Allen,

I think that "civil rights" encompasses all people. That said, there needs to be an equitable rule of law for partners, male and female, who dedicate their lives to a significant other and may not be legally bound. In general, I think civil rights are meant to be civil, meant for all citizens no matter what their race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. This doesn't just make sense legally, because there is a moral obligation to treat all human beings the same way.

Anything less is reprehensible and certainly (in my way of thinking) completely un-American.

Good piece, Allen. I reached some similar conclusions for a piece I just hadpublished here.

Oops, cut myself off.

I was going to suggest you also read what i wrote
published here at BC.

Thanks to each of you for your kind thoughts.

I agree Victor 100%!

Scott, I read and enjoyed your piece. Good writing.

I too had a piece on my blog about Rosa Parks at the time of her passing and paste the link here.

http://opedwriter.blogspot.com/2005/10/rosa-parks-quiet-dignity-amplified.html

Thanks again to each of you for your thoughts.

Marriage is a priviledge not a right. The government should get out of it altogether.

Should I be punished because I choose not to have a lifelong partner of any sex?

Equal treatment for all regardless of relationship status.

The government, as far as i know, does not penalize you for remaining single, RT

Well written article.

As a gay man, who's been in a monogamous relationship for half of my life, and also raising a child, yet often condemned and labeled as promiscuous and destructive to society, I'm working on an article with several other gay parents about the growing migration of our families. Many gay families are packing up their livelihoods, their homes, their kids and fleeing red states. Personally, I am in a blue state, yet still trying to move my own family out of this country, the country I have loved all my life, and thought I would die for. Instead, I find the country has turned on me for being a family man.

In America, in 2006, you have a noticable and trackable flight of gay families, who are leaving 'red' states they have lived in their whole lives, because of the religious oppression that is being written into law there.

Who would have thought that in, what is supposed to be a democracy where all can be free from tyranny, you have a noticeable (trackable) migration of men, women and children, who are fleeing religious oppression for the safety and sanctity of their own families. I'm not talking about Iraq, I'm talking about America.

Steve, that would be a valuable piece for Blogcritics.

A sad tale indeed

Steve,

A powerful reply and one that touches us here in our home deeply. You have said it better than I could have ever hoped for. My partner has a cousin who moved with his family to a blue state for this very reason.

Like you, I too have been in a long-term monogamous relationship and am often made to feel that I (we) are bringing down society. Today I wrote two pieces for this site on civil rights and thought it was my way to honor MLK and his fight for civil rights. Your post here tonight has let me know that my effort hit home. I hope, one by one, we come together as a country to see what we are doing to our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, family, and friends by allowing bigotry to stand.

Again, Thanks Steve.

Marriage is the unique union between one man and one woman. This is how American society has defined it for over two hundred years and how many other socities have defined it for even longer. This is how most Americans view it and how it must stay.

That said I see nothing wrong or ammoral with two consenting adults of the seame sex living together as romantic partners and all that that entails. I don't believe that homesexuals are evil, perverted or ammoral. I don't think homosexuals should be discriminated against. I think that civil unions are the way to go.

You guys can call me all the names you want because I believe marriage is between one woman and one man but I don't really give a damn. You obviously have no respect for tradition and most Americans feel the way that I do. We will not allow a small minority to bend sociaety to thier will based on thier desires.

You obviously have no respect for tradition

If you identify as Christian, you have trampled on the tradition of the winter solstice holiday and made it your own. You have trampled on the traditions of Indians and basically eradicated them. Marriage was about the transfer of property, you co-opted that tradition.

Slavery was tradition once. Perhaps not all traditions are justified. I certainly have no respect for a 'tradition' that equates me with a child predator.

Take the 'Bings' of the country and just use their own language to make our case. Consider the issue that resembles this one from a few decades ago.

Look at the CA State Supreme Court case on allowing blacks and whites to marry and review the language that was used then by those who wished to deny this right to couples. Look at the reasons they advocated such a position. Conider the religious rationale that was used then. Conider the fact the Supreme Court did not make a ruling for mnay years after certain state courts acted first.

The language and arguments the 'Bings' make now we all heard before. Time and justice prevail and the bigots turn out to be the minority and placed in the trash bin of history.

I think too that we need to understand that those who insist they are not gay and work over-time to deny rights often feel the tingle for a member of the same sex but deny thier feelings through acting out in hateful ways.

allendury,

We could just as easily point out he arguments and positions taken the last time liberals got involved with marriage, no-fault divorce. Since then the divorce rate has skyrocketed even though the claim was that it would not.

I think no-fault divorce was the right thing to do, but you have to consider all the consequences of your actions. I voted against the gay marriage amendment in Texas and would do so again, but I understand why people don't want to F with the traditional institution.

I have said before that I wish government would get out of the whole marriage bit, it is way too religious in nature. Then the Baptists could turn up their nose and say no gay marraige here, and gays could go down the street to the Episcopals and get their license. Everybody would be happy and free to do as they choose.

Aaman writes,

"The government, as far as i know, does not penalize you for remaining single..."

Aaman look at the tax code. Married couples pay a different tax rate than single individuals. Thre are laws of agency that automaticlaly come into force if you are married and all sorts of other little things. Actually, Silas Cain has made a rather exhaustive list of the ways that singles lose benefits against married people, because gay people lose out for the same reason.

There is only one solution to the problem that will satisify the majority of both sides and will be equitable. It is for the government to not recognize relationships and get out of the marriage business altogether. You will hear many (but not all) people on the Right advocate this. You will hear many (but not all) people on the Left advocate this, such as myself.

Couples can go to the city hall and register relationships as unions, if you want some sort of tax breaks for families of all types, or not at all.

And the word 'marriage' can reside in the church, and the church can recognize whatever relationships it wants, nobody cares.

But as the current direction is going, should you wish to amend your constitution to state that marriage is between a man and a woman, then we simply go to court to point out that couple A getting a tax break is discriminatory to couple B. We leave the marriage equation out of it, and we dissassemble each and every facet of marriage one by one, to the tune of trillions of dollars in court costs.

That seems to be the direction the Right is making us go.

Steve - I think your solution will work fine...works well for me! Is this the first time we've agreed on something?

Not the first time, but the only topic.

first, let me say that i believe that the legal benefits of marriage should not be denied to anyone. the christians and the right wingers and the "tradition!alists" want to say that "marriage is the union between one man and one woman as has been defined for an incredible 200 years by our bible and our separated church and state..."
so let them have it. they can have the word 'marriage.' let there be "civil union" written at the top of the forms, and let whoever marries you say "civil union" while you're getting civil unioned. who gives a fuck?
when you get in your car to drive off, it can still say "just married" on it. you know what just happened. they know what just happened. you can have your rights and they can keep their sinful, sinful pride.
let them argue about the definition of marriage. it's just a strange sounding word.

"union between one man and one woman as has been defined for an incredible 200 years by our bible"

I didn't know that the bible was only written 200 years ago. I suppose you learn something new everyday.

I believe he meant 2000. And the bible endorses polygamy, harems, and concubines, as well as treating women like property.

As for the 'no fault divorce' concept, used earlier to slam liberals (while the very same comment from the right endorses no fault divorce), it might have made it easier to get divorces, but the solution is to not make it tougher to get out of an unhappy marriage, the solution is to teach your own flock to not get into marriage so readily. To respect it, and what it represents, not make it more confining.

When you have Britney Spears getting married for 'a few hours' in Vegas, when you have reality shows making mockeries of the institution (who wants to marry my fat obnoxious dad, posing as a bachelor in paris, etc.) then don't blame an easy divorce on slapping the institution of marriage in the face.

You all need easy divorces, since you get into marriage without considering it's implications or what it TRULY represents apparently.

You all??? Pretty broad brush there Stevie!

I knew my wife for 2 weeks when I married her at The Little Chapel of the Flowers on Las Vegas Blvd! This August will be 23 years! So take your "easy" divorce and shove it!

Point taken, Andy. It was meant as 'those of you who can get married'. It was too broad, I concede.

Given the fact that the divorce rate hovers between 40-50%, I cover a lot with my brush, but I should have worded it differently, for the other 50%.

fair enough Steve! I do count my wife and I in the group that could be called rare these days! It may have actually been a place where the "broad brush" needed to be used...but I had to make my point!

And here I thought it was just because there hasn't been a discussion between you and I yet, where you haven't told me to shove it. I figured you were trying to meet a quota.

Congrats to your longevity. I'm only three years behind you.

My father gave me one piece of advice when we got married...Only one thing will make it work. You both have to want it to. I'd say he's right.

And you should know..I'm not a quota kinda guy...hehe

It has been a while...I'll see if I can fit a few more shove it's in there for you...I know you miss them!

redtard: ""union between one man and one woman as has been defined for an incredible 200 years by our bible"

I didn't know that the bible was only written 200 years ago. I suppose you learn something new everyday."

it was a joke... do you not see the sarcasm? i think bing said something about our government defining marriage 200 years ago... marriage has been around longer than the state, longer than the bible, longer than any of these things... it is not defined by the bible or the state. christ.

How do "civil" rights differ from "individual" rights? Could someone please produce two lists of rights showing which ones are in which category.

Civil Rights: The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.

Individual rights are more lengthy. I would recommend this link for a start.

Many right wingers say that marriage is not guaranteed in the constitution. While the act of walking down the aisle is not guaranteed, this is true, the problem arises in that so many benefits, rights and privileges have been tied up in marriage. Over 1,000 federal benefits, rights and privileges and about 700 state benefits, rights and privileges.

It is the denial of these facets that amounts to discrimination, group wide ostracization and opression that is a violation of individual rights, as well as civil rights. Also, such discimination fosters an oppressive society in which a group of people lives in condemnation, which is a violation of one's inalienable right to pursue happiness.

So as for a list, sorry, it doesn't work that way, that would be nice, but basic freedoms cannot be broken down into a checklist.

"Couples can go to the city hall and register relationships as unions, if you want some sort of tax breaks for families of all types, or not at all."

True enough on the face of it, Steve S, but then you go on to say

"And the word 'marriage' can reside in the church, and the church can recognize whatever relationships it wants, nobody cares."

And the fact that nobody cares what churches recognize as relationships is what really burns alot religious peoples asses. They aren't going to stop when they get away with pushing gays out of marriage. They'll see what they can push gays out of next. Then they'll see who else they can get away with legislatively pushing around.
Then they'll go to far. The 3 million people in my state who voted for President but choose not to vote at all on the ammendment banning gay marriage that passed 1.5 million to 1 million
will suddenly realize
"Oh, this is my business"
And that will be it for the church sanctioning relationships. Most likely what you described above will happen, and the institution of marriage the RR claimed to protecting will be wiped out as anything but a ritual.
To bad so many decent people have to get hurt in the meantime.

I'll have to absorb what you say, ss. My initial thought is that it's all part of a much bigger picture.

When you look at their cries of 'activist judges' (which means anyone who makes a ruling they don't like), and intelligent design/creationism, and prayer in public schools, 10 commandments in federal buildings, etc. it's all about controlling the majority...mainstream America. Gay marriage is just one facet in a much bigger war, in which gay people are just in the way, but not the actual target.

As far as gay marriage goes, I think what they object to, is not gay people (I don't care what you do, just don't do it in my face...), but it is the normalization of homosexuality, that they object to. For generations, consenting adults were linked with child predators and people who engage in be*stiality. It was equated with mental illness and just about every negative connotation you could think of, was thrown at us. While the majority weren't charged under the old sodomy laws, they did in fact make us de facto criminals and cost us other court cases, whether involving property, civil issues or family matters.

It is the erosion of this stigmatization, that we have been working on since Stonewall, that they object to. They don't care if I have a husband. What they care about is me going proudly to my daughter's school and expecting my family to be treated the same as any other.

It is a violation of my inalienable rights that they insist on, and that they keep losing, so they have to write it into historical American documents.

I don't know what you mean by decent people getting hurt, that is what I mean by having to absorb what you say. The government recognizing that me, my partner and our child constitutes a family, in no way harms the decent people next door. If it does...then they are the ones with issues and problems, and trying to make their life rosy by inflicting tyranny on mine is not a valid response.

"They aren't going to stop when they get away with pushing gays out of marriage."

Remind me again when gay marraige was accepted law in the US. Oh that's right you can't, because it never was. Gays were never pushed out of marriage, on the contrary they are trying to push themselves into it.

By all means, don't let the facts stand in the way on a good rant against those evil churchgoers though.

Actually, Hawaii was the first state that ruled for gay marriage. And Mass. as well as one or two other states if I recall have allowed same sex marriage. 'They' immediately pushed us out of marriage in Hawaii before we were allowed to perform the first one. So yes, we were pushed out of marriage and there is a movement underway in Mass. to push us out of that one.

But don't let facts stand in the way of your attack.

redtard- what you say is just silly. aren't they trying to push a consitutional amendment through that would make gay marriage illegal? or did they realize that that was so very stupid? wouldn't that mean pushing gays out of what really should be their's? you know... like HUMAN DIGNITY!?

when, if you have one, your wife lays dying (no time soon), would it seem fair to you that the hospital could tell you to fuck right off? of course, that would never happen, but what if it could? what if it happens to american men and women every goddamn day?

this is just the first of many basic human rights you wish to deny to the gay population. like it or not, they are here. might as well learn to get along with them.

why do you think the government gives these kinds of tax breaks and other benefits to traditionally married couples? not because it fits your biblical standards (that would be unconstitutional), but because it rewards a responsible lifestyle, one that better guarantees future tax payment and positive economic contribution to society.

the only reason that gay marriage isn't legal is because of general intolerance in society (which rep-- politicians grab as "political currency), not unlike early 1960's america's response to civil rights for african-americans. one day, americans will look back on this in shame, and you'll clam up, stewing in your own past ignorance.

I agree that gay marriage should be legal, but you're way off base characterizing it as a basic human right. Marriags is a social convention. It is something the government shouldn't be involved in at all one way or another.

Dave

Steve S - The 'decent people getting hurt' I was refering to were the gay couples, and their children. Dealing with having a bunch of politically motivated organization that want to defame you and deny you the same status as everyone else, its just some bullshit no one should have to tolerate.
And I think it sucks that the RR could be stopped by the simple act of voting against their proposed ammendments, but the majority of voters in my state basicly refused to get involved. So 1.5 million people passed an ammendment banning gay marriage in an election where 5 million people voted.

marriage is the union betweeen two. Why are we so hung up on which two? Walking in someone's shoes is the best way to understand any union. I feel sorry for the narrow minded. In my opinion you have your own issues to sort through, or maybe you can't, so you feel it your duty to critisize how someone else chooses to live their life, or UNITE with another. Hmmmmm! Just a thought

If we're going to throuw all tradition to the wind then why limit it to just two people?

Would you take away the right of a threesome to enjoy the benefits of marriage?

You bigot.

I have enough trouble with ONE!

Good one Red.

Lets start the count.

1st. Argue tradition; Marriage has been around for a long time. Why change the definition to include two men or two women. And forget the fact that marriage has changed a bit through the years. You know, those arranged marriages that still exist in some cultures.

2nd. Claim liberals brought on no fault divorce and that hasn't worked to well. And forget that allowing gays into the marriage pool may decrease the divorce percentage.

3rd. Claim allowing gays to marry starts the "slippery slope." Next thing we know people will want to allow a third person into the marriage equation. What happens when someone wants to marry his or her dog? We allowed gays to marry, so that means you can marry anything. How about your car?

4th. Call being gay a sin. Forget that religion has no place in our laws and rights. And save me the part about the 10 commandments. I don't need religion to tell me it should be against the law to murder or steel.

We've heard this B.S. before. You throw these arguments out there and claim they are valid and you shouldn't be called a bigot. We know you are uncomfortable with the gay lifestyle and you would prefer it stayed in the background where you wouldn't have to see it or deal with it. You equate allowing gay marriage with accepting said lifestyle and you will never accept any part of it other then to say we can't just kill them off.

It would be so easy to amend the current marriage laws to allow for two men or two women to enter the union of marriage with all its rights and benefits. We can easily make it so that three or foursomes would be allowed or that you couldn't marry non-humans.

I do think it would make sense to get our government out of the marriage business all together. I just think it is easier to amend current marriage laws rather then starting from scratch with new civil union laws for all.

If we're going to throuw all tradition to the wind then why limit it to just two people?

Would you take away the right of a threesome to enjoy the benefits of marriage?

I certainly wouldn't limit marriage to two people. Plural marriage ought to be legal as it is in a good portion of the rest of the world. I sort of regret doing something nice for the Mormons, but right is right.

Dave

Hey come on now...the Mormons own the Flying J's all over the country...cheap gas, decent food when your driving across country! They're good people!

Andy

Don't forget clean bathrooms.

I don't mind extending to homosexuals all the legal rights of marriage. What I do object to is lingusitic corruption. "Marriage" has been defined for millenia as "a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of conceiving children and raising them in a family with a father and mother." Gay "marriage" only satisfies (potentially) one of these defining characteristics. It is not intergender. It does not involve the conception of children who are the offspring resulting from copulation between the two individuals. It can only involve the raising of adopted children, and then only with two fathers or two mothers.

Therefore it is entirely inappropriate to subsume homosexual unions under this long established and traditional term. A new term or terms should be invented for the purpose of unambiguous reference. Might I suggest "menniage" and "femmiage" for male and female homosexual unions respectively.

This has the advantage of affording such couples the opportunity of proudly asserting the distictiveness of their "lifestyle", rather than having to try and obnoxiously intrude their presence upon a lifesyle that is alien to their own.

There is so much that is fundamentally flawed with comment 43, where does one begin?

Marriage" has been defined for millenia as "a union between a man and a woman

No, it hasn't. Marriage has been the transfer of property (the woman) for millenia. Marriage often included many wives, and in most places still does. Monogamous marriage between one man and one woman is relatively new when considering the History of Man.

It can only involve the raising of adopted children,

No. My child is genetically mine. I have been in a monogamous relationship with another man for over 20 years. He did a second parent adoption, but so do millions of straight people each day.

Might I suggest "menniage" and "femmiage" Might I suggest you research 'separate but equal' and you will find Supreme Court rulings that illustrate how it fosters stigimatization which infringes upon one's inalienable rights as a human being.

proudly asserting the distictiveness of their "lifestyle"

As a gay man, my "lifestyle" has always been one of domestic household matters, one involving the raising of children, close personal ties with family and being a law abiding, tax payer. Shall we focus on prostitutes on the street corner and call that the 'straight lifestyle'? If only one can see how ignorant such comments are.

a lifesyle that is alien to their own.

I believe the American Family Association (linked with hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center) has you completely fooled with their proven misinformation.

Would you take away the right of a threesome to enjoy the benefits of marriage?

If person A, person B, and person C find the path that is right for them, who are YOU to judge? We make judgements in everything, every day. But 'Thou shalt not judge' means to not judge the value of another. A commandment violated by the Right, on this board alone, in almost every comment.

You bigot.

I see when the Right cannot win an argument, they violate the site rules and resort to personal attacks. Thou shalt not judge.

Richard,

Total BS!

There is no reason for the two-tier system, as it would still imply one type of relationship is superior and more valid than the other. And we both know that some knuckle dragging conservative would try to find ways to deny those under the 'other" label rights down the road.

Get over the self righteous and bigoted notions that you carry, and try to cover with legal nonsense and treat everyone fairy and equitably. Stop the trotting out the horse rot of hatred disguised as broadmindedness.

I will copulate with my partner as you do with yours. I will not debase you in public or vote for people who want to strip you of your rights. I will respect you and your decisions and work to insure others do not try to deny you your constitutional rights.

And I expect the same from you towards me and my family!

Marriage often included many wives, and in most places still does. Monogamous marriage between one man and one woman is relatively new when considering the History of Man.

Pardon me. I should have said "between a man and one or more women". Of course there have also been polyandrous cultures in which a child can only guess at who his father might have been.

My child is genetically mine. I have been in a monogamous relationship with another man for over 20 years. He did a second parent adoption, but so do millions of straight people each day.

I imagine your situation is rather rare. The point is, when the only hole you can put your penis into is another man's fecal excrement opening, there aren't going to be any genetic offspring.

Might I suggest you research 'separate but equal' and you will find Supreme Court rulings that illustrate how it fosters stigimatization which infringes upon one's inalienable rights as a human being.

So let's stop "stigmatizing" kids by referring to them as "boys" and "girls", and instead get rid of those demeaning terms and replace them with a single, genderless one.

As a gay man, my "lifestyle" has always been one of domestic household matters, one involving the raising of children, close personal ties with family and being a law abiding, tax payer. Shall we focus on prostitutes on the street corner and call that the 'straight lifestyle'? If only one can see how ignorant such comments are.

Boy, talk about an ignorant comment! Shall we focus on sodomites and call that the 'gay lifestyle'?

Of course there have also been polyandrous cultures

Yes, the culture of the bible for instance. The bible is a good example of when woman was property.

The point is...there aren't going to be any genetic offspring.

It is a completely irrelevant point. You do not deny barren women the right to marry. You do not deny impotent men the right to marry. And the majority of gay men do not engage in anal sex, yet we see where the obsession lies. Orifices do not define relationships or marriage. Not even in the Bible.

let's stop "stigmatizing" kids by referring to them as "boys" and "girls",

that could actually be it's own thread. When my daughter was a newborn, I was amazed at how it was always blue for boys and pink for girls. From clothing, to blankets, to toys. Boys get guns and cars, girls get barbie dolls and teapot sets. Yet my daughter, by her own volition, went to the toy cars and toy dinosaurs. So I would completely believe in the concept that gender identification is instilled by society, in such a way, as to repress natural instincts. But like I said, that's it's own thread. (She also likes fingernail polish, purses and ballerina outfits), but they needn't be forced upon her as the only choices.

Shall we focus on sodomites and call that the 'gay lifestyle'?

You already did. That's why in your initial comment, you put the word lifestyle in quotes. You knew it was a catch phrase with little meaning. And your comment about gay anal sex shows us all what you are focused on.

There is no reason for the two-tier system, as it would still imply one type of relationship is superior and more valid than the other.

I'm not suggesting a "tiered" system (implying that one level is above another). And even if you did want to conceive of it in that way, why do you automatically assume that it would imply the superiority of "straight" marriage?

Earlier you made the following comment that I found extremely offensive:

I think too that we need to understand that those who insist they are not gay and work over-time to deny rights often feel the tingle for a member of the same sex but deny thier feelings through acting out in hateful ways.

Is this a typical homosexual attitude - that homosexuality is the normal and natural human state, and that heterosexuals are all just repressing their real desire to fuck other men? How would you feel if I said (changing only three words):

I think too that we need to understand that those who insist they are gay and work over-time to gain their rights often feel the tingle for a member of the opposite sex but deny thier feelings through acting out in hateful ways.

Is this a typical homosexual attitude

Yes because, it is a scientifically proven fact. Scientists measured the amount of arousal in men when subjected to gay pornography. Men who were indifferent to gay people (i.e. tolerant), showed little arousal with gay porn. Men who adamantly worked against gay rights, when subjected to gay porn, had their arousal 'meters' point sky high.

Numerous studies worldwide have confirmed that.

Could you link to...I don't know...maybe just one of these studies?

a good place to start learning.

(Google search with keywords "homophobic men aroused with gay porn")

I'm not sure why you found it offensive, as it didn't seem to be directed at you personally.

It's been good to see you back lately, Steve!

Ask and you shall receive.

http://www.petertatchell.net/homophobia/bigots%20are%20buggers.htm

Talks about the reports in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology.

Sorry Andy, I don't think the study is ongoing. Sadly, you will not be able to view any gay porn. Think back to your time in the Navy. That should get your "meter" pointing to the sky.

Thanks Phillip.

I think you might have just tried to hurt my feelings...but I'm used to those navy smears!

The link in comment 52 didn't work. Here it is
Google search results

Yes, the culture of the bible for instance. The bible is a good example of when woman was property.

Where in the Bible do you see references to a culture of polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands)?

the majority of gay men do not engage in anal sex

I guess this explains why the incidence of AIDS is so very low among gays!

Orifices do not define relationships or marriage. Not even in the Bible.

You mean like where God created the woman for the man so that they could multiply and replenish the earth?

And your comment about gay anal sex shows us all what you are focused on.

Yes, I'm quite single-mindedly focused on inserting my penis into my wife's vagina. Near as I can tell, she's not at all unhappy about that particular obsession of mine!

Where in the Bible do you see references to a culture of polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands)?

I misread polyandry as polygamy. Your initial claim that marriage has been between a man and a woman for millenia is disputed by the bible, since it is only 2 millenium old, and millenia implies many millenium, I believe. Semantics aside, the bible is only 2,000 years old, and as recent as that, woman was property, and it was common for men to have many wives. The concept of marriage as you would have it, is extremely recent in terms of the History of Man.

I guess this explains why the incidence of AIDS is so very low among gays!

There are several ways that HIV is spread. Since society condemns gay relationships and diverse sexual orientation in general, many gay men have low self esteem and engage in self destructive behavior such as promiscuous sex or drug use. A study of history will show that this is common for any oppressed group. Also, since there are so many men worldwide still hiding in the closet, there is no way to determine the actual number of gay people, so while statistically HIV might be higher in gay men, than in, say, a group of straight people who have societal approval for monogamy, the number of gay people who have HIV is still very low considering the overall total of gay men in the world. Got that?

You mean like where God created the woman for the man so that they could multiply and replenish the earth?

I won't touch the concept that you believe woman was created FOR you, nor do I buy into the concept of creationism, given the monumental amount of data supporting evolution. Nowhere in that italicized comment above, is there any definition of marriage or even of relationship. There is simply breeding.

Yes, I'm quite single-mindedly focused on

body parts and how they are the sole factors in determining relationships. We got that.

From one of these "homophobic buggers" sites (their characterization, not mine):

Four out of five became sexually aroused by the homoerotic imagery, as recorded by a penile circumference measuring device

This is totally bogus "research". Such porn watchers may well have been aroused upon seeing a naked man because of a knee-jerk association with naked men in heteroerotic imagery.

It is a totally transparent and utterly despicable attempt to try and make people afraid to say ANYTHING (even of a non-"homophobic" nature), against the gay push to destroy traditional marriage, for fear of being suspected of secret homosexual tendencies.

everyone deserves equal treatment and rights. that's the american way. to think otherwise is to engage in bigotry. it's just true. not a personal attack, nothing of the sort.

big·ot
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

don't be a bigot. tolerate those who are different from you. they are humans too.

why do those who are against gay marriage just argue about the definition of the word? what does it matter, it's just a word...

what's really at stake here is the rights and benefits that go with marriage, as given by the state, not the church. so keep the church out of it. denying people tax breaks and health care and everything else just because they are in love with someone of their own sex is discrimination, bigotry, hatred, wrong, disgusting, shameful, sinful, ammoral, and sickening.

this is not about morals or "family values" or anything. even if it was, homosexuals are trying to create families, not destroy them!! how can these bigots argue against it? so, it's a little different from your family? who cares? it's still a family.

zingzing - if I hate everyone equally will that suffice?

body parts and how they are the sole factors in determining relationships.

Yes, genitals sure do determine what kind of a relationship I am going to have with someone. Guess what, I have a lot of close relationships with other males - just not sexual relationships.

And the imperative not to have a sexual realationship with other males actually helps condition any male to be able to form healthy relationships with females other than their wives, with whom they do not need to envision a sexual aspect, thereby avoiding the situation described by Gower (my own Modern English translation):

Those with a short romantic fuse,
And many such there are today,
Indulge themselves where e'er they may.
For love, which is not in the light
Of reason seen, but in the night
Of foolishness and ignorance,
Of purely sensual romance,
To wisdom pays but little heed,
And for religion has no need,
But as a cock among the hens,
Or stallion in the breeding pens,
Which, going round to ev'ry mare,
To find the "right one" doesn't care,
Takes whatsoever comes to hand.

zingzing: "homosexuals are trying to create families"

If that's the case they are going about it all wrong. Sticking it in the brown hole will never produce a baby. Just loose stool. Ask Andy, he will concur. Aye, Aye!

Someday researchers will dig out remarks like Richard's and they will shake their heads and wonder how people ever had such limited abilites to reason. I am quite sure had Richard lived in a past era (though he will deny it now) would have been using arcane arguements against women voting, blacks and whites marrying, and Irish-Catholics getting gainful employment.

At the center of his soul is what permeates all those who resist change and harbor injustice. It is confusion and misunderstanding based on not enough information and education, along with low self-esteem.

In political terms this segment of the electorate is often (not always) termed 'angry white men'. They seem to feel threatened easier by a host of social and economic factors that women and others do not not associate themselves with.

Issues such as women in the workplace, immigrants competing for jobs, outsourcing yet more jobs, and now gay people taking their rightful role in society. These angry men feel that the world they thought they knew was changing too fast, and since they were never taught how to deal with their feelings and internal angst, they have few coping skills. So they lash out at what they view as threats. I have likened this segment of the electorate to the Soviet Union when if would snarl and lash out in regions around the globe.

But I say again, and history proves me to be correct, that the trash bin of history is littered with the likes of Richard's thinking. Justice moves forward, we do not move backwards.

If that's the case they are going about it all wrong.

Actually, your assumption that when that is done, a gay person is trying to create a family, is all wrong. But clearly, we don't expect intellect to be on your side, just more references to shit.

come over here and say that!

welfare cheese: "If that's the case they are going about it all wrong. Sticking it in the brown hole will never produce a baby. Just loose stool. Ask Andy, he will concur. Aye, Aye!"

so, my aunt and uncle who have no children don't count as a family? my cousin who can't bear children and adopted with her husband doesn't have a family? my friend who married a woman with children from another relationship doesn't have a family? fuck off with that.

families come in all shapes and sizes. they can be defined in many different ways.

the imperative not to have a sexual realationship with other males actually helps condition any male to be able to form healthy relationships with females other than their wives

my best friends are women. It is sad that some men need to be conditioned on how to have a healthy relationship with females other than their wives. Do these men normally have problems relating with others?

I can do poetry too.
There once was a man from Nantucket.....

andy, if you hate everyone equally, i suppose that's not bigotry. i have no problems with misanthropes. they have enough problems. like 6 or 7 billion of them.

Is a limerick really poetry? Isn't that like calling the Bay City Rollers music???

"Civil rights" are really cool, cause then you can get anything your heart desires. Just declare it to be your "civil rights" and then DARE any dirty bastard to oppose you. What, you're ambivalent about gay marriage? Why, you're just like Lester Maddox!

Personally, I'm deeply troubled at violations of my civil rights to get a blowjob from Pamela Anderson. I have declared my desire to exercise my civil rights just like Tommy, and if she violates my rights by not blowing me, then she's just like George Wallace- only worse!

andy, if you hate everyone equally,

Andy in comment 41: the Mormons....They're good people!

--

I had to point that out, I haven't had my daily 'shove it'.

Al, you are entitled to your civil rights, but not at the expense of another. Clearly such cruel and unusual torture for Pamela cannot stand in a democratic society.

al, if you wanted to make love to a three-legged mule, i wouldn't stand in your way. however, in exercising my civil rights, i would film it and show it in a sex ed class as an example of bad technique, and how bad choices affect us all. puke pails would be dispersed, "take one and pass it back, class."

Excuse me?

allen,

I can't understand why you take so much offense. I'm on your side. I've made it clear that I wan't homosexual couples (and polygamists) to enjoy all the legal protections afforded by marriage. Just call it something else.

And BTW Steve can you give me a link to the arousal studies on heterophobes showing what percentage get turned on by watching straight porn? I'm sure such studies must have been done by thorough and unbiased researchers seeking to explore all aspects of this class of phenomena.

"waldo and al, sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g!"

CLASS! be civil! we are not 5 year olds anymore! this is a beautiful moment between two consenting... mammals... oh god...

Steve - damn...I was trying to give this up for a while...SHOVE IT!

I provided a google search results link with more than enough info. You dismissed the bigot-bugger one simply on title, apparently. In that article, I would direct you to this:

In tests conducted by Prof. Henry E Adams of the University of Georgia.......The research results were published in the prestigious Journal of Abnormal Psychology, with the backing of the American Psychological Association.

---

From this link:

J. Michael Bailey...a professor of psychology at Northwestern University......Mr. Bailey....is already widely known for his studies linking sexual orientation to genes. (His research on twins is mentioned in most introductory psychology texts.)

And the list just goes on and on, and includes, as mentioned, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, as well as dozens of respected medical journals and university scientists.

I DID direct you to the results, but it will involve a little more research on your part, if you are interested.

Thank you, Andy, I am a creature of routine.

Steve - I knew we could work it out where we vould get along!

oh, I just caught the word change in 78. That's what happens when I read too fast.

I don't know what percentage of heterophobes get turned on by straight porn. I don't think that study has been done yet, I think all heterophobes are too busy trying to craft their relationships with women, by the definition of their relationships with men.

Is there really such a thing as heterophobes??? I guess there must be...if they made up a word for it!!!

I am quite sure had Richard lived in a past era (though he will deny it now) would have been using arcane arguements against women voting, blacks and whites marrying, and Irish-Catholics getting gainful employment.

Only one-third correct. I am definitely against women voting, as well as direct election of Senators, etc.

Resisting change is not always the wrong thing to do. In fact it is the height of stupidity to assume, as you do, that whatever direction a polity decides to go off in, necessarily represents desirable progress.

Richard, What part of "separate but equal" don't you get?

The concept went out the window after they desegregated the schools. Now you are calling for that solution again. I think I can freely get away with calling the people who believed in this concept as far as race is concerned a BEGIT.

If you are willing to give a gay couple all the rights and privileges that come along with it, why are you not willing to call it what it is, a marriage?

Definitions change all the time. It would be nice if a lot of American mindsets could also change.

people choose to be gay..it is learned..you arent BORN with it. you are violating your own amendment rights of equality. why should the world bend over backwards for the minority of gays?

because democracy protects the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

and people don't choose to be gay.

DRUxxx,

First you ask:

why are you not willing to call it what it is, a marriage?

then you say:

Definitions change all the time

thereby admitting that it is NOT marriage by the currently accepted definition, so that you will have to CHANGE that definition in order to make it applicable to homosexual unions!

So I ask, why don't you just leave the definition alone?

And "separate but equal" doesn't apply here. There is no physical separation of facilities involved, unless what you actually want is to be allowed to MOVE IN with straight couples!

Giving gay unions a distinctive name, is a natural process of linguistic development. Human language works by giving different things different names. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Gay unions have some significant things in common with straight unions, and some things about them are significantly different. Monkeys have some significant things in common with humans, and there are some significant differences. In either case it would be unnecessary linguistic confusion to use the same noun to refer to both things.

To paraphrase you:

I think I can freely get away with calling the people who who can't understand this simple principle STOOPIT.

people choose to be gay. it is learned...it is NURTURED...it is not within NATURE

"What I do object to is lingusitic corruption."

Then why use the word "gay", Richard, which means

1: bright and pleasant; promoting a feeling of cheer;
2: full of or showing high-spirited merriment;
3: given to social pleasures often including dissipation;
4: brightly colored and showy; "girls decked out
5: offering fun and gaiety;

If gay can be given another meaning, illustrated by your use of it, so can marriage.

Also my wife and I aren't having any children, so by your logic we can't call our union a marriage since we don't fulfill all your aspects.

"I'm quite single-mindedly focused on inserting my penis into my wife's vagina. Near as I can tell, she's not at all unhappy about that particular obsession of mine!"

That's not the way she tells it, but she is happy that it's over quickly.

smb, when did you choose to be straight and how many times did you try sex before your decision?

Roger: "What I do object to is lingusitic corruption."

Then why use the word "gay", Richard

I really don't like the word "gay", because of the implication that nonhomosexuals are NOT "bright and pleasant", etc. But maybe this is somewhat compensated for by calling heteros "straight", thereby implying that "gays" are "crooked" :)

However, "gay" is understood to be the same as "homosexual" - two different words standing for the same thing. That's called SYNONYMY.

The issue with "marriage" is the exact opposite, namely should one word stand for two different things. That's called CONFUSION.

Introducing synonyms is not linguistic corruption. Subsuming two things with fundamental differences under the same term is.

Also my wife and I aren't having any children, so by your logic we can't call our union a marriage since we don't fulfill all your aspects.

No, you don't. And I'd like very much to see a different word come into being for intergender unions deliberately entered into with the explicit intention of remaining barren.

smb's just silly. it's not within nature? read up on the unnatural!

"Homosexual behaviour is common in the animal kingdom, especially in species closer to humans on the evolutionary scale, such as the great apes. Georgetown University professor Janet Mann has specifically theorised that homosexuality, at least in dolphins, is an evolutionary advantage that minimises intraspecies aggression, especially among males."
wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-human_animal_sexuality

okay richard, let's call a gay marriage a "splunge," and a "intergender union deliberately entered into with the explicit intention of remaining barren" a... i dunno... "funtosplam." happy!? now, everyone gets to be married, woo!

while we're at it, let's call richard a "dick."

"dick" is fine with me. For one, it's actually my nickname! And it does help to underscore what Steve has accurately observed is my single-minded obsession with body parts.

However, for the new words I'd like them all to retain the same suffix, indicative of belonging to the same general class. So to my original suggestions of menniage and femmiage, I would now add sterriage, for those intergender unions not wishing to participate in the activity known as multiplying and replenishing the earth.

in private, i'm sure roger will still call it "marriage." so, ha! why don't you call it what you want, richard, and let the rest of us call it by its real name.

fucking-to participate in the activity known as multiplying and replenishing the earth.

I am surprised no one has commented on your admission that you believe women should not have the right to vote. This goes back to my initial comment here where I tell allan my desire to get my family out of this country. There are far too many Americans who wish to create a Christianized version of the Taliban here and who are succeeding in doing so.

It is no surprise to me that this Supreme Court ruling on abortion that occurred in the last 24 hours, includes a vote by Chief Justice Roberts which runs counter to all that he said in his nomination hearings and reveals his true ideological agenda. It's just the Will of God that he still was in the minority vote. What is sad is the lack of coverage such an ideological turnaround is getting. I know exactly where this country is headed and I will not be around when the mainstream wakes up to what they have installed as their leadership.

Steve has accurately observed is my single-minded obsession

Thank you for another admission. I am sure we needn't get into your belief (which is clear if anybody reads what you type) that fucking should only be to procreate, not recreate. So family planning is out, sex education is out, of course it's all out, women shouldn't vote right? They probably shouldn't even be reading in the world that is being described to me. It's pretty clear that they should be your cum receptacle and nothing else.

There is going to be no way I can advocate for my rights against someone with a 1,500 B.C. mentality. So it is a waste of my time to even engage in debate any further.

To the other commenter, I most certainly did not choose to be gay. I knew I was different before I even knew what sex and attraction was. That is not a choice.

And even if it was a choice, sodomy is legal (for now), so it doesn't make a difference if it is nature or nuture, as it's nobody's damn business what two people do in the privacy of their bedroom...for now, although I know your side will fix that in regards to Big Brother. And finally, I have not shared my sexual activities with you, I would appreciate it, Richard, if you would keep what you do with your wife's orifices to yourself. It is completely classless and base to show such a lack of manners and refinement in public.

SMB seems to think that being gay is a choice that can be made like turning a light switch on or off. In that vein of thinking, does this mean that he and others who think like him, have the yearnings and desires for gay sex but just decide not to act on them? Because his post here seems to imply that gay people could chose straight sex just as easily as SMB could turn to gay sex.

Obviously people who have any amount of understanding know that sexual preferences are complex issues of genes and chemistry that does not fit neatly into mindless and trite phrases such as "it is a choice."

I wonder how SMB would feel decades ago with seeing inter-racial couples dating, holding hands in public, and exchanging wedding vows. I wonder if he would tell them to just "keep it private" The shock, outrage, and often times violence that those couples had to endure are now being experienced by gay couples today. The hatred and the bigotry is the same, just directed at new faces.

No SMB, gay people are not going back into the closet of self-denial and seclusion. They will reside there no more than you would give up the public displays of heterosexual unions with public kissing or endless racks of straight couples (mostly white) in the greeting card section of your local store. What makes you even think of uttering such inane comments is a mystery to this writer.

But I do have some questions for you to ponder and if you care to address them I would be happy to read them. These questions by the way are ones that people like you often ask gay people, and as you seem to have that mindset of one who might do just that, I think these might be useful for you to contemplate.

1) Where did your heterosexuality come from?
2) When and where did you decide to become straight?
3) Are you sure that your heterosexuality is not just a phase?
4) Are you a hetro just because you are scared o f the same sex/
5) If you never had same sex, how do you know you would not enjoy it?
6) Since most violent aggressive behavior against children is caused by heterosexuals, do you flee safe having your child around them/
7) If you discovered your child was heterosexual would you seek treatment for him/her?

"There are far too many Americans who wish to create a Christianized version of the Taliban here and who are succeeding in doing so."

Your simply talking crazy now. Christianity is on a steep decline and has been for decades, that is a simple statistical fact. Secularization / socialism has shown itself as the way of the future. The trend started in Europe and has spread here, we're just a little behind the curve. Societies view of homosexuality has improved, probably within your lifetime, and will continue to do so.

No need for doom and gloom, the future is yours. Christians have lost this country and will not get it back. Gay's have got their foot in the door and will never be forced back in the closet.

I'm still waiting for Pamela Anderson to come recognize my civil rights.

Al!

What do you call it when a hetero wife or husband gets to see their partner in the hospital, make end of life decisions?

How about survivorship benefits in regards to social security?

What about automatic inheritance?

These are just a few.

I am sitting back quietly reading and watching all the testostorone being thrown around on here. From a woman's point of view, which could put some light on this subject, for those of you who missed out on having female friends as stated above, which could have come in handy in molding your precious beings growing up........why would it matter to YOU, who marries who? Is it going to decrease your pay, the value of your home, or maybe just a bit of your manhood, if you come to terms with it's not the end of the world if the same sex marries? Why is it, that for you straight guys, it's OK for two woman to get it on, but not men? I must admit, it is kind of sexy, but for me, it's because I can understand that women know each other better than men, and we get it right knowing our bodies. I get the feeling, that if a straight man accepts two men marrying, he is admitting he may have a sensitive side, that could be interpetted as "GAY" himself. A confident "MAN" would have the balls, and in my eyes, be a real man over-all, by just saying it's OK for the union of two men, who really love one another. I have always been open minded about the bond between two people, no matter the sex. For those of you with kids, you better get a grip. You just mind find that you'll have to face the fact, that your offspring is gay. What would you do then? Do we want the government or the church to take away any rights, or privliges? Wouldn't we fight tooth and nail for them? Glass houses, people, glass houses! We want our kids to follow in our footsteps, or at least our guidance, because after all, some of the tracks that we have left on the road, is better off re-paved, if you know what I mean. I'm a straight woman, who knows that I will be faced with opsticals, "What if my child is gay?". That's when you think hard about how do I really feel, and how will I handle something I don't understand? I will love my kids unconditionally, and come to terms with their life style, even if it's not for me, as long as they are happy, and not being a bad seed in society. Family and friends are what we have, and acceptance and tolerance is what makes life beautiful. Anger is nothing more than a block in the road. Remember,this is the thought of a woman, trying to get a man to understand, it's OK to accept something, and it wont' mean your not the man you profess to be. Too much said?

Andy, this is for you. Did you go to the site suggested by Steve? We don't know you, so would you admit if your flag salutes to gay porn? I'm sure straight porn is for you, but would you be willing to admit, that if your a fan of the woman's mouth, could it be possible, that the effects are the same wathing or at least stimulating, watching a man's mouth work?? I can admit, watching a man or a woman satisfying a woman, would be a kick start for me.

2cute - I can easliy admit that I am aroused watching either a man or a woman satisfying a woman. I've never watched any gay porn, my natural body reaction is to turn away or quickly hit the back button if it ever shows itselfs in front of me...but like I've heard said before...I've never tried it...I might like it and then where would I be???

and of all the comments on here...why single me out???

2cute - I have daughters...it would not bother me if my daughters told me they were gay...but then again...we're talking about females here...and you've already pointed out that most guys are ok with female/female type relationships...

and I have a sensitive side...I cry every time I watch it's a wonderful life!

Reading between the lines, I felt you could be a very, very straight man with strong opions about gays. I thought you'd be the right one to ask your feelings on watching a man on a man. It's good to see you can admit to crying over a movie. It shows me there is hope, and just maybe we have come a long way. I am such a believer in giving someone a chance, listen and understand. My personal experiences have been my best teacher. I'm sure as you know, reading about something can never give you the understanding unless you are the author of the story. I can not understand someone's sorrow or happiness, unless I too have felt it at one time or another. I think I missed my calling as a flower child. Little joke there. I'd love to pick this up later. Have to run some errands. have a good day.

why single me out?

Perhaps you are the only one on the 'other side' who would be willing to give the premise some thought. The info on homophobia and how porn affects phobes wasn't really intended for you though, but for Richard.

Your simply talking crazy now. Christianity is on a steep decline and has been for decades, that is a simple statistical fact.

When I talk about moving out of this country, on my blog, I am the first to call myself a tinhat wearing, chicken little. A lot of it is a rant, and a lot of it is a dream to live in a place free of prejudice.

I do agree with you about Christianity being on a decline overall, which is why I say things like 'when the mainstream WAKES UP as to what they have installed.' I disagree that Christianity is having less and less influence in this country. It is the wackos at the wheel who are in control, and the sheep who vote aren't as religious as the wackos.

There isn't a nationwide movement of 10's of millions to have religion put on the courthouse walls, or to have prayer in school, etc. but there is a movement of a few million or less, who are succeeding in putting religion into every aspect of the government, so while it's on the decline overall, pretty soon, the majority is going to be in for a rude awakening at the destruction of democracy by a few extremists. Supreme Court Justices with an ideological agenda would be just one clear example.

2cute4u, that is not what I got from reading between the lines. Very, very straight might be a stretch. Straight men are not allowed to cry while watching any movie. Except Brian's Song.

Andy wrote: "I've never tried it...I might like it and then where would I be???"

That's an easy one. Zingzing's house.

Welfare, he did not admit to crying before I read between the lines. As to his answer about maybe liking what he sees, that's in all of us, if we are brave enough to admit it, which I give Andy credit for. Now really, I have to run. This is hard to walk away from. I'm enjoying the feedback.

My comment 112 is deviating a bit from the topic, but it does tie in with allowing civil rights. We are clearly heading in the opposite direction.

An example of extremists running things:

Right wing groups offer to pay students to spy on professors.

Another example:

Big Brother going after Google search records to find out what porn YOU'VE been looking at.

I don't think this type of activity would have the approval of the majority, but of an extremist minority, who the majority has put in control.

Steve S, you say that you desire to live in a place free of prejudice. Having said that, can you honestly say that you harbor no prejudice toward Christians? The street runs two ways my friend.

By the way, where do you think you can move that has no prejudice? When you find that place, please let all of us know, it would be a nice place to live.

It's very amusing to see gay men and their defenders attack people's manhood and sexuality of those who disagree with them. Somehow in their psyche their must be some feeling that being gay is 'wrong' which is what makes the insult effective.

My comment 112 is deviating a bit from the topic, but it does tie in with allowing civil rights. We are clearly heading in the opposite direction.

An example of extremists running things:

Right wing groups offer to pay students to spy on professors.

I have to play devil's advocate here and point out that this type of activity isn't oppression, it's a private effort to assess the political biases of professors. It's not the government doing it, just special interests pursuing those interests. That being the case I think it's perfectly fine if a bit creepy.

Another example:

Big Brother going after Google search records to find out what porn YOU'VE been looking at.

I don't think this type of activity would have the approval of the majority, but of an extremist minority, who the majority has put in control.

Every single one of the right wing whackos who that majority has elected to congress has as one of their stated principles complete support for internet and personal privacy. The only people who are seriously committed to internet snooping are on the left, not the right. The right is literally rabid about NOT interfering with the internet as a matter of principle.

And Steve, if you want to move somewhere more friendly, you really ought to. And you don't need to leave the US. Austin, San Francisco, Washington DC and New York City are all calling to you. Personally I'd recommend Austin because it's very gay-friendly and has a lower cost of living and more good jobs than you can shake a stick at. Plus your daughter and mine are the same age and we could have play dates.

Dave

"I don't think this type of activity would have the approval of the majority, but of an extremist minority,"

The remaining christians are getting desperate and trying some pretty odd things I must admit. More and more however, there is actually a stigma attached to being a christian. I foresee a day in the not too distant future where a politician who admits a strong belief in God will be deemed unfit for political office.

Steve - You don't really believe what you said about me in comment #112 do you??? That might be the nicest thing you've ever said about me Steve...I'm touched!

Having said that, can you honestly say that you harbor no prejudice toward Christians? The street runs two ways my friend.

I often consider myself agnostic, I just don't know if there is a higher being, but being in the family environment all the time, I am constantly around religious people. I've been baptized, I am just disillusioned, I can understand why God might allow evil in the world, I cannot comprehend why he would allow evil and corruption to overtake his House (organized religion). I do not have any prejudice against Christians (I would hope) but have extreme bias against the Christian movement in this country, because it seems to target my community constantly, naturally lashing back should be expected. For the Christian who keeps his faith to himself, no, I have no problem with him/her.

By the way, where do you think you can move that has no prejudice?

Prejudice is everywhere, on an individual level. When I say I want to be free of prejudice, I'm talking about on a legislative level, in laws, society-wide, etc. Nobody should be forced to accept me on an individual level, if you want to be biased, go for it, but it is legislatively, corporate-wide, etc. that I'm talking about. I would like to move to a place where my family will be treated like any other and right now that seems to be Canada, although yes, perhaps in the corner store, someone might spit my way, that I'm not concerned about.

I have to play devil's advocate here and point out that this type of activity isn't oppression,

I would think that it is a minor form of oppression as it is targeting free speech. It's just not from a political group...oh wait a minute...it is.

The info on homophobia and how porn affects phobes wasn't really intended for you though, but for Richard.

And you never did answer my two criticisms. So I'll repeat them here:

1. This is totally bogus "research". Such porn watchers may well have been aroused upon seeing a naked man because of a knee-jerk association with naked men in the heteroerotic imagery they are use to seeing.

2. The agenda-driven approach, with a likely associated tendency towards reaching preconceived conclusions, is evident from the fact that no studies appear to have been done from the opposite perspective. At least I am unable to find anything that attempts to measure the arousal effects of HETERO porn on heterophobic gays.

This attempt to try and prove that a homosexual tendency is present in heterosexuals who oppose gay marriage, seem to me to be indicative of an extreme sense of insecurity.

1. This is totally bogus "research".

You are completely free to reject it. It is accepted by, and done by all medical establishments like the AMerican Medical Association, the American Psychological Assocation, etc. You are completely free to reject their findings. On an individual level, you are also free to reject evolution and the concept that the world is round. It doesn't change what society accepts as fact.

no studies appear to have been done from the opposite perspective.

If this is your basis for rejecting it, all I can do is laugh. I don't think anybody who is 'heterophobic' is easily found. There is no society wide system in place attempting to oppress heterosexuals. Homophobes seem to be in abundance though.

I foresee a day in the not too distant future where a politician who admits a strong belief in God will be deemed unfit for political office.

I would say that would be a day I would look forward to. Any man who professes to follow God, follows only his own interpretation of God and nobody else should be subjected to that.

welfare cheese: "Andy wrote: "I've never tried it...I might like it and then where would I be???"

That's an easy one. Zingzing's house."

hey, if andy wants to watch gay porn at my house, he would have a pretty difficult time of it. got no tv. plus, there are no drapes or shades on my windows, so there would be very little privacy. all of my towels (aka-cum rags) are dirty (aka-spunked on) right now, so he'll need to bring his own. i think wanking is against the building rules anyway. that said, about a half mile away, there is a redlight district. he could go there. he is welcome to come to my house and have a good wank over nothing though. i'll just put on some music or go out or something...

perhaps you could run by the laundromat. :-)

I'll...a...pass....thanks for the offer though!

If this is your basis for rejecting it, all I can do is laugh. I don't think anybody who is 'heterophobic' is easily found.

I suspected you would be claiming this. But let's look into the meaning of the words.

The dictionary defines "phobic" as simply "having a fear of or an aversion for." Saying that "phobic" has to involve a "society wide system" of "oppression" is a totally uwarranted narrowing of the concept.

So sticking to what words actually mean, I think it is fair to say that heterophobia is as prevalent among gays as homophobia is among straights.

Heteros have an aversion to homosexual activity - that's why they choose to have sex with women. Homos have an aversion to heterosexual activity - that's why they choose to have sex with other men.

Heteros, like me, fear people like you because of how your political beliefs threaten to undermine the traditional concept of marriage that I am comfortable with and think it is important for society to uphold. Homos, like you, fear people like me because of how my political beliefs threaten to prevent you from being able to overthrow the traditional concept of marriage and replace it with one that you will be more comfortable with.

So we both have the same kind of fears and aversions. I, along with all other heteros, am homophobic. And likewise you, along with all other homos, are heterophobic.

So please don't give me any more of this holier-than-thou shit about how heterophobes are "hard to find."

I would think that it is a minor form of oppression as it is targeting free speech. It's just not from a political group...oh wait a minute...it is.

Still not oppression, Steve. It's one group of private citizens monitoring what another group is saying and using their free speech to publicize and criticize the other group. All it comes down to is those professors being held accountable for their statements. Speaking as one of those academics, I never said anything in class that I couldn't back up and wouldn't stand behind. A little accountability won't do any harm, IMO.

Dave

Heteros have an aversion to homosexual activity - that's why they choose to have sex with women. Homos have an aversion to heterosexual activity - that's why they choose to have sex with other men.

I disagree. I fell in love with a man which is why I choose to be faithful to him intimately. I have been engaged to women, when I was young, and the sex was great. I have no aversion to heterosexuals. Nor do I fear heterosexuals or heterosexual sex. I just happen to be in love with a man.

I do not fear you, I pity you and I wish to be free of your tyranny.

As I stated before, the research was conducted by prestiguous universities, professors and all the medical establishments from the American Medical Association to the American Psychological Assocation. And as I stated, YOU are free to reject it, however enough people do accept it, that it is a valid premise in society and in debates. Period.

Then change the word to intimidation, Dave. It's still more bullying from Republicans.

Richard, we can conduct a little impromptu study right here and now. I would ask any heterosexual man reading this to be honest and confess...

Did you get married to a woman because you have an aversion towards homosexuality, or because you fell in love with the woman.

Here is the claim in comment 129:
Heteros have an aversion to homosexual activity - that's why they choose to have sex with women.

Hetero men, I ask you, is this true?

Richard Brodie: So we both have the same kind of fears and aversions. I, along with all other heteros, am homophobic. And likewise you, along with all other homos, are heterophobic.

Wrong.

As an implacable hetero, I am all for the "radical homosexual agenda". I think it's a great lifestyle for other people and would encourage as many of them to embrace it as possible. Let them have marriage, I'm not interested in it. If homosexuality were a choice, I would support massive government programs to encourage it - as a form of family planning, it's as effective as abstinance.

When I talk about gays I really do mean homosexual, not ambisexual which is what you apparently are. In such people the aversion aspect may not be present, but you're kidding yourself if you think you are not fearful - so fearful that you even feel impelled to move out of the country to avoid what you are AFRAID (that's A, F, R, A, I, D) might happen here if people with attitudes like mine prevail.

It's obvious why you feel free about playing fast and loose with the definition of marriage. You think words exist to be twisted according to your own purposes and desires. You're reluctant to use words that have reference to yourself if they have the slightest little bit of negative connotation.

And you're lying to yourself if you say that you do not fear the attitudes of those who have the very real power to impose on you what you see as a tyranny.

I can imagine you in the doctor's office being asked if it hurts. Hurt is such a nasty, negative word. You would probably reply "Well, let's just say it doesn't feel quite as pleasurable as it could." You need to open yourself up to fear. It's a healthy preservational instinct - the emotional equivalent of that life-saving sensation known as pain.

Did you get married to a woman because you have an aversion towards homosexuality, or because you fell in love with the woman.

False alternative.

Of course I got married to a woman because of my aversion to (or more correctly my loathing for) homosexuality. Not being ambisexual, if I had instead an aversion to heterosexuality, I would not have married a woman! But the marriage was also the result of falling in love. The two motivations are not mutually exclusive as the phrasing of your question tries to imply.

Richard, let me be clear. I fear the direction this country is going. I fear tyranny from the government.

I feel fear when libertarians like Dave try to put spin on, and rationalize spying on law abiding citizens. (if you want to monitor professors, then pay for someone's tuition to sit in on class, do not rationalize trampling on someone's civil liberties by spying on them). I fear a great many things and the erosion of democracy. I do NOT fear YOU, your beliefs or heterosexual sex.

I can imagine you

You can imagine all you want, since imagination is the only way you can justify your agenda.

Druxxx (comment 105): A lot of this spousal benefits/hospital visitation can be taken care of individually with power of attorney and a little extra care in having wills up to date and such.

Putting aside the comedic mask for just a second, I'd probably vote for a gay marriage bill as a legislator. There are certainly legitimate issues.

However, I object to the "civil rights" language as question begging and basically a cheap attempt at moral intimidation. Having reservations about gay marriage is not the same as supporting Jim Crow, which is basically the implication from the very title of this article.

whenever i fall in love with a woman, homosexuality is usually nowhere to be found in my mind. it's not really what i am thinking about at all. richard's got some issues. not saying he's gay, but... he's got it on his mind more often than a lot of gay people i know, if he's thinking about it the whole time. hating homosexuals is not a