NEWS TALK RADIO Our Hosts
Powered by: Townhall.com
Sign Up
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Kevin McCullough :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why 'Sex' Is Not Equal To 'Race'
by Kevin McCullough
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Can the "Bill Ayers factor" bring down Obama?

The sexual behavior that one chooses to engage in, will never be equal to the status of a person's race. Confusing these two truly different concepts is dishonest. And those who claim otherwise do so for manipulated outcome to redesign society.

Normal people have understood this since the beginning of time.

The activist California Supreme Court does not. In the court's recent ruling pertaining to the mandated attempt to redefine marriage - and to tyrannically force that redefinition upon the voters of California - four judges raised the choice of sexual desire, inclination, and behavior to the same level of class status as racial ethnicity.

In doing so they set themselves up for more problems than they can envision because of such a leap of logic, lack of scientific evidence, and the general willingness to override the votes of 63% of the Californian population. These four judges have equated, in the eyes of the law, the choice of who one chooses to bed as being equal to what color of skin a person is born with. In doing so they have now laid down future arguments for further redefinition of marriage to include nearly any sexual union in both number and combination that a person can imagine. By redefining marriage, but then limiting that redefined definition to only include "pairs" of persons, the court has opened itself to claims of discrimination from bi-sexual persons who may very easily wish to be in a legal sexual "relationship" that includes a person of both genders, not to mention heterosexual polygamists. Each of the groups, who choose sexual partners for whatever reasons they do - will be liable to claim that the State of California must end discrimination against additional "alternative" lifestyles, and extend a yet still more redefined view of "marriage" to them as well.

Yet it is simple to understand why the judges are so wrong.

Romantic actions, such as flirting, hitting on someone, soliciting a phone number, and being bashful in asking someone on a "date" are all volitional acts of conscience and of choice. Consensual sexual actions from simple hand-holding, to kissing, following all the way through the act of sexual consummation are again choice based. Choosing to act on those urges - defines the individual's sexual orientation. With large numbers of people even now championing the fact that they've chosen the choice they currently are involved with, sexual identity, practice, and enthusiasm have become increasingly fluid.

Pop culture tells us so. Consider the number two song in the country this week: Katy Parry's "I Kissed a Girl!"

I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chapstick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don't mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don't mean I'm in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
I liked it

The weekend's biggest movie Sex And The City is reinforcing this belief with a closing monologue from the film's main character Carrie Bradshaw: "It's not in the label of being husband/wife, bride and groom, or man and woman that's important... it's getting beyond the labels and seeing the person..."

Yet that is in essence the problem. We humans aren't mere collections of DNA, water, plasma, and bone. We are not in essence biologically "the same." Men and women serve distinct purposes, functions, and roles in the furtherance of society.

A woman who is African American, can no more be a white woman the next day regardless of how much she wished to (if she even would). Likewise a Latino man could not go to bed one night at 5'8" and wake up the next morning to find he was black, 7'2'', and the starting center for his local NBA franchise. Race and other truly genetic based parts of life - skin color, height, shape and forms of features are pieces of ourselves that only God Himself had the choice in determining.

Who we romance, date, move in with, and have sex with - is something He's left to our free will as a matter of choice. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Xtreme' Radio and columnist based in New York. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. His second book "The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be" is in stores now.

Be the first to read Kevin McCullough's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Subject: con't
Kevin McCollugh is ALSO making a case against heterosexuals getting married if he's assuming what KIND of sex they are having.
But he couldn't know unless he's willing to have himself AND the government police bedrooms for ALL citizens.
And no one is doing that, so the pack of you who have decided that it's the sex that gay people are having is grounds enough for discrimination really don't know which country they've been living in all these years.
Nobody is assuming what kind the handicapped, those of disparate physical size and ability are having, or if they are compatible at all.
Nope, somehow gay couples get the slippery slope argument thrown at them about compatibility and procreation from people who don't have to prove their own IN COURT or to society at large.
How compatible a couple is or not is deeply private.
And it's none of your business whether that couple is gay or not.

con't
That gay couples have ALREADY committed to caring for each other and what children they have with the same primacy WITHOUT marriage, speaks to how seriously they take their relationships.

That gay couples AGREE to the basic tenets of TWO consenting adults for the primacy of custody of each other and their children within marriage makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the rest of us to disagree and try and make up all kinds of OTHER regulations that they DIDN'T agree to.
Gay people, just shy of pretending to be heterosexuals are committing to a REASONABLE standard that ALL other citizens agree to as well.
So gay people aren't doing anything against not already expected and allowed and legitimate.
It's people like Luis, and dreadnaught, et al..that are forgetting that.
And assuming this participation is going to do damage or destroy marriage is a stupid assumption when those factors that DO, still do not condemn those who fail marriage for those reasons, to never have the opportunity again. And again.
What part of EQUAL standards for gay people don't you get?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip: