26 March 2013


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


The Sabbateans practice wife swapping.

Alba Etie

Col Lang
What is a libertarian constitutionailist ?



"asking for scientific proof that "gayness is normal" is absurd. It is as absurd as asking for scientific proof that it is abnormal." I don't like your tone. Understand? If it is absurd to ask for scientific proof of the normality of homosexuality then why do homosexual activists like you claim so frequently that there is such proof? pl

Abu Sinan

It depends on who you are talking about. Some of the more ghetto type converts indeed have their wives on the government teet,so much so that these wives number 2,3,4 are known as "holy whores" by government workers dealing with those seeking help.

Others tend to be Arabic in background and have the money to pay for their multiple wives without state help.



Sotomayor asked the right question whether the gay apologists commenting here like it or not. To paraphrase her, will any regulation of marriage survive SCOTUS rulings that marriage is an absolute right. Olson's response denies the validity of Schwifty's talk of the absurdity of scientific "proof" of the normality of gayness since Olson pre-supposes the notion that gays are gay because that is their identity. pl

William Fitzgerald

Pat Lang,

The poll numbers in favor of same sex marriage are astounding. I'm fairly certain that the answer as to why that would be lie in the barrage of propagands which has been coming from the entertainment world for the last 15 years or so.


Babak Makkinejad

A discussion around "scientific proof" very rapidly will get one into intractable issues of epistemology.

That is because questions arise as to what it means to say something is "proven" as well as the irresolvable-to-everyone's-satisfaction issues around what constitutes "evidence".

I think appeals to "scientific proof" by non-scientists is always to be dismissed as a rhetorical device by the ignoramus – but partisan of this or that cause - to use the prestige of Empirical Sciences to bludgeon their opponents into submission.

One could turn the tables around on them and pose the question:

“Is there a genetic predisposition to murder?”

“To Theft”?

“To Rape?”

“To incest rape of young children – regardless of sex?”

Likewise one could observe that animals have sex in full view of other animals, are they now our role models?

Likewise, animals have rape and incest – are we now to conclude since animals do it – it is also acceptable for humans?

I am led to conclude that “Science” has established no criteria for acceptability of human sexual behavior.

I also conclude that animals cannot be considered models of human excellence – except perhaps the loyalty of dogs.


"... while sexual orientation is based on identity." That's sure an interesting claim. What's the causation of the claim of 'identity'?

no one

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met, IMO.

I'd like to see more honesty around this topic. The reality is that the pleading for homosexual right to marriage is not about "rights". Rather it about winning acceptance and, to a lesser degree, about revenge for years of perceived outcast status.



"appeals to "scientific proof" by non-scientists is always to be dismissed as a rhetorical device by the ignoramus" thanks. pl

William R. Cumming

Whenever SCOTUS rules on an issue involving intrusion of the state into areas bounded by their own definition of "Privacy" erected in the Griswald v. Connecticut decision in the 60's they need to clearly articulate what exactly is the state's interest in such instrusion.

Religions of course are not restricted from interferring in any way in matters some would consider private.

Basically for many decades SCOTUS has avoided heavy lifting which is why the members live so long.

The National Security State, its growth and care and feeding has been an area of considered neglect by SCOTUS, IMO!


"Much like pederastry seems to go with homosexuality" -- aren't you the scholar. Yeah, there's a case to be made for the warriors of Thebes 'Sacred Band' etc in classical Greece as homosexuals. Most of us aren't the scholar you are and see 'pederasty' as the modern Afghan or NAMBLA romanticization of sexual relationships between men and adolescent boys. In short, window dressing for 'pedophilia'. Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. Most pedophiles are damaged men who prey on children because they can't handle relationships with adults. Some of them are over-sexed animals who prey on anybody weaker than themselves, male or female.



"Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality." Really? How do you explain the fact that nearly all the victims of molestation in the RCC were boys? All these priests and brothers were damaged men? pl


"many monogamous heterosuxual marriages have been forced in this sense but nevertheless thought to be valid" -- Radical liberals like the Roman Catholic church say a monogamous marriage between a young, albeit legally of age, girl with an adult 21+ man should be annulled if the the conditions under which she 'consented' to the marriage were similar to those where girls have 'consented' to polygamous marriages in the fundamentalist branches of the LDS church.

We find that almost all of the women in polygamous marriages were forced to marry men twice their age as teenagers. We find almost all the women/men seeking same-sex marriages doing so with adults of similar maturity.

I'm a 48 year old former 11A and 12B who cracked a lot of nasty jokes about fags back in the day. And about every other minority group I'd never met a member of. Now that being open about your gayness isn't a ticket to a firing and an ass-whupping, gays are out of the closet. The junior enlisted/officers in today's military all know a few gays. And, mostly, think gays are what they are and ought to be able to marry whomever they love and visit those loved ones in the hospital.

We, the dinosaurs on this page, are marching straight into the La Brea tar pits. Later generations will point at our bones and wonder if we were trapped because our brains were walnut-sized.


Or could it be that in the last "15 years or so", thanks in part to the "barrage of propaganda"/people-on-TV-admitting-they-were-gay, admitting you were gay in America no longer automatically led to losing your job and getting beaten up... so people did it? Most 20/30-somethings now know people who are gay, like them and want them to be able to marry whomever it is they love and be able to visit those loved ones in the hospital, raise kids with them, inherit from them, etc...



11A and 11B. What outfits were you in and when? you are gay or just a seeker for justice? pl



"We find that almost all of the women in polygamous marriages were forced to marry men twice their age as teenagers. We find almost all the women/men seeking same-sex marriages doing so with adults of similar maturity." Who are the "we?" A number of you homosexual advocates are commenting. none of you are civil. I caution you. pl


you nailed it.

Col, if the People are indeed sovereign, then the people can have whatever law (or legal interpretation of it) they want. there just have to be enough of them motivated & empowered to "make the case". that's one reason why there's an underlying clash between religion / democratic / libertarian centric justifications for rights & their restrictions. {thus I can't quite understand how "Libertarians" are so wedded (pardon pun) to conservatism.}


similarly, it is laughable how much conservatives are for liberty until their pastor preaches otherwise.



it is amusing to note how outraged and surprised the left is over the evident failure of their efforts before SCOTUS on gay normality and before Congress in gun control. pl



the people you are talking about are right wing rather than conservative. pl


I also wonder about "conduct." Why is seeking to be married "conduct" for some and not others?


winning & revenge? projection?
how 'bout not being differentially penalized by the tax code merely because of one's self-realized orientation?


ok. unfortunately, these days, the precision with which one employs the term liberal is about equal to that which attends to conservative. my own observation is that neither means much to those now filling in our nation's demographic "center of the bell curve". & this is partly why the current Old Order is out of sync (& becoming less relevant) w/ the Next on topics such as marriage.

Nancy K

Nearly 25% of pedophile priests abused young girls. At the website patheos.com, written by a Catholic priest, there is an interesting article called The Myth of Pedophile Priests.
I am not Catholic, but I found it interesting that fewer than 4% of Catholic priests are pedophiles. I would have assumed it was much higher given all the media coverage.
I would make a comment about my believes regarding same sex marriage, but I have no scientific evidence to base my beliefs on and since I am originally from Southern Calif. I think you can probably guess what they are.
I find this debate very interesting and informative however. Thank you.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 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
Blog powered by Typepad