Sure. What do I care? You can descriminate against anyone you want
based upon their choices. Religion, at least after you are 18 is a
choice. I don't have a problem with ending the laws forbidding
religous descrimination.
If we are going to conclude that homosexuality is genetic without
any clear scientific evidence, why not other things like snow
boarding or being a vegitarian? If you don't have to prove it
scientifically for homosexuality, why should you have to prove it
for anything else?
rhywun|12.3.08 @ 11:28AM|#
what possible reason is there not to assume it is a choice other than you say so?
Common sense? Instead of trying to cloud the issue with bullshit
comparisons to the behavior of skiers vis-à-vis snowboarders?
Aside from the obvious "why would anyone choose to be that way",
even people who claims it's not genetic, when pressed, will admit
that the "choice" happens so early as to be indistiguishable.
Alice Bowie|12.3.08 @ 11:28AM|#
Snowboarders SUCK.
They always bitch out:
- It's too flat
- It's too Steep
- It's too mogully
Plus they take too long putting their board on after getting off
the chair.
Plus, they hog up the run...and then fall anywhere.
Only good thing bout snowboarders is ... is that they make
the Gondolas smell real real good :>
|12.3.08 @ 11:28AM|#
I have a solution to this:
Marriage: A spiritual and civil union between two adults performed
by a religious institution
Civil Union: A legally binding contract between two parties
recognized by the state.
As long as we converted the Magic Language in the marriage statutes
to refer only to civil unions, and allowed straight and gay civil
unions, this should work. Although from an equal protection
standpoint, I'm not sure you can define a civil union as being only
between two people.
Unfortunately, I fear that both the fundies and the militant gays
would oppose such a common-sense move, because both want the state
to sanction their relationships using the Magic Word
"marriage".
As pro liberate pointed out above there is no scientific
evidence establishing homosexuality as a genetic quality. The
little evidence there is seems to only apply to male
homosexuality.
I believe that sexual preferences are neither free choice nor
genetically determined. They are imprinted, and the imprint can be
changed, although it is very difficult.
|12.3.08 @ 11:29AM|#
"so any restaurant that makes food you don't like is
discriminating against you?"
If you can say that e-harmony is discriminating against gay people
because it doesn't off the dating choices they like, why can't you
say a restaurant that serves food you don't like is discriminating
against you? It is the same logic.
|12.3.08 @ 11:29AM|#
I've been reading Thomas Sowell's "The Vision of the Anointed",
where he explains the perspective of many of the 70% of the black
socially conservative voters who were the swing demographic for
Prop. 8. Basically, Sowell presents some compelling statistics
showing how the breakdown in marriage among blacks (such as how
about only 1/3 of black children are being raised in two parent
households) has resulted in huge numbers of black kids growing up
in poverty.
That's the legitimate concern of so-cons. Address that concern,
make it clear that you're not trying to tear down the institutions
of marriage and family that protect children, and it will be much
easier to get legislation enacted that gives gays virtually equal
protections and contractual rights under the law.
Alice Bowie|12.3.08 @ 11:30AM|#
Yes, if by tolerate you mean allow them to practice their
religion.
Jordon, then you shouldn't have any problems with the KKK or the
Black Panthers passing laws that would force you and your family to
live under a bridge.
|12.3.08 @ 11:31AM|#
"Common sense? Instead of trying to cloud the issue with
bullshit comparisons to the behavior of skiers vis-à-vis
snowboarders?"
Common sense? Really? My common sense tells me that who you sleep
with is a question of your choice not your genes. Your commone
sense says otherwise. When either one of us say "common sense" we
are just saying "because I say so". Sorry, but that is a pretty
piss poor scientific standard.
Jordan|12.3.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Jordon, then you shouldn't have any problems with the KKK or the Black Panthers passing laws that would force you and your family to live under a bridge.
Passing laws is not the same as practicing one's religion.
|12.3.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Well, all I was saying is that the science on the
inherent immutability of homosexuality isn't as solid or convincing
as the press and some scientists want the world to believe. That
doesn't mean that gayness isn't genetically determined--it may very
well be--but no one actually knows that for sure or even mostly for
sure. I tend to think it is due, like most things, to a combination
of factors.
Regardless of whether it's a choice or a genetically programmed
trait, I don't go much for legal discrimination against gays,
provided that we don't go the other direction with legal
discrimination for gays.
|12.3.08 @ 11:33AM|#
You know, I've read that neuroscience has not established
that homosexuality is determined by genetics and that what genetic
evidence there is only applies to male homosexuality.
Reference, please. Not disputing that you read this somewhere, but
need to know whether you've read an actual study in a reputable,
peer-reviewed scientific journal, or some journalist's distillation
of such.
I'm no scholar on the topic...
I believe that you're confusing genetics with neuroscience. I have
a degree in research psychology, which does give me some expertise
in the scientific method in general, though not in genetics.
Just because it hasn't been established YET, doesn't mean it's not
there. This is an important distinction which non-scientists often
have trouble grasping. The scientific method is better at
disproving than at proving. My understanding is that there's a
tentative conclusion that there is a genetic basis for male
homosexuality. Once a scientist finds an effect, other scientists
do comparable studies to either confirm the conclusions of the
original study, disprove the conclusions of the original study, or
qualify the conclusions of the original study (ie, "yes, but only
when..."). Science has lots of checks and balances, and is often
slow to accept new ideas.
...but it strikes me that there's a huge political motive for
making gays into the blacks of the 21st century rather than keeping
the fight where it belongs, in the realm of human
choice.
Personally, as a cosmotarian-inclined moderate, I feel that equal
protection is justified even if sexual orientation turns out to be
a choice. HOWEVER, if sexual orientation turns out to be
genetically determined, I feel that creates a mandate for equal
protection under current laws. (IANAL, etc).
|12.3.08 @ 11:34AM|#
Pro,
I am fully aware that the science is undetermined. In the future
the science may be settled that being gay is genetic. When and if
it ever is, then there should be laws prohibiting discrimination on
that basis. Until the science is settle, however, the default
position ought to be that it is a personal choice and a moral
issue.
|12.3.08 @ 11:34AM|#
Plus they take too long putting their board on after getting
off the chair.
Yes! So true, and so annoying. I propose that we allow
discrimination against snowboarders. Who is with me?
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 11:36AM|#
I don't see a lot of libertarians out there demanding an end
to age, race, and sex discrimination at the workplace. Why is
that?
Because sadly, the Libertarian "evil action alarm" doesn't go off
unless there's a government involved.
"Hey, man! There's a beverage involved!"
|12.3.08 @ 11:36AM|#
One other thing Pro, the issue of discrimination based on genetic profile is going to be huge this centurty and it will relate to a lot more than just homosexuality. Can I refuse to hire someone on the basis that they are genetically predisposed to get some career debilitating disease?
|12.3.08 @ 11:36AM|#
You want to prove to me homosexuality is a choice, John? Go fuck a guy in the ass. If it's a choice, your body will respond just like you're with a women, right? It's just a choice. Go make the choice and tell me how it goes.
Virgil|12.3.08 @ 11:37AM|#
John,
"As pro liberate pointed out above there is no scientific evidence
establishing homosexuality as a genetic quality."
As it turns out, you don't have the slightest hint of a clue what
you're talking about when it comes to the genetic basis of sexual
orientation. It's quite clear that there is in fact at least some
genetic component to it (as clear as it is for many other complex
traits in humans that are widely accepted to have some genetic
basis). It also seems quite clear that there's an environmental
component, which of course is still very different from saying it's
a "choice" in the typical understanding of that term. Just because
there's not "the gay gene" doesn't mean that it's a choice. In
fact, one thing there's little to no evidence for is your
pulled-out-of-the-ass claim that more than a very, very tiny
minority of people make any conscious choice about their sexual
orientation.
"Until there is clear scientific evidence, what possible reason is
there not to assume it is a choice other than you say so?"
Ignoring the fact that your first statement is complete bullshit,
why in the world would that be the default assumption, especially
since it goes against the personal experience of the vast majority
of people, gay or straight, who don't feel like they every made a
conscious choice on the matter?
|12.3.08 @ 11:37AM|#
but epi, I swing both ways.
I was born a skier, but I converted to snowboarding during my
rebellious teen years, now I do both. (actually 95% skier, don't
even own a snowboard anymore)
Proper technique for snowboarders blockign the trail is to ski
normally as you approach, stop suddenly spraying them with snow,
then give a short lecture on why it is dangerous to stop in the
middle of the slope. Charming, isn't it?
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 11:38AM|#
Passing laws is not the same as practicing one's
religion.
That depends mightily on the religion. Not every religion is all
about church-state separation, and it is conceivable under some
that legislation would be a...mitzvah, for lack of a better
term.
|12.3.08 @ 11:38AM|#
"You want to prove to me homosexuality is a choice, John? Go
fuck a guy in the ass."
If it is genetic, why do otherwise straight people do exactly that
when confined in prison and on ships with just members of the same
sex? As I said above, it is not gay if its underway. That is not a
cliche because there isn't any truth to it.
rhywun|12.3.08 @ 11:39AM|#
My common sense tells me that who you sleep with is a question of your choice not your genes.
I love when willful ignorance of what homosexuality actually is
gets expressed as "who you choose to sleep with". Newsflash: it's
about a bit more than that.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 11:40AM|#
P.S. The CAPS LOCK key is NOT an I-Win BUTTON.
SO YOU SAY, FOOL. BUT I WIN.
;)
|12.3.08 @ 11:40AM|#
Tonio,
The problem I have is that the science and the proclamations being
made about it don't currently match up. I get very annoyed about
politics and science mixing the way they do. Guess that's just
human nature.
However, I think one point that should be made is that a genetic
predisposition does not a behavior make. We're programmed to be
scared of falling, but people overcome that fear all of the time.
Also, one issue with a genetically determination of sex preference
is how it gets passed from one generation to the next. I know that
a number of homosexuals in history also engaged in heterosexual
relationships due to societal pressures, but one would think that
any genetic predisposition of this sort would be less likely to be
passed on.
|12.3.08 @ 11:40AM|#
I believe that sexual preferences are neither free choice
nor genetically determined.
That appears to be a false dichotomy. Research into siblings where
one is gay and the other isn't make it appear that hormonal
influences of androgens and estrogens in the womb drive a lot of
subsequent sexual behavior. An article I read a while back noted
that first-born males were subjected to a different proportion and
concentration of hormones in the womb than later-born siblings,
possibly resulting in the fact that a higher percentage of
later-born siblings turn out gay. So it appears it's not precisely
genetic, nor is it something that has a lot of free choice involved
-- rather, the environmental influence of chemicals in the womb
apparently drive much of sexual orientation.
|12.3.08 @ 11:41AM|#
Virgil,
You answer my conjecture with your own. I don't rule out the
possibility that being gay may in fact be genetic. I am saying
there is no clear science to support it. Just because you want it
to be true, doesn't make it true.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 11:42AM|#
Until the science is settle, however, the default position
ought to be that it is a personal choice and a moral
issue.
Why? Those defaults seem *awful arbitrary*. Incidentally, *aster
marks* are also full of win. Yes* They* Are*!
|12.3.08 @ 11:42AM|#
"I love when willful ignorance of what homosexuality actually is
gets expressed as "who you choose to sleep with". Newsflash: it's
about a bit more than that."
Oh really? What are you going to tell me next that it is about
listening to Judy Garlin and watching Project Runway? Do you
actually know any gay people? I do and a lot of them are more
"straight acting" than many of the straight people I know. For them
at least, it seems to be about who they find sexually
attractive.
Kolohe|12.3.08 @ 11:43AM|#
I always thought canyons was snowboard only because of the way
it is marketed (and I've never seen anyone w skis get dropped off
there)
I stand corrected
|12.3.08 @ 11:43AM|#
If it is genetic, why do otherwise straight people do
exactly that when confined in prison and on ships with just members
of the same sex?
Uh, because there are no people of the opposite sex to fuck and
people get horny? If there were some opposite sex there, do you
think there would be any question of "choice"?
"Well, Dee, I think the real question is...why wouldn't
you want to have sex with someone you can't see?"
|12.3.08 @ 11:43AM|#
Well, I did post a link to the SNL skit on manly men at sea.
A classic with Pythonian support, no less.
Then we have the classic pop culture gay sailor comedy references
covered. We're nothing if not exhaustive in our inane
referenceces.
|12.3.08 @ 11:44AM|#
So, anyway, returning to the topic at hand, Popeye was a sailor, and he wasn't gay. Granted, he had a poor choice in women, but that's a different issue altogether.
|12.3.08 @ 11:45AM|#
"Why? Those defaults seem *awful arbitrary*. Incidentally,
*aster marks* are also full of win. Yes* They* Are*!"
How are they any less arbitrary than yours. You assume the science
will be there even though we haven't found it. Sounds a lot like
creationists who assume science will some day tell us dinosaurs and
man once lived together in harmony. Moreover, that our actions are
our free choice is the default position on every other action we
take. Why is who we have chose to have sex with so different than
everything else other than because you say so?
|12.3.08 @ 11:45AM|#
J sub D,
We, collectively speaking, are zen masters of inane cultural
references.
|12.3.08 @ 11:45AM|#
If it is genetic, why do otherwise straight people do
exactly that when confined in prison and on ships with just members
of the same sex?
Rape is not the same things as sex. And maybe there is a
self-selection process for people who are attracted to the idea of
signing up on a boat full of guys for months on end.
And any validity for this is if all men with a normal sex drive
commit prison rape or fuck each other when out at sea.
Tell us the story when you chose to be attracted to women, John.
Just a quick sketch of the day you weighed the equal options of sex
with the opposite gender verses your own gender will do.
Jordan|12.3.08 @ 11:45AM|#
SO YOU SAY, FOOL. BUT I WIN.
;)
Oh yeah? Well ponder this: Is using the Caps Lock key a choice, or
genetic? If your employer only provides keyboards missing the caps
lock key, can you sue him for discrimination?
|12.3.08 @ 11:46AM|#
"Uh, because there are no people of the opposite sex to fuck and
people get horny? If there were some opposite sex there, do you
think there would be any question of "choice"?"
But if they are genetically straight, why would that be
pleasureable? It is clearly pleasurable or they wouldn't do it.
|12.3.08 @ 11:48AM|#
So who here has ever pretended to be gay to avoid sleeping with
a girl who is all over you?
Let me tell you, it doesn't work. She refused to beleive me, and
then, and then, she raped me.
I tried to choose to be gay, I really did. It just didn't work.
|12.3.08 @ 11:48AM|#
Popeye was a sailor, and he wasn't gay
Just attracted to a woman with no secondary sexual characteristics
(hips, breasts) and who wears boots than even a women's softball
team would call butch. No, nothing gay there at all.
Virgil|12.3.08 @ 11:49AM|#
John,
"I am saying there is no clear science to support it. Just because
you want it to be true, doesn't make it true."
Again, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. There is in
fact "clear science" that shows that sexual orientation has a
significant non-zero heritability in human populations. In other
words, there is in fact compelling evidence of a genetic component
to it, even if its nature is not understood at the level of
specific, individual genes (as is also the case with a large number
of other complex traits for which everyone accepts that there's a
genetic component).
It has nothing to do with what I want - that's the plain reality,
and it will continue to be no matter how much you try to ignore
it.
|12.3.08 @ 11:49AM|#
"Rape is not the same things as sex. And maybe there is a
self-selection process for people who are attracted to the idea of
signing up on a boat full of guys for months on end."
Not all sex in prison or on ships is rape. There are tons of
examples of people who are straight but still have consensual
homosexual relationships under those conditions. Hell, there are
millions of bi sexual people. How do you explain them if sexual
preference is genetic? Isn't it more likly that it is not genetic
and the only reason most people find sex with the same gender
revolting is our social hangups about it? Lots of societies, the
Greeks for example, considered gay sex to be totally natural and
engaged in it in large numbers. How were all of those geneticly
straight Greeks having so much fun having gay sex?
Bingo|12.3.08 @ 11:49AM|#
People with non-mainstream sexual proclivities get married all the time. Why don't fundies get all worked up when people with foot fetishes get married?
rhywun|12.3.08 @ 11:50AM|#
For them at least, it seems to be about who they find sexually attractive.
OK, you're not *completely* ignorant on the subject. But to be more
accurate, the vast majority of gays are *incapable* of being
sexually attracted to the opposite sex.
|12.3.08 @ 11:50AM|#
Uh John I *am* gay so I think I have a reasonable
grasp of the subject.
I know there's a joke there, I just can't put my finger in it.
|12.3.08 @ 11:51AM|#
But if they are genetically straight, why would that be
pleasureable? It is clearly pleasurable or they wouldn't do
it.
Closing your eyes and thinking of a woman is certainly possible,
John. People do strange shit when they're horny. They're not
choosing to be gay; they're making the best of their
situation.
Just attracted to a woman with no secondary sexual
characteristics (hips, breasts) and who wears boots than even a
women's softball team would call butch. No, nothing gay there at
all.
Plus he eats spinach and has a conflicted, very physical
relationship with a big hairy guy named Bluto.
|12.3.08 @ 11:52AM|#
Why don't fundies get all worked up when people with foot
fetishes get married?
Because you rarely have to see two feet with big bushy mustaches
kissing in public.
|12.3.08 @ 11:52AM|#
Heterosexual male homophobes are really stupid. They should be
promoting male homosexuality. That leaves more women for them.
Think about it you stupid hateful pricks, every male gay
marriage/union, whatever the fuck you want to call it, leaves two
less men on the market.
Now you bi-sexual men, Fuck you. You are just being selfish.
rhywun|12.3.08 @ 11:52AM|#
Hell, there are millions of bi sexual people. How do you explain them if sexual preference is genetic?
It's an inverted bell curve, with bisexuals in the middle. This is
basic stuff, John.
|12.3.08 @ 11:53AM|#
Homosexuality is a choice
The jury is still out on that one, as evidence continues to
accumulate that it is in fact genetic.
I read some interesting conjecture with some backup that in
many cases fetal expopsure to differeing maternal hormone
levels is complicit in homosexuality. The issue's not important
enough to me to follow up on, but it was an interesting slant on
the subject.
|12.3.08 @ 11:53AM|#
"OK, you're not *completely* ignorant on the subject. But to be
more accurate, the vast majority of gays are *incapable* of being
sexually attracted to the opposite sex."
And some people are incapable of having sex period. There are lots
of variations of how people are. Does that mean it is genetic?
Maybe. I just want to see some hard scientific evidence of it. But
even still, the people you describe are not the entire gay
community. Some are attracted to both sex but prefer their own
sex.
|12.3.08 @ 11:53AM|#
And with Wimpy working out his sexual inadequacies through a severe eating disorder, Popeye is a fucked up strip.
rhywun|12.3.08 @ 11:55AM|#
Lots of societies, the Greeks for example, considered gay sex to be totally natural and engaged in it in large numbers.
Actually, the Greeks had a sort of ritualized pedophilia going on.
In every case, it was an older guy dominating some scared kid. In
no way was it anything like a gay relationship as we would
understand it today.
|12.3.08 @ 11:56AM|#
My previous would have looked like this if I wasn't too arrogant
to utilize the preview function.
Homosexuality is a choice
The jury is still out on that one, as evidence continues to accumulate that it is in fact genetic.
I read some interesting conjecture with some backup that in
many cases fetal expopsure to differeing maternal hormone
levels is complicit in homosexuality. The issue's not important
enough to me to follow up on, but it was an interesting slant on
the subject.
The Angry Optimist|12.3.08 @ 11:57AM|#
men fooling around with men is as old as time.
I'm not convinced, however, that gay men are capable of monogamy.
Not that I care, but I think the marriage thing is kind of funny
for a group that cheats on its boyfriends like crazy.
|12.3.08 @ 11:57AM|#
Heterosexual male homophobes are really stupid. They should
be promoting male homosexuality. That leaves more women for them.
Think about it you stupid hateful pricks, every male gay
marriage/union, whatever the fuck you want to call it, leaves two
less men on the market.
The problem is that all the women want to pal around with their gay
guy friends (who of course aren;t trying to screw them)...
|12.3.08 @ 11:58AM|#
"Actually, the Greeks had a sort of ritualized pedophilia going
on. In every case, it was an older guy dominating some scared kid.
In no way was it anything like a gay relationship as we would
understand it today."
That was the Spartans who did that. The Athenians and the rest of
Greece viewed homosexuality as an effective means of birth control.
They certainly didn't have gay marriage and people didn't give up
women to be with men. They still had responsibilities to society to
marry and have children. But, gay sex between men was not a big
deal and it wasn't all pediastry.
|12.3.08 @ 11:58AM|#
I'm not convinced, however, that gay men are capable of
monogamy. Not that I care, but I think the marriage thing is kind
of funny for a group that cheats on its boyfriends like
crazy.
Especially when you consider the documented rarity of heterosexual
adultery.
Formerly Jennifer|12.3.08 @ 11:59AM|#
When have "private institutions" ever "managed to maintain
[marriage]"? Hasn't it always been the purview of civil
authority?
Karlh, we already have civil unions, which are recognized only by
the state, with no mention or involvement of any deity. For
heterosexuals, this is called marriage. Maybe religious folks
should change their terminology.
The Angry Optimist|12.3.08 @ 12:00PM|#
J sub -
What I should have said was "People in general are probably
incapable of monogamy, but gay men (as a subset of people) are
probably even more incapable."
|12.3.08 @ 12:00PM|#
"Not that I care, but I think the marriage thing is kind of
funny for a group that cheats on its boyfriends like crazy."
The guy who played the music at my wedding is gay and says most gay
men don't want to get married they just want to have a wedding. I
think more gay women would marry than men. In the straight world
women drive marriage a lot more than men. Take women out of the
equation and most men don't want to be tied down.
ed|12.3.08 @ 12:01PM|#
The eHarmony incident smacks of a self-indulgent lawyer
trying to make a name for himself.
And by eHarmony's choice of settling instead of fighting that
injustice, another nail is pounded into the casket of freedom of
association, freedom of commerce, and capitalism itself.
|12.3.08 @ 12:02PM|#
I think Olive Oyl was less mannish and more young girlish. So
Popeye, while heterosexual, was a pedophile. Also, having to crush
the male opposition to acquire a female mate is Primate Mating 101.
I don't think it can be held out as an exhibit establishing
gayness.
The non-Spartan (or Thebian, if I remember correctly) classical
Greeks thought pedophilic homosexual relationships were dandy, but
they had big problems with adult-on-adult homosexuality. Unless the
adults were women. Then it was hot ☺
rhywun|12.3.08 @ 12:02PM|#
the marriage thing is kind of funny for a group that cheats on its boyfriends like crazy
That's just men being men. Much of the whole reason for "marriage"
is to stop men from straying.
a higher percentage of later-born siblings turn out gay
I saw that article too. And anecdotally, almost every gay man I ask
has an older brother or two. I have three.
|12.3.08 @ 12:05PM|#
Much of the whole reason for "marriage" is to stop men from
straying.
And to have a legal basis for reasonable assumption of
paternity.
|12.3.08 @ 12:11PM|#
"That's just men being men. Much of the whole reason for
"marriage" is to stop men from straying."
Does marriage really stop them from straying? Yes and no I think. I
think what stops them from straying is not so much marriage but the
social stigmas associated with straying from a marriage. Would
straying from a gay marraige have any more social stigma than
straying from a gay relationship? I am not sure to be honest. To
say yes, you have to assume that access to marriage would change
the gay culture. Indeed, some gays object to gay marriage for that
very reason; that they feel that promiscuity is one of the
hallmarks of being gay and a part of gay culture.
|12.3.08 @ 12:13PM|#
rhywyn
Look at Andrew Sullivan. He as at heart a social scold. If he were
straight he would be a very conservative catholic. I really think
gay marriage is such an important issue to him in no small part
because he wants to use marriage to scold gays into what he
considers better behavior.
|12.3.08 @ 12:14PM|#
I'm a monogamous, non-cheating male, for whatever that's worth. That goes for my pre-marital relationships as well as my marriage. Is that genetic?
rhywun|12.3.08 @ 12:14PM|#
But, gay sex between men was not a big deal and it wasn't all pediastry.
So what. Those people (mostly) weren't gay. I could have sex with a
woman but that wouldn't make me straight.
|12.3.08 @ 12:15PM|#
Warty,
The damned whale is symbolic of so much that I think throwing
sexual imagery on top of it is gratuitous.
|12.3.08 @ 12:17PM|#
I could have sex with a woman but that wouldn't make me
straight.
Yeah, but dude, if I (as a straight male) were to bang a dude just
once, I'd be gay forever. Don't you understand homophobia? Work
with me here.
rhywun|12.3.08 @ 12:19PM|#
some gays object to gay marriage for that very reason; that they feel that promiscuity is one of the hallmarks of being gay and a part of gay culture.
Yep, some do. I don't associate much with that type. All the gay
men I know are either in monogamous relationships or "just dating"
but desire monogamy. The culture you're describing kind of died out
in the 80s.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 12:19PM|#
How were all of those genetically straight Greeks having so
much fun having gay sex?
Well, for one, we know that changes in the genetic pool can be
(relatively) swift. Who knows, maybe the gay gene is rarer now than
it was in Greece two-and-a-half millenia ago. Heaven knows there
were fewer blond people, fewer people with blue eyes, fewer people
with sickle-cell anemia, all genetic characteristics.
But I think the answer lies closer to the fact that culture can
acclimate people to all sorts of behaviors that run against their
genetic predispositions. I'm pretty sure most people do not have a
genetic disposition to sitting in a cubicle all day, instead of
hunting, gathering, raping, pillaging, and being inebriated all day
long.
Tell a person that their instincts are bad and you can control
their behavior. Yes, it makes them miserable, but you can to a
certain extent control their behavior that way. Beat on a gay guy
enough for being gay and you can get yourself a miserable alcoholic
who *acts* straight. Doesn't make him any less gay.
And the bisexuality thing is a red herring. There could be a
"bisexual" gene; there is no rule that the genetics must be binary.
Blue, green, hazel, and brown are all possible eye colors, after
all.
Scott66|12.3.08 @ 12:21PM|#
"It's an inverted bell curve, with bisexuals in the
middle"
The shape of the curve is probably heavily influenced by social
norms though the ends are probably fixed.
|12.3.08 @ 12:22PM|#
"So what. Those people (mostly) weren't gay. I could have sex
with a woman but that wouldn't make me straight."
If those people were not gay what were they then? If you started
having sex with women, what would you be? Is it posible perhaps
that your taste in sexual partners is just that taste? I can't
stand the taste of annis. If I started guzzling Sambuka, it
wouldn't make me like it anymore. I don't see how the fact that
someone's preferences are very firm necessarily makes those
preferences genetic or equivilent to being born of a certain
race.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 12:23PM|#
Also, John, what do you make of homosexual behavior in creatures
thought to be *incapable* of deliberative choice?
For
your perusal.
rhywun|12.3.08 @ 12:24PM|#
I can't stand the taste of annis.
John, with your, uh, lax spelling--I totally mis-read that
sentence at first.
|12.3.08 @ 12:26PM|#
"The culture you're describing kind of died out in the
80s."
Sadly thanks to HIV is more than kind of died out. And yes it is
Anis with one N not two.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 12:27PM|#
Speaking of red herrings, why is it necessary to compare
homosexuality to race? Is it for ease of comparison, or for ease of
strawman production?
Could sexuality be a distinct process from race (as it almost
assuredly is) with different variabilities and incidental
phenomena, and still be
a. genetically influenced or determined
b. worthy of legal recognition and protection
Of course.
rhywun|12.3.08 @ 12:27PM|#
If you started having sex with women, what would you be?
If I started having sex exclusively with women, felt a
romantic attraction to them, and seriously considered a monogamous
relation with one, why then I guess I would consider myself
straight. Gay/straight is about more than sex.
rhywun|12.3.08 @ 12:28PM|#
And yes it is Anis with one N not two.
Sorry. I still have a different image in my mind.
Try "anise".
|12.3.08 @ 12:31PM|#
The problem I have is that the science and the proclamations
being made about it don't currently match up.
Specific example, please.
Also, one issue with a genetically determination of sex
preference is how it gets passed from one generation to the next. I
know that a number of homosexuals in history also engaged in
heterosexual relationships due to societal pressures, but one would
think that any genetic predisposition of this sort would be less
likely to be passed on.
I believe that the current thinking is that the gay gene
(predisposition) is transmitted via the the mother, and activated
(behavior) by hormones in the womb during gestation. In
evolutionary terms, gay men who provide for their straight sisters
and their offspring are a net benefit to the family. You're
actually better off genetically if you sacrifice yourself to save
two siblings than if you save yourself.
|12.3.08 @ 12:32PM|#
"Speaking of red herrings, why is it necessary to compare
homosexuality to race? Is it for ease of comparison, or for ease of
strawman production?"
No it is not a strawman at all. We do not prohibit all
discrimination in this society. I can lawfully discriminate against
you on the basis of all sorts of criteria. Maybe you are too fat or
root for the wrong professional football team or pick your nose.
All of those things are lawful, if not very reasonable, basis of
discrimination. The only times we say it is unlawful to
discriminate against someone is when it is because of a quality
about them, race or sex or national origen, that they cannot
change. If homosexuality is established to be a genetic trait, it
will be just like race. Race is not a strawman.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 12:34PM|#
Not judging, of course, I make my share of typos.
That's the name of the spice. However, (and I was unaware of this
before I looked), the beverage is actually called anis (or
anisette). Was was going to do the same pedant as you, but got
stopped in my tracks by the almighty wiki.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 12:36PM|#
I believe that the current thinking is that the gay gene
(predisposition) is transmitted via the the mother, and activated
(behavior) by hormones in the womb during gestation. In
evolutionary terms, gay men who provide for their straight sisters
and their offspring are a net benefit to the family. You're
actually better off genetically if you sacrifice yourself to save
two siblings than if you save yourself.
The other hypothesis I've heard is differential genetic expression
by gender: the gene that makes men gay makes women more fertile and
fecund.
Both make sense. I'd guess some combination.
|12.3.08 @ 12:37PM|#
Yeah, but dude, if I (as a straight male) were to bang a
dude just once, I'd be gay forever. Don't you understand
homophobia? Work with me here.
No, Epi, you can bang as many other guys as you want and still be
straight. However you have to have a really good excuse (drunk,
horny, no women available). Also helps if when you wake/sober up
that you slap the faggot around a bit.
It's only when you start letting other guys bang you that people
will start to wonder.
Don't they teach you kids anything?
|12.3.08 @ 12:37PM|#
In evolutionary terms, gay men who provide for their
straight sisters and their offspring are a net benefit to the
family. You're actually better off genetically if you sacrifice
yourself to save two siblings than if you save yourself.
These seems fishy. Why would a gay man necessarily "provide" for
his straight sisters? What would stop him from running off and
joining the cast of Starlight Express?
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 12:39PM|#
John,
It is also illegal to discriminate based on political preference or
religious adherence, two things that are quite within the choice of
the person possessing them.
That a thing is a choice does not foreclose the possibility that
discriminating on its basis is not appropriate or even legally
possible.
|12.3.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Back to topic, if there's something inherently gay about sailors on ships, what about crew members on spaceships?
rhywun|12.3.08 @ 12:42PM|#
I don't see how the fact that someone's preferences are very firm necessarily makes those preferences genetic
I'm not offering proof that sexuality is genetic; I'll leave that
to the scientists. I'm just offering speculation that, because
sexual preference seems to be formed long before puberty, it is for
all intents and purposes indistinguishable from a genetic
trait such as skin color--even if it turns out NOT to be
genetic.
Sir Meatgoggles|12.3.08 @ 12:43PM|#
I don't think there's any one thing that can be pinpointed as
the "reason" people are gay/bi. Some people are just attracted to
the same sex from an early age for no demonstrable "reason". Some
have a bad experience with the opposite sex (seems more typical in
women than men from experience) which impacts their level of
attraction to the opposite sex. Some people are just horny and
willing to try anything. Some make a deep personal connection with
someone of their same sex and it burgeons into a sexual attraction.
Some are forced to homosexuality by the circumstances combined with
sexual frustration (i.e. the Navy, prison). I don't think that
anyone's going to walk away from this forum with the answer, so I
don't know what the point of this argument is. Some people are
attracted to people of a certain race - what's the point of arguing
about what psychological, circumstantial or genetic forces caused
that attraction?
Speaking of which, wouldn't the New Jersey ruling also preclude
that intraracially-targeted dating sites are also
discriminatory?
Hell, isn't the purpose of dating sites discrimination? I have yet
to see a dating ad that reads "Seeking man, woman or transgendered
of any race, nationality. You don't have to be attractive or nice.
You don't have to share my interests or have any personality.
Smoker/non-smoker/drinker/non-drinker doesn't matter to me at all,
nor does your religious or political views."
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 12:44PM|#
Back to topic, if there's something inherently gay about
sailors on ships, what about crew members on spaceships?
Ask Sulu.
|12.3.08 @ 12:46PM|#
No, Epi, you can bang as many other guys as you want and
still be straight. However you have to have a really good excuse
(drunk, horny, no women available).
Right, it's not my fault! It was the vodka, Red Bull, Viagra, and
Astroglide!
Also helps if when you wake/sober up that you slap the faggot
around a bit.
Well, I already do that with the girls I sleep with, so I have that
covered.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 12:47PM|#
I'm not offering proof that sexuality is genetic; I'll leave
that to the scientists. I'm just offering speculation that, because
sexual preference seems to be formed long before puberty, it is for
all intents and purposes indistinguishable from a genetic trait
such as skin color--even if it turns out NOT to be
genetic.
That's a really excellent way to put it. If it acts like a duck and
quacks like a duck...
|12.3.08 @ 12:47PM|#
Ele,
[super pedant mode]
John was talking about his objection to the flavor of Sambuca, so
therefore instead of referring to the liquor named "anis(ette)" he
was instead complaining about "anise" the flavoring
component.
[/super pedant mode]
[pushes glasses back up nose and takes hit from inhaler]
"That is a very rare Mary Worth in which she counsels a
friend to commit suicide."
|12.3.08 @ 12:48PM|#
If it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck...
...somebody's tried to fuck it.
Virgil|12.3.08 @ 12:49PM|#
John,
"If homosexuality is established to be a genetic trait, it will be
just like race."
I pointed out again at 11:49 that it has already been established
that sexual orientation has a genetic component. Shockingly, you
didn't have much to say about that. So I'll make even easier for
you. Here's a simple place to start:
"Human sexual orientation has a heritable component," published in
the journal Human Biology in 1998 (70(2):347-365).
Abstract: "We present an overview of behavioral genetics research
on homosexual and heterosexual orientation. Family, twin, and
adoptee studies indicate that homosexuality and thus
heterosexuality run in families. Sibling, twin, and adoptee
concordance rates are compatible with the hypothesis that genes
account for at least half of the variance in sexual orientation. We
note observations of homosexual behavior in animal species, but the
analogy to human sexual orientation is unclear. We discuss the
reproductive disadvantage of a homosexual orientation and present
possible mechanisms that could maintain a balanced polymorphism in
human populations."
That's just one of many studies, including considerably more recent
ones, that show qualitatively similar results (for example, "A twin
study of sexual behavior in men," Archives of Sexual Behavior
33(2):129-136, 2004). You can find plenty more yourself with some
minimal searching.
So why don't you take a look at those studies, then come back and
explain to us how they're all flawed and we still don't have any
"real science" about the genetic basis of homosexuality.
Either that, or quit repeating something that is obviously untrue
just because it's ideologically convenient for you.
|12.3.08 @ 12:50PM|#
Rhywun,
Understand that I have nothing against gays and do not think it is
proper to discriminate against them. I am just not convinced it is
genetic. I also am not sure that it will do gays much good to run
to court in order to gain social acceptance. If anti-discrimination
laws were passed, chances are they would be abused and coopted by
people who just want to oppress religion or get an easy check and
probably create more animosity towards gays than there already
is.
|12.3.08 @ 12:51PM|#
[super ultra pedant mode]
The flavor of Sambuca comes from aniseed. Star Aniseed to
be precise. Which is a seed from an anise (anis is also allowed)
plant.
[/super ultra pedant mode]
|12.3.08 @ 12:52PM|#
Virgil,
A few studies that say that there may be a genetic component to
homosexuality doesn't amount to proof of homosexuals having no
choice. You chose to beleive that because it says what you want to
hear.
rhywun|12.3.08 @ 12:52PM|#
Could we please move the conversation away from "anus". Thanks. What? Oh.
|12.3.08 @ 12:54PM|#
Was Sulu gay? Or was he Australian?
Talk about a distinction without a difference.
|12.3.08 @ 12:55PM|#
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1228325274.shtml\
This is disturbing and the reason why so many people don't believe
that gay marriage is just about marriage and nothing else.
|12.3.08 @ 12:56PM|#
A few studies that say that there may be a genetic component
to homosexuality doesn't amount to proof of homosexuals having no
choice
John, NutraSweet asked you earlier: when did you choose to like
pussy? I don't recall making that choice myself. It sure seemed
like it was already made.
rhywun|12.3.08 @ 12:59PM|#
I also am not sure that it will do gays much good to run to
court in order to gain social acceptance.
If it's constitutionally provable that gays should not be
discriminated against, "social acceptance" doesn't matter. It
should be pursued.
|12.3.08 @ 12:59PM|#
These seems fishy.
No, that's Epi's fingers. [snicker]
Why would a gay man necessarily "provide" for his straight
sisters? What would stop him from running off and joining the cast
of Starlight Express?
Gay men are less likely to have offspring than straight men.
Straight men pass their wealth on to their own children.
Historically, most cultures have had predetermined inheritance
rules, so when a single guy dies his parents, then his siblings
inherit.
Also, the observed reality is that it's often the gay brother who
stays home and serves as a caretaker. This effect magnifies in
pre-industrial societies.
rhywun|12.3.08 @ 1:02PM|#
This is disturbing and the reason why so many people don't believe that gay marriage is just about marriage and nothing else.
Maybe she was fired for being an idiot.
|12.3.08 @ 1:02PM|#
I must explain. Above, Elemenope referred to the captain in Master & Commander as Australian. I replied that he was mixing characters and actors. He responded that he was kidding. Then he did the same with Sulu/Takei, so I replied with the gay/Australian remark.
|12.3.08 @ 1:02PM|#
"John, NutraSweet asked you earlier: when did you choose to like
pussy? I don't recall making that choice myself. It sure seemed
like it was already made."
When did I chose to like anything? I don't recall making a
conscious choice to like chocolate anymore than I made a conscious
choice to like women. They both just seemed attractive.
Virgil|12.3.08 @ 1:03PM|#
"A few studies that say that there may be a genetic component to
homosexuality doesn't amount to proof of homosexuals having no
choice."
Jesus Christ, John, do you have the slightest sense of intellectual
honesty? You repeatedly ask for evidence that sexual orientation is
genetic; but when it's put right in front of you, you suddenly
decide that it doesn't matter any more? I'm sure when this topic
comes up on some other thread months from now you'll be right back
to happily repeating your lie that there's no "real science" behind
it, until someone calls you on it again. Then it will magically
become irrelevant again.
And by the way, it's dozens of studies, not "a few." Not that it
matters to you - you're obviously prepared to ignore whole volumes
of studies if you have to.
"You chose to beleive that because it says what you want to
hear."
No, actually I choose to believe it because it's consistent with
the facts at hand. That's how people who aren't shameless hacks
often try to draw conclusions. You're the one who's so desperate to
deny reality. The notion that homosexuals choose their orientation
is obviously one of the key tenets of your own personal faith, and
you're not going to let go of it no matter how detached from the
real world it is.
Mad Max|12.3.08 @ 1:04PM|#
"If homosexuality is established to be a genetic trait, it will
be just like race."
If you mean morally equivalent, I don't agree.
Being a midget probably has a genetic component, but that doesn't
mean a basketball team is practicing invidious discrimination by
not having midgets on its roster.
Some folks are born blind, perhaps indicating a genetic problem,
but that doesn't mean the Department of Motor Vehicles should be
giving them driver's licenses in the name of
"antidiscrimination."
|12.3.08 @ 1:04PM|#
"Maybe she was fired for being an idiot."
She was fired for holding an un PC view. Do you think that people
who object to homosexuality should not be allowed to hold jobs? It
should be okay to fire them. Perhaps we should just round them up
in camps and reducate them.
|12.3.08 @ 1:04PM|#
The flavor of Sambuca comes from aniseed. Star Aniseed to be
precise.
FAIL
"Anis" and Aniseed" are synonyms for the seed of the
Pimpinella species; Star Anise refers to seedpod of the
Illicium floridanum.
While Anise(ed) and Star Anise taste the same, originally Sambuca was made from
the former and not the latter. While cheaper manufacturers of
Sambuca may substitute some or all of the Anise for Star Anise, I
was giving John's palate the benefit of the doubt.
|12.3.08 @ 1:07PM|#
Sugerfree,
My wife only drinks the expensive stuff and it still tastes vile to
me.
|12.3.08 @ 1:10PM|#
My wife only drinks the expensive stuff and it still tastes
vile to me.
John's wife's palate for the win!
And, just for the record, I think anise and star anise flavored
food stuffs are fairly vile as well.
Virgil|12.3.08 @ 1:12PM|#
"Being a midget probably has a genetic component, but that
doesn't mean a basketball team is practicing invidious
discrimination by not having midgets on its roster.
Some folks are born blind, perhaps indicating a genetic problem,
but that doesn't mean the Department of Motor Vehicles should be
giving them driver's licenses in the name of
"antidiscrimination.""
This would be a much more compelling analogy if there were some
coherent reason to expect that allowing gay marriage would somehow
inhibit the proper function or success of marriage for the rest of
us (basketball) or put other people in danger of injury or death
(blind drivers).
|12.3.08 @ 1:12PM|#
All of this is silly anyone, all the problems with the
acceptance of homosexuals in society could be solved by them all
joining a union.
(SAG doesn't get them all, you know...)
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 1:13PM|#
John,
You never addressed the point of two male
fruit-flies/giraffes/swans fucking for fun.
How do creatures that can't make deliberate volitional conceptual
choices "choose" to act in a homosexual manner?
Is this not evidence of genetic and/or congenital and/or
environmental sources for homsexuality, rather than volition?
|12.3.08 @ 1:13PM|#
Lost in the sharp drop in oil prices is the fact that the
incentive to destroy agave crops in favor of corn (for ethanol) is
also declining rapidly. Our precious tequila is saved!
Anis/Anise tastes icky.
|12.3.08 @ 1:16PM|#
SAG doesn't get them all, you know..
Yeah, but the Film Actor's Guild does.
And, just for the record, I think anise and star anise flavored
food stuffs are fairly vile as well.
What is with the anise hate here? Next you'll be telling me you
don't like fennel.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 1:16PM|#
John, from the comments section of the Volokh article you
posted, a fellow wrote:
"If I'm hiring someone whose job involves ensuring that my
organization complies with the civil rights laws - in other words,
a human resources administrator, like this woman was - I really
don't think I have to employ someone who believes some of those
laws are immoral and violate God's will. And from a pragmatic
standpoint, employing this woman in a human resources position
creates a liability nightmare."
Much like you can tell doctors and pharmacists to prescribe and
dispense birth control pills, and if their religion says that's bad
they can shove it, because it's part of their job to provide those
things.
|12.3.08 @ 1:17PM|#
Thanks, everyone, for schooling John. Poor clueless bigot
doesn't realize he's been demolished. Refuses to answer Epi's
"kitty" challenge. Then Virgil hands him some actual scientific
evidence which he says isn't conclusive (thereby winning the Ron
Bailey Award). Finally, he changes his tune with a link to an
article about a single case of firing over viewpoint
discrimination, claiming that this proves the vast lavendar
conspiracy.
It's OK, though. I'm sure some of his best friends are gay. LOLz
for all!
theCL|12.3.08 @ 1:17PM|#
A Berman: In a world with a much smaller government, a much more
conservative legal system, and no federal or state control over
schools, gay marriage would be much easier for social conservatives
to accept.
Elemenope: It's not that it would be easier for them to accept so
much as they wouldn't have much to say about it besides the
traditional moral whining.
Right. It's not a matter of "acceptance," because acceptance is a
matter of personal taste. It's when government gets involved that
everything becomes an argument.
It's this insane idea that it's the government that grants/creates
rights vs. the obvious reality that by virtue of merely being
human, we have rights. Looking to government as the root of rights
creates conflict.
Tonio: How did you get to that conclusion? Can you offer any
concrete examples of SoCon's offering this sort of bargain? Even if
they would, rights are not negotiable.
Yes, rights are not negotiable, because rights are inherent. With a
true conservative (small) government, marriage would cease to be a
legal institution and go back to where it belongs, as a
social/spiritual institution. The government then is reduced to the
basic contractual legalities which simply protect the inherent
rights all people have by virtue of being human.
John: You have such a hostile attitude towards religion. That is
your right. It is a free country. But, you are not helping your
cause very much. Sullum is right. A lot Christians get pissed off
over gay marriage not becuase they care that gays get married but
more because they don't trust people like you to stop there and not
do away with religious freedom in this country in the name of
"tolerance".
Indeed! Quite frankly, the whole notion of the government involving
itself in marriage in the first place, is in direct violation of
"separation of church and state."
Kick the government out, and there's nothing left to fight over.
Gays and straights could go on their merry ways! But as long as it
remains a "legal right" issue ... each side gets put on the
defensive, and ultimately attacks the other.
Virgil|12.3.08 @ 1:18PM|#
SugarFree,
But that's the very best kind of Catholic lunatic (or lunatic
troll).
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 1:19PM|#
This would be a much more compelling analogy if there were
some coherent reason to expect that allowing gay marriage would
somehow inhibit the proper function or success of marriage for the
rest of us (basketball) or put other people in danger of injury or
death (blind drivers).
But, but, but...the sanctity of marriage!!! We're all gonna die!
Jeezus is gonna send hurricanes and earthquakes and Barbara
Streisand, and we'll deserve it!
You must exterminate all midgets IMMEDIATELY!!! I mean, oh,
wait...
|12.3.08 @ 1:19PM|#
No, that's Epi's fingers. [snicker]
You go right ahead and snicker, dude.
Historically, most cultures have had predetermined inheritance
rules, so when a single guy dies his parents, then his siblings
inherit.
Genetic evolution determined by inheritance rules? I maintain
fishiness. And it would be totally useless in one of the
(incredibly rare) polyandrous societies.
|12.3.08 @ 1:20PM|#
the vast lavendar conspiracy versus the vast right wing
conspiracy
an epic showdown for the ages to be sure
|12.3.08 @ 1:24PM|#
Episiarch,
I think he meant that he was taking a Snickers break after he made
his comment.
Snickers Provides Substantial Satisfaction.
Mad Max|12.3.08 @ 1:28PM|#
"But, but, but...the sanctity of marriage!!! We're all gonna
die! Jeezus is gonna send hurricanes and earthquakes and Barbara
Streisand, and we'll deserve it!
"You must exterminate all midgets IMMEDIATELY!!! I mean, oh,
wait..."
Yes, that's more or less a fair summing-up of my position. If you
leave out the first five sentences.
An *even more* accurate summary would have been: "You can't argue
for 'gay-rights' laws and regulations simply because gayness is
(allegedly) genetic. That sort of argument proves too much, and it
invalidates all sorts of legitimate discrimination based on what
are probably genetic characteristics."
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 1:32PM|#
MM --
I actually didn't see your post. I was reacting to Virgil who
reacted to you. Hence, my italicized quote was of the stuff he
wrote, not the stuff you wrote.
And he's right, BTW. Homosexuality does not seem to pose any sort
of threat to *others* nor does it delimit what sort of activities a
person may engage in, whatever it may or may not do to the status
of one's own body/mind/soul/whatever. As such, it is not comparable
to debilitating or handicapping genetic statuses, like dwarfism or
genetic blindness.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 1:36PM|#
the vast lavendar conspiracy versus the vast right wing
conspiracy
an epic showdown for the ages to be sure
From teh cheezburger recipe bequeathed unto Mark, Chapter 3:
23 An Happy Cat was like "Hay guise, srsly, if I haz teh devilz in
me how u think I can pwn maiself, r u nuts?"
24 An Happy Cat was like "K, srsly agen, if u guise cant agree on
if i am a good kitteh or a devil kitteh u cant make a very gud
kingdum can u?"
25 An tehn Happy Cat wuz like "An srsly yet agen, if all teh
kittehs in one howse are lyke hay i want fish and teh other kittehs
are lyke no i wan chickenz then their howse cannt stand cuz all teh
kittehs will tere it down, srsly, don do taht, kthx."
Mad Max|12.3.08 @ 1:42PM|#
If the argument is "don't discriminate against gays because
their activity is harmless," then it wouldn't matter whether
there's a gene for it or not? After all, there isn't a gene for
Methodism (so far as I know), yet anti-Methodist discrimination
usually violates the law.
This is why the genetic argument is a major red herring.
I believe that this thread has well documented the harm that
"anti-discrimination laws" do to liberty. Some may think this is a
cost worth paying. When it comes to breaking the color bar which
used to exist in some industries, I would be inclined to agree. But
*modern* antidiscrimination law protects people based on all sorts
of characteristics that go beyond what is strictly necessary to
correct market failures. Expanding the antidiscriminatinon laws to
take in matchmaking Web sites, employers, etc. who discriminate
against gays provides highly dubious benefits, and it *does* tell
others what to do with their lives and property.
The "gay-marriage" and "civil union" laws are, among other
problems, organically linked to laws against "discrimination" by
private business. As you have more govt-recognized gay unions, then
the case for "antidiscrimination laws" is enhanced both politically
and judicially.
Formerly Jennifer|12.3.08 @ 1:46PM|#
theCl
I repeat my earlier question, when has "the government" NOT been
involved in marriage?
Marriage (by whatever name) started out as a means of insuring a
man's paternity; which is basically his property rights in his wife
(wives) and therefore his children. It was not necessarily seen as
a spiritual anything until much later in history.
Divorced Catholics are not allowed to have a second (or more)
marriage sanctified by the church unless they obtain a statement
from church officials that basically says that their first marriage
didn't really count (annullment).
Should Catholic hospitals discriminate against married couples
where one or both parties had been divorced? "Sorry, you can't make
any decisions on behalf of your 'spouse'; you aren't really
married." How about Catholic judges? "Well, you're not really
entitled to any of your 'marital' possessions; you're not really
married." Or " Those aren't really your children; you're not really
married." Or " You must testify against your 'spouse'; privilege
doesn't apply; you're not really married."
Why is okay to discriminate against homosexual couples in a civil
union, and not heterosexual couples in a civil marriage? Oh that's
right, you can't tell a heterosexual couple is in a civil marriage
just by looking at them.
Ska|12.3.08 @ 1:53PM|#
You guys all started talking about anise because of what finocchio is slang for, right?
|12.3.08 @ 1:57PM|#
Aside from the obvious "why would anyone choose to be that
way", even people who claims it's not genetic, when pressed, will
admit that the "choice" happens so early as to be
indistiguishable.
Why would anyone choose to be that way? I dunno. Why would would
anyone choose to be a bank robber, a junkie or a serial
killer?
Must be genetic.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 1:59PM|#
What is with the anise hate here? Next you'll be telling me
you don't like fennel.
Fucking gross. You know what else tastes like fetid ass?
Caraway.
|12.3.08 @ 2:00PM|#
Epi,
The "fingers" comment was a compliment of the har-har
shoulder-punching sort, not a slam. Realize you may not have
understood the reference. Will email you a full explanation if you
wish.
Regards,
Tonio
|12.3.08 @ 2:12PM|#
The "fingers" comment was a compliment of the har-har
shoulder-punching sort, not a slam.
I know. My response was just to say "yeah, obviously".
Realize you may not have understood the reference.
It was that I cook with fish a lot, right?
Fucking gross. You know what else tastes like fetid ass?
Caraway.
Those who dislike fennel are cursed to eat only the touristy crap
Italian food that they serve in dives like Mamma Leone's. Enjoy
your veal cacciatore, dude.
|12.3.08 @ 2:34PM|#
In evolutionary terms, gay men who provide for their
straight sisters and their offspring are a net benefit to the
family.
That is attributing a behavioral component to a genetic trait that
it is unrelated to. Why should gay people provide for their hetero
siblings any more than hetero people do?
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 2:43PM|#
R C --
Would you stipulate that such entities as extended families
exist?
Are you arguing that it is uncommon for people unburdened by
child-rearing in such families to help with child-rearing of close
relatives?
Incidentally, to answer your question, it is because they are less
likely to have children of their own, and so more likely to be
"available" to help.
Elemenope|12.3.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Sir M --
Thx, tho if you are referring to the LOLbible, I cannot take
credit. On the other hand, fetid is a downright hilarious word.
Fussball the Clown|12.3.08 @ 2:52PM|#
OMG! My favorite pr0n site lost it's lawsuit! Now it's required to show two hairy gay dudes doing each other in the wazoo! www.cleanshavenlesbianteens.com will never be the same!
Urkobold™|12.3.08 @ 2:55PM|#
AS USUAL, FUSSBALL THE CLOWN STRIKES TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER WITH HIS RAPIER WIT AND FOCUS ON KEY ISSUES. A WORLD WITH HAIRY ASSES ON LESBIAN-PORN SITES IS A WORLD THE URKOBOLD WOULD NOT CARE TO LIVE IN.
|12.3.08 @ 3:49PM|#
Back to topic, if there's something inherently gay about
sailors on ships, what about crew members on spaceships?
When I was in the army, I was taught never to turn your back to a
navy dude with a beer in one hand a and bottle of lube in the
other.
|12.3.08 @ 4:13PM|#
R C --
Would you stipulate that such entities as extended families
exist?
Sure.
Are you arguing that it is uncommon for people unburdened by
child-rearing in such families to help with child-rearing of close
relatives?
I don't know how common it is, relative to mutual help by family
members with kids. Most all the help my mother got when she was
raising me and my brother was from other families with kids the
same age. Of course, even a slight advantage can accumulate over
evolutionary scals.
Incidentally, to answer your question, it is because they are
less likely to have children of their own, and so more likely to be
"available" to help.
This is really just a slight recasting of the argument for an
altruistic gene, which I think is still controversial, to say the
least.
Since there is only a genetic/evolutionary advantage if having a
gay brother or brother-in-law increases the likelihood that your
children will reach breeding age, and in fact breed, I would
posit:
(1) That advantage doesn't exist in modern human societies (which
doesn't mean it didn't exist in the hunter/gatherer days and got
encoded in our DNA back then).
(2) That advantage, if any, can be replicated by any social
arrangement in which other members of the pack/tribe are not
allowed to breed, as is common in hierarchical packs (wolves,
lions, etc.).
(3) That advantage should lead to an observable rate of
homosexuality in other social animals, which I'm not sure has
really been validated.
I'm sticking to my imprinting theory, with the allowance that a
predisposition to imprinting gay may arise from maternal
hormones.
Drop No Soap|12.3.08 @ 4:23PM|#
"(3) That advantage should lead to an observable rate of
homosexuality in other social animals, which I'm not sure has
really been validated."
I don't know about that.
|12.3.08 @ 4:28PM|#
R C Dean,
You may not be sure, but there are stable rates of homosexuality in
thousands of species. The idea that gay siblings provide a net
benefit to genetically close relatives is just part of another
theory, one that accords with the "selfish gene" concept. Studies
have demonstrated that homosexuality seems to be genetically
correlated to higher fecundity in females. That is, female
relatives of homosexual males tend to have more offspring. Being
available to help raise these offspring is a bonus effect. The idea
is that the genes that cause higher fecundity in females are also
the genes that can cause homosexuality in males. That homosexuals
exist and have existed in stable proportions for all of time
suggests that the net genetic benefit is positive.
JW Gacy|12.3.08 @ 4:30PM|#
Apropos of nothing, LGBT/GLBT seem to be used interchangeably.
Really, any permutation of those letters if valid.
"I'll have a GBLT on rye."
|12.3.08 @ 6:29PM|#
What I should have said was "People in general are probably
incapable of monogamy, but gay men (as a subset of people) are
probably even more incapable."
What you should have said is "All men like to fuck around, and will
do it if they can get away with it, but women object strenuously to
that (for completely understandable biological reasons) and try to
reign them in, so gay men who are not subject to such severe
constraints are more likely to indulge in the fucking around all
men like to do."
|12.3.08 @ 7:11PM|#
"Apropos of nothing, LGBT/GLBT seem to be used
interchangeably. Really, any permutation of those letters if
valid."
There used interchangably so as not to "privelage" males over
females, gays over straights and therfore become part of the
patriarchal hygemony of the heterosexist power structure.
|12.6.08 @ 11:57AM|#
You want to avail yourself of the federal protection afforded interstate commerce, you don't get to discriminate. You wanna discriminate, form a private club or religion.
Comrade Laissez-Faire|12.6.08 @ 10:46PM|#
Most of us who respond in the REASON comments section are
libertarians, whether we lean left-of-center or right-of-center. So
articles like this are basically preaching to the choir for the
most part, in that we already agree that non-heterosexuals should
not be denied equal rights under the law in any aspect based on
their sexuality, and that anti-discrimination laws should not be
imposed upon the private sector while not performing contractual
services for a government or receiving taxpayer subsidies.
As long as the taxation of income exists, tax break incentives
should be implemented for employers, landlords, and other private
businesses in the way of them having the option to sign a
non-discrimination agreement with the IRS and their state franchise
tax board (in states that tax income) in exchange for a tax
break.
|12.8.08 @ 3:27AM|#
"As pro liberate pointed out above there is no scientific
evidence establishing homosexuality as a genetic quality. The
little evidence there is seems to only apply to male
homosexuality"
this is a silly false dichotomy.
human behavioral traits/desires, etc. are almost never 100% genetic
or 100% behavioral.
think about it.
there can (and may be) a genetic component to sexual preference and
an environmental component.
iow, possible to have a genetic predisposition towards
homosexuality to a greater or smaller extent.
and actually, the science is relatively consistent with this. iow,
it's likely there is *a* genetic component but that given that
component it's not a given that the personw will turn out to be
homosexual.
many gayrightsagenda(tm) people want it to be 100% genetic
(regardless of the science) because they think this makes it
unassailable that their civil rights struggle is directly analogous
to the one blacks etc. went through
many bigotedantigaypeeps(tm) want it to be 100% not-genetic for
essentially the opposite reasons.
iow, people with an agenda place their ideology before the
scientific evidence (which is certainly far from conclusive)
because THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE DO.
how many times (especially in academia) do we see people with an
agenda ignore scientific evidence that opposes their POV about
human nature (think gender differentiation for instance the larry
summers flap)?
i'm for gay marriage fwiw.
and if tomorrow, it is determined that on average it's 50% genetic
and 50% environmental (like those things can be quantified as such
lol), it won't change my pov because it's rather tangential to the
issue imo.
|12.8.08 @ 3:28AM|#
ack... typo should be "human behavioral traits/desires, etc. are almost never 100% genetic or 100% environmental"
mark|12.8.08 @ 10:10AM|#
nevermind that there are plenty of gay only dating sites that
this man could have gone to. I do not feel excluded because they do
not cater to me.
Marriage should be left to private institutions where the
government acknowleges the contract in the form of a civil union,
whether it is between a same sex or opposite sex couple
However, as long as the government is going to administer
marriages, I understand and agree with the views of those that
believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, as it has
meant that for 5,000 years.
the word marriage and the religious history it carries should be
removed from the legal system, and should only be administered
through private groups.
|12.10.08 @ 11:18PM|#
Mark has a point. If all legal unions between two consenting
adults are termed under the law as civil unions, and the term
"marriage" can be reserved for private ceremonies, then would not
all be agreeable to this solution?
Another question come to mind, however. And that is why singles are
discriminated against when it comes to paying taxes and capital
gains, amongst other societal disadvantages built into our system.
Generally, singles do not make an issue of the extra burdens of
their solitary life; perhaps they hope to recitfy it one day with a
formal union, or they choose to remain single. The point is that if
any one group consistently "pays" more for their social status
under the law, is it not the single man or woman? If "rights" under
the law is the major complaint of homosexuals, then are not singles
the ultimate orphans when it comes to disenfranchisement as
citizens? I propose that no civil union give monetary advantage to
individuals that is not individually bestowed upon singles.
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Jacob Sullum
- Obama’s Hidden Fees, Jacob Sullum, November 4, 2009
- Peace With Poppies, Jacob Sullum, November 3, 2009
- A Hard Pill to Swallow, Jacob Sullum, October 29, 2009
Related Articles (Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Family Issues, Gay/Lesbian Issues)
- Baby Barnum, Jesse Walker, November 5, 2009
- Bigot Bonus, Jacob Sullum, October 14, 2009
- Scars Behind Bars, Bill Flanigen, October 1, 2009
- Grays of Making Them Talk, Jacob Sullum, August 26, 2009
- An Odd Silence on Gay Marriage, Steve Chapman, August 20, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245