Warning!!! Homophobes please look no further. Turn back know while you still have virgin eyes/ears!!!!!




As this board is such a great mix of cultures and lifestyles from around the world, I'd like to know how your regions view same-sex marriages, or same-sex relationships in general. As always, when obtaining "off-color" information in the U.S. there's always a persistent skew from the media or in my case, the majority opinion from "The Bible Belt" which doesn't necessarily reflect that of the rest of the planet. While doing a research paper for school, I realized how little I know about this subject from other parts of the world.

Please don't take this as me asking anyone to publicly come out of the closet or anything like that. Though we all read that Yassir Arafat was "outed" by Weekly World News last week. I'm simply looking for more views than I can get from my Bible thumping neighbors.

Judging from this email you all can guess where I stand on the subject, but I'd still like to hear from you. Just because you can't change my mind doesn't mean I won't listen!

Greg

Please clarify the question.

Are you asking for our own personal opinions on the subject, or are you asking what our local laws are regarding same-sex marriages?

Are you asking about same-sex marriage specifically, or about same-sex relationships in general?

If it's guys we usually just give them the standard insults and then go on about our business. If it's girls and they're hot then we'll try to hook up with them or set up a video camera in a tree overlooking their window. That's my perspective of the regional perspective.

I'll clarify. I'm looking for regional opinions on the subject of same-sex marriages specifically, but if none can be given then a regional opinion of same-sex relationships ...

Here's a made up example, "In my part of the Netherlands, it's a pretty gay friendly community. There has even been some recent political discussion about allowing same-sex unions. Gay marriages aren't really in the picture yet, though."

If someone is willing to put up a personal opinion or view, it's more than welcome too.

Greg

Okay, that's clear.

I actually don't know what the local laws are regarding same-sex marriage. But I can give the flavor of what it's like around here.

My town is an interesting contrast. In some respects, it's very bible-belt and redneck. Quite the hick town. Very much a "main st USA" kind of a place. Plenty of homophobia, plenty of redneck attitudes. But at the same time, there's a bohemian/hippie side to it. There's kind of a bohemian "cluster" you might say, in the town where I work. In that area, same-sex relationships are quite common and well known, and considered rather normal.

Judging from this email you all can guess where I stand on the subject, but I'd still like to hear from you. Just because you can't change my mind doesn't mean I won't listen!

I think I share a bit of Tony's question -- what exactly is it you are asking? -- but the general nature of the issue you are raising is interesting, so (caution be damned!) I'll just dive in....

I think I am about as far away from what you could characterize as a Bible-thumper as could be imagined. I'm not sure that means that I am somehow automatically tolerant, though, of those things that "bible thumpers" are perceived as intolerant of. We'll see.

Back in the 80s I worked an internship with a pediatric nurse practitioner (call her Nancy) in rural, rural Maine -- driving around in a Winnebago giving kids shots and doing hearing tests and such. One day driving back into Bangor she saw two women walking holding hands (Hell, they might have been from France for all we knew) and Nancy almost literally freaked -- went on and on about it for 30 minutes. I tried to gently say "good thing you don't live in my town (Boston) because you'd see that all the time" and basically I thought "Whoa, Nancy, what is your personal hang-up that you get so wound up about this??"

This is not to say that Jim was without his own discomforts. Aspects of homosexuality sat uncomfortably with me for a longer time than I might have guessed. Sorry if this is not PC, but *men* kissing?? Whoa.

Oh, well, I got over it. I went on to work with men and women who not only were in long-term partner relationships but who had both biological and adoptive children. One of these kids I remember was a "turkey baster baby" -- a biological child of a lesbian woman compliments of a donation from a gay man who did his thing in the kitchen while she waited in the living room.

Since then I have worked with more same-sex couples with kids (mostly adoptive) and what I was able to observe is that they were nice folks with nice kids. I think sexual orientation confers no immunity from the tribulations that anyone associates with traditional hetero marriage. Yes, same-sex couples get divorced, too.

After *all* of this, I still have a lingering doubt or two. Gay activists *demand* rights associated with traditional marriage or the rights to have kids, etc. There is still a teeny bit of the raised-by-Catholics Jim that says "Jeez, if you really think you have the right to have kids, then why don't you just have sex as defined in the playbook??" Yes, I saw a 40-ish woman at the store a few weeks ago with an infant in a baby carrier with a pink "Gayby" tag and asked myself "Is this how it is supposed to be?"

That being said, my conclusion is that the biological aspects are important, but not always primary. My friend's next-door neighbors are a late-to-the-fold (divorced from men) lesbian couple with a 17-year-old, most definitely heterosexual son who they adore (and who is a great kid!). If you met these folks, any idea that they had a hidden agenda to somehow convert their son to a particular sexual orientation would instantly evaporate. In the end, it seems like the imporant thing is that kids/people are nurtured and cared for. What I know is that the homosexual parents I've known would do a better job on that front than this heterosexual!

Does this in *any* way answer your question?

It's on topic (for this thread) and amusing and gives some insight I had not considered, so, SURE it answers my question ;-)

What I hear most of in my area (Dallas), and where I grew up (West Texas/Panhandle) revolves around a few key presumptions that I just can't follow:

1. Gays are promiscuous, so if they get married, they'll soon get a divorce. Why bother in the first place and tarnish the marriage institution?

The reply here for me is obvious. Divorce is already common, isn't the institution of marriage already getting tarnished? But why would a gay person be more promiscuous than a straight person? From what I can tell a gay couple is just as likely to have a long-term relationship as anyone else.

2. Homosexuality is against nature and God, so gay marriages shouldn't be supported by the government.

Animals have been known to engage in "homosexual behavior". Animals are a part of nature. Humans are animals, too. And this is by no means a new thing. In ancient Greece and Rome it was actually expected for a young man to take on an older more experienced "tutor". As for God, supposedly the good old U.S. of A. has seperation of church and state ... but that's never stopped us from bringing religion in to politics before.

3. Ewwww, two guys kissing over there!!!

Well, I agree seeing two dudes going at it in the corner of a bar is a little disturbing, I'd feel pretty similar if I saw a man and a woman groping in public too. Two girls on the other hand, I wouldn't really have a problem seeing kiss. My wife on the other hand, differs.

[Edited]
OH!!! Gay Marriages ... Interesting tidbit. With the new congressional elections here in the USA, many of the old guys who were historic opposers of gay marriages are either retiring, or got out voted. Georgia's Bob Barr was a really big one. Texan Phil Gramm also had a lot to say on the subject. I won't be surprised though, to find out that they may have been replaced by some far less tolerant senators.

Greg

To answer your question:

In New Zealand, it's a mostly gay friendly community.
There has been some recent political discussion about allowing same-sex unions.
Gay marriages aren't really in the picture yet, though

That about sums it up.

To add some background, same-sex relationships for consenting adults over 16 have been recognised in law/legal since about 1987.

Its illegal under the (nationwide) laws to dsicriminate on the grounds of sex, age, race or religion, sexual orientation (whether Hetero or Homo -sexual).

Contrary to local politicians of the time when the same-sex relationships legalisation was being debated by the politicians the sky has not fallen down in the 15 years since it became law, nor has HIV rocketed through the community.

Politicians have discussed/been asked to pass laws to allow same-sex marriages, but it raises some legal issues with other laws/legal definitions and won't probably be made law any time this decade.

Unions outside marriage, whether hetero or not can be "registered" for the purposes of providing a more equitable split (e.g. 50/50) in jointly owned assets when the long term relationship ends.
Such registered relationships are treated by the courts similarly to normal marriages for the purposes of dividing up assets in the relationship.

Other than that there is no protection in law for non-married couples of either sexual orientation.

However there have been a few cases where lesbian couples have applied for, and got publically funded fertility treatments to allow (one of) the women to be artificially inseminated.

Which has caused some outcries in the past - in that it seems a little unfair that someone who can otherwise conceive children (or could in a normal hetero rationship) choses not to, and then expect the tax payer to fund their lifestyle choice, while other couples with a genuine need miss out - that I disagree with.

The other point that has caused a row is that a lesbian couple have been granted legal guradianship and/or allowed to adopt children, the same does not apply for gay men. The government agencies make some lame excuse about "not being suitable parents" but if thats not sexual discrimination I don't what is.


You can do what one of my cousins did and get some guy (whose gene pool) they liked to look of, half drunk and then get him to knock them up in a alleyway behind the pub.

The odd thing was that my uncle & aunt (my cousins parents) did not know she was a lesbian and they simply were told and accepted that the father had "done a runner/bunk", whereas everyone else knew the real story.
They treat the kid like any other grandchild.

I think the thing is is that gays are sexual perverts, kind of like the guy nailing the goat up the ass or the priest with little johnny in the confessional. However, when a couple of fags decide it would be fun to ram eachother in the backside, it is a mutual decision, unlike the goat and unlike little johnny. This is a free country do what you like as long as you don't hurt anyone else.

As for them being able to adopt, like I said I think it is unnatural, harmful, and perverted behavior, and I feel sorry for a child raised by someone like that. But I also feel sorry for children raised by drunks, adulters, whatever. If no decent family is willing to take care of a child then I suppose anyone who is willing to take them in and care for them should be allowed to, and hopefully that person(s) is a decent human being and can raise the child into a decent adult. Amen.

1. Gays are promiscuous, .......

The reply here for me is obvious. Divorce is already common, isn't the institution of marriage already getting tarnished? But why would a gay person be more promiscuous than a straight person? From what I can tell a gay couple is just as likely to have a long-term relationship as anyone else.

The "traditional" side of me feels like it is too bad that we are reduced to mounting a defense of a particular lifestyle based on the fact that the institution of marriage is tarnished and that divorce is common. Wish these weren't so, but they are. Secondarily, I'd say that there *are* aspects of gay culture that are promiscuous and that it is perhaps considered impolite to mention (Hey, some guys fly R/C airplanes, other guys are obsessed with mobile MP3 players...) but that your ultimate conclusion is correct -- gay folks are as likely to have a stable relationship as anybody else...

2. Homosexuality is against nature and God, so gay marriages shouldn't be supported by the government.

Animals have been known to engage in "homosexual behavior". Animals are a part of nature. Humans are animals, too. And this is by no means a new thing. In ancient Greece and Rome it was actually expected for a young man to take on an older more experienced "tutor". As for God, supposedly the good old U.S. of A. has seperation of church and state ... but that's never stopped us from bringing religion in to politics before.

This is hard to argue against if you are not on board with the whole deity concept. Plus, even if you are, there's no guarantee that your deity will be as pure and strict as *their* deity, so someone's argument that "X" is "against nature and God" can always be held as valid in their eyes if your vision of God is perceived to be deficient..

With respect to "younger men taking on older more experienced tutor/s" memories of Mary Renault's excellent historical fiction "The Last of The Wine" comes to mind, but it doesn't seem to provide much of a useful justification/defense. Nowadays, invoking ancient Greek social history seems to conjure more of the unsavory NAMBLA, predatory-priest imagery that we wish would go away... .

This is hard to argue against if you are not on board with the whole deity concept.

One philosophical viewpoint would be that this is circular reasoning. Both the concept of hetero marriage itself and the idea that "gay is a sin" are religious ones.

You could argue that from a non-religious evolutionary/procreation standpoint that homosexuality is abnormal. But I don't think any gay couple expects to be able to conceive offspring; their lifestyle is what it is for non-reproductive reasons. So that argument would be circular as well.

Food for philosophical thought. Doesn't necessarily have any bearing on a given community's laws regarding same-sex marriages, though.

As for God, supposedly the good old U.S. of A. has seperation of church and state ... but that's never stopped us from bringing religion in to politics before.

Of course, we've had a discussion already over whether we actually have seperation of church and state, so hopefully we won't get back into that.


I really don't know what my area thinks. It's a tough area to guage. Most of the folk around here fall into one of three categories:

1) tourists - too transient to have opinions
2) college students - they double the size of the town, but you know opinions on college campuses, they're all over the place
3) retirees - I suppose you could say that these folk would be more conservative, but it's hard to say

That's what makes up my school area. As for Washington DC, well, I don't even want to think about the range of ideas there

One philosophical viewpoint would be that this is circular reasoning. Both the concept of hetero marriage itself and the idea that "gay is a sin" are religious ones.

It would be a sin to disagree with you on this point. I agree.

You could argue that from a non-religious evolutionary/procreation standpoint that homosexuality is abnormal. But I don't think any gay couple expects to be able to conceive offspring; their lifestyle is what it is for non-reproductive reasons. So that argument would be circular as well.

This is where it gets a bit dicey for me -- not uncomfortably dicey, mind you, but just a little dicey. From the whole procreative standpoint (at least in the human species) heterosexuality would seem to be where it's at. 'Course this assumes that all 100% of the citizens have to be procreatively humping away for the species to succeed....

Then, while you'd think that [no] gay couple expects to conceive offspring, I'm not sure that's the case. Where did that neat little "Gayby on Board" tag come from on that baby carrier? And that whole turkey baster thing tells me that some women are quite determined to engage their maternal instincts without the messy complication of....Men!!

I think a lot of people are against gay marriages not because they dislike gay people, but because marriage has traditionally been a ceremony between a man and woman. I won't give my opinion on this though, because this is a very touchy subject . By the way, I've always been curious as to how they change the wording for the ceremony. Are they both husbands and both wives? You may now kiss the groom? Anyone know anything about that?

"I think a lot of people are against gay marriages not because they dislike gay people, but because marriage has traditionally been a ceremony between a man and woman."

I think this would be the issue for same-sex marriages. The big problem is how you define "marriage." If it is simply "documented cohabitation by two consenting adults" then there should be no problem legally with same sex marriages. My personal opinion is that marriage means a woman and a man, and actually a bit more than that as well. But of course if you have a different premise you will obviously come to a different conclusion.

I would probably fit under the "bible thumper" category mentioned previously (and I read this anyway, sorry), but I want to say that whatever people do in the privacy of their homes (or in public such as holding hands) is completely their own decision if it doesn't affect someone else. Even so, my personal opinion is that homosexuality is a sin (that's, as mentioned above, the God issue). That is my belief, and not something I force anyone else to live by. I certainly will make it known if asked. I do not, however, find myself "intolerant" but quite the opposite: I believe that homosexuality is a sin but I believe that others have the freedom to believe and behave differently. If I believe that everyone’s ideas are correct, then of what am I being tolerant? I would be intolerant if I said that I cannot abide by anyone thinking differently from myself.

I'm not gay but I have known quite a few people who are over the years, including a brother. If two people can find happiness together than they are very lucky and I could care less if they are the same sex or not. People have just become so intolerant of so many things, political correctness for one.

As for my region, there are areas in the city that have many gay couples and there is a gay pride march here every year. But I think most people in this area just close their eyes to it and hope that it goes away.

I operate a live and let live philosophy with regard to homosexuality, which I personally regard as abhorrant and unnatural.

However, many significant leaders in our culture have been homosexual, or at least bisexual, I think particularly of Oscar Wilde, where I would side against "society", in his treatment. I also think of Alan Turing who, and I do accept that this his sexuality is largely speculative, would have contributed as much to computing as he did to codebreaking had he not committed suicide.

But, to me, the idea of same sex marriages is both unacceptable and represents a decline in our moral values.

But be clear that I am expressing a personal opinion.

Where I live (Belgium) being gay is pretty much accepted. The situation over here is practically the same as in Holland. Gay people getting married is stil not possible over here, but there's a lot of talk about it and there's no doubt in my mind that in the not-so-distant future this will be a possibility. And why not? If two gay people want to get married, nobody else should have to have a say in that. It's their business, and they're not hurting anybody by doing so. So I say : let them!

I've known several gay people, and I even work with some. I have no problems with them whatsoever. But there's one area where I draw the line, and that's when kinds are involved. Now, I don't mean the situation where someone has got kids out of a heterosexual marriage, and then suddenly decide they're actually gay. I believe the people involved should have known better, but people can make mistakes. That's what makes us human.

No, what I AM talking about is when a gay couple suddenly decides they want to have kids. With respect to the natural urge of procreation, for me this is a breaking point.
I don't have anything against gay people, two concenting adults can do whatever they want for all I care. But I draw the line when a third party -a party that isn't able to give it's concent (yet)- gets involved.
INHO this reflects incredible egoïsm on the part of the "parents" to let a child go through this. They have no idea whatsoever what they are going to put that kid through. They are not the ones that will get picked upon in school for this reason, day after day, year after year. (we all know kids can be cruel) Sure, the parents might not have a problem with their way of life, but that doesn't mean a kid should go through it. Certainly not if it doesn't have to.

I've got a collegue at work, a lesbian collegue, that is pregnant now. She went to the sperm bank. Some collegues congratulated her on this. I didn't. I didn't think congratulations were in order here. I truely feel sorry for this kid already, and it's not even been born yet.
Another reason why I think this is not right, is that I, as a man, feel demeaned to a little sperm cel. Like it's all she needed from us men, and all that we are to her. Now I must add that in this particular case, the woman I'm refering to is a die-hard lesbo. The kind that thinks all men are scum and you're better off without them. This probably has a lot to do with why I feel this way in this particular example.

I believe a handicap of being gay should be that you're are never to have any kids. Even though you're fully "equiped" to have them. This is sad, I agree, and it isn't fair, I know. But hey, life isn't fair! I know some people might think this is harsh, but this is how I feel. If I was gay, there would be no way I would want any kids. Not in this world. Again, I think this way because I believe it's better than the alternative, because I think it isn't fair to put that kind of sociological burden on a person that didn't have a say in it in the first place.
Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

I want to thank you for entering this discussion. Admittedly, I put some barriers in the original invitation. Sadly, many of the people I've talked to in this area, who consider themselves avid church-goers, are not nearly as reserved as you when it comes to this issue.

For most of them, it *is* there business what others do in the privacy of their own home. It's almost as if the Right to Privacy doesn't apply to people who may be acting immorally.

Usually in my case, after this subject is broached with my neighbors, all hopes of an intelligent conversation, such as yours, fly out the window.

Greg

I usually stay completely out of moral debates on the board e.g. the pledge of allegiance, the gay bag thread, for the reason of my own sanity. Trying to speak on a subject like this and not be pigeon holed is in fact difficult. However the tenor of this thread has been quite civil so I'll give it a shot.

Is marriage a religious ceremony recognized by the state, or a state ceremony recognized by the church?
The historical answer is A, a church ceremony recognized by the state. This is why religious persons find the concept of homosexual MARRIAGE so preposterous. In many cases simply creating a different name with the same legal protections would minimalize the outcry against the homosexual community. Don't believe me? Ask a coworker if homosexuals should be able to live together, share bills, take care of each other when they're sick, and any number of other things that married heterosexuals do for their spouses and most will answer "sure its a free country". Then ask if homosexuals should be allowed to be married. The answer is usually no. Homosexual marriage is an attack on the accepted definiton of a marriage, whether you want it to be or not. Redefinition of marriage is what most homosexuals seek, not realizing that politically redefining marriage is a religious war by its nature, since the church doesn't think its any of the states business. Definintion of a new relationship would allow for more understanding. Read this understanding that I think homosexuality is a sin, along with heterosexual promiscuity by the way, and you'll see that I desire to be civil and understanding but I refuse to simply write off my convictions.
Secondly, please in your minds separate bible thumping from redneck. I have a liberal arts education in history and speech, I'm half way through my masters, I can read in three languages. My friends include homosexuals, people of all sorts of religious beliefs, and some with no morals at all. I believe the Bible, but no one will ever meet me and think, "Well there's a red neck for ya". My conviction to disagree with you is not based on tradition or hatred for what I do not understand, it stems from personal study and mediation. I'm not saying that anyone in the thread has been blasting me or even people like me. I'm just saying Christian conservative does not equate to unthinking swine.

You could argue that from a non-religious evolutionary/procreation standpoint that homosexuality is abnormal. But I don't think any gay couple expects to be able to conceive offspring; their lifestyle is what it is for non-reproductive reasons. So that argument would be circular as well.

Their lifestyle in their context is for non-reproductive reasons. In evolutional context, it can also serve a cause. There are known species of crabs, where evolution has dropped the female part. Reproduction is based on cloning in the male body. Of course you've also got the hermafroditic types, like earthworms...

Homosexual marriage is an attack on the accepted definiton of a marriage, whether you want it to be or not. Redefinition of marriage is what most homosexuals seek, not realizing that politically redefining marriage is a religious war by its nature, since the church doesn't think its any of the states business.

Very well put. Couldn't agree more.

Secondly, please in your minds separate bible thumping from redneck.

Good point. Christianity does cross all cultural boundaries.

This is very well put. Regarding redneck vs. bible thumping, I'll admit for me these two are more or less the same, but only for the fact that where I grew up and where I live now, these two characteristics occupy the same individuals. You can't get one without the other in this area, it seems. And everyone knows Texas is mostly filled with rednecks. I think my family actually had the term coined after us.

For the most part, around here, if a person has an education above the High School level, and still regularly goes to church, it's more for connections and apearances rather than faith. If they are one of the few who went through college or grad school and have maintained their full faith, then chances are you went to a private religious school and were more or less sheltered from other cultures and lifestyles.

It's nice to see that this isn't always the case.

Greg

You guys don't realize what a validation your feelings are. My official title is Associate Pastor, Minister of Maturity and Ministry. Which basically means I am supposed to take Rednecked "that's wrong cause Momma said it was" Christians and turn them into Christians capable of speaking truth with compassion, and sharing their faith without cramming it down people's throats. It would seem I won't be out of a job soon... If things go well here I can always go to Europe...

P.S. One of my favorite situations is when a homosexual finds out I'm a Southern Baptist minister and stares in disbelief as I sit down next to them to have an honest conversation over coffee.... Talk about deer in the headlights...

> They have no idea whatsoever what they are going to put that kid through.
> They are not the ones that will get picked upon in school for this reason,
> day after day, year after year. (we all know kids can be cruel)

I know that this isn't your sole reason behind your opinion, but bear in mind that this isn't far off what people said in the 50/60/70's about mixed race couples having kids. Before that kids would be teased if their parents divorced.

Also remember that the parents themselves may have been bullied while at school and know first hand just what their child may face. That's probably why most gay parents say that they hope their kids are straight so they don't have to go through it too.

Often kids will tease because of the opinions that they had gathered from their parents and teachers. Kids can be cruel, but when they've heard the most trusted people in their life say something negative about someone else, they are going to believe it and use it as a reason to bully.

I can see what you mean.
But I still think that, IF the parents went through it themselves, that's even more reason not wanting it to happen to somebody else, especially your kids. (this sounds to me like a "I went through it, so now it's somebody else's turn", pretty egoistical I think)

The mixed race anology is not really correct here I believe. Though I don't doubt that this created a lot of trouble in the past, and I certainly don't want to belittle it, this is something entirely different and thus an entirely different discussion. Because look at it how you like, you can't really say that being gay is being normal, how liberal minded you may be. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to say it's a bad thing, just not normal.
The normal way of going about this is man + woman = child, not man + man or woman + woman. Something just doesn't add up there.

I'm sure mixed race couples had a LOT of difficulties in the past (and maybe even now still), but basically they still were about a man and a woman loving each other and having kids. I see nothing wrong with that. All the right ingredients are there to create a healthy stable family for the kid to grow up in. With gay people it would always be like there's too much of the one thing and nothing of the other.

Also, I don't think it really matters where kids get their ideas to be cruel to other kids. (be it teacher, parents, the wrong kind of friends,...) because I'm pretty sure you also don't care when you're the kid getting picked upon, that's all.

I was going to broach this, but had decided against it. Since you went first, I guess now I will comment.

Most pastors that I have met are very intelligent, tolerant (in the way I spoke of it above), and well spoken. The problem is that most regular church goers believe that they have no burden to educated themselves on matters of faith so instead resort to very unchristian behavior (i.e.: they have heard at church that homosexuality is a sin, so they feel that justifies not interacting with homosexuals, calling them horrible things, and making inappropriate jokes).

On top of this, the squeaky wheel gets the grease so many of the loud voices you hear consistently on television, etc. are saying things like the homosexual community in America will be destroyed by fire. I heard a clip of someone say this followed by the crowed cheering. It chilled by bones to hear such a tragic thing and it makes me sad that that this is the version of my faith that people hear.

The most hostile conversation I ever had was with another "Christian" (in quotes because though he professed to be one, he rarely attended church or did anything else to back this up). He started almost yelling at me when I told him the only thing that could keep a homosexual out of heaven was a refusal to trust Jesus Christ, the same as any other individual. He accused me of belonging to a "liberal" (the horror ) church that had lost its way. Never mind that what I'd said was the Gospel, the premise on which the entire Christian church is founded.

Ok, sorry I did get WAY of topic, sometimes I just have to ramble a bit!

I would probably fit under the "bible thumper" category mentioned previously

Hmmm. Not by my definition. I don't hear any thumping from you or revlmwest, and there are plenty of folks who are devout in their varied ways who I wouldn't put in that category. I guess I use it when I encounter aggressive prosyletizers or watch somebody like a TV evengelist shouting about righteousness and how some other people are doomed. Oh, I guess it gets more complicated than that but probably not worth bogging down this thread with that...

My personal opinion is that marriage means a woman and a man, and actually a bit more than that as well. But of course if you have a different premise you will obviously come to a different conclusion.

In my gut, I still think of marriage as a man-woman phenomenon, and I *do* sometimes wonder why some gays/lesbians consider themselves absolutely entitled to something like reproduction if their "social biology" (rotten term maybe) isn't built that way.

OTOH, I wonder what the fuss is about. Are we concerned that gays will actually have health insurance or other benefits as a result of marriage? I'd almost vote for *anything* that helps somebody get health insurance in this country! Are we afraid that married gay parents will churn out an army of gay children? Don't think it works that way. What I hear a lot (I think) is that folks are against creating additional institutions (same-sex marriage) that will help create or reinforce the perception that homosexuality is normal. Well, I think history shows pretty clearly that it is normal, so somehow trying to defeat this perception doesn't seem like a worthy goal.

The actual details of who is entitled to what? How is it that folks who aren't willing to have reproductive sex still feel the need/right to reproduce? I don't know.

Oh, what bothers me about the whole Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender thing?? No acronym.

Well being from Mississippi, you can guess its not exactly accepted. I personally dont beleive that its right, but its not my cup of tea. I know openly gay guys and girls and it doesnt bother me, but it does bother some. Beyond what people probably beleive of the south, its actually more accepted than most would think.
you ofcourse still have macho guys, threatening any gay guys life, but if they meet a guy thats gay, they usually arent bothered by it. As for a political standpoint, homosexual marriages are not and probably will not be allowed for a long time. This state still outlaws sodomy, which by law definition is any unnatuaral act of sex, which includes anything besides a married couple in the missionary position. so by law consumating a gay marriage would be illegal.

My view personally is that it shouldnt be allowed. I feel that marriage is and has always been a religious institution, and considering almost every major religion that I know of frowns on homosexuality it kind of slaps them in the face. As for allowing a gay couple to adopt, I dont know what to think about that.

But as for what you asked, Homosexuality is just not discussed in this state, its more of a denial thing i guess, there are very few openly gay people, but there are some neverless, you will not see a gay bar, but instead on certain nights a bar may be gay, if you get my point.

The normality of homosexuality is certainly questionable. If you mean it that it shows up throughout history then of course you'd be right. However prevalence is not what were discussing. If everything that is prevalent is normal, then so murder must be called normal, but no ones passing laws protecting it. Instead rightness, or even correctness, is the point. A thoughtful person who condemns homosexuality will condemn it not only for what it does to society (basically that it propegates itself) but for what it does to the individual practicing it. For every happy gay couple (I know, I know), you find I can point to as many gay people who say the lifestyle led them to depression. Since we can't see the truth for the personalities, it makes it impossible to prove beyond a doubt. It is purely anecdotal. Therefore whether or not its wrong or right must be decided away from or before individuals are concerned or bias is inevitable.

I also would like to point out that the extra hurdles that must be jumped by homosexuals in order to parent. Therefore insuring that only those serious about parenting would actually be given the opportunity to do so. This hurdle dramatically changes the appearance of homosexual parenting. If the hurdles were less the seriousness of some parents would be equally less.