Aborting Gays?

My buddy Jonah Goldberg over at National Review has an interesting column about an disingenuous little anti-abortion ploy by Maine legislator Brian Duprey. Duprey ostensibly wants to protect gays by outlawing the abortions of gay fetuses. Duprey previously introduced an amendment to the Maine constitution to ban same-sex marriage. So it seems fair to assume that Duprey is anxious to guarantee the births of gay infants just so he can later have the pleasure of denying them civil rights when they grow up, right?

Comments

[Jennifer]

How can you tell if a fetus is gay?

[BillyRay]

What Civil Rights are gays denied?

[E. Steven]

The right not to be hassled by jerks like you.

[Irrational Robot]

How can you tell if a fetus is gay?

They are probably assuming that there is some genetic screening that could be done, but I prefer to think that they are playing the soundtrack to Oklahoma! to fetuses in the womb and seeing how they react.

[Mo]

The problem is that I don?t see sexuality as a black or white thing the way Jonah does. I see it as a series of whites, grays and blacks. The way I imagine it is a gradient (think of skin color) heavily weighted towards the straight side. Most females have some bisexual tendencies and I believe that many more men than admit have them as well. Just like some homosexuals and many heterosexuals find the idea of sex with their non-preferred gender vile. It?s probably not one gene, but rather a combination of genes that also have a host of environmental factors associated with it. There?s no ?gay? gene, the same way there isn?t a ?white? gene.

[BillyRay]

Since when is it a civil right not to be hassled?

[thoreau]

Most females have some bisexual tendencies

Or so you hope 😉

[E. Steven]

Actually the Duprey bill, while ludicrous, is interesting in that it tacitly implies that homosexuality is not chosen but genetically preconditioned. This, of course, is not the conservative orthodoxy. However, this hardly matters since, even if the right were to acklowledge that gays are most likely born that way, they'd just shift their stance and say it was some horrible physiological condition that must be cured.

[E. Steven]

Because, BillyRay, I believe harrassment is against the law.

[BillyRay]

Are you suggesting that disagreeing with the Gay agenda is harrasement? I've heard it all now. LOL

[thoreau]

if the right were to acklowledge that gays are most likely born that way, they'd just shift their stance and say it was some horrible physiological condition that must be cured

Maybe they'll add a new wing to the National Institutes of Health: The Institute for Correcting Homosexuality. The scientists will be charged with developing treatments that convert gays to heterosexuality.

Hell, I'll bet a lot of Republicans would renounce tax cuts and devote every penny of the tax increase to "curing" gays.

[Ken Shultz]

Billy Ray, does the term "Equal Protection Clause" mean anything to you?

[E. Steven]

Gay agenda? Yeah, okay now I'm laughing. If it's not the Jewish Agenda or the Black Agenda or the Feminist Agenda it's the Gay Agenda. Such conspiracies! Oy, the fragile ego of some people.

[Mo]

thoreau,
Out of my two roommates and their 5 closest friends, my friends from high school, which includes some conservative Christian women, the majority have bisexual tendencies or are bisexual. Either I live in a porn movie, the water here somehows affects women's sexuality (which would make a good premise for a porn) or I'm witnessing some sort of pattern (I know, anecdotal). Of course, there's the old saying, "Every girl is two drinks from bisexuality."

[Daniel Montiel]

Bravo--way to elevate the debate.

[James]

This Republican wouldn't endorse spending a penny to cure gays, who's going to sing all our music? Anyway, it is fairly obvious to me many gays were born that way, and picking on them is stupid.
However the reverse discrimination of Duprey's bill bothers me a bit, after all, saving gay fetuses does squat for the long term sustainability of mankind.

[BillyRay]

Ken, what civil rights are gays denied?

[kwais]

Mo,
My personal opinion is that homosexual tendencies run higher in very religious circles.

[kwais]

Oh and I think that sexual orientation is learned not born.

And it can't be cured, but the time of adolescense it is set and will not be changed, it may however expand.

[BillyRay]

E. Steven, you mean there's no Gay agenda?

[James]

Sure Kwais, Liberacie learned his gayness.

[kwais]

Mo,
I am going to need to hear more about these girls you are talking about. Pictures, video, tales of first time girl girl encounters, will help my research in the matter.

Jennifer,
what is your take on this statement?
"Every girl is two drinks from bisexuality."

BillyRay,
Are you really 'BillyRay', or is that a charicature?

[BillyRay]

My first name is William. Grandfathers first name is Ray. hence, BillyRay

[James]

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the "gay" gene is linked to the performing gene. Inhabitions have to be lower to do both, at least for me.

[kwais]

James,
Yep. Or are you sure that he didn't?

Sexual urge is genetic, sexual orientation is learned. Even though you don't remember learning it.

The borne vs learned is big in gay rights debates, for no valid reason whatsoever. Learned or genetic, you still don't have a choice in the matter. Strangely enough the non science dudes are right about it not being genetic, but they are wrong about it meaning anything.

[kwais]

James,
There is no gay gene. A certain amound of performance talent is genetic. The reason why a large number of performers are gay, probably has to do with how they identify themselves.

I am not sure about that one.

That would mean that there are a lot more people who would be talented performers outthere who don't get into it, because they don't identify themselves that way.

[Jon]

This could be "Rosemary's Baby" for the 21st century. Imagine Ann Coulter finding out she's pregnant with a child carrying not only the gay gene, but a liberal, democrat-votin' gene! And being opposed to abortion, she would have no choice but to bear and give birth to this monster! Hell, the script writes itself.

[thoreau]

I really have no idea why some people are gay. Academically it's an interesting question. But from a practical perspective it doesn't really matter, because first and foremost it's none of my business.

[smacky]

How can you tell if a fetus is gay?

This sounds like the makings of a series of bad jokes to me. Who'll get the ball rolling? So far I've heard a reference to Oklahoma! ... I think we can do better than that, people.

[thoreau]

Jon, that was freakin hilarious!

[James]

Are lisps, and flexible wrists learned?

[kwais]

BillyRay,
"Fistgate" that was some funny shit.

Gays only have an agenda to be accepted by the rest of society. Just as anyone would with a marginalized condition. Much of how humans identify themselves has to do with sex, so a lot of times people reflect their own self identity doubts by a dislike or marginalization of gay people.

Gay people like anybody else don't like to feel marginalized or disliked. So any agenda of theirs is going to be about being accepted as normal. Hence gay marriage and a slew of other things. I am not so sure it is going to work for them though.

[discolored]

"Eat A Gay Fetus For Jesus"

- Pat Robertson's Preliminary Election Strategy Campaign for 2008 (not really)

[kwais]

James,
"Are lisps, and flexible wrists learned?"

you are kidding right? Along with your gay gene comes a tongue defect that affects speach?

And the limp wrists? Go to the bank, and check out some of the straight male bankers. Whether you flout your limp wrists or act as though they are limp when in fact they are strong as an ox may be learned.

[James]

I wish marriage would work for gays but Kwais is right, it is not likely. Marriage being a religious institution, it undermines the gospels to welcome gays to it. Civil unions are only fair though.

[kwais]

Thoreau,

"I really have no idea why some people are gay. Academically it's an interesting question. But from a practical perspective it doesn't really matter, because first and foremost it's none of my business."

From a practical perspective it doesn't matter, because either way they don't have a choice, just as you and me didn't.

But it is my buisness on a general level, because human behaviour and genetics interest me. As does debunking fake science

[Mo]

kwais,
Do you believe it's learned post-birth or that it's congenital? It is possible for a condition to be congenital AND not genetic. It could be due to hormone levels of the mother during pregnancy, for example.

[NoStar]

Rosemary's Baby for the 21st century? Sounds more like a spinoff of Family Ties.

[BillyRay]

kwais writes Gays only have an agenda to be accepted by the rest of society. Just as anyone would with a marginalized condition. Much of how humans identify themselves has to do with sex, so a lot of times people reflect their own self identity doubts by a dislike or marginalization of gay people.

Gay people like anybody else don't like to feel marginalized or disliked. So any agenda of theirs is going to be about being accepted as normal. Hence gay marriage and a slew of other things. I am not so sure it is going to work for them though.

If people don't want to accept gays as normal, so what? Gays aren't marginalized. That notion is absurd on its face. They're a rich well connected politically special interest group. We already spend more money on aids than cancer research which kills far more people. The New York Times must have run 200 stories on Matthew Shepard but not one on Jesse Dirkhising.

[kwais]

Mo,
Ultimately it is a mix of the genetic, congenital, and learned. Mostly the mix of genetic and learned.

A lot more things are learned than originally thought. And a lot of things are learned that the human doesn't know it is learning, or being taught.

A lot of studies were done on twins that were said to determine lots of unlikely things to be genetic, but those studies were flawed in that the twins in most cases weren't seperated at birth, merely seperated as infants.

So it is hard for me to explain this one. I could say that for example how butch a person is going to be is genetic, and what that person experiences in infancy matched with whether or not the individual is going to be butch would make for whether or not the individual will be homosexual.

But it is not entirely true that how butch a person is going to be is genetic either, that is also a mix of genetic and learned.

To truly say that something is genetic, you have to be able to identify the gene. And science is not there yet.

I must say that I am an amateur at best, and a C student at that. But from what I have learned, I am convinced that gayness is not genetic.

It is the result of a genetic reaction to learned behavior.

[Jim Walsh]

"Gays aren't marginalized. That notion is absurd on its face. They're a rich well connected politically special interest group."

Yeah, sure. And the slaves in the antebellum South were treated humanely...

[kwais]

BillyRay,
So what to you, nothing. So what to your future gay son, a lot.

Self identity is a lot. If it werent rich people wouldn't commit suicide.

[kwais]

BillyRay,
I would like to add that self identity and acceptance is a lot more important when you are not hungry. So being wealthy would increase not decrease concerns of marginalization and non acceptance.

[James]

I guess if I spoke like a girl and gestured like a girl I would have the proclivity to learn how to have sex like a girl.

[James]

If it is learned I would think gay adoption should be a no-no.

[kwais]

James,
What you speak like and what you gesture like is learned, not genetic.

Not all homosexuals are flamers, just those who have learned their sexuality as feminine. Then they try to match the gestures and talk to match their identity.

[BillyRay]

Walsh writes: Yeah, sure. And the slaves in the antebellum South were treated humanely...

Many were.

[kwais]

"If it is learned I would think gay adoption should be a no-no"

It is not that simple.

[BillyRay]

Sorry kwais, but trying to use the government to force acceptence is absurd. Tolerance yes, but even that has its limits. Many folks are sick and tired of the tolerance police. It's like being terrorized by tolerance. Hate crime laws etc etc.

What happened to the days when gays just wanted the government to leave them alone?

[James]

Why isn't it? Won't the parent's behavior influence the childs if exposure is the key to orientation.

[James]

Perhaps round the clock PBS will turn my little Barneyiods gay?

[Pavel]

How can you tell if a fetus is gay?

It shaves its ass lanugo and redoes the uterine walls in soft pastel colors.

[Jennifer]

That "women are two drinks from bisexuality" bit might be true if the drinks are Roofie Coladas, but otherwise this woman calls bullshit. Of course, I haven't been to southern California. Maybe the smog and the silicone implants combine to put some weird porno pollutant in the air.

By the way, I had a gay male friend born and raised in the super-macho ultra-religious NASCAR part of North Carolina (or "No'caylina," as he put it), and when we became good enough friends to ask each other personal questions I asked him when he first suspected he was gay. I told him I remembered having a crush on a little boy when I was in kindergarten; who did HE have kindergarten crushes on? Little boys, he said. He said he tried hard to "fight" it, dated a lot of girls, and even joined the military for a few years in hopes of turning more macho, but it never 'took.'

[Jennifer]

Of course, maybe the Navy wasn't the best choice for him.

[Mo]

Maybe the smog and the silicone implants combine to put some weird porno pollutant in the air.
HAH! Great Jennifer!

[Phil]

Marriage being a religious institution, it undermines the gospels to welcome gays to it.

Right. That's why people can go down to City Hall, get a marriage license, and be married in front of a judge or other official. Ooops! Maybe not so religious after all.

James: Think of all the gay people you know or have ever heard of. How many were raised by gay parents?

To truly say that something is genetic, you have to be able to identify the gene. And science is not there yet.

Um, no. Well, not really. Many things that are genetic don't have a gene that causes them. It's often a combination of genes doing or not doing different things. Believing that something is genetic means there's a single gene that causes it is a common misconception.

The book Genome has some interesting recent thought about what causes men to be born gay. Apparently, male children are statistically significantly more likely to turn out gay if they already have at least one older male sibling. I forget what all the speculated reasoning behind it is, but part of it has to do with the fact that the X and Y chromosomes are constantly doing battle, and that the mother's womb reacts to the Y chromosome in a second fetus by releasing hormones and other factors that cause changes that are likely to result in homosexuality.

[parse]

kwais wrote: "And it can't be cured, but the time of adolescense it is set and will not be changed, it may however expand."

This is nonsense. If somethig has expanded, it has changed. I think your problem with expressing yourself clearly here is echoed in virtually every comment you've made on this thread regrading gay sexuality. Drawing from a very limited sample---my own life as a gay man--your vision of homosexuality, though far more friendly than BillyRay's, is no less confused. "The borne vs learned is big in gay rights debates, for no valid reason whatsoever. Learned or genetic, you still don't have a choice in the matter." Hey, I choose my sexuality every time I suck dick or fuck some guy up the ass. Some people seem to have plenty of choice in the matter, some quite a bit less. But an important part of what it is to be a homosexual takes place at the level of sexual practice, and people definitely do have a choice.

[Jennifer]

Hey, I choose my sexuality every time I suck dick or fuck some guy up the ass

That's not choosing sexuality; that's choosing sexual behavior. Or rather, you have a choice in choosing which body parts to bring into contact with your own, but do you actually have a choice in which gender you find attractive?

Mo-
You guys have had an unusual amount of rain lately, am I right? Try giving some women those two drinks tonight. If my hypothesis is correct, the bisexual activity will be at far lower levels than normal, because the rain washed all the porno out of the air.

[Rick Barton]

parse:

But an important part of what it is to be a homosexual takes place at the level of sexual practice, and people definitely do have a choice.

But is the attraction a choice? I don't feel that I have a choice concerning my attraction toward women. How I conduct myself vis a vis this attraction, yes, but not the attraction itself.

Also, I just ran across this so I'll link to it since it's sort of germane here:

"Gay men read maps like women"

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7069

[kwais]

Parse,
People may have a choice in their actions, but not in their yearnings, or their drives. Generally speaking, (maybe that dude in Nepal that can make his heart stop, or start malfuntioning, can change his orientation)

Deuse,
That study would be more valid if the tests were done in newborns, and then studied when they grew up.

James,
More on the gay adoption thing. Gay people in the closet have had straight kids at probably the same rate as straigh parents. It would be difficult to do a study on that. Also straight people have gay kids, they have pedophile kid, and they have whatever other variation to attraction to the perfect match to raise offspring also.

Deuse,
On the conservatives with gay kids. That may be a result of their conservatism being a funtion of their identity issues, or it may be something like full moon violence, the same as any other statistically but is noticed more.

Phil,
yeah, gotcha, but still my point applies.

[kwais]

That map study test was about as usefull as studying the difference in brain structure between people who had been murdered by a shot to the head and people who hadn't. In my opinion.

(Unless you can find some map sales angle to it)

[Pavel]

That "women are two drinks from bisexuality" bit might be true if the drinks are Roofie Coladas, but otherwise this woman calls bullshit.

You're right, as long as you mean bisexuality not bisexual behavior. Women are always two drinks away from bisexual behavior. It's simply more acceptable and encouraged.

I don't know what the particular cultural history of that is. It's probably safe to blame the patriarchy. It seems to have been the case since the early church, where non-procreative sex was sin, men playing with each other's penises was a sin and women lying with women was conspicuously unmentioned.

[parse]

Jennifer and kwais, I'm saying that identifying "sexuality" with "attraction" or "yearning" and rather than "sexual behavior" a matter of definition more than anything else.

I don't think attraction reveals the "true" sexuality and sexual practice is just a veneer or facade. I think practice is at least as important as "yearning," and the general formation that homosexuality is unchosen doesn't credit that enough. I might agree with the claim that "aspects of homosexuality" are unchosen. But I think fellatio is as fundamental to gay sexuality as emotional attraction for other men, and that's chosen.

I'm also not sure whether it's true that attraction or yearning is unchosen. I have to admit that my subjective experience is that I haven't chosen that aspect of my sexuality, but I'd be hard pressesd to articulate exactly why I feel that way, much less demonstrate persuasively that it is true.

[David T]

BillyRay: You ask what rights gays are being denied? Well, in Virginia it sure looks to me like their freedom of contract is being severely limited:

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=70659&ran=167963

"The law says, 'A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.

"Gov. Mark R. Warner attempted to amend the bill last month to eliminate its sweeping references to contracts and other agreements, but legislators overruled him and approved the original wording."

[Pedant]

"Of course, there's the old saying, 'Every girl is two drinks from bisexuality.' "

How "old" is this saying, exactly? Just wondering, because a Google search revealed precisely zero hits.

[David T]

Pedant: http://www.pusboil.com/twodrinks.wav

(David Spade in "Just Shoot Me" from 1998)

[Rhywun]

My feeling is that homosexuality is either inborn or "learned" so early that it amounts to the same thing. parse, I believe you're worrying too much about the semantics of innate sexuality vs. behavior. Just because homosexuality is not chosen doesn't mean one should question the behavior that goes along with it -- no more so than any straight man would question their "choice" to have sex with a woman. Of course they could "choose" to have sex with a man, but... it probably wouldn't get very far. Same thing with gays.

[BillyRay]

David T, are men and women shacking up given any special treatment in Virginia???? What about non married people??? Gays in Virginia can enter into legal contrat they want. Of course, you already knew tihs.

[Rhywun]

Thanks for that link, BillyRay. My respect for Thomas Sowell has just plummeted down to zero. How can any rational person come up with a sentence like this borne of anything other than pure, blind hatred:

"What the activists really want is the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a death style in the era of AIDS."

[BillyRay]

Rhywun writes: My respect for Thomas Sowell has just plummeted down to zero.

I really don't think a giant like Tom Sowell really cares what you think!

[thoreau]

BillyRay-

I have great respect for Sowell's intelligence, but I disagree with some of his opinions, and I frequently disagree with the way that he argues in his columns. I have, from time to time, read a Sowell column in which he argues in favor of a position that I hold, and come away embarassed that I hold that position.

[Shem]

One would think that so many intelligent people would know better than to feed the trolls.

[The Real Bill]

Sowell may be hiding a beef with gays along the lines of the claim that the gay-rights struggle is the equivalent of the civil-rights struggle for blacks. I think that might annoy me if I were black. Hell, it annoys me and I'm white. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for individual rights for gays (as I am for everyone), but as bad as gays have had it, their experience just does not come close to the experience of black Americans throughout history.

[BillyRay]

thoreau: writes I have, from time to time, read a Sowell column in which he argues in favor of a position that I hold, and come away embarassed that I hold that position.

Again, I don't think Tom Sowell really cares what you think! You can be embarrassed all ya want. I don't care either. But you can't refute anything in the article

Cordially

[Phil]

Gays in Virginia can enter into legal contrat they want. Of course, you already knew tihs.

Actually, they can't. The legislature passed a law last year that forbids them from entering into any contracts that would confer the legal incidents of marriage.

[Jennifer]

Am I the only one here who suspects Billy Ray is actually Juanita's brother?

[parse]

Rhywun: Just because homosexuality is not chosen doesn't mean one should question the behavior that goes along with it -- no more so than any straight man would question their "choice" to have sex with a woman. Of course they could "choose" to have sex with a man, but... it probably wouldn't get very far. Same thing with gays.

If you define sexuality by "prevailing emotional attraction," I routinley have sex with straight men who "choose" to have sex with a man, and it gets very far. In fact, it goes all the way.

Again, what is this all-important "sexual identity" you are talking about, once it's stripped of sexual behavior. I know what it is for me, and it's a very tiny part of sexuality. That experience may indeed be different from others, but please don't assume your choice to make it the only thing that really counts is a scientific choice. Yes, I'm attending to the semantic difference, because I think that's the difference that are salient in the discussion.

[Jennifer]

Parse-
Instead of sexual "identity," would it be easier to refer to sexual "preferences?" There's all kinds of evidence to show that sexual desire is rooted in various chemical and genetic origins. It's not just advertising propaganda that makes most people find young, smooth skin more attractive than old, wrinkled skin, or a healthy body more attractive than a body covered with oozing sores; there's some preprogrammed stuff at work there.

To prove that one can't really "Choose" which gender or even which individuals to find sexually attractive, consider this experience, which I think almost everybody has had at one time or another: you're single, with no apparent romantic prospects on the horizon. Your friends introduce you to somebody who, on paper at least, is the perfect match for you: you have a lot in common, you always have fun together, you like the person's appearance, etc.

Yet for some reason that 'spark' which marks the difference between friendship and romance just isn't there. Maybe you guys even TRY getting romantic, but it's no more than going through the motions, there just isn't any real excitement there. I don't know why not, maybe it's genetics, maybe chemistry, maybe both, but sexual attraction just isn't something that seems to fall into the category of "free will." Whether or not you choose to act upon it is another matter, of course.

[James]

The Keyes thing is interesting. I've always thought Keyes is damn effiminate, but that the priests beat straightness into him. Yea, I know, straight priests, sure. But I do think the religious programming helped him like girls. If his son is gay then he may have gotten his effiminatity from his dad, but he apparently isn't learning his gayness from him.

[James]

Not that I know Keyes son is effiminate.

[geronimo]

...sexual attraction just isn't something that seems to fall into the category of "free will."

Sexual attraction that one acts on is, of course.

And then there's the problem of arranged marriages, where sexual attraction (and "love") seems often to be the result of a conscious decision.

I doubt there's a gay gene, btw. When it comes to "sexual preferences", I think we're the result of our choices.

[kwais]

Geronimo,
We are the result of our genes, our environment, the choices of others, and lastly and leastly our own choices. Actually our own choices are a result of the first three.

[kwais]

" the priests beat straightness into him."

Unlikely. At best they could give him conflicting aspirations.

[kwais]

Jennifer,

"I don't know why not, maybe it's genetics, maybe chemistry, maybe both,".

Or maybe it is learned. Just as you learn so manythings that you are not even aware you have learnt,such as how to speak, and what is healthy and unhealthy, and what to be afraid of.

[EddieB]

"Yeah, sure. And the slaves in the antebellum South were treated humanely..."

Comparing homosexuals to slaves is so ridiculous it hurts.

[Shem]

Am I the only one here who suspects Billy Ray is actually Juanita's brother?

Not at all, Jennifer.

[kevrob]

When reading Billy Ray's posts, it helps to imagine him with a mullet, and Achy, Breaky Heart as the soundtrack. 🙂

Kevin

[geronimo]

We are the result of our genes, our environment, the choices of others, and lastly and leastly our own choices. Actually our own choices are a result of the first three.

Oh good. Then I'm not responsible for anything. Cool.

[SixSigma]

Geronimo -

I had the same feeling towards that post. The logical implication that our choices are solely defined by outside factors leaves free will irrelevant.

[kwais]

SixSigma and Geronimo,
Stop and think about it for a minute. What is the cause of the choices you make?

[David T]

Geronimo: It's not that simple. Some philosophers have argued that moral culpability does not necessitate the ability to do other than what one does. See *The Importance of What We Care About : Philosophical Essays*
by Harry G. Frankfurt http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521336112/reasonmagazinea-20/

[SixSigma]

Kwais -

I would argue the choices I make come from reflection.

I agree that anytime one looks at a decision, the entire process is clouded with a filter that exists because of genes, environment, etc.

But that does not mean that one can't look beyond the outside factors and pick a solution incosistent with them. Basically, it seems as if you're saying, if my parents are racist, and they teach me racist tripe during my upbringing, your argument stands that I can't stop from becoming a racist. Same with physical abuse in the home, and many other examples.

I just believe that humans have the ability to retrospectively look back, and reason whether the things they have been taught believe and possibly genetically programmed to believe, are actually true or not. Not that this is an easy task, and a lot of people might not be able to do it, but the ability does exist in humans.

Or, reworded, I think; therefore I do stuff.

[BillyRay]

Jennifer writes: Am I the only one here who suspects Billy Ray is actually Juanita's brother?

Nope

[SixSigma]

I should clarify one point though, because the thread did initially start about a possible gay gene. I don't think homosexuals need fixing at all. My thoughts are based on the human condition itself, and not the morality of sexual preference.

[kwais]

SixSigma,
"I think; therefore I do stuff."

Right, but before that: You are stuff and stuff happened to you, therefore you think.

[Gary Gunnels]

Shem,

Yours is the most astute observation re: BillyRay of course.

BillyRay,

From the perspective of indivudual liberty, justify Virginia's interference* with private contractual agreements which create the incidents of marraige.

*Note that other states have enacted similar legal restrictions.

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

The more important issue is why should anyone take what Sowell writes (very little of which is original) seriously? Here you present us with an author's work, and when some disagree with it, your best response is to act like petulent child.

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

Re: slavery,

Again, if the Confederacy was such a neat place, why was it that between 3,000-5,000 slaves a year from 1820-1860 struck out from it for freedom in the dreaded north (*gasp* many escaped to Canada)? The best modern analogy we have to such activity is those escaping from East to West Germany during the Cold War.

____________________________________

BTW, anyone else notice that on Wednesday the Connecticut legislature's Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would create a Vermont-style civil union system? Anti-gay bigots must be shitting their pants, especially after NJ adopted a "domestic partnership" law in 2004 that created "civil unions" in everything but name.

[pococurante]

Deus et al, did you see that Keyes disowned his lesbian daughter, conveniently after her help on the campaign? Does he think she sabotaged it?

[smacky]

"Of course, there's the old saying, 'Every girl is two drinks from bisexuality.' "

(David Spade in "Just Shoot Me" from 1998)

Oh, yeah. David Spade's a really reliable source for anything. What an ass. I need another drink.

How can you tell if a fetus is gay?

It shaves its ass lanugo and redoes the uterine walls in soft pastel colors.

That was awesome, Pavel!

[Rick Barton]

Every girl is two drinks from bisexuality.

I don't think so, but lot of guys have hoped that a girl is just two drinks from sexuality.

[Gary Gunnels]

Rick Barton,

Every guy is a camping trip fromn bi-sexuality. 🙂

[Gary Gunnels]

Deus ex Machina,

Keyes sabotaged his own campaign by running. 🙂 Crap, he couldn't win in his home state, what made him (or the Illinois Republican party) think that he could in Illinois. I still don't understand for fielding a candidate in that race after the other candidates/potential candidates withdrew/chose not to run.

[Rick Barton]

Gary Gunnels:

Every guy is a camping trip from bi-sexuality. 🙂

I think you've come up with a great retort for gals when guys lay the "Every girl is two drinks from bisexuality" bit on them. 🙂

[BillyRay]

Grunnels, what contracts can't gays enter into in Virginia?

No one can dispute anything in the Sowell article.

As for slaves, why did the underground railroad stop in Canada intead of any free state? Simple. The northern states didn't want the runaway slaves.

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

Those which create the incidents of marraige of course. I was pretty clear about this above. That you choose to ignore this clarity merely illustrates that you are a troll.

As to the Sowell article, it doesn't actually speak to the Virginia law, does it? Indeed, it doesn't even address the private "incidents of marraige" bans at all, does it? So why you bring up a wholly inapposite article to counter arguments about Virginia's anti-gay "incidents of marraige" law is not readily apparent to me. Less muddle-headed thinking on your part would be helpful.

This is the take away phrase from the Sowell article:

There is no limit to what people will do if you let them get away with it.

To paraphrase, if people have the freedom to do what they want to do, they'll excercise it in ways I don't like. They'll do icky things like "be gay" or "do drugs" or what have you that offend my sense of morality. These people must be stopped before they offend me some more!

As for slaves, why did the underground railroad stop in Canada intead of any free state?

It did stop in many free states. Where do you think most of the black population of Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine came from? I can show you county land sale rolls, censuses, etc. for Vermont during the 19th century which show dramatic increases in black population from the 1820s-1860. This wasn't a natural increase because the majority of those named weren't born in Vermont; they were born in the South.

Of course, even if your claim were true, which it isn't, its hardly a defense of the slavery system of the Confederacy you love so much.

[BillyRay]

Wrong Grunnels. The fugitive slave laws!

The Sowell article is right on the money. You can't refute it so instead you do your usual name calling.

Gays in Virginia can do anything straight couples shacking up do. Leave money, buy a house, joint banking etc etc. You're problem is, you think marriage is a civil right. It's not. Never has been.

[Ken Shultz]

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits any state from making or enforcing, "...any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

A law that prohibits gay people from marrying abridges both the privileges and immunities of citizens.

The Fourteenth Amendment also prohibits the states from depriving "...any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This has long been understood to mean substantive due process as well as procedural due process. One cannot justify enslaving a man by coming up with a fair way to enslave him. Any law establishing a legal process for creating a slave violates due process because slaves are people and people have a right to substantive "liberty."

Gay people have a right to liberty too.

As I mentioned far above, the Fourteenth Amendment also specifically prohibits arbitrary discrimination via the Equal Protection Clause. It states, "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That means, amongst other things, that the state can't provide the privileges associated with marriage to one person and arbitrarily deny those same privileges to someone else. In this case, we're talking about granting certain privileges to straight couples but not to gay couples--if that isn't arbitrary, what is?

You seem to be suggesting that rights don't exist unless they're specifically enumerated. I laugh at that argument every time I hear it.

"...the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

----The Ninth Amendment

I don't know what else to say here other than to point out that the reason most of the people I've talked to who believe that we need the Marriage Protection Amendment believe we need it because they concede that Amending the Constitution is the only way to get around all the Constitutional protections that gay people already have in common with all other citizens.

[Ken Shultz]

Trying to deny gay people the ability to legally marry is like trying to deny blonds the ability to legally drive.

[BillyRay]

Ken, that's such a lame argument. People can't marry their mothers, sisters, daughters, sons, first cousins, dogs, cats, or house plants.

[Jennifer]

BillyRay-
Here's a question for you. I firmly believe that gay people are born, not made. I also believe that one of these days scientists will be able to pinpoint exactly which genes or prenatal factors are responsible.

So let's say we reach the point where it's been proven beyond any scientific doubt that being gay is like skin color or gender--that is, something which is clearly not a choice. Hell, let's go so far as to say scientists will be able to identify homosexuals through their DNA. Will you still favor laws refusing to let gay people marry each other? Or would you decide against discriminating against them for factors over which they have no control?

[BillyRay]

Jennifer writes:I firmly believe that gay people are born, not made. I also believe that one of these days scientists will be able to pinpoint exactly which genes or prenatal factors are responsible.

The gay gene theory has pretty much been shot down.

Jennifer, the tradition of marriage has its orgins outside government. Marriage laws discriminate in all sorts of ways. Before Utah could become a state, it had to reform its marriage laws. I don't believe laws should be on the books that would deny gay couples the say rights as straight people shacking up. Equal treatment under the law .

[Jennifer]

BillyRay-
You're sidestepping my question: IF it can be proven that gay people do not "choose" their orientation, would you still support anti-gay-marriage laws?

[BillyRay]

Yes I would! But I don't think I dodged your question in my previous reply.

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

Wrong Grunnels. The fugitive slave laws!

You are confusing a law's existance with its enforcement. And you're getting the historical record wrong (again!).

* In 1840 New York and Vermont extended the right of trial by jury to fugitives and provided them with attorneys.

* In Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) the SCOTUS stated that state authorities could not be forced to act in fugitive slave cases, but that national authorities must carry out the national law.

* Prigg was followed by legislation in Massachusetts (1843), Vermont (1843), Pennsylvania (1847) and Rhode Island (1848), forbidding state officials to help enforce the law and refusing the use of state gaols for fugitive slaves.

* Personal Liberty Laws were enacted in Vermont (1850), Connecticut (1854), Rhode Island (1854), Massachusetts (1855), Michigan (1855), Maine (1855 and 1857), Kansas (1858) and Wisconsin (1858). These Personal Liberty Laws forbade justices and judges to take cognizance of fugitive slave claims, extended the habeas corpus act and the privilege of jury trial to fugitives, and punished false testimony severely. The supreme court of Wisconsin went so far (1859) as to declare the Fugitive Slave Law unconstitutional.

Note that much of this legislation was inspired by Southern efforts to force - via the Federal government - non-slave states to do their bidding re: escaped slaves.

Try again.

The Sowell article is right on the money. You can't refute it so instead you do your usual name calling.

How is it "right on the money?" Where, pray reveal, does it actually address Virginia's law? It doesn't. Indeed, I challenge you to find anything that remotely bears on Virginia's law banning private contracts which create the incidents of marraige.

Gays in Virginia can do anything straight couples shacking up do.

They may not create private contractual relations which resemble the incidents of marraige. Again, you continue to avoid this issue.

Article on Virginia's law:

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=70659&ran=167963

Some money quotes:

RICHMOND ? After a long struggle with her employer, Lisa Z. Morgan was allowed to extend her health insurance this year to her lesbian partner, Niely , and their two children.

But a new state law banning civil unions, partnerships and other contracts between same-sex couples could invalidate those insurance benefits when it becomes effective on July 1 ? and could make Virginia the most restrictive state in the country for gays who want some of the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples.

[Let's get this straight; Virginia is outlawing the private contractual relation between an individual and her employer re: a third party.]

Here is the text of the law:

?A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.?

When are you going to fess up to the reality of this language?

[Akira MacKenzie]

Gee, why doesn't it surprise me that BillyRay's "proof" that homosexuality isn't genetic comes from a Christian college? Do they also give degrees in "Creation Science" and "Witch Hunting?"

[kwais]

Dude, witch hunting used be my major, but I changed it because the hunting permits got so damned expensive, that and I didn't go to a christian school.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Like "jumbo shrimp" and "military intelligence," "religious education" is an oxymoron.

[Rover]

People can't marry their mothers, sisters, daughters, sons, first cousins, dogs, cats, or house plants.

When will this injustice end?

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

My wife is a researcher in cellular and molecular biology. She says that the "gay gene" hypothesis has not been shot down because we are simply too ignorant of the issue either way to make a conclusion.

And maybe you ought to read the articles you cite to:

"There is no one 'gay' gene. Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."

Now, the article argues that the lead author's claim (what I quoted above) isn't backed up by statistically significant evidence (it provides us no way to actually examine this claim). Yet even if we except this unsubstantiated claim, this does not disprove the existance of a genetic role; it merely means that a null hypothesis exists.

[BillyRay]

Grunnels, that still doesn't mean the underground raidroad didn't end in Canada, because it did.

As for Virginia, if private employers want to extend benefits to gay partners, then the Virginia law won't have any effect. More and more employers are doing it everyday. Scare tactics by the gay lobby. "Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore has said the law provides a needed safeguard for the institution of marriage, and does not deprive anyone of rights to enter into contracts such as wills or other agreements between gay couples."

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

I really want to see you explain the evidence re: fugitive slave laws. I'm going to be rather amused at your efforts to sidestep and act the sophist.

[kwais]

Then again, I am convinced that being gay is not genetic. But that it doesn't make a difference one way or another.

A good example of why it doesn't make a difference is that BillyRay would still be against gay marriage if it was proved to be genetic. And the gay rights people would be for it even if it proved not to be genetic.

I wonder does BillyRay think that laws against homosexuality will cause homosexuality to diminish? What good does it do his cause to be against homosexual marriage?

On the other hand I see the point he argued with Ken. Technically gay people are not being discriminated against, as per the 14th. They are trying to change the definition of a state sanctioned contract.

My thoughts are that the state should not be involved in sanctioning or defining marriage. And that way you can marry whomever you want if your priest will do it. You can marry your sibling, your friend, or your houseplant if you want.

And that if the state does get involved in giving tax breaks or hospital visits. Which I don't think it should, then the state may not discriminate as per the 14th.

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

Grunnels, that still doesn't mean the underground raidroad didn't end in Canada, because it did.

No shit. It also ended in Vermont, NH, Maine, NY, and a number of other U.S. states. You directly implied that all slaves went to Canada, when indeed they did not.

Here's your statement:

As for slaves, why did the underground railroad stop in Canada intead of any free state?

Here is your statement re: northern attitudes re: slaves:

Simple. The northern states didn't want the runaway slaves.

If they didn't want them, then why did Northern states pass so many laws in an effort to protect them?!?!

As for Virginia, if private employers want to extend benefits to gay partners, then the Virginia law won't have any effect.

You don't know that. Read the statute.

"Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore has said the law provides a needed safeguard for the institution of marriage, and does not deprive anyone of rights to enter into contracts such as wills or other agreements between gay couples."

Actually, we have no idea what the bill will do until it is interpreted by the courts. However, one must ask, why have the language in the bill referring to "partnership contract" unless it is meant to actually effect a contract? And why the language referring to "other arrangements?"

[Akira MacKenzie]

"I wonder does BillyRay think that laws against homosexuality will cause homosexuality to diminish? What good does it do his cause to be against homosexual marriage?"

Because fundies believe that homosexuality is a subversion that, like a disease, will spread if it gains acceptance. If gays and lesbians are allowed to walk down the street in broad daylight, marry, and adopt kids unchecked by the power of oh-so-Christian state, then "perfectly normal" hetrosexuals will suddenly have the urge to turn gay.

[Akira MacKenzie]

"Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore has said the law provides a needed safeguard for the institution of marriage, and does not deprive anyone of rights to enter into contracts such as wills or other agreements between gay couples."

...except marriage.

[Gary Gunnels]

kwais,

Then again, I am convinced that being gay is not genetic.

And this position is based on what, pray reveal?

My thoughts are that the state should not be involved in sanctioning or defining marriage. And that way you can marry whomever you want if your priest will do it. You can marry your sibling, your friend, or your houseplant if you want.

That's all good, but of course we know that the nature of state involvement in marraige isn't going to change. Indeed, there are simply issues that gay people cannot contract for because the right is created only by statute. Suing for loss of consortium is the classic example of this.

[BillyRay]

kwais, the state at some level has to be involved. Kids, divorce, death etc etc.

[Gary Gunnels]

Akira McKenzie,

Safeguard against what, one wonders?

Anyway, there's not much point arguing with BillyRay; he's shown his propensity for dishonesty enough to illustrate that he simply will not accept the validity of a well-reasoned argument.

[kwais]

BillyRay,
Why would "kids, divorce, death etc" have to be any different for married people as for unmarried people? What among those things cannot be an issue for siblings, or aunt/uncles? Why does the fact that you habitually have sex have anything to do with anything?

Now days people get pregnant who are just boyfriend/girlfriend, sometimes people in a relationship already have kids. Why does there need to be a marriage?

And why would it be wrong to have gay people to have access to any of the contracts needed above?

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

This will sound out how anti-freedom you are.

Do you favor laws which outlaw types of adult consensual sex?

[Gary Gunnels]

kwais,

So that BillyRay can put his stamp of approval on the things that he likes. 🙂

[kwais]

GG,
"And this position is based on what, pray reveal?"

What I have learned about child developement. And sexuality. I can't really recite everything here, and I don't expect to sell an idea "because I said so". And I could be wrong.... But I doubt it.

"we know that the nature of state involvement in marraige isn't going to change."

We do?

" Indeed, there are simply issues that gay people cannot contract for because the right is created only by statute."

I don't follow.

[Gary Gunnels]

kwais,

The state of the science in the area is so unclear to make any definate or even "strong" conclusion impossible.

I meant to state "any time soon."

The state has created a mass of rights available only to the married. If your partner is killed by a say a truck, you can't sue for loss of consortium. The Baker decision illustrates some of these exclusive rights affored to the married at 170 Vt. 194, 221.

They include the right to intestate distribution and protection against disinheritance; the right to bring a suit for wrongful death; the right to claim the the evidentiary privilege for marital communications; the presumption against joint ownership and the right of survivorship; hospital vistitation and the rights incident to medical treatment of a family member.

For more see: D. Chambers, What If? The Consequences of Gay Marraige and the Legal Needs Lesbian and Gay Male Couples, 94 Mich. L. Rev. 447 (1996.

[Gary Gunnels]

kwais,

Note that the rights detailed above often cannot be created by contract; they are state-created rights that only apply to married couples.

[Ken Shultz]

"Ken, that's such a lame argument. People can't marry their mothers, sisters, daughters, sons, first cousins, dogs, cats, or house plants."

I say that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to everyone equally, and you respond with this?

Are you saying that gay people can't marry their "mothers, sisters, daughters, sons, first cousins, dogs, cats, or house plants" or are you saying that heterosexual people can't marry their "mothers, sisters, daughters, sons, first cousins, dogs, cats, or house plants"?

Are you saying that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply to gay people? ...If that is what you're saying, on what basis are you saying it?

Are you saying that rights don't exist unless they're enumerated?

I really can't tell; your response was nonsensical.

[J]

BillyRay said: "The gay gene theory has pretty much been shot down."

No one with any experience dealing with the quantitative genetics of complex traits, especially when working with humans (where you can't do controlled crosses, inbred lines, etc.) is likely to be expressing a terribly strong opinion in any direction regarding the genetic architecture of homosexuality and the relative contributions of genetic vs. environmental factors. The "gay gene" theory (if by that you mean that homosexuality has a significant genetic component, and not that there is really a single "gay gene") has most definitely not been shot down.

Gary Gunnels said: "Now, the article argues that the lead author's claim...isn't backed up by statistically significant evidence (it provides us no way to actually examine this claim)."

They're getting into issues of how you assess statistical significance in quantitative genetics studies like the one they discuss. A very short version of the problem is that traditional methods of accounting for multiple tests when determining statistical significance become problematic when you're doing the thousands (or more) of comparisons involved in these studies, and when some other messy issues arise. The best way to deal with these problems is far from agreed upon.

BillyRay said: "Ken, that's such a lame argument. People can't marry their mothers, sisters, daughters, sons, first cousins, dogs, cats, or house plants."

I'm amazed that this argument keeps popping up. Beyond the obvious fact that it's generally fairly difficult outside of a Disney movie to get informed consent from a dog, cat, or house plant, there are legitimate biological reasons to prevent marriages (or at least matings) between close relatives. No such reasons exist for preventing marriages between gay people.

[Gary Gunnels]

J,

Thanks. 🙂

[bjd]

J,

While I don't have any problems with gay marriage, I am disturbed by your argument about "legitimate biological reasons." Someone could turn that around and say that marriage is the state's way of encouraging and formalizing the process of human reproduction, and therefore there are "legitimate biological reasons" for only having straight marriages.

[Akira MacKenzie]

"People can't marry their mothers, sisters, daughters, sons, first cousins, dogs, cats, or house plants."

Typical fundie tactic: Equate homosexuality with less savory sexual practices in order to provoke the "eeeewwwww-response." A favorite tactic of a certain U.S. Senator who's used to spewing loads of santorum.

[Ken Shultz]

"Typical fundie tactic: Equate homosexuality with less savory sexual practices in order to provoke the "eeeewwwww-response."

It's really just a thinly veiled, pathetic slippery slope fallacy. If we let gay people get married, then the bestiality people are next!

...I still wish Bubba Ray would point out how a prohibition against anyone marrying their mother or dog violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

[J]

bjd,

Those comments weren't necessarily meant to be in support of laws against marrying relatives or inbreeding (and I tried to make at least some distinction between marriage and mating, since they're very different things). You're right that "legitimate" was a poor choice of word - the biological reasons are certainly clear (the effects of inbreeding in most human populations are real and well-documented), but how that translates into legal reasons is more complicated. I was just trying to make the point that the arguments I generally hear for not allowing marriages between relatives are completely different from any that would apply to unrelated gays.
But I think the argument about marriage being a formalization of human reproduction falls flat for other reasons, since the old, infertile, and actively sterilized are still given the state's blessing (as long as they're straight).

[BillyRay]

Ken, what in the world does the 14th amendment have to do with marriage?

[kwais]

When I said that I see BillyRay's point about comparing the marriage of gay people or the marriage of two staight people of the same sex to sibling marriage and house pet marriage. I did not mean to equate the two, or to show that some marriages are indeed wrong.

I would say that sex between siblings is wrong, but that the contractual benefits of marriage is not.

So what I am actually saying is that if marriage offers some benefits of the state. Which I do not believe that it should. Then anyone should be able to get married.

And indeed, if say for example, I was a good californian, and I didn't want my inheritance to go to the woman I was having sex with, instead, I wanted it to go to my pet dog. Why do I not have that right? (I am not suggesting that there is an improper relation with the dog, just that the person might want the dog taken care of, and not the vindictive cheat that the person was having sex with.)

GG points out that there are contractual advantages that the state offers to married people. I would say THAT is the violation of the 14th ammendment. Not the definition of marriage itself.

[BillyRay]

Akira MacKenzie writes:Typical fundie tactic: Equate homosexuality with less savory sexual practices

Not a fundie trick. Just pointing out the absurdity of 2 men or 2 women getting married. In our culture and traditions marriage has always been the bonding between man and woman. This bonding has its origin outside the context of government. You might not like it, but that's life.

[BillyRay]

The 14th amendment and equal protection argument is absurd. I pay alot higher tax rate than most therefore the state is discriminating against me in favor of those that make less money.

[kwais]

BillyRay,
Are you going to answer GG's earlier question:

"Do you favor laws which outlaw types of adult consensual sex?"

To be fair I'll answer the question myself; The only consensual sex law that I wouldn't be opposed to is incest. But I don't see anyway of enforcing that law.

[kwais]

that should read "I wouldn't be opposed to a law forbidding incest"

[Akira MacKenzie]

"Just pointing out the absurdity of 2 men or 2 women getting married."

Why is it absurd?

"In our culture and traditions marriage has always been the bonding between man and woman."

So other cultures don't count? Our culture shouldn't be allowed to revaluate it's "traditions" once we see that homosexuals aren't the monstrosities that mindless bigots like you make them out to be?

"This bonding has its origin outside the context of government."

By which you mean "God," right? You have three things you have to do first:

1) Prove their is a God.
2) Prove said God dislikes homosexual activity.
3) Prove we actually have to obey a God that dislilkes homosexual activity and not tell him to go fuck himself.

[J]

BillyRay said: "In our culture and traditions marriage has always been the bonding between man and woman. This bonding has its origin outside the context of government."

This is an important point, although as near as I can tell it contradicts your argument. Why then is the govt involved in marriage? And why should it be concerned with the culture and traditions of marriage, since they're so far outside the context of govt? Why shouldn't it just be recognizing contractual agreements between two consenting adults (a civil union by any other name...)? Then whoever gives a shit about the "culture and traditions" of marriage as they relate to homosexuality can keep worrying about it outside the context of government.

And of course the institution of marriage has been very far from static, even within the relatively brief context of its history in the US, and lots of things that used to be firmly within the "culture and traditions" of marriage are no longer so, or much less so. I don't see how you can decide that the man/woman aspect of (state-recognized) marriage is eternal and immutable, while de facto ownership of wife by husband or laws against interracial marriage were not.

[Ken Shultz]

"Ken, what in the world does the 14th amendment have to do with marriage?"

I've already explained that above in great detail. Rather than repeating myself, I'll point to some case law that shows the Supreme Court interpreting the 14th Amendment to cover marriage law.

Take a look at Loving vs. Virginia, for instance, in which the Supreme Court, on the basis of the 14th Amendment, struck down a Virginia law that prohibited people of different races from marrying. Because of the 14th Amendment, substantive due process and equal protection, etc., the states can not discriminate against people arbitrarily.

...Deal with it.

[BillyRay]

kwais writes:"Do you favor laws which outlaw types of adult consensual sex?"

Whatever consenting adults do behind closed doors isn't any of my business

[BillyRay]

Simple J, "There is value in a name in that it conveys information. Since heterosexuals created the "brand name" of marriage outside of the context of government, destroying that brand name destroys the information created by private individuals and the religious institutions that represent them; again a very un-libertarian policy"

[BillyRay]

Ken, that's absurd. The Virginia law against blacks and whites marrying is a holdover from the 19th century. A white man marrying a black woman isn't the same as 2 men.

[BillyRay]

Akira MacKenzie writes:So other cultures don't count? Our culture shouldn't be allowed to revaluate it's "traditions" once we see that homosexuals aren't the monstrosities that mindless bigots like you make them out to be?

I known I've won a debate when the name calling starts. Look, heterosexuals created the "brand name" of marriage. Get it. It didn't include gays.

[Akira MacKenzie]

"There is value in a name in that it conveys information. Since heterosexuals created the "brand name" of marriage outside of the context of government, destroying that brand name destroys the information created by private individuals and the religious institutions that represent them; again a very un-libertarian policy."

The only thing that is "un-libertarian" is your desire to give the Abrhamic Religions to have a government-sancationed monopoly on the definition and practice of marriage by enshrining it into law. (A blatent violation of the Establishment Clause if ever there was one.)

[J]

BillyRay,

It seems very odd to me to say the govt should be enforcing the "brand" identity of a concept (marriage) created outside the context of govt - it seems like the logical conclusion would be that the govt shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, and instead it could recognize civil unions or some equivalent for interested consenting adults, gay or straight.
But it really doesn't address the second paragraph of my post - marriage has changed a lot, even over the past 200+ years. Not that long ago the generally accepted "culture and tradition" of marriage - the "brand", if you'd like - involved whites marrying whites and blacks marrying blacks. And plenty of people made an analogous argument to the one you just made to say that the govt had no business getting involved in interracial marriage. How was that situation different from this situation?

[Akira MacKenzie]

"I known I've won a debate when the name calling starts."

Who's name calling? I was just stating facts.

[Akira MacKenzie]

"Whatever consenting adults do behind closed doors isn't any of my business"

Liar.

[BillyRay]

J, the state is going to be involved for reasons I stated above. Children being the biggest reason. What this boils down to is gays trying to use the government to force social validation of their lifestyle. How absurd and anti libertarian is that?

At the time family laws were written, the only families to consider were those headed by heterosexual couples. Government was not making an attempt at moral declaration because, in the mind of legislators and the electorate, there was no conceivable alternative lifestyle. It's called tradition and culture.

[Ken Shultz]

"Ken, that's absurd. The Virginia law against blacks and whites marrying is a holdover from the 19th century. A white man marrying a black woman isn't the same as 2 men."

You ask me what the 14th Amendment has to do with marriage, and when I show you, you say that race isn't the same as sexual orientation?

Is this what passes for discourse with you? I'd rather have a discussion with my dog.

...Suffice it to say, there will be anti-Gay Marriage laws passed, challenges to the laws will be heard before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will strike them down on the basis of the 14th Amendment. I suppose that's what the religious right wants.

P.S. Does it occur to anyone else that this pointless exercise by the religious right is particularly empty? I mean, at least with the abortion issue--and I lean Pro-Life for those of you who don't know--they're savin' a fetus. What is it that they hope to gain by prohibiting gay people from marrying? It seems like an enormous amount of energy to squander only to prevent something that, should it be allowed, doesn't make an iota of difference in the lives of any one of them.

[BillyRay]

The only thing that is "un-libertarian" is your desire to give the Abrhamic Religions to have a government-sancationed monopoly on the definition and practice of marriage by enshrining it into law. (A blatent violation of the Establishment Clause if ever there was one

Nonsense!

[BillyRay]

Ken writes:Is this what passes for discourse with you? I'd rather have a discussion with my dog.

More nonsense from Ken. How many times do I have to say it. Straight people created marriage. Gays want to change the definition to force social validation of their lifestyle. The 14th amendment won't have anything to do with it. Dumbest argument I've heard yet. Hey, I want to marry Jeniffer Aniston, Angelina Jolie, and 5 Playboy Playmates. The state won't let me so I'm gonna go start screaming about the 14th amendment.

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

You see same-sex marraige as absurd. I don't see why your opinion matters with regard to the decisions other consenting adults make.

And the argument from tradition makes little sense; if we to judge everything by tradition we'd still have de jure slavery in this country and all manner of other horrors that are basic affronts to individual liberty.

Whatever consenting adults do behind closed doors isn't any of my business.

You clearly do want to make it part of your business by sanctioning via the state certain types of relationships that you approve. Clearly you're fibbing when you make a claim that you don't care what others do behind closed doors; if you didn't care you wouldn't support the sort of legislation that bans gay marraige.

The Virginia law against blacks and whites marrying is a holdover from the 19th century.

And your views re: homosexuals are a holdover from the past.* Why is one holdover justified and another not?

*Note that anti-miscegination laws have a pedigree stretching back to the 17th century. I've yet to meet someone so historically-challenged as you.

Look, heterosexuals created the "brand name" of marriage. Get it. It didn't include gays.

One has to ask so what? Your argument continues to collapse into essentially an argument from tradition, yet you give us no reason to want to honor that tradition. Mere historical pedigree is no reason to continue a practice.

BTW, I am still awaiting a response re: the slavery issue. I suspect you are so totally embarressed by your historical ignorance that you've decided to duck the issue.

[Gary Gunnels]

Straight people created marriage. Gays want to change the definition to force social validation of their lifestyle.

And as you've stated in the past - in one of your more frothing authoritarian moments - that you have a problem with gay people exercising their First Amendment, etc. rights to see this happen.

[J]

But children clearly are not the reason for recognizing (heterosexual) marriage, for the reasons I mentioned above - people who have no intention of having children, or who are even incapable of having children, are still allowed to marry.

"What this boils down to is gays trying to use the government to force social validation of their lifestyle."

No, actually it boils down to gays trying to force _legal_ validation of their "lifestyle" - the same _legal_ recognition of their relationships with other consenting adults. You and anyone else who would like are still free to consider them socially invalid (except to the extent that you're required to recognize a govt-validated marriage, which again is a problem with govt marriage itself and not with gay marriage).

[kwais]

Ken Shultz,
If a marriage is defined as the union between 1man and 1woman. Then the 14th ammendment would doesn't relate to gays anymore than it does to bigamists. If it is defined as a union between two people, then it would stand to include gay people. If it is defined as a union between two or various entities that love, or think they like eachother that would favor what I prefer. Except where I think it would be better that the state not involve itself at all.

[BillyRay]

No J, gays are trying to force their way into an institution that wasn't created for them. They can make any arrangement they want today. Contracts, estates, banking etc etc. But the brand name marriage belongs to heterosexuals, not gays. They're attempting to steal it.

[kwais]

Is anybody here with me that the government shouldn't be in the licensing and defining marriage buisness?

GG,
didn't we go to war with Utah over this issue. And we were wrong in my opinion.

Is it a stretch to assert that the government defining marriage, no matter what it's definition is probably going to be a violation of the 14th?

[kwais]

BillyRay,
When did that get copyrighted?

[Akira MacKenzie]

"No, actually it boils down to gays trying to force _legal_ validation of their "lifestyle" - the same _legal_ recognition of their relationships with other consenting adults."

Ahhhh... but to the Right there is no distinction between morality and legality. To them it's one in the same. If something is legal, it must be something society endorses and is, ergo, moral. If something illegal it must because it's despicable.

The law is the law, and the law is just!

[kwais]

I wonder what the record is for the number of posts on one thread?

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

No J, gays are trying to force their way into an institution that wasn't created for them.

Blacks did the same thing re: voting. Innumerable other examples abound of people forcing themselves into institutions not meant for them. I don't see any merit in your argument as to why gay people should be treated differently in their efforts to gain acceptance.

But the brand name marriage belongs to heterosexuals, not gays.

Says whom? You? What if gay people convince the majority of the U.S. that gay marraige is alright?

[Gary Gunnels]

kwais,

Apparently marraige has some immutable characteristic that requires that it must be between only a man and a woman (keep in mind the fact that various poly- marraiges have long historical pedigrees). BillyRay can't explain what that characteristic is except to say that we must and are required to live via the dead hand of tradition.

And no, it doesn't violate the 14th Amendment; but that's hardly anything to its credit.

[Akira MacKenzie]

"Says whom? You? What if gay people convince the majority of the U.S. that gay marraige is alright?"

Says JEEZ-us! He won't come out and admit it, but it's a pretty safe bet that ole' BillyRay here is a fundie.

[Gary Gunnels]

Akira MacKenzie,

BillyRay lost all credibility sometime ago when he revealed that he knew nothing about the efforts by the Northern states to protect fugitive slaves. I laugh good and hard at his pathetic efforts. All he is doing now - as my grandfather used to say - is twirling his own shit in the dirt.

[Rhywun]

Wow, I come back two days later and this argument's still going strong! And BillyRay has compared my boyfriend to a house-plant. Oh well - I guess I've heard worse. Anyway, here's another marriage benefit I've heard no-one mention: the right to keep your foreign-born spouse in the country permanently. How many fake heterosexual marriages of convenience do you think we have in this country? As it happens, my boyfriend is a native of a country where the government can invade your bedroom and toss you in jail if it doesn't like what it sees happening there. Needless to say, he cas considered fake marriage. How exactly does this situation further cultural traditions, BillyRay? Does it comfort you to know that at least such people are keeping up good old-fashioned marriages for appearance's sake, no matter how false they may be?

[BillyRay]

Grunnels writes:Blacks did the same thing re: voting. Innumerable other examples abound of people forcing themselves into institutions not meant for them. I don't see any merit in your argument as to why gay people should be treated differently in their efforts to gain acceptance.

another bad analogy from Grunnels. Blacks were being denied basic civil rights. Gays aren't. Hey, like I said, I'd like to marry 5 Playmates but the state won't let me.

[BillyRay]

Rhywun writes:n further cultural traditions, BillyRay?

It doesn't. Still doesn't change the fact that gays like they did with the Boy Scouts are trying to force their way into an institution that wasn't created for them.

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

Its a perfect analogy.

Let's note that you dishonestly side-step the issue with the following statement:

Blacks were being denied basic civil rights.

That's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is as you stated it earlier:

No J, gays are trying to force their way into an institution that wasn't created for them.

If you could at the very least try to remotest amount of honesty in your arguments it would be helpful.

kwais,

The length of this argument is a factor BillyRay's ability to bullshit. 🙂

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

Still doesn't change the fact that gays like they did with the Boy Scouts are trying to force their way into an institution that wasn't created for them.

And you still have yet to explain why that is a bad thing. Now, you've tried to avoid answering that question by various obfuscating answers, but you have yet to say on point why this is wrong.

So, why is it wrong?

I'll hound you until you grow a pair and answer this question.

[BillyRay]

BS Grunnels. Blacks in many cases were being denied the right to vote. That's a basic civil right. There is no right to get married. If there were, I'd have those 5 playmates in the kitchen cooking me dinner right now.

[BillyRay]

I've answered it Grunnels. You just don't like it. The Boy Scouts are a private organization. If they want to exclude gays that's their business. The brand name marriage was created by heterosexuals.

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

Blacks in many cases were being denied the right to vote.

When did I ever state otherwise?

That's a basic civil right.

Which is not the issue at hand. You can continue to act like the intellectual coward you are, but after a while your attempt to sidestep the question looks quite foolish.

Here, this is your claim:

No J, gays are trying to force their way into an institution that wasn't created for them.

Here is my response:

Lots of people have forced their way into institutions that they were not meant to belong to (e.g., blacks voting). What makes the situation here any different? Just answer the question and stop avoiding it.

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

No, you didn't answer it. You avoided it.

What is the difference between women forcing theirselves into the ranks of voters and gay people forcing themselves into the ranks of the married?

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

The brand name marriage was created by heterosexuals.

And thus if people want to change what the name applies to they are denied by what?

If the Boy Scouts - as some of the local groups have done - want to open up their group to homosexuals, what is stopping them?

You've yet to explain why homosexuals can't try to change people's minds.

[Rhywun]

gays like they did with the Boy Scouts are trying to force their way into an institution that wasn't created for them

I give up. There's no point in trying to "demand approval" for my lifestyle. As if that's what's really going on. As if you can fight the LEARNED BEHAVIOR of bigotry. You are either raised to treat everyone with the dignity they deserve, or you aren't. Fortunately, more and more Americans ARE.

[Eric II]

The only certainties in life:

1. Death
2. Taxes
3. Internet Explorer crashes
4. A post titled "Aborting Gays" spawning one of the longest-running threads in the history of Hit & Run

[Akira MacKenzie]

"No, you didn't answer it. You avoided it."

Just like he avoid the First Amendement quesiton.

[Gary Gunnels]

Eric II,

The basic problem is that BillyRay constantly shifts arguments as a past one becomes a loser. First it was that Virginia's law doesn't prohibit private contractual agreements when the language of the statute clearly indicates otherwise, then it was that Northern states didn't about runaway slaves despite the numerous legislative, etc. efforts by Northern states to protect runaway slaves, and now its this illogical immutable branding theory.

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

If you could please explain to me why we should be tied to the dead hand of tradition re: marraige it would help your cause a lot of.

[BillyRay]

Rhywun writes:Fortunately, more and more Americans ARE.

Don't think so. Everytime it's left to the American people, gays are dealt one crushing defeat after another.

[BillyRay]

Grunnels, why shouldn't we honor traditions?

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

Honoring tradition for tradition-sake doesn't make much sense to me.

Everytime it's left to the American people, gays are dealt one crushing defeat after another.

Even if that were the case that wouldn't undermine his point of course. Being gay is becoming more and more acceptable in American society.

[Gary Gunnels]

Rhywun,

Well, its all a result of Will and Grace. 🙂

[Gary Gunnels]

Rhywun, Eric II, etc.,

BillyBigot is a primary example of why arguing with a fool makes one look foolish. Here BillyBigot has trapsed through innumerable faulty arguments, claims, etc., and we've continued to humor him nevertheless. So who is the bigger fool, BillyBigot for his foolish, dishonest, bigoted, loathesome, etc. commmentary, or those who continue to argue with such a person?

[J]

BillyRay said: "The Boy Scouts are a private organization. If they want to exclude gays that's their business. The brand name marriage was created by heterosexuals."

This to me sums up why your argument is wrong, and in your own words no less!. Yeah, the Boy Scouts are private. Needless to say, the federal govt is not. And as I said above, I can't see how the govt should be involved in enforcing or validating cultural "brands" - it shouldn't be involved with them at all. It is involved in recognizing consentual relationships among certain (straight) pairs of adults; how can it not treat consenting adult gay pairs the same? It calls those relationships marriages; you may not like it using that word for certain pairs of adults, and maybe this would all be easier if all govt marriages were called civil unions. But they are most definitely "civil" at their core, not cultural or religious, when they're "blessed" by the govt.
Also, this "brand" analogy of yours is far from perfect. The word (and general concept of) marriage has been used in a lot of different ways by a lot of different people, often at the same time and place. None of them needed permission from any of the others to define it as they chose.

[Eric II]

Gary, I think the broader point here is that a post with a title such as this one was all but bound to produce a reader such as Billy Ray spouting off incessantly, as well as produce a number of heated rebuttals from others. It's almost as if the words had a subconscious influence along those lines :-).

[BillyRay]

Simple J. The same reason why the government won't let me marry 5 consenting women!

[Gary Gunnels]

Eric II,

So the words themselves created BillyBigot? That's deep. 🙂

The only good thing is that folks like BillyBigot will in the main die off and we won't have to contend with their foolishness anymore. 🙂

[Rhywun]

Everytime it's left to the American people, gays are dealt one crushing defeat after another.

And yet no number of "crushing defeats" has been able to make us shut up or turn straight. Go figure.

[kwais]

Rhywum,
"As if you can fight the LEARNED BEHAVIOR of bigotry."

See, I am not so convinced bigotry is learned behavior. A certain amount of bigotry is inherant, (genetic). Now what you feel bigotry towards is learned. Even if you don't remember learning it. And the extent of your bigotry is most likely the result of your environment past and present. So the extent of your bigotry may indeed be a combination of learned and genetic.

[kwais]

GG,
"The only good thing is that folks like BillyBigot will in the main die off and we won't have to contend with their foolishness anymore".

Are you sure? How do you know people of tolerance wont die off? You being the history guy, sure you can think of times when open multicultural paradises have turned to cesspools of hate and violence.

I am not saying that to insult BillyRay, not to attack his argument. This is merely to question the statement that we are inevitably headed to more toleration and openness.

[Gary Gunnels]

kwais,

You may be right of course. We might end up in Billy's nightmarish dreamland.

[kwais]

I am thinking the threads that would naturally get the most posts from what I have seen are threads involving the following;
Gun Control
The Death penalty
Something of Sexual interest
Somthing about gay people

The last thread with an ungodly amount of posts was one about the death penalty. But at the end all the posts were silly, really silly. I wonder if many of the posts at the end were not from the editor trying to break the record number of posts because they were really economical on effort and really high in number of posts.

For all your insults of BillyRay, it seems he is doing his best to put forth a logical argument, and we all just disagree with him. You all disagree and think that marriage should continue to exist as it does and include gays. I think that marriage is should not be the buisness of the state at all.

[bjd]

While I generally support allowing gay marriage (by taking it out of the hands of the government completely, and putting it within the realm of legal contracts), I do think the issue is more complicated than advocates on both sides (*cough* Gary *cough* BillyRay) want to admit.

It is a simple fact we libertarians must accept that marriage will continue to be regulated by the state. We on H&R can (probably...hopefully?) all agree that the law should afford all people equal protection. In fact, I believe that this debate is really about what equal protection is and is not.

BillyRay would probably say that equal protection consists of allowing gays to marry the same people straights are allowed to... namely, people of the opposite sex. Gary would probably say that equal protection consists of allowing each person to marry any human entity who is not a close relative.

I think a legitimate reason for libertarians to oppose pro-gay-marriage legislation is that such legislation would merely widen the scope of people eligible for *special privileges* from the government. One cannot coherently claim that this is just one step towards giving all people equal access to these benefits; what about single people who simply don't WANT to get married, or are too damn ugly, old, or ignorant to find a spouse? Some equal protection that is.

I think this may be one of those few situations where any reform short of perfection (in this case, privatization) is simply irrelevant vis-a-vis libertarianism.

[Eric II]

"Are you sure? How do you know people of tolerance wont die off?"

On the gay marriage issue at least, there's a pretty big generation gap in place right now, with the strongest support for extending marriage rights to gays coming from the 18-35 age bracket, and the strongest opposition coming from seniors. Even college Republican groups are generally squeamish about taking part in gay-bashing.

As I've said before, the relative cultural liberalism of younger Americans, combined with the damage that will likely be done to public support for the welfare state by an upcoming financial crisis, will present a great opportunity for libertarians to make significant political inroads within 15-20 years. But there has to be a credible libertarian party on hand to capitalize on it.

[kwais]

bjd,
Why would you give up so quickly?

"It is a simple fact we libertarians must accept that marriage will continue to be regulated by the state."

I would think that with gay poeple, gay rights supporters, including most liberals, and Libertarians on board. The move to privatize marriage would have some momentum.

Small government conservatives would be hard pressed to find a reason to oppose it.

And big goverment right wing dudes would have have to be arguing a tough argument, that the state needs to continue to own marriage but not issue licences to gay people, or bigamists ( a religious freedom for some mormons and moslems).

There seems to be some momentum behind the gay movement right now, lets see if we can put some libertarian stuff on that bandwagon shall we?

[bjd]

"There seems to be some momentum behind the gay movement right now, lets see if we can put some libertarian stuff on that bandwagon shall we?"

Good point, kwais.

[Gary Gunnels]

kwais,

BrillyBray would have to be honest in order to make an honest effort here. He's acted the perfect sophist in his meandering, dishonest efforts to defend his particular prejudice. Just witness his tortured response to the foisting of his "forcing" argument. Or his immutable definition argument. After a while arguing with him is like casting pearls before swine.

bjd,

I think my position on abolishing all government involvement in the favoring of one type of relationship over another is quite well known; indeed, I have stated on numerous occassions that the government should get out of the marraige business altogether.

...I do think the issue is more complicated than advocates on both sides (*cough* Gary *cough* BillyRay) want to admit.

I am curious, what complexity am I missing here? None that I can see. If you are going to lay this sort of criticism at my feet, at the very least substantiate it.

Gary would probably say that equal protection consists of allowing each person to marry any human entity who is not a close relative.

Yes, in the perfect world I would advocate this; in the imperfect world I advocate gay marraige. My position is far more nuanced than your ignorant assumptions allow.

I think a legitimate reason for libertarians to oppose pro-gay-marriage legislation is that such legislation would merely widen the scope of people eligible for *special privileges* from the government.

Sure its a legitimate argument but it ignores the basic injustice at hand. And I have to choose between ending injustice and the sort of small minded ideological parochialism that you favor I'll pick the former.

[Gary Gunnels]

Eric II,

Yeah, I think its fair to say that conservatives lost the debate over societal acceptance of homosexuality.

kwais,

The problem is that marraige is largely a state issue and I am hard pressed to see most states ending all the benefits they grant to the married (partly because most folks are interested in "goodies").

[Gary Gunnels]

kwais,

And that's especially true in the states where gay marraige/civil unions are most likely to take hold; New England and the West Coast.

[bjd]

Gary,

It's complicated because it's a fundamental social institution that people view as an integral part of our collective identity. There are a lot of practices which I could argue are unjust based on metaphysical first principles (with which you would probably agree), but most people don't share those principles and are in fact actively opposed to them. Trying to build an argument based on them is, charitably speaking, an academic exercise at best.

The basic injustice at hand?
I fail to see how the injustice gays face here is the "basic" injustice. The basic injustice is that *those who are married* have benefits that *those who are unmarried* do not have. Changing the size of these classes doesn't alter the fundamental incongruity between the treatment afforded the people in these classes. The injustice *is* the incongruity. Expanding the institution responsible for this seems like a non-solution to me.

[kwais]

GG,
"arguing with him is like casting pearls before swine."

hehehe, casting pearls before a swine huh? hehehehe. I am guessing the pearls being your enlightened comments?

So at 215 posts and counting, are you taking a bath in them pearls? You seem to have plenty to cast before the swine.

No one knows what the all time high in posts are?

[Gary Gunnels]

bjd,

It's complicated because it's a fundamental social institution that people view as an integral part of our collective identity.

Wow, now isn't that just the most facile statement we've seen all night.

...but most people don't share those principles and are in fact actively opposed to them.

Well that's been true in all manner of movements to end injustice. I don't see why this should stop efforts to end state meddling in marraige.

Trying to build an argument based on them is, charitably speaking, an academic exercise at best.

Lacking principles, as you do, is at best, charitably speaking, a fool's errand.

I fail to see how the injustice gays face here is the "basic" injustice.

Because its an affront to treating the individual qua individual obviously.

Expanding the institution responsible for this seems like a non-solution to me.

Unfortunately we don't live in the perfect world we would desire; you, in your less than complex understanding of the matter, would make the perfect the enemy of the good.

[Gary Gunnels]

kwais,

I'm not the only person he's been dishonest with here of course. Now, re: pearls, take his argument re: Northern governments and their supposed antipathy towards fugitive slaves. When I demonstrated his error he simply dropped the topic and never returned to it, despite his earlier passionate claims. He did that about four or five times tonight. If that's the sort of tactic you want to support, so be it.

Send an e-mail to one of the adminsitrators of the blog.

[Gary Gunnels]

kwais,

Anyway, I'm not casting pearls before the swine anymore; I am casting pearls before you. 🙂

[kwais]

GG,
I am with you on the injustice thing. But, I guess I am a selfish dude. I am not gay, and I empathise with injustice that gays suffer being exluded from the marriage thing, I also empathise with those that would want to partake in bigamy. Who I see as also being suffering of the marriage inustice. I even more sympathise with a couple that doesn't want to get married.

Mostly I think about me. And I am not married, and I don't see myself getting married for a while. And it bugs me generally that the state would define marriage and give special privelidges to those who are married.

So if gay people have some legistlation to get the government out of marriage, so they can enter their own marriages, or get social contracts or whatever, I am behind it. If they merely want to be part of the already wrong gravy train. I am not so enthusiastic.

I am with Rhywun that if he and his gay lover really do love eachother that he should have at least the same rights as two straight people pretending to love for the same reasons. But I don't think that state approved marriage should be the vehicle of it. For him nor for the straight people.

[Gary Gunnels]

kwais,

BTW, as I recall, the highest number I've ever seen was in the low 300s. Whether that is the record or not I cannot say.

[Gary Gunnels]

kwais,

Well, the sticky wicky of the issue is how to remain true to competing libertarian principles or which to choose?

[njd]

"Lacking principles, as you do, is at best, charitably speaking, a fool's errand."

I don't lack them, I just don't flaunt them when I don't think it will help me win people over to my position. Pretty practical if you ask me.

"its an affront to treating the individual qua individual obviously... in your less than complex understanding of the matter, would make the perfect the enemy of the good."

Let's see here...
Ok, so instead of being able to marry if conditions c(1),c(2),...,c(n) hold, now the state magnanimously declares that you can marry if conditions c(1),c(2),...,c(n-1) hold. Consider the class S of people who can't meet some condition c(k) for at least one k

[bjd]

Sorry I can't spell my own nick right.

[kwais]

GG,
"When I demonstrated his error he simply dropped the topic and never returned to it"

Maybe you showed him the error of his beliefs, and he saw no reason to argue further recognizing that he was wrong. And now he is a more learned man thanks to you!

"I am casting pearls before you."

Well I am honored. however it is almost 9:30 here, the sun has been up for a while, and I need to catch some sleep before I have to go to work again.

I'll check this out when I wake up, it will be early monday for y'all. I wonder if this will be the all time highest posting blog. I like to be part of history in the making.

[bjd]

Oh shit, my reply got mangled, where it says "at least one k." it continues...

"But is it not true that the injustice of the extra benefits now accrued by the people removed from class S is no less than the justice inherent in removing these people from class S?"

[BillyRay]

Grunnels writes:I'm not the only person he's been dishonest with here of course. Now, re: pearls, take his argument re: Northern governments and their supposed antipathy towards fugitive slaves. When I demonstrated his error he simply dropped the topic and never returned to it, despite his earlier passionate claims. He did that about four or five times tonight. If that's the sort of tactic you want to support, so be it.

Grunnels, you can babble around all you want, but you're just flat out wrong! But the Underground railroad ended in Canada. Grow up kid.

[parse]

Billy Ray wrote: Still doesn't change the fact that gays like they did with the Boy Scouts are trying to force their way into an institution that wasn't created for them.

If you think the Boy Scouts is an institution that wasn't crated for gays, you missed half the fun of being a boy scout.

[kevrob]

Grunnels, (sic) you can babble around all you want, but you're just flat out wrong! But the Underground railroad ended in Canada. Grow up kid. - Ol' Achy Breaky

The last stops on the UG were in Canada, but many an escapee decided to get off the "train" before the line ended. Gary mentioned Wisconsin as a state that passed a Personal Liberty law. Take a look at the story of how slavecatchers tried to drag Joshua Glover back to Missouri, and were thwarted by the people of Racine WI.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/racine/dec02/103375.asp?format=print

The citizenry moved heaven and earth to protect Sherman Booth from the weight of the Fugitive Slave Act.

http://www.wlhn.org/topics/boothwar/booth_war_intro.htm

I'm likely to walk to the Post Office tomorrow to mail some bills. My route will take me right past a historical marker at Milwaukee's Cathedral Square in honor of Glover's liberation from jail.

The articles I refer to make it plain that some Northerners, especially German and Irish immigrants who feared increased competition for their jobs, opposed emancipation. To say that this view was a clear majority is untenable, however. In the case of Wisconsin, where the city of Ripon claims the title "birthplace of the Republican Party", abolitionism may have been stronger than in some other Union strongholds.

As for the "gay gene" bit, I find it odd that BR cites a Grove City College page, when he could have given us the link that's on the SAME PAGE from U of Illinois at Chicago, where the research was done. See:

http://tigger.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/newsbureau/cgi-bin/index.cgi?from=Releases&to=Release&id=1023&start=1099192266&end=1106968266&topic=0&dept=0

"Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation." - Brian Mustanski

That sounds, to a layman like me, extremely plausible - a combination of nature and nurture.

The shibbeloth that marriage was created by and for heterosexuals through some legislative process is shows ignorance of history and anthropology. (Any anthropologists out there, please correct me.) The word "heterosexual" is barely older than a century, after all.* People in the ancient world, where marriage existed well prior to any imagined revelation to nomadic shepherds in West Asia, didn't think in "gay v. straight" categories. Certain customs in the Greek city-states, for example, seem to have regularized sex between males. (The Spartan Sacred bands) Legal adoption of a younger adult male by an older one in Rome raises some interesting questions. In our Anglo-Saxon tradition, our laws on marriage were not originally created by King or Parliament. Judges settled cases based on the customary law of the kingdom, heavily influenced by Canon (Church) law. When legislatures in Britain or here in the States got around to codifying such law, they were not inventing it from whole cloth. Above all, the popular concept that marriage is first a sacrament handed down to men and women by some deity is, in political/legal terms, a myth. Said myth may have meaning for those who subscribe to a particular religion, but it doesn't bind anyone else.

There is a plausible position against "gay marriage" laws enacted by individual states, though it doesn't seem to be Billy Ray's. Federal judges could interpret the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution to mean that any law State X passes to avoid recognizing certain "marriages" performed in, frex, Massachusetts, is unconstitutional. This is what the Federal DOMA law is aimed at preventing, though it might take a constitutional amendment to have that effect.

I side with those libertarians who prefer getting the government out of the marriage business altogether, except for making the courts available for the adjudication of such disputes arising under contracts that cannot be privately resolved.

Kevin
(Single, straight guy.)

* http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=heterosexual

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=homosexual