Ireland legalizes homosexuality....

[moralist]

It's the difference between liberty and equality

Liberty over equality is an American Capitalist value,

while equality over liberty is European Liberal Socialist.

Greg

[william.scherk]

What does the ... the 'will of the people' - as in Ireland - have to do with any marriage?

In Ireland the national referendum amended the Irish constitution. The will of the people was that gay couples enjoy in law the same responsibilities and benefits and rights as any other married couple. (I know you are making a philosophical point, but I think you should first understand the motives of the real people and the real government.) One of the triggers for the constitutional amendment was a suit brought by an Irish couple married in Canada ... they wanted the same recognition in Ireland that their union had here.

Subsequently, there was a constitutional convention. From that convention arose the proposed amendment. All amendments have to be approved by voters. The convention did not offer the Tony Choice, which would be to remove the government recognition of any marriage, if I understand you correctly. Here is what the amendment says (from the link above):

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

The primary benefits of marriage are obvious in purely human terms. Marriage solemnizes, dignifies and makes official and public a commitment to each other, through thick and thin, sickness and health.

Beyond that, just think of your life and marriage. Your wife is your next of kin, automatically. Should you suffer a stroke or other grave disease or accident, your wife may by law be responsible for making medical decisions on your behalf while you are disabled. She may file joint tax forms with you. She will be able to 'keep' your fortune if you die, without fuss about contracts (and of course she can contest a will if you leave her no support or funds). You marriage ensured that your children are your legal children without encumbrance. Both your names are on their birth documents as parents. A marriage inscribes the mutual legal responsibilities of the two parties.

All this is obvious, and I think you should not be perplexed that gay folks would want their relationships to be recognized in law in the same way as you and your family.

If you have read materials on the case before the US Supreme Court, you know that there are gathered several plaintiffs -- they brought suits against the government because they felt there was injustice in their particular cases. Their relationships were denied the legal protections that marriage achieves.

I guess what I would like to say on this is, in summary, that you ask a gay couple what value they have and seek in marriage. Ask Stephen Boydstun about his partnership, and how he -- a scholar of Objectivism and an American -- might seek protection under law for the rights and responsibilities that bind him together to his partner.

At this time I wouldn't be celebrating the Irish referendum, if I were gay.

I don't believe you on this point, not at all. This isn't your heart speaking.

Sure, for once Progressives got a result right - but as usual, for the wrong reasons, from badly flawed premises.

If you could, for the sake of argument, properly enunciate the actual (if flawed) premises of gay marriage adherents and seekers, this would deepen your own thinking and analysis, broaden it and make it realistic.

A majority of 'the people' gave their blessing to gay marriage. What does their sanction count for? Who needs it? It can be taken, as well as given.

This is almost disingenuous. The sanction means that gay couples who marry are married in law. In Canada, marriage was deemed a fundamental right. Yes, it can be taken away ... but only by a majority of our Supreme Court, and only after a challenge has made its way through lower courts. There is no change on the horizon, though one cannot rule it out. In Ireland, the constitutional amendment could be overturned by the same process as the one just affirmed by the people. At the moment, in reality, no such eventuality is to be foreseen.

Just think, racial equality law in South Africa can be taken away. Wouldn't that be something.

Marriage carried that ancient weight of being in the eyes of God -- now it's in the eyes of Mrs. O'Reilly and her kin up in the High Street: both of them imposters, to be treated just the same.

Gods, should they exist, already have the solution: damnation and an eternal lake of hellfire (Hi, Greg!). Mrs O'Reilly, bless her stout soul, has fuck all to do with any marriage other than her own and her gay daughter's. She cannot intrude (as the state used to be able to) in a relationship or deny it legality.

I am curious about your experience in South Africa. The 'people,' such as they are, what did they have to say about gay marriage? Would you rather legalizing same-sex marriage be conducted by sober, prudent, painstaking law suits wending their way through legal realities -- as in the USA? Would you have it legalized as in Canada -- by a national, binding court ruling? Would you have it as in Ireland, by full public engagement in debate on the basic law of the Republic?

Greg -- can I say this on the air? -- you are a bigot on this subject, as you are on any topic that touches on sexuality and gender. I propose that you were sexually abused as a child -- just as you claim every last gay person on earth has been. Somehow you got over the shame and guilt and anger. The perfect poetic justice for you would be losing your child from your life because you aren't able to love without conditions.

I'd love to hear that conversation: "Dad, I am gay. And I am getting married. Will you walk me down the aisle?" ....

Edited May 26, 2015 by william.scherk

[Guyau]

Adam, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” of the 14^th Amendment would be the exact phrase.* But there is a lot of case history on the way(s) the phrase should and will be taken in the rule of law of this land. The clause loomed large, for example, in Loving v. Virginia. While that was a case concerning law that prohibits and exacts penalties, the equal protection clause has also been applied to regulate state laws that confer legal powers, such as in voting laws.

If the Supreme Court rules in our favor, we plan to marry. The factors gathered by William are significant, and I will be more secure about hospital visitation rights. Staff on the floor at hospitals here (trained evangelical bigots from Liberty University) pull whatever sneaky way they can to interfere even though HHS under Obama has required all hospitals accepting Medicare to have a written policy allowing same-sex partners visitation. Such renegade staff would be put the hell out of my way with one big club over the head from the Court requiring this state to recognize marriages of same-sex couples. Also if we are able to marry, should I die first, private benefits in health and pension could convey to my partner beyond me.

This past year, dear friends of ours, a New Jersey same-sex couple of 29 years got married. It is wonderful. I’m unclear whether your state, Adam, is among those, like Virginia, where a ruling against us by the Supreme Court would revoke their marriage.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS

Greg, your obsessive fantasies in print here are way gross. I rather doubt you'd be calling me feminized had you ever actually met me. Well, maybe you'd have to meet me repeatedly.

Tony, I'm certainly pleased with the vote in Ireland. That's progress against the ancient savageries.

[moralist]

Greg -- can I say this on the air? -- you are a bigot on this subject, as you are on any topic that touches on sexuality and gender...

Bigot... the word de jour for feminized leftists. It's all the rage now, so you're right in with the flock, William.

as you are on any topic that touches on sexuality and gender. I propose that you were sexually abused as a child...

If I was, I'd very likely be a militant leftist homosexual activist today...

...but I wasn't, and so I'm not.

When children are sexually molested, it takes an abiding hatred to make the upside down backwards identity stick long enough for them to actually become what they hated.

Today, the sexually molested have become a powerful militant political class. The politically correct word nazis flaunting their hysterical emotional offense at the slightest hint of a "wrong" word is slowly putting a stranglehold on language...

...and they will eventually mold culture in their image... just as it was in the days of Noah.

Greg

[anthony]

What one chooses to do is sacrosanct, of no business of anyone else. Offended, precious sensibilities aside, what a man and a man or a woman and a woman do together in love and companionship - or whatever- can't be questioned by any, and doesn't interfere with any others' individual rights. To have to have gay marriage ratified by governments and a majority of people is not only superfluous, it is sanctimonious and patronizing. (To all of us who cherish liberty). I repeat, a government is - or should be - tasked only with protecting the contractual agreement the partners enter into. Which means, as marriage contract, all those technical details of law (visitation rights, insurance policies, wills, and so on) become moot.

William, for me the basis is philosophical, OK, but also it is human. My personal thought and feeling about this have to do as much with younger gays themselves who suffer alienation and self-doubt, simply for being what they are. I've known such guys. Nobody "deserves" to feel obliged to show one facade in the work-place, another with his parents, another with friends out on the town, another -etc. etc. What the constant masquerade and anxiety must do to a person's consciousness and self-esteem is sobering.

But yet, pride cannnot be presented to one by the legal stroke of a pen. Or by 'the people'. Freedom can't be confered. This acceptance of gay marriage by the Irish citizenry is as much to satisfy the latter's liberal self-righteousness, I think, as it might turn out superficial and unpredictable in future.

Possibly you won't understand me, like my friends don't.

It is clear (isn't it) that once perceptions of a society swing away from individuals towards groupings, the vibrancy of society begins diminishing. Worse, the individuals themselves slowly become clannish and resentful and suspicious of others. No longer single persons mixing, finding values and friendships - "naturally"- across racial, gender, religious, age, sexual (etc) differences -- but by and in groups. With which many identity, and so lose a little originality or independence. 'Groupism' polarizes society, in short. No longer an individual in his own right, but "one of them", a hallmark of collectivist, Left societies..

South Africa, yes. Here we borrowed most of the Constitution from progressive nations like Scandinavian ones, cobbled together by committees of lawyers. I believe it was as much window dressing to show the world our new and proper ways, to generate financial loans and investment - as well, of course, as bringing freedom to those who'd been denied it.

I've never forgotten a liberal commentator, writing back then that the "SA Consititution is dangerously out of touch with the nature of its people". He was right, as it turns out.

Gay rights feature in it, and for those early reconciliatory champagne years of the Rainbow Nation, gays who had known only the severity of a Calvinism which morally influenced the previous State, felt free and accepted. Among many blacks though, homosexuality has never been accepted, for traditional-tribal and religious justifications - there's lately been growing backlash against it from people, sometimes in acts or force upon gays, an attitude pandered to in remarks by our politicians (and tribal leaders, who are also protected constitutionally and paid from the coffers).

The ANC government has openly made it clear that it would change some elements of the Constitution - if they could get a 67% majority which - constitutionally - they'd be entitled to do. Thankfully, it is such an inept and corrupt bunch they've been steadily losing ground in elections. I doubt dethroning gay rights is top of their agenda, freedom of the Press is their number one target, but the possibility is there.

It boils down, that after a hopeful start, there's a growing nervousness and uncertainty I hear from individuals in SA's gay community; there is much talk of emigration.

[Brant Gaede]

Greg -- can I say this on the air? -- you are a bigot on this subject, as you are on any topic that touches on sexuality and gender...

Bigot... the word de jour for feminized leftists. It's all the rage now, so you're right in with the flock, William.

as you are on any topic that touches on sexuality and gender. I propose that you were sexually abused as a child...

If I was, I'd very likely be a militant leftist homosexual activist today...

...but I wasn't, and so I'm not.

When children are sexually molested, it takes an abiding hatred to make the upside down backwards identity stick long enough for them to actually become what they hated.

Today, the sexually molested have become a powerful militant political class. The politically correct word nazis flaunting their hysterical emotional offense at the slightest hint of a "wrong" word is slowly putting a stranglehold on language...

...and they will eventually mold culture in their image... just as it was in the days of Noah.

Greg

I don't think there's a necessary link between sexual abuse and homosexuality. That's a typical religious canard sometimes employed by Protestant preachers. It may be part of the separation from the Catholic Church, the priesthood of which has historically been filled with homosexuals.

--Brant

has the sexual abuse of girls led to Lesbianism?

virgin priests and virgin nuns--how can anyone have any fun?

[moralist]

What one chooses to do is sacrosanct, of no business of anyone else. Offended, precious sensibilities aside, what a man and a man or a woman and a woman do together in love and companionship - or whatever- can't be questioned by any, and doesn't interfere with any others' individual rights.

But Tony... militant leftist homosexuality does encroach upon the rights of others.

First you were a bigot if you didn't recognize homosexuality...

...then you were a bigot for not tolerating homosexuality...

...then you were a bigot for not accepting homosexuality...

...and now you are a bigot for not celebrating homosexuality.

Greg

[moralist]

I don't think there's a necessary link between sexual abuse and homosexuality.

I'm ok with that, Brant.

In your view there is no connection between sexual molestation and homosexuality... and in my view there is.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think there's a necessary link between sexual abuse and homosexuality.

I'm ok with that, Brant.

In your view there is no connection between sexual molestation and homosexuality... and in my view there is.

Greg

Not what I said. I said "necessary." You also modified your view to criticize mine. You started out by implying abuse is the cause to only a connection. But I did not say there was no connection. What you actually say now is you and I agree but it's not I who changed. It's you who wants to be dominate in an argument which you do all the time by saying you don't argue when everything you say is an argument you don't want to argue about (defend) just hit people with. That's all right with me. You gotta be you. You gotta be pretty.

--Brant

I'll never show up at your door with beer and a pizza

[moralist]

I don't think there's a necessary link between sexual abuse and homosexuality.

I'm ok with that, Brant.

In your view there is no connection between sexual molestation and homosexuality... and in my view there is.

Greg

Not what I said. I said "necessary." You also modified your view to criticize mine. You started out by implying abuse is the cause to only a connection. But I did not say there was no connection. What you actually said now is you and I agree but it's not I who changed. It's you who wants to be dominate in an argument which you do all the time by saying you don't argue when everything you say is an argument you don't want to argue about (defend) just hit people with. That's all right with me. You gotta be you.

--Brant

Ok, Brant.

You don't think there is a necessary link between sexual molestation and homosexuality... and I do.

Greg

[Guyau]

.

Greg, I was never sexually molested. Your obsessive fantasies written here are way gross.

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think there's a necessary link between sexual abuse and homosexuality.

I'm ok with that, Brant.

In your view there is no connection between sexual molestation and homosexuality... and in my view there is.

Greg

Not what I said. I said "necessary." You also modified your view to criticize mine. You started out by implying abuse is the cause to only a connection. But I did not say there was no connection. What you actually said now is you and I agree but it's not I who changed. It's you who wants to be dominate in an argument which you do all the time by saying you don't argue when everything you say is an argument you don't want to argue about (defend) just hit people with. That's all right with me. You gotta be you.

--Brant

Ok, Brant.

You don't think there is a necessary link between sexual molestation and homosexuality... and I do.

Greg

Since I called you out you reverted to your default--a default for which there is little or no data, just wishful thinking. Homosexuality is a perversion in that the species is made to reproduce. I've also seldom heard of heterosexuals wanting to change over to homosexuals. A lot of that is cultural pressure. Mostly it's biological. However, homosexuality is not a perversion if the totality of human experience and flexibility is taken into account. Homosexuals enrich the human experience. Jews do too. Etc. Yeah, "we" don't need them qua species. We also don't need sports' stars, brain surgeons, and those who make music. All we need are the boys and girls who fuck their brains out and have children and pass on their DNA as long as it's not Jewish DNA or queer DNA or music DNA (let the world know what you don't want and let the Hitlers help you)--just birth more heterosexual fuckers.

--Brant

there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his phophet

[anthony]

What one chooses to do is sacrosanct, of no business of anyone else. Offended, precious sensibilities aside, what a man and a man or a woman and a woman do together in love and companionship - or whatever- can't be questioned by any, and doesn't interfere with any others' individual rights.

But Tony... militant leftist homosexuality does encroach upon the rights of others.

First you were a bigot if you didn't recognize homosexuality...

...then you were a bigot for not tolerating homosexuality...

...then you were a bigot for not accepting homosexuality...

...and now you are a bigot for not celebrating homosexuality.

Greg

Basically, so what? We have all been called worse, and lived. All that should affect any of us - is: Is there even a little validity to the label ? If so, why, and should it be amended for one's own sake? You're big on self-awareness, so only you can answer.

Government force exists in all areas and should be tackled as such. One more instance of it (and another encroachment on individual rights) is consistent policy, unfortunately.

The grander picture is aiming at a free society. For it to be free, all can (and have to) handle differences of opinion. An "opinion" - simply, internal processes of the individual - thought, usually mixed with emotions - and the words which ensue. Only when words become deeds and/or interference with others' deeds, does the necessity of individual rights come into play - the rest of the time we can all differ and disagree, choose to associate or not; or call each other names. Freedom is freedom from force and potential force, not from ideas and from perceived insults.

You are big on self-responsibility and minimal government, Greg. Here's the burning question to test that conviction.

Would you want a government that imposes a morality of Christian doctrines on all other people?

If so, it is a big and powerful government you'd really like, with one group being favored over others. As it is now.

Not individual rights and freedom.

It's a causal pattern. You moralize to and about gays, based on the Scriptures, as consequence they call you bigoted. It can't surprise you that many homosexuals break with their religions, and also politically turn from dogmatic Conservative values, to the ("recognizing, tolerating, accepting, celebrating") Liberal-left values, to escape. Before I learned the false alternative in there, I'd have agreed completely with them.

[RobinReborn]

Much as homosexual couples may feel better because of this ruling, I think the real victors here are divorce lawyers.

If you're in a committed relationship with somebody, why would you need governmental approval?

[moralist]

If you're in a committed relationship with somebody, why would you need governmental approval?

Simply brilliant.

Homosexuals are predominantly leftists so government is their god.

They need to petition their god to bestow its blessing on their behavior.

Greg

[william.scherk]

William, would you mind pointing to that particular phrase "equal justice under law" in the United States Constitution including the Amendments.

Thanks.

Your request was a bit of a puzzler. I wasn't sure if you were taking issue with the cartoon (it's a Cartoon, yeesh), or with my knowledge, or with the actual inscription on the front of the court:

I see that Stephen has effectively answered the essential prong of your question, but maybe I can show what an inexpert Canuck can find if he is willing.

From an article at Wikipedia, "Equal Justice Under Law":

Equal justice under law is a phrase engraved on the front of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington D.C. It is also a societal ideal that has influenced the American legal system.

The phrase was proposed by the building's architects, and then approved by judges of the Court in 1932. It is based upon Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, and has historical antecedents dating back to ancient Greece.

[...]

Based upon Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence

The words "equal justice under law" paraphrase an earlier expression coined in 1891 by the Supreme Court. In the case of Caldwell v. Texas, Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote on behalf of a unanimous Court as follows, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment: "the powers of the States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law." The last seven words are summarized by the inscription on the U.S. Supreme Court building.

Adam, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” of the 14^th Amendment would be the exact phrase.*

I wait with bated breath for you to respond to Stephen, Adam. I still wonder what you think about the Irish Referendum, but that must remain a mystery for OLers. You likely find it creepy and awful or sweet and irrelevant to America. Ho hum.

Stephen's comments have also been ignored by the Astrologer-in-Chief. It seems he is unable to grapple with elementary logic or the testimony of gay folk (he earlier swished his skirts and avoided the import of his claims with Reidy).

Here is the most coherent of the claims made by Queen Greg:

Homosexuality is the consequence of the failure to resolve emotional sexual traumas of the past. It only takes the shock of a violation to displace a child's natural gender identity with the imprinting of a foreign gender identity... but it requires the violated one's own hatred to retain that unnatural identity. Without the emotional energy of hatred to keep the imprinting "alive", the identity cannot endure.

Greg, your obsessive fantasies in print here are way gross. I rather doubt you'd be calling me feminized had you ever actually met me. Well, maybe you'd have to meet me repeatedly.

Crickets.

I am not the only one who suspects our Moral Queen was molested as a child. Here is PDS giving a lesson in logic to the Queer One:

I often get the impression that your "you get what you deserve" mantra is a cover for your having been subjected to sexual abuse as a child. Unlike the global assertions you are making about an entire group of people you know nothing about, I am basing my "facts" on the roughly 1,000 posts I have read of yours (God help me),

This conclusion gives me a warm feeling inside, and that is good enough for me. Moreover, if you try to dispute this or argue otherwise, here is my prospective advice: mere words on a screen never convince anybody of anything. And besides, you reap what you sow.

Sound familiar? More important, does this sound the least bit respectful?

Crickets.

Edited May 27, 2015 by william.scherk

[moralist]

.

Greg, I was never sexually molested.

Every effect has a cause, Stephen.

Someone imprinted you with a homosexual identity, and it was your own free choice either to resolve it or to embrace it. I'm ok with either choice because it's your own life and has nothing to do with mine.

Greg

[william.scherk]

Greg -- can I say this on the air? -- you are a bigot on this subject, as you are on any topic that touches on sexuality and gender. I propose that you were sexually abused as a child...

If I was, I'd very likely be a militant leftist homosexual activist today...

...but I wasn't, and so I'm not.

It is pretty obvious that you were sexually molested as a child, Greg. Your unseemly interest in other people's genitals is the evidence, as is your fixation on gay issues. Why not just admit it, and then explain how you were not angry about it, and you thus escaped becoming gay?

When children are sexually molested, it takes an abiding hatred to make the upside down backwards identity stick long enough for them to actually become what they hated.

Right. Sure. Which, if correct, means that your molestation did not make you angry enough to hate your abuser (probably your mother).

Today, the sexually molested have become a powerful militant political class. The politically correct word nazis flaunting their hysterical emotional offense at the slightest hint of a "wrong" word is slowly putting a stranglehold on language...

And if, like with you, the molestation was simply an interesting experience, and did not engender anger and hate, then the answer to homosexuality is to help kids understand that molestation is just fine, that they got what they deserved, and then they will turn out straight and Republican.

My personal thought and feeling about this have to do as much with younger gays themselves who suffer alienation and self-doubt, simply for being what they are. I've known such guys. Nobody "deserves" to feel obliged to show one facade in the work-place, another with his parents, another with friends out on the town, another -etc. etc. What the constant masquerade and anxiety must do to a person's consciousness and self-esteem is sobering.

This is empathetic and wise, to my eyes.

But yet, pride cannnot be presented to one by the legal stroke of a pen. Or by 'the people'. Freedom can't be confered. This acceptance of gay marriage by the Irish citizenry is as much to satisfy the latter's liberal self-righteousness, I think, as it might turn out superficial and unpredictable in future.

Possibly you won't understand me, like my friends don't.

You are right, I don't understand. Your empathy and wisdom seems in opposition to your rock-ribbed philosophical position.

It is clear (isn't it) that once perceptions of a society swing away from individuals towards groupings, the vibrancy of society begins diminishing. Worse, the individuals themselves slowly become clannish and resentful and suspicious of others. No longer single persons mixing, finding values and friendships - "naturally"- across racial, gender, religious, age, sexual (etc) differences -- but by and in groups. With which many identity, and so lose a little originality or independence. 'Groupism' polarizes society, in short. No longer an individual in his own right, but "one of them", a hallmark of collectivist, Left societies..

Well, 'vibrancy of society' -- what can that possibly mean in context? That gays have become clannish and inward-turning? It is more likely that widespread acceptance will tend to de- clan the individuals, don't you think?

What one chooses to do is sacrosanct, of no business of anyone else. Offended, precious sensibilities aside, what a man and a man or a woman and a woman do together in love and companionship - or whatever- can't be questioned by any, and doesn't interfere with any others' individual rights.

...and now you are a bigot for not celebrating homosexuality.

Basically, so what? We have all been called worse, and lived. All that should affect any of us - is: Is there even a little validity to the label ? If so, why, and should it be amended for one's own sake? You're big on self-awareness, so only you can answer.

What he said. Why whine about being called names? Your opinions on homosexuality are either bigoted or not. I suggest that you haven't done any thinking or considering the factual basis of your dreams of causality. I suggest that it is this blindness and animus that makes your opinions bigoted. If you don't like it, then try to appear less prejudiced and stupid on this topic.

You moralize to and about gays, based on the Scriptures, as consequence they call you bigoted.

What he said.

If you're in a committed relationship with somebody, why would you need governmental approval?

Both Stephen and I have detailed the protections under law that legal marriage confers. Please review what we have written -- it is very much to the point you raise.

Homosexuals are predominantly leftists so government is their god.

They need to petition their god to bestow its blessing on their behavior.

So, when your daughter comes out of the closet as a lesbian, she can count on you rejecting her and her 'choices,' and you will be sitting out her gay marriage in a funk of bigotry. Good to know that the Moral Queen will be consistent. Your lesbian daughter will deserve what she gets.

Image courtesy of Jon Shriver's blog.

Edited May 28, 2015 by william.scherk

[RobinReborn]

William, I understand the argument from the 14th Ammendment, it makes sense to me.

I was asking the question of why get married in general. Not just for homosexual people. If you really love somebody, perhaps you should have a ceremony to declare and celebrate that, but why get the government involved?

I understand there are some tax benefits for marriage and some other benefits but those things seem arbitrary to me, and probably not worth it for the risk of divorce.

[Selene]

I understand there are some tax benefits for marriage and some other benefits but those things seem arbitrary to me, and probably not worth it for the risk of divorce.

This is one of the potential faults of this matter before SCOTUS because it involves domestic relations law which is a state matter.

[moralist]

Basically, so what? We have all been called worse, and lived.

I'm no more concerned with being called a bigot by leftists than you are, Tony!

But what I am saying is that this process of societal degeneration is rising to the level of legality.

I can offer one small example...

In California there is a real estate law that requires the seller to disclose any of deaths that occurred in the home... except deaths from the homosexual disease of AIDS, as it is the most heavily politically protected disease in America's history.

Greg

[moralist]

William... I can always tell when I hit upon a moral truth by the sheer volume of your arguments against it. So you can argue and accuse me of whatever you wish. I know what you're up to.

I have stated my view that the homosexual identity is imprinted through childhood sexual molestation. And that it is an integral part the leftist political agenda, because socialist government is your leftist god.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

William... I can always tell when I hit upon a moral truth by the sheer volume of your arguments against it. So you can argue and accuse me of whatever you wish. I know what you're up to.

Greg

William typically comes with volume. Either he's always on the wrong side of "moral truth" by your metric or the metric is crappy. I know you love either-or and will have no problem with knowing that he's generally wrong about everything. However, I have to say the gold of your "moral truth" is like the gold in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre and you are the Humphrey Bogart character--it's a McGuffin, Greg!

--Brant

[anthony]

Basically, so what? We have all been called worse, and lived.

I'm no more concerned with being called a bigot by leftists than you are, Tony!

But what I am saying is that this process of societal degeneration is rising to the level of legality.

I can offer one small example...

In California there is a real estate law that requires the seller to disclose any of deaths that occurred in the home... except deaths from the homosexual disease of AIDS, as it is the most heavily politically protected disease in America's history.

Greg

Heh. Greg, it's like you're tugging at one loose yarn in a pullover, then calling it the whole pullover. What you have is a single effect, one of many other interwoven effects - the cause is power, centralized, and channeled through government, I believe . I have no doubt there are a few gay lobbies in the US, as there are maybe thousands covering every walk of life and commerce. A lot, too, of Christian and business lobbies. Some Jewish ones too, I've seen, forever protesting - a little- too much. Each promotes their group self-interests. I guess when government has the biggest game in town everybody has to play, or get left behind.

(Is there an Almond Growers lobby, there? I was mad for California almonds when they were exported here.)

Odd, a law declaring deaths in a house. What's that about, hygiene? As if nobody scrubs down or paints a new home before moving in. Seems like more nannyism in CA.

AIDS, "the homosexual disease"? I will leave to somebody else. Last I heard it was a human disease.

[Guyau]

. . .

Every effect has a cause, Stephen.

Someone imprinted you with a homosexual identity, . . .

Just hours ago, Greg, your assertion was that the cause was that I was sexually molested. I was not. That could not be the cause.

Without absorbing that you were wrong in that conjecture, you slither to a related general hand waving: "Someone imprinted you with a homosexual identity." No they didn't. I know the cause (the person). We were both nineteen, in our own power, eyes wide open. No yarns about molestation and imprinting are required as part of the cause in our case. We were responding to the special value of our persons to each other, forging our own first-hand rational values and relationship (which relationship lasted so long as we both lived). There are many different kinds of gay people in their gayness, many different kinds of straight people in their straightness, and different sorts of mixtures between. Your attempts at generalization are fantastically disconnected from reality, and your fuzzing out of counterexamples to your generalizations is an insanity.