I bet gay people have great weddings!

Buy stock in Tiffany's, baby!

Gay marriage, nationally, could singlehandedly rescue the economy from the housing crisis.

That Ehrenstein is a freaked out straight hating liberal POS. If that is what you call a friend than you are about as trustworthy as any Republican who calls Kennedy a friend. You have just turned yourself into Orrin Hatch.

Blah.

Excuse me, David Ehrenstein hates straight people? You get this idea from where?

P.S. We're not really friends -- I just know him in passing and like him and find him interesting, but I met him through my friend and his, Cathy Seipp. Yes, National Review writer Cathy Seipp.

I'm likewise friends with Moxie (moxie.nu), who is so right-wing that a friend of mine remarked, "She makes Cathy Seipp look just to the right of Joan Baez." I'm not left-wing, but Moxie and I don't see eye-to-eye on a number of issues. So, Moxie and I don't talk about stuff we know we disagree on, and talk about other things. Wow. Gee whiz! Whatta concept.

In other words, some of us are adult enough that we don't have to run away screaming from people who don't share our every view.

Dr. Laura, who I interviewed at LA Times Festival of Books (our session will be on C-SPAN on Sunday - will post the time) likewise was able to appreciate me, and vice versa, without being in lockstep on every view. (And no, she doesn't hate gay people; it was apparently a fundraising move by GLAD, who lied about what she actually said. Tammy Bruce writes about it in her book.)

Ah, and there's another one. Tammy Bruce and I disagree about a number of topics, but she had me on her show many times.

Amazing, simply amazing.

The worst thing would be for this to devolve into a personal issue. It just isn't. While my opinions and those of most everyone elses on this subject can run right on the ragged edge and get very combative, the issue needs to be discussed as rationally as is possible. I'll admit that this is a topic that angers me because I see it as political and judicial activism that is ignoring the will of the people. But it has to be kept to a political debate and not a personal one, there is no progress for either side in making this a hate debate.

Again, I go back to my first post on the other thread, "Methinks the law of unintended consequences could wreak havoc with this one."
I dont think the proponents of gay marriage had any idea what kind of monster they were waking with this.

Freeing the slaves, giving women the vote, allowing inter-racial marriage, all could be argued as ignoring the will of the people.

Get over it. Sometimes "the people" are wrong. We elect people and appoint judges to do the right thing, not what "the people" would want.

Man, it's like they added pistachio ice cream at the Baskin Robbins -- I don't want no pistachio ice cream, but I don't care if someone else wants to order it. Ain't no one forcing me to eat pistachio ice cream. And ain't no one forcing you to marry a dude.

Or are you just ascared of having the option of ordering pistachio ice cream?

At the same time Amy, I have to say, this is going to get very brutal. What is happening here is gays are trying to shove their standards of morality down the throats of a country who is just not going to accept it without much violence. You just can't tell people that George and Joe sucking each others dicks in a roadside rest stop is somehow the same as the wedding bliss of a young man and wife on their honeymoon. You aren't even in the same ballpark! Gays have brought a lot of this on themselves with parades down main street showing explicit butt fucking and repulsive shit even in front of children as if this was something to be celebrated, do you really want to challenge me on that!!? If this is what they want to do, it should be done in private like any other sexual activity, but for some reason, gays want to take it out into public, show it to your kids, teach it in your schools, shove it up your ass, and make it legally mandatory that you could get crucifed for saying anything against it. Then they wonder why some in society take a damn baseball bat to their head! The fact is they fucking ask for it! I don't give a bloody rats ass what you and whoever do behind closed doors, but you have to admit, this is WAYYYYY beyond that. It's not about insistance of recognition of equal rights, it has become a demand that people publically approve of their deviant perverted public sex lifestyle. And that is really what this is all about.

Pigs will fly before I will change my mind or my opinion that homosexuaity is not the norm and gays not just as normal and exactly the same as everyone else. THEY JUST FUCKING AREN'T! There is a difference! If you don't believe that, you have a screw loose. If you try to force me to except that kind of nonsense UNDER PENALTY OF LAW, and that is EXACTLY what this is about, I'll smash their fucking heads along with the majority of people who will not buckle under a facist faggot state! Who in the living hell do any of you think you are to bypass the stated, voted will of the people and tell us that we have to agree with homosexuality!?
And I'll go one futher, when the hell do you so called "progressives" stop progressing? As far as I can see, all you do is keep pushing the limit farther and farther. While you might deny right now that progressives are pro child rape, give it ten years, after gay marriage has settled in, you'll be looking for your next push. When partial birth abortion, which is NEVER a good solution for a pregnant woman, (I DARE you to challenge that), there were already people who were concocting reasons for "post birth" abortion. You see, it never stops. It just gets worse and worse and worse and it seems that nobody ever asks the question, how much morality naval gazing is too much? This one item is definitely going to change the outcome of this years presidential election. See if I'm wrong!

Again, I go back to post #1. Methinks the law of unintended consequences could wreak havoc with this one.

Franko, frankly, "the people" think you're a moron. Get over it.

I, for one, have never seen a better argument for post-birth abortion then Senor Bikerken.

Freeing the slaves/women's sufferage/interracial marraige bans?

Are you mad? Overturning the wrongs of society at these points was done BY the will of the people. The freeing of the slaves was a long and hard fought battle, ending with the dominance of the north over the south and the overriding of the federal government's authority over the states, which ended the question once and for all.

Women's sufferage, again enacted as the culture changed, which of course is not to decry the efforts early in the movement, but the simple fact is that it would not have made it if the will of the people did not change.

And the last, again this was an effort by ultraregressive parties within individual states which was overturned by federal court because the law had clearly been established by the nation at large.

By contrast, gays should have had the easiest time of all. A man might not have a black uncle, but he sure as hell might have a gay brother or son. If the movement had just used a bit of good sense & diplomacy, and implored for the better natures & generosity of their neighbors and families, things might have gone very differently. Instead, the zealotry, abuse of constitutional authority, and efforts at using state law to trump the country at large, have only alienated people such as myself, who would otherwise be supporters.

Most people like me don't mind oddity in relationships, we're a fairly indifferent lot as long as something is not socially destructive or physically harmful. BUT, if someone is trying to IMPOSE their moral code, and DEMAND that I say that their live's are ok, and then goes and attempts to circumvent the will of the people by appealing to liberal judges who care more about their political advocacy than constitutional law, guys like myself will get very riled up, and react. Equal but opposite reaction you might call it.

Robert: Why aren't their lives ok?

Think about what you mean by that. It's important.

[BTW, I don't speak for teh gayz, but I don't think they really care if you say their lives are ok -- but I suspect they think you shouldn't have the right to unilaterally decree that their lives are legally and/or morally NOT ok. It's a significant distinction.]

You just can't tell people that George and Joe sucking each others dicks in a roadside rest stop is somehow the same as the wedding bliss of a young man and wife on their honeymoon.

Ever had sex in a public place? I did. NYU boys bathroom, to name one example.

FYI, MEN not gay men, are promiscuous. It's just that women usually won't participate. So don't get all high and mighty just because nobody will suck your dick in a highway rest stop. If women who weren't prostitutes would do that for straight men, plenty of straight men would be getting the same.

Furthermore, ever met any gay parents? They're just as boring as straight parents. I talked in the other entry about a woman I sat next to on a plane. Incredible woman, and you could tell she was a great mother and had a wonderful family life with her husband and two young children. Only, whoops, two hours in, she mentioned her partner, (woman's name here). Why should her rights and those of her family and children be different from those of heterosexuals? For example, that wonderful mother Britney Spears. Yeah, those lesbian mothers -- this one, taking her kids to Staples to buy backpacks of school supplies for homeless children to teach them to be giving -- they really are immoral.

Because your primitive religious beliefs, surely including the belief, without evidence, in god, tell you homosexuality is somehow wrong doesn't mean you're right.

As for "imposing" on you -- nobody's trying to make you suck anybody's dick. Gay people simply don't want their rights to be judged by perverts like you who sit around worrying about how they get their sexual pleasure. I mean, how weird and creepy that you care.

David posts at Patterico. If you have a search engine, it would be worth it to check out. Jewish princesses he may like, but he is a nasty, hateful commie dude.

And if all gays want is to be normal and marry like the rest of us, why do they live such risky lifestyles? Why do they agitate for laws to teach their deviation to kindergarteners, as in California? They are desperate to have their sickness validated, and they are using POS liberal judges to do that for them. They also aren't afraid to pass laws forcing you to hire them, even if it would be obviously innapropriate to have a trannie working the front desk of a daycare etc. They want to force you, with threat of lawsuit, to pretend that it is OK for 5th grade boys to decide that they want to be girls, and that you better accommodate them in school. They want to force you to tell your own kids that this is fine, they want to force teachers to punish any child who thinks that there is something wrong with it.

Amy, you missed the mark with this one. Maybe you see gays as eccentric but cute, funloving folks. Maybe your friends are or put that mask on for you. But check out what is being done in the name of gay rights in California and Mass and Colorado. They ARE shoving it down our throats.

Straight people don't live "risky lifestyles"? Some straight people do -- that's not reason to deny rights to all straight people.

I'm a fiscal conservative, socially libertarian (not for open borders) and a self-described "personal responsibilitarian" who believes parents should have to pay for their children's schooling (the rest of us should only pay for the desperately poor). I'm not exactly a friend to socialism. That does not, however, stop me from wishing David Ehrenstein, whose views on a number of issues, I may disagree with, a big congratulations on his impending marriage...any more than my atheism and posts criticizing the evidence-free belief in god stopped Dr. Laura from stepping up my role in her LA Times Festival of Books session. (I was supposed to intro her and be off - she had me interview her, too, and moderate a few questions from the audience.)

As for gays supposedly "shoving" something down my throat, if gays want to marry and have the ensuing rights to protect themselves and their families, why would I have a problem with that?

Why do you have a problem with that? Because you find gay sex troubling? Okay, so don't have gay sex. Problem solved.

If you think gay people are somehow ruining marriage, no fear, heteros like Britney Spears make a mockery out of out it on a regular basis. Gay people just want the right to lead boring, suburban family lives like the rest of American families.

Back to the original posting, it's sad that organized religion forces people to be so unethical.

And on the homophobic rants above, it's interesting that the only things that make these guys feel really icky is 2 guys having sex. They probably love fake porno lezzie going at it. They also probably don't feel that comfortable with regular sex with a woman, because when you get down to it, in their minds, sex is always wrong in some way.

Amy, you are never going to convince a homophobic person to feel otherwise. Look at the panic in the writing. I am betting there was some alcohol involved in the writings deep in the morning.

Gays will marry, some will move into your neighborhoods, some will have kids that will end up playing with your kids, and the Union will persevere. They aren't going to be flooding over the border with swatches... there won't be a sudden rise in drive-by slappings.

PS- Cool website Franko. "The Empire Strikes Barack" was great.

Doesn't bother me in the least franko. I spent a few years over in Germany, I got hit on alot by
both sides of the fence, hell I take it as a compliment. (Can't help but chuckle at it honestly)
Frankly (no pun intended) if it weren't for the tactics used to reach their ends, I'd be a supporter
of the movement.

But let me answer your question.

The fact of the matter is simple, homosexuality has never been condoned as a practice by the country,
let alone homosexual marraige. Now private conduct has in past centuries seldom been a serious issue,
(purportedly President Garfield was bisexual, I could be wrong, but I seem to recall reading that somewhere.
The point I am attempting to make however, is that it is a matter of cultural mores and heritage
of our entire population which labels personal conduct good or bad, right or wrong, acceptable
or unacceptable. ALL of us have our freedoms limited by common cultural heritage, not just
in our country, but every country holds to their own social boundaries for conduct.

In ours, homosexual marraige is a long standing nono, let alone conduct. Right now however,
our culture is changing, we grow in tolerance, rather than raising intolerance, if one will forgive
my play on words. In some years to come it will be an easy, almost banal transition to permit
such unions. BUT, in the here and now, the great majority of the nation at large is opposed to
the opening of what is considered by many to be a sacred institution and the foundation of our
society. We may disagree with that, we may consider it outmoded, but to attempt to DICTATE that
change, is to circumvent democracy. Rights meant to last are brought democratically, they are not imposed.
Rights imposed can be just as easily revoked. The present tactics used to aquire marital rights,
are at BEST like an oligarchy, attempting to impose privilage from the judicial bench. THAT is the basis
of my opposition. Personally I don't give two shits if two guys want to fuck each other. As far as I'm concerned,
GO for it, more women for me! (I kid of course, but only slightly)

But don't tell me a few judges in a state court have the right to impose a private cultural viewpoint over the entire country,
no matter what the aim, no end justifies that.

> betting there was some
> alcohol involved in the
> writings deep in the morning.

Be a grown man, Eric, name names. (This would require surrendering your 7th-graders taunts of "homophobia" as well. And the teenage capitalizations.)

But don't tell me a few judges in a state court have the right to impose a private cultural viewpoint over the entire country,
no matter what the aim, no end justifies that.

Yeah, that whole school segregation was much better than those activist judges who decided that this should no longer be tolerated. And that whole mixed marriages debacle, fucking activist courts trying to tell society that white people and black people should be allowed to marry - who do they think they are, subverting the will of the people like that.

And if all gays want is to be normal and marry like the rest of us, why do they live such risky lifestyles?

Because heteros don't live risky lifestyles.

That also assumes that gays all live risky lifestyles. Like the parents of my son's friend Eric, who's autistic. They are so crazy dangerous with their lifestyle. They actually brave places like Chuckee Cheese and have even been to Disney Land. And their lurid readings of Good Night Moon and The Snowy Day when my six year old spent the night at their house, was especially troubling. I just know that this is going to lead to kids butt-fucking snow angels, oh the inhumanity.

To top it all off, once when we went waterfall hiking in the Columbia River Gorge, Alex stepped way off the trail to get a good picture of the boys playing under a waterfall.

They ARE shoving it down our throats.

You know, just the other day I was walking down the street, minding my own business, when WHAM!, out of the blue this flaming queer runs up to me and tried to force this huge - book down my throat. Thankfully, he was a total poofter and I was able to beat him off of me. When I got a look at the book I was shocked - it was entitled; The Definitive, Authoritative and OFFICIAL Gay Agenda or Teh Gay for short. Fucking blew my mind. For years I though statements like yours were just hyperbole. But now I know better.

Homophobia, very interesting word. I'm Aracnophobic because I have a strong irrational fear of spiders. I react quickly and try to kill it as quickly as possibe whenever I come into contact with one. I do not have any such reations to gay people. "Phobia" is often used mainly to attach irrationality to someone's point of view. I'm not buying it.

Yes, I have had sex in public, it wasn't on a flatbed truck going down a city street in front of children! It was on top of Pere Marquett lighthouse in the middle of winter and there were no witnesses.

Just last night, Gidget, a friend of mine told me she and her lesbian lover of four years were going to get married in a week. As she was telling people this, they were being nice but you could tell they didn't react the same way when they hear a hetero couple were getting married. There was some eye rolling and questioning. It was odd when someone asked her, so are you guys going to be wife and wife? By the look on her face, you could tell they hadn't even thought about that. None of us feels any different toward Gidget for being gay, I've know here for over ten years and I dont have a 'phobia' about her and her SO.

Funny, you missed the entire point I was making. I'll try to put it another way. I don''t care what people do in P R I V A T E!!!!! Have you ever seen a gay pride march, or any of those celebrations in San Fran where people are literally having sex in the streets? That is not P R I V A T E!!!! All I said, is that that shit don't belong on a float going down main street and I'll stand by that all day long. You keep trying to turn this into what I think about gay sex, well that is my opinion and as we all know, opinions are like assholes. What I have been trying to point out is that gays do not seem to want to keep their sex lives in the bedroom. They constantly push it into the courtroom, the class room and even the church. In Canada right now, it is a crime to preach that homosexuality is wrong according to the bible! You can be arrested for it! That is far from being a private issue. Can we agree that a preacher should have a right to preach whatever the hell he wants without slapping handcuffs on him? This is not about me or my feelings toward gays. What I was trying to convey to you and you obviously didn't get, is that when a small minority of people who have a point of view diametrically opposed to the public will uses a few tools in the court system to impose their will on the rest of the population, their are asking to get hammered as they should. I can sum up your title here real easily, "What gay couples want - more" When they get that, they'll want more, and more and more. It never ends, nothing is ever enough.

By the way, when Gidget gets married, I'll go to the wedding and I'll kiss the bride and ... whatever because she is a friend and I love her. This is not personal, it is political and it is going to be hardball. What I was trying to point out was that if you thought that they entire country was just going to bend over and take it, you are very very wrong.

I think Eric is Bikerphobic.

Pigs will fly before I will change my mind or my opinion that homosexuaity is not the norm and gays not just as normal and exactly the same as everyone else. THEY JUST FUCKING AREN'T! There is a difference! If you don't believe that, you have a screw loose.

I have a lot of gay friends and have even roomed with queers. The only thing that I have noticed (and it's not all of them) that's really all that different, is the horns on their heads. They usually do a great job of hiding them in their intricate hairdos, but once in while, when they're relaxing it shows. And once, when I was hanging at the nude beach with some friends, a couple of our queer friends came along. Now the one did a good job of hiding it, but the really fruity one had a very definitive stump where obviously he once had a tail.

If it makes any difference, the gay parents that I know, don't seem to show any of these traits. It makes me wonder if having kids might not counteract some of the worse effects of Teh Gay.

If you try to force me to except that kind of nonsense UNDER PENALTY OF LAW, and that is EXACTLY what this is about, I'll smash their fucking heads along with the majority of people who will not buckle under a facist faggot state!

Wow! I hadn't heard this one before. I mean I've run across fascist asshats who also happen to be gay pushing this sort of nonsense, but I put it into the same category as religious righties who want to cramp everyone else's right to view porn and keep people from cussing. But to think, this is actually a majority view. It must be part of the super-extra specially secret, official gay agenda, because seriously, I have lots of gay friends and have marched in solidarity with many of them. I've even gotten involved in strategy sessions that proceeded public events. Crafty of all those queers to pretend that they support free speech and appose hate speech laws, while all the while they're really trying to make it illegal to criticize them.

Who in the living hell do any of you think you are to bypass the stated, voted will of the people and tell us that we have to agree with homosexuality!?

Oh, I get it now, you're parroting moronic, anti-gay talking points.

No one says you have to agree with it. No one cares what you think. What they do care about, is allowing gays the same rights that everyone else enjoys. Including (if we're going to have any (and I mean any) anti-discrimination laws) the same protections from discrimination that, for example, religious people have.

Be a grown man, Eric, name names.

Bikerken for one. Total fucking hysterics.

Crid, you are a prissy bitch.

I have read Bikerken's writings many times,and most of his opinions I enjoy. I was shocked at what I read this morning. Excepts:

>> You just can't tell people that George and Joe sucking each others dicks in a roadside rest stop is somehow the same as the wedding bliss of a young man and wife on their honeymoon. You aren't even in the same ballpark! Gays have brought a lot of this on themselves with parades down main street showing explicit butt fucking and repulsive shit even in front of children as if this was something to be celebrated, do you really want to challenge me on that!!?

>> There is a difference! If you don't believe that, you have a screw loose. If you try to force me to except that kind of nonsense UNDER PENALTY OF LAW, and that is EXACTLY what this is about, I'll smash their fucking heads along with the majority of people who will not buckle under a facist faggot state!

If that isn't homophobic, maybe you can present an example of something that is.

I actually expected Amy to remove it this morning thinking that someone overnight posted it and just used the Bikerken name as a really bad prank. It is the most hate filled, ignorant and disgusting example of homophobia I may have ever seen.

I'm not afraid of anyone, Bikerken. Even bad boy wannabes in leather chaps.

I actually expected Amy to remove it this morning

I didn't see the bit about the "faggot state" and smashing heads --- I got caught up in responding to the bit about the two guys sucking dicks/public sex.

But, I think it's healthier to let all the ugliness and hate hang out so it can be disputed/debated rather than erasing it.

How many of you who claim to be so appalled by gay day parades actually have seen any? Or even one? I went to one once in New York, but I don't like crowds, so I've avoided them (and all parades) ever since. Gee, whatta concept, letting people do as they please and avoiding a particular block for the day or looking the other way if it doesn't work for you.

Oh, and P.S. I think anybody who wants to have a parade, from the Nazis to the religious nutters, should be allowed. Free speech and all that, ya know?

And again, healthier to have speech exposed than erased.

Totally agree Amy- again, I thought it had to be a prank post.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33540

Mmm, bad boys in leather chaps.....Carry a cat-o-ninetails and you'd fit right in at a bear gathering.

> you are a prissy bitch.

What's your point, mister?

> It is the most hate filled,
> ignorant and disgusting example
> of homophobia

Yeah, it's pretty demented. I hadn't read it.... It saves time to scan first sentences and signatures here and go back for the ones that are likely to pay off. But let's scratch his eyes out anyway:

> it has to be kept to
> a political debate and
> not a personal one

I was raised in *truly, truly* feminist household in the 1960's... Not the smirk-at-your-husband and read-Betty Friedan-while-hopped-up-on-Valium kind, but the real deal. One of the big themes in those days was that big political ideas play out in very personal ways. This issue discusses some of the most personal and defining exchanges in life... So of course people are going to take it personally. They've got a lot of the beliefs on the line and they're going to be aggressive about it. That's why this'll be such an entertaining summer... Friends, it's time to get weird again! Game on!

> opinions are like assholes.

Nope; The best opinions are backed up with something besides shit.

> Have you ever seen a gay
> pride march, or any of those
> celebrations in San Fran
> where people are literally
> having sex in the streets?

No. What's it like?

> uses a few tools in the court
> system to impose their will
> on the rest of the population

(Eric, he has a point here.... See also Amy's nearby comments, where she thinks societies are --and should be-- run by someone other than people within them.)

> Pigs will fly before I will
> change my mind

This is not an expression used by people who are about to express thoughtful boundaries...

> homosexuaity is not the norm
> and gays not just as normal
> and exactly the same as everyone
> else.

Well, normality is overrated. I don't really care what's going on in the hearts of newlywed straights or roadside gays... My concern is about children. But Bikky, if you're going to tell adults which of their feelings are approved and which aren't, you're going to have a very tough time making them care about your judgment.

And Eric's right: One part of your commentary, either the personal vs political part or the flying pigs part, seems like an alcohol-fueled deviation when compared to the other.

PS- Robert's got the best take on the historical cases. All this goodness was not imposed on people: They grew into it.

Don't call it homophobia, that is just silly. This issue is about the sanctity of marriage. IF marriage has become a joke, it is thanks to the feminist revolution that is full force behind gay marriage.

And regarding risky lifestyles, there is a reason why homosexuals have a shorter life expectency than straight people, and it has nothing to do with lynchings. It has to do with increased drug use, increased incidence of STDs and hepatitis, alcoholism and dangerous activities. Let's not pretend that homosexuals are just like us with the exception of what they do in the bedroom with the drapes shut.

Life expectancy has never been a factor in who can marry. Could you describe the sanctity of marriage to me Smarty? Seriously, I would like to know what a man and woman can share that a man/man woman/woman combination can not share.

One reoccurring theme against gay marriage here is that the fringe behavior of some gay individuals should be applied to homosexuals as a group. Gay individuals, no matter how socially responsible they may be, should be denied the right to marry based on the actions of others within the gay community?

Eric- Per Winston, nearby, What can a man and woman share that a man and woman and woman not share? (Think before you speak: Texans will be listening closely.) Or a man an his little sister?

It's too late tonight for a riddle...

I'm off to bed with my women.

Aha! Did you see that? AHA!!!

there is a reason why homosexuals have a shorter life expectency than straight people, and it has nothing to do with lynchings. It has to do with increased drug use, increased incidence of STDs and hepatitis, alcoholism and dangerous activities. Let's not pretend that homosexuals are just like us with the exception of what they do in the bedroom with the drapes shut.

Spoken like a man who knows no gay people. Especially no gay parents. Really, they are terribly boring people. The woman I sat with on the plane, for example, hasn't read the paper in years. She has two very young twin girls and she's the main breadwinner in her family (her partner is home with the girls). This woman wouldn't have time to get hepatitis or do drugs, let alone be able to stay awake. She did have a bag full of peanutbutter crackers and other kid food on the plane. Whatta stash!

Bad comparison DuWayne, it was a FEDERAL court that overturned it. Meaning the end of those abhorrent practices came by properly. Overturned by a federal court, reinforcing federal authority over state authority.

And by the way, if hypothetically a state court were to make a ruling like that, let me tell you what it would be like:

State of somewhereinthesouth, vs. someoutragedperson on the matter of someoutragouspractice(Pickone)

The state rules with someoutragedperson, on the basis that (outrageouspracticehere) violates the (pick clause) of the constitution, the state of somewhereinthesouth, must immediately abandon its (insert outrageous practice).

In short, such a case heard at state level, would be overturned on the basis of federal law.

Frankly, Amy makes the best point about concerns regarding marraige being made a mockery.

Heterosexuals do THAT better than anyone else. Has anyone NOT rolled their eyes at the practices of people like Brittany Spears?

Robert -

Bad comparison DuWayne, it was a FEDERAL court that overturned it. Meaning the end of those abhorrent practices came by properly. Overturned by a federal court, reinforcing federal authority over state authority.

Ahh, so your into centralized authority. Well I hate to tell you, but states actually do have a lot of authority when discussing the legal ramifications of marriage. The main point of federal law in regards to marriage, is that a marriage recognized in one state shall be recognized by all of them. The only exception to that is gay marriage. The federal government doesn't recognize them nor does it require other states to recognize them.

And by the way, if hypothetically a state court were to make a ruling like that, let me tell you what it would be like:

State of somewhereinthesouth, vs. someoutragedperson on the matter of someoutragouspractice(Pickone)

The state rules with someoutragedperson, on the basis that (outrageouspracticehere) violates the (pick clause) of the constitution, the state of somewhereinthesouth, must immediately abandon its (insert outrageous practice).

In short, such a case heard at state level, would be overturned on the basis of federal law.

Sorry, but this makes no sense. Seriously.

Unless the state court made a ruling that was contradicted by SCOTUS or applicable federal statute, there would be no reason for the federal court to vacate the ruling on that basis alone. And even if it did conflict with federal statute, there is no guarantee that the federal courts would vacate the state court ruling.

Heterosexuals do THAT better than anyone else. Has anyone NOT rolled their eyes at the practices of people like Brittany Spears?

This is actually why I support the abolition of marriage as a civil institution and making civil unions the legal standard. I have been jaded to the whole institution of marriage since long before I even considered the notion of gay marriage.

I have known some gay people, friends with a lesbian actually, she was one of 3 women getting their engineering degree with me, we lab partnered and studied sometimes. Then I met her lipstick, drunken, abusive girlfriend. Then I found out that her first lesbian experience was being molested by a nun.

Then I discovered how many people are gay because of childhood trauma, usually molestation. How can a life-changing lifestyle choice or drive that is propelled by abuse be healthy?

And you need to do more than sit on a plane with someone to know them.

What I know about that woman on the plane is a few things about her idea of the proper way to raise a family, and her ethics. She wasn't trying to sell me on gay parenting. In fact, we were just talking about parenting in general, and what's wrong with so many kids, and why, and a few hours in, I learned that her partner happens to be a woman.

I know many gay people, some of them very, very well, including a lesbian who has a family upbringing that, again, lots of people would apply to join. Both her parents are straight, and she dated guys when she was a teen, but figured out she was attracted to girls. And P.S. This girl is gorgeous like you wouldn't believe -- naturally, effortlessly beautiful -- and guys would give their eyeteeth for a date with her...and try.

Smarty -

How can a life-changing lifestyle choice or drive that is propelled by abuse be healthy?

It can't. Of course this has nothing to do with the vast majority of gays.

Smarty - I can see how your experience would produce your current "lifestyle choice" view. I wish I could introduce you to the many gay friends I've had who have never suffered any sort of abuse, to perhaps expand your horizons a bit.

I've actually, now that I think about it, never been close to someone gay who HAD been abused, and I'm talking among my closest friends, those I know very well. But this doesn't lead me to the conclusion that homosexuality is NEVER produced by severe abuse, anymore than heterosexuality is NEVER/ONLY produced by severe abuse.

But I do understand how our personal experience - though anecdotal in nature - shapes our individual world views.

The incredibly increased likelyhood that a person who is homosexual also engages in risky behavior tells the intelligent observer that something is wrong with them. Male gay life expectency is far lower than that for a straight man, and drug abuse, alcoholism, STDs, suicide etc.

The incredibly increased likelyhood that a person who is homosexual also engages in risky behavior tells the intelligent observer that something is wrong with them. Male gay life expectency is far lower than that for a straight man, and drug abuse, alcoholism, STDs, suicide etc.

Homosexuals have removed themselves from the gene pool. That should tell evolutionists that it is an abheration and a dead end. They violate the tenets of every major religion, so that tells religious people that it is morally wrong. So who does that leave? Only people in denial.

Homosexuality is found in humans and the animal kingdom, and fits in with group selection theories -- alloparenting and other duties, to further the good of the tribe.

And as for what religion says, there's super stuff like the notion that you should be put to death for wearing different fabrics, and all sorts of really silly stuff in religion (plus barbarism -- like commands to kill those who don't believe as you do)...and then, there's the notion, supported by zero evidence, that there's some big dude in the sky moving all of us around like chess pieces.

Sorry, Smarty, but if you want to argue a point, you'll have to use more logic than you did above.

Umm, Smarty....You might want to update your reality. Look into more recent studies about Teh Gay lifestyle. Straight folks are catching up on the risky behavior while the queers are actually slowing down. In part because more gays are out than ever before and those who had the most to lose by coming out before are the ones who live pretty average lives and don't party so much.

Too, having to live in the closet and hide your sexuality encourages risky behaviors, like unsafe sec with strangers. Once they start down the hiding it path, there are many other behaviors that need to remain hidden.

Meanwhile teen pregnancy's up. Please, blame that on Teh Gay.

Of course, I live in a united nation, federal authority trumps state on a variety of matters. If I'd been born centuries ago I'd have been a federalist. Yes states do have some authority, but on matters that extend to cross borders or deal with federal laws or benefits or the nation at large, the state will has been consistently overturned. You are though, dead on, since the federal government does not recognize them, the will of the state is going to be continually overturned. Nobody should be surprised by this, state authority does NOT trump federal. Going to state court is an empty gesture of combativeness. That is why civil rights activisits fought across the nation at large for civil rights legislation to come down from the federal level, not in 50 individual states. (Although a fair number of those occured as well) The legislation that is most significant, that we all know of, is FEDERAL in nature.

I tried to make my hypothetical clear, but lets face it, it is complicated. Worth a shot. The fact is DuWayne, that you ARE right in that without federal concerns, there is no expectation that a federal court would overturn the state, but it is also a fact that just as there was a reason TO do so then, there is also reason now. And it is on that basis that I am disgusted by most of the present tactics of the gay rights movement. I don't believe for a mooment that they're just to stupid to know where the right battle ground is. Instead they fight in state courts getting lone liberal judges to give them their way, essentially trying to let individual and state authority overturn the federal limitations. Its disgusting, its undemocratic, and I don't care one way or another whether someone supports the movement or not, they OUGHT to be horrified at the attempted imposition of will on the entirety by those who believe the ends justify the means.

ofzp xhsdcq ocnm xbfo

mlunizx