Comments on: Proposition 8: Politics, Science and Constitutional Bigotry

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:41:33 +0000

I know I’m late to the party on this posting, but you put my feelings on this vote into words better than I ever could have. I was almost nauseous when I saw the results of this vote. It’s nice to know that the concept of the double standard is still alive and well in this country, and in California no less, the alleged bastion of all things liberal and foward thinking. Let’s hope that the pundits who so often claim “as California goes, so goes the country” are wrong on this one. It won’t be the first time they have been wrong, but it may be one of the most important times.

By: Christie

Christie — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:58:53 +0000

How do we define ‘morality’ in general then, if you take religion out of it (which, seeing as we’re NOT a theocracy, we must)? What you and I find immoral may be completely different. And how much of it can we legally define in our government? Obviously we both consider it immoral to murder someone, and have made it illegal. But most would say adultery is illegal, too, and we have no laws against that. Where do you draw the line?

By the way – his point on homosexuality being natural, I believe, is that homophobics use the ‘it’s not natural’ argument to say why it’s immoral – which, as you pointed out, is a flawed argument anyhow, since we don’t define morality on what’s natural or not. Of course, homosexuality being natural just helps shut up the argument all together.

Besides, your argument implies that homosexuality is some kind of defect or condition – like it can me ‘managed’ or ‘treated’ by therapy or something how alcoholism can be – that’s simply not the case. There is no ‘cure’ or ‘fix’ – they’re just physiologically different, like having a different hair color or different eyes or being short or being tall.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:23:34 +0000

What I’d like to know Irradiatus, is how you justify making the leap from biology to morality. Assuming that certain people are biologically predisposed to be sexually attracted to people of the same sex, that says nothing about the morality of homosexual behavior or any supposed “right” to have that behavior legally recognized as legitimate. You are making an unjustified leap from “is” to “ought,” based on the assumption that biological predisposition equals moral legitimacy, which in turn creates a legal right. Certain people are also biologically predisposed to alcoholism and certain psychological disorders, but we don’t consider this fact to grant these things moral legitimacy or create any legal rights. What makes homosexuality different? If homosexuality is the result of biological predisposition, why should it be treated differently than other psychological disorders?

By: Damien Mulley

Damien Mulley — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:44:58 +0000

Hi Christie,
A local Irish news show rang me asking me to come on after reading that blog post. So much for us Irish having a sense of humour. They actually thought I was dead serious.

Good article Irradiatus. Here the Catholic Church are doing their best to prevent samesex couples even getting the basic of tax rights.

By: Irradiatus

Irradiatus — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:41:35 +0000

LOL!

I love it. Man, what was I thinking?

Screw the Gays.

By: Christie

Christie — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 13:59:04 +0000

Have you seen thereasons gays shouldn't marry? Hee hee hee.

By: Chris MacDonald

Chris MacDonald — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 01:15:23 +0000

Nicely put.
And you’ve made clear where the focus for the next round of activism in California has to go: making clear the analogy between racial discrimination and discrimination based on sexual orientation.

By: Irradiatus

Irradiatus — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 23:40:32 +0000

Yeah – also my original home state of Arkansas banning adoption by homosexuals…

ignorance breeds ignorance

By: Christie

Christie — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 23:38:20 +0000

Don’t forget Florida and Arizona banning gay marriage too – 28th and 29th states to define marriage as one man and one woman. Once, twice… three times the bias!