EJ, I found this really great article last night, which was so on target for the discussions that have been going on about equal marriage here at TPMCafe.  I was thinking, "I need to add this to one of my comments.  That'll show 'em."  And then I scrolled back up to see who wrote the piece.

[laughing]  You can imagine my surprise to see that you were the author.  But I shouldn't have been surprised to see that you have been remarkably patient here. 

Your article did show me that I erred in one regard and that is my thinking about who is the primary driver for this issue.  It looks like the gauntlet has been thrown down.  And it looks to me like you're bringing it where it needs to be brought--right here, right now.

I just have to say it:  You go, girl!

It is really unclear what you mean by upside down. The point is that heterosexuals are not affored special rights based on what they do with their genitals AT ALL. The only individuals 'demanding' those type of so called 'rights are sexual deviants.

Marrying out of one's race, caste, religion was not deviant behavior.  It was unacceptable behavior...there is a difference.

You seem to miss the point. Heterosexuals are not demanding rights based on their genitals.  Every single individual in this society is allowed to marry the opposite sex. Marriage is a RITE not a RIGHT.

What sexually deviant individuals want is to marry the same gender. That is what makes them deviant.

I agree that marriage is a private relationship that folks enter voluntarily...the point is why is it that sexual deviants believe society to change to accomodate them?

Government has not injected itself in marriage whatsoever. The law is involved when their is a dissolution of marriage and that is due to 'property rights'

For a long time, I have wondered what government is doing in the marriage business.  Wes Clark seemed to take that attitude too.  Honestly, why shouldn't we just abolish the whole thing, and leave it to religious institutions to worry about?  As a civil institutions, all people of all sexual orientations should be free to make contracts, wills and designate others to care for them and tend to them in sickness. And if we want to give tax benefits to people who live together, let's look at households and domestic economic entities.  Love and affection are lovely things but they aren't successfully resolved by legal institutions.  Just look at contested divorces.

You keep trying to equate various crimes against persons with sex between two consenting adults. It just doesn't fly. You can be as righteously indignant as you want, but there's no crime there.

"You keep trying to equate various crimes against persons with sex between two consenting adults. It just doesn't fly. You can be as righteously indignant as you want, but there's no crime there"

 No. I am not trying to equate them with crime. I am grouping them together as sexual deviant behaviors.  Moreover, two consenting adults are not the only individuals who practice same gender sex.  In fact, most data shows that individuals have their first same sex encounter as minors just like heterosexuals do.

I never inferred that homosexuality was a crime. Nor do I beleive that because people consent to engage in an activity that it makes it ethicall or morally OK.

After all, rapists claim their victims 'desired them or were teasing them' and many people who engage in incest claim they are 'guiding the child' in terms of sexual development.

So, to me...consent is an exceptionally poor rationale to support DEVIANT behavior.

After all there is nothing criminal about prostitution (in terms of consent), but it STILL is not legal is it?

LOL LOL

DD, marriage is about PROPERTY rights, and division of assets and inheirtance.

It is downright unAMERICAN to not have clear laws regarding PROPERTY rights...individuals resort to WAR and combat when left to settle those issues on their own.

Thus the government intercedes in terms of PROPERTY rights.

Marriage is only one way of SANCTIONING property rights...numerous other legal documents are available for ALL american citizens to delienate how they want their property dispose of  WITHOUT using the institution of marriage as the basis

I think whiterosebuddy's comments make it pretty clear that some people reject any claims that we are full human beings, entitled to ordinary respect for our loves, our commitments, and our family lives.

Sad, but true. Even sadder, representative of many people in this country.

Dissent Protects Democracy

Its unfortunate that so many feel as hateful as whiterosebuddy, those mentioned as deviants child molesters, rapists,drunk drivers yes of course these hurt multitudes. Gays just dont fit in this catagory. We dont hear of gangs of gays going around beating on heterosexuals or going to funerals and spewing hate towards the families whove lost a loved one. This is strictly the actions of the straight society . Human and civil rights are the creators gift to all , and its sad that in a society that is based on these ideals can be so blind to the real issue. No one is being hurt by adults in an adult relationship and to deny them the same rights as any other couple is wrong. When our government is so bent on taking everyones rights away we need to pull together and stand up for the rights of all. If we use wrb's measure then anything not strictly the missionary position and only for conception might be considered deviant too! Everyone deserves to be loved and to be happy in that love, straight or gay.

cscs- as usual you're being baited into identity politics by a fringe element like whiterosebuddy, an obvious troll. Like I've told you before, you have some growing up to do, and in the meanwhile people like whiterosebuddy will keep you spinning and chasing your tail.

It's always troubling when any group, right or left, takes on such Orwellian rhtorical techniques. Ususally it leads to no good.

I'm afraid that I'm just worn out on some of these questions.  ...  But here's the main point: This discussion is over. ... The antigay movement has gleefully identified this as a winner, and would keep running referenda on this issue even if every American lesbian and gay man fled to Canada. A dozen more anti-marriage amendments will be on state ballots within the next three years.

So basically, Graff can't address issues in detail because she's too worn out. Words like "freedom" and "equality" are energizing, but details, tedious.

Anyone who questions the practicality of gay marriage activism now, is part of the "antigay movement." A movement that is so zealous it would keep attacking gays even if there were no gays. Really? So, presumably the vast majority of Americans neccessary to pass constitutional amendments, they form a zealous and monolithic "antigay movement." Really... Then I wonder why civil-unions and other gay-rights poll much better with most of those same people. Big hole in the logic there.

But the outcome of such rhetoric is predictable. FEAR! Outrage! It's black and white! Against an enemy like that, why bother with details? Or pragmatism? There is a built in excuse for any failure: "they just hate us."

"A dozen more anti-marriage amendments" in additions to those already passed. Does Graf take any responsibility for that failure? No, becasue that excuse is built in. Tactics have nothing to do with it, nor do details, and anyone opposed to gay marriage (meaning the vast majority of America) is too hateful for any incremental progress to have been accomplished.

Anyone wonder why this movement is failing? Maybe it's time for better leadership that is wise enough to make incremental gains rather than overreaching, failing, and then excusing themselves.

Like I said, grow up cscs.

Many of your expressed opinions are knee-jerk, and you love the whiterosebuddy types becasue they play the foil to your simplistic and immature views.

You and him are flip sides of the same coin.

Revised statement:

You go through all my comments on this post and rate them all a one, and I'm the one that has to grow up?

haha. 

Dissent Protects Democracy

Yes. They're all the same childish identity politics, devid of content or thought, and troll feeding/baiting, which is another form of trolling.

You're an embarrassment to this blog.

Please, give me another 1.  

Dissent Protects Democracy

What a silly and empty comment that was.

For anyone who missed it, hcberkowitz has been down-rating anyone less zealous about gay marriage than he, no matter how much a person attempts to discuss matters civilly and on the issues.

He's already misattributed several things to me, and I've had to point out he's simply attacking in his posts without reading the thread or understanding who raised what issues. While he apologized for the misattribution once, he then did it again, and that emotionalism and inaccuracy seems to be his MO.

He's now siding with cscs because... ? cscs has made well reasoned and nuanced arguments? No, it's just identity/team politics again. Virtual back scratching and ass pats. Well, we’re all just human apes after all. Doesn;t accomplish anything, but it's typical. 

 Government can easily defuse this whole issue.  Right now there are many economic benefits given only to opposite sex couples, clearly a violation of the equal protection clause in the constitution.  If government will recognize marriages as the partnerships that they are, legally, and grant any economic benefits to all such partnerships between any two people, most of this controversy goes away.

The religious issue involved in marriage belongs only in the churches.  Even today the Catholic church only recognizes some weddings, not all, and possibly other churches do the same.  I don't see it as a big deal if those churches decide to recognize only man-woman-wanting-children marriages, if that is their belief.  And, I doubt that gay people would have much heartburn about it either.

Our constitution was intended to separate religion and government, but for some reason the issue of marriage doesn't seem to be seen as such an issue.  I have no doubt that 100 years from now this will have changed and marriage partnerships will all be treated equally under the laws. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

Note To E.J. Graff:

Your posts here continue to get derailed. Perhaps I am part of the problem? If so, I apologize. But I find it difficult to let certain ignorant comments go by without saying something.

In any case, and I hope I speak for many here, please do not let the noise discourage you from posting. I think what you have to say here is incredibly important -- nothing could be as important as equality for all.

Maybe it's a compliment that your posts bring out such passion, good and bad.

You're doing something right. Please keep doing it. 

Dissent Protects Democracy

Stay classy, Nick.

Dissent Protects Democracy

Yes, I made a deliberately silly, but not empty, comment, as, perhaps, a bit of feedback from your universe. I was about to make the observation about your arrogance in not asking why anyone does anything, rather making ex cathedra pronouncements on their motivations.

But hark! In your very next paragraph, you make flat statements -- erroneous, but flat -- about why I am doing things. As far as civil discussion, I have seen one civil remark from you in this thread. I gave it a 3.

I suggest you find a specific post where I stated specific support for gay marriage. While I believe that may be a reasonable compromise, my personal preference would be for the only state role to be the recording of contracts of union. I consider the criteria for a union to be the ability to enter into contracts. In my ideal, religious rites would be completely privatized, certainly with the parallel opportunities for persons to take secular oath in public.

No, Mr. Doe. If one made a courteous, clear argument here for heterosexual covenant marriage, I might well give that a 4. In your case, I rate most of your comments for their condescending yet defensive tone, with a high ratio of ad hominem to substance. Indeed, I am delighted with people with opposing views, who discuss with civility and with focus on the issues. I suggest, Sir, that you find such a person and have them mentor you, since, by the thunderbolts of Thor, you wouldn't recognize that form of exchange if it rose from the primordial slime and assimilated you.

I once apologized because I had indeed, misattributed. Subsequently, I discovered that a regular and whiny defensive technique of yours was to constantly complain about being misquoted. No, I don't plan to quote back at you, but, since you seem to believe yourself qualified to judge my motivations, I shall judge you on your general affect rather than specific words.

I do not need to "side with" cscs to observe your emotional outbursts, your lack of substance, and what I now believe to be deliberate trolling. Speaking as you do, I believe your only purpose in this thread is to be inflammatory...strike that...one of your purposes is to be inflammatory. The other is to play the martyr, since all the big boys and girls are picking on you.

Martyrdom really must be done in good taste: "Be of good cheer, Master Ridley. Play the man. We shall this day light a candle in England that, with God's good grace, shall never be put out." You, sir, do not light candles, as even the smallest candle illuminates. A more appropriate metaphor for your style of rhetoric would be that of the squid, emitting clouds of obscuring ink and squirting water jets to dart in another direction.

No, I do not consider you a human ape. Baboons, for example, demonstrate high cohesion and indeed will defend their troop to the death.

As you put it, yes, your behavior is typical. Of what stereotype, I must continue to ponder, pausing to ask myself if I really want to know, or if I already know sufficient chaos theory. Yes, I think that fits. It is a pitiful strange attractor that cannot even gather a chaotic following.

Now, this is emotional. It is not, however, inaccurate.

Shall we have the next dance?

You cite the nutshell, presumably because that is your preferred aquatic vehicle?

It was.

Nonesense. That's a terrible simplification, of the type radicals seeking easy answers tend to embrace while trying to appear smarter than they are.

Households for the purpose of procreation, whether actual or simply in  potential, is one of the primary reasons for marriage. It's a far from perfect system and becomes less perfect the further we move away from a society where everyone has children as routine.

But it's still an important consideration, a cultural legacy, and interwoven throghout society, creating dependancies in the same way as many legal precedents often do.

The easy answers types who won't face that reality, well they've been around for decades, and maybe when they're tired of political irrelevance and whining they'll start dealing with reality.

Nor do I beleive that because people consent to engage in an activity that it makes it ethicall or morally OK.

After all, rapists claim their victims 'desired them or were teasing them' and many people who engage in incest claim they are 'guiding the child' in terms of sexual development.

Ehh.  Right.  But claiming something does not make it true.  Every murderer claims they didn't kill the victim.  We don't absolve them of the crime on that count.

 If a rapist claims the victim consented then an evaluation is made first by the police, then ultimately by a court that that was not the case.

But if two consenting adults agree to something there is no dispute.

I suspect you purposely elided the concepts of "two people consenting" with one person "claiming consent" on purpose.  Which would make you intellectually dishonest. 

But perhaps it was an accident, in which case you are merely extremely obtuse.

Good, if frustrating, historical observations. I honestly don't know the level of support in the US, especially when one differentiates between civil union and gay marriage -- and I've seen a lot of polls that did not exactly phrase the questions in neutral terms.

As I've mentioned, my personal desire -- which is politically implausible -- is to get government completely out of the marriage definition business, and limit its functions to recording of contracts of unions among people legally qualified to enter into contracts. This kind of function exists elsewhere, such as in real estate -- and while the social policy issues such as children don't enter into real estate court actions, social policy certainly is involved in things such as home ownership.

I consider myself a centrist, with an odd mixture of beliefs in both economic and ethical values for certain social safety nets, with libertarian attitudes about individual rights, as well as strong but wise (which it's not at present) national security. These things intertwine: it doesn't often occur, at first, to people outside medicine, but public health is a national security issue even without considering bioterrorism.

Universal access to health care has public, as well as individual, health aspects. Think flu shots, even when there isn't anything as threatening as a pandemic. While I'm not insured, flu shots are not expensive -- but it's a considerable hassle to find someplace to get them, even when there isn't a vaccine shortage (and I'm high risk).

To put this back on the thread topic, Gettysburg, media circuses may "play to the base" on either side, but don't necessarily win elections. There needs to be an alternative to the present Administration, even if that is no more than Congressional Republicans that are more willing to say "no" or "let's discuss that--in detail" to the White House. I like to think such Republicans would act such because of conscience, but if that's because they are really scared of being replaced, so be it. Right now, I think a Democratic House would be good for the country, and is a desperately important goal that can't be sacrificed for media events that don't improve the political balance. We've seen the effect of Rove's media event to the social conservative base.

And what is it that people like you fear Johanna?  Facts, possibly?  Ignorance is bliss indeed for individuals such as you.

Your cognitive process are stuck on assumptions, presumptions and accusations out of fear that truth, facts and reality will expose your ignorance.

Basically you are a bore.

Thank you for claridying for all those who needed it the definition of deviant.

Hopefully, this means that they can now accept the reality that homosxuals are indeed sexual deviants based on their BEHAVIOR in our society.

I also wish that you  and those with the pack mentality would understand that simply because I have a differing opinion does not mean I NEED to change nor does it mean the 'culture' needs to change.

What needs to happen here is that sexual deviants need to accept the reality of there not being discrimated against on the basis of housing and employment means that the culture HAS changed.  And that they should accept this as being their rights as American citizens and stop with this additional narcisstic assumption that somehow society has to accomodate them in terms of what marriage means.

You see, what most sexual deviants do not seem to get is that somehow their sexual deviant behavior should in someway afford them special rights.  They want to completely ignore the fact that they as all other individuals in this society are free to marry the opposite sex.  Every single citizen has that right.

There is no reason that society should change or accomodate sexual deviants based on their genital BEHAVIOR...absolutely NONE.

No one can articluate or put forth any argument that justifys that.

What they do instead is attack the messenger and get all emotional..which is not in anyway persuasive.  There are no FACTS or CRITICAL REASONING to that supports 'genital preference' as a basis to change the culture or structure of the society, when those individuals have the rights of all citizens.

Democrats in this society need to oppose any change in culture based on 'genital preference' because it leads to an erosion of the moral conduct of society in terms of all sexual deviants being able to then claim some ' genital rights' based on what they do with their genitalia, whether it be pedophilia, incest or rape.

Its unfortunate that so many feel as hateful as whiterosebuddy, those mentioned as deviants child molesters, rapists,drunk drivers yes of course these hurt multitudes. Gays just dont fit in this catagory. We dont hear of gangs of gays going around beating on heterosexuals or going to funerals and spewing hate towards the families whove lost a loved one. This is strictly the actions of the straight society .

O please!! no wonder you call yourself 'fuzzyhopper'..your thinking is all fuzzy and you hop all over the facts to reach any type of emotional conclusion to soothe your perpetual fuzziness.  How dare you say ANYthing is strictly the actions of straight society. Homosexuals are some of the most racist individuals on the planet. There are many homosexual 'white only domains' and homosexuals can be quite viscious and petty when it comes to internecine squabbles as well..so stop with this 'hate' being some exclusive trait of NONE homosexuals..it jsut is not so.

Furthermore, up to 40% of child molestation cases involve homosexual acts...and when the incidence of sexual devianct behavior is only about 1-2% that means there is something seriously 'hateful' about those same gender sex deviants. And do I need to even bring up how that only fatal STD in the history of the world has 'homosexuality' as its primary RISK group?  So just STOP IT!! Learn some facts and quit trying to defend the indefensible. 

If we use wrb's measure then anything not strictly the missionary position and only for conception might be considered deviant too! Everyone deserves to be loved and to be happy in that love, straight or gay.

See this is typically homosexual dribble. No one is talking about sexual positions other than you. The issue is sexual PREFERENCE and no one is talking about conception,...since it goes without saying that it is biologically IMPOSSIBLE for same gender sex partners to conceive ANYTHING human while engaged in sexual relations with themselves..

Now as far as this everyone deserving to be loved and be happy goes. The last time I checked...sex did not have a darn thing to do with love. Sex is about pleasure, hedonism and eroticism...not LOVE. 

Love is not about shyts and giggles..at ALL

This thread was completly derailed by people like cscs and whiterosebuddy before I (and probably most people) even saw it was up.

What a croc!!  I did not derail anything. You simply are not able to tolerate differing views...you attack the messenger in all your posts

But that makes sense...becasue to think IS to differ.

 I think whiterosebuddy's comments make it pretty clear that some people reject any claims that we are full human beings, entitled to ordinary respect for our loves, our commitments, and our family lives

O please!! Give me a break. Just what civil rights are denied homosexuals on the basis of them being US citizens, name one please.

And how about you define what a 'full' human being is while you are at it. I consider people individuals and human beings INDEPENDENT of their sexuallly deviant BEHAVIOR.

And as far as this respect for love goes...since when is love about sex?

Probably it's too late to say this, but maybe I'm entitled, as it was my question elsewhere about that strategic value and moral necessity of pushing for gay marriages rather than civil unions that led EJG to start a new topic. So, if I may, everyone calm down. WRB's opposition to other legal protections for gays beyond gay marriage, plus the general tone of vituperation, are simply off topic, much as they may be worthy of engagement.

Like NickDoe, I'm sorry both that it's taken over the post, that replies to it might take him as typical of a larger community, or that anyone questioning gay marriage stands in opposition to gay rights. If it were so, EJG wouldn't have been considerate to me in starting this! And please, guys, don't take it out on Nick. He said in the other post that he in fact hopes that gay marriage would eventually become reality.

My mind's still not made up, and I'm still a bit skeptical. I can write more another time.  But please all, relax, in the interests of clarifying and civilizing matters.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

CSCS

Gay marriage and the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's is not particularly similar to the gay marriage issue.  In the case of the former, not only were basic civil liberties such as voting, housing, and employment being denied, there were issues of unbridled violence and hatred.  The gay marriage debate does not fall along any of those lines.

Gay marriage is certainly about basic rights. And gays are subject to all the things you listed. Most certainly unbridled violence and hatred.

There are tons of things that married straight people get automatically just by being married. There are over 1000 federal laws that grant rights based on marital status.

It's about equal rights for all. Not some, but all. 

Dissent Protects Democracy

 WRB's opposition to other legal protections for gays beyond gay marriage, ... are simply off topic

Are you reading someone else's post and attributing them to me? I am NOT opposed to other legal proctections for gays at all. 

lNo one can deny the horrible effect of the Holocaust on Jews worldwide.  No one can deny the heroic efforts of American blacks to gain the civil liberties that they should have had without a struggle.  But we should not dismiss the struggles and suffering of gay Americans because others have suffered and struggled

The flaw in this reasoning is that homosexuals are not identifiable in this society unless they CHOOSE to  BEHAVE in a manner which incites and elicits discriminationation against them. That is what makes their 'plight' uniquely different.

The question here is why individuals who engage in sexually deviant behavior which makes it biologically impossible to have children, believe somehow they should adopt or foster parent children.  The question becomes why would they expose the child to sexually deviant behavior as a model for a happy healthy lifestyle, when they already know that is ridiculous. Even the slaves killed their children rather than have them endure the barbaric conditions of slavery. They committed suicide for the same reason. 

There is an avalanche of data that attests to homosexuality being an unhealthy lifestyle with diminished longevity.

I personally believe that all human beings are entitled to work where they choose and live where they choose, without fear of reprisal or discrimination. I do not believe that means that society or  the culture has to tolerate them being married or raising children that are not their own. 

If individuals who exhibit other types of sexually deviant behavior s such as pedophiles, incestous parents, rapists and prostitues are not deemed acceptable as adoptees and foster parents neither should homosexuals.

Society feels the same way about individuals who are substance abusers...such individuals are poor role models for the types of behaviors that contribute to a stable and productive society.

whiterosebuddy, I know all about property rights, division of assets and inheritance, thank you very much.  All of those issues can be determined without an institution called "marriage".  Children are born of people not married all the time and they can still inherit.  People who are single, people who live together without benefit of marriage - all people have property rights which do not have to depend on marriage.  Marriage requires going to a little bit of trouble, and very few people know all of its ramifications.  Instead of marriage, people could go to the same amount of trouble to actually agree on what should happen to them and their property depending on what contingencies occur.  A system where people actually knew and consented to each thing they were doing would prevent a lot of shock and disappointment when the "default" regime kicked in.

whiterosebuddy, I know all about property rights, division of assets and inheritance, thank you very much

LOL LOL..Yoooour welcome!

All of those issues can be determined without an institution called "marriage".  Children are born of people not married all the time and they can still inherit.  People who are single, people who live together without benefit of marriage - all people have property rights which do not have to depend on marriage.

I agree. That was my point as well. That their are numerous legal instruments which can be used to handle property rights OTHER than marriage.

Instead of marriage, people could go to the same amount of trouble to actually agree on what should happen to them and their property depending on what contingencies occur.  A system where people actually knew and consented to each thing they were doing would prevent a lot of shock and disappointment when the "default" regime kicked in.

I concur. Hmmm, not sure now why we 'seemed' to be at odds. Perhaps, my  attempt at humor was misunderstood .

cscs

It would appear as if part of the problem with this issue comes down to the unfortunate blending of church and state with regard to the institution of marriage.  Marriage, after all, is a Holy Sacrament of the church.  The government, furthermore, recognizes this sacrament and allows for financial privileges.  Is this the right thing to do?  I'm not in a position to say.  I would say, however, that I am a staunch supporter of seperation between church and state.  Are American homosexuals upset that they cannot be married or are they upset that they are not privy to all of the financial arrangements which marriage conveniently offers?  It is an interesting question.  I would also like to point out that there is certainly a bias against single heterosexuals in the United States as well.  I can say this with personal expertise.  We live in an intolerant nation.  I would say that as long as a simple majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, the thing is likely to fail.  I do believe, however, that this majority will only last as long as the Baby Boom generation maintains power.  Generation X and Y will likely be far different and far more tolerant.  But it takes time. 

Whiterosebuddy: I don't know how old you are, so I don't know if you've been in love before.  But let's assume you have been in love.  Deep, all-encompassing love, with both emotional and sexual components.  The kind of love where you want to share your life with that person, where you want to make a life-long commitment to that person.  Perhaps even raise children together.

Now imagine that the person you're in love with is a person of the same gender as you.

I'm talking about love.  Not just sex.  Love.  (Although sex is, of course, a healthy part of an adult loving relationship.)  You seem to be fixated on the "sex" part of a same-gender relationship without paying enough attention (or any attention at all) to the "love" aspect of it.  If you're stuck with a distorted view of gay life, you're not going to be able to say anything intelligent on this topic.

You don't even need to respond to this comment.  I just want you to think about it.

With drinking habits like that, I can see why.

haha. :-)

Well, I don't have a Southern bone in my body, but I apparently drive some of them crazy, too.

It must be my good looks and wit. 

Dissent Protects Democracy

Whiterosebuddy states that "marriage is a rite not a right." He further states that "I do not know of any civil rights that are denied to individuals who practice same gender sex." Others reject comparison with the struggles of other minorities because they claim there is no civil rights issue. They are all wrong.

The U.S Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that marriage is a basic, fundamental right protected by the promise of liberty and due process in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S Constitution. For three cases in the last 40 years, see Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S 1, 12 ("Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S 374 (1978) and, my favorite, Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), which held that even incarcerated felons (deviants surely) could not be denied the right to marry. Justice Scalia signed on to Turner, without threatening any slippery slopes to Armageddon. I repeatedly ask-- and hope others do too-- why should law-abiding, committed gay couples have less access to a basic right than convicted child molesters and serial killers?

The "you have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex" argument does not cut it. An added burden is being put on gay people's access to a civil  right that is not put on straight people. It is not realistically or equally available. That this is true would be obvious if you flipped the scenario, and assumed only same sex couples could get legally married and then denied everyone else access to COBRA, Family Medical Leave, Social Security Survivor benefits, pension successorship, tax equity and thousands more protections the law gives only to legally married couples.

Many are gleeful that voters are able to vote away their gay neighbors civil right to marry in state after state. Yet, the whole point of a civil right is that it should not be subject to majority vote. We don't only protect speech that's popular or faiths that appeal to the largest group. Again, a good historical reminder is that for 2 decades after Loving declared laws barring marriages between interracial couples to be unconstitutional, the majority of Americans opposed such marriages. Had the right wing succeeded in putting in place constitutional amendments solidifying those views at the time, I think we would all see that today as a blot on our nation's committment to fairness and justice. Hopefully, more readers of this website will see that that same commitment is jeopardized by the treatment of gay Americans today.

 "Households for the purpose of procreation, whether actual or simply in  potential, is one of the primary reasons for marriage."

Indeed, that is one of the primary reasons for marriage.  But, there are many other reasons, each of which is equally valid for the couple being married.  My wife and I got married, for example, not to  have children, which we didn't, we adopted instead.  My father, late in his life, got married because he and  his new wife wanted the companionship without the busy tongues around them having something to talk about.  And, many same sex partners would get married because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together.  None of those reasons is any concern of government.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Yeah, I think anyone attempting to springboard a politcal argument off somone like whiterosebuddy is pathetic. I mean, wasn't Hitler available for the black hat role?

It's even more pathetic when a contributor does it, becasue presumably contributors are supposed to be above that sort of scare mongering and oppurtunism.

Of course that would never occur to a simplton B/W crusader type like you. And anyone labeled "liberal leader" qualifies for personality cult status from you. What a robot. Terminally clueless follower of failed strategies. Lemming.

EJ has just told us that push has come to shove, and the LGBT community is going to be out in force for this one and several more through their 15 year plan.

I don’t see how they have the numbers or support to be out in “force” exactly. That’s just reality. I think the LGBT community is heading for a Nader moment if it's leadership and people don't wise up fast. That will be a real tragedy if so. The LGBT has an "island unto itself” attitude that is headed for a rude awakening.

Democrats and moderates can’t support gay marriage, it would be a suicide pact. Anyone who thinks the Dems even have a choice of going against voters on all the other issues for gay marriage… they're kidding themselves. If Dems support gay marriage, they’re out of office because the country is overwhelmingly against it now. Period.

Gays simply don’t have the votes, or even close, all this is academic. Democrats will try to bargain with the gay community reasonably, but it’s pretty limited in what it can offer, simply due to voters preference. The gay movement is so small in terms of votes, and basically self gerrymandering in liberal strongholds, so it really doesn’t have much leverage nationally, not nearly as much as it seems to think.

Ultimately it's up to LGBT to be reasonable and make smart incremental gains. If they overreach and punish Dems for the inability to work miracles, Dems will have no choice but to cut ties and pick up votes elsewhere. Hence the Nader moment. Then where will gays be? Where will they go for allies? Republicans? Who doesn’t have an issue more important to them than gay marriage? Who will sacrifice for gay marriage if gays won’t compromise?

This whole thing is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

I think you're missing the point. No system is perfect, there is a cultural legacy issue of marriage which can't just be dismissed by militant activists. That's a totally mindless strategy, and only going to fail.

I happen to be an atheist, that doesn't mean I go pissing on religious people all the time, because regardless of whatever crusade I might be temped to undertake, it would be incredibly stupid and self defeating, probably leading to an even more reactionary fundamentalist thinking.

The gay marriage movement combining general criticism of marriage, with support for gay marriage, with crusader militancy is failing horribly and even entrenching reactionaries. It's in part a broad cultural problem for the left and right of partisanship, but more specifically politcal superficiality. We've been glorifying our past leaders so much that there is a simplistic sort of personaly cult around leaders, which leads to evangelism and "god's on our side" type arguments from both sides, without any consideration for practicalities.

The problem with a lot of the gay activist movement is the chip on the shoulder, the angst, the crusader mentality, and they just can't help kicking the beehive no matter the consequences. Until that changes, they're just isolating themselves becasue nobody can afford a loose cannon for an ally.

The sooner moderates give up and say enough, the sooner the gay activist community will get pragmatism, and the sooner we'll be on the right track to incremental progress again. In the meanwhile, it's all just unnecesary and pointless pain for gays and Democrats, and like Christmas every day for the GOP. 

I think people like Graf are a part of the probem. In many ways that type of leader is the irresponsible early Malcolm X (before his breakthrough and split from the N.Islam) or even Elijah Mohommad, as just irresponsible populists who basically screw things up. I think the wise people in this country see this, and there are beginning to be more introspective looks at what real leadership is, including compromise, pragamtism, patience, etc. Qualities which are often forgotten in favor of moral certainty and crusader heros.

On the News Hour tonight there was a story on "Uncle Tom" pointing out that Uncle Tom was in fact was a Gandhi like model for long term success, not a capitulation or weakness. That the real person it was derived from was victorious, a man who attained freedom. The militancy that was prevalent in the 60's never accomplished squat, but it was populist, and has been revered far too much since. That needs to change before people start making progress again.

Nick -

1/ Opposite sex, not same sex.  Careful reading never hurts.  No law prohibits a gay man from marrying a woman, I guess that my narrow rhetorical point was far too subtle for early in the morning.  The point was that that superficial equality betrays a fundamental inequality, comparable to the old example of a law banning sleeping under a bridge.

2/ With you about wish upon a star strategy, which is what a straight shot at gay marriage from a position of weakness.  Better to have started this strategy from a position of strength.  Brown was not the result of one three-point long-shot, but a generation of legal warfare.  Had Brown been filed in 1922, it would have crashed.  Of course, if crashing and burning like Don Quixote, rather than winning, is the goal, all bets are off.

3/ As far as the "moral duty" issue, I am talking about the rhetoric used by advocates of gay marriage not their opponents.  I guess I should have made my long post even wordier. The point is that it is easier to sell a "right" politically when it is sold as a means of fulfilling a duty, than to sell it as a means of purely personal expression or a lifestyle choice.  I am discussing winning rhetoric, not what I believe.

4/ If you think I am wrong Nick (and I may be), what is the winning strategy in states like Maryland, where I live?  Moderate-liberal states that have a chance of going either way both legislatively or judicially in the next two years?  Giving the right wing a gay marriage amendment bone on the November ballot?  A Court of Appeals case on gay marriage when a right-wing governor may get reelected and nominate 3 out of 7 replacements to the Court of Appeals?  Tell me, Nick, come to Maryland and win this one, you know so much. 

In the meanwhile, your wishing upon a star will not help the best man at my wedding to get the chance to marry his partner before AIDS kills him (G-d forbid).

Crablaw Weekly

1/ Opposite sex, not same sex.

??? that's even sillier. That's not just a silver bullet theory, it's so convoluted it's the magic bullet theory.

 2/ With you about wish upon a star strategy, which is what a straight shot at gay marriage from a position of weakness.  Better to have started this strategy from a position of strength.

If by that you mean having done the groundwork to change culture and the minds of voters before throwing down the gauntlet, yea. I agree. Geeze, what a concept! I feel sorry for gays whose own families may not accept them, but those who take that emotion and go from there to thinking they can change the country through the courts or such, or a better soapbox, that is just delusional and  ensures the problem stays the same or worse for the next person.

Brown was not the result of one three-point long-shot, but a generation of legal warfare.

Yes, it wasn't a hail mary pass so to speak, but neither was it the result of a "generation of legal warfare." It was the culmination of a changed (past tense) culture.

Gay Eye for the Straight Guy and such is doing what black ambassadors did prior to Brown. But it's not enough, not even close. Look at the history of black rights prior to Brown. American culture was saturated with black athletes, entertainers, war heroes, movie stars, etc. The black community supported black artists and importantly so did most of America. That changed the culture, and that allowed a MLK to exist, NOT the other way around. By the time of MLK, most Americans already had some black role models in thier lives. Now we tend to glorify the activists who made the speeches and were martyred, but there is a great danger in forgetting the long quiet movement before then, that people like "Satchmo" were the ambassadors of black culture for decades to lay the groundwork.

The problem with activists is they don't actually convince/convert many people. An activist without a ready made movement is just about useless. They only know court battles, speechifying and such. None of which is worth squat unless somebody else has already shifted most of the culture to be receptive, to have already created a movement looking for a leader. Gay leaders (generalizing) have it backwards, and they've been terribly irresponsible in declaring war before marshalling enough troops. That sort of activists has as much chance of winning this "culture war" as our military has to win the "war for hearts and minds" in Iraq or Vietnam.

Rosa Parks didn't just refuse to get up one day, she planned, was patient, kept her nose clean, and was part of a decades long wait for the day when black entertainers, doctors, athletes, and lastly black leaders had created a sympathetic cultural environment where she could finally refuse to get up, and not be kicked to the back of the bus, but stand up with most of society on her side. And she waited for that moment by maintaining a spotless personal life, and was chosen specifically by black leaders  to make that statement becasue she was so upright that nobody could smear her or her intentions or protray her as a rebel, or communist, motivated by angst, or otherwise a trouble maker. 

That's what's going to change the culture: people interacting everyday in an upright way in the real world, and setting the example in the media by celebrities. Not screechy speechifying, not legal battles, not alienating allies, not kicking the beehive, not angry activists.

 The point is that it is easier to sell a "right" politically when it is sold as a means of fulfilling a duty, than to sell it as a means of purely personal expression or a lifestyle choice.

That's a lot of baloney. There is only one way to "sell" a right, and that's not to have to sell it at all. MLK didn't have to "sell" blacks to America, because people like "Satchmo" had already done that. The vast majority of America was already on the side of black rights and against Jim Crow by the time of MLK's "dream" speech. Tha was due to generations of prominant blacks winning over America culturally from the top down, and plenty of good black people building bridges one at a time from the ground up.

If you think I am wrong Nick (and I may be), what is the winning strategy in states like Maryland, where I live?

Again, get it through your head: there is no "wining strategy" other than changing culture gradually, and being patient. Life isn't fair, things don't happen as fast as we might like. There are no silver bullets. Nobody is going to give a speech or win a court battle and going to have a landshift effect. The reality is it's never worked that way.

Maryland and every state will change when ~75% or so of people want it to. Period. Why not 51%? Because of cultural inertia and that a slim majority can't dictate change to a hostile minority. People forget that Jim Crow supporters only represented a small amount of holdouts in the South before Brown and the majority of Americans over-ruled (literally ruled-over) them.

That speeded the end of Jim Crow on one hand, but also contributed to reactionary movements that still hurt blacks, such as white flight, which devastated many thriving black communities like Harlem.

Some people even argue that it might have been better to wait longer... which is pretty much heresey today. I honestly don't know the answer, but I do know that "culture wars" have a very hard time winning completly and the more militant they are the more militancy they tend to face. It's simialr to the realtionship between a superior military power and an insurgency. Regardles of moral superiority or such, militancy just seems to strengthen the resolve of holdouts and drive them underground where they're more difficult to either defeat by force or reach by empathy.
 

In the meanwhile, your wishing upon a star will not help the best man at my wedding to get the chance to marry his partner before AIDS kills him (G-d forbid).

What can I say? Life doesn't actually work like a 30 minute documentary of the compressed history of civil rights culminating in a happy ending by dinner time.

And while you're up on the soapbox, let's look at what else is unfair in life for perspective. How about poverty in the black community and the number of black males in prison. How about that issue? How about global warming, rising sea levels which will put millions of people underwater, and changing weather patterns that will disrupt crops that will cause millions to starve? Life is filled with injustice and everybody has issues that matter to them and there are tradeoffs sometimes. Do you want a Democrat to run on gay marriage an lose instaed of running on healthcare or the environment or a lot of other things where they could actually do some good? Is every gay person perfect? Do they drive SUV and watse energy? Does every gay person support the war against poverty in America? Or heathcare for all?

So don't tell me about how life isn't fair. I know. We all know.

You want to help your friend? I think you should do something for him directly, throw a party, enjoy life. Help him get a civil arrangement and take care of legal matters. My gay friends who died of AIDS didn't waste thier remaining life on mistaken and delusional strategies and they had already done thier part for the casue just by participating in society and being good people, which is how people actually learn and are changed. Flapping your lips for gay marriage and looking for the silver bullet thoery, that's not helping him or millions of people like him, or those yet to come.

If you want something specific you can do, look in your own life, not for a better soap box or movement. Buy a gay artist's movie or CD so they have an economic chance of reaching more people. Give to a non-militant foundation that focues on peaceful cultural change and supports cultural exchange, and not speechifying.

Well, keep looking for that magic soapbox that's going to change everything. In the meanwhile pragmatic people will change the culture one person at a time, the way it's always been done.

People love heroes, and everybody wants to be a hero today because since the TV era on it's been about personality cults. Everybody knows the buzz phrase "I have a dream" but almost nobody bothers to study civil rights in depth. Everybody's been told they can "change the world" and most interpret that to mean telling friends how PC they are, or going to a march that accomplishes nothing becasue they've becoe so common, and generally posturing and wearing "social consciousness" like a fashion statement.

Activists themselves are a big part of the problem, because for most it's more about them and wanting to be become thier hero and be a hero themselves, than it's actually about serving the cause.

For the same reasons that drunken behavior is, whoring is, greed is, sloth is, glutonny is.

I thought about it and here is my response.

Marriage is not about love.

Love is not about sex.

 Sex is not about love

. People do not need marriage to have sex.

I do not have any view of 'gay life'.  I feel the only thing different about homosexuals is what they do with their genitals. Other  than that they are just like all other human beings.

I do not believe becasue they choose to have same gender sex partners that it somehow entitles them to 'special rights' because they OPT not to marry the opposite gender..

I have read that monogamy is pretty much not a desirable state, in generally, for male homosexuals.  That the best part of being a homosexual male is the promiscuity as a given...thus the bath houses and weekend rage parties in different parts of the country.

At least that is what several gay authors have written.

Democrats and moderates can’t support gay marriage, it would be a suicide pact. Anyone who thinks the Dems even have a choice of going against voters on all the other issues for gay marriage… they're kidding themselves. If Dems support gay marriage, they’re out of office because the country is overwhelmingly against it now. Period.

Yes!!  If Kerry had opposed gay marriage he might have won the election.  This is a loser issue for democrats.  The best postion is 'don't ask, don't tell'.  MODERATES  on both sides will accept that>.

This whole thing is like watching a train wreck in slow motion

Yes, and I for one will be hapy to see it crash and burn. I believe that homosexuals have sufficient rights in this country to live a happy life without continually pushing for even further cultural changes.

People on this thrad can attempt to paint me as an extremist based on my differing views, but the truth is I am a moderate for the most part, fiscally conservative and socially progressive....but this gay marriage deal is over the top and I am not willing to tolerate it and like most modeates I am fed up with this specious civil rights analogy.

hot damn!  great post

I love the way whiterosebuddy rated that up. Like he's trying to place us on the same side. What a con man.

No, I am not attemting to be on any side. i simply felt the points were valid. 

Perhaps, I do not understand how the rating system works, if it is to take sides...

I am not a troll...if anything the ppl who respond  to me without any reasoning or facts, just all emotiona rants are the trolls

I raise valid points which they are unable to counter so they simply attack the messenger...

I particularly like the reverse psychology stuff. That's not obvious or anything. How stupid is this guy/gal troll anyway?

and btw, rednecks don't generally use words like "travesty" and "proclivities" nor would one say "same gender sexual proclivities." Keep trying though.

I see you've been here for a week. An alt perhaps? That you Wallace?

Social tolerance forhomosexuality has been increasing steadily for years, even among conservatives and religious folk. There is no evidence whatsoever that this trend is reversing, even if gay marriage is a bridge too far for now. The day is soon coming when your bigoted opinions will be no more acceptable in civilized America than the racist rantings of the Grand High Poobah of the KKK.

No, I am not attemting to be on any side. i simply felt the points were valid. 

Perhaps, I do not understand how the rating system works, if it is to take sides...

I may disagree with everything you've said here, but you're right on target with how the ratings work. If someone makes good points, that merits a high rating. It has nothing to do with whether you agree or disagree.

The last person you should take ratings advice from is your buddy Nick.

And I actually don't think you're a troll.  I disagree with your points -- you obviously believe being gay is a choice, as if being heterosexual was a choice -- but I don't think you're purposely lying, etc, to stir up the conversation.

I also think that people have responded to you with reasoning and facts, and you're being a little closed-minded about seeing that. Which is fine, but it doesn't make you a troll. 

Dissent Protects Democracy

Thank you for that thoughtful feedback and response.

and btw, rednecks don't generally use words like "travesty" and "proclivities" nor would one say "same gender sexual proclivities.

You would know, I guess, I  did note that none of your posts contain those words.

Social tolerance forhomosexuality has been increasing steadily for years, even among conservatives and religious folk. There is no evidence whatsoever that this trend is reversing, even if gay marriage is a bridge too far for now. The day is soon coming when your bigoted opinions will be no more acceptable in civilized America than the racist rantings of the Grand High Poobah of the KKK.

LOL LOL

You must not watch the news. CNN just did a report yesterday talking about how tolerance for gays, jews and blacks has diminished and that groups who perpetuate  the philosophy/propaganda of 'white power' and anti-semitism as well as being homophobes are indeed GROWING.  Particularly, in Ohio.

You must not be familiar with bigotted views if you think my opinions are akin to rabid racism.  The truth is that the vast majority of blacks in this country ALSO do not support gay marriage..despite them being very supportive of non-discrimination and in many cases civil unions as well.  Blacks are very religious and voted for Bush in record numbers based on this issue alone.  So you must not be paying attention to the societal changes at all.

Perhaps, you need to broaden your exposure so you gain a better grasp of the diversity of thought in this society.  You may desire to have only discourse with those who espouse your same opinions but that simply speaks to your shallowness and frankly intolerance of other's views, it is insular and narcissitic.

Remember, you do not learn anything from talking to ppl who hold your exact same views.  It is a recipe for stunted development, social immaturity and myopic views.

Re: I do not hate homosexuals I simple do not find homosexuality a socially acceptable behavior.

Oh good grief why do you even care? I personally cannot stand lima beans, but I do not go on public crusades against them or people who do like them. Seems to me this is a classic case of "to each their own" where individual tastes and preferrences can differ and disagree without consequence. If sleeping with the same sex isn't your thing, then sleep only with the opposite sex-- problem solved!

"... by the thunderbolts of Thor"!  Oh I'm going to steal that line!  That made me laugh outloud, and I had a rotten day, so thank you very much!

lMy views are broad enough, thank you

I said they are not diverse,  there is a difference. Broad does not address your ability to have an exchange of thought with individuals who do not not share your views. 

 I live in a "red" state and I know many Republicans.

No wonder, your thinking lacks diversity. You probably love talk radio too.

I frequent Redstate.com along with this Democrat-liberal site-- and by the way your trollish rants would probably be less indulged on RedState, whose moderators are no more tolerant of rightwing extremists than lefty looeytyunery

Is this what you mean by your thinking being broad?  lol lol...it is the typical partisan polarization devoid of thought where talking points are accepted as cognitive reasoning. Labels are used to inflame and create divisiveness that is accepted as diversity of thought, just a verbal food fight...LOL LOL

I am a moderate and do not need to divide issues into partisan camps to subject them to critical analysis. I simply look at both sides of the issue and learn the facts.  That is what moderates do.  We find this simplistic  right-wing, left wing, liberal/conservative dichotomy of thought to be utterly useless.

While I may have some views you consider liberal, others are conservative and extremist thoughts are seldom a part of my  views for the most part.  I do not believe in holding 'popular' views. I beleive in right and wrong, and that has nothing to do with group think but knowing  that the  moral majority is neither.

I support my opinions with facts and you might learn to do that as well, if you did not find it so difficult to engage individuals with opposing or differing views from you. Maybe you could take off your emotional blinders and THINK for a change.

You attempt to describe my posts  as rants, when yours lack substance and are full of emotional laden opinions.

I am not some wooly-eyed leftist living in an isolated ghetto.

Well you certainly sound like it.

And let me say that toxic opinions like yours are thankfully rare, seldom found outside the fever swamps of the far, far right

This is what I mean, my opinions are not toxic nor is it rare to find my thinking...what is rare is for ppl to voice my opinion. It has nothing to do with being right left or far right.  You see, most folks do not want to be subjected to the emotional diatribe you are spewing at me because I oppose your view. Most folks simply are quiet and send in political donations or vote to support the state legislation now sweeping the country to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

So you need to get out of that swamp you dwell in so you can see that the world no longer revolves around what homosexuals want...society has been tolerant of sexually deviant behavior and it is now time to assert that homosexuals will simply have to learn to me as tolerate of others as they desire to be tolerated.

So you keep hanging in that red state and on those GOP sites, because your shallow homogenous thinking is probably really valued there.

Re:  Broad does not address your ability to have an exchange of thought your ability to have an exchange

It's not possible to have a dialog with persons who are motivated by irrayional hate and fear. And don't say you aren't. Your very use of words like "deviants" is proof of that.

Re: I am a moderate

Not on this issue

Re: I support my opinions with facts

I have yet to see a single fact uttered in your posts. It's all about your neuroptic phobia about homosexuality.

Re: This is what I mean, my opinions are not toxic nor is it rare to find my thinking

comfort yourself with these delusions.

It's not possible to have a dialog with persons who are motivated by irrayional hate and fear. And don't say you aren't. Your very use of words like "deviants" is proof of that

Your describing my statements as hate is the only thing irrational.  Again, this is due to your lacking diversity of thought. It is commonly seen in individuals immmersed in a steady diet of their own views. That behavior results in them finding divergent views to be strange, extreme or inappropriate simply on the basis of their lack of exposure.  This is commonly called ignorance.

Stating  that homosexuals are sexual deviants is not hateful it is FACTUAL.  Now if I was calling homosexuals perverts you might have some reason for your exclamatory ranting. But I am not.  You simply lack a good command of the english language and would be better off looking up the definition of the word rather than attacking me with your 'hate speech diatribe' as it is meaningless and unwarranted.

Not on this issue

Yes, I am a moderate on this issue. I support the rights of all individuals in this society to not be discriminated against in terms of housing and employment and free from harassment, this includes homosexual deviant behavior.  All of which I am very tolerant of. I do not however support the idea of 'gay marriage'.   As, there is no factual basis that makes it essential to engage in the the deviant sexual proclivities of the individual and it does not bar homosexuals from earning a living or living anywhere they chose. More importantly, if marriage is so desirable to homosexuals they already are able to do so, just like all other citizens. Marriage is something homosexuals have to OPT not to do.

I have yet to see a single fact uttered in your posts. It's all about your neuroptic phobia about homosexuality

That has to be because you either  chose not to read the posts,  do not agree with the facts, or are just NOT informed regarding the facts.(highly likely)  The lack of a factual basis for your opinions would account for you calling me hateful when it is you who are emotionally unhinged.

Just what does neuroptic phobia about homosexuality mean?  Can you explain what you mean by that phrase....the literal translation would be eye nerve fear...lol lol.... of fear of visual homosexuality...lol lol...you really think that folks who oppose you are fearful don't you? lollol...fear is not the operative term here...odious is....I feel the same about pedophila and homicide..not fearful...just socially unacceptable repulsive behaviors.

That's not hate..it is simple a lack of acceptance.

Tolerance is not acceptance.

I suspect you're a gay troll who is actually very pro-gay- marriage. Because just about nobody is as much a redneck as you appear. It must be a parody.

I suspect you are a moron and you have demonstrated yourself to be a very piss poor guesser.

And btw, the constantly shifting arguments/ tactics, kind of makes it easy to spot you as a troll, and not a very bright one at that. Try to pick one and stick with it.

I have not shifted my arguments nor am I employing tactics, perhaps if you weren't so busy guessing about what I am or you would like for me to be  you would have noticed how consistent my views are and how ignorant you sound attempting to stereotype me into some box that your cretinous mind could engage.

Why are you guys even talking to WRB? He's obviously just a troll getting his kicks out of whatever emotional rise he can get from people. He's probably some pathetic lonely person. It just makes the people arguing with him look stupid.

When you seem someone in the street vomiting on the pavement and then rolling around in it, do you stop to talk to them?

To say that you are comparing behaviors and somehow that is different than comparing people is disingenous.  Comparing homosexual behavior to pedophiliac behavior or homicidal behavior -- same thing.  You are parsing words.

All your response did was prove my point.  You do run on, don't you?  Again, I wonder at your motive and still come to the same conclusion -- you surely can't be interested in changing anyone's mind, for you haven't -- so you just like to blow your horn.  Well go and blow, daddyo.

I wasn't seeking to persuade anybody of anything, was just commenting on your posts.  Your first "distinction" is laughable, and takes parsing words to new levels.  Just what I expected.  Your second comment is just plain silly.  My guess is that you see this thread as a "pack mentality" because you are not being agreed with by anyone.  Could it possibly be because you are wrong?  ... nah ... of course not!  :)

My, my, even more words, guess you are a ever gushing fountain of 'em.  Getting a little defensive, huh?  Always a sign when you start using pejoratives ("pack mentality," questioning your questioner's intelligence, etc.). Yes, sure, popularity is not determinant in whether something is right or wrong.  I never claimed otherwise.  I simply was curious as to your reason for posting.  You have shown no other reason than that you love the "sound" (for lack of a better term) of your own words.

So long, daddyo.  It was not nice or otherwise chatting with you.  You are a universe unto yourself, so there is no real dialogue possible.

In all of your big-brained theorising you forget the basic premise for homosexuality -- the choice. Marriage has two main moral purposes, a) maintain a commitment b) create families. There is no way to rationalize your way around it. It is nonsense.

 -That Darn Republican