Civil Liberties

Gay by Force

Legal equality does not mean requiring universal acceptance of homosexuality.

|

Last month, on the same day the California Supreme Court agreed to review a state ban on same-sex marriage, the online matchmaker eHarmony settled a New Jersey discrimination complaint by agreeing to serve gay singles. The following week, a Florida judge ruled that a state ban on adoption by homosexuals is unconstitutional.

To the average social conservative, these developments represent a campaign to force "the gay agenda" on people who are morally opposed to homosexuality. To the average gay rights activist, they represent a just struggle for equal treatment under the law. If there is any room for common ground between these two seemingly irreconcilable perspectives, it lies in recognizing the crucial distinction between public and private discrimination.

The adoption issue should be the easiest to resolve, since policies like Florida's hurt children as well as would-be parents. In the case that prompted Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman to override the state's ban on gay adoptive parents, Martin Gill and his partner had been raising two brothers, now 4 and 8, since 2004, when the state took them from their homes because of neglect and placed them in foster care.

No one disputed that the two men were excellent parents or that the boys were thriving in their care. Yet state law prevented Gill from adopting the brothers and giving them a permanent home simply because of his sexual orientation.

By threatening these boys with separation from the only decent parents they've ever known, this law elevates anti-gay ideology above children's welfare, which is supposed to be the state's paramount concern in adoption cases. More generally, by artificially limiting the pool of adoptive parents, the law makes it harder for children to find permanent homes.

Whether or not Florida's policy is "illogical to the point of irrationality"—the basis by which Judge Lederman ruled that it violates the right of equal protection—the state legislature clearly should have changed it long ago. Doing so does not require moral approval of homosexuality; it merely requires the recognition that being gay does not automatically make someone an unfit parent.

One of the arguments for barring gay couples from adopting is that they tend to be less stable than heterosexual couples. If so, banning gay marriage hardly helps.

In November, California voters approved Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and woman, thereby reversing a May 15 decision in which the state Supreme Court declared an earlier ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The legal logic underlying both the challenge to Proposition 8 and the decision it overturned is shaky. Yet as a matter of fundamental fairness (which is not always the same as the demands of a particular constitution), the package of legal arrangements known as civil marriage should be available to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.

Ideally, the government would leave marriage to private institutions, which managed to maintain it for almost all of its history. Short of that, those institutions and the individuals who follow their teachings should be free to accept or reject gay unions as they see fit, which means they should not have to worry about being sued for unlawful discrimination.

Such fears played a conspicuous role in the Proposition 8 campaign, and the eHarmony case shows they're not fanciful. Eric McKinley, the gay man who filed the New Jersey civil rights complaint that forced eHarmony to start matching same-sex couples, says the company's straights-only strategy was "very hurtful" and made him feel like "a second-class citizen."

Unlike a government that claims exclusive authority to approve adoptions or marriages, eHarmony has plenty of competitors, including online matchmakers that advertise themselves as gay-friendly alternatives. Yet McKinley could not bear the thought that one of many dating services chose to focus on heterosexuals. Such intolerance of diversity undermines the struggle for gay rights by feeding fears that equal treatment by the government means equal treatment by everyone.

© Copyright 2008 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Bad Influence

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yet as a matter of fundamental fairness (which is not always the same as the demands of a particular constitution), the package of legal arrangements known as civil marriage should be available to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.

    There is, of course, no reason to limit the package of legal arrangements known as civil marriage to couples. Any number of consenting adults should be allowed to incorporate as a household, with all the privileges and responsibilities that currently hold for civil marriage.

  2. In a world with a much smaller government, a much more conservative legal system, and no federal or state control over schools, gay marriage would be much easier for social conservatives to accept.

    Basically, most people want to be left alone to form communities as they see fit. State intrusion into their communities is what drives social conservatives to enter politics in the first place.

  3. State intrusion into their communities is what drives social conservatives to enter politics in the first place.

    You’ve described some of the “decent” social conservatives. Alas, not all social conservatives are so decent (nor are all progressives so altruistic).

  4. Is there a gay only match-making site? Has any heterosexual successfully sued such a site because it is “very hurtful” and made them feel like “a second-class citizen.”?

  5. This argument faltered after the
    “Behind closed doors” findings 40 years ago.

    When can we expect the eventual justification
    of special Gay “hate” crime legislation
    to mirror the VAWA delusions based on The Duluth Model, special laws for “accommodation” echoing the stupider aspects of Americans with Disabilities Act., and special Welfare laws providing
    “Safety Nets” including “gay” amongst those finding themselves single by choice “adoptive” parents living off abused WIC and similar attempts at FREE RIDE?

    Sorry, there’s just no more money left for
    expansion of “Welfare Queen” contestants. It has been my observation that “If you build it, they will come…”.
    If my personal observation
    of the “gay,lesbian,and their allies community”
    hadn’t reflected such a dismal rate of seperation, and extra-“marital” behavior, I might see it differently.

    I’ve seen FAR more stability (slightly better than married heterosexual demographic)amongst simply homosexual mature couples that eschew the public drama, and make no demands for special public accommodation.

    The eternal “Daddy democracy said NO! so go ask ONE Maternal judge, pre-selected, and “re-educated” behind-closed-doors-at-tropical-retreats,
    usually with inherited assets,.. to proclaim a contrary fiat”
    gets tiresome from six year olds in desperate quest for a toy that MIGHT artificially raise their self esteem, for two days, amongst their peers at middle class sub urban public school.

  6. I have no idea what CaptDMO’s last sentence could possibly mean, but I like its flow.

  7. There is, of course, no reason to limit the package of legal arrangements known as civil marriage to couples. Any number of consenting adults should be allowed to incorporate as a household, with all the privileges and responsibilities that currently hold for civil marriage.

    Strangely, this legal entity currently exists, however,it actually requires an above average amount of “homework”, and MINIMAL lawyer participation, to bring to fruition. Therein lies the rub.

  8. I have no idea what CaptDMO’s last sentence could possibly mean, but I like its flow. Sorry, too many truisms referenced in one place.

    I’ll try to type slower next time.

  9. *sigh*
    Yep, blew the last blockquote

  10. Try adopting babies with your llc, it’s a hoot.

  11. Oh yes! Ahhhhhhhh!!! that was good.

  12. kudos to “last blockquote”

  13. Sullum is right to highlight the public / private distinction, of course. But he overlooks another important distinction between gay adoption / gay marriage on the one hand and eHarmony on the other: In the former, “activist” judges are striking down laws, initiatives, amendments, etc. — while in the latter the “deferential” judges are upholding the laws of “activist” legislators.

    New Jersey’s “Law Against Discrimination” (like California’s “Unruh Act,” which eHarmony was also being sued for violating) were, for better or worse, duly enacted laws, both of which unambiguously apply to eHarmony (and will also apply, as has been noted upthread, to gay-only personals sites — be careful what you wish for?).

    Bottom line: The Defenders of Traditional Bigotry? can’t really invoke their standard “Will of the People”? drivel with the eHarmony incident.

  14. I have no idea what CaptDMO’s last sentence could possibly mean, but I like its flow.

    I think it had something to do with forum shopping. But I wouldn’t bet lunch on it.

  15. The eHarmony incident smacks of a self-indulgent lawyer trying to make a name for himself. I don’t think it’s really fair to lump it in with matters like gay marriage and adoption as representative of issues that gays care about. Much like rare “late-term” abortions took over the abortion debate a few years ago.

  16. I think it had something to do with forum shopping. But I wouldn’t bet lunch on it.

    It’s esoteric and stream-of-consciousness enough to cause Thomas Pynchon to curl up into a fetal position and curse the day he was born.

  17. I like CaptDMO’s particular form of dementia. It makes for some interesting reading. Dude, can you tell us, in that fashion, why Moby Dick is a subversive homosexual text?

    Also, explain Top Gun.

  18. “Bottom line: The Defenders of Traditional Bigotry? can’t really invoke their standard “Will of the People”? drivel with the eHarmony incident.”

    The people are fully capable of being stupid, but judges are not authorized to be stupid in the behalf, absent a legal mandate to do so. Such a mandate may exist in the “anti-discrimination” laws, although I would be interested in knowing by what authority a state undertakes to regulate commercial transactions outside that state.

  19. not authorized to be stupid *on behalf of the people* unless there’s a legal mandate to do so.

  20. In a world with a much smaller government, a much more conservative legal system, and no federal or state control over schools, gay marriage would be much easier for social conservatives to accept.

    It’s not that it would be easier for them to accept so much as they wouldn’t have much to say about it besides the traditional moral whining.

    And when private discrimination leads to denial of services for a class of person, is it not legitimate to legislate? We have this thingee, called the fourteenth amendment…

  21. I just wanted to post this in response to Jay. There’s plenty of gay match-making sites, I don’t know if they are as high profile as eHarmony though!

  22. Dude, can you tell us, in that fashion, why Moby Dick is a subversive homosexual text?

    Don’t leave out The Old Man and the Sea.

    Gayest. Book. EVAR.

  23. Has any heterosexual successfully sued such a site because it is “very hurtful” and made them feel like “a second-class citizen.”?

    Would there be any point to pointing out that such a suit would be absurd on its face since the alleged aggrieved population is ~93% of the total population and holds massive political power in comparison to their supposed oppressors?

    Of course not. We deal only in abstractions and absolutes.

  24. The guy makes a lot of sense to me.

    jess
    http://www.anonymize.us.tc

  25. “The eHarmony incident smacks of a self-indulgent lawyer trying to make a name for himself. I don’t think it’s really fair to lump it in with matters like gay marriage and adoption as representative of issues that gays care about. Much like rare “late-term” abortions took over the abortion debate a few years ago.”

    Employment-discrimination litigation, especially against private employers, is a major activity of the leading gay-liberation organization Lambda Legal. Check the link, and you will see that “to this day, workplace concerns remain the number one topic for our Help Desk callers.”

    Lambda didn’t do the eHarmony case, but they did win a settlement against the Cirque de Soleil, in which they paid compensation for firing an HIV-positive acrobat. Does this sound like a low-profile case?

  26. Gayest. Book. EVAR.

    Is there something inherently homoerotic about being asea?

  27. Is there something inherently homoerotic about being asea?

    Let’s ask the naval officers.

    Fellas?

  28. There is, of course, no reason to limit the package of legal arrangements known as civil marriage to couples. Any number of consenting adults should be allowed to incorporate as a household, with all the privileges and responsibilities that currently hold for civil marriage.

    No, just no. While I would support a state initiative to begin expanding civil marriage into polyamorous unions, there are many aspects of the privileges and responsibilities that can only apply to a single person such as power of attorney. The thing can’t just simply be declared to apply to groups.

  29. Now just how is The Old Man and the Sea gay? Next thing you know, you’ll be telling me that Jake Barnes got his balls shot off during the war. Unproven!

  30. In a world with a much smaller government, a much more conservative legal system, and no federal or state control over schools, gay marriage would be much easier for social conservatives to accept.

    W…T…F?

    How did you get to that conclusion? Can you offer any concrete examples of SoCon’s offering this sort of bargain? Even if they would, rights are not negotiable.

    BTW, the whole eHarmony situation sucks. The suit was (obviously) brought by the victim-mongering liberal wing of the GLBT movement. eHarmony didn’t help matters as they bullshitted about how “we aren’t set up for teh gays, they are so different.”

    However, one of the main reasons that the gays overwhelmingly vote blue is that animus towards gays is a core principal of the GOP. They could change this, but have not yet reached the point where they’re willing to stand up to their fundagelical base.

  31. Inside the most recent rolling stone it lists the eharmony case as a “with us” on their “with us – against us” scale. I really thought most people could realize that infringing on eharmony’s freedom is far more odious than simply moving to a different dating site.

    I used to firmly state there is no “homosexual agenda” and the religious types were just being paranoid. However, now I see that there are a select bunch-o-folks who may or may not even be gay that feel the need to push the homosexual-rights issue out into everyone’s face even where there isn’t any true discrimination or abuse. *sigh*

    It’s disheartening what freedom-abridging lengths people will go to in the spirit of the “progressive” movement. Asshats, I tell yah, asshats.

  32. Let’s ask the naval officers.

    Horatio Hornblower? Horn…blower? Come on. They’re not even trying to be subtle.

    They could change this, but have not yet reached the point where they’re willing to stand up to their fundagelical base

    The fundies aren’t going to change, because the Bible tells them that fags are bad, mm’kay? The GOP would have to repudiate them wholesale to get rid of the animus. I doubt it will happen.

  33. Heh…here come the Faithful-phobes.

  34. Hornblower is not gay, you bastard. I think that captain from the Master & Commander series is, however.

    Coincidentally, I’m currently re-reading the non-gay Hornblower books, a bunch of which I recently acquired at a non-gay garage sale.

  35. Now just how is The Old Man and the Sea gay?

    That fish was playing hard to get.

    Heh…here come the Faithful-phobes.

    From Ceiling Cat’s Cheezburger Recipe bequeathed to Matthew, Chapter 7:

    Look out for peeplz who tellz teh fyoochur but duz it rong. Dey wair tech clothez of sheepz but dey is wolvz insied. Bad wolvz. U know what dey iz by dey frootz. I bet u didn know wolvz had frootz. Good treez haz good frootz. Bad treez haz bad frootz. Evri tree wif bad frootz will be cutted down an throwed in teh fier. Liek I sez, look at teh frootz.

    If a religion causes a man to hate, it is rotten, and should be thrown into the fire. So sez Jesus, son of Ceiling Cat.

  36. I think that captain from the Master & Commander series is, however.

    Nah, just Aussie. Easy mistake to make.

  37. What we need is the it’s not of your business Amendment to the constitution.

    This one amendment will solve many problems like the:

    1. Homo thing
    2. Abortion thing
    3. The getting high thing
    4. The ‘i want to commit suicide’ thing
    5. Adoption thing
    6. Gay marriage thing

    Someone needs to stand up and CALL the so-called Socail Conservatives ‘IN THEIR FACE’ what they really are … EX-Jim Crow Racists !!!

  38. Government should not be involved in the marriage issue, but if they must be, it ought to be at the state, not the federal, level.

    This really comes down to a 10th amendment issue, from a Constitutional standpoint, on “gay marriage”. But legal equality is just as important as federalism, and so you must have some provisions for equal rights under the law, including adoption.

  39. There is, of course, no reason to limit the package of legal arrangements known as civil marriage to couples. Any number of consenting adults should be allowed to incorporate as a household, with all the privileges and responsibilities that currently hold for civil marriage.

    Only one problem is that the right to protection from self-incrimination extends to spouses. There would need to be some sort of tempering of this if you were to extend marriage to multiples. Otherwise, you’ll see criminal organizations of mobsters “married” to each other.

  40. LMNOP
    I think the LOL Cat Bible is the best religious parody ev-er. It’s even better than the Church of the Sub Genius, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It exposes so much of the failings of faith without even trying.

  41. phalkor,

    Private employment discrimination against “GLBT persons and transgendered persons” is one of the key fronts of the gay-liberation battles. Libertarians are clearly on what the activists regard as the wrong side of history.

    Libertarians can protest all they want about how they support *true* equality for gay people, how they hate the Religious Right, etc., but in the end it will come down to, “how could these libertarians defend bigoted employers? We thought these guys were cool, but really they’re just a bunch of haters!”

    If there is a ballot proposition in, say, California safeguarding the prerogatives of private employers, and that proposition passes with the support of the Reason foundation, perhaps you will even see the howling mobs of love and tolerance congregating outside the Reason Foundation’s doors.

  42. On a related note, check out the adventures which libertarians had with Ann (“How do I know you’re not racist”) Althouse. She says her friends thought it ought to have been obvious that defenders of employer/businessowner prerogatives must be racists.

  43. Only one problem is…

    Mo,
    That is a problem, but there are many others. See my 9:25 comment.

  44. Elemenope,

    Dude, that’s the actor from the movie. The character Jack Aubrey was, I’m pretty sure, English, in both the books and the film.

  45. If we outlaw gay marriage then the numbers of cohabiting unmarried couples will skyrocket! Has anyone told the fundies this? We need to do something about this moral decay to protect our children future’s.

  46. Aubrey from the books is not gay given his many um failures of the flesh. Might be bi though. The homoerotic tension between Aubrey and Maturin certainly exists.

    Now, Russel Crowe…. No comment.

  47. You’re misreading me, Epi. My original post was not as clear as I would have
    liked. I agree that the fundies are unlikely to change their minds about this.

    What I was trying to say is that eventually the GOP will reach the tipping point where the fundies are more of a liability than an asset. This will probably happen later, rather than sooner given that SoCons are THE core constituency of the party.

  48. Warren,
    But how would you do it? Do you have lines on the marriage certificate “Power of Attorney spouse”, “Spousal Privilege spouse”, etc? Also, the basis of spousal privilege is based on the conversations that one has with their spouse that are considered personal and private and that one would not have with others. In a legit poly marriage, spousal privilege would be legit for all members. If you treat all your wives/husbands equally, then they’re all privy to the same info. I guess the only practical way is to have exceptions for “sham” marriages, using things like a lack of consummation and such. The way INS does it.

  49. Alice Bowie-

    How about the everyone can keep their property thing? How about the elimination of the IRS and all of the other alphabet soup big brother agencies?

    Ex-Jim Crow racists? So, do you mean that the so-called social conservatives used to be racists? Of course, only those of them over the age of at least 54 and 1/2(those born before May 17, 1954) could have been actual Jim Crow racists, right?

  50. What I was trying to say is that eventually the GOP will reach the tipping point where the fundies are more of a liability than an asset. This will probably happen later, rather than sooner given that SoCons are THE core constituency of the party.

    Gotcha. And I think that it is going to be much later considering that the GOP is driving fiscal conservatives out of their midst in droves, making the fundies even more powerful as a core.

    Plus, isn’t evangelicalism on the rise? I thought I heard that. If so, that’s…disturbing.

  51. Dude, that’s the actor from the movie. The character Jack Aubrey was, I’m pretty sure, English, in both the books and the film.

    Dude, I was kidding. 😉

    I think the LOL Cat Bible is the best religious parody ev-er. It’s even better than the Church of the Sub Genius, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It exposes so much of the failings of faith without even trying.

    My current policy when quoting the Bible is to do so only in LOLspeak.

    It’s funny, I don’t think of it as a parody so much as a clever antidote to bibliolatry. Especially *translation* idolatry. If done properly, a LOLspeak translation is in every way as accurate as any other natural language translation of the Bible, but it wrings absolutely all the pomposity out of the words. If the message is good, it should still make sense, even when conveyed by silly words. To its credit, often the Bible still makes some sense in that frame.

    Those who are offended by it should be just as offended by Gutenberg, or King James, or even the committee of seventy Rabbis that penned the Greek Septuagint…but are not. Pointing out inconsistencies in people’s feelings towards the *appearance* of cherished fetishes is kinda fun.

  52. It is interesting how everyone on this thread acts like white conservative Christians are the only ones who object to gay marriage or anti-gay discrimination laws. Last I checked blacks and hispanics object to both by overwelming numbers. Proposition 8 passed in America’s most liberal state in no small part because of the large black turnout to support Obama.

    Gay rights are going nowhere in this country as long as the stuff white people like are the only ones who care about it. It is the only issue I can think of where a major, important constituency in both parties (black Democrats and Christian Republicans) object to it. Gays overwelming vote Democratic but are a fraction of the votes that Hispanics and Blacks are. They won’t get anymore love from the Dems than they do from the Republicans.

  53. …or even the committee of seventy Rabbis that penned the Greek Septuagint

    For accuracy’s sake, I ought to throw an “apocryphally” in between “that” and “penned”.

  54. Is there something inherently homoerotic about being asea?

    Thar he bloooows!

  55. It is interesting how everyone on this thread acts like white conservative Christians are the only ones who object to gay marriage or anti-gay discrimination laws. Last I checked blacks and hispanics object to both by overwelming numbers.

    Last I checked, blacks and hispanics were more likely than average to be conservative Christians. Not conservatives, mind you, in the contemporary political sense, but conservative in their social outlook due to a socially-conservative brand of Christianity.

    And who brought up white-folk? Why, that would roughly be you. When I write or speak about the inanity of some Christian policy, I’m not omitting the Christians who look different. They’re bigots, too.

  56. Ah, the will of the people. Ever notice that the phrase is only invoked when the speaker is one of the two wolves who voted to eat a sheep for lunch?

  57. Elemenope,

    You weren’t kidding. I’m aware of your hidden agenda to insert gayness into manly sea yarns. Yes, you and your buddy Episiarch. What’s gay about men living together on a ship for months at a time? Bathing together, working together, getting beaten together? Being English together. . . .

    Wait, maybe you’re right!

  58. Proposition 8 passed in America’s most liberal state in no small part because of the large black turnout to support Obama.

    And, incidentally, I take personal offense at you calling California the most liberal state in the country. That is madness. It’s a tie-breaker between Massachusetts and Rhode Island (the two states which consistently have the highest Dem margins in every presidential election for something like the last four decades).

  59. Ever notice that the phrase is only invoked when the speaker is one of the two wolves who voted to eat a sheep for lunch?

    Yum.

  60. It’s worth noting here in Canada that the legislation recognizing same-sex marriage specifically stated that no religeous organization would be forced to perform these ceremonies if it conflicted with their belief system (and no one was even pressing for this in the first place). When advocating for marriage equality, people should be respectful of religeous freedom too.

  61. mad max,

    but these activists are bigots. Why is it right to coerce a private entity to adhere (at least in policy, but not spirit) to a particular world view? The liberal view of what measures are allowable to enforce “fairness” makes me shudder.

    That Amy Althouse thing was pretty good. Her concept of civil rights doesn’t seem logically sound as she necessarily requires the abridgement of one group’s right to promote the other’s.

    Shit, I guess I’m a horribly racist, ex-jim crow, neo-nazi. Liberals make me feel bad.

  62. How come there isn’t a book about Canadian sailors?

  63. Did you see, I wrote my handle in really big letters! That means I’m totally serious.

  64. Bathing together, working together, getting beaten together?

    Now I’m getting excited. The hidden gay agenda is turning me gay! Or maybe it’s just my masochism.

  65. I have a strong urge now to go read some seaman literature. Heh. Seaman.*sucking sound*

  66. Heh. Moby Dick. Heh heh.

  67. Master and Commander. Get it. “Master” then just add “baiter”.

  68. *suck, suck*

  69. Elemenope-10:07

    “pointing out inconsistencies in people’s feelings towards the “appearance” of cherished fetishes is kinda fun.”

    “Kinda fun?” For me, it is downright orgasmic!

  70. “Shit, I guess I’m a horribly racist, ex-jim crow, neo-nazi. Liberals make me feel bad.”
    And I’m a progressive soocialist puss. Go ahead, punish me!

  71. Hahaha ! I’m the most important libertarian issue now that the government will fund stem cell research.

  72. Pro,

    As far as gayness and sea novels, you have to remember, “It is not gay if its away.”

  73. Sorry Pro. That would be “It is not gay if its underway”. So by definition, no sea novel can ever be gay.

  74. Episiarch,

    It’s just your masochism. Saturday Night Live, with the help of Michael Palin, explored the manliness of seamen in The Adventures of Miles Cowperthwaite.

  75. “And who brought up white-folk? Why, that would roughly be you. When I write or speak about the inanity of some Christian policy, I’m not omitting the Christians who look different. They’re bigots, too.”

    Because only Christians object to gay marriage. No one else does for any other reason. It is a good thing you don’t stereotype or anything.

    You have such a hostile attitude towards religion. That is your right. It is a free country. But, you are not helping your cause very much. Sullum is right. A lot Christians get pissed off over gay marriage not becuase they care that gays get married but more because they don’t trust people like you to stop there and not do away with religious freedom in this country in the name of “tolerance”.

  76. You have just seen a disturbing take on concerned observer’s sexuality.

  77. the key to reconciling these perspectives lies in recognizing the crucial distinction between public and private discrimination.

    That will not reconcile anything because the real crucial distinction is between equal protection for individual rights and equal protection of couple rights.

    The concept of equal protection for couple rights is innovative. All couples are not equally protected under the law. A couple consisting of close relatives, a couple consisting of an adult and a small child, or a couple consisting of two persons of the same sex are not equally protected as a couple of married adults. Not to mention those citizens who are not part of a couple at all and are single.

    Equal protection of individual rights is not a new concept and gays do have equal protection of their individual rights.

    If you want to argue that gays need to be able to get married to each other you are arguing for the equal protection of couple rights. Go ahead and argue that if you want, just be aware that that concept is innovative.

  78. “It is not gay if its away.”

    But this also works, as there’s another saying, “what happens on Westpac, stays on Westpac,” which predates Vegas’s use by years.

  79. …I see that there are a select bunch-o-folks who may or may not even be gay that feel the need to push the homosexual-rights issue out into everyone’s face even where there isn’t any true discrimination or abuse.

    Please, the proper phrase is: Shoving The Gay Agenda Down Our Throats(R).

    As I wrote earlier, this is a function of left-wing victim politics and not intrinsic to the GLBT movement. The GOP had an opportunity to be the party of equality, but they didn’t exercise that option, so the scruffy leftists did. Now that this issue is gaining traction, the leftists are predictably overreaching, moving beyond equality to vengeance. It’s human nature. It’s politics. It isn’t pretty, but it always happens.

    I feel that the eHarmony is on the slippery slope. Consider an analgous situation: Let’s say you’re black, in Farmville VA (wiki it), in 1964. You want to eat at a downtown lunch counter, but there is a clearly posted sign saying “No Colored.” Sure there are other lunch counters in town, some with signs reading “Colored Only.” So, what’s the problem? Please compare and contrast this to the eHarmony case, with particular attention to the concept of “place of public accommodation.”

  80. Dude, can you tell us, in that fashion, why Moby Dick is a subversive homosexual text?

    Ahab has a rabid lust to “harpoon” a sperm whale. At least give me a difficult one.

  81. the crucial distinction between public and private discrimination

    This has been hopelessly conflated ever since a Woolworth’s lunch counter was given the same ‘public accommodation’ status as the Greensboro public schools. From a utilitarian point of view, this has probably been for the best, but the tradeoff is that there are no boundaries anymore, as seen by, for example, various ADA actions and smoking bans.

  82. State intrusion into their communities is what drives social conservatives to enter politics in the first place.

    You’ve described some of the “decent” social conservatives. Alas, not all social conservatives are so decent (nor are all progressives so altruistic).

    Art-P.O.G. — I find it’s best to not try and base legislation on the premise that people are decent and altruistic. Freedom must include the right to be an asshat — and suffer the consequences.

    Prop 8 failed narrowly, 52-48, because it didn’t try to accomodate the concerns of the decent social conservatives, of which there are many. I know quite a few LDS members, and there’s some wiggle room to get to legal equality, so long as the words “gay” and “marriage” are left out of the discussion.

    Draw up a package of legal rights in a legal relationship that individuals can voluntarily agree to, and don’t call that package “marriage”, and don’t drag in other non-consenting parties (such as by requiring employers to offer health insurance) and you’ll have the decent so-cons grudgingly accepting it.

    It’s just a bad idea, strategically, to piss off the decent so-cons, especially the LDS ones, as Prop 8 so amply illustrated. Take their genuine concerns into account, and it’s much easier to get legislation enacted that gets gays virtually the same legal contractual rights as married couples.

  83. “I feel that the eHarmony is on the slippery slope. Consider an analgous situation: Let’s say you’re black, in Farmville VA (wiki it), in 1964. You want to eat at a downtown lunch counter, but there is a clearly posted sign saying “No Colored.” Sure there are other lunch counters in town, some with signs reading “Colored Only.” So, what’s the problem? Please compare and contrast this to the eHarmony case, with particular attention to the concept of “place of public accommodation.”

    No one ever said a gay person couldn’t use e-harmony. They just couldn’t get a date with the same sex and would have to swing to the other team. A black person in virginia didn’t have the option of becoming white.

    Beyond that sexual preference is not race. Having a Catholics only or gay only or straight ony dating site is not the same as having a whites only restaurant. The inability for some people to understand that is one of the reasons why blacks are so unsympathetic to the gay rights cause.

  84. “place of public accommodation.”

    A legal fiction.

  85. SugarFree,

    What if the whale was a woman?

  86. “just couldn’t get a date with the same sex and would have to swing to the other team”
    See, John’s perpetuating the big meanie idea that sexual orientation is chosen. BIG MEANIE! You’re also probably fat!

  87. A legal fiction.

    A fiction that will get your ass sued into compliance or bankruptcy.

  88. @ 10:38

    That should read “Prop 8 PASSED narrowly, 52-48 …”

    Preview!

  89. Pro Libertate,

    If Ahab didn’t know one way or the other, it’s at least 50% gay. But it was named Moby Dick, so I consider the matter settled.

  90. You know, I’ve read that neuroscience has not established that homosexuality is determined by genetics and that what genetic evidence there is only applies to male homosexuality. I’m no scholar on the topic, but it strikes me that there’s a huge political motive for making gays into the blacks of the 21st century rather than keeping the fight where it belongs, in the realm of human choice.

    Incidentally, I don’t care much about this whole issue, unless it involves gays entering my sea stories. There I draw the line.

  91. No one ever said a gay person couldn’t use e-harmony. They just couldn’t get a date with the same sex and would have to swing to the other team. A black person in virginia didn’t have the option of becoming white.

    To the gay liberals I know, the very thought that a gay person could “swing for the other team” makes you a hate-mongering bigot who doesn’t understand that sexuality is not a choice.

    To them, there is no difference. To you, there is. This is the fundamental chasm, methinks.

  92. You have such a hostile attitude towards religion.

    I really don’t. I have a hostile attitude towards bigotry. When it comes clothed in scripture, it is twice as sinister because it is dressed as something holy. In fact, that Matthew passage I quoted starts appropriately enough about wolves in sheep’s clothing.

    Since many religious bodies have seen fit to *institutionalize* their bigotry, towards other religions, towards unbelievers, towards people who don’t look like the average member or those who want to copulate in a way that seems gross to them, I have little trouble criticizing them for that institutionalization.

    If it weren’t so serious, it would be hilarious the way people contort a religion of peace and holiness and forgiveness into a bitter Sunday-morning club of exclusion and self-congratulatory preening piety. But it is serious, and so it’s not funny. It’s terrifying, and sad, and infuriating.

    Not every Christian and not every church succumb to such baser, profane instincts, and I love those few for it. One does not have to be a believer to appreciate the transformational and healing effects of belief, good works, etc.. I am not an Atheist who believes that the fruit of all religion is poisoned. Philosophy (and hence, science and the modern world) has its roots in religion, and any ideology that even pays lip-service to human worth and dignity is better than the likely nihilism that would prevail absent such structures.

    For what it’s worth, the only religious position I scorn without hesitation is unreflective agnosticism.

  93. Classwarrior,

    When advocating for marriage equality, people should be respectful of religeous freedom too.

    That is such a canard. Please come up with a single concrete example of a gay couple trying to force a religious group to perform a gay marriage.

    I can think of ONE case that comes close, but misses the mark. There was a gazebo on the boardwalk in somewhere in California which was owned by a local church. The church had a long history of renting the gazebo out to the general public (not just their own members) for weddings and other functions. When approached by a gay couple who wanted to rent the gazebo for a wedding (NOT to be performed by the church), the church refused. The church was offering the Gazebo as a place of public accommodation, and effectively operating it as a business. The worst-case scenario is that the church was forced to either rent to the gays or restrict rental to their own members. Waaaaah….

  94. No one ever said a gay person couldn’t use e-harmony. They just couldn’t get a date with the same sex and would have to swing to the other team

    There are very specific legitimate reasons why the eHarmony thing was stupid and an affront to property rights. The above argument isn’t one of them, John.

  95. Nice try, Mad Max, but the eHarmony case has nothing to do with employment discrimination.

  96. SugarFree,

    If you were to eat groaty dick on Guy Fawkes Day, would that make you gay? No. Well, maybe.

    Moby-Dick was derived from Mocha Dick, which referred to a whale named Dick, which was frequently seen near the isle of Mocha.

  97. A “whites only” restaurant in 1964 was a viable business strategy. It would be a lot more difficult to make that work in 2008, except in some niche markets.

    IMO, we could get more freedom now by repealing legislation requiring restaurants and whatnot to be oh-so-PC, and instead let prejudiced people run discriminatory businesses for the handful of people who would put up with such dickish behavior.

    If a restaurant in Harlem wants to run a “blacks only” restaurant, they should be allowed to cater to their racist clientele. It’s not like there won’t be competitors with more enlightened views vying for your business.

  98. For what it’s worth, the only religious position I scorn without hesitation is unreflective agnosticism.

    What, refusing to take a position is a problem for you?

  99. Moby-Dick was derived from Mocha Dick, which referred to a whale named Dick, which was frequently seen near the isle of Mocha.

    You know a lot about huge white dicks, ProL.

  100. Sexuality is not a choice.

    Epi doesn’t choose to be an emetophile. Pro Libertate didn’t choose to be a plushie. Fluffy didn’t choose to be a menophilic. Elmenope didn’t choose to be a dacrylagnic coulrophilic. I didn’t choose to be a vorarephilic.

    Live and let live people.

  101. Huge white dicks like you, Episiarch?

  102. Sorry, Episiarch, but it seemed like the ideal time to test my joe spoofing.

    SugarFree,

    I was blissfully unaware of what you just attributed to me. . .until now. Icky.

  103. @10:56 –
    looking these up *before* I get to the work computer

  104. No, like the one I used on your sister last night. I love how I loom so large in your heads. If I send you an autographed picture of my junk, will that satisfy you?

  105. I have a solution to this:

    Marriage: A spiritual and civil union between two adults performed by a religious institution

    Civil Union: A legally binding contract between two parties recognized by the state.

    Churches are free to marry whomever they wish so long as the teachings of the church are in line with the parties being married. The state may create any civil union it so desires as it does not answer to any particular deity.

    Matters of child custody and child support will still be decided by the regular courts. Marriages however must be dissolved by a court created and maintained by the church since the Government has no authority over the church and the contracts it creates with deities.

    Any church performing a marriage that is against the teaching of their religion would lose their tax exempt status. If a church feels it would like to break with traditions and perform said marriages it must separate from any churches it has affiliations with that do not agree, then it must reproduce new materials (ie bibles, Quorans, what ever they use) with the disagreeing teachings marked in red strike through. They can then reapply for Tax exempt status as a new church.

    As for eHarmony, they advertise as assisting people by finding only those people they are most compatible with. The purpose of which is to provide a long term stable relationship. And eHarmony does reject people based on contradictions and conflicts that appear during the profile process. Since I believe they may be able to show there is a difference in the psychological profile they do for heterosexuals v homosexuals would it not be within their rights to create a different set of parameters and rewrite the software to accommodate homosexual interests? Of course the cost of doing such a thing is a matter of concern and one the courts should allow to be passed on to the customer. If I buy a car and the dealer makes additions in order to suit my needs then those costs are transferred to me. The gay rights movement would then have to choose to pursue the matter under the ADA and that would mean saying that homosexuality is a disability.

    I Only wish the gay rights movement could step back and look at their protest and parades with a critical eye and ask if they are not their own worst enemies. I really think prop 8 was a backlash at the gay community and the actions of the activists, more than it was about protecting marriage.

  106. “There are very specific legitimate reasons why the eHarmony thing was stupid and an affront to property rights. The above argument isn’t one of them, John.”

    Why not? Unless homosexuality really is a genetic property beyond choice like being black, how is making e-harmony run gay ads any different than making vegetarian restaurants serve meat? As an ominivore I feel like a second class citizen whenever I am in one of those places.

  107. Oh, that’s much improved from yesterday. Bravo, Episiarch, bravo.

  108. NutraSweet, I think you mixed up my fetish with yours.

  109. If you were to eat groaty dick on Guy Fawkes Day, would that make you gay? No. Well, maybe.

    Maybe, but I know eating a spotted dick is a bad idea any day of the year.

  110. Oh, that’s much improved from yesterday. Bravo, Episiarch, bravo.

    I guess your only option when I’m kicking your ass this badly is to agree with me. Typical.

  111. Pro Libertate,

    Casts Tickle Me Elmo in a whole new light, doesn’t it?

  112. Can a ski area forbid snowboarding? I ask, because it is typically allowed, and yet, people don’t choose to be a snowboarder or skier, you’re just born one way or the other. Some people a bi, but generally trend one way.
    I can think of at least two ski areas that forbid snowboarding, and in many ways, they are better ski areas for it.

    I am such a bigot.

  113. Crying clowns get me hot.

    But only female clowns! I’m not weird, or anything.

  114. As a career sailor who has spent many a month at sea, I am somewhat dismayed that this hasn’t been posted yet.

    “Men” By Martin Mull & Steve Martin?

    It’s great to be on a ship with men and sail across the sea-o,
    We don’t know where we’ll land or when, but it’s great to be with men
    It’s great to be with men

    ‘Cause men can sweat and men can stink and no one seems to care-o,
    We’ll throw the dishes in the sink and clog the drain with hair-o,
    (Clog the drain with hair-o)

    Men, men, men.
    It’s a ship all filled with men.
    So batten down the ladies room; there’s no one here but men
    Men, Men, Men, Men
    Men, Men, Men, Men

    There’s men above, there’s men below, there’s men down in the galley,
    There’s Butch and Spike And Buzz and Biff
    And one guy we call Sally
    (And one guy we call Sally)

    Men, men, men.
    It’s a ship all filled with men.
    You’ll never have to lift the seat; there’s no one here but men
    Men, Men, Men, Men
    Men, Men, Men, Men

    We’re men and friends until the end and none of us are sissies,
    At night we sleep in separate beds and blow each other kissies
    (And blow each other kissies)

    Men, men, men.
    It’s a ship all filled with men.
    So throw your rubbers overboard; there’s no one here but men
    Ahhhhhhhhh, Mennnnn.

    ___________________________________________________

    The article pretty much nailed the whole gay discrimination thingee. It is none of the government’s business is gays want to get married or if E-Harmony doesn’t wish to have a queer section.

  115. These days, you can choose whether you wish to be male or female. Surgery can overturn genetic predestination.

    So…is it OK to discriminate against men or women? After all, if they wanted to, they could make a different “choice”.

    Yes, that’s exactly how stupid all this sounds.

  116. i don’t think i’ve ever heard anyone say “and then we’ll force the catholic church to perform gay weddings!”

    though it’d be funny if someone did say that and then had to yell “father flanagan, no! put the altar boy down!”

    ahem.

  117. I would say around 90% of all people are idiots and around 90% of all people want a government law against anything that they personally dislike. This applies to this and almost all issues. People just see nothing wrong with legislating their personal agendas and also a large % of Godnuts believe that the law must follow the Bible. For some reason they have a specific fetish for homosexuality out of all the other God laws.

  118. SugarFree,

    I think I may be ill.

    Episiarch,

    No, I think you went to far with “typical”. Where’s Judge joe on this?

    By the way, before you adopt vorarephilia, you may want to consider what it’s also known called: phagophilia. Now that’s gay.

    J sub D,

    Well, I did post a link to the SNL skit on manly men at sea. A classic with Pythonian support, no less.

    Elemenope,

    You haven’t got a womb! Where’s the fetus going to gestate?

  119. And now I don’t have to worry about making breakfast! Mer?i Monsieur Sans Sucre!

    For those playing the home game this helps: So You Really Think You Know Your -Philias from Your -Phobias?

    One stumper: menophilic. Love of comic book mutants? Seriously that’s the first few google hits.

  120. Elemenope,

    Now you sound stupid. We discriminate against people on the basis of choices all of the time. Vegitarian restaurants discriminate against me because I like meat. As pointed out above, ski resorts descriminate against vile punk snow boarders. Homosexuality is a choice and a moral issue. Some people think it is an immoral choice. I don’t. But I respect the rights of those who do to have an opinion.

  121. I think I may be ill.

    My work here is done.

  122. I would say around 90% of all people are idiots and around 90% of all people want a government law against anything that they personally dislike.

    There should be a law against this!

  123. BULLSHIT TO ALL OF YOU.

    Religions that DISCRIMINATE or TEACH HATE should NOT BE TOLERATED !!!

    Should we tolerate the Racist Black Religion called the NATION OF ISRAEL…which preaches that WHITE PEOPLE are DEVILS ?

    Should we tolerate the RACIST White Religion of the ARIAN BROTHERHOOD or the KKK…which preaches that non-white people are like roaches and jews are DEVILS?

    Then why should we tolerate the BIGOTRY feature of ANY RELIGION.

  124. “Homosexuality is a choice….”

    Wow, John, thanks a lot for settling that long-standing controversy so completely. I guess we all should have just come and asked you in the first place.

    Talk about sounding stupid.

  125. Can a ski area forbid snowboarding?

    Park City has three resorts: one that is only snowboards (canyons), one that is only skis (deer valley), and one that is mixed (park city mountain).

    But it is the most cosmo city in Utah.

  126. I think that people can be bigots all they want as long as they do not infringe on the personal rights of others. I condemn the invocation of government or law to do so.

    Do I get my libertarian card now?

  127. By the way, before you adopt vorarephilia, you may want to consider what it’s also known called: phagophilia. Now that’s gay.

    “If you die first, I am definitely going to eat you, but the question is, if I die, what are you going to do?”

  128. You haven’t got a womb! Where’s the fetus going to gestate?

    Who said anything about procreation? I’m talking about vaginas, man! Vaginas!

    And Virgil beat me to the slapping-John-for-asserting-baldly-as-fact-something-which-is-his-opinion thing. Damn you, Virgil, and your fast typing.

  129. Shit, this is why joke handles are a pain. Reason should design an “alternate handle” feature for posting, considering how much we use joke handles here. It’d be innovative! Fark would follow suit!

  130. Kolohe…I’m glad ski areas can forbid snowboarding.

    I saw the most deadliest accident between a snowboarder and a pie-like-rookie skier at the Canyons in Utah. The snowboarder slammed into the rookie at about 40mph…and lost his eye….the snowboarder … that is.

  131. Virgil,

    As pro liberate pointed out above there is no scientific evidence establishing homosexuality as a genetic quality. The little evidence there is seems to only apply to male homosexuality. Until there is clear scientific evidence, what possible reason is there not to assume it is a choice other than you say so? If so why stop there? Why not snow boarders? If you have ever been to a ski resort, you would know that there is pretty compelling anicdotal evidence that boarders and skiers are just not the same species.

  132. Kolohe, you’re wrong.

    Those three ski areas are owned and operated separately. Also Canyons is mixed. No ski area I know of forbids skiing in favor of snowboarding.

    The oft-cited reasons in favor of banning snowboarding are safety and trail-maintenaince concerns. Snowboarders tend to fuck up mogul runs and push the softer top layer of snow to the edges of the slope.

    My list of ski areas that do not allow snowbaording: Elk Mountain (near scranton pa), Alta (Utah) Deer Valley (Utah). With the exception of Deer Valley (which is like a country club) these ski areas offer superior snow to their local competition.

    Yay for discrimination!

  133. Private employment discrimination against “GLBT persons and transgendered persons” is one of the key fronts of the gay-liberation battles.

    I don’t see a lot of libertarians out there demanding an end to age, race, and sex discrimination at the workplace. Why is that?

    Homosexuality is a choice

    The jury is still out on that one, as evidence continues to accumulate that it is in fact genetic.

  134. As pro liberate pointed out above there is no scientific evidence establishing homosexuality as a genetic quality. The little evidence there is seems to only apply to male homosexuality.

    Nice standard.

    I supposed as long as science can’t prove the existence of God I can be as bigoted and discrimintory against Christians as I want?

  135. Threadjack: snowboarding sucks. It’s slower than skis, you can’t jump as far, and when you wipe out, you don’t have bindings to release your legs from getting twisted around. Plus, no moguls (at least not properly).

  136. Should we tolerate the Racist Black Religion called the NATION OF ISRAEL…which preaches that WHITE PEOPLE are DEVILS ?

    Should we tolerate the RACIST White Religion of the ARIAN BROTHERHOOD or the KKK…which preaches that non-white people are like roaches and jews are DEVILS?

    Yes, if by tolerate you mean allow them to practice their religion.

    P.S. The CAPS LOCK key is NOT an I-Win BUTTON.

  137. “Vegitarian restaurants discriminate against me because I like meat.”

    so any restaurant that makes food you don’t like is discriminating against you?

  138. “I supposed as long as science can’t prove the existence of God I can be as bigoted and discrimintory against Christians as I want?”

    Sure. What do I care? You can descriminate against anyone you want based upon their choices. Religion, at least after you are 18 is a choice. I don’t have a problem with ending the laws forbidding religous descrimination.

    If we are going to conclude that homosexuality is genetic without any clear scientific evidence, why not other things like snow boarding or being a vegitarian? If you don’t have to prove it scientifically for homosexuality, why should you have to prove it for anything else?

  139. what possible reason is there not to assume it is a choice other than you say so?

    Common sense? Instead of trying to cloud the issue with bullshit comparisons to the behavior of skiers vis-?-vis snowboarders?

    Aside from the obvious “why would anyone choose to be that way”, even people who claims it’s not genetic, when pressed, will admit that the “choice” happens so early as to be indistiguishable.

  140. Snowboarders SUCK.

    They always bitch out:

    – It’s too flat
    – It’s too Steep
    – It’s too mogully

    Plus they take too long putting their board on after getting off the chair.

    Plus, they hog up the run…and then fall anywhere.

    Only good thing bout snowboarders is … is that they make the Gondolas smell real real good :>

  141. I have a solution to this:

    Marriage: A spiritual and civil union between two adults performed by a religious institution

    Civil Union: A legally binding contract between two parties recognized by the state.

    As long as we converted the Magic Language in the marriage statutes to refer only to civil unions, and allowed straight and gay civil unions, this should work. Although from an equal protection standpoint, I’m not sure you can define a civil union as being only between two people.

    Unfortunately, I fear that both the fundies and the militant gays would oppose such a common-sense move, because both want the state to sanction their relationships using the Magic Word “marriage”.

    As pro liberate pointed out above there is no scientific evidence establishing homosexuality as a genetic quality. The little evidence there is seems to only apply to male homosexuality.

    I believe that sexual preferences are neither free choice nor genetically determined. They are imprinted, and the imprint can be changed, although it is very difficult.

  142. “so any restaurant that makes food you don’t like is discriminating against you?”

    If you can say that e-harmony is discriminating against gay people because it doesn’t off the dating choices they like, why can’t you say a restaurant that serves food you don’t like is discriminating against you? It is the same logic.

  143. I’ve been reading Thomas Sowell’s “The Vision of the Anointed”, where he explains the perspective of many of the 70% of the black socially conservative voters who were the swing demographic for Prop. 8. Basically, Sowell presents some compelling statistics showing how the breakdown in marriage among blacks (such as how about only 1/3 of black children are being raised in two parent households) has resulted in huge numbers of black kids growing up in poverty.

    That’s the legitimate concern of so-cons. Address that concern, make it clear that you’re not trying to tear down the institutions of marriage and family that protect children, and it will be much easier to get legislation enacted that gives gays virtually equal protections and contractual rights under the law.


  144. Yes, if by tolerate you mean allow them to practice their religion.

    Jordon, then you shouldn’t have any problems with the KKK or the Black Panthers passing laws that would force you and your family to live under a bridge.

  145. “Common sense? Instead of trying to cloud the issue with bullshit comparisons to the behavior of skiers vis-?-vis snowboarders?”

    Common sense? Really? My common sense tells me that who you sleep with is a question of your choice not your genes. Your commone sense says otherwise. When either one of us say “common sense” we are just saying “because I say so”. Sorry, but that is a pretty piss poor scientific standard.

  146. Jordon, then you shouldn’t have any problems with the KKK or the Black Panthers passing laws that would force you and your family to live under a bridge.

    Passing laws is not the same as practicing one’s religion.

  147. Well, all I was saying is that the science on the inherent immutability of homosexuality isn’t as solid or convincing as the press and some scientists want the world to believe. That doesn’t mean that gayness isn’t genetically determined–it may very well be–but no one actually knows that for sure or even mostly for sure. I tend to think it is due, like most things, to a combination of factors.

    Regardless of whether it’s a choice or a genetically programmed trait, I don’t go much for legal discrimination against gays, provided that we don’t go the other direction with legal discrimination for gays.

  148. You know, I’ve read that neuroscience has not established that homosexuality is determined by genetics and that what genetic evidence there is only applies to male homosexuality.

    Reference, please. Not disputing that you read this somewhere, but need to know whether you’ve read an actual study in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal, or some journalist’s distillation of such.

    I’m no scholar on the topic…

    I believe that you’re confusing genetics with neuroscience. I have a degree in research psychology, which does give me some expertise in the scientific method in general, though not in genetics.

    Just because it hasn’t been established YET, doesn’t mean it’s not there. This is an important distinction which non-scientists often have trouble grasping. The scientific method is better at disproving than at proving. My understanding is that there’s a tentative conclusion that there is a genetic basis for male homosexuality. Once a scientist finds an effect, other scientists do comparable studies to either confirm the conclusions of the original study, disprove the conclusions of the original study, or qualify the conclusions of the original study (ie, “yes, but only when…”). Science has lots of checks and balances, and is often slow to accept new ideas.

    …but it strikes me that there’s a huge political motive for making gays into the blacks of the 21st century rather than keeping the fight where it belongs, in the realm of human choice.

    Personally, as a cosmotarian-inclined moderate, I feel that equal protection is justified even if sexual orientation turns out to be a choice. HOWEVER, if sexual orientation turns out to be genetically determined, I feel that creates a mandate for equal protection under current laws. (IANAL, etc).

  149. Pro,

    I am fully aware that the science is undetermined. In the future the science may be settled that being gay is genetic. When and if it ever is, then there should be laws prohibiting discrimination on that basis. Until the science is settle, however, the default position ought to be that it is a personal choice and a moral issue.

  150. Plus they take too long putting their board on after getting off the chair.

    Yes! So true, and so annoying. I propose that we allow discrimination against snowboarders. Who is with me?

  151. I don’t see a lot of libertarians out there demanding an end to age, race, and sex discrimination at the workplace. Why is that?

    Because sadly, the Libertarian “evil action alarm” doesn’t go off unless there’s a government involved.

    “Hey, man! There’s a beverage involved!”

  152. One other thing Pro, the issue of discrimination based on genetic profile is going to be huge this centurty and it will relate to a lot more than just homosexuality. Can I refuse to hire someone on the basis that they are genetically predisposed to get some career debilitating disease?

  153. You want to prove to me homosexuality is a choice, John? Go fuck a guy in the ass. If it’s a choice, your body will respond just like you’re with a women, right? It’s just a choice. Go make the choice and tell me how it goes.

  154. John,

    “As pro liberate pointed out above there is no scientific evidence establishing homosexuality as a genetic quality.”

    As it turns out, you don’t have the slightest hint of a clue what you’re talking about when it comes to the genetic basis of sexual orientation. It’s quite clear that there is in fact at least some genetic component to it (as clear as it is for many other complex traits in humans that are widely accepted to have some genetic basis). It also seems quite clear that there’s an environmental component, which of course is still very different from saying it’s a “choice” in the typical understanding of that term. Just because there’s not “the gay gene” doesn’t mean that it’s a choice. In fact, one thing there’s little to no evidence for is your pulled-out-of-the-ass claim that more than a very, very tiny minority of people make any conscious choice about their sexual orientation.

    “Until there is clear scientific evidence, what possible reason is there not to assume it is a choice other than you say so?”

    Ignoring the fact that your first statement is complete bullshit, why in the world would that be the default assumption, especially since it goes against the personal experience of the vast majority of people, gay or straight, who don’t feel like they every made a conscious choice on the matter?

  155. but epi, I swing both ways.

    I was born a skier, but I converted to snowboarding during my rebellious teen years, now I do both. (actually 95% skier, don’t even own a snowboard anymore)

    Proper technique for snowboarders blockign the trail is to ski normally as you approach, stop suddenly spraying them with snow, then give a short lecture on why it is dangerous to stop in the middle of the slope. Charming, isn’t it?

  156. Passing laws is not the same as practicing one’s religion.

    That depends mightily on the religion. Not every religion is all about church-state separation, and it is conceivable under some that legislation would be a…mitzvah, for lack of a better term.

  157. “You want to prove to me homosexuality is a choice, John? Go fuck a guy in the ass.”

    If it is genetic, why do otherwise straight people do exactly that when confined in prison and on ships with just members of the same sex? As I said above, it is not gay if its underway. That is not a cliche because there isn’t any truth to it.

  158. My common sense tells me that who you sleep with is a question of your choice not your genes.

    I love when willful ignorance of what homosexuality actually is gets expressed as “who you choose to sleep with”. Newsflash: it’s about a bit more than that.

  159. P.S. The CAPS LOCK key is NOT an I-Win BUTTON.

    SO YOU SAY, FOOL. BUT I WIN.

    😉

  160. Tonio,

    The problem I have is that the science and the proclamations being made about it don’t currently match up. I get very annoyed about politics and science mixing the way they do. Guess that’s just human nature.

    However, I think one point that should be made is that a genetic predisposition does not a behavior make. We’re programmed to be scared of falling, but people overcome that fear all of the time. Also, one issue with a genetically determination of sex preference is how it gets passed from one generation to the next. I know that a number of homosexuals in history also engaged in heterosexual relationships due to societal pressures, but one would think that any genetic predisposition of this sort would be less likely to be passed on.

  161. I believe that sexual preferences are neither free choice nor genetically determined.

    That appears to be a false dichotomy. Research into siblings where one is gay and the other isn’t make it appear that hormonal influences of androgens and estrogens in the womb drive a lot of subsequent sexual behavior. An article I read a while back noted that first-born males were subjected to a different proportion and concentration of hormones in the womb than later-born siblings, possibly resulting in the fact that a higher percentage of later-born siblings turn out gay. So it appears it’s not precisely genetic, nor is it something that has a lot of free choice involved — rather, the environmental influence of chemicals in the womb apparently drive much of sexual orientation.

  162. Virgil,

    You answer my conjecture with your own. I don’t rule out the possibility that being gay may in fact be genetic. I am saying there is no clear science to support it. Just because you want it to be true, doesn’t make it true.

  163. Until the science is settle, however, the default position ought to be that it is a personal choice and a moral issue.

    Why? Those defaults seem *awful arbitrary*. Incidentally, *aster marks* are also full of win. Yes* They* Are*!

  164. “I love when willful ignorance of what homosexuality actually is gets expressed as “who you choose to sleep with”. Newsflash: it’s about a bit more than that.”

    Oh really? What are you going to tell me next that it is about listening to Judy Garlin and watching Project Runway? Do you actually know any gay people? I do and a lot of them are more “straight acting” than many of the straight people I know. For them at least, it seems to be about who they find sexually attractive.

  165. I always thought canyons was snowboard only because of the way it is marketed (and I’ve never seen anyone w skis get dropped off there)

    I stand corrected

  166. If it is genetic, why do otherwise straight people do exactly that when confined in prison and on ships with just members of the same sex?

    Uh, because there are no people of the opposite sex to fuck and people get horny? If there were some opposite sex there, do you think there would be any question of “choice”?

    “Well, Dee, I think the real question is…why wouldn’t you want to have sex with someone you can’t see?”

  167. Well, I did post a link to the SNL skit on manly men at sea. A classic with Pythonian support, no less.

    Then we have the classic pop culture gay sailor comedy references covered. We’re nothing if not exhaustive in our inane referenceces.

  168. So, anyway, returning to the topic at hand, Popeye was a sailor, and he wasn’t gay. Granted, he had a poor choice in women, but that’s a different issue altogether.

  169. “Why? Those defaults seem *awful arbitrary*. Incidentally, *aster marks* are also full of win. Yes* They* Are*!”

    How are they any less arbitrary than yours. You assume the science will be there even though we haven’t found it. Sounds a lot like creationists who assume science will some day tell us dinosaurs and man once lived together in harmony. Moreover, that our actions are our free choice is the default position on every other action we take. Why is who we have chose to have sex with so different than everything else other than because you say so?

  170. J sub D,

    We, collectively speaking, are zen masters of inane cultural references.

  171. If it is genetic, why do otherwise straight people do exactly that when confined in prison and on ships with just members of the same sex?

    Rape is not the same things as sex. And maybe there is a self-selection process for people who are attracted to the idea of signing up on a boat full of guys for months on end.

    And any validity for this is if all men with a normal sex drive commit prison rape or fuck each other when out at sea.

    Tell us the story when you chose to be attracted to women, John. Just a quick sketch of the day you weighed the equal options of sex with the opposite gender verses your own gender will do.

  172. SO YOU SAY, FOOL. BUT I WIN.

    😉

    Oh yeah? Well ponder this: Is using the Caps Lock key a choice, or genetic? If your employer only provides keyboards missing the caps lock key, can you sue him for discrimination?

  173. Uh John I *am* gay so I think I have a reasonable grasp of the subject.

  174. “Uh, because there are no people of the opposite sex to fuck and people get horny? If there were some opposite sex there, do you think there would be any question of “choice”?”

    But if they are genetically straight, why would that be pleasureable? It is clearly pleasurable or they wouldn’t do it.

  175. So who here has ever pretended to be gay to avoid sleeping with a girl who is all over you?

    Let me tell you, it doesn’t work. She refused to beleive me, and then, and then, she raped me.

    I tried to choose to be gay, I really did. It just didn’t work.

  176. Popeye was a sailor, and he wasn’t gay

    Just attracted to a woman with no secondary sexual characteristics (hips, breasts) and who wears boots than even a women’s softball team would call butch. No, nothing gay there at all.

  177. John,

    “I am saying there is no clear science to support it. Just because you want it to be true, doesn’t make it true.”

    Again, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. There is in fact “clear science” that shows that sexual orientation has a significant non-zero heritability in human populations. In other words, there is in fact compelling evidence of a genetic component to it, even if its nature is not understood at the level of specific, individual genes (as is also the case with a large number of other complex traits for which everyone accepts that there’s a genetic component).

    It has nothing to do with what I want – that’s the plain reality, and it will continue to be no matter how much you try to ignore it.

  178. “Rape is not the same things as sex. And maybe there is a self-selection process for people who are attracted to the idea of signing up on a boat full of guys for months on end.”

    Not all sex in prison or on ships is rape. There are tons of examples of people who are straight but still have consensual homosexual relationships under those conditions. Hell, there are millions of bi sexual people. How do you explain them if sexual preference is genetic? Isn’t it more likly that it is not genetic and the only reason most people find sex with the same gender revolting is our social hangups about it? Lots of societies, the Greeks for example, considered gay sex to be totally natural and engaged in it in large numbers. How were all of those geneticly straight Greeks having so much fun having gay sex?

  179. People with non-mainstream sexual proclivities get married all the time. Why don’t fundies get all worked up when people with foot fetishes get married?

  180. For them at least, it seems to be about who they find sexually attractive.

    OK, you’re not *completely* ignorant on the subject. But to be more accurate, the vast majority of gays are *incapable* of being sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

  181. Uh John I *am* gay so I think I have a reasonable grasp of the subject.

    I know there’s a joke there, I just can’t put my finger in it.

  182. SugarFree – make a “come here” motion and you’ll find it.

  183. But if they are genetically straight, why would that be pleasureable? It is clearly pleasurable or they wouldn’t do it.

    Closing your eyes and thinking of a woman is certainly possible, John. People do strange shit when they’re horny. They’re not choosing to be gay; they’re making the best of their situation.

    Just attracted to a woman with no secondary sexual characteristics (hips, breasts) and who wears boots than even a women’s softball team would call butch. No, nothing gay there at all.

    Plus he eats spinach and has a conflicted, very physical relationship with a big hairy guy named Bluto.

  184. Why don’t fundies get all worked up when people with foot fetishes get married?

    Because you rarely have to see two feet with big bushy mustaches kissing in public.

  185. Heterosexual male homophobes are really stupid. They should be promoting male homosexuality. That leaves more women for them. Think about it you stupid hateful pricks, every male gay marriage/union, whatever the fuck you want to call it, leaves two less men on the market.

    Now you bi-sexual men, Fuck you. You are just being selfish.

  186. Hell, there are millions of bi sexual people. How do you explain them if sexual preference is genetic?

    It’s an inverted bell curve, with bisexuals in the middle. This is basic stuff, John.

  187. Homosexuality is a choice

    The jury is still out on that one, as evidence continues to accumulate that it is in fact genetic.

    I read some interesting conjecture with some backup that in many cases fetal expopsure to differeing maternal hormone levels is complicit in homosexuality. The issue’s not important enough to me to follow up on, but it was an interesting slant on the subject.

  188. “OK, you’re not *completely* ignorant on the subject. But to be more accurate, the vast majority of gays are *incapable* of being sexually attracted to the opposite sex.”

    And some people are incapable of having sex period. There are lots of variations of how people are. Does that mean it is genetic? Maybe. I just want to see some hard scientific evidence of it. But even still, the people you describe are not the entire gay community. Some are attracted to both sex but prefer their own sex.

  189. And with Wimpy working out his sexual inadequacies through a severe eating disorder, Popeye is a fucked up strip.

  190. Lots of societies, the Greeks for example, considered gay sex to be totally natural and engaged in it in large numbers.

    Actually, the Greeks had a sort of ritualized pedophilia going on. In every case, it was an older guy dominating some scared kid. In no way was it anything like a gay relationship as we would understand it today.

  191. My previous would have looked like this if I wasn’t too arrogant to utilize the preview function.

    Homosexuality is a choice

    The jury is still out on that one, as evidence continues to accumulate that it is in fact genetic.

    I read some interesting conjecture with some backup that in many cases fetal expopsure to differeing maternal hormone levels is complicit in homosexuality. The issue’s not important enough to me to follow up on, but it was an interesting slant on the subject.

  192. men fooling around with men is as old as time.

    I’m not convinced, however, that gay men are capable of monogamy. Not that I care, but I think the marriage thing is kind of funny for a group that cheats on its boyfriends like crazy.

  193. Heterosexual male homophobes are really stupid. They should be promoting male homosexuality. That leaves more women for them. Think about it you stupid hateful pricks, every male gay marriage/union, whatever the fuck you want to call it, leaves two less men on the market.

    The problem is that all the women want to pal around with their gay guy friends (who of course aren;t trying to screw them)…

  194. “Actually, the Greeks had a sort of ritualized pedophilia going on. In every case, it was an older guy dominating some scared kid. In no way was it anything like a gay relationship as we would understand it today.”

    That was the Spartans who did that. The Athenians and the rest of Greece viewed homosexuality as an effective means of birth control. They certainly didn’t have gay marriage and people didn’t give up women to be with men. They still had responsibilities to society to marry and have children. But, gay sex between men was not a big deal and it wasn’t all pediastry.

  195. I’m not convinced, however, that gay men are capable of monogamy. Not that I care, but I think the marriage thing is kind of funny for a group that cheats on its boyfriends like crazy.

    Especially when you consider the documented rarity of heterosexual adultery.

  196. When have “private institutions” ever “managed to maintain [marriage]”? Hasn’t it always been the purview of civil authority?

    Karlh, we already have civil unions, which are recognized only by the state, with no mention or involvement of any deity. For heterosexuals, this is called marriage. Maybe religious folks should change their terminology.

  197. J sub –

    What I should have said was “People in general are probably incapable of monogamy, but gay men (as a subset of people) are probably even more incapable.”

  198. “Not that I care, but I think the marriage thing is kind of funny for a group that cheats on its boyfriends like crazy.”

    The guy who played the music at my wedding is gay and says most gay men don’t want to get married they just want to have a wedding. I think more gay women would marry than men. In the straight world women drive marriage a lot more than men. Take women out of the equation and most men don’t want to be tied down.

  199. The eHarmony incident smacks of a self-indulgent lawyer trying to make a name for himself.

    And by eHarmony’s choice of settling instead of fighting that injustice, another nail is pounded into the casket of freedom of association, freedom of commerce, and capitalism itself.

  200. I think Olive Oyl was less mannish and more young girlish. So Popeye, while heterosexual, was a pedophile. Also, having to crush the male opposition to acquire a female mate is Primate Mating 101. I don’t think it can be held out as an exhibit establishing gayness.

    The non-Spartan (or Thebian, if I remember correctly) classical Greeks thought pedophilic homosexual relationships were dandy, but they had big problems with adult-on-adult homosexuality. Unless the adults were women. Then it was hot ?

  201. the marriage thing is kind of funny for a group that cheats on its boyfriends like crazy

    That’s just men being men. Much of the whole reason for “marriage” is to stop men from straying.

    a higher percentage of later-born siblings turn out gay

    I saw that article too. And anecdotally, almost every gay man I ask has an older brother or two. I have three.

  202. Much of the whole reason for “marriage” is to stop men from straying.

    And to have a legal basis for reasonable assumption of paternity.

  203. “That’s just men being men. Much of the whole reason for “marriage” is to stop men from straying.”

    Does marriage really stop them from straying? Yes and no I think. I think what stops them from straying is not so much marriage but the social stigmas associated with straying from a marriage. Would straying from a gay marraige have any more social stigma than straying from a gay relationship? I am not sure to be honest. To say yes, you have to assume that access to marriage would change the gay culture. Indeed, some gays object to gay marriage for that very reason; that they feel that promiscuity is one of the hallmarks of being gay and a part of gay culture.

  204. What if the whale was a woman?

    Dude, let’s not get into BBW bukkake here.

  205. rhywyn

    Look at Andrew Sullivan. He as at heart a social scold. If he were straight he would be a very conservative catholic. I really think gay marriage is such an important issue to him in no small part because he wants to use marriage to scold gays into what he considers better behavior.

  206. I’m a monogamous, non-cheating male, for whatever that’s worth. That goes for my pre-marital relationships as well as my marriage. Is that genetic?

  207. But, gay sex between men was not a big deal and it wasn’t all pediastry.

    So what. Those people (mostly) weren’t gay. I could have sex with a woman but that wouldn’t make me straight.

  208. Warty,

    The damned whale is symbolic of so much that I think throwing sexual imagery on top of it is gratuitous.

  209. I could have sex with a woman but that wouldn’t make me straight.

    Yeah, but dude, if I (as a straight male) were to bang a dude just once, I’d be gay forever. Don’t you understand homophobia? Work with me here.

  210. some gays object to gay marriage for that very reason; that they feel that promiscuity is one of the hallmarks of being gay and a part of gay culture.

    Yep, some do. I don’t associate much with that type. All the gay men I know are either in monogamous relationships or “just dating” but desire monogamy. The culture you’re describing kind of died out in the 80s.

  211. How were all of those genetically straight Greeks having so much fun having gay sex?

    Well, for one, we know that changes in the genetic pool can be (relatively) swift. Who knows, maybe the gay gene is rarer now than it was in Greece two-and-a-half millenia ago. Heaven knows there were fewer blond people, fewer people with blue eyes, fewer people with sickle-cell anemia, all genetic characteristics.

    But I think the answer lies closer to the fact that culture can acclimate people to all sorts of behaviors that run against their genetic predispositions. I’m pretty sure most people do not have a genetic disposition to sitting in a cubicle all day, instead of hunting, gathering, raping, pillaging, and being inebriated all day long.

    Tell a person that their instincts are bad and you can control their behavior. Yes, it makes them miserable, but you can to a certain extent control their behavior that way. Beat on a gay guy enough for being gay and you can get yourself a miserable alcoholic who *acts* straight. Doesn’t make him any less gay.

    And the bisexuality thing is a red herring. There could be a “bisexual” gene; there is no rule that the genetics must be binary. Blue, green, hazel, and brown are all possible eye colors, after all.

  212. “It’s an inverted bell curve, with bisexuals in the middle”

    The shape of the curve is probably heavily influenced by social norms though the ends are probably fixed.

  213. “So what. Those people (mostly) weren’t gay. I could have sex with a woman but that wouldn’t make me straight.”

    If those people were not gay what were they then? If you started having sex with women, what would you be? Is it posible perhaps that your taste in sexual partners is just that taste? I can’t stand the taste of annis. If I started guzzling Sambuka, it wouldn’t make me like it anymore. I don’t see how the fact that someone’s preferences are very firm necessarily makes those preferences genetic or equivilent to being born of a certain race.

  214. Also, John, what do you make of homosexual behavior in creatures thought to be *incapable* of deliberative choice?

    For your perusal.

  215. I can’t stand the taste of annis.

    John, with your, uh, lax spelling–I totally mis-read that sentence at first.

  216. “The culture you’re describing kind of died out in the 80s.”

    Sadly thanks to HIV is more than kind of died out. And yes it is Anis with one N not two.

  217. Speaking of red herrings, why is it necessary to compare homosexuality to race? Is it for ease of comparison, or for ease of strawman production?

    Could sexuality be a distinct process from race (as it almost assuredly is) with different variabilities and incidental phenomena, and still be

    a. genetically influenced or determined
    b. worthy of legal recognition and protection

    Of course.

  218. If you started having sex with women, what would you be?

    If I started having sex exclusively with women, felt a romantic attraction to them, and seriously considered a monogamous relation with one, why then I guess I would consider myself straight. Gay/straight is about more than sex.

  219. And yes it is Anis with one N not two.

    Sorry. I still have a different image in my mind.

    Try “anise”.

  220. It’s actually Anise.

    Not judging, of course, I make my share of typos.

  221. The problem I have is that the science and the proclamations being made about it don’t currently match up.

    Specific example, please.

    Also, one issue with a genetically determination of sex preference is how it gets passed from one generation to the next. I know that a number of homosexuals in history also engaged in heterosexual relationships due to societal pressures, but one would think that any genetic predisposition of this sort would be less likely to be passed on.

    I believe that the current thinking is that the gay gene (predisposition) is transmitted via the the mother, and activated (behavior) by hormones in the womb during gestation. In evolutionary terms, gay men who provide for their straight sisters and their offspring are a net benefit to the family. You’re actually better off genetically if you sacrifice yourself to save two siblings than if you save yourself.

  222. “Speaking of red herrings, why is it necessary to compare homosexuality to race? Is it for ease of comparison, or for ease of strawman production?”

    No it is not a strawman at all. We do not prohibit all discrimination in this society. I can lawfully discriminate against you on the basis of all sorts of criteria. Maybe you are too fat or root for the wrong professional football team or pick your nose. All of those things are lawful, if not very reasonable, basis of discrimination. The only times we say it is unlawful to discriminate against someone is when it is because of a quality about them, race or sex or national origen, that they cannot change. If homosexuality is established to be a genetic trait, it will be just like race. Race is not a strawman.

  223. Not judging, of course, I make my share of typos.

    That’s the name of the spice. However, (and I was unaware of this before I looked), the beverage is actually called anis (or anisette). Was was going to do the same pedant as you, but got stopped in my tracks by the almighty wiki.

  224. I believe that the current thinking is that the gay gene (predisposition) is transmitted via the the mother, and activated (behavior) by hormones in the womb during gestation. In evolutionary terms, gay men who provide for their straight sisters and their offspring are a net benefit to the family. You’re actually better off genetically if you sacrifice yourself to save two siblings than if you save yourself.

    The other hypothesis I’ve heard is differential genetic expression by gender: the gene that makes men gay makes women more fertile and fecund.

    Both make sense. I’d guess some combination.

  225. Yeah, but dude, if I (as a straight male) were to bang a dude just once, I’d be gay forever. Don’t you understand homophobia? Work with me here.

    No, Epi, you can bang as many other guys as you want and still be straight. However you have to have a really good excuse (drunk, horny, no women available). Also helps if when you wake/sober up that you slap the faggot around a bit.

    It’s only when you start letting other guys bang you that people will start to wonder.

    Don’t they teach you kids anything?

  226. In evolutionary terms, gay men who provide for their straight sisters and their offspring are a net benefit to the family. You’re actually better off genetically if you sacrifice yourself to save two siblings than if you save yourself.

    These seems fishy. Why would a gay man necessarily “provide” for his straight sisters? What would stop him from running off and joining the cast of Starlight Express?

  227. John,

    It is also illegal to discriminate based on political preference or religious adherence, two things that are quite within the choice of the person possessing them.

    That a thing is a choice does not foreclose the possibility that discriminating on its basis is not appropriate or even legally possible.

  228. Back to topic, if there’s something inherently gay about sailors on ships, what about crew members on spaceships?

  229. I don’t see how the fact that someone’s preferences are very firm necessarily makes those preferences genetic

    I’m not offering proof that sexuality is genetic; I’ll leave that to the scientists. I’m just offering speculation that, because sexual preference seems to be formed long before puberty, it is for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from a genetic trait such as skin color–even if it turns out NOT to be genetic.

  230. I don’t think there’s any one thing that can be pinpointed as the “reason” people are gay/bi. Some people are just attracted to the same sex from an early age for no demonstrable “reason”. Some have a bad experience with the opposite sex (seems more typical in women than men from experience) which impacts their level of attraction to the opposite sex. Some people are just horny and willing to try anything. Some make a deep personal connection with someone of their same sex and it burgeons into a sexual attraction. Some are forced to homosexuality by the circumstances combined with sexual frustration (i.e. the Navy, prison). I don’t think that anyone’s going to walk away from this forum with the answer, so I don’t know what the point of this argument is. Some people are attracted to people of a certain race – what’s the point of arguing about what psychological, circumstantial or genetic forces caused that attraction?

    Speaking of which, wouldn’t the New Jersey ruling also preclude that intraracially-targeted dating sites are also discriminatory?

    Hell, isn’t the purpose of dating sites discrimination? I have yet to see a dating ad that reads “Seeking man, woman or transgendered of any race, nationality. You don’t have to be attractive or nice. You don’t have to share my interests or have any personality. Smoker/non-smoker/drinker/non-drinker doesn’t matter to me at all, nor does your religious or political views.”

  231. Back to topic, if there’s something inherently gay about sailors on ships, what about crew members on spaceships?

    Ask Sulu.

  232. No, Epi, you can bang as many other guys as you want and still be straight. However you have to have a really good excuse (drunk, horny, no women available).

    Right, it’s not my fault! It was the vodka, Red Bull, Viagra, and Astroglide!

    Also helps if when you wake/sober up that you slap the faggot around a bit.

    Well, I already do that with the girls I sleep with, so I have that covered.

  233. Was Sulu gay? Or was he Australian?

  234. I’m not offering proof that sexuality is genetic; I’ll leave that to the scientists. I’m just offering speculation that, because sexual preference seems to be formed long before puberty, it is for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from a genetic trait such as skin color–even if it turns out NOT to be genetic.

    That’s a really excellent way to put it. If it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck…

  235. Ele,

    [super pedant mode]

    John was talking about his objection to the flavor of Sambuca, so therefore instead of referring to the liquor named “anis(ette)” he was instead complaining about “anise” the flavoring component.

    [/super pedant mode]

    [pushes glasses back up nose and takes hit from inhaler]

    “That is a very rare Mary Worth in which she counsels a friend to commit suicide.”

  236. If it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck…

    …somebody’s tried to fuck it.

  237. John,

    “If homosexuality is established to be a genetic trait, it will be just like race.”

    I pointed out again at 11:49 that it has already been established that sexual orientation has a genetic component. Shockingly, you didn’t have much to say about that. So I’ll make even easier for you. Here’s a simple place to start:

    “Human sexual orientation has a heritable component,” published in the journal Human Biology in 1998 (70(2):347-365).
    Abstract: “We present an overview of behavioral genetics research on homosexual and heterosexual orientation. Family, twin, and adoptee studies indicate that homosexuality and thus heterosexuality run in families. Sibling, twin, and adoptee concordance rates are compatible with the hypothesis that genes account for at least half of the variance in sexual orientation. We note observations of homosexual behavior in animal species, but the analogy to human sexual orientation is unclear. We discuss the reproductive disadvantage of a homosexual orientation and present possible mechanisms that could maintain a balanced polymorphism in human populations.”

    That’s just one of many studies, including considerably more recent ones, that show qualitatively similar results (for example, “A twin study of sexual behavior in men,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 33(2):129-136, 2004). You can find plenty more yourself with some minimal searching.

    So why don’t you take a look at those studies, then come back and explain to us how they’re all flawed and we still don’t have any “real science” about the genetic basis of homosexuality.

    Either that, or quit repeating something that is obviously untrue just because it’s ideologically convenient for you.

  238. Rhywun,

    Understand that I have nothing against gays and do not think it is proper to discriminate against them. I am just not convinced it is genetic. I also am not sure that it will do gays much good to run to court in order to gain social acceptance. If anti-discrimination laws were passed, chances are they would be abused and coopted by people who just want to oppress religion or get an easy check and probably create more animosity towards gays than there already is.

  239. [super ultra pedant mode]

    The flavor of Sambuca comes from aniseed. Star Aniseed to be precise. Which is a seed from an anise (anis is also allowed) plant.

    [/super ultra pedant mode]

  240. Virgil,

    A few studies that say that there may be a genetic component to homosexuality doesn’t amount to proof of homosexuals having no choice. You chose to beleive that because it says what you want to hear.

  241. Could we please move the conversation away from “anus”. Thanks. What? Oh.

  242. Was Sulu gay? Or was he Australian?

    Talk about a distinction without a difference.

  243. http://www.volokh.com/posts/1228325274.shtml\

    This is disturbing and the reason why so many people don’t believe that gay marriage is just about marriage and nothing else.

  244. A few studies that say that there may be a genetic component to homosexuality doesn’t amount to proof of homosexuals having no choice

    John, NutraSweet asked you earlier: when did you choose to like pussy? I don’t recall making that choice myself. It sure seemed like it was already made.

  245. There are male Australians?

  246. I also am not sure that it will do gays much good to run to court in order to gain social acceptance.

    If it’s constitutionally provable that gays should not be discriminated against, “social acceptance” doesn’t matter. It should be pursued.

  247. These seems fishy.

    No, that’s Epi’s fingers. [snicker]

    Why would a gay man necessarily “provide” for his straight sisters? What would stop him from running off and joining the cast of Starlight Express?

    Gay men are less likely to have offspring than straight men. Straight men pass their wealth on to their own children. Historically, most cultures have had predetermined inheritance rules, so when a single guy dies his parents, then his siblings inherit.

    Also, the observed reality is that it’s often the gay brother who stays home and serves as a caretaker. This effect magnifies in pre-industrial societies.

  248. This is disturbing and the reason why so many people don’t believe that gay marriage is just about marriage and nothing else.

    Maybe she was fired for being an idiot.

  249. I must explain. Above, Elemenope referred to the captain in Master & Commander as Australian. I replied that he was mixing characters and actors. He responded that he was kidding. Then he did the same with Sulu/Takei, so I replied with the gay/Australian remark.

  250. “John, NutraSweet asked you earlier: when did you choose to like pussy? I don’t recall making that choice myself. It sure seemed like it was already made.”

    When did I chose to like anything? I don’t recall making a conscious choice to like chocolate anymore than I made a conscious choice to like women. They both just seemed attractive.

  251. “A few studies that say that there may be a genetic component to homosexuality doesn’t amount to proof of homosexuals having no choice.”

    Jesus Christ, John, do you have the slightest sense of intellectual honesty? You repeatedly ask for evidence that sexual orientation is genetic; but when it’s put right in front of you, you suddenly decide that it doesn’t matter any more? I’m sure when this topic comes up on some other thread months from now you’ll be right back to happily repeating your lie that there’s no “real science” behind it, until someone calls you on it again. Then it will magically become irrelevant again.
    And by the way, it’s dozens of studies, not “a few.” Not that it matters to you – you’re obviously prepared to ignore whole volumes of studies if you have to.

    “You chose to beleive that because it says what you want to hear.”

    No, actually I choose to believe it because it’s consistent with the facts at hand. That’s how people who aren’t shameless hacks often try to draw conclusions. You’re the one who’s so desperate to deny reality. The notion that homosexuals choose their orientation is obviously one of the key tenets of your own personal faith, and you’re not going to let go of it no matter how detached from the real world it is.

  252. “If homosexuality is established to be a genetic trait, it will be just like race.”

    If you mean morally equivalent, I don’t agree.

    Being a midget probably has a genetic component, but that doesn’t mean a basketball team is practicing invidious discrimination by not having midgets on its roster.

    Some folks are born blind, perhaps indicating a genetic problem, but that doesn’t mean the Department of Motor Vehicles should be giving them driver’s licenses in the name of “antidiscrimination.”

  253. “Maybe she was fired for being an idiot.”

    She was fired for holding an un PC view. Do you think that people who object to homosexuality should not be allowed to hold jobs? It should be okay to fire them. Perhaps we should just round them up in camps and reducate them.

  254. The flavor of Sambuca comes from aniseed. Star Aniseed to be precise.

    FAIL

    “Anis” and Aniseed” are synonyms for the seed of the Pimpinella species; Star Anise refers to seedpod of the Illicium floridanum.

    While Anise(ed) and Star Anise taste the same, originally Sambuca was made from the former and not the latter. While cheaper manufacturers of Sambuca may substitute some or all of the Anise for Star Anise, I was giving John’s palate the benefit of the doubt.

  255. Sugerfree,

    My wife only drinks the expensive stuff and it still tastes vile to me.

  256. Fuck you, NutraSweet! Neener neener neener!

  257. My wife only drinks the expensive stuff and it still tastes vile to me.

    John’s wife’s palate for the win!

    And, just for the record, I think anise and star anise flavored food stuffs are fairly vile as well.

  258. “Being a midget probably has a genetic component, but that doesn’t mean a basketball team is practicing invidious discrimination by not having midgets on its roster.

    Some folks are born blind, perhaps indicating a genetic problem, but that doesn’t mean the Department of Motor Vehicles should be giving them driver’s licenses in the name of “antidiscrimination.””

    This would be a much more compelling analogy if there were some coherent reason to expect that allowing gay marriage would somehow inhibit the proper function or success of marriage for the rest of us (basketball) or put other people in danger of injury or death (blind drivers).

  259. All of this is silly anyone, all the problems with the acceptance of homosexuals in society could be solved by them all joining a union.

    (SAG doesn’t get them all, you know…)

  260. John,

    You never addressed the point of two male fruit-flies/giraffes/swans fucking for fun.

    How do creatures that can’t make deliberate volitional conceptual choices “choose” to act in a homosexual manner?

    Is this not evidence of genetic and/or congenital and/or environmental sources for homsexuality, rather than volition?

  261. Lost in the sharp drop in oil prices is the fact that the incentive to destroy agave crops in favor of corn (for ethanol) is also declining rapidly. Our precious tequila is saved!

    Anis/Anise tastes icky.

  262. Virgil,

    He’s a Catholic lunatic troll. Don’t bother, dude.

  263. SAG doesn’t get them all, you know..

    Yeah, but the Film Actor’s Guild does.

    And, just for the record, I think anise and star anise flavored food stuffs are fairly vile as well.

    What is with the anise hate here? Next you’ll be telling me you don’t like fennel.

  264. John, from the comments section of the Volokh article you posted, a fellow wrote:

    “If I’m hiring someone whose job involves ensuring that my organization complies with the civil rights laws – in other words, a human resources administrator, like this woman was – I really don’t think I have to employ someone who believes some of those laws are immoral and violate God’s will. And from a pragmatic standpoint, employing this woman in a human resources position creates a liability nightmare.”

    Much like you can tell doctors and pharmacists to prescribe and dispense birth control pills, and if their religion says that’s bad they can shove it, because it’s part of their job to provide those things.

  265. Thanks, everyone, for schooling John. Poor clueless bigot doesn’t realize he’s been demolished. Refuses to answer Epi’s “kitty” challenge. Then Virgil hands him some actual scientific evidence which he says isn’t conclusive (thereby winning the Ron Bailey Award). Finally, he changes his tune with a link to an article about a single case of firing over viewpoint discrimination, claiming that this proves the vast lavendar conspiracy.

    It’s OK, though. I’m sure some of his best friends are gay. LOLz for all!

  266. A Berman: In a world with a much smaller government, a much more conservative legal system, and no federal or state control over schools, gay marriage would be much easier for social conservatives to accept.

    Elemenope: It’s not that it would be easier for them to accept so much as they wouldn’t have much to say about it besides the traditional moral whining.

    Right. It’s not a matter of “acceptance,” because acceptance is a matter of personal taste. It’s when government gets involved that everything becomes an argument.

    It’s this insane idea that it’s the government that grants/creates rights vs. the obvious reality that by virtue of merely being human, we have rights. Looking to government as the root of rights creates conflict.

    Tonio: How did you get to that conclusion? Can you offer any concrete examples of SoCon’s offering this sort of bargain? Even if they would, rights are not negotiable.

    Yes, rights are not negotiable, because rights are inherent. With a true conservative (small) government, marriage would cease to be a legal institution and go back to where it belongs, as a social/spiritual institution. The government then is reduced to the basic contractual legalities which simply protect the inherent rights all people have by virtue of being human.

    John: You have such a hostile attitude towards religion. That is your right. It is a free country. But, you are not helping your cause very much. Sullum is right. A lot Christians get pissed off over gay marriage not becuase they care that gays get married but more because they don’t trust people like you to stop there and not do away with religious freedom in this country in the name of “tolerance”.

    Indeed! Quite frankly, the whole notion of the government involving itself in marriage in the first place, is in direct violation of “separation of church and state.”

    Kick the government out, and there’s nothing left to fight over. Gays and straights could go on their merry ways! But as long as it remains a “legal right” issue … each side gets put on the defensive, and ultimately attacks the other.

  267. SugarFree,

    But that’s the very best kind of Catholic lunatic (or lunatic troll).

  268. This would be a much more compelling analogy if there were some coherent reason to expect that allowing gay marriage would somehow inhibit the proper function or success of marriage for the rest of us (basketball) or put other people in danger of injury or death (blind drivers).

    But, but, but…the sanctity of marriage!!! We’re all gonna die! Jeezus is gonna send hurricanes and earthquakes and Barbara Streisand, and we’ll deserve it!

    You must exterminate all midgets IMMEDIATELY!!! I mean, oh, wait…

  269. No, that’s Epi’s fingers. [snicker]

    You go right ahead and snicker, dude.

    Historically, most cultures have had predetermined inheritance rules, so when a single guy dies his parents, then his siblings inherit.

    Genetic evolution determined by inheritance rules? I maintain fishiness. And it would be totally useless in one of the (incredibly rare) polyandrous societies.

  270. the vast lavendar conspiracy versus the vast right wing conspiracy

    an epic showdown for the ages to be sure

  271. Episiarch,

    I think he meant that he was taking a Snickers break after he made his comment.

    Snickers Provides Substantial Satisfaction.

  272. “But, but, but…the sanctity of marriage!!! We’re all gonna die! Jeezus is gonna send hurricanes and earthquakes and Barbara Streisand, and we’ll deserve it!

    “You must exterminate all midgets IMMEDIATELY!!! I mean, oh, wait…”

    Yes, that’s more or less a fair summing-up of my position. If you leave out the first five sentences.

    An *even more* accurate summary would have been: “You can’t argue for ‘gay-rights’ laws and regulations simply because gayness is (allegedly) genetic. That sort of argument proves too much, and it invalidates all sorts of legitimate discrimination based on what are probably genetic characteristics.”

  273. MM —

    I actually didn’t see your post. I was reacting to Virgil who reacted to you. Hence, my italicized quote was of the stuff he wrote, not the stuff you wrote.

    And he’s right, BTW. Homosexuality does not seem to pose any sort of threat to *others* nor does it delimit what sort of activities a person may engage in, whatever it may or may not do to the status of one’s own body/mind/soul/whatever. As such, it is not comparable to debilitating or handicapping genetic statuses, like dwarfism or genetic blindness.

  274. the vast lavendar conspiracy versus the vast right wing conspiracy

    an epic showdown for the ages to be sure

    From teh cheezburger recipe bequeathed unto Mark, Chapter 3:

    23 An Happy Cat was like “Hay guise, srsly, if I haz teh devilz in me how u think I can pwn maiself, r u nuts?”

    24 An Happy Cat was like “K, srsly agen, if u guise cant agree on if i am a good kitteh or a devil kitteh u cant make a very gud kingdum can u?”

    25 An tehn Happy Cat wuz like “An srsly yet agen, if all teh kittehs in one howse are lyke hay i want fish and teh other kittehs are lyke no i wan chickenz then their howse cannt stand cuz all teh kittehs will tere it down, srsly, don do taht, kthx.”

  275. If the argument is “don’t discriminate against gays because their activity is harmless,” then it wouldn’t matter whether there’s a gene for it or not? After all, there isn’t a gene for Methodism (so far as I know), yet anti-Methodist discrimination usually violates the law.

    This is why the genetic argument is a major red herring.

    I believe that this thread has well documented the harm that “anti-discrimination laws” do to liberty. Some may think this is a cost worth paying. When it comes to breaking the color bar which used to exist in some industries, I would be inclined to agree. But *modern* antidiscrimination law protects people based on all sorts of characteristics that go beyond what is strictly necessary to correct market failures. Expanding the antidiscriminatinon laws to take in matchmaking Web sites, employers, etc. who discriminate against gays provides highly dubious benefits, and it *does* tell others what to do with their lives and property.

    The “gay-marriage” and “civil union” laws are, among other problems, organically linked to laws against “discrimination” by private business. As you have more govt-recognized gay unions, then the case for “antidiscrimination laws” is enhanced both politically and judicially.

  276. theCl

    I repeat my earlier question, when has “the government” NOT been involved in marriage?

    Marriage (by whatever name) started out as a means of insuring a man’s paternity; which is basically his property rights in his wife (wives) and therefore his children. It was not necessarily seen as a spiritual anything until much later in history.

    Divorced Catholics are not allowed to have a second (or more) marriage sanctified by the church unless they obtain a statement from church officials that basically says that their first marriage didn’t really count (annullment).

    Should Catholic hospitals discriminate against married couples where one or both parties had been divorced? “Sorry, you can’t make any decisions on behalf of your ‘spouse’; you aren’t really married.” How about Catholic judges? “Well, you’re not really entitled to any of your ‘marital’ possessions; you’re not really married.” Or ” Those aren’t really your children; you’re not really married.” Or ” You must testify against your ‘spouse’; privilege doesn’t apply; you’re not really married.”

    Why is okay to discriminate against homosexual couples in a civil union, and not heterosexual couples in a civil marriage? Oh that’s right, you can’t tell a heterosexual couple is in a civil marriage just by looking at them.

  277. You guys all started talking about anise because of what finocchio is slang for, right?

  278. Aside from the obvious “why would anyone choose to be that way”, even people who claims it’s not genetic, when pressed, will admit that the “choice” happens so early as to be indistiguishable.

    Why would anyone choose to be that way? I dunno. Why would would anyone choose to be a bank robber, a junkie or a serial killer?

    Must be genetic.

  279. What is with the anise hate here? Next you’ll be telling me you don’t like fennel.

    Fucking gross. You know what else tastes like fetid ass? Caraway.

  280. Epi,

    The “fingers” comment was a compliment of the har-har shoulder-punching sort, not a slam. Realize you may not have understood the reference. Will email you a full explanation if you wish.

    Regards,

    Tonio

  281. The “fingers” comment was a compliment of the har-har shoulder-punching sort, not a slam.

    I know. My response was just to say “yeah, obviously”.

    Realize you may not have understood the reference.

    It was that I cook with fish a lot, right?

    Fucking gross. You know what else tastes like fetid ass? Caraway.

    Those who dislike fennel are cursed to eat only the touristy crap Italian food that they serve in dives like Mamma Leone’s. Enjoy your veal cacciatore, dude.

  282. LMNOP, that was damn funny.

  283. Buon Appetito, Paisano!

  284. In evolutionary terms, gay men who provide for their straight sisters and their offspring are a net benefit to the family.

    That is attributing a behavioral component to a genetic trait that it is unrelated to. Why should gay people provide for their hetero siblings any more than hetero people do?

  285. R C —

    Would you stipulate that such entities as extended families exist?

    Are you arguing that it is uncommon for people unburdened by child-rearing in such families to help with child-rearing of close relatives?

    Incidentally, to answer your question, it is because they are less likely to have children of their own, and so more likely to be “available” to help.

  286. Sir M —

    Thx, tho if you are referring to the LOLbible, I cannot take credit. On the other hand, fetid is a downright hilarious word.

  287. OMG! My favorite pr0n site lost it’s lawsuit! Now it’s required to show two hairy gay dudes doing each other in the wazoo! http://www.cleanshavenlesbianteens.com will never be the same!

  288. AS USUAL, FUSSBALL THE CLOWN STRIKES TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER WITH HIS RAPIER WIT AND FOCUS ON KEY ISSUES. A WORLD WITH HAIRY ASSES ON LESBIAN-PORN SITES IS A WORLD THE URKOBOLD WOULD NOT CARE TO LIVE IN.

  289. Back to topic, if there’s something inherently gay about sailors on ships, what about crew members on spaceships?

    When I was in the army, I was taught never to turn your back to a navy dude with a beer in one hand a and bottle of lube in the other.

  290. Damned gay space navy.

  291. R C —

    Would you stipulate that such entities as extended families exist?

    Sure.

    Are you arguing that it is uncommon for people unburdened by child-rearing in such families to help with child-rearing of close relatives?

    I don’t know how common it is, relative to mutual help by family members with kids. Most all the help my mother got when she was raising me and my brother was from other families with kids the same age. Of course, even a slight advantage can accumulate over evolutionary scals.

    Incidentally, to answer your question, it is because they are less likely to have children of their own, and so more likely to be “available” to help.

    This is really just a slight recasting of the argument for an altruistic gene, which I think is still controversial, to say the least.

    Since there is only a genetic/evolutionary advantage if having a gay brother or brother-in-law increases the likelihood that your children will reach breeding age, and in fact breed, I would posit:

    (1) That advantage doesn’t exist in modern human societies (which doesn’t mean it didn’t exist in the hunter/gatherer days and got encoded in our DNA back then).

    (2) That advantage, if any, can be replicated by any social arrangement in which other members of the pack/tribe are not allowed to breed, as is common in hierarchical packs (wolves, lions, etc.).

    (3) That advantage should lead to an observable rate of homosexuality in other social animals, which I’m not sure has really been validated.

    I’m sticking to my imprinting theory, with the allowance that a predisposition to imprinting gay may arise from maternal hormones.

  292. “(3) That advantage should lead to an observable rate of homosexuality in other social animals, which I’m not sure has really been validated.”

    I don’t know about that.

  293. R C Dean,

    You may not be sure, but there are stable rates of homosexuality in thousands of species. The idea that gay siblings provide a net benefit to genetically close relatives is just part of another theory, one that accords with the “selfish gene” concept. Studies have demonstrated that homosexuality seems to be genetically correlated to higher fecundity in females. That is, female relatives of homosexual males tend to have more offspring. Being available to help raise these offspring is a bonus effect. The idea is that the genes that cause higher fecundity in females are also the genes that can cause homosexuality in males. That homosexuals exist and have existed in stable proportions for all of time suggests that the net genetic benefit is positive.

  294. Apropos of nothing, LGBT/GLBT seem to be used interchangeably. Really, any permutation of those letters if valid.

    “I’ll have a GBLT on rye.”

  295. What I should have said was “People in general are probably incapable of monogamy, but gay men (as a subset of people) are probably even more incapable.”

    What you should have said is “All men like to fuck around, and will do it if they can get away with it, but women object strenuously to that (for completely understandable biological reasons) and try to reign them in, so gay men who are not subject to such severe constraints are more likely to indulge in the fucking around all men like to do.”

  296. “Apropos of nothing, LGBT/GLBT seem to be used interchangeably. Really, any permutation of those letters if valid.”

    There used interchangably so as not to “privelage” males over females, gays over straights and therfore become part of the patriarchal hygemony of the heterosexist power structure.

  297. You want to avail yourself of the federal protection afforded interstate commerce, you don’t get to discriminate. You wanna discriminate, form a private club or religion.

  298. Most of us who respond in the REASON comments section are libertarians, whether we lean left-of-center or right-of-center. So articles like this are basically preaching to the choir for the most part, in that we already agree that non-heterosexuals should not be denied equal rights under the law in any aspect based on their sexuality, and that anti-discrimination laws should not be imposed upon the private sector while not performing contractual services for a government or receiving taxpayer subsidies.

    As long as the taxation of income exists, tax break incentives should be implemented for employers, landlords, and other private businesses in the way of them having the option to sign a non-discrimination agreement with the IRS and their state franchise tax board (in states that tax income) in exchange for a tax break.

  299. “As pro liberate pointed out above there is no scientific evidence establishing homosexuality as a genetic quality. The little evidence there is seems to only apply to male homosexuality”

    this is a silly false dichotomy.

    human behavioral traits/desires, etc. are almost never 100% genetic or 100% behavioral.

    think about it.

    there can (and may be) a genetic component to sexual preference and an environmental component.

    iow, possible to have a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality to a greater or smaller extent.

    and actually, the science is relatively consistent with this. iow, it’s likely there is *a* genetic component but that given that component it’s not a given that the personw will turn out to be homosexual.

    many gayrightsagenda(tm) people want it to be 100% genetic (regardless of the science) because they think this makes it unassailable that their civil rights struggle is directly analogous to the one blacks etc. went through

    many bigotedantigaypeeps(tm) want it to be 100% not-genetic for essentially the opposite reasons.

    iow, people with an agenda place their ideology before the scientific evidence (which is certainly far from conclusive) because THAT’S WHAT PEOPLE DO.

    how many times (especially in academia) do we see people with an agenda ignore scientific evidence that opposes their POV about human nature (think gender differentiation for instance the larry summers flap)?

    i’m for gay marriage fwiw.

    and if tomorrow, it is determined that on average it’s 50% genetic and 50% environmental (like those things can be quantified as such lol), it won’t change my pov because it’s rather tangential to the issue imo.

  300. ack… typo should be “human behavioral traits/desires, etc. are almost never 100% genetic or 100% environmental”

  301. nevermind that there are plenty of gay only dating sites that this man could have gone to. I do not feel excluded because they do not cater to me.

    Marriage should be left to private institutions where the government acknowleges the contract in the form of a civil union, whether it is between a same sex or opposite sex couple

    However, as long as the government is going to administer marriages, I understand and agree with the views of those that believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, as it has meant that for 5,000 years.

    the word marriage and the religious history it carries should be removed from the legal system, and should only be administered through private groups.

  302. Mark has a point. If all legal unions between two consenting adults are termed under the law as civil unions, and the term “marriage” can be reserved for private ceremonies, then would not all be agreeable to this solution?

    Another question come to mind, however. And that is why singles are discriminated against when it comes to paying taxes and capital gains, amongst other societal disadvantages built into our system. Generally, singles do not make an issue of the extra burdens of their solitary life; perhaps they hope to recitfy it one day with a formal union, or they choose to remain single. The point is that if any one group consistently “pays” more for their social status under the law, is it not the single man or woman? If “rights” under the law is the major complaint of homosexuals, then are not singles the ultimate orphans when it comes to disenfranchisement as citizens? I propose that no civil union give monetary advantage to individuals that is not individually bestowed upon singles.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.