That is not only NOT a fact, it is a baldfaced lie. The fact is gay men are no more or less likely to molest a child. Because heterosexuals make up a large majority of the population, most molestations are done by heterosexual men. That is the fact of the matter. If you continue to base your beliefs on Junk science, then you will continue to believe this lie.

Homophobia is defined as a fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. But most, if not all, hatred is based on fear. So, homophobia also encompasses those who hate homosexuals in additon to those who fear us.

Disagreeing with you does not make one a cyber bully.

um, actually, originally Thomas Jefferson said "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Property"
and that really only applied to white, landowning males who came here from Europe
(they would be the 'all men are created equal' part of the equation)

(and of course did NOT apply to Jefferson's own children by his teenage slave girl, you can't tell me that was
NOT a pedophilic relationship, secretly engaged in by one of the Fathers of our Country, what a great role model)

Being homophobic does NOT mean 'hating gays' it literally, like all other 'phobia' terms, means 'fear of gays'
and there are those of us who have good reason to do so. It does not mean we hate men, or gays, it does mean that perhaps we have seen things that are not healthy for any living being and would not wish on anyone and unfortunately those things are inexorably gay-related. So give us a break.

PROPORTIONATE to the general population, gay males commit many more pedophilic acts than any other group. That is a fact. Sorry.

But why should this be any news to probable chickenhawks ? And definite cyberbullies ?

The debate about whether homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality is really a waste of energy. In many cultures throughout history gays have been revered for their "sensitivities". In others, like modern-day America, they've been persecuted legally, financially, physically. My experience with Americans is that their country is the land of the free so long as we understand the limited definition of American Freedom. I've also learned that it's the home of the brave because you have to be either very brave or very stupid to speak up for justice, equality, peace, compassion, and respect.

Just a reminder - holmie2, alaskamaid, chessgames56 - that America was based on some self-evident truths; "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It didn't become "one nation under god" until 1954.

Um.... The thing is, what if you have faith in Christ, and you're still gay? Perhaps my moral compass is still a bit off... Let's see what lessons our straight and religious brethren have imparted to us of late... The whole thing where several dozen priests raped all those kids. Not really my thing... Or am I supposed to marry some girl, get drunk, and beat her up every night? Of course I'd go to confessional in the morning... oh, or maybe, I'll just divorce her, and then do it all over again - 8 times. For good measure I suppose I could just marry for money and cheat like crazy. Oh, I know, I could marry for the money, and then steal *half* of it in a lengthly, languishing settlement. Obviously for me personally I'd need to get a pre-nup - yet another bastion of acceptable marriage policy.

Gosh there's such a wide buffet of divine heterosexual debauchery to choose from - I see the light! Because any of those things are obviously far more morally sound than me marrying my "boyfriend" of almost 5 years and starting a family. How could I have been so foolish to think that the best thing for kids would be a stable, loving home? Clearly it's the type of intercourse that counts.

Not an iota of truth to anything you just said. I do not feel guilty. I do not feel bad for being gay.

None of your reasons for being gay are valid. All of those factors have been debunked for decades. For the record, my father wore the pants in the family. He was not abusive. I was not molested... blah blah blah.. Science says that my brain is more similar to a woman's in the area of sexuality. Basically when my eye catches the image of a man and that image is transmitted to the brain, the brain decides if I like that or not. Just as the brain decides the issue for heterosexuals. It has nothing to do with choice. Nothing to do with being abused. Nothing environmental at all.

You do have a reason to lie to us, though you do not see it as a lie. Your reason is that you cannot face the idea that a teaching of your bible, which you regard as God's immutable word, could be wrong. Thus you won't even consider all of the teachings you disregard and reject already. Nor would you admit that you do.

I appreciate your sincerity. But you are just wrong on the issue, and it is so patronizing and offensive that you can take something as concrete as sexual orientation and denigrate it to a morally bad choice, and thus a sin in your mind.. and therefore justify discrimination.

Please, set yourself free by breaking away from such a mindless literalism.

There is a book, "Rescuiing the Bible from Fundamentalism" by an Episcopalian bishop - John Shelby Spong. Please read the book, and open your mind to truth from other sources than just the bible.

First off, here are a couple of incredible voices about being set free. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A20l6HFL0Qs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNTYOaal5pw&feature=related

You shall know the truth and the Truth shall set you free. Aquiteman and Ahuramazda, I must testify of the goodness of God. I had my own demons and sins that had me bound but by the Grace of Jesus, He not only forgave me but healed my wounded Spirit and heart. He deals with the inward man and He knows exactly what you've been through and has the cure and the antidote if you seek Him. The truth is, it's not society or Christians that make you feel bad, it's your very own conscience that your fighting against. You think that if society accepts and affirms your error, you'll feel better. But guess what, even if everyman, woman, child, on earth says its ok, you still won't be happy because you are fighting against unmoveable truth. The truth is that most men become homosexuals because they have been sinned against. Some reasons are: there wasn't a father figure in your life affirming you of your manhood, or some perv seduced you at a young age, or your mother wore the pants in the house and your father was passive, and last but not least, it could be a generational sin that runs in the family that has passed on to you. Whatever the case, God knows and weeps over you and can brake this curse and other curses in your life. I have no reason to lie to you. You can be set free from all this through faith in Christ.
God Bless you

And I have to take your first sentence to task as well:

"It is possible to not be pro-gay agenda without being anti-gay."

The gay agenda is nothing more than securing the same rights everyone else has so that we may have the same opportunity for happiness, and the same securities that you have. The gay agenda is about equality and nothing more.

If you are not pro-gay agenda, then you are in fact anti- gay because with your votes and your arguments to others, you are helping to prevent gay people from reaching our full potential for happiness in this life. And that is pretty anti in my opinion.

What you need to try to do is step out of your own shoes, and imagine walking in ours. Imagine being bombarded your entire life with negative messages about yourself and your existence. Imagine not having the hope of being able to form a family. Of not having the same rights and protections as your brothers. As having the disdain of your own family, and losing many relationships and your church, etc and etc if you dare to be who you are openly.

If you can imagine that then you might just not be so willing to resist an entire class of people simply asking to be treated fairly and equally.

Chessgames, you again prove that you do not understand the dynamics at work here.

We only insist on the right to live our lives openly and with the same dignity and rights as you have. In the mind of a homophobic person, that translates into 'getting into people's faces with it.' A totally irrational position if you really think about it.

Nobody is asking you to 'agree' with anything. IN fact, there is nothing to agree with. Sexual orientation is a reality, and the various shades of it have existed from day one. It just is. It isn't something to agree with or disagree with anymore than someone saying they don't agree with blond hair.

But you will have to accept that we exist and have rights, including the right to live as God created us. It is utterly unimportant whether you like it or not. We'd like for you to feel comfortable around us and to be friends with us, but it is not necessary.

If a boy and a girl kiss on the street - being themselves openly, that is just fine. But if a boy and a boy kissed on the street, they would be accused of getting in the faces of the people who saw it. It's a double standard. And it's one that we just aren't going to accept anymore. As the older generation dies out, and the younger one matures, it won't be much of an issue.

The fact that you again use the word 'lifestyle' also shows your ignorance. There are as many and varied lifestyles for gay people as for straights... not just one. There is no 'gay lifestyle.'

If you do not feel that being gay is fine and dandy... you do indeed have the right to say so. Nobody is stating that you don't. We all know what the first amendment is. But those of you who feel this way need to know that we also have first amendment rights. And when you participate in a discussion or a forum on this subject, and exercise your right to 'say so,' we are going to exercise our right to argue the point with you.

Can you accept that we have first amendment rights too? And that includes the right to call a prejudice a prejudice, even if the bigoted person holding the prejudiced view doesn't like it.

It is possible to not be pro-gay agenda without being anti-gay. Personally, I say live and let live but, hey, if you want to get in peoples faces with it, you're gonna meet resistance. It's as simple or as complicated as that. And just because people do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, does not make them homophobes.

If you do not feel that being gay is just fine and dandy, you have a right to say so without getting slandered or blasted for it. What gays really crave it seems is to have others regard their lifestyle as perfectly natural and normal, and for people to see it as merely another choice. Sorry, but for whatever reason, many of us simply do not feel that way.

I will say this - I do not believe holmie2 and alaskamaid! They are angry because gay people are able to be married in California - that may stop this November. Yet both of these people are complaining.

holmie2 - google "ahuramazda." You may find this word interesting.

Ahuramazda, I understand your anger. And I share it. But I can't agree that Christianity is the worse religious institution in treatment of gays.

At least we aren't being hung and executed like the homosexuals in Iran and Iraq are experiencing. Islam is a much harsher religion on us than Christianity. Though Christianity has affected us more personally.

Basically all organized religion has a very negative dark influence on the principles of freedom and liberty for all.

Holmie,

I am not deceived, you are. You are listening to the dark side of religion. And apparently don't understand the difference.

God created all of us. As far as I'm concerned Adam and Eve weren't even real people. We know Genesis was written after Exodus and Leviticus, and was penned by Jewish writers while being held captive in Babylon. It was an attempt to explain to their people how humans came to be.

Regardless, even if they were real. They would have been the same race, and had the same language, and either the same or one of two colors of eyes and hair. Yet from those two sprang a wide diversity in the human race. All kinds of skin colors, hair colors, eye colors, and yes, sexual orientations. That God used two heterosexuals to begin the human race only shows that he knew what he was doing to get it started, not that he didn't have a purpose for homosexuality in their progeny.

So I disagree. I don't know that he created the literal Adam and Eve... but he did create Adam and Eve heterosexuals, and he most certainly created Adams and Steves that were not heterosexual.

YOu lie when you say 'thousands of Sodomites' have been changed. You do not even know what you are speaking of. I happen to be one that went through one of those religous programs, and I know nobody changed. There may be people who are biologically bisexual who suppressed their same sex desires to appear like they've changed, but that is all.

You cannot quote the Bible to me as some kind of authority on what is and isn't God's thought. Otherwise you would also have to defend Slavery and the subjugation of women. We evolved past those two biblical teachings, and we are in the process of moving beyond the heterosexism of the bible too.

You obviously don't even know what the true meaning of the sin of Sodom is. It has only had the homosexual misinterpretation for the last 800 years. Prior to that the true meaning of it was known. It is known today, but it is such a tradition to regard it as homosexuality that the word sodomy has become synonomous with homosexuality. If you knew the true meaning, you would understand that you, and those like you are the true sodomites.

"Ahuramazda, your hurting no one but yourself with your perceived hateful speech."

One - believe it or not, English is not my primary language. You have spelled "your" wrong in this context. Perhaps English is not your primary language either. I find Yahweh to be a fiction - very strongly!

Second - I believe that talking about hateful speech by Christians and Jews (hypocrisy at its most fine) is rather fun.

"Nevertheless, when you are saved (I hope) from yourself by believing in the precious blood of Jesus Christ, you will have weeped over the things you have said and done."

Let us remember that Jesus was put to death because Rabbis disagreed with his take on Judaism and did all they could to convince Pontius Pilate to execute Jesus for being a heretic in their minds. I think the Jews double-crossed him; yet, you believe in the Jewish God. I do not weep. I refuse to believe in a God that does not find favor with his whole creation. You also seem to question whether or not your God is named Yahweh. Sometimes the Judeo-Christian God is named Jehovah - but uhhhh...I am sure you are unaware of even what the name of the God you worship is - yet you profess that the Jewish God is the true God. Read before criticism please. Besides, "Judge not lest thou be judged." Since I am neither a Christian nor Jewish, judging me, as the Christian you are, goes against your faith.

"[...] my heart will be filled with JOY and peace."

Let me tell you something - the Jewish God, not to mention the Jewish people, has created NOTHING but misery throughout my life!

"There is no peace for the wicked."

Well...please tell this to the citizens of Israel before judging homosexuals negatively. Ok? Thank you...

Ahuramazda, your hurting no one but yourself with your perverted hateful speech. Nevertheless, when you are saved( I hope) from yourself by believing in the precious blood and sacrafice of Jesus Christ, you will weep over the things you've said and done. When you find out that this Yahwey is real and His word is true, your heart will fill with JOY and Peace. There is no peace for the wicked. Ahuramazda, God didn't create sin, man chose to do his own thing and this fallen world is the result of our sinful choices. He hates sin because it destroys us.

Aquietman---Do not decieve yourself, God didn't create homosexuals, He clearly created Adam and EVE, not Steve. His word is very clear that man is only to lay with a women in a commited marriage. Any other kind of sex is immoral and cursed. Sodomy is even a higher degree of immorality and wickedness. I don't say this to condemn you for you are already condemned wether you are a sodomite or not. At the age of accountability we all are(condemned) because we are born into it. Jesus came to set us free and save us from condemnation and curses. Oh yeah aquitman, thousands of former sodomites have been healed of their perverted sexuality and are now in loving relationships with the opposite sex. Something only the Living God can do!!
Blessings

Homosexuals should NEVER feel regret for being such. Yet, some feel this way. Why? Well...perhaps it was how the individual was raised during childhood. Some homosexuals become very angry with the discovery for being such - and it takes YEARS sometimes for the individual to make his peace. Thank you Christianity.

aquietman - you bring up a good point about how some Christians are ok with gay marriage. My problem with Christianity as a whole is that there is not a consensus among this issue within the entire Christian community. Some Christians are fine with gay marriage some are not. This demonstrates some degree of confusion in my mind - especially squaring this reality with the notion that Christianity is the ultimate culmination of all truth in regards to the History of religion.

The point I was trying to make is that Christianity - as a concept - is the most common representation of GLBT oppression. The most common reason why gay people are viewed as second-class citizens throughout the world is due to this concept (due to religion in general but in the case of the USA, it is due to Christianity in my humble opinion). Indeed, if the gay marriage legalization in California is revoked, it will be due to a belief in Christianity.

I dedicate this post to all gay people who have commited suicide due to their mistaken belief (via spoon-fed by vermin such as alaskamaid) that the Judeo-Christian God found him unworthy of the love of Yahweh for being such.

Boy you are a work.

The affair they portrayed is a textbook definition of adultery, not pedophilia. The women may have been dependant, but they were still adults. Nobody is going to buy an attempt to 'child them down.'

Pedophilia is attraction or sex with children.

Their wives and each other were all grown people. No child was involved in anything.

If society had offered these two gay characters (played by straight actors) the acceptance they should have had (not to mention an absence of the dangers they faced in the era the story took place), and if they had the option of being together in marrage available to them, do you think they would ever have married the women to begin with?

You do not see that both the men and the women in that story were victims. Homophobes see only the women as victims. All of them were.

You can't tell uneducated young men that they are abnormal and that the only way to fit in is to marry a woman, and fill their heads that all they have to do is pray to Jesus to get 'cured' and then not see a bunch of marriages taking place that involve gay men. My own bishop told me at 19 to get married as a means of 'curing' myself. I asked him if I should tell her beforehand, and he said no... 'why risk it?' He said sex with a woman was so wonderful that it would surely right the wrong in me, and she would never need to know.

Gay Mormon men were advised that road for decades... and they put their faith in their religious leaders and obeyed their counsel... and the result was a lot of broken homes and broken hearts for everyone.

But homophobes like you, alaskamaid, only see culpability in the men.

You have a chip on your shoulder, and it has clouded your judgement. I know the burden you bear is tremendous, but I won't accept from anyone that homosexuality has any m ore or less to do with pedophilia than heterosexuality. In fact, most of the child sexual abuse cases in this country are committed by heterosexual men. That truly happens to be a fact.

If by the definition of 'chicken' you are referring to penis, that hardly is a gay definition. Boys in school are constantly joking about choking their chickens... but hey, let's just take a word that is synonomous to the male organ and state it is a 'gay' definition....

Again, whatever, maybe you should watch the end of the movie Me Myself and Irene if you are so ignorant of the queer definition of 'chicken'

Keep circling the wagons, maybe you'll all implode that way. I have said NOTHING obscene on any of these forums but you guys are totally exposing yourselves for the creeps you say you aren't

I only have one last question for the Brokeback Mountain fans on this forum, of which i know aquietman is one: In what way is the relationship of the gay stars of the movie to their wives NOT pedophilic ? These women loved and trusted the men, and through the act of bringing the men's children into this world, placed themselves in a situation where they were financially and socially dependent on their marital relationships. The men enjoyed exclusive sexual access to 'their' wives, while secretly engaged in 'adult' sex behind those wives' backs. Aside from age, that is more or less the textbook definition of pedophilia.)

So. if there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia, why are you guys such big fans of a movie which clearly sanctions this behavior ? Oh yeah, it's all society's fault. And that's such 'sexually mature' thinking. NOT.

Well actually Ahuramazda, I didn't call you on your remarks because I understand your anger. But....

Many Christians have allied themselves with us in our struggle, and even are leaders in the movement. When you address those Christians who misuse their religion to fight gay rights as 'Christians...' you don't make the distinction, and that isn't a very nice thank you to those who have sided with us.

The part about defecating down the Christian God's throat is also not helpful. We need to try and build bridges, not tear them down. Especially with the vote on the amendment coming up. It doesn't help our cause to state an insult like that, when so many are on the fence undecided as to how to vote. THAT kind of statement can lose us potential votes in California in November.

Alaskamaid, the whole McDonalds rant is probably the looniest thing I've seen you write since I've been aware of you. That your mind saw something phallic in it says tons about where the problem is. You wrote warm, buttery tasting buns in caps... what is that supposed to mean other than they are promoting their bread?

I don't know what the 'queer' definition of chicken is, but to my gay mind it just means meat from an animal that is called universally 'chicken.' In spanish, Pollo.

And your link is nothing more than a link to junk science as has been pointed out before when you posted links. When you can support your homophobia with links to statements made by either of the APA's then you may have some credibility.

FFR - do not insult my beliefs again alaskamaid! You are nothing but a worthless piece of s*** and you are very lucky that we do not know each other in person...ok? Let us leave it at that.

Any heterosexual man would rather sleep with a guy than sleep with you alaskamaid - and likewise if you are a closet lesbian. Any individual would find your snatch to be ugly and not smell or taste good.

The reason no one calls on my posts in the regard to gay marriage? Because I am right alaskamaid...and every sane person knows it too!

By the way...what does gay marriage have to do with the McDonald's franchise?

Sounds like it is YOU who is a pervert as well as a worthless skanky b****! What do you have to say about that?...c***!

Oh how lovely, you post a link discussing that statistically (no idea where the data came from. Even if I did know, I would not trust it) homosexuals are more prone to pedophilia than heterosexuals. alaskamaid embodies the Christitan garbage of yesteryear.

What do you have to say about that? Hmmmm?

So why can Ahuramazda say something so gross in his above post and nobody calls him on it ? Just asking.

And if it's not about sexual maturity rather than the juvenile ranting going on here, why was i slapped in the face with the following placemat when i stopped into McDonald's for my weekly fishwich fix yesterday ?
This placemat (tray liner) would be inches from kid's faces while they are eating their happy meals . . .

Bearing in mind the widely understood queer definition of the word 'chicken', the placemat, which features two pickle slices atop a strangely shaped hunk of meat peaking out from the 'soft, buttered buns' says :

"Juiciness SO simple . . . when chicken is this juicy . . . the chicken tastes simply perfect on a WARM, BUTTERY TASTING BUN along with a couple of pickles . . . " (the caps are part of the text, not added by me)

Yeah right, this is perfectly innocent and i am an idiot to think there is a predatorial aspect to sexual relationships. Whatever. Let's all pretend not to notice the dark side and maybe it will go away . . .

Here is a link regarding the forbidden topic of homosexuality and pedophilia, check it out (and don't yell at me for what it says, i am merely providing it as information which is usually surpressed) :
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431

Holmie2

Jesus has never 'healed' anyone for being gay. There is no need. He wouldn't heal someone of something that doesn't need healed. Something that is part of his creation (for those of you who believe Christ is the Creator).

However, you should repent for the prejudice you have allowed into your heart.

"Let's call gay marriage what it is: an attempt by the gay community to promote an agenda, and make their sexual practices more acceptable. For maximum effect, they push the issue especially hard during a national election."

This just isn't true....

We had no say in when the California Supreme court would rule on the issue. I can guarantee you we had nothing to do with the religious zealots who gathered signatures in order to put the issue on the November ballot. Get your facts straight. We would rather the issue not surface during an election - for obvious reasons.

And we don't care whether straight America accepts our sexual practices or not. THAT is not the issue and never was. You simply don't know what you are talking about. It is about rights. it is about forming families. It is about our right to the pursuit of happiness that is supposed to be guaranteed to all Americans.

Like I said previously, the Christians obvioulsly lost and therefore should just accept the fact that gay people can marry in California.

Oh and uhhh...holmie2 If I could, I would urinate and defectate in the mouth of Yahweh for daring to create something he despises. Sleep on that thought - along with the reality that gay people can legally marry in California which obviously you find troubling.

Yahweh - I beseech you to curse your followers and defend those who are persecuted by them in your pathetic name by those who know no better. Amen

Certainly gives marriage a new meaning, but I wonder why this crap starts up every time during a major election. Just what we need now, another wedge issue. This does not seem to be accidental and, of course, we all must be politically correct in this regard, or we're labeled "homophobes." I'm for civil unions, but not for gay marriage. Anyone should be able to enter into any contract they want, as long as both parties agree to the terms. Let's call gay marriage what it is: an attempt by the gay community to promote an agenda, and make their sexual practices more acceptable. For maximum effect, they push the issue especially hard during a national election. What effect will this have on an already divided electorate? There are many more important issues to focus on.

Message for those who want healing.

Not only will your Creator and Sustainer forgive you of making a mockery of the institution(marriage) He created but Jesus will heal your sexuality and supernaturally turn your desires towards the opposite sex if you repent. He loves you but He hates all forms of sin. You must believe that He is and that He will reward those who diligently seek Him. Call on the name of the Lord while He can be found!

God Bless

"Seems imminently sensible. I wonder why I haven't heard anyone else bringing this idea up? Any comments?"

4thefuture.... I don't know why you haven't heard that position before either. It is the Libertarian view and has been for some time.

Unless and until there is a strong movement by heterosexuals in this country to move toward civil unions, we in the gay community aren't going to settle for them.

Not only are we talking about a discrepancy in rights between the two institutions, but there is also a discrepancy in the way the two are viewed. Marriage is seen as something approved of by God. Civil Unions are seen as something less. You know, it's the old 'whites can use a fountain that is designated for whites only, and blacks can use a water hose' type analogy.

We intend to drink from the fountain, so to speak.

For married couples to have financial benefits while unmarried couples and singles do not - with the definition that only marriage be "one man and one woman" -hardly seems fair to unmarried couples and single people. Now I understand that "life is not fair," but for the government to give tax benefits to one demographic - married heterosexual couples - while denying them to single and unmarried couples seems unjust.

How about if the Government denies the financial benefits of married couples? That would be more fair than to deny gay couples marriage. It would be more fair also for an adult the right to marry a teenage person or have more than one spouse. Interesting how the anti gay marriage people conveniently ignore the financial benefits of a marriage when stating their argument.

Even if the argument is made that a gay man can always marry a lesbian strictly for the financial benefits would not be fair to those people who want to marry because each loves one another.

As heterosexual couples have, so will homosexual couples. Do not feel bad though heterosexuals, you can still marry - anywhere and everywhere you want also. Homosexual people do not even have this luxury. Heterosexual people are still the superior group to homsexuals throughout the world and are the supposed "correct" and "natural" people in the eyes of the Judeo-Christian God. So, heterosexuals, stop complaining that gay people can be married in California. Instead, show a little gratitude that heterosexuals are more accepted than homosexuals - even to your God supposedly.

I will close with another message to heterosexuals:

If you are against gay marriage, do not marry someone of the same biological sex. Gay marriage is an option only for those who want to.

Video: Same-Sex Marriages: Orange County, California USA

From behind the Orange Curtain, same-sex couples anxiously awaited their
turn to marry at the Old Orange County Courthouse in Santa Ana, California.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV8-CQRHDmk

"You can call ihomosexual unions what you like but MARRIAGE is - by definition - between a man and a woman."

Not anymore.

BTW: Norway just became the 7th nation in the world to upgrade their civil partnerships into full fledged marriage. Good for them.

It seems that the term "marriage" is a stumbling block for many to get past. Since the term itself is religiously derived, my daughter had a good idea that is that marriage ought not to be sanctioned at all by the state and that civil unions be required for all of those legal benefits that now go with "marriage."

It would seem to solve a lot of the issues that some people object to. On the other hand, it would require that religions get off the backs of taxpayers entirely in this area and that their own religious ceremonies wouldn't be sanctioned in any way by the government, no certificates, no registration, no inheritance, no nothing. If you want that, go have a civil union as well. And civil unions would be available for all consenting adults.

Seems imminently sensible. I wonder why I haven't heard anyone else bringing this idea up? Any comments?

To Hermes7: Of course your point of view is homophobic. All racists claim not to be racist, all anti-semites claim not to be anti-semitic, all homophobes claim not to be homophobic. "Homophobia" means prejudice or bigotry or discimination toward gay and lesbian people. Don't play word-games.

Our love is precisely the same as the love of heterosexuals, and just as deserving of respect and recogition. There is nothing further to be said of that matter.

But it is, as nelson observed, very interesting to realize how homophobic and heterosexist so-called "progressives" can be. It is also very troubling. Either you believe in universal equality or you do not. If the struggle for universal human rights is important, then every victory for same-sex marriage, whether in Norway or California, is important and should be celebrated. To me it is so strange and disappointing that anyone would criticize Common Dreams for valuing lesbians and gay men and our struggle.

How refreshing to see that good ole homophobia is a live and well, even here on Common Dreams. Some of these responses show that even the "progressive" community has some work to do in examining heterosexual privilege. Now it is time that we begin to challenge that fairytale called the Bible, which has been responsible for so much death and destruction. Come on now, a virgin giving birth? Do people really buy that stuff? (truth is once Mary used that line, all of the other unmarried pregnant girls cursed her because she ruined it for them).

You can call ihomosexual unions what you like but MARRIAGE is - by definition - between a man and a woman. I'm anti-war, pro-national health care, anti-racist, pro-environmentalist and "progressive" by any reckoning but I also believe that the State and the Law have an obligation to protect the institution of marriage. These sorts of issues only serve to alienate otherwise progressive voters. (and I'Ii thank you not to label my point of view "homophobic". There is no fear - phobia - involved. i'm perfectly at least with homosexuality. But it is not "marriage". Am I entitled to that view without the politically correct casting me as a homophobe?)

Poet persists:

"It is not marriage that is trivial, it is the state sanctioning of marriages that is the con-game. Those gay couples who have their magic 'certificate of marriage' are no more or less "married" than they were before obtaining those magical "certifricates". Those certificates will do nothing except allow those possessing them to show their fealty to the conforming power issuing them."

Utter nonsense.

Those certificates will give a plethera of rights that didn't exist prior. Are you not aware of the rights marriage brings. Aside from basic inheritance rights and the rights to make decisions for the other, there are over 1000 federal rights and benefits that come with that certificate.

Nobody, gay or straight would have those rights or benefits without the certificate being sanctioned by the state. It is that simple. Religions do not confer benefits or recognition. Simply choosing to live with someone will not give a anyone those rights and recognition.

Only government can do that. Thus the idea that they are no more or less married now with a state sanctioned certificate is utter nonsense.

There is nothing 'magic' about it. It is simply the reality of the matter.

Everyone here knows that.

It is time to cease and desist..

Arvy, thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood. I thought that by the term "non-issue" you mean "unimportant" or "trivial."

As for separating the issue of marriage from the right of gay men and lesbians to a life of dignity - I don't think it can be done. Along with the very important legal rights and responsibilities attendant upon marriage, marriage is also a "status" or an "identity." Marriage is a recognition by the culture of the dignity and worth of the relationship, and of the individuals who form it. Dignity and worth is precisely what gay men and lesbians have always been denied, through violence, taunts, jail, enforced invisiblity, sodomy laws, psychiatric abuse, etc. There are many aspects of our struggle; marriage is just one of them, but an important, necessary, and even crucial one. Nothing could establish the essential dignity of gay men and lesbians in the public mind so firmly as our ability to enter into legally recognized lifelong loving partnerships. Even those gay men and lesbians who choose never to enter into a legal marriage will benefit from the shift in cultural attitude.

To those who think marriage is simply mindless conformism, not worth fighting for . . . well, I would just ask that heterosexuals stop trying to dictate the way gay men and lesbians live and form relationships. That has been going on to long, in fact thousands of years too long. Allow us to choose for ourselves; offer us minimal respect; do not denigrate our struggle or try to dictate our strategy and tactics. We know what we are doing.

It is best for people who live in the US state of California to accept the fact that gay people can have legal marriages there. It is futile to resist Christians - just as it was when you tried your best to ensure that interracial couples could not marry after that became legal. You lost the fight Christians so...deal with it! Ok?

Perhaps Christians could instead lobby for such isues as making divorce more difficult, legalizing polygamy, or even advocate for adults to marry teenage people - rather than lobby for the prohibition of gay marriage. After all, the former examples are more in line with biblical standards that the USA has chosen not to become law.

We hear so much about "sexual orientation" in these discussions as if it is pre-ordained from birth the same way your hair color or body shape , etc are determined.

Maybe it would be more accurate to refer to "brain orientation" because that is the reason for the homosexual condition in most cases, and that explains the dramatic increase in the last decade or two.

For that matter, even heterosexual behaviour is controlled by the brain, not by one`s bodily functions.

bellejared___ interesting that the term "queers" has not been used much lately, but it was the only way homosexuals were described until they misappropriated the term "gay".

Please check your heterosexual privilege at the door before you declare this a "non-issue" or "poor-timing." I love how the civil rights of Queers isn't news worthy to many so-called "Progressives."

Fair enough. I stand rebuked. :^)

Arvy,

To answer your original question, which was:

".....how do you select your top headline items?"

Maybe they make the selection on what story the major news organizations are exploiting the most. Or, maybe it's just because this is the first day of gay marriages - and that they feel many people have an interest in it.

It doesn't have to be 'life and death,' Blood and Gore (or Bush) all the time...

ECS June 17th, 2008 9:12 pm -- 'I want to reply to Arvy, who posted a comment saying that "progressives" consider the human rights of gay men and lesbians to be a "non-issue."'

That's not what I said. First of all, I referred specifically to same-sex marriage, not to gay rights generally nor to 'the struggle of gay men and lesbians for a life of dignity'. Secondly, when I said it was a 'non-issue', I meant only that it was generally accepted by most progressives without much controversy. I acknowledge its societal importance (at least symbolicly) to those concerned. I just don't happen to think that its significance overwhelms many other global issues with lower rankings in today's CD headlines.

Poet,

I do not believe I was projecting my opinions on anyone. That accusation could be used against anyone participating here, yourself included.

Your assertion that this issue is trivial is an insult to those of us who have been denied the rights and recognition that come with it. With your attitude on marriage, I certainly hope, for her sake, that you are not married.

Does the basis of the Bill of Rights mean anything to you? You know, the right of all people to the pursuit of happiness? Apparently not if anyone sees marriage as a vehicle to that happiness.

Your opinion that marriage is trivial and that it is a con game is just that - an opinion. And the question that begs to be asked is this: If marriage is so trivial, and worthy of such contempt by you... why have you expended so much energy on this thread and others regarding the gay marriage issue - rather than using your valuable time commenting on issues of life and death?

A Quietman asserts:

"We're not the ones who will wake up to reality. It is the homophobes who have fought this who will wake up and realize their marriages haven't been affected at all."

***************

Methinks you overestimate the learning capacity of homphobes or other bigoted people. Still, your assertion is interesting and falls right into the trap of such bigoted people who frequently assert that "gay rights" is nothing more than a proselyting tool to lure straights into their lifestyle. (I know, I know, this is just a bunch of nonsensical bs but so are most of the reasonings of bigoted people).

****************

Quietman then sermonizes:

Overall maturity is evident when one accepts that people are people and what is natural for one is not natural for others - and supports everyone's right to an equal chance of happiness and togetherness. I hope you can reach that point someday.

***********************

I couldn't agree with your point above more and would add that another sign of maturity is to not project your own opinions on to others.

*************************

Little Brother proclaims:

Yo, Poet, I can feel those clenched teeth from here!

Your comment reminded me of a party I attended (pre-9/11/01), in which some would-be academic with advanced degrees (in what, I never learned) solemnly lamented that the present younger generation didn't have the Great Issues to wrestle with like we did in the Sixties. He ticked them off: Civil Rights, The War, The Sexual Revolution.

***************

My teeth were not (and are not now) clenched. My intended point was exactly opposite of the would-be Professor Perkins (See Jen Sorenson's great comic "Slopoke" if you are not familiar with this character).

All of us, gay, strraight, black, white, (yellow brown, and red too!), male, female, north south, etc. have so many more serious things to ponder and wrestle with that this, by comparison, is just so much trivial pursuit.

State sanctioning of relationships (which was the original and intended focus of my comment) is nothing much more than a conformist con-game that those who are in power play on those who are not. Those two elderly gents pictured (and the octogenarian lesbians prominently married in SF) will not have their relationship change one iota now that they have their "marriage certifricate".

******************

Little Brother concludes:

Anyhoo, no grinchy cavilling will disrupt my heterosexual ass from performing an incipient conga dance for the remainder of the day.

****************

Since I believe that we should all dance at least 5 minutes daily (10 is much preferred but 5 is a kind of emotional MDR)I would urge you to enjoy the celebration, but remember when the dancing stops that our world is still in great need of concerted action on so many other issues that are truly matters of life and death.

Copenhagen,

It will never be legal for you to marry your dog. Why do idiots always have to bring up animals or incest or polygamy on this issue.

Bestiality, Polygamy and incest have no more to do with homosexual unions than they do with heterosexual unions. They have nothing to do with marriage.

Grow the fuck up!

I want to reply to Arvy, who posted a comment saying that "progressives" consider the human rights of gay men and lesbians to be a "non-issue." I find this attitude extremely disturbing. Progressives in fact believe in the liberation of the oppressed. The long and arduous struggle of gay men and lesbians for a life of dignity is one of the great international movements for social justice in our time. Same-sex marriage rights in the U.S. (even though limited still to just two states out of 50, with no federal recognition at all) is a landmark achievement. It is deeply homophobic to consider the human rights of gay men and lesbians to be a "non-issue."

So, when will it be legal for me to marry my dog? We have such a connection! Maybe I could even get a tax break!

Oh, boy! Now LGBT's can become conservative suburbanites, too! OK, many already are, but the point is that gaining equality under the present illegitimate system is a small victory, indeed. Granted, at this point in history, since various important rights hinge upon holy matrimony (I want to puke!), it is cruel to deny these benefits to those with alternate lifestyles, but we need to aim a little higher. If anything, marriage should be abolished for straights, not extended to others! It is really a form of business contract that has a slavery element to it.

The left should better realize that homosexual is not the same as progessive. What is really needed is to replace the stifling, murderous, repressive capitalist/nationalist system with an international socialist order. This will attack bigotry at its roots - economic scarcity. Build the party of socialist revolution!

"sexual maturity is an undervalued asset..."

This from a woman who insists every gay relationship has an element of man-boy love to it, and every straight relationship has an element of man-girl love to it...

Huh?

Sexual maturity has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Sexual maturity exists and does not exist in relationships that are gay or straight.

Overall maturity is evident when one accepts that people are people and what is natural for one is not natural for others - and supports everyone's right to an equal chance of happiness and togetherness. I hope you can reach that point someday.

Yo, Poet, I can feel those clenched teeth from here!

Your comment reminded me of a party I attended (pre-9/11/01), in which some would-be academic with advanced degrees (in what, I never learned) solemnly lamented that the present younger generation didn't have the Great Issues to wrestle with like we did in the Sixties. He ticked them off: Civil Rights, The War, The Sexual Revolution.

NOW, he opined, there are only these MINOR "issues" or "causes" that they have to inflate into something earth-shaking: vegetarianism, humane treatement of animals, the environment, "gay rights".

I enclose the last in quotes because that's how I heard it. If he didn't actually SAY "much ado about nothing", that was the gravamen of his argument. I did point out that since gay people were still subject to occasional crucifixion due to their sexual identity (this wasn't long after the Matthew Shepard murder), it probably seemed a worthy enough cause for THEM.

It wasn't an argument, and the monologue either petered out or was interrupted.

Anyhoo, no grinchy cavilling will disrupt my heterosexual ass from performing an incipient conga dance for the remainder of the day. 8)

Judging from the hetero marriages I have observed over many years once the honeymoon is over it becomes some heavy lifting to keep
it going on. I wish all the happy newly weds the best of effort and reward!! I welcome, not fear, progressive change like this in an election year it will help to magnify the predictable vile behaviour of the reactionary right in this country. As a famous American philosopher once said, " Bring it On!"

kernel -- i suppose people would say that it's 'natural' since when we ran a colt and a young bull together in the same field the colt liked riding around on the bull's back, but also naturally when they matured and were with their own kind they both sired absolutely beautiful babies . . . sexual maturity is an undervalued asset . . .

"All those gay and Lesbian couples will wake up tomorrow (or whenever the day after their big event is)and realize that nothing much has changed. Welcome to the reality of state sanctioned relationships which have about as much validity as state sanctioned anything else.."

Nothing much has changed? Are you nuts? The security and legal rights are a pretty big something.

Their day to day lives will not have changed much. Which means....????...

We're not the ones who will wake up to reality. It is the homophobes who have fought this who will wake up and realize their marriages haven't been affected at all.

Sodoma County

Yuck! (I'll deal with it.)

So now gays can get married in CA and MA and meanwhile...can we get back to some real serious threats to everyone else on the planet? Things like war, climate change, water depletion, imperialism, etc.

All those gay and Lesbian couples will wake up tomorrow (or whenever the day after their big event is)and realize that nothing much has changed. Welcome to the reality of state sanctioned relationships which have about as much validity as state sanctioned anything else..

A quietman persists:

Your assertion that this issue is trivial is an insult to those of us who have been denied the rights and recognition that come with it. With your attitude on marriage, I certainly hope, for her sake, that you are not married.

a quietman continues persistently:

Your opinion that marriage is trivial and that it is a con game is just that - an opinion. And the question that begs to be asked is this: If marriage is so trivial, and worthy of such contempt by you… why have you expended so much energy on this thread and others regarding the gay marriage issue - rather than using your valuable time commenting on issues of life and death?

******************

Okay, one more time and I promise that if you still do not get it I will cease and desist my efforts to explain it to you.

It is not marriage that is trivial, it is the state sanctioning of marriages that is the con-game.

Those gay couples who have their magic "certificate of marriage" are no more or less "married" than they were before obtaining those magical "certifricates". Those certificates will do nothing except allow those possessing them to show their fealty to the conforming power issuing them.

Bo held a giant sign that read, "Homo sex is a threat to national security...unless it is two young attractive girls going at it...that is just a threat to my PANTS!!"

kelmer___For a change, I will agree with you that animals seem more intelligent than humans. However, the reason for that is that they have great memories, but do not think so well, and just concentrate on existing as well as possible. Humans get themselves into much trouble with their great ideas.

As for your dumb remark about breeding enslaved animals, you better visit a real ranch some day and you will see that those animals are happier and better cared for than a lot of people in this country. Who do you think would care for them if they had to fend for themselves? When the blizzards come, those ornery humans are out there freezing in order to get hay to their animals who otherwise would die of starvation and thirst.

I have no love for feedlots either, as I live within a mile of one, but we do not live in a perfect world, and there will always be abuse of both animals and humans.

BTW__ I also agree on the gays-- they cannot make new life with their wonderful choice of lifestyle, so let them worry about themselves, they should decrease when they realize it is a dead end road.

Congratulations to all!!! I hope your marriages grow and thrive. May you all have long lives together. I'm beginning to think God hates Fred Phelps.
I think it's funny that a newly married gay couple goes home to a nice house and the Phelps clan retreat back to their doublewides.

"We want to support these weddings - it's love and tolerance for real," she said. "Any proclamation of love is good with us. Why are they crashing our party?"

Those nut jobs crash the party because they are so empty and lead such dull lives, that they have to worry with what others do behind close doors.
Besides my theory is that they secretly envy progressives, because progressive people are not afraid of living their lives according to their own beliefs. Unlike these "conservative" folks, who don't dare to think by themselves

This is a landmark day for human rights. Those of us that are not homosexual should be celebrating too. At least part of America is still about freedom. Hopefully this is a sign that the shadow of religious tyranny can be driven back. Together we can overcome the shallow bigotry of Christianity.

Kernel wrote: Some posters believe animals can think like humans and we are all one so it will no doubt be successful.

**I dont believe other animal species think like humans. Its an insult to them to make such a comparison. Humans are stupid.

BTW
You are helping to fuck up the planet with your breeding of enslaved animal species. Do the planet and your fellow humans a favor--stop it. The more gays the better, less human population growth.

Of Course, SF Divorce Lawyers are salivating, bondage is a curse and a blessing. Property in the Castro, Polk and Noe Valley is gonna get carved up, de-lineated, deeded, liquidated, and fought over.

And that is freakin great, cept for the silly lawyers....Boalt Hall is only 20 miles away, a good mind there.

Maybe render an opinion empowering Blackwater to Infiltrate the Gay communinty; thus the killers will dress in tight pants and shirts and go the The Stud on Folsom and get laid; they will never look back except over their shoulders, while....well, you know....

Sounds like a grand idea to me. These are the things that make our country great. I am cosidering running my bulls separately from my cows from now on as it surely should be smart for them also. Some posters believe animals can think like humans and we are all one so it will no doubt be successful. There is nothing like overturning old out of date ideas for progress.

I think it's becoming a little obvious about now...GOD LOVES FAGS!!!!

Praise God! Gay people got it going on. Courage.

Yeahhhhh! I invite all souls to Northern California; JC comes by even. I've seen him.

For Love.

Bravo California! Well done. I remind CD users that the decision to legalize was from both democratic AND republican judges. It was a rare instance of the *law* being reviewed in light of human rights and not politics.

I am happy for my lesbian 16 year old daughter. She too deserves to wed the person she loves when the time comes. A law permitting homosexuals to wed also just went through here in Norway. The usual naysayers tried to stop it. Thankfully they are not the majority.

Jeez, CD editors, how do you select your top headline items? I don't mean to belittle its social significance, but same-sex marriage hardly seems to outrank all the other current issues in terms of impact either domestically or globally. In fact, I thought most progressives considered it to be a non-issue.

Actually I'm hoping this becomes an election issue. Every time McCain and the Righties brings up Family Values and the "sanctity" of marriage, Obama can ask him if he's been divorced? And he can ask the same of uber-Repub Reagan.

I am for the respected legal recognition of any two people who want to marry, not against it.

That said, let's hope the "celebration" does not get so loud as to unthinkably turn California into a red state in November with turnout for a "negative" ballot initiative. This happening THIS year rather than NEXT year is a very unfortunate gift to McCain's supporters. They plan to make hay with it if they can.

Woo-hoo!

This sodomitical outrage heralds the beginning of the end for California and for the USA. But it is a necessary milestone on the road to perdition.