Prop 8, The Play

[Jaybear]

Since I've explained this numerous times, perhaps you should ask the New York Court of Appeals. Notice how similar they sound to me. Shocking, huh? Just a simple English major can see through the anti-Christian propaganda:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_05239.htm

Anyway, I've explained this a million times, but it seems it has all disappeared from your memory. Not sure what the deal is with that. I talk about recognition, and you immediately revert back to, "They're not allowed to marry!" which is just propaganda. That implies they can't have a ceremony and can't live together, which is false. It implies that all people with traditional values are fighting against fundamental rights, which is profoundly insulting and represents hate-mongering, really. Anyone with traditional values would be fools to adopt this propaganda or tolerate having the government adopt it, as it will make them and their children targets of persecution and ultimately will result in unjust laws against Christians for their "hate" and "intolerance."

Yes, we have been through this before. And no, I have not received an answer to my question.

What I asked you, and what the NY court did not address: How does denying gays the right to marry "promote the presence of both a father and a mother in the home?

The NY court explained that, in theory not in reality, that long ago, when marriage was created, NY legislators could have reasoned that "Hey, lets allow heterosexual to marry, because that would promote the presence of both a mother and father in the home."

That's not really what happened, but that is besides the point.

In NY, the court presented a fictional reason for the creation of marriage laws, which happened to be limited to heterosexuals -- promoting stable families.

In CA, by passing Prop 8, the voters did not create the institution of marriage. Marriage existed, and extended to both gay and straight couples. By passing prop 8, all they did was deny gays the right to marry.

So in CA/NY the courts examined the reason for undertaking two different actions:

NY: Creation of marital rights for heterosexuals.

CA: Denying marital rights to gays.

I get that creating marital rights for heterosexuals promotes responsible procreation.

What I don't get, and you have not explained is how denying marital rights to gays promotes responsible procreation.

Humor me. Explain the connection, without pointing me somewhere else.

[Mordecai]

What I asked you, and what the NY court did not address: How does denying gays the right to marry "promote the presence of both a father and a mother in the home?

I answered, in that I explained how this question is based on a false premise. As soon as you're willing to ask me questions not based on false premises, I'll be happy to answer them.

As far as your response to the N.Y. Court of Appeals, straw man. Sad.

[Jaybear]

I answered, in that I explained how this question is based on a false premise. As soon as you're willing to ask me questions not based on false premises, I'll be happy to answer them.

Alright, how about: How does denying gays the right to a state issued marriage license "promote the presence of both a father and a mother in the home?

As far as your response to the N.Y. Court of Appeals, straw man. Sad.

??? How so?

[Mordecai]

Alright, how about: How does denying gays the right to a state issued marriage license "promote the presence of both a father and a mother in the home?

Still a false premise. Why would they have a right to a state issued marriage license? Try again.

As far as your straw man, you did not accurately describe what they were saying. Anyone who reads what the court's decision was and what you wrote can see that. If they can't tell the difference, maybe they just don't have good reading comprehension. Not sure how I could help with that.

[california boy]

You asked what I felt was the defendant's "strongest argument against gay marriage". Are you asking this in the sense of "rational review"? Or in some other sense?

I really appreciate your comments on precedent. It gives me a better understanding on the importance this is to the defense's case. What I am familiar with are the arguments used to justify keeping that precedent. I guess this is what I am asking about. For example some of the arugments that we heard in the court case are for example, gay marriage hurts the institution of marriage. or marriage traditionally has been between a man and a women and all of the other arguments used by the defense. What I am asking is which argument for keeping the precedent do you think is the the strongest. Or do you think that no argument is needed?

[california boy]

You asked what I felt was the defendant's "strongest argument against gay marriage". Are you asking this in the sense of "rational review"? Or in some other sense?

I really appreciate your comments on precedent. It gives me a better understanding on the importance this is to the defense's case. What I am familiar with are the arguments used to justify keeping that precedent. I guess this is what I am asking about. For example some of the arugments that we heard in the court case are, gay marriage hurts the institution of marriage. or marriage traditionally has been between a man and a women and all of the other arguments used by the defense. What I am asking is which argument for keeping the precedent do you think is the the strongest. Or do you think that no argument is needed?

[Zeta-Flux]

I really appreciate your comments on precedent. It gives me a better understanding on the importance this is to the defense's case. What I am familiar with are the arguments used to justify keeping that precedent. I guess this is what I am asking about. For example some of the arugments that we heard in the court case are, gay marriage hurts the institution of marriage. or marriage traditionally has been between a man and a women and all of the other arguments used by the defense. What I am asking is which argument for keeping the precedent do you think is the the strongest. Or do you think that no argument is needed?

I assume by "argument for keeping the precedent" you mean a legal argument, rather than an argument that will convince the populace.

I think the strongest arguments are the ones against homosexuality be given suspect classification. In particular, I believe it can be established that (1) the GLBTQ groups are not politically powerless, but in fact wield a lot of political power, and (2) there is no visible or immutable characteristic (in the legal sense) inherent to this group (and that there are scientific studies which show this).

In my opinion, Prop. 8 will not stand or fall on rational basis review. It will easily pass that hurdle (at the circuit and supreme court levels). Rather, it will stand or fall on whether or not the GLBTQ groups are given suspect or quasi-suspect classifications.

[california boy]

I assume by "argument for keeping the precedent" you mean a legal argument, rather than an argument that will convince the populace.

I think the strongest arguments are the ones against homosexuality be given suspect classification. In particular, I believe it can be established that (1) the GLBTQ groups are not politically powerless, but in fact wield a lot of political power, and (2) there is no visible or immutable characteristic (in the legal sense) inherent to this group (and that there are scientific studies which show this).

In my opinion, Prop. 8 will not stand or fall on rational basis review. It will easily pass that hurdle (at the circuit and supreme court levels). Rather, it will stand or fall on whether or not the GLBTQ groups are given suspect or quasi-suspect classifications.

Very interesting analysis. I think have pointed out the weakest part of the argument where so many others on this board have failed to do. I am guessing that you feel if gays are not a suspect class then they should not be allowed to marry. Can you talk a little about that rationalization? Or maybe I am wrong in assuming that train of thought,

[california boy]

I assume by "argument for keeping the precedent" you mean a legal argument, rather than an argument that will convince the populace.

I think the strongest arguments are the ones against homosexuality be given suspect classification. In particular, I believe it can be established that (1) the GLBTQ groups are not politically powerless, but in fact wield a lot of political power, and (2) there is no visible or immutable characteristic (in the legal sense) inherent to this group (and that there are scientific studies which show this).

In my opinion, Prop. 8 will not stand or fall on rational basis review. It will easily pass that hurdle (at the circuit and supreme court levels). Rather, it will stand or fall on whether or not the GLBTQ groups are given suspect or quasi-suspect classifications.

Very interesting analysis. I think have pointed out the weakest part of the argument where so many others on this board have failed to do. I am guessing that you feel if gays are not a suspect class then they should not be allowed to marry. I can certainly see the civil right to marry being less strong. Can you talk a little about that rationalization? Or maybe I am wrong in assuming that train of thought,

[Zeta-Flux]

Very interesting analysis. I think have pointed out the weakest part of the argument where so many others on this board have failed to do. I am guessing that you feel if gays are not a suspect class then they should not be allowed to marry.

No, anyone is still *allowed* to marry. It's just that a same-sex couple just can't legally call a same-sex union a marriage.

If it helps, think of it this way. Men and women are equal under the law. Nevertheless, the law still differentiates between men and women. Gender matters--since there are biological realities that the law must take into account. As I understand it, an unmarried woman, for instance, can decide to abort a child in her womb, whereas the biological father cannot make that decision.

Similarly, the types of union may be equal under the law to an extent, but it can be useful to differentiate them.

I can certainly see the civil right to marry being less strong. Can you talk a little about that rationalization? Or maybe I am wrong in assuming that train of thought,

I think the reasons for opposing the redefinition of marriage are significantly different than the legal reasons for supposing certain laws are compatible with the Equal Protection clause.

It is not that I support Prop. 8 because I think homosexuality should not be a suspect classification. Rather, I support Prop. 8 for lots of other reasons, many of which are expressed in the following article: http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102279285913-6/GGA+-+What+is+Marriage.pdf

That said, I still believe that Prop. 8 will fall or stand (if the Proponents are given standing) on whether the Supreme Court grants suspect classification or not. My reasons for hoping they won't grant suspect classification are also numerous. Along with my belief that a plain understanding of the qualifications blocks such a ruling, there is the "slippery slope" that other behaviors will also be given this classification. In fact, I think that when the decision comes, whichever judges wants to grant homosexuality a suspect classification will, in their summary, try to say something like `the behavior is inextricably tied to the "intrinsic" quality of the group` and thus try to escape the reality that the group is defined by a behavior rather than an intrinsic, unchangeable property.

[california boy]

No, anyone is still *allowed* to marry. It's just that a same-sex couple just can't legally call a same-sex union a marriage.

If it helps, think of it this way. Men and women are equal under the law. Nevertheless, the law still differentiates between men and women. Gender matters--since there are biological realities that the law must take into account. As I understand it, an unmarried woman, for instance, can decide to abort a child in her womb, whereas the biological father cannot make that decision.

Similarly, the types of union may be equal under the law to an extent, but it can be useful to differentiate them.

I think the reasons for opposing the redefinition of marriage are significantly different than the legal reasons for supposing certain laws are compatible with the Equal Protection clause.

It is not that I support Prop. 8 because I think homosexuality should not be a suspect classification. Rather, I support Prop. 8 for lots of other reasons, many of which are expressed in the following article: http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102279285913-6/GGA+-+What+is+Marriage.pdf

That said, I still believe that Prop. 8 will fall or stand (if the Proponents are given standing) on whether the Supreme Court grants suspect classification or not. My reasons for hoping they won't grant suspect classification are also numerous. Along with my belief that a plain understanding of the qualifications blocks such a ruling, there is the "slippery slope" that other behaviors will also be given this classification. In fact, I think that when the decision comes, whichever judges wants to grant homosexuality a suspect classification will, in their summary, try to say something like `the behavior is inextricably tied to the "intrinsic" quality of the group` and thus try to escape the reality that the group is defined by a behavior rather than an intrinsic, unchangeable property.

I have read the link you provided when you have posted it in the past. I personally find it quite shallow and not based on anything legal at all. For example the first paragraph reads

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate) and renew their union by conjugal acts—acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its inherent orientation to the bearing and rearing of children contributes to its distinctive structure, including norms of monogamy and fidelity. This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognize and regulate it.

The authors of the article you linked to are just making up a new definition of marriage for their own purposes. While I would agree with the first part of the definition, the last part, concerning rearing children together is a complete fabrication and distortion of the definition of marriage. There is nothing in traditional wedding vows that mentions children. There is no requirement for someone to have children to be considered married. And there is no waiting period where children are required to appear for a married couple. In short, this is a totally redefinition of the word marriage. (Something that gays are often accused of doing.) Having children is called procreation and biologically has NOTHING to do with marriage. This is what I found in my dictionary on the definition of marriage.

marriage |ˈmarij|

noun

1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

• a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex.

• a relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts : a happy marriage | the children from his first marriage.

• figurative a combination or mixture of two or more elements : a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel.

2 (in pinochle and other card games) a combination of a king and queen of the same suit.

It is interesting that the dictionary already includes same sex marriages as part of the current definition of what marriage is. So if you are fighting for a definition, you are a little late.

I personally find the same kind of errors in logic throughout the pdf that you linked to. I doubt anyone would take anything that this group says with any authority. It may be a propaganda piece against gay marriage, but it certainly is not a legally researched document making a case against gay marriage.

[Jeff K.]

The authors of the article you linked to are just making up a new definition of marriage for their own purposes.

Oh the irony!!!!

[Zeta-Flux]

california boy,

Their "definition" as you put it is not a definition, but an argument. They say: "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together."

So are you saying that the bearing and rearing of children together is not the natural fulfillment of the type of commitment marriage is? That conjugal relations are superfluous to marriage?

[california boy]

california boy,

Their "definition" as you put it is not a definition, but an argument. They say: "Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together."

So are you saying that the bearing and rearing of children together is not the natural fulfillment of the type of commitment marriage is? That conjugal relations are superfluous to marriage?

I am saying that from a legal point of view, marriage and bearing children are two separate issues. I posted an article a while back that said that for the first time, more children were born outside of marriage than in a marriage between a man and a woman. I am not suggesting that is a good thing. I am just stating that you can not define marriage as some exclusive way of how children are brought into this world. You could say that about procreation however. And you could say that there is procreation within the bonds of marriage. But it is not a requirement of marriage, nor is it exclusive to marriage. Because of that, it is not part of the definition of what a mariage is.

A more accurate definition of marriage is stated in traditional wedding vows themselves. A commitment of two people to love, homor, in sickness and in health etc. It certainly becomes less important that commitment be exclusively between a man and a woman. And from a legal point of view, a much easier position to defiend.

[Storm Rider]

I am saying that from a legal point of view, marriage and bearing children are two separate issues. I posted an article a while back that said that for the first time, more children were born outside of marriage than in a marriage between a man and a woman. I am not suggesting that is a good thing. I am just stating that you can not define marriage as some exclusive way of how children are brought into this world. You could say that about procreation however. And you could say that there is procreation within the bonds of marriage. But it is not a requirement of marriage, nor is it exclusive to marriage. Because of that, it is not part of the definition of what a mariage is.

A more accurate definition of marriage is stated in traditional wedding vows themselves. A commitment of two people to love, homor, in sickness and in health etc. It certainly becomes less important that commitment be exclusively between a man and a woman. And from a legal point of view, a much easier position to defiend.

I don't think anyone argues that child bearing happens on in exclusive marriage realtionships; many would argue that it is the best way to raise a child. It is the purpose of marriage and has been so for thosands of years. I guess that is what bothers me about the topic. Here we have a social construct that has worked since humanity became civilized (let's just say thousands of years). It is the foundation upon which a civil society was built. Now we want to redefine and limit it purpose to "two people to love, humor, in sickness and in health, etc." It has never served such a narrow purpose, ever in the history of the world. We are not talking about two people who simply enjoy one another's company.

Your definition can be applied to almost any relationship between two entities that have an affinity for one another. This does not build a stable society! It builds a society that appeals to the absolute lowest common denominator; the very basest of passions while parading under the banner of "we love one another".

To me there are benefits that should never have been denied to anyone. Visiting family members in a hospital, insurance, retirement benefits, etc. Those rules need to be improved to accomodate a broader range of situations. But marriage?

[Zeta-Flux]

I am saying that from a legal point of view, marriage and bearing children are two separate issues. I posted an article a while back that said that for the first time, more children were born outside of marriage than in a marriage between a man and a woman. I am not suggesting that is a good thing. I am just stating that you can not define marriage as some exclusive way of how children are brought into this world. You could say that about procreation however. And you could say that there is procreation within the bonds of marriage. But it is not a requirement of marriage, nor is it exclusive to marriage. Because of that, it is not part of the definition of what a mariage is.

A more accurate definition of marriage is stated in traditional wedding vows themselves. A commitment of two people to love, homor, in sickness and in health etc. It certainly becomes less important that commitment be exclusively between a man and a woman. And from a legal point of view, a much easier position to defiend.

california boy,

I think Stormrider responded well, but let me just say that you seem to be missing the point of the article I linked. They don't say that marriage is the exclusive way children are brought into the world. But they do argue, quite persuasively, that marriage "is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together." And the reason is because marriage is societie's way of legitimizing coitus between two people, and there are certain biological realities to that act.

[california boy]

california boy,

I think Stormrider responded well, but let me just say that you seem to be missing the point of the article I linked. They don't say that marriage is the exclusive way children are brought into the world. But they do argue, quite persuasively, that marriage "is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together." And the reason is because marriage is societie's way of legitimizing coitus between two people, and there are certain biological realities to that act.

No I get what you both are trying to point out. The problem I have with both of your statements is you act as if society will some how quit marrying and having children if gays are allowed to marry. Everyone and I repeat everyone who desires to be married and have a family will continue to do so like they have for thousands of years. Whether gays marry or not will not affect this conscript one bit. Unless you can point to even a handful of straight couples who have said, "We won't get married and have children if gay people get married". It is a sensless suggestion that they would. Why would anyone elses behavior determine what your behavior would be? And why would gay marriage effect what has been going on for centuries?

That said, the more dangerous game that is being played right now is when religious people constantly tell young people it is not important for gay people to be in stable relationships and be married. And that gay people should continue to have sex outsides the bonds of marriage. It is an even more dangerous stance to say that gay couples with children should not get married. The message being sent is that marriage is not for everyone. Many young people are being taught that lesson and statistically less and less are believing that marriage has any importance at all in their lives as well. It is starting to be viewed by the younger generation as strictly a religious commitment.

A much more reasonable stance for those who value marriage would be to encourage everyone to be in the stable commitment that marriage affords, especially when children whether adopted or conceived are involved. This pushing an agenda that marriage is not for everyone is a very dangerous message and statistically we are seeing the results of it even now.

[Storm Rider]

No I get what you both are trying to point out. The problem I have with both of your statements is you act as if society will some how quit marrying and having children if gays are allowed to marry. Everyone and I repeat everyone who desires to be married and have a family will continue to do so like they have for thousands of years. Whether gays marry or not will not affect this conscript one bit. Unless you can point to even a handful of straight couples who have said, "We won't get married and have children if gay people get married". It is a sensless suggestion that they would. Why would anyone elses behavior determine what your behavior would be? And why would gay marriage effect what has been going on for centuries?

That said, the more dangerous game that is being played right now is when religious people constantly tell young people it is not important for gay people to be in stable relationships and be married. And that gay people should continue to have sex outsides the bonds of marriage. It is an even more dangerous stance to say that gay couples with children should not get married. The message being sent is that marriage is not for everyone. Many young people are being taught that lesson and statistically less and less are believing that marriage has any importance at all in their lives as well. It is starting to be viewed by the younger generation as strictly a religious commitment.

A much more reasonable stance for those who value marriage would be to encourage everyone to be in the stable commitment that marriage affords, especially when children whether adopted or conceived are involved. This pushing an agenda that marriage is not for everyone is a very dangerous message and statistically we are seeing the results of it even now.

No, I am not sure you get what I am saying. To be blunt, my fears for society is when perversion is accepted as normal. How does that affect society? Every been to a "Gay Pride" parade? That is one of the best example why I reject any legitimization of this lifestyle. There is nothing, NOTHING, anything virtuous, lovely or of good report or praiseworthy in the homosexual lifestyle. It is a perversion of normal, sexual relationships.

The human body was not made for a gay lifestyle. It is an imitation of normal sex. How in the world does one conclude that using another's anus is acceptable activity? The most that is achieved is mutual masturbation. There is not becoming one, there is no sharing of one's soul with another. I know this is blunt and may even be offensive to some, but there is no reason to dance around with what is wrong. From a spiritual standpoint, from a biological standpoint, the homosexual lifestyle is wholly sterile and was not made for humanity.

Dressing up the argument that "two people love one another" and thus it must be good is sheer balderdash. What is at stake is that individuals have let their passions run wild and if it feels good they are going to do it. Gay people need our love and understanding, but they do not need our acceptance of their lifestyle. Would go God that our brothers and sisters were not cursed with this sore and miserable curse, but it exists. We must not, we cannot condone perversion in any form. Calling darkness, light does not make it so. It only confuses and blinds the populace to true light and righteousness.

[california boy]

No, I am not sure you get what I am saying. To be blunt, my fears for society is when perversion is accepted as normal. How does that affect society? Every been to a "Gay Pride" parade? That is one of the best example why I reject any legitimization of this lifestyle. There is nothing, NOTHING, anything virtuous, lovely or of good report or praiseworthy in the homosexual lifestyle. It is a perversion of normal, sexual relationships.

The human body was not made for a gay lifestyle. It is an imitation of normal sex. How in the world does one conclude that using another's anus is acceptable activity? The most that is achieved is mutual masturbation. There is not becoming one, there is no sharing of one's soul with another. I know this is blunt and may even be offensive to some, but there is no reason to dance around with what is wrong. From a spiritual standpoint, from a biological standpoint, the homosexual lifestyle is wholly sterile and was not made for humanity.

Dressing up the argument that "two people love one another" and thus it must be good is sheer balderdash. What is at stake is that individuals have let their passions run wild and if it feels good they are going to do it. Gay people need our love and understanding, but they do not need our acceptance of their lifestyle. Would go God that our brothers and sisters were not cursed with this sore and miserable curse, but it exists. We must not, we cannot condone perversion in any form. Calling darkness, light does not make it so. It only confuses and blinds the populace to true light and righteousness.

Spoken by a guy who has no idea what it is like to be gay and attracted to the same sex. I don't expect you to understand what it is like to be gay. I don't expect you to accept it. I don't even expect your love and understanding. Perhaps if I was straight I would think similarly. It is easy to demonize things that have no relationship to yourself. But to be blunt with you, you have no right to control other peoples lives by your religious views. This might suprise you, but being gay is not about sex any more than being straight is about sex. To make it so is a shallow lack of understanding.

[Storm Rider]

Spoken by a guy who has no idea what it is like to be gay and attracted to the same sex. I don't expect you to understand what it is like to be gay. I don't expect you to accept it. I don't even expect your love and understanding. Perhaps if I was straight I would think similarly. It is easy to demonize things that have no relationship to yourself. But to be blunt with you, you have no right to control other peoples lives by your religious views. This might suprise you, but being gay is not about sex any more than being straight is about sex. To make it so is a shallow lack of understanding.

You are not in a bubble, nor are all other gay people. It is not all about sex? Please attend the next gay pride parade and then tell me it is not about sex. It is almost exclusively about sex. The facade of two loving individuals is just that, a facade that is far more prevalent amoung lesbian than of homosexuals. Gay men are promiscous to the extreme; every study has proved this. They are not prim, proper, virtuous individuals who go through life waiting for the one; they operate on their very basest passions and when it feels good, they are ready for action. Do you deny this?

I am not demonizing the homosexual lifestyle; just the opposite, I am stating it like it is. The problem for gays is that they want this hidden, make the general populace continue in ignorance about the reality of this deviant world. You know as well as I do that gays have tried to get gays to tone down gay pride parades so that the general populace does not come to understand the reality of their culture.

I have every right to state threalityty. I have every right to care about the society in which I life. I have every right to demand that another's lifestyle does not impact on that of me or my family. I have every right to desire a moral society. I have every right to expect that the actions of others to not endanger the health and safety of society at large. Conversely, you, nor anyone else, has the right to demand the opposite.

It is a joke to call this religious views. This is what the ignorant do to demonize those who oppose their views. This is plain old biology! An anus is only to be used for the passing of body waste. A mouth is to be used for providing food to the body and for the expression of intimacy between a man and a woman. Can body orifices be used for other purposes? I guess, but why? Why go against nature? Why violate the natural laws? Because it feels good? That is the only reason you have? The most two homosexuals can do is mutual masturbation. It can be nothing more and nothing less. Trying to call it a loving relationship degrades what a true loving relationship is. You know this and it does not matter how many times you tell yourself differently will it change what you already know.

When we actually explain what gay sex is, even gays understand how vile it is. Go ahead, explain to this forum the full range of sexual antics carried on by gays. Put it out in the light of day and then tell us it is not deviant, it is not vile or perverted.

[california boy]

You are not in a bubble, nor are all other gay people. It is not all about sex? Please attend the next gay pride parade and then tell me it is not about sex. It is almost exclusively about sex. The facade of two loving individuals is just that, a facade that is far more prevalent amoung lesbian than of homosexuals. Gay men are promiscous to the extreme; every study has proved this. They are not prim, proper, virtuous individuals who go through life waiting for the one; they operate on their very basest passions and when it feels good, they are ready for action. Do you deny this?

I am not demonizing the homosexual lifestyle; just the opposite, I am stating it like it is. The problem for gays is that they want this hidden, make the general populace continue in ignorance about the reality of this deviant world. You know as well as I do that gays have tried to get gays to tone down gay pride parades so that the general populace does not come to understand the reality of their culture.

I have every right to state threalityty. I have every right to care about the society in which I life. I have every right to demand that another's lifestyle does not impact on that of me or my family. I have every right to desire a moral society. I have every right to expect that the actions of others to not endanger the health and safety of society at large. Conversely, you, nor anyone else, has the right to demand the opposite.

It is a joke to call this religious views. This is what the ignorant do to demonize those who oppose their views. This is plain old biology! An anus is only to be used for the passing of body waste. A mouth is to be used for providing food to the body and for the expression of intimacy between a man and a woman. Can body orifices be used for other purposes? I guess, but why? Why go against nature? Why violate the natural laws? Because it feels good? That is the only reason you have? The most two homosexuals can do is mutual masturbation. It can be nothing more and nothing less. Trying to call it a loving relationship degrades what a true loving relationship is. You know this and it does not matter how many times you tell yourself differently will it change what you already know.

When we actually explain what gay sex is, even gays understand how vile it is. Go ahead, explain to this forum the full range of sexual antics carried on by gays. Put it out in the light of day and then tell us it is not deviant, it is not vile or perverted.

First let me address the whole pride parade thing. I have been to about 5 pride parades in San Francisco. To characterize them as sexual is just not factual. You might be interested to know that the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade is the BIGGEST event San Francisco hosts each year. Over ! MILLION people attend the event. The majority of those attending are straight families. Yes families who choose to bring their children to watch the parade. The parade is also broadcast LIVE on local television. To make it out to be some kind of deviant sexual parade is just nonsense. period. In reality it is a pretty boring parade with every real estate company, church group, civic organization, public official etc marching down the street in support of equality for this part of America. Yeah some people believe gays have rights too. In fact the majority of Americans support gay marriage. There is nothing that goes on during a gay pride parade that also goes on at Carnival or Mardi Gras parade.

Do you get that your perverted views are in the minority? Not everyone falls for the diatribe you seem to want to give. Oral sex and **** sex is not restricted to the gay population. Do you rant and rave about how straight couples have sex as well? Is this some fetish of yours? It may not be what you want to do, but like I said, you are in no position to dictate how you think people should behave in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Unless you can specifically tell how it effects you personally, then you have no point. You are just one individual who happens to be against gay relationships. Fortunately you are not in the majority. And like I said, I don't really care what you think. Your views don't effect my life any more than my view effect yours.

[Jeff K.]

I have been to two in San Fran and in Palm Springs. It is about sex.

As you can see from this

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1T4TSND_enUS413US413&tbib=2&q=gay+pride+parade&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1280&bih=504

it is not the healthy wholesome atmosphere some people falsely portray it as. People who bring their children to it should be ashamed, they aren't good parents, and they reflect what is wrong with families. And it is the people in these photos that insist they are in loving relationships? One has to ask if they even understand what love really is, and how it is not sex.

To make it out to be some kind of deviant sexual parade is just nonsense

One presumes then that you call those photos (taken and copied by the gay pride community) normal?

One supposes you think

http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl=en&rlz=1T4TSND_enUS413US413&biw=1280&bih=504&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=thanksgiving+parades&oq=thanksgiving+parades&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=3806l5853l0l6537l13l10l0l0l0l3l190l1177l3.7l10l0

are deviant.

There is nothing that goes on during a gay pride parade that also goes on at Carnival or Mardi Gras parade.

Now that we have established the parameters you and the gay population hold as being "normal", tell us again why the gay parade groups somehow reflect a healthy wholesome society? Your denial shows just how out of touch with morality certain groups have become. When sexual perversions and deviant behavior is considered "normal", and even good for families. It only bolsters the importance of delineating a line between those who understand morality, and those who have gone so far as to believe "normal" is any perversion out there, and they are fine exposing it to children.

[Daniel2]

You are not in a bubble, nor are all other gay people. It is not all about sex? Please attend the next gay pride parade and then tell me it is not about sex. It is almost exclusively about sex. The facade of two loving individuals is just that, a facade that is far more prevalent amoung lesbian than of homosexuals. Gay men are promiscous to the extreme; every study has proved this. They are not prim, proper, virtuous individuals who go through life waiting for the one; they operate on their very basest passions and when it feels good, they are ready for action. Do you deny this?

I am not demonizing the homosexual lifestyle; just the opposite, I am stating it like it is. The problem for gays is that they want this hidden, make the general populace continue in ignorance about the reality of this deviant world. You know as well as I do that gays have tried to get gays to tone down gay pride parades so that the general populace does not come to understand the reality of their culture.

I have every right to state threalityty. I have every right to care about the society in which I life. I have every right to demand that another's lifestyle does not impact on that of me or my family. I have every right to desire a moral society. I have every right to expect that the actions of others to not endanger the health and safety of society at large. Conversely, you, nor anyone else, has the right to demand the opposite.

It is a joke to call this religious views. This is what the ignorant do to demonize those who oppose their views. This is plain old biology! An anus is only to be used for the passing of body waste. A mouth is to be used for providing food to the body and for the expression of intimacy between a man and a woman. Can body orifices be used for other purposes? I guess, but why? Why go against nature? Why violate the natural laws? Because it feels good? That is the only reason you have? The most two homosexuals can do is mutual masturbation. It can be nothing more and nothing less. Trying to call it a loving relationship degrades what a true loving relationship is. You know this and it does not matter how many times you tell yourself differently will it change what you already know.

When we actually explain what gay sex is, even gays understand how vile it is. Go ahead, explain to this forum the full range of sexual antics carried on by gays. Put it out in the light of day and then tell us it is not deviant, it is not vile or perverted.

Hi, Storm Rider.

I appreciate your input in this discussion. It's always helpful to hear opposing viewpoints and try to understand one another better.

Like our friend Jeff K., it appears to me that your views make the mistake of overgeneralize all gays and lesbians, based on what you've seen or heard said by and about some gays and lesbians.

Are some individuals who are gay or lesbian unhealthily preoccupied with sex? Clearly there are.

Do some organizations that are LGBT-specific overemphasize or cater to sex? Definitely--as the (not LGBT-specific) saying goes, "sex sells."

Would to be easy to find exampled of such oversexualized individuals and organizations at events (such as a Pride Parade, a White Party, or even Mardi Gras) where they obviously feel free to express their over-emphasized sexuality? Of course.

Does affirmative acknowledgement of the above three statements mean that such over-sexed examples are representative of all gays and lesbians, or even the daily lives of most gays and lesbians? From my experience, the answer is clearly "no."

I don't ask that others agree with the morality of whom and how I, as a gay man, love. I support your, my, and everyone else's right to morally judge and condemn or accept same-sex relationships and behaviors as we each see fit.

However, I will always speak up about what I feel are inaccurate perceptions, such as "the love or affection between gay and lesbian couples is only based on or about 'sex'," or the idea that there cannot be anything loving, life-affirming, charitable, or praiseworthy between two romantic parters, parents, merely because any such parternships both share the same genitals or participate in what others view as "immoral," "vile," "perverted," and "deviant."

Such a view seems to me to be spoken from an unbalanced view of LGBT life. In my experience, those who express views such as yours have witnessed the most extreme and oversexualized flaunting of some LGBT individuals or groups, but lack experience in interacting with the daily lives openly gay or lesbian individuals and couples. Such imbalanced exposure means you miss seeing the love, concern, nurturing, caregiving, sacrifice, work, service, and wholesome recreational activities of same sex couples and our families , just as our straigth counterparts do.

When I read about someone who shares such a one-sided view, it is always my hope that he or she eventually has opportunties to get to know and interact with LGBT individuals and couples in ways that allow us to be seen on a regular (if not daily) basis, to witness that our lives are no more like a Pride Parade than all (or the majority) of straight people's lives are like Mardi Gras or Strip Joints. In my experience, the best "teachers" of such are most often found within and among our own families and friends.

As I see it, whether speaking about religious differences, racial differences, national differences, differences in ableness, culture, or language--and yes, even differences in our sexual orientation--it is only when we are opened up to experiencing others that we learn that that which differentiates us from others is often not as profound as that which unites us.

Best,

Daniel2

[Jeff K.]

Like our friend Jeff K., it appears to me that your views make the mistake of overgeneralize all gays and lesbians, based on what you've seen or heard said by and about some gays and lesbians.

Yes, there are so many family oriented gay pride parades out there.

Are some individuals who are gay or lesbian unhealthily preoccupied with sex? Clearly there are

Consider this. Places like San Francisco have large controlling gay communities, those communities have a large, even overly large influence on what happens in the city. That large community celebrates the gay pride parade with its sexual themes and overt sexuality. In other words, a community with incredible control and influence in the city arrange for these parades.

Reality undermines the false perception.

Imagine if Mormons stated they were against polygamy and then Salt Lake City had parades celebrating the act, showing polygamous groups, and celebrating those individuals who were polygamous. A "Daniel" then telling us that "well some Mormons may believe in polygamy, but really the vast majority do not".

How much credibility would you place on such a person to honestly reflect the reality?

[Jeff K.]

The perceptions based on the evidence are quite accurate.