California Proposition 8

[Andy]

Sihouette, perhaps you now understand a tiny bit of what I have to deal with routinely, when talking about economics or foreign policy. No logic. No reasoning. Bland empty statements with no factual basis. And a willful disregard for evidence presented.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare may be all that and a bag of chips. And I may be the biggest a-hole on earth.

Everyone on this thread should note two things about Siho's sources: One, they are all from the last century, nothing new here, nothing even slightly current. Two, my citation of Dr. Cynthia Chappell's work was summarily rejected because she has a gay son (she also has a straight son). Examination will show that all of the sources cited by Siho are by people with straight or gay children, therefore they can be summarily dismissed just as Dr. Cynthia Chappell was dismissed. At least Dr. Chappell's work was done in this century.

Siho,
You really should read more of John Bailey's work, from Wikipedia: "John Michael Bailey (born July 2, 1957 in Lubbock, Texas) is an American psychologist and professor at Northwestern University. He is best known among scientists for his work on the etiology of sexual orientation, from which he concluded that homosexuality is substantially inherited."

I don't think you are the biggest a-hole on Earth, I think you are very frightened about something you don't know enough about yet.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I'll bet you don't want to read more than a paragraph. Keep those denial systems in tip top shapeI don't know where you get the idea that I hate gay people? Is it that I cannot assign illness to them and like them all at the same time? My grandmother was ill for many years and I loved her. I've known handicapped people that I thought were just fine and deserved respect and compassion. However, when blind people start to lobby to get their driver's licenses to be "equal" to the rest of us...I have to speak up.That's the "common sense" part of my makeup. And you see that as something just horribleGay people should never be offered up as normal sexually speaking. Perhaps I should've clarified that better. In other areas beyond sexual, they should be afforded every opportunity. But marriage is an condoned implied sexual union between a man and a woman. To introduce gayness into that description is like trying to say we now must declare that blue is red.That's why I raised some eyebrows, along with millions of others, when gays wanted to retool the desription of marriage to include themselves. They had every right of marriage in a civil union, so why were they trying to get us to condone their sexuality? Then I read The Ten Reasons Gays Chase Straights , along with my other experiences with many gays I personally know and have watched in conversation; and it instantly hit me as to why: they're trying to recruit our young people by seeking sexual legitimacy. They want us to condone (teach) that gay sex is normal and OK to seek and participate in.It isn't normal. It happens. People who are lured to engage in it aren't horrible monsters. It's just that we want the paragon to aspire to for sexual relationships to reflect a non-hypocritical standpoint. Sex is for creating young, not for pleasure only. And saying gay sex is condoned is saying (to our young and impressionable members) "you can use the body for anything, even outside its normal functions, as long as its pleasureable". And yes, that would have to include drug use. We can't have it both ways with teenagers. The majority of the voting public just didn't want that stamp on a powerful drive like sexuality.I imagine you saw the word "NAMBLA" and knew your rebuttal would be fruitless. How do gays view NAMBLA Dawk? How do you view NAMBLA? I'm dying to hear how it's different from "regular gayness"..?

The people in NAMBLA are nut-bars, should we judge all heterosexuals by the crazy ones? Look at how many hetero males have kidnapped and raped/murdered little girls. Pointing at the lunatic fringe and then accusing everyone one of being like that is an indication of a lack of education coupled with prejudice. You don't prove your point with histrionics like this any more than you prove your point by posting sources you have not properly examined--John Michael Bailey comes to mind.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Sihouette, perhaps you now understand a tiny bit of what I have to deal with routinely, when talking about economics or foreign policy. No logic. No reasoning. Bland empty statements with no factual basis. And a willful disregard for evidence presented.

Don't feel put-upon, Andy, I don't disregard your evidence and I didn't disregard Siho's. But Siho posted a citation from a researcher who says sexual orientation is inherited. Siho posting that was not an act of logic or reason. My posts on this thread have not been bland or empty of factual basis despite the fact that I don't think anyone has looked at the sources I cited.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Should all heterosexuals and all married people be judged by these crazies? They named their son "Adolph Hitler Campbell", another child is named "JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell". Talk about child abuse! There are barking-nitwits in all groups, but that's no reason to paint everyone with the same broad-brush.


http://www.myfoxnepa.com/myfox/page...n=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.7.1

 

[Sihouette]

The people in NAMBLA are nut-bars, should we judge all heterosexuals by the crazy ones? Look at how many hetero males have kidnapped and raped/murdered little girls. Pointing at the lunatic fringe and then accusing everyone one of being like that is an indication of a lack of education coupled with prejudice. You don't prove your point with histrionics like this any more than you prove your point by posting sources you have not properly examined--John Michael Bailey comes to mind.~Mare

Well, you bring up some good points on intial examination. But you neglected to include that there aren't any groups (that I know of) that are organizing politically to promote the kidnapping and rape of little girls. When you find out about them, let me know. My guess is they will organize about a decade after society decides to let sexual deviants be recognized as normal, via marriage.

Now that may sound harsh and "prejudiced" and hateful and ....blah blah blah.. But the point I'm trying to make is that if you said to someone 40 years ago that a group like NAMBLA would exist 40 years hence, they would laugh you right out of the room like you were some sort of lunatic. Mental illness has a way of working itself into the cracks of society's fabric and then lobbying to "normalize" itself, so that its very legitimacy just depends on the numbing effect of a few years of politically-correct blindness..

My studies are "last-century" huh? Well, true. But then again last century is less than a decade ago. Pretty recent actually. There were studies done on gravity more than several centuries ago that still hold water. Are you saying that well-found knowledge should be scrapped in favor of trends? Another red flag...


The members of NAMBLA lobby based on the fact that they say "love" exists between the man and young boy, so therefore their having sex together should be condoned. That is the entire basis of their argument. And that also is the entire basis of the homosexual argument. It is the very argument they used in many states to reverse the sodomy laws etc. So how now brown cow, apart from a little pesky detail of age, can we say that men "loving" boys is so very very different than men "loving" just-legal teenagers? Hmmm? A very, very fine line exists between the two. But don't worry, I'm sure no one will take it and run with it in the future a la NAMBLA..

Twinkies anyone?

Actually Andy, I am enjoying the chance to debate this issue with homosexuals. I really want to understand their point of view. It won't necessarily change mine, it will just help me be more compassionate towards them. It's good to have different points of view.

I'll leave you with Ehrmann's Desiderata which essentially summarizes the basic framework of my "spirituality".

Desiderata

Go placidly amid the noise and haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible without surrender
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.

Avoid loud and aggressive persons,
they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.


Keep interested in your own career, however humble;
it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs;
for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
many persons strive for high ideals;
and everywhere life is full of heroism.


Be yourself.
Especially, do not feign affection.
Neither be cynical about love;
for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment
it is as perennial as the grass.


Take kindly the counsel of the years,
gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself.


You are a child of the universe,
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.


Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be,
and whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.


With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful.
Strive to be happy.


Max Ehrmann, Desiderata, Copyright 1952.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Well, you bring up some good points on intial examination. But you neglected to include that there aren't any groups (that I know of) that are organizing politically to promote the kidnapping and rape of little girls. When you find out about them, let me know. My guess is they will organize about a decade after society decides to let sexual deviants be recognized as normal, via marriage.

Now that may sound harsh and "prejudiced" and hateful and ....blah blah blah.. But the point I'm trying to make is that if you said to someone 40 years ago that a group like NAMBLA would exist 40 years hence, they would laugh you right out of the room like you were some sort of lunatic. Mental illness has a way of working itself into the cracks of society's fabric and then lobbying to "normalize" itself, so that its very legitimacy just depends on the numbing effect of a few years of politically-correct blindness..

My studies are "last-century" huh? Well, true. But then again last century is less than a decade ago. Pretty recent actually. There were studies done on gravity more than several centuries ago that still hold water. Are you saying that well-found knowledge should be scrapped in favor of trends? Another red flag.

The members of NAMBLA lobby based on the fact that they say "love" exists between the man and young boy, so therefore their having sex together should be condoned. That is the entire basis of their argument. And that also is the entire basis of the homosexual argument. It is the very argument they used in many states to reverse the sodomy laws etc. So how now brown cow, apart from a little pesky detail of age, can we say that men "loving" boys is so very very different than men "loving" just-legal teenagers? Hmmm? A very, very fine line exists between the two. But don't worry, I'm sure no one will take it and run with it in the future a la NAMBLA..

Twinkies anyone?

Actually Andy, I am enjoying the chance to debate this issue with homosexuals. I really want to understand their point of view. It won't necessarily change mine, it will just help me be more compassionate towards them. It's good to have different points of view.

I think that you make a good point when you say, "...there aren't any groups (that I know of) that are organizing politically to promote the kidnapping and rape of little girls." If you look on the internet you can find all kinds of groups dedicated to "interesting" activities.

Curiously, you know a lot about NAMBLA, do you realize that their interests are illegal? Your if/then supposition is hardly logical based on what you've posted about NAMBLA. Allowing gay people to have their Constitutional rights would be legal, molesting children would still be illegal, no place else that has gay equality has legalized child molesting--you're simply stretching for an excuse.

It's interesting to note that you keep nibbling around the edges of the issues trying to find a way to prove your opinions as being valid. Over and over again I show that they are not, but rather than admit that your point was disproved you simply move to a new tack. If you go back far enough in scientific literature you'll be able to find phlogiston and phrenology research too, that doesn't make it real. You insist that "deviants" will be legalized completely inclusively by allowing gay people to marry. Again, this is not supported by any evidence. Do you read "GIRLS AND CORPSES", a magazine aimed at people who like the juxtaposition of beautiful women and corpses? How about the Girls and Guns videos that feature nearly naked women shooting guns of all types? That's just two examples of heterosexual behavior which is already legal and child molesting is not. The American Nazi Party is legal, child molesting is not. Trying to make NAMBLA into the whole gay population is just as idiotic as my trying to show that all heterosexual men want to read GIRLS AND CORPSES.

Good science should not be scrapped for trends, but so far you have not shown that treating gay people as equals is a "trend" in science. A decade is a long time in science these days. I don't think that 35 years of successful treatement of transsexuals by the AMA could be called a trend either.

So how now brown cow, apart from a little pesky detail of age, can we say that men "loving" boys is so very very different than men "loving" just-legal teenagers? Hmmm? A very, very fine line exists between the two.

The same exact "fine line" exists in the men and girls, women and boys, areas. You and Anita Bryant want all gay people to be seen as child molestors but there isn't any proof of it, so you have to make it up. How many gay people are there in this country? How many members are there in NAMBLA? I am willing to bet with you that there are a couple of orders of magnitude more plural-marriage Mormons with underage wives than there are total members of NAMBLA. Got figures, since you're the expert on NAMBLA, can you tell me how many? The only figure I've ever seen for the membership of NAMBLA is 11, eleven honest-to-god members. Practically a world-crushing movement.

Do you realize that there are more men in prison for rape/murders of little girls than there are members of NAMBLA? And you know what's so hypocritical? Every single one of those men can get married legally if he can find a woman to agree. How come you aren't saying that the government is supporting THEIR deviancy? Instead here you are focusing on gays. Straining at gnats while swallowing camels, as they say.

What about heterosexual "snuff movies"? Ever heard of a gay "snuff movie"? People do a lot of sick stuff, but hating one small group and persecuting them to the exclusion of the others is hardly rational or logical (thank you, Andy).

 

[Sihouette]

Curiously, you know a lot about NAMBLA, do you realize that their interests are illegal? Your if/then supposition is hardly logical based on what you've posted about NAMBLA. Allowing gay people to have their Constitutional rights would be legal, molesting children would still be illegal, no place else that has gay equality has legalized child molesting--you're simply stretching for an excuse.~ Mare

No, really? Once again the abuse continues. You ignore my poignant points and stoop to abuse as a regular retort. Once again, indicating your weak stance opposing.

Yes, their interests are illegal. Just like homosexuality was not too long ago in all, then most, and now a precious few States..

Thanks for inadvertently making my point.

There are places that have not only not made child molestation illegal, but where it is in fact promoted. Google it sometime..or refer to my quotes from homosexual studies on the previous page.

I still haven't seen where you address the defining difference in the argument NAMBLA makes for wanting society to condone sex between men and boys. Are there any defining differences from the homosexual argument? If "love" is cited as the reason society is supposed to turn a blind eye to deviant behavior, such as homosexuality, then where do we draw the line? Really? Why?

Are you prejudiced against men wanting to "love" boys? Why? What makes them "nut-bars"? Specifically? According to you, deviant sex is OK as long as the two (or more) people are into it. Not only that, you want it entered into legitimacy via marriage. Many rebellious and emancipated (and susceptible/impressionable) teens might argue with the NAMBLA deviants that having sex with them is OK. Why would we deny them that intimate pleasure eh? Really? Are you seeing the line getting thinner?

Please, for the sake of your stance, try to keep the abuse at a minimum. I'm just trying to probe your isms to find where and how you draw the line at which form of deviant sex is OK, and which isn't..and how we can tell, as a society, where to draw the line?

I guess in some arab and polynesian countries, they draw the line after boys have a mandatory sexual encounter or two with an adult man...You can call that deviant, but I assure you it had its beginnings in "good intentions", just like your cause...

Where do we draw the line? And how do we close the door once it's been kicked off its hinges?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No, really? Once again the abuse continues. You ignore my poignant points and stoop to abuse as a regular retort. Once again, indicating your weak stance opposing.

Was there any abuse in my post? Mods please respond if I wrote something inappropriate.

Yes, their interests are illegal. Just like homosexuality was not too long ago in all, then most, and now a precious few States..

Since sodomy laws were declared un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court, homosexuality is not illegal in any State.

There are places that have not only not made child molestation illegal, but where it is in fact promoted. Google it sometime..or refer to my quotes from homosexual studies on the previous page.

Okay, name the places where child molesting has been made legal. Except for the State of Alabama where the age of consent is 13, I don't know of anyplace in this country where child molesting is legal. Pony up, Siho, where is this?

I still haven't seen where you address the defining difference in the argument NAMBLA makes for wanting society to condone sex between men and boys. Are there any defining differences from the homosexual argument? If "love" is cited as the reason society is supposed to turn a blind eye to deviant behavior, such as homosexuality, then where do we draw the line? Really? Why?

Why would I try to make the case for NAMBLA? Would you make a case for the American Nazi Party? I said the 11 people that make up the NAMBLA organization are nuts. You trying to get me to defend them is making me wonder about you. Consenting adults, over and over again, but you can't seem to make the connection.

Are you prejudiced against men wanting to "love" boys? Why? What makes them "nut-bars"? Specifically? According to you, deviant sex is OK as long as the two (or more) people are into it.

Consenting adults, Siho, consenting adults, Siho, consenting adults, Siho, consenting adults do not need to walk in lockstep with YOUR personal position as stated on this thread that anything but peno-vaginal intercourse is deviant. The 11 NAMBLA people are nut-bars because they want to leglize sex with underage boys. Let me know if you need me to explain that to you again.

Not only that, you want it entered into legitimacy via marriage. Many rebellious and emancipated (and susceptible/impressionable) teens might argue with the NAMBLA deviants that having sex with them is OK. Why would we deny them that intimate pleasure eh? Really? Are you seeing the line getting thinner?

What is getting thinner is your argument. Consenting adults, consenting adults, consenting adults, do you need it in bigger print? CONSENTING ADULTS...

Please, for the sake of your stance, try to keep the abuse at a minimum. I'm just trying to probe your isms to find where and how you draw the line at which form of deviant sex is OK, and which isn't..and how we can tell, as a society, where to draw the line?

Consenting adults, consenting adults, consenting adults... have you got it yet? That means that consenting adults are to be covered equally by the laws of the United States. Consenting adults, Siho, consenting adults.

I guess in some arab and polynesian countries, they draw the line after boys have a mandatory sexual encounter or two with an adult man...You can call that deviant, but I assure you it had its beginnings in "good intentions", just like your cause...

You are lying about "my cause" since you are the only one bringing children into the discussion. I don't live in Arabia or the Polynesian Islands, I've never been to either place, all I know and all you know is the one sentence source you posted.

Where do we draw the line? And how do we close the door once it's been kicked off its hinges?

Consenting adults, Siho, consenting adults, consenting adults.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Try to focus here, Sihouette, we are discussing legal rights for consenting adults, children are not consenting adults. Animals are not consenting adults, appliances are not consenting adults.

You can read GIRLS AND CORPSES because you are a consenting adult and as long as you only show your copies to other consenting adults you will not have broken the law. Consenting adults, got it?

 

[Sihouette]

Well, when discussing sexual deviance, like homosexuality, we have to consider that when "love" is used to set a precident for a condoned sexual relationship, then "love" can be used to set a precident for other types of deviant sexual behavior.

Sodomy was illegal. Then it progressed over time to become legal.

I guess we can rest on the hope that other forms of deviance will not pray to be socially condoned like in marriage. Don't ask, don't tell covers a lot of bases. The fact that gays can have rights in domestic partnerships makes me wonder what their real motivation is for wanting to rewrite the condoned implied sexual relationship between only a man and a woman, traditionally and always known as marriage? I agree with the other poster who says they should call it something else, just not marriage.

The problem arises when young people see adults justifying one type of deviant behavior. Explaining to them that other types are not kosher will take a lot more doing. Like I said, I have two teens who question everything and sniff out hypocrisy like bloodhounds. They and their friends use examples of adult deviant behavior to try to justify their own. When they see a clear misuse of the sexual reproductive organs to achieve pleasure, they won't easily listen to arguments about how other parts of the body are not to be used that way.

I hope NAMBLA only has 11 members or less. But I think there are more men who support NAMBLA than that. Remeber that covert agendas and recruiting are part and parcel of a minority group that feels woefully outnumbered and wants to increase its choice of deviant sexual partners. (refer to The Ten Reasons Gays Chase Straights).

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Well, when discussing sexual deviance, like homosexuality, we have to consider that when "love" is used to set a precident for a condoned sexual relationship, then "love" can be used to set a precident for other types of deviant sexual behavior.

Baloney. Marriage is about love and committment if you read the marriage vows, so denying it to one group of consenting adults because something may happen someday is not only un-Constitutional, it's ridiculous.

Sodomy was illegal. Then it progressed over time to become legal.
I guess we can rest on the hope that other forms of deviance will not pray to be socially condoned like in marriage. Don't ask, don't tell covers a lot of bases. The fact that gays can have rights in domestic partnerships makes me wonder what their real motivation is for wanting to rewrite the condoned implied sexual relationship between only a man and a woman, traditionally and always known as marriage? I agree with the other poster who says they should call it something else, just not marriage.

It may have something to do with rewriting all the 1049+ Federal laws detailing rights and privileges reserved for legally "married" consenting adults.

The problem arises when young people see adults justifying one type of deviant behavior. Explaining to them that other types are not kosher will take a lot more doing. Like I said, I have two teens who question everything and sniff out hypocrisy like bloodhounds. They and their friends use examples of adult deviant behavior to try to justify their own. When they see a clear misuse of the sexual reproductive organs to achieve pleasure, they won't easily listen to arguments about how other parts of the body are not to be used that way.

Yeah, like anything but peno-vaginal intercourse. Do you really think you're going to sell your kids on that standard? What other consenting adults do with their sex organs is not for you or the government to police.

I hope NAMBLA only has 11 members or less. But I think there are more men who support NAMBLA than that.

So you have another opinion, so what? You have a lot of opinions you can't support, but you're pretty happy to get on this thread and advocate punishment for the people your opinions denigate. I have a pretty low opinion of Christians, but I would not vote for a law that takes from them a right I claim for myself--you do that--do you think your kids don't see the hypocrisy in that?

Remeber that covert agendas and recruiting are part and parcel of a minority group that feels woefully outnumbered and wants to increase its choice of deviant sexual partners. (refer to The Ten Reasons Gays Chase Straights).

Based on one article I don't know how much you can possibly know about how the gay population as whole feels. I know from my correspondence that you don't have a clue about the transsexaul population.

The hypocrisy I see is in telling children that love between consenting gay adults can't be codified as marriage while showing them that any other
consenting adult can marry if even they are muderers or child molestors. You have chosen one small group to deny legal equality to and yes, the children can see the hypocrisy in your position, just look at this thread where you have been unable to support your opinion over and over again.

Drugs like meth and heroin will destroy your body and your life, but millions of gay people have lived long, healthy, happy lives because there is no inherent danger in homosexuality that is not present in heterosexuality. One of the reasons that homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness is that it causes no harm by its inherent characteristics.

Depending on how one defines "sodomy" most of the adults in the world are guilty of it. When we had sodomy laws they were enforced against gay people but not heterosexuals. Do you think your children will not be able to see the hypocrisy of that? One of the reasons that people like my brothers keep their children ignorant is so that they will NOT SEE the hypocrisy.

All of your arguments could be used against laws limiting drinking, driving, voting, and marrying.

I guess we can rest on the hope that other forms of deviance will not pray to be socially condoned like in marriage.

What does this sentence mean? How could any "deviance" be "socially condoned like marriage"? Marriage is a socially condoned deviance? You're running from shadows, your arguments are illogical. All consenting adults should be allowed to marry, there is nothing hypocritical about equality. Expecting everyone to live by YOUR standard of what "deviance" is, probably looks strange to your kids--or it will as they grow up.

 

[top gun]

Sihouette;78565]Well, you bring up some good points on intial examination. But you neglected to include that there aren't any groups (that I know of) that are organizing politically to promote the kidnapping and rape of little girls. When you find out about them, let me know. My guess is they will organize about a decade after society decides to let sexual deviants be recognized as normal, via marriage.

Come on Sih...Mare didn't just make a good point... it was the crucial point.

Can you really not see yourself repeatedly judging & condemning and grouping together anything you see as not "good" about being gay and attributed those things to all gay people?

Think about that. It says a lot more about you than it does gay people... don't you think?

Remember... this is not a discussion of whether being gay is legal... or having gay sex is legal... or gays living together monogamously is legal. SOCIETY ALREADY SAYS ALL THAT STUFF IS TOTALLY LEGAL!

They're talking about having automatically recognized legal rights to things like joint property, medical & insurance benefits and visitation in the hospital, next of kin rights etc.

This is not about hurting ANYBODY and if people don't let homophobia run rampant in their minds... they know that it makes total sense for anybody to want that.

 

[Pidgey]

Perhaps the bottom line works out to a totally economic purpose. When we get old, we need support (all forms) from our children. If my children die before me, then my sustenance is going to necessarily come from your children and vice-versa. As such, we created the laws directing ownership and inheritance with certain practicalities in mind. In what seems like an odd sense, the having of children is to some extent an investment in the future, and not just one's own future--the future of others as well.

That said, most folks on some deep level probably consider it throwing money away to grant gay couples (who obviously aren't going to be having children) the same rights to what they perceive to be their future investment capital. This would be the kind of thing that's emotional in basis and is more difficult to put into words.

 

[Sihouette]

Pidgey is skirting around the abstract core of the real issue. Good for you Pidgey! I didn't think anyone here at this board was capable of ferreting it out. What a relief..

It does have to do with the future and our investment in ourselves and our children. What we form as "normal" for them is what future generations will inherit as "reality". When you dissolve the differences between "male" and "female" by ambiguous homosexuality, you dissolve the real purpose of having "male" and "female" around. Homosexuality serves a purpose, in the back seat, forever and never as the paramount example of a sexual union.

Here's the Hindu part of me speaking now. We all come back 'round to fill different roles. And we need those roles to be solid, more or less, to learn what we need to learn. When you are in a male body and decide to forego relationships with women (and same for women to men) you are bucking lessons you otherwise needed to know. But everything works out in the end. If you choose a homosexual lifestyle, that will take you down another road of lessons to learn. The main one I can think of is that you still won't get away from the male/female interaction. And that is why I brought up the bit about no matter what gay couple you meet, one of them is butch (male) and the other is frill (female). Every single time I see this (and I have yet not to.. ) I nearly fall over laughing...

You see, the joke's on them. Subconsciously, they themselves long for the male/female relationship. Yet they want to parade their situation as normal. It isn't. Patently. This observation has nothing to do with prejudice or hatred. It is simply an indisputable truth placed before the eyes. Small children will point and say "mommy, why is that one lady dressed like a man and the other lady dressed like a woman?" Or "mommy why is that one man wiggling his hips and acting like a lady and the other man isn't?" It's just hilarious..

And it brings me back to the fact that we need to preserve the basic (not abusive male or super female) but basic roles of men and women as normal...and be tolerant of severe deviations like homosexuality. We just cannot let them supplant the superior roles.. All for the purpose of learning.

Adolescents and their rebellion or malleability are the means to which a society's future can be permanently altered. Through them new directions are spawned and take root. When we parade warped edicts for them to either mimic or use to justify their own rebellions, we tamper with our futures and the very fabric of the learning matrix.

People learn socially. We cannot therefore teach socially that alogical deviants, homosexuals, from the true purpose of sexuality are to be seen as equals with heteros. They aren't and should never be seen that way...sexually. And the world marriage is "implied sexuality". So we can never allow homosexuals to hold the title of "married".

Like someone else said: let them call their unions something else, just not "married".