Kansas judge needs to hear additional oral arguments

This from the New York Times regarding the Kansas court case where the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that gay and straight sexual offenses should be consequenced in the same manner. This is fair and I agree with it. However, the rationale offered by the Judge about the law is horrendous: According to the Times,

Justice Marla J. Luckert wrote for the unanimous court. Justice Luckert rejected the argument that homosexual sex is more likely to transmit diseases.”The Romeo-and-Juliet statute is overinclusive because it increases penalties for sexual relations which are unlikely to transmit H.I.V. and other sexually transmitted diseases,” Justice Luckert said, referring to the oral sex in the Limon case and sex involving two women. “Simultaneously,” she continued, “the provision is underinclusive because it lowers the penalty for heterosexuals engaging in high-risk activities,” notably anal sex.

1. Oral sex is only slightly more safe than other forms of sex, especially if a condom is not used, whether the participants be gay or straight.
2. Anal sex is risky whether it be gay or straight (and maybe this is what she is saying and I would agree) and so the penalities should be the same.

Just don’t see what the types of sex have to do with anything here.

Maybe there is more context in the case that would make this make some sense but at first read this seems a clueless way to reason.

Reactions to the Dr. Phil show today

I watched all but the final segment on the young boy wanting to be a girl.

Overall reaction: The show didn’t shed any new light, break any new ground and Dr. Phil only scratched the surface of what could have been done. Too much in too short a space. This is why I do not watch these shows. He set up the piece to make it appear that the disapproving view was outdated but more on that later.

1st segment – 30 year lesbian who wants her family to accept her. The lesbian does not just want her family’s (mom and sister) acceptance. She wants them to change their beliefs about morality. She wants to be able to talk about all sorts of sexual activities that her mom and sister find to be immoral. She could have been wiccan and this family would be having the same problems as now. This conflict was not much about sexuality and a whole lot about one family member wanting the other two to applaud her every move. To his credit, Dr. Phil came close to making that point, but he was pretty much overwhelmed by the guests.

2nd segment – David Kyle Foster and a gay Christian advocate and a representative of GLSEN I think (I will correct this if wrong, later) were on to “debate” if someone who is gay can become straight. This was so stereotyped I could not believe it. No reaction came from Dr. Phil. He seemed clueless to know how to deal with the issue or how to advance any dialogue.

See previous posts: There was an effort on the part of the show and GLAAD to pack the audience. A group of ex-gay proponents got in the show by mentioning this link.

More later…