Replies

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.

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)