Her ginormous man hands frighten me!

WTF? I want to post about the douche Stanford and there's an error on the page. . . .

NYU must have a white supremacist. Also, I believe that Dr. Thio is implicitly discriminating against those with more dimunitive paws.

Lat cut off the last part of her response:

"And if any of you buggering homo nancy boys have the stones to bully me in person, I will bitch slap your fairy ass with my huge man hands."

Not a single person should sign up for the class. Make NYU pay a professor to NOT teach anyone. By the way, one can oppose gay rights without being so unbelievably ignorant and insulting.

"Dr. Thio seems to be accusing LGBT activists of cultural imperialism. Bring it, kids."

Hasn't it already been brought? You're here, you're queer...we get it.

So you like to stick your [ ] in another guy's [ ]. Fine, what you do in your private time is up to you.....but now you want a cookie for it? You want special treatment? Its just all about you isn't it?

Intolerance has no place at NYU. She should teach at Columbia.
I call for all NYU students to shun "Dr." Thio and her classes. Perhaps if no one will listen to her she will go back to china. Her very presence in this school creates a hostile environment that discourages the participation of the LGBTQ community. We cannot tolerate such a poisonous viewpoint being given the credibility of one of the world's top institutions.

*is frightened by TTThio's manhands*

It's not intoleranace when you reject the intolerant.

3 - Comments on the Stanford post are closed on ATL, you're supposed to go over to Dealbreaker:

http://dealbreaker.com/2009/07/sir-stanford-takes-issue-with.php?show=comments#comments

it is just me, or does Thio's picture make her look like she has GINORMOUS HANDS

Equating gay relationships as "drinking through a straw up your nose" is NOT a political view. Nice try, but your rhetoric has made your viewpoint illegitimate.

Cute URL for this post, Lat:

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/07/li_ann_thio_will_kick_your_pansy_ass.php

She had man hands.

She had man hands, until her Muslim buddy cut them off.....

1, what about a black supremacist, like Cornel West at Princeton? Is he good enough? I can name a few more if you want.

I think all of the OUTLAW people should sign up for the class. . . .nothing like gasoline and matches to make a class interesting. . . .I'd pay for the credit hours to go back to law school a few hours a week to watch that, but only if I could have popcorn and milk duds. . . .but does that mean no straw for my soda?

Wow, Leiter's post is awesome for anyone who actually watched Thio's pathetic defense of the statute.

Someone inform her this type of "politicking" is called democracy and if she doesn't like it, she can take the next Singapore Air flight back from where she came.

After reading the comments on this blog for a couple days, I get the distinct impression that Lat is a gay homosexual.

11-Thanks

Though I don't know if I should comment over there, would I be a troll? Actually who cares, there fucking bankers

-3

re: "drinking through a straw up your nose"
Don't knock it until you've tried it.

they're not there
-3

Big hands I know you're the one.

Enough with the news on New York Law School. No one cares about some unimportant TTT doing a publicity stunt. This will only encourage them.

21 - What, is it the knowing references to using lube?

There are no snarky comments over at dealbreaker, I have returned and am awaiting the snark that is ATL to amuse me. . . PE you done with playing Hello Kitty Adventure Island for the day yet? If so comment, you dirty old man.

-3

Can we get a professor at NYU that believes that God, as well as the natural course of humanity, intended women to be subservient to men and to stay at home and raise the family? Perhaps he could argue with her about the proper place of women in society and how women's suffrage has led to the moral decline of America. After all, if women respected their place in society and were home raising the children as they should be, we wouldn't have so many moral bankrupt youth, right? And the natural order of human existence has shown that women are supposed to be subservient to men. It is simply unnatural for women to be behaving as men. I have many Muslim friends in Saudi Arabia that agree with me regarding the proper place of women in society. I will not be intimidated or silenced. Dr. Thio, you are a female and therefore have no place in academia!

For all of you who cannot detect sarcasm, I'm being facetious. However, I would love someone to ask Dr. Thio if she thought it would be proper for NYU to hire a Women's Studies professor who believed that women should be subservient to men and denied an equal place in society. This would be in accord with her belief that academia should expose students to all opposing views, including a Human Rights professor that believes gays are criminals.

8 - Fail. Way to tell a Singaporean woman to "go back to china" in a comment railing her for being culturally insensitive. Kudos.

I think I have divined the origin of the good Doctor's animosity towards gays:

She's really ugly, and takes individual instances of male homosexuality as personal slights against her feminine sex appeal.

For my part, I know she'd make *me* gay in a hearbeat. The longer I stare at her photo, the more I feel the urge to don a feather boa and spend my Friday night drinking Midori sours and singing along to 'Joseph'.

Thoughts? Elective homosexuality as a defensive strategy against ugly chicks with giant hands?

And where the hell are my gold coins!?!

THANK GOODNESS ELLIE IS GONE

30

8 was obviously telling her to back to china, as in doing the dishes, like a proper Asian woman should be doing. If 8 did intend to mean the nation, then the idiot obviously doesn't know Singapore is surrounded by Malaysia.

I really hope she appreciates the supreme irony in portaying her detractors as members of the "elite diktat." I can think of very few people who are in worse position to throw this in someone else's direction.

"Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no consensus on this even within the U.S. Supreme Court and American society at large, even post Lawrence v. Texas."

No, there's not. There is also no consensus over whether it is lawful for an American president to indefinitely detain foreign nationals on a whim. I, for one, no longer oppose closing Guantanamo.

Mystal can eat his weight in lunch meat.

I think the best point to take from this article is: "[C]ertain Americans have to realize the fact that there are a diversity of views on the subject and it is not a settled matter; there is no universal norm and it is nothing short of moral imperialism to suggest there is. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no consensus on this even within the U.S. Supreme Court and American society at large, even post Lawrence v. Texas."

For example, when it comes to gay marriage, the majority of the country (as well as our President) believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe the same thing. Does that mean I want to deny gay couples rights? Of course not. Gay couples should have all the same rights as heterosexual couples... but I don't believe a gay relationship constitutes a "marriage"

Why are there several misplaced commas in those statements from her?

As for her "I'm the victim" statement, what about all the gays who SHE knows nothing about? What gives her the right to act on her prejudices and attack them?

How can the faculty of NYU law get so up in arms about the military recruiting on campus when they hire an anti-gay bigot to TEACH a class on HUMAN RIGHTS? At least be consistent, right now they just look like hypocrites.

Playing the victim is a really bad idea. It may work in the court room, but she is going to get slammed now. A little bit of a concilitaroy tone would have done her so much better.

If standing against bigotry is an exercise in "intolerant animosity," then long live intolerance and animus!

Yay for hatred! Yay for the unequal application of our laws!

Yay for a united commitment to "academic freedom" while denying inalienable rights (less important freedoms, of course) to politically powerless minorities!

If the constitution doesn't expressly provide for the right to homosexual marriage, then, by god, there is no right to it!

Show me where in the constitution it says gays can get married. Show me!

While I 100% disagree with her beliefs regarding gay rights, she makes a point. Ideological diversity is a massive problem among law school faculty members, especially those who teach constitutional courses. Not everyone is liberal, and that doesn't mean they can't participate in the discussion.

An Open Letter to Dr. Thio Li-ann:

I read your recent e-mail interview with Inside Higher Ed with some interest. It seems that you may be a little concerned about what awaits you at NYU this fall. As a gay person and a law student, I wanted to take the opportunity to reassure you and to welcome you to the university. I’m not sure if you’ve been to New York before, but I gather from your CV that you got a quite a fine education in the UK. Because of a few phrases you used in the interview, it occurred to me that you may not be familiar with some peculiarities of American English and I want to point out a few that may come in handy. First, we call chips “french fries” and crisps “chips.” Second, we generally call Members of Parliament “elites” and law students, well, “law students.” We don’t really use the word “diktat” a whole lot.

New York being New York, you may also find a few Yiddish words to be useful. Foremost among these is “chutzpah.” “Chutzpah” is hard to translate directly and its meaning is perhaps best illustrated by example. New Yorkers would say that a former NMP and graduate of Cambridge and Oxford who denounces gays in a rather vulgar manner on the floor of Parliament in a successful bid to enable their imprisonment calling the highlighting of her remarks by a few law students “ugly politicking” based on “their own prejudices, from whatever sources” has a lot of chutzpah.

Now, having grown up in a farming village in Kentucky and spent a number of years in the enlisted ranks of the Army, I share your distaste for both “ugly politicking” and “elite diktat.” As I’ve been called a “faggot” and been beaten up a few times, I don’t care much for “bullying” either, although I’m not sure having one of one’s own Parliamentary speeches circulated really qualifies as such. This may be yet another peculiarity of American English.

You are quite correct, however, that in the face of bullying, one must have courage. It also helps to have supportive gay friends. One of the nice things about gay folks is that we tend not to belong to either the “liberal camp” or “communitarian camp” which you described in your speech. We’re just into camp. Likewise, the gays at NYU don’t by any means have a problem with you, your right to your views, or academic freedom. We just don’t think that state power to imprison or discriminate against sexual, racial, or other minorities is a particularly “academic” question. Again, that’s American English for you.

Another generally appreciated feature of the gays is our sense of taste, which has been highlighted in television shows like “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.” You are a bit mistaken if you think that the gays at NYU want to censor you. It’s just that, like mixing polka dots with plaid or having George Wallace teach a course on civil rights in the American South, we tend to think NYU’s hiring you to teach a class called “Human Rights in Asia” demonstrates a lack of taste.

Dr. Thio, if you’ll have me, I’d like to be your supportive gay friend. We can have lunch, dish about men and listen to music together. I know a great tapas place in Greenwich Village and, as an American, I’d like to disabuse you of the notion that I have any interest in “refus[ing] to engage with dissenting views” or directing “intolerant animosity” at you. There are also a few great American songs I’d love to introduce you to. One of my favorites is called “Cry Me a River.” It was written by Arthur Hamilton.

I must make one friendly request before I let you go, however. We American gays are doing fairly well post-Lawrence v. Texas. Unlike our Singaporean brethren, we can’t be arbitrarily thrown into prison and can generally defend ourselves under the law. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for our friends, the straw men. From “human right to sodomy” to “Americans … appropriating the rhetoric of human rights … [to] impose their views on a sovereign state,” you’ve spent a good deal of time knocking them down. Last I checked, they hadn’t done anything to you, so why not go a bit easier on them?

All the best,

_____________________
NYU Law Class of 2010

"Her very presence in this school creates a hostile environment that discourages the participation of the LGBTQ community."

I laughed out loud about this one. As if anything could discourage the shrill and angry "participation" of the "LGBTQ" community and their fierce efforts to quash any viewpoint that doesn't celebrate and promote homosexuality.

I drink through a straw in my nose all the time. What's the big deal? The nasal membrane is so sensitive that you really get a better sense of what is going into you.

These pretzels are making me......sleepy?

DR. THIO:

Would it be ok for NYU to appoint a professor whose scholarship revolved around the criminalization of having a BROWN VAGINA?

You, ma'm, are an idiot and a bigot.

Comment removed by moderator.

you've got to HAND it to her, she may have a point.

I wonder if she bleaches her brown eye?

42 -- "One of the nice things about gay folks is that we tend not to belong to either the “liberal camp” or “communitarian camp” which you described in your speech..... You are a bit mistaken if you think that the gays at NYU want to censor you"

Riiiiiiiiiight.

42 = pompous intellectual who thinks he's smarter than everyone. You sound like KD Camara in that letter.

47, LOL.

TTThio, you look like a god damn man. i don't believe for a second that you're straight.

51 = roxana

Good eyes #2, I didn't notice how HUGE her hands were!

Learned HAND lived in NY for a while too.

42 is awesome.

just another prof looking for a hand out.

6 - All law professors are paid not to teach anyone.

whats with the purple coat?

it must be HAND me down.

Where is Msytal anyway?

A bird in the HAND is worth two in the bush

Don't bite the HAND that feeds you.

I am sure she is qualified to handle the business at HAND.

Don't you understand, all you rational, reasonable, intelligent liberals? Thio has RELIGION on her side. How could she be wrong?

I wouldn't want her to give me a HAND-shake

Dr. TTThio - HANDS down the best human rights prof ever!

I hope she does not get her HAND caught in the cookie jar.

Look at those mits!

Thio Jazz HANDs

See, this is why I thank God every day that I didn't go to a ridiculous top ranked law school. I'm not arguing that these issues aren't important, because they are. However, this is not the right stuff for law school. What I mean is, there is a reason lawyers from "lower" tiered run circles around fancy ivy league educated lawyers. You aren't learning law in law school geniuses! This class and debate is an important issue of our times, but it is better suited for a graduate school classroom. While you are debating this, I am learning torts, contracts, - things that are actually going to help me litigate in the REAL WORLD. Granted, an incredibly tiny percentage of the top law school students will become policymakers, but everybody else is just getting on their soapbox. You are supposed to be lawyers! Do you even know the first thing about how to properly file a motion in court? Do you know the difference between assault and battery (both the criminal and tort law implications)? I laugh hard at these snob law students who use law school as an extension of their undergraduate. I am becoming a true lawyer, at a state school, where I will learn the law and get a high paying job, with minimum debt. I look forward to owning lawyers from places like NYU who will try to argue in court that some social philosophy is controlling in our civil suit, which I nail them with cold hard facts and caselaw, which I learned by actually studying to be a lawyer, not a philospher king. By the way, Dr. Thio is nuts, but graduate students in other departments can show that a lot more effectively than any of you.

45 -- Please explain how that is remotely analogous to criminalization of a (deviant) act.

After that, please distinguish from criminalization of other deviant acts (for which some people arguably have a natural proclivity) such as incest, polygamy, and pedophilia.

From NYU's Harassment policy:

"Any member of the University community who engages in an act of intolerance directed at an individual, or a group of individuals, on the basis of [...] sexual orientation [...] of the person/s will be held accountable for violating the social integrity of the University community and the specific policies which underscore those values".

So...attempting to legislate intolerance doesn't count as an act of intolerance? Just wondering.

You've got to HAND it to her. She really man-HAND-led her critics.

42

I have to disagree with this quote: "
One of the nice things about gay folks is that we tend not to belong to either the “liberal camp” or “communitarian camp” which you described in your speech. "

I mean seriously? Come on, that just detracted from a great letter. How many conservative, and I mean truly conservative, gay folks do you know?

Dr. Thio is very HANDsome.

Pretty to look at while she gives me a HANDjob.

First of all, 72, Lat = gay conservative, which means he's conservative on almost everything other than the wacky right-wing social stuff.

Second of all, 68 FTW.

25 (Violent Femmes reference): I love you.

I hope NYU get a HANDle on this situation.

How awesome would it be if someone in Thio's class this upcoming semester started blasting 'Blister in the Sun' as soon as Thio walked into the room before class? C'mon now. How awesome?

@42 -- well done. (And I'm not gay.)

"It's not intoleranace when you reject the intolerant."

Typical of the LGBT crowd. Tolerance insofar as one agrees with you.

Has anyone in this forum taken their head out of their over-educated, self-righteous behind to notice the fact that over half the states in this union have made constitutional amendments banning gay marriage? Might that not hint to the fact that the nice Dr's views are not that strange?

But of course, you're all t-14 law students. And t-14 law students get to define what should be tolerated and what shouldn't be, not those ignorant people who actually believe that humans should have sex in a way that can produce offspring.

42 - Ding ding ding ding ding! I think she would have had a blast at Wigstock in the 80's.

i hate it when people post without firstHAND information

"It's not intoleranace when you reject the intolerant."

Typical of the LGBT crowd. Tolerance insofar as one agrees with you.

Has anyone in this forum taken their head out of their over-educated, self-righteous behind to notice the fact that over half the states in this union have made constitutional amendments banning gay marriage? Might that not hint to the fact that the nice Dr's views are not that strange?

But of course, you're all t-14 law students. And t-14 law students get to define what should be tolerated and what shouldn't be, not those ignorant people who actually believe that humans should have sex in a way that can produce offspring.

Lessons from Dr. Thio:

Respect my viewpoints. Even if my defense of said viewpoint is ridiculous (see Straw analogy). Then, when criticized, call others intolerant (see the historical example of "uppity negroes" like Ruby Bridges who demanded the right to an equal education and that man named Loving...from Virginia).

My views:
Blacks should be enslaved. It WAS in the constitution (see Fugitive Slave Clause) and helped the southern economy. Slavery was also justified by "God," "natural law," and stupid analogies.

A woman's place (I'm looking towards you Dr. Thio) is in the kitchen. Since the dawn of time women have been subservient to men. Pull out the standard "god," "natural law" and stupid analogies to justify this.

Interracial couples should not be allowed to be married. Repeat justification process from above.

Gays should be criminalized and imprisoned for loving another person of the same sex and engaging in a physical expression of that love. Repeat justification process from above.

Seriously Dr. Thio? Open questions are the proper interpretation of the rule of lenity, or the proper role of class action representatives. Recognizing well adjusted, successful, and nice human beings who are gay as equals is no longer an "open question" in the USA.

Get on the right side of history....please. Such ignorance can be excused in an average citizen of average educational attainment, the world expects more from you.

-Disappointed gay male

First of all 74 we may have different definitions of conservative, but I would argue that Lat is more of a libertarian than a conservative. You're comment about wacky right wing social stuff shows you lack of understanding what a conservative is. You are confusing the large evangelical christian population that claims to be conservative, but in fact would prefer a theocracy if given the oppurtunity. I would also argue that the right wing wacky social stuff (depending on how one defines a social issue) is the defining characteristic between conservatives and liberals.
-72

sweet caroline

72 --

To answer your question, LOTS. Dumbass. How many gay people do you know, two?

Not only is she preposterously homophobic, but citation to Lawrence ia foolish.

Lawrence was about whether banning sodomy was constitutionally permitted not about whether anti-sodomy laws were a good idea. Even Justice Thomas in his dissent agreed that anti-sodomy laws were foolish.

83, you're working on decriminalizing adult incest, right?

77 may have the winning HAND.

Not only is she preposterously homophobic, but her citation to Lawrence is foolish.

Lawrence was about whether banning sodomy was constitutionally permitted not about whether anti-sodomy laws were a good idea. Even Justice Thomas in his dissent agreed that anti-sodomy laws were foolish.

Big hands, small head.

Legalize Kanehbosm!

Guess she must have a massive cock.

Comment removed by moderator.

82 - You're an idiot. Those are gay marraige statutes, not statutes criminalizing what 2 consensual adults do with their own bodies to express their affection in the privacy of their own home.

Big difference, buddy.

86-

As a function of where I have lived in my life, along with law school, and the friends I choose to keep, I have met alot. The definition of conservative I believe is being confused with libertarian. I know gays that embody the sterotype of "gay" and those that embody the sterotype of an uptight suit and tie banker. But when it comes to politics I have found that they are liberal or that they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal i.e. a libertarian. While my sample set does not run into the hundreds, I believe it is sufficient to say there are very few truly conservative gays and the plurality to majority of gays are liberal with a minority being liberatarian.
-72

It is interesting that she is “disappointed at the intolerant animosity directed at me by strangers” when that seems to be her calling card. I mean how can anyone call entertaining her ideas as being remotely valid without appealing to the political correctness that she seems to loathe?

As for her crack about Lawrence v. Texas. She is wrong. That decision forced anti-sodomy laws to be stripped on a national level. So…where is the lack of uniform agreement? I think she might be confusing sodomy with other things that are important to the LGBT community. While we are fighting for those other things, we pretty much won the anti-sodomy law argument.

Comment removed by moderator.

Comment removed by moderator.

94, and of course what people think about gay marriage has nothing to do with what people think about gay sex..

diktat? I have one of those. It's a smiley face at the tip.

42 and 86- Right on!

Fully aware of the dangers of making general observations about classes of people (like that's stopping anyone on this board), I submit if you work in Biglaw, it's virtually guaranteed you know some pretty conservative gay people.

5 - hilarious

what's next? a law professor who opposes the decriminalization of bestiality? call the ACLU -- even sheep-lovers have to have some rights.

79: states used to allow slavery and criminalize miscegenation. Were those views strange? They seem just as strange as the Final Solution to me. Do you ever have oral sex? If so, just so you know, you can't get pregnant or impregnate when going down on your girlfriend/boyfriend.

Lat = fail

Her mentioning her Muslim friend was to demonstrate NYU's hypocrisy, not that she's friends with a Muslim and ipso facto tolerant.

I love how gays simply refuse to tolerate others' "intolerance" (i.e., dissenting views).

High comedy. Now I know where Barney Frank picked up his legendary hypocrisy.

72/95 -

Your experience may be different from mine on account of you living in a blue state (I live in a very red state with a large gay population). If you live in a red state, I would be surprised.

I'd say about half my gay friends consistently vote republican. Whether they are truly conservative or libertarian is another matter, and you may be right that they tend to be more along the libertarian line.

-86

Most white gay men are just as conservative as most white men generally on non-sexuality related issues. Just look at all the closet cases in the Republican party--they reflect a broader constitutency of politically conservative men who enjoy sex with men, but do not consider their sexuality a significant identifying factor in their lives; some are married to women, some partner with men, but either way, they are proudly conservative.

It is straight conservatives who don't like to face this fact, since they are uncomfortable with it's implications. If there were just more Dick Cheneys out there, the Republican party would probably gain much of the white gay vote.

Barney Frank is a loud obnoxious hypocritical liberal windbag douche bag assclown. . . .Every time he is on CNBC I end up throwing something at the TV. I have been banned from yelling at the TV by my co-workers, so now I just take a walk around the floor to "simma down"

What I would like to see is Dr. Thio explain homosexual behavior in non-human animals.

A huge variety of species engage in homosexual activity: lions, apes, dolphins, giraffes.. the list goes on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

106 fifty years ago:

"I love how blacks simply refuse to tolerate white peoples' intolerance."

High comedy. Now I know where Strom Thurmond picked up his legendary hypocrisy.

111 I heart you!

Seriously, why does this debate always draw comparisons to racism and sexism? It's a fundamentally different conversation.

Discrimination against people based on race, ethic origin, or gender is wrong for the simple fact that people are born with these characteristics and cannot change them. Gays, on the other hand, deserve no protection from discrimination because their lifestyle is a choice. Plain and simple.

Every choice has consequences. If you don't like what people say about you based on your choices, then dont make those choices. Rather than dealing with such consequences, gays now politick that everyone should accept their deviant lifestyle and those who dont are closed minded. Such garbage.

86/107

I live in a RED state. Besides Reagan, the last Republican we went for was probably Lincoln during the War. I never said that gays didn't vote Republican (though the conservatism of the GOP as presently constituted is debateable), I just said that there were few conservative gays if any. Generally the libertarians I know (gay or straight and me included) usually vote for the Republican because the fiscal part out weighs the social part (unless the Republican is crazy). I posit that this is because it is much easier to change fiscal policies than social policies and the social policies that Libertarians would like to implement (mainly smaller government) come through fiscal reform.
72/95

111 and 112 ... since when do you get to decide that finding sodomy to be deplorable is equivalent to finding blacks to be deplorable? you're setting up the assumptions of the argument completely in your favor, douche bag. you're using circular reasoning, moron.

113 = a christian minority group hypocrite.

They're NOT evolutionary duds by choice...

So she wants to put people in jail for performing activities she deems immoral and those who deride her for it, but don't seek to imprison here, are the moral imperialists? What a ridiculously hypocritical and idiotic thing to say. Last I checked using the pen to change minds is way less "imperialist" than using the sword to put you in jail unless you act morally.

So she wants to put people in jail for performing activities she deems immoral and those who deride her for it, but don't seek to imprison here, are the moral imperialists? What a ridiculously hypocritical and idiotic thing to say. Last I checked using the pen to change minds is way less "imperialist" than using the sword to put you in jail unless you act morally.

113 can't be serious.

If only people like 113 were gay. What a waste of space.

Homophobia = the new gay

No, 7, we want the SAME treatment. hth

111 and 112 fifty years from now:

""I love how incestuous couples simply refuse to tolerate non-incestuous peoples' intolerance."

High comedy. Now I know where [fill in the blank] picked up his legendary hypocrisy."

"111 I heart you! "

Well said 113. At least someone had the guts to finally say it and it's nice to hear the views of someone who has not been brainwashed by the gay pols.

If only we had a wise Latina who could guide us away from bigotry, since such a wise Latina is inherently wiser than white men (and presumably wiser than Asian women with man hands).

Sorry, ma'am, but hiring a bigot is not a "commitment to this principle [of academic freedom]." Fail.

113 is spot on.

126 = bigot

72, you are basically arguing that one cannot be gay and conservative, and that anyone who considers themselves gay and conservative is actually gay and libertarian, which is simply false. There are plenty of gay conservatives. It is clear that this makes you uncomfortable, but it is a fact. If it is your opinion that men from Roy Cohn to Ted Haggard to Mark Foley are either (1) not conservative or (2) not gay, then you are simply not in touch with reality.

42: Thank you.

68: "What I mean is, there is a reason lawyers from "lower" tiered run circles around fancy ivy league educated lawyers."
The reason being...you made that fact up?

115: tell that to 123.

113--- race and sex are a "choice" too. You can choose to cut off your dick (I didn't say balls, because I feel like you already don't have any) and carve out a vagina (to match your face). You can slather white paint all over your face and body, and will therefore start to get jobs, or slather black paint all over your face and body, and get no jobs.

Saying that sexuality is a choice simply because one can "choose" to not act on it is the same thing.

Go back to Kansas dickhead,

113 and the people that agree - I would appreciate your help here. I apparently got the memo and checked the gay box, but I have no recollection of when I did it.

Could you please pinpoint for me the exact moment you chose to be straight? If you still have the memo, could you send it to us gays?

Also, please explain to me why a fairly significant percentage of the population would chose to be discriminated against, denied federal benefits, denied the ability to serve in the military and spend most of the middle school and high school years afraid of who they were?

I chose not to live in Alabama. I chose to be a thinking citizen. I chose not to be a bigot. I did not chose to be gay.

Hey 113,
So race, sexual freedom, and marriage rights are separate huh? Well, I suppose that a white man who falls in love with a black woman does, to some extent, make a CHOICE. But I would argue that the Loving couple, from Loving v. Virginia did NOT make a choice. Rather, love consumed them and they didn't fight the natural attraction.

How is race not at issue here and how can race not serve as an apt analogy both practically and from a jurisprudential standpoint?

132,

See 116

113--do you (as an ostensibly heterosexual male) actively "choose" to desire women? If not, you are not only exceedingly ignorant but also a hypocrite. If so, come out, come out wherever you are.

129-

That is not an argument I am making and I am not uncomfortable with the concept of gay conservatives. In fact, I am not arguing any point, I am just saying that there are very few gays that are conservatives. The ones that are "conservative" (I put it in quotes since I assume that you live in a liberal state and your definition of conservative is not the true definition of it) that I know are generally not socially conservative. I am amused you have to go back to the 50's to find an example of a conservative gay man btw.
-72

Look, people make choices about sexuality all the time. Usually, it involves making choices about taking certain actions.

Look at it this way: Certain people are genetically pre-disposed to alcoholism. But, that doesn't mean they're born alcoholics. They have to make a choice to take a first drink. If they never make that choice, they won't become alcoholics. Being gay is the same thing.

Just because you say you don't remember choosing to be gay doesn't mean you didn't make that choice. At some point, you chose to have sex with a member of the same sex. That was a choice. It's just like an alcoholic who chooses to down a fifth of vodka for the first time.

We don't consider an alcoholic who can't control himself to be living an alternative lifestyle. We don't say people who think he's a degenerate are being intolerante. Why should we do so with gay people? You made a choice. Just accept the consequences. Don't attempt to "normalize" your actions.

68 - When you graduate and take the bar, you will get owned by the ivy league graduates on the contracts and torts sections of the MBE.

What is the true definition of conservative, social or otherwise? And I hardly have to go all the way back to the '50's, nor do you--just look next door. The "redness" of your state is only relevant to the extent which a person is willing to be open, not the extent to which they are willing to be gay. I live in a very blue state and I from a very red one. There are conservative gays in both, as there are where you live.

138,
If you want to treat me, an American citizen, as unequal, then TAX ME AT AN UNEQUAL AND LOWER RATE. Don't force me to subsidize and incentivize heterosexual marriage and then deny homosexual marriage because you find it "icky." F*ck that. Icky my money back!

You can't argue with the logic in 136/137.

At some point all gays chose to indulge their strange desires. Just because they don't remember that choice, doesn't mean they were born that way. And just because they made that choice doesn't mean its socially acceptable.

The pro-gay argument is sounding more and more like the same argument made by NAMBLA. "This is normal. You just don't understand our lifestyle. We were born this way."

Nope. You chose to be a deviant. Case closed.

126 - spot on. She carries a message of intolerance towards homosexuals (a group of people whom I'm guessing she doesn't know many of) and then decries "intolerant animosity toward a person you don't know."
So fucking sorry.

141,
Hmm, perhaps you'd enjoy a more authoritarian and oppressive country. Might I suggest Iran, Saudi Arabia, or China? These countries still execute gay people, I think you'll find it more than suitable to your personal taste! Lemme know, I'll book the plane tickets as soon as I hear from you. As for me, I'll stay in the "west" where our culture is, say, 300 years more enlightened.

137 +1

Gays need to man up, in the classical sense of the term that is.

137 - unfortunately, we don't grant non-drinkers a significant amount of tax benefits based on that "choice" to not be an alcoholic.

Otherwise, your analogy is completely spot on. Except its not. At all.

Something as fundamental as the people we are attracted to (on a macro scale, ie, men versus women as opposed to blondes, people with facial hair, daddies, bears, twinks, jocks... oh did I go too gay) is so fundamental to who we are as people that society requiring gay people to conform to the majority is a fundamental violation of rights.

Just because you can't look at me and know that I'm gay, doesn't make the trait any less intrinsic than race or gender.

I've always been intrigued by this homosexuality-as-a-lifestyle-choice business.

What are the factors one should consider when deciding whether to switch teams? How does one decide whether to be the administrator, or recipient, of penetration? And what about hair, wardrobe? Is it possible that the particular choices I make will render my snazzy beard and colorful tie inappropriate?

Should I allow past rejection by women to factor into the deliberations? Should I view this as primarily a way to get "revenge" against "all those bitches"? How far should I go back, in terms of drawing upon formative events in my personal development to which I can attribute my decision? If I ultimately decide to "go gay", is it appropriate to blame my father? Mother? Both?

Gosh, it's all so confusing – but i like to keep my options open. And I don't want to make the WRONG choice! I only wish that there were some kind of natural, irreducible urge which would make everything come into focus.

144,
Man up? You mean like standing up to bombings, lynchings, hate crimes, gun shots, beatings, insults, and intolerance to fight for equal rights? We're there honey, and we've likely manned up more than you ever have.

45 -- of course it would be bigotry to discriminate against someone based on skin color. People cannot control their own skin color. Similarly, people cannot control their sexual orientation -- so discrimination on that basis is wrong, too. People, however, can control their conduct. The law doesn't criminalize being gay; it criminalizes gay sex. It is a perfectly reasonable view to have to believe that certain conduct is immoral and should be banned. After all, what are laws but an expression of society's moral views.

137/138--your logic skills are no better than your blog posting skills. The distinction between status and conduct in the ares of homosexuality is an unstable one. Read a little Foucault. Or, see Lawrence at 575: "When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres. The central holding of Bowers has been brought in question by this case, and it should be addressed. Its continuance as precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons." OConnor's concurrence further highlights this point: "Texas argues, however, that the sodomy law does not discriminate against homosexual persons. Instead, the State maintains that the law discriminates only against homosexual conduct. While it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such circumstances, Texas' **2487 sodomy law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class. “After all, there can hardly be more palpable discrimination against a class than making the conduct that defines the class criminal.” Id., at 641, 116 S.Ct. 1620 (SCALIA, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks omitted). When a State makes homosexual conduct criminal, and not “deviate sexual intercourse” committed by persons of different sexes, “that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.” Ante, at 2482."

At some point all straights chose to indulge their strange desires. Just because they don't remember that choice, doesn't mean they were born that way. And just because they made that choice doesn't mean its socially acceptable. [And just because they are in the majority doesn't mean they are morally superior to gay people, but I digress.]

You straight people chose to be a deviant. Case closed.

I don't know where the gay community thinks they are going with all the hystrionics these days. Will you get the right to marry each other? Yes, eventually, I'd say that's going to happen because you'll cram it down everyone's throats (no pun intended). But will you ever be accepted as normal by a large portion of the world? Nope. Why? Because you're never going to be able to displace the Bible the source of truth for a great many people. And a large portion of the world interprets the Bible to say that this behavior is ultimately destructive, hurtful, and wrong. Screaming at people isn't going to change that. I'm sorry, but that's truth. This isn't about race or gender roles - this goes to a fundamental element of mainstream Christian belief in the nature of sin. Maybe, instead of screaming at our "ignorance" in choosing to believe the Bible over you, you might dare to conceive that perhaps it is really you who are wrong after all.

145 I refer you to 149 for a thrashing of your flimsy analysis.

Thanks 149.

"political correctness set by elite"? I didn't know she worked for fox n' friends!

If NYU had a class in South Africa, hosting a Professor who recently argued before the parliament that blacks were inherently inferior intellectually to whites, and thus allowing them education should be criminalized, well, shit meet fan.

The question is whether NYU would have done this in the 1970s, and whether its supports would claim, "academic freedom."

Academic freedom as to policy issues fine - but as to discrimination of a large swath of people? Either such discrimination is morally wrong or not. NYU should take a stand, and act accordingly. This isn't about academic freedom.

Obviously there are some limits to the kinds of views you can express as a professor at just about any reputable academic institution in the country. For instance, if a Prof. seriously advocated the views of the Nazi party, she would obviously be fired.

So what NYU is really saying is "we disagree with her views on this, but we don't find them outrageous enough or the issue important enough to warrant her termination."

146 + 1

I agree with 151. Exactly how is it that anyone can consider being gay as positive behaviour? It's destructive, hurtful, and wrong.

Look, no species could exist if it were for procreation via heterosexual sex. That fact alone show that being gay goes against the natural order of things and is deviant behaviour.

The whole Lawrence jag kind makes here seem like al ittle daft, rather than some fearsomely skilled evil Thrasymachus. Its exactly like saying Loving didnt settle social views on black-whte marriage. Bigotry doesn't get convinced, it gets marginalized by cultural change and neutralized by law. It never goes away. And it never, BTW, recovers by claiming that its targets simply "choose" being disdained. Presuming your conclusion is a tactic that only works when you are in charge.

And yes, someone at NYU must report on the deal with her hands. Is that tragic foreshortening or are we dealing with a post-op situation here?

151 - the link you failed to provide is the cross reference in the Constitution to the Bible. I can't seem to find it in mine. I'll save you the data dump on the stupidity of citing the Bible in a discussion on United States law or the law of most any other civilized society.

I would note that your (likely) sworn enemies make the same types of fundamentalist arguments in extreme religious regimes of other faiths.

But at the end of the day I can't when an argument against someone citing a work of fiction that has been subject to extensive revision and creative interpretation.

Also, nice little slur about cramming down throats. Everyone knows that straight people don't engage in that sort of filthy behavior.

Dr. Thio's hands look good for fisting. Where does that practice fit within all this? Is fisting like drinking out of an extra wide jumps straw when a skinny juice-box style straw would suffice?

Dr. Thio's hands look good for fisting. Where does that practice fit within all this? Is fisting like drinking out of an extra wide jumbo straw when a skinny juice-box style straw would suffice?

158, this is 151. I wasn't attempting to engage in a legal argument. In fact, I acknowledged that the gay community will probably win the legal arguments and win the right to marry. But my point was that engaging in homosexual behavior will never be accepted as normal for a large of the world, including a large portion of Americans. And no amount of insults to our faith will change that. I'm sorry if that hurts you, but mainstream Christianity believes the homosexual lifestyle hurts more - it hurts you, and hurts all of us.

149-

You're missing the point entirely.

161--is it adult, consensual, monogamous, homosexual "behavior" that hurts your church or is it rather priests raping little boys?

GULC would never let this happen.

161 - Actually far, far, far more people have been hurt in the name of your faith than ever could be possibly harmed by two men living in a happy relationship, or any other aspect of the "homosexual lifestyle". Similarly, I believe there are some aspects of the "heterosexual lifestyle" that also cause quite significant problems to society.

145, "unfortunately, we don't grant non-drinkers a significant amount of tax benefits based on that "choice" to not be an alcoholic." Actually, they do, by the savings that they get for not paying the high alcohol taxes.

And since the object of one's attraction is so "fundamental," has Lindsay Lohan always been fundamentally a lesbian (like when she was dating Aaron Carter and Wilmer Valderrama) or only for brief recent moments in the media spotlight?

163- you mean the GAY priests who raped little boys? It was, afterall, homosexual sex. And you say this isn't a deviant lifestyle?

I agree with 164, NYU should be docked at least 10 spots on US News for this egregious behavior.

166 - has it really come to this? Lindsay Lohan? The argument of last resort?

Her views are quite frankly a lot less shocking than her sickening holier-than-thou arrogance that pervades through her entire statement. I hope NYU students make it clear that they are not here to be lectured by someone who thinks they are god's gift to the law by completely boycotting the class. The best response I would think is the obvious one - letting her "teach" an empty class. More importantly, I hope prominent academics like Prof Kenji Yoshino at NYU debate her views not so much to debunk them (since there are clearly two polarising viewpoints), but to get her off her high-and-mighty horse by demonstrating the hollowness of her views from a legal (I concede moralistically, one can take either position, but she is a law prof, not a divinity professor after all) standpoint.

156--I'm not sure if you deserve to be dignified with data revealing that in fact homosexuality is widespread in the animal kingdom, but in adhering to the First Amendment principle that the best remedy for false speech is more speech, not enforced silence, here goes;
Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study
Homosexual behaviour is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, according to a new study.
Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 5:19PM BST 16 Jun 2009
he pairing of same sex couples had previously been observed in more than 1,000 species including penguins, dolphins and primates.
However, in the latest study the authors claim the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.

Related Articles
Stickleback is 'genius' of the fish world
'Gay' penguins rear a chick in German zoo
Gay penguins steal eggs
They found that on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, almost a third of the Laysan albatross population is raised by pairs of two females because of the shortage of males. Through these 'lesbian' unions, Laysan albatross are flourishing. Their existence had been dwindling before the adaptation was noticed.
Other species form same-sex bonds for other reasons, they found. Dolphins have been known engage in same-sex interactions to facilitate group bonding while male-male pairings in locusts killed off the weaker males.
A pair of "gay" penguins recently hatched an egg at a German zoo after being given the egg that had been rejected by its biological parents by keepers.
Writing in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Dr Nathan Bailey, an evolutionary biologist at California University, said previous studies have failed to consider the evolutionary consequences of homosexuality.
He said same homosexual behaviour was often a product of natural selection to further the survival of the species.
Dr Bailey said: "It's clear same-sex sexual behaviour extends far beyond the well-known examples that dominate both the scientific and popular literature – for example, bonobos, dolphins, penguins and fruit flies.
"Same-sex behaviours – courtship, mounting or parenting – are traits that may have been shaped by natural selection, a basic mechanism of evolution that occurs over successive generations," he said.
"But our review of studies also suggests that these same-sex behaviours might act as selective forces in and of themselves."

Exactly 166. Thank you for pointing out the obvious problems with the gay agrument.

I'm interested to see how the gay posters respond. I know more than one person who had a "fundamental" change later in their life and suddenly became gay. But, apparently this isnt a choice.

169, do you have a substantive response? Or should I from now on dismiss all objectionable arguments by just calling them "last resorts"?
Perhaps you can also explain Ann Heche and the list of other "lesbians" who marry a man when they decide they want a baby before their biological clock runs out. Or just when they graduate from an all-girls school.

172--was it a fundamental change or was it rather a case of a sexuality one chose to hide/repress because of the ignorant attitudes of society as evidenced by your writings. Also, I know it must shock your conscience, but there is a phenomenon called bisexuality.

167--I thought your church deemed all priests upstanding heterosexual citizens who chose to become asexual and celibate in service to god. The Vatican denies that homosexual exist within its church, the very church rocked by a preponderance of sex scandals.

171-

Data? You gave a list of articles relating to "gay" animals, which all focus on same sex animals raising young (some either out of necessity (ie a shortage of males) and some through experiments). Obviously, this does not meet the definition of "gay" that were talking about here: that of same sex people who are "attracted" to one another and who engage in sexual activity for their own pleasure, not out of necessity.

Just because two animals of the same sex raise a baby doesn't mean those animals are gay- they're trying to ensure the continued existence of their species. That's not what homosexual human beings are doing. It's pure indulgence and serves no function whatsoever.

I don't know why individual people chose to experiment, I also don't know why Lindsey Lohan can't afford a driver instead of constantly getting DUIs.

Here's the bottom line - sexuality is an hard wired trait. Portions of our society (especially in some...er...less sophisticated parts of the country) create an environment where gay people do not feel comfortable being who they are. Some times, these people (*Larry Craig*) try to live in a straight relationship in an attempt to conform. Thats the choice. The choice is not whether or not someone's inherent sexuality is a choice.

Remember waking up one day and thinking "huh... that person makes me feel kinda funny, I think I'm attracted to them". The same thing happened to us (and, I can assure you people that are actually gay living in a straight relationship) but it just so happened we were attracted to people of the same sex.

My father is left handed, but his mother forced him to write with his right hand. The outward manifestation of is "handidness" (ie, he faked it) didn't change the actual trait.

I agree with 170 - all this talk is pointless - the best way to send the message to NYU and to she-with-man-hands is for her to find no one chose to be in her class. That's the strongest message the NYU studens can send as a collective student body.

176--The older data on Bonobos, dolphins, and fruit flies wantonly fucking members of the same sex was presumed known by the audience of the article on the newer study on homosexuality's having an evolutionary purpose. In case you missed all those studies all over the news while you were living in your bubble:
On Bonobos: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/07/30/070730fa_fact_parker

Studies on the widespread phenomenon of gay sex in the animal community coming to light after decades of suppression:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/07GAY.html?scp=1&sq=gay%20animals&st=cse ("The open discussion of homosexual behavior in animals is relatively new. "There has been a certain cultural shyness about admitting it," said Frans de Waal, whose 1997 book, "Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape" (University of California Press), unleashed a torrent of discussion about animal sexuality. Bonobos, apes closely related to humans, are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual, and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex. Female bonobos have been observed to engage in homosexual activity almost hourly.

Before his own book, "American scientists who investigated bonobos never discussed sex at all," said Mr. de Waal, director of the Living Links Center of the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory University in Atlanta. "Or they sometimes would show two females having sex together, and would say, `The females are very affectionate.' " . . . . .What the animal studies do show, Ms. Zuk observed, is that "sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think."

"You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic," she said, "that they have sex just to procreate."

In bonobos, she noted, "you see expressions of sex outside the period when females are fertile. Suddenly you are beginning to see that sex is not necessarily about reproduction."

"Sexual expression means more than making babies," Ms. Zuk said. "Why are we surprised? People are animals.")

"For bottlenose dolphins, about half of male sexual encounters are with other males, while one study of the bearded vulture showed that as many as a quarter of mountings were male-to-male.

Bonobos are known to have a penchant for same-sex genital rubbing and even oral sex, and male bat bugs pierce the bodies of other males with their penises and ejaculate into their blood, just as they do to females."
By the way, when you jack off into your tube socks to the picture of the Asian Man-Hands, does that further the existence of the species? God, I hope not, because any offspring would be fugly as well as ignorant.

As a gay Singaporean in New York, I am saddened by NYU's invite. Thio and her family are homophobic fundamentalists in the form of conservative Christians (in addition to her half-baked and ungentlemanly defense of criminalizing gay sex in parliament, see, for example, her mother's premeditated attempt to take over a women's organization (the AWARE episode - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOPQDQXFlsk).

I don't see how NYU can justify hiring someone who is clearly an anti-gay bigot who believes that gays are criminals to teach a class on human rights. All this pc talk about freedom of speech is great but when one of your professors is advocating an anachronistic legislative position (remnants from our colonial history) that will criminalise your gay students, I think it is necessary to take a step back and think hard about the effect of that hire and the message you are sending to future, past and current students.

8,

Hahahaha

I am the proud observer of her man hands in a previous commentary, I applaud all the inventiveness of posters thereto in incorporating the word hand into your comments. I applaud your handy-work.

My parents used to hate gay people. They thought it against the Bible and God and everything. I used to argue with them all the time about it. They eventually admitted that they had no good argument except they just didn't like it and that was not how they were raised.

Then they started meeting gay people. And they saw that they weren't monsters. Some of the gay people were actually very nice and they liked them a lot. Now, they don't have gay people and have no objections to gay marriage - although they still say they don't agree with their lifestyles.

According to Dean Richard Revesz: "So, while many in our community sharply disagree with, or are offended by, Professor Thio's 2007 remarks to the Singaporean Parliament, it is important to bear in mind that she was appointed as a visiting professor based on her published scholarship, not on views she expressed as a legislator."

This is a clear misstatement. A quick read on wikipedia shows that Thio's homophobic views were expressed back in 2003 (or possibly earlier) before she became a nominated member of parliament (she is no legislator) in 2007:

"Dr Thio Su Mien came to the attention of the Singaporean public in 2003 when she sent a letter to the local daily newspaper The Straits Times stating her strong disagreement with homosexuality.[Thio, Su Mein (2003-07-22). "No to homosexuality". Streats.] The letter, signed by eight persons, was in response to a speech by the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in which he mentioned that the Civil Service would not discriminate against employing homosexual individuals. On 9 February 2006, Dr Thio Su Mien also wrote another letter to The Straits Times which, amongst other things, stated her belief that the American Psychiatric Association had ceased to regard homosexuality as a mental disorder due to "pressure tactics from homosexual activists — including riots and disruptions of APA meetings".[Nirmala, M. (2003-07-23). "Gay backlash". The Straits Times.]"

Thio was appointed a Nominated Member of Parliament "from" 18 January 2007.

It's amusing that Dr. Thio seems to see herself as a victim throughout all of this. Despite all her scholarship and impressive degrees, this woman simply lacks common sense.

154- look what happened to Norman Finklestein

Does anyone think that the good professor could be under hand-edly lurking and trying her hand at anonymous blog posting in the US? (Could you get caned for that in Singapore)?

I direct your attention to a couple of anti-gay posts with questionable sentence construction that follow British spelling patterns.

We should picket the school DURING her class. They don't get it, if she is was teaching contracts, torts, international law, then this would not be a big issue. The fact she is teaching HUMAN RIGHTS is a slap in the face to equality and HUMAN RIGHTS. Especially in light of her recent stance to disallow some equal rights.

184 - that may be a different Dr. Thio.

189 - in fact, it's Li-Ann Thio's mom, Su Mien.

187 - questionable phrasing and british spelling? sounds like our canadian cousins are at it again.

113 says, "Discrimination against people based on race, ethic origin, or gender is wrong for the simple fact that people are born with these characteristics and cannot change them. Gays, on the other hand, deserve no protection from discrimination because their lifestyle is a choice. "

Notice Thio (posting here anonymously) conveniently leaves out religion from the list (race, ethic [sic] origin, gender..") Because religion is one of those things that can be changed and, therefore, would blow yet another of her piddly, illogical arguments. NYU shouldn't be ashamed about an anti-gay professor, but rather, the shamefully low quality of logic displayed by their faculty. And NYU's lack of diligence in this regard.

"it is important to bear in mind that she was appointed as a visiting professor based on her published scholarship, not on views she expressed as a legislator."

Because the committee forgot to Google her? I mean, really. Did they REALLY know this was out there and decided "screw it [/stick a straw up our nose] let's bring her in anyway."

As a gay T10 graduate, I would like to say the day I 'chose' to be gay was April 4th, 1987. It was a seminal moment in my life, when a letter from the Christian Coalition's Campaign for a Choice arrived in my mailbox. Apparently I had attracted their attention on a misguided shopping trip to Frederick's of Hollywood, but I digress. Since checking the 'Homo' box (and thereby sealing my sexual fate), I haven't looked back, well only a few times at my suitors who preferred that position, pardon me as I digress yet again...

Anyway, I totally agree with Sir Tool, the commenter formerly known as 113, it was a clear choice, and if I had instead checked the 'Breeder' box I would probably be as ignorant, closeted and self-loathing as he appears to be. Thankfully, my fate, unlike his, which is most likely comprised of cruising airport bathrooms a la Larry Craig, is much less dangerous and career wrecking. I am just saying...

Affectionately,
Homo Box Checker, Esq.
Affirmed Homosexual Chooser Extraordinaire

Great letter, 42.

As for those conservatives whining about the intolerance of gays towards people like Dr. Thio, read the posts on this thread. People like Dr. Thio and many posters on this thread don't just not tolerate us, they actively believe that we are degenerates and should be treated as less than human. They do not accept that the reality is that being gay is NOT a choice, just like being straight is NOT a choice. They refuse to give us any dignity at all. So, no, I will not tolerate that. Nor should anyone tolerate be treated as less than human.

It's not just a difference of opinion, it's an attack on our right to even exist, other than in the dark, shameful shadows of society.

So, no, I will not tolerate Dr. Thio. And neither should NYU - her discourse towards homosexuals is not the reasoned discourse of a legal academic. It is the rhetoric of hate and superiority, meant to humiliate and put gays in their place.

If I were a law student, I would not attend NYU after this. It is unacceptable. And the students of NYU should protest her every class, because her loudly spoken beliefs are an affront to human dignity.

-- Lawyer Gay

Jesus loved/loves gays and the gay lifestyle. That Peter, Paul, or the Jews wrote some things that can be translated and construed as anti-gay-sex does not make homosexuality non-Christian.

195 -

Bravo. Well said.

195 - agreed. NYU OUTLAW should do more than participate in reasoned discourse with Dr Thio.

195 -- being gay is not a choice. Choosing to engage in gay sex is, however. People are born with all sorts of predispositions -- to murder, stealing, abuse, etc. -- that society requires them to control. We should never discriminate against anyone because of who they are. However, choosing to discriminate against people because of their voluntary actions, however, is an entirely different matter.

Law embodies morality. We outlaw murder because we believe it immoral. Most of us believe it immoral because it harms the victim. However, that is still simply one moral code, drawn from a set of principles (do not harm others). It is possible for one to have other moral codes that would outlaw gay sex, even if one accepted (as I do) that neither party is being harmed -- e.g., Kant's categorical imperative. But one can't say that we shouldn't impose our moral views through law. All criminal laws impose moral views. It's simply because the moral view of not harming others is widely shared that laws that seek to prevent such harm are not controversial. But they do convey a moral viewpoint.

Prominent Gay Opponent appointed to Singapore Parliament
BY Ted Young
Anti-gay rhetoric set to be aired in parliament as Singapore's own version of Jerry Falwell, Dr Thio Li-Ann, becomes appointed as Nominated Member of Parliament. 15/01/2007





One name in the recent appointment of Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) in Singapore stood out glaringly to anyone who follows the public debate of gay issues in Singapore: Thio Li-Ann. An Associate Professor at the National University of Singapore (NUS) Law Faculty, Thio Li-Ann, along with her mother Thio Su-Mein, is well-known for her views on homosexuality. Her appointment as one of the nine NMPs came as a rude shock to many in the gay community.

The NMP scheme in Singapore allows up to 9 unelected MPs for a term of two and a half years. The Straits Times reported that some of the issues Thio would pursue in her tenure as NMP include "civil virtues and public morality". She has a record of championing religious issues. Two of her articles published in the Straits Times stressed the role of religion in public policy debate.

At a forum ("Homosexuality: Myths and Truths") organised by Focus on the Family on 24 Nov 2003 at Wesley Methodist Church, Thio alleged that the gay community has an organised agenda. She implied that Singapore's newspapers were populated by biased liberals, whose unfair reporting paint the conservative Christians as homophobic fundamentalists, while portraying the pro-gay camp as progressive.

Her appointment as NMP could not have come at a worse time. One of the first bills to be debated in parliament is the revision to sexual crimes in the penal code, including the continued criminalisation of homosexual acts in Singapore. No representatives from the gay community were nominated, although there is no lack of prominent personalities who could sail through the NMP selection process.

Thio's presence in the parliament could perhaps bring out both conservative and liberal views on not just homosexuality but the role of religion in public policy. In this present global climate where religion is making a comeback in politics, even secular Singapore is no safe harbour.

In December 2004, Thio's mother Thio Su-Mein, a former dean of the NUS Law Faculty, wrote to the Straits Times lauding the police ban on gay parties: "As Straits Times Senior Writer Andy Ho noted recently: 'It is homosexuals who engaged in condomless anopenetrative sex that are culpable of spreading HIV in Singapore', causing the 'second wave of HIV here and worldwide.'

"To facilitate or allow such activities to carry on unchecked would constitute a gross breach of the public trust and be highly irresponsible. The Aids problem cannot be ignored.

"Blatant flaunting of homosexual activities is offensive to the conservative mainstream which wants to see enduring standards of public decency and morality upheld - it would be regressive to allow this to degenerate."

She is brave and righteous! I support her without reservation.

199 - I for one chose not to return to a puritanical state - one where condoms are illegal, interracial marriage is regulated as a moral hazard, and women are not permitted to vote.

Wrapping discrimination in a shroud of moral regulation doesn't change the fact that its discriminatory. What if we were to regulate people who chose to participate in premarital straight sex. (Alas, in most of the country, all gay sex is de facto premarital).

Of course, all law requires some sort of moral/policy judgment. Its just that the moral/policy judgment underlying Singapore's criminalization of gay sex and (more arguably) is outdated and itself immoral.

This common law of this country is built on a wide range of laws based on faulty value judgments that have since been repealed or overturned. Would you care to defend those as well?

199 - what does the categorical imperative have to do with all this?

201 - there is nothing brave about being a bigot and a homophobe in Singapore. We'll see how she does after a month of teaching at NYU.

Righteousness, per se, is not a positive trait. Someone who agrees with your own narrow view of the world in a "righteous" way is not necessarily a god person.

202 -- your examples are not fair. I wouldn't deny women the right to vote -- begin female is an inherent characteristic, and we should not discriminate on inherent characteristics. Same with interracial marriage -- neither party has control of their race; such marriages should not be illegal.

Where you and I disagree is whether there is a human right to sexual expression. I answer no -- that society may regulate sexual expression.

You want to know why most gays are Dems? Because they're so adroit at playing the victim. And anybody who dares question such a poor, helpless victim is quickly silenced by the predictable labels: racist, misogynist, homophobe, hate-monger, etc.

Victimology is the Dems' bread & butter. And look where victimology has gotten us: welfare state, broken families, and Obama.

195 is a classic example of victimology and the old "don't tolerate the intolerant." This is what happens when a dissenting viewpoint dares to, um, penetrate liberals' cloistered world of academia where "free speech" applies only to those who exercise the right kind of speech.

199 -- Then I ask you to show me the way. Give up the act of sex with the opposite sex for the rest of your life. Can you do it? To be pure and moral? For eternal salvation?

To see if you can do it, why don't you anser this question -- did you wait to have sex until you were married? Because that's the moral imperative. Or it was. Until the straights got tired of it.

If you can't answer yes to those 2 questions, then shut the fuck up.

-- Lawyer Gay

sounds like NYU hasn't done its research, has been caught with its pants down, and will have a hard time explaining this appointment to its core constituency.

You'd be more convincing if you actually addressed my arguments, 207. Rather than playing out the tired "all gays are victims" straw man.

That argument is generally made by people with nothing substantive to add to the discussion, but know that their power is somehow being gnawed away. Their righteous power to regulate the lives of others, and stand in superior judgment over all those not like them.

I know it must be painful, but if anyone is playing the victim, it's you dear.

-- Lawyer Gay

203 -- the categorical imperative argues that one shouldn't engage in an activity that would be harmful to humankind if everyone engaged in it. If everyone was gay, humankind would die out. I'm not saying you have to agree with the categorical imperative -- it is simply one example of a moral system that would lead to making gay sex illegal that is not faith-based.

And, 206, who said anything about eternal salvation. What about my post indicated that my opposition to making gay sex legal had anything to do with a faith belief? I happen to follow the categorical imperative, and don't think that either straight sex or premarital sex is a problem with it. But I have no problem obeying the law -- if someone outlawed straight sex, I would comply.

What really boggles the mind, though, is why Thio wanted to teach at ultra-liberal NYU. She'd be more at home at Ave Maria or Regent. Dr. Thio, if you're reading this, consider it free career counseling when NYU revokes your offer.

207 - Dr Thio is a classic example of victimology.

"We can be united in commitment to this principle [of academic freedom], without slavishly bowing to a demanded uniformity or dogma of political correctness set by elite diktat. I cannot say I am impressed by this ugly brand of politicking which I hope is not endemic....
I am disappointed at the intolerant animosity directed at me by strangers who do not know me and have decided to act on their own prejudices, forged from whatever sources, I am nonetheless glad that there are still some at NYU, who uphold a commitment to academic freedom and who entertain dissent with respect. As a recent NYU graduate, a Muslim friend of mine said, one must have courage in the face of bullying."

I feel for her... not.

210 - basing public policy on the categorical imperative would essentially outlaw all non-mainstream behavior. that's simply untenable.

Lawrence v. Texas = a complete travesty

"And, 206, who said anything about eternal salvation. What about my post indicated that my opposition to making gay sex legal had anything to do with a faith belief? I happen to follow the categorical imperative, and don't think that either straight sex or premarital sex is a problem with it. But I have no problem obeying the law -- if someone outlawed straight sex, I would comply."

Right. You couldn't even give up sex until you got married. I do not believe for one minute that you would give up straight sex if it were outlawed tomorrow. Nor do I believe you should give up straight sex if it were outlawed tomorrow. Your sexuality is a very important part of who you are, and without it, you would die. Remember that pesky little pyramid of needs you learned about in Intro to Psych? It's real. And it's just as real for us gays as it is for you.

The fact is that laws made by the majority populations often get it wrong. And breaking those laws by the minority is necessary for their own survival. So I reject your categorical imperative. It works only for those in the majority population.

-- Lawyer Gay

"202 -- your examples are not fair. I wouldn't deny women the right to vote -- begin female is an inherent characteristic, and we should not discriminate on inherent characteristics. Same with interracial marriage -- neither party has control of their race; such marriages should not be illegal/"

** Right - and being gay is also an inherent trait. Surely you wouldn't argue that being straight is NOT an inherent trait.

"Where you and I disagree is whether there is a human right to sexual expression. I answer no -- that society may regulate sexual expression."

**Its pretty easy to sit in the position of the majority and say "regulate what THEY do" isn't it? It must be nice. We don't have the privilege. But imagine a society that said "Its ok if you are straight, just don't have straight sex, don't engage in straight relationships and conform to the majority - if you do that, you'll be fine".

Wouldn't you feel like some fundamental rights of yours were up for grabs?

213 -- why is that untenable? Because of compliance costs? Compliance costs should be irrelevant to the making of laws. Laws should express society's ideals, not merely what we think we can afford to enforce.

Lawyer Gay is going to hell, and he knows it. That's why he's so full of self-righteous indignation.

+1 206, by the way.

"Dr. Thio can't be prejudiced. Some of her best friends are Muslim!"

Really, Lat? That's not what she's saying.

I don't agree with her views, but that line just makes you sound illogical and way too emotional. It undermines your point.

216 -- as I've said in previous posts, being gay is an inherent trait, and we should not discriminate against gay people for being gay. What I've also said is just because a trait is inherent doesn't mean one has to give expression to it, and there are many examples of outlawed behaviors that people have a genetic predisposition towards. If you are going to attack my argumentation, at least read what I've argued.

215,

"Your sexuality is a very important part of who you are, and without it, you would die." LOL.

Highly ironic considering that (1) without heterosexual sex, the human race would eventually die; and (2) without homosexual sex, far FEWER people would die from AIDS.

Your victim throes are prone to gaytastic hyperbole.

214 - Agree, should have been decided on equal protection grounds.

218 - We really don't give a sh*t about the fictional constructs you've bought into to inform your own behavior.

Pick up a copy of the Federalist Papers, read it, and then come back and report why our founding fathers were so concerned about religious zealots (clue: you) interfering with government and the rights of others.

219 - Lat is being sacarstic. Though I wonder, given that Thio appears given to quoting her for support (even if in a completely incoherent and nonsensical way), anyone knows who this recent NYU grad "friend" is? I imagine there can't be too many vocal anti-gay persons at NYU.....

222 - So hell is a "fictional construct," eh?

Yes, it is very clear, self-evident if you will, that the Founders were so terrified of religious zealots that they sought the protection of Divine Providence in our founding documents. Makes perfect sense.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that Federalist 10 argues against factions, you know, like gay special interest groups who seek to amend laws because they don't comport with their sexual predilections.

In fact, the Founders would probably be more concerned with the adverse health effects of sodomy and homosexuality's assault on family values than with the controversial and novel concept of hell.

All right 220, lets keep this discussion in the real world, shall we?

1. Criminalizing gay sex in this country is unconstitutional. In American jurisprudence, that moves being gay and actually doing something about it into the sphere of a wide universe of other discriminatory laws that purported to regulate behavior. Those decisions are now widely accepted. So, yes, while moral and policy judgments underlie most laws, they can still be tested and ruled unconstitutional.

2. As for your silly argument that "its ok to be gay, just don't be GAY (ie, don't act on a fundamental sexual impulse) - you failed to respond to my hypothetical. How would you respond if was ok to be straight but not to act on it. Your thoughts are appreciated.

3. While you are at it, please also respond to O'Connor's concurrence in Lawrence where she states "Texas argues, however, that the sodomy law does not discriminate against homosexual persons. Instead, the State maintains that the law discriminates only against homosexual conduct. While it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such circumstances, Texas' **2487 sodomy law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class. “After all, there can hardly be more palpable discrimination against a class than making the conduct that defines the class criminal."

4. Explain to me a valid policy argument for criminalizing same sex relationships in a world where you admit that being gay is an inherent trait. You won't be encouraging procreation because you admit that people are inherently gay and its just not ok to act on it. Straight people did a perfectly find job spreading sexually transmitted diseases long before gay sex was socially accepted enough to make a difference. I, for one, love Volataire's description of Syphilis. Also, religious arguments are off limits - its the whole church & state thing.

225 -- Regarding your arguments

1. You're right about the current state of the law.
2. I did respond, in post 210 to which you responded in post 215
3. O'Connor is an idiot. If you follow that logic, any self-defined class by conduct would be entitled to anti-discirmination protection. Me, I want to discriminate against murderers and pedophiles, among others.
4. Categorical imperative, baby.

217 - it's not because of compliance costs. It's because many social norms are not static and it's not the role of the law to artificially freeze them in place like a time capsule. Murder and theft have always been repugnant to humanity, but attitudes towards homosexuality, suicide or divorce have changed dramatically over time. How do you tell the difference? Mill's harm principle offers some guidelines, but, frankly, the burden of proof should be on the advocates of government intervention, not vice-versa. Freedom needs no justification, it's the infringement thereon that must be supported by an iron-clad case. So far, I'm not presuaded.

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' - James Madison

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of... Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."- Thomas Paine

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine

The Categorical Imperative is not a valid policy argument for discriminating against a class of people in this country. This isn't a high school debate. We are talking the real world here. Please show me one modern US case relying on your argument and then we can actually discuss it.

Calling someone an idiot doesn't respond to the argument. Tell me why her analysis is incorrect.

Lawyer Gay = Roxana

Sodomy does not define the class of homosexuality. Can't you people just stop at heavy petting? What about a good HAND job?

Seriously we are tired of the LGBT groups pushing too hard. Soceity has become extraordinarily tolerant and has bent over backward to accomodate gays in the past 20 years, but the majority is beginning to draw the line in several places: adoption by gay couples; "marriage" identical to one man, one woman marriage under the law with all rights to social security, insurance, etc; openly gay behavior in the combat military; pushing the Heather has two mommies indoctrination in elementary schools; and the continual pseudoscience claims. The majority is willing to accept the fact that many and perhaps most gay people are hard wired that way, but we can see that the continual public celebration of gayness and peer pressure draws other people into that lifestyle who are not clearly hard wired that way -- and we don't want our children to do that.

stick that in your politically correct ear.

231- Are you serious?

You know I'm really tired of the straight agenda being pushed down my throat. I have bent over backwards to accept you people. But I draw the line at straight adoption and straight marriage. I accept maybe you are hard wired that way, but enough is enough. And I don't want my children to turn out like you.

231: "the continual public celebration of gayness and peer pressure draws other people into that lifestyle" - wrong. no matter how many gay parades i see down the street, i will not take another man's hram up my poopenshaft. would you?

232 and 233

parents who have raised children through the teen years will understand exactly what I mean by "the continual public celebration of gayness and peer pressure draws other people into that lifestyle". there are many kids who are not clearly hard wired to homosexuality who are at risk. pre-teen kids are also exposed to celebration of gayness due to the persistent, insistent lobbying of the LGBT groups. this is something the narcissistic self-indulgent gay community refuses to acknowledge, but in your heart you know it's true.

and anal sodomy, especially as frequently practiced in male gay cohorts, is in fact unnatural and a serious public health problem. we are regulating tobacco by onerous taxation, severe restrictions on use and advertising bans, and based on the same public health and cost to society reasons, we should be able to regulate dirty filthy irresponsible unnatural animal sex practices that spread serious disease like wildfire. why should my kids inherit the public debt to pay for the health care necessitated by such selfish irresponsibility?

enough with the spurious arguments about queer dolphins and the comparisons to slavery and bans on interracial marriage!

please keep your gayness to yourself and stop spreading disease. thank you

229 -- Sigh. Apparently you are having difficulty following my argument over several posts. Here it is, in a nutshell:

1. Discrimination based on immutable characteristics should be prohibited.
2. Discrmination based on conduct should not necessarily be prohibited.
3. Immutable characteristics and conduct are two different things.
4. Many people have immutable predispositions towards activities we all agree should be illegal.
5. The mere presence of an immutable predisposition is therefore not an argument that particular conduct should be allowed.
6. Historically, anti-discrimination efforts in the U.S. have been focused on protecting groups that were discriminated against because of immutable characteristics.
7. The logic that argued against their discrimination does not apply when one is talking about conduct.
8. This is why O'Connor is wrong -- if one holds that prohibiting conduct attributable to a group is equivalent to discriminating against that group, it allows any group -- murderers, pedophiles, whoever -- to argue that they are being discriminated against because conduct they engage in is prohibited. It is an argument that would remove all prohibitions on any conduct.
9. It is a fallacy to argue that defenders of prohibitions on homosexual conduct are exclusively motivated by religious views.
10. In any event, one is entitled to push for his/her religious or philosophical views to be incorporated in the law, as all laws reflect a moral understanding. The categorical imperative is simply one such understanding.
11. Let me put the question to you -- why do you think murder should be illegal. If you answer "because it harms the victim", that is a moral view (harming victims is bad). There are other moral views besides simply avoiding harm to others -- that moral view has no special place above others in shaping our laws.

232 unfortunately for you, we live in a world where more than 95 percent of the humans are heterosexual. and the heterosexual relationships produce the vast majority of children and families. and the vast majority of us just are not comfortable with the LGBT agenda of celebrating gayness and teaching our children and one way is not preferable to the other. in most of the major population centers we are extremely tolerant of gay communities, although we shuddered in horror at the rapid spread of HIV and the stories of rampant male gay promiscuity that accelerated that disease. when you are in a 4 percent minority group, you have to accept tolerance and basic rights in most areas, but push too hard for everyone to celebrate your lifestyle and you will indeed lose vote after vote on gay marriage, gay adoption and similar matters.

235 - so your argument is: because law necessarily reflects someone's moral values, all citizens should try to have their own moral values made into law. The group that prevails at the polls gets to impose its values on everyone else (unless you're not a fan of democracy, in which case we'll give that job to "Nominated Members of Parliament"). What happens to those whose moral values conflict with those of the government? Are they shit out of luck, or should some of their freedoms be protected, and if so, on what grounds?

110 is an asshat. Many animals eat their mate after coupling. Does that mean that humans should? For the record, I have no problem with homosexuals. Your argument, however, is asinine.

To 195

Gays, who are so by nature not nurture, are evolutionary duds. Evolutionary duds are not equal. Ergo, Gay claims to equal rights are preposterous.

237 -- Their rights should be protected via a social compact approved by the majority with provisions making amendment challenging. Such as our constitution -- which should not have been intepreted as protecting gay sex given that gay sex was outlawed at the time of its adoption, meaning that the intent of those who drafted and approved it could not have been to make gay sex legal.

Honestly, if conservatives could just be rounded up and shot, the world would be a much better place. So much time and effort has been wasted over the past 100 years arguing with conservatives that they're wrong about race, about gender, about gay rights.

What a fucking waste of time and effort. These people are not deserving of the respect commanded by decent human beings. They're wrong now about gay issues just like they've been wrong about everything else (race/gender) before. It's just sad that every rational person's time effort needs to be wasted fightig them. So pathetic.

With those hands, if the NYU gig doesn't work out she could get a job serving Kung Pao chicken at Lucky Cheng's.

241,

Good thing we're the ones with the guns. And we like to use them :) Don't worry, your time will come.

As a future law student who was considering accepting at NYU, I am disgusted by the NYU administration's tolerance of such discriminatory and ignorant statements.

I will be taking my LSAT score elsewhere.

Yes, 243, because the racists and bigots have always won (see civil war, civil rights battles)

Look, I have no objections--moral or legal--to same sex marriage or the pillow-biting that goes along with it. I ask only one thing: please stop equating the struggle for gay rights to anything relating to the experience of blacks in America. Yes, slavery is long gone and no, as a black man I've never been held back in any significant way by discrimination; still.... give it a rest.

Seriously though, you guys have got to HAND it to her, she has certainly taken a pragmatic and bold HANDS on approach to putting the SMACK down on the queers. I mean seriously, what other lofty academic would get their own HANDS dirty by mixing it up with a bunch of dirty NYU hippies? I do, however, think that she is a bit self-serving as all this controversy is sure to reward her HANDsomely.

245,

1, The North was equally racist, they just hated slavery.
2, Civil rights was, for the most part, non-combat.
3, liberals eschew guns.
4, you = fail

At least you don't have to put up with her all the time, she's just visiting NYU.

I have to... at her home University in Singapore. Sigh.

210 you are a sheep

I'm watching Philadelphia (Washington and Hanks). Clearly depicts how queers have hijacked and exploited the story of blacks in America.

Lat,

You do know that the majority of your commenters are racist and believe that blacks are inferior. This explains why your many mistakes go mostly without note while Elie's generate 20 consecutive comments. I'm just sayin'

Lat is also a minority. By your theory, ATL readers should be equally critical of Lat's errors.

To those adherents of Kant's philosophy -- the United States government was built of the philosophies of J.S. Mills and John Locke. If you are really a Kantian, go to the West Indies where they believe in the teachings of Kant (and Hobbs). Seriously. The categorical imperative may be the most useless theory in the free world. I don't want to read anything more about it.

254,

How could the US be partially predicated upon the philosophies of a man born 30 years after the American revolution?

For his 25th birthday, I let my gay roommate play around below my belt with his mouth. The experience fully convinced me that I was in no way homosexual, and that I could never "choose" to be gay. All you "it's a choice" people could try the same for verification, but I suspect it would be like that first sip of wine for the alcoholic.

OBAMA SCIENCE CZAR: "Forced abortions and mass sterilization through public water system necessary to save lives."

Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology — informally known as the United States’ Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;

• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;

• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;

• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.

• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things.

Well, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, no exaggeration. John Holdren really did say those things, and this report contains the proof.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/10/the-ghoulish-spirit-of-margaret-sanger-lives/

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

Finally, someone is taking a stand. She's lucky she's not a white male

42- That was extremely thoughtful and well written. I find it humorous that someone above called you pompous simply because you dared to write an intellectual comment rather than a hateful and useless comment on here

"Dr. Thio can't be prejudiced. Some of her best friends are Muslim!"

You tell 'em. Thank you for standing up for intolerance Above the Law.

PS enjoyed your comments about "dumb Polaks" in your earlier ATL post. It's OK though. I am sure some of your best friends are Polish.

I'm really disappointed with NYU over this. It really looks like they either completely failed to do their research or were intellectually lazy in evaluating the relevance of Thio's statements to her competence to teach human rights law. Unfortunately, now that this seems to be framed as an academic freedom argument rather than a competence argument, the administration there can, and may feel compelled to, stand on a principle that may not be all that germane to whether she should be teaching human rights law in the first place.

In reading her speech to lawmakers in Singapore, I thought that she (like some commenters here) raised good points about the incoherence of applying concepts of equal rights to groups identifiable by conduct or proclivity. Even though I am a gay man and very strongly believe that I should have the same rights to live my life in every respect with a man I love that a straight man has to live his life with a woman he loves, I have to admit that intellectually it is very messy to explain why gays and lesbians are a class that deserve protection. Notions of identity, privacy, innateness and harmlessness, for example, are articulated in the realm of sexual orientation equality, where at least from the present such arguments seem like they were much less discussed in the classic examples of race, gender and religion. (The fact that there is some real thought involved in how ideas of equality apply to sexual orientation does not worry me. Holmes was right that the life of the law has not been logic but experience, and this will be sorted out.)

If all Thio had done was critique the logical coherence of sexual orientation equality, then her speech would not have made me question her competence. But her statements suggested both anti-scientific attitudes and an unselfconscious intolerance. She cavalierly states that science in the area of sexual orientation is politicized to the point that it is unusable and instead cites a few purportedly "ex-gay" individuals as evidence that homosexuality is a choice. Fine, I'll consider her argument, but she'd better muster more than anecdotal evidence if she expects to be taken seriously as an academic in the United States. And if she gets to teach human rights while dismissing science that doesn't suit her as too politicized, Senator Inhofe gets to teach climate science as a visiting professor in Singapore. She sounds like Stephen Colbert minus the sense of irony.

Likewise, she talks about gays as suffering from a "gender identity disorder" (insert hand joke here) and NAMBLA as somehow a representative part of the gay movement. How many gay people does she know? But for being in Biglaw, I think I'm a pretty well-adjusted person, and neither I nor any gay (or straight) person I know endorses pedophilia. She chooses her words carefully, but if she gets called a bigot or a homophobe, it's not because the person calling her that is a "radical," "intolerant" or "imperialist" homosexual, but it's because she is, in fact, a bigot.

I don't think that this makes her unqualified to be a professor - that would probably be intolerant on my part - but I do think, as the president of the American Association of University Professors said, that it raises questions about her competence to teach a class on human rights law. I seriously question whether she has the intellectual seriousness or tolerance in this subject area to teach in an American classroom, where sexual orientation is a legitimate and unavoidable subject for a human rights law class.

Maybe her comments were shallow and callous given the political theater in which she made them. She certainly sounded no worse than many American politicians in this area. But even if that is the case, it raises serious questions about her responsibility as a serious academic. At a minimum, it requires the NYU administration to re-consider whether she is qualified to teach the class they're hiring her for. What is really shameful and pathetic is that I don't think the NYU administration gave this any serious thought before.

gays are not a protected class, they are either simply abnormal or worse, dangerous perverts. we don't protect child molesters either ...

241, conservatives were wrong on race? Is the non discrimination policy for immigration and employment/housing working out well here? Is your multicultural assimilation dream working? Clearly not.

262 - please die. You are subhuman.

It seems to me that the embarrassingly low intellectual level belongs to the Morons on the staff of NYU who didn't bother to read what this hateful bitch has spewed as she kowtowed the the line dictated by her masters in the Singapore regime. She is clearly a spineless worm who repeats what she is told; how could they not have known this? I guess it would have been just "too hard" to find an actual dissident who could provide the truth about the absence of Human Rights in Singapore.

NYU Law: Fail.

262 - please die. You are subhuman.

It seems to me that the embarrassingly low intellectual level belongs to the Morons on the staff of NYU who didn't bother to read what this hateful bitch has spewed as she kowtowed the the line dictated by her masters in the Singapore regime. She is clearly a spineless worm who repeats what she is told; how could they not have known this? I guess it would have been just "too hard" to find an actual dissident who could provide the truth about the absence of Human Rights in Singapore.

NYU Law: Fail.

257 - PLEASE tell me someone of your low brain power is not a lawyer!?! Your source document is from Michelle "Madwoman" Malkin?? Tell me, do you regularly cite to her in your legal briefs?

LOLOLOL.... What a fool! Thanks for the laugh, Weirdo!

Wait, wait. Here we have a really unpleasant piece of work turning every overused, loaded jargon dagger back on the Edward Said-victimology-activists, complete with "imperialisms" and "hatreds" and "intolerances," and capping the whole thing by relying on a Muslim buddy -- a follower of an ideology that in its holy books (as well as all-too-current practice in Islamic-law states) calls for the immediate murder of homosexuals.

Whose victimization wins here? Who's more oppressed? She's Asian and a woman and has really big hands! Is that last one a disability? I'm so confused! I'm off to Racialicious and Muslimamediawatch and Feministing (does anyone know any really offended disability sites?) immediately to find out whose idiotic behavior, sense of entitlement, and stupid choices are more colonialized and that'll make it all okay!

This is what makes those of us in "red states" skeptical of elite schools and elite media outlets (yes, that means you, ATL). Let the woman have her views. Academic freedom cuts both ways.

The really ludicrous thing is she was chosen to teach about human rights.
If she was chosen to teach business law or something Singapore is good at, it's one thing if her views are reactionary, but she simply does not fit the profile of someone to choose to teach this class.
Period!
Think of all the lawyers toiling away on human rights issues, and then think of choosing a slick government mouthpiece from a repressive regime?
This isn't a free speech issue, it's simply inappropriate that they chose her and should rescind the offer.

"relying on a Muslim buddy -- a follower of an ideology that in its holy books (as well as all-too-current practice in Islamic-law states) calls for the immediate murder of homosexuals"

Does anyone know who that is? Surely if Thio has a just-graduated Muslim friend in NYU law who is sprouting some intolerant nonsense, someone would know who she is by now?

Does anyone deny that AIDS would not be a world epidemic if not for the disgusting, promiscuous practices of homosexuals? After 2 decades of hearing "AIDS is not a disease," even doctors admit that it is now.

http://www.afamichigan.org/2008/02/14/natl-gay-and-lesbian-task-force-admits-hiv-is-a-gay-disease/

To 265,

It's ironic that you accuse a human being with different values as being subhuman so that you can champion a purported "human right." It's also ironic that as a homosexual evolutionary dud, you somehow deem homosexuals not to be subhuman, if such a category of people exists.

271 - Africa. Are you even trying?

on cue the LGBT people change the subject and take on a condescedning tone at every turn. Africa? Queer dolphins?

i am deeply offended that NYU law school would announce that it "categorically rejects" Dr. Thio's point of view, ergo even the parts grounded in science and public health. individual human rights do have boundaries that can be legitimately imposed for the good of all society. what is absolutely amazing is that the LGTB advocates have made so much progress is a relatively small amount of time -- 25 years or so -- but at some point there are lines that society will draw and say, no, this isn't right. after the experience with HIV in this country over the past 30 years, I am amazed that NYU "categorically rejects" the viewpoint that a ban on specific harmful actions is not rational. this is not a ban on gay relationships; there is no right to enage in acts that are not natural lovemaking and are an unnatural use of phyisical organs that create a heightened risk of spreading disease and increased costs to society.

On the larger moral issue of why the majority of civilizations have banned homosexuality in toto for thousands of years, I believe there is a persuasive argument to be made that public permissiveness about sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular lead to a general loosening of the moral facbric and a degradation of society. check the figures on unmarried mothers over the past 50 years. anybody think that is good for the long term health of our country? perhaps there is something to this silly "moral" argument after all. or should we continue to celebrate the culture of "any sex is good sex" and see where it leads us?

42++

If only universities stood up for accomplished leftist professors like Norman Finkelstein, Ward Churchill, and Joseph Massad the way they stand up for hateful troglodytes like Thio.

"If only universities stood up for accomplished leftist professors like Norman Finkelstein, Ward Churchill,"

I didn't realize universities were supposed to stand up for plagiarists.

195

well said, but it's a total exaggeration of the "convervative" view which supports Dr. Thio here. gay rights have come a long way and the vast majority supports virtually all the advances in gay rights made over the past 30 years. but some things that the LGTB forces are advocating vociferously just don't make sense to the majority of society. Dr. Thio clearly distinguished between the human rights of homosexuals and the rights to engage in specific harmful acts. the majority of the US Supreme Court disagreed and you also disagree with Dr. Thio. the vast majority of societies over the past 5000 years have agreed with Dr. Thio. I do think her position is a legitimate one and that you and the LGTB forces are engaging in cultural imperialism by trying to shout her down. there are serious issues both narrow (public health) and expansive (anthropological evaluation of societal rules in successful societies) to be explored. naturally you feel threatened because one possible outcome of this discourse is that continual public celebration and support of gayness may not be the best thing for a successful society. you would like to shout down that view but it will not go away. no one is suggesting going to the other extreme (e.g. Nazi germany) but perhaps we have gone far enough in granting gay rights, and perhaps some backtracking on a few things like gay sodomy should at least be discussed after the US experience with HIV over the past 30 years. durable heterosexual relationships are necessary for the continuation of a successful society. gay relationships are not. there is a difference. the role of children in society and education create other points of friction. gay rights achieved thus far are a blessing and maybe you should take a pause and consolidate the rights you have rather than bullying the uncertain majority into giving you everything on your dream list. at some point there is a backlash. Perez Hilton did more harm to the cause of gay marriage than you can comprehend. stop telling us that all gays are hard wired that way; we know that's true in many but NOT all cases. it matters. stop telling us that gay marriage is a fundamental human right and without it you are being denied your humanness and dignity. BS. society in general will give you full gay union rights that give you virtually everything you want. this is the most tolerant society for gays in history. in most of the major populations centers there is widespread acceptance, tolerance, celebration of gayness and downright hostility to any contrary thinking. count your blessings. life is not perfect for any of us. period full stop.

btw it is ridiculous that in these economic times major colleges are pressured to continue funding gay rights organizations and gay social organizations on campus while other worthy causes must be cut. discuss.

i have nipples greg, can you milk me?

An interesting caveat to the whole "gay is biological" argument are a series of studies that suggest that the proclivity to be conservative or liberal is also hard-wired. In that sense the opponents of the gay life style may be just expressing an uncontrollable urge in the same sense as gay people are.

I find that amusing.

What does anyone expect, Singapore is the home of caning. In her country, pole smokes you!

The problem with Dr. Thio is not her message, but the forum. She is not promoting her position in Singapore, she is promoting it in the U.S., where there is already a great deal of support for gay rights. The question of equal rights is largely moral, and that morality is shaped mainly by environment. In Asia, attitudes towards gays are not as progressive as they are in the U.S. Still, Dr. Thio naively thinks that a trip to the U.S. to debate the subject will have some meaningful impact. Good luck. That is not the way it works, but it does make news and convey the image that NYU is balanced and not hard left, like most people believe it to be.

42: you made my week.

277, I grant you that life is not perfect for any of us. Period full stop. But for people in the heterosexual majority -- and I am one of them -- life is not perfect because we may not be able to execute on a particular want or desire, not because we do not have society's blessing to try to execute. For example, we may not be rich enough to marry the debutante, but we can sure try to make it work.

But your argument, inter alia, that (i) because homosexuals have more rights now and live in a more tolerant society than at any time in history (ii) therefore they should be happy, does not hold water. That was the same argument used against the civil rights movement -- blacks (of which I am one) have more rights now than ever before. Why do we need to give them full equality? The answer is because it is the right thing to do. And its also the right thing to do with regards to homosexuals.

279,

Free will is a lie.

holy Hands Magee.

I'm disgusted by the number of homophobic comments in connection with this post.

The basic tenet of Dr Thio's speech to the Singaporean parliament is that any male (females are, strangely, exempt) who engages in unnatural sex should be jailed.

How can anyone justify that??

286, because not everyone believes that there should be a right to have homosexual sex. If you don't believe it should be a right, and you believe it to be destructive to society, it follows logically that it should be made illegal.

DId Drudge post a link to this thread or something? Where did all of these ignorant redneck f-cks come from?

" and you believe it to be destructive to society, it follows logically that it should be made illegal"

I believe that people in middle america feeding their kids McDonalds and teaching them that people not like them are not their equals is destructive to society, but I can't make that illegal. I also believe that church involvement in government is destructive, but that's already illegal.

sadly 288
these are the views of the lawyers to be,
who are just mad about gays being protected in their jobs more than their white frat boy selves.

287, you are totally illogical.

277 here

gays do not just want the right to love physically, which is a right all people have; they want something more, the right to love physically in a way that unquestionably spreads disease at a great disproportionate cost to society and in a way that many people believe generally demeans the physical act of love and contributes with many other things to a less responsible and less successful society. they want the "equal rights" without responsibility and have proved as a group incapable of exercising these rights in a responsible manner.

gays don't just want marriage rights, they want marriage without the responsibilities and burdens of family creation and maintenance and education that come with it.

so give us a break on the ludicrous notion equal rights is all you seek. you want all the rights and benefits without the corresponding responsiblities and burdens, and you will scream at the top of your lungs until you get it.

i actually am not aware of what these important rights are that you desire but do not have. are you really defending the right to routine and frequent anal sex as a basic human right, even when it create public health issues? i have worked in environments for the past 20 years that promote and celebrate gayness and any utterance of any negative word about gayness can destroy one's career. any casual mention that there may be any disagreement with gay lifestyles could literally bring ruin upon a person. that is how vociferous the LGTB advocacy groups are.

this quote really sums up the coastal elitism of those who reflexively defend the culture of constant celebration of gayness: "I believe that people in middle america feeding their kids McDonalds and teaching them that people not like them are not their equals is destructive to society, but I can't make that illegal." trust me, you know quite little about middle america and probably even less about parents feeding and raising their kids. come to think of it, why don't you all go have as much anal sex as possible -- but I'm not paying the medical bills.

I sincerely hope the comments on this board will inform Dr. Thio of the near-monolithic, closed minded opposition she will face, but also tell her that many in America support her efforts to articulate the boundaries between universally accepted human rights and other "rights" that should not be placed in that category. The LGTB advocacy groups have been single mindedly focused on these issues for decades and the other side, although representative of the majority of Americans, is often represented only by inarticulate religious figures. Dr. Thio's contributions to the field will be welcome. Shame on the NYU elite for all pre-judging her and trying to shout her down before she has even arrived. Shame.

In the spirit of the debate on this forum I would just like to lodge a generalized ad hominem attack against posters 1-292. You all, liberal and conservative, are horrible people who should die after being dragged naked through a field of broken glass.

292 - these arguments are old and tired. "Married" status affords a wide variety of federal and state benefits that gay people can not enjoy. And please save us the argument that gay people can have the same benefits if they pretend to be straight.

There are far more diseases spread more easily than HIV that are a result of straight sex as well as gay sex. Also, the fastest growing population of HIV infected people are straight women. This argument has no merit.

Also, the argument that gay people don't deserve the marry because they don't bear the burden of raising families is also outrageous. In some states, gay families are prohibited from adopting children. Moreover, your argument will have more (any) weight when marriage laws only afford federal and state marriage benefits to people with children.

....yawn

Gay people raise families too. I saw a ton of kids at this year's NYC pride. With a lot of hot dads.

When are we going to see some arguments that rely on something other than stereotyping, homophobia and hate?

Maybe there aren't any.

Yes, shame on all the near-monolithic, closed minded homophobes on this thread. Shame on NYU for not conducting their diligence on Thio. Shame.

"" trust me, you know quite little about middle america and probably even less about parents feeding and raising their kids. "

292 - you ignorant f-ck, I spent 25 years of my life in Kansas. I think I have a pretty damn good clue.

Also, I have a pretty good idea about raising kids, since I have two adopted children. I also do a ton of pro bono work for families being evicted and facing homelessness in New York.

Your ignorance and stereotyping are disgusting.

Lat - you need to do a post on her mummy, who is as much of a homophobe as Li-ann, if not more. She's hilarious!

Mummy also has a firm in Singapore, TSMP (i.e. Thio Su Mien Partnership) Law Corporation, which has a joint law venture with Allens Arthur Robinson.

Are AAR aware that they are partnered with homophobes?

Loving her bio:

Dr Thio has a distinguished professional history, having been the Dean of the Law Faculty at the University of Singapore, a senior partner in a large firm in Singapore, and holding Judgeships in the administrative tribunals of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank for various terms. Very much a grand dame of the corporate legal scene (her looks, as you can see, belie her experience), she counts many of the country’s judges and high-ranking officials among her ex-students.

295

your arguments are equally old, tired LGTB party line. indeed you are correct that married status does confer benefits, e.g. social security benefits, and that is one of the brass rings you are reaching for. i would agree that you should have those benefits if gay unions viewed as a broad population have the same characteristics as the broad-population characteristics of heterosexual marriages that resulted in these benefits in the first place. but they don't have the same characteristics. the big difference of course is children and creation of family which takes tremendous time and resources over a lifetime. maybe we need to rethink governmental entitlements generally, but you do not have a good argument for equal treatment on this one.

as to your point on HIV, you prove my point! it has already run rampant for more than 25 years through the gay population and that is truly a tragedy. but of course the decimination of the gay population also created many points of contact with the heterosexual population, and of course the growth rate is now higher, albeit in much smaller percentage numbers, in that hetero population. you are just proving my point with that one -- society has right to protect itself from health dangers, because otherwise these practices are not "victimless crimes", and they will spread to the general population.

indeed there are many troubling STDs rampant in our population just from straight sex, and that is to a great degree a product of the loss of morality in society of which the conspicuous celebration of gay sex is a part (but i can't blame the gays for more than a small fraction of that problem). touche - you scored a point and bully for you.

society at least in many states is not ready to permit adoptions by gay couples, and i can't help you there nor do i want to. something about best interests of the child comes to mind. gays have many ways to reproduce of course without adoption.

can you please tell me the percentage of gay couples that really do want to raise children and pay for their upkeep, medical bills and college? my impression is that it is a distinct minority but i would love to learn something new, rather than see the same cultural imperialism of the LGTB militants.

your final point about childless heterosexual couples getting a free ride -- well yes, they often do and perhaps they should not, but it is a small percentage of the whole and it is not feasible to craft the laws to exclude them. plus society wants to encourage stability in heterosexual marriages and families in general and this is an incidental byproduct of those policies. plus plus they something babysit for their nieces and nephews and that is worth something. if i were part of a gay couple and there was a childless couple living next door collecting oodles of social security etcetera, i might be bitter. so be bitter. just don't do that back door stuff. you scored a few weak points! and good day!

Poor 298, who says:

****

"" trust me, you know quite little about middle america and probably even less about parents feeding and raising their kids. "

292 - you ignorant f-ck, I spent 25 years of my life in Kansas. I think I have a pretty damn good clue.

Also, I have a pretty good idea about raising kids, since I have two adopted children. I also do a ton of pro bono work for families being evicted and facing homelessness in New York.

Your ignorance and stereotyping are disgusting.

*******

I take it all back. This expains why you have the right to condescension toward "middle America" and McDonalds and the way we raise our kids out here between NY and LA. Not only are you from New York, clearly a badge of superiority, but you are an adoptive parent and a pro bono champion! I hope your pro bono work doesn't cut into your parenting time. Jeez, I take it all back! It must be me stereotyping and all the time I thought it was you! Silly me!

Just don't go to that backdoor place again, and we're cool. OK?

Seriously, I take back any cheap shots.

But you LGTB types and your militant intolerance for even a whiff of criticism of gay society is highly offensive to any critical thinker.

Perhaps not in Singapore, but here in America (where we are a bunch of filthy perverts), straight people "go to that backdoor place" all the time as well. Some straight couples use the key to the backdoor more than the front.

That's not illegal in the United States either.

Why is always"ignorance", "illogical", or "phobia" if the other side has a normative disagreement?

I am not 'afraid' of you or what you can do. I am not ignorant of you, your behavior, your history, or your desires. There is no knowledge threshold that will make me "enlightened" towards your view of your own worth as a gay "community" (the only real misnomer thrown around here). Why can't I KNOW exactly what you are and disapprove?

Gays always ask, 'step out of your shoes and imagine that you are wrong about us. We seek only to live as you do, with the same entitlements'. When have they EVER really taken seriously the possibility that they are, if not a serious social harm, at least not WORTHY of these additional social benefits conferred by the government?

"Critical thinker"
Is that what they're calling it these days?
Those who want to throw people in jail because of their sexual orientation?
This Milwaukeean finds that "highly offensive"

Can we PLEASE have someone sign up for this class and wear a shirt that says "Let's go to the Backdoor Place" every day?

Or just take the class until the add/drop deadline and then drop it.

"am disappointed at the intolerant animosity directed at me by strangers who do not know me and have decided to act on their own prejudices"

Welcome to NYU. The law school is composed of some of the least tolerant people in the universe, who have the audacity to claim how "liberal" and "open-minded" they are, despite categorically rejecting any kind of diversity of viewpoints.

Don't believe me? Check out NYU's official statements on military recruitment and watch students heckle classmates who interview with JAG.

303 here: "only" should say "other"

"Don't believe me? Check out NYU's official statements on military recruitment and watch students heckle classmates who interview with JAG."

Yeah, I get a kick out of some of the people talking about how disappointed they are at NYU Law. This is the same law school where (when I was there) students from gay groups would gather together all around the entrance to Furman Hall and hand out rainbow ribbons in front of you the day JAG was interviewing. I'd like to get a videotape of what happened to somebody who had that pushed in front of them and told them he didn't support them. The school pretty clearly implied there was a proper line to take vis-a-vis JAG and a number of other issues -- open debate be damned.

This is also the same school that was the locale of the infamous Scalia "do you have anal sex with your wife?" incident (with students also shouting through bullhorns from the other side of the street as he spoke) after which our feckless dean took three days to decide to put together an apology.

NYU is probably the most gay-friendly top school outside of, maybe, Yale and that's among what are already a fairly liberal group of institutions.

Yeah, this woman may be a nut, but if NYU is not accommodating enough to gays for you, may god help you during the next few decades of your life.

You want to complain about close-mindedness? Any conservative on this thread dealt with liberals running away from or trying to shout down any actual debate as much as possible during 4 years of undergrad and 3 years of law school.

This is the same school, where, when Richard Epstein came to debate someone about affirmative action, not a single professor was willing to stand up for what they believe in, have it challenged -- and debate him. Not one. And you're complaining about close-mindedness? Now you're uncomfortable. My heart bleeds.

Its ok to be conservative at NYU. Just don't act on the impulse. Pretend to be a liberal and you'll be fine.

(dripping with irony, of course)

homosexual is sin, because the Bible says so.

For those of you who think Lawrence v. Texas is more authoritative than the Bible, answer these:

1) Why supreme court justice swears in, they have to place their left hand on the Bible, and not on Lawrence v. Texas?

2) If Supreme Court justices are more correct than the Bible, why do they even need the Bible when they swear in the President of the United States?

281 -

That's exactly the point. Attitudes in Asia aren't as progressive as attitudes in the United States. That's why Dr. Thio will be teaching Human Rights IN ASIA.

Ha!
******
"Critical thinker"
Is that what they're calling it these days?
Those who want to throw people in jail because of their sexual orientation?
******

No one gets thrown in jail merely for sexual orientation. When you become a public safety hazard is when your behavior is curtailed. There are many forms of physical loving that do not create a public safety hazard. Just don't come in through the back door.

Also please do not kiss or hold hands in front of my kids or at an expensive restaurant if I am trying to enjoy a good meal served by one of your people.

As to another comment, let me say that straight couples do indeed engage in sodomy but the incidence appears to be quite negligible in the general population. Oral sex is much more common than anal sex for heteros. Personally I never have put it in the fudge pot but I certainly knew a fellow who was enamored with his brown eyed girls; he also thought taking dumps while the other person was in the bathroom qualified as intense intimacy. I never understood that one.

What we know about the incidence of frequent anal sex in the male gay community is quite different, unless everything published on the subject is a fabrication. You tell me . . .

Any of you LGTB types out there have a response to the following query posted earlier --

********
can you please tell me the percentage of gay couples that really do want to raise children and pay for their upkeep, medical bills and college? my impression is that it is a distinct minority but i would love to learn something new, rather than see the same cultural imperialism of the LGTB militants.

**************

just wondering. not anecdotal stories of gay parents, but some real figures and percentages of the gay population as a whole, please. thanks and good night!

292, not to mention that the liberal elites, to which the homosexual lobby belong, HAVE tried to make it illegal to homeschool or teach one's children in a way that they do not approve.

Ladies & Gents - I think its time to let this one die. There are a couple of nut jobs here that have hijacked the thread.

The blatant homophobia in this quote is priceless:

"Also please do not kiss or hold hands in front of my kids or at an expensive restaurant if I am trying to enjoy a good meal served by one of your people."

You can't convince people that are strident in their homophobia and/or viewpoint that their Bible is an authoritative legal document.

Lat - it would be interesting to hear if this thread is seeing a lot of traffic from Singapore and/or bumblef-ck America. Or perhaps the professors IP address in faculty housing.

Wait until she figures out that she's living in the center of all things queer in this world. Bonus points for anyone with a picture of her trying on a huge latex glove at Condom Mania.

"Lat - it would be interesting to hear if this thread is seeing a lot of traffic from Singapore and/or bumblef-ck America."

Ah, liberals,

"Quit being intolerant to me you backwards redneck hick! Now shut up so I can engage in the free speech that I, as a liberal, value so highly!"

Any of you LGTB types out there have a response to the following query posted earlier --

********
can you please tell me the percentage of gay couples that really do want to raise children and pay for their upkeep, medical bills and college? my impression is that it is a distinct minority but i would love to learn something new, rather than see the same cultural imperialism of the LGTB militants.

**************

still wondering

This debate is another ridiculous example of American cultural provincialism. The decriminalization of homosexuality is a relatively recent phenomenon in the free world. Most western democracies have "legalized" homosexuality in the last few decades and the US was one of the last to follow suit: Until very recently (2003), several States of the US have criminalized consensual homosexual intercourse and these statutes had to be declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, obviously because there was no majority in the respective State legislatures to repeal them. Her statements would have been perfectly within the US mainstream (while conservative) just 15 or 20 years ago, so there is no reason to claim the moral high ground here. She is a conservative academic/politician from a country that is a few years behind the US on LGBT issues. Given that the US is approximately 20 years behind the rest of the free world on LGBT issues, you should give her a break. Or do you think, a US professor who supports the death penalty (which has been abolished many decades ago by most civilized countries and is considered a barbaric form of punishment outside the US) or torture (which has almost been forgotten in the free world but was recently rediscovered in the US) would deserve that reception when accepting a teaching position outside of the US?

What is even more surprising that, while many people at NYU appear to take issue with her views on LGBT issues, very few people seem to have a problem with the much more significant human rights abuses that take place in Singapore with Dr. T's support: The death penalty (excessively used, to boot), judicial canning, torture and strict restrictions on the freedom of speech. Compared to all these things, a law criminalizing homosexuality (which, by the way. is usually not enforced in Singapore), seems rather tame.

after witnessing literally hundreds of intolerant comments against Dr. Thio by people who do not know her, i have made a number of posts that generally present views that defend her positions although probably not for her reasons. I have been met with the same intolerance, called a nut job, homophobe, stereotyper, etc. I am tuning out. Hope the views presented help inform some more intelligent discussion in the future. The majority of the American population does not buy the LGTB dogma on all of its issues and is in fact offended by gay in-your-face militancy of the Perez Hilton type.

Good night and good luck.

Will this affect NYU Law's US News rankings??

Lat - can you at least tell us the state/country of post 292? I appreciate that these comments are "anonymous" but I don't think it's fair to let Dr. Thio run rampant in the comment section to give the impression that her views (and recockulous analysis) are held by a large percent of your blog readers.

Lat- Can you please give out the address and phone number of everyone who I disagree with?

I don't like open debate (that's only for liberals, not the closed-minded people who disagree with them) because it might lead people to conclude that my ideas are wrong. If I can't argue with other people, then at least, hopefully, I can intimidate them or convince other people (and myself) that my view is the popular view so you shouldn't even consider people who disagree with me in the first place.

Normally the institutions I have been in have gone ahead and done this for me, but you're allowing others to disagree and argue with me. Stop that.

1 to 322 - Roxana

292, 300, 301, 303, 317, 319: Closeted, latent, gay-panicking, self-hating queer, who will end up taking his life as an homage to Ayn Rand.

Can there be ANY other explanation of the vitriolic fear he has of same-sex sex? He knows that once he has the courage to try what his heart desires, he will be a bottom slut forever.

Pity his soul-destroying quandary. I wonder how many dildoes he has down in his basement?

"I am disappointed at the intolerant animosity directed at me by [Li Ann Thio] who do[es] not know me and ha[s] decided to act on their own prejudices, forged from whatever sources."

Fix'd.

-Out Gay Lawyer

Any of you LGTB types out there have a response to the following query posted earlier --

********
can you please tell me the percentage of gay couples that really do want to raise children and pay for their upkeep, medical bills and college? my impression is that it is a distinct minority but i would love to learn something new, rather than see the same cultural imperialism of the LGTB militants.

**************

still wondering

I feel good about extending special legal privileges for the "T's" in LGBT.

After all, it's important that we encourage profoundly mentally ill people to disfigure and mutilate their sexual organs while taking massive amounts of dangerous hormones.

Clearly these are the sorts of people for whom the Constitution was written.

Good on you, NYU. We must cast out this horrible woman who has the courage to state publicly what the overwhelming majority of people think privately.

Dear 326
There is no hard data.
I've worked in adoption from the legal side, which provides many challenges for anyone, I am not trying to minimize the diligence required even for a church sponsored caucasian married male female couple with no natural children (best case scenario for rapid adoption).
However, the single females, esp. with children, and single/gay couple men face the most hurdles.
Here in America, unless you are related to the child, you can pretty much forget adoption as a gay, though you may be able to foster which can lead to adoption.
Outside the country, there are a few places that rely on personal interviews and ecomonic status -VietNam, Guatemala, China, a little more than clearcut "single men no" policies that many countries impose. And yes you just are a single man adopting whether you are actually a couple or not.
The gay men I have encountered have far and away the most means available to them for raising/schooling the children and very much the same commitment to doing so as any other adoptive parent.
Personally, I know, of roughly 80 gay couples, 12 raising multiple children, 17 with single children, and 20 more couples who would really like to if they can clear the hurdles.
I also know of three of these adoptive parent couples who have separated and are going through custody issues made more complex by the treacherous lack of precedent and legal documentation for the process.

So, if my experience were even half the norm, (30% of gay individuals raising children+ 25% desiring to = 55%)
it would equal 28% who want kids.
Though, fyi, the word "upkeep" is not appropriately applied to any parent.

And clearly it's fertile ground for some doctoral research because there are no hard numbers, and nothing to point to saying these kids turn out great, which I believe they do because they have two well off well educated individuals who care a great deal about their upbringing.

Cheers!

324 = closet conservative.

AND that doesn't count the gay couples using surrogates to have their biological children - not my area of expertise and seemingly fraught with even more complexity legally,
and ethically?
But clearly those are people with a huge desire to have and raise children and plenty of money to go through the surrogacy process which is legally and medically expensive and requires a relatively intense psychological fitness certification process.
If you do it legally.

326- There aren't hard numbers on the percentages who want kids, but as far as wanting to get married:

Canada has a population of 33 million.

Depending on what percentages you want to use, that probably translates to a gay population in the country of 1-2 million.

For about 85-90% of its population, gay marriage has been legal (through court decisions) since 2003-2004. An act was passed legalizing it nationwide in 2005.

I don't know what the number is now, but as of late 2006, a little over 12,000 marriages had occurred (out of 1-2 million people).

http://www42.statcan.ca/smr08/smr08_118-eng.htm

-Can't treat Common Law marriages as intent to marry, since a lot of people who unwittingly drift into that status.

thank you, 328. it seems to me that your anecdotal sample is heavily skewed toward highly educated, affluent gay couples, and you are right that this would be an important area for further data collection from a larger and more representative population. i think this type of information is necessary to the debate. the ultimate hypothetical question is, if you knocked down all legal barriers, would the percentage of gay couples (in the general gay couple population) that desire to create children (their own biological children or others) and invest their lives in family creation be comparable to the high percentage of heterosexual couples that choose to do so. and if so, what are the outcomes of family creation as compared with the general population -- i doubt there is enough data to draw meaningful conclusions as yet since the group of gay couples with children at this time may well be a self-selecting subgroup of only those with the most favorable attributes for success in family creation (e.g., affluence, education level).

general experience demonstrates that cultural groups that create family groups, particularly through biological reproduction with male-female households, are more successful than cultural groups that fail to create stables families. gay couples that create families with most of these characteristics are likley to be highly successful as well. the question is, what is the incidence of gay couples doing so, if this can even be judged at this point in time. in our modern culture, even the most successful cultural groups have been experiencing an increased rise in single parent childbirth and divorce while children are relatively young, but you can certainly differentiate outcomes between groups that have a higher percentage of success in these categories than others. it's all about the children, and it is funadmentally unfair to children to be born or raised into a culture with a lack of family structures (at least vis-a-vis other children).

i believe that it is up to the LGTB advocacy groups to make a compelling case for comparability and not just scream for "equal" marriage rights based on vapid militant assertions like denial of dignity. those assertions were valid 20 years ago but their validly is greatly reduced today, even in most places in kansas (although they persist in creating the imaginary world where all gays are beaten up everywhere outside of new york and san francisco and west hollywood, as a necessary strawman).

i am not from singapore and in no way associated with Dr. Thio although i believe her point of view has many rational aspects and does not deserve to be shouted down by militant gays. i am from illinois. i do not hate gays and i do not consider myself a homophobe. i believe that discrimination against gays in the workplace and educational arena is plainly wrong. i do however think there is a reasonable case to be made against certain forms of sodomy on public health grounds, and also there is a reasonable case to be made that heterosexual marriage is categorically different from gay union due to creation of children and families in the vast majority of heterosexual marriages imperfect though they may be, and also that there is a reasonable case to be made against gay adooption based on the best interests of the children. it is a shame that most of these arguments are made based primarily upon religious texts and unthinking conservative principles. i also find it quite telling that gay advocates will not back off one inch on any issue no matter how meaningful or trivial, e.g., whether the license to practice certain forms of sodomy promiscuously is necessary to gay existence, rights and dignity.

i wish Dr. Thio well during her stay in Gommorah, er Gotham City.

I find it odd that some poster on this thread is defending his view that gays should not have any rights, certainly not marriage rights, because they present a health hazard, such as AIDS.

Yet, the ability of gays to marry will actually reduce AIDS and other STDs. After all, marriage and monogamy will substantially reduce the amount of unprotected sex we gays will have with random strangers. Or at least that's the view of straight marriage - I'm not sure why it would be different for gays.

Also, if you push the gays back into the dark recesses of society -- we will still have sex. However, more of the sex will be random hookups with strangers, as in the past when gay sex was viewed as shameful and long-term gay relationships frowned upon by society.

If you are truly interested in the health of gays, you should be all for gay rights, including gay marriage.

-- Lawyer Gay

No 334,

1, it's a fallacy to presume that OPPORTUNITY for marriage will push any individual towards fidelity, particularly given gay culture/wired behavior.

2, Are you actually a social conservative believer about marriage and its effects? Any cursory glance at society shows that's not true.

3, It still doesn't follow from your purported social 'benefits' that gays are entitled to marriage.

I was responding to your argument that the "promiscuity" by gays in engaging in "certain forms of sodomy" is a public health hazard, 335.

You want to stop promiscuity, the way to do it is not to outlaw anal sex. It is to recognize long-term gay relationships.

That is the genesis of the gay rights movement towards gay marriage.

But it is apparent that you are not interested in engaging in actual discussion. With this gem "particularly give gay culture/wired behavior."

You just want to be right. So keep on feeling right. I've said what I wanted to say on the subject. Good day, Sir.

-- Lawyer Gay

335 here,

I am not the earlier poster. Your argument is still fallacious. Your remarks are ironic, since you don't address the point, i.e., the mere opportunity for marriage doesn't change people's behavior (a fortiori if hardwired), but merely dismiss it. Let me spell it out for you: you are question-begging a legal change will result in a change in behavior, let alone whether it's possible...

335 here,

I am not the earlier poster. Your argument is still fallacious. Your remarks are ironic, since you don't address the point, i.e., the mere opportunity for marriage doesn't change people's behavior (a fortiori if hardwired), but merely dismiss it. Let me spell it out for you: you are question-begging that a legal change will result in a change in behavior, let alone whether it's possible...

it is repeatedly dismaying that the LGTB people will not engage in honest argument but almost always result to hyperbole and hystrionics, confusion of issues and other silly tactics:

"I find it odd that some poster on this thread is defending his view that gays should not have any rights, certainly not marriage rights, because they present a health hazard, such as AIDS."

no one said you should not have "any" rights, and no one is challenging the rights gays have achieved in this country, with a very few very specific exceptions. this type of ridiculous false argument makes you look like petulant juveniles, and you may be better served by framing your positions without the stupid hysteria.

also you attempt to confuse the arguments against male homosexual sodomy (public health) with arguments against gay marriage rights (broader socioligical issues involving families and children). typical shout down tactic of the LGTB people.

"Yet, the ability of gays to marry will actually reduce AIDS and other STDs. After all, marriage and monogamy will substantially reduce the amount of unprotected sex we gays will have with random strangers."

oh really. you need that piece of paper to hang up your chaps and not cheat on your soul mate with random strangers? do you really want to make this argument?

"Also, if you push the gays back into the dark recesses of society"

even if that were possible, that is not what the vast majority of people want to do. again ridiculous hyperbole.

" -- we will still have sex. However, more of the sex will be random hookups with strangers, as in the past when gay sex was viewed as shameful and long-term gay relationships frowned upon by society."

again hyperbole. there is no reason for long term gay relationships to be "frowned upon" by society, but there is no reason for those relationships to be considered exactly the same as heterosexual marriage, either. society need not view gay sex as shameful, either, but i missed the commandment that said that "gay sex" necessarily includes the type of unnatural activity that Dr. Thio addressed that set of this whole ridiculous chain of blogs (you know, the "straw" up the "nose").

the post about the canadian experience was a good one. is there any reason to believe that the occurrence of gay marriage in the united states would be significantly higher due to the possibility that more governmental benefits may be tied to marriage in the states than in canada?

btw, i saw an interview with the pres of the NAACP this morning where they asked him about the NAACP's position on gay marriage and he said it was under debate and could take quite a bit of time before they reach a consensus for a public position on this issue; he also said that although there are similarities in the human rights issues this should not be considered in the same category as the struggle for racial human rights. amen.

i promise to sign off on this blog with this post and give the LGBT folks the final word so they can declare victory. i know that is important to you. please keep in mind that this all started when the LGBT forces of political correctness made literally 100s of posts attacking Dr. Thio when you barely understand her culture or positions. i have merely been trying to stem the overwhelming tide of cultural imperialism and waste a little time this weekend. cheers.

335 here again,

Sorry for the double post. Lawyer Gay, ask yourself this question: could people be completely in favor of gay rights and marriage, and still think YOUR argument is completely wrong?

ATL preaching tolerance. That's a laugh. A few posts earlier you were making dumb Polack jokes

CravaTTTh

1 - 342 = Racist.

Yes, I said "racist" not "racists" as all of these comments were issued by the same racist fuck.

343 = on drugs

hey #7, you wrote: "So you like to stick your [ ] in another guy's [ ]. Fine, what you do in your private time is up to you....."

Actually, I like it with another guy sticks his [] in my []. Or my mouth. Mmmm....

343,

Lat?

To all of those posters alluding to some vague threat to public health posed by sodomy, consider that a far bigger threat to public health is unprotected heterosexual teen sex.
"Janet Currie, a Columbia economist who has done good and vast research on parenthood and childhood:
Bristol Palin is not alone. She is one of 750,000 American girls ranging in age from 15 to 19 who will likely become pregnant this year. It would be unfortunate if media reports about high-profile people like Ms. Palin help legitimize teen pregnancy.
Given the decision to carry her pregnancy to term, Ms. Palin’s available resources and support will give her the best possible chance of a good outcome. But on average, teen pregnancies are more likely to result in premature births and low-birth-weight babies. This is not a good start in life. Babies with a low birth weight are more likely to have A.D.H.D. and are less likely to graduate from high school.
.....................
High teen pregnancy rates remain a serious problem in the U.S. Although they have declined since they peaked in 1990, rates are still twice as high as in Canada or England, and eight times as high as in the Netherlands or in Japan.
These international differences are due to low contraceptive use in the U.S. "

"The vast majority of white evangelical adolescents—seventy-four per cent—say that they believe in abstaining from sex before marriage.But, according to Add Health data, evangelical teen-agers are more sexually active than Mormons, mainline Protestants, and Jews. . . Evangelical Protestant teen-agers are significantly less likely than other groups to use contraception. This could be because evangelicals are also among the most likely to believe that using contraception will send the message that they are looking for sex. It could also be because many evangelicals are steeped in the abstinence movement’s warnings that condoms won’t actually protect them from pregnancy or venereal disease. . .the red-state model is clearly failing on its own terms—producing high rates of teen pregnancy, divorce, sexually transmitted disease, and other dysfunctional outcomes that social conservatives say they abhor. In “Forbidden Fruit,” Regnerus offers an “unscientific postscript,” in which he advises social conservatives that if they really want to maintain their commitment to chastity and to marriage, they’ll need to do more to help young couples stay married longer. As the Reverend Rick Marks, a Southern Baptist minister, recently pointed out in a Florida newspaper, “Evangelicals are fighting gay marriage, saying it will break down traditional marriage, when divorce has already broken it down.” Conservatives may need to start talking as much about saving marriages as they do about, say, saving oneself for marriage."

Commenters attempting to argue from history in support of Dr. Thio's outrageous positions seem to have missed the historical analysis in Lawrence v. Texas:
"he policy of punishing consenting adults for private acts was not much discussed in the early legal literature. We can infer that one reason for this was the very private nature of the conduct. Despite the absence of prosecutions, there may have been periods in which there was public criticism of homosexuals as such and an insistence that the criminal laws be enforced to discourage their practices. But far from possessing “ancient roots,” Bowers, 478 U.S., at 192, 106 S.Ct. 2841, American laws targeting same-sex couples did not develop until the last third of the 20th century. The reported decisions concerning the prosecution of consensual, homosexual sodomy between adults for the years 1880-1995 are not always clear in the details, but a significant number involved conduct in a public place. See Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 14-15, and n. 18.

It was not until the 1970's that any State singled out same-sex relations for criminal prosecution, and only nine States have done so. See 1977 Ark. Gen. Acts no. 828; 1983 Kan. Sess. Laws p. 652; 1974 Ky. **2480 Acts p. 847; 1977 Mo. Laws p. 687; 1973 Mont. Laws p. 1339; 1977 Nev. Stats. p. 1632; 1989 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 591; 1973 Tex. Gen. Laws ch. 399; see also Post v. State, 715 P.2d 1105 (Okla.Crim.App.1986) (sodomy law invalidated as applied to different-sex couples). Post- Bowers even some of these States did not adhere to the policy of suppressing homosexual conduct. Over the course of the last decades, States with same-sex prohibitions have moved toward abolishing them. See, e.g., Jegley v. Picado, 349 Ark. 600, 80 S.W.3d 332 (2002); Gryczan v. State, 283 Mont. 433, 942 P.2d 112 (1997); Campbell v. Sundquist, 926 S.W.2d 250 (Tenn.App.1996); *571 Commonwealth v. Wasson, 842 S.W.2d 487 (Ky.1992); see also 1993 Nev. Stats. p. 518 (repealing Nev.Rev.Stat. § 201.193). . . . Chief Justice Burger joined the opinion for the Court in Bowers and further explained his views as follows: “Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeao-Christian moral and ethical standards.” 478 U.S., at 196, 106 S.Ct. 2841. As with Justice White's assumptions about history, scholarship casts some doubt on the sweeping nature of the statement by Chief Justice Burger as it pertains to private homosexual conduct between consenting adults. See, e.g., Eskridge, Hardwick and Historiography, 1999 U. Ill. L.Rev. 631, 656. In all events we think that our laws and traditions in the past half century are of *572 most relevance here. These references show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex. “[H]istory and tradition are the starting point but not in all cases the ending point of the substantive due process inquiry.” County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 857, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998) (KENNEDY, J., concurring).

This emerging recognition should have been apparent when Bowers was decided. In 1955 the American Law Institute promulgated the Model Penal Code and made clear that it did not recommend or provide for “criminal penalties for consensual sexual relations conducted in private.” ALI, Model Penal Code § 213.2, Comment 2, p. 372 (1980). It justified its decision on three grounds: (1) The prohibitions undermined respect for the law by penalizing conduct many people engaged in; (2) the statutes regulated private conduct not harmful to others; and (3) the laws were arbitrarily enforced and thus invited the danger of blackmail. ALI, Model Penal Code, Commentary 277-280 (Tent. Draft No. 4, 1955). In 1961 Illinois changed its laws to conform to the Model Penal Code. **2481 Other States soon followed. Brief for Cato Institute as Amicus Curiae 15-16.

In Bowers the Court referred to the fact that before 1961 all 50 States had outlawed sodomy, and that at the time of the Court's decision 24 States and the District of Columbia had sodomy laws. 478 U.S., at 192-193, 106 S.Ct. 2841. Justice Powell pointed out that these prohibitions often were being ignored, however. Georgia, for instance, had not sought to enforce its law for decades. Id., at 197-198, n. 2, 106 S.Ct. 2841 (“The history of nonenforcement suggests the moribund character today of laws criminalizing this type of private, consensual conduct”).

The sweeping references by Chief Justice Burger to the history of Western civilization and to Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards did not take account of other authorities pointing in an opposite direction. A committee advising the British Parliament recommended in 1957 repeal of laws *573 punishing homosexual conduct. The Wolfenden Report: Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offenses and Prostitution (1963). Parliament enacted the substance of those recommendations 10 years later. Sexual Offences Act 1967, § 1.

Of even more importance, almost five years before Bowers was decided the European Court of Human Rights considered a case with parallels to Bowers and to today's case. An adult male resident in Northern Ireland alleged he was a practicing homosexual who desired to engage in consensual homosexual conduct. The laws of Northern Ireland forbade him that right. He alleged that he had been questioned, his home had been searched, and he feared criminal prosecution. The court held that the laws proscribing the conduct were invalid under the European Convention on Human Rights. Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, 45 Eur. Ct. H.R. (1981) & ¶ 52. Authoritative in all countries that are members of the Council of Europe (21 nations then, 45 nations now), the decision is at odds with the premise in Bowers that the claim put forward was insubstantial in our Western civilization.

In our own constitutional system the deficiencies in Bowers became even more apparent in the years following its announcement. The 25 States with laws prohibiting the relevant conduct referenced in the Bowers decision are reduced now to 13, of which 4 enforce their laws only against homosexual conduct. In those States where sodomy is still proscribed, whether for same-sex or heterosexual conduct, there is a pattern of nonenforcement with respect to consenting adults acting in private. The State of Texas admitted in 1994 that as of that date it had not prosecuted anyone under those circumstances. State v. Morales, 869 S.W.2d 941, 943. . . .
To the extent Bowers relied on values we share with a wider civilization, it should be noted that the reasoning and holding in Bowers have been rejected elsewhere. The European Court of Human Rights has followed not Bowers but its own decision in Dudgeon v. United Kingdom. See P.G. & J.H. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 00044787/98, & ¶ 56 (Eur.Ct.H. R., Sept. 25, 2001); Modinos v. Cyprus, 259 Eur. Ct. H.R. (1993); Norris v. Ireland, 142 Eur. Ct. H.R. (1988). Other nations, too, have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. See Brief for Mary *577 Robinson et al. as Amici Curiae 11-12. The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent."

310 is back. Nobody has been able to answer these questions I posted 2 days ago:

homosexual is sin, because the Bible says so.

For those of you who think Lawrence v. Texas is more authoritative than the Bible, answer these:

1) Why supreme court justice swears in, they have to place their left hand on the Bible, and not on Lawrence v. Texas?

2) If Supreme Court justices are more correct than the Bible, why do they even need the Bible when they swear in the President of the United States?

Commenting on the bible as a source of authority:
the ancient world knew nothing of human rights issues, nor had they any concept of sexual orientation. Biblical prescriptions and prohibitions are routinely emphasized or ignored in the modern world according the the viewpoints of various interested parties and their own agendas. The societal and legal developments in recent years regarding sexual orientation are rightly applauded as immeasurably beneficial to sexual minorities and ro society at large. There are numerous websites that provide accurate information on sexual orientation, human rights, and on applicable law that can be read profitably. A few are:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/Williamsinstitute/reading/resources.html
http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=161
http://family.jrank.org/pages/1553/Sexual-Orientation-Sexual-Orientation-Social-Policy.html
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/index.html
http://www.zimbio.com/Gay+and+lesbian+rights
http://www.people.ku.edu/~jyounger/lgbtqprogs.html

dear 349, 310:

BECAUSE OF TRADITION. There is no other reason. Same as our pledge of allegiance being "one nation, under God", and because of our coins saying "God we Trust" - these are all just traditions that we have sentimental and cultural value more so than religious value in America.

No one answered your stupid post two hours ago because it was an incredibly dumb and obviously logically vacant position and no one wanted to acknowledge that someone as idiotic as yourself has access to the internet.

Go throw stones at adulterers or something in your spare time instead. The Bible says you should so, so you must, obviously.

Dear 349 - I was not aware that the USA was a theocracy?

349: Are you wearing cloth woven of different materials? Maybe some nice cotton/poly blend whitey-tighties? Shame on you -- Leviticus 19:19

if people like 167 were eradicated from this planet, i think few would miss them.

I really enjoy reading how truly ignorant and terribly dumb people attribute unacceptable behavior of a few people as being representative of an entire group. It may be true that some of those priests who molested male children were gay. However, it should be pointed out (though it is more tragic that this is a necessity) that there are quite a few cases where heterosexual men have preyed on little girls. The abusing of children is not something that is exclusively perpetrated by homosexuals - heteros do it too. And yet, we do not state that heterosexuals live a "deviant" lifestyle - we limit the classification to those who actually commit the act.

What saddens me the most is that the people writing and making these senseless comments are either law students or lawyers who are charged with the responsibility of thinking critically. But some of you can't even THINK.

Why people are resorting to religious arguments regarding the legal rights of gays is beyond me. I assume they are students at Regent or Liberty, where they believe we live in a theocracy.

kudos to number 30! the people always crying about intolerance are really just ignorant fools themselves!

151, There are so many things wrong with your post that I find it hard to start, but I will make 3 points:

1) Gay people don't want to be liked by you, nor accepted, we simply seek EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW. See, I don't give a shit if the thought of me fucking a dude in the ass, or vice versa, makes you want puke. I don't give a shit if seeing my face makes your blood boil, your skin itch, and that obnoxious vein on your forehead pop out and pulsate feverishly. I don't even care if you want to hurl invectives at me from across the street (keeping your distance, obviously, in an effort to avoid catching the gay). I simply don't care; more power to you.

What I DO care about is having the legal equality to live my life as I see fit without your morals being imposed on me via government policy. See, people (including a number of dick bags in this forum) are constantly making the argument that gays are just as intollerant of other opinions as they are of ours, but there's a big difference. We are simply looking to gain equal footing, while others are looking to repress us. I want you to have ALL the rights that I have, I want you to have every single one. You should have the right to call me a fag, I should have the right to make some sassy retort that leaves you slightly bewildered because you're not familiar with the cultural reference.

See, I want you to have the right to be a bigot. You don't believe I should have the right to be gay, or at least a practicing gay, which is really the whole point. Do you see the inequity in the two arguments? Probably not... after all, posting this is really just an exercise in venting frustration, and you, my friend (along with all of your even more obnoxious cohorts), provide plenty to vent about.

2) You may find that you are quite wrong about never replacing the Bible as the final word on moral superiority. As upsetting as this may seem, it would appear that the country is becoming less and less Christian. According to the 2008 ARIS (American Religious Identification Survey) Summary Report, "The 2008 findings confirm the conclusions we came to in our earlier studies that Americans are slowly becoming less Christian and that in recent decades the challenge to Christianity in American society does not come from other world religions or new religious movements (NRMs) but rather from a rejection of all organized religions. To illustrate the point, Table 1 shows that the non-theist and No Religion groups collectively known as “Nones” have gained almost 20 million adults since 1990 and risen from 8.2 to 15.0 percent of the total population. If we include those Americans who either don’t know their religious identification (0.9 percent) or refuse to answer our key question (4.1 percent), and who tend to somewhat resemble “Nones” in their social profile and beliefs, we can observe that in 2008 one in five adults does not identify with a religion of any kind compared with one in ten in 1990." You can access the report here: http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf

Interestingly, the report shows that while Christians as a whole are declining in numbers, non-denominational Christian sects, which tend to be less fire and brimstone, and often which embrace more socially liberal causes, are increasing in percentage share.

3) STOP STEALING THE BIBLE!!! It's just plain rude. It's not as if God came down from on high, appeared as a burning bush, and gave YOUR people some fucking tablets enscribed with a total of 10 precepts by which one should live their life, and a scroll with the equivalent of 5 compendiums of fairy tales! No, he gave that shit to my people; the Yids. You guys didn't show up for thousands of years! It was only after one or our dudes, who wandered about with sexual miscreants (Mary Mags) and tribe of hippies (apostles) preaching about love and acceptance, was nailed to a cross by SOME DICKBAGS WHO COULDNT ACCEPT THAT MAYBE ITS OKAY NOT TO BELIEVE IN THE SAME GOD that you guys even started your little religion. So step off youngin.

Oh yeah, and also, doesn't every male character in the Bible have multiple wives? EWWWWW, Polygamy! And don't I remember something about Noah's son slicing off his father's nuts?

If I were a betting man, and I'm not, like God in the Book of Job (where He and Satan compete over just how far they can push a man into suffering before he questions his faith, eventually killing off his 10 children and plaguing him with boils and ash and poverty), I would have bet big money that themes such as these wouldn't be considered appropriate reading material by the moral majority. They seem so terribly unwholesome and inappropriate for today's youth.

Fascinating diatribes!

I bet Jesus was gay. How else to die for your brother, really?

356's first point is incredibly powerful. The rest of his post is worthless.