That's absolutely right: in some arenas, compromise is not acceptable -- especially for those of us who've lived the various compromises so far.

You can't underestimate the power of differences in world-view between minority and majority.

I respect the world view, I really do. But I honestly wonder at times: is "all or nothing" really the most prudent mindset?

What if the majority simply says, "nothing," and be done with you?

As a British gay man I warmly welcome the proposals, which meet almost every call for equality by gay people. Those who are objecting are (yes) a vocal radical minority who adhere to a quasi-Marxist ideology. The idea is (I am sure) to give gay people an option equivalent to (but not called) marriage. Heterosexuals already have the option of civil marriage, and since the proposals for gays would involve a civil ceremony almost identical to that of civil marriage, I really cannot for the life of me see what "equality" for cohabiting heterosexuals would involve that is not available already. Frankly, for the opponents Tony and Cherie Blair could have sex-change operations and Ewan Blair begin a gay collective at Bristol university and they would be accused of trying to pander to the gay vote and ignoring the needs of handicapped lesbians.

This is a bit of a quagmire, but in another thread I pose the question: what's the difference between civil marriage (the legal arrangement) and religious marriage (the sacrament)? My parents are both staunch atheists and got married in front of a judge. According to the law, they're man and wife. According to the Catholic church, they're excommunicate (for a number of reasons) and I'm a bastard.

Yet my parents, as a married couple, have all the same legal rights as their religious counterparts.

I applaud the activists who are willing to say, "No, straights should have these rights too." What better defense against accusations that gay people want "special rights"?

In the political process, the goal is to reach a compromise that leaves everyone equally unhappy. However, these social issues can be very much like negotiating a salary: you always ask for more than what you'll get.

Considering the fact that our gains have been made by asking for everything, there is no reason to stop asking for everything. I think that Dean's discomfort might reside in the fact that he and many other Americans are very much on the side of gay rights in spirit, and may feel that they aren't being given proper credit. If that's how Dean feels, I wholeheartedly agree. We get so focused on our (very real) enemies that our friends can become eclipsed.

There's a fitting direction to put our energy -- making sure our allies know how very much we appreciate them -- but compromising on some very fundamental human rights issues seems patently unwise to me.

I'm sorry if I misunderstand the point, but all British heterosexuals marry by a civil ceremony as well as any religious one. The marriage register is signed in church (or wherever), rather than at a municipal office. Civil marriage without a religious ceremony (for which numerous locations can be licenced in addition to municipal offices) and marriage with a religious ceremony are for legal purposes indistinguishable.

The proposals would extend almost all apsects of the civil status of civil marriage to gay couples without actually calling it marriage (a term which, not unreasonably, is deemed to define the civil union of heterosexual couples). Gay couples would take part in an official ceremony and register their partnership; they would thereby acquire rights hitherto reserved to married couples (e.g. exemption from inheritance taxes) but would also have to shoulder new obligations (e.g. to support one another financially) and dissolution of the partnership would need formal steps to be taken, including allocation of joint resources (the equivalent of divorce).

If stright people want these new gay rights, all they have to do is get married by a civil ceremony - I simply do not see what new rights gay "objectors" want for heterosexuals other than the right to a marriage ceremony that is not actually called marriage. I would genuinely welcome an explanation of what substantive equalities straight people would lack if the proposals for gay people were adopted.

I don't see straight people losing any substantive equalities if gay people were allowed to form legal civil unions. I think that the most popular perceived right some straight people claim they will lose is the right to legally stigmatize homosexuality, which according to common law and tradition (apparently), is widely considered immoral. That's really the only thing I can think of.

I think the issue here is that by allowing gay civil unions (which will be defined separately from marriage), you create discrimination under the law, since gays can't have marriage and straights can't have civil partnerships (two distinct legal terms). What gay activists are saying is, "Quit the separate-but-basically-sort-of-equal crap and just give everybody the same deal."

>> What gay activists are saying is, "Quit the separate-but-basically-sort-of-equal crap and just give everybody the same deal."

Which is absurd. Let's concentrate on getting the reform adopted (which is far from certain: 1. a White Paper is not a draft Bill; 2. even when there is a draft bill, the government has to make legislative time for it; 3. even if the government clears time in the House of Commons, it could be extensively amended and they could accept the amendments; 4. there is still the House of Lords). If there is one valid criticism I would suggest it it that the Blair government is issuing something that will getmaximum gay support (and votes) without any promise to ensure it becomes law, or even try to get it into law.

"Separate but equal" strikes me as emotionally satisfying but empty. Throughout human history, gay relationships were common but marriage was considered different. A greek man's gay lover often helped him pick out his wife. It was simply understood to be a different thing.

Is an armadillo "separate but equal" to an electric guitar? How far will we apply this? Are unisex bathrooms mandated by the equal protection of the law?

Ah well. If it's not good enough, it's not good enough, and perhaps we really do just need to make marriage entirely a contract that any number of people can enter into or leave.

If our society is seriously considering same sex marriage, the idea of marriage is already so debased and so degraded in a significant portion of the population as to be already considered a private contract.

In other words, these conversations prove the battle has long since been lost.

Gays will marry because our society has become addicted to the idea of emancipation ... and thus needs a steady stream of peoples to emancipate, regardless of whether or not there's any sense to it anymore. Next of course will be group marriages.

But where will emancipation go after that? Who could possibly perceive themselves as oppressed and in need of liberation in another 20 years? Trust me, someone will come along. But who?

Dolphins.

Bill, marriage is legally only a civil contract, and has been for much longer than any 'gay marriage' debate. It is not in the US a religious sacrament because there is no legal standing to deny it to those who are not themselves religious. No church has to bless the marriage, but a marriage made by a secular official is exactly the same legally.
No church will ever be required to bless a gay marriage. But if it would make it easier we might be able to use 'civil union' to refer to all secular 'marriage' contracts, thus distinguishing them expliciately from the religious sacraments. It would probably make it easier, and would satisfy the desire not to have separate terms for gay and straight couples.

However, the other argument against allowing homosexual civil unions/marriages is stronger. The benifits granted a couple under a civil marriage contract are intended to be for support of a family, promoting a stable environment for children, now they aren't always used that way, but that is the intent (at least IMO). Since the interest in homosexual couples adopting or raising children doesn't appear to be very high, allowing homosexual marriage further corrupts the intent of the marriage benifit to support raising healthy children.

I think that is the argument which is going to hold gay marriage and civil unions up for at least the near future. It's also the one that makes me most resistant to gay marriage... if they were also arguing for adoption/custody rights I would be highly supportive, but I think a large portion of them just want it for their personal benifit. And as I disapprove of marriage for that purpose, I don't feel really comfortable embrasing something similar for homosexuals given the lack of evidence of any large portion who want to raise kids.

I support the idea of homosexual parents, I just don't want to give any encouragement to people who just want the tax and inheritance benifits, and aren't going to actually contribute to society by raising kids. I hope to see both restrictions against homosexual adoption/custody and homosexual marriage drop at about the same time. And hopefully much like sodomy laws dropped, starting with liberal states, moving until even many conservative states began dropping the laws. Until it was clear through irregular enforcement and circumstances of an enforcement that the laws were widely considered unreasonable and were primarily used to persecute individuals for or using their membership in a minority rather than coherently defend a state interest. Then and only then should the supreme court take a stand for homosexual marriage and custody/adoption. (the correspondent to enforcement would be informal/private recognition of civil unions from other states, followed by formal and public recognitions.)

Or that could just be a pipe dream, and a further break will be put in the idea that marriage is to protect families.

It seems that there are two ideas about marriage: it's a legal thing, and it's a religious thing. Both of these things are true in the same way that cars are "engine things" or "power steering things".

Any issue that touches on family is going to be very powerful and emotional. When we were growing up and learning about the world and our places in it, family provided the initial structure for us to view the world with. We may have grown past that, but the deep impressions formed in us as children still have a dramatic impact on us. It's no surprise to find, then, that concepts of family affect our sense of religion, society, law, politics, and lots of other things.

This becomes relevant to the marriage debate when we observe that families are defined these days through marriage (though not as strongly as in earlier days). Changes to the definition of marriage, therefore, imply changes to the definition of family. Such changes to the foundation of our (dare I say it?) souls are going to be controversial, no matter what.

These are difficult things to think about. I've been thinking about them for a while, and haven't seen this through to the end. So, I don't have any conclusions to draw.

But there's a special need here for understanding and patience on both sides of the debate. The Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Marriage Amendment grow out of an almost instinctive need to defend these bedrock family principles against what is seen as an assault on the family.

Gays who work for equality may therefore wish to consider this point of view and temper their demands accordingly. John, you may not think compromise is a valid position; would you prefer the passage of a constitutional amendment "defending the family" and locking you out? Ideology has its place, but so does practicality; asserting a right to light matches doesn't make the powder keg any less explosive.

Who came up with the idea that marriages are contracts? They are nothing like contracts. Here are a few of the most obvious differences, although I'm sure there are many others as well:

1. Contracts are governed according to whatever terms the parties agree to, with very few exceptions. Marriages have the same rules for everybody.

2. Any two or more individuals can enter into any contract, and other parties can be added later. Attempting to add a third party to a marriage "contract" is illegal, and in some jurisdictions, even criminal.

3. Contracts can be entered into and rescinded immediately, at any time, by the mutual consent of the parties. Marriages and divorces must be conducted by properly licensed officiates.

4. No one can collect damages by breaching a contract.

5. You can't contract your way out of one area of the tax code and into another.

Xrlq:

you make the point. marriages right now are not like other contracts, but they will be after gay marriage.

Michael said: It's also the one that makes me most resistant to gay marriage... if they were also arguing for adoption/custody rights I would be highly supportive, but I think a large portion of them just want it for their personal benifit.

I don't think I've ever heard anybody say that before. I've heard people say "let them have marriage, but I won't go so far as to support/encourage adoption/raising of children."

I beg to differ that many gay couples just want marriage rights for "their personal benefit." Partly because I think people underestimate the just how many legal provisions there are for married couples. There's more to the legal "convenience" of marriage than being eligible for inheritance and health insurance.

Besides, is raising children not a personal benefit? The extra biological and legal steps involved is what slows gay couples from having kids at a similar rate to the straight population, not a disinterest in having them.

And, if a "civil union" were made equivalent to the current "marriage" then custody issues (though not necessarily adoption) would be accounted for. Although there is still, to some extent, a subjective aspect to adoption and custody decisions that can't be addressed by the enactment of civil unions or gay marriage or whatever we're calling it.

Actually, to answer Xrlq's point, marriage as a simple contract is a very, very, very old tradition. In the ancient Roman Empire, for example, contracts for marriage were the norm. Such contracts could be quite lengthy and detailed as to who would own what property, what the rights would be if the union were dissolved, who would get to keep what, what each party owed to the other, etc.

From what I know of the Islamic traditions, marriage is very much treated as a contractual matter. All marriages entail a contract, and bride and groom sign a contract in private that makes them officially married before there is any public ceremony at all.

The odd thing about gay marriage--and we really should acknowledge this--is that, prior to the 20th century, you really couldn't find such a thing in most of human history. Acknowledged gay relationships, yes -- Alexander the Great had one, for example, as did many Roman Emperors--but actually treating such relationships as marriage? Virtually unknown in any culture in all of human history.

This is not to say that we shouldn't do it. I do just wish that at least some gay people would admit that they're asking for something rather unusual, and that people who are baffled/confused/uncertain about it aren't all a bunch of evil homophobes. Overall I'm not hostile to the concept at all, I'd just appreciate a little patience on the matter. It really is an unusual thing that gays are asking for here. Can we at least be understanding enough of each other to realize that?

I don't think there's any question on the part of gay rights activists that what we're asking for is truly revolutionary, unprecedented, and wholly new -- in the eyes of some of the heterosexual majority. Yet in return for the respectful acknowledgement of that fact, I would ask that the baffled majority recognize that gay and lesbian people have a very long and very rich history that has, out of necessity, remained largely out of view. While the concept of gay marriage is very new to some people, it is not unusual for us to refer to our life partners and "husband" or "wife" in unmixed company, and there is a rich body of historical research, archives, correspondence, photographs, and other material that shows gay and lesbian people have had long, committed, and even life-long relationships that were, in our eyes, full and valid marriages.

I acknowledge that for much of society this concept is shocking, or repulsive, or threatening, or merely new. Yet is only new to them, not to us.

Perhaps our stridency in the past has been in the face of unwavering, unrelenting and withering condemnation; for while we've always had heterosexual allies, or people who were at least understanding and compassionate, we've also had to contend with a concerted campaign to criminalize, marginalize and eventually eradicate our place in society. It's still commonplace to hear and see radio and television commentary by people who wish we would "go back into our closets" or get "cured".

On a personal level, I'm deeply involved in issues having to do with chronic trauma and childhood abuse. One of the symptoms of such trauma is that the subject, constantly on guard against danger, has a difficulty distinguishing between real and perceived threats.

It's entirely likely that as a group, gay and lesbian Americans are struggling with such difficulties. Perhaps we're so used to defending and justifying our very existence that it's hard for us to see just how progress we've made. I certainly hope that's the case, since it means we can grow beyond this.

I'd like to respond to comments from Michael above:

Since the interest in homosexual couples adopting or raising children doesn't appear to be very high, allowing homosexual marriage further corrupts the intent of the marriage benifit to support raising healthy children.

I think that is the argument which is going to hold gay marriage and civil unions up for at least the near future. It's also the one that makes me most resistant to gay marriage... if they were also arguing for adoption/custody rights I would be highly supportive, but I think a large portion of them just want it for their personal benifit. And as I disapprove of marriage for that purpose, I don't feel really comfortable embrasing something similar for homosexuals given the lack of evidence of any large portion who want to raise kids.

He highlights a deep foundation of the gay marriage debate. Essentially, he's saying, "I think marriage is X, and if people enter into marriage for Y, then I disagree with it and I don't think people should do it." It's your basic, "Don't do things I don't like because I don't like them," argument, and from the standpoint of individual liberty, it has little merit. Yet this is the point of view Dean is asking us to be patient and understanding with.

Jesus, Dean, I'll try; but damn if it doesn't get tiresome.

While there may be little evidence that gay couples want to raise children, there is ample evidence that we're already raising children. Add to that the significant number of gay or bisexual fathers who are married to women (just waltz through the personals ad -- really), and the question of the gay drive toward parenthood is answered quite easily.

Well John I honestly think you're oversimplifying.

It goes back to something I said earlier: in ancient Greek society, a man's gay lover usually helped him pick out his wife. I also distinctly remember reading an article (damn I wish I could remember where I saw it!) by a gay man who traveled to Egypt and was shocked to learn that, among men who regularly sodomized each other, quite a few had wives and were utterly baffled by his idea that men should marry each other.

Mind you, they weren't culturally hated or oppressed. They thought of themselves as perfectly normal people. They just thought he was being silly, and laughed at him.

So, you know, is it possible to get out of this (thoroughly American) "I am oppressed" dialectic and simply discuss the ideas?

Gay marriage, like it or not, requires us to re-examine some very difficult questions, and they frankly aren't a matter of "liberty" to a lot of us. Liberty? You can live with or screw anyone or anything you like, and almost no one anymore is willing to say different.

But marriage is a special institution, one that's as old as the human race. Gay marriage is exotic, and has been virtually unknown even in countless cultures where gay sex and relationships were/are utterly accepted and considered normal. It's an odd request. And "Odd" is not a code word for "evil" or "disgusting," by the way.

Has anyone ever considered the difference between "natural" as in intended by nature, and "naturally occuring?" If homosexuality is "natural", then why doesn't nature provide for its natural reproduction?

There are many "naturally occuring" anomalies in nature. Some are simply "exotic", and some are crippling. Homosexuals claim to be born that way, as if there is a binary switch between heterosexuality and homosexuality. But I don't see that in practice.

Some men do not find women particularly attractive, and opt for celibacy. Some find women physically attractive but can't deal with the emotional differences, so they avoid long-term entanglements. And marriages have a wide variety of compatibility issues. Some couples fight all the time, while other couples seem born for each other.

You can say the same for women. So why is male homosexuality more common than lesbianism? My observation tells me that women find it easier to abstain from sex than men do. So maybe, men who are not comfortable with women are more motivated to seek an alternative sexual than women who are similarly uncomfortable with men.

As far as being attracted to someone of the same sex, I would suggest that this is a pretty normal experience. When hormones are raging in an adolescent, they can get aroused by a door knob, so being interested in the same sex, if only from a curiosity aspect is not out of the ordinary. Who, man or woman, never checked someone else out in the shower, even if only for comparison.

The "naturally occuring" anomoly is those who choose to act on this curiosity. Even more curious is the choice to embark on a life of homosexuality that specifically excludes sexual relationships with the opposite sex.

Now, in America after Lawrence, homosexual activity is legal. But homosexuals are asking for more than freedom. They are asking for recognition. They want the general population to validate their choices as equally natural.

Nature validates heterosexual mating a valid, and even demands it for the continued survival of the species. Not so with homosexual "mating" if you can even call it that from a purely natural science point of view. I personally am willing no acknowledge "naturally occuring" homosexuality. But I will never be willing to acknowledge and validate their choice as equal to heterosexual mating. And this is what "gay marriage" advocates are asking for. My answer is "No."

What Scott said ...

As far as the historical precedents are concerned, it is essential to take on board the pioneering and truly brilliant research of John Boswell in Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century and Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe.

Contracts are promises that the law will enforce, and marriage is one specific form among many. It is irrelevant what features it does or does not share with commercial contracts.

What social (as opposed to individual) benefits would accrue from gay marriage? (1) Social stability; (2) Legal consonance (a virtue in itself, but also one that brings the possibility for continued social evolution with
socially positive results); (3) a counter-weight to the socially destructive expressions of gay sexuality, especially extreme promiscuity, that currently enjoy no greater or lesser socio-legal status; (4) positive reinforcement of the extended family (avuncular, god-parental, fraternal, sororal) providing additional qualitative and quantitative emotional and financial support to heterosexual marriages and their offspring; (5) incentives to build shared economic resources, and to care for partners (rather than rely on state benefits). There are many many more - those were just off the top of my head.

I have to say that I find comments by IB Bill to be offensive, not just because they are bigoted, but because they are devoid of argument and ignorant. Of course, my saying that will only confirm all his prejudices.

I suppose I have to respond to that stream of calumnies. This is a polite forum, so I'll be brief: Nope.

Oddly enough the stablest relationship I know of in my contemporaries is between two gay-men. They love each other dearly and are very affectionate. Both consider themselves "married".

I have seen marriages crumble after the wife runs off with another man after 18 weeks of marriage. Of course, there is also a good friend whose wife killed herself leaving him with 2 small children.

So, Andrew, in the same vein I suppose someone who has a grandparent who has "smoked like a chimney" for 50 years, and is still in good health, proves that cigarettes aren't bad for you?

Scott takes a rather narrow view of nature. If our only purpose is to reproduce and "nature" is only valid in the context of reproduction, than there are many marriages that are simply invalid.

And I'd like some numbers to indicate the incidence of gay males versus lesbians, because I'm hearing that particular noise that takes place when someone pulls something out of his/her ass.

Gay people are a "natural" phenomenon by virtue of the simple fact that we occur. We occur independent of upbringing and race, culture and religion. We occur, spontaneously and without indoctrination, in every population on earth.

That's better than religion can claim. Wipe all of us out in one generation, and we'll be back the next. We are as integral a part of human nature as love and war.

If you want to talk about "natural" versus "unnatural", how is the imposition of the marital structure "natural" when it's quite clear that promiscuity is a common occurrence? Yes, marriage creates an environment in which children can be raised; yet it's naive (and disingenuous) to claim familial concerns for an institution that does not require children.

You can't take a hodgepodge of sociology, theology and biology and selectively macrame it into a "natural" view of the world that excludes homosexuality. You'll have to do better than that.

What you are willing to accept is irrelevant. You can disagree with it. You can dislike it. You can choose to not engage in it. But does that truly entitle you to define another person's relationship and to exclude them from an important aspect of civic life?

That's pretty damn arrogant.

... looks like with John's comments we're back to the emancipation rhetoric. The logic is impeccable, but the premise is absurd. That's the problem, and that's why charlie b. found it hard to argue on the merits and had to resort to name-calling. Beause I'm taking a step back and forcing him to rethink his premise.

I don't agree with the initial hetero- v. homo- paradigm. It's normal v. abnormal. Once you place the sexual choices on an equal basis, it becomes almost impossible in a pluralistic society such as our own to deny anyone anything.

But the other pole of the dilemma is how can you make a statement such as normal v. abnormal without being called a bigot? Right now, you can't. Everything is normal, and thus all must be emancipated. Like Alice in Wonderland, "all have won and all must have prizes."

That's why I said the gay marriage debate is already lost. It's because the public language for a common morality is fatally wounded. It's no surprise: Both Nietzche and Christ predicted all of this. With the destruction of all values, which gay marriage is only a symptom, we're in for a hell of a century.

Well, it goes to show with what respect IB Bill reads other people's comments, since I have argued against the idea of demanding "gay marriage" if effective civil union for gay people is on offer. I have made it clear that I have no difficulty whatsoever with the idea that heterosexual marriage is different to long-term gay relationships; and that the socio-legal status of each could be different and, as far as I am concerned, that that would be fine. However, I read IB Bill objecting to any significant degree of legal recognition of gay partnerships, including one that is clearly not the same as marriage. If I am wrong about that I am happy to retract.

I have no idea what "emancipation rhetoric" or why it is so objectionable, or how I am guilty of employing it. But I do personally object to the idea that even considering the idea of gay marriage results, as IB Bill claims, in debasing and degrading the very idea of marriage. I also object to being placed in the same category as "group marriages".

I should add that I take this statement of IB Bill's -- "I don't agree with the initial hetero- v. homo- paradigm. It's normal v. abnormal" -- as justification for any level of prejudice against anyone he deems "abnormal". I would be interested to learn what other common human variations fall within the "abnornal" category and why, and as a result what social construction and legal status should be applied to them. Either that or count me out of this thread for good.

Charlie, it's not my goal to insult you, offend you, or drive you from the thread.

And yes, if one were not careful, one could justify any prejudice with a normal v. abnormal paradigm. It doesn't make the paradigm wrong.

The emancipation rhetoric was from John Kusch's comment, who is another individual I don't want to insult or offend. The third paragraph is to what I was referring. Substitute "Down's Syndrome" for homosexuals and you may see what I mean.

Let me see if this approach will prove helpful. The approach that I think will work best is American (or Western), Christian, and conservative.

It's American in the sense that in the individual sphere I truly could care less what you are up to and would be insulted if you thought that I would NOT accept you as you are. Example: A gentlemen in the cube next to me married his lifelong partner in a wedding ceremony recently. I was a bit offended that he didn't tell me so I could send him a card. I also thought it was weird that he didn't bring his partner to company events. It was insulting, in a way, for him to try to hide it from us. It's like he thought we were a bunch of rubes or he was somehow too cutting edge for us to handle a gay relationship. Please...

It's Christian in the sense that my faith teaches me that homosexual sex is wrong. So is my entire pre-marital sexual history. They're equivalent in my mind. I understand you're an atheist so this doesn't matter -- I'm just trying to explain my opinions vary depending on the sphere. It may help you to understand that homosexual issues are also tearing my church (Episcopalian) limb from limb from now, and we're on the verge of schism. I also believe that I'm allowed to credibly argue from religious premises without being called a bigot or an extremist or dismissed out of hand.

It's conservative in the sense that I think that there are workarounds with existing institutions for almost every practical objection you may have to the existing order. Some things may have to change; for example, in Philadelphia there is a domestic partnership rule that allows for partners to be covered under medical insurance. Fine with me. Inheritance has never been a problem -- leave your property to your partner. Any attorney can handle that. Pensions, social security and annuities are a different story -- but again, some tweaks in the laws should allow more flexibility for homosexual couples, though Social Security may be more difficult.

So what is the point of gay marriage? Domestication? Ha. I lived in a country where women were as promiscuous as men, which is analogous to the gay community. Men who are temperamentally suited for monogamy will remain monogamous, the rest will ignore their vows. Men are men, homosexual or not, and an available steady supply of new partners will either tempt the man or it will not. Marriage will only complicate things. (Gay divorce court will be a booming area of litigation. Go to law school now.)

Civil unions? I can't see it. What's the point since existing (or some new) workarounds can handle practical matters?

The bottom line is the gay community is looking for broader community support, affirmation, rights, and entitlements. I say no to each of these. We may work with you on some of the workarounds I've mentioned, and I may give you individual support, but no, I'm not going to pretend that a woman is disposable/replaceable aspect of a marriage.

The natural imperative for heterosexual mating is undeniable. Throughout nature, there are many forms of mating which perpetuate life. Snakes lay their eggs and leave. Horses screw any mare they can find. Promiscuity exists in nature.

But there are also species which mate for life. Historically, promiscuity is more of a male phenomenon than female. Females would require some kind of commitment, because mating inevitably led to childbirth. Human babies require long child rearing before they are able to care for themselves. The Natural imperative for committed Male/Female relationships is so obvious, I can hardly believe this needs such a long explanation.

Homosexuality is a male "work-around." Its a way to get off without having to commit to a female, and by extension a family. Modern science has given us birth control; so, now females can screw around, too. But modern science cannot change the basic natural imperatives to mating. And Nature still demands procreation for the survival of the species.

The point of the pleasure of sex, and the emotional bonds created by sexual relationships is nature's way of trying to provide incentives to mate. Just because some are sterile, and cannot have children; just because some use modern science to thwart nature's plan; and just because some use the work-around of homosexuality to avoid responsibility of accomodating the opposite sex, birth and child-rearing does not change the fundamental of sex as nature's incentive for precreation.

I also enjoy many foods. I cook with many spices, and like a variety of dishes. But nature provides hunger pangs (desire), and taste buds (pleasure) as an incentive to eat. I can use modern science to avoid eating by getting a glucose drip. I can overindulge because of the pleasure of eating and get morbidly obese. I can go without food for abnormal amounts of time. Just because I have the freedom to do so, and just because I can enjoy food for other reasons than starvation avoidance does not change the basic incentive of hunger and taste as incentives to eat food.

I can't believe I'm wasting so much time spitting in the wind on this issue, but as a scientific type of guy, this seems so obvious to me.

One more thing. Religion has occurred in every single culture, language and people group that has ever walked the earth. Any assertion to the contrary shows a basic ignorance of history and modern culture.

The topic of this submission began was civil vs religious marriage, not homosexual marriages. And it is with that understanding that I comment here at all.

One of my sons and his fiancee shortly shall be bonded in a civil marriage, conducted in my own home and on our rural property, officiated by a judge or court commissioner, depending on whose services they may choose to rent for part of a weekend day in the country.

Certainly I favor this approach as do they. None of us wish the cloak of religion to be draped over their marriage from its onset, and if any of our grandchildren were baptised, my wife and I would all but puke in disgust.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

I've been thinking about my other comments about Nature. It seems that some think humans exists apart from Nature; that somehow we exist outside of Nature and our activities show that we are Nature's enemy. This view is absurd.

Human beings only exist within the framework of Nature, and Nature teaches us about ourselves. Natural science applies equally to all species including humans. And clearly, Nature teaches us that homosexuality is at best, an anomoly. At worst, it is a rebellion against the natural order.

Oh, come off it, Scott. If you look at nature, plenty of research shows that countless animals practice homosexuality.

"Rebellion against the natural order?" So if a man looks at another man's buns and gets an erection, it's because he's "rebelling?" Come off it, does that even make sense?

I suggest to you that he gets that erection because the same bit of chemical/electrical brain wiring that makes you get hard when you see a naked chick is functining differently in that other man's brain. And that's all that's going on.

Can you honestly say you've ever gotten an erection because you were "rebelling?" It's a non-voluntary thing, Scott. You must know that as well as I do.

I'll give you that it's "anamalous" in the sense that it's outside of the obvious "sex is for procreation" imperative. But why would you treat something that's so obviously harmless and, more importantly, so obviously none of your business, as if it were threatening?

Dean,

I disagree that erections are involuntary. An erection can be involuntary, but erections are not. I am 37 years old. I like dark complected, non-oriental women about my age.

While 15 year olds did it for me when I was around 15, they no longer get me aroused. And you could march 100 naked Oriental women in front of me and get no response.

This was because at some point, I DECIDED I liked dark haired, dark complected beauties. And I DECIDED not to be a pervert and prey on teenagers. You have the ability to control what arouses you.

Also, during a knock-down drag-out fight with my dark haired, dark complected wife, her naked body can leave me unaroused because I have other things on my mind.

The brain is the largest sex organ in the body, and we can control our thoughts and responses. I can't cite them offhand, but there are numerous psychological studies to show that.

As far as being a threat: Since homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce, they must recruit. To those like me who consider homosexuality unnatural, and have been approached by recruiting homosexuals, the experience is very alarming and insulting. Twice I was propositioned under illegal terms (1. underage by a trucker passing through town - glad my picture's not on a milk carton, and 2. gay prostitute in a theater), and once under coercion (supposed job interview).

As a parent, my job is to protect my children from such advances. And the whole "born that way" argument is just propoganda. There is no proof.

One more thing Dean.

I do not hate homosexuals. In the late 80's, during the AIDS scare, I agreed to become roommates with a AIDS active gay man over the objections of my fiance (now wife). I watched him die. So, it is possible to hold strongly held positions denouncing homosexuality while caring for individual people at the same time.

(for Scott Harris)

"Since homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce, they must recruit."

Aren't you assuming a lot here? That humans are strictly divided into heterosexuals and homosexuals -- the latter being unable to reproduce? That such groups MUST reproduce -- as groups instead of as people? This makes as much sense as saying that persons who engage in masturbation must therefore "recruit" lest they die off. While homosexual acts, like masturbation, are not reproductive, from where derives a duty (you did say "must") to reproduce?

Sterile heterosexuals cannot naturally reproduce. But "recruit"?

I don't get it; if I want to reproduce I will. I do not follow the recruitment logic as I seek no followers or imitators. How is a consenting sexual partner a "recruit" anyway?

And what is the point of saying that people can control their erections and their orgasms? Of course they can, but this does not change what they like, nor does it render their various attractions right or wrong, moral or immoral, natural or unnatural. If what turns someone else on sexually makes you sick, you have the right to get sick. It's still a free country, so go ahead and get sick. Just don't expect others to get sick simply because something makes you sick.

If sexuality is as changeable as you have found it to be, then why make the contradictory claim that homosexuals "must" recruit? What's to stop them from reproducing? Just as you DECIDED you liked dark haired, dark complected beauties, and "DECIDED not to be a pervert and prey on teenagers" why can't homosexuals DECIDE they'd rather reproduce naturally than recruit? Is this what you want them to do? Are you sure you've thought this out? Do you really want them to breed? (There is no law stopping gay men and lesbians from marrying each other and flooding the world with their pure-bred homo children, you know...)

Okay, Scott, let me ask you this then?

What counts as "recruiting" to you? It sounds like all you're describing is unwanted advances to me.

OK. Maybe "recruit" was the wrong word. "Corrupt" is probably a better term to describe my views.

Eric,

I have known some homosexuals who have chosen to breed. But 1) they couldn't breed with each other. They required someone of the opposite sex to breed. And 2) the children they had are, surprise, heterosexual.

The point is I do not believe Homosexuality is an in-born character trait. I believe it is a lifestyle choice. I find it peculiar that emphasizing their freedom to make the choice of homosexuality is not enough. They want to insist that they have no control over themselves; they are just following natural in-born imperatives.

So this "born that way" argument is just a plea for acceptance. I can care for homosexuals with a clear conscience. I cannot accept their lifestyle choices as valid.

"I can care for homosexuals with a clear conscience. I cannot accept their lifestyle choices as valid."

Valid based on what? Earlier you claimed to be of a scientific bent, but then you tossed out a bunch of crap about 'natural imperatives'like this:

"Historically, promiscuity is more of a male phenomenon than female. Females would require some kind of commitment, because mating inevitably led to childbirth. Human babies require long child rearing before they are able to care for themselves. The Natural imperative for committed Male/Female relationships is so obvious, I can hardly believe this needs such a long explanation."

Unfortunately, this entire premise is a load of crap. There are plenty of societies where female promiscuity is as (or more) prevalent than male. One idea being that if no man knows who a womans children belong to, than every man must treat every child as though it might be his. Many closely-knit tribal societies are based on this. In fact, the strict one-woman-one-man pair bonding we call 'marriage' is probably a relatively new idea (4,000 to 5,000 years or so). The only reason that female promiscuity was/is restrained in Judeao-christian cultures is threat of punishment. And I guarantee you that homosexual partners existed long before that!

So the idea that gay marriages are 'unnatural' is just total bull. I don't understand why you can't just be honest and admit that you are against gay marriage because it is agianst your interpretation of the Bible.

And as for this stuff about 'corrupting' people? Do you have any idea how many people experiment with gay sex, without ever becoming homosexual? If I recall the Kinsey study, it was something on the order of 20-30%. People don't get 'turned' gay just because they tried it...either you are or you aren't.

Patrick

PS- As for being 'alarmed' or 'insulted' by the come-ons of a gay...consider yourself flattered and move on, man. Do you know how many straight women receive unwanted come-ons every day?