Consi: If one views homosexuality as a maladaptive coping mechanism that is a choice…

I think, Consi, you’re ignoring one fundamental thing here… the impetus for sexual activity is because it feels really, really good.  Why, Consi, if you believe homosexuality is a choice, why, oh why, would someone choose to have sex with “the same (i.e. doesn’t feel good) gender”, and eschew sex with the “opposite (ostensibly feels really, really good) gender???

And why don’t you believe us when we tell you it is NOT a choice?  Do you, a total stranger, have some type of telepathic connection to my brain which I am lacking??? 

Moreover, you can argue all you want about how we became this way, and if it’s nurture, what percent genetics and what percent womb environment, blah, blah, blah, but the fact remains that we are human, we are law-abiding citizens, we ARE HERE, NOW, and we have families whom we love and whom we need to protect legally.  And we should not need to win over anyone in order to have equality.

DoF: I suppose real unhappiness requires a religion.

Reminded me of ...
Steven Weinberg: With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
According to wiki, in Vatican City there are no laws against homosexuality so therefore ‘Homosexuality is technically legal, (even though it’s) ... contrary to the teachings of the ruling Roman Catholic Church’.

Holly G: And why don’t you believe us when we tell you it is NOT a choice?

Because Consi’s been taught by his nature/nurture that it is and no amount of logic will shift him.
How Consi figures that someone, around the age of puberty, would actually chose a life of inequality and of being vilified is beyond my comprehension.

And we should not need to win over anyone in order to have equality.

A-fucking-mon!

we should not need to win over anyone in order to have equality.

With this, I absolutely agree.  Nevertheless there is still enormous value in winning over your opponents, or at least defusing some of their worst fears.  As impartial as the courts try to be (and I think most judges try really hard) they don’t operate in a vacuum.

It’s good to have friends, especially when you finally do go to court.  Most people would like to think of themselves as open-minded, tolerant human beings.  I believe Consi’s original point was that this very positive human tendency is worth encouraging.

HG:

I think, Consi, you’re ignoring one fundamental thing here… the impetus for sexual activity is because it feels really, really good.

In some cases.  At times within the heterosexual community the impetus for engaging in heterosexual sex is: a strong self-hatred manifesting itself in self-destructive behavior; a desperate attempt to obtain affection and attention, if only for a limited time.  I can think of countless dysfunctional reasons that are the impetus within the heterosexual community.  To write that sex within the homosexual community is only “feel good” reveals a lack of understanding about human beings and human relationships.

LJ:

How Consi figures that someone, around the age of puberty, would actually chose a life of inequality and of being vilified is beyond my comprehension.

By extension, your lack of comprehension applies with equal force to (but is not limited solely to) someone choosing to do something as heart-wrenching as self-mutilation.

I’ll let Holly make some comments of your far too out-of-the-loop statements.

Consi: By extension, your lack of comprehension applies with equal force to (but is not limited solely to) someone choosing to do something as heart-wrenching as self-mutilation.

Ah, fucking hell, mate. You stretch this little homo (by comparison) thing into self-mutilation and I may as well stretch it into tattoos, ear-rings or, let’s really stretch it into suicide, murder and, and ... serial killing.
Jesus Christ mate. Get a grip. We’re talking consensual actions that hurt no one except for those in society that want (choose!!) to perceive it as something as such and then vilify those who went t’other way from ‘normal’.
Having said that in a fit of frustration, DID YOU CHOOSE to be a heterosexual, coz I sure as hell did not!?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
The answer WILL be NO coz it’s not a decision most humans ever make one way or t’other.
(My PC wants to re-start - I gotta post this as is, x)

maladaptive coping mechanism that is a choice

Consigliere—there is a great deal of evidence to suggest a combined-factor pathway to homosexuality:

There are likely some genetic influences (we see concordance in twins, though not perfect); there are hormonal influences (likely a pathway through the mother’s stress-activated hormonal system); There are environmental factors—this is not social learning (there just isn’t good evidence for that), but through stressful, traumatic or difficult family life. What this means is that the most likely ‘cause’ of homosexuality is multi-faceted and is some combination of the above factors.

There simply is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that homosexuality is a “choice” anymore than personality is a choice.

Consi: Minimizing what is being proposed in societal recognition of homosexual marriages is disingenuous.  It is a monumental change the likes of which mixed race marriage recognition doesn’t even begin to compare. No society that I know of has ever done this until very recently in human history.  I repeat, nobody has ever done this before.

And your point would be...? America is a land of firsts. No one had ever started a federal republic in human history until we did it either, or made a strong declaration of universal human rights, or any number of other things that we did first. Why should the standard for determining anything we might do here be dependent on whether or not another society, likely dissimilar in any number of ways, has already done it? Moreover, the trend in human history has generally been towards the promotion of human rights. It was only very recently in the scheme of things that most nations abolished slavery, one of the oldest human institutions. When we look at the arguments of anti-abolitionists today, how compelling do we find the ones based on “tradition”? Mind you, I´m not saying the situations are comparable, but the dialectic occasionally is.

The comment that “no one has ever done this before” needs some clarification. The notion of sexual orientation is fairly recent, so it´s not surprising that it has raised many issues which were not recognized before. It´s silly to criticize an argument simply because it rests upon our ever-deepening understanding of the human condition. Anyone, someone always has to be the first to do something.

The “no society has ever done this” argument also dismisses out of hand many relevant aspects of human history. Many societies have had a degree of acceptance for same-sex relationships, and in some societies they were even celebrated. Even a basic perusal of sexual mores in Ancient Greek, Japanese, or Native American societies would make this obvious. In Ancient Greece, often viewed as the birthplace of democracy, many city-states at various times even viewed the love between two men, including the physical representation of that love, as the highest of virtues. Heterosexual relationships were just seen as functional. The berdache, or two-spirit figure in Native American culture was a man who learned shamanistic traditions normally learned only by women, and who was highly prized as a spouse for male warriors. And those are just a couple out of many, many examples. So while the recognition of sexual orientation is more recent, the recognition of a real bond between people of the same sex, valuable to themselves and society, is certainly not.

It is true that no society has legally equalized heterosexual and homosexual relationships until very recently. But in spite of what many conservatives claim, marriage in this country, and the laws surrounding it, is also a very recent invention. Modern marriage is alike to ancient, “traditional” marriage in only the most cursory of aspects (and “one man, one women” sure ain´t it, even in the west). The nature of marriage has changed drastically time and time again, yet society has survived. I mean, do we honestly forget that until 1920, women in the US couldn´t even vote? Surely that change had a much greater impact on marriage than this one would. I find it ironic that conservatives simultaneously downplay the actual incidence of homosexuality in this country, while arguing that granting this tiny number of people equal rights is sufficient to cause “the total deconstruction of a very effective social construct that has been in place for thousands of years. [Consi]”

I´m not trying to “minimize what is being proposed” Consi. It´s just that, try as I might, I really cannot understand what the big deal is. I cannot see how allowing a few percentiles of the populace to get legal recognition of existing relationships is really going to cause any massive sea change in American society. I also don´t understand why, in a free society, there should be a greater burden of proof to allow someone to do something than there is to prevent them from doing it.

LJ:

How Consi figures that someone, around the age of puberty, would actually chose a life of inequality and of being vilified is beyond my comprehension.

Consi:

By extension, your lack of comprehension applies with equal force to (but is not limited solely to) someone choosing to do something as heart-wrenching as self-mutilation.

Homosexuality and self-mutilation are two TOTALLY different things.  It might be valid in some way to compare having sex to self mutilation, sexual orientation cannot be compared to self mutilation. An individual does not choose their sexual orientation.  Individuals can chosechoose whether or not to have sex and they can choose whether they practice self mutilation or not.  Sex and self-mutilation are practiced both by gay and straight individuals.

Ufreker:

You downplay the argument from tradition.

Anyone, someone always has to be the first to do something.

While admittedly true, your dismissal out of hand begs the question, what are the consequences of the act?  There are legitimate concerns about what may happen.

One may argue, well that is a slippery slope.  Surely, that is true.  However, this slope has been iced for decades and we keep going further and further down the slope.  That is obviously a good thing for those who want to go all the way down the slope, such as Sexy Sadie.  It is horrifying for many others. 

What many reasonable minded people (and there must be some reasonable minded people who oppose same-sex marriages since at least 60% of the entire country does) see is an ongoing trend.  Eugene Volokh, a same-sex marriage advocate recognizes this and sets forth some history for us:

Consider also the evolution of what is loosely called “gay rights� legislation.
From the 1960s on, many states decriminalized same-sex sexual conduct. Some states then banned sexual orientation discrimination in
employment, housing, education, or public accommodations. Some added crimes based on sexual orientation to the list of offenses that are treated as hate crimes.  Some allowed same-sex couples to adopt.

When some such liberalizations were proposed, some people warned that these laws were steps down a slippery slope to broader rejection of traditional
sexual rules, including towards same-sex marriages.  These slippery slopes arguments were dismissed, sometimes contemptuously. The claim
that a hate crime law “would lead to acceptance of gay marriagesâ€? was called “arrant nonsense.â€?  A proposed antidiscrimination law, people were
assured, does not “put Massachusetts on a ‘slippery slope’ toward� “legaliz[ing] ‘gay marriage’ or confer[ring] any right on homosexual, lesbian or unmarried heterosexual couples to ‘domestic benefits.’�....

Yet when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the state constitution requires the legislature to recognize same-sex marriages, part of its reasoning rested on the legislature’s decision to ban sexual orientation discrimination: This decision, the Court reasoned, undermined the asserted government interest in condemning homosexuality as immoral, and thus helped strip away any rational basis the law might have had.

Likewise, when the Vermont Supreme Court held that the state constitution requires the legislature to recognize same-sex civil unions (marriages in all but name), a large part of its argument rested precisely on the legislature’s past enactment of various gay rights laws, including the enactment of antidiscrimination laws and hate crimes laws that refer to sexual orientation.

Similarly, when the Equal Rights Amendment was being debated in the 1970s and 1980s (both at the state and federal levels), and the ERA’s foes
argued that the sex discrimination ban might lead to legalization of gay marriage, such arguments were derided as “emotional scare tactics,� “hysterical,� and “canards.� Yet both the Hawaii Supreme Court and the necessary fourth vote on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court relied on the
state Equal Rights Amendments in concluding that the opposite-sexes-only marriage rule was indeed sex discrimination.

Yet I think this history at least suggests that the slippery slope arguments can’t be casually dismissed. It seems at least plausible that past liberalizations of traditional sexual rules had such effects, and that future liberalizations
will have still more effects.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND SLIPPERY SLOPES, Eugene Volokh, 34 Hofstra L.Rev. (2006)(footnotes omitted, page numbers to be assigned when published.)

It is the effects that many people are concerned about. It is also these possible effects that same-sex marriage advocates need to recognize and need to work to address if they are to advance their agenda.  Some on the same-sex marriage side would embrace polygamy.  This is not an invisible concern.  In fact, there are at least 3 that I know of on this forum.  That is problematic for most Americans.  Even if they were to support same-sex marriages, they don’t want polygamy or other types of andry or amy to follow. 

So, although I think very few homosexuals would marry, both in the aggregate and as a percentage of the population, there is deep concern about that sea change.  It is a real concern given the changes that have followed previously liberalizations. 

Unstated in Eugene Volokh’s article and in the discussion are a couple of premises that should be identified.  There is a belief that we have it pretty good here in America.  In spite of ourselves and our leaders, the Republic has blessed us with untold benefits.  The recipe for getting to this point did not include a culture of homosexuality or a culture of polygamy.  When you are talking about redefining marriage, you are in effect talking about redefining the culture.  That is a big deal.

It very well may be too late, but changing the language of the same-sex argument is important.  Again, I defer to Eugen Volokh for a much more eloquent description of the problem: 

If people see the recognition of same-sex marriage (whether by statute or by court decision) as resting on the principle that “marriages between two people are socially useful,� or “the opposite-sex-marriage-only impermissibly
discriminates based on sex or homosexual orientation,� then accepting this principle won’t lead them to endorse the recognition of polygamy.

But if the legality of same-sex marriage is seen as resting on principles such as

• “all people have a right to marry whomever they choose,�
• “it’s none of my business whom someone else marries,�
• “people who want to enter into same-sex marriages should have equal rights with those who want to enter into opposite-sex marriages,�
or
• “love should prevail over arbitrary legal restrictions.�

and the recognition of same-sex marriage leads some citizens to accept those principles, then those citizens might become more open to recognizing polygamy as well.

There would still be counterarguments that polygamy and same-sex marriage should be treated differently. But those counterarguments would
become less persuasive, because contrary principles, which apply to samesex marriage and polygamy equally, would be strengthened.

Moreover, some counterarguments would themselves be undermined by the recognition of same-sex marriage. For instance, when polygamists seek
recognition of their marriages, one intuitive response is that polygamy just isn’t “marriage� within the American constitutional right to marriage and legal tradition of marriage: Marriage is what it has traditionally been, namely the union of one man and one woman, and polygamous unions simply don’t qualify. And this definitional argument could be supported by a Burkean empirical claim—we shouldn’t lightly change centuries-old institutions,because such changes are likely to be harmful. But if the public accepts the notion that tradition isn’t a good enough reason to reject same-sex marriage, it will be harder to argue that tradition is a good enough reason to reject polygamous marriage. Other arguments might still remain. But the argument from tradition—an important and easily understandable argument that might appeal to the public more than theoretical
academic distinctions would—would be much weakened.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND SLIPPERY SLOPES, Eugene Volokh, 34 Hofstra L.Rev. (2006)(footnotes omitted, page numbers to be assigned when published.)

I hope this helps you to understand better the concerns you are facing.

Shelley:

Not to shortshrift your post, but we have discussed in other threads the evidence for and against the various theories. I am aware of the various theories, including the multi-faceted approach.  It is fair to say that reasonable minds may disagree about cause, as you do.

Shelley:

Not to shortshrift your post, but we have discussed in other threads the evidence for and against the various theories. I am aware of the various theories, including the multi-faceted approach.  It is fair to say that reasonable minds may disagree about cause, as you do.

It may be fair to say that reasonable minds may disagree about cause, but there is no such disagreement on this topic in the scientific community. I can think of no scientist who takes the position that there is a singular ‘cause’ of homosexuality (your discussions here notwithstanding), and none would support the idea that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.

So, while I recognize that you’ve discussed this question here previously, I’ve yet to see anywhere in which either you or anyone else has referred to any kind of evidence to support the premise that homosexuality is chosen. If I’ve missd it somehow, please refer me back to it.

On the other hand, if this is something that is simply a tennant of faith for you, just say so. That’s a different issue entirely.

Consi, what you’re asking here is, essentially, “if we allow X or Y, then how come we aren’t allowing the whole rest of the alphabet?”.

The answer is, we probably will. Maybe not in your lifetime, but we will. It would be dishonest to say otherwise.

These effects you speak of, however, have taken into the metaphorical. Egad, we’re not punishing gays! Now we’re going to try to let them marry!? What about the “effects”? You don’t know what could happen…

And while this is true, that’s why we break these things step by step, over long periods of time. Persistent harms, if our society is unable to adapt to them, will have their causes forbidden or effects minimized.

Otherwise, Consi, arguments made for the sake of tradition usually don’t have any other legs to stand on. When they do, it’s not about tradition.  But where such arguments and I are concerned, they are made out of fear of change, and arguments made out of fear cannot be considered reasonable.

Consi, if I were trying to dismiss the tradition argument out of hand, I would not have written an entire post addressing that issue. I am not trying to be dismissive; I am trying to explain why I think that the tradition argument, on its own, is a pretty weak argument, at least in this case.

Unstated in Eugene Volokh’s article and in the discussion are a couple of premises that should be identified.  There is a belief that we have it pretty good here in America.  In spite of ourselves and our leaders, the Republic has blessed us with untold benefits.-- Consi

This is my problem with your argument: you are saying that because the status quo is good enough, it shouldn´t be messed with. So should people accept what they believe is unjust simply because most people “have it pretty good” here? Why should that argument be more compelling regarding this issue than it is regarding the abolition of slavery, universal suffrage, civil rights, or any number of other important advances in human rights? I´m not saying that it isn´t worth considering. I´m just saying that it shouldn´t be the main argument, as it seems to be here.

The recipe for getting to this point did not include a culture of homosexuality or a culture of polygamy.  When you are talking about redefining marriage, you are in effect talking about redefining the culture.  That is a big deal.

What exactly is “a culture of homosexuality”? How would we possibly effect this in the US? Surely you realize that same-sex attracted people have been present at all points in American history. They´ve fought in every single war, likely been members of every Congress, and may well have signed the Declaration of Independence. This is to say nothing of the numerous cultural contributions made by known and suspected SSA folk. So homosexuals have been a part of the culture since the beginning, although an often marginalized and dismissed part of that culture. America would be irrecognizably different otherwise. But at no point have we had a “homosexual culture”, whatever the heck that is, and I see no reason why letting people protect their relationships would create one.

You do raise an excellent point though, through Volokh, who lists the common arguments for gay marriage:

• “all people have a right to marry whomever they choose,�
• “it’s none of my business whom someone else marries,�
• “people who want to enter into same-sex marriages should have equal rights with those who want to enter into opposite-sex marriages,�
or
• “love should prevail over arbitrary legal restrictions.�

I agree with you that it was a mistake to let these arguments become the foundation for the gay marriage argument. As stated, they´re pretty weak, and it´s perfectly understandable that some people would see worrisome implications there.

For the record, I don´t think that all people necessarily have a right to marry whomever they choose- this raises the obvious spectre of, say, a father marrying his five-year-old daughter. It´s important to clarify that we´re talking about what consenting adults do, not “just anyone”. Under similar reasoning, I think it´s simplistic to say “It´s none of my business whom someone else marries"- although on an individual, day-to-day basis this is largely true. I would generally agree with the sentiment that “people who want to enter into same-sex marriages should have equal rights with those who want to enter into opposite-sex marriages,â€? except that the inelegant phrasing suggests more than is probably intended. It seems to imply that entering into one or the other relationship is an arbitrary decision, which I think is ludicrous. I would say more that same-sex relationships which fulfill the same functions as a marriage should be recognized as such. And finally, the “love should prevail over arbitrary legal restrictionsâ€? is just silly. It is certainly the most slippery-slope making of the arguments, and it implies that the only reason for equal marriage is to “recognize love” or something similarly amorphous and namby-pamby.

If I were in charge of the gay marriage PR campaign, these are the arguments I would present:

1. The legal recognition and protection of a relationship between two consenting adults is stabilizing and ultimately good for society. This is demonstrated by social science, tradition, and common sense.

2. It is bad for society, and potentially devastating for all of the individuals involved, if people marry against their sexual orientation.

3. It is bad for society if people are unable to enter a societally useful, major institution simply because of their sexual orientation.

4. Legal recognition of gay marriage may have unintended effects. However, not having gay marriage has known effects, which are ultimately detrimental to individuals and society, possibly to an even greater degree than we now realize.

5. The civil institution of marriage is and should remain separate from the religious institution.

I have no idea if those arguments would be more persuasive, but I´ve tried to address people´s concerns about the issue and to not be dismissive of the counter-arguments.

I didn´t mention anything specific about the slippery-slope issue which seems to get brought up the most, which is polygamy. However, I have tried to present my case for gay marriage using some of the argument from tradition, rather than discarding it or weakening it. As such, it could still be applicable to arguments against polygamy. Moreover, polygamy is a fundamentally different issue, particularly if one doesn´t give credence to arguments such as “love über alles” or whatever. Does anyone really think that not allowing a gay person to marry one partner is anything like not allowing someone to marry multiple partners? Moreover, if our argument for marriage equality is that binding two people together creates a stabilizing unit that is good for society, then the legalization of gay marriage could actually be seen as strengthening the argument against polygamy.

To further address the slippery slope, I can only say that universal suffrage, civil rights, and any number of other innovations DID have unforeseen effects. For example, some have claimed that desegregation undercut the independence of the black community, and led to the problems in inner cities that we have today. Assuming that´s true, it doesn´t change the fact that it was the right thing to do. We have a tendency to evaluate the consequences of social policy in the short term, looking at the effects over 10 years, or 30 years. It´s understandable that we do so, but it´s important to think on a wider scale. I mean, the year after the Emancipation Proclamation, there were probably a lot more black people not getting regular meals than the year before. That´s hardly a compelling argument for slavery.

We often hear about all of the horrible consequences stemming from all of the social upheavals of the 1960´s, but honestly it´s still too soon to really tell. In any case, a lot of what happened then was inevitable. It was inevitable that eventually women would demand the right to work outside of the home, for example. It was always a question of when, not if. While it might be worthwhile to look at unintended negative consequences of this trend, it´s pointless to consider whether or not it should have been “allowed” to happen- it was going to happen regardless.

I think marriage equality is a similar phenomenon. It will happen eventually, and probably always would have. The seeds were first placed during the creation of the modern democratic government, where the trend is inexorably against disenfranchisement. I think conservatives would be better off if they would recognize this tendency, and incorporate it rather than condemn it. Gay marriage in the US might be 10 years away, or it might be 150, but it´s gonna happen. Rather than try to prevent it altogether, shouldn´t conservatives simply try to steer it in ways that they feel are productive? For example, why not promote the ideal of a monogomous, two person marriage regardless of gender? This approach would be mindful of reality, while also working to preclude the supposed mockery or total destruction of marriage that concerns them so much, and would also win them even more support from political moderates. I don´t see why tradition and progression can´t co-exist; in fact, they probably should. Some of the more extreme progressive rhetoric amounts to throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and it´s important to have something to balance this viewpoint. Yet if we were in the business of just maintaining the status quo rather than constantly trying to advance, then America wouldn´t even exist.

Consi: “In some cases.  At times within the heterosexual community the impetus for engaging in heterosexual sex is: a strong self-hatred manifesting itself in self-destructive behavior; a desperate attempt to obtain affection and attention, if only for a limited time.  I can think of countless dysfunctional reasons that are the impetus within the heterosexual community.  To write that sex within the homosexual community is only “feel goodâ€? reveals a lack of understanding about human beings and human relationships.”

When I said “feels really, really good”, I was referring to the biological impetus for sexual activity in animals in general, both straight and gay.  The human inclination for affection is indeed a factor, for both heterosexual and homosexual beings.  However, my original point about “feeling good” was in challenge to your allusion that homosexuals are choosing “the wrong sex” due to some maladjustment mechanism.  That is pure arrogance.  For homosexuals, the same gender is the correct gender.  Because it feels good, and the opposite gender does NOT feel good.  Period.  Not because they decided to ‘switch’ because of something someone else did to them.  (No one can ‘switch’. Can you?) It is just a biological fact.  Why do you have such a problem accepting that?

Holli G: Why do you have such a problem accepting that?

He just can’t.
No amount of logic on ‘our’ part can change the programming he has chosen to accept as his ‘truth’.
The only thing that may change it is, if he has a gay son. Then he will be forced to look at and hopefully re-appraise, his truths realistically and accept him unconditionally (and he would because I reckon he’s basically a good bloke as opposed to an arsehole) ... then he may have the wondrous flashing insight that people are just people, not plumbing (as DoF so nicely puts it), and everyone deserves equal rights ... unconditionally.
Until then …

Justin: Unlike the liberals on this board, I want for all children - black, white, and in-between - to be raised by their biological parents. And it is certainly a momentous goal for people who actually care about the wellbeing of children.

I think that liberals also believe that in a perfect world that it is best for children to be raised by their biological parents.  I guess that liberals are just more realistic to realise that we don’t live in a perfect world and that all of the faith in the world is not going to make a perfect world.

Some biological parents (whether liberal or conservative) don’t make good moms or dads, some biological parents don’t have the resources to keep their children, some children are born to a single mother, some childeren have one or both parent’s die, sometimes parents divorce, and any number of other circumstances that result in children not living with their biological parents. 

What would you propose be done with these children who are unable to live in your perfect family? 

There are many different sorts of family situations.  I know of one situation where two gay men had been married; one has a daughter and the other has a son (each of the men didn’t realise that they were gay when they got married).  In one case, the guy’s wife died in a car crash; in the other case, they divorced and sole custody was granted to the father (the mother was abusive).  It is a tragedy when gay guys won’t admit to themselves that they are gay and end up married to a woman, but it happens. 

Except that there are two dads instead of a mom and a dad, the two children are now living in what many people in the middle of the 20th century would have considered to be an ideal family. The two children (in their teens) have been adopted by the other parent and are brother and sister.  Both dads love each other and both dads love both children as their own.  The kids do well in school and are “good kids”.  Both of the dads work, one works from home and has a flexible schedule.  The kids appear to be comfortable discussing anything with either dad.  There was a lady friend who helped their daughter with some of the girly things.  The family has a good income and there is always a parent available in case of an emergency at school.

Justin: In your perfect world, what would have been better for the kids?

itdontmatter, you’ve made some excellent points—I know people in a very similar situation and I am fortunate enough to be an “aunt” to a girl growing up in such a family.

She’s a brilliant, level-headed 12 year old girl who loves both her dads very much and lives in a wonderful home. When she wants a “girly day,” or wants to talk “girl stuff” she comes and has a sleepover with her “Auntie Shelley” for a night. We do all the stuff little girls like to do—paint nails, do hair and all that sort of thing. Her dads both understand her need to spend time with women and she has a lot of great, caring women in her life, including all of her grandmothers and me. Given how difficult and hostile step-families can be, I personally think she’s one very lucky young lady.

When you said,

“It is a tragedy when gay guys won’t admit to themselves that they are gay and end up married to a woman, but it happens.

I think you were correct—it is very sad. Unfortunately, we have historically made such admissions extremely difficult and even dangerous. Many gay men have tried very hard (and very unsuccessfully) to become straight by doing as they were advised by parents, pastors, and families: “Just get married.”

They’ve often hidden in the heterosexual community and tried very hard to have functioning marriages with women with whom they have deep friendships but no sexual interest. The consequence is truly sad for all of them.

Shelley, She and her dads) are very fortunate that she has Auntie Shelley to do girly things with (and to answer questions that her dads are clueless about).  Contrary to the Queer Eye stereotypes, neither dad has any idea about how to style hair, apply makeup, or dress.  I am very pissed at Reparitive Therapy and the bigots who tell gays to get married.

Going back to the original point of this post-The decision by gay advocates to pursue the matter through the courts was poorly thought out.  The Mass. court decision had as much impact on the legal rationale employed by other courts as Kajagoogoo had on the music world. 

Wash. Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban

By CURT WOODWARD
Associated Press Writer

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP)—The Washington Supreme Court upheld the state’s ban on gay marriage Wednesday, dealing the gay rights movement its second major defeat in less than a month in another liberal-leaning state that had been regarded as a promising battleground.

Shelley, would you bring up the other thread in that you and I were having a discussion.  I would like to renew that discussion, but don’t know the thread.  Thanks.

This guy might be onto something though:

We feel really strongly that people need something positive to vote for rather than just being against the marriage ban,” said Sean Duffy, executive director of Coloradans for Fairness and Equality, the group campaigning for domestic partnerships.

The controversial tactic could become a model for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights organizations nationwide in the wake of two major legal defeats in state courts this year and passage of same-sex marriage bans in 19 states since 2004. Marriage bans will be on ballots in at least seven more states this November.

“When gay marriage has gone 0-19 at the polls—including in Oregon, which is not a bastion of Reaganism—it’s time for something different,” said Duffy, who describes himself as a conservative Christian Republican. Duffy, who said he is heterosexual, previously worked for the state’s Republican governor, Bill Owens.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/07/COLORADO.TMP

Expect it to be 0-26, but watch what happens in Colorado with the domestic partnerships.  The reason it should be watched is that the groups seeking to ban gay marriage are doing so through changes in the respective state’s constitution.  Once done, difficult to undo.  So the groups are saying this:

“Domestic partnerships are not a threat to the definition of marriage if we enshrine in our Constitution the definition of marriage as a man and a woman,” said Jon Paul, executive director of Coloradans for Marriage, which is backed by Focus on the Family, the Roman Catholic Church and other conservative and Christian leaders.

Seems that the gay movement’s agenda is being advanced more by a Christian conservative than by the “fuck off, you’re a bigot if you don’t agree with me” liberal. I guess it just goes to show that a good ol’ fashioned Christian conservative can figure out that a few dabs of honey will attract ya more flies than a whole pot of vinegar. I’ll leave the reader to draw the conclusion about what it says about the liberals who can’t figure this out.

No, the gay movement’s agenda for equality is being sidetracked by a Christian conservative who is advocating the equivalent of the same “separate but equal” which was a whole lot of the former but not very much of the latter for African-Americans.

What will happen with domestic partnerships?  Probably the same thing that happened in Michigan. If a domestic partnership starts to look and smell ANYTHING like a real marriage (that is, it carries the same legal benefits and protections), the BIGOTS (yes, I will keep saying that) will try to fight it off again.

It’s not a question of semantics, Consi, and you know it.  It’s a question of denying equality to a portion of our adult population. 

Tell you what.  How about if we tell every BIGOT who’s against gay marriage that they can vote for “Something Positive” that’s exactly like marriage except it’s called “mawwiage”?  Think that’ll work?  Think that’ll erase all that illusory hatred and fear of homosexuals?

You’re smug now, Consi, but time is not on your side.

You got the Kajagoogoo reference.  :D

I will readily agree with you that it is not a question of semantics.  I will also agree with you that nothing you do or say will impact the BIGOTS (I’ll even go all caps with you for the extra emphasis on big, which was a nice touch btw). 

You shouldn’t care about the BIGOTS though.  You should care about those that are not BIGOTS. The decision to not distinguish amongst the varying types of people opposed to gay marriage was a colossal mistake.  The result is that Ufreker and Volokh are much more effective in their advocacy than the current leaders of the gay rights movement. 

GM, you appear to be banking on the youth of the country as a basis for your statement that “time is not on my side.” The problem is a majority of high school students oppose same-sex marriage, even in California.  Assuming the next generation doesn’t experience a “conservative” shift as they age, (something we know happens) the majority of future voters in the United States is composed mostly of BIGOTS.

Zogby International and Hamilton College polls of high school seniors:

Professor Dennis Gilbert and students from his public opinion polling class have conducted polls with the help of Zogby International. They sampled the opinion of one thousand randomly selected U.S. high school seniors on matters related to homosexuality, in 2001 and 2005. The margin of error is ± 3%.

In their 2001-Spring “Gay Issues Poll” of “the class of 2001” high school students, they found:
• 66% feel that same-sex marriages (SSM) should be legal. This compared to about 33% of adults, according to polls at that time conducted by the Associated Press, Gallup and the LA Times.

Several factors influenced their support (or lack of support) for same-sex marriage:
• 84% of students, who would expect their parents to be accepting of a gay friend, favored SSM.
• 80% of Roman Catholics support SSM in spite of strong opposition by their church.
• 80% of Jews support SSM. (The accuracy of this value may be low because of the low sample size)
• 78% of students who has a close gay friend support SSM
• 59% of those who know a gay person favor SSM
• 55% of those who don’t know a gay person favor SSM

On other matters related to homosexuality:
• 78% disagree with the statement “Lesbians are disgusting.”
• 77% believe that “gays contribute to society in unique and positive ways.”
• 71% believe that adult homosexual behavior should be legal.
• 71% would allow gay men to serve as Scout leaders.
• 69% disagree with the statement “Gay men are disgusting.”
• 68% would allow gay couples to adopt children.

In their 2005 “Hot Button Issues Poll” on abortion, homosexuality and gun control, they found that:
• 53.6% support same-sex marriage.
• 20.1% support civil unions for same-sex couples.
• 24.6% oppose same-sex marriage and civil unions.
• 1.7% are unsure or gave no response.

On related matters:
• 25.8% support an amendment to the U.S. constitution to ban same-sex marriage
• 63% support adoption by same-sex couples.

These data are important because they represent the opinions of high school students who are about to graduate and will soon be voting. In a generation or two, they will be political leaders.

The pollsters commented:

“Approximately 20 percent of high school seniors are staunchly anti-gay – that is, they reject both gay marriage and civil unions and hold negative attitudes toward gays, as measured by our index. Over 80 percent of antigay seniors believe that ‘homosexual relations between consenting adults’ should be illegal and regard gay people as ‘disgusting.’ Both attitudes are rare among seniors, outside this anti-gay minority. Many of our respondents thought the very notion of labeling gays ‘disgusting’ was laughable. Antigay seniors are typically observant and born-again Christians, who view homosexuality as a moral or religious issue.”

Consi: GM, you appear to be banking on the youth of the country as a basis for your statement that “time is not on my side.â€? The problem is a majority of high school students oppose same-sex marriage, even in California.  Assuming the next generation doesn’t experience a “conservativeâ€? shift as they age, (something we know happens) the majority of future voters in the United States is composed mostly of BIGOTS.

Ulfrekr: These data are important because they represent the opinions of high school students who are about to graduate and will soon be voting. In a generation or two, they will be political leaders.

The pollsters commented:

“Approximately 20 percent of high school seniors are staunchly anti-gay – that is, they reject both gay marriage and civil unions and hold negative attitudes toward gays, as measured by our index. Over 80 percent of antigay seniors believe that ‘homosexual relations between consenting adults’ should be illegal and regard gay people as ‘disgusting.’ Both attitudes are rare among seniors, outside this anti-gay minority. Many of our respondents thought the very notion of labeling gays ‘disgusting’ was laughable. Antigay seniors are typically observant and born-again Christians, who view homosexuality as a moral or religious issue.�

I can’t help myself…

OWNED!!! 

(just being silly, heh)

Yeah.

Many teenagers, particularly boys, are known to go through homophobic stages. Luckily, they often outgrow such silliness and immaturity (aside from the ones who are decidedly fundie). The trends consistently and happily reveal that young people are growing more and more tolerant of homosexuality as time elapses.