26 March 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.



Another clever fellow from the Bay Area. If you have no inalienable rights... pl


Richard etc.

Either come up with a short moniker or be banned.

"Not only are value choices political choices, they're almost always bad ones."

Absolutely. The hysteria in the US for gay wonderfulness is exactly that. PL



A mildly interesting statement of your philosophy on life and love. You provide no documentation for your assertions and therefore your opinions have little weight. Are you an undergraduate/ you sound like one. pl


For years, skeptics of evolution derided the entire concept by pointing to gaps in the scientific body of knowledge of the day. One prominent and fairly recent example is the evolutionary trajectory of the eyeball, an elusive process that was derisively howled about for years, until it was finally revealed in enough detail to silence the howlers. The old "747 self-assembling via a tornado in a junkyard" canard. As the gaps filled in over time, the skeptics, unashamed and seemingly unaware, simply retreated onto another "gap" from which to heckle scientists, and the scientific method. Considering that the first genetic underpinnings for something as mundane as lefthandedness were only uncovered a few years ago, I would urge caution in leaning upon "gaps" in the body of scientific knowledge.

That said, I am unaware of any scientific evidence, much less consensus, for the idea that homosexuality is an "abnormal" behavior in humans, or any of the other hundreds of species in which it is well documented. Can you support your claim that it is "abnormal" with scientific evidence? I suppose you would first have to clarify what it is that you mean with "abnormal" in the context of genetic mutation and/or human behavior. If you think it is a genetic disorder, then you would have to explain how it is that something so "abnormal" could possibly endure in a population's gene pool beyond its very first generation. Surely it would have been selected out at the very dawn of sexual reproduction? If on the other hand you think it is simply human behavior, i.e. a "choice," then you would be making a non-falsifiable assertion that has little to do with science. Either way, I doubt very much that you are holding your personal beliefs to the same standard of scientific evidence that you wish to hold proponents of equal rights to.

If (when) scientists do discover the mechanism that undergirds phenotypic expression of homosexuality, will your opposition to equal treatment for homosexuals evaporate? That seems a crass basis from which to decide how charitably to treat other human beings.

You asked for a citation. This recent development looks promising, not least because it is readily testable:


Babak Makkinejad

It is interesting that you mention Oliver Wendell Holmes; a wounded veteran of the War Between States who observed, at first hand, what unleashed human passions could cause.

It is said that he could argue the same case - the US Supreme Court - from 3 different legal point of views and come to 3 different conclusions.

He evidently made his selections not on basis of abstract principles of the Law but rather what could cause the least harm or - alternatively - foster the most benefits.

Wendell Homes had Judgment burnt into him during the crucible of war - it seems to me.

Babak Makkinejad

I think marriage was always about economic survival and partnership and I think you have a good argument as to why polygamy has not become dominant - too many partners and too much trouble (not even considering jealousy).

Now, if one views marriage as a contract, then it follows that everyone has a right to such contracts as long as those contracts conform to the Law.

In that manner, marriage ceases to be a Right and becomes yet another human contract.

[Muslim Law forbids marriage contract among members of the same sex.]



"If (when) scientists do discover the mechanism that undergirds phenotypic expression of homosexuality, will your opposition to equal treatment for homosexuals evaporate?" supercilious insult. You are done hre. pl


"I am not in favor of same sex marriage because I am unconvinced of the supposed science that advocates of the gay political cause claim validates their view that homosexuality is a normal human behavior."

You set a Socratic deadfall, then are angered when I wander into the trap? Back to lurking for me then.

robt willmann

Not to zoom off on a different hot button issue, but in the abortion context that you mention, there is a third person involved in addition to the mother and biological father -- the child -- who has no "rights" regarding being aborted. And, interestingly enough, the biological father has no legal right to prevent the termination of the life process of his unborn child by an abortion.

Since cell division starts within 24 hours of conception, the little kid has a head start on everybody, and before the mother and father even know that the life, which is a continuous process, has gotten underway.

Value choices are not always political choices, but as to same sex marriage and abortion, and heterosexual marriage for that matter, politics and the courts have jumped into them with both feet here in the U.S.A.


Who said anything about a right to divorce?

Ishmael Zechariah

It may not be fair to respond to a banned poster, but the above post is fallacious.

Consider the statement:"how it is that something so "abnormal" could possibly endure in a population's gene pool beyond its very first generation". Is there evidence that all such deviations are corrected by genetics, "in a single generation", at that? Consider cancer. It has been with us for a very long time. It is a cellular mutation; abnormal cells form, divide without restraint, kill normal cells, take over and kill the body. The ultimate Pyrrhic victory. Cancer can be caused by aberrant genes. Such genetic modifications can be caused by processes intrinsic or extrinsic to the human body. Without understanding and eliminating the causes of cancer, it is going to be with us for a long time. Same with homosexuality. Truly understanding the genetic basis of homosexuality is not a priority for the curent elites. Defining it as "normal" is. Try writing a proposal to NIH for this purpose and see if it gets funded. I can just guess the reviews-if it gets reviewed at all.

BTW I consider this whole thing as psyops. It is a convenient foil to detract the limited attention of the sheeple from what is going on. The Middle East is a tinder box and can blow any minute; the economy is going to hell or thereabouts; there is a push to disarm the populace (to protect it...), and this subject dominates the news. Wow!

Ishmael Zechariah


That link is not proof of a thing. It is a maybe of a possibility and reads like the 1994 study based off junk science that had the media proclaiming homosexuality was genetic when there was no proof of a thing.

Abnormality is defined by the comparison of healthy brain tissue in heterosexuals with the damaged brain tissue in homosexuals. There's also the fact that many homosexuals suffered sexual abuse early in their life, and they also engage in deviant behaviors throughout their life. I'm sure some of you here remember when the AIDS Epidemic was laid at Reagan's feet, ignoring the fact that homosexuals simply refused to stop using the gay bath houses for casual sex.
There's also a far greater percentage of pedophiles among homosexuals than among the normal population.

Marcus Aurelius thanked his stepfather early on in Meditations for ending the practice of man on man love and pederastry. What did the Romans know that we don't?

This is the kind of post modern BS (What *is* abnormal?)relativism that is so common nowadays.

Abu Sinan

Polygamy already exists in the US in the Muslim community, the only difference being that the state does not recognise the second, third or forth wives. One wife is a legal and religious wife, the second + wives are only done according to Islamic law.

As to Judaism, I dont believe there is any mainstream Jewish sect or organisation that practices plural marriage.



You are right. It is not fair. So I will unblock these gay activist agitprop guys and restore as many of their pieces of crap that I can find. The best one on this thread is the guy who argues that just because he can't find scientific proof that doesn't mean that I shouldn't accept the notion that male gayness is "normal." (Don't pick on Sister Rachel) On that basis I insist that Bigfoot is real. BTW, I am quite willing to accept it (for them) if they can proove it. US politics now consists of proclaiming a cause however implausible and then raising a great fuss among ambitious "journalists" that leads to public hysteria. Ah, where are the smoke filled rooms. pl


I would have posted more from this guy "Richardstevenhack" but he goes on forever. BTW, he is limited to one comment a day. pl


Abu Sinan

Well, that's not right because these plural marriage families are deprived of various benefits, i am sure. Sue!! pl


Equal protection arguments, on which this case is founded, deal with the applicability of laws on similarly situated individuals.

The case does not involve discrimination based on one individual's "right" to marry multiple individuals, or one individual's "right" to marry his/her sister or brother, or any individual's "right" to marry a donkey.

As presented to the court, the case involves an individual's "right" to marry whom he/she wishes regardless of gender, and whether laws prohibiting that discriminate on gender and violate the equal protection clause. Simply put, should a woman who wishes to marry a woman not have the same benefit of the law as a woman who wishes to marry a man, and does that lack of equal protection violate the constitution.

As far as polygamy, polyandry, etc., go, if the state of California allowed such only regarding one gender, then and only then could I see an equal protection argument.

Babak Makkinejad

I am a conservative man and am not inclined to lightly dismiss - solely based on the absence of positive evidence - the lessons of the ages.

I submit to you that there is no way that anyone could quantify psychological harm done to human beings through sexual deviations - either theirs or perversion visited upon them by others.

Would a 2 year old girl who has been sexually penetrated by her father but presently at 18 does not show any outward physical or emotional damage conform to your criteria?

To my knowledge there has not been a human society that has accepted sanction or homosexual unions.

In fact, that has been a puzzle in ethnography - whence the source of incest taboo.

It is very likely that the source of incest taboo was in the observation of harm done to its victims.

You, in an analogous manner to the dope-heads, are suggesting a social experiment on a vast scale.

Well, I have a more modest proposal: Freedonia for all those who wish to be free of strictures of social and moral decency.

I suggest that before indulging in such a vast experiment we test things.

To Wit: Let us we have 2 colonies:

Freedonia 1 - dedicated to the proposition that a society can work even all its members are dope-heads.

Freedonia 2 - dedicated to the proposition that any form of sexual union among any number of adults is permissible

We do not need a control colony since there are already such colonies in the form of various Amish and Mennonite communities.

Let these 2 colonies run for 4 generations and observe it.

I should think that given the large number of dope-heads and deviants there would be millions ready to join Freedonia 1 and Freedonia 2.

Babak Makkinejad

There is no rational reason to be charitable, to be brave, to be honest, to be humble etc. None of the human virtues are rational in the sense that you invoke - I believe.

Babak Makkinejad

If you are confronted by a man who is threatening your life, I should hope that you would, at that moment at least, concede that you have an inalienable right to self-defense.

Babak Makkinejad

That actor, Eddie Murphy, is he not having 2 or 3 of them?


There are really several different questions here, all of which raise different issues.

The first, the basis on which the DOMA is being challenged, is that US laws confer various rights, privileges, and benefits on married couples that are usually denied to unmarried people. In fact, the particular challenge that is being considered is specifically grounded on the estate tax laws, which, the plaintiff, despite being in a legally recognized marriage in both a foreign country (Canada) and a US state (New York) is not entitled to. Dealing with these matters don't necessarily need to involve the formal, ceremonial, and "sacramental" notions of marriage. In many states, recognition of legal civil unions permit conferral of relevant rights and benefits without recognition of a "marriage." The simple "legalistic" solution would be simply to recognize a federal version of legal civil unions in which the participants are entitled to the pertinent rights but not confer the word "marriage." However, even if it is legally simple and expedient, it would be virtually impossible to stop at this point, I suspect, given the present political environment.

If the question were to involve recognition of a marriage, with its attendant baggage, most legal arguments (such as the claim of a "constitutional" right to marriage) lead to problems. One irony (based on personal observations) is that the demand for recognition of same sex marriage is driven, as far as I can tell, by a weirdly "conservative" element of the gay community. The real ideologues, people who were big on homosexuality as a political and social message, as I understand it, were big on denouncing the whole notion of marriage. The present day advocates of the right to marriage, in fact, are demanding the "sanctification" aspect of the marriage, not just the right to engage in a legal status (which, as noted, can be easily and relatively incontrovertibly dealt with without invoking the moral context.) They want a social recognition that their relationship is "special" with all the cultural connotations that come with it. To the degree that the same legal argument used to justify gay marriage can be extended to accommodate all the other forms of "unconventional" marriages mentioned above, I suspect that many of them will be unhappy, since they will be on the other end of the conflict: their relationship will no longer be as special, since it would be "cheapened" by other forms of marriage that are thus allowed. In some sense, this is precisely why most champions for gay marriage will not be champions of polygamy. This is not necessarily a fight for "universal" rights, at least for many who are involved, at least I don't think it is, but the rights of a particular minority to be recognized as on equal footing with the "conventional."

I don't think there is any "good" reason that they shouldn't be, other than, well, it is contrary to the conventions that we as a civilization have accepted as a norm. I also don't think this is a good enough reason by itself to categorically reject their demand to be recognized as such, except to observe that, legality notwithstanding, even if they win that fight, it will not be easy, if at all possible, for many segments of society to give them the recognition that they crave--so the conflict will continue for decades, if not centuries, beyond whenever the Supreme Court will decide, and as someone who has no stake in this fight, I don't know if I want to see that fight unfold. Of course, this doesn't even start the inevitable prospect of having to deal with the controversies arising from all the "unconventional" marriages that have, in some sense, better cultural and historical justifications (polygamy and incest have been practiced among many peoples of the world for millennia after all) whose practitioners will be demanding legal and social recognition as well.

I have no good reason to oppose any of these and, personally, I don't oppose any of these changes. I just don't want to see all the ugliness that will inevitably unfold because of all the conflicts that these will unleash.

Bill H

Not being a lawyer, I may not fully understand some of the nuances, but I don't believe the Prop 8 challenge is about a "right to marry" so much as it is that the law permitting marriage is applied without equality.

A license to marry a person of your choice is granted by the state, provided that your choice is a person of the opposite sex. The issuance of the license by the state should not be limited, it is claimed, by your choice of gender.

The license is limited to one per person regardless of gender choice, so there is no inequality in play, and that limitation is not endangered by the elimitation of the restriction of gender in the issuance of the single license. So legalized polygamy does not result from the legalization of same sex marriage.


I now get why you frequently add "irony alert." All of my quotes around "abnormal" above apparently did not convey the degree of absurdity inherent in the question.

Second attempt: asking for scientific proof that "gayness is normal" is absurd. It is as absurd as asking for scientific proof that it is abnormal. "Normal" in this context is however the questioner defines it, particularly when the question is clearly being conflated with other issues, such as whether the trait is even biological in origin at all. Given its prevalence in nature, it would certainly strain credulity to assume that it wasn't, regardless of whether the mechanism of expression for that one particular trait had been pinpointed.. yet. Not that said discovery would even be relevant to the "normality" question.


Red hair is even rarer than, say, homosexuality, and thus definitely "abnormal." Red hair greatly increases the individual's susceptibility to skin cancer; even disregarding the hair color being a convenient scapegoat for, say, witchcraft; even discounting whether or not red hair persists today amidst a legacy of centuries of systematic societal and institutional repression. Shouldn't red hair therefore be treated as an "abnormality" analagous to cancer or brain damage? Surely society should just handle this unfortunate affliction like it would Trisomy 21? Or perhaps that's going too far. Instead, we could just disallow redheads from, say, marriage or child custody, so they aren't able to, you know, spread all that red around.

In fact, until someone brings forth Scientific Proof to me that gingers are normal, I will continue to agitate for their exclusion from the otherwise completely consistent, coherent, and most of all persistent institution of marriage. This only seems fair. After all, different is defective, and that's reason enough to never allow "them" to forget that they are.. icky.

Of course, the moment a Scientist enters holding a Mendelian autosomal recessive gene chart, I'll drop any and all objections toward treating redheads as anything less than equal. You know, as long as they don't wave it in my face.



From a blogger covering the court today:
Once again, Sotomayor stepped in and steered the arguments back to the central question. If marriage equality is a right, she asked Olson [representing the opponents to Prop 8], would any state restrictions on marriage, such as prohibitions on incestuous and plural marriages, survive? Olson had a quick answer: Polygamy is based on conduct, while sexual orientation is based on identity. Sotomayor also asked whether there is any way that the Supreme Court could limit its ruling to California. Olson said that such a ruling would be one in which the proponents were found not to have standing.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

August 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
Blog powered by Typepad