The Gay Fray

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Jul 28, 2004.


I am . . . .

  1. Homosexual

    25 vote(s)
  2. Heterosexual

    201 vote(s)
  3. Bisexual

    31 vote(s)
  4. Other (I would have complained if there wasn't an "other" option)

    16 vote(s)
  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    The Gay Fray
    News & Comment
    from the
    American Debate

    Welcome to what I designate, for the time being, "The Gay Fray"--an affectionately-intended name for the current debate in the United States regarding civil rights and sex partners.

    Owing to the number of extant topics related to the Gay Fray, and the number of foreseeable topics to come, this topic is hereby established as a central posting point. This is not to preclude individual topics regarding major ethical, moral, and judicial issues arising from the topic, but rather a reflection on my desire for a general discussion in addition to the specific issues.

    For instance, this evening I'm staring at the headlines and thinking, "Wow. There's two separate topics right now. Or maybe it's one. Hmmm ...."

    Nor should the above--News & Comment from the American Debate--deny international news a proper place here. Post away, fill it up. Let's build that mosaic of information and perspective ....

    And, uh ... all that jazzercise.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Gay Marriage - The Next Hurdle
    DoMA invoked as Feds stand firm on health care, passport

    New challenges face newly-married homosexual couples. In Connecticut, agent Katy Gossman was informed that her new wife, Kristin, would not be allowed healthcare under the Bureau's employee benefits. Over in Massachusetts, Donald Henneberger, neé Smith, has been denied a change of name on his passport by the National Passport Center. The letter, addressed to "Mr. Henneberger," read, "We are unable to comply with your request for a name change based on the documentation you sent because of the Defense of Marriage Act."


    The long-awaited standoff comes at last. As the federal government scrambles to respond to the needs of married homosexual partners, it is not a political maneuver but a bureaucratic reality which brings DoMA to the executioner's star.

    Armed with the Constitution (as amended) and evidence of the US government's recognition of the name change (Henneberger has successfully changed his Social Security card), this issue spells the end of DoMA should Henneberger follow through on his urge to contest the NPC's decision.

    While DoMA does not appear to have been invoked in the case of the Gossmans, the FBI is a branch of the federal government and is unquestionably bound by the US Constitution and its amendments.


    Very simply:

    • In both cases the rights of a legal contract are withheld as the legal contract (e.g. marriage) is declared null and void on the basis of gender.
    • In the case of the Gossmans, it will be difficult for the FBI to argue any other case; quite simply, the reason Kristin Gossman is denied healthcare is because she is the wrong gender.
    • In the case of the Hennebergers, the same issue is at stake. Donald is the wrong gender for the NPC to cope with. Having specifically cited DoMA, the NPC's exposure comes specifically in citing a law designed to deny due process and equal protection on the basis of a person's gender.

    This is, in the end, good news. How so? Well, these challenges had to arise at some point, and if the Hennebergers respond to DoMA in time, they can circumvent the idiotic Congressional attempt to suspend due process where homosexuality is concerned. Thus, the sooner, the better.

    And that's the way it is, anyway: The sooner, the better.

    Celebrate. The first shots have been fired in what could become the final battle.


    • Richardson, Franci. "Feds deny passport name change for gay man." Boston Herald, July 28, 2004. See
    • Associated Press. "FBI cancels health coverage for lesbian wife." July 27, 2004, Dallas Morning News. See (Registration Required)

    See Also -

    • Floater. "Exiled." Burning Sosobra. Elemental Records, 2001.
    -- Lyrics:
    -- MP3:
    • FindLaw. "U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment." See
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2010
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Making Waylon's day?

    Out of the Closet and Onto the Cliff
    The Simpsons promises closet cliffhanger

    Reports and speculation are swirling after Al Jean, a producer for The Simpsons, told comic-book conventioners that the show will include a cliffhanger that brings gay marriage to Springfield. Homer will become a minister through a website, and a long-running character will come out of the closet. The episode is presently slated to run in January.

    I'm not finding the numbers I saw today, but one or the other cable networks even tapped oddsmakers for a rundown. Mr. Smithers, considered far too obvious a choice, checked in with poor odds, something over 200,000 to 1. Comic-book Guy, Nelson Muntz, and Barney are both on the list, but the oddsmakers' favorite was Carl, at 5 to 1.

    Time will tell.


    All I can say is that it's a crying shame they couldn't have pulled this off for a season finale and premiere; it would be wonderful to have the whole country buzzing about, "Who's gay on The Simpsons?" the same way they did about, "Who shot Mr. Burns?" (Simpsons) or "Who shot J.R.?" (Dallas).

    In the meantime, I'm wondering about Bumble-Bee Man

    Although having Lisa go dyke would probably be a little over the top for them.

    See -

    • BBC News. "Simpsons to reveal gay character." July 28, 2004. See
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2010
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    (Does a lack of a title make this titless?)

    Missouri - 70% Say "No" to Equal Protection
    Voters ban homosexual marriage, believe state constitution safe

    Voters in Missouri said, "No!" to equal protection in the first electoral test of same-sex marriage since a Massachusetts decision legalized such unions in the Bay State. With ninety-one percent of precincts reporting, the measure to amend the Missouri state constitution rested comfortably with 70% approval.

    Next up: Louisiana, then Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah. Initiatives are pending in Michigan, North Dakota, and Ohio. Missouri is the fifth state to adopt such a measure.


    Obviously, the state constitution was the target because a state law can be overturned. Well, ask the folks in Colorado about Amendment 2. Additionally, there was a time when folks disapproved of marriages based on the ethnicity of one's partner. Neither shall gender remain outside the range of equal protection under the law.

    Oh well, if there's anyone who knows how to ... uh ... ride it out, it's gays.

    Missouri might think it's constitution is safe, but not when it defies the Supreme Law of the Land.

    • Associated Press. "Missouri voters ban gay marriage." USA Today, August 4, 2004. See
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2004
  8. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    More on the
    "Wedlock Deadlock"

    I'll admit that the silliness of the name of this thread had turned me off to it, but I think I'm over that now, and when I happened to find the Honorable Judge William Downing of King County Superior Court in Seattle refer to the situation as "Wedlock Deadlock" I just had to grin and report the situation. I suppose that I'll just have to accept that this is a domestic issue that rhymes well for whatever reason.

    Anyhow, getting on to the point, the phrase mentioned earlier was used in Judge Downing's recent Memorandum opinion and order on cross motions for summary judgement, on the case of Andersen and Christian V. King County, the full text of which can be found here: v. Sims.pdf

    It's a bit long, so I'll sumerise the case, as it's relatively simple. This is a test case set up by several gay couples to challenge Washington's laws, claiming that certain laws, those which spacificaly prohibit same sex unions, are in violation of Washington's state constitution.

    Fairly straight forward. The plaintiffs say that the state has no right to deny them the equal protection that they're guaranteed under the state constitution.

    These rights are what are being fought over, real tangible legal rights. No one can stop homosexuals from living together in marriage, if they want to do it, then they'll do it, but of course some people feel it necessary to go out of their way to deny them certain privileges and considerations that go along with that decision.

    Well good for Washington, I say, even if there really isn't much of an alternative conclusion to reach.

    Imagine that, people must be allowed to exercise the rights that they are guaranteed! If only we had some sort of national document which guaranteed such rights as liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and equal protection, just as the state of Washington does. This whole same-sex marriage battle would seem rather silly if that were the case!

    It should be noted that Judge Downing notes in this same document that Civil Unions wouldn't really be able to convey all of the privileges of marriage, even if they were cleverly designed to make a good attempt at it, it's simply the way the law is written; There are guarantees for those who are married, and for spouses, not for civil partners. He carries that idea out a little farther and makes a good point about the social implications, as well.

    Or in other words, the real danger to marriage is not in letting people who love and are committed to one another to marry, but in trying to create dumbed down versions, or a sort of "Marriage Lite" if you will. I honestly don't know if I agree with that, but it's an interesting perspective at the least, and I certainly do hate talk of civil unions.

    Well, there you have it. Next I believe that it's off to the Washington State Supreme Court for review/appeal. I must say that this case, just as the well known ruling in Massachusetts, are beginning to set a very progressive precedent which, to a degree was already there, but people still need to open their eyes too; If law doesn't prohibit it, then it is legal!

    So, short of some new legislation in Washington, or a racially different interpretation by the State Supreme Court, it seems that same-sex marriage will soon be legal in Washington.

    I've got to admit that reading about this case has given me new perspective on how one might go about challenging state laws. At the moment I'm helping a friend to see about launching a campaign to get an initiative on the ballot to repeal Arizona's prohibition on same-sex marriage. He's the one who pointed me to this case just tonight, in fact, and I really regret that he had to run off to work, I'm looking forward to discussing this with him.
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2004
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    My sincere apologies for that. It is a silly name, and intentionally so. The traditionalists are so ready to throw out the constitution that I can't necessarily be polite, so in a way I suppose I'm demeaning them--my whole attitude does seem to revolve around the point that I find the traditionalists so offensively and ineffably stupid and mean-spirited (they're willing to rape the Constitution on this one, over and over and over again) that the good feeling bubbling up at the prospect of getting to witness this tragicomedy finally drag itself over the line ....

    Some random article a friend sent me the other day noted a date in history when a Roman emperor added fags to the fires, and summed up the time 'twixt then and now to demonstrate a millennial struggle.

    But an accompaniment point to that notion comes to me from a magazine article I had thought long-lost until it mysteriously appeared in the middle of the coffee table two weeks ago.

    I feel it necessary to mention, though don't let it stop your continuing laughter after that passage, that the author cites Courtright's Ganesa: Lord of Obstacles, Lord of Beginnings and Daniélou's Shiva and Dionysus for that part. The former title is actually from Oxford University Press. But the whole thing gives me a chuckle inasmuch as I can't tell whether the magazine's issue theme of "threshold" is more important to the author than homosexuality in terms of the article's content. It's a great article from a four year-old magazine (see below), and it cracks me up because nobody who worries about the impact of gay marriage on children actually wants to explore the issue as deeply as one can find in an article called, "Men-Women, Gatekeepers, and Fairy Mounds." I mean, Parabola magazine's motto is, "Myth, Tradition, and the Search for Meaning."

    But before Abramism attempted to stomp out homosexuality, it seems the feminine side of men and the masculine side of women were accepted, even celebrated. The coming together of a single gender in some occasions held mystical significance. We must remember that gays are not bucking tradition, but demanding the respect that is historically and anthropologically recognized in history and beyond.

    We Americans find ourselves at a new threshold. Traditionalists in the United States must choose between traditions. Will they choose the American tradition that has served so many so well, or throw it away because somebody else's gender offends them?

    Gays are winning. As far as I'm concerned, it's just a matter of how much traditionalists want to embarrass themselves, and it's been a long time since I've had a genuine laugh at someone else's expense. I mean, it's a loooong time coming.

    See, I'd love to assert that what you're picking up on with the rhyming thing is that people who know what's right can smell it. And they're enjoying the scent. Although ... is it me, or did it seem like Downing was having far too much fun in his ruling? I mean--the whole "wedlock deadlock" paragraph cracks me up. I'm going to smoke one in this Hizzoner's honor. It may well be the best and funniest paragraph in the history of the judiciary.

    Nonetheless, this "separate but equal" crap has to go. Plessy the Sequel? Is it a gag? Did he write that in there just to give someone a specific reason to appeal his ruling in favor of broader recognition of civil rights?

    Anyone? Anyone?

    • Conner, Randy P.L. "Men-Women, Gatekeepers, and Fairy Mounds." Parabola, Spring 2000.

    - See Also -

    Parabola -
  10. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    It's really quite alright, I have no major objections to silliness, and have been known, at least on occasion, to smile now and again myself. I just felt a bit of a need to offer up some sort of explanation as to why I didn't bite at this thread sooner. After all, I am largely responsible for over-posting homosexual related issues in multiple threads on this forum. I saw this thread sitting up at the top, sticky and looking lonely, and honestly wasn't quite sure what to do with it at first. It’s content was, of course worthy of comment, but then I think I speak for a lot of sciforums regulars when I say that Tiassa is a tough act to follow, and we’re all rather lucky that we don’t have to write our posts on stage in front of a live audience.

    Now that's a sentiment I can sympathize with. But at this point I know better, or at least like to fool myself into thinking I do. By this point it seems to me that talking with anyone who's been following this issue for a while is giving someone license to froth, vent and cough up bile into your ear about how exceedingly mean spirited vicious the religious right really is. I certainly can't disagree with that, either. I can remember long nights in 2001, when I first started paying attention to Lawrence & Garner V. Texas, and I'd just literally sit up at night fuming with anger over some of the commentary surrounding that case. More and more, however I think I’m becoming numb to it, or I’m at least not feeling that knee-jerk reaction to strangle someone every time I get to reading an argument from the right. I’ve just got to accept that these people are working on pretty crucial fallacies which simply won’t allow them to see homosexuals as full fledged human beings. Once they get around to realizing their mistake then they’ll become a lot less vocal and maybe give us a “my bad” and we can go back to just sort of giving each other an awkwardly polite little head nod when we happen to run into one another at parties. In the mean time, however, I hope that the rest of the country has enough sense to just keep moving along on it’s progressive track despite hysterical howling protests to the contrary.

    Haha yes, perhaps you could send them a memo about that, Tiassa? All that they'll be able to accomplish with all of their protesting is another rather regrettable chapter in American history which will have the school children of the future shaking their heads back and forth and thinking to themselves, "Man, people sure did used to be dumb" shortly before finding out about their failing grade on that particular week's math test just for irony.

    It’s a sad situation but the religious right may really be working against itself in this fight, strengthening perceptions that they’re just a bunch of crusty old backward folk who don’t particularly have anything better to do than sit around and scowl at things and people which upset their prudish sensibilities.

    Yes, I must admit that some of the language in this ruling smacks of an end zone victory dance (the allusion to football is valid in the context of homosexuality I think, if only for the existence of the tight end). He knows where things are going and is content to have a little fun with it while others (on both sides) are throwing fits. His tone really does seem almost inappropriate. However it's not my place to suggest how a Judge aught to do his job. At any rate, I know I'm a long way from Seattle, I have a feeling that once the right really grabs a hold of this judgment, I'm going to need ear plugs to get to sleep amidst all the shouts of "activist judge" carrying down from the north.
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    (Insert Title Here)

    Title: "Los Angeles Supports Gay Partner Immigration Bill"
    Date: August 6, 2004

    And yes, there are some numbers that go with that. According to the article, there are over 32,000 same-sex binational couples in the United States presently unrecognized under immigration law.


    We'll just have to see whether or not the traditionalists react to this. The first bill being four years old, I can't recall having heard a whole lot about it. Nonetheless, Los Angeles becomes the largest city on record to openly advocate the passing of the bill, and the council decision was, in fact, unanimous and crossed party lines.

    Good show, L.A.

    And, of course, I should include the note to call your Congressional delegation and encourage equal protection in the United States of America.


    • Welch, Ed. "Los Angeles Supports Gay Partner Immigration Bill.", August 6, 2004. See

    See Also -

    • Immigration Equality/PR Newswire. "Los Angeles City Council Unanimously Passes Resolution In Support of Same-Sex Immigration Rights." August 6, 2004. See
    • S. 1510 - Permanent Partners Immigration Act of 2003. See
    • H.R. 832 - Permanent Partners Immigration Act of 2003. See
    • H.R. 4701 - Equal Access to Social Security Act of 2004. See
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2004
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Rev. Mike Turner of First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, NC, hates the U.S. of A.

    Source: The Daily News
    Title: "Amendment only way to check downward spiral"
    Date: August 7, 2004

    An opinion piece by Rev. Mike Turner reaffirms what many suspect of the traditionalists in the Gay Fray--the traditionalists hate America:

    Turner's article hearkens back to 1993, when Hawaii's Supreme Court refused to prohibit same-sex unions, and also the Defense of Marriage Act signed by Clinton in 1996. Vermont is a landmark along the meandering way, and then Lawrence v. Texas, Massachusetts, and it seems some of the traditionalists are finally figuring out at least part of the equation:

    Let us take a moment to examine one part of Turner's lament:

    • "Neither may marriage be defined by the democratic process."

    You know, it's time to clear up a little myth. Sure, we like to wave "democracy" around when comparing American governance to, say, Iraq or Afghanistan. And among my circle of friends, none dare insist the United States a democracy. Some will assert it, but confess to a rhetorical exaggeration. In fact, the United States Constitution in its present form rejects democracy.

    Democracy is simple: majority rules. Now, if we set aside the electoral college, and the fact that we Americans never vote as Americans°, there still stands one unassailable argument against the notion that the United States is a democracy. That notion is called the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    And that minor issue is what Turner forgets. The "democratic process" in the United States cannot do whatever it wishes. What the good reverend overlooks is the simple fact that the "democratic process" ends when it butts up against the Supreme Law of the Land.

    We need not look to the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election--that the majority does not rule outright in the United States should be common knowledge; such a condition, after all, is indeed the result of deliberate design.

    And that's at the heart of it. Turner can lament the fact that his side in this debate is getting smacked around in the courts; he can lament that the "democratic process" does not allow the United States Constitution to be shelved; he can bemoan the "discovering [of] a so-called constitutional right to sexual privacy".

    None of the weeping and moaning will change the fact that what he wants cannot, at present, happen.

    Thus the only way to stop the "downward spiral," the only way to preserve "states' rights" is to amend the constitution to eliminate equal protection under the law?

    My question to the traditionalists: Are you really sure this is worth it?

    When you challenge equal protection, you challenge the basic civility of modern America. Take away civil recourse, and the people will still make their voices known.

    The Reverend Mike Turner is a scourge on America. If this is what we can expect of America's religious leadership, perhaps we ought to amend the Constitution against subversive and anti-American religious evangelization.

    The Reverend Mike Turner ought to go back to the First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, North Carolina, and get up on his pulpit, and speak the truth before God and the congregation: He should tell the world how much he hates the United States of America. You know, get it off his chest: "I, Reverend Mike Turner of the First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, North Carolina, hate the United States of America and reject the Supreme Law of the Land!"

    Perhaps I'll write the congregation a polite note.

    • Turner, Rev. Mike. "Amendment only way to check downward spiral." The Daily News, August 7, 2004. See
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2004
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Source: The White House
    Title: "President Bush Discusses Top Priorities for the U.S."
    Date: July 30, 2003

    I wanted to raise this flashback to remind folks what a good part of this is about. In the hubbub around Lawrence v. Texas, Bush was asked about homosexuals. The first portion of the quote above is his response.

    In the hubbub surrounding African uranium and a State of the Union Address, a reporter finally cornered Bush on whether or not he took responsibility for the inaccuracy. The second portion is taken from his reply during the same press conference.

    What really amazes me is that Bill O'Reilly has the audacity to sit across from Michael Moore and say the 9/11 report proves Bush never lied.

    But think about it ... Bush bashes gays; Bush takes responsibility for an embarrassing mistake that is part of a larger pattern. Which headline gets more play a year down the road?

    Good move, George. Did Karl put you up to that one?

    • Bush, George W.. "President Bush Discusses Top Priorities for the U.S." June 30, 2003. See
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Source: Washington Post
    Title: "Until Courts Do Us Part"
    Date: August 16, 2004

    The lead editorial in the August 16, 2004, edition of the Washington Post addresses the recent decision by California's Supreme Court to overturn same-sex weddings performed in San Francisco earlier this year:


    The Post editorial board notes one of the reasons the traditionalists are fighting the wrong fight. 'Tis true that a local official does not possess the authority to override a statute on the opinion of its constitutionality; a similar case is being discussed elsewhere at this forum in the case of a police officer refusing a law on conscience.

    To the other, though, I haven't had the misfortune to suffer the crowing of desperate traditionalists; in fact, I had thought them resigned to the reality of this decision, and they seem to be acclimatizing to reality: they're up against the U.S. Constitution, and not enough elected officials have the balls to strike equal protection from the Supreme Law of the Land.

    But even if they haven't figured this out, there's no question that the California decision was expected, and, as the Post editors noted, the San Francisco protest seems to have had its effect:

    Politics isn't quite like poker this time 'round: equal-rights advocates know they have a winning hand and are hoping for their opponents to ante up. That's all the San Francisco protest needed to accomplish, and so far it seems to have worked.

    • Washington Post. "Until Courts Do Us Part." August 16, 2004; page A16. See
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Traditionalists score win in Louisiana courts
    "Defense of Marriage" amendment ruled legal, reflects federal law's challenge to U.S. Constitution

    Can I get some input here? What is it about certain issues that makes for so many assertions that the "will of the people" can violate the U.S. Constitution?

    Mr. Johnson of the Alliance Defense Fund ought to know better; as a lawyer he knows well that the courts will routinely circumvent the will of the people if the people wish to behave in a manner contrary to the Constitution.

    Seriously, just like giving bad legal advice--if a lawyer makes a public case for a political cause that is false, that dishonesty ought to be reflected on his professional status. I suppose the issue arises: should the people be able to vote on laws that cannot be enacted?

    For instance, if I wanted to make rap music illegal in Snohomish County, Washington, should the people even be allowed to vote on such an absurdity in the first place? Because there's a reasonable chance that such a stupid law would pass.

    And then the people have to waste tax money because the government will be obliged to a vigorous defense of an inappropriate law that doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of withstanding the scrutiny of jurisprudence.

    If Louisiana wishes to join the list of states voting to reject the United States Constitution, they are welcome to try. I wish them better luck than last time. In fact, I dare them to secede. Because I'm all for leaving them out this time.

    Should the people be allowed to vote to violate the Constitution? Colorado knows that story well; Amendment Two, anyone?

    • "Opponents of same-sex marriage in Louisiana win court victory". September 1, 2004. See
  16. For the same reason that I opposed the mayor’s insurrection, I oppose Louisiana’s insurrection. You cannot have lower echelon public servants deciding that they are above the law.
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Some thoughts on the benefits of being discriminated against
    Gays need to ask themselves whether it's worth all the fuss

    A random thought occurred to me today, and at first it outraged me: "I wonder if your insurance rates still drop when you get married." It seemed like a petty question; auto insurance is the first to mind, and I'm still unsure from there. However, in looking up the issue, I came to the startling conclusion that in the case of marriage, homosexuals ought to just give up. It's not worth it.

    For starters, think of the divorce rate, a constant low-key debate. There's already been a Canadian gay divorce; why would gays want to become included in a statistic dedicated to demonstrating the moral decay of society?

    Holidays with in-laws: after you get over the bigotry of your potential in-laws, you get to look forward to the run-of-the-mill annoyance. The bigotry, at least, has a point. When it's just an annoying in-law, it's rather pointless. Why would gays want to put themselves through such pointlessness?

    Adopting children? Come, now. Why look forward to eighteen years of hounding a kid to "carry his weight" or "earn her keep"? It seems a lot of frustration dedicated to a dubious venture: every generation grows up to believe that the kids are getting dumber as the days go by. Myself? I say a kid earns keep by simply growing and learning and preparing to accept the social contract. After all, our posterity is our duty to the species. However, being that my opinion is agreed among a severe minority, what reason have you to raise your kid according to my standards? The most widely-accepted method of parenting involves saddling a child with as many of adulthood's burdens (labor, finance, responsibility, respect for authority) as possible without allowing the enjoyable (sex, drugs, &c.). And while there are fine reasons to keep kids away from sex and drugs, if you pay attention to the social discourse on those points, you'll find most of those fine reasons absent amid a tempestuous sea of idiocy. Why put yourself through it? Heterosexual parents who appear to enjoy the experience are a drastic minority.

    And here we're just dealing with the everyday things that any bartender will remind you are everybody's problems, though that says nothing about the lack of proposed solutions. We have not even dragged ourselves into the legalisms.

    I found a financial advice column online:

    As long as there has been marriage, heterosexuals have been getting married. And here we are, in the twenty-first century, and apparently it's still confusing to some what it means when they get married. I'm tempted to point out that this person, who is apparently confused about what it means to be married, is currently working on her second marriage, as is her husband, who also seems confused, as he was unable to settle the issue for her.

    So it's worth asking: Is the confusion really worth it? I mean, the people who have been at it for centuries still don't have the hang of it. (They used to buy off men for their daughters, you know; that's how good an idea marriage was.)

    Because it only gets more confusing:

    You know, insurance is nothing but gambling with paperwork. Put some money in, fill out a pile of paperwork, and maybe you'll get something back. Life insurance? Hey, you don't even get to enjoy the payoff when you win. Better make sure that your homeowners' policy is up to date, as well. And we see the answer to my inquiry about auto insurance: "many insurance companies"? Hey, fair's fair if your company isn't one of those, but in that case you'd have to switch companies in order to see the discount.

    And I remember my parents sitting at the dining room table, drowning in paperwork, and sometimes hosting an insurance salesman whose son was in my class. (Apparently it's much easier to deal with insurance if you don't shop around and instead rely on community contacts, but that's not a benefit specific to marriage.)

    And then there's the so-called "marriage penalty":

    So what does that mean to homosexuals? Will you be part of that less-than-half of married couples that sees its legally-recognized union of two people into a single unit result in a higher tax bracket?

    So many complications, and why would anyone invite this upon themselves?

    Hospital visits? Insurance benefits? Listen to yourselves! You're so focused on the negatives. Why are you so focused on the negatives? Life is meant for living and enjoying, and here you are focusing on the negatives in order to whine and complain that you're not treated equally insofar as you're not allowed the same right to be miserable as someone of the opposite gender. Social status? In addition to being superficial, that status is obviously a two-edged sword. Isn't fashion enough of a status curse? Isn't f@cking techno enough of a status curse? I mean, gays are pictured as inherently cool enough that listening to techno or doing the Macarena in public aren't held to the same degree of offense as they are in heterosexuals. And yes, homos really are that cool: why else does society want to dress like gays, and watch "Will and Grace", or pay a mincing fairy to redecorate the house?

    Can you imagine what Oscar Wilde would have written if he had a thing for fat chicks? ("I can't afford to feed my family!" Well, your wife shouldn't be eating the equivalent of what your seven children eat.) So much for the soul of man under socialism.

    Really, what's the trade-off? So you're simply excluded from one of the most-abused and most despised parts of the Constitution. Just for that you'd trade away your happiness and accept the life of idiotic drudgery that heterosexual married couples wish on themselves? I mean, talk about setting the bar low! Ants can trip on their shoelaces and still tumble over it.

    Diaper changes? Excrement ain't nearly as fun when it's associated with parental duty and not sex perverts. Snotty noses, vomit, screaming fevers? Aren't you worn out after that whole AIDS thing? Take some time out for yourselves. Be good to yourselves. You need a vacation after watching all your pervert friends kill themselves with sex. It will be traumatic for you, and you'll always wonder if maybe little Johnny doesn't have the flu but something worse that he got from you. The guilt will hurt like no other guilt before, even more than the guilt of your first gay act. What about bad grades or misbehavior? Will you have to combat your perverted urges in order to spank your child?

    So I urge homosexuals to reconsider whether the marriage fight is really worth it. Right now gays have everything they could ever want: the vast majority of gay couples are dinks, so it's hard to imagine why gays would want to give up the freedom and satisfaction that comes from such powerful sufficiency. That's right: the dink needs to think.

    The dink needs to think.

    (Come on, let's hear you traditionalists! Shout it from the hilltops.)

    The dink needs to think.

    The dink needs to think.

    The dink needs to think.

    The dink needs to think.

    But seriously: death and taxes and spanking little boys are the only reasons for wanting to be married. Admit it. And then think to yourself: Is it really worth it?

    Saenz, George. "Ask the tax adviser"., September 17, 2002. See "Insurance and Marriage". See "The Sound of Wedding Bells May Make the Tax Man Smile". See
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2010
  18. Bad Christian Registered Member

    I liked that last article. Is anyone else seriously reading this?
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    The Kids Are Alright
    Study confirms teens with lesbian parents are doing fine

    How interesting. The only real surprise here is the bit about schools. Could it be that the efforts so reviled by the right wing to not alienate gay youths has created a new standard of expectation? That "chance finding" might be worth exploring.

    Pallarito, Karen. "Teens With Same-Sex Parents Well-Adjusted". HealthDay News and Yahoo!, November 15, 2004. See

    A note to Bad Christian - Apparently not.
  20. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    In My Humble Opinion: Why I Oppose "Gay Marriage" - And Reply
    A tolerant rejection of gay marriage

    The Bible condemns homosexuality, and since the Bible is the written religious opinion of someone else, Mike North through the virtues of modern intelligence, has no choice but to follow good conscience in obeying its precepts. Glory be!

    North, Mike. "In My Humble Opinion: Why I Oppose "Gay Marriage" - And Reply"., November 15, 2004. See
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Title: "Report: 100,000 kids await adoption"
    Date: November 17, 2004

    I'm sure, if the conservatives try hard enough, they can blame gays for this.

    In the meantime, this is among the tragic fruits of heterosexuality, the unwillingness or inability to care for children created by the Blood of Eden°.

    Perhaps it's a matter of pride with the traditionalists, and they just don't want fags cleaning up their messes.

    Be proud. The man, the woman, the bitter harvest.


    ° Blood of Eden - See Peter Gabriel:

    And the darkness still has work to do
    The knotted chord's untying
    The heated and the holy
    Oh they're sitting there on high
    So secure with everything they're buying

    In the blood of Eden lie the woman and the man
    With the man in the woman and the woman in the man
    In the blood of Eden lie the woman and the man
    We wanted the the union,
    Oh, the union of the woman, the woman and the man

    "Blood of Eden"​

    Associated Press. "Report: 100,000 kids await adoption"., November 17, 2004. See
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Title: "Supreme Court Declines Mass. Gay Marriage Case"
    Date: November 29, 2004

    Can anyone do a better job of explaining the traditionalists' position on this one? Are they really arguing that they're not free unless they're empowered to deny freedom to others? Are they really arguing that they're not equal unless they're endowed with special rights?

    Additionally, have they finally acknowledged that there is no democracy in the U.S.? And homosexuality is what pushed them to the edge?

    Watch the traditionalist platform: it changes to suit the occasion and always, always, always despises freedom and equality.

    I wonder why that is?

    Actually, I don't. It's pretty obvious that these folks have no respect for the U.S. Constitution, the United States of America, or their fellow human beings. They're willing to trash it all in order to get their way, and it's all about feeling morally superior to their neighbors.

    What a waste. What a waste of humanity and the human endeavor. Yes, the world would be better off if the traditionalists all just packed up and went home to God.

    The new conservative slogan, kind of like the old: Fighting tooth-and-nail for your right to be superior to your neighbors.

    If they hate the Constitution so much, why do traditionalists appeal to it? If their argument has truth and integrity, how does it result in the hatred driving their cause?

    If they feel bitch-slapped by the court's refusal to hear this latest challenge to equal protection, perhaps there's a reason they're being bitch-slapped.

    Dogs in heat show better sense than these whining traditionalists.

    Remember simply: You exist for the benefit of institutions, or so say the traditionalists. This is what happens when one elevates form without giving a single thought to function.

    Holland, Gina. "Supreme Court Declines Mass. Gay Marriage Case". (Associated Press), November 29, 2004. See
  23. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Reguarding this most recent incident with an appeal to the Supreme Court:

    Imagine that, if you haven't got anything to do with the issue, then the Supreme Court isn't willing to hear your case. Wouldn't it be nice if the traditionalists could understand this concept? That allowing same-sex marriage effects no one but homosexuals. By what right is it that they feel they have gained the ability to dictate our rights for us when the impact rests solely on homosexuals alone?

    If only the electorate of those states which have voted to ban same-sex marriages could wrap their minds around this concept I think this issue would be resolved in favor of all those concerned.

    On the other hand, if this tactic of the traditionalists starts to gain ground then perhaps it’s time to start petitioning to have the bible banned, or maybe seek a ruling which prevents Catholics from taking mass. . . after all those things certainly do make me feel uncomfortable, even if I’m far removed from them, and it’s quite easy for me to just look the other way and let others live their lives as they will. Though apparently now an uncomfortable feeling about an issue is all the license we need to say that people need to alter their lives to something we find more pleasing.

Share This Page