Gays
Righty: Homosexuality is an abomination unto God; the Bible tells us so, and the Bible is the ultimate authority. Gay people commit beastly sins of the flesh, and for the most part they look and act like freaks. Real men don’t worship Liza Minnelli, talk with their wrists or gush about exquisite drapes. Real women don’t look like truckers. Gays lead an unnatural, abhorrent way of life, but we still love them and would accept them if they changed their wicked ways. All they need is Jesus and a little forced deprogramming. But until then, let’s keep them away from our children and in the closet where they belong.
Lefty: They’re here, they’re queer… get used to it! Gay people were born that way; they have no choice in deciding their sexual orientation. Discriminating against them in any form is no different from racism. Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality: you see gay dogs, birds and sheep. Gays have a right to marry each other and raise children; in fact, they generally make more enlightened parents than the average obtuse breeder couple. Gay people have shaped our theater, music, art and aesthetics; without them our cities would be dull, dull, dull! We should celebrate their lifestyle, welcome their gay pride parades and organizations, and encourage our own children to explore their sexuality. How about ballet lessons for your son, Righty?
The New Moderate:
Gay people deserve to be treated as the first-class citizens they clearly are, without derision or prejudice. It must have been intolerable, in a less sensitive age, for gays to put up with all the withering innuendoes cast in their direction. How did they listen to the snide aspersions, the pansy and fairy jokes, without going psycho?
Still, The New Moderate must dispute a few of their claims. Is homosexuality natural? Sure, but so is color-blindness. So is malaria. The naturalness of gay sex doesn’t necessarily make it “normal” (i.e., commonplace) or praiseworthy any more than its minority status makes it sinful or perverted. It just is what it is: a departure from mainstream sexual behavior.
The claim that gay people are born gay is a half-truth. Studies of identical twins have shown that if one of the pair is gay, the other twin has roughly a 50% chance of playing for the same team — well above the 5% estimate for the general population, but still open to non-genetic factors (including parental influence and personal choice). Probably Kinsey’s sexual continuum theory remains the most valid: those of us born at one end or the other of the spectrum are essentially captives of innate sexual desires, while those who fall somewhere between the two camps can teeter in either direction (or both).
Yes, homosexual acts have been a fact of life for ages (just ask Socrates), but current scholarship tells us that exclusively gay behavior is a relative novelty. Even Oscar Wilde was married and dutifully sired two children. It might be that the intimate friendships of an earlier era (think of Lincoln and his buddy Joshua Speed) generally provided a “safe” outlet for same-sex passions, and that no further entanglement was required.
Today’s gay and lesbian “cultures” are an intriguing and sometimes puzzling phenomenon. The New Moderate has never understood what liking musicals has to do with liking men, for example. Do men who hunt for antiques need to come clean about their sexuality? I might be a little dense, but I just don’t see how a lust for vintage furniture equates to a lust for studly males.
Take me: I’m a fan of old movies and Art Deco architecture. (You got a problem wid dat?) Does The New Moderate harbor a lavender gene that makes him easy prey for the charms of Una Merkel or the Empire State Building? Nobody can be 100% sure, including me, but my experiences and desires tell me no. In fact, I’d like to see an end to such cultural stereotyping before all the arts become the province, by default, of gay men.
I suspect that because of such stereotyping, most “regular guys” studiously avoid genteel pursuits that used to be enjoyed by heterosexual gentlemen in the past. The trend is comparable to white flight from urban centers, and it’s just as hazardous to our cultural health. Why shouldn’t heterosexual men be able to study art history or confess an affection for operetta without raising eyebrows both gay and straight?
Gays should probably get used to the idea that they will always be a rather exotic minority, at least outside of liberal urban neighborhoods. Extreme gay and lesbian styles and mannerisms can still look outlandish to a lot of straight people and even many gays. The “in your face” approach doesn’t win friends. In fact, gays don’t help their cause by referring to themselves as a “community,” unless they aspire to live in separate gay ghettos. Our culture is already ghettoized enough.
The marriage issue is a thorny one: yes, gays are entitled to sanctified unions and the attendant benefits, but do we dare call them marriages? I don’t see how gay marriage can threaten heterosexual marriage; the decline of religion, the empowering of women, and the white middle-class aversion to procreating have been much more effective in that department. It’s just that marriage between two men or two women still strikes some of us as a little bizarre, a wry parody of traditional domestic life. (Do gays, who for decades have embraced a uniquely stylized bohemian existence, really aspire to life as Ozzie and Harriet?) We’ve only recently come to accept gayness in our midst; it might take a bit longer before most of us get used to the idea of attending a wedding shower for our friend Brad… and referring to Brad’s mate as his “husband” — or worse yet, his “wife.”
Is gay marriage just another example of the decadent silliness of our culture… another depressing milestone for a soft society headed into oblivion? Or is it a legitimate idea that would strengthen the institution of marriage as the ideal estate for all entwined couples? Something tells me that it’s both at once. My instincts oppose gay marriage; my sense of fairness obliges me to support it.
At least gay marriage might eliminate the objectionable use of the word “partner,” which always poses the uncomfortable question of whether the person is a professional or sexual affiliate. For that matter, The New Moderate would like to see the word “gay” restored to its former innocence as a synonym for all that is lighthearted, festive and conducive to joy. What was wrong with “homosexual”?
Summary: Gays deserve acceptance and equal rights, but they can’t expect everyone to embrace their lifestyles or the idea of gay marriage.
THE NEW MODERATE 
” It just is what it is: a departure from mainstream sexual behavior.”
I ask …
Is Homo sexuality a common thread in all of nature , especially – the animal kingdom of which we’re a part ?
I answer….
Science says “Yes.”
Sure, homosexuality exists in nature. But it’s still a minority phenomenon. That’s all I’m saying.
“The New Moderate must dispute a few of their claims. Is homosexuality natural? Sure, but so is color-blindness. So is malaria.”
Really? You can write that line and congratulate yourself on being a “new moderate?” This post is so filled with bigotry and anti-gay sentiment it’s hard to know where to start.
At least right wing extremists are honest and upfront about their biases. It seems more offensive to hide behind a smug cloak of “just the rational guy in the middle of the road” while slipping homophobic statements into every paragraph.
Do you really think the issues of prejudice are a) past us and b) confined to pansy jokes and innuendo? Have you heard of Matt Shepard? Do you know how many respectable upstanding people live their lives in hiding because coming out would risk losing their job, their family, and possibly their lives?
Your blog is not a helpful, supportive “middle ground.” It is dangerous homophobia dressed up as moderation.
If you’re going to write opinions and post them for an audience, then have the courageous to own up to what you are really saying.
I think you’re so sensitized to the subject that you have the ability to see homophobia in neutral or even sympathetic statements. Read a little more closely: I wasn’t saying that homosexuality is as bad as malaria; I was simply challenging the common gay argument that homosexuality = natural = “normal.” In other words, you can’t place a value judgment on it (positive or negative) simply because it’s natural. Read my next sentence: “The ‘naturalness’ of gay sex doesn’t necessarily make it normal or praiseworthy any more than its minority status makes it sinful or perverted.” That’s about as neutral as one can get on a hot-button issue, and that’s why I think my argument stands up as a moderate position. Sorry if you found it homophobic. We moderates are used to drawing fire from both opposing camps; it seems to be our lot.
Right on! So are genius and athletic ability, different is not bad, or good, but discrimination based on harmless behavior is wrong. Sometimes moderate is wrong too. For Example, a moderate reaction considering the validity of genocide. Moderation is Nirvana, the ideal state acheived by lack of extremes. That is not going to happen. EVER! But on the other hand, 2 extremes unbalance things too. No one view point, left, moderate, and (especially:) right is always right, it’ s all about balanced views with the appropriate amount of either side for every situation.
Do you not have a name? If not, you are a coward. With your expectation that everyone
should agree with you 100%, you seem like a fascist. I am a moderate, but you are more
Nazi than the right wing on this. One more thing: The Associated Press discredited the
words “homophobe”, “homophobia”, and “homophobic” years ago. They are saying that
you cannot slander everyone who disagrees with you. The bogus term “marriage equality”
implies that the human rectum is equal to human vagina. IT ISN’T! Get over it!
More @ the same anonymous commentator: I’m guessing you also took issue with my use of the word “normal” in the sentence I just quoted above. I realize that the word is emotionally loaded, so I’ve gone back and modified that sentence to clarify how I meant to use it. I also added a few insights from my recent reading, which you probably won’t like. (Apparently the notion of exclusively gay behavior doesn’t date back much before 1900.)
Finally, I’m still puzzled that you could read my first paragraph and see it as homophobic. I thought it was clear that I sympathized with gays over the slings and arrows they had to endure. Am I a homophobe just because I didn’t mention Matthew Shepard?
No gays pre 1900? WTF? This is Sparta! Greece had a (w)hole lot of homos, but nobody gave a damn. Moderation!
Apparently most of the “gay” ancient Greeks were married men who chased teenage boys on the side. The study simply said that exclusively gay relationships were a rarity before 1900. I’m sure this was partly due to the power of the church, which could ostracize and condemn anyone who didn’t fit the desired mold.
The church against men marrying boys? Oh, I see, you can fuck’em but not marry them… And, as I said, nobody made a big deal about it, until the church IE: intolerant extremeists (or some, other, institution with more influence than decency) took a hand.
I appreciate your ability to go beyond your gut instinct on this subject and come to a reasonable conclusion, but I have to take issue with a few things you said. To me, the points are relatively minor, but still important. (I’m not gay, bi, queer, trans etc. so if it bothers me, it probably bothers others more, which is why I’m commenting.)
When you comment on the subject of “natural” you do it after saying that you have to disagree with them on a few of their claims and go on to talk about how it’s not normal or mainstream. Which isn’t a claim that I’ve ever heard anyone make, nor is it one you even listed in your list of arguments for the left. It does kind of come across as a bit of a random slightly homophobic passage as a result. Especially comparing it to a disease and colour blindness. Red hair is also unusual. I don’t honestly see the relevance of the fact that they are not a majority to the subject. They are aware they are a minority, we are aware they are a minority, no one is disputing that, so why bring it up and start talking about malaria?
Besides according to the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers:
“. . . homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality, . . .”
And yes, that is still what it means when read in context: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
The thing about exclusively gay individuals being new, this I have to cry foul on altogether, this is patently false and easily disproved with a few minutes of cursory research. Socrates is actually one of the sources used to disprove this as he does in fact describe purely homosexual individuals. Not to mention when you go outside of Western Culture, then you get instances like Buddhist monks in Japan going back for a thousand years. What you find is the culture that punished homosexuality (like most of Europe after Rome) are the places where you find exclusively homosexual examples hard to find. Not because they had an “outlet” but because they had to hide it or in many places be put to death or otherwise severely punished.
There’s obviously better and more in depth research but for a quick rundown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#History
Also, you frame the debate oddly, you make it sound like the left arguments for it have to do with their contribution to the arts or something. Why? I mean maybe you have friends who in a conversation about it will bring up those kind of things, but that doesn’t make it the actual argument for extending equal rights.
For me the biggest issue though is this idea that this has something to do with hetero marriage vs. homo marriage. I mean, it might be, but that’s not what either side says at all. The right argues that they want to preserve the “religious sanctity” of marriage. An argument that admittedly doesn’t hold up as a term such as that covers much more than just gays getting married and yet that seems to be all that concerns them. The left point out that civil marriage and religious marriage are the same in name only, as any atheist or Mormon fundamentalist could tell you in a heartbeat. But I’ve heard very little of talk about protecting hetero marriage, it seems the main argument from that line is the protection of marriage as the realm of religion. A battle long lost, but not in the minds of those who oppose gay marriage.
With that in mind I would like to propose a new new moderate stance on this issue which should please everyone (except the few people who genuinely just are homophobic.)
Change the government civil marriages to civil unions for all, straight or same sex, and leave marriage the exclusive territory of religious institutions. Some churches support it, some don’t, and that’s fine. That solves the problem of the definition being changed to one that some religions find offensive and also gives gays and straights equal rights and equal treatment in the eyes of the law. One of the leading arguments against civil unions is the idea of separate, but equal. Well, let’s make it unanimous and equal.
This solution solves all problems, gets the messy business of managing a religious concept out of our poor elected officials hands and neatly weaves an alternative middle path through the minefield.
Anyway, sorry to ramble on so long, with you on most things, just had to throw this out. Cheers.
Michelangelo
Michelangelo: I appreciate your intelligent and very perceptive comments. One point I should clarify at the outset is that I didn’t frame my argument as a discussion of gay rights. I simply wanted to explore the subject of gayness (and attitudes toward it) from the perspectives of a progressive, a conservative and my own admittedly idiosyncratic moderate view.
You’re probably right that I didn’t need to comment on whether homosexuality is “natural” or “normal.” I’ve often heard gay advocates stress the naturalness of gay sex, so I was assuming that they were attempting to “mainstream” their behavior. (They probably weren’t.) And yes, my comparison of homosexuality with malaria or color-blindness seems unnecessarily cruel at first glance, though I was just playing devil’s advocate by using extreme examples of “naturalness.”
As for the notion that exclusively gay behavior is a relative novelty… I inserted this item after I read about some recent research that made this assertion. I questioned its validity, too, and I wish I could remember the source — but it was definitely a just-released study. (That doesn’t automatically make it trustworthy, of course.)
I think you’re right that the social and religious sanctions against homosexuality (especially in societies dominated by the Abrahamic religions) put a decisive damper on exclusively gay relationships; it forced gay and bisexual individuals to fulfill their needs on the sly.
As for gay marriage… yes, the religious argument against it seems to be paramount, but here in the U.S. much of the vocal opposition to it comes from those who believe it somehow threatens the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.
I like your proposal that we make a sharper distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage; that way, individual churches, rather than the states or other local governments, would decide if they want to sanctify these unions. Government wouldn’t have to deal with it, and gay-marriage opponents wouldn’t be able to complain that their tax dollars are supporting a gay-friendly government.
Thanks again for the well-reasoned comments; you actually helped me clarify my own views on the subject.
If something happens that humans had no hand in, it’s nature. DONE. No omnipotent outsie forces are manipulating people’s behavior, to think so is irrational, and down that road lies stupidity and madness.
Ah, I see, sorry that I missed that. (Argument framing.)
Also for the record, my stepfather’s British, so I’ve picked up the spellings, but I’m actually American. Live in Massachusetts presently, just moved here from Oregon.
I think we’re both talking about the same argument as far as the sanctity goes, but interpreting two different ways. Because they so often hammer in the “one man, one woman” they often end up emphasizing the result of their beliefs rather than the logic “one man, one woman because the bible defines it as such and marriage is a religious institution therefore the government shouldn’t change the definition.” Of course the bible has a lot of other requirements around marriage, but none of those seem to matter as much in hindsight. . .
It’s very hard to say sanctity without meaning religious, the word means being holy or sacred.
In any case, glad I was helpful, and I’m glad that there are still other people who can talk about sensitive debates such as this and keep a cool head and civil tongue. It seems people sometimes just have no interest in treating anyone else with even slightly different views (no matter which side they’re on) with some courtesy and respect. It’s a real pleasure to be able to discuss ideas with someone who will listen thoughtfully and reply courteously. If you ever lose your mind and run for office, you have my support.
Also thank you for liking my proposal. I’ve been pushing it around for a couple years now, ever since I came up with it as a sort of thought exercise, starting to see a few posts every now and then pushing it as well, maybe it’s picking up steam? Or maybe other people also took a step back, looked at the picture and came to the same conclusion. In either case it’s something I’d like to see at least being seriously debated. I’m rather surprised it isn’t, it seems to me to be a neat compromise that should keep everyone happy, I’m surprised a savvy politician in a battleground state hasn’t thrown it out as an option.
Ideologues abound.
I have heard from so very many who oppose gay marriage and military cohesion, and their position is almost always based in tradition (religion). These arguments aren’t completely unreasonable, and they’d hold water in this particular issue…except for one thing: We aren’t talking about old world Europe or ancient traditions. We’re talking about the United States of America, a land—a concept, a PHILOSOPHY—whose very inception lies in a break with tradition.
Even if we did begin and were for a long time a “Christian nation,”—which isn’t the case; our secular provenance is more complex than that—America’s influence upon Christianity and religion in general transformed it profoundly and inexorably, from the very beginning. I find it interesting that people who tout our country as an historically UNIQUE development in Enlightened progress (they’re certainly right on that score) will blithely ignore or obfuscate what such a development actually entails, which is sometimes social and legislative manifestations that do not follow old norms.
Observing tradition (religion) means many things, of course, but a large part of it is ritualistic sacrifice (no, not blood and murder, necessarily, but time, toil, and often money), mostly out of a perception that such sacrifice benefits society. But America’s concepts of “individual liberty” and the freedom to choose sit in stark contrast to this. More so, though, our founding fathers were attempting to balance the sacrifice for society and the freedom of choice. This is evidenced in the fact that while sexual behavior IS a wholly different matter than race or alternate religions in the larger HUMAN paradigm, it is NOT different in the established American one. However, it seems when social developments that arise from this attempt are deemed unsavory by certain individuals, those individuals lament the loss of our values, don’t they?
DO most Americans actually oppose gay marriage? Right now, yes. Do most Americans support an actual constitutional ban on gay marriage? Right now—NO. An interesting dichotomy that opponents rarely address.
Traditional marriage became UNtraditional (in the classical, ancient sense, as opponents define it) when the U.S. Constitution was written, as Ted Olson explicitly pointed out to us. Homosexuality’s “sterile” practice is indeed an issue that should be discussed academically, but individuals who are legal adults, pay their taxes, and follow the law should be recognized in the same way as others who do the same—IN AMERICA. Not in ancient Babylon, Greece, semi-Christian Rome, or Christian England, but the United States of America. This goes for marriage and serving in the military. Does this logic mean that we could also allow pedophilia, a practice that WAS widely accepted in centuries past? Could we risk our soldiers being distracted, and subsequently endangered? The strict tenets of this logic say yes. But keep in mind that “could” doesn’t mean “WILL.” Social experiments like this are an American mainstay; they are a risk we run when we want to live in a free society.
Dan Simmons’ most recent post in the Hot Button Issues forum of his website, at least as of December 20th, and a six-or-seven year old post from Orson Scott Card on The Ornery American website take the opposite view. I’d be in simple amiable disagreement with them were it not for the condescending (and melodramatically apocalyptic) tone from these essays. Do their opponents on this issue often behave the same way? Certainly, but this doesn’t excuse the behavior.
Ah, but all this just makes me a “shallow, emotional liberal with no moral values,” right?
A couple of points… One historically, up until monotheism became dominant, which seems to be the only thing that explains homophobia… strict homosexuality and heterosexuality were considered odd minority positions. The vast majority of people were bisexual. I’m inclined to think that trend continues and we just don’t notice it due to societal conditioning on what is and is not proper gender normal activity. My evidence for that is the amusingly large number of bible thumping Christians who get caught having gay sex, and the every increasing number of people who openly identify as bi… in fact at some points I’ve known fewer strait people than bi people. But I don’t exactly travel in the most traditional circles… I mean I’m here after all.
In short, you and I are as freakish as gay people, and the bi’s probably own the majority. When you think about it they would be sexual moderates…
Two, I don’t see why we even have marriage as an institution. People don’t need fancy titles or state recognition to love each other and the idea that it makes said relationships more stable doesn’t really hold water when you consider that more than half of them fail anyway. It also leads to unintended consequences, (like this entire political issue.) Finally as a religious institution marriage wasn’t christian until the 12th century, before that it was a pagan thing and the Jews and early Christians were all polygamists, (turns out the Mormons are right about that, its in the bible.) So yeah, it has no clear secular nor theological basis. Its just one of those things that we do because we always have and we lack self reflection and imagination.
Three, I’ve never met a gay person who fits any of those stereotypes, unless they are doing it as a put on in the context of satire. Actually I’m more of a dandy than most of my gay friends, who have much more body hair and shower much less than I do, (I’m roman dam it, we’re supposed to be clean!)
Also in Rick’s defense he’s to the left of Obama on this issue, which isn’t hard since Obama’s position was the position of republicans until they went batshit insane 2 years ago, but yeah he’s not that bad. *goes back to his liberal elitist neoclassical musings*
The Israelites of old may have been polygamists (actually more strictly polygynists- there’s no record of women taking on more than one husband)- and the istitution of marriage was very much there, and said to be a sacred thing going back to creation (read Genesis 2:24, Malachi 2, Matthew 19, etc.). Moreover, polygamy is rarely cited as the norm or the ideal, at least by the New Testament. Those with positions of responsibility in the church were expected to have no more than one wife, and not having any worldly attachments was stated as an even higher ideal.
Seems like a bunch of lefty responses to me. Until the 1950s, psychiatrists considered homosexuality a “mental illness”, so I wouldn’t be quoted their current take, as one poster suggested.
They’ve been using “it happens in nature and therefor it’s all good,” argument without any regard for intellectual truth… Not everything in nature is good or should be encouraged. In fact – doesn’t everything happen in nature or at least nearly? Mice eat their babies when threatened … This is a natural response to fear/or other stimuli. Should then we encourage women to do same? “Baby” has a different scent and then so she should toss it from crib and refuse it sustenance? Of course not. The nature argument is invalid. Should their rights/person be protected? Yes. Respected? Yes/No- I don’t respect people for their sexual proclivities. Respect is earned. A general respect for freedom, and them as a human who should be able to live their life without harm from another… yes. Personally I think it’s sad we have to label people for rights according to who the do the nasty with – rather than just one for all, regardless of sexual orientation. My personal view – I’m completely disgusted with anal sex. It’s just disgusting … I’m a chic, I have a vagina. It’s awesome. I’m sure a gay men feels the same about shoving his face in a vagina. Although I spent most my free time as a single chic trying to sit on as many as possible. Even with gay men – who were incredibly hot. I tried, Some I won. Some I lost ( more)… But I tried 🙂 Anyway … I don’t have to agree, like or understand. I don’t have to sympathize even … I just don’t care about your sexual proclivities. I just care about your well being and freedom. What you do intimately is none of my concern, as long as consensual.
From my studies in College, anthropologists are yet to find clear-cut cases of biological homosexuality. Religion and cultural values are more factors in sexual preference. In other words, the more a society values personal choice over community definitions, the more the opportunity to experiment or submerge oneself in one lifestyle or another.
Be that as it may, my sense of fairness and justice also accepts the notion of gay marriage. But, let me be first to admit my discomfort when a man introduces his spouse as “his husband”, or similarly when a woman speaks of “her wife”. Can we respect the gender associated with these titles and simply use “spouse” instead?
I don’t know if upbringing and cultural values are more of a factor, but they’re definitely a factor. Gays seem to want to make homosexuality an all-or-none phenomenon, when it’s a lot more complicated than that. As for gay marriage, we’re redefining an institution that has existed in its present form for all of recorded history, and yet we’re regarded as Neanderthals if we don’t immediately jump on the bandwagon. The amount of pro-gay/anti-homophobe propaganda in the social media recently has been staggering. We can tolerate gayness in our midst without having to rub it in people’s faces. That said, I’m comfortable with gays getting married… but like you, I still get a little queasy over the notion of a man having a “husband” or a woman having a “wife.” I’m a little old-fashioned that way.
Look at the husband / wife issue linguistically: a person of unknown gender has a male spouse, commonly referred to as a “husband.” Or our unknown individual has a female spouse, commonly referred to as a “wife.” Mr/Ms Unknown uses the common term, REGARDLESS of their actual gender.
Your queasiness with the use of “husband / wife” by members of a same-sex couple is what gay activists refer to as the “ick factor”. The idea of a man kissing another man is “icky” therefore must be outlawed!!! Women licking other women is “icky”, we must condemn them from the pulpit. Eeeeuw, homosexuality is icky, icky, icky!!!
If you think the use of “icky” is childish, then your fallacious appeal to emotion is also childish.
Hello, Rick. I respect your approach and thank you for your respect in regards to the rights of me and my gay brothers and sisters. This all-or-none phenomenon is not unique to the topic of gay marriage either. This is why moderates such as ourselves have been so disenfranchised. To be accepting of another person’s attributes, beliefs and culture does not require that one must embrace them as their own. It simply would compel a person to allow others live their lives as they see fit.
I do not try to throw my homosexuality in people’s faces as you describe, but I see nothing wrong with two men holding hands walking on a sidewalk in the same way a man and woman might in the same instance. I’ve also known many a same-sex couple who have raised children to be just as well adjusted, polite, kind, and successful as anyone raised in a straight household, single parent household, etc.
Anyway, I’m a very live and let live kind of person, but also really love to learn about others thoughts, believes, cultures, ideas, etc. Which is why I think I’m such a staunch moderate. In almost everything, there is a middle ground. I find myself most comfortable there.
To your point about marriage though, in recorded history, marriage has indeed taken many, many forms. From polygamy to property… In most of America, marriage is between two consenting adults. In many cases it isn’t even about procreation anymore; we all have married friends who have no interest in child rearing. And that is perfectly fine!! Marriage anymore is about securing a safe financial future for two people who wish to spend the rest of their lives together at the very least, and perhaps raise a family in the long run.
Thank you for your statement!
Cody
In Moderate world, may we also, we being the rest of the non-gay population, PLEASE have the rainbow back? I love the rainbow, I love my heterosexual lifestyle, and I love my homosexual friends and family… But, I would really like to be able to park at Home Depot with my rainbow sticker plastered on the bumper of my truck without being called a lesbian. Not that there’s anything wrong with it!! :))
Sorry, us dykes’n’faggots now own the rainbow trademark. You can’t use it without the express permission of the High Council of the Gay Agenda and paying an exorbitant fee.
Evolutionary theory would clearly disprove the notion that homosexuality is natural or normal. Albeit animals are known to engage in it, perhaps as some form of experimentation or rite of passage, the fact remains that their bottom line is to propagate the species.
It is the only the human animal which has been blessed with a keen sense of self awareness and determination to transform instincts into choices, and sexuality into a lifestyle choice. But such choices can and should remain personal ones.
But we in the US love our kitsch, and the devious minds that make up politics and media know that. So, we have the fad of the decade, our sexual practices now divide us as communities, each with its own special interests.
But, the same odd stereotyping applied to drug users on Haite -Ashbury. When that fad died out we had the preppies, the yuppies, the sincs, the dincs, Black Power, Latino Power, Yellow Power and Brown Power. Those advertising campaigns and vote-generators have gone by the wayside. What will happen when Gay Power goes by the wayside?’
Speaking as a gay man, I like much of what you say here. To the point of marriage though, Americans must recognize that the institution of marriage is actually two manifestations, religious and civil. A religious ceremony does not a civil marriage make – only a marriage license does that. A marriage license does not a religious marriage make, only God can make that. The fight for gay marriage is in the civil arena. While I embrace those faith leaders who have come out in support of religious gay marriage, the benefits granted by the government to those in marriages should not be filtered by gender in any way. Two consenting adults should be able to enter into the civil union of marriage. Moreover, it cannot be called something different in the eyes of the law. A “separate but equal” approach to marriage by the means of declaring or naming it a “civil union” empowers a government to legislate for one over the other. Call it all civil unions, or call it all marriage. Do not call same sex unions something different when the unions, within the eyes of the government, are all meant to ensure the same freedoms and benefits.
Equal Justice UNDER Law….
Regarding comments about the irrelevance of procreation in marriage/marital benefits, at about $180,000 per child (recently published average cost to raise a child) I would disagree with comments that procreation is not relevant. I also wonder whether children with gay parents, especially in early adolescence, would struggle with self-consciousness of being (probably) the only of their peers with gay parents, be reluctant to invite friends over, etc. Social acceptance/rejection I suppose would vary widely by community. The research on gay parenting is weakened by its voluntary nature (not randomly examined). For example, if I do not think my children would give a positive report of our home life, I’m not likely to volunteer them for a study of our home life. I must say that I have enjoyed most of the discourse on this site, more thoughtful and less one-sided than most sites I’ve seen.
People need to get their noses out of people’s bedroom and who they choose to love.. What we should care about is when they leave their homes are they good, tax paying, productive people. If that’s the bar, lots of heterosexual people would fail.
People need to get their noses out of people’s bedroom and who they choose to love.. What we should care about is when they leave their homes are they good, tax paying, productive people. If that’s the bar, lots of heterosexual people would fail. That goes for child rearingbtoo.
People need to get their noses out of people’s bedroom and who they choose to love.. What we should care about is when they leave their homes are they good, tax paying, productive people. If that’s the bar, lots of heterosexual people would fail. That goes for child rearing too..