You don't mention anything about what homo is…. Personally I thought deviant was deviant, homo was homo and hetero was a blend of two different “hetero people”.

Add that to the fact that gay culture factually seeks to recruit [see my post above discussing gay events thrown and advertised towards "bi-curious" youth],

Actually, it can easily be demonstrated how homosexual culture “factually seeks to recruit” as well. Boiled down to the similar thread that weaves between the two, humanity's sex drive seeks to recruit. After all, regardless of the target to our desires nor the reasoning behind them, they are (quite simply) desires. In order to achieve the goals that most sex drives exhibit, you have to recruit someone, somewhere .

The above was concluded via:

you have a problem with how deviant marriage being mainstreamed will affect future populations.

It's actually in humanity's better interest to stop the exponential population growth that it's currently experiencing, given the continual strain on food and other resources. This is not to say that a reduction in numbers is preferred, mind you, simply that not all marriages require offspring these days in order to maintain the human race's survival. This is already seen in heterosexual marriages, where procreation is not deemed necessary. On the other hand, there are multiple instances where gay, lesbian, polyamory, or other relationships do produce children.

In other words, the population seems to be handling itself quite well these days.

…

Well…. I pointed out a statement where we disagreed and one where we agreed. This is one where I think you're half right.

Yes, all legal protections for straight married couples should be extended to gay married couples and both straight and gay couples should register at their city hall (or where ever) in order to “legally” get married.

However when it comes to marriage in a church then yes the same separation of church and state should apply. If a church wants to marry just straight couples, or just gay couples or a combination of the two in a religious ceremony then the church has a right to do that without being compelled to marry anyone they do not want. But for a couple to enjoy the legal benefits, they still need to register with the local government at city hall (or where ever). This is not really a change as couples currently need to get marriage certificates from city hall.

This is absolutely correct. If a church doesn't want to perform a same-sex union then it is their freedom to decline. I think we all go belong to religions that most closely reflect our beliefs and I would not get married in a church that did not reflect my values, for that would undermine the very value of a religious marriage.

Though I do know that there are lots of straight couples who just want a “church” wedding for the sake of having a church wedding. Some straights don't want to get married in a church as an expression of their religious beliefs or to honor God. They just want a church wedding because that's the proper way to get married.

Also I just want to point out that members (both gay/lesbian and straight) of church congregations will want their church to recognize same-sex unions. That is a discussion for that church and its members to have. It is not a discussion which really should involve members of other religions. There certainly could be a large organization of gay (and sympathetic) Catholics (as an example) who do put pressure on the Catholic Church to allow same-sex marriage. The religious organizations will portray that group as a gay rights group (which they are) but conveniently leave out that fact that the members of this “gay” group are also members of their church.

This is where you are flat-out, totally incorrect.

Gays and lesbians are not going to war against the Roman Catholic Church and other conservative Christian, Moslem, etc….. denominations.

They are going to war against gays and lesbians and no further proof is needed than Prop. 8 in California.

Gays and lesbians could legally marry in California and lots of churches support same-sex marriage as a fundamental religious belief.

However many “Roman Catholic Church and other conservative Christian” churches do not believe in same-sex marriage and do not respect the legal rights and religious freedoms of those who do. It was these churches who are going to war against the gay and lesbian community.

Gays and lesbians in California were happy to get legally married and in their churches before the religious right wanted to take away our rights by passing an amendment to the California Constitution.

So your characterization of gays and lesbians going to war against the various religions is just backwards. It's these religious folks who don't like us and want to tell us who we can and can not marry.

We certainly don't tell them who they can and can not marry, why should we obey them (and follow their religion, when it's not even ours) when they try to tell us who we can or can not marry and treat us like second class citizens? Yet that's exactly what some churches are doing with Prop. 8.

That's not strictly true because marriage wasn't even recorded in the Roman Catholic Church until something like the 1500's, and the protestants followed later.

Marriage ceremonies were often just between two people (and no witnesses needed) with each saying to the other that they were married. Who knows how many gay marriages there were.

And in ancient Roman times (before the time period you mentioned) there were gay marriages, though not many are known about.

And there are also various types of “straight” marriage from monogamy, to polygamy and polyandry. So the nature of marriage has changed over time. And it really didn't have anything to do with religion to begin with (until the 1500s or so).

Civil Unions equates to second class citizenship, it does not take the brightest crayon in the box to recognize that.

Promote bigotry under the guise of freedom of speech and/or religion and you get what you get a angry response.

For the life of me I don't understand why you should be so privledged to be able to get married. I will put my 29 years in relationship up against yours any day of the week and we will see which is life affirming.

Your reasoning that because marriage has always been between a man and women is pure nonsense. You obviously lake even a rudimentary understanding of how it developed in the middle ages, and why it developed the way it did. Get a grip things change now that is a sign of life.

Concerning your remarks about Paris Hilton and Miss California what planet are you on? Paris Hilton makes a living out of raking up mud on TV stars and others that is what he does as a living. I can assure you the organizers of the pageant understood this. But for you to equate the Paris outburst as an example of angry gay activist is just as clueless as saying “it always has been, and therefore always will be” in reference to marriage.

Perhaps you don't understand that the LGBT Movement has a life of its own. No one directs it especially bleeding heart democratic liberals who don't understand the damage their position of privilege is doing to many LGBT families.

Joe Murray

Would you please stop trying to recruit people to your “normal” sexuality? Especially with nonsense like Judaism not being learned?

However, critics will claim that there is an inevitable tension between how a church acts in the secular world and secular laws. I agree. Secular laws govern secular actions. Here in CA, our anti-discrimination laws cover ALL businesses, with exceptions for the claims of belief. If it acts like a for-profit business or a public accommodation, it generally has to follow secular law, even if the business appends a church name. That's the way it should be. However, no laws can govern conscience or faith.

Add that to the fact that gay culture factually seeks to recruit [see my post above discussing gay events thrown and advertised towards "bi-curious" youth], you have a problem with how deviant marriage being mainstreamed will affect future populations.

It is as if men are suddenly campaigning to be allowed in women's bathrooms or vice versa. Deviant is deviant, hetero is hetero and we shouldn't blend the two definitions by melding of one into the other.

The majority of voting americans believe that hetero sex is the only normal sex there is [nature supports this theory as well...nevermind religious opinon for which has little weight in american politics]. Sex is a behavior, not a physical trait. Gender is a physical trait. Black skin isn't a behavior, it's a physical trait. Judiasm is a faith, a philosophy, not a behavior.

Human behavior is contagious…it really is, whereas no one can “catch” a darker skin color or “catch” the need to not eat pork. Sexuality is a very animalistic behavior that is malleable and complex…not fully comprehended though many studies do have data on it as being acquired. An entire industry banks on the malleable fixation of sexual preference and it's that potential to be reflexively fixated and “permanent” that we should pay very close attention to when playing with social fire of normalizing a behavior that patently isn't normal..

Wow, Sil. talk about a false premise. Your article there implies that all of this begins with sex. Most homosexuals know they are homosexual long before ever engaging in sex. It is just as innate as the day you discovered you where attracted to the opposite sex. Or did you have to actually have sex to know?

As to the article itself: I found it very insightful, but I have to say while it attempted to cover much from a historic perspective, completely ignoring the overwhelming history of oppression and persecution and murder condoned in most societies of the homosexual just forces what would have been a great point into petty rhetoric. After all asking homosexuals to be more patient and tolerant in a world that barely tolerates them just smacks of abject condescension.

You're right that gays could stop with civil equality with respect to inheritance and health care and other laws, but they don't seem to be doing so. Why do you imagine that is?

No, Sil. That's not the wider debate. That's your debate.

**********

This is a false premise that you started your commentary with. Read this article: “Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review” http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pf…

and pay particular attention to the five or six pages of referenced studies supporting the findings that sexual preference in mammals is demonstrated to be learned. And further, that social pressures seem to affect partner-choice [in the concluding paragraphs.]

It is possible that after the fixation has been foisted or chosen, the new attraction may affect hormonal responses and not the opposite..

It is important to talk about both sides of the debate, and the debate isn't whether or not homosexuals and other deviants should be allowed to marry, but rather whether or not homosexuality is innate. Basically, if you believe in mammalian comparative psychology as a viable scientific field of study, then you have to consider that sexual preference is learned and not innate.

If it is a learned behavior, it follows by inference that it can be taught. Social pressures in future generations may actually “teach” pubescent humans to “choose” deviant sex over hetero. Indeed, the Bay Area in particular, and other renowned gay communities seem to foster a “gay culture”, where, if sociology is also a viable field of study, it can be deduced that social acceptance and indeed promotion of gay culture [see advertisements of events pitched to youth inviting "bi-curious" to attend] would result in a greater number of deviant individuals in a population over time.

That being said, it is equally important not to denigrate those people whose sexuality truly no longer is a choice once fixated. Civil unions were the perfect solution to the dilemma of at once recognizing deviant sexuality as a foisted or acquired fixation [fixation means permanent] and also protecting future generations from what is essentially, sociologically “inappropriate influence” from deviant sexuals.