OR: They Can't Help Being That Way, Can They?
Published on July 12, 2004 By CrispE In Politics
The current political hysteria over the menace of Lefty marriages in the U.S. and the threat it poses to our Righty society has now reached the point where many church and social leaders want to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning Lefties from marrying. The language of the amendment: "We hereby define marriage as a union between two right handed people." fits scriptural reasoning in the old testament because we read in Exodus when God speaks to Moses at the burning bush, "Go and tell Pharoah, let my people go! Oh, and BTW: You're not left handed, are you?" Now, I have an admission for you, my brother is left handed!!!

Throughout history left handed people have born the mark of second-class citizenship and often during the middle ages, along with the Jewish people were burned at the stake in Europe when towns had famines or plagues. Left handed people were mostly considered unscroupulous and traitors. The phrase "the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing" probably spawned from this natural suspicion. When my brother came out of his box at the age of 5 we were all shocked that one of those left handed perverts was in our family but somehow we overcame prejudice and 1000's of years of culture to embrace what he truly is: A man who writes left handed.

Genetic surveys done would indicate left handed people comprise between 2 and 15% of the population. That would mean between 5 and 30 million Americans are born this way. The numbers are probably skewed by the fact that if asked point blank: "Are you a pervert left handed person?" many lefties will answer no because of the shame attached.

Studies done where one twin was left handed showed that more often than the general right-handed population if one twin was left handed, so was the other. Other genetic studies also indicate a genetic link in left handed people. Nevertheless, the true genetic link has not yet been found and may not be for many years but I know it has always been my mother's fondest hope that the research will go on and eventually we will let the light in on the truth.

Now I know my righty friends out there are saying, "you're not left handed, why do you care?" Well, friends, if lefties are banned from marriage, couldn't the court by implied law (which is what courts often follow) say that this clearly establishes a barrier against lefties in our society? I am not saying they would be rounded up but clearly this fear that they are invading our moral center and ruining our values, peddling drugs to our children, using unholy sexual positions that we righties would never use is pervasive. Some people in communities in the midwest put signs in their lawns exclaiming "No LEFTIES allowed in town after dark!"

Some have even tried to reform my brother. My mother tried for years to get him to write and shake hands right handed so that no one would know. "Marry a right handed person she told him in his teens and stay away from other lefties" she'd implore him. But alas it wasn't to be. He hid his "leftness" and worked 40 years for the phone company, paid taxes and raised 2 left handed children who thought they wouldn't, because of gradual acceptence in society, face the stigma of how they were born.

We are Americans, right thinking and mostly right handed. We should never disenfranchise anyone from what it is to be American. We have laws, good laws against public conduct of a sexual nature and we need to enforce them but what someone is in their heart and does in their bedroom with another consenting adult is between them and God and I say, so be it.

This proposed amendment is wrong.

What do you think, righties?


Comments (Page 4)
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 
on Jul 13, 2004
"I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR GOD OR DARWIN! AND WRITING IN CAPS IS A LITTLE ANNOYING, YOU KNOW?"

Yeah, I know it's annoying. I was yelling. Which is what caps represent, y'know?. Perhaps it weakens my argumentative position to do so. Fair enough. I'll tone it down.

As for "not speaking for God or Darwin"... Well, to quote you:

"it's not natural by Darwinian standards. Procreate and live. Emphasis on procreate."

Sorry to contradict you, but in fact you ARE quite obviously and directly (albeit poorly and simplistically) trying to speak for Darwin. It's not 'natural'? Well, Beebes, it's IN nature, therefore it' IS 'natural'. QED.

Granted, it obviously serves no function that YOU understand. Hypothetically, it might not serve any purpose. So what? There may not 'gasp!' even BE a purpose. Again, so what?

Mind you, many intelligent and well-schooled individuals have hypothesized numerous 'purposes' for homosexuality, I'm not the originator of any of this, but I'll cite a couple for your edification and consideration:

1. Many hands make light work. Additional sets of hands that can help raise and support offspring without clogging the landscape with a surplus of said offspring is pure gold in evolutionary terms. Look at how increasing the ratio of adults to offspring has substantially helped the '1st world' raise its standard of living and establish stable societies (which in turn foster the support and survival of extended genetic lines).

2. Procreation may not be the entire 'Point' of sexuality (again,'gasp!'). There is ABSOLUTELY no doubt that the process is FAR more complex than it needs to be to ensure the efficient conversion of gametes to zygotes... (See fish if you want efficiency). Such a thing is unlikely without some sort of 'utility', so what is all this sweaty, gasping, complex sexuality be FOR?

One suggestion is that sexuality and attraction is part of the glue that allows the formation of stable societies (again fostering the conservation of genetic lines). Sex (hetero/homo and 'other') as an effective societal binding agent has been observed in bands of Bonobo's (one of our closest genetic relatives - 98% human) illuminatingly, they're rather famously peaceful and cooperative as a species. Interestingly, the other candidate for 'closest genetic relative' - the common chimp - doesn't make as much use of social sex and spends a much larger proportion of its time and energy jockeying for power and engaging in quasi-random acts of violence...

I think the above also speaks pretty loudly on behalf of genetics (as oppsed to, say 'lifestyle choices') playing a strong role in the development of an individual human's sexuality. I'm sure that 'Nurture' plays a role as well - particularly if you include exposure to natal hormones as part of 'Nurture'. Fer instance, there has been strong observed correlations between natal exposure to heightened levels of testosterone (usually supplied by adrenal glands) and the subsequent predisposition towards homosexuality. (Also mathematics, musical ability, double jointedness and autism, but hey - it ain't simple, y'know?

'It 'ain't natcheral' just don't cut it, see?

Still Baffled
on Jul 13, 2004
I am sorry you feel it necessary to be anonymous Baffled, you make some good points.

And I use the words "lifestyle choice" to say that being gay is a choice you make about your life. Heterosexuality, vegetarianism, and a whole host of other things are lifestyle choices.


Beebles, I can assure you that I NEVER made the choice to be heterosexual. Puberty started and I got a hard-on. I never once had the desire to stick that hard-on into another guy. Then, as now; the only place I want to stick my "procreation" tool is in a female (and I am the type of person who will entertain any possiblity).
on Jul 13, 2004
After reading all this, I have a headache. If only they hadn't come out of the closet! There's definitely something wrong when the southpaw can't feel that the right hand is reaching out to the opposite sex. As one blog noted the ambidextrous or bisexual wants it both ways and the constitution can't handle that. The issue is overbearing--I'm going to take two aspirin and sleep it off. 
on Jul 13, 2004
little_whip:

Someone actually did that? Hi, I'm Steve and I'm gay." Weird, been on the earth a long while and never had anyone say that to me. I do think it is unhealthy for someone to disengage from their left handedness to please societal norms, don't you? As for fantasy, I think that has a place, but pursuit of other left handers doesn't have to be overt or a broadway musical (all though it might help, hehehe.)

I think some in the left handed movement just believe that the best way to calm everyone down is to treat left handers completely like right handers. There is a comedian named Bob Smith from Buffalo, New York who uses that kind of sentiment in his standup routine. So, the best way for a left hander to go unnoticed is if everything thinks it's not big deal. That pushes the envelope a bit to go from sending Oscar Wilde to prison for "indecent behavior" to complete integration into society in 100 years, but it signals to me that a lot of progress has been made (in their terms) in that time.
on Jul 13, 2004
"How very tolerant of you to portray all Conservatives as bible thumping ignorant rednecks dedicated to limiting everyones freedom!"

A few Points.

1. I wasn't discussing 'All' Conservatives - that is a collectivization YOU are attempting in order to weaken the strength of my position. (Nice rhetorical trick, by the way. Stop it.) Nor, for that matter, was I 'dissing' ALL rednecks (many of whom are plenty good people. Lot of them are my ancestors). No. I was very specifically addressing - by name - a political constituency collectively known as the Socially Conservative Right. The anti-gay constitutional ammendment is specifically aimed at placating THIS constituency, so I do not feel I was off side addressing them.

2. As to decrying their policies - 'limiting everybody's freedom' - I call 'em as I see 'em. In what way does the 'Socially Conservative Right' constituency seek to enhance freedom? Examples?

3. In highlighting 'bigotry and ignorance' (satirically) I was simply responding to a series of remarks already posted in this discussion that I felt revealed bigotry or ignorance:

"...because as a deviant, one cannot expect to be embraced by the mainstream "vanilla" world. Tolerated to a degree, but legally legitimized?...its never going to happen."

"They chose to be left-handed, and live in sin."

" is there really anyone who thinks that gay marriage is the sort of thing our founding fathers had in mind to protect when they wrote the Constitution?" (Explicitly? No. In general? Absolutely. Please don't invoke the Founding Fathers before reading them...)

"...being gay is a choice you make about your life. Heterosexuality, vegetarianism, and a whole host of other things are lifestyle choices."

"being gay is a choice. You aren't born gay."

"Many do not have "the right" to marry, like brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, adults to minors, women and dogs, men and sheep" (like these are equivalent?)

"heterosexuality has an actual purpose in nature, where as homosexuality doesn't."

"I don't see how homosexual serves this purpose or any other" (then attempts a ham handed link to pedophilia and rape)

There's more. a barrage of thinly disguised venom and hatred. Yes, my responses have included some hyperbolic and unkind characterizations (wasn't feeling kind). However, I DID take the time to explain my various positions in between satrical one-liners (which were included for emphasis: For instance my 'red neck' trotting out the 'satanism's next' position is DIRECTLY equivalent - to my mind - with the gay marriage = deviancy, incest, bestiality and pedophilia arguments previously alluded to in this thread)

@little_whip: I note with interest that while you chose to highlight and respond to my satire (primarily by ascribing to me a number of beliefs and medical conditions I don't actually have), you elected to totally sidestep any of my comments of substance. Why is that?

4. "Tyranny of the Majority". Well known phrase used (first?) by Tocqueville to describe the homogenous moral and legislative force created by the psychology of democratic politics. The basic argument is that there is little toleration of divergent opinions in democratic societies because with short election cycles, elected legislators are beholden to the interests of this 'majority opinion'. Those with another opinion are typically left by the wayside.

Suggesting that we don't live in a REAL tyranny because nobody is actually shooting gays is simply changing my argument to one you can more easily discredit. (Nice rhetorical trick. Stop it.

I suggest you read Federalist 51: Madison (yikes! I'm invoking a founding father!) argues that one of the real dangers to democracy is the "oppressions of factious majorities" because the legislature is so exposed to the whims of the majority. He also suggests that it is of paramount importance for government (all branches) to protect the weak (religious and secular minorities) against the strong (majority).

Jefferson agreed: "the tyranny of legislature (in the United States) is the most formidable dread at present and will be for many years. That of the executive will come in its turn, but it will be at a remote period". I'm tempted to suggest that this 'remote period' is in progress too. Interesting that the founding fathers didn't identify the independant Judiciary as a potential 'tyrant', but rather the solution to this problem...

Baffled

BTW, I'm Anonymous because I was a lurker spontaneously moved to respond - and did so before quite figuring out HOW to establish an identity on this system (I kind of assumed that the process would occur as I replied - yeah, I was lazy). I remain anonymous largely through inertia... Besides, who knows how long I'll stay?
on Jul 13, 2004
Still don't know how long I'll stay...

But so be it. No longer anonymous.

Baffled
on Jul 13, 2004
But so be it. No longer anonymous.


Welcome Baffled.
on Jul 13, 2004
Well whadaya know...Tocqueville was the one who coined the phrase "Tyranny of the Majority". All this time I thought it was John Stuart Mill. Learn something new every day.

I noticed that Tocqueville died the same year that Mill's "On Liberty" was published...

Coincidence or Conspiracy?
on Jul 13, 2004
"Many do not have "the right" to marry, like brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, adults to minors, women and dogs, men and sheep" (like these are equivalent?)


So, if a brother and a sister are consenting adults who want to marry is completely different than a man and a man who want to marry? So, when somebody what two consenting adults do is their business, it's only when they're homosexual? Also, why only two consenting adults? What's wrong with three or four or ten? Homosexuals should already know that love isn't always just between one man and one woman.

Of course, I'm starting to guess that most gay marriage advocates are simply homosexualists who don't give a shit about anybody else being discriminated against.
on Jul 13, 2004

"So, if a brother and a sister are consenting adults who want to marry is completely different than a man and a man who want to marry?"

Heh - I kinda sidestepped that one earlier. Obvously this is a different kettle of fish from the marrying children or animals issue... I confess that I personally am bothered by the concept of two siblings marrying (hello? ew!), but I'm pretty sure that MY feelings on the subject is irrelevant to whether or not other consenting adults should have their options proscribed in law...

"Of course, I'm starting to guess that most gay marriage advocates are simply homosexualists who don't give a shit about anybody else being discriminated against."

I suspect you're correct to a certain degree. Although I'd argue that this is a failing they perhaps share with every other political group in pretty much every democracy...

I'm not generally a huge fan of sexual or 'identity' politics - It's far too confrontational and exclusive - being all about 'us' vs 'them'. My objection to a constitutional ammendment is based in my feelings regarding the system of checks and balances and my STRENUOUS opposition to Social Conservatism's sustained efforts to suborn the instruments of democracy to its purposes.

Baffled
on Jul 13, 2004
What if the federal government follows Vermont and Mass. lead and by federal statutes gives Civil Unions equal status under the law as marriage. Civil union, two people, no horses or third parties. Civil union, no religion, justice of the peace. Two people in a loving committed relationship that desire to be recognized by law with the same duties and responsibilities of rightie


Actually, most lefty support groups have made it QUITE clear that this is not an acceptable "compromise". The very WORD, it seems, is important to them. This gives me great pause to consider their agenda. While I believe the federal government should be out of the marriage business, the concern I have is that, with court victories, some churches will be forced to either allow lefties to marry or lose their 501 (c) 3 status (the precedent's already in place with the decree that churches may not preach politics from the pulpit). This would be a blatant first amendment violation. The best solution is to get the government the heck out of it, and allow churches to follow their interpretation of scripture and be accountable to God for themselves.
on Jul 13, 2004
How very tolerant of you to portray all Conservatives as bible thumping ignorant rednecks dedicated to limiting everyones freedom! Youre right, and anyone disagreeing with you is not only wrong, but a a facist, uneducated, religious fanatic...take a valium, dude, we're only talking about queers tying the knot here, and watching your rage escalate leads me to believe you suffer from heartburn, ulcers, and high blood pressure, as well as a bigoted view towards those who feel differently, and an extreme closedmindedness to any opposition.


Thank you, LW...It is getting so that whites, males, Christians, and conservatives are the only acceptable targets for discrimination.
on Jul 14, 2004
"BIGOT! How dare you deny sibling love and attempt to shove your morality down others' throats? Stay out of other peoples bedroom! Whats "eww" about 2 consenting adults doing whatever they want, hmmm? Why shouldnt they be allowed to marry, for that matter?"

Read the whole post. Heck with that, just read the rest of the PARAGRAPH.

Cherry picking comments and quoting them so completely out of context is an even cruddier argumentative technique than the other junk used hereabouts. Precious little effort to discuss the substantive material. Lots of room there too - gay marriage is NOT a simple issue. Plenty of valid arguments available to the 'other side'. I'd point 'em out, but it ain't MY job.

As to tearing my arguments apart? I'm sure it's possible, but as neither you nor anyone else seems inclined to engage said arguments, I'm afraid that'll just have to remain your little 'masturbatory fantasy'**.

Look. That there is what's known as an 'ad hominen argument'. It borders on the abusive, in fact. Not unlike several of your comments towards me. Argumentatively, it's not so effective, as it attempts to weaken your position (that I will have my arguments torn apart) by casting aspersions on your character.

Now, near as I can figure, your 'position' is that gays SHOULD be prevented from marrying through the device of a constitutional ammendment narrowly defining marriage to exclude them. I'm extrapolating a bit; more accurately, you characterized homosexuality as 'deviant' and implied that gays should be happy with what they have and be more 'considerate' of the feelings of straight folk (the majority).

I believe I engaged those points: Deviance? Arguably not. Rather common, demonstrably 'natural', and ubiquitous. Possibly even serving legitimate evolutionary and societal purposes. Minority kowtowing to unreasonable demands of a factious majority? Heck no. Checks and balances, independant judiciary, citations from the fathers of your federation... Effort goes into that, you know. Sure, it looks easy, but I still gotta reference the citations...

Responded to with: 'Bigot!' 'Heartburn! 'Ulcers!' 'Intolerance!' Yah. Okay. Whatever...

So folks, is this the customary level of discourse? Perhaps this comment area is just an informal poseur venue not suited to serious conversation? In which case I'm just being a silly newbie and it ain't worth my time or yours.

Although, it was such a CLEVER article... Swift woulda been proud of you CrispE.

Moving from Baffled to Irritated


** for those thinking I'm going WAY offside here, I'm quoting miss whip. She previously suggested that gays could cope with their 'deviance' by relegating their desires to 'masturbatory fantasy'. Considering that this immediately followed her equating homosexuality with pedophilia, I'm not inclined to pull punches...
on Jul 14, 2004

"the concern I have is that, with court victories, some churches will be forced to either allow lefties to marry or lose their 501 (c) 3 status"

Now that's a pretty darn valid concern.

I DO see the precedent you cite (the prohibition against politicking from the pulpit) as a 'good thing' because it helps reinforce the neccesary (to my mind) separation of Church and State. Heck, I'd like to see a whole lot MORE separation... That said, however, I think it would be a spectacularly BAD thing to impose a governmental definition of marriage on churches.

If lefty members of a congregation wish to lobby their church heirarchy - that's cool. Internal matter. If a church wants to change their own policies - great. Imposed from without by government? A matter of faith dictated by secular power?! Hell no!


Baffled
on Jul 14, 2004
Little Whip, does your name refer to an ice cream treat, an S&M toy, or both?
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5