jump to example.com
zeus
newsletter linked in

Marriage amendment sponsor Bob Marshall on court ruling

Published Monday, Jul. 28, 2014, 4:58 pm
Filed under Sports

Join AFP's 112,000 followers on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube
Connect with AFP editor Chris Graham on LinkedIn
News tips, press releases, letters to the editor: augustafreepress2@gmail.com
For advertising inquiries, contact us at freepress@ntelos.net.

bob marshallIn the long run, advocates and defenders of so-called same sex marriage are their own best undertakers for their hubris in attempting to deny and defy the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” by which nations and cultures around the world have recognized for millennia that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.

Although former Justice William O. Douglas explained that, “The Fourteenth Amendment was passed to give blacks first-class citizenship,” two Richmond federal judges ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment, written in the blood of 600,000+ Americans, was passed to establish same sex “marriage” as a civil right based on immoral behavior including acts that disqualify individuals from giving blood.

Judges Robert Gregory and Henry Floyd are ignorant of the purpose of the 14th Amendment, and arrogant to think they have the moral and legal authority to negate the votes of 1.3 million Virginia voters who gave their approval in 2006 to Virginia’s one-man, one-woman Marshall-Newman Marriage Amendment.

Judges Gregory and Floyd, who opine that two men or two women may “marry” each other do not define what they mean by “marriage,” don’t explain what consummates a homosexual “marriage” or why their decision does not support polygamy or marriages between adults and children “who love each other.” Will three lesbian women in Massachusetts, a “throuple,” move to Virginia to have their aberrant “marriage” relationship sanctioned by Judges Gregory and Floyd?

Massive legal and social coercion will be used by GLBT advocates to secure compliance with their amoral agenda. Photographers and bakers are being fined or forced to provide services to same sex “marriages” against their conscience. The “Human Rights Campaign” is now defending teachers fired from Catholic schools after marrying same-sex partners. Pastors who refuse to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies will be sued, as has happened in the UK. Church charities that feed, clothe, house, and care for the less fortunate will suffer as these lawsuits increase.

The Bob Jones Supreme Court decision upheld IRS denial of tax exempt status because the school violated “public policy” by imposing race distinctions among students. The lgbt lobby claims refusing same-sex marriage is akin to discrimination based on skin color, when in reality sexual behavior is not the same as race. Equality of persons is not the same as equality of behavior.

If judicial elites impose a radical and immoral marriage regime on American citizens in defiance of the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” the result would be to tear the social fabric in ways that can scarcely be imagined, nor contained by judicial arrogance.

Bob Marshall is a member of the Virginia House of Delegates.



  • Guest

    Nope. Get over it INGRATE.

  • Guest

    Hey ingrate Rob Marshall; the savages of the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and Al Qaeda agree with you on this. You are the company you keep.

  • Matthew 6:5

    Sucks to be a BIGOT these days!

  • Bob_Barnes

    This man is an embarrassment to Virginia and humanity.

  • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nancy-elliott-anti-gay-ne_n_460544.html Former Representative Elliott

    Arguments against marriage equality are predominantly based on religious views. Given that our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion also protects those seeking freedom from religion, Bible, Torah or Koran-based arguments against marriage equality have no validity in this discussion. People of faith can and should exercise their Constitutional right to follow chosen religious doctrine, but cannot seek to impose that doctrine on others through rule of law. This is how we protect religious freedom for everyone.

    • jonathonmoseley

      No they are not. That is a distraction to evade the point. Arguments against fake homosexual non-marriages is based upon biology and thousands of years of human experience.

      • http://hunteratrandom.blogspot.com/ rmthunter

        Nope — they’re based on religious dogma.

        Marriage is a cultural construct, pure and simple. To paraphrase Joseph W. Campbell, “Marriage is the recognition by the community of the establishment of a new household.” Nothing in there about biology or anything else. It’s the community’s acknowledgement of a couple taking on the status of a social unit.

        • jonathonmoseley

          Marriage is a biological construct, pure and simple.

          • http://hunteratrandom.blogspot.com/ rmthunter

            If that’s the case, we should be seeing marriages all over the animal kingdom.

            And by the way, who would perform those ceremonies?

          • jonathonmoseley

            Actually, we DO see marriages in the animal kingdom among those species with complex enough brains and behavior.

          • http://hunteratrandom.blogspot.com/ rmthunter

            Name one.

          • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nancy-elliott-anti-gay-ne_n_460544.html Former Representative Elliott

            Is that why we require married couples to procreate or surrender their marriage license?

            Oh wait, we don’t do that.

          • jonathonmoseley

            Well, a Puritan village in early Massachusetts banished and exiled a husband from the Puritan settlement because he was not having sex with his wife. That’s history.

            But your objection is ineffective.

            First the concept of marriage is created by the biological existence of male and female which is necessary for reproduction.

            While those relationsihsp can be enjoyable, it is not created for recreation. That’s a side benefit, not the purpose.

            Second, we create an environment where children can be raised in the most successful environment.

            We recognize that if people are forced to have chidlren, it is not good for the children.

            So we encourage, but do not require, an environment that is supportive of the children.

            Thrid, it is the children who matter — not the adults.

          • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nancy-elliott-anti-gay-ne_n_460544.html Former Representative Elliott

            So your suggestion is that marriage is a child centric construct? If that were the case, we would not provide marriage licenses to those unwilling or unable to procreate. This would include those who are sterile, couples that marry in their 50s or later and those that simply do not want any children, among others.

            I’ll cut to the chase, your argument has been shot down in Federal Court more than a dozen times in the last year.

            Admit it. You simply don’t like gay people.

          • jonathonmoseley

            Anyone who does not consider marriage as for the benefit of the chidlrein is an asshole.

            Tell that to the children.

            However, society recognizes that it is not in the best interest of chidlren to force people to have children they don’t want.

            So we create the circumstances and environment htat is most conducive to benefiting chidlren — includiing the variable that whenever possible it is better when parents want to be parents than feel forced into it.

            We also recognize that two people gorwing old together go through many changes.

            We have enough experience with human society to recognzie that it doesn’t matter at the time people get married what they have in mind about children.

            A couple who swears on the day of their marriage that they don’t want to have children will probably end up a few years later having 3.

          • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nancy-elliott-anti-gay-ne_n_460544.html Former Representative Elliott

            Clearly obtaining an education in the law was not money well spent, was it.

          • jonathonmoseley

            See, remmber that we keep saying that marriage between a man and a woman is based on thousands of years of real-life experience.

            We are not doing this on the basis of faculty lounge hypotheticals.

            In
            the real world, we know that two people getting married at age 25 DON’T
            KNOW what they will want to do at age 30 five yeras later.

            So the idea of talking about what peopel ITNED at the time they get married ignores thousands of years of real-world experience.

            If
            we create an environment in which children benefit, we cannot guarantee
            or see the future in a crystal ball. But we know that this approach
            overall is what is best for children in genral… even if some parents
            might not participate.

            We understand the correct balance from thousands of years of experience.

            By
            contrast, you want to crush children under your boot in the rush to
            selfishly indulge your own personal feelings in total disregard of
            everyone else.

          • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nancy-elliott-anti-gay-ne_n_460544.html Former Representative Elliott

            Well whatever delusions you want to believe are fine with me. But the reality is that in June 2015, marriage equality will be the law of the land. SCOTUS will see to that. They have declared marriage to be a fundamental right 14 times since 1888. Next year will be number 15.

            Until then, if you want to proffer your ineffective arguments, have at it. But they don’t mean a thing. They don’t hold up in court.

          • jonathonmoseley

            The US Supreme Court has already ruled on this question. There is no constitutional right to pervert traditional marriage.

            So all of those homosexual marriages will be invalidated in 2015.

            Now, a State CAN authorize homosexual marriage if it wants… and many States will.

            But there is no Federal involvement or right to FORCE — the asshole thing again — States to accept homosexual marriage if they choose not to.

          • jonathonmoseley

            As for the Federal courts, no. Like Virginia, the cases were not opposed.

            If the Junior Varsity football team shows up to play the Super Bowl, they can win the Super Bowl if the other team doesn’t show up.

            The whole point of Marshall’s analysis is that Virginia’s Attorney General did not defend the Constitutional amendment voted into law by the people of Virginia.

            Admit it: You hate everyone. Virginia’s voters voted for traditional marraige. And you hate them.

          • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nancy-elliott-anti-gay-ne_n_460544.html Former Representative Elliott

            Your childish arguments demonstrate the fact that you know you have no basis of an argument. You’re just whining now.

            What a waste of a legal education.

          • jonathonmoseley

            So your suggestion is that marriage is a child centric construct? If
            that were the case, we would not provide marriage licenses to those
            unwilling or unable to procreate”

            Sure we would. First, at the time a couple gets a marriage license, what they have in mind is likely to change. After thousands of years of experience with marriage as a human institution, we know that children are likely to result — regardless of what a couple may think at the time they first get married. 5, 10, 15 years later, they will probably have children. Second, forcing people to have children is bad for the children. Again, thousands of years of experience tells us that we should provide an environment that is child-friendly and then leave people alone to do their own thing. That is what is best for children.

            It is an outrageous offense to think about any aspect of marriage while focusing on the selfishness of the adults and ignoring the needs of dependent children.

          • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nancy-elliott-anti-gay-ne_n_460544.html Former Representative Elliott

            Actually, my suggestion is that a disgraced has been attorney with a foreclosure on the books has no business telling anyone how to live. God bless.

      • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nancy-elliott-anti-gay-ne_n_460544.html Former Representative Elliott

        Well, yes, yes they are. Sorry you missed civics class.

        It’s never to late to educate!

  • http://hunteratrandom.blogspot.com/ rmthunter

    Notice how Marshall and those in his camp keep referring to “sexual behavior” and refuse to acknowledge the existence of sexual orientation. Of course, if they did, there goes their “gay is not like race” argument. (And when you stop to think about it, by their standard, “gay” is like “Christian” — a matter of choice. Too bad it’s not like that in real life.)

    As for the “will of the voters” argument, it’s a well-established principle of American law that the rights of minorities are not subject to popular vote. It’s equally well-established that civil marriage to the person of one’s choice is a fundamental right. Do the math, Del. Marshall.

    And of course, Marshall knows what the Constitution means better than those whose job it is to interpret it.

    I sympathize with Virginians, who have to put up with someone like this actually being in a position to legislate. We have them in Illinois, too, but they tend not to last long in public office.

    • jonathonmoseley

      “Sexual orientation” as you portray it here is scientifically and medically impossible. This is another example of scientific illiteracy by liberals / progressives. If there were a genetic basis for sexual orientation, (1) it would have to have arisen at some point in time and place, (2) it would quickly die out because it would direclty hinder reproductive success. “Quickly” might mean hundreds of years perhaps a thousand years — if it ever got widely spread, which could not have occurred in the first place. It could never have gotten widely distributed, but there would still be a dramatic disadvantage in reproductive transmission of the genetic variation. (3) Sexual orientation — in the way that you mean it here, that is a genetic predisposition — COULD NOT be evenly distributed throughout the world’s human population. It would be highly concentrated in the local population where the variation originated. So we would see wide disparities from one part of the world to another, (4) The genetic variation would be sharply declining over time. But the historical record suggests the opposite. The level of same-sex attraction has always been about the same — at about 3% of the population. So the concept of sexual orientation as having some basis other than personal choice and emotional development clashes with the scientific and medical facts. It is an impossibility.

      • http://hunteratrandom.blogspot.com/ rmthunter

        You seem to have a very simplistic view of the bases of human behavior and of evolution.

        Human behavioral traits often go through what is called a “stair-step” development: from a genetic/biochemical foundation, there are a series of “if-then” steps that will lead to the full expression of the trait. In the case of sexual orientation, it’s pretty well established that a combination of inheritance and prenatal environment create the template.

        As for the evolutionary aspect, we are social animals. Start with kin selection, in which members of a population do not reproduce but instead devote themselves to the care of a sibling’s offspring — as in bees, ants, and social wasps; also wolf packs, in which only the alpha pair breed, but the pack as a whole, including cubs from previous litters, helps in raising the cubs. The bonus for the caretaker is that the probability of half his/her genetic heritage being pass on is increased. Since that genetic inheritance will likely include whatever genes control sexual orientation, your rapidly dying out hypothesis is pretty dead.

        Your comments on distribution are way off base. Based on the evidence of mitochondrial DNA, we are all descended from a small group of women who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago, so all that was needed was for one of them to be carrying the genes for same-sex orientation. Given kin selection and the increased probability of that set of genes being passed on, there’s no reason to suppose the trait could not be spread throughout the various human populations — exogamy insures that there is an interchange of genetic inheritance between neighboring populations.

        Why on earth would you expect the trait to sharply decline over time? That’s like expecting left-handedness or blue eyes to sharply decline over time.

        Nice try, but it’s full of holes.

        • jonathonmoseley

          Nice try at filling up the room with lots of meaningless words to try to hide the central truths.

          “Why on earth would you expect the trait to sharply decline over time?”

          Uh, DUHHH…. Because the trait directly and significantly decreases the likelihood of reproduction.

          That is the central concept of evoltuion.

          Any family line carrying a (hypothesized) genetic mutation that produces homosexual orientation will necessarily have fewer offspring than a famly line without the hypothetical genetic mutation.

          Now, it is true that the likelihood of offspring does not drop to zero for a variety of social reasons. Homosexuals may nevertheless have children for a variety of social or cultural reasons.

          But the very D E F I N I T I O N of homosexuality is a lack of desire for the opposite sex and a desire for the same sex instead.

          The very D E F I N I T I O N of homosexuality necessarily and unavaoidably means that a person of homosexual orientation will have fewer children on average than a heterosexual, with a very large proportion of homosexuals having ZERO offspring.

          Simple mathematics of reproduction would massively drive any genetic disposition towards desiring the same sex toward extinction.

          A genetic disposition toward homosexualiy woudl be extinct within perhaps 1,000 years at most.

          • http://hunteratrandom.blogspot.com/ rmthunter

            Well, it obviously isn’t.

            Nice try.

          • jonathonmoseley

            “Well, it obviously isn’t.”

            I assume you mean homoexauality is not decreasing over time and going extinct.

            THEREFORE… homosexuality is NOT genetically based.

            The incidence of homosexuality is constant — at an extremely low level (about 1% of the population) throughout time and throughout the world and throughout all ethnic groups.

            THEREFORE… it must be developmental… not genetic or biological.

          • http://hunteratrandom.blogspot.com/ rmthunter

            Wrong again. Try reading up on some of the work that’s been done in this area.

          • jonathonmoseley

            I seek the truth, not propaganda

          • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nancy-elliott-anti-gay-ne_n_460544.html Former Representative Elliott

            You seek to cultivate a view that includes people choosing to be LGBT so that you can justify your personal animus towards them. There’s absolutely no “truth” required for that.

            Frankly, it’s all rather transparent.

          • jonathonmoseley

            I seek the truth and reality.

            There can be no biological or genetic basis for homosexuality.

            It doesn’t mater if you like it or not.

            It doesn’t matter if I like it or not.

            It is what it is.

            Truth is truth. Reality is reality.

            All sexuality is too complex to say it is a “choice” in the sense that someone gets up one day and decides to change their sexual orientation. The psychological development of human sexuality is highly complex and involves a thousand small choices and events over one’s life.

            But if you try to argue a genetic basis for homosexuality, you are just annoucning your ignorance of science and how evolution works.

          • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nancy-elliott-anti-gay-ne_n_460544.html Former Representative Elliott

            What’s your point then? Why do you even care? What difference does it make to you if gays and lesbians marry?

          • jonathonmoseley

            Well, primarly because gays and lesbians are Nazis who demand that everyone else agree with them.

            However, secondarily, gay marriage is damaging to children.

            My family was good friends with two homosexual man, who are now dead, so I have no problem talking about them. They have no children, obviously.

            My brother met Bartis & Partington at prep school. They helped both my brother and my sister launch their careers, inclding helping my sister get on Broadway.

            When my Dad helped a widow in Florida who just lost her husband finish the job of developing a VERY, VERY small development, Bartis & Partington bought the lot next door to ours, and build a house right next door to us. THey followed us from Massachusetts to Florida.

            We sometimes shared Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner — although most often traveling to family elewhere. We sometimes went over to their house or they came over to our house.

            They started an Italian gelato shop and we sent out of our way to stop by and get ice cream, even though it was very expensive as a boutique.

            Howver, Bartis & Partingont would be HORRIFED if they were still alive at the fascist, Nazi, dictatorial behavior of gays and lesbians today.

            They lived their lives as a couple. Everyone knew it. It was obvious. NOBODY CARED.

            But they didn’t go around sticking their thumb in people’s eye, demanding that people comply with their life choices, approve of them, etc.

            Bartis & Partington lived their own life and just couldn’t give half a damn what anyone else thought about them, and didn’t waste a second of their life thinking about or worrying about anyone else.

            The idea of forcing someone to make a wedding cake or photograph a gay wedding woudl HORRIFY them if they were still alive.

            They would have picked up a sign and protested AGAINST the homosexual Nazis trying to force some poor baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

            They were small businessmen and they woudl sympathize with thebusiness owner struggling to run his or her own busienss without being pushed around.

            I know this because the town where we lived had a busy-body government and they hated the intrusiveness as mucha s we did.

          • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nancy-elliott-anti-gay-ne_n_460544.html Former Representative Elliott

            It’s painfully obvious that you’re only happy with gays when they live their life in the closet. Maybe Bartis & Partington were happy living as 2nd class citizens, but now that ignorant views about gays are no longer accepted, gay folks now aren’t going to do that.

            Even the stupidest attorney knows that wills and legal directives are not a substitute for marital kinship. Certainly would’t prevent Bartis from paying inheritance tax on half of the couples combined estate value when Partington died. These days, that’s just not acceptable anymore.

            As for the baker, again, any knowledgeable attorney would understand why public accommodation and non-discrimination laws might cause an anti-gay baker, photog or innkeeper who is open to the public, to be in jeopardy when they deny service to gays.

            Frankly it is crystal clear that you’d prefer that the uppity gays went back in the closet and out of your face.

            Grow up. And grow a pair!

          • jonathonmoseley

            “It’s painfully obvious that you’re only happy with gays when they live
            their life in the closet. Maybe Bartis & Partington were happy
            living as 2nd class citizens”

            But they were NOT in the closet.

            They simply were not assholes.

            Bartis & Partington lived very conspicuously as a homosexual couple going back to the 1960’s if not earlier. Everybody knew it. They did not hide it. It was incredibly obvious.

            But they were not assholes about it.

            They did not seek to FORCE themselves on everyone else around them.

            They did not seek to FORCE people to approve of their lifestyle. Frankly the very idea of giving half a damn whether anyone approved of them or not would have been amusing and ridiculous to them.

          • jonathonmoseley

            “As for the baker, again, any knowledgeable attorney would understand why
            public accommodation and non-discrimination laws might cause an
            anti-gay baker, photog or innkeeper who is open to the public, to be in
            jeopardy when they deny service to gays”

            A baker is NOT a “public accomodation.”

            The laws and precedents upholding them are focused on INDISPENSABLE / NECESSARY services, such as transportation, food, and housing.

            A baker is not a “public accomodation.”

            Nor is a photographer.

            Particularly, when there are plenty of other bakers and photographers who would be happy to have the business.

            The problem is that the modern homosexual movement (which is made up most of NON-homosexuals who are just assholes) are NAZIS.

            It isn’t the homosexual part that is offensive.

            It is the Nazi ashhole factor that is offensive.

          • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nancy-elliott-anti-gay-ne_n_460544.html Former Representative Elliott

            There, there, now. Why don’t you take a minute to wipe down your spittle-flecked computer monitor. It’s obvious that you can’t see clearly.

          • jonathonmoseley

            And by the way, this was in the time period 25-40 years ago. They did JUST FINE, thank you very much. They had everything they needed. They bought the house together. THey had wilsl, medical directives.

            They lacked for nothing. 25-40 years ago.

            They just lived their lives instead of running around poking everyone else with a stick.

          • http://hunteratrandom.blogspot.com/ rmthunter

            “Truth is truth. Reality is reality.”

            It’s quite obvious from your comments here that you have only the most tenuous relationship with either, if any.

          • http://hunteratrandom.blogspot.com/ rmthunter

            No, you just want your prejudices reinforced. Truth has nothing to do with it.

        • jonathonmoseley

          Consider your example of one or a few coomon ancestor(s) a long time ago. How do a few people turn into many? Did anyone teach you the bird and the bees growing up? Babies are NOT brought by a stork. Women do not get pregnant from sitting on a toilet seat.

          So HOW would 1 or a few people 200,000 years ago turn into many people today?

          Reproduction.

          But a lack of desire for the opposite sex, by its very nature, means that anyone lacking a desire for the opposite sex would have either ZERO offspring or at best FEWER offspring than those who desire the opposite sex — which is designed for reproduction.

          So any family line carrying a genetic mutation for homosexuality

          a) Would never become as numerous to begin with as those family lines without the genetic mutation.

          b) Would quickly wither and die out.

          Remember that for most of human history, life was on a knife’s edge of survival. Staying alive was a minor miracle, not the luxury we have todya.

          High infant mortality required MANY children just so that 1 or 2 children might actually live to adulthood, to childbearing age, to have children of their own.

          A competition for food and resources and hunting grounds might often create a ZERO-SUM game in which two family lines could not both survive. It would be one or the other. So a family line under the pressure of lower reproduction caused by a lack of desire for the opposite sex woudl come under pressure in the competition for resources, food, hunting grounds, living space, etc., and might be wiped out in battles between competing tribes due to its smaller numbers.

          So the idea that any genetic variation that coudl have existed coudl still survive today is a fanciful fairy tale — for which there is absoultely ZERO evidence whatsoever.

          • http://hunteratrandom.blogspot.com/ rmthunter

            Like I said, you have a very simplistic view of not only evolution, but human behavior. Have you never heard of recessive genes? It’s quite possible that any genetic basis for homosexuality is recessive, and so doesn’t express itself in every generation. The whole scenario of the “family of lower reproduction” is nonsense on that basis alone.

            And as you point out, survival of the offspring is very important. Kin selection, again — if one member of a group is not having children, but is helping his or her siblings raise theirs, there’s a much better chance of survival. We’re not dealing with nation states here — we’re dealing with small bands of hunter/foragers, probably with fairly clearly defined territories and patterns of migration.

            Nor does lack of desire preclude reproduction — there are any number of gay men and lesbians with children from previous heterosexual relationships. Human behavior is complex enough, with enough variable influences, that I very much doubt that any particular behavior is entirely genetically determined; there always seems to be a social/cultural element, and if the culture says you have children, you have children. (Incidentally, in ancient Irish law, one of the grounds for a woman to divorce her husband was that he ignored her in favor of his male lover.)

            As for zero evidence for any such variation surviving up to now, are you serious? There’s plenty of evidence that genes play a role in sexual orientation. The problem is that researchers aren’t sure how big a role, or exactly which genes are involved, but it’s pretty clear that there’s a genetic component.

          • jonathonmoseley

            Nope, I have a scientific understanding vastly superior to yours.

            “Have you never heard of recessive genes?”

            Yes, that is why it might take 1,000 years — rather than a single generation — for the genetic mutation to become extinct.

            Without the operation of recessive genes, it would take 1 or at most 2 generations for the genetic mutation to die out.

            And consider in that regard that the quantity of persons carrying the gene would NEVER grow, so very few people would ever carry the genetic variation tos tart with.

            With the operation of recessiv egenes, at the most, it might take let’s guess 22 generations or about 1,000 years for the genetic line to die out.

            Even with the operation fo a — possible — recessive gene, the quantity of peopel carrying the gene woudl never grow large.

            You are talking about a genetic mutation which direclty REDUCES the rate of reproduction by eliminating the desire for sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex, in which reproduction might be possible.

            The only influence causing reproduction would be purely social pressures.

            However, we are also talking about periods of human history with very high rates of infant and child mortality and low survival rates of adults.

            Therefore, unless a homosexual has MANY children, the chance that ANY would survive to grow to adult child-bearing age is nearly zero.

            So the total spread of the genetic variation would never have beocme extensive in the first place…. increasing the speed at which it woudl die out and become extinct.

            That’s what it means when you actually understand real science instead of just political correctness dressed up with a rented lab coat.

          • http://hunteratrandom.blogspot.com/ rmthunter

            “Nope, I have a scientific understanding vastly superior to yours.”

            That’s the funniest comment you’ve made so far.

          • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nancy-elliott-anti-gay-ne_n_460544.html Former Representative Elliott

            Especially coming from a low rent DWI defense and ambulance chaser who writes the same trash for Matt Barber’s awful site. Absolutely no reason to take this guy seriously.

            http://www.defenseforvirginia.com

          • http://hunteratrandom.blogspot.com/ rmthunter

            Writes for Barber? That explains the jaw-dropping ignorance trying to pass itself off as superiority.

          • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nancy-elliott-anti-gay-ne_n_460544.html Former Representative Elliott

            Absolutely. And then there’s this which should come as no surprise…

            http://www.vsb.org/docs/Moseley_07-28-09.pdf

            Six month suspension by the Virginia Bar due to misconduct.

          • http://hunteratrandom.blogspot.com/ rmthunter

            Quite honestly, I’d be more concerned if he were my attorney by his demonstrated inability to construct a coherent argument based on facts.

          • jonathonmoseley

            “Nor does lack of desire preclude reproduction — there are any number of
            gay men and lesbians with children from previous heterosexual
            relationships.”

            Yes, I already allowed for that. Again, that is why a genetic variation causing a homosexual orientation could last for as long as 1,000 years.

            If a lack of desire for the opposite sex precluded reproduction, then it would take only 1 or 2 generations for the genetic variation to die out.

            The fact that homosexuals CAN reproduce, driven mostly by purely social pressures, coudl keep the gentic variaion alive for as much as 1,000 years.

            But it would be continually decreasing over time, and it would become extinct.

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            “As for zero evidence for any such variation surviving up to now, are you serious?”

            Yes. There is no evidence whatsoever nor any rationality to the idea that homosexuality has any biological or genetic basis.

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            “Kin selection, again — if one member of a group is not having
            children, but is helping his or her siblings raise theirs, there’s a
            much better chance of survival”

            But those people do not pass along their genes.

            Helping someone else’s children sruvive helps *THEIR* genes propagate, but does NOT propage the genes of the helper.

            So what you hypothesize woudl actually ACCELERATE the process of those who lack the genetic variation for homoexual orientation reproducing and the extinction of anyone carrying the homoesxual orientation gene.

            So if a person with homosexual orientation helps heterosexual parents care for their children, then the genes without homoexuality are reproduced and spread, while the genetic basis for homoexualiity goes extinct.

          • http://hunteratrandom.blogspot.com/ rmthunter

            Kin selection — you obviously don’t understand the concept. As Icarus pointed out above, it’s a fundamental aspect of the success of social insects and plays a key role in the survival of social animals in general. Some individuals do not reproduce, but devote their efforts toward insuring the survival of their siblings’ offspring, thus also ensuring that as much as 50% of their own genetic heritage is passed on.

            Evidence for genetic basis — sorry, mere assertions don’t constitute proof of anything. You’ll have to try harder. Maybe it would help if you actually learned something about the topic.

          • jonathonmoseley

            “Some individuals do not reproduce, but devote their efforts toward insuring the survival of their siblings’ offspring, thus also ensuring that as much as 50% of their own genetic heritage is passed on.”

            with the result — assuming all of that — that the non-reproducing persons genetic composition is NOT passed on.

            Again, you fail to recognize tha the trait in question both (1) DIRECTLY and (2) VERY POWERFULLY reduces the rate of rerpdoctuion.

            We are not talking about hair color or nose size or eye color.

            If there were a genetic variation that reduced fertility of heterosexuals to 20% of normal rates of reproduction, that genetic mutation would quickly die out and become extinct.

            That is the meaning of evolution.

            But that is the problem. You don’t understand evolution while claiming to believe in it.

          • http://hunteratrandom.blogspot.com/ rmthunter

            “with the result — assuming all of that — that the non-reproducing persons genetic composition is NOT passed on.”

            Wrong again. Siblings share a genetic heritage. Therefore, in kin selection, half of the non-reproducing person’s genetic heritage is passed on, including a 50% chance for the recessive gene that affects sexual orientation. The more children the sibling has, and the more who reach maturity (through the efforts of the non-reproducing sibling), the higher the possibility of the genetic predisposition toward same-sex attraction being passed along.

      • Jim Smith

        Jonathan – please tell us about your choice to be straight. When it happened, what your considerations were, what it would take to change your mind. If it’s a choice for gays, must have been a choice for you too. We can’t wait to hear all about it.

        • jonathonmoseley

          Homsexual instincts, desires, and behavior patterns ARE genetically determined and driven, because they are central to human reproduction. Sexuality is complex, and is not the product of one single chromosome. Heterosexual instincts, desires, emotions, motivations, and behavior are deeply rooted throughout human biology, not just from one single chromosome.

          Sexuality is closely related to reproduction.

          Without the goal of reproduction, NO sexuality would exist of ANY kind.

          However, for homosexuality to be genetically driven,

          1) There would have to be a CHANGE in the genetic coding of human DNA.

          2) That change would quickly die out across a few generations because a genetic disposition toward homosexuality is anti-thetical to reproduction. So those with the gentic change would have fewer offspring than those with the original gentic programming of heterosexual reproduction,.

          If a genetic variation occurred creating homosexuality, it would be extinct within a few hundred to a thousand years.

          3) The genetic variation woudl be concentrated in that part of the world where the geentic mutation began.

          4) The genetic variation would be concentrated in the ethnic group in which the genetic mutation began.

          5) The incidence of homosexuality would be decreasing over time.

          However, sexuality is both complex and affected by personal emotional and psychological development.

          Therefore, one does not have to choose to be heterosexual. That is the original programming of the human body.

          However, homosexuality cannot be genetic or biologically based. The evidence proves otherwise.

          But emotional and psychological development is complex and can produce non-standard sexual desires and behaviors.

          That may or may not be a matter of “chioce” but it usually does involve a thousand little choices tha we all make all during our lives which adds up to who we are.

          • Icarus62

            Your reasoning is flawed. Many successful species have non-reproducing individuals – most of the social insects, for example. The genetic predisposition that leads to avoiding reproduction is passed on in the individuals which do reproduce, and is therefore perpetuated.

          • jonathonmoseley

            Your reasoning is flawed.

            Your first mistake is that a genetic disposition toward non-reprodcutive desire for the same sex — being contrary to the fundamental mechanism of human reproduction — HAD TO BEGIN SOMEWHERE.

            That community within which the genetic variation arose would die out — particularly under the severe survival pressures existing during most of human history. Infant mortaliaty was very high, life spans were short, disease untreated, food hard to come by.

            The trait in question directly lowers the rate of reproduction. One who does not desire the opposite sex will have fewer children or no children.

            Therefore, any family line carrying the hypothesized genetic variation would become extinct, while other family lines would multiply and take over.

            Communites without the homosexuality gene would multiply more rapidly, take over territory and resources, and crowd out the smaller, slower-growing communities harboring the genetic variation.

            So the hypothesized trait would become extinct within perhaps 1,000 years. (If we assume that almost everyone either has children or doesn’t by age 45 — particularly at times in human history when most people didn’t live longer than 40 – 60 years total — 1,000 years is about 22 generations.)

          • Icarus62

            You’re just repeating the same reasoning that I’ve already debunked, above.

          • jonathonmoseley

            All liberals / progressives just say “I don’t agree” and then claim to have debunked what they don’t agree on.

            Your understanding of science is weak.

            You claim to believe in evoltuion — but do not even understand what you claim to believe in. You don’t know how it works. You don’t know what it means.

            You suggest individuals within a species that do not reprodcue.

            But if the REASON they do not reprodcue is because they carry a particular trait, then that trait will die out and become extinct.

            If all members of a species carry the same traits, but some individuals do not reproduce, then there is no impact with regard to any particular trati.

            But if a trait CAUSES lower reproduction, than those carrying the anti-reproduction trait will die out over time.

            Your reasoning is flawed in part because you refuse to recognize that the trait in question — lack of desire for the opposite sex, leading to reproduction — directly reduces the rate of reproduction for those carrying the trait.

          • Icarus62

            In the social insects, the workers are non-reproducing females. By your reasoning, the social insects cannot exist because the genes for non-reproducing females would quickly die out. However, this doesn’t happen because the genes for non-reproducing females are passed on through the individuals which do reproduce. This is why your reasoning is flawed.

          • jonathonmoseley

            NO, because this system is the *ONLY* genetic structure of those insects. That is the norm.

            What you cannot wrap your head around is the fact that heterosexual desire, orientation, social behavior and activity are all INTRICATELY involved in humanity as the means of reproduction.

            By contrast, an attraction to the opposite sex and corresponding lack of desire or at least reduced desire for the reproductively-effective opposite sex is a CHANGE from that basic design.

            In the example you cite, 100% of all social insects carry the same genetic make-up, so every reproducing individual passes along the same genetic plan.

            But for a genetic basis for homosexuality to exist, there must be TWO (2) diffferent genetic plans — 1 for heterosexuals, 1 for homosexuals.

            Given that there are 2 different genetic designs, and one reproduces and the second does not reproduce, the non-reproducing genetic plan must necessarily die out and become extinct.

            Consider this: If you had a genetic mutation so that women were born with non-functioning wombs and were unable to reproduce, what would happen to that genetic mutation? It would NOT be passed on to offspring, because women with a non-functioning womb do not reproduce.

            THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION YOU PRETEND TO BELIEVE IN… but do not comprehend.

            Now, it is true that SOME genes — not all — COULD be present as recessive genes, MAYBE. Therefore, the genetic trait might gradually disappear over time, instead of stopping in one generation, full stop, like hitting a wall at 70 MPH.

            The extinction could be gradual instead of sudden.

            But any genetic trait which DIRECTLY reduces the rate at which a family line reproduces to pass on its genes, must necessarily cause that genetic trait to shrink in frequency until it vanishes into extinction.

          • Icarus62

            You haven’t given us any reason to think that a genetic trait which results in homosexuality would necessarily shrink in frequency, just because homosexuals would tend to be non-reproducing. That’s the whole point of the analogy with social insects. The genetic trait for non-reproducing females in the social insects hasn’t shrunk in frequency, has it? On the contrary – it seems like a very successful evolutionary strategy.

          • jonathonmoseley

            OMG, you are insane. The very definition of homosexuality is a desire for a sexual union with the same sex which does not result in reproduction, in contrast to heterosexuality which is the desire for a sexual union that leads to reproduction.

            You cannot grasp the unavoidable consequneces of this?

            The problem is that you do not comprehend your own argument or evolution.

            You are promoting the idea that there are TWO (2) genetic plans with humans: 1 producing heterosexual desires, behavior patterns and activities and 1 producing homosexual desires, behavior patterns and activities.

            YOU, not I, are advancing the idea that there is a genetic variation in less than 1% of the human population which causes them to be homosexual.

            99% of humans are heterosexual.

            1% or less are homosexual.

            You are claiming that htis is a result of a genetic basis for homosexuality.

            THEREFORE, there are TWO (2) — count them TWO — different genetic constructs, one that is heterosexual taht leads to offsrping a second that is homosexual which DOES NOT lead to offspring.

            Given the existence of TWO DIFFERENT genetic plans, the homosexual gentic plan will become extinct because it leads to lower rates of reproduction or no reproduction.

            Once again, with regard to your social insects THERE IS ONLY ONE GENETIC PLAN. So it has to be passed on to offspring because there is only one.

            SInce the insects that have non-reproducing social members HAVE ONLY ONE GENETIC PLAN, it must necessarily ALWAYS be passed on to offspring, because there is only 1.

            There is no choice between two different genetic plans.

          • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nancy-elliott-anti-gay-ne_n_460544.html Former Representative Elliott

            Here’s a question: what percent of lawyers get at least one 6-month suspension from the Virginia State Bar?

          • M J

            But that is not what happens with social insects. If the worker bees decide to feed a given larva large amount of royal jelly, then it becomes a queen. This shows that genetically, all female larvae have the genes to become a queen. They just need it to get “switched on” by large amounts of royal jelly.

            We don’t have such a mechanism, so a gene for homosexuality really would extinguish itself in a few generations. Especially in pre-industrial conditions. Or are you really going to serioiusly propose that it is too recent a mutation for that?

          • jonathonmoseley

            Furthermore, insects reproduce by one queen having hundreds or thousands of offspring, all from the same genetic basis.

            However, humans reproduce in small numbers from one pair. So if a person lacks the desire to mate with the opposite sex, the chance of their genes being passed on through reproduction is dramatically lower.

          • M J

            Yes, you are right. That is another difference the pro SSM crowd on the Left is missing. Amazing that the same people on the Left who are so keen-sighted when it comes to spotting the Right’s pseudo-science in climate change denal are completely blind to the pseudo-science used on the Left to support SSM.

          • jonathonmoseley

            By contrast, if both homosexuals and heterosexuals have THE SAME genetic make-up, but sexual orientation is influenced by DEVELOPMENT, then the same genetic make-up will be passed on when ANYONE reproduces.

            The problem is that there is not and cannot be a genetic basis for homosexuality.

            An individual may develop emotionally and psychologically to homosexual desire…

            … just as one heterosexual may develop a sexual attraction to a passive female while another may develop a sexual attraction to a strong, demanding, aggressive female, based upon how that individual develops in childhood and through various experiences.

          • jonathonmoseley

            No, if there is ONLY ONE genetic plan within the social insects, every tiime any social insect reproduces, the plan is passed on to offspring because THERE IS ONLY ONE plan genetically to choose from.

            In evolutionary terms, you can choose Plan A or you can choose Plan A or you can choose Plan A.

            Well, then, I think will choose Plan A.

            But in the idea that there is a genetic variation that produces homosexuality in some humans, there must be a

            Plan A — heterosexual desire, behavioral patterns, etc.

            Plan B — homosexual desire, behavioral patterns, etc.

            Individual with “Plan A” genes will reproduce extensively

            Individuals with “Plan B” will reproduce at a markedly reduced rate or not at all.

            Therefore, in evoluationary terms, evoultion will select between

            Plan A — with lots of offspring

            Plan B — with fewere offspring.

            Over time Plan A will survive, but Plan B will die out and become extinct.

            Yet we DO NOT see a decreasing rate of homosexuality in society over history.

            THERFORE, QED, homosexuality is developmentally-based not genetically based.

          • http://augustafreepress.com/ Chris Graham

            Sorry to intrude on this discussion, but … couldn’t it also be the case that genes relative to LGBT sexual orientation are passed down because of social pressures for LGBTs to adhere to prevailing norms and force themselves to marry and procreate? Indeed, doesn’t this seem entirely logical?

            It’s so elementary to me that it almost goes without saying.

            It seems to me that the choices that people make relative to sexual orientation actually work backwards from the way that social conservative engineers want them to work. Those making a choice relative to sexual orientation are those who by nature are LGBT,and choose because of social pressures to live contrary to their nature, not the other way around.

            One no more choose to be LGBT than one chooses to be straight,white, black, Latino, short, tall or otheriwse. Our genetic makeup isn’t a choice and is not something that can be deemed “right” or “wrong.” It’s social norms, for lack of a better way to put it, that puts labels on genetic markers, and thankfully, more and more of us are recognizing this and pushing for change in the way we treat biological imperatives.

            Back to the ongoing debate.

          • jonathonmoseley

            “couldn’t it also be the case that genes relative to LGBT sexual orientation are passed down because of social pressure”

            Yes, I allow for that. Without social pressures — causing homosexual people to live as heterosexual and try to pass as straight by getting married and having children — a homosexual gene would die out in only 1, 2, maybe 3 or 4 generations.

            The ONLY way that a gene causing homosexual orientation could continue EVER AT ALL is if SOME homosexuals (not all) SOME of the time (not always) in SOME cultures (not all cultures) feel pressured to pretend to be heterosexual and get married and try to have children to fit in like everyone else.

            Without that influence, a genetic variation for homosexuality would become extinct in only 200 years or so — 1 to 4 generations.

            (And don’t forget the problem that it could never become widespread to begin with for the same reasons.)

            A genetic variation causing a homosexual orientation might persist for 1000 years *ONLY* on account of social / cultural factors encouraging everyone to fit in to the same pattern.

            However, the very definition of homosexuality is a *LACK* of desire for the opposite sex.

            By definition, even a homosexual getting married will have LESS sexual activity with his or her spouse and FEWER children than a heterosexual — even with both being married to a member of the opposite sex.

            And during most of human history, many infants and children never lived to adulthood. So if a couple has 2 children and 2 of them die, NONE of their genes are passed along, compared with a couple having 4 chidlren and 2 of them die.

            Furthermore, social / cultural pressures to live as a heterosexual, marry and have children were / are stronger in some cultures than in others.

            Therefore, we would expect to see a higher frequency of homosexuality in cultures strongly encouraging a standard, uniform one-size-fits-all lifestyle and a lower frequency of homosexuality in cultures giving greater freedom for personal choice.

            But we don’t see that. We see an absolutely uniform frequency of homosexuality at under 1% (despite the propaganda) across all cultures, all ethnic groups, all time periods in history, etc.

            In cultures where an individual’s choice is more respected, a lack of desire for the opposite sex would cause lower frequency of the homosexual gene.

          • Icarus62

            You’re still missing the point, which is that the genetic basis for homosexuality could be in all of us, but only expressed in certain individuals. What then would be the selective pressure for it to be removed from the population? If it confers a survival advantage (as in the case of the social insects) then it would be more likely to proliferate than die out.

          • jonathonmoseley

            No, it could not. That is because you do not understand either evolution which you surely must desperately cling to or else confront a Holy God who forbids homoexuality or the theory you are advancing.

            Under evolution, a genetic detail must COME FROM SOMEWHERE.

            Under evolution, lower species develop into mammals and then humans.

            The genetic basis fro homosexuality, if it existed, must BEGIN SOMEWHERE along teh evolutionary path.

            But you do not comprehend the theory of evolution that you claim to believe in..

            There would have to be a specific point in time when a genetic variation — a mutation — arose.

            At that point you have (1) the general population without the genetic mutation and (2)

          • M J

            No, he is not missing the point. You are. There is no scientific evidence for a genetic basis to homosexuality. There is some evidence that it is congenital, but not that it is genetic. All your talk about the “social insects” example is highly speculative, and relies on a misunderstanding of how genetics works, how big a difference there is between the genetics in social insects and in humans.

          • M J

            But it was not debunked. “Social insects” are a false analogy.

          • M J

            But the example of social insects is irrelevant to human behavior and biology. They are very different from both us and our immediate evolutionary ancestors in that they have a “social class” determined by genetics and congenital conditions — we do not.

          • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nancy-elliott-anti-gay-ne_n_460544.html Former Representative Elliott

            Sounds like someone is trying really hard to justify their personal bigotry.

          • jonathonmoseley

            Keep on that topic. When you discover your personal bigotry, it can be a growth experience for you.

            Homosexual desire and behavior is DEVELOPMENTALLY based.

            It is absolutely impossible for it to be genetically or biologically based, or it woudl be extinct due to natural selection.

          • M J

            “Homsexual instincts, desires, and behavior patterns ARE genetically determined” — no, that is not true. The science is being badly misquoted on both sides of the argument. The science only supports congenitical effects on “homosexual instincts” etc., but not genetic ones.

            This makes sense, since a gene to interfere with reproduction as badly this this hypothetical gene does would eliminate itself pretty quickly.

          • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nancy-elliott-anti-gay-ne_n_460544.html Former Representative Elliott

            Sounds like someone’s got a sock puppet.

        • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nancy-elliott-anti-gay-ne_n_460544.html Former Representative Elliott

          “Jonathan – please tell us about your choice to be straight.”

          I’m not actually certain Jonathon is straight. He certainly displays a lot of anti-gay animus and homophobia. The University of Georgia did a study on homophobia and the results, while not surprising, do shed a lot of light on Jonathon’s unnatural obsession with homosexuality. Google “university of georgia homophobia study” and you’ll see what I mean.

  • Patrick

    Will conservatives please stop this charade about judges overruling the votes of the people? It shows a profound ignorance of our system of government. The founding fathers gave the judiciary the power to overturn laws deliberately. They gave it that authority for the specific purpose of protecting the rights of unpopular minorities, which the founding fathers worried could easily suffer legal persecution at the hands of the majority. This kind of ruling isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.

    As to why the ruling didn’t “define” what they meant by marriage, it’s really pretty simple. They meant marriage. You know that document you have to fill out, the one that says “Certificate of Marriage” or whatever on it? That’s the one. All the other laws still apply. All except the ones restricting the gender of who can sign it. Same number of people. Same age restrictions.

    The rest of Mr. Marshall’s arguments simply serve to illustrate why legal protections for LGBTs are needed, because of animosity and judgement from people like him. I’m sure saying that makes me an anti-Christian bigot in his book, but I’m just expressing my sincerely held beliefs.

    • jonathonmoseley

      “The founding fathers gave the judiciary the power to overturn laws deliberately.” — Could you point out that part of the U.S. Constitution or even Virginia Constitution? (Hint: Don’t spend the rest of your life searching.)

      • http://hunteratrandom.blogspot.com/ rmthunter

        It’s derived from Article III (“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising
        under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties
        made, or which shall be made, under their authority.”) and Article VI (“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
        in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,
        under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of
        the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
        Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
        notwithstanding.”) and, although it’s generally held to have been established by Marbury vs. Madison (1803), it was an accepted principle before that. Marbury merely formalized it.

        And I didn’t have to spend the rest of my life. Search engines are wonderful things. You should try one sometime.

        • jonathonmoseley

          “It’s derived from” — you mean that is YOUR opinion — “dervied”

          The judicial power does NOT mean that the Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of the Constitution. You are superimposing in hindsight the usurpation of unauthorized power.

          The judicial power named in Article III is the power to decide cases.

          So we agree that the Constitution does not say what you thought.

          People’s OPINIONS “derive” something that is not actually there in the U.S. Constitution.

          • http://hunteratrandom.blogspot.com/ rmthunter

            Not my opinion — that’s the opinion of legal scholars.

            And I see that you understand the process of judicial review as well as you understand the process of evolution, which is to say, not at all. It’s really very simple: someone brings suit, claiming injury due to a violation of their constitutional rights under the law. The courts decide the suit and either agree with the plaintiff or not. That’s how judicial review works: the courts decide a case.

            And I notice you avoided addressing my comment that it was an accepted principle in law before Marbury. It is, after all, a fairly obvious interpretation of Article III.

          • jonathonmoseley

            I understand that there are many theories which are *WRONG*. I can understand what is being argued AND understand that what is being argued also happens to be INCORRECT. I understand the concept of judicial review as promoted by those who believe in a judiciary above the other branches. I also understand why that view is FALSE.

            However, what you describe is of course bait and switch.

            Yes the courts both before and after Marbury must decide the case in front of them.

            But that does not mean that the court’s interpretation of the constitution is binding upon the other 2 branches, wihich is an entirely different issue.

            It is one technique for wining an argument: Change the question.

    • Icarus62

      Well said.

      • M J

        No, not “well said” at all. On the contrary: the entire line of ‘reasoning’ in support of “same sex marriage” is full of such bizarre distortions of logic and legal principles, it boggles the mind to see how many lawyers and judges have bought into it. It proves that our entire legal system is corrupt — which also explains how they can see corporations as ‘persons’.

        • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nancy-elliott-anti-gay-ne_n_460544.html Former Representative Elliott

          Seriously, you need to get new material.

  • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/nancy-elliott-anti-gay-ne_n_460544.html Former Representative Elliott

    One hundred years or so ago, the debate here would have been “does a black man found as 3/5th or 4/5th of a person”. And he was not called a “black man”, either.

    Today the discussion is about gays and whether they are gay due to choice or genetic predisposition. This is a topic being bantered about by people who have no real scientific or research background. They are simply looking for a means to justify their bigotry and animus toward gays. It’s all garbage science.

    Spoiler alert: the answer they come up with will be akin to 3/5th.