Anybody can already get married. It sounds like you are talking about that government certificate and the Social Security benefits.

And surviver benifits sans anal probes checking for cavites in your teeth from the
IRS.

And the right to see your loved ones in the hospital and make medical decisions without having to spend thousands hiring a lawyer to draft contracts and file them with the proper government record keeping agency and being reqired to keep a copy of said contracts on your person at all times and show them at every turn to every bigot and lawsuit worried doctor while at the same time facing the real possibility that hospital staff might still ingore the directives cause your not "really familly"

Oh boo hoo luljp - we've done this before on this blog.

All these rights are regularly secured by unmarried hetero couples without changing the definition of marriage.

It's no surprise that this woman holds the opinion she does - once you believe the whopper that homosexuals are "born that way" then you'll believe anything.

Ben-David: Oh boo hoo luljp - we've done this before on this blog.

All these rights are regularly secured by unmarried hetero couples without changing the definition of marriage.

Since we've done this before on this blog, you'd know that that statement is bullshit.

From the article: That's why the Supreme Court, in 1967 Loving v. Virginia, legalized interracial marriage -six years after our current president was born to an interracial couple. At that time 73% of the population opposed "miscegenation."

Oh, dear. Did they bring up Loving vs. Virginia, where the SCOTUS struck down anti-miscegenation laws?

Cover your ears, folks. 'Cause when Feebie sees that, she's gonna go off the deep end completely. You tell 'em, Feebs! Shriek with nails-on-chalkboard fury about how insulting it is, and how blacks are sooooooo offended and insulted by that comparison. (Never mind that the article actually has a powerfully placed black man speaking in support of this.)

And you scream with self-righteous outrage that the persecution of gays in this country is doodly-squat compared to the persecution suffered by blacks. (Never mind that you yourself are neither.)

Email Margaret Hoover, Feebs and call her a PANSY!

If your problem with gays is promiscuity, I don't understand why you wouldn't want them to make a commitment to each other. So much of what people don't like about gay culture is a reaction to having to live in secret.

But then, most people just have a visceral reaction to homosexuality in the first place, and don't think about how gay marriage could benefit society.

And I don't understand why two gay people marrying each other affects the marriage of two straight people. Marriage only exists in the first place because enough people agree that it exists. Because it fulfills a purpose. Your marriage is between you and your spouse. Isn't it?

Of course, legalizing gay marriage would also make the terrorists hate us all the more...

This issue does seem to be going in the direction that my fiction writer friend though it would. He has same-sex marriage commonplace in the 2030's. Bonus: you can get your marriage license and get married electronically with your biometric signature!

Whilst divorces can be filed electronically, that is the only bit of that process that is easier and at-fault does not go away.

This is an interesting discussion of marriage. The type of marriage gay marriage opponants hold up as ideal doesn't even resemble the kind of marriages that existed for most of its history.

http://www.aolhealth.com/healthy-living/relationships/elizabeth-gilbert-committed?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl5|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolhealth.com%2Fhealthy-living%2Frelationships%2Felizabeth-gilbert-committed

"Marriage is not an institution that's been handed down in tact for generations. It's a liquid, ever-evolving social experiment. Not even the most conservative American would accept marriage as it was in the 14th century. It shifts and changes. Couples make demands on what they want their lives to be and the courts tend to follow. It's got a history of states and institutions setting boundaries of who is allowed and prohibited. Generally over time, the couples themselves win. So to me, it's only a matter of time before they win and are able to enter the state of marriage."

"once you believe the whopper that homosexuals are "born that way" then you'll believe anything."

So, Ben-David, tell us how YOU made the decision to become hetro. Tell us how you looked around your high school class and mulled over whether you should kiss Rachel or Peter.

For me, there was no decision. At some point in my early teens, I started to notice girls in a different way. It wasn't a choice - I was "born that way".

But let's, for a moment, pretend that "becoming gay" was a decision. What tipped the scales? Was it the disapproval of a large portion of society? The joy of telling your parents? The possibility of beatings from neanderthal schoolmates? The realization that you won't have the right to marry your partner? Anyone?

Although I support gay marriage, I don't believe gays are necessarily "born that way." It makes no sense. If there's a "gay gene," then gays would produce more gay children. Twins separated at birth would always be the same sexuality. I don't believe either of those things are true (unless somebody has studies to back them up).

Sexuality is more complex than that, which doesn't mean that any individual's sexuality can be changed, once set. And it doesn't invalidate gay marriage.

I believe studies actually prove that most of us fall along a spectrum. Very few of us are on the extreme side of heterosexuality or homosexuality, especially women. Males tend to be more to one side or the other, but many still fall somewhere around the middle.

Pro gay marriage proponents use the "Equal Protection" clause of the Constitution as the basis for their position. Article 14, Sec 1 states, "No state...shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Hoover states, "...freedom means freedom for everyone."

"Equal Protection" and Freedom for Everyone. Those arguments can be used to support polygamy. If you are pro gay marriage then legally and philosophically you must support polygamy. And if you do not, you are a hypocrite and discriminatory against a class of people who yearn to marry the people they love.

"Shriek with nails-on-chalkboard fury about how insulting it is, and how blacks are sooooooo offended and insulted by that comparison."

How's about you head down to Watts, Patrick, and tell them it's no different at all?

For much of its history, certainly biblical history, marriage was a union between a man and several women. Our society doesn't support that, though we could again if we wanted, but our definition of marriage is now about love, not economic arrangements, and we define marriage as a union between two people. Certainly, you could use Nick's argument to make the case for pologamy, but the whole society would have to move that direction and support it...or return to supporting it.

Amy: " You're welcome to live with a harem if you and they are consenting adults."

True. But I am not legally allowed to marry that harem.

Amy: "It's so interesting to seeing people working so hard to justify denying gays and lesbians rights."

I'm not doing that. I'm applying legal and philosophical arguments for one set of facts ( gay marriage ) to another set of facts ( polygamy ). The argument could be further extended to other marriage arrangements that free people may desire to enter.

But sticking with polygamy for a moment, why don't you address polygamy directly. Do you approve ? And if not, what are your arguments against ?

lovelysoul: Although I support gay marriage, I don't believe gays are necessarily "born that way." It makes no sense. If there's a "gay gene," then gays would produce more gay children. Twins separated at birth would always be the same sexuality. I don't believe either of those things are true (unless somebody has studies to back them up).

Sexuality is more complex than that, which doesn't mean that any individual's sexuality can be changed, once set. And it doesn't invalidate gay marriage.

Hey, lovelysoul. I would like to point something out to you. I agree with you that sexuality is more complex than that. I'd also like to point out, is genetics are more complicated than that, too. A genetic predisposition to be homosexual (assuming such a condition exists, and I don't say it does) doesn't mean the inevitable growing up to be homosexual.

My mother has blue eyes, my father had black eyes. I have brown eyes. Just to illustrate an example that inherited genes are not the inevitable programming that some people might think they are.

Here's an interesting and entertaining video on what causes homosexuality. It's less than five minutes long. I hope you're interested enough to watch it and that you enjoy it.

I especially liked the theory of how many boys a woman has increases the chances that she'll give birth to a gay son. (As the youngest of eleven children, six of which are boys, they might find some empirical evidence for it in my case.)

Thank you for your support of gay marriage, darlin'.

Was it a nice try? I don't think so. I hear this crap all the time. "If you support gay marriage, then that will lead us to polygamy and bestiality and incest..." and all sorts of bullshit.

Polygamy first. The beauty of supporting non-multiple marriage is that it allows fair competition to select a mate. Can you imagine how many spouses the most powerful and influential people would have, if they could? And how few would be left for the rest of us?

Bill Gates would have as many wives as he wanted, and the women who want to be Mrs. Gates number-whatever had best learn to like it, if they wish to stay Mrs. Gates.

Bestiality is the easy one. Animals cannot enter contracts. Case closed. (That argument, by the way, also holds true for pedophilia. Minors cannot enter contracts.)

Incest has compelling reasons for not being allowed, starting with the danger it presents to unborn children, illustrated by the freaks were turned out by the Hapsburgs. Of course, you could allow marriage between close relatives that cannot or choose not to reproduce, but there's no guarantee that they will stay that way. Moreover, that would be conferring special privileges.

Here is the best and most thorough conservative argument I've seen for gay marriage.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957

No one can possibly doubt Olson's conservative credentials.

Thanks, Patrick. Funny video. I was going to add to my comment earlier that I thought the strongest studies supported hormonal influences. I saw something a while back about some morning sickness pill women took, I believe in the 60s or 70s, and how one of the consequences was that a high percentage of the adult daughters had masculine traits, and many were gay. It certainly makes sense that the womb environment could play a part.

Bottom line is that the "cause" doesn't matter, any more than it should matter why/how I became hetereosexual. Our attractions seem pretty set, for most people, by early childhood and certainly by adolescence.

And, frankly, the argument that society "has" to accept incest, bestiality, or pologamy in order to allow gay marriage is absurd.

Pologamy is probably the most likely arrangement that would ever be allowed, and perhaps if our economy totally collapses, and/or we end up in some sort of "Mad Max" survivalist scenario, I suspect you would see polygamy revisited. But, for now, it isn't a marital arrangement that interests many people, especially women, so it's a non-issue. Polygamists simply don't have enough political clout to push for change, and accepting polygamy would overburden the system in a way that most voters wouldn't support.

Initially, that was really my only hesitation about gay marriage - that it will inevitably lead to gay divorce and custody issues - but I don't find that to be a compelling enough argument to disallow it. If that's the argument, we should forbid most straight couples from marrying (at least until they're 40, when, apparently, the odds improve).

"Freedom means freedom for everyone" Margaret Hoover quoting Dick Cheney in article above.

Amy, are you saying," Freedom means freedom for 98% of Americans, but not for EVERYONE." ?

Why do you want to limit marriage to only one partner ? Why not restrict marriage to 3 people? That is, why not allow gay marriage but restricted to 3 men ? Or any other hetero or homo combination ?

We all acknowledge that the definition of marriage evolves over time. Marriage to one of a different race was once illegal. Gay marriage is inevitable. The next evolution may be multiple partner marriage. Why not address it along with the discussion marriage and human rights in general ?

Patrick - I thought you weren't talking to me any more?

I read the article. I find her argument interesting ...but I disagree with using that specific court case as an argument in favor of gay rights because it is taken out of context.My major was in law studies and I've enjoyed reading history (which is forever being improved upon since I was taught a lot of bunk in HS and college) for years. This is not the case to use to defend a position for gay marriage.

It doesn't mean that I don't believe there isn't an argument FOR gay rights that I WOULD be on board with - that just ain't the one.

What made my disagreement on another thread with you particularly obnoxious however was the way in which you plugged your ears and screamed "I am not listening" (to paraphrase) to any of the points I was trying to make. Like they might just be legitimate if taken in context - ya know?

I disagree with her use of this court case to defend her position.

I am really waiting for the gay's argument to marry to be more about the family unit - the bulwark of this great nation. For this, I would be on board.

Above, third paragraph should have read gay marriage not gay rights.

"I especially liked the theory of how many boys a woman has increases the chances that she'll give birth to a gay son."

Seems pretty obvious that the more kids you have, the more likely one will be gay, if a set % of society is gay.

Personally, I could get behind polygamy. Someone built-in to trade childcare and housekeeping with? Seems like it could be empowering for women and free them up to achieve more. I realize it doesn't work that way in the places it's practiced, but it could. There's nights I'd dearly love DH to have someone else to pester. Of course, jealousy would rear it's ugly head real quick if he did, but I think one could easily argue the theory has some merit, as much as gay marriage, anyway.

"Personally, I could get behind polygamy."

Gnnahhhhh! Wanna see rapes go up? A bunch of sexually frustrated beta males is what this would eventually cause...and would disrupt a civil society immensely, IMHO.

Michael Eades writes: No one can possibly doubt Olson's conservative credentials.

Not reasonably, anyway. A veteran of both the Reagan and Bush administrations? Though my favorite conservative is the late, great Barry Goldwater. When responding to Jerry Falwell's objection about how "every good Christian should be concerned" about Reagan's appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor to the SCOTUS, Goldwater replied that "every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."

Thanks for sharing the article, Dr. Eades. Many of the arguments I've heard before, but expressed so thoroughly. And yes, I've heard the objections ad nauseum, on this blog and on other places.

"It diminishes my heterosexual marriage," I often hear. How? I've never heard how it does that.

By the way, I saw a video of you with Bill O'Reilly, discussing the advantages of a high protein diet. You did an excellent job. Though I find O'Reilly insufferable, it's good to see he gave you appropriate time to share your knowledge without devolving into his one-man-goon-squad persona.

My father died this week. He has been with the same woman for 31 years -- 15 as a married couple, a divorce, then the rest of their lives together without remarrying. (It's complicated.)

She has power of attorney and every other piece of paper someone could have except the marriage certificate.

Yet on Wednesday I got a call. She was weeping. They wouldn't let her sign the cremation papers because she wasn't kin.
Sure, she probably could have gone home and dug up something that would have resolved the issue. But she was grieving. And she couldn't say the magic word: married.

I had to handle it via fax. Daughter at a distance trumps partner of 31 years standing right there.

Never say marriage doesn't carry its own privileges.

Interesting story, Elementary, and I'm sorry for your loss.

Thanks, Patrick.

I prepared well for the O'Reilly interview, which you've got to do before going into hostile territory. In case anyone is interested, here is my blog post about dealing with the media:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/humor/how-to-deal-with-the-media/

These discussions tend to drive me to the keep/get government out of marriage camp.

Beloved, if you are reading this, no I am not in that camp yet! I still want the paper (when we get there).

I'm so sorry, Elementary. Your story really demonstrates why gay couples need the legal status of marriage. Who wants to be dealing with that paperwork when your loved one suddenly dies?

And you never cease to amaze me, momoffour. You're such a no-nonsense type, and I really respect that. I personally have no objection to polygamy. Like you, I can see some benefits. It's not the union that I want, but it seems to have plenty of historical backing.

That is the big weak point that I see with these bible-thumpers who claim marriage is supposed to only be between "one man and one woman". How can they even say that with a straight face when so many males in the bible had multiple wives? Did God make an exception then? And if God is that flexible, why wouldn't He be flexible enough to allow gay marriage?

Ben-David, I await your (always intelligent) response, as I'm genuinely curious about the answer.

"It's no surprise that this woman holds the opinion she does - once you believe the whopper that homosexuals are "born that way" then you'll believe anything.

Posted by: Ben-David at January 17, 2010 2:58 AM"

Eh, I don't really have a problem beliving that gays can be "born that way". I sure seemed to be wired to like girls once I hit 10 or so.

That said, I'm pretty much apathetic towards the gay marriage movement these days. The attitude now seems to be one of forced acceptance of gay lifestyles instead of tolerance. As for benefits etc, I know all too well that couples don't need to be married to secure assets and visitation rights. Healthcare issues usually depends on state laws, company options etc..

My condolences Elementary. I went through the same with my father several years ago. Difference was, his girlfriend went from "you better get your little butt down here young man to deal with the paperwork" to "yeah I've found the power of attorney and can handle it" four hours after the phone call telling me Dad was dead. The only reason I got an answer from the coroner about what exactly happened (heart attack while driving) was being his son. His girlfriend wasn't real accomodating. Then I was treated as a jerk/weirdo for wanting a copy of the death cert..

"As for benefits etc, I know all too well that couples don't need to be married to secure assets and visitation rights. Healthcare issues usually depends on state laws, company options etc.."

Sio, one of the biggest things that changed my mind about gay marriage was knowing of a gay couple who had raised two special needs children for several years but couldn't adopt them. These were wonderful, loving parents, and kids who depended on them and needed the security, after years of being passed around the foster care system, of knowing that they were adopted and had "parents", not just a "foster family".

We are not giving gay couples the same rights. In fact, we are specifically denying them the same rights that a hetero foster couple would have. Yet, we are placing foster children with them. If you are going to do that, then you MUST give them the right to build an adoptive family like anyone else. Those children deserve to have legal parents.

"Equal Protection" and Freedom for Everyone. Those arguments can be used to support polygamy. If you are pro gay marriage then legally and philosophically you must support polygamy. And if you do not, you are a hypocrite and discriminatory against a class of people who yearn to marry the people they love.

I'm not sure that I can support the conferring of legal benefits on gay marriage, but I sure as hell won't support the conferring of legal benefits on "polyamorous" marriage. That would be state-sanctioned adultery. Why not just have Tiger Woods marry all of his mistresses at once?

As far as legal benefits for gay marriages though, I am happy with letting each state define what constitutes marriage. I don't support the Federal Marriage Amendment, but I do believe that each state should be allowed to recognize those marriages from other states that fit its legal definition. However, the Full Faith and Credit Clause could make short work of that in a court case. And I believe that no-fault divorce should be thrown out the window for all married couples, hetero- and homosexual alike.

In the meantime, there is an interesting article from the Cato Institute, which basically provides a way of getting around the problem of who gets to define legal marriage:

The Moral and Constitutional Case for a Right to Gay Marriage>

Pro gay marriage proponents use the "Equal Protection" clause of the Constitution as the basis for their position. Article 14, Sec 1 states, "No state...shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Wasn't the original intent of that clause to end racial discrimination? If so, then this case in California should fall flat on its face, save for activist judges.

Personally, I could get behind polygamy.

Yes, let's envision a world where the alpha males get most of the wives, and most of the beta males sit around with their d*cks in their hands. Pardon my crudeness.

Thank you, Dr Eades, for linking the Ted Olson article. I really cannot see how anyone reading it can still object to gay marriage. This IS going to happen, and those who are against it will come to feel as ashamed as those who were against civil rights and/or bi-racial marriage.

From Ted Olson:

"I have been particularly moved by many personal renditions of how lonely and personally destructive it is to be treated as an outcast and how meaningful it will be to be respected by our laws and civil institutions as an American, entitled to equality and dignity. I have no doubt that we are on the right side of this battle, the right side of the law, and the right side of history."

There were 18,000 couples who married in CA before Proposition 8 was passed.

"So there are now three classes of Californians: heterosexual couples who can get married, divorced, and remarried, if they wish; same-sex couples who cannot get married but can live together in domestic partnerships; and same-sex couples who are now married but who, if they divorce, cannot remarry. This is an irrational system, it is discriminatory, and it cannot stand."

Mpetrie: Wasn't the original intent of that clause to end racial discrimination? If so, then this case in California should fall flat on its face, save for activist judges.

Really? Who decides "intent"? And more importantly, who has the right to infer "intent" when the language doesn't support this interpretation?

In other words, lacking the wording to specify that it was referring to race only, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Yes, let's envision a world where the alpha males get most of the wives, and most of the beta males sit around with their d*cks in their hands.

It's called the Middle East.

I prepared well for the O'Reilly interview, which you've got to do before going into hostile territory. In case anyone is interested, here is my blog post about dealing with the media

Really fascinating blog post and accompanying video. Thanks for the link.

"In other words, lacking the wording to specify that it was referring to race only, you don't have a leg to stand on."

Just because you reframe a question to fit your own needs doesn't mean that others aren't intellegent enough to see what you are doing. It's, like always with you, quite dishonest.

Here's the starting point. Loving vs Virginia doesn't apply because this court case (if taken in context) does not parallel the situation today (gay marriage) like gay marriage activists are trying to portray.

Also, I sense a very fragile ego structure at work with you Patrick.

Reading through your comments here on this thread (as well as others) shows me someone who exalts those who support his position (read above for examples) with an almost creepy idolization - and will demonize and devalue those who don't.

The people with who you are conversing will take on either a good or evil type archetype. Rather than discuss a belief you hold in a rational adult manner, you resort to personalizing things. It's called black or white thinking. Kids use this argument style a lot.

Just sayin'.

Who decides "intent"?

The people who wrote the amendment.

LS wrote: "This IS going to happen, and those who are against it will come to feel as ashamed as those who were against civil rights and/or bi-racial marriage."

Eh, not likely. The more it gets forced down throats, the more people will resent it, much like silly hate crime laws. You can't make people like you or support your lifestyle.

That said, I don't think gays are ENTITLED to marriage, and I think the tactics of some of the more outspoken gay marriage advocates -- such as eightmaps.com -- are bullshit. If you can't make your case and convince enough people to change the laws, throwing a fit is not the way to change their minds.

Patrick: Who decides intent?

Mpetrie: The people who wrote the amendment.

Well, they're all dead, so you can't ask them. I haven't seen the bodies, but since the fourteenth Amendment was enacted in 1868, I think it's a safe bet.

So, basically, you're inferring intent. You insist it was about race and only race. Which begs the question, why didn't they say so? Are they stupid?

On the contrary, I think they were open to the possibility that new issues would arise and wisely couched the language in such a way as to embrace the possibility. And it doesn't take a Nostradamus to realize that race wasn't the only basis for discrimination. Religion comes to mind.

Bottom line: you are foisting an inappropriate interpretation on the equal protection clause without any basis. If they intended for race and only race to fall under the protection of equal protection, they would have said so.

Momof4 writes: Seems pretty obvious that the more kids you have, the more likely one will be gay, if a set % of society is gay.

The point of the video is that the disproportionate majority of these gay sons are the youngest. If this were merely an arbitrary occurrence, the distribution would be about even. Since the numbers increase dramatically as more boys are produced, the video suggests that this may be due to the fact that a woman's body perceives a male fetus as a foreign object, producing antibodies against it. As she has more boys, her body becomes more adept at feminizing the fetus.

I don't think it would be antibodies. Mothers can produce antibodies against a fetus that has a negative blood type (if hers is positive)...I believe, or it might be reversed...but I doubt a mother's body would typically perceive a fetus of either sex as a foreign object and attack it (that theory sounds kind of mysogynistic to me).

My guess is that certain hormones simply wear out with age. The mother will be older by the time the youngest son would be born, and maybe she has less testosterone in her system then.

I believe there are also studies suggesting that women who have relaxed, laid-back personalities tend to have more boys. Hyper, high-strung women have a more acidic body chemistry than women with laid-back personalities, so the male sperm gets killed off before reaching its destination.

Don't know if that's true, but my girlfriend was a nurse and she told me to douche with baking soda for a boy and vinegar for a girl, and it worked both times, as it did for her. The body chemistry angle is all quite interesting.

lovelysoul: I don't think it would be antibodies. Mothers can produce antibodies against a fetus that has a negative blood type (if hers is positive)...I believe, or it might be reversed...but I doubt a mother's body would typically perceive a fetus of either sex as a foreign object and attack it (that theory sounds kind of mysogynistic to me).

But it does.

Blanchard and Klassen covered this in their article, "H-Y antigen and homosexuality in men." Interestingly enough, they found that each older brother increases the odds of a child being born gay by 33%.

The HY antigens that form a masculine brain produce the HY antibodies in an expectant mother.

Hmmmmm....interesting, Patrick. A little scary too. I believe male sperm is also weaker than female sperm. Female sperm can live up to 3 days, whereas male sperm basically has to reach the egg in 24 hrs before they die. With all that's against you, it's a wonder any guys make it! :)

Elementary, so sorry for your loss.

Too bad Crid and momof4 aren't here to see your story .. looks like a fresh crop of contributors here, I suspect many of the 'regulars' have gotten burnt out on the subject from several recent blog articles. Good to have the fresh perspectives.

lovelysoul: Hmmmmm....interesting, Patrick. A little scary too. I believe male sperm is also weaker than female sperm. Female sperm can live up to 3 days, whereas male sperm basically has to reach the egg in 24 hrs before they die. With all that's against you, it's a wonder any guys make it! :)

I've heard something similar. I've heard the male sperm is faster, but the female sperm can endure longer. Which goes along with what you're saying.

Regarding the douche theory, I've heard there was another way to pre-determine the sex of the baby. This redhead, this brunette and a blonde were all sitting in an obstetrician's waiting room for routine checkups. The redhead says, "I know I'm going to have a little boy, because he was on top." The brunette says, "I know I'm going to have a little girl, because I was on top." The blonde thinks for a moment, then brightens suddenly. "I'm going to have puppies."

If your problem with gays is promiscuity, I don't understand why you wouldn't want them to make a commitment to each other. So much of what people don't like about gay culture is a reaction to having to live in secret.

Right, because when heteros get married they never have sex with anyone else again. BZZT! I'm sorry, that's not the correct answer.

I had to handle it via fax. Daughter at a distance trumps partner of 31 years standing right there.

Never say marriage doesn't carry its own privileges.

And it would have been trivial for you to have filed a lawsuit preventing such cremation even if they'd been married. There's nothing in a marriage that's inviolable.

The only reason that government created a tax status for marrieds is that your typical household back in the day was single-income, and tax incentives were offered to promote the creation of new taxpayers.

And yes, people who would not otherwise have that additional child just might do it if it changed their tax status enough to where affording the child was no longer an issue.

When gays can procreate absent third-party interference, then they can call themselves "married". Until then, society doesn't get anything out of them in exchange for offering them access to divorce court to handle their breakups like the heteros who can't get their shit together.

Bottom line: you are foisting an inappropriate interpretation on the equal protection clause without any basis.

Well, that's what I was taught about the 14th amendment: protection for race, creed, color. Of course, it was in a public skrewel, if I remember correctly, so I could indeed be wrong. If "alternative lifestyles" count as a creed, on the other hand, then I guess you're protected. I'll have to check the debate records sometime.

The day I decided to stop being gay

Twenty years after he came out, Patrick Muirhead, 41, explains why he is suddenly feeling the appeal of the opposite sex

From the Times of London - link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article6990013.ece

The best parts:
- the breezy admission of widespread promiscuity.
- the clear understanding that marriage-like commitment and love are not common in the gay landscape.

- the oh-so-liberal commenters scrambling to make this guy's story fit their assumptions, after being hammered with the lie that gays are "born that way".

Ben-David, as studies show, sexuality really falls along a spectrum, so it's not surprising that some men ultimately find that they are not "strongly gay", just as many straight women I know enjoy the occassional dalliance with another woman. Some people are, more accurately, bi-sexual, and could probably go either way.

But that isn't true for most gay people. They are fully at the homosexual end of the spectrum, and it would be impossible for them to feel sexually attracted to a member of the opposite sex - just as it would be impossible for a straight man to feel that way towards another man.

If society was reversed, and that was what was expected of you, do you think you could fall in love or desire sex with another man? Could you stop desiring females?

It would be great if you could - you most certainly would want to conform - but your heterosexuality is set, if not at birth, somewhere quite early in the subconscious mind, where it can't be changed. You don't know how you became a heterosexual or how to unbecome one.

So, it's quite unreasonable to expect that the majority of gays can undo their sexual preference as easily as this one man, who seemed fairly ambivalent and torn about his sexuality all along.

lovelysoul trying the PC two-step:

as studies show, sexuality really falls along a spectrum

AND:

But that isn't true for most gay people.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Which is it?

This is the same double-talk that has feminist professors urging coeds to "explore their lesbian potential" while asserting that gays are "born that way".

Human sexuality is not a genetic trait. It is an complex emotional construct based on life experience as much as base physical urges.

When faced with this reality, liberals nod sagely - and then reassert the non-sequitir that gays are different: they have been officially declared Poor Dears by the PC elites, which voids any suggestion that they change what "studies" show to be a dysfunctional, lonely "lifestyle".

Could you please address the open-eyed criticisms of the gay "community" that the author of the article brings up - not just the casual mention of promiscuity as a norm, but his tacit understanding that the deep, committed love he is after cannot be found in homosexual couplings?

mpetrie: Well, that's what I was taught about the 14th amendment: protection for race, creed, color. Of course, it was in a public skrewel, if I remember correctly, so I could indeed be wrong. If "alternative lifestyles" count as a creed, on the other hand, then I guess you're protected. I'll have to check the debate records sometime.

I was trying to point out that while those things might have been in the minds of those who penned it, lacking specific language to that effect, it becomes merely an interpretation, not the letter of the law.

Ben-David: Human sexuality is not a genetic trait. It is an complex emotional construct based on life experience as much as base physical urges.

"Born that way" and "genetic trait" are not the same thing. As the studies I referred to are showing, these things are not genetic, but influenced in the womb. Hence a person can be "born that way," but still not "genetically determined" to be that way.

And there is no inconsistency in lovelysoul's statement. Sexuality does indeed fall along a spectrum, and the reference to "gay" and "lesbian" refers to people whose sexual orientation happen to fall close to the extreme. Kinsey was the one who postulated (and proved) that sexuality falls along a spectrum. I myself happen to be an extreme. I have never been attracted to women. Not even slightly.

Regarding, the claims of the author of the article you posted, there is no need to address any of them. He is describing his experience, sans any means of verification, so what remains to be disproven?

My uncle lived with his same sex lover in a committed monogamous relationship for 52 years before his lover passed on due to complications from diabetes. So, I should extrapolate his experience onto the entire gay community and state that long term committed relationships are the norm? You wouldn't accept that, so why should I accept this author's unverifiable experience as the norm?

"Could you please address the open-eyed criticisms of the gay "community" that the author of the article brings up - not just the casual mention of promiscuity as a norm, but his tacit understanding that the deep, committed love he is after cannot be found in homosexual couplings?"

I agree with Patrick. That is just HIS experience, and it seems to me that he was conflicted about his sexuality all along. I think he is likely bi-sexual.

Sexuality falls along a spectrum, but it is much less common for males to fall in the middle. The highest percentages of males are at one end or the other. You see many more bi-sexual females than males, but it doesn't mean they don't exist.

I've read studies that gay men are more promiscuous. That isn't easy for the gay community to discount. But, if one looks at it objectively, it's easy to see WHY.

Males are more sexual to begin with, and the only thing that really keeps them from being promiscous, as heterosexuals, is a strong social construct. Straight men have marriage, and all the associated family involvement and judgement to restrict them.

Even then, it doesn't often work. Look at Tiger Woods. One could even argue that gay men are just more blatant about promiscuity because they CAN be. They are single men.

Allowing them to marry, in a real and meaningful way to make a commitment to each other, will no doubt cut down on promiscuity. It will not eliminate it - no more than it has for heterosexual couples.

And, Ben-David, you did not answer my question. Could you "make" yourself have sex with a man?

"once you believe the whopper that homosexuals are "born that way" then you'll believe anything.'

Tell me Ben-David, were you born Jewish? And why should that matter when it comes to your civil rights?

Lonelysoul:
Could you "make" yourself have sex with a man?
- - - - - - - - - - -
Every real scientific evidence I've seen indicates that something does, indeed, "make" people gay.

Freud, Rogers, and the other major lights of psychology spoke about missed developmental opportunities leading to homosexuality. (They also accurately noted the persistence of adolescent narcissism in the gay subculture.)

Large-scale studies by gay-friendly organizations like GMHC confirm recurrent patterns of dysfunction/trauma in the histories of gay people.

Many of these occur very early in life - for boys, identification with father starts in the second year of life.

Which is why many gay men say they "always felt this way". The homosexual attraction is a dysfunctional response - a symptom of derailed normal development.

Reparative therapy does not involve "retraining" - it involves resolving those traumas, and making up for missed developmental moments.

When the problems are resolved, the attraction - which was a symptom, not a core orientation - is lessened.

And it works - retrospective surveys show it is about as effective as similar treatments for other compulsive behaviors.

The oft-repeated "born that way" myth is used to obscure this truth - and as a sloppy, pity-mongering attempt to slip the bonds of moral judgment.

So: if human sexuality really is a complex emotional development, and there is really is a continuum - I assume you disagree with the hothead activists who want to outlaw reparative therapy?

Surely you agree that those who want to change, should be allowed to?

Show proof that the reparative therapy actually works long-term.

Do you really think your attraction to females could be changed by going back to some childhood hurts and traumas (which we all have)? I've seen very little evidence that this sort of therapy works even to overcome anxiety or other lesser issues, much less a person's entire sexuality.

Some gays have such self-loathing because of being treated to moral judgment, harassment, and ridicule that they do indeed want to be "repaired", but that doesn't make reparative therapy successful long-term for them or the majority of gay individuals.

Like I said, I don't know if gays are "born that way". I suspect it's some combination of factors, such as womb environment and/or an early-childhood experiences and impressions, but I'm quite certain that, just as you and I developed an attraction to the opposite sex that is quite irreversable, most gays developed an equally strong attraction to the same sex that is irreversable.

Though I don't like to group the two, pedophilia might be similar to the kind of damaged sexuality that you believe in. Studies show that many pedophiles were traumatized and molested sexually at an early age. So, if reparative therapy actually works, it should be successful with them.

Yet, I believe there are virtually no psychological treatments proven to successfully reverse those individual's sexual urges for children. What we've found is that sexuality, once set, is extremely hard to change.

Behavior, of course, can be modified. But this is what gets me. The message from people like you that a gay person must either "learn" to desire sex with someone of the opposite sex or live a celibate existence.

Be honest, you couldn't do that. You wouldn't be able to make love to man. Could you resign yourself, then, to life-long celibacy? I suppose, yes, being a religious man, but it's still a very unfair choice to impose on others.

Lovelysoul: I've read studies that gay men are more promiscuous. That isn't easy for the gay community to discount. But, if one looks at it objectively, it's easy to see WHY.

I can address this. Understand, I am not condoning promiscuity. Only trying to understand it.

Promiscuity happens when the need for intimacy meets the fear of intimacy. George Bernard Shaw called homosexuality "the love that dare not speak its name" for a good reason.

Homosexuals are not validated in their relationships. Yes, it is getting better, but it still has a way to go. In public, homosexuals in general are rather guarded. Heterosexuals can quite freely talk about their spouses, kids, hold hands in public. Gays have a certain reluctance, understandably so. Homosexuals are still on the receiving end of a high number of bias crimes. See the FBI statistics if you don't believe me.

Lacking validation and finding much in the way of censure, it's easy to see why gays might be conditioned to view their own needs for intimacy, love and closeness as wrong, inappropriate, even detestable.

Again, it's a need for intimacy that is in conflict with a fear of intimacy. And it doesn't just happen to gays, of course. Heterosexuals could find the opposite sex unapproachable for a variety of reasons. This in turn will drive someone to superficial, non-committal, short term relationships. It's an expression of intimacy, that can be dispensed with when the sexual encounter is completed.

That makes perfect sense, Patrick.

It's just the same for a 23 yr old girl who sleeps around. Promiscuity stems from a feeling of low self-worth and fear of intimacy, which many people have, straight or gay, but if you're in a society that is constantly demeaning your self-worth, it's even more likely to occur.

You would think that those who are against promiscuity would support gay marriage.

Btw, I hope you're watching "Modern Family" (ABC Wednesday, 9 pm eastern time). It's such a great show, and the gay couple with the adopted baby is wonderful. The fact that it is a top-rated show demonstrates how much gay "couplehood" is growing in acceptance.

Lovelys:
Do you really think your attraction to females could be changed by going back to some childhood hurts and traumas
- - - - - - - - - -
No - because attraction to women is normal, not a dysfunctional reaction to trauma. That's the point: reparative therapy is not Pavlovian "retraining" - it is returning to the default, normal setting after resolving issues.

Therefore your repeated straw-man nonsense about whether I could "make" myself gay is distracting folderol.

Further:
Some gays have such self-loathing because of being treated to moral judgment, harassment, and ridicule
- - - - - - - - - - -
Yes, and Patrick tries to pull the same line to explain away the compulsive promiscuity and other dysfunctional behaviors.

This wears thin as gays elbow themselves to the front row of the zeitgeist, and terrorize The Rest Of Us with politically correct thought patrolling.

The data on continued dysfunction - including rates of suicide and substance abuse that are 4-5 times the general population - are coming from the Health departments of swinging Amsterdam, London, San Fran, and other places where gays are not likely to suffer much abuse.

Jews were also "treated to moral judgment, harassment, and ridicule" for millenia. Yet we lived according to our values, building stable families and communities - without any "validation of our relationships".

If internal problems keep you from living according to your professed values - you need therapy, not tolerance.

Further:
Studies show that many pedophiles were traumatized and molested sexually at an early age.
- - - - - - - - - - -
One in 17 men in the general population were sexually molested.

For gay men - the rate is 1 in 7.

So there most definitely is a parallel here - although not the one you're trying to draw.

The issue is whether or not sexuality can be changed. Fine, you may believe it is caused by some early trauma, but, even so, there's been no success in changing it. Reparative therapy doesn't work.

With pedophiles, society obviously cannot allow them to act on their sexual urges because they would violate a minor. But gays are different. They are adults who find themselves with the same sexual desires, which they CAN channel into a stable family relationship. And it is far better that they do so than try to force themselves into a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, which is doomed to failure.

When I was reading that young man's article, I felt pity for the woman he would eventually marry during his experiment.

My ex had a lust for rape. All his life, or at least since he could remember. He may have been molested. He was certainly verbally and physically abused.

Nobody ever had more therapy than he did. He tried to "repair" those urges all his life - explored every childhood trauma he could recall, even did hypnosis, and that therapy where they take you back to the womb and have you experience "rebirth".

Yet, even now, if he sees a rape scene on TV, or in the movies, he's gonna get turned on, and it's like a hunger for violent sex that has to be filled. This essentially ruined 2 marriages.

I share this simply to show that I have seen first-hand how unsuccessful therapy is in changing someone's sexuality. They can hide it for awhile. Many times he stopped, supposedly "reformed", only to start again, but their true desires do not change. Sexuality cannot be changed.

To try to force all gay people into relationships with the opposite sex, much less encourage them to start families while doing so, is a recipe for disaster!

OK - So when you said above that "sexuality is a spectrum" - YOU WERE LYING. Tap-dancing away from the factual, rational challenge posed to you.

It took a lot of posts - but we finally got a "straight" answer in the end - although it's not so straight, it reveals the intellectual crookedness and distortions that are used to promote the normalization of homosexuality.

It's the same old PC garbage - once are declared an official Poor Dear, the normal rules don't apply. They are elevated to sacralized victimhood. Any dysfunctional behavior on their part is blamed on others (the "haters" in this case).

Any attempt to address the facts is swamped by tap-dancing like your feint earlier in this thread, and emotional scenery-chewing.

In fact - sexual identity IS a continuum, IS fluid.

And that fluidity DOES include gays - who are NOT "born that way."

Quote:
If any conclusions can be drawn from the literature, it is that change in sexual orientation is possible.For instance, in their review of the literature on once-married lesbians, Bridges and Croteau (1994) found that 25-50% of lesbians in various reports had once been in heterosexual marriages. While heterosexual marriage alone may not be a complete gauge of sexual orientation, the reasons for the marriage should offer some insight into the sexual identity of the women at the time. Kirkpatrick (1988) reported that once-married lesbian women often married because they were in love with their husbands. In examining the reasons for the shift in sexual expression, Charbonneau and Lander (1991) found two broad explanations. One group felt they had always been lesbian and were becoming true to themselves. However, another group viewed their change as a "choice among sexual options." If counselors are not to assist clients in their wishes for a shift in sexual orientation, how would ACA's governing council wish for counselors to respond to such women wanting to become more settled in their choice of a lesbian identity?

Narrowly, the question to be addressed is: Does conversion therapy work to change unwanted sexual arousal? I submit that the case against conversion therapy requires opponents to demonstrate that no clients have benefited from such procedures or that any benefits are too costly in some objective way to be pursued, even if they work. The available evidence supports the observation of many counselors - that many individuals with a same-gender sexual orientation have been able to change with a variety of counseling approaches.

Here's the full article, which originally appeared in a refereed professional journal:

http://tinyurl.com/yesurfb

What are you talking about? There's no inconsistency. Just because sexuality falls along a spectrum, it still FALLS where it is. That doesn't mean it's changeable.

As I said, male sexuality, in particular, is less likely to be changed. Men are usually at either end of the spectrum - fully heterosexual or fully homosexual. There's no ambiguity there. You, for instance, are fully straight. You're not going to the other end, no matter how much "reparative therapy" you might have - or even if someone paid you - and neither is a gay man.

You're the one tap dancing, Ben-David. I like you, and I respect your religious stance on this. Yet, you've offered no proof that "reparative therapy" works, and that's because it doesn't. You know it and I know it. If it did, we'd be reforming every pedophile out there. But we can't. Sexuality isn't changeable.

The only exception to that are females, who seem quite flexible along the middle of the spectrum. Personally, I'm not. I have no urge to be with another woman, any more than you could be with another man, but you often see women go through a lesbian "stage", then return to being straight. But that almost never happens with males. And I believe there are a lot of reasons for that, other than innate sexuality. Women are much more emotionally driven when it comes to relationships. We fall in love first, and lust can become secondary. This is generally not true for males.

The problem is that you offer no solution but a change of sexuality, which doesn't work, or total celibacy, which is cruel.

Why is it so bad that there might be another solution - a real, practical one - which is to allow gays to marry and build stable families?

Do you really believe God is so petty that He would be against this? God even allowed pologamous relationships, which aren't in favor today, but He clearly wasn't against them.

Aren't you taking words from the bible that have been re-interpreted, again and again, by MAN and using them to condemn gay relationships? Isn't it possible that God cares more about whether two people really love each other than what sex they are?

I answered before your last post, but, just as I said, women seem much more fluid in their sexuality. I think the reasons for this are clear. Women are not as driven by purely physical sexual desires, like men. We have less hormonal infuence over sexual feelings than men. Our choices are more emotionally driven.

I'm not sure what Ben-David is after. I'm reminded of a previous blog entry which stated that voting against gay marriage is simply voting the "politics of revulsion." It doesn't affect heterosexual marriage in any way. Although there have been assertions to the contrary, it has never been shown how this happens.

Sexual orientation is not fluid. At least mine has never been. And, like most gays, I went through a period in adolescence when I wanted to change more than anything else. (Or did you think that gays wake up one day and say to themselves, "I think I'd like nothing better than to be the most despised segment of the population"?) You'll never guess in a million years what didn't budge one iota, despite wishing, praying, trying to force myself to find women erotically stimulating. Of course, I've heard all the counters to this. "You didn't try hard enough." (I was nearly suicidal over this issue.) "You're lying!" (Whatever.) "You just need to find Jesus." (He's been dead for 2000 years.)

But I've come to realize that nothing I say or do will convince guys like Ben-David of this. You need to believe I just consciously decided to be gay, because you're so repulsed by the idea that you refuse to believe that God would make people like this or allow gays to be born this way (which we are). And I've stopped being offended by all the accusations that I should have tried harder, that I'm a liar for saying I didn't choose it, that I could be fixed if I wanted it badly enough. I know how hard I tried and I know how badly I wanted it and I know I'm not lying. If you need to believe otherwise, Ben-David, it's not my problem you can't escape your preconceived notions.

If Ben-David is expecting us to concede that a person's sexual orientation is changeable, he's going through a fabulous waste of time. My own experience has left me convinced beyond all doubt that it is not.

lonely:
male sexuality, in particular, is less likely to be changed.
- - - - - - - - -
And the evidence for this is.... what, exactly?

We know that 25-30 percent of male teenagers experience transient same-sex crushes during adolescence and young adulthood.

We also know that young men are FAR more sexually adventurous than women.

... but let's skip the pseudo-science and get to the real (straw man) agenda:

Why is it so bad that there might be another solution - a real, practical one - which is to allow gays to marry and build stable families?

Do you really believe God is so petty that He would be against this? God even allowed pologamous relationships, which aren't in favor today, but He clearly wasn't against them.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
In fact, the Old Testament clearly IS against polygamy - every portrayal of the situation is negative, and the Torah begins the process of limiting the practice, which was quickly completed by the Sages.

There is nothing stopping the formation of "stable gay families - except the compulsive, dysfunctional promiscuity of gays themselves.

The Torah is opposed to that "lifestyle" for the same reasons it downgraded polygamy - it leads to soul-deadening exploitation instead of a healthy link between sexual and emotional intimacy.

Patrick is also aiming at straw men:
You need to believe I just consciously decided to be gay, because
- - - - - - - - -
Nope. I never said anything about you choosing this of your own volition.

I said it is dysfunctional, a maladapted response to trauma, negative relationships, and/or missed developmental steps.

...and it's always interesting to see the whine of victimhood insinuate itself at this point - the tacit admission that the being gay is not really very satisfying. As you yourself say:

I know how hard I tried and I know how badly I wanted it and I know I'm not lying.
- - - - - - - - - -
But why should you want to if homosexuality is just a normal variation - and if the only thing keeping you from finding your dream lover and building a family is those nasty knuckle-draggers who won't give you a piece of paper that says "marriage" on it?

What's so wrong that you wanted to leave gaydom? Am I right about the dysfunction? The compulsive promiscuity, superficiality, and exploitation that tears relationships apart?

So I got that part right - and we SHOULD pity you for being dysfunctional?

Sorry bubba - you can't play both sides of this argument at once. Either it's a normal variation or it's a dysfunction.