Translation: “I don’t want to be proven wrong, so I’ll pretend it takes longer than my lifespan to occur. Therefore, if I’m wrong, I’ll be long dead. Neener Neener.”

Again…What is gay about marriage? Gays should be out there bopping everything that moves, they should be haunting the steam baths, wagging their tongues at cute strangers on the subway, and dancing the night away in a disco and ecstasy induced stupor.

Translation: “Gays shouldn’t get married, because it would go against my carefully constructed stereotype of them!”

The reason for “marraige” is not love. It is in fact only recently that the idea that people that marry should love one another has come about. In older cultures arranged marraiges were the norm. MArraige for Love is a luxory afforded to us by our technological acheivements. The reason for marraige and why it has developed independently in all cultures is because the “best” way to bring children into the world is for them to be raised by their biological parents who have experience in the best choices for someone with their genetic template.
Thus it is in my view wrong to call a civil union between homosexuals a “marraige” because in my mind it would preclude that individual from entering into a real marraige that may produce children. What do you do if a gay man has a “dalliance” with a woman that produces a child and she chooses to do the right thing and keep it. Why should his union with his gay partner stop him from doing right by this girl.

So women who can’t bear children, women who have gone through menopause, men who’ve had a vasectomy, etc., should be prevented from being married? That really speaks volumes about you.

I just find it amusing how you all say that you don’t hate gays, but at the same time claim that their lifestyle is so vile and toxic that it will destroy the entire human race.

The possibilities and combinations for things going wrong are amazing.

“Forget marriage, get out there and be gay, for god’s sake!”

I cannot prove it, but I suspect the issue is driven in large part by the desire to force a social normalization of homosexuality. Whether that should or should not happen, reasonable minds can differ. The issue of capturing the word “marriage,” though, only makes sense to me in this framework. I don’t think it’s terribly profound to note that the relationship the gay marriage activists want to have covered is not changed by the word and they obviously will not have marriages as they are traditionally defined. This is just a way to force respectability from the rest of society.

If that is right, it is a “top down” approach to changing hearts and minds and I think they will be very disappointed if they succeed with their efforts to redefine the institution. You cannot legislate respect or acceptance; that has to happen on its own over time. You can, however, generate resentment with the attempt – just the opposite of what I think they are hoping for.

That’s just a theory, though.

Reminds of a trip I took with a friend to Paris, France. He is a tall fellow and I am not. We are both bald and whereas he has never been particularly good looking he was not a looker at the time either. Whereas though gorgeous as a young hunk of male flesh in my youth, today I would not be asked to appear in an underwear commercial.
So here we were, Paris, two middle aged guys checking into a Hotel, Rue 1846 or something like that.
We approached the concierge and in my best impression of the French crooner, asked if he had any information about “gay” Paris. Gay as in those days when all the French smoked Goullias and smiled at strangers.
“Gay Paris”…”every little breeze seems to whisper Louise, the birds in the trees…”
The next day after viewing the Pompideu , we returned to our hotel. “Psssst” the concierge beckoned us to approach. He smiled as he handed us a stack of magazines and brochures, for “Gay Paris”!
I leafed through pictures of young healthy men fondling themselves and their friends.

Again…What is gay about marriage? Gays should be out there bopping everything that moves, they should be haunting the steam baths, wagging their tongues at cute strangers on the subway, and dancing the night away in a disco and ecstasy induced stupor.

Forget marriage, get out there and be gay, for god’s sake!

BTW, as a child, I always found Orson Bean to be rather effeminate, it may have been his old world charm or his cool lifestyle. Whatever, now I know he is as tough as any sailor.

Which also reminds me of a trip to Copenhagen. Checking into a modest hotel close to the port, where the Swedes stumble from huge ferry boats in the evening, looking to drink some real and cheap beer in civilized Denmark.
The hotel at night, turned into a hell of loud television sets, and retired sailors whistling and calling out to a teenage girl, who was putting on a strip-tease in her bedroom, the window wide open and facing a load of toothless old salts.

Good luck Breitbart, oh by the way, I was wondering if you are related, though adopted, to the Great Breitbart, the strongman of Europe?

In a similar sense homosexuality has one defect. That being that the individuals have no or little proclivity to mate. If we were to set up a system whereby a homosexual union was equivalent to a “marraige” then homosexuals that form these unions will never form any kind of union dedicated to bring children into the world. Adoption arguments being irrelavent since the child will not have that DNA.

The fact of the matter is the species homo sapien sapien is a social species and therefore a diverse gene pool aids us in surviving into the future. Not to admit to this defect is to assume that nothing should be done to correct it which may end up in the gene’s that cause homosexuality to be erased. Since studies of animals with this gene show that possessing the gene one is as likely to be heterosexual and homosexual the notion that those with the gene are dedicated to homosexuality may be a social constuct of our society.

The reason for “marraige” is not love. It is in fact only recently that the idea that people that marry should love one another has come about. In older cultures arranged marraiges were the norm. MArraige for Love is a luxory afforded to us by our technological acheivements. The reason for marraige and why it has developed independently in all cultures is because the “best” way to bring children into the world is for them to be raised by their biological parents who have experience in the best choices for someone with their genetic template.

Thus it is in my view wrong to call a civil union between homosexuals a “marraige” because in my mind it would preclude that individual from entering into a real marraige that may produce children. What do you do if a gay man has a “dalliance” with a woman that produces a child and she chooses to do the right thing and keep it. Why should his union with his gay partner stop him from doing right by this girl.

To my mind we need to emphasize the “ideal”. I understand about single moms and that life does not always allow for the white picket fence life of the suburbs but that does not change the fact that marraige between a man and a women to bring forth children is the “ideal”. I submit to you that this remains true even or maybe especially if that person is a homosexual. To my mind the “ideal” should be for homosexuals to form civil unions let’s call them bondings and the members bond mates as it somehow sounds less legalistic and more human. Then once these bondings are acheived bonded pairs would look for bonded pairs of the opposite sex to form two marraiges. The offspring belonging to each pair of one woman and one man to make things like divorce easier to handle. Their would of course not be sexual love but there would be platonic love and respect that a man and a woman who are married have for one another. Their would be a “normal” family and homosexuals would have some avenue to pursue a “normal” life without having to deny their sexual identity.

Most importantly the species would not lose a percentage of its genetic diversity. The real irony with the Darwin Eugenics movements looking for a “pure” human is that it is the greater amount of genetic material avaialble to our species that will allow us to survive upcoming calmities in the future. The purer your genetic make up the less likely you are to survive.

I understand that this quadratic formulae may be difficult but then it is being homosexual must be difficult anyways. The point is that it is the “ideal”.

I find the term “homophobic” to be very silly. Straight people are not repressed. The aversion to homosexuality I believe is mother nature’s way of dealing with this. Mother nature cares nothing for our feelings. If we are geneticly designed to ridicule and beat gays in an attempt to make them despise themselves and maybe hide in a “normal” life then Mother Nature wins becuase the person mates, the genes go on. I don’t beleive any system that we devise that does not encourage homosexuals to mate is ever going to work in any society no matter how sophisticated. The desire to see the species continue is strong in us, too strong to be denied and it will always manifest in one form or another.

Let’s be aware of it and aware of the defect and handle the issues and not the symptoms. Two people of the same sex can never bring offspring of each others DNA into the world and so cannot ever form a marraige. That my friends is what marraige is but that does not mean our society cannot find a place for the to do that, it will just be more difficult.