Home / Culture and Society / Spirituality / Marriage Between Homosexuals

Marriage Between Homosexuals

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of California released a rather ponderous (172 pages, double spaced) decision In re MARRIAGE CASES. The decision has enough footnotes and dissenting/concurring opinions that only a recovering attorney could love it. It will doubtless inspire numerous scholarly and insightful law review articles, which this neither is nor pretends to be.

The Court declared that legislation adopted pursuant to popular referendum to the effect that "marriage" can take place only between persons of different sex violates the State Constitution. It was careful to point out that it was doing so even though the same substantive legal rights and obligations of those in heterosexual marriages inure to persons engaged in civilly recognized same-sex civil unions. The basic premise of the decision was that this fact notwithstanding, people who are married are accorded a different social status than people in civil unions, which is not permissible under the California Constitution. This decision was based on an implicit, rather than an explicit, provision in the California Constitution guaranteeing the right to "marriage;" the decision thus may have little, and perhaps nothing, to do with people neither living in nor desirous of moving to California; or then again, it might.

Legal analysts say Thursday's court ruling could have wide-ranging implications for other US states, noting the California Supreme Court's history of landmark rulings.

"The California Supreme Court's example is often emulated and it often is sort of a groundbreaker," said David Cruz, a law professor at the University of Southern California and an expert in constitutional law.

On the other hand, at least one gay rights activist hopes not.

Despite the facially rather limited extent of the decision, headlines such as California's Supreme Court declared gay couples in the nation's biggest state can marry" were rampant. It was also pointed out that efforts were already underway to amend the California Constitution to obviate the Court's decision.

I respectfully (?) dissent from the Court's decision, because it is very poorly reasoned and more than likely fraught with unintended consequences. Even though it purports to interpret only the California Constitution, it may easily be stretched to other venues, conceivably even to the United States as a whole via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition, a homosexual marriage countenanced under the California Constitution as now interpreted, may well, under the full faith and credit provisions of the U.S. Constitution, be required to be recognized by states lacking an implicit constitutional provision such as that found by the California Supreme Court in the California Constitution. Would a state which fails to recognize same sex marriages be required to offer same sex divorces? I don't know. And, even if the California Constitution should be amended to obviate the decision of the Court, the rationale of the decision may retain sufficient life to have impact on both State law in general as well as Federal law.

Marriage is a religious sacrament with religious consequences

Interestingly, the California Court's decision does not discuss whether marriage is a religious sacrament, or note that religious groups have the freedom to define their sacraments, including that of marriage, as they wish. Indeed, the word "church" appears only in the list of counsel appearing before the court; the word "sacrament" appears only as part of the word "Sacramento."

Some churches are willing to perform marriage ceremonies between homosexual couples, some are not. Some accept homosexuals as members of their clergy, some do not. The Roman Catholic Church accepts only unmarried male priests. To the extent that churches elect to define marriage as between people of the opposite sex or otherwise, they have heretofore had every right to do so — just as they have traditionally had every right to define the procedures for, and consequences of, other religious sacraments, such as receiving communion, baptism, etc. Some churches impose various pre-conditions to marriage: counseling, participation in one or more religious ceremonies, including confession and taking communion, etc. Any requirement, and I have not seen any thus far seriously discussed, of legally requiring, for example, the Roman Catholic Church to offer communion or to baptize persons not entitled to those things under church doctrine would be wrong, and also doubtless violative of the U.S. Constitution.

But, wait a minute. Unfortunately, the California decision casts at least some doubt on whether this will continue to be the case. Although many churches are informally segregated by race, suppose a church formally declared Black people religiously inferior to White people and formally excluded them from its activities. There would, most likely, be legal consequences to the extent that the church received any Governmental benefits, such as police assistance with traffic control before and after services, tax exemptions, etc. Now suppose that a church in California, receiving the same Governmental benefits, were to conclude that homosexual couples, although married in the eyes of the State of California, are nevertheless living in sin and therefore not eligible to become members, receive communion, or enjoy other benefits. Assume that such a church were to decline to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples. Assume, in other words, that it were to shun them. Would adverse legal consequences attach to such refusals? I don't know, but a non-frivolous case could certainly be made for it.

There are, obviously, limits on the rights of religious organizations to perform legally cognizable marriages. The United States have laws which prohibit the consummation of any marriage between people under the legal minimum age; any consummated marriage involving an underage person regardless of whether sanctioned by a church would violate existing and generally reasonable laws; quite properly so. Were a child under the age of consent to be "married" by such a church, with consummation deferred until majority, it seems unlikely that any law would be broken; however, the validity of the unconsummated, underage, marriage would be highly questionable under State and Federal Law, for social security, tax, employment benefits, welfare and all other purposes. It would have no more legal validity than a marriage performed by the captain of a ship, "for the duration of the voyage." To receive the civil benefits of marriage, it is normally required that the participants have a marriage certificate from the appropriate authorities as well as other documents required under State law before the marriage takes place. In the absence of such documents, any marriage performed by a church or other organization would have no legal effect until performed again following the completion of legal requirements.

Bigamous marriages, permitted by some religions, fall into the same category. Whether a church is willing to perform bigamous marriage ceremonies should be left up to the church, not the Government. As to the civil and criminal benefits and liabilities, that is quite another question. I leave aside here the legal question of adultery, which could easily arise when a man (or woman) takes a second (legally unrecognized) spouse, because the laws against adultery are, for the most part, no longer enforced and therefore are of little if any consequence.

Marriage is also a secular undertaking, with secular consequences.

The legal consequences of marriage and civil union in California were declared by the Court to be essentially fungible; no differences were illuminated. The Court nevertheless held that this made no difference, since society looks differently upon people who cohabit and are married, and those who cohabit and are not. To the extent that society does so, this seems to be more in the realm of religion and personal preference than anything else.

Marriage has Social and Religious Consequences, Beyond the Power of Any Court to Change.

In the olden days, many religious people looked with disfavor upon people living in sin, i.e., without the benefit of marriage "in the sight of God." God evidently, in those good old days, was partially blind and did not see people married in registry offices or outside the established church. For the most part, these views have changed. Based on a completely unscientific and statistically flawed analysis of my friends and acquaintances, it does not seem to matter a bit whether people holding themselves out to be a "couple" were married, in the Sight of God or otherwise, are "shacking up" on a more or less permanent basis, or are of the same or different sex. I cannot recall any discussion with a couple of whether they were actually married, in a civil union, or shacking up. They are as they are, it is none of my business, and I don't care. Some people do care, however, and the decision of the Supreme Court of California is not likely to change their views.

According to one commentator,

In the decision, the California court sees children primarily through the eyes of same-sex couples who want to secure custody and control of children. The court makes emphatically clear that it deems this to be a right of same-sex couples that is equal to–and identical to–the right of married mothers and fathers to adopt or conceive and raise their own children.

It is there complained that the decision voids the "rights" of children to be raised by a mother and father. It is quite probable that children raised in households by a loving mother and a loving father have much to be grateful for. However, I am unaware of any such "right," and the commentator cites no basis for the assumption that one exists, desirable though it may well be. Some states permit adoption by same sex couples, and the California decision realistically offers little new on this point.

Many, if not most, laws and interpretations pose a potential for unintended and adverse consequences. The California decision does so to a much greater extent than most, and for this reason, if for no other, should be reconsidered, carefully, by the Court.

Powered by

About Dan Miller

  • Zedd

    To the extent that same sex marriage is an experimentation that will change human evolution, it should be considered more seriously by all parties that ponder on such matters.

    As things are, the request for change is an emotional one which seems to fit. However the structural changes that it will ensue have not yet been examined thoroughly.

  • zingzing

    zedd: “To the extent that same sex marriage is an experimentation that will change human evolution, it should be considered more seriously by all parties that ponder on such matters.”

    not sure if i’m just not getting you here, zedd, but… the “same sex” kind of kills off any idea of changing “human evolution,” doesn’t it?

  • Cindy D

    “Would adverse legal consequences attach to such refusals?”

    Churches have the right to discriminate if that discrimination is based on religious belief. For example, If a church refuses to hire females as priests, it is discriminating based on religious belief.

  • Cindy D


    “…it is very poorly reasoned and more than likely fraught with unintended consequences.”

    I think, judging by what the court itself said, it is unlikely to be disturbed if the effect of its ruling is that people were granted their basic civil rights in other states or through federal law.

    I don’t see any poor reasoning in the decision myself.

  • Cindy D


    What is it with you and gays? Every time the subject comes up you start typing things that don’t make much sense.

  • Clavos


    I don’t see any poor reasoning in the decision myself.

    Are you an experienced lawyer, familiar with interpreting court decisions and their language?

    Dan is.

  • Zedd

    Acquiescing again Clav?

  • Cindy D

    Well, Clav, actually no.

    I do, however, have years of experience dealing with contract law. It has been a part of my employment to both construe and write numerous legal contracts, for example, (and at one point I worked with a lawyer on retainer for about 5 years, thus availing me of many hours of engagement with concepts and elements of law in general). I have some experience in the following as well: divorce law, real estate law, criminal law, and civil law.

    I can write you up a will, promissory note, mortgage, lease, or what have you and if you give me a day, I will tailor it to the laws in your state.

    So, I would consider myself fairly competent (not an expert) in construing some reasonably simple to understand, straightforward decisions.

    And if that isn’t enough, my mother thinks I’d make a great lawyer! 🙂

    So, I am not an experienced lawyer. Nor, am I am experienced cardiologist, I did recently, however, manage to diagnose my husband’s CHF, despite arguments from his “experienced cardiologist” (who I fired just in time as it turns out.)

    The point is, Clav, what does that have to do with anything? Four supreme court judges (who themselves likely think their decision was well-reasoned) trump Dan’s experience. So, is Dan a Supreme Court judge? And since he isn’t should he just shut up?

  • Clavos

    I think I was challenging Cindy, Zedd.

  • A most informative and interesting analysis of the decision, Dan.

    All hell (for some, quite literally) will inevitably be breaking loose over this case, and much charged rhetoric will no doubt be flying back and forth*.

    Your piece will serve for me as a commonsensical** anchor point as the debate continues to rage. Many thanks in advance.

    * Did you know today is National Mixed Metaphor Day?

    ** Did you know tomorrow is National Coin Your Own Word Day?

  • Cindy D

    BTW Dan, no reflection on your article is intended in anything I said to Clav.

    That was a separate argument. (And speaking of metaphors.) My example about the cardiologist, for example, was not intended as a metaphor relating to your article.

    So, you understand, I am not arguing with your analysis–just with your opinion about whether the decision was “poorly reasoned” based on the idea that the potential consequences are “unintended” (at least by the 4 in favor, who obviously heard dissension from the other 3).

  • Dan Miller


    I agree that anyone reasonably competent should be able to understand judicial decisions. That is not necessarily true of contracts or, particularly, multi page loan documents in small print, purposely written so as not to be understood; borrowers are frequently in technical default the moment they sign the documents, leaving the lender substantial discretion on what to do in the event of a default which it deems material and which makes it seem advantages for the lender to foreclose.

    Here, the California decision was probably intended to be understood. The problem, as I see it, is that it will be understood quite differently by many readers, and that things which the Court left unsaid are likely to pointed to as indicating what the Court actually meant.

    I found very puzzling the Court’s omission to reference the historically religious nature of marriage, while focusing extensively upon the societal advantages of marriage. If you will look at the lengthy listing of parties arguing the case, you will find a substantial number of religious organizations. Surely, they must have had something to say beyond “duh.” Was the Court’s omission intentional? I’m not a mind reader, and don’t really know. It is possible that the Court didn’t wish to interfere in the way churches do things, and accordingly did not discuss the point. However, you can take to the bank the notion that it will in future be argued that the omission was not only intentional, but that the Court implicitly decided that the right to marry trumps the rights of churches to decline to marry those who are unqualified to do so based on religious doctrine. I hope that I am wrong, and that subsequent decisions won’t stretch the decision to reach that conclusion. Unfortunately, that’s the way in which the judicial process often works, sometimes for good, and sometimes for ill.

    An appellate court has to be very careful lest the law of unintended consequences prevail, and grossly over-extend whatever the court set out to do.


  • Cindy D

    Unintended being the infringement on freedom of religion. Yeah, that would be unintended. (at least i hope it would) my bad (is 47 too old to say that?) woops!!!

  • Zedd


    What’s not to understand. Are you saying that opening society for people to marry whatever human they chose regarding of gender, is NOT a massive change in our social structure?

    You would agree at this point.

    I would then add that it is these massive changes in a species behavior that affect the evolution of the species. In this case, the change will be social.

    Because I don’t believe that people are born gay but that they choose to live a gay lifestyle, I believe more people will be open to mating with the same gender. Over time there will be no such thing as sexual orientation. Mating rituals will be altered tremendously which means that human behavior will be altered immensely.

    Just a few simple things:

    Think about movies

    Think about dating rituals

    Think about fashion

    All marketing

    These off course are minute examples of what will cease to exist in the form that we know. Human society has been molded by the male/female dynamic. If that dynamic ceases to exist, then society will change tremendously.

  • Dan, I’ve read the decision, and while I’m not a lawyer I’ve taken rhetoric classes and it sure doesn’t seem purely reasoned to me. It’s actually remarkably clear, by the numbers reasoning. The only place I see a possibility of disagreeing with it is in rejecting the assumption that gay marriages should be treated like interracial marriages, which it all descends from. I think that comparison is right, but it’s at least arguable.


  • Clavos

    Human society has been molded by the male/female dynamic. If that dynamic ceases to exist, then society will change tremendously.

    My nominee for Unintentionally Funniest Line of the Year

  • I would say that Dan has clearly laid out just what a convoluted mess this all may become.

    But, of course, had the original law banning same sex marriages never been enacted, none of this would now be of concern.

    I think Zedd’s fears are disproportionately reactionary. I don’t see a major change in dating, mating & co-habitating (ooh, that rhymes) habits in the offing. To suggest that this court decision or homosexuality in general will have evolutionary consequences is nonsense in the extreme.

    There have been some reported instances of homosexual behaviour amongst some primates (other than homo sapien sapien, er sapien, etc., etc.) The last I heard, there was no shortage of baboons, and certainly not manly, hard drinkin’, truck drivin’, gun totin’ baboons.

    Some declared homosexuals may have “decided” to take up their mating proclivities. But, while no expert, I am quite willing to believe what most gays and lesbians say regarding their being hard wired (as it were) with their particular sexuality. I don’t know what Zedd’s expertise is on this matter, but gays and lesbians are far more intimate with their particular reality than she.

    Regardless, whether one becomes a homosexual by conscious decision, or is so via genetic predisposition, should be of no consequence as a legal matter. There is obviously a belief by many that homosexuality is by its nature bad – a sin, the work of the devil, or whatever the hell. It is rather, as I see it, essentially benign, and in the end, nobodys damn business!

    There are no extant serious or conclusive sociological or phsychological studies of which I am aware that even suggest any deleterious effects of homosexual behaviour, or same sex unions on either the individual or society at large. Typically, the worst effects of a gay lifestyle have come at the hands of Neanderthalic, supposedly god fearin’, christian redneck assholes who have taken it upon themselves to beat the living shit out of any “limp wristed faggots” they come across.

    Again, as I’ve stated here and elsewhere on a number of occasions, the law should stay the hell out of people’s bedrooms.

    While, I certainly am no lawyer, the situation as Dan has elucidated it here could wind up being one hell of a rat’s nest, with possible entanglements no one (except perhaps, Dan) anticipated. We might need Bear Grylls to lead us out of this wilderness. Anyone up for eating scorpions?


  • Dan Miller


    But, of course, had the original law banning same sex marriages never been enacted, none of this would now be of concern. . . . [Homosexuality] . . . should be of no consequence as a legal matter. . . .It is rather, as I see it, essentially benign, and in the end, nobodys damn business!

    “quoted for truth;” i.e., I agree completely.

    There have been some reported instances of homosexual behaviour amongst some primates (other than homo sapien sapien, er sapien, etc., etc.)

    I have noticed that among our five dogs, three females and two males, all of whom we had “fixed” long enough ago that they should have no vestigial sexual urges, there is behavior which looks very much like mating; but two of the females do it to the males. I think it’s a dominance thing, since the two females are quite dominant and one of the males is about as non-dominant as they get. The other male is less so, but still yields to the two dominant females about ninety percent of the time.

    So much for animal psychology for this morning.


  • Dan, I’ve seen dogs hump cats to prove their dominance, which the cats really don’t appreciate at all.


  • troll

    …I have it on good authority that baboons were slated to be the dominant earthly species but that their indiscriminate intra-gender fucking brought them low

    but in any case: 500,000,000 or bust

  • Dan Miller


    Have you considered sensitivity training?

    For the cats, I mean.


  • Cindy D


    What’s not to understand. Are you saying that opening society for people to marry whatever human they chose regarding of gender, is NOT a massive change in our social structure?

    You would agree at this point.

    So far, so good. Yes I would agree at this point. But, maybe for a different reason? I would agree because people are gay whether they can marry or not. I don’t see where this change comes from.

    Your state your beliefs as being:

    Because I don’t believe that people are born gay but that they choose to live a gay lifestyle, I believe more people will be open to mating with the same gender. Over time there will be no such thing as sexual orientation. Mating rituals will be altered tremendously which means that human behavior will be altered immensely.


    First: Do you think you could choose to be gay Zedd? This is a serious question. Think about it. I know I can’t choose to be gay. Because if I could have, there was a time when I would have preferred to be gay.

    Second: I will play the devil’s advocate. Let’s say sexual preference is a choice. Let’s also say that if gay people can get married more people will choose to be gay.

    Okay, the way I see it, this would be a benefit to humankind worldwide. And in a number of ways:

    1) We have a serious overpopulation problem. We have limited resources, yet our world population is growing exponentially. If more people turned gay, that would mean less couples could procreate. What an excellent way to help the environment.

    Gay is Green!

    2) We have numerous unloved, uncared for children around the world. The more gay people the more homes for unwanted children.

    So Zedd, if I did think gayness was a choice, I surely would hope more people would choose it.

  • Yeah Dan, dogs may not be a particularly good example. I witnessed a little Daschund of mine vigorously humping a rock. A rock, for cripe’s sake! And he still possessed his little jewels. I don’t know if it had anything to do with dominance. It probably had more to do with the fact that the rock provided something against which to… well you get the picture (and I apologize for that, by the way.)

    I suppose long neutered animals don’t really have any idea which way to turn as it were. They probably receive a mish-mash of mixed hormonal signals which turn off and/or on any number of “switches” in their little minds.

    I would note, though, the fact that apparently such “switches” likely do exist lends credence to the claims made by most homosexuals regarding the source of their sexual alignment.

    Cindy may also make some valid points. My wife brought up the over population issue last nite.

    However, if we accept that most gays and lesbians are so not by choice, but by heredity or some other genetic mechanism, one would expect to see no significant jump in their numbers even if all laws and social taboos were lifted. There would be some, I suppose. Some still closeted might bust out into the open, but the numbers would, I believe, remain fairly constant. There might be a spike in bi-sexual behaviour, but that certainly would have no particular ramifications to our evolutionary status.

    In the end (and at this juncture, it doesn’t matter which end) it being that there are those who find homosexual behaviour repugnant, they are entitled to their opinion, and they certainly are under no obligation or set of expectations to participate in such behaviour. But for such people to seek and demand legal sanctions against those who are not of their mind is, IMO far more repugnant. Tend to your own damn knittin’.


  • “Because I don’t believe that people are born gay but that they choose to live a gay lifestyle,”

    I have yet to meet a gay person who chose that lifestyle. What’s interesting is that you don’t know, but “believe” based on who knows what. Possibly your own denied homosexual or bisexual feelings, perhaps?

    Look the Supreme Court is not going to retroactively nullify all heterosexual marriages and force everyone to marry someone of the same sex.

    What’s truly hysterical is this Chicken Little mentality you display, although it does explain why you are concerned about humans evolving as your way of thinking approaches extinction.

    “Over time there will be no such thing as sexual orientation.”

    So in your imaginary world more people “choosing” to be gay will somehow evolve the species into asexual beings and wipe out both homo and hetero?

    If you think fashion is going to change with more gay people, you don’t know anything about fashion. Check out Project Runway.

  • Baronius

    “Possibly your own denied homosexual or bisexual feelings, perhaps?”

    Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!

    This is as dependable as Godwin’s Law. If you question homosexual activity online, it is inevitable that you’ll be accused of anti-gay violence, supressed homosexual desire, or most likely anti-gay violence driven by supressed homosexual desire.

  • Clavos

    However, if we accept that most gays and lesbians are so not by choice, but by heredity or some other genetic mechanism, one would expect to see no significant jump in their numbers even if all laws and social taboos were lifted. There would be some, I suppose. Some still closeted might bust out into the open, but the numbers would, I believe, remain fairly constant.

    An important point, borne out by the historical data, which seems to indicate that the ratio of homosexuals to heteros in the world’s population remains fairly constant (and low; most scientists put it at something below 10%).

  • Arch Conservative

    Jeeze someone call the grammar police.

    This is what I meant to say:

    I’m from the great state of NH and I think we’ve done it right here.

    Civil unions are legal, same sex marriages are not.

    That’s a reasonable compromise from the all or nothing positions on both sides. It’s one that I can live with.

    How about you?


  • Zedd

    El Bicho,

    “I have yet to meet a gay person who chose that lifestyle.”

    I think we can say that about everything that people do. Fat people, procrastinators, bad money managers, philanderers, all addicts…

    Not a good argument. You didn’t think about that did you?

    Its just that we don’t know what makes people gay so we need to stop saying that they ARE born that way. WE DONT KNOW. You don’t know.

    As to the rest of your comments, you missed it all together…

    Fashion: We dress to attract one another. I wont go further. Hopefully you don’t need further help in putting things together.

    As for my extinction, you’d be surprised. A lot of people are scratching their heads about this thing. They go along because its not important enough to them to debate but they are like “what the heck is that all about?” Tis true. Even those who try to be open minded. They are just going along because they are supposed to be open minded but they really don’t get it.

  • Bennett

    “I think we can say that about everything that people do. Fat people, procrastinators, bad money managers, philanderers, all addicts…”

    I have never heard of a child who wants to be a bad money manager…

    I think that one’s physical attraction to the same or the opposite sex is not a “choice” that the child makes. It’s just the way they are.

    You can try to talk ’em out of it, or beat it out of ’em, or pray it out of ’em, but all you get are repressed, twisted, and very frustrated people.

    What’s the point of that?

  • Zedd


    You sorta made my point.

    You may not want to be a bad money manager but you like to spend willy-nilly. You may not want to be tagged as gay but you want to boink a boy (if you are a boy).

    Most compulsions cant be talked or beaten out, especially sexual ones. You know that right?

  • Clavos

    Most compulsions cant be talked or beaten out, especially sexual ones

    Maybe. I don’t know enough about compulsions to say one way or the other.

    However compulsion is a mental disorder, and is listed as such in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (of mental disorders) published by the American Psychiatric Association.

    But homosexuality is not a “compulsion,” any more than heterosexuality is.

    It’s a sexual orientation.

    And it is no longer listed in the DSM.

  • “This is as dependable as Godwin’s Law.”

    What’s dependable, Baronius, if you paid attention to the world, is that those who scream the loudest against homosexuality are those fighting off those desires within themselves or family members. Senator Larry E. Craig, Ted Haggard, etc. Zedd has yet to provide a basis for her belief, so she leaves the door wide open for speculation. She responded yet didn’t answer the question when a simple “no” would have sufficed.

  • “Not a good argument.”

    Well, you got one thing right, Zedd. You don’t have a good argument.

    “Fat people, procrastinators, bad money managers, philanderers, all addicts…”

    I have met people who choose to over eat and not exercise, who choose to put off getting things done, who choose to spend willy-nilly, who choose to cheat, who choose to take drugs, so that doesn’t equate at all.

    “Its just that we don’t know what makes people gay so we need to stop saying that they ARE born that way.”

    I am going by what I am told by those who are gay. No one has ever told me they chose to be gay. Has anyone told you that? Are you telling us you made a conscious choice to be a heterosexual? Please explain when and what informed your decision.

  • Ruvy

    I dunno.

    All this isn’t my business except that we have a hard lined politically correct “supreme” court of “justice” trying to do everything by America’s most “liberal” courts here, which means imitating all of its stupid ideas including legalizing homosexual marriage here.

    I think Bing has got it right. New Hampshire has the right idea, and I think that Israel should follow New Hampshire’s example.

    As for Dan’s article, I agree with his analysis of the California decision – it is pregnant with unintended circumstances.

  • Zedd

    Clavos, Dan (perhaps you can help too)

    I think we’ve been through this before (Clav). There is no scientific proof that homosexuals are born homosexual. There is no scientific proof that sexual orientation is an inborn trait.

    Humanity has been engaging in heterosexual sex because “things” fit that way. There is no biological orifice for male to male sex. You know that.

    Just as we cant say that people are BORN for oral sex, just because they enjoy it most or even to the extent that they don’t engage in sex which involves the sexual organs, we cant say that people are BORN to do it in the rear. Its stupid.

    All sexual addictions or proclivities(for lack of better terms, categorized by shrinks or not, politicized or not) are very difficult to “cure” or stop. Homosexuality is no different. What makes it political is that it is between consenting adults and is now in vogue. But it is no more scientifically proven to be biological than pedophilia or bestiality or purse “lovers” or male stocking wearers (for sexual pleasure), flashers or any other sexual addiction/compulsion/must do. It’s just out of style to find it distasteful or to say “what the…”.

    Personally, I get that people will boink anything; each other, inanimate objects, other animals, ANYTHING and any way. I just don’t want to be told that I have to jump on the band wagon of “they are born that way”, they MUST boink a purse or a butt or a pig. Its stupid and funny and kinda archaic (in a blood letting or elixir of the week sort of way). Let’s just say, they like boinking pigs or butts or purses and call it a day… not try to claim some scientific proof.

    Its starts to sound like creationists trying to link their beliefs with science.

    Now the question then becomes, if some was in love with a purse and wanted it in the hospital when he was ill, should it be allowed in the hospital? Should the person be allowed to leave his fortune and possessions to the purse? Since he is an adult who is consenting to this, should the legal system be used to accommodate his wishes. Some may say he is insane because they don’t understand his need to be with this purse and to engage in sexual activities with this particular purse, but other purse lovers may say that those who oppose the love, just don’t get it, that they were born loving purses and that society should accommodate their proclivity.
    Is it madness or is it a type of love that we don’t understand?

    Should this person be declared mad and his wishes ignored?

    Is not all madness not understandable to the sane?

    Are not some “madness-es” inborn?

    Do we allow some madness-es or peculiarities to cross the threshold because they are popular?

    Will ADD become a norm and we cease to try to cure it because so many kids have it?

    I realise that this will be too much to ponder upon and you will dismiss it Clav. But those who enjoy thinking may find this something to consider or debate.

  • Dan Miller


    it is pregnant with unintended circumstances.

    Sure is, but I’m not sure that pregnant is a socially acceptable word in this context.


  • Ruvy

    …it is pregnant with unintended circumstances.

    Sure is, but I’m not sure that pregnant is a socially acceptable word in this context.

    It is the precise word, Dan – it makes you stop and think what it really is you are talking about. Of course, that may be exactly why it is socially unacceptable for some. Thinking, beyond the most surfacy of thoughts may be very scary – not to mention intellectually unacceptable.

  • Dan Miller


    I am afraid that I can’t help much, but here goes.

    First, I have no idea whether homosexuals/heterosexuals are born that way, or if not, what sociological factors may be involved. Opinions on the subject tend to be based on what one hopes may be the case; ditto as to whether either situation is curable. Who was it who said that celibacy is the worst perversion? Most likely, it was not the Pope.

    Second, I think that whatever consenting adult humans want to do between (or among) themselves is pretty much OK, provided that whatever they do doesn’t intersect excessively with the rights of others. I don’t see any valid reason for granting tax or other benefits to people who marry/cohabit with others of the same or different sex. They will do it anyhow, so no encouragement is needed.

    Third, note that para 2 above is limited to consenting adult humans. Cows, horses, pigs, etc. are incapable of such consent, and cruelty to animals is and should be criminal — probably to a far greater extent than it is.

    Fourth, if someone wants his purse in hospital with him, that’s fine. I can have my wrist watch and other stuff, so why not a purse? However, the legal problem involving in leaving all of one’s worldly possessions to one’s purse, or dog or house would be monumental. What, for example, is one’s purse (or dog, or house) going to do with money, securities, or even a trust fund? The legal system in the area of trusts and estates is already enough of a pig’s breakfast without imposing additional burdens on it. True, some people have left their stuff to cats, through trusts. That requires a trustee, but if that’s what they want to do and can find an appropriate trustee, the laws provide for it and so what? Realistically, if Mr. Jones were to leave his worldly goods to his purse (or to his house) he would probably have to do so through a will; I have no idea whether a trust would work, and don’t know of any instance in which it has been attempted (I hasten to add that the subject is one of many as to which my opinion is totally worthless). Such a will would, almost certainly, be determined to be invalid and his assets would pass to whatever heirs his state’s laws of intestate succession dictate.

    I agree with your basic premise that our views tend to be extraordinarily twisted by the god of political correctness, and am very happy to live in a place where political correctness is hardly noticeable.


  • Dan Miller


    You probably got my modest attempt at humor, but just in case it was unclear, the article deals with homosexual marriage; marriage has historically been associated with reproduction of the species. Pregnancy is very difficult to achieve between folks of the same sex, even though with modern technology, I suppose it is possible.


  • Clavos

    I realise that this will be too much to ponder upon and you will dismiss it Clav. But those who enjoy thinking may find this something to consider or debate.

    Thank you, Zedd for showing everyone on the board unequivocally why I do not discuss ideas on an adult level with you.

  • Zedd assembled perhaps the most specious argument I’ve ever read.

    What Zedd fails to address is that homosexuality as regards most people – particularly those who have long standing relationships, are in it for more than the boink.

    There are both heteros and homos who just want to get laid or get a blow job or whatever. But as with heteros, a homosexual relationship which goes to the extent of co-habitation and then to a legal union – marriage, or whatever the hell you want to call it – is a relationship, likely a loving relationship. It is not based solely upon what particular holes the two people have.

    Frankly, nobody gives a damn, Zedd, whether you “get on board” or not. No one is asking you. Just don’t presume that you or anyone should have the right to enact laws designed to prevent two people who love each other regardless of their sex or sexual orientation, from forming a legal bond and enjoying the same rights as everybody else.

    Your argument regarding the purse is just dumb. The notion that if someone is gay, that the natural next step is farm animals and inanimate objects is ludicrous in the extreme. Why in the hell shouldn’t a man who loves a man (or a woman a woman) have the same right to live with, love with and yes, marry him? Why shouldn’t he be allowed to visit his lover/spouse in the hospital? Why shouldn’t he be allowed to make critical decisions for his love when called for just as happens with hetero marriages? Why shouldn’t he be considered the other’s natural heir just as with hetero marriages? The list goes on and on.

    Zedd, such matters are simply none of your damn business. Your assumption of some kind of moral superiority just doesn’t hold any water.

    Christians and other religious folks hold onto the word “marriage” like a jealous five year old fiercely clutching some toy or other, stamping his or her feet in rage when asked to share, screaming, No! It’s mine! It’s mine, mine, mine! You can’t have it! Get over yourselves.


  • Zedd


    Thank you for entertaining my “madness”.

    So what I read you saying is: what we desire isn’t good enough. Our wishes must have a FUNCTION in order for them to be deemed important enough to be mandated (legally) by society? Wanting to give the purse everything you own is not enough. What is the purse going to do with the house or money? What is the PURPOSE for the action. We know that the purse cant do anything with the “inheritance” so the court would probably not give it to the purse. We know that inheritance has a PURPOSE. It contributes to society by perpetuating wealth. The purse wont be able to spend and support the economy. So there is no benefit to society in granting the purse the money. While it may make the benefactor happy to leave the money to the purse, his pleasure is not the responsibility of the legal system.

    Side note: I didn’t get a tax break when my husband and I had no children. Did I do my taxes wrong?

    Now if marriage is an institution that was established culturally to sustain the species through procreation, nurturing and encoding. Although not all marriages lead to that end, the overwhelming majority of marriages do produce offspring. So we can say there is a PURPOSE behind society supporting or giving legal recognition to marriage.

    What is the benefit to supporting same gender marriage? Are we back to the purse? We are creating this legal category for the pleasure of those who want to engage and nothing more. While they may be in a union without legal permission, they simply want the paperwork to be made?

    Is that what the law is for?

  • A passerby would think you would be for the loosening of marriage restrictions, Zedd, as your arguments show a love of strawmen.

    To equate the love between two adults with bestiality or masturbating with an inanimate object, such as a keybord, shows a keep lack of understanding on the subject matter.

    Many people had similar fears and voiced similar arguments as yours in terms of interracial marriage, and yet the species miraculously has survived.

  • Zedd


    Your assumption of some kind of moral superiority just doesn’t hold any water.

    Que? What are you talking about? I don’t have a moral view about homosexuality.

    I’m afraid you jumped in too early. I am going somewhere with my questions.

    You get a little hyped when you think that someone is coming from a religious perspective. Pull yourself together man.

    Also, discussions such as those that we are having are rarely about the individuals that are having them. So off course this is not about me. WE are having a discussion. You may participate by discussing the merits or arguments that are presented and you can prove your points. Simply jumping on me because I don’t buy the PC stance that is being made is not good enough Baritone. You are typically better than that. I think your assumption about the Christianity thing made you loose it. Calm down Budd.

    Now do you have a point to make about this matter other than that IT SHOULD BE DONE? Because right now that’s all that you have offered.

    I was not giving an analogy. I was trying to understand how the law works. It’s important to break things down to their simplest form in order to understand what we are talking about here. I am starting by asking what the law says about simply wanting to do something because of romantic sentiment. I am building on that. I know you want me to be comparing gays with perverts but that is not what I am doing. Slow down there cowboy.

    As to the “need” to cohabit ate. I think gays can live together right now. They can also love one another… If we (you) go that route in your discussion, then marriage is not necessary.

  • Zedd


    I’m sorry. I figured you were much too literal to get what I was doing with #35. I gave it a whirl though. I shouldn’t have. Forget it happened.

  • Well, if your intent is to pursue an abstract discussion about the law as it pertains to marriage, then knock yourself out. I’ll leave you to it.

    Your last comment is interesting though. By that reasoning, marriage is unnecessary regardless of the sex of the participants. Why bother at all? Is marriage somehow inherently more “necessary” for straights than gays?

    Hmmm. I’ve never considered myself as much of a cowboy, uh well except around when I was 9 or 10 flashing my Nichols twin “Stallion 38” pistol & holster set. That was boss.


  • I said this in the other discussion a long time back about homosexual marriage and I’ll say it here again.

    Homosexual marriage is necessary under the codes of laws in the United States because there are over a thousand legal provisions under the law that apply to heterosexual married couples and not to same-sex unions. These legal differences range from hospital visitation rights to rights to own property.

    In my view, the best national decision the United States can make (or any other nation facing this “debate”) is to remove the government from marriage entirely. Create unions of couples recognized by states for their legal status and have those unions sign contracts that will enable ALL unions to have ALL benefits afforded to couples.

    Following that, couples who wish to receive marriage ceremonies or titles through various means (religious or otherwise) can do so. The government has no role in marriage, period. Surely the opposition to affording the same couples rights to all would meet little to no opposition, as I don’t think anyone in their right mind wants to remove the right for a loving gay couple of either gender to be able to organize proper funeral provisions for a lost partner. Under the current provisions of the legal differences between same-sex civil unions and homosexual marriage, such a thing is a very real problem.

    So when Zedd asks about the benefit to supporting same sex marriage, the answer is the same as it always is when one supports equal rights for all human beings. Unless the law changes, as it is in some states relatively slowly but surely, the reason to support gay marriage as opposed to other union types is so that homosexual can be afforded the some 1138 (give or take, my numbers might be outdated by ten or so) rights they are not currently afforded. If that sits well with Zedd, I think people are right to question the sanity of the poster.

  • As a straight male, I feel compelled to weigh in on this subject.

  • Irene Wagner

    Tell that to the supreme court justices.

  • troll

    Zedd – I suspect that all traditional societies have dealt with the issue of same sex relationships…does your knowledge of your Zulu ancestors include info on how they differentiated marriage from same sex unions – ?

    a quick jaunt on the net yields ‘internet info’ that the early court records in SA include cases covering the division of property following the dissolution of same sex ‘marriages’ among Zulus

  • Zedd


    Actually in Zulu culture there was no same sex marriage but there has been a group in the Zulu people’s region who live in a community of homosexuals, going back perhaps 60yrs. They have been marrying each other but not according to the law and certainly not the culture. They were sort of a curiosity. Not sure about other ethnic groups. Now there is a word for gay men in Zulu but I don’t know if it was originally coined to describe an effeminate male or a person who partook in homosexual acts. Could be wrong but knowing Zulus my guess is that open homosexuals would not have survived that long in that culture. So they were probably tagging a “soft” male. Zulu culture is driven by “masculine” attributes (valor, logic, protocol, etc.). Mix Vikings with the British and you get the picture…. While a lot of conversation is tongue in cheek innuendo and persistent subtle ribbing is pervasive in interaction(I suppose like a typical warrior culture) a flamboyant persona would seem irrational and perhaps frivolous and they would perhaps want to “whup” it out of a person. I am sure that homosexual acts did exist just as bestiality has existed and other sex practices in human societies.

    As you’ve said, South Africa does make a provision for civil unions now. This is because of the charter that was written by those who were designing the society prior to the end of Apartheid. Off course in today’s world gays are prevalent. South Africa is very cosmopolitan.

    In one African ethnic group (not sure which one), either East or West Africa, they USED to permit unmarried men who were going through the initiation ritual to have sex with the younger men (freshmen). Because they were away from their community for so long (years), it was thought to temper the youth until they could go back and take on wives. Its thought that some men would sneak even after they were married to continue the same sex “activities”. Don’t know the group though but that’s what a Sociology background will get you. Shoooow dont pay the bills ;o(

  • Zedd


    I am not sure what you meant about questioning the sanity of the poster…

    I am hoping that you are not saying that by posing a question in modern times which challenges convention, one would SHOULD be rendered insane. If that is the case, I would sadly have to awaken you from your intellectual slumber by reminding you that we regularly chime about the dummying down of our society. It is precisely that type of thinking (if that is what you meant) which contributes to the mental malaise that is so pervasive. Most people on these boards don’t have the capacity to recognize the dialectic method. Would you be among them? We are stuck simply making minute calculations about the obvious then patting ourselves on the back for being engaged in substantive dialogue. If it boggles your mind to be asked simple yet pertinent questions regarding events which will change our society drastically, then there is not much more to be discussed, is there. Are you perhaps more stimulated by who is a “flip flopper”? Is the extent of your political curiosity relegated to who used the word bitter last?

    Perk up bud, it’s time to use that brain of yours.

    What rights are these that you speak of? We are not talking about the right to love. We are not talking about the right to cohabit. If you are speaking of the rights to have whomever you want to visit you in a hospital or be a beneficiary, or other property rights, marriage is not the only way to attain them or dispense them. What rights are you speaking of?

    I think that the only right that is truly desired is the one to be CALLED married. I would ask if that is a civil right?

  • Zedd


    I’m sorry, I just read #17.

    Considering that this is the first decade that same gender marriage has been opened up world wide (to this extent) I would say that your comments about there not being any social or evolutionary change don’t make sense.

    Comparing apes, who have not made much advancement in their societies over the past 5000yrs (at least) that we’ve been aware of them, to humans, who make giant leaps every week, is odd at best. Mr. “B”, think of the changes in social behavior that have taken place since your childhood.

    Are you serious????????

    Didn’t think that one through did you.

    Humans WILL take this change in society to the next level(s). Thats how we do it. Didn’t say it is a bad thing, just pointed out that we are opening up something HUGE.

  • Zedd


    “By that reasoning, marriage is unnecessary regardless of the sex of the participants.”

    Is it NECESSARY? If two individuals have no intentions to produce off spring and will not produce off spring, in a secular world, why marry legally?

    If individuals want to make a public commitment to one another and don’t intend to produce children, they can do so through whatever ceremony that they choose to have.

    I think the legal contract for people who bring people into this planet should be recognized by the law. Its a huge thing. I think making the distinction between those who want to make babies together and commit permanently because of that, will make having children more meaningful. As it is now, having a child is like buying a sports car. Kids are an accessory. Based on stats that show the cost to society, I would say that those who have them willy nilly should pay some sort of tax (I just made this part up. Not sure if I really mean it, yet).

  • Zedd,

    “…think of the changes in social behavior that have taken place since your childhood.”

    My comment had more to do with evolutionary or genetic changes, not simply social. Nevertheless, I still don’t understand your concerns. As Clavos noted, pretty much throughout history, as nearly as can be determined, no more than around 10% of any populations have been considered as homosexuals.

    My animal reference was more or less meant to be taken lightly. But, the point was that no animal populations have been known to suffer ill effects of any such behaviour.

    At any rate, my comments were adequately “thought through.”

    Perhaps any couples intending to co-habitate shoule be required to declare their intent, sign a public record statement that they intend to have no children. Then, if they in fact do have children, they should be removed from the home and the parents be fined or jailed or both.

    I mean, what the hell are you talking about? So you now suggest that only those intending to procreate should be required to form a legal union? Does it occur to you that a number of gay and lesbian couples intend to have children?

    This discussion has become so convoluted I frankly don’t know what your position is.

    I simply say that no government should enact any laws which in any way restrict the right of anyone to form a union. What individual religious organizations elect to do in that regard should be their business. But it should not be the role of the government to define what is or is not a “marriage.”


  • Clavos

    I simply say that no government should enact any laws which in any way restrict the right of anyone to form a union.

    Quoted for Truth.

  • Zedd @ #54:

    That’s all very well, but wouldn’t it just be easier to give all same-sex couples the same conjugal rights as all heterosexual couples, rather than remove them from every couple that doesn’t want children?

    Moreover, have you seen the planet lately? We should be providing incentives for people not to have kids.

  • Bennett

    I agree with Baritone re “what the hell are you saying?”

    Here: “Is it NECESSARY? If two individuals have no intentions to produce off spring and will not produce off spring, in a secular world, why marry legally?”

    That’s easy Zedd, shared property, earned equity, and inheritance.

    “Didn’t think that one through did you.”

    BTW, my wife had two children from a prior marriage. We got together (married) while not intending to have additional children.

    Was marriage necessary in our case?

    Of course!

  • Zedd

    Baritone, Clav, Doc, Bennett,

    If I were to say that government should stick its nose out of marriage, you would agree. If I say that people who want to get tax breaks for having children need to be in a contractual situation you say INSANITY? I disagree. You (two) want to create more humans and you want us to help you financially to raise them then declare your commitment to the process. We will call it marriage. If you don’t want to, then fine. Statistically kids who come from unwed situations cost society greatly.

    Whats the problem? Neither of you have made arguments against it. You basically said, “its not fair”. (????)

    Who is it unfair to? If you want to declare your undying love to your partner, who is stopping you? Gather all of your friends and family and let them know, THIS IS THE ONE! Have your priest or Rabbi say a few words and call it a day but don’t expect freebies from the citizenry because of it. What’s wrong with that??? Write a will or affidavit allowing that individual access to whatever you want them to have access to. DONE!

    As to the assertion that 10% of the population on Earth has always been gay. Considering that homosexuality is still a social taboo even in the most open societies, how is that determination made. Was this poll taken in all societies? Also, who did the polling 10,000 yrs ago? If it is genetic, wouldn’t it be more likely that the gay gene would exist more in some societies than others? Since there is no gay gene or Haagen Das gene or Fuchsia gene or any other preference (or LOVE, Baritone) gene, how is this number determined? People say I have romantic feelings towards people of the same gender and voila! So among the Mapuche Indians, this poll was made or in the Trobriand Islands… uhh huh….

    The more human beings interact with one another in a certain way the more accepting they become of that manner of interaction. The races weren’t supposed to mix in this culture….

  • Zedd


    “Does it occur to you that a number of gay and lesbian couples intend to have children?”

    Yes it has “B”. Just waiting for you to get there.


    WHY? If they are not wired to engage in sex with the opposite sex, why are they wired to produce off spring? Confusing to me. There must be some sort of glitch somewhere.

    Would you agree???

    Are they really born homosexual?


    Is homosexuality a psychological glitch?

    Which is it? Its gotta make sense somewhere. Haven’t run across the SENSE part. Help me out here.

  • “Confusing to me. There must be some sort of glitch somewhere.”

    That’s the whole problem with your thinking. Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t automatically mean there’s a glitch or something is wrong. It more likely means you aren’t as smart as you think you are.

  • WHY? If they are not wired to engage in sex with the opposite sex, why are they wired to produce off spring? Confusing to me. There must be some sort of glitch somewhere.

    Why should there necessarily be a connection between the two impulses?

    And you haven’t answered my question. I agree that it would be theoretically fair to deny marriage to all couples who do not plan to have children… but wouldn’t it just be easier – legislatively and logistically – to extend the current set of benefits to all who desire matrimony?

  • Cindy D


    If you don’t want to give people freedom then I think at a minimum you need to give them back their tax money. Why should gay people pay taxes while being denied freedom?

    By the way Zedd, you never answered my question. It wasn’t rhetorical. Could you personally choose to be gay?

    BTW, I will remind you of our past tangle with this subject and how you preferred to ignore any science on the subject. You lost your credibility about deciding what evidence exists, or as you prefer to call it (in a typical unscientific fashion)–proof.

  • And to what “freebies” are you referring? I’m not talking about gaining any largess. What I and I believe those who agree are talking about are RIGHTS. Rights that have been discussed here.

    And I certainly agree with Doc. The impulses you speak of can exist together or apart. They may be complimentary, but may also be mutually exclusive.

    You are caught up with the notion that there is some about reproductive biology that also has some higher meaning or purpose.

    I won’t pose the question to you personally as it’s let’s see, uh, yeah, it’s none of my damn business, but don’t a great number of people have sex without any intent to procreate – whether within or without the confines of marriage? Would it be expected that non-procreating couples for them to abstain from sexual activity? Would they be expected to be neutered, or use contraceptives?

    Whoops! Now we are getting into church business, aren’t we? Only the first option would be acceptable by many religious organizations. Abstention. Now there’s a few steps back to our Puritan forbears.

    As you noted, social change is running rampant. What was taboo yesterday is considered passe’ tomorrow. Your entire construct is based on antiquated notions of purpose. You are caught up with plumbing. Women can get their jollies with any number of vibrating tubular machinations. Guys can do it with one hand tied behind their backs. So why bother to couple at all?


  • Clavos

    Considering that homosexuality is still a social taboo even in the most open societies…

    Uh uh. Not in modern western societies; not any more.

    Since there is no gay gene…

    Not a true statement. The true statement is that no gene has been discovered so far.

    In any case, homosexuality is universally claimed by those who are, to be part of them from earliest memory; it doesn’t necessarily have to be genetic to be present at birth.

    Are they really born homosexual?

    They all say they are. Are they all lying? Is it one of Pablo’s conspiracies?

  • Oh, God, Clav, please don’t invoke Pablo. He lives in California. I’m sure he can see the machinations of the CFR, Chatham House, the Coors Brewing Company, the Muppets and goodness knows who else tied in some fantastically intricate way into this whole business.

  • Zedd

    Look Clavos,

    I don’t know how you base science. Feeling a certain way does not make you an expert on biology. We all know that through the ages humanity has held certain beliefs based on feeling and they certainly were not true. I feel tall doesn’t mean I am. If we had no way to measure my height, I would argue with the best of them that I am tall.

    Why are we even talking about this? I am so disapointed in you guys.

  • Tall is a relative term, Zedd. It’s a very poor analogy. You might think you’re tall compared to, say, Mickey Rooney. But you wouldn’t say that you’re gayer than Dr Laura or straighter than Madonna. That’s ridiculous.

  • Zedd


    “Why should there necessarily be a connection between the two impulses?”

    If you CAN’T reproduce why would you have the urge to reproduce?

    If you cant hear at all and were born that way, why would you have the urge to cup your ear, and lean closer to listen to a conversation? Something odd or interesting would be taking place that needs some examination.

    Saying you are born gay says that you are born NOT to procreate. Isn’t it?

  • Zedd

    OK Doc,

    I feel six foot tall.

    Now what?

  • Clavos

    Look Zedd,

    I never said anything about “feeling.”

    What I said was that they all say they it’s “a part” of them. Most say they know from before puberty that they are homosexual; the reason most often given is that they experience NO attraction to the opposite sex, but plenty of attraction to their own.

    Just because homosexuality goes against your archaic beliefs about taboos doesn’t mean it isn’t real, Zedd.

    In fact, Zedd, in this whole discussion, (and previous similar ones) you have been the one who denies what is obvious to everyone else.

    Get over it, Zedd.

  • No, no, no, Zedd, you’re missing the point completely. You don’t hear people saying ‘I feel gay’. They say, ‘I am gay’.

  • Zedd


    “You are caught up with the notion that there is some about reproductive biology that also has some higher meaning or purpose.”

    No I’m not. Let go of the religious thing and just simply use logic. You brought up the fact that some homosexuals want kids. That is where the discussion on reproduction and being born gay come in. My question was (I think you missed it), how can you be born not to have reproductive sex but want to reproduce. If that is the case, something is wrong with you. Your biology doesn’t match your psychology. Its like people who believe that they were born to be the opposite gender. Something is wrong. They are not the opposite gender. There is a glitch.

    So either homosexuals are born that way and therefore cant reproduce and wont. Or they are people who desire to live a gay lifestyle but want kids. Or they are homosexuals (born that way) and they are psychologically imbalanced, their biology does not match their psychology.

    If this is difficult for you to grasp, we will leave this alone. It’s not going to go anywhere.

  • Irene Wagner

    You can’t do an accurate Gaydar reading on a man who isn’t even here. When it comes to liberal views on social issues, like abortion and the worthlessness of religion, as far as I’ve observed, Pablo has been a comrade in arms to most of the people who criticize him for his interest in conspiracy theories, Baronius being a salient exception. Which means by the theory of association, Y’ALL might as well be wearing tin hats…

    I like CindyD’s idea of giving the gays their tax money back if they relinquish the Mr. and Mrs. or Mr. and Mr. or…whatever titles. I’d get a divorce (just a civil one, I’d stay married in the religious sense) if the government were making that kind of deal.

    The Imperial States of America’s Seal of Approval on the sacred bond between my husband and me just isn’t worth all that much to me anyway.

  • Irene Wagner

    Zedd, the history of how the American Psychiatric Association in 1978 made the transition from the point of view you just expressed to the one it currently holds makes for some rather interesting reading. It was a decision based on politics not science. I don’t know that what you are saying is really all that “out there.”

    I don’t believe in forced “therapy” such as the kind the brilliant Alan Turing received, but there ARE some people who have homosexual impulses who would rather not have them, and their counselors used to be able to help them without fear of ridicule or exile from their profession.

  • Zedd

    Cindy D,

    Not sure what science you are referring to. If it’s those dadgum penguins, you must be joking. You remember that dialogue don’t be disingenuous.

    No I couldn’t choose to be gay because I don’t think there is such a thing as gayness per se. I think people have sex with all sorts of people, and even things, in all sorts of ways (flush). I think people have crushes or fall in love with different people for all sorts of reasons, not because of biology. I think that it is possible for ANYONE to have a crush on someone of the same gender. I don’t think they do it because they were born to do so.

    You saying the contrary does not make it so. THAT is my contention.

    Cindy there is absolutely no science that narrows down taste or preference. We are far far far from making those types of conclusions about biological structure. You are a thinking woman, what the heck are you doing jumping on some bandwagon because you happen to like the political side.

    As to the use of the word freedom…. you don’t understand opression. No one prevents anyone from living with the person that they love. No one prevents anyone from loving whom they love. What liberty is being prevented???

  • Zedd


    Help me out here. How do they KNOW they are gay if they don’t feel gay.

    Now lets see, I KNOW I’m Black because i have this lovely caramel complexion. I KNOW I’m female because I’ve got these beautiful curvy parts. I KNOW I m not six feet tall because I have been measured. I DON’T know if I am a carrier of some genetic anomaly, say Cystic fibrosis. I simply don’t know because I
    CANT just KNOW.

    We simply don’t KNOW what we carry genetically unless we have developed a way to detect it.

    I found it interesting that a reputable news organization aired a piece on this subject and they showed little boys who were effeminate (3yr olds) and their Moms said that they thought they were gay. They pranced around flailing their hands. I was disturbed because it was being suggested that the stereotypical behavior was the indicator for sexual preference.

    You may not understand what the big deal is about my observation and since I am getting tired (benedryl) I won’t go into it. But I would pose the chicken or egg question. I would also include the notion of masculine gays.

  • Zedd


    Shrinks had multitudes thinking that they were molested and just forgot because of repressed memories, a few years back. Day Care workers were arrested, fathers were accused, etc. It turns out that repressing memories to that extent is an extremely rare thing. We no longer hear about every celeb being molested as a child.

    A couple of years ago ADHD was in vogue.

    Soon the depression gig will be up and another diagnosis of the decade will pop up.

    Psychology/psychiatry as it is being practiced right now is disturbing to say the least. There is so much quackery its unbelievable.

    Right now many Psychiatrists are simply pushers. Well lets not get on that bandwagon.

  • Clavos


    Do you KNOW you’re heterosexual?


  • Irene #74: I don’t think Clavos was trying to imply that Pablo is gay. He was simply making the observation that Zedd seemed to be implying a Pablo-esque conspiracy on the part of gays to suppress their true straightness.

  • Clavos

    Dead on, Doctor.

    (But you knew that)

  • Zedd


    I know that I am female Clav. I know that because i can see that I am. I know that I am human (a mammal). I know that I can reproduce. I know that I have been socialized by humans(mammals) and have picked up on the cues and have lived like most humans (mammals), participating in mating rituals with the opposite sex.

    I don’t know what you want to get out of me. I would have to know what being gay feels like to know that i am heterosexual. I’ve got nothing to compare, just as those who believe themselves to be born gay don’t have anything to compare to. Its as if they know what heterosexuality feels like and they KNOW that they are not that.

    Its dumb Clav. All they KNOW is who they are, not what they are “made” to be. That is as stupid as an actor saying that they were born to act.

  • Zedd, what this all boils down to is your objection to legal recognition of gay marriage, on the grounds that same-sex couples do not procreate. When you realized that this criterion would also apply to heterosexual couples who do not want children – oops! – you decreed that the intent to reproduce should be the prerequisite for legal marriage. There are a legion of obvious difficulties with this argument, one of which I have asked you about more than once without an answer.

    Meanwhile, you’ve been backpedalling yourself into a logical maze from which I must now conclude you can no longer find your way out.

  • Clavos

    Zedd #82:

    You should consider a career in politics.

    That was a classic politician’s non-answer.

    It was a simple question, Zedd.

    You know you’re heterosexual. In exactly the same way a gay woman knows she’s homosexual.

  • “Saying you are born gay says that you are born NOT to procreate. Isn’t it?

    No! As much as you would like that to be the case, no!

    If a young adolescent experiences an attraction to others of the same sex, and not of the opposite sex, then that may be a significant sign that they are, in fact, gay.

    An impulse, or more importantly, a desire to reproduce, to be a parent is not connected to sexuality. You seem to be conveniently forgetting that there now exist a number means to become a parent without having traditonal male/female sex.

    Years ago such things weren’t available, but that does not preclude the probability that homosexuals still desired to be a parent. You are making connections between a variety of impulses and desires that don’t necessarily exist.

    You are so determined to disavow the possibility that homosexuality is a natural state for some, that you are grasping at straws.

    There is certainly more evidence to support the likelihood of a genetic disposition to homosexuality than that it is no more than a social choice.

    And I come back to one of the original questions. Why are you do intent upon interjecting your beliefs into the lives of people who just desire to live as they have chosen to? What is this compulsion? If your opposition to gays has no religious connection, that what the hell? Leave them the hell alone. Can’t you get it that it’s none of your business and I seriously doubt that anyone in the gay community will come knocking seeking your opinion?

    Are you really so alarmed by homosexuals and homosexuality that you honestly feel that they represent some real danger to man’s future? Do you really see the majority of whoopie making evolving to same sex boinking? Do you suppose that we will just stop procreating preferring rather to let our species die out because we will all become gay? I just don’t get you.


  • What silliness. Clavos didn’t ask you how you know you are female, he asked you know you are heterosexual. You were asked before when you made the conscious decision and you failed to reply, which I am sure is only a coincidence. Or is it that you personally failed to choose, which opens the door that people don’t choose.

    My 91-year-old grandmother can’t reproduce and doesn’t participate in mating rituals with the opposite sex, so either your definition is inaccurate or she is less of a female.

    Wait, I just caught this response:

    “I KNOW I’m female because I’ve got these beautiful curvy parts.”

    So how do skinny, flat-chested woman know they are female? Your definition of a female includes less and less people with each response.

  • Clavos

    “I know I’m female because I’m not logical???” :>)

  • It seems that it takes the viewing of only one word in an article’s title to show the bias of the writer.

    Gay vs homoSEXual.

    The idea is to inspire that “ewwwww-icky” feeling in every hetrosexual.

    If a hetrosexual man rapes a little girl-do the churches scream sermans about all straight men being evil??

    There is so much more to gays than who we sleep with.

    I’ve been attracted to and dated women in my life. The problem is who my hormones react to vs who my brain reacts to. It’s a matter of biology not psychology. It’s a matter of being honest with myself and not lying to others.

    As for marriage-stop and think about it. Do you think of a straight “common law” married couple the same way you think of a church-married couple?

    Someday people will stop using God as an excuse to hate. I hope I live to see it.

  • Ruvy

    It seems that it takes the viewing of only one word in an article’s title to show the bias of the writer. Gay vs homoSEXual

    Don’t be mad at Dan Miller for not buying your self labelling.

    Dig it, Jet. When the “reform” Jews were trying to hustle their ideas, they invented the word “orthodox” to describe the enemy, the normative Judaism of the day. Thus the term “orthodox” Jew got invented. That so many observant Jews have been stupid enough to buy being labelled by the enemy shows how stupid they truly are.

    The same goes with the South Syrian Arab refugees of the War of Independence here. The el-Husseinis, needing a way to sell their genocidal ideas of blaming the Jews for their own losing a war and legitimizing a campaign of terror against us, repackaged themselves as “Palestinians” and have invented all sorts of fairy tales to back up the original re-packaging. Most of their bullshit has been bought lock, stock and shakshuka by the media, American, Israeli and otherwise.

    So homosexuals, determined to shed the “icky” image of the name “homosexual”, push the term “gay” instead.

    But what makes you what you are is not a label, Jet, it’s your biology. To quote you, “the problem is who my hormones react to vs who my brain reacts to. It’s a matter of biology not psychology. It’s a matter of being honest with myself and not lying to others.”

    Dan Miller never bought the “gay” repackaging – and frankly neither did I. It’s not a matter of bias – it’s a matter of being honest with myself.

    I’m be diplomatic and call you “gay”; you prefer it. This is not about being nasty. But homosexual marriage is an accurate description of the term – marriage between two individuals of the same sex. Calling it anything else is just polite – and dishonest – re-packaging.

    Marriage is all about legitimizing sex and its intended fruit – children.

    As for your question, a “common-law” marriage, shacking up, has the same legitimacy as a civil union does. It used to have less. I know. I’ve been there.

  • Zedd


    “Why are you do intent upon interjecting your beliefs into the lives of people who just desire to live as they have chosen to?”

    What beliefs are you talking about? Basta man!

    I am asking for the science. Simple. There is none. I have stated that those who live a gay lifestyle should do whatever they want to do. I’m simply bothered by the claims of the science, there is none. I find it annoying that we are being asked to go along with the quackery in this day and age. There is no gay diagnosis. It’s craziness.

    Whether mankind has developed a way to impregnate a woman without intercourse is mute. That would mean that all of the gay people born before that process, who wanted kids had an imbalance and those after did not.

    The FOCUS is on the biology and not the technology. You cant say I CANT engage with men but I CAN have kids unless you admit that something is wrong. If I lacked the orifice to have sex but internally had all of the mechanics to reproduce, we would say, something is wrong with me. If I had all of the tools internally and externally to reproduce but couldn’t because I COULDN’T make myself do it because of believing I was BORN not to do what it takes to reproduce, but desperately wanted a child, we would say, something is wrong.

    You are right B you just don’t get me. You don’t get IT. You keep straying off topic to make emotional pleas or jabs that have nothing to do with what I have said. I see this matter is an emotional one for you (another one). It’s difficult to stay focused when you are passionate. You are all over the map. Lets just walk away.

    El Bicho:

    You have no idea what is going on. Bless you. You are just commenting randomly Luv. Do read this interaction a few years from now. Perhaps you will understand what was going on. Or take a critical thinking class, then read.


    What was that all about? Who gets grossed out about the word homosexual? Gay seems frivolous and all prancy to me. I would welcome the term homosexual.


    “I know I am male because I am dense”???? :oD

    Since no one has anything of substance to add to this discussion lets call it a day fellows. Perhaps Cindy D will do some research and come at me with some obscure insect that’s gay. Until then, I think we are done boys. Back to the “bitter” discussion :o).

  • Zedd, you have a wonderful gift for making absolutely no sense at all, matched only by your inability to understand the words of others. If anyone should call it a day, it must surely be you.

    Ruvy, you seem to want to challenge Zedd for her title. I have no idea what this means “Marriage is all about legitimizing sex and its intended fruit – children”.

    Why does sex need legitimizing and who says that the point of marriage is having children?

  • Ruvy

    I have no idea what this means “Marriage is all about legitimizing sex and its intended fruit – children”.

    What can I say, Chris? Even though you appear to be over forty years of age, you seem to have little understanding of what marriage has been about for thousands of generations, understanding it only in its latest “we-marry-for-love-and-fuck-whenever-we-want” permutation.

    All I can say is that you are young at heart – and brain….

  • Clavos

    OK, Zedd. For the sake of argument let’s say for the moment that gayness has no scientific basis; let’s even say that gays deliberately choose to be gay for some unknown reason, though why anyone would deliberately choose a lifestyle that makes them the target of hate and prejudice is beyond me.

    Nonetheless, they want to be able to be married and have society recognize those marriages, and neither you nor anyone else has come up with a valid reason yet (under the Constitution) for why they shouldn’t be allowed to do so.

  • Zedd,

    I know, I am a foolish emotional pig. So, let’s talk science.

    What science do you have supporting your stance? None. It is only your supposition that being gay is either a conscious decision OR that it invariably means that something is wrong with them. AND, you apparently think the biology or evolution has a mind, a separate consciousness (and I’m not talking god here) which assigns or somehow directs things. Actually, with regard to the evolution of the species, it’s all done on the fly, it’s all being made up as we go. There is no prescribed direction.It’s all based upon what works NOW. Again, you take it back to the plumbing. If you don’t have the pipes, then you shouldn’t turn on the water. Your stance that people “shouldn’t” engage in sexual activity if their parts aren’t biologicaly compatible implies that you have a belief system about it – whether it stems from religion, reading tea leaves or just one that is conjured up in your mind.

    You are welcome to walk away from this if you choose, I kinda wish you would, but you keep coming back for more constantly claiming to be mis-stated and/or misunderstood, or that we miss your points. The fact is, you haven’t made coherent sense from the very beginning of this comment thread. What your point IS, I haven’t a clue.


  • Zedd


    Now you stop that. You are not a foolish emotional pig. I realized after I posted that, that that (can I do 3 thats) was unnecessary to say. You are adorable and passionate. Passion is good. We need more but don’t tell Ruvy that. Any more passion and he’d explode into a million pieces and cause yet another international incident in the Middle East. Also you are not mean spirited which makes you a pleasure to dialogue with.

    I have human biology and evolution to support my stance. We have kitties and ding dongs. They fit like a puzzle. They serve a purpose. Romance serves the purpose of perpetuating the species. Can’t do a lesson on reproduction and evolution, google.

    It seems to me that you are the one who has a belief about relationships and a greater meaning about LOVE. For an atheist, you sure are sappy or superstitious. Love feels good and it works but it serves to keep us alive (we care for one another and seek to be cared for) and to make us reproduce. Marriage licences are an aside. They are just a ritual that we have made up in our modern society to substantiate the seriousness of our love to others. Perhaps we can come up with other ways to make those declarations.

  • Druxxx

    Zedd you have come to the conclusion that homosexuals should not marry for whatever reason, and you are grasping at anything you can to make others agree with you.

    As far as your arguments and reasoning go, thanks to our constitution, the counter arguments can best be summed up by saying SO WHAT?

    Heterosexuals marry and choose not to have kids and I see no national urge to deny them marriage.

    Being homosexual may mean you have a screw loose. SO WHAT?
    Should we kill them off so they don’t infect the good (hetero) gene pool?

    As far as marriage being good for society, having offspring or not does not make marriage good. IMO marriage is about stability. Stability is good for society.

    If wanting to have sex with members of either sex is a choice and not predetermined, then wanting offspring would also be a choice.

    I really hate food that is good for me, but I eat it anyway. Is it out of line for someone to hate sex, but love children?

    There are plenty of people out there that can have kids, but have no business raising them.

    You are still avoiding the question regarding how you came to “choose” being heterosexual. You would have to tie me down or medicate me before I would engage in sexual acts with members of my same sex. But I will always get a hard on when looking at a naked female I find attractive, no matter how hard I choose to try not to.

  • Zedd, theres about as much science about being gay as there is about being left handed.

    Over the years past it used to be a sign of evil possession for a child to be left-handed and they were punnished into using their right hand instead doing irreparable damage.

    The fact that children are being taught not to trust science over the Bible is one of the reasons this world is in the mess its in.

    I can force myself to have sex with a woman, but in the end I’ll always be attracted to men.

    I can force myself to write with my left hand, but in a moment of not thinking about it first I’ll always reach for the pen with my right hand.

    GAY IS NOT SOMETHING YOU CHOOSE anymore than being left handed or right handed.

  • Jet,

    Thanks for jumping in. I was hoping someone who is directly concerned with this issue would have a go at this thread. I have no problem being an advocate, but since I’m not a member of the crew as it were, these arguments are less convincing coming from an outsider. And, no doubt, I’ve gotten some of it wrong.


  • Zedd

    Look boys,

    The hand analogy does not work.

    A fitting analogy would be if you had hands that functioned and you felt like you were born to use your feet to write with. No matter what anyone said, you would insist that you were BORN to use your feet.

    To take it further, you wanted gloves shaped like hands for your feet (the child part). Off course the response would be, but you have feet and you believe that you CANT use hands. Why would you want gloves. Gloves are for hands.

    No prob. Thought I’d help. You are welcome.

  • troll

    …’kitties and ding dongs’….and all with such noble purpose

  • Ruvy


    Many years ago I used to be a lobbyist in Minnesota. So here I am sitting in a legislative hearing (dog and pony show, for those in the business) listening to this state senator from Duluth talking about this bill on health insurance and discrimination that I was lobbying for.

    I don’t know what got him going on the subject, but he started in on what it was like to be a homosexual and how if he could be a heterosexual, he would much prefer it, but there was nothing he could do.

    That was when I became convinced that whatever my feelings about homosexual relationships might be, this was a matter of biology. Every single person who has homosexual orientation that I’ve ever spoken to has said the same thing.

    Are they ALL lying? Somehow, I do not think so. Perhaps a woman who has been so viciously sexually abused by men that she cannot stand to touch them anymore might choose to be a lesbian. I could see that.

    But otherwise?

    Why don’t you take Jet as his word? This is something he understands better than you ever will, no matter how many courses in biology you’ve taken, and no matter how much you think you may know.

  • The problem with the term is the “sex” involved in it. It has connotations of that’s the only thing we think about.

    I’d have no problem with the term if it brought up the logic that the difference between us and straights is whom we sleep with. In otherwords gays are like anyone else but for that ONE difference. Then maybe they’d treat us like everyone else.

    Why do we want to marry? So that we can have “NEXT OF KIN” rights of inheriting shared wealth, and hospital visits and stuff like that. Just as being a common law or Justice of the peace marriage being less than a church wedding

    The problem with the right-wingers is that by them insisting that it’s a “choice” then that puts us in the same catagory as devil worshipers, or people who chose to like suchi over a McDonald’s filet o fish sandwich.

    Oddly enough it’s about the same percentage of left-handed people as it is for us faggots.

    Now if we’re talking behavior, I find myself prejudiced against swishy drag queens and “fairies” and that’s not fair.


    Because the religious right has succeeded in lumping us all together as if we’re all the same.

    It’s on the same par and just as unfair as hearing anyone with a southern accent, and automatically assuming that they all prefer/choose to marry their cousins, that their less intelligent than “normal” people and that they all eat grits and spit tobacco. Jeff Foxworthy makes a fortune exploiting that unfounded belief, and we all laugh because at one time or another we’ve actually thought it.

    …but of course that’s only my opinion!


  • Zedd that’s the most rediculous analagy(sic) I’ve ever read on this forum in a long time. It is exactly like the handedness example.

    I hate people like you who if you disagree with something you dismiss it without a logical reason for doing so.

  • Druxxx


    Do you think a public employer(say the City of Chicago) should be allowed to deny a job to someone because they are homosexual?

  • Druxx, a better example.
    The U.S. Army is dismissing gay translators by the dozens because gays found a niche where they can serve their country without scaring the troops, who frankly could care less.

    There are news stories all the time of how badly the military badly needs someone with a particular skill, only to dismiss them for something rediclous.

  • Why are people so afraid of “Homosexuals”. Easy-with 99.9% of them you can’t tell they’re gay unless they tell you they are.

    You fear what you don’t understand, and it’s even scarier when you can’t sense the threat when it’s standing in front of you.

  • troll

    …shit – but for the facts that it is an abominations and is responsible for such things as AIDS and Katrina and ultimately will cause the breakdown of civilization I have nothing against homosexuality…some of my best friends are gay

    I just have to remember to whisper ‘Get thee in front of me Satan’ when around them

  • Zedd

    Druxx stop the drama.

    Read my posts and figure it out.

  • I caused Katrina??? You’d think I’d have picked a male name, maybe she was a drag queen?

  • Ruvy, re your #92: that’s a pretty bullshit response. Setting aside your meaningless statement about marriage, because marriage is different things to different people, it certainly hasn’t been so for “thousands of generations”.

    Even going on a conservative estimate that a generation is only 20 years (though opinions vary all the way up to 100 years), that would be 20,000 years at a minimum, although as you said thousands of generations we could be talking anywhere up to millions of years ago, long before humans even formed stable societies, let alone the kind of cultural structures that would allow for marriage.

    And, of course, the nature and meaning of marriage has changed many times over the years, as I would hoper you would be aware. Rather than trying to state definitively what marriage is, you really ought to limit yourself to what it is for you. Marriage can and should be what people want it to be.

    I’d certainly rather be young at heart and mind if the only alternative is the calcified repetition of dogma you seem to prefer…

  • Zedd (way back on #52, sorry people):

    First, for someone who wasn’t sure about what I was referring to about the “sanity of the poster,” you certainly had an awful lot to say about the subject. Thank you for proving my point, whatever it happened to be.

    Second, your reference about the “dialectic model” only serves to trumpet your own lack of perspective. What does my recognizing the notion of exchanging arguments and counterarguments have to do with what I said? Ah, doesn’t matter. It was a pretty odd point to make and only served to fill your post up with unrelated hodgepodge the likes of which I haven’t seen in quite some time.

    Third, perhaps as a Canadian I have a different perspective on this issue than you do. That’s why my point lacks the realization of the weight of the “problem” as you see it. You consider homosexual marriage as an issue that will change the face of your time. I consider it an issue that would catch the world up on the relatively simple matter of human rights. As a Canadian, we’ve passed homosexual marriage without so much as a peep of public debate. There was very little national fanfare about the issue here and the broad majority of people agree that homosexual marriage should be legal and that’s that. Surprisingly, our society hasn’t crumbled for it and the institution of marriage is somehow remarkably still intact.

    Fourth, as to what rights I’m speaking of, I gave you a few examples. Perhaps if you weren’t so distracted by articulating your condescending tone (“Perk up, bud”) you’d have noted what I was talking about and perhaps you would have actually addressed the rather lengthy alternative I issued as well. No matter, repetition is easy.

    In the United States there are at least 1138 laws in which “marital status” is a factor. You can discover more about these laws by checking out “Rights and Responsibilities of Marriages in the United States” over on good ol’ Wikipedia or you can head to the United States Government Accountability Office and ask for some documents. Either way works. Now when “marital status” is a factor in these laws, that means that marital status counts. You suggest that there are other ways for individuals to seek what these laws provide, which I suppose means you suggest that each same-sex couple heads out to various different places, files for various different laws, and spends enormous amounts of time and money to file for protection and application of these laws simply because they happen to be a same-sex couple. Does that seem like equality to you? A heterosexual couple can receive this legal protection without applying for anything other than one simple document: a marriage license.

    These rights and laws include but are not limited to: Social Security pension of an ex- or deceased spouse, veteran’s pensions, federal employee survivor benefits, public safety officer benefits for those killed in the line of duty (cops, firefighters, etc.), payment of wages or worker’s compensation after death to the spouse, continuation of employer sponsored health benefits, etc. All of the aforementioned benefits and rights cannot be obtained through “other avenues” as you suggest. Marriage is the only way to retrieve those benefits.

    I haven’t even covered rights to benefits while married (which include the ability to sponsor an immigrant) or rights to joint family benefits or rights to taxation benefits or whatever. There’s a lot of them (remember, about 1138 as of last count) and marriage is the only legal way to obtain access to most of them.

    So you’ll forgive me if I didn’t observe the dialectics of this discussion. Perhaps I’m not so much concerned with the pseudo-intellectual banter and am slightly more concerned with what I see as egregious human rights violations.

  • Strangely enough I did once encounter a drag queen named Katrina in a cabaret/bar/restaurant/nightclub in San Francisco called Asia SF. The servers are all accomplished drag performers who put on a show while you eat your dinner.

    Great food, too. I’d have included a link but their website appears to have gone splat.

    I’ll put a photo of ‘Katrina’ on my blog if I remember to.

  • troll

    you’re too naughty

  • But am I naughtier than Katrina, taller than Zedd or straighter than Jet…?

  • Great Doc, now that picture will be stuck in my head the rest of the day.

  • “You have no idea what is going on.”

    Yes, I do, Zedd. You have a position on a topic that you can’t support logically. Since you consider yourself an intellectual, you attempt to form arguments to support yourself, but they are usually flawed and everyone can see it. When called out, you have no cogent response, so you either ignore the question or dismiss the person, and then argue different points, hoping no one will notice.

    If anyone needs to take a critical thinking class, it’s the person who thinks homosexual sex is the same as masturbating with a purse, so spare the condescension. I understand it’s all you have to fall back on, but it only adds to how foolish you appear.

  • Okay, back in the ancient biblical times in order for a civilization or group to survive being taken over and enslaved (as the Jews were by the Egyptians and the Romans) it was necessary for laws allowing for the greatest number of kids in the shortest amount of time. (safety in numbers)

    This meant men could have two or more wives toward that end.

    It also meant banning anything that didn’t produce kids in the strongest of languages-Laws, commandments etc.

    If you were fucking your wife anally-banned
    If you were pulling out of her before you came-banned
    If you were masturbating-banned
    If you were homosexual-banned.

    Back then and in those times it made sense. The law was pump them babies out fast and often we need an army damn it so that in twenty years time thay could raise up an army against their oppressors.

    Unfortunately no religion seems to recognize that that portion of their bible/laws is now outdated. We’ve got more kids than we can use.

    The church has lifted the need for mulbiple wives.
    Why they want to pick and choose which parts of their bible are relevant and which can be disgarded is beyond my understanding.

    I’m going to smear some sheeps blood on my doorframe now, after I sacrifice it to God. I’ve got to remember what I did with that snake for next sunday’s service too. I wonder how many of you devout christions still tithe 10 percent of your income to your church?


  • Ruvy

    because marriage is different things to different people, it certainly hasn’t been so for “thousands of generations”.

    uh huh….

    Cro-Magnon Man was around at least 20,000 years ago, and behind him were the Neanderthal. And all had families, and presumably some kind of structure for raising children whether they were matrilocal or patrilocal.

    I’m going back approximately 30,000 years. Or did you forget – I believe in evolution, even if I think Darwin got some of it rather wrong.

    The ancient word in Indo-European for both taking and marrying appears to be “vesti”. This from Lithuanian, an extremely conservative language. This word is related to the English “wed”. This is similar to what is found in Hebrew. The verb “to carry” is related to the verb for “to marry”.

    It is reasonable to assume that this is exactly what marrying meant in ancient times – taking or carrying the woman away.

    It doesn’t mean that for me, of course. My back was not quite strong enough for the task twenty years ago, though in the sense that we moved here, I very much took my bride away from her family in Minnesota. But the point is that marriage is carrying the woman away, mating with her, and presumably having children, and thus continuing the species.

    It isn’t my business if you and your wife didn’t have kids, or if Zedd didn’t have kids with her husband. However, that doesn’t change the patterns of thousands of years, Chris, and your snotty remarks don’t have a bearing on the matter.

  • zingzing

    don’t forget you can’t boil the kid of a goat in its mother’s milk! heaven forbid you do that!

    or… wait. maybe you’re SUPPOSED to milk that goat, then boil it’s offspring in the milk. jeez… boiling milk is hard enough without trying to cook a whole goat in it, even if it is small. heaven forbid you should stop stirring the milk! if you do that, it will curdle!

    or… wait. sometimes you want curdled milk. dunno if it’s good with goat. wouldn’t that be some strange cheese?

    i wonder if the goat would look on in horror at you cooking its kid. “the irony, the irony,” the goat would say, self-flagellating its own teats, the product of which, instead of nourishing its young, has now been used to end its young life.

    the word of the lord. you may be seated.

  • Clavos

    Ah YES! I recognize the Holy Writ of the ancient and venerated Chupacabras religion, which has been enjoying a bit of a resurgence in the Caribbean the last few years.

    Chivo, Father of the Gods in Chupacabras orthodoxy, is the original source of the sacred Kid Boiling Sacrament; it’s traditions can be traced back directly to the first time Chivo ate his First Born, (number two in the Chupacabras pantheon), after first demanding that his wife, Chiveta, boil the baby in her own milk.

    Ah, good times, good times, when the annual Chiveria Festival takes place during Harvest.

  • Ruvy, the problem with your latest response is the word “presumably”. The fact is that you have absolutely no idea what humans did even 5,000 years ago, let alone 20,000, 100,000 or 250,000 years.

    You can try and flip off my remarks all you want but you’re still waffling at best and trying to pass off more of your habitual prejudices as fact at worst.

  • Irene Wagner

    That’s actually fascinating Clavos, that there would be a law in an ancient Jewish text describing and forbidding a sacrament in the ancient folk culture of the Americas. There must have been a connection between these two cultures at some point in time. When do you think that was?

  • Ruvy

    Ruvy, the problem with your latest response is the word “presumably”. The fact is that you have absolutely no idea what humans did even 5,000 years ago, let alone 20,000, 100,000 or 250,000 years.

    Chris, I could take the word “presumably” out of the sentence, and still be just as right – kids don’t raise themselves, even here where we work miracles all the time.

  • Ruvy

    Unfortunately no religion seems to recognize that that portion of their bible/laws is now outdated. We’ve got more kids than we can use.


    How many times do I have to explain this to you? The Torah does not apply to you!! It does not apply to zingzing, or Irene Wagner. The Seven Laws of Noah apply to you. The Torah is designed to make the Children of Israel holy.

    That’s the first point.

    The second is who the hell are you to announce that the laws designed to make the Children of Israel holy are outdated? Who the hell gave you the messiah’s mantle and authority? Or are you G-d too?

  • Irene Wagner

    The more I look at it, the more interesting it gets. The Kid Boiling ceremony has every appearance of being a cruel take off (certainly not the original version) of some the most fundamental aspects of my faith: The sacredness and tenderness of the mother-child bond. Prophetic references to a coming redeemer, sent in love by a Creator who would sacrifice his First Born, actually a part of his own divine triune self–a love that extends to and covers the INBORN sin defect of… ALL of us: thieves, murderers, cowards, doers of naughty sexual things, disobedient children, Internet Addicts, makers of cutting Message Board comments…et al.

    I wouldn’t present the connection as a “cruel take off” to a Chupacabrist (?) , of course, because there might be OTHER aspects of their culture that would be instructive for me, and I wouldn’t want to burn bridges before I learned them…

    I’m glad I gave in to my online addiction one last time before gettin’ back to work. I learned something today. Thank you.

  • troll

    …I’m all for boiling kids

    in oil if you prefer and throw in mom and dad……fucking goats

  • So… I only wandered off for half an hour and look what happened…


  • You’re right-I’m wrong, time to turn in the crystal ball Ruvy, but mine’s just as accurate as yours and just as flawed.

    My theory of why certain laws in ancient times were made is just as plausable as yours.

  • Irene Wagner

    Pablo: What’s for lunch today, Mom?

  • Irene Wagner

    Mom: It sounds very special. Why don’t you run this Eye of Newt down to Cook in case he wants to throw it in, too.

  • Isn’t it odd how Blogcritics discussions of the rights and wrongs of gay marriage legislation always seem to turn to goats sooner or later?

  • Ruvy, you’re losing it; we’re not discussing child raising. I take your diversion as conceding the point.

  • Zedd

    Well folks,

    I think I have been simply brilliant in the past couple of days. No one has come up with anything remotely challenging. Most of you were just simply lost (and didn’t know it) and no fun to spare with.

    I do wish that some one would have come in with something to make me work. I kept trying to pull you up so that we could have a real dialogue but you just kept waddling in, lord knows what you were going on about. I was hoping that Dan Miller would jump at me, kick me around for a few post so that I could get my “A” game on and pulverize him in the end, but he left me to wade in in the kiddie pool. Where is that Graham guy from Britain. He was CHALLENGING. That would have been fun. I’d been left limping, guts hanging out et al (still cute though). I might have learned a thing or two. That would have been riveting. Alas, I had to answer unrelated questions that lead to nothing but rants about things that have nothing to do with my position. Boo. :o(

    Some genius posted about Canada and how that decision hasn’t caused a social evolution in that country (it was made in 2005… HELP) Ya think??? 2 1/2 years and no evolution in the society? Riveting!! Call the presses, BRAINIAC Alert!! sigh…. What was I supposed to say back?

    Anyway, I shall depart, sad and bored… (sigh), no fun, RATS!

  • Cindy D


    The entire matter about gay adoption is problematic indeed. We don’t know enough about what single gender rearing does to the species.

    Reviews of Empirical Studies Specifically Related to Lesbian & Gay Parents and Their Children

    (Article at apa.org search for the title as the URL gets a spam message.)

    There are 6 pages of abstracts here (not a single page). But of course you are familiar with all these. Because, first you read all the complete studies and then you determined what we know, right?

    Because, I would expect no less from someone who has decided that we should deprive people of their rights than to have actually made a thoughtful, intelligent assessment.

    So, I am confident that that is what you did, right Zedd?

    By the way Zedd, there were no penguins in our discussion. I think sheep were involved. Also, replace the word “freedom” with “rights”.

  • Zedd,

    Your above, unbelievably patronizing ramble seems to me like nothing more than a kid declaring “It’s my ball and I’m going home”.

  • Cindy D

    I guess that means no Zedd? Did you look for any evidence at all?

    Are you waiting for the universe to hand-deliver it to you or what?

    It amazes me that in some ways you are so empathetic and understanding. And in others, you can advocate allowing others to suffer on a half-thought out whim.

    There is no ball here Zedd. I am offering you some personal criticism. I am sorry that you are not able to let in any information on the subject no matter what it is or who says it.

  • That wasn’t Zedd, Cindy, that was me.

  • Cindy D

    LOL scuze me Zedd! Strike that!

    I was wondering why it didn’t seem to make sense as a reply to what I said.

    Somebody around here needs to go to bed earlier.

  • Zedd

    Oh Doc,

    Cant you take a joke? I did mean it when I expressed frustration with not getting a good argument. However the tone was simply to lighten things up.


    I am not sure what you wanted me to be engaged with. No one actually got what I was talking about. They were hell bent on ranting about things that I don’t support and didn’t express. I know being female I am supposed to make everyone feel smart but this is ridiculous!! Being gay or caring about gay issues does not give you a dumb pass. If you make a stupid, and worse, irrelevant point, you will be ignored or played with like a cat plays with his catch before devouring it.

    Like I said, bring me something to consider and I will be DELIGHTED! Smack me around intellectually and I will be in heaven. But don’t be dumb and expect that I will spend weeks entertaining your nonsense. Two days is plenty. I know, I’m a girl (a caramel colored one at that) and I am not supposed to recognize a lack of wit but geeeeez. I’m no pistol but mercy!!! What gives folks!

    One of these guys picked up a thesuras (snicker) and thought by stating the same dumb retort in a fancy way, he would sound intelligent. All he had to do was to THINK and make simple calculations then make his point (if he had one or even knew what it was). The showing off was embarrassing but thrilling at the same time. I think he felt he defended the gays by using big words. Help!

    To clarify, all people should live as they chose, as long as they don’t affect society negatively. I don’t see what being declared married by the government has to do with anything. Live with the one you love. Have all the declarative ceremonies you wish to have. Getting the government involved is not a right. A right for what? Its a desire. I said I would re-visit so I wont bore you.

  • zedd: I don’t see what being declared married by the government has to do with anything.

    Your lack of a grasp of reality is astonishing.

    Everything you don’t agree with just simply doesn’t exist.

  • Zedd


    What does the discussion of reality have to do with anything that I said.

    WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Quantum Physics, Philosophy, what the heck are you talking about? Why did you say that? Were you frustrated and just blurting something out? Did you mean to say something else and the word “reality” came out by mistake? What is it????

    Can you JUST ONCE address what I STATED.

    Okay (I cant believe I am doing this again)…. Lets take it slower…

    – What is reality in this situation to you?

    – What in what I stated seems unreal or confusing to you.

  • “What does the discussion of reality have to do with anything that I said.”

    This might be my most favorite thing you’ve ever said, unfortunately it’s not for reasons you like.

  • Zedd

    Still no substance. Just unrelated 7th grader jabs.

    I tried.

  • Zedd, I listed and referred you to 1138 laws that only are available to MARRIED COUPLES. Out of all of that, you pulled out that I said something about Canadian gay marriage and then you plant yourself in condescending ground yet again. Honestly, it’s quite mind-boggling and I know your retort will be equally fascinating in the scope of its ignorance and reprehensible attitude, but alas I’ve had plenty of Blogcritics “commenting” for quite a while and I think I’ll head back to ye olde music section where things are a bit less….weird.

    If you do care to address the actual points I made and the actual references to rights that homosexual couples are denied, we can do that. If your only retort is that we haven’t seen much of a change in Canadian society because gay marriage was legalized in 2005, that’s fine. You win. You got me there. Ouch.

  • Zedd, earlier on the thread El Bicho remarked that you’re nowhere near as clever as you think you are.

    You talk about the dialectic method but you refuse to follow it. Any time someone makes an insightful challenge to you (and it’s plain to everyone that this has happened numerous times in the course of this discussion, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not), you either ignore the point completely or resort to ad hominem belittling of the challenger.

    When you do argue, we get frustrated with you because most of the time your train of thought and mode of expression is so foggy we can’t even discern what the heck it is you’re trying to say.

  • Zedd


    After your rant for three paragraphs, I moved on. I apologize. I should have endured enough to get to something of significance. I was beaten down with the vacuous nature of everything that had preceded. I didn’t read the part on the “Rights and Responsibilities of Marriages in the United States”

    Most of what is listed most spouses don’t qualify for. I am a widow, I know. Also, what yo have to understand is that these come because of the role that wives have HISTORICALLY played in a marriage. Many women didn’t work so they needed to be looked after, when their spouse had passed. It’s not that two people just decided they are going to get stuff because they vowed to commit to one another. These laws came about because of the culture which was supported by gender roles. The roles were dictated by the fact that couples married (in the past) to make a family. So again, the set up is to support the perpetuation of the species.

    If you love someone you love them. Make a ceremony and tell everyone. But is the goal to get benefits because you love them?

    I am not only talking about gays but couples don’t intend to have children. What are the benefits for? If I work, save and invest, what I am looking to get from my partner? Why do I need to get stuff?

    Thanks for the real comment.

  • Zedd, there was no rant there. It was a collection of facts and figures.

    “Most of what is listed most spouses don’t qualify for. I am a widow, I know.”

    Such as? What is listed under “marital rights” that “most spouses don’t qualify for?” This is a pretty broad statement, so I’d like some clarity on this point.

    Are you suggesting that the reason these people have rights is as a sort of “reward system” to offer them benefits to producing children? If that’s the case, why are they MARITAL RIGHTS and not rights related to childbirth? If it is for the continuance of the species, as you presume (there is absolutely no factual basis for this, by the way), how is it that these rights are afforded to childless couples as well as married couples?

    Your claim about gender roles is also interesting, mainly because it ignores the evolution of gender roles in today’s society. Is your suggestion that these rights should pass away because the gender roles no longer apply? Then again, people don’t really get these rights so it’s hard to know what the argument is over.

    “If you love someone you love them. Make a ceremony and tell everyone. But is the goal to get benefits because you love them?”

    The goal is to get benefits because they’re available and because all human beings should have access to them, regardless of sexual orientation.

    “What are the benefits for? If I work, save and invest, what I am looking to get from my partner? Why do I need to get stuff?”

    Well I realize the American Dream is that you are able to take care of yourself at all times and be perfectly prepared for all instances in life, but that’s rarely how life works for the majority of people on this planet we call Earth. The reason you need to “get that stuff” (and please, don’t cash any government cheques (checks) in your lifetime, lest you go back on your “why do I need that stuff?” philosophy) is because that “stuff” can often be helpful in times of turmoil and trial. The reason we Canadians have health care, for instance, is because that “stuff” is incredibly helpful to lower income families who maybe don’t have the opportunity to do so well. Of course, you may consider those individuals simply lazy and may live under the illusion that all is possible to those who simply work hard and pay their damn taxes. Unfortunately, reality for most people suggests a different side of the coin.

    I’m curious, finally, as to why you have such a hostility towards the majority of posters here. I could do without the condescending attitude, as I have been respectful towards you when you likely didn’t deserve it.

  • Zedd


    This entire thread is full of resorting to ad homonym and belittling of me. I posed simple questions to Dan and Clavos. There was a purpose to those questions. All hell broke loose. I had to ignore because the comments had nothing to do with anything that I had said.

    Clav asked how I know that I am hetero. I responded that I don’t know that i am hetero. I don’t know what that means. I would have to know what being homo feels like to know what being hetero feels like. I told him, I am just doing what I’ve been socialized to think we are supposed to do. I didn’t think about it. He insisted that I know that I am hetero. What do I do with that. After a while, you just ignore. ESPECIALLY because that statement cant prove biology. It just cant. Its stupid to think it can. If I had come up with a reason why I KNOW that I am hetero, I would be saying something stupid. My response wouldn’t prove anything scientific. It would be some stupid off ball opinion. Nothing more.

    Everyone else kept making comments about me disliking gays. I don’t dislike gays any more than heterosexuals. That’s odd. I would have to know someone to like them or dislike them. Its like saying because I disagree with prayer in school I hate Christian people. That’s crazy. Now, knowing that I don’t dislike gays, what am i supposed to say or do? I could either get angry or joke about it.

    Several talked about me denying them rights. I asked several times what rights. Jordan was the only person who finally answered after a very long time and an angry rant with personal commentary about my views (which was off) and other comments that didn’t fit my post (about affects on human social evolution). I responded to him and concluded by stating (or restating) that those “rights” have more to do with sustaining the reproduction of species than freebies because you get married. I explained this in the previous post.

    Doc, if you were familiar with certain methods of arguing you would understand me and you would get where my line of questioning could be going.

  • Holy fucking Christ, Zedd, let it go.

  • Zedd


    “I’m curious, finally, as to why you have such a hostility towards the majority of posters here”

    If i were hostile it would be because of statements like this. Who said i was FEELING hostile? You cant have a debate and say things like that. Its off. I am frustrated by the off stuff like that. Leave that out. You don’t know how I feel and why are you probbing on that? why do you care? What can you do about it? Just FOCUS on the discussion. I dont feel hostile. I think y’all are dumb. That question is dumb. It does nothing for the discussion. Leave all the dramatic stuff out. Just focus. I know you will be defensive but next discussion you have with someone, leave all that out and just discuss.

    “Such as? What is listed under “marital rights” that “most spouses don’t qualify for?” This is a pretty broad statement, so I’d like some clarity on this point.”

    You want me to list everything that I don’t qualify for? Why? What does that do? If you are saying that you don’t believe me, that is one thing, If you just want me to waist time with you listing stuff and explaining the circumstances that one has to be in in order to qualify, just so you can move on to another point, I wont.

    Why do you want me to make the list.

    I will save you time. This “rights” don’t come automatically. There are specifications and circumstances that one must fit under in order to qualify. Being married is not enough.

    I won’t go through the list because it would take too much time.

    I will give you a couple of examples: veteren benefits (lots of benes in this category)- your spouce has to have died in the line of duty. Social security death benes- a couple of hunderd bucks to spouce. The financial benes are for the kids.

    Dare I say, i think you missed my point about the past culture and the spousal benefits. I’m to beaten down to go back and explain that evolutionary process AND that government has always been in the business of supporting the structure which sustains the reproduction of the species. Sorry (not sure why) to tell you but its true. Gays and whomever should be on-board.

    You missed what I was saying about two able bodied people working and retiring. Also, we have systems set up for when things happen (disability or medicaid or medicare, etc).

    If you want to share property, do so legally. Call it a day. Perhaps there should be a document to designate other matters that don’t fit into property rights.

    45% of moms still stay home. Another significant percent work only part-time. Many have low paying jobs because they have dedicated their lives to raising children and have not developed their careers like men. Those RIGHTS have a real purpose. Not just that I want some too. If anyone wants to talk about REALITY, that is it.

  • Better yet, people should be familiar with the story of “The Frog and the Scorpion” to avoid this silliness next time.

  • It looks like Kelso is going to have to give up his idiot helmet.

  • Zeddddd if you believe that anyone read that past the second paragraph I feel sorry for you.

  • btw, Doc, surely as a comment editor you are familiar with Zedd’s method of arguing. The one where someone thinks they win because they got the last word in. It’s all the rage on the Internets.

  • E.B. did you just call doc “Shirley?”

  • Aaaah, Airplane. Sanity at last!

  • Drat; I was afraid that would happen…

  • Clavos

    Bicho, you are a beacon in the darkness.

  • Wouldn’t it be a delicious punnishment if JOM could read the comments but not be able to comment on them.

    Zedd and JOM… now why did that occur to me in a gay marriage article????

    real head scratcher that…

  • Clavos

    Which head?

  • [runs screaming from room]

  • I’ve always suspected that Doc was a screamer….

  • Now see, we’re laughing, having a good time and no one’s offended, no one’s insulted. Too bad it can’t be like this all the time…

    But then Mr. Rose would get bored……

    ….he’s dangerous when he’s bored


  • I dunno about that, but I know some of the writers would get grouchy.

    I mean, the way some of them carry on, anyone would think politics was a serious business…

  • Well Clav it’s the….. no…. I better not…

  • Shirley, I can hear your curlers rustling clear over here in Ohio… go back to bed before Chris wakes up…

  • It’s 6.30 a.m. over in England right now, so his dogs (if they’re anything like my cats) have probably already woken him up.

    And don’t call me Shirley.

  • “You want me to list everything that I don’t qualify for? Why? What does that do?”

    It provides a factual basis to your claim.

    “I will give you a couple of examples: veteren benefits (lots of benes in this category)- your spouce has to have died in the line of duty. Social security death benes- a couple of hunderd bucks to spouce. The financial benes are for the kids.”

    On the first one (veteran benefits), you’re incorrect. You’re thinking of death benefits for veterans who died in the line of duty specifically, not benefits simply for veterans. There are simple benefits for all veterans and their spouses that *should* occur. The government is handily working at stripping a lot of those out from what I hear, but those benefits do exist in theory. Also, as to the second case of social security benefits, that’s also largely subjective. The benefits to children are different from marital benefits, but if you’re not willing to get further into the detail of equal human rights and explain your case, I suppose I can have the same luxury and leave you to your own devices. Probably doesn’t matter what the facts say at this point anyway…

    Now remember that your statement was that MOST people don’t quality for most of the benefits. That’s a bold statement to make, Zedd, and if you don’t think you owe any factual background to such a claim, I’m not sure what else I can tell you.

    As for the rest of your post, you simply state that I’m wrong and that’s it. You claim to be too “beaten down” to tell me why I’m wrong. It seems to me that you’re constructing an argument that is bent more on proving an imaginary point rather than sticking to anything cogent. Granted there’s evidence of this throughout your posts on this topic, but I’d much rather take this on a post-by-post basis rather than make a broad reference to your overall attitude.

    Also, note that I never said how you felt. I said how you came across (ie. hostile). I didn’t claim to ascribe certain feelings to you, nor did I put words in your mouth. You then go on to say that people here are dumb, yet can’t understand why people are responding to you and your “simple questions.” Frankly, your simple questions have been answered and the truth is that you don’t appear to be satisfied with the answers. That’s nobody’s fault but yours, Zedd.

    “Another significant percent work only part-time. Many have low paying jobs because they have dedicated their lives to raising children and have not developed their careers like men. Those RIGHTS have a real purpose. Not just that I want some too. If anyone wants to talk about REALITY, that is it.”

    To claim which rights have a “real purpose” is to make a rather subjective claim and it actually (finally) sheds some light on the crux of your argument. You look at the list of 1138 or so legal benefits and rights and, from your point of view, you say “why would I want that stuff? I’m a widow.” But many of those benefits are certainly of some value to most people and your subjective understanding of them does not take away from their importance. So while you suggest, as above, that there is a REALITY to discuss (not sure that I should take your word for what that reality is, but I digress) you misrepresent the normal claims of other couples that would, in their view, love to have the benefits that you wouldn’t care about. You claim that the importance you place on certain rights and benefits should be universal and that nobody should need it because you don’t. Pretty arrogant if you ask me, but I am glad that you’ve finally (knowingly or not) added some clarification to this part of the discussion.

    Anyway, I think that’s enough of that. I’ll check back to see if you’ve answered any of my points. If it’s more of the same baiting, whining, and rambling, I believe I’m done with this discussion.

  • duane

    I only want to point out the wonderful Zeddism in #148 — ad HOMONYM.

    This entire thread is full of resorting to ad homonym and belittling of me.

    And it’s used as a noun. Priceless.

    So, what is an ad homonym? Is that where you string a bunch of words together that sound like a personal insult, but really isn’t?

    I must think of an example.

    Hell, now I can’t even remember the actual term, ad hominy, ad harmony, ad hummina hummina …. dammit.

    Zedd, I know you do that stuff on purpose. I’m not belittling you. Keep up the good work. You should team up with Duke de Mondo and write some comedy.

  • Also, looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

  • …and then Harold got mad because they wanted to put a glow-in-the-dark cast on his leg, because the spaghetti was cold and his car was nearly out of gas…

  • homonym??? Nyms are homos?

  • Ahhhh leave off! I didn’t stray off topic, Harold’s second cousin’s neighbor’s hairdresser is gay.

  • And let’s not even mention your drinking problem…

  • Are you kidding, I’ve got leftover bottles of Oxycodone and percocet from all of those operations… who needs alcohol?

  • Sure, Jet… the trick is to avoid bouncing the pills off your forehead…

    I’ve got to go to bed.

    But one last time, I’m not Kareem Abdul-Jabbar… er, I mean Dr Dreadful… my name’s Roger Murdock, dammit, and I’m an airline pilot!

  • Zedd


    Did you get the big point though? My guess is that you don’t want to get it because you couldn’t be that dense (I hope). I would hope that in your thought life at least, you will ponder upon this argument and figure out what I was saying.

    Yes in a forum with fellow droolers your comments are huge and the irrelevant nit picking that does not expand the argument seems significant. However the important thing is for both of us to be the better, smarter if you will. Wanting to spend time on points that have nothing to do with the premise is silly and diminishes your effort. You loose cool points.

    Two guys who choose each other don’t NEED these benefits. A mom who has spent twenty years raising children and not creating an income or developing a career, for herself does. Human societies for the most part have always recognized this. Can you at some level see the difference or significance of that difference?


    “And it’s used as a noun. Priceless.”


    Doc where is your post? Did you delete it??? chuckles.

  • Zedd

    “Now remember that your statement was that MOST people don’t quality for most of the benefits. ”

    To the example again… Most spouses don’t die in the line of duty. Most spouses are not even in the military. Does that help even a little? Now I wont argue with you as to who gets veteran benefits. You are guessing your way on this and I am not here to embarrass you. I’m sure you can investigate this later and figure out what actually happens.

  • Druxxx

    So let me get this straight…

    It would not be beneficial for a gay couple to have inheritance rights or end of life rights?

    I think we can both agree it would be beneficial for the couple. I also think society would benefit. One example would be saving money on court costs.

    All of your arguments that involve children need to be thrown out the window. This is not a discussion about taking away marriage from heterosexual couple who will not be having children.

    The day that happens, we can revisit your arguments. And I think we can both agree that opposite sex couples will always be able to marry in this country.

    You want to make this discussion civilized and simple. After we throw out this whole procreation thing, how is this not a simple matter of discrimination?

  • zingzing

    zedd: “The entire matter about gay adoption is problematic indeed. We don’t know enough about what single gender rearing does to the species.”

    try single parent households. it’s a full 1/3rd of our nation’s households. i’m sure a significant portion of those households would qualify under your “single gender rearing.”

    the main problem, of course, with single parent households isn’t a gender issue, it’s a financial issue. and most gay couples who want to have a child aren’t going to get there by mistake. they will be good and ready, both financially and emotionally.

    that said, that’s not what is at issue here. this is simply about rights. believe what you want about homosexuals. they don’t give a shit. but don’t deny someone rights. it just bites you in the ass.

  • “Two guys who choose each other don’t NEED these benefits.”

    Who are you to say who needs benefits and who doesn’t need benefits? If the benefits exist, then the benefits exist. It’s not up to Zedd to decide how to allocate those benefits, nor is it up to Zedd to decide who should get those benefits. Those benefits, as I listed them, are available to MARRIED COUPLES. That’s it. There’s no playing around with that point, there’s no semantical twisting you can do, and there’s no way around it. Whether or not you agree those benefits should exist is irrelevant.

    You keep telling me to “figure” out your larger point, to see the big picture, and to somehow piece your argument together for you. Well, judging from your own words and your own posts, I think I’m finally prepared to do that:

    You oppose homosexuals receiving benefits that the rest of the married couples in the United States have access to, but you don’t dislike homosexuals. You simply think they shouldn’t be equal to a straight couple. To “prove” this, you fall back on the argument of choice. Even if homosexuals did choose their lifestyle (which they didn’t) much in the same way a person chooses to marry a person they love, you still think that homosexuals shouldn’t be afforded benefits. You say “love is enough” and that if they truly love one another, they won’t worry about rights and benefits that other couples have. On top of it all, you say that benefits and rights shouldn’t be important to people who have one another to rely on, but that a single mother NEEDS benefits when she’s raising kids. Two men couldn’t possibly need benefits.

    Now the thing that really gets me, Zedd, is that you think I’m guessing my way through this. That’s utter nonsense. I’ve provided you with backup references, like the Government Accountability Office, and have read through the documents to discover all 1138 rights that American homosexual couples are currently denied by the inability to get married in many states across the country. You, on the other hand, admit to having not done so and admit to not seeing a purpose in doing so. So please. Lay off the bullshit for just a second.

    In my thought life and in my active life, I have lobbied for rights of homosexuals as a straight married Christian male in Canada for quite a while and was there when our country finally signed it into law and made it legal for homosexuals to get married up here. I wrote letters to representatives, met with reps, and learned a lot about the legal system north and south of that little line called the border (I love about five minutes from that little line, by the way, and get to the states quite a bit, I quite enjoy it). So please do not tell me that I don’t know anything about the rights and benefits that these individuals lack at the moment in the United States.

    So you’re asking a bunch of questions and acting all smug in your logic because you actually haven’t presented a cogent argument. Instead, you’re sitting here playing the victim each time someone addresses you in a way that you very much deserve. How about this? Tell me your argument against homosexual marriage. Make it as long or as short as you like. And please, don’t simply comprise it of stuff that sounds like my parents’ discussions (“Why do you need to go out at three in the morning, Jordan?”). Don’t simply say “why do they need to get married? If they love each other, make up a ceremony (make one up?) and do it for love.”

    Instead, tell me why you think homosexuals shouldn’t get married. Tell me your objections. Tell me what effects you think homosexuals will have on society if they get married legally and how that will impact our culture. And by all means, treat me like the moron you think I am. I know that’ll make you feel better.

  • Clavos

    A point that has often been made elsewhere, but not, so far, here:

    Zedd says:

    The entire matter about gay adoption is problematic indeed. We don’t know enough about what single gender rearing does to the species

    Perhaps. But it seems to me that it would still be better to place children in loving homes than to warehouse them in dormitories or in foster homes.

  • Druxxx

    Good point Clavos and I completely agree.

    But this discussion should have nothing to do with children. No one forces hetero married couples to have them.

    I would also like to get back to the social engineering aspect of this discussion.

    In the good old US of A, the burdon of proof is on the accuser. So Zedd and others think society will crumble if we allow gays to marry.


    I realize gay marriage is a new thing in the places it exists, but there are no trends that show those societies are in danger of imploding.

  • Now I wont argue with you as to who gets veteran benefits. You are guessing your way on this…

    He’s not guessing, Zedd. Widows/widowers of veterans are entitled to VA benefits, whether their spouses died in combat or not. I have numerous clients who receive such benefits.

  • Irene Wagner

    To qualify Clavos’ #182 just a bit: kids available for adoption are best put in homes if:
    a) Political correctness is not held over the head of social workers determining fitness of foster/adoptive candidates. Stand-in adoptive parents can be loving or hateful, regardless of sexual orientation.
    b) Parents who place their children up for adoption have the right to state, and to have honored, preferences in qualifications for adoptive parents, be they related to race—and lately it is black parents who have been expressing this preference–sexual orientation, or religion.

  • We all want… we all need to feel like we’re the most important thing in someone else’s life. Without it we’re useless and alone.

    I could write a 20 paragraph comment that no one will read past the 2nd, but it’s better to make a point solidly and suscinctly. The long and short of what you can’t possibly address is… LOVE

    People need to depend on someone else, to know that they’re loved despite showing their vulnerablilities and shortcomings to someone and still feel like they deserve it.

    If a couple is willing to brave the open prejudice, the blatant hate, the religious threat of eternal hellfire, and the danger of being beaten to a pulp by some members of our society, then they deserve respect and equal treatment under the law.

    A gay couple has to consciously think that through before making a commitment to each other, something most straight couples don’t or are unwilling to do.


    Like interacial couples before us, we deserve to inherit the home we’ve built and cherish together, rather than lose everything we’ve worked a life time for as a couple. Can you imagine that? Being a wife who gives up her life and future to marry a man she loves, only to lose everything – EVERYTHING – and have nothing to cling on to after her husband is gone.

    How many heterosexual couples would stay together despite that, and make a conscious/thinking commitment to each other Zedd?

    Zedd, your whole bag is to show blatant disregard for others, self-righteously thinking that that will somehow put the almighty you above everyone else. It’s not the legal, nor the societal problems we have to face; is it Zedd?… you’re jealous-yes jealous-that two gay men are more committed to a stronger relationship because of the above than you’ll ever have in your whole closed-minded lifetime.

    You can’t face that.

    You can’t and won’t address that
    You “hear what you want to hear, and disregard the rest”

    You’re not reasonable-because you don’t know how to reason.
    Like the Wizzard of Oz you hide behind your curtain lazily letting special effects, diversion from the subject, and what you think are witty comebacks represent what you think is something impressive.

    The truth Zedd, is that none of your relationships that you’ve ever had can compare to what gays are forced to build despite the adversaries they have to face.

    I sincerely feel sorry for you…………..

    I know that every time I open my heart like this I’m ignored…… it’s something I’ve gotten used to in this forum…. alas

  • Well said, Jet.

  • Baronius

    “I know that every time I open my heart like this I’m ignored”

    Jet – huh? I don’t know why you feel ignored. You get as many replies as anyone else around here.

  • Apparently the 90mg of Cymbalta hasn’t kicked in yet Mr.B

  • Irene Wagner

    YOu have the gift of transparency Jet in Columbus.
    I hope you’re feeling better soon.

  • Zedd


    I’m a widow of a vet. Drop it.

    NOW I’m done.

  • And?

  • Like I said, Zedd hears only what Zedd wants to hear and disregards the rest…

    I know you read #183, no arguments?

  • “I could write a 20 paragraph comment that no one will read past the 2nd, but it’s better to make a point solidly and suscinctly.”

    And I think I speak for everyone else when I say: we’re all glad you were able to trim it to 15.

  • Cindy D

    I would have to know what being homo feels like to know what being hetero feels like.

    Why don’t you just choose to be? I mean can you choose it for say an hour? Or is there a time period that you have to commit too? Once you chose it can you change back?

    Doc, if you were familiar with certain methods of arguing you would understand me and you would get where my line of questioning could be going.

    Jordan: “Such as? What is listed under “marital rights” that “most spouses don’t qualify for?” This is a pretty broad statement, so I’d like some clarity on this point.”

    Zedd: You want me to list everything that I don’t qualify for? Why? What does that do? If you are saying that you don’t believe me, that is one thing, If you just want me to waist time with you listing stuff and explaining the circumstances that one has to be in in order to qualify, just so you can move on to another point, I wont.

    Why do you want me to make the list.

    Zedd? Where did you learn this “method” of arguing?

  • Zedd? Where did you learn this “method” of arguing?

    I too would like to know this. More to the point, what is the name of this method of arguing? Where can I read up on it so that I might familiarize myself with its techniques?

  • Cindy D


    …we deserve to inherit the home we’ve built and cherish together, rather than lose everything we’ve worked a life time for as a couple.
    I am reminded of the very moving story that was a part of If these walls Could Talk 2

    “In 1961, the house is home to Edith (Vanessa Redgrave) and Abby (Marian Seldes), an elderly lesbian couple whose lifestyle is not accepted or acknowledged by their families. When Abby suffers a serious stroke and is on the verge of death, her family rallies to her side, but not understanding the nature of her relationship with Edith, she is not included as her loved ones say their final good-byes. After Abby’s death, her nephew (Paul Giamatti) and his wife (Elizabeth Perkins) arrive from out of state with plans to sell the house, without consulting Edith.”

    It took a long time to stop crying.

  • I love people who repeatedly cry “I’m done” only to return. But hey “I’m a scorpion; it’s my nature.” so we can;t blame her.

    As for…

    b) Parents who place their children up for adoption have the right to state, and to have honored, preferences in qualifications for adoptive parents, be they related to race–and lately it is black parents who have been expressing this preference–sexual orientation, or religion.

    I don’t see how any parent who gives up their child to the state is in a position to make any demands. If they have any preferences, they should find new parents themselves and not waste taxpayer money. I hear you can even find them in the Pennysaver.

  • I lived it Cindy

  • Well…. Matt. I’m glad to see that if you didn’t read it at least you counted the paragraphs…

  • Irene Wagner

    Jet in Columbus — whenever I write a long comment and it stands there for hours, unresponded to, on the Politics latest comments list, I feel kinda embarrassed and exposed and sorry I wrote it.

    But then I tell myself: “You know what? People are probably just saying, to themselves after they read it, “What a beauteous comment that is! Even though I disagree with it vehemently, I shall not knock it from its place of pride on the Latest Comments section on the Front Page of Politics, but shall hold my peace, so that her comment’s brilliantly crafted first sentence might draw millions of readers in over the next few hours, to contemplate, to wonder.”

    Works for me. 🙂 Seriously Jet, I’ve often been very affected by reading your story, though my conclusions are not 100% gay activists get everything they want, you’ve really given me insight into what being fair in this matter might look like, and what not being fair continues to look like.

    You don’t know who’s reading what you wrote, even if you don’t get a reaction via comments. Baronius up there, for example, has written many a word on things I don’t understand too well, and I begin to understand them better, but then I walk away and don’t say anything, you know, actually because of the facetious reason I gave above, only for real. Zedd is taking quite a bashing today, which is sad, but on other occasions she has said a sentence or made a reference to something, and I say, wow, I was just asking God about that a few days ago. It’s like Tai Chi…or whatever…shing fei..no I CHING. Only Christian. And Clavos and Dr. D,and… well! THis is turning into the Academy Awards, and it was only meant to cheer you up a little.

  • Thanks Irene… walk a mile in my shoes 🙂

  • Irene Wagner

    re: #198 and adoptive parents. Firstly, not all adoption agencies are run by the state. Some are privately run by churches (who would be wise, I think, to drop the faith-based-ministry tie-in so they wouldn’t be subject to anti-discrimination laws.)

    Secondly, You can’t know how big a sacrifice SOME women (and sometimes the dads) make when they place their children for adoption. It’s often an agonizing decision. Most people don’t send their kids off to adoption agencies like they’re a basket of last years clothes. They send them off to give their kid a better life.

    In addition, fewer adoptions are “closed” these days. My brother and his wife take my niece along for periodic visits to see her bio-mom. It’s supposed to be a healthier way of doing it for all involved. It helps if all the adults are on the same page about important issues of childrearing—just as it is important for any Mom and Dad to be on the same page. Hence, the existence of faith-specific adoption agencies. There’s no reason there couldn’t be similar alternatives for agencies who were quite comfortable about placing gays as adoptive/parents—and probably more savvy about weeding out the bad apples. Unfortunately, as my link above shows, political correctness sometimes gets in the way of adequately protecting children.

  • Think of this example, someone spreads a very convincing rumor about you being a thief. So convincing that you can’t tell if your friends really trust you any more, or are they holding out to see if you get arrested.

    The harder you try to convince them you’re not, the more they’re convinced that you are. Like you’re standing in quicksand, you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you’ll go under if you struggle, but you feel yourself slowly sinking.

    Being gay is like that, your friends know, but do they think that in the back of your mind that you want to rape little boys, corrupt and recruit impressionalbe minds, spread AIDS, and worst of all do they think that if they’re too openly friendly with you, will all of their friends think you’re gay too?

    That’s how my life goes sometimes. that’s why it makes me unsettled with people like Zedd.

  • Committed gay couples don’t use adoption, they find a lesbian couple and agree to split two kids one for the guys, one for the girls.

  • Cindy D

    Here is a new line of thought Zedd.

    Historically, it doesn’t appear that marriage was directly created for the purpose of encouraging procreation.

    In fact, marriage by force, by capture, by sale, by barter make me think that marriage had more to do with property rights of and convenient sex for the male, offspring were desired (particularly males) for reasons of inheritance. Marriage thus, protected property.

    So, what if your assumption is wrong? What if marriage is not something designed to encourage procreation but is mostly concerned with property rights?

  • Nice try Cindy, but he can invoke the name of god as an excuse to Ignore you like he did me.

  • Clavos

    Jet, Zedd’s a broad.

  • Irene Wagner

    re:#205 Yes, I know pairs of homosexual couples have worked out childbearing in this way. However, since in the UK Catholic adoption agencies are being required to adopt out to gay couples, there must be a significant number of homosexuals seeking to adopt through agencies, too.

    Compromise. Some of us fundies (and I know I don’t speak for all) have tried, are trying, and will continue to try to see things your way, but y’all need to bend a little bit and realize that not EVERYONE who isn’t 100% behind every point of the gay agenda is a “homophobe.”

    Some gay-rights advocates brush off concerns people raise about pedophilia. It’s nothing to do with thinking all gays are pedophiles. Churches (the ones I’ve been involved with anyway) are so cautiously wary that they do BI’s and fingerprints on their own MEMBERS before they let them teach Sunday school or work in the nursery! Don’t point fingers when honest concerns are raised and say, homophobe! homophobe! It does absolutely NOTHING to advance your cause. You need to look into why people feel worried (again, the link in #185 about political correctness trumping common sense) and do what you can to reassure them.

    You can’t legislate morality. Heard that before? It’s true.

    Neither can you legislate change of hearts. If someone had thought about that before the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation, the South wouldn’t have been trampled by Sherman, families on the border wouldn’t have been split in two, the entire economic system of the South wouldn’t have been trashed, there wouldn’t have been the rancor that paved the way for lynchings and a postponement of full enfranchisement of Blacks til a century later. A Martin Luther King might have risen up a few generations earlier, or the abolitionist writings of some of the founding fathers (Benjamin Rush, a signer of the declaration of independence for instance) might have been continued to be studied and borne fruit earlier. It took generations to heal from the Civil War and all its governmentally enforced “attitude changes”–and the healing’s still not finished.

    That’s not the sort of divisive turmoil our country needs to be going through right now. YES, keep talking about rights and working for them in such a way that pro/anti gays aren’t warring with one another when we’re trying to figure out how to see our way clear through the war in Iraq…and Iran…and economic collapse–and if THAT happens aren’t we all going to be sorry we wasted so much time hopping down one another’s throats over benefits?

  • Irene Wagner

    Sorry for putting so much real estate between the bottom of the page and your comment, CindyD.

  • Zedd’s abroad? How many countries has he visited so far?

  • I’ll breathe a sigh of relief when those same churches pile all hetros into a rotten bin because only a few of them have molested children.

    That’s the problem, Should the straight population be branded immoral because a few rob banks, or spread a sickness like the new strain of flu?

    No of course not, but that seems to be the logic for branding us all pedophiles… Right?

  • Indeed, Jet, of course not.

    But it’s not just gays this has happened to. A decade or so, it almost got to the point where any adult who was a parent or who’d ever lived or worked anywhere near children was at risk of being branded a Satanic child abuser because of the idiotic notion of repressed memory that was in vogue at the time and sparked a Crucible-esque mass hysteria.

    (Dang. There’s an article there somewhere…)

  • I take it that you didn’t like my big LOVE from #186?

  • You know; I don’t lisp, I don’t swish, my usual attire of choice is jeans, t-shirt and tennis shoes… I hate clothing shopping or any kind of shopping for that matter… Sometimes I wonder if I’m really gay…

  • Irene Wagner

    Well MY church doesn’t throw all HOMO’s into a rotten bin, Jet in Columbus, and if it did, I’d be looking for a new one post haste. I’d also never put my kid in a nursery of a church that didn’t BI/print to weed out hetero AND homo pedophiles.

    Did you look at the link in #185, Jet, and did you understand why I posted it? Do you really think I posted that to perpetuate the myth that all gays are pedophiles? Because that isn’t why I did it.

  • Irene Wagner

    Maybe I’ll come back when this thread is in another “talking-about-goats” phase again, Dr. D. Goodnight.

  • Cindy D


    I always welcome the sight of one of your posts. They inevitably raise the discussion to a higher level. They sometimes leave me arguing with myself for my own poor behavior (which is a good thing). Your tolerance and fairness, as well as your kindness are inspiring, appreciated and needed in any discussion.

  • Jet: Sometimes I wonder if I’m really gay…

    Well, I have a gay friend who dresses in grubby t-shirts and sweats, wouldn’t know what a pair of eyebrow tweezers was if you held him down and forcibly plucked ’em from his face, and enjoys watching lesbian porn.

    Read into that what you will…

  • Irene, I have no doubt giving up a child is likely the greatest sacrifice some parents can make. However, as cold and harsh as it sounds, I don’t see why if their judgment was so poor previously, either in regards to getting pregnant or about their capability to raise a child, we should go on to trust their judgment in what type of parents would be best for the child?

    If a loving home by competent adults can be found, all other requirements should be rendered moot because they derive from the parent’s ego, which is what brought them and the child to this situation in the first place.

  • Thanks but no thanks Doc… but thanks for the suggestion… (:^)

  • I agree EB, by giving the child’s natural parent(s) power over who can adopt, it grants them the power to monitor the child’s life and implies that if they don’t like the way it’s going, they can pull custody back again.

    I wonder which the born-agains would be more opposed to abortion, or the pregnancy going to full term and the kid being adopted by a gay couple…

  • Oh, Jet, that’s cruel.

    You know that to those people, there’s no such thing as a moral dilemma.

    I think you just gave them one!

  • ……I’m so ashamed

  • Cindy D

    El Bicho,

    I believe Irene was saying that since adoptions are tending toward being “open” these days, it would be of benefit to both the adults and child involved to have 2 sets of parents who have some common ground.

    This sounds to me like it would be in the child’s best interests.

  • Regardless of what she meant, the biological parent(s) having any thing to do with a child after it’s been adopted out, could be total and complete folly.

  • Clavos

    Two sets of parents; one birth, one adoptive, and also one straight and one gay, would, it would seem, present a near certain likelihood of conflicting outlooks and goals.

    Sounds like a recipe for disaster, with the child at Ground Zero.

  • Cindy D

    Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

    Not with every mixed set, I wouldn’t think, but:

    If one party were anti-gay and the other were gay, anyway.

    Or one party were atheists, and the other devoted to religion.


  • No no-leave religion and sexual pref out of it for the moment. Two different sets of parents trying to decide how a child is raised…

    and one having veto poser.

    We have that going now between straight parents-Both divorce and remarry, and bot vie to see whol’s going to have the ultimate say as to how their child is brought up.

    Someone needs to watch more “Judge Judy”