<p>
</p>
<p>Allmusic, you have serious reading comprehension problems. It is pointless to engage in a discussion with you.</p>
<p>It’s crazy to prescribe celibacy to others.</p>
<p>Perhaps if some posters here had dear friends whose children were gay they might not be so heartless. When our next door neighbor’s boy–whom I’ve known since grade school–came out when he was 20, I had a few talks with him. He told me the torture of “boys night out” with his dad in junior high when he and his dad would go to movies. His dad would ooh and aah over the sexy actresses, while the boy–to his shame–felt aroused by the male stars!</p>
<p>Poor kid kept that secret, kept blaming himself, for many years.</p>
<p>How can anyone say that homosexuality is a “choice,” or that it is “wrong” if it is just who you are?</p>
<p>The boy is now preparing to apply for medical school. Would you check to see if he is practicing homosexuality before he tried to save your life?</p>
<p>I have not read the complete thread here, but wanted to put in my two cents</p>
<p>You can probably guess from my screen name that I am employed by a church. Mainline denomination. In the south. I consider myself to be a fairly conservative person…with qute a few libertarian leanings, I guess.</p>
<p>The gay marriage issue is one that I feel strongly about. I support anyone’s right to marry and to be in a stable committed relationship. I would love to see my church open its collective arms to gay/lesbian individuals and families and minister to them just as we do anyone else. Sadly, I do not think that is happening yet, but it’s one of the things that I think can happen.</p>
<p>And I think anyone that tries to claim that gay marriage is somehow a “threat” to traditional marriage is just blowing smoke…</p>
<p>End of rant.</p>
<p>Another thing about AIDS in Africa (tying in with very little use of condoms) is the large number of men who consider themselves heterosexual but do have sex with other men.</p>
<p>“Mainline denomination. In the south. I consider myself to be a fairly conservative person…with qute a few libertarian leanings, I guess.”</p>
<p>Churchmusicmom, I would characterize myself and my position in exactly the same way. Except I don’t live in the south.</p>
<p>mini - Wow, so because THE SECRETARY OF STATE says so then it MUST be right. Gee, now I know what I have been missing all these years for not ever attaining a job of national stature! Oh, the power…</p>
<p>What is wrong with gay marriage? </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Nothing at all if one’s premise is that there is no difference between men and women – something I do not believe for a second and doubt that anyone else with more than three working brain cells does either.</p></li>
<li><p>That “offspring” (I use that term liberally, which should please some) from such a “marriage” will receive the same healthy type of two-gender influence that those of a normal marriage get – that can never happen.</p></li>
<li><p>That heterosexual marriage has been the ONLY accepted form from the dawn of civilization. Why is that? Does one suppose that those countless generations of humankind knew something that we don’t?</p></li>
<li><p>Does it pass the smell test? Well, let’s see, I think that people will disagree on the exact percentages, but I am guessing, there is going to be a significant change in the air quality once the “number of gay marriages” approaches, what, 5 percent of the total? The thing I never hear from proponents of such outlandish alliances is that the numbers do not matter. Is that because they assume that the numbers will NEVER advance beyond a fairly low count? Or, do they not even consider the possibility that the numbers may reach a point where they are actually in competition with normal marriages? Or, if they do see that yet express no alarm – what does that say about them? If, on the other hand, they assume a low and constant number, are they truly embracing (pardon the symbolism) gay marriage unconditionally? I think not, and therein lies hypocrisy on their part.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s an awful lot that I disagree with in post #66, but this one has me really puzzled. Competition with normal marriages?</p>
<p>I actually regard the definition of a person by their external genitalia as less important than * who they are*</p>
<p>I know that external appearance can fool- someone can appear to be a female but actually have a ( CC wont let me say it- but just imagine dangly bits) and XX chromosomes
[Sex and Gender are different](<a href=“http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/intersex/”>http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/intersex/</a>
sexual<em>I</em>G_web.html)</p>
<p>The assumption that heterosexual unions are inherently “healthy” and thus will guide children to adulthood more “normally”, has obviously been disproven so many times it isn’t even worth arguing.</p>
<p>As for the statement that homosexual partners have not been an accepted part of other societies at other times - well- I guess you aren’t too familar with the classics are you? Early Japan? Ever hear the term * Boston Marriage?*
;)</p>
<p>As I said, Leanid, when heterosexuals can sustain marriages beyond a 50% divorce rate (think of all those poor children, living without the daily “two gender influence”), then the moral police (many of whom are divorced themselves) can make comments about the marriage of gay people. </p>
<p>Until that time, it seems that they should get their own houses in order before they cast aspersions on others.</p>
<p>AM - You cannot mean me, as I have been married only once, and still am, for over twenty years.</p>
<p>kity - I said “marriage” not “partners”</p>
<p>No, I didn’t mean you. I was talking generally, about people who complain about the sanctity of marriage and how gay marriage will destroy said sanctity…spoken by many who are divorced.</p>
<p>kity - Also, as to whether or not normal marriages are healthier than gay ones, I will take my chances on them any day. Nothing is perfect but to assume that by accepting something as unnatural as gay marriage in order to overcome the imperfect is pathetically lacking in vision.</p>
<p>accoriding to gov stats- only 53.1% of adolescents 15-17 are living with married, biological parents
27.6 % are living with single parents
and
7.2% arent living with parents at all
<a href=“http://www.childstats.gov/index.asp[/url]”>http://www.childstats.gov/index.asp</a></p>
<p>I would consider poor adult involvement- or even abusive/neglectful involvement to be much more of a concern for developing adolescents than if the adults caring for the child happened to be a same sex partnership</p>
<p>nceph - Competition in numbers. At what point do we say ENOUGH gay marriages? Or, does it not matter to you?</p>
<p>kity - Okay, but what if you had a choice between having parents who were kind, loving, nuturing, etc and were man and woman – and – having parents with the same quailites but were man and man, or woman and woman? Which set of parents would you rather have?</p>
<p>I can’t speak for everyone, </p>
<p>but it seems to me that the discussion and debate over gay marriage is in fact a debate about sex: Man-Man sex…not marriage.</p>
<p>Reading through this thread and having seen other debates on the issue, it seems sex is the proverbial tree that blocks the suburban view of the forest. These discussions always spin out on the axis of male sexuality/homosexuality; it is decidedly rare to see female homosexuality as the totem of these discussions.</p>
<p>Considering the–purported–bottomless-pit of the male sexual appetite, I have hesitantly come to the conclusion that the debate has more to do with unrestrained male sexual behavior, than same-sex Eros in the general public. </p>
<p>It is often said, by the fashionably Left proponents of Gay-lib, that the romance of a men’s restroom is an aberration of the gay lifestyle. That this occurs at the nether-end of the gay-male demographic; however, the former Governor of New Jersey, James McGreevey, argues–to John Q Public–that this is not so much an outsider aberration, or a practice so aberrant as to be a fringe element of the community as it is a part of the common gay-male experience of sex; as noted, Andrew Sullivan’s peccadilloes (an otherwise sane and socially elite gay man), amongst many other cruisers, would argue the same thing. Congressman Foley also did his infamous part, as a Republican congressman responsible for protecting boys and girls from people like him (including the ‘young stud’ that worked under his authority).</p>
<p>Moreover, until quite recently, the public face of the Gay Community has been the very public Gay-parades and festivals put on wheel through the main streets of our urban centers. </p>
<p>I have attended and they are a blast of carnivalesque fun: when I’m in town I don’t miss them. Everyone’s happy and ‘gay’ and delighted with the bright and colorful people-play. However, it is worth noting that a rather large portion of the parades overt function is to celebrate sexual promiscuity (using lots and lots of condoms on lots and lots of partners-- one presumes–based on the multitude of condoms thrown from the floats). </p>
<p>In any case, it is about SEX, not devotion, bonding and responsibility…the latter being the hallmarks of a family and of marriage.</p>
<p>This is the image of the gay lifestyle, marketed by the community itself, to the public. </p>
<p>I suspect that what middle-America is most turned off by is not the idea that two people of the same sex irresistibly fall in love and desire to be united in public matrimony; but rather, the idea that devotion and matrimony are based on unrestrained sexual appetite and exhibition. They see the issue as an issue for their children–heterosexual promiscuity is deemed by most bad enough and in need of shoring-up with out further onslaught. The idea that the proponents of casual sex will begin to define the institution of marriage (as they do in their most visible displays–parades and protests…there is no heterosexual counterpart to it) scares them and even contradicts the very terms of marriage as they understand it. </p>
<p>It seems to be, in this sense, anti-marriage. </p>
<p>As for myself, our family is very close to a long term lesbian family (two moms and a son & daughter birthed by one of the moms) and my cousin, a male, has been in a long term and very committed and loving relationship.</p>
<p>I wish for a compromise, but I don’t expect one: </p>
<p>because the LEFT sees this as a political issue/cause (stupidly equating the situation to slavery, etc) to beat down the ‘unsophisticated’ middle American who, in turn, sees the gay lifestyle–as designed and marketed by the gay-activist parades and protests–as a threat to the sanctity of the family and monogamy in general (that is, marriage as currently defined); unable to see that the issue, for many, is about two people in love rather than as many people as possible having sex as often as possible–as the gay carnival and gay protest too often would have them see it, they see it as a back-door threat to a way of life they cherish. </p>
<p>It has little, IMO, to do with religion, in fact; it has everything to do with sexual fidelity and familial devotion…and the modern threats that plague it. Those in love and longing to be together should be able to be together, they should further have some legal protection if they are to take on a legal and long term responsibility.</p>
<p>COMPROMISE!</p>
<p>I was glad to see that Sec. Rice did not compromise. One doesn’t congratulate “mothers-in-law” to civil unions. She (probably with the Prez’s blessings) recognized the marriage.</p>
<p>It was a great step forward.</p>
<p>Only mini (…I wish it were true…) could see this as anything other than a compromise. </p>
<p>Mini,</p>
<p>The revolution will, with some luck, not be televised…put away your placards and your silly rainbow afro-wig–nobody’s looking.</p>
<p>To those seriously involved this is not to the death (as you would clearly prefer), but rather to death do us part (as those seriously concerned and involved would have it).</p>
<p>It is good to see your leader attempting to rally his gay base.</p>
<p>To be fair, your man is still popular among straight Presbyterians in northwestern Wyoming.</p>