Comments

I suggest item 2 include those of us who don't want kids.

And, as I said in my email to you, I wish no. 8 were true--I could use to be just 2 or so inches taller.

#1 Posted by: Patti M. at February 23, 2004 02:19 PM

That was excellent! Unfortunately such things as logic, sarcasm, and even thought provoking dialog are lost on the idealogues that are pushing this issue.

#2 Posted by: briwei at February 23, 2004 04:27 PM

I've been using #10 as an example in conversation of how silly the debate is. Very well written piece which as Brian says will probably whoosh over the heads of most people.

#3 Posted by: Mike at February 23, 2004 04:58 PM

Great one. Hadn't even considered number 5 before for some reason. Another argument-strengthener.

Sounds a lot like the pro-slavery argument. Imagine that.

#4 Posted by: Graham at February 24, 2004 04:44 PM

These arguments are so confused they border on disturbed. Why try and leverage your attack on the institution of sexual reproduction on true misfortunes? African Americans were and are categorically denied acceptance into the community for simple genetic differences. Not for objecting to the propogation of the human race.

If you simply wanted equal rights, there wouldn't be an attack on the institution of marriage (and especially not the insistence on the use of the word when it's obviously so bothersome to a majority of the non-secular world), and the legally valid act of a civil union would be more than acceptable. This is not about equality however, it is about imposing a concept of social acceptability on others. The actions in San Francisco more than prove this point. Your position is already much better than the analogues you cite: Imagine the fate of black children at the hands of trained police officers had they forcefully taken seats in a white school in an aggressive act of desegregation. Unlike in the situation of segregated schooling, something tells me that the legal status isn't what's keeping these two groups from marrying.

#5 Posted by: hobbes at February 24, 2004 05:48 PM

Funny stuff. Check out a remix I did of Bush's speech.

#6 Posted by: urlnotfound at February 24, 2004 05:52 PM

Briwei said:

--
Unfortunately such things as logic, sarcasm, and even thought provoking dialog are lost on the idealogues that are pushing this issue.
--

I think you said it just fine, but someone was kind enough to provide us with an illustration. A far more convoluted illustration than necessary. :-)

#7 Posted by: julie at February 24, 2004 06:11 PM

Do you really think the human race is in danger because of gay marriage?

If gays were really out to destroy the human race, I think they'd do so regardless of marital status.

You?

#8 Posted by: calvin at February 24, 2004 06:12 PM

you, sir, are a stand up gentleman. i agree with you on all points, gay marriage is an aberration to the continued continuation of the human race.

#9 Posted by: threeze at February 24, 2004 06:28 PM

Nothing like gay marriage/gay rights to make the bigots come out of the woodwork.

You know what happens to YOUR marriage if two guys are allowed to marry in some city 2000 miles away? NOTHING. No it doesn't cheapen anything or threaten anything. It does not affect you ONE IOTA.

I have YET to hear (and I have been listening for a LONG LONG time) a single argument against gay marriage that does not boil down to hate or fear. Your hate and your fear do not impress me, feel free to take them elsewhere.

EQUALITY
--------
"It's not about equality." Jesus. Two people are in love, but you're going to deny them the right to marry because their concept of a normal loving relationship goes against your particular religion (as if we ALL follow your religion.) That goes to the very core of equality, and if you think it isn't you are simply marginalizing or trivializing the love gay couples share, as if it is somehow less "real" or "deep" than the love you feel for your spouse.

RELIGION/MORALITY
-----------------
Christ said, "whatever you do to the least of my brothers you do to me." I'm sure Christ is eager to hear you explain why you wouldn't allow him to marry the person he loved when your reckoning comes, particularly when he told you quite clearly it is not your place to judge others.

Nobody is saying you aren't entitled to feel gay marriage is wrong, that it goes against your morals, that it is personally offensive. But none of these are reasons to deny gay couples the right to marry. If you want to make decisions about gay marriage, make them for YOURSELF and not others. Recognize the difference between "it's wrong" and "it's wrong *for me*". Since it is wrong *for you* I advise you not to enter into a homosexual relationship. Fortunately for you, nobody is telling you that you have to love gays, or be gay. This isn't about that, it's about granting people who are in love the right to be legally married.

Let's touch on "legally married" while we are at it. The concept of marriage has transcended its religious origins. Over hundreds of years it has been woven into our social structure and legal structure, to the point where marriage has become like a multifacetted jewel, having a legal aspect, a social aspect, a personal aspect, a religious aspect, etc. For the most part these aspects have not been in conflict until now. It is finally coming to the attention of the populations that we have legally categorized "sexual preference" as a protected class just like race, creed, gender, etc. And yet we don't grant marriage licenses to gay couples. Essentlially the law is in conflict with itself and the conflict needs to be corrected.

This has set the social and legal concept of marriage at odds with the religious concept of marriage. Fortunately this can easily be overcome. I can be married, nondenominationally, by a justice of the peace. I can be married simply by living with someone of the opposite sex for 7 years (common-law marriage). Neither of these marriages are religious in origin, and I would be surprised if a church would recognize these as valid marriages. Therefore simply accept the fact that there is a difference between LEGAL marriage and RELIGIOUS marriage. One is a civil contract recognized by the state, and one is a union fashioned by God and recognized by the church. You can take solace that though the gay couple up the street might call themselves married, they're not *really* married in the eyes of God. Obey the law of the land and do not discriminate against a legally married gay couple, but obey the law of God and never enter into such a union yourself. As Christ said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's".

Where are the champions of marriage on the issue of common-law marriage and nondenominational marriage by JP? Why aren't they trying to prevent THOSE marriages? Hint: for the self-proclaimed defenders of marriage, it isn't *really* about religion, it's about personal distaste for the gay sex act. (A.K.A. hate/fear)

REPRODUCTION
------------
Don't make me laugh. First of all, the world is already overpopulated. Allowing gay people to obtain marriage licenses isn't going to "threaten the survival of the species".

Second of all, let's say you DON'T allow gay people to marry. Let's say you don't even allow them to have civil unions. Is this going to magically make them stop being gay? NO. Is this oing to make them not stay in their homosexual relationship? NO. So basically you have two people who are *not going to reproduce anyway*, right? Then why not let them marry? What's the diff? Either way they are not producing children so arguing against gay marriage on the grounds that it does not produce offspring is fallacious at best, and stupid at worst since there are thousands upon thousands of hetero marriages across our nation that do not produce children by choice or by physical limitation.

Where are the champions of marriage on that issue? Why aren't they trying to prevent THOSE marriages? Hint: for the self-proclaimed defenders of marriage, it isn't *really* about reproduction, it's about personal distaste for the gay sex act. (A.K.A. hate/fear)

"DEFENDING" MARRIAGE
--------------------
The very concept is inane. Defend marriage from what? Comitted, loving, couples who want to be married? Newsflash: marriage is *NOT* under attack. "Defending the sanctity of marriage" is simply a euphemism for "pushing my religion on everyone else". People who use such language seek to incite anger and intolerance. We are talking about legal marriage here, not religious marriage, so what's your beef?

I am a happily married heterosexual husband. I've been married to my wife for 13 years, and lived with her for 5 years before that. We have a wonderful daughter who attends a local public school. Though we are atheist humanists, we adamantly believe in the civil institution of marriage, and we hope our daughter will one day be married. It is therefore quite obvious that we are of course FOR gay marriage. If civil marriage needs defense from anything, it needs defense from those who would like to retheocratize it and change it back into a purely religious institution as a means to reduced religious freedom in this country. No doubt such folks look forward to the day when everybody is a Christian, whether they like it or not.

Allowing gay people to marry is not an attack on anything. Unless of course you live in a pit of fear and paranoia, in which case I think you should seek medication as opposed to legislation.

OTHER STUPID ARGUMENTS
----------------------
Let's just shoot these down before they come up, okay?

STUPID ARGUMENT #1: Gay Marriage is not natural.

"Marriage" is not natural. When's the last time you saw two polar bears walking down the aisle?

STUPID ARGUMENT #2: Homosexuality is not natural.

Homosexual behavior, including long-term same-sex pair bonding has been long documented in large numbers of species outside of humanity. There's nothing to suggest it isn't natural.

STUPID ARGUMENT #3: What next? If you allow gay marriage, you have to allow polygamous marriage, and incestuous marriage, and bestial marriage, where does it stop?

Slippery slope arguments are inherently specious. It doesn't follow that ANY other types of marriage have to be allowed just because you allow gay marriage.

STUPID ARGUMENT #4: Homosexuals aren't a "race" or a "gender" or even a "creed", equivocating their situation with women's suffrage and equal rights for minorities is inappropriate.

Our country has recognized certain classes of people who have demonstrated that they have suffered discrimination and are under risk of continued discrimination. These classes are referred to legally as "protected classes".

The current list of protected classes is: race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, national origin, ancestry, and mental or physical disability, genetic characteristics, parenthood/pregnancy/custody of a minor child, age, and gender variance.

The law does not elevate any of these classes over any other, they are all treated as equivalent. It is every bit as wrong, from a legal standpoint, to deny someone a job because they are a parent as it is to deny someone a job because they are gay.

Arguments which trivialize gay rights in comparison to, say religious rights, or minority rights, are therefore inherently flawed (not to meantion bigotted.)

#10 Posted by: Chuck S. at February 25, 2004 01:56 AM

'I have YET to hear (and I have been listening for a LONG LONG time) a single argument against gay marriage that does not boil down to hate or fear. Your hate and your fear do not impress me"

Your Dogma Fails to Obtain


"This is not about equality" for those who want gay rights.


Noone is stampeding over equal rights in this scenario, the argument centers around the use of a word, 'marriage'. Julie, got offended, and even resulted to using some XSS in order to make 2 posts against the subject (note the lack of the 1px dotted)--how honest. The bottom line is that the gay community wants marriage and will do little to stop it, including leveraging their current successes in society, flamboyance, and trying to be generally 'fucking gay' by violating the 'categorical imperative' in the most passive agressive of ways. It is about imposing your beliefs on another set of people: it is not about insurance rights, 'marital status', etc. Let's get that out of the way to start-- a civil union would cover all of that---and I, personally, think that all LEGAL MARRIAGES should hereto be deemed 'civil unions' as opposed to 'marriages' to clean up this nasty hack once and for all, not encroach upon longstanding religious rites by codifying anything about marriage, especially not an exclusionary Constitutional Amendment--how fascist can you get?

You try to come by on the most specious of all arguments--love. Marriage isn't about love, it's about promoting the most basic of social structures, the family. I don't think anyone truly doubts the 'love' behind a homosexual relationship. Many are productive and longstanding. Deviance is good for society as it promotes change, but we must note the most basic social units (see Durkheim).

As for religion... what's there to say. Believe what you wish. Each church and creed it autonomous. Well gay marriage has never been accepted. As for 'Christ', don't be so damned presumptuous, Christians are by NO MEANS the only religion against this mostrosity.

Reproduction: are you just trying to make nonsensical arguments? The lack of ability to reproduce *certainly* should not prohibit a civil union (the new, orientation neutral, term for common law marriages). However, homosexuality DOES prohibit having children naturally: and maybe Bush should just be smart and codify into law that homosexuals cannot adopt or raise children under any circumstances.


Lastly, 'it's about a personal distaste for the gay sex act':


It's not about the act, it's about the fact. Homosexuality is biologically improper. HUMAN BEINGS ARE SEXUAL ORGANISMS. TO FAIL TO RECOGNISE AND SERVE YOUR MOST BASIC ROLE IS A SIGN OF INSANITY, or being out of touch with reality.


I agree, there are homosexuals in many species, but usually that means they participate in homosexual acts, not that they pursue a homosexual lifestyle apart from the community.


If you want positive change, stop being so goddamned inflammatory, using ubsubstansive arguments, and account for what you're saying (like comparing your woes to African Americans, Jews, etc). And account for biological truth.


"Our country has recognized certain classes of people who have demonstrated that they have suffered discrimination and are under risk of continued discrimination. These classes are referred to legally as "protected classes"."



Agreed. But we are talking about SEXUAL DEVIANTS, and we live in a democracy. If Bush were smart he'd put this one to national referendum and call it a fight.



When Philosophy and Ethics interfere with primary biology, we are all in trouble.

#11 Posted by: calVIN at February 25, 2004 01:46 PM

Firstly, please don't attack the honesty of the folks who post comments on on weblog. I believe Julie puts Xs in the email field because she doesn't realize I no longer require an email address to post.

(Administrative note: Email Address, at the moment, is not required for posting.)

You appear to agree with me that rights should be equal and civil unions should be what every couple gets from the government. Great.

"Natural reproduction?" Homosexuality does not prevent someone fron getting pregnant, or from fathering a child by similar means to what heterosexuals engage in every day to have _their_ children (artificial insemination, surrogate motherhood, etc).

_Civilization_ is unnatural. Nature is without civilization.

The nature argument does not help you.

#12 Posted by: James at February 25, 2004 02:17 PM

Calvin said:

I agree, there are homosexuals in many species, but usually that means they participate in homosexual acts, not that they pursue a homosexual lifestyle apart from the community.

Wow, it's a good thing you've researched this point exhaustively so you don't look like an ass.

Oh, wait, you didnt. And you do.
http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html


#13 Posted by: Zarathustra at February 25, 2004 02:20 PM

can you read? oh, wait--you're bitter.

#14 Posted by: calVIN at February 25, 2004 02:47 PM

"The Nature Argument doesn't help you"

Well, I am speaking to the choir boys. And I said XSS, not X's, which stands for Cross Site Scripting. Her entry has 2 posts, one of which is a false, both made at the same time, This can easily be deduced by checking out the page formatting, and the 1px dotted line which is failed to be produced.

As for "Homosexuality does not prevent someone fron getting pregnant, or from fathering a child by similar means to what heterosexuals engage in every day to have _their_ children (artificial insemination, surrogate motherhood, etc)."

I'm aware of this...maybe a closer inspection would help. I think that if any exclusionary law should be put into act with respect to homosexual unions, it should certainly prohibit all efforts on the part of homosexuals to raise children, that's all.

The 1999 Salon BOOK ADVERTISEMENT does note homosexuality in megafauna, but you fail to note that I said they don't " that they pursue a homosexual lifestyle apart from the community." and there is nothing in the article to contradict it, at all.

Finally, sorry if I'm inciting flame. It's just one thing: homosexuality represents a psychological disorder (with possibly genetic causation, yes yes) whose primary psychoses is a misinterpretation of the fundamental role of animal existence, sexual reproduction. All attempts to counter this argument are inherently specious, so let's get real.

As I meant to type before: Bush should just put this one on the referendum and call it a NIGHT.

Peace.

#15 Posted by: calVIN at February 25, 2004 02:59 PM

It's not clear to me how you come by homosexuality as a disorder, I don't recall seeing it in the DSM-IV, nor how a parting shot like that encourages peace. You know full well you are inciting.

If you think homosexuals should be excluded from raising children (I'm sorry if that's not what you meant) there is already a huge gulf between us. I don't have that rigid a view of what a family is.

#16 Posted by: James at February 25, 2004 03:17 PM

Also, calvin, I don't know what you're claiming with your reference to XXS, but I think you may be confused. Julie is a real person who posted a real comment.

#17 Posted by: James at February 25, 2004 03:34 PM

I don't know what he's talking about... maybe it's like those black helicopters. I only posted one comment (well technically this makes it two). Perhaps my evil twin posted an imaginary comment that only very special people can see.

#18 Posted by: julie at February 25, 2004 04:56 PM

The amount of hate evident in the anti "gay marriage" comments here is sad but not surprising. Those who trumpet their religious values the loudest are usually the ones who have forgotten the fundamental tolerance principles of their faith.

#19 Posted by: Mike at February 25, 2004 05:48 PM

Wow how do I become one of the "protected classes"?

Maybe if I beat myself over the head with a ball pean hammer enough times I could qualify to become one of the mentally challenged "class" of people and could get free gay marriages and cheeze.

After all shouldn't every marriage be a gay occasion? It just brings a tear to my eye.

Women in w3dding gowns and combat boots turn me on.

And what about hermaphrodites? I guess they're free to marry any sex they want. interesting...

The whole issue is crap because the entire institution of marriage is a dismal failure in the eyes of the law, god, and anyone with eyes and ears.

There are no real legal or financial benefits in marriage either.

Marriage is simply a legally binding contract. Which states two parters will remain monogamous. As well as joint ownership of all possessions.

Marriage in today's world is simply not valid in the eyes of the populous. Both sides are wrong.

And never forget:
The No. 1 cause of divorce in the world is marriage.


#20 Posted by: __rich__ at February 25, 2004 06:59 PM

Cool -- a guy with underscores in his name who can see through the eyes of god!

No benefits to marriage, eh?

I hope the ball "pean" hammer was good for you.

#21 Posted by: James at February 25, 2004 07:54 PM

And so it goes.

>Your Dogma Fails to Obtain

Then it fails nearly as spectacularly as your own dogma.

> Noone is stampeding over equal rights in
> this scenario, the argument centers
> around the use of a word, 'marriage'.

Of course it is an equal rights issue. If the shoe was on the other foot you would be hopping mad and screaming about equal rights. If the government told you you could not marry the woman you loved, how would you feel? Not an equal rights issue? Get real.

> The bottom line is that the gay
> community wants marriage and will
> do little to stop it, including
> leveraging their current successes
> in society, flamboyance, and trying
> to be generally 'fucking gay' by
> violating the 'categorical imperative'
> in the most passive agressive of ways.

Wow, that paragraph drips with so much homophobia and hatred that it is practically toxic to rational thought. Think we'll skip this one except to say, I know many gay people, and none of them have ever struck me as "flamboyant" or "fucking gay". Continue to generalize though, it only damages your position further.

> It is about imposing your beliefs
> on another set of people

Did I or did I not say that nobody is denying you your right to (a) disapprove of homosexuality or to (b) disapprove of gay marriage? Nobody is *imposing* their beliefs on you. It is YOU sir, by wishing to deny a loving couple the right to marry, who are pushing your beliefs on others. It has no effect on you whatsoever if two gay people marry, but it has great effect on two people to deny them the right to marry based on your personal beliefs. Who's pushing what on whom?

If you're such a champion of marriage, why don't you instead work to make yours the most perfect marriage you can and teach by example instead of by oppression?

> it is not about insurance rights,
> 'marital status', etc. Let's get
> that out of the way to start-- a
> civil union would cover all of that

No, I'm not going to let you weasel your way out of that statement. There's no such thing as "separate but equal"--history has demonstrated that quite clearly. You can't give gays "civil union licenses" and heteros "marriage licenses". God does not take dictation from government. Legal marriage is not religiously binding so there is simply no reason to make such a distinction.

Creating a new legal concept will inevitably result in court cases that pit marriage versus civil unions because of laws that were 'accidentally' overlooked when adding the words "or civil union" after the word "marriage" in every law on the books.

Civil Unions do nothing but create a second class relationship, and open the door to future discrimination. Rolling gay unions into marriage as one concept will make it harder to discriminate against it in the future.

> and I, personally, think that all
> LEGAL MARRIAGES should hereto be
> deemed 'civil unions' as opposed
> to 'marriages' to clean up this
> nasty hack once and for all, not
> encroach upon longstanding
> religious rites by codifying
> anything about marriage

I would tend to agree with you, government should not be in the business of marriage. If you want to enter into our recognized civil contract, you go to town hall. If you want to be "married" you go to church.

The problem with this solution is that it is legally even more complicated than civil unions for gays only, and no doubt hordes of people will object to the government "downgrading" their marriage to a civil union in the eyes of the courts. It isn't going to fly.

> especially not an exclusionary
> Constitutional Amendment--how
> fascist can you get?

No argument here, the amendment idea is a bonehead play any way you slice it, but Bush has to do it because he relies on people who think that he really is a devout Christian man to keep him in power.

> You try to come by on the most
> specious of all arguments--love.
> Marriage isn't about love, it's
> about promoting the most basic
> of social structures, the family.

Yeah sorry, you lose. Marriage isn't about love. That's a good one.

Marriage doesn't start because you want some girl to make babies for you. It is a union into which we enter because of love. That love can lead to family, but it does not need to. I know many happy marriages that produce no children. Personally I can't imagine not having children, but I don't judge others for their choices in life.

Wild animals can have families without love or marriage. Let's not try to separate love from marriage. An unloving marriage is a disaster waiting to happen, particularly if it results in children.

> I don't think anyone truly
> doubts the 'love' behind a
> homosexual relationship.

You'd be surprised at the bile I've heard people use to describe homosexual relationships. Many people believe them to be relationships formed entirely around sex. Homosexuality isn't about the sex act. You can be gay and leading a hetero lifestyle. Many are.

> Many are productive and longstanding.
> Deviance is good for society as it
> promotes change,

Such as gay marriage, for example.

> but we must note the most basic
> social units (see Durkheim).

First of all, if you're going to recommend reading the writings of Emile Durkheim, it is poor form not to provide a link so that others can learn more about him.

http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/sociosite/topics/texts/durkheim.pdf

http://www.bookchecker.com/076191207X

And secondly, Emile didn't live in an age when gay people were fighting for the right to marry so we can only speculate as to what his opinion might be. It is fair to say that he was very much the product of the age in which he lived. His "conjugal family" and the "paternal family" might as well both be called "paternal family" given the roles he sets aside for females in his particular concept of how families in late 19'th century France should work.

Even if you take note of the family as the basic social structure, that's neither here nor there with respect to gay marriage. Not all marriages are about, or produce, families. That is a simple fact that has been accepted by our society for decades now.

> As for religion... what's there
> to say. Believe what you wish.
> Each church and creed is
> autonomous. Well gay marriage
> has never been accepted.

And prior to 50 years ago interracial marriage was not accepted. There was a time when a Lutheran couldn't marry a Catholic unless one of them converted. Not anymore. Big deal. Arguing that something should not be allowed simply because it has never been allowed is silly. That's a non-argument.

> As for 'Christ', don't be so damned
> presumptuous, Christians are by NO
> MEANS the only religion against
> this monstrosity.

Spare me your indignation. The religious right in this country is essentially the "Christian Right". Though there may be other people of other religions who are against gay marriage, the bulk of those who oppose it here in the USA are Christian.

It is interesting however, that you choose to say "Christians are not the only *religion* opposed". As I said before the item on the table is legal marriage, not religious marriage. *Religion* therefore doesn't have a lot of bearing on the concept. No gay couples are marching into churches and demanding to be married.

> Reproduction: are you just trying
> to make nonsensical arguments?

There was nothing nonsensical about the argument. I'm not the one who called gay marriage "an attack on reproduction". If you're looking for nonsense, that was it, I have merely exposed it.

> However, homosexuality DOES prohibit
> having children naturally: and maybe
> Bush should just be smart and codify
> into law that homosexuals cannot
> adopt or raise children under any
> circumstances.

Why? What's wrong with gay couples raising kids? Sounds like either ignorance or eugenics to me.

> It's not about the act, it's about
> the fact. Homosexuality is biologically
> improper.

Even if you are 100% correct. So what? So are pierced ears, tattoos, IUD's, and artificial limbs. Biological properness is hardly sole criteria for forming legislation.

> HUMAN BEINGS ARE SEXUAL
> ORGANISMS. TO FAIL TO RECOGNISE AND
> SERVE YOUR MOST BASIC ROLE IS A SIGN
> OF INSANITY, or being out of touch
> with reality.

There is more than enough evidence at this point to indicate that Homosexuality is neither a choice nor a mental disorder. The fact that it continues to occur naturally is a good indicator that it is not harmful, if it were, natural selection would have eliminated it.

If nature had a hand in making you attracted to people of the same sex, it seems a little silly to force yourself to procreate and create a family where one parent is unhappy and ultimately leaves the family. If we're going to make families, let's not make broken ones.

I think there are many heteros out there who *chose* not to have children for their own personal reasons, who would take issue with your characterization of their relationship as "insane" or "out of touch with reality". To blithely go through life popping out babies as if the human population can just grow forever is sounds far more out of touch with reality than making a concious decision not to procreate or to curtail one's procreation. My wife and I chose to have ONE child because when the both of us die we will have replaced 2 humans with 1. Step in the right direction if you ask me.

> I agree, there are homosexuals in many
> species, but usually that means they
> participate in homosexual acts, not
> that they pursue a homosexual
> lifestyle apart from the community.

No, I am not referring to strictly homosexual acts among other species, I specifically mentioned *long-term same-sex pair bonds*. And BTW, animals in same-sex pair bonds do not pursue their lifestyle "apart from the community" because the community doesn't try to impose its sexuality on them. I suggest you read "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity", by Bruce Bagemihl (link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/031225377X/qid=1077749271//ref=pd_ka_1/102-7375536-0403311?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), instead of ruling on its contents based on one salon review, the book does indeed document long-term same-sex pair bonding in animals.

> If you want positive change, stop
> being so goddamned inflammatory,

Oh you mean, like referring to the gay community as being "flamboyant" and "fucking gay"? You're no better than I am, so why don't we dispense with the high horse speech, hmm?

> using ubsubstansive arguments,

My arguments are quite logical and are based on a lifetime of observation and analysis. I didn't arrive at them through willy nilly impulsiveness and I'm not parroting the nearest talking head.

> and account for what you're saying (like
> comparing your woes to African Americans,
> Jews, etc).

I already discussed protected classes. You can choose to continue to place sexual preference on a level below race, but the US government doesn't agree with you.

I *am* accounting for what I say.

> And account for biological truth.

Already have. You can continue to inject your personal philosophy (we are biologically designed to reproduce, and therefore it is wrong to engage in relationships that do not reproduce), but that is still YOUR PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY. Nature doesn't philosophize, and she would appreciate it if you would stop trying to make her the ally of your philosophy.

> Agreed. But we are talking about SEXUAL
> DEVIANTS,

No, sexual deviant is YOUR characterization of a homosexual relationship.

> and we live in a democracy. If Bush
> were smart he'd put this one to
> national referendum and call it a
> fight.

Discrimination is discrimination. And discriminatory law gets overturned. Try to squash gay marriage today and it will be back tomorrow.

I submit to you that the writing is on the wall and gay marriage WILL be a reality in this country. The changing attitudes of the average american makes this clear.

> When Philosophy and Ethics interfere
> with primary biology, we are all in
> trouble.

There you go again. (A) Gay people are not more likely to make babies if you deny them marriage and (B) hetero people won't suddenly turn gay if gay marriage becomes legal. There simply is no reproductive interference here as I already demonstrated.

Furthermore, primary biology continues to create homosexual organisms. They must serve *SOME* purpose. In many biological systems there are individuals who do not reproduce and serve other purposes for the betterment of the species.

> Finally, sorry if I'm inciting flame.

You definitely are inciting flame, but whatever.

> It's just one thing: homosexuality
> represents a psychological disorder

The American Psychological Association disagrees with you. From "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality" (link: http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html):

Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information. In the past the studies of gay, lesbian and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.

> (with possibly genetic causation,
> yes yes) whose primary psychoses is
> a misinterpretation of the
> fundamental role of animal existence,
> sexual reproduction. All attempts to
> counter this argument are inherently
> specious, so let's get real.

Oh really? Let me paraphrase "Here's my position X, *any* argument against X is inherently specious." If you aren't prepared to open your mind and are going to dismiss arguments before you even hear them, why don't you do us a favor and shut up and go away? If you're just here to hear yourself talk, get your own blog, and post your not-open-to-discussion ideas there.

I already told you that there are analogues in nature for organisms which in some way benefit the species, even though they themselves do not procreate. It is only your close-mindedness that refuses to consider such obvious examples as say, worker bees. Nature knows her job better than you do.

> I'm aware of this...maybe a closer
> inspection would help. I think that if
> any exclusionary law should be put into
> act with respect to homosexual unions, it
> should certainly prohibit all efforts on
> the part of homosexuals to raise children,
> that's all.

From "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality" (link: http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html):

Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?

Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children's.

Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children.

Guess the APA must be a bunch of biased fags. Fuck science anyway. Science is biologically improper. ;-) (That was sarcasm, don't get your knickers in a knot over that one.)

> Wow how do I become one of the
> "protected classes"?

You're covered, __Rich__, as I said, the mentally ill are a protected class. Just kidding...

BTW if marriage is already such a dismal failure, then there is little reason not to grant the right to it to gay people.

But then, I don't agree with you at all. Marriage is alive and well. It's just changing. And some people fear change.

#22 Posted by: Chuck S. at February 25, 2004 08:17 PM

The Gator Gay-Straight Alliance created this list for a Valentine's Day project. We are happily tracing it all over the internet. Please link directly to our site at www.GatorGSA.org/gaymarriage.html Thanks for spreading the word! :)

#23 Posted by: Gator Gay-Straight Alliance at February 25, 2004 09:21 PM

Christian clergy have been marrying gay couples for some time now. There is certainly no single viewpoint on this topic that is universally recognized as Christian.

One scholarly interpretation of the marriage sacrament (which I was told by an Episcopal minister) is that marriage has nothing to do with the church or god; it is a promise between two people.

The Christian religion is open to interpretation and has changed over time with society. It will continue to change. I believe that gay marriages will be commonplace in Christian churches in the future. This will probably follow law, but in some places it has already preceded it.

#24 Posted by: Maggie at February 25, 2004 09:43 PM

how many of the gay males here have anal sex? do you really think its normal to stick your genitals up another male's anus(where his fecies are expelled)? ...yeah...that's definitely natural... and you think you're going to be taken seriously when you ask for marriage and to adopt children? give me a break!

#25 Posted by: alison at February 25, 2004 09:56 PM

> how many of the gay males here have anal sex?
> do you really think its normal to stick your
> genitals up another male's anus (where his
> fecies are expelled)? ...yeah...that's
> definitely natural...

When you're done acting like a presumptive ass, may I point out that I know personally most of the people who have posted here, and none of them are gay to my knowledge.

Furthermore anal sex is not an inherently gay act. Many hetero couples include anal sex in their repetoire of bedroom antics.

Is cunnilingus natural? Is fellatio natural? Is hugging natural? Is kissing natural? These are all practices that both homosexuals and heterosexuals practice.

My understanding is that not all male-male relationships include anal sex, BTW.

> and you think you're going to be
> taken seriously when you ask for
> marriage and to adopt children?
> give me a break!

I'm about as hetero as they come. To me the concept of sex between two men is repugnant. That's okay, because I'm not a gay man. Despite this *I* take gay people seriously. This is because I recognize the difference between making choices for myself and making choices for others. Apart from being ignorant, what's your problem?

#26 Posted by: Chuck S. at February 25, 2004 10:06 PM

You're completely right, Alison... some people do not deserve to be taken seriously! Thanks for the anatomy and biology lessons, though, you clever girl!

#27 Posted by: Maggie at February 25, 2004 10:21 PM

Reading this entertaining and informative argument has been like watching someone take a knife to a gun fight. Have we set a record for comments yet?

Could the anger over the gay marriage issue be partly due to the fear that once homosexual couples force the courts to legalize marriage the churches will be next? Do most people simply not realize that only the civil type of marriage is up for debate here?

#28 Posted by: Mike at February 25, 2004 11:43 PM

My point all along continues to be that religion, procreation, concerns of parentage, and a whole host of other arguments are in fact a smokescreen to cover up the fact that fighting against gay marriage, gay unions, or gay rights really boils down to fear and hatred that spring from a personal distaste over the gay sex act itself.

Allison proved my point nicely. Thanks Al.

#29 Posted by: Chuck S. at February 26, 2004 12:08 AM

your no.3 is quite out of hand, i believe if you are gay and you rise up your children in a positive way and explain everything to them, they will grow up knowing what is wrong and right and they themselves will be the ones to choose if to be gay or not. actually it really depends not all children grow up to be like their parents unless it is forced on them.

#30 Posted by: angelique. at February 26, 2004 01:53 AM

i agree with everything but more so with no 9. gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy things, next thing you know dads will be wanting to marry sons, and mothers marry daughters. Sister marry sisters and so on. This would bring mass mayhem and problems to the US society and would do no one any good

#31 Posted by: Dee at February 26, 2004 02:16 AM

> your no.3 is quite out of hand,
> i believe if you are gay...

It's sarcasm, angelique. The point is that the sexual preference of parents does not dictate the sexual preference of children. All gay people obviously are the product of a hetersexual union, which is why #3 is so outrageous. They're all deliberately outrageous so as to point out the folly of typical arguments against gay marriage, such as for example "gay parents raise gay kids".

> i agree with everything but more so with
> no 9. gay marriage will open the door to
> all kinds of crazy things, next thing
> you know dads will be wanting to marry
> sons, and mothers marry daughters.
> Sister marry sisters and so on.

It's sarcasm, Dee. Dogs can't possibly marry people since dogs have no legal standing and can't sign a marriage license. That's why the argument is sarcastic. It avoids the whole slippery slope argument though, which you have managed to create in it's entirety despite the fact that it was shot down earlier. Scroll up and read "STUPID ARGUMENT #3" under "OTHER STUPID ARGUMENTS".

Slippery slope arguments are fallacious. They raise ridiculous extremes so as to incite fear in the listener, and cause the listener to agree out of fear rather than agree/disagree out of reason.

Hmm... two nearly identical we-don't-see-the-sarcasm posts from people who have almost exactly the same speech mannerisms ("no" for number, don't capitalize I, etc.) within 20 minutes of each other. IP Check?

#32 Posted by: Chuck S. at February 26, 2004 08:37 AM

Different IP addresses.

#33 Posted by: JP at February 26, 2004 09:16 AM

Nearly all of the arguments people level against gay marriage and homosexuality rely on words which seem to be neutral or objective, but actually express value judgements.

For example, someone here said that "homosexuality is biologically improper". Of course, any biologist will tell you that a biological phenomenon cannot be improper in any meaningful sense, because it presumes a "proper" (correct) goal, objective or agenda. What the poster actually meant to assert was something like "I think people were designed for some purpose, and a) we must fulfill that purpose, b) and only that purpose, and c) homosexuality precludes doing so." The trouble is, when you say this explicitly rather than disguising it, it sounds silly and irrational. (I think it is silly and irrational).

The sad thing is that I think this poster, and indeed most of the people who are on the Bush side of this debate, have little clue that they are being dishonest not only with others, but with themselves.

If you want to ban gay marriage because you find it offensive, say so. Once you do, you will have to ask yourself if you have the right to force other people into action or inaction because you find it offensive. If you think you do have that right, fine; but say so. (Once you do, you will have to ask yourself if you would like others to be able to force YOU into action or inaction because they find something offensive.)

The biggest problem with this sort of debate, IMO, is that no one really says what they mean. Instead we have to dance around each other, and say everything we mean in some oblique fashion, constantly coding and decoding other people's signals. It's not that I don't think must people CAN'T decode these covert signals; it's just that it makes things so much harder than they have to be.

#34 Posted by: Frank A. at February 26, 2004 09:25 AM

A few more thoughts.

Many people, including Bush, are trying to frame this debate as a "defense of marriage". Implicit in this language is the fact that they regard marriage as an institution whose value derives from the fact that EVERYONE participate in it in a certain way, where by "participation" I mean not actually getting married, but also observing/celebrating/recognizing others getting married. Conversely, they must ackowledge that its value also derives from certain people not being able to marry.

A question to ask, then, is whether such a value system is compatible with a free, democratic society. If I choose to place value in an institution which requires other people participate or observe it in a certain way, then I am reducing their freedom. If this is acceptable to me, then, by symmetry, I must also ask myself whether I am willing to reduce my own freedom for the sake of other people's value systems. (If you reject the symmetry argument here, then you must argue that you are privileged in some fashion and that, hence, your society is not really democratic.)

#35 Posted by: Frank A. at February 26, 2004 09:43 AM

I don't think that anyone is going to change the mind of someone who is full of hatred. But I thought that perhaps I could shed light on some of the civil union accusations.

I'm a lesbian and until recently I figured I'd be just as happy (if not happier) with a civil union over a marriage. The problem is that even if a civil union has the same rights as marriage, it is not the same. It will not be recognized in other countries (whereas if marriage were simply broadened, other countries would have to introduce special laws to preclude _certain_ marriages) and may be revoked whenever government changes its mind.

As many people have said during this debate .. separate is never equal. When black children were sent to different schools to white children in Apartheid South Africa, are you really telling me that they received an equal standard of education? You're kidding yourself. I was there. White children received facilities, decent teachers and had class sizes of around 25. Black children were not taught anything past basic arithmetic, had no facilities (and often not even any school buildings) and on average had class sizes of 80.

Separate is not equal. It's just an excuse to discriminate in a slightly more PC way. If anything, perhaps heterosexual religious unions should be sidelined, so they can stay "pure" without being "tainted" by governments giving all their people equal rights to live, love and raise children (or not, if they so choose). Then we can see whether people think the right to marriage is an equality issue.

#36 Posted by: Meri at February 26, 2004 10:18 AM

The way things are going, we'll probably end up with civil unions for gay people until people realize separate doesn't work. It seems as though these things often go through failed half-attempts until enough of the ignorance and hatrad fade away.

#37 Posted by: James at February 26, 2004 10:45 AM

I know Christianity isn't the only religion that is reputedly (according to Bush's people and those who think like them) opposed to gay marriage. In fact, according to Bush's people, ALL religions are opposed to gay marriage.

This just isn't true. The Unitarian Universalist church has been marrying same-sex couples for years. And the US's highest-ranking Buddhist Lama (dubbed as the "Western Lama" by the Dalai Lama) explicitly says that his religion does not oppose same-sex marriage:

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/document.asp?doc_id=1186

Of course, since the Constitution already has a clearly worded statement about the separation of church and state, the religious argument is irrelevant. There are many religions throughout the US, some of them opposed to gay marriage, others neutral towards it, some vocally in favor.

If you believe that your opinion should carry more weight that someone else's based on your religion, you're also contradicting the Declaration of Independence.

(I'm glad the Republicans are the "patriotic" party. Maybe they should reread the historical documents.)

Of course, you may be one of the people who believes that there is only one true religion that everyone should be forced to adopt. But if that's where you're coming from, you should probably focus on that and drop the gay marriage issue because you're going to be in for a long haul.

#38 Posted by: julie at February 26, 2004 12:30 PM

I personaly think your top 10 reasons against gay marriage was infactual loads of crap and even homosexuals should be brought down to the level in which you humiliate them.If your going to badmouth a sexual preference you should have enough nerve to give factual information.Im sure many people thought your crap funny but they are as immature as they are and putting false information on the internet isnt helping your cause against the homosexual preference.

#39 Posted by: lizard at February 26, 2004 02:20 PM

If I plan to badmouth a sexual preference in the future, I'll keep your suggestions in mind.

However, I am currently posting a humorous list that is sarcastically pro-gay marriage rights. Not everyone gets the joke, but "a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract" should tip most people off.

Read it again more carefully and you might enjoy it.

#40 Posted by: James at February 26, 2004 02:44 PM

There must be a minimum age requirement for understanding sarcasm.

#41 Posted by: Mike at February 26, 2004 02:47 PM

Hi lizard! Check this out.

#42 Posted by: Chuck S. at February 26, 2004 02:51 PM

This article was obviously written by a very ignorant and discrimative man. I am heterosexual who is for gay marriage. All these people are doing is trying to be recognized. Homosexuality has been going on for centuries,(obviously you know nothing of history), and we have finally come to a day where racism and prejudice have been dealt with (in a sense), and If we have accepted the fact that homosexuality is a reality, so I just dont see anything wrong with gay couples , who some have been together for years, to be able to have the same rights as any other couple. This will not promote or influence people to "Become gay", it will simply promote acceptance. you are a very ignorant person.

#43 Posted by: Samantha at February 26, 2004 03:11 PM

I realized that the original version used "bold" creatively to drive home the point. It should beobvious to anyone who stops to read the piece, but I've added bold highlights to assist people who aren't paying close attention.

#44 Posted by: James at February 26, 2004 03:11 PM

> This article was obviously written by a
> very ignorant and discrimative man.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

The "12 Reasons Against Gay Marriage" is actually FOR gay marriage. It uses satire to demonstrate how silly many of the arguments against gay marriage are.

> you are a very ignorant person.

James is neither ignorant nor discriminatory. You just didn't understand the article. But that's okay, we all make mistakes.

#45 Posted by: Chuck S. at February 26, 2004 03:56 PM

I think it's really interesting that so many people aren't understanding that this is satire, and was actually created by a straight-gay alliance.

Some points of view are so absurd that they're difficult to satirize. I think the anti-gay-marriage arguments may fall into this category, especially since so many people are taking the heavily sarcastic "reasons" as reality. They're much too close to statements they've heard before.

Of course, then, some people might read the posts ahead of theirs, and then some people wouldn't be making idiots of themselves by posting.

#46 Posted by: Maggie at February 26, 2004 04:03 PM

This is how the authors describe themselves:
"The Gator Gay-Straight Alliance sprang into being in Fall 2000. The Alliance's purpose is to end homophobia (and indeed all forms of discrimination)."

I'm sorry that some of the people who would agree with the sentiment are too lazy to read before posting.

They're not leaving valid email addresses, so I cannot clue them in.

#47 Posted by: James at February 26, 2004 04:16 PM

Wow I miss one day of reading your blog and look at what I miss. 46 comments and counting (and even Maggie has joined the fray- wow!). I actually have nothing to add because everyone reading and posting about this has obviously made up their mind. I have my opinion (the right one by the way, I'm always right ask around) and nothing you can say will change it. I assume your deeply held religous beliefs will prevent you from even listening to my point of view so I'm not going to waste my breath. So you can all stop now and go watch a Mel Gibson movie (I think I'll rent Mad Max haven't seen that in a while and it's been about 10 years since he's done anything worthwhile right?)

#48 Posted by: B.O.B. (bob) at February 26, 2004 04:23 PM

Oh yeah, and if you read that list and think it's serious and anti-gay you are a complete moron (One more post and were at 50 come one guys you can do it).

#49 Posted by: B.O.B. (bob) at February 26, 2004 04:26 PM

Bob played the moron card!

#50 Posted by: James at February 26, 2004 04:38 PM