Great Decision on Gay Marriage

A federal court recently ruled that California’s gay marriage Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. That’s the right decision. However, I’m worried that by pushing this right now, all gay rights folks are doing is making working class and middle class Whites vote Republican.

I support gay marriage 100%, FWIW. I don’t dig male homosexuality too much, but believe me, I respect the guys who I feel it is truly their nature. About 4% of men are basically gay. There is nothing they should do about it, and they should not try to be straight. I support their orientation completely, and they can go ahead and have as fun a sex life as they like. I actually envy them because they get laid so much and it’s such a free and easy sexual atmosphere. Women are such a hassle sex-wise.

Bisexuality is different, but if there are guys who are as turned on by guys as they are by women, wow, I would have a hard time turning that down myself. I don’t do that stuff not so much due to moral reasons, but mostly because I’m simply barely interested and mostly disgusted by the idea.

Lesbians, who cares? I actual support gay campaigns, mostly around this gay marriage thing. I used to give money for AIDS research. I support the normative gay political agenda, pretty much in its entirety.

Where I part company with them is on situational homosexuality, normalization of situational homosexuality, gay pride parades which are public displays of depravity, sex in public and public restrooms, and other outrages.

Plus I don’t really want these guys around me, though I do have one friend who is gay. I don’t like them around me because they won’t stop trying to have sex with me, and they are continuing to do this to this very day. A very good looking 26 year old man was recently after me. I wish beautiful 26 year old women were as available at my age!

I used to know this guy named Al Renner. We worked for California NORML on the pot campaign back in the 1980’s. He was gay, but he totally respected me for being straight (I guess he assumed I was) and he never made moves on me or anything. I have the utmost respect for that man. Plus he was totally committed to pot, so I respected him for that. A real committed political activist. We never discussed his gay shit. We just talked about pot and dope.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

39 thoughts on “Great Decision on Gay Marriage”

  1. This is off topic but I take it you know the real history of US/western support for Islamic terrorism especially in the 90’s in the Balkans working with Osama Bin Ladin right up to 9/11 in fact the US army even helped set up and run jihadist terrorist camps in the US include Shanksville were the 9/11 plane crashed and the bogus lies and atrocity stories used to justify US/western support and intervention starting with the bogus Serb death camps.

    You said in your Voice of Reason interview you had researched the issue but I don’t think you know the true picture of what’s happening the Balkans affair just being the tip of the iceberg with the same strategy as the Nazis had during WW2 eliminating the primarily Serb resistance.

    Good videos to watch that cover this starting with raw footage of how the Serbian death camps where hoaxed and a good but long overview of the situation and what really happened in the Balkans. Part 2 covers the Islamist factor if you just want to skip to that.

    Judgement: Serbian Death Camp Hoax.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKYhaQ3gbsA

    Yugoslavia The Avoidable War (Part 1)

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5860186121153047571

    Yugoslavia The Avoidable War (Part 2)

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6371060303901674397

      1. @Cyrus

        Yes the US ran Jihadist training camp in the US. In fact the US is trying to extradict to British citizens for trying to set up a Chechen camp in Oregon.

        There are case documents dealing with this on the net.

        1. A “Chechen” camp in Oregon, eh?…

          You know, if you guys actually wanted to make these things more plate-able and believable, I could give you a few pointers.

          For instance, attaching the term “Chechen” to everything might sound really cool to you, but it tends to send the bullshit meter of folks “in the know” straight into the red zone.

          Think about why you sound really naive for a while, and then get back to me. 🙂

        2. @Cyrus

          Yes a Chechen camp in Oregon believe it or not the US supports jihadists in the North Caucasus so they can get control of the trillion dollar Caspian oil basin oil and gas reserves.

          Is that to hard for you to understand given the fact that senior US military and international strategists lead by Zbignew Brzezinski who created the jihadist movement in Afghanistan under Carter to trap the Soviets leads the pro-Chechen propaganda movements like ACPC who in his book The Grand Chessboard openly admits supporting jihadists in Russia and Central Asia is good for the US as it a counter for Russian influence in the region so the US can control the regions vast oil and gas reserves need for Europe’s future energy needs?

          US court documents were filed against British citizens Babar Ahmad who ran Azzam publications and Abu Hamza who ran the Finsbury Park Mosque and an Islamic front NGO operating in the US called Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation with documents of Chechen jihadist’s material in Oregon.

          US v. Ahmad, Babar

          http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/107

          US v. Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation

          http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/248

          So do some research before responding with your BS opinionated comments.

        3. Have you checked under your bed John? Maybe there is a Chechen training camp under your bed. Brzezinski is clever like that…

  2. I could live with gay marriage if it happens. I don’t have anything against gays whatsoever. Nor do I try to make them uncomfortable or stare at them or anything. I just don’t care about gays one bit, and I mean that in the good sense.

    However what pisses me off is the politicization of homosexuality. That many people are starting to look at gays like some special class of people, like they are just the new blacks or some sort of minorities. Number one, it’s hard to even say who the hell is gay or what makes one gay. You can have a guy like Larry Craig who was married to a woman with kids for decades, but is giving head in the bathroom on the side. Is he gay? I’ve known countless women that have fooled around with other women just to experiment. Are they gay? I know a woman who is now married to a man who used to live as a lesbian, and prior to that was into men. She claimed she isn’t straight or gay, she’s “just a sexual being.” So who the hell is even gay in the first place before we start looking at them as the new minority?

    Secondly, while I don’t look at homosexuality as immoral per se, I don’t think it’s desirable either. Nor do I think it should encouraged or put on the same pedestal as heterosexuality. Nature gave men a dick and woman a vagina for a reason. Men were bio-engineered to be with women. These gay activist think homosexuality is an equal alternative to heterosexuality and I think that’s bullshit. I view homosexuality for what it is, basically a genetic defect in assigning the proper sexual preference to the proper sex. It’s not immoral, it’s just a defect. Like color blindness, albinism or being a dwarf or hermaphrodite. Doesn’t mean they aren’t just as human as we are, but I think something is “broken” in their DNA. Problem is, to say that these days with all this gay marriage talk is to make you the equivalent of a racist, just for saying the truth.

    If men want to be with men, go ahead. If I had a gay son, I would treat him just as well as I’d treat a straight son, it really wouldn’t even be an issue. But would I believe that men marrying men is just as ideal as men marrying women? Hell fucking no. Here’s a question to ask a SWPL liberal, “if you(or your wife) was pregnant and the doctor ran a test and determined that your kid was genetically wired to be gay, but he could give you a harmless treatment that would turn the kid straight, would you take it?” The SWPL liberal will then look very confused and you can tell the gears are turning. The more ideological of them will say, “no, it doesn’t matter!” Yet if the same doctor had a cure for hermaphradism or albinism or color blindness, these same people would take the antidote and think nothing of it. So why is homosexuality viewed as some sort of protected class of minority, rather than a genetic defect like albinism?

    That’s my problem with the gay marriage thing. It has nothing to do with religion, morals or any of that shit. It has to do with making gays this special class and then exulting their behavior to the ideal status of heterosexual behavior which produces life and continues are species. It’s not. If that makes me homophobic then so be it. I probably am a mild homophobe. I’d vote for a gay president and I have no problems with gays in positions of power, or adopting kids or anything. However I am homophobic in that I’m disgusted by the thought of two men having sex, and I probably wouldn’t want a gay room mate. But that’s not a hatred thing, it’s just personal comfort.

    1. Also, if this was just about RIGHTS, then gay could have the same rights with civil unions. Nobody is opposing civil unions for gays that grant them all the same rights as marriage. What gays want is the word marriage. That’s all this comes down to. And the underlying reason for that is that they want to say to the world that homosexuality is just as desirable, preferable and ideal as heterosexuality. People that see it that way, support gay marriage. People that don’t are against it, or at least are uncomfortable/unsettled with it.

      Even if we straights decided to give them everything under the law but call it something else other than “marriage” because that word is reserved for men and women, they would object. They want the SAME word because the agenda isn’t rights, it’s forcing society to accept homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality in every way.

      All this shit flies over the head of the stupid SWPLs out in the streets with their “Prop 8 = Hate” signs. Dumbasses.

      1. >why is homosexuality viewed as some sort of protected class of minority, rather than a genetic defect like albinism?

        Um, genetically defective individuals (i.e., disabled individuals) are a legally protected minority class. I’m not really sure what your point is.

        Do you think genetically defective people should have no protection from discrimination?

        1. Being born with a genetic defect and being disabled are two different things. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes not. An albino is not disabled. An Iraq vet that had his leg blown off IS disabled.

          And where did I say people with genetic defects deserve no protection from discrimination? Everybody has the same right under the law. The right to marry one person of the opposite sex. I can’t marry my sister. I can’t marry 2 women. Is that discrimination?

        2. Being born with a genetic defect and being disabled are two different things.

          Legally speaking they are considered identical things and fall under the same jurisdiction with respect to the Law.

          Everybody has the same right under the law. The right to marry one person of the opposite sex.

          Insofar as homosexuals are considered a protected class under the law, marriage as a legal entity is not permitted to accord different treatment between classes of people. Just as it is illegal to prohibit marriage between two genetically defective people, even if their bearing children would yield devastating results.

          I can’t marry my sister. I can’t marry 2 women. Is that discrimination?

          If legal norms considered incestuous individuals and polyamorous individuals to be legally protected classes engaged in lawful behavior, then yes, that would be discrimination. They are not currently, but frankly speaking, I don’t see anything morally wrong with voluntary incest between consenting adults, or with polyamory, so it’s possible that new legal precedents will develop in the next 100 years to protect them.

          I think we are having two different conversations. You are trying to talk about cultural implications, but I am speaking from a purely legal standpoint. According to legal precedent, Prop 8 was properly decided.

        3. where did I say people with genetic defects deserve no protection from discrimination?

          This is what you logically imply when you say that homosexuality, as it is a genetic defect rather than a “natural” condition, shouldn’t be accorded all privileges defined under the law (for example, the right to marry).

          (Unless you think marriage should also be illegal for people with genetic defects, in which case you would be consistent, and I apologize).

        4. “Insofar as homosexuals are considered a protected class under the law, marriage as a legal entity is not permitted to accord different treatment between classes of people.”

          You aren’t giving different treatment. If I wanted to marry a man, I cannot do so either. There are other reasons I may want to marry another man beyond courtship. Maybe I want to give a foreign friend instant citizenship, or I want to inherit wealth or be covered under his insurance policy. Whatever the case, I’m not allowed to do this. So I the law applies to me equally.

          The purpose of bringing up the genes and such is to show that there is no reason we have to carve out some special exception to the rule for them and change the definition of marriage as it has been in virtually every civilization since the dawn of time just to be PC.

          As I’ve said, we could give them civil unions with the same exact rights, but they would reject it. They aren’t happy having the same rights. They want the word marriage because heteros have it, so they want it to, and they want to send a message to the world that a man marrying a man is every bit as ideal as men marrying women. If you believe that, then go ahead and support gay marriage. I don’t. I just feel like political correctness is being rammed down my throat.

          “Just as it is illegal to prohibit marriage between two genetically defective people, even if their bearing children would yield devastating results.”

          I said nothing of preventing genetically defective people from marrying. I simply want marriage to be defined as one man + on woman. I want the purpose of marriage to be to create families for in order to have a stable environment to raise kids. Sure, not everybody will want to have kids, but even 100 years ago, it was unheard of for any woman to say she didn’t want kids. It’s a relatively new phenomena that rose out of extreme liberalism and individuality in the West. A fairly recent trend. It’s also a relatively recent trend that marriage is primarily an expression of love and satisfaction. Thus you hear all the gays saying, “we have the right to love”. For almost all human history, marriage was about uniting a man and woman to create a family. Love was a secondary issue, if even an issue at all.

          What we have now is the collision of liberalism(freedom from social norms), extreme individuality(I’ll do whatever I please) and the primary purpose of marriage shifting from the creation of families to perpetuate your clan, tribe, nation, civilization, etc) to being an expression of some gaga romantic love as portrayed in the movies. Which is why divorce rates are so high now. When the gaga feeling is over, the marriage is over.

          I’m not by any means saying that romantic love shouldn’t play a strong role in marriage, it would for me since that’s what I’ve grown up used to, but I’m saying in terms of history, these are recent developments relatively speaking and we are changing the definition of marriage as its been for thousands of years like it’s just some social trend like fashion or music that needs to be updated to keep up with what’s in.

        5. You aren’t giving different treatment. If I wanted to marry a man, I cannot do so either.

          By this criterion, anti-miscegenation laws are not discriminatory either, as they apply universally to both black and white people.

          There are other reasons I may want to marry another man beyond courtship. Maybe I want to give a foreign friend instant citizenship, or I want to inherit wealth or be covered under his insurance policy.

          These issues are identical to issues encountered in the institution of heterosexual marriage. This is neither an argument against heterosexual marriage nor against homosexual marriage.

          …could give them civil unions with the same exact rights…

          Perhaps this is true, but current legal precedent has rendered null the “separate but equal” doctrine. Courts have determined (rightly or wrongly) that maintaining parallel and separate institutions for different classes of citizens is in and of itself unequal and discriminatory.

          … the definition of marriage as it has been in virtually every civilization since the dawn of time …
          …For almost all human history, marriage was about uniting a man and woman to create a family…
          …we are changing the definition of marriage as its been for thousands of years…

          Your narrative that marriage has always been exactly the same for thousands of thousands of years, and we are suddenly changing it, is false. Marriage as a social institution has evolved throughout human history (as you say yourself, towards a more liberal and individualistic institution).

          Even if it were true that marriage as a social institution has been totally identical and unchanging since forever, all “from the beginning of time” and “it’s always been this way” arguments are bullshit anyway. Women had zero political power for 99%+ of human history, slavery was the norm for 99%+ of human history, as was vicious ethnic nationalism, mass rape, slaughters, etc. (and all of these things are still the norm in some parts of the world). Just because something is a naturally occurring part of the human condition doesn’t make it either right or desirable.

          I want the purpose of marriage to be to create families for in order to have a stable environment to raise kids.

          You do realize that there are something on the order of 10 million homosexual couples currently in the United States raising children, right? Extending marriage to homosexuals is a net social stabilizing factor.

          I’m going to sleep now, feel free to reply if you still wish to continue this conversation (I find it rather interesting), and I’ll respond tomorrow.

        6. *10 million statistic actually refers to children with at least one homosexual parent, not strictly children raised by a homosexual couple. my bad.

        7. tulio-

          David is obviously very intelligent and doing a good job of poking holes in your argument. Nonetheless, I strongly agree with your argument and almost exactly mirrors my views.

          One thought I’ve had on this issue is that marriage really isn’t the government’s business. So why not just kick government out of the marriage business altogether?

        8. “By this criterion, anti-miscegenation laws are not discriminatory either, as they apply universally to both black and white people.”

          They didn’t. Blacks could marry Asians, blacks could marry Native Americans. It was whites who were not allowed to marry out of the race. Interracial marriage wasn’t banned. Whites marrying non-whites is what was banned. I don’t think people cared if blacks and Cherokees were marrying.

          Also, people like to keep drawing parallels between opposition to interracial marriage and opposition to gay marriage. None exist. For example, most people are willing to grant civil unions to gays that give all same privilege of marriage but want to
          retain the sanctity of the word “marriage” for male-female unions. However nobody that is opposed to interracial marriage would ever say they want to give blacks and whites civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage. Anyone opposed to interracial marriage will be unambiguously opposed to interracial civil unions as well. Secondly, interracial marriage has never been banned anywhere in human history in any civilization except for a very few. It’s really just a temporary blip on radar and it was fueled by white nationalist ideology with main agenda of keeping the white race pure and keeping whites on top of the caste system. They didn’t care if other races screwed each other, they just didn’t want whites involved. The dynamics of gay marriage are COMPLETELY different. Even societies that were very tolerant and even encouraging of homosexuality didn’t believe in marrying people of the same sex. I think people just intuitive got that marriage was about procreating with a woman and creating a family, while men still fooled around with men on the side.

          “Perhaps this is true, but current legal precedent has rendered null the “separate but equal” doctrine. Courts have determined (rightly or wrongly) that maintaining parallel and separate institutions for different classes of citizens is in and of itself unequal and discriminatory.”

          Begging the question. Well, I’m skeptical of gays even being considered a separate class of people. What makes them different is that they are the only class that is defined by how they behave, as opposed to their outward appearance. And as I said previously, who the hell is gay in the first place? Was Larry Craig gay? We aren’t even completely sure how much homosexuality is rooted in genes versus environment. Identical twin studies suggest that it’s both. If it were completely biological, then when you have one gay identical twin, the other should be gay as well, 100% of the time, however that only occurs half the time, suggesting that it’s about half biology and half choice. So combining the fact that their class is based on a behavior, and that choice/environment plays a strong role in that behavior and that we aren’t even sure who to define as gay in the first place, I’m not on board with making them a special class of people.

          “Your narrative that marriage has always been exactly the same for thousands of thousands of years, and we are suddenly changing it, is false. Marriage as a social institution has evolved throughout human history (as you say yourself, towards a more liberal and individualistic institution).”

          The fundamentals of marriage have not. It has always been marrying men to women. Show me where in history that wasn’t the case? Whether you’re talking about the West or the most remote tribe in the Amazon jungle, people just intrinsically knew that marriage was to bring men and women together.

          “Even if it were true that marriage as a social institution has been totally identical and unchanging since forever, all “from the beginning of time” and “it’s always been this way” arguments are bullshit anyway. Women had zero political power for 99%+ of human history, slavery was the norm for 99%+ of human history, as was vicious ethnic nationalism, mass rape, slaughters, etc. (and all of these things are still the norm in some parts of the world). Just because something is a naturally occurring part of the human condition doesn’t make it either right or desirable.”

          Fair enough. But in the case of defining marriage, I think it has biological underpinnings. Slavery does not, it was for wealth and greed. Gay marriage is like trying to fit together two parts of a puzzle that weren’t meant to fit.

          “You do realize that there are something on the order of 10 million homosexual couples currently in the United States raising children, right? Extending marriage to homosexuals is a net social stabilizing factor.”‘

          Only because heteros granted them the ability to adopt these kids. These gays would not have any kids unless unless hetero society made it possible for them to adopt the kids that we straights produce. They can’t create them on their own. So it’s kind of an unnatural situation there as well.

        9. tulio-

          David is obviously very intelligent and doing a good job of poking holes in your argument. Nonetheless, I strongly agree with your argument and almost exactly mirrors my views.”

          Yeah, David is pretty good. He’s got my gears turning for sure. Believe it or not though, I’m somewhat open on the issue. If gay marriage happens, I could live with it, but I’m not comfortable with it. And I guess my debating with David is not only to confront him ideologically, but the process itself helps me clarify my own beliefs to myself and why I believe them. I’m almost secretly arguing with myself as much as I am with him.

          “One thought I’ve had on this issue is that marriage really isn’t the government’s business. So why not just kick government out of the marriage business altogether?

          I think that’s an excellent point and may be the only solution in the end. Just give everyone civil unions under the law and let the church decide whether to call it marriage or not. Only problem is you still have the polygamy factor. Why should civil unions only be given to pairs? There are renegade Mormons in the countryside of Utah that are practicing polygamy illegally. Shouldn’t they be brought out of the shadows and given multi-person civil unions?

        10. …people like to keep drawing parallels between opposition to interracial marriage and opposition to gay marriage. None exist.
          … interracial marriage has never been banned anywhere in human history… It’s really just a temporary blip on radar and it was fueled by white nationalist ideology…
          …The dynamics of gay marriage are COMPLETELY different…
          …nobody that is opposed to interracial marriage would ever say they want to give blacks and whites civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage…
          Even societies that were very tolerant and even encouraging of homosexuality didn’t believe in marrying people of the same sex.

          I agree with practically every one of these statements: other than their being somewhat related as civil rights movements of marginalized groups, there are no historical parallels whatsoever between gay marriage and miscegenation struggles, or between Gay Liberation and Black Liberation.

          I am not arguing, however, that that the socio-cultural contexts of Anti-Miscegenation laws and Anti-Gay Marriage laws are the same (clearly they are not even in the same ballpark culturally). What I am saying is that the ethical argumentation and, more importantly, the legal argumentation in the relevant court cases are similar. In fact, they are not just similar, they are identical. In other words, if you accept the reasoning used and legal precedents set in the overturning of Anti-Miscegenation laws, you are logically compelled to accept the same arguments for the overturnal of Anti-Gay Marriage laws.

          “By this criterion, anti-miscegenation laws are not discriminatory either, as they apply universally to both black and white people.”

          They didn’t. Blacks could marry Asians, blacks could marry Native Americans. It was whites who were not allowed to marry out of the race. Interracial marriage wasn’t banned. Whites marrying non-whites is what was banned. I don’t think people cared if blacks and Cherokees were marrying.

          You’re precisely right. This discourse just mirrored exactly what happened in Suprome Court precedents concerning miscegenation from 1883 to 1967. The earlier Pace v. Alabama decision ruled that criminalization of miscegeny was not a violation of Equal Protection because whites and non-whites were equally punished for the offense. However, the decision was irrational due to the reason that you just mentioned (unequal treatment regarding other races). The first turning point for the overturning of anti-miscegenation laws was (ironically enough) in a local California decision with Perez v. Sharp (1948), in which the the court ruled that Anti-Miscegeny Laws violated both Due Process and Equal Protection. The Supreme Court finally agreed with Loving v. Virginia (1967), in which they established a new (hitherto nonexistent) national precedent that “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ ” and now declared that the 14th Amendment implies “the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

          Accepting marriage as a fundamental and inalienable civil right guaranteed by the constitutional principles of Due Process and Equal Protection now means that, if you accept it for one class of people, you are forced to accept it for all classes of people. Which of course leads into your next fallacy:

          I’m skeptical of gays even being considered a separate class of people.

          I don’t understand what you are talking about here. If there is a large body of large body of people engaging in similar behavior, with similar cultural traits, who all self-identify with a single word, they are by definition a class of people. It does not matter whether homosexuality is innate or environmentally produced. Let me go even further than that: it does not even matter whether homosexuality is voluntary or not. In fact, I will assume that all people are 100% heterosexual for the purposes of my remaining post, and that all gays are actually choosing to be gay for whatever reason (something that is not supported by vast amounts of scientific research, but like I said is irrelevant to my argument).

          who the hell is gay in the first place?…

          “Gay” for this post means simply the following: anyone who 1)voluntarily chooses to performs homosexual acts, 2)uses the word “gay” to refer to themself, and 3)associates with other individuals who do likewise.

          We aren’t even completely sure how much homosexuality is rooted in genes versus environment

          I’m not going to get into the issue of genetics versus environment in determining homosexuality (although it is an interesting discussion). I am now operating under the assumption that homosexuality is a purely voluntary and chosen behavior.

          combining the fact that their class is based on a behavior, and that choice/environment plays a strong role in that behavior and that we aren’t even sure who to define as gay in the first place, I’m not on board with making them a special class of people…
          …they are the only class that is defined by how they behave, as opposed to their outward appearance.

          Your assertion that behavior alone is insufficient grounds for legal protection is patently false even under the most cursory of examinations. There are numerous examples of protected classes in the legal system that are defined by behavior alone, the most common of course being CREED (i.e., religion). Religion is the epitome of a purely behavioral, “voluntary” human trait, and yet creed is defined legally as a class protected from discrimination and entitled to equal consideration before the law through both the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. This is why it is illegal in America to discriminate against, say, a Jew or a Baptist or a Muslim or a Rastafarian for behavior rooted in their religion, or to make laws preventing, for example, two Pentacostals from marrying each other, in the same way as it is already illegal in many jurisdictions to discriminate against gays due to their gay behavior, and will be probably be illegal to prevent two gays from marrying sometime in the medium-term future.

          The reason I bring up this “absurd” example of Pentecostals being denied the right to marry is that there actually is a nation in the world where two Pentecostals cannot legally marry for reasons of legalized discrimination: the state of Israel. The legal institution of marriage there is controlled by a horrifically conservative national Rabbinate which only allows people belonging to certain classes of religions to legally marry. Interfaith marriage is also illegal.* All this Israeli marriage craziness would be perfectly valid and legal in the United States** if behavior were considered unprotected as a legal class.

          …in the case of defining marriage, I think it has biological underpinnings.
          Slavery does not, it was for wealth and greed. Gay marriage is like trying to fit together two parts of a puzzle that weren’t meant to fit.

          Let me reiterate what exactly what I said before: biological underpinnings have no bearing whatsoever on moral (or legal) determinations concerning justice. Biology can inform them, for sure, but ultimately it is irrelevant whether something has “biological roots” or not. It has no relation to right or wrong, only to the particular evolutionary biology of humans as a species (and additionally, are you honestly trying to make the argument that greed as a genetic trait is not selected for evolutionarily?).

          As an example, the mass extermination of all men of a given competing population, then the abduction and rape of it’s women, has some serious biological underpinnings (as it has big potential for spreading the genes of the invading population (at the expense of course of the victimized population)), which is why it is seen so very often throughout human history. In this way laws against murder and rape are also “fitting together two parts of a puzzle that weren’t meant to fit,” but the struggle of law and morality against biology is one of the prime attributes of the human condition.

          Basically, all I’m saying is that “X is good because it is natural and biological, Y is bad because it is unnatural and not biologically driven” (the famous “appeal to nature” argument) is a logical fallacy when discussing morality, and is really an appeal to emotion rather than reason.

          [I say there are lots of gays with kids already]
          Only because heteros granted them the ability to adopt these kids. These gays would not have any kids unless unless hetero society made it possible for them to adopt the kids that we straights produce. They can’t create them on their own.

          There are no clear statistics yet available (there probably will be after the 2010 census), but adoption is most likely NOT where the majority of children raised by homosexuals come from in the United States. Although it is true that gays adopt several thousand of children from orphanages and the foster care system every year, the vast majority are probably biological parents who either 1)became gay or already were gay, divorced their spouse, then began to raise their child alongside their partner or 2)used artifical insemination (a technique also used by heterosexual couples by the way). They are raising their OWN biological children. For example, one of my housemates was raised primarily by her two “mothers” (her bio-mom and her mom’s partner) after her mom divorced her dad when she was 2 or 3. I knew a girl in college who actually was raised by FOUR mothers (same situation as above, only her bio-mom “divorced” her partner, then each of them re-“married” but all 4 were active in her life). She told me that her upbringing was incredibly stable, and she is still very close to all four of her “moms.”

          So it’s kind of an unnatural situation there as well.

          It is not an unnatural situation biologically (although, like I said previously, this doesn’t make it either right or wrong). There exist populations of birds where up to a third of hatchlings are raised by female-female “mates,” who perform all biological rituals and functions regarding rearing chicks identically to male-female pairs (minus the actual mating of course). See: http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2008/05/lets_all_speculate_about_the_l.php

          Finally, concerning gay adoption, this begs the question of whether you really think that children are better off in orphanages or in foster care rather than in stable homosexual households. As far as my understanding of the psychological literature goes, there is not yet any conclusive evidence on the developmental effects of being raised in a homosexual household, and how it compares to traditional households. However, I am highly doubtful that, even if they are less ideal places for children than heterosexual households, being raised by a gay family is worse than going through the hell of orphanage and the foster care system.

          *There in fact has been a battle in Israel for civil marriage since the 60s. I’m not even talking about gay marriage, literally the bare right of a man and a woman in nonrecognized religious groups, or a man and woman of two different faiths to marry. A compromise bill was recently passed in May of 2010 granting “couplehood union” status (not full legal marriage) to members of nonrecognized religions or for nonreligious people. It still, however, prohibits interfaith marriages. See http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/controversial-civil-union-bill-up-for-discussion-1.264360 for more information. Again, another fairly precise legal analogue to gay marriage laws in the United States.

          **Er, this craziness actually does exist in the US, only for gays rather than Pentecostals. Ergo this massive post.

        11. Just give everyone civil unions under the law and let the church decide whether to call it marriage or not. Only problem is you still have the polygamy factor. Why should civil unions only be given to pairs? There are renegade Mormons in the countryside of Utah that are practicing polygamy illegally. Shouldn’t they be brought out of the shadows and given multi-person civil unions?

          I cannot think of any ethical reasons for denying polygamists legal recognition of their unions, unless it can be reasonably demonstrated (for example, as with pedophiles having sex with young children) that the overwhelming majority (if not all) of such relationships are nonconsensual and abusive. As far as I’ve read (which, in all honesty, is primarily anecdotal), there do seem to exist a large number (possibly the majority?) of polygamist unions which are fully consented to by all parties. In fact, I imagine that bringing polygamist marriages out into the open could actually help with preventing abuse by putting a tighter lid on such abuses as underage marriage, forced marriages, etc. As things are now, we don’t really know what is going on in Mormon fundamentalist households, due to their being culturally and legally “shunt out” of society. If one of the wives of a Mormon fundamentalist is unhappy with the marriage, she is barred from filing for divorce, because the plural marriage is not legal to begin with.

          That being said, I do admit that drafting a “number-neutral” civil marriage law would probably take a lot of creativity.

          Also, Tulio: please don’t take this the wrong way, but some of your thinking seems to me to be driven emotionally from various culturally embedded taboos, fears, and repulsions, rather than from definite and clearly articulated lines of reason. What I mean is, I feel that to hold up a sign saying “Prop 8 = Hate!” is just as dumb as to hold up a sign saying “God made Adam and EVE, not Adam and STEVE!”: both signs are indicative of a very primitive and fundamentally irrational mindset that uncritically accepts as truth whatever platitudes and slogans they happen to grow up hearing repeated around them (PC cultural Marxist liberal bullshit in the first case, conservative-religious traditional cultural bullshit in the second).

        12. David writes, *There in fact has been a battle in Israel for civil marriage since the 60s.

          I know. That’s what started me thinking that maybe it wasn’t the government’s job to regulate marriage in the first place. I’m generally of the opinion that the less gov one has the better. After all, the increased availability of child support and welfare sure hasn’t helped the rate of divorce and illegitimacy.

          Regarding your and tulio’s comments about polygamy, I figure that it’s probably a good thing for polygamists that it’s illegal. Now, the argument has been raised that since its “underground” that abuses and exploitation exist. And there may well be some.

          On the other hand, I figure that they’re probably better off for it being “illegal” and here’s why. Because it’s “illegal” the people are discrete and act responsibly to stay out of the spotlight.

          When homosex was illegal they were similarly discrete and acted responsibly. There was certainly an underground scene. But now they’ve all “come out of the closet” and there is a ton of disgusting and irresponsible behavior. And I’m not talking about the actual act of homosex itself. I’m talking about the whole scene around it of anything and everything goes. Now, has that actually been a good thing for homos? I don’t think so.

          Now, people could pass a bunch of laws and try to regulate and micromanage an activity (ie polygamy, gay “marriage”, etc). And, of course, people would try to sneak around those restrictions. Or the activity itself could simply be “illegal” in which case people would be discrete and act responsibly to avoid arrest. There’s no need to peep through keyholes or kick down doors to make sure people are obeying. As long as people are discrete and act responsibly then the objective is met.

          Now, if we can only figure out a way to outlaw heterosex maybe they would start being discrete and acting responsibly, too. hehe But I’m only half joking. Prior to the sexual revolution, promiscuity used to be such a taboo that it was de facto illegal. But now look at it. It’s a mess.

          I guess the point I’m trying to make is that if one tries to regulate or micromanage a behavior then people will try to misbehave anyway without getting caught. But if the activity is prohibited, people will still try to misbehave without getting caught – only they’ll be a heck of a lot more discrete and responsible about it.

        13. I’m generally of the opinion that the less gov one has the better.
          Regarding questions of personal liberty I’m generally in favor of heavily limited government. Which makes it weird to read:

          I figure that it’s probably a good thing for polygamists that it’s illegal … [b]ecause it’s “illegal” the people are discrete and act responsibly to stay out of the spotlight.

          and

          When homosex was illegal they were similarly discrete and acted responsibly.

          and

          I guess the point I’m trying to make is that if one tries to regulate or micromanage a behavior then people will try to misbehave anyway without getting caught. But if the activity is prohibited, people will still try to misbehave without getting caught – only they’ll be a heck of a lot more discrete and responsible about it.

          I think you are deluding yourself when you say that the government prohibiting an action constitutes “less government.” I guess you also think that marijuana prohibition constitutes “less government” than simply having a regulated marijuana market similar to that of alcohol?

          It seems that you have the traditional conservative / Republican idea of “less government,” which pretty much means less government only for social programs (i.e., abolishing Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Stamps, etc.), but always more government when it comes to regulating morality (outlawing homosexual activities, outlawing drugs and filling prisons with nonviolent drug offenders, promoting religion in schools, etc.)

        14. David writes “I think you are deluding yourself when you say that the government prohibiting an action constitutes “less government.” “

          I didn’t say that the government prohibiting an action constitutes “less government.” I was simply stating that I prefer “less government” while recognizing that prohibition appeared to have some benefits as far as encouraging responsible behavior among those who practiced the prohibited actions.

          I’m fully aware of the contradictions. And I was hoping someone could help reconcile less government with the benefits of prohibition.

          =========

          The rest of your comments appeared to be a bit on the personal side. But since you’ve raised the issue my preferences do tend towards less government in economic concerns for the reasons given by Mises and Hayek. But economics and “personal liberty” are two different animals. So those reasons don’t really apply to “personal liberty”.

          Now, I don’t particularly care for people telling me what I can and can’t do any more than you do. But when it comes to “personal liberty” I’ve seen no significant difference between the desire of “traditional conservative / Republicans” and “radical liberal / Democrats” to impose their morality on others. The latter may not refer to it as “morality” but it all amounts to the same thing. What one thinks of either generally depends on whose ox is being gored.

          For the record I would definitely abolish every single one of those programs you mentioned. I am not, however, particularly to legislate any of those “personal liberties” you listed with the possible exception of the substance abuse. Which brings us back to the original topic. How to reconcile limited government with the benefits of prohibition.

        15. : P in my opinion the situation of France 2013 is ridiculous, in my agenda gay adoption isn’t an important issue, but i think= they are worried that children adopted by gays can learn homosexual behviour, but the thing here is that: less than 1% of children are orphans that could be raised by gay parents, most children of a country would live under heterosexual parents, children adopted by gays would be just 1% of all children of a country, so dumb : P how can they don’t think about it, is not a threat to their country and its values if it only affects a minority of population, though maybe the bisexual population could eventually grow as more children could learn homosexual behaviour and adopt more children, but i am pretty sure they never would be a majority, plus as long as they behave well and don’t spread aids, there is nothing wrong with bisexual behaviour, that is my opinion : P

      2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANXeiyGx7To

        Like this. If this video is true, and this is actually the statistical norm of what polygamy is (that is really the only contingent “if,” not what the dictates of traditional culture tell us), it seems unreasonable to not grant them legal recognition.

        I think more study is likely necessary on the matter.

  3. Why is homoracial employment still illegal? Why should an employer not be able to hire people of the same race if that is their preference? Why are sexual preferences, but not racial employment preferences a protected class?

    Don’t even get me started on our discriminatory laws against homoracial diners and renters.

  4. A dedicated pot activist, eh. Yeah, maaaan, I’m so deep because I campaign for pot, bro. Tell him to do something important…..bro.

    1. At least he ain’t named after a shitty peanut butter brand.

      Depth, as they say, can persist on many different levels.

      You dig…Bro?

    2. I respected him. He was totally dedicated to pot. This was back in the day when pot was not so acceptable, 25-30 years ago. He was a very smart guy, ran his own business, seemed like a regular guy. He had done three years in San Quintin for possession of 100 pounds of pot or something insane like that. He told me about how Charles Manson used to come over the microphone in the prison (How?) and how he had such a powerful voice, he just entranced everyone. I respect Al Renner, if he’s still alive.

      Who out there is dedicated to any cause at all. And whatever you think of pot, legalization was a good thing to promote, especially 25-30 yrs ago. It’s a bit hazier now, now that more bad stuff has come out, but still I think it should be done.

      1. The “bad stuff” that has come out is still pretty damn inconsequential compared to the ravages of prohibition.

        1. The main thing I am worried about is schizophrenia. Not for me, for others. But if you wait until you are 21, all the risk is gone. There’s recent research that shows that the link is more mystifying than ever though, but still, I think people should wait until they start smoking pot. And the age should be like alcohol, 21. The rest of it is not so bad. But back 25-30 years ago, we almost thought it was harmless in terms of longterm effects.

        2. I’ve read the stuff about schizophrenia, and it’s reasonably convincing.

          The only thing I don’t understand is why, when pre-21 use of marijuana skyrocketed beginning in the 60s, schizophrenia incidence levels have basically remained flatlined in the population.

  5. Well Robert, like I have always believed…Should straight men burden and suffer through the torment and anguish of marriage…As must the gay.

  6. There was a great article in Time Magazine of all places recently on the pot-schizophrenia thing.

    The fact that the rates don’t go up is the killer for the whole theory. Some guy named Murray in the UK insists that pot is causing 14% of all schiz cases in the UK now, but he can’t prove it. It’s just an extrapolation of the stats from his studies and theories. It’s hard to explain, but according to his theories, pot causes X% of schizophrenia. He somehow extrapolates that out from theory to data to “prove” that it’s causing 14% of cases, but he proves no such thing.

    One thing for sure. It brings it on sooner. And schiz who use it have a worse course.

    One of the best theories out shows that it might cause it in 1/10,000 teenagers who use it heavily. So any rise would be very small and very hard to see. At any rate, it’s not as if it’s causing tons of schiz.

    Have you smoked any of this new pot that’s out nowadays? The stuff is 15-25% THC and it’s almost psychedelic. It’s almost like taking LSD or psilocybin. Extremely powerful stuff.

    I’ve yet to see one single case of pot schizophrenia or even pot psychosis, and I’ve been around 1000’s of young folks who used it for decades now.

    1. I am inclined to think that you are right that marijuana, rather than being a causal agent for schizophrenia, is primarily an aggravating agent for pre-existing schizophrenia or schizophrenic tendencies, mostly due to the fact that the per capita schizophrenia has remained the same in the face of rising marijuana use.

      After high school I stopped really smoking anything besides “designer weed” (the 15-25% stuff). I actually like it better than less potent weed because I use glass pipes rather than joints, so I can just put something like a tenth of a gram into the pipe, smoke a few hits, and already be as high as I want to be. Much nicer (at least for me) than having to smoke a whole joint, or bowl after bowl after bowl. I see it as just having a few shots of tequila in lieu of an entire six pack, or something like that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *