“So, I have no problems with them. We’re all in this together.”

ROTFL! You should probably get that irony meter checked out while you’re at it.

And you’re not even against homosexuals! Get some help dude.

JM Hanes on November 4, 2006 at 2:22 AM

…first of all, thanks for your concern.

…second, I already have help. I have a wife and children, and they’re both a great challenge and a big help.

…third, what I have a problem with *isn’t* our homosexual neighbors (count yourself in if you’re one of the tribe), it’s with people who want to have society’s official approval extended to equate what my wife and kids and I share, have built, and entrust to eachother and what homosexuals get up to.

…fourth, a homosexual relationship may not be the leatherman, feather boa, dominant/submissive, roleplay wonderland we see again and again in San Francisco street fairs. Some would have you believe that this sort of behavior is atypical. I’ll buy that, if only to be sociable. A lot of that sort of thing happens in heterosexual relationships. Point: marriage isn’t about having a license to have sex. It’s about building something.

…fifth and final, those folks I mention (embezzlers, the broken toys in NAMBLA, alcoholics, etc.) are sinners. I can understand that. Homosexuals are sinners. *I’m* a sinner. That *is* the human condition. So, I have no problems with them. We’re all in this together.

Don’t think for a second, though, that by sin I’m talking about some exclusively religious prohibition. It’s best expressed in religious terms, but consider what sin is: it is proscribed anti-social, anti-species behavior. Theft, embezzlement, drinking to excess, predating after children, lying, getting angry and violent at the slightest pretext…all are anti-social and self-destructive, not to mention what it does to those nearest to you.

Put into simple and secular terms, sin is suicide.

So, I most certainly *DO* have a problem with is someone trying to tell me that sin is no longer sin. What I resist is someone telling me that unnatural behavior is now, by fiat of government edict and social fashion, as natural as the behavior marriage reinforces and celebrates…by virtue of genetic predisposition, societal acceptance or some other dodge.

Don’t piss down my back and tell me that it’s rainin’!

…homosexuality is behavior, not identity.
Puritan1648 on November 3, 2006 at 5:41 PM

…I don’t think I understand this part.
p.v. cornelius on November 3, 2006 at 11:59 PM

…simple: issues arise from your being homosexual, do something else. Issues arise because you’re black, you’re screwed.

Now, issues *shouldn’t* arise because you’re black. The ignorant bee-hatch who doesn’t like you because you’re just standing there, being black, needs the lugnuts in his brain-housing group torqued down…and I’d be the last guy in the world to stop you.

On the other hand, people who don’t like you as a result of something you *do* or *have done* is another matter. Not only can behavior change, but should be the basis of our estimation of our neighbors. By his fruits ye shall know him, and all that. If the guy’s chasing after school children, it makes less than a whit of difference *what* he is…you’re goin’ to realign his major organs because of *what he’s doin’*.

…now, as to folks whose situation — to use the example you used, prison — they’re already in a bad spot. Why make it worse?

Sexuality in prison often times isn’t about sexuality anyway…it’s about power.

Generally speaking, prisons are horrid places, full of horrid, unsympathetic men and women, by and large. Here in Texas, the average “offender” (the word the state prefers to “inmate”) has a 4th grade education (that’s either equivelant or actuall attendance, I’m not sure), and there’s about a 40% recidivism rate.

Funny thing is, in med/max security prison with which I’m familiar, the *LAST* thing you wanted to be in prison was a homosexual. They had a special “short bus” prison for those folks, stuck away with the snitches, child molesters and other “socially challenged” gentlemen.

They were segregated to keep them alive.

Something I learned from the experience: prison brings out human nature without the gloss of civilization.

How does that fact negate my point that marriage falls under the freedom to associate in the context of rights?

Marriage is not “association”, it is a contractual relationship and no one is stopping gays from associating. The “right” that’s being restricted is the right to change the definition of words until they mean what you want them to mean. Gays have the right to marry, as long as they do it with someone of the opposite sex, same as everybody else. Meanwhile, they can live with and sleep with and enter partnerships with whomever they like. And I have the right to an abortion.

“… alcoholics… embezzlers… adulterers… NAMBLA guys…remember: one of the key things which piss-off our jihadist playmates is what they see as the promotion of homosexuality…which makes their skin crawl no end…and about which they’re pretty close to the truth.”

And you’re not even against homosexuals! Get some help dude.

The association point is not bad, but one can associate with another in a coffee shop without entering into a commit, long-term relationship.

How does that fact negate my point that marriage falls under the freedom to associate in the context of rights?

Freedom does not equal right. Do you have a right to smoke? Do you have a right to drive? No, you don’t have those as rights. You are free to do those with limitations–based on the context, circumstances, etc.
urbancenturion on November 4, 2006 at 1:47 AM

You don’t seem to understand my explanation of rights. Freedom doesn’t equal right, nor does it have to in order for rights to pertain to freedom. A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.

And you’re damn right I have the right to smoke and drive. If I make it happen, I have the right to do it, as long as it doesn’t violate anyone else’s rights. I don’t have the right to smoke in your house or drive your car, but I can in mine. You say I’m free within certain contextual limitations? Yes, exactly! And those are: I must respect the rights of others.

If you are making this case as a pretext to oppose gay marriage, I ask you, by what moral claim do you bar one person from formalizing their romantic commitment to another? (Disclaimer: I find gay marriage profoundly disgusting, but I find the prohibition of such even more disgusting. Gay marriage is no threat to me or anyone else.)

…no, marriage is a *contract*

By definition a contract is something we enter into freely, but there’s no right to do so.

…we’ve had an explosion of rights in this country…let’s not invent another out of whole cloth….

…which was my point (apparently not worded well enough) to begin with; there is no right here

Marriage is most definitely a right. We have the right to associate with whomever we want, as long as it doesn’t violate the rights of others….
As to your point that marriage is freedom, that is precisely what rights are all about; there is no conflict between rights and freedom. A right is the sanctioned freedom to act. And rights do not require anyone’s participation in order to be exercised, so the state doesn’t to provide you with anything — it just has to prevent others from violating your freedom to exercise your rights….
Lazarus on November 3, 2006 at 6:43 PM

The association point is not bad, but one can associate with another in a coffee shop without entering into a commit, long-term relationship.

Freedom does not equal right. Do you have a right to smoke? Do you have a right to drive? No, you don’t have those as rights. You are free to do those with limitations–based on the context, circumstances, etc.

…then, ask him who does his hair….

Ha! I just fell out of my chair laughing.

On that note, my conscience compels me to note that Sully agrees with me that Lurch was making a joke about Bush, not the troops.
I am, in all seriousness, filled with heart-ache at that fact.

Cool :-) but hey – if you’re right, you’re right, and no one ought to fault you for that. But this whole “joke” claim Kerry made is still a head-scratcher, at least to moi…

I don’t want to be on the wrong side here, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out what the “joke” was supposed to be. Maybe you can explain it, lay it all out in a way that makes sense.

…homosexuality is behavior, not identity.

Puritan1648 on November 3, 2006 at 5:41 PM

Puritan, I love your posts, and there’s a great deal of wisdom in most of what you’re saying in this one. But I don’t think I understand this part. Two problems occur to me as a straight man:

1. I have always been attracted (sexually, romantically, aesthetically) to women, never to men. Have dated only women, never men. For now, however, I happen to be celibate by choice. What does that make me?

2. Are prison rapists therefore gay?

(Somehow I’m reminded of Gallagher’s old line: “What if I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body but I don’t know it because she’s a lesbian?)

Spending some quality time in person with Senator McCain this weekend………….

ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR QUESTIONS???

…”Senator, some of my friends were wondering: which is more important? The nation or your career.” Hang on his neck like a terrier until you get something approaching an honest answer.

You could also try, “Speaking of illegal aliens, how many do you estimate that the State of Arizona can absorb before social services and law enforcement begin to buckle?”

…or, “Why is it fair for one foreign citizen to follow our laws, while millions of others break our laws as their first act in our country?”

…then, ask him who does his hair….

That’s what I figure, but I think everyone should just chill the eff out with the ‘you’re not a real conservative’ nonsense.

Slublog on November 3, 2006 at 7:05 PM

Words of wisdom. We don’t need to be arguing about purity and calling folks heretics and stuff. Libertarians are bad enough about that.

(I kid! I kid!)

I also think conservatism is a big tent. Good thing, too; hell, if some folks here knew what I think about certain issues, they might want to break out the torches and pitchforks.

NOW EVERYBODY (CONSERVATVE/REPUBLICAN) … IGNORE THE POLL, IGNORE THE NEGATIVITY, AND GO VOTE!!!!!!!!!!

thirteen28 on November 3, 2006 at 6:39 PM

Did my part. I love early voting! And I’m looking forward to Tuesday night.

Spending some quality time in person with Senator McCain this weekend……

ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR QUESTIONS???

seejanemom on November 3, 2006 at 5:26 PM

How about “How soon can we expect the bulldozers to start rolling over that metal monument to liberal dhimmitude in Phoenix?” Feel free to pretty the question up any way you want, I’m not picky. And thanks.

Marriage is most definitely a right.
…

relational contract (marriage)
…
And rights do not require anyone’s participation in order to be exercised
…

Lazarus on November 3, 2006 at 6:43 PM

Contracts require two parties. Marriage requires participation. Your argument does not jive.

Spending some quality time in person with Senator McCain this weekend………….

ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR QUESTIONS???

seejanemom on November 3, 2006 at 5:26 PM

Please ask the Honorable Senator if he is aware that Arizonan’s have about had it up to here (hand over head) with his positions on free speech (McCain Feingold), gun ownership, and immigration?

Please ask the Honorable Senator when he plans to resume representing the state of Arizona and not his personal self interests?

Please ask the Hornorable Senator where his spine went and if he thinks he can find it soon?

And smart politics for McCain.

I wish McCain wasn’t so old. He probably does deserve a term at the job.

Focus on the real enemy.

You mean Ace?

Focus on the real enemy.