<p>Alas I have not gotten around to a standard </p>
<p>But as it turns out, Americans have what you might call a quaint sense of propriety. They would rather not hear the bloviating of sexual-coinsurers telling them their sans-toilet sex lives are boring. Whats more they may not take a shine to being chastised for not having the wherewithal to get out and hit-it-wit strangers in public restrooms. Prudes, I know.</p>
<p>Perhaps by your standards, this amounts to staid and boring love-making, unfit for refined conversation. I understand that, and I sympathize with your situation. Nonetheless, this is the climate of the country Americans tend to take offense at even things seemingly (relative to your sense of the humped-up thrill) innocuous acts like J. Jackson bearing her breast on live TV. </p>
<p>Whats more, I believe that gay individuals who long for recognition of their long term relationships would rather not be defended by those who believe sex is a free-for-all best served-up on ceramic tile. They may believe this gluttonous behavior is counter to their romantic aims and interests: not family-like, if you know what I mean (and I suspect you do not).</p>
<p>In short, your ridiculous and simultaneous defense of gluttonous and dangerous sex with gay marriage is self defeating for both parties.</p>
<p>It is not like the difference between apples and oranges; its the difference between civilized social behavior and barbarism. </p>
<p>They say you are either part of the problem or the solution. I dont think this is true, but in your case, I defer to the common wisdom. </p>
<p>Stop helping gay individuals in their efforts to have their long term relationships and families recognized: they dont want their children to hear this stuff either.</p>
<p>SS:
What are the rights of domestic partners you would recognize. Which rights afforded to marrieds would you deny gays? I ask because it seems people are ascribing all sorts of positions to conservatives in this area.</p>
<p>First, a legal union affording the legal privileges of marriage to those desiring and willing to accept the social responsibility. After that, what the climate will bear. </p>
<p>I am certain that there are gay individuals who want the sublime pleasures that marriage affords, they need the legal security and social recognition to maintain and preserve their relationships: same as hetrosexual couples do. </p>
<p>I am equally certain that there are those who see this in strictly political terms. I oppose them. I believe the majority of these hot-heads are on the left, but that they can be found in either direction.</p>
<p>My advice to the left: take it easy, stop making this one of your premier political issues and those on the other side will fall back asleep and dream of better days. That is, if you are sincere, rather than political which I suspect may not be the case considering the rhetoric of the petite revolutionaries involved.</p>
<p>“But ignoring a public health crisis under the rainbow flag of political correctness sure does.”</p>
<p>SS,</p>
<p>I am not very politically correct, sorry. How would gay marriage contribute to the public health crisis? Wouldn’t it actually reduce it somewhat? Of course, with a hetero divorce rate of 50%, I don’t know if gays would be any better than heteros when it comes to fidelity. </p>
<p>But it could also be said that you are supressing gays under the flag of a health crisis, couldn’t it? Couldn’t things be encouraged to provide safety to the situation? </p>
<p>My thing here is I don’t care if anybody gets married if that is their want. Right now there are less than 50% married households in America. Maybe the anti gay marriage folks are convincing young heteros that it’s just not worth it.</p>
<p>Well, contrary to what some might believe, conservatives like myself do not teach our kids to spraypaint “Dirty Dykes” or “Burn in Hell” on the homes of same-sex couples. I don’t want to get into the “Some of my best friends are gay” deal, but, “Some of my…” </p>
<p>Whether it is neighbors, co-workers, patients, or relatives & children of friends, the gay people I’ve known don’t always have it easy. I would give all of them domestic partner rights (if I ran the world, of course) that would allow them to pass on inheritances, pensions, health benefits. I’d also want the partner to be considered the next-of-kin for hospital situations. That’s off the top of my head, and I’m sure there are other issues. While I see gay couples doing a good job as parents, I still believe an ideal situation for a child is a mom & dad. Please don’t bring up the red herring of drug-addicted hetero parents. </p>
<p>Nothing earth shattering here. Pretty common beliefs. ANd FS is right that gays advocating for these rights aren’t thrilled to be lumped in with the NJ Turnpike reststop trawlers.</p>
<p>"I am certain that there are gay individuals who want the sublime pleasures that marriage affords, they need the legal security and social recognition to maintain and preserve their relationships: same as hetrosexual couples do. "</p>
<p>Finally a reasonable pov that considers someone else. </p>
<p>The other post is rather silly, Bless your heart. </p>
<p>I’ve rarely been called so many things in such a nice way, Bless your heart.</p>
<p>Again, I am just another pov, different than yours, Bless your heart.</p>
<p>I am not nearly as nasty as you paint me to be, Bless your heart. </p>
<p>"Nothing earth shattering here. Pretty common beliefs. ANd FS is right that gays advocating for these rights aren’t thrilled to be lumped in with the NJ Turnpike reststop trawlers. "</p>
<p>Really, even when she brought up the example of bathroom sex? How is she right again?</p>
<p>I would choose the rich, well-educated parents, every time.</p>
<p>But we don’t keep the poor and ignorant from getting married, or from having children. In this country, we don’t dispense governmental goodies on the basis of whether hypothetical children would like to be born into the household. See Loving v. Virginia.</p>
<p>Also, I’m honestly puzzled by the discussion of gay pride parades – if the problem with gay people is their licentiousness and promiscuity, isn’t it a good idea to give them legal incentives to settle down and form stable, monogamous households?</p>
<p>As for the idea that being gay is contagious and that gay marriage will take over the world…if I’m still straight after a lifetime in musical theater and a stint at Bryn Mawr…I suspect that straightness is a lot more robust than some posters give it credit for. And as for the idea that we should prevent gay marriage because if everyone did it, the population would decrease, what do you propose the government should do with straight women like me who choose not to have children? After all, if everyone did what I’m doing, we’d be in big trouble, right?</p>
<p>Our society should encourage fidelity, not promiscuity, if only for public health reasons. Gay marriage, call it something else if “marriage” offends you, should receive an official stamp of approval.</p>
<p>To people like HH, well, you are missing the point. Even if gay sex is riskier, that got nothing to do with right to marry. How about lesbian sex being the safest? LOL! Are you saying we should have some kind of investigation or test to ensure a heterosexual couple isn’t engaging any risky activity before they are granted marriage certificate? lol! </p>
<p>I’d blame some gay men’s risky and promiscuous behavior to the society. If this society is truly embracing their sexual orientation, they wouldn’t be limited to going to clubs (and sometime bathhouses) to meet people. Many would have healthier minds to connect with others. Clubs generally aren’t the best places for straight women meeting straight men either. They are good for hookups. But at least straight people have other outlets. But gay men often don’t; otherwise, there will be a lot more opportunities for quality relationships to be found and built upon.</p>
<p>I don’t know what state you live in, Sam Lee, but many do still require blood tests for STD’s and genetic diseases and a waiting period before granting a marriage license. Twenty-five years ago, when I was married, Connecticut still required a blood test. Most states do not require such any longer, but, interestingly, there is talk of testing everyone for the AIDS virus, routine upon hospital admission perhaps. This idea is very controversial for a number of reasons. </p>
<p>To your other point: marriage doesn’t prevent straight couples from being promiscuous does it? It is disingenuous to propose that the state of marriage in and of itself enables any human being to have a “healthier mind.” No one is restricting gays’ right to meet partners at any venue they may wish–sports activities, bookclubs, on-the-job, at church activities, etc. (the list is endless). The idea that gay men don’t have other “outlets” is simply additional gay activist propaganda.</p>
<p>News flash! Marriage laws have evolved. It’s meaning has changed over time. Who was allowed to get married and the age they are allowed to be has varied quite a bit.</p>
<p>certain things like that have varried, yes. But as it was marriage originiated as something bw a man and a woman, age and such was really not important to the most basic meaning of marriage. Never did being married mean man and man. Marriage itself is a religious and cultural concept. The whole family unit itself is.</p>
<p>Take a look at your computer screen, that is a computer screen, and you cant call it a lamp because thats not what a lamp is. Likewise you cant say marriage is for man and man, cause thats not what marriage is</p>
<p>You cannot compare skin color vs behavior. You are really demeaning the accomploshments of civil rights groups and such. But anyways again the most basic def. of marriage is man and a woman. APparantely you do agree that the concept of marriage is a religious and cultural one as is the family unit. In that case marriage is always defined as man and woman. Never was it defined otherwise until people tried to change it to white and white or black and black sort of how people are trying to change marriage to man and man. You see, the people against interracial marriage are in fact similar to those arguing for gay marriages, because they are both changing the definition of marriage. Also in those times most places were not diverse and it was just by nature that white married white, only when communities mingled did it become an issue, but let me stress again that those against interracial marriage tried changing the meaning. Its really simple if you think about it.</p>
<p>I’m one of the (many) conservatives who is very much for gay marriage. I see it as part and parcel of being pro-family (and pro-stable family). I recognize that people are born with certain orientations and have no desire to subject them to either one of two fates: physical and emotional celibacy or marriage to a straight person of the opposite gender. As a straight woman, I personally have no desire to marry a gay man; frankly, I cannot imagine a sane, straight woman who would want such a marriage. </p>
<p>Given that government already allows marriages that are prohibited by major religions (those who have divorced; those of different religions; those who have not undergone pre-marital counseling), I find it pointless to pick on gays. Then again, I think that gov’t should get out of marriage anyway - civil unions for all. Treat marriage like the contract that it is and apply contract law to it. </p>
<p>Despite this, I have many conservative friends who are against gay marriage. They are not just against gay marriage, though; they are against adultery, divorce, no-fault divorce, domestic violence… you name it. They do recognize that heterosexuals have made a mess out of marriage and do not see it as a victimless issue. (I agree, incidentally - current marriage norms are horrible for everyone.) They see it as moving away from holy matrimony - the union of a man and a woman, exclusively to each other, until death - and gay marriage, to them, moves further away from marriage as a sacred state. Incidentally, most of my conservative friends are not at all opposed to sex or nuts about celibacy - they just think that there is a proper place for it (i.e. matrimony). Furthermore, they understand that you cannot outlaw polygamy and have gay marriage be legal. It would probably take a Constitutional amendment, if gay marriage were to be legal, to outlaw polygamy.</p>
<p>Golani - nope. Marriage, throughout many countries and eras, has included quite a bit more than “man and woman.” It has not been uncommon for marriage to include a man and several women; a man and women and girls (ask any Islam - their Muhummud was betrothed to a six-year-old and consummated the marriage when she was 9); marriage for less than the duration of life (the ancient Romans, during their waning years, were quite willing to divorce). The polygamy question isn’t going away anytime soon.</p>
</p>