I’m Going There

Gay marriage is all the rage right now with the recent decision by the California Supreme Court.  Their decision in favor of gay marriage makes California only the second state, behind Massatoocies, to legalize gay marriage.  The decision maybe moot if a constitutional amendment on the CA ballot passes in November.  That’s the way it should be. 

The people, not the courts should be arbiters of the issue.  But given the fact that CA had nothing in their state Constitution forbidding gay marriage, I can understand their decision.  Now it’s up to the citizens of California to decide if they want to allow two dudes to wed.  That’s how the democratic process works.

Nevertheless, on a macro level, I will argue that two guys or gals getting married is not a devastating act that will destroy the nation.  Anna Quindlen had a great article in Newsweek to that extent.

In the wake of the court’s decision, those folks vowed to find a way to protect the sanctity of hetero marriage, that time-honored staple of sitcom mockery and savage custody fights. Polls showing opposition to gay marriage were proffered to prove that the court had overstepped its bounds, ignoring the fact that the most sacred business of judges is not to ratify the will of the majority but to protect the minority from its tyranny.

It is true that the California Supreme Court is something of a Scandinavia of jurisprudence, willing to get out front on social issues. But it’s not really courts and legislatures that will settle this issue. It’s the neighbors, friends and family members who have come out and made the political personal—and lovable. Jennifer? Smart, funny Jennifer? Of course she should be able to marry Anne. They’re perfect together.

Amen.  People and changing attitudes will decide.  I’m willing, as a gay man, to allow this one to go straight to the people.  It might not happen as soon as I would like.  It might not happen in the way that I prefer, but it will happen in a democratic manner.  I have my rights.  I am an American citizen.  Those rights are stated in the Constitution.  Blacks were denied those basic rights.  That was corrected with the Civil Rights Act.  I have been fortunate to never know that level of discrimination.  But there is more to do.

Gay men and lesbians have prospered because they’ve refused to acquiesce to the notion that they should hide their lives from public view. Two by two they’ve adopted children, bought homes, volunteered in their communities and slogged through life together just the way hetero couples do, except without preferential tax codes, inheritance rights and the automatic assumption that they can make decisions for one another in emergency situations. Too often, without legal protection, they have found themselves dependent on the kindness of those who were not kind, like the man in Indiana who became severely disabled and whose parents prohibited his partner of 25 years from visiting him in their home.

Marriage should be decided by the people on the state level.  That’s the way this nation works )in theory).  Changing attitudes will eventually prevail.  Straight folks are beginning to realize that gays geting married is not a threat.  In fact, a recent poll showed that a majority of people in California were ok with the concept of gay marriage.  The fact is, we’re just like anyone else.  We live, we love.  We are your neighbors, teachers, lawyers, public servants.  Some of us just want the right to marry.

Here’s what I don’t understand: is there so much love and commitment in the world that we can afford, as a society, to be contemptuous of some portion of it? If two women in white want to join hands in front of their families and friends and vow to love and honor one another until they die, the only reasonable response to that is happy tears, awed admiration and societal approval. And—this part is just personal opinion—one of those big honking KitchenAid mixers with the dough hook.

Before we know it that will be the response everywhere, not just in Denmark and the Netherlands and Canada and California: approval, appliances. The polls predict the future. The younger you are, the more likely you are to know someone who is gay. The more likely you are to know someone who is gay, the more likely you are to support gay marriage. The opposition is aging out.

Someday soon the fracas surrounding all this will seem like a historical artifact, like the notion that women were once prohibited from voting and a black individual from marrying a white one. Our children will attend the marriages of their friends, will chatter about whether they will last, will whisper to one another, “Love him, don’t like him so much.” The California Supreme Court called gay marriage a “basic civil right.” In hindsight, it will merely be called ordinary life.

I think things are going that way.  That’s my hope and my dream. 

 

 

Advertisements

57 thoughts on “I’m Going There

  1. I don’t think marriage should be the purview of the government PERIOD. That’s a church thing. I don’t think the government should be involved with anything more than a civil partnership arrangements for tax/inheritance purposes.

    And I do think this will change in the next 25-30 years all over the US. Most people my age and younger just don’t care about someone’s sexual orientation. There will always be someone making a stink about it, but there will always be people who go too far in the other direction, too – you know, out on Folsom St. in San Francisco.

    All gays can’t be judged by the San Francisco faction any more than all straights can be judged by Westboro Baptist.

    The nice thing is, as you stated so well, things have been changing two by two as babies are adopted and people are a part of their communities. Suddenly, it’s not an aberration, it’s just “Rick and Joe, the couple next door.” Which is in the end, I think, the only way things truly change – when it becomes “normal” and not something weird on tv.

    On a semi-related topic – I do think that DADT will be changing in the very near future, too. No matter who is elected.

  2. One of the ironies in all this is the turn that the sexual revolution has taken. One of the big “In Your Face” movements in the 60’s and 70’s was the “Free Love” chant. In one kick it was to groin-out the “middle-class-values” of parents paying the rent.
    That is why I expect to see a headline, “Son’s Hubby Dad’s Best Man”, “Parent so impresssed by son’s nesting habits that choose to marry.”
    I’m old fashion, I accept that, but, I’m so simplistic that I recall that people marry, join, form a ‘one’ with, each other. Society, in the vestiges of states and churches aknowledge such for the records. It has been a government or societal matter, for accounting and accountability reasons, going back only a few thousands years.
    I like seeing couples enjoying and celebrating their unions, homosexual or heterosexual. Love is a contagious mood. And I thrive as I witness it.
    Do I see it as a civil rights issue. No, I don’t. Because it isn’t. And I don’t choose to argue the point.
    I guess my cynicism stems from the fact that I encountered discrimination and fought back by working as hard as any other guy in the world. I see a lot of this stemming from a different generation of well employed and richer American homosexuals who need a campaign to earn their “Stonewall Minute”.
    (By the way, I don’t believe in reparations for past slavery either. We’re paying that bill in affirmative, offices of economic opportunity, etc. If Black Americans lost control of those benefits as they were spread out to Chinese, Hispanics, (and other people who came here willingly), spotted owls, etc., that’s when they should have used thier franchise. That’s when Afro-Americans should have raised Hell.)
    But, let’s remember, The Great and General Court of Massachusetts (the legislature), had and has abandoned every opportunity to vote on it or allow a referendum, because the individual solons would never sell it in their home districts. (Constituent funding is miniscule compared to lobbying interests.) So they were happy to let the courts (whose members are not subject to re-election) call the hike, carry the ball and pass over the people. When it was raised again in the forum of solons, they burnt a time out.
    The opposition is not one of…(let’s roll the word out)….homophobia. It’s one where people see it as something like guilding the lilly. They’re tired of it all.
    Frankly, a lot of gays are tired of it too.
    But, we know, if Joe Stalin was running for president with Adolf Hitler as running mate, and they advocated today for same sex marriage or vowed to cancel Defense of Marriage Act by executive order many gays would vote for them.

  3. I like to keep it simple. Nobody asked me to vote on whether or not my neighbors could get married, so I refuse to beg for their permission.

    There are many things we could “put up for a vote” that would have horrific consequences. A simple majority of voters would vote for free babby sitters, free food from their favorite restaurant and a complete redistribution of wealth. And, yes, I truly believe a popular vote by the good citizens would criminalize homosexuality. Rule by “majority vote” would turn us into a Third-World Country over night.

  4. Is it so much the *marriage* that gays want, or the *rights* that come with being married that gays want?

    I am all in favor of them getting to make the decisions that married people make, getting to claim SS, getting to be involved in major decisions such as surgeries etc. I’m not sure I want to call it *marriage* but I’m totally ok with you *guys* (no pun intended! 😀 ) getting the same benefits as a hetero couple.

    And if Steve or Phil would answer the above posed questions it might enlighten me further.

    I also tend to agree with AFW- we are less concerned about sexual preference than earlier generations.

  5. Jenn –

    For myself, I would be happy with the benefits. But you know, I always do try and keep personal opinion out.

    I think Phil is smart by sticking to the process of obtaining rights as opposed to his personal desire (or lack thereof) of gays being allowed to “marry.”

    Some gays (like Ellen) keep mentioning that the word “marriage” is important. They don’t want “civil unions” and makes them feel like outcasts.

    End of the day, I say life is not “simon says!”

    If you pay attention to politics, candidates, talk show hosts, pundits, etc., you notice that the “words” are so thrived upon. How did he mean it? What was the context? Etc.

    I don’t care how people word things. I’m too low maintenance for that. I know who I am and if I ever have a relationship again someday, I will be happy and content on my own and because of who I am with. Not because of a two syllable word that rhymes with carriage.

  6. And as long as I have water to drink, it doesn’t bother me that the fountain is separate from the heteros’ fountain, nor that our fountain is actually a rubber hose hooked up to a spigot in the back lot behind the store … I mean, it’s the water that’s important — well, that and maintaining the straight world’s illusion that they are entitled while the gays have to earn it.

    Guys, y’all know that I’m a conservative fellow, but my pet peeve is straights who consider themselves entitled to special privileges. In my book, conservatism does not pre-suppose the superiority of heteros. And, yes, calling your relationship “marriage” is a privilege. Words matter, particularly in the development of our culture and the effect of our culture on the youth, both gay and straight.

  7. Sorry guys. I’ve been swamped and bad about commenting on my own post.

    I tried to be very meticulous about my wording of the post. The main reason is that I am not 100% sure that I have taken this issue and wrapped my hands around it completely. I am fully willing to admit that this is an issue where I am still growing. Many conservative observers complain that liberalism is all emotion and no reasoning. But this issue is rife with emotion.

    I consider myself somewhere between Mike and Steve/Jennifer. I certainly want to be able to obtain all the rights afforded to married couples if I so choose. But I also tend to wonder what the big problem is with using the word “marriage.”

    If a priest, preacher, rabbi wants to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay or lesbian couple, what’s the big deal? The outright resistance by so many people to allow us to use that word bothers me. It reeks of discrimination in my book. If it’s just a “word,” then why can’t I use it too?

    On the other hand, I’m a little wary of how to approach it politically. I tend to believe it is an issue that is the purview of each respective state. I can see where Mike objects to allowing people to vote on it. But I also tend to wonder if forcing it on people by legislation or judicial decree is counterproductive at this moment in history.

    The fact is – this is an issue that will become clearer in the next few decades with the passing generations. For now, I think it is worthy of discussion and a lot of soul-searching for people on all sides of the debate.

  8. Anna Quindlen wrote:

    “Polls showing opposition to gay marriage were proffered to prove that the court had overstepped its bounds, ignoring the fact that the most sacred business of judges is NOT TO RATIFY THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY BUT TO PROTECT THE MINORITY FROM ITS TYRANNY.”

    Really?

    Well, among the great traits of this country is the ability to find information in an instant. I decided that I would turn to the United States Constitution to find where it states the role of judges.

    Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state the role of judges being to protect the minority from tyranny. Nowhere!

    One thing I can’t stand about this issue is the consistent lies from the gay community about what the role of government is in order to further the gay marriage issue. I think that is one reason why people are offended by the idea of gay marriage.

    You know, I am against gay marriage because I do believe it could be a road that we wish we hadn’t gone down (i.e., look at Europe). The western European countries that devalue the importance of family, I believe, are usually devaluing the importance of children. Usually, I hear the old ‘overpopulation’ excuses for putting down marriage and pro-creation. I think the government recognizing and promoting the idea that there is no difference between a man/woman marriage and a man/man or woman/woman relationship. We know, as a fact, there are difference in gender. The government promoting that fact as not factual is wrong.

    That leads me to a final point and questions.

    I always hear complaints about ‘breeders’ (very prevalent in the gay community), turning straight men gay, and just about every other vile thing you could say about a MAJORITY group.
    My question is based on a philosophical point, not my point of being against gay marriage:

    If the gay community insists on insulting heterosexual marriage, why is it that you want to be a part of something bad?

    Are you so superior in thinking that you could make things better?

    I agree with Philip on one point: This is a states’ issue, not a judicial ruling.

  9. I admit it. I am a Conservative Evangelical Christian that will refuse to recognize gay marriage, no matter a court’s ruling. Though I don’t intend that as hostile, nor will it have a direct bearing on any ‘married’ gay couple’s choices, it is a simple fact that the basic tenets of Christianity are clear in that marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

    See, I think the entire premise of gay marriage is false. Is it the state that ordains marriage as holy? Or is it God that specifies as such?

    If it is the state, then by all means I think anybody should be able to marry whomever they wish. If they’re consenting adults, polygamists included. It is moot point.

    But if it is an Almighty God, obviously manifested thru basic design of anatomy and procreation, then I refuse to accept the premise of gay marriage as equivalent.

    I have no desire to interfere with two consenting adult’s lives and believe in their right to something loosely defined as domestic intent – except calling themselves ‘married.’ But to ask me to consider it just another form of matrimony. Consider me unenlightened. Not going to happen.

  10. As someone who lives in CA, I’ll say this. I abhor the Referendum and Initiative (R & I) process. It’s garbage. The states that don’t have it should count their blessings.

    But, since we have R & I in this state, all issues are fair game. I’d love to see R & I tossed on the ash heap of CA history. But that day isn’t coming any day soon. Until then, bring it all on and let the people decide.

  11. “If the gay community insists on insulting heterosexual marriage, why is it that you want to be a part of something bad?

    Are you so superior in thinking that you could make things better?”

    I want the same opportunties everyone else has.

    I don’t want to legally marry any man. But it would be equal to have the opportunity.

    Remember, it is equal rights not better rights.

  12. JOHN IN CA, sorry, but that is not the argument the gay community uses. They always tout the figure that 50% of marriages end in divorce – untrue, roughly 38% according to the U.S. Census, but the numbers are never exact because death of a spouse before divorce and other variables never get to one exact number.

    Anyway, the gay community has always described the bad things about marriage, yet always seems to want it.

    I don’t and I believe the people of California will ratify that – again!

  13. See, I think the entire premise of gay marriage is false. Is it the state that ordains marriage as holy? Or is it God that specifies as such?

    If it is the state, then by all means I think anybody should be able to marry whomever they wish. If they’re consenting adults, polygamists included. It is moot point.

    But if it is an Almighty God, obviously manifested thru basic design of anatomy and procreation, then I refuse to accept the premise of gay marriage as equivalent.
    Since when does the State render any marriages as being “holy”? Such would be a explicit violation of the First Amendment as this distinction falls under the purview of the Church, not the State. Whether churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. sanctify a marriage or not is up to them, this is about CIVIL marriage which religion has no bearing upon.

    I don’t and I believe the people of California will ratify that – again!

    You may be right about how things will go this November, but recall that it only takes 50.1% of the vote to amend California’s constitution. If te amendment wins this time around, give it a few more years and it will be stricken out. Have you forgotten, Devil Dog, that in the early 1990s when DADT was being debated a majority supported it only to have the public do a complete 180 years later? Time isn’t on your side in this.

  14. John,

    Since when does the State render any marriages as being “holy”? Such would be a explicit violation of the First Amendment as this distinction falls under the purview of the Church, not the State. Whether churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. sanctify a marriage or not is up to them, this is about CIVIL marriage which religion has no bearing upon.

    Then perhaps you can tell me why during the ceremony, the following is generally quoted: “By the power vested in me by the State of ______, I now pronounce you husband and wife.” State fee included, of course.

    Have you forgotten, Devil Dog, that in the early 1990s when DADT was being debated a majority supported it only to have the public do a complete 180 years later? Time isn’t on your side in this.

    Perhaps; but God isn’t on yours.

  15. Then perhaps you can tell me why during the ceremony, the following is generally quoted: “By the power vested in me by the State of ______, I now pronounce you husband and wife.” State fee included, of course.

    Because it is an entirely secular and civil affair. Where exactly do you see in this the State making marriage “holy”?

    Perhaps; but God isn’t on yours.

    You are feel to believe that all you wish, but who cares what you think? You are not God’s spokesman and I reject your attempts to be such.

  16. Btw, let me add that for Catholics at least, and I believe Eastern Orthodox, civil marriages are not recognized as being sacramental. For the former, civil divorce is also not recognized. Religious groups are free to recognize or reject whatever they wish about marriages, as their faith dictates, but not to impose their doctrines on the State and vice versa.

  17. Because it is an entirely secular and civil affair. Where exactly do you see in this the State making marriage “holy”?

    I simply pointing out the obvious that while the words ‘holy matrimony’ are part of the general lexicon of the marriage vows, the state sanctions the marriage as I clearly indicated from above. Your attempt to inject the 1st Amendent quite humorous as the Amendment continues to be ‘stretched’ for other purposes from original intent. I was just waiting for the words (1) wall, (2) separation, (3) church, and (4) state to be paraphrased in there somewhere.

    But if marriage is nothing more than civil and entirely secular affair as you attest, why your worry? Do as you wish…you don’t need my approval, nor anybody else’s permission to do so.

    You are feel to believe that all you wish, but who cares what you think?

    Undoubtedly, you do as my statement invoked a rather snarky response and seemed to indicate you ponder quite a bit about what my type think. Otherwise, you wouldn’t actively seek our approval to recognize the marital equivalence. This is your goal, isn’t it? To change people’s minds and win the majority vote?

    Bottom line is John, your correspondent here thinks you should do as you wish. As I render in to Caeser, I am the first to admit your opinion equally important to mine. It is the secular way.

    However, you are terribly wrong about one statement you made. I never profess to speak for God. I simply parrot was is written. If I misquoted those words, you should be the first to publically admonish me. If I did not, your beef should really be with the One who spoke the words. Remember, I’m just the little messenger boy.

  18. I simply parrot was is written.

    It’s amazing as you try to proofread, what sounds like poetry looks like ebonics after it’s posted.

    I simply parrot what is written…

    Maybe that makes more sense. Sorry, without a preview, I’m not worth a crap.

  19. Wow. This string of comments is getting depressing. Why would God create gays and then green-light institutional discrimination against this portion of His creation? Hummmm, the common replies to this question get to the heart of said discrimination. Straights do not believe homosexuality is a creation, they believe it is a “chosen” sin because to believe otherwise would force them to question the full inspiration of all the letters and histories we currently recognize as The Bible. Yet religious or spiritually minded gays must figure out a way to accept what they know to be true — that they were created gay — and what they want to be true — that God is good and wants a personal relationship with us. Straights are lucky that they do not have to figure out a way to combine the two beliefs; Straights can simply assume all gay people in the world are lying or confused about how they “became” gay. But what one — or the majority — believes does not make it true. I wish the two “sides” would have some empathy for one another; but, as with race, it is nearly impossible to put oneself into the shoes of someone whom we do not truly want to understand.

  20. Mike,

    Wow. This string of comments is getting depressing. Why would God create gays and then green-light institutional discrimination against this portion of His creation?

    If you’ll excuse me for a minute, I have found the gay issue much like the race issue in one way and one way only: it’s one of two topics that very seldom can a civil, true dialogue exist between two opposing parties. It is possible to have empathy and still not agree with another.

    I would like to thank Philip and Steve for having the courage of their convictions and allow me to post what is very likely an opposing viewpoint. So many cowardly people calling themselves bloggers today censor anything not walking the corporate motto, forgetting the original intent of blogging was to facilitate an exchange/discussion of ideas, issues and information. And most times that does require a measure of bravery to allow.

    Addressing your comment, I don’t agree with its premise much like I don’t agree with the proposed reasoning of allowing gay marriage. It is my belief that God neither made you homosexual, nor did He make me worthy to condemn you and therefore discriminate against you.

    Long ago, I hammered members of Christian churches for singling out homosexuality as the ultimate sin; it is not. So much so, that I was uninvited back. I said good riddance.

    Mike, I could call you friend, I could call you neighbor, I could state it is very possible that you’re a a much more loving, better person than me. What I can’t tell is that your mate of the same sex is the equivalent to mine.

    That is not discrimination. That is discernment based upon many things and I will not back off of that belief. It is based upon something much deeper than just an opinion as John above would like to suggest.

    Nonetheless, I hope that I am not party to your depressing thoughts. That is certainly not my intent.

  21. Probably from a Biblical standpoint, I’m going to agree with Tex and Mike. God wants a personal relationship with every person, gay or not.

    I do know that I’d like those that choose to live that way given the same rights.

    I also know that there is something to be said for devaluing heterosexual relationships when it comes to the family. There are, however, plenty of gay couples that have wonderful kids and are doing a great job.

    I myself have gay friends- two just had a civil union. I am happy for them. They both believe that God wants them to have a relationship with Him.

    I don’t know what the answer is. Simply that I don’t have it.

  22. Jennifer – I’m with you. I don’t know what the answer is. I’m probably coming from another perspective. I don’t have the moral objections, but it’s a tricky subject in a democratic-republic like ours.

    And Tex, Steve and I relish dissent and commentary from all points of view. I admire your analysis even if I don’t agree with it. You have been respectful and logical in your comments. Don’t thank us. We are just trying to “parrot” the concepts of our constitution and free speech. To my knowledge, neither Steve nor I have ever censored any comments beyond spam on this site.

    Look folks, I don’t know the answer. I just know that I want to feel free to consumate (spiritually) my union with the person I love most when the time is right. Heterosexuals call it “marriage.” I don’t understand why that is off-limits to me.

    Given the willingness of a majority of Americans to allow civil unions (which afford the same legal rights), I am mystifyed at the resistance to allow gays and lesbians to sanction their unions under the term “marriage.” The semantics leads me to believe that there is a lot more involved in this issue.

    I’m not going to start a rebellion or call for civil disobedience. The purpose of my post was to invoke thoughtful commentary. I have evidently achieved that. And I’m pleased with the tone.

    Thanks to all of you who have offered comment. And, by all means, continue the discussion. It’s not resolved yet.

  23. Philip,

    I’m not usually this available, but the last few days I’ve had the time to ‘play’ and I check back here three or four times a day knowing fully well I’m skating on very thin ice.

    I appreciate the use of your site because it not only an issue that both you and I find very relevant, but now on topic politically. Where we probably would agree on many issues, this is one where you and I assume many of your regulars and I are diametrically opposed; hence, the curiosity.

    I would like address a point you make from above and I hope you don’t find this offensive but a possible explanation of why many people believe the way I do.

    Given the willingness of a majority of Americans to allow civil unions (which afford the same legal rights), I am mystifyed at the resistance to allow gays and lesbians to sanction their unions under the term “marriage.” The semantics leads me to believe that there is a lot more involved in this issue.

    While there is much more than simply semantics involved, I’ll do my best to explain without delving too far into the theological as to why the ‘wording’ of marriage is important to me.

    I consider myself adamantly pro-life, anti-abortion, whatever word one chooses – but one is descriptor is infinitely more loaded than the other in a debate.

    An even better example is the use of the word fetus. Now fetus is a perfectly good Latin word but it doesn’t provide the warm fuzzies like the word baby. And the left has very cleverly taken the term and made abortion more acceptable, much easier to stomach, by tacitly substituting fetus when abortion is discussed. Most people, whether they recognize it or not, are not as sickened by the thought of ‘aborting a fetus’ as they would be ‘aborting a baby.’ Never mind the left doesn’t seem to realize the word fetus means “unborn child.”

    The word marriage, as I understand it, defines the most intimate relationship between two people. Christ himself uses it many times in scripture as allegory when alluding to the relationship between Himself and His flock, whether by the use of marriage, His bride, etc…

    To me, if I acquiesce and I refer to you and your partner as ‘married’, it lends the same credence of intimacy that I have with my wife. And as I have stated above, I simply can not accept this because of the basic tenets of my faith.

    There is more than simply semantics, but hopefully this lame attempt at least might explain why the term ‘marriage’ so important to many of us.

  24. Tex –

    I appreciate your explanation. I consider myself “almost” militantly pro-life. But your explanation of marriage confirms what I am saying. Those who espouse an evangelical, fundamentalist view of Christianity wish to deny me “marriage” because of their religious views of the concept.

    You seem to be libertarian in your view of relationships, but would you also not object to two pagan heterosexuals getting married?

    There’s the rub. If it’s a Christian/religious objection, then marriage should be only be between a Christian man and woman (or Jewish or Muslim or “insert you faith here.”). That, after all, would be the only marriage that God or Allah or Buddha or whoever would sanction, right?

    I’m not trying to be antagonistic. I’m just playing the devil’s advocate here. I’m Christian, but I subscribe to a different set of theological precepts. But theology aside (bringing this back to my initial question), I’m still trying to decide how gay marriage functions within our system of government and whether the objections are purely theological. Or is there a secular case to be made against two guys getting hitched?

  25. Philip,

    Those who espouse an evangelical, fundamentalist view of Christianity wish to deny me “marriage” because of their religious views of the concept.

    I don’t find your commentary antagonistic in the least. In fact, you write well and are well spoken. That much I’ve already established. It’s necessary to be truthful, even sometimes harsh, to get to the heart of the matter.

    I’m not sure I consider myself libertarian as simply seeing myself as a realist. Maybe middle age made me realize there are simply some questions I’m not wise enough to answer, nor am I worldly in all affairs.

    But first explain to me the word “fundamentalist” because that, in and of itself, can be used as the pejorative decor. As I’m sure you are well aware, there’s a large segment of the population, many gay, that stereotypes “fundies” as ignorant, uneducated, bible thumping bohunks, as if somehow it was impossible to believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God and still be ‘schooled.’

    To me Philip, subscribing to a different set of theological precepts as you state would make it appear that there’s a flavor of the day. There may be issues of division and issues of discussion but I don’t believe we can all prescribe to our own set of precepts without making the Word meaningless.

  26. I base my opinion on the notion that the best and most stable for a child is a marriage between a man and a woman.

    Call me old fashioned, but please don’t call me a bigot – it’s my OPINION!

  27. I also believe; as DD does, that children are best served by a Mommy and Daddy. I go beyond that:

    I think the optimum condition beyond two married parents (mommy and daddy) is to be brought up in the same religion, to have one parent stay home, avoid daycare at all possible, and private school!

    Unfortunately, it’s difficult to do that.

    I struggle. I have people in my life right now – who may very well become famous for it – but two committed loving gay men have newborn twins.

    The men exude class, they exude decency, they exude committment to one another and the type of unbreakable loving bond for one another that should be the norm.

    I talk to the one of the fellas a lot (we work together on a couple different projects) and he makes me laugh non-stop. I’d call him a true friend.

    I bought them gifts for the babies, and wished them well, etc.

    I have to say I have no doubt in my mind that those girls will grow up with a good set of moral standards, a good example of class, an example of watching two LOVING parents pull through thick and thin to be good to them.

    In fact – there is a popular publication in Chicago doing a major news piece on them. And who knows it may go national. In fact, he told me just yesterday he’s ready for that.

    They really are amazing people….and so I suppose here I go with my double-standard:

    These are two professional men. They really are models for the community in my opinion. They have good jobs, college educated, etc. They dress well and are well-liked by many folks.

    Okay – the double standard part –

    I am not confident enough in the gay community as a whole to say that this is right. I am only confident in them.

    They met, developed a relationship, and spent years building a solid and stable life together.

    How many people in the gay community can we say have done that?

    If indeed this story gets the attention I expect it will – and you all will know it if it does I am sure – I only hope the community will look at THEM as a whole for an example.

    Not just the “we’re a couple who happens to be gay and had two babies.”

    What they have to offer these girls took years to build. They don’t make their decisions lightly and are dedicated people.

    And until the gay community catches up with the rest of their life examples, I can’t say I support it with full force.

  28. Steve, I appreciate the story of those two gay men. I believe that you are correct that they will bring those children up with morals and not the standards dictated by the gay community.

    That is why I believe that the government should remain out of the business of promoting the gay lifestyle.

    The community always uses children as an aside to their argument for gay marriage, when it should solely be based on the upbringing of children.

    The couple you are speaking of sound great – educated, groomed and able to take care of children. I am not saying the gay community could do the same as the couple, but my opinion that having children for the sake of “showing those damned straight people” is sort of out in left field for me.

  29. Philip, I was raised fundamentalist, so I speak from personal experience when I try to cut the real issue here: The issue is not gay marriage. It is the inspiration of The Bible. Note how some in this discussion — clearly good people — wish you joy and happiness, but are unable to cross that line of accepting your orientation as “natural,” therefore “equal” to their own. You and I know that your orientation is a physical and chemical reality, as real as eye color or hair color. Most straight Christians, however, do not have the choice to accept that. Why? Because they are taught that God would NOT condemn someone for their hair color, but are taught that he DOES condemn people for the “wrong” sexual orientation. For that reason, they HAVE NO CHOICE but to believe that sexuality IS a choice. (Nevermind the fact that they, themselves, didn’t have to study self-help books in order to learn how “to choose” mental and physical attraction for the opposite sex, nor that homosexuality occurs in a minority percentage of all living creatures.) To accept that homosexuality is natural is, to them, the same as accepting that The Bible is wrong — or, at least, that a few passages in The Bible got it wrong. This doubt is forbidden. When I first found myself questioning The Bible on this issue, it was like getting punched in the gut because I was raised to believe you accept all of The Bible as inspired. Period. End of discussion. The idea that, perhaps, some of these writings may be the opinions of the letter writers, not God, is potentially heartbreaking. Most simply can NOT go there. Imagine trying to convince an Islamist that the Koran is not the Word of God. They simply can not go there. For this reason, we hear many justifications attempting to say that their love for their spouse is different and superior to your love for your spouse. It’s nothing against you, it’s simply self-defense. To allow doubt is to allow a hole in their spiritual security. Having been there, that’s very scary.

  30. Mike,

    This is why you guys and gals are trying so hard to find a ‘gay’ gene – so that you can excuse the choice in behavior. Good luck, your not going to find it as I would think hundreds of examples of identical twins, one gay, one straight with identical DNA would attest. Oh, one of these days some scientist will claim empirical evidence only to be shot down by the most obvious of reasons months later. How many times have we seen that the last 20 years?

    Mike, you talk about Christian’s line of thinking as scary? Do you somehow think you’re the first homosexual to make this blanket statement about the Christian insecurity because we might be weak in our faith concerning what we believe to be the inspired word of God? If you can say that, what makes me guilty of saying, “Mike simply wants to make his own set of convenient rules to fit his life’s choices? He doesn’t like what it says so he’ll make it up as he goes?” Why can’t that be equally true?

    In order for what you wrote above to be truth concerning the Bible, you have to come to the conclusion that either (1) God is imperfect and the Bible a farce, or (2) God isn’t in control and would allow the entire world to be deceived about what’s true and what is not and nobody could determine absolutely anything of real truth. Which is it?

    Being in medicine, I’ve heard all your arguments before and frankly, I won’t even bore you with the science of why you’re wrong. You parrot the meme of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. I heard some lame brain the other night talking about one male wolf humping another as proof, using this a evidence and not recognizing that is a pack mentality of dominance. My female lab the other night started humping my male lab when he was sick. Does that mean she’s got penis envy or somehow was born the wrong sex?

    And of course your homosexuality is physical and chemical. You choosing what you eat tonight will be physical and chemical as well.

    Look, I am not going to browbeat you or anybody else about their sexual orientation. That is not my purpose of being here, perhaps other than the slight possibility that someone’s eyes might be opened to a few things they didn’t know. I know fully well you don’t want to hear my opinion and your belief is set. Mine too.

    What is really tragic is that you will not be allowed to experience the fullness of life as I know it, no matter how a court rules. Like I said last night, I can emphathize with someone, sympathize for someone, and still not agree with them. I sympathize with oppressed Muslims in the middle east living in fear but don’t agree with them believing a god named Allah.

    The one thing I can’t do is put myself in your place and say, “Well, I am sure I could overcome this temptation” because frankly, I have no idea if I could.

    Finally Mike, even if a few paragraphs, chapters, or even entire books were somehow completely unfounded and entered by men, the condemnation of homosexuality as unnatural in the Bible starts almost from the beginning and reads that way to the entire end, both Old and New. This fight, or debate, or argument is no new phenomenon. Like Ecclesiastes says, “there is nothing new under the sun.” I am simply stating what is said and if you were raised in a Christian home and versed in the Word, you know this.

  31. Tex, my experience with the gay community is they always believe the Bible is full of hatred, yet, they use it to say that the Bible doesn’t say that homosexuality is a sin.

    Well, I for one, don’t appreciate people trying to make an argument using the very resource that they despise.

    There are gays who believe in the Bible and they try to live up to the standards every day. There are straight people who believe in the Bible and they try to live up to the standards every day.

    But, to criticize the Bible and then use it is a resource for their gay agenda, is beyond me.

  32. Tex, sounds like we agree on some things, and I can tell from your writing that you’re an excellent person. Most of the current studies about the “genetics” of sexual orientation are, as you mentioned, focusing on identical twins separated at birth. (Funny aside: I always wonder, where the heck do they find all these identical twins separated at birth? LOL.) The latest I’ve heard from a study in progress is that the focus is on a gene combined by a chemical “precipitant” in the womb. This is because, as you mentioned, identical twins separated at birth who share the same gene makeup can have different sexual orientations. It is, however, far more common that both share the same orientation. In fact, it is far more common that they share sexual orientation than that they share right-handedness or left-handedness. For this reason the studies are using right-handed and left-handed tendencies in ID twins as a trait of comparison. It’s interesting but … you know, whatever.

    I didn’t mean to put down Christianity in my above statement. I am a Christian and get very defensive, myself, when someone “critiques” religion without having the background to know what they’re talking about. Trust me, I have the background. What I meant by “heartbreaking” in the above point is simply the unmendable situation a sincere Christian faces when he or she discovers that he or she IS something condemned in The Bible. They are left confused, praying for answers, attempting to figure out what is evil about falling in love? Imagine what it would feel like if, for example, you were to wake up at age thirteen, look in the mirror and realize that your eyes are turning blue, but that The Bible says anyone with blue eyes is worthy of death. (I know you will disagree with the analogy, but please understand that you have not lived through this situation; to you, it is theoretical; to gays Christians, it is their experience of “growing up.” Whether or not it is a correct analogy, it is how gays feel when this happens to them.) Imagine the panic, the confusion, the eagerness to hide your blue eyes and the total isolation one would feel with this secret identity. The number of teen suicides this causes is off the scale. I have witnessed this personally. It is a tragedy in the gay community and in the Christian community as well. In truth, this is the whole reason I would like to see gay marriage. Anything that helps gay youth become aware of positive role models is a good thing. I believe that if young gay people are able to see hints that their future can be somewhat normal, it will help them get through those difficult years.

  33. Mike,

    That was your best post I have read (of your’s) and the first I can actually sympathize with, even if I disagree with the science.

    When I have the time, I will respond with a post worthy of a response to the above. As it is right now, I will leave it at this:

    I don’t believe being homosexual the unpardonable sin, no more than I believe being a fornicator or an adulterer an unforgiveable sin. Trust me, if lust is going to put someone in hell, then I’m doomed. Hell, I’ve stared down women from behind in a Sunday School class while teaching it. That’s how pathetic I can be but it does make me jealous of Solomon and his concubine – and nobody has a better wife than I do.

    We are all tempted. And being homosexual like you are, even more difficult because without a taste for marriage with a female, it basically condemns you to a life of celibacy. Yeah, it is unfair and you do carry a burden I don’t. And yeah, the Christian community has been too quick to condemn and not so quick to help, added to the fact that I believe their approach completely wrong. I don’t know if you can change – but I do think you capable of not giving in. I believe both you and Philip completely aware of the where and the what that we disagree.

    And Mike, if I thought this was all there is, what we see and what we feel, I could easily say God is both unjust and unfair. But I don’t.

    We’ll talk later. I have enjoyed my conversation with all of you – Devil Dog too. Until then, take care and I’ll be thinking about you.

  34. I simply pointing out the obvious that while the words ‘holy matrimony’ are part of the general lexicon of the marriage vows, the state sanctions the marriage as I clearly indicated from above.

    No you didn’t. The words “holy matrimony” cannot be found in the excerpt you posted. Religious ministers are empowered by the State to perform marriages and may include references to their faith tradition, but the legal ceremony does not require “holy matrimony” as part of it. That’s the difference between a civil and religious ceremony. This discussion isn’t about the latter but instead the former. The State lacks the competence due to the First Amendment to alter the latter.

    But if marriage is nothing more than civil and entirely secular affair as you attest, why your worry? Do as you wish…you don’t need my approval, nor anybody else’s permission to do so.

    Under the law it matters nothing if you are married by a Catholic priest, Protestant minister, Jewish rabbi, Muslim imam, civil justice of the peace, etc. What matters is whether the individual is empowered by the State, as JPs are, to legally marry a couple. Marriage in the eyes of the law, not religion, is a secular and civil matter. A contract between two parties if you will. While I would love to take your advice here this is precisely what this discussion is about. You presume to have the right to ban same-sex couples from having such a civil and secular arrangement and that’s exactly what these amendments are doing. If such marriages are against your religious beliefs, you have every right to ban them in your church and eject those people who feel differently. When you attempt to intervene in civil and secular matters by imposing your religious beliefs on others, that’s a different matter entirely.

    Otherwise, you wouldn’t actively seek our approval to recognize the marital equivalence. This is your goal, isn’t it? To change people’s minds and win the majority vote?

    You assume too much. I frankly do not care what you think about this. Your “approval” isn’t necessary nor is it being solicited. If you wish to live your life that way, be my guest. I choose otherwise. This is about keeping folks like you from imposing their religious beliefs on others through force of law.

    I simply parrot was is written.

    No, you “parrot” your understanding of what is written. If you truly were “parroting” what was written, you’d be condemning the West for allowing interest loans, having abolished slavery, prohibiting polygamy, etc.

  35. This is why you guys and gals are trying so hard to find a ‘gay’ gene – so that you can excuse the choice in behavior. Good luck, your not going to find it as I would think hundreds of examples of identical twins, one gay, one straight with identical DNA would attest.

    Tex, you say that you are in medicine but then post this about genetics? Surely you know that two pairs of the same genes do not always act the same? Have you forgotten about epigenetics? You are correct that a single gene for sexuality does not exist for anyone. More study is definitely needed but at present a biological component does appear to be a large part of this. Is it a combination of genes/hormones and environment? Possibly. Right now science hasn’t nailed it down but they’re still working on it. One thing they have rejected though is a conscious choice being to blame for homosexuality.

    In order for what you wrote above to be truth concerning the Bible, you have to come to the conclusion that either (1) God is imperfect and the Bible a farce, or (2) God isn’t in control and would allow the entire world to be deceived about what’s true and what is not and nobody could determine absolutely anything of real truth. Which is it?

    You mean like evolution? How far do you think biology would have progressed with only a creationist view as fundamentalists cling to from Genesis? Many Christians have no problem with evolution and it hasn’t shaken their faith in the Scriptures. For many fundamentalists this is an either/or dilemma as you put it above.

  36. John,

    This “the legal ceremony does not require “holy matrimony” as part of it preceded by my statement: that while the words ‘holy matrimony’ are part of the general lexicon of the marriage vows. What part of general lexicon did you not grasp? Did I say anything about holy matrimony being a requirement? You’re pretty good John at confusing the issue; even better at putting your own spin on what I previously said. I hope you’re not an attorney by day.

    I came in here this morning to possibly give Mike some comfort (at least my best shot) about what he perceives his personal own struggle. After reading your screed, I will now let you help reconcile it for him. So far, your style of reconciliation doesn’t appear to have been very effective.

    If you wish to debate me about science John, more specifically genetics, environment included, look me up. By the way, your argument from above about epigenetics strengthens my argument; not yours. And where did I say anything about ‘concious’ choice? You immediately assume the worst as if you can broadbrush every opinion of every Christian in one stroke. Try again. We are not nearly as cookie cutter molded as you’ve been led to believe.

    If your above ‘scientific’ argument carried any weight as you attest, it would be plastered all over the nightly news. Unfortunately for you, it doesn’t. We can take it to another board if you wish.

    Let me be the bearer of some really bad news about science before I go on. The ‘theory’ of evolution as you know it is a jumbled mess; the inconsistencies between between basic chemistry and biology and the fossil record ignored for convenience. Most medical school students know much of it to be nothing but really bad speculation and truthfully don’t give it much thought. They parrot the answers and quietly call it a theory to pass because they are forced by a hostile scientific community denying the obvious. Reminds me of another topic. You’d do better to tell us little green men planted Adam and Eve. We’d be more apt to believe that.

    If you are naive enough to believe processes like transcription and cell signaling just ‘evolved’ as you insinuate, why should I argue? If you will believe that, you will believe about anything.

    Now about you:

    If you’re not looking for my vote, ignore me. So far, I believe you to be wrong on virtually every issue discussed and it would be a waste of my time to carry on further because frankly, your style bores me. You don’t discuss; you rant.

    But the bottom line is this: one man, one vote. I have as much right as you as guaranteed by our Constitution to say “No…” You think time is on your side, then be patient. Otherwise, you might damage the cause.

    While Mike and Philip are advocates I am willing to listen to, I tune militant gays like you out. You do nothing to further your cause and really only further alienate those like me that, while disagreeing with its premise, can sympathize with the plight.

  37. This “the legal ceremony does not require “holy matrimony” as part of it preceded by my statement: that while the words ‘holy matrimony’ are part of the general lexicon of the marriage vows. What part of general lexicon did you not grasp? Did I say anything about holy matrimony being a requirement?

    Ok, I see. You first posted the civil text and then switched to popular usage. Yet the whole basis for even posting the text is odd given what you were responding to. I was speaking of civil marriage, not religious, and the State has no business interfering in the latter.

    If you wish to debate me about science John, more specifically genetics, environment included, look me up. By the way, your argument from above about epigenetics strengthens my argument; not yours.

    Interesting, but I’ll let those in the field speak on that and from everything I’ve seen your argument is incorrect.

    And where did I say anything about ‘concious’ choice? You immediately assume the worst as if you can broadbrush every opinion of every Christian in one stroke. Try again. We are not nearly as cookie cutter molded as you’ve been led to believe.

    Neither are we. You’ve assumed a number of things about me as well in this thread. You’re correct though, I am used to a more antagonistic and bigoted fundamentalist Christian in discussing this issue that it is actually a pleasant surprise to run across one who is different. Whether they agree with me or not is immaterial, it is how they present themselves and their p.o.v. Most “Christian” ministries in this area that I’ve come across are anything but.

    If your above ’scientific’ argument carried any weight as you attest, it would be plastered all over the nightly news. Unfortunately for you, it doesn’t. We can take it to another board if you wish.

    Actually, what I said is precisely what just about every professional scientifice and psychological group that has commented on this has said: a combination of genetics/hormones and environment. To what degree of each and how exactly they relate to one another is unknown and more study is needed before anything more concrete can be said.

    Let me be the bearer of some really bad news about science before I go on. The ‘theory’ of evolution as you know it is a jumbled mess; the inconsistencies between between basic chemistry and biology and the fossil record ignored for convenience.

    Bullocks. No need to put theory in scare quotes either. You can argue against it if you wish, but no viable alternative theory by creationists has stood even the most modest test – nor has any of them been able to honestly deal with the fossil record. If you want to believe in magical creation, be my guest but that’s not science. Evolution can tell us the “how”, not the “why” or the “Who”.

    You’d do better to tell us little green men planted Adam and Eve. We’d be more apt to believe that.

    Except we have about as much evidence for little green men as we do for Adam and Eve having existed.

    If you are naive enough to believe processes like transcription and cell signaling just ‘evolved’ as you insinuate, why should I argue? If you will believe that, you will believe about anything.

    You mean like a worldwide flood of which we have no evidence for? I trust if you do hold to a creationist scientific view that it is not of the young earth variety, else the evidence is even more stacked against this.

    But the bottom line is this: one man, one vote. I have as much right as you as guaranteed by our Constitution to say “No…” You think time is on your side, then be patient. Otherwise, you might damage the cause.

    A commentor on a blog? Doubtful. Yes I do believe time is on our side, just as it has everytime fundamentalists opposed social change. I never challenged your right to vote as you please, continue to do so. Ditto for your right to worship and hold the religious beliefs of your choice. In fact, I have done so many times in the past and will continue to defend your rights in those. Yet, we do not agree on whether this is even a subject the People have the right to vote on. They certainly didn’t when it came to segregation or interracial marriage – both of which elements of Christianity found ample biblical support for their views on.

  38. John,

    We could argue gay marriage and evolution until the cows come home and neither would convince the other in the error of their ways, so why bother?

    I could ask questions that no biochemist or molecular biologist could possibly answer and it still wouldn’t convince evolutionists. I’ve done it before – and usually was admonished during med class; sometimes just for grins to watch professors squirm.

    I’m glad you liked the icon. I had to pick my new Obama gravatar because the campaign promise I am most looking forward if he happens to win is racial reconciliation.

    I would say so far, Obama’s been about as successful as say the O.J. verdict.

    I’m speculating by about 2010 the Dimocratic campaign slogan will be something like:

    Can’t We All Just Get Along? 🙂

  39. We could argue gay marriage and evolution until the cows come home and neither would convince the other in the error of their ways, so why bother?

    It beats so-called reality TV! 😉

    “I’m glad you liked the icon. I had to pick my new Obama gravatar because the campaign promise I am most looking forward if he happens to win is racial reconciliation.”

    Well at least if he wins we have a helluva argument against racial quotas. After all, if a black man can become president like the rest of us why do we need legalized discrimination based on color? 🙂

    I would say so far, Obama’s been about as successful as say the O.J. verdict.

  40. “I would say so far, Obama’s been about as successful as say the O.J. verdict.”

    Oops! Missed this one. I think Obama has a serious shot, unfortunately, but we shall see in November. I’m still hoping the DNC Convention will be a repeat of 1968… 😉

  41. This would all be so much easier if sexuality went back to being either a lifestyle choice or biology because now all it is is a political party.

    It would be much easier if the state got out of the marriage business and stuck to what they are supposed to do (hint read the constitution). Bring up taxes and that is a different story because I think the IRS should be abolished and a flat tax should be created (7% federal and 3% state).

    If a church will not marry gays it is their right. If your church does let them. If two gays want to live together as a marriage have fun. Certain people might not agree with it on personal moral grounds but that is there right to do so. Just leave each other the hell alone.

    I have no problem with homosexuality I don’t care I am not supposed to care. Homosexuality isn’t a political ideology, and from where I stand it looks like the most vocal of the homosexual community doesn’t get this. People of any sexuality need to keep the bedroom in the bedroom. Thats it.

    Think about it like this I think the Folsom Street Fair is disgusting and sick and if it was a heterosexual event I would still think it was disgusting and sick.

    Sorry but to interject some fun into the debate, if Homosexuality was natural and genetic shouldn’t those genes have been lost over time due to the reproductive process? Reasonably in evolutionary theory wouldn’t a homosexual gene be a death sentence for that particular organism or species due to the inability to pass on there genes/reproduce?

  42. “JOHN IN CA, sorry, but that is not the argument the gay community uses. ”

    And that is the biggest change I’ve seen in my community since I came out in 1985. Back then, it was all about opportunity not outcome. It was simply about fairness not hyperbole.

    When my community starts blowing smoke about divorce stats, and the sanctity of this or that then the message of opportunity and fairness gets lost.

    That’s truly unfortunate because fairness and opportunity are bona fide reasons for wanting accessing to what everyone else has.

  43. “Sorry but to interject some fun into the debate, if Homosexuality was natural and genetic shouldn’t those genes have been lost over time due to the reproductive process? Reasonably in evolutionary theory wouldn’t a homosexual gene be a death sentence for that particular organism or species due to the inability to pass on there genes/reproduce?”

    I see it as a way to prevent potential overpopulation. If 10 percent of a life form is gay, then taht 10 percent won’t reproduce all things being equal. When that is extrapolated over the generations the impact is significant.

  44. “I see it as a way to prevent potential overpopulation. If 10 percent of a life form is gay, then taht 10 percent won’t reproduce all things being equal. When that is extrapolated over the generations the impact is significant.”

    Interesting argument, but I don’t buy it. That a species genes would feel the need to evolve it’s own form of population control when usually evolution -in the survival of the fittest kind- is that the genes and traits necessary or most supportive of life are the ones to dominate and be passed on. Even if it was several different genes and they were all recessive it would stand to reason that eventually they would be lost over time. While this could only work for humans you could argue that societal pressures to conform to heterosexuality have allowed these genes to survive though.

    I bet the real answer has something to do with aliens.

  45. “Interesting argument, but I don’t buy it. That a species genes would feel the need to evolve it’s own form of population control when usually evolution -in the survival of the fittest kind- is that the genes and traits necessary or most supportive of life are the ones to dominate and be passed on. ”

    I consider the population control aspect a normal variant on the genetic roulette. By no means is it a dominant factor in any species.

    As for traits being lost over time there is one thing about that among gay men that I find interesting.

    Some gay men like to have sex with multiple partners. Some do not.

    Two men together won’t produce an offspring. They aren’t built to do that.

    So, why the need to have sex with as many partners as one wants? Is this a personal choice? Is this behavior shaped by what someone learns as a child or teen? Is this something driven by evolution?

    You would think with gay men the desire to have multiple partners would have died out generations ago. Why? There is no way to pass on genetic traits if a guy sticks with guys only. I am not dissing sex with multiple partners. To each their own I say.

  46. John you just want to open up another can of worms, this debate could go on forever. If you are talking about nature vs. nurture I would say that both would contribute it is just what percentage of each that could be debated, and it might have to case by case.

    I would say “multiple partners” would be mostly personal choice but you can rule out that man’s inherent instinct to pass on his genes as with any animal as some part of it. Like the old joke about it takes a woman to domesticate a man. However due to mans higher brain function then most animals (unless we are talking about hippies) I think how someone was raised would have most impact. Self control, personal morals, societal pressure, and such.

    I’m still going to go with the Aliens it’s all their fault.

  47. I am not confident enough in the gay community as a whole to say that this is right. I am only confident in them.

    “They met, developed a relationship, and spent years building a solid and stable life together.

    How many people in the gay community can we say have done that? ”

    So gay people should jump a few more hurdles before having children? Everyone else can go for it at will?

    Your two friends with the two daughters sound to me like a model couple for any couple wishing to have children period.

    I know two men who went from first date, to committment ceremony to first child born in 3 years!!! Can you say warp speed?

    They are nice guys if you don’t mind having a baby raised by two Mr. Spocks. I can’t picture a child growing up in a home with no laughter, emotion or with two parents who both lack a sense of humor. Yuck!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s