And to add gasoline to the fire, the conflict is not about low-cut jeans or welfare policy, it's about sex rules. Rules about who you can have sex with and when are the most important weapon in the arsenal of social control. The major religions have spread to billions of people by grabbing adherents by the gonads, requiring them not to have sex on the side, to marry within the faith, and to pass the same rules on to their children while they're young and impressionable. Not by coincidence, conservatives see sex rules as vital pillars of civilization and defend them zealously. StockBoy is right, it's about power, but it's not about individual cruelty or hatred, it's about people defending their caste's belief system and their collective position in the pecking order.

I do not accept same sex marriage, and I will continue to encourage others to not do so also. I will continue to push for people to be able to democratically express their wishes in the voting booth.

::Thank God most people don't think like you.

The majority of people in my state have already done so by protecting the definition of marriage between one man and one women with a constitutional amendment. to the state constitution.

Wow tech, just…wow. Thank God most people don't think like you.

And where exactly in my comments did I say that? What new oppression am I calling forth? None.

::”Black people are a “deviation” from the statistical norm, Jews are a “deviation” from the statistical norm.”

It would entirely depend where you are geographically. But calling him a “black” because of his skin color is not wrong. Nor is calling a “white” white or a Jew “Jewish”

::You're saying that if someone isn't a member of a majority group, he or she has no right to be protected?

Protected from what? I can't wait until this point is argued in court and Lawrence versus Texas is more clearly delineated.

::Wow

Even across Blacks, Jews, and whatever human, homosexuality is an activity of a minority as much as it might pain you to admit. As such, it is in fact a deviation from the majority. Sorry if it offends anyone's sensibilities.

Jews are a “deviation” from the statistical norm.

Black people are a “deviation” from the statistical norm, Jews are a “deviation” from the statistical norm. You're saying that if someone isn't a member of a majority group, he or she has no right to be protected?

Wow.

Nobody chooses to be gay, why would anyone choose it? And instead you are telling someone, who if they had the choice, would likely choice NOT to be gay that they're “deviant”

Agree, people are entitled to their opinions. But generally, people are also cognizant of how some “opinions” (deviant, abnormal, aberrant, unnatural, fags, etc., etc) can and do offend and hurt others–whether done with or without malice…

Seriously though, while the definition of 'deviant' in that sense is technically correct, tech33, I think we can also all agree that there's a negative connotation to the term which should be avoided if one's intent isn't to express disapproval for the behavior that's displayed by the minority group.

While we're all agreeing on facts, “deviant” is, of course, a pejorative term.

Right?

…

I am in agreement with Silhouette on this. If you were to look at a bell curve say of sexuality;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

Homosexuality would be a deviation from the statistical norm of heterosexual relationships. The fact is homosexual behavior is a minority behavior that a small percentage (whatever number it actually is) of the population engages in on a regular basis beyond experimentation. That's a fact that we can all agree on.

One thing that I find interesting is how the whole debate has been framed by the phraseology. Special interest groups have been quite successful over the past few decades in steering the direction of debates by defining the words that are used to express the issues. The phrase “gay marriage” is a loaded phrase to begin with – it implicitly states that a marriage between two homosexuals is somehow different from a marriage between two heterosexuals – when of course it is not. Miss California used the phrase “opposite marriage”, which I find even more disturbing and factually inaccurate. Our resident social misanthrope Sil likes to throw around the phrase “deviant sexuality”, erroneously and pathetically trying to equate homosexual activity with abnormal behavior.

For me, a small “A-Ha” moment occurred on this issue about two weeks ago, when I was listening to a “Fresh Air” interview on NPR with Kristin Chenoweth (of West Wing, among other shows). She was talking about how she had been labeled as a “Christian” actor – and while she has not been shy about her beliefs, it is not exactly something she wears on her sleeve. And recently, she explained how she has been getting quite a bit of flak from inside the “Christian” community about some of her less-than-conservative views.

Kristin Chenoweth then went on to explain (I'm paraphrasing here, because I don't remember the exact words) how she supports **human rights** — she doesn't call them “gay rights”, because gay people should be treated no differently from non-gay people, and deserve the same human rights as everyone else. By singling out a specific group of people and deny them a basic human right is just shameful.

That's when I realized how powerful the phrase “gay marriage” is — in dividing people. We shouldn't be talking about “gay” marriage, we should be talking about just plain “marriage”, or if you must use a qualifier, “equal marriage”.

As long as we keep referring to the phrase “gay marriage”, we will continue to frame the debate in terms of people who are gay versus people who are not. Until we can really discuss the issue in a way that recognizes that gay people are not an “other” group, but inclusive part of the whole fabric of society, we will all keep talking in endless circles.

Even back in earliest days, those people threatened to overrun our way of life. Those people, they had strange folkways, really kind of dishonest. They spoke a language normal people couldn't understand that was supposedly called German, but among themselves they referred to themselves–listen for yourself–as Dutch.

When a little time passed, the Germans turned out to be Americans after all. But, you know, the threat remains. Consider the Irish: dumb as donkeys, breed like rabbits, owe their true allegiance to some religious faker in–get this–Italy, crowding into our country and taking away our jobs. Threatening our very way of life.

And so it goes: Italians, Jews, Hungarians, persons of the Polish persuasion. All of them, demanding their rights. Threatening our way of life. Our traditions are at risk. Ask any clergyman. (Well, ask any respectable clergyman, that is.) Ask the cops who they're always arresting. Look up the science if you want proof.

I mean, would you want one of them to marry your sister?

Well, it's not the 1950's anymore. Back, black people protested, they got sprayed with fire hoses. And yet today all reasonable people agree that black people deserve their rights. See how far we've come.

And in twenty-five years, when no reasonable person feels threatened their married gay neighbor, there will be some other group to fear.

Because those people will be threatening our way of life.

Haha well that's why you're a conservative and I'm not. Nothing wrong with that. But you also respect the institutions while not subjugating the values to the institutions. It's perfectly fine to argue about which ways are best for transmitting those values to people writ large, but what I was saying is that a lot of conservatives have confused the institutions as being analogous to the values and visa versa. You obviously have what I consider to be a much more principled position.

As to the “diminishing values” I think that's a larger issue that isn't necessarily just about minority/majority…it's more tribal. It's something I don't understand. I was just arguing with a friend that I don't understand why he cares if people are atheist or not because it's not like being an atheist magically makes people act and think the way he respects. I said he should just seek out people that he can respect morally and intellectually regardless of its source, but he had a hard time with this.

It's what pacatrue alluded to when he said that tribal dynamics feed back onto themselves to the point where the groups have severe distrust for no reason other than that they think the other groups aren't trustworthy…but of course all of them think this. That was part of the point of this post, was that I don't get why people care to the point where they feel threatened, when pretty much the vast majority of people are for just leaving each other alone on this topic.

Of course “normal” sex for you is hetero sex because you are heterosexual.

Since you define hetero sex as sex just to produce babies and all other sex as masturbation (and the reason for masturbation is to just “get off”) then you must believe that regular vaginal intercourse with a man that doesn't result in a pregnancy is just masturbation. After all it doesn't meet your definition of normal hetero sex which is meant to produce children.

Besides, what's wrong with getting off?

As far as your statement, “Should we teach an entire generation or ten that the purpose of sex is to “get off”? That is a slippery slope because I know how adolescents think. One form of “getting off” leads to another.”

I interpret that to mean you are worried about your boys. All I can say is, “Relax. There's nothing you can do to stop whatever they want to do.” If priests who take actual vows of celibacy and are supported in an environment which values celibacy can't remain celibate, then teenage boys with a lot less self-control, reflection or moral clarity certainly can't be prevented from the hormones that drive them. You'd have to handcuff both their hands to the bed at night, make them sleep on their backs and follow them around all day (including into the bathroom) if you really wanted to prevent them from getting off. Then they'd probably turn out to be gay because they had a domineering mother.

Getting to your point about animal behavior. I have two kittens, a male and a female. The are maturing sexually and the female has started going into heat. Even though the male is sterile (he's a hybrid and male hybrids are generally sterile) he still goes crazy around her. So is that deviant sexual behavior because he can't reproduce?

It's really fascinating to watch my cats go at it and they have no control over themselves. (Soon I'm going to have both fixed.) Sexual attraction is very powerful and deeply seated in us. None of us can control why we're more attracted to some people than others, gay or straight. I mean if attraction were neutral and it was a matter of environment then we should be able to get married to the first person who walked down the street and condition ourselves to love them and have sex with them. But life's not that simple and anyone who thinks sexual preference is a matter of choice isn't looking at the facts.