I commented the other day that Andrew Sullivan has it part-right, but tends to get bogged down in homosexual politics, as regards little things like, well, logic, for example. An understandable situation, but none the less one that skews his objectivity. Odd because he’s usually so clear headed on other matters. Today he comes up with a classicly stupid line:

O’Connor sees gay people as fully-fledged people, with lives and loves and needs like everyone else.

Hey, Andy, most people who fall outside the lines set by the culture, and by the government are people, too, last I checked. That does not of itself make their chosen behavior less problematic. The question being posed by the dissent in the court, Scalia among them is, “At what point does society get to make a ruling on what is and is not moral?”

The very purpose of law and of government is to reinforce the culture of the poeple who gave that government life, and to extend the reach of that culture, if possible. Government is a tool of the culture and it’s values, not the reverse. Therefore morality tends ot get codified into laws. Which is not to say that all laws are moral. But that’s hw it’s supposed to work. Interesting though how the double standards come out on this one.

As I wrote a couple weeks back:

Take a little memory trip with me, back when the homosexual extra rights advocates were touting the idea that homosexuality was a natural phenom. Remember?  There were some very high-level studies that were released about this time, that showed some very good promise of finding a cause.

Funny thing, though….

Once they started getting close… once the question of the cause being similar to something called Tourette’s syndrome, which is treatable, but not yet curable, came up….. well, suddenly, the homosexual extra rights advocates backed off of the argument as one would back off from a Palestinian bomber screaming “Allah is great!”, as if the thought of an actual cure horrified them. As well it might; no more special rights, and homosexuality moves form ‘lifestyle choice’ to ‘illness’.

Suddenly the bloom was off the rose, as far as the ‘homosexuality is a natural thing’ argument went… and suddenly their argument switched to what we on the right have been saying for decades… it’s a choice. It’s a choice they certainly have the right to make, at least based on our understanding of the issues thus far.

But for the sake of discussion, let us consider the Tourette’s victim further. The person has a choice; they can either chose to treat the illness as such, or they can say to hell with the rest of the world, label it a lifestyle, and try to get everyone else to accept it as such. Again, something they have the right to do, but I doubt that many will abide that right for long. Behavior has consequences, after all.

Consider the rather interesting parallels. Just as with the homosexual who claims to have been born into the homosexual role, such a person cannot be said to have entered the situation by choice.  Yet, we as the rest of humanity, regard it like we do any other physical/mental malady… an illness to be overcome if possible. Treated with understanding, certainly… but treated.  Drugs are able to limit the social consequences of the problem. Should the Tourette’s victim go off his meds, and insist that everyone else put up with the consequences of his illness as his chosen lifestyle?  Tourettes is a natural occurrence, after all.

Now of course you’ll say Tourettes should be treated.  And, you’re right.  It should. Somehow, though, because we’re dealing with sexuality, suddenly this philosophy of treatment, goes out the window. Why? Put another way; The Tourette’s victim doesn’t stay off his meds, defying cures, and demand that we all accept his behavior as a natural lifestyle choice.

Why do we do so for homosexuals Andy? Are those with Tourette’s less ‘people’?