Selma to San Francisco?--Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.

Wall St Journal ^ | March 18, 2004 | SHELBY STEELE

[SJackson]

It is always both a little flattering and more than a little annoying to blacks when other groups glibly invoke the civil rights movement and all its iconic imagery to justify their agendas for social change. I will never forget, nor forgive, the feminist rallying cry of the early '70s: "Woman as nigger." Here upper-middle-class white women -- out of what must have been an impenetrable conviction in their own innocence -- made an entire race into a metaphor for wretchedness in order to steal its thunder.

[prion]

And even geneticists now accept that race is so superficial a human difference as to be nothing more than a "social construct."

Which only proves that science is not immune to fashionable nonsense.

Still, an excellent article.

[WhiteyAppleseed]

It is always both a little flattering and more than a little annoying to blacks when other groups glibly invoke the civil rights movement and all its iconic imagery to justify their agendas for social change. I will never forget, nor forgive, the feminist rallying cry of the early '70s: "Woman as nigger."

John Stossel, author of Give Me a Break write on p 239: According to a study by media watchers Lichter, Lichter and Amundson, businesspeople represent 12 percent of all TV characters but commit 32 percent of crimes--and 44 percent of murders.

Substitute "black people" for "businesspeople" to view the issue from a different perspective.

I'm a self-employed "businesspeople" and I don't question at all the idea of "off-shoring". With five million unlected bureaucrats whose job-security consists of watching and regulating business, the average "businesspeople" deserves a pat on the back for staying the course. It's ironic that the Land of the Free, home to immigrants who came here looking for liberty, has become the land where "businesspeople" look to other countries to make a buck.

[Unam Sanctam]

But gay marriage is simply not a civil rights issue. It is not a struggle for freedom. It is a struggle of already free people for complete social acceptance and the sense of normalcy that follows thereof -- a struggle for the eradication of the homosexual stigma. Marriage is a goal because, once open to gays, it would establish the fundamental innocuousness of homosexuality itself.

Exactly so. And since people have a right and do have different views on the morality of homosexual activity in a free society, the government should not impose one point of view thereon.

[PokeyJoe]

I'm a "businesspeople" myself and I agree with your opening statement. I do like how you tried to bring the offshoring debate in the second part, even if I don't agree. Nice tactic - even if you're wrong (national security implications concern me, not business implications).

As to the question at hand, all this article needed to say is that Civil Rights are conferred by the status of citizenship (as opposed to the color of skin). Marriage is not a "civil right"- because Marriage is a religious (belief) construct to formalize an anthropological cultural truth.

Breeders have babies. Gays do not.

Marriage is:
1) a social tool used by females to force the male who impregnated them to help support junior. (The Big 3 needs of any civilization - safety, shelter, food)
2) provides a way of identification of the biological line of order, father to son, and mother to daughter) - hence a famly name.
3) enforces a monogamous rule on breeders. A female will be more likely to breed if she is confident that her baby will be supported, and that the man will not have babies with other women. the antecedent of marriage is thus "divorce" - where a man removes himself from the marrage, but still has responsibilities to his offspring.

Marriage is NOT:
1) an expression of love (this is incidental)
2) a way to get tax breaks (this is incidental)
3) why families have health benefits (incidental, but driven by a "housewife")
4) a method to get spousal survival benefits (incidental)


All this being said, the author is correct in that the gay marriage debate is about acceptance, as opposed to tolerance. Gays want social acceptance and "normalcy" in a world where they are clearly sexually abnormal, and incapable of reproducing independently of the opposite sex.
(to the Lesbians - you still need a turkey baster full of male sperm when you inseminate yourself)

In the end, science will provide an answer. If gayness can be linked to a genetic defect that increases the likelyhood of gay behavior, then we may be able to identify defective fetuses at an early stage of development. The gay gene can then be eliminated. (genetic therapy is preferred to abortion, though either method of control will have similar results)

[valkyrieanne]

Marriage is not only "reproductive." Older people, and those who *know* they can't have children marry all the time.

As far as eliminating gay genes, what you suggest regarding abortion is abhorrent. I hope you're being satirical & this is not your genuine position.

Regarding "gay genes," my view is that not only is homosexuality profoundly different from heterosexuality, male and female homosexuality are profoundly different from each other. In men, being gay probably *is* largely genetic. (I believe in women it is largely situational; another story.)

If gay men are largely shaped by their genes, there are some points to be kept in mind when people suggest "eliminating" genes from a population.

First off, homosexuality is probably the result of *many* genes, not just one. People probably get hit with a range, so someone with a lot of "gay genes" will probably have a strong predisposition to be gay; someone with less will probably be bisexual, and someone with fewer will probably be straight.

There's something else to keep in mind about gay genes. Genes persist in populations for a *reason* - they confer some reproductive advantage on those who have them.

Geneticists talk about something called "hybrid vigor" - those who have a mixture of genes normally thought of as "bad" with those "good" amazingly often have more children than those without the "bad" genes.

So-called "gay genes" probably *do* confer some benefits on the people that have a smattering of them. It's not a myth that gay men, for instance, seem to be gifted in the arts and language. What if by truly attempting to eliminate "gay genes" we also eliminated many of the genes that help with linguisitic & artistic creativity?

[lonerepubinma]

After listening to all the crap about gay rights the past few weeks the best explanation I have heard is "Gay marriage is a special right for a special interest group" that's it in a nutshell.

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

The Stamp of Normality

Rosa Parks -- not (San Francisco gay marriage)

Blacks angered by gays' metaphors

Black caucus resists comparison of gay 'marriage' to civil rights

Gay/civil rights debate splits black leaders: Local rev bucks stand by NAACP

Joseph Brown: Gay Marriage Rites Vs. Civil Rights

[little jeremiah]

Your entire comment is "I think" and "my opinion". Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not entitled to be right.

Since even homosexualist scientific researchers have not been able to find a "gay" gene, could you cite the research that supports your opinion?

Or is your opinion based on your feelings?

[expatguy]

bump

[little jeremiah]

Homsexual Agenda Ping + Why "Gay" Marriage is Not Comparable to Black Peoples' Struggle for Civil Rights.

Very reasoned and reasonable article by S. Steele. He is about as far from a "homophobe" as anyone could be.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.

[King Black Robe]

Not bad but I take issue with: The stigmatization of homosexuals is wrong and makes no contribution to the moral health of our society. I was never worried for my children because they grew up knowing a gay couple that lived across the street, or because several family friends were gay. They learned early what we all know: that homosexuality is as permanent a feature of the human condition as heterosexuality

Lying, cheating, theft, murder, adultery, rape, bigamy, promiscuity, etc...are natural permanent features of the human condition too. Should we remove those stigmas?

Argue all you want about whether homosexuality is normal or not. But if it were genetically normal, then body parts and functions would match the desire. The fact that persons with attractions to their own bodies still have all the physical attributes that go along with heterosexuality is significant. The only observable difference is desire. Various human desires can be proven to be worthy of stigma all day long. Many can be shown to have originated very early in life -- like lying.

Two women who act like two men but relate to each other as members of the opposite sex are reasonably judged by society as abnormal. Same with two men acting like two women....

Behavioral stigma serves a valuable purpose in culture. It allows legal tolerance without approval. There are many subtle stigmas that work to encourage most people to steer clear of certain habits, while leaving government out of the mix. I think stigma is just the right thing for homosexuals.

What is the first thing the doctor says when a baby is born? It's a boy! It's a girl! We are designed (or evolved) male and female. It is who we are as a life moving unit (humanity). What we do for pleasure is totally insignificant in the big picture of things.

A doctor will also note the race of the baby. This is an observable though insignificant fact. What you never hear is "you've got a bouncing baby homosexual." In fact, sexual desire will not be known for years. So don't give me this born with the desire junk. There is nothing innate about being a woman. buying a fake penis at a store, straping it to yourself, and pretending to be a natural sex partner with another woman. It's as natural as the penis. So no, it is not as natural a part of the human condition as heterosexuality.

[PokeyJoe]

Marriage, at it's core purpose, is for reproductive purposes forced upon males by females who have borne children. All other marriages are incidental. (my dog died, I miss him, so I bought a new puppy - same thing with old people getting married).

And, if you'll read my post again, you'll notice that when I advocate the elimination of gay genes - I suggest that gene therapy is preferred to abortion. Both methods do, however, have similar results. It was the left wing lobby that advocates abortion to be a method of birth control, not I.

And, if we survive as a species to become advanced enough to decipher genetic code to isolate "gay" genes, I'm sure that we may also isolate other segments of genetic code that can be manipulated for other purposes, if desired.

I understand your view regarding homosexuality is rooted in belief as opposed to science. Likewise, my own position is limited by the available evidence to support any hypothesis. AT this point, we both speculate on what is probable. There are many members of this board who subscribe to the belief that homosexual behavior is a choice, 100% driven by intellect. They also speculate.

I believe that the eradication of defective genes (cancer, downs syndrom, blindness, drawfism, or gayness) holds greater promise and benefit to society than retaining those genetic aberations that cause human suffering.

Selective breeding is a technique practiced on farms and ranches every day. I see nothing wrong with it's application to the human being, if we are, afterall, just bags of water in a mish mash called life.