Reflections, Reflections

“Lambda claims the term ‘activist judges’ is rhetoric used to deny rights to homosexuals, yet they are the queens of rhetoric! ‘Gay’ is a euphemism. ‘Homophobia’ is a blame-shifting rhetorical device. ‘Gay-marriage’ is a contradiction in terms. They have mastered the use of phony rhetoric. They claim to be for freedom of thought, but if you don't agree with them, you're a bigot. Like most liberals, they're hypocrites, or shall we use the term ‘truthophobes?’”

Matt M.
St. Paul, MN


Above great letter to the Editor to:


Vox Populi: Calling a Spade a Spade

(CNSNews.com) - A homosexual advocacy group finds offense with the use of the phrase "activist judges" when describing those on the bench who have ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, but our readers found nothing wrong with the term or its usage. Read Letters to the Editor

Marianne M. Jennings - The road to same-sex marriage

Jewish World Review August 8, 2003/ 10 Menachem-Av, 5763

Marianne M. Jennings



The road to same-sex marriage



http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |

Episcopalians now trot through their annual ritual of hand-wringing over gay priests. Canada now recognizes same-sex marriages. Not to be outdone by our fair-weather friends to the North, the White House Press Corps' hammered Mr. Bush on our Puritanical aversion. The president of the United States, in a Twilight Zone moment for me, had to clarify that marriage is for a man and a woman. The Vatican echoed the Bush doctrine on marriage.


Pat Robertson has called for prayers for a new Supreme Court following the court's ruling that the Texas sodomy statute was unconstitutional. The basis for that decision must be in the Constitution near the Commerce Clause. I hated that topic in law school and missed a few classes. Thus, I am not fully versed in the Founders' Sodomy Clause.


Television has everything from dimwitted Will and Grace to Queer as Folk, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and Boy Meets Boy. For the first time in 70 years, Brides has a full page article on same-sex weddings, including a guide on being a good guest at a gay wedding. New York City has established the Harvey Milk High school for transgender students.


From July 1, 2003 through August 3, 2003, the New York Times ran 182 articles with some reference to "gays." USA Today had 316 articles on gay issues in the past year, over one per day for the M-F newspaper.

I feel like Joan Cusack in the movie, In and Out. Jilted at the altar by her newly self-realized homosexual groom Joan attempts, still in wedding gown, to drown her sorrows in a bar. The first man she approaches for consortium is also homosexual. Ms. Cusack screams in desperation, "Is everybody gay?"


Media bombardment has lulled the masses. Homosexuality is oh, so avant garde! Only dweebs and nerds spout nature and religion. The straights now battle each other over gay marriage rights with who's-more-hip attitude. How did it come to this? Homosexuals moved public policy with well-chosen tactics.


Infiltration of policy-maker ranks. College education level for gays and lesbians is double that of the general population, with one-half holding at least one degree. As a result, they hold influential positions in business, government and non-profits. They write, call and demonstrate in unison. Too-silent straights are struggling and juggling children, work and soccer games.


Infiltration of corporations. Human resource executives are social workers who found social work salaries disgraceful. So, they and their liberal leanings entered corporate life where they developed diversity, multiculturalism, and tolerance. Those lofty goals got benefits for partners, regardless of gender, gay employee clubs, and discipline for straight employees who asked why.


Alignment with minority groups. Pull up www. stonewall.com to trace the history of gay rights in the UK. Blacks were included in their harassment studies. The alignment with racial groups afforded an alliance and, armed with the ability to yell "Bigot!" immunity from attack .


The gay gene myth. I've had over 500 letters assuring me homosexuality is genetic. Dr. Dean Hamer, the gay male who released the first homosexuality and genetics study, has stated unequivocally, i.e., "Absolutely not," when asked if homosexuality is in the genes. He cites the identical twin studies that show homosexual causation is "not inherited."


Use of AIDS. Using inflated numbers, the gay community has floated stories that AIDS was affecting the elderly, that AIDS was at epidemic proportions, and that "AIDS affects everyone." All myths. Only about 750,000 people in the U.S. have AIDS. The leading cause? Homosexual contact. The UK's 19,000 of 20,000 AIDS cases were from sexual transmission.


Demonizing opponents. Anita Bryant, Dr. Laura and Michael Savage lost television gigs because of their views that homosexuality is immoral. Sen. Rick Santorum (R. Pa.) dangles in the wind since discussing the Texas sodomy case. Recently, GLAAD asked its supporters to inundate the Los Angeles Times with protests and boycotts because it published an op-ed piece by Rev. Pat Robertson on his prayer call.


Economic pressure. United Way loses funding if it gives to the Scouts. BSA loses funding, including United Way's, if it won't allow gay troop leaders. Corporations fear donating to BSA.


Suppressing free speech. Gays go for the jugular, attacking the livelihoods of those who oppose them. Any means are justified for their desired ends. Canadian teacher Chris Kempling was suspended for one month for his Christian views on homosexuality, expressed in a letter to the editor. The Canadian CLU fears this one and won't help.


Infiltration of schools. With the backing of the American Psychology Association, the NEA has taken over training on homosexuality. APA guidelines prohibit use of the term "ex-gay." The NEA/APA pamphlet, "Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation" is appalling in just its overview, "factuality cannot be considered apart from a philosophy by which the facts are interpreted." For a look at the factual flaws of the NEA/APA, see www.narth.com.


The anti-anti-gay movement. The NEA infiltration has worked. Gen X and Gen Y, despite their conservatism, can't jump in with the religious wing. They embrace a "live and let live" philosophy and have created a sophisticated condemnation of anti-gays movement.


Incremental legal inroads. As we slumbered, gay activists have eased society toward gay marriage. With each battle won, they wielded more power. The federal health privacy legislation, HIPPA, springs from AIDS cases. States have passed laws and governors have issued edicts prohibiting discrimination against gays. Real estate agents must remain silent on the causes of death of owners whose houses are on the market via their estates. AIDS deaths have too much impact on potential buyers and the value of the home. The EU has given its members until the end of 2003 to mandate anti-discrimination laws for gay employees.


Silence. These strategies have moved public opinion. In 1996, 68% of Americans viewed homosexual marriage as wrong. Today that number is only 55%. In 1973, 73% felt homosexual relations were wrong. By 2002, the number was 53%.


Legislatively and judicially, we allowed ourselves to be painted into a corner. From that corner, we will witness the destruction of the cornerstone of society: the family. We tolerated the gay falsehoods and went with their flow on seemingly inconsequential issues. Gradually, gay activists chipped away at attitudes and mores. Straights were hoodwinked into complacency.


Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman, only. Even at its worst, marriage remains the best means for insuring society's continuation and success. Look what divorce hath wrought for our children. Homosexual unions last, on average, one year. God help the children of these passing unions.


This piece will bring condemnation, hate mail, and the usual threats to my employer. But years from now, as we assess the degradation same-sex marriage will bring to society, I shall be able to say, "I tried."

JWR contributor Marianne M. Jennings is a professor of legal and ethical studies at Arizona State University.

The Complementarity of the Sexes
(cont.) Many liberals would have us believe that the only difference between men and women is social, cultural, and some minor physical differences. Psychological studies show that there's more than that; that, in fact, men and women do think differently. They see the world in different ways. They interact with it differently, solve problems differently.

In fact, when God married Adam and Eve in Genesis 2, it wasn't solely so they could have children. Marriage makes two people one, not just in some metaphysical sense, but as a social unit which has a more complete understanding of the world than either one has alone, and who face it as a united front. A couple of two men or two women is incomplete. A single person, such as myself, is incomplete. There's not much that can be done socially or legally to change this reality.

I think one needs to be careful not to attribute to nature things which are the result of environment and experience (so-called "nurture" for short). I think the extent of early-age and compounded human experience results in people with very deep feelings and mental structures and dynamics which are not easily recognized for what they are, a result of environment + experience, not an inborn trait. I see a lot of ignorance in discerning which is which, I believe because most people tend to attribute the reason for anything that goes very deep in a person as something inborn. it might "feel" that way, that it´s always been there and that it wasn´t chosen or developed with time or early experiences (which later may be active in a person´s mind, but in an unconscious level), therefore invisible to the person and others around them.

That said, we do have two sexes, and how beautiful and wonderful that it is two and not a mediocre, one sexed world (a homosexual world is so lacking, the idea is really for people with a mental problem with heterosexuality). Only when we see people trying so hard to destroy heterosexuality, and how sacred it is, that it dawns on you that we must treasure heterosexuality and celebrate its beauty, now more than ever.

The Complementarity of the Sexes
Some of those defending marriage as the union of one man and one woman argue from the basis of child-rearing. The two parent, male and female, model for a family is most able to raise well-adjusted children. This is true, but it fails to go as deep as it should. Why should children have a mother and father? What's so special about this combination? Well, they should have a male and female role-model. And why is that? What it all boils down to is the widely recognized truth that men and women are different. Many liberals would have us believe that the only difference between men and women is social, cultural, and some minor physical differences.

My view as well. Marriage is not just because of children or in view of children. Heterosexuality (and the unique fact of two sexes) is sacred and beautiful (in its healthy and respectful forms) and marriage celebrates this and builds a framework for a longterm relationship. When the differences between the sexes are used to oppress one or the other, then obviously we get a mess. But then to try to counter this to say there are no differences, is to be just as blind. It´s another tactic to legitimize dysfunctional psychologies.

I wonder how people who believe in the homosexual gene theory think about bisexual people. Do they believe bisexual people have a bisexual gene? Do they believe that in ancient Greece, where men were bisexual and were concerned with being "on top", that they had a "bisexual being on top" gene? Then, all of a sudden, there was a genetic mutation, and Greeks mutated into having a heterosexual gene through the Middle Ages and today? Does Dean believe that people who find a solution to their homosexuality and are able to live healthily as heterosexuals have suffered a gene mutation? Does Dean believe there is a pedophile gene? Does he believe there is a polygamy gene? Does he believe there is an S/M gene? How about a chocolate gene (for people who were "born" with a constant desire for chocolates)?


One of the problems I see with the current discourse to legitimize homosexuality is that it requires tremendous ignorance from the person who is to adopt this discourse. That is precisely one of the reasons why the discourse is so widespread. Most people are quite ignorant about human psychology, anthropology, sociology, and therefore, simplistic, ignorant ways of thinking appeal to them tremendously. Additionally, it presents the world in a way which they can understand. An understanding that is complex and requires a lot more knowledge and critical thinking is not immediately grasped by such people, even if it is correct and debunks the ignorant ideology which they use to interpret and see the world.

The Globe reported in article linked above: "'The overwhelming evidence is that there is [sic] very significant, substantial genetic component" to homosexuality, Dean said in an interview yesterday. 'From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people.'"

An interesting way to try to legitimize homosexuality through religion or God. However, if this is so for homosexuality, it is so for any other "sin" as well. If we apply this logic to pedophilia for example, we would say, "from a religious point of view, if God had thought pedophilia is a sin, he would not have created pedophiles (including bisexual and homosexual ones)." This same question was asked repeatedly by people who believe in God regarding the Holocaust and other such events. Why did God "let it happen," "allow it to happen?" It makes clear one of the fundamental flaws in believing there is a supernatural being out there that is orchestrating life on earth, and that is responsible for making homosexuality (and anything else) happen. Applied to the subject of trying to legitimize homosexuality, it´s a kind of "blame it on God" kind of logic, and therefore, since God ( construed as a supernatural being that knows all) cannot be wrong, homosexuality cannot be wrong. Simple-minded logic triumphs.

However if homosexuality cannot be wrong, than heterosexuality and bisexuality cannot be wrong as well, and therefore nothing can be wrong. Along this logic, nothing that happens within human sexuality, human psychology, and human relations is wrong. And we get back to one of the requirements for legitimizing homosexuality which is profound ignorance, denial, and a veritable dumbing down of the way to think about such issues. In order to legitimize homosexuality, this discourse forces upon us ignorance of everything that exists that is wrong with human beings and their sexuality and their psychological make-up, which points to what is wrong with a variety of things with homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality. There is plenty wrong with human beings and current and past sexualities, wrong because it is dysfunctional, wrong because it is violent, wrong because it is a result of mental/psychological problems, wrong because it harms people, wrong because it is interpreted in an incorrect, ignorant way. Ignorance is always harmful. And ignorance applied to legitimizing homosexuality is not an exception.

From the Massnews article: It also makes one wonder why the huge caches of money which have put Dean ahead from the first day have not been examined by the press. There was a report by one television network that the money has come from homosexual activists, but we have found nothing in print about the source of that mysterious money.

Perhaps there is a gene that determines certain politicians will open their mouths to say anything that brings the cash in?

Another tenet of current pro-homosexual ideology is that if a person has a homosexual attraction for others, that this attraction must necessarily be good or healthy. This is a fundamental tenet in legitimizing homosexuality. It follows that the behavior that develops from this attraction must also therefore be good and healthy.

I find this tenet quite problematic, because attraction is not good nor healthy simply because it is attraction. People can develop attractions which are good and healthy and those that aren´t. People can develop attractions which are a result of profound, compounded mental problems. How aware (or lacking in awareness) someone is of their own mental problems is another issue that is overlooked by people who want to legitimize homosexuality (by saying that homosexuality is not a result of any mental problems).

It is clear that pro-homosexuals desire very much to legitimize the psychological make-up of homo and bisexuals and this legitimization requires believing and interpreting everything encompassed by such make-up as not having any problems.

An interesting phenomenum to be examined is that the same logic above is being tried by pedophile and ephebophile "activists", but it is rejected by (most) pro-homosexuals.

On Wednesday Dean said in an interview, "from a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people."

Dean´s "If God didn´t want this, there wouldn´t be that" pearls. (read excellent ways to apply this logic)


I wish a reporter would ask Dean why "did God create pedophiles then?" The potential ways he could answer this scare me. And the worse is, it is people like Dean who now dictate what is right or wrong for society in terms of sexuality, human relations and psychology.

From sinisterninja
Liberals. *sighs* I do not mind liberal thinking. I do not mind that there are people that don't eat meat, or don't use animal products, or state their opinions on the problems and mistakes of this great nation, or want to have sex with members of their own gender, or get sick about the stark contrast between socio-economic classes, or hate George W. Bush or his family... I truly don't. Bitch all you want, I'll fight in more wars than I already have for you to be able to, if I need to. However, when these people insult and degrade those who disagree, or aggressively attempt to impose their beliefs on those who disagree, they become in most cases what they believe to be their enemy. In their sometimes violent fight to attain liberties, benefits, rights, etc., they violate the rights of others, and their right to believe what they want. People like that, essentially, are bad people. In the same manner as those who fight to oppress, and deny liberties/benefits/rights, they are wrong.


I find the second statement here very much to the point of describing what is currently happening with the activism and behavior of pro-homosexual folks trying to impose their views/ideology, culture, and behaviors on everyone else. It is done in two formats: a persuasive one and a violent one. You may say it starts with the persuasion, and if the persuasion doesn´t work, they apply the strategies using violence (psychological violence mostly). This includes name calling and stereotyping, conceptually branding their opponents as someone who is bad/evil, most common tactics include branding as crazy, ignorant, pathological, hateful, fanatical, bigoted, archaic, "religious" (as in fanatically religious or in naively superstitious), racist/discriminatory.


To believe and think that you can impose your ideology (which is against someone else´s) onto that other person necessarily implies in violence against the other, which is what pro-homosexuals are engaging in collectively at the present moment. At the same time, they criticize people with differing views for being "bigots."

Going back to the persuasion tactics, why pro-homosexuals have been able to persuade is a very interesting topic. The tactics used are also very interesting (and I hope to blog more on this in the future).

From sinisterninja:

I recently witnessed someone with homosexual tendencies attack someone with heterosexual tendencies, calling them archaic, and something else... I don't remember. Some homosexuals actually have the nerve to tell a heterosexual that they are being archaic, and following a book written by a man, for not wanting to have sex with someone of their own gender. Really? Are you serious? I'm not saying homosexuality is right or wrong, but to attack a heterosexual's preference, and/or aversion to homosexual acts, is fucking ridiculous.

Pro-homosexuals must necessarily attack others, or they cannot impose their ideology. This is not a worldview that permits multiple beliefs, it is dogmatic and exclusionary. Everyone who disagrees must be attacked and destroyed because the belief that homosexuality should exist can only be sustained by destroying the right to be free from it.

In order to legitimize homosexuality, any opposition to it must be construed as pathological, aberrant, and ignorant.

The logic that is used to impose homosexuality as legitimate is also borrowed and used to impose other sexual ideologies and behaviors. Supporters of paradigms and praxi such as prostitution, pornography, pedophilia, S/M, bestiality, etc., have been using several of the same conceptual frameworks as pro-homosexuals.

I think also sinisterninja above represents a lot of people who have bought in the concept that homosexuality is right and healthy and not a result of mental/psychological/developmental/relationship problems, a concept I disagree with.

Which brings us to the question of choice. I find that one view that is quite absent from the mass media and informal talk about homosexuality and the question of choice is exactly the issue of mental/psychological/developmental/relationship problems. For example, if someone has repeated unpleasant experiences while growing up with swimming and then that persons comes to hate and be turned off by swimming, can you say that this person has chosen to dislike swimming? Obviously not, it is a result of a series of complex experiences. My views on why people are the way they are at a particular moment in life regarding their sexuality, psychology and intellectual state of mind, are analogous to this example. I don´t see people as having complete control over everything they are (some "homosexuality is a complete choice" theories), but not the simplistic opposite either ("I can´t help being, thinking, and feeling anything that´s homosexual, therefore everything I think, feel, and am is fine, and, consequently, I have a right to do everything I want with my sexuality, including doing it to others, and if you disagree, you are bigoted and discriminating me").

Each individual is a complex mix resulting from the entirety of their life experiences. For a person in the metaphor above with aversion to swimming then say that they have "a swimming aversion gene and they can´t help it, so it´s just good and healthy that they hate swimming" is an interpretation that encompasses a lot of ignorance about themselves, even if it might make them feel better thinking there is nothing wrong with them.

I recently witnessed someone with homosexual tendencies attack someone with heterosexual tendencies, calling them archaic, and something else... I don't remember. Some homosexuals actually have the nerve to tell a heterosexual that they are being archaic, and following a book written by a man, for not wanting to have sex with someone of their own gender. Really? Are you serious? I'm not saying homosexuality is right or wrong, but to attack a heterosexual's preference, and/or aversion to homosexual acts, is fucking ridiculous.

There is another kind of attack that is not dealt with. I witnessed yesterday a bi or homosexual woman sexually harassing a heterosexual woman. I have yet to see a pro-homosexual address this issue. It is clear that the bi/homo woman thought she had a right to sexually harass other women. It is clear that this bi/homo woman thinks this way because of current discourses endorsing and promoting homosexuality. If the woman being harassed had punched the harasser in the face, she would not doubt be histerically called a "homophobic." The concept of homophobia is used to allow bi and homosexuals to practice sexual violence and harassment with impunity. It is used to legitimize all kinds of violent and unethical behaviors perpetrated from non-heterosexuals. It is also used to deny sexual agency and rights.

If you cannot choose to be in a heterosexual environment and relate to people in a heterosexual way, you no longer have rights to choose how others treat you sexually, in other words, you are no longer a subject, you have become a non-entity, a slave.

A society that demonizes this most fundamental human right is pathological.

This can be applied to other determinations over one´s environments and how others treat you, such as issues with pornography, prostitution, dress, non-verbal behavior, etc.

Another pro-homosexual tenet is that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. Therefore homo and bisexuals should do everything that heterosexuals do, such as marry and adopt children, since obviously, given that nature did not intend for people to be homosexual parents, they have to force themselves as parents onto children conceived outside their homosexual relation.

I think it´s bizarre that people have come to think that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, given how different a heterosexual relationship is from a homosexual relationship. I also think homosexuality is a problem resulting from a person´s emotional and psychological difficulties/traumas/developmental issues with heterosexuality and therefore, homosexuality cannot be conceptually thought of being a variation of heterosexuality, but a problematic type of sexuality.

Gays Deserve Legal Protection (Thursday, March 15, 2001-Southfield Eccentric)Believe it or not, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against another person based on their real or perceived sexual orientation.


I find this homosexual anti-discrimination discourse so tiresome because of its blatant hypocrisy. It is clear to me that 99% of the people ranting about discrimination against homosexuals are very strong supporters of discrimination based on nationality. If you cannot discriminate because of a person´s sexual orientation (even if it is dysfunctional), it follows that you cannot discriminate because a person has a different nationality.
Obviously those who rant against being able to discriminate based on sexual orientation don´t oppose nationality discrimination.


So, if somebody from Mexico (or Vietnam, or France, or Mongolia) wanted to get a job in the US, and they were qualified and honest people, they should. Immediately. Otherwise, it is discrimination, pure and simple, treating them as second-class citizens. Not even that, such is the discrimination, because they aren´t even treated as citizens, not even second or third class ones.

Homosexuals and bisexuals have a choice into many things regarding their thinking and behavior, people do not choose what country they were born in, so nationality discrimination is based on greed. You may camouflage it with different reasons, but the true reason is simple and ugly.


Another problem I see with the homosexual anti-discrimination discourse is the fundamental concept on which it is based which is sexual orientation. I find this concept is problematic, but more on that later. The main issue is: a homosexual person who behaves in a homosexual way towards others (ways that can include violence and harassment) is much more than just a "sexual orientation".


You have a right to discriminate based on sexual ideology and behavior. So, I believe it is a fundamental human right to choose and determine what sexual behaviors other people have a right to impose on you, which is nill. You have a right to determine always. Therefore you have a right to total discrimination to any and all sexual behaviors from others, if you so choose. The right to be free from supersedes the right from anyone to do anything to you. Therefore the right to total discrimination against any non-heterosexuals is a fundamental human right. The right to total discrimination against others pushing pornography onto you is a fundamental human right. The right to total discrimination against prostitution, etc is a fundamental human right. The right to be free from homo and bisexuals is a fundamental human right.

Finally a media comment that addresses the problem of brutal violence as entertainment with Mel Gibson´s Passion (and his mind) and the hypocrisy in the media and public by being acquiescent consumers and clapping along with such films. Gibson is just another mentally diseased producer and director making violence as entertainment a bane and almost a rule in our world.

I would be most happy if people boycotted the film entirely, that would be a world where the message of Jesus Christ prevailed, and violence as entertainment as was condemned into silence and ignomy, its proper place.

Modern society is profoundly sick. Bring in the special effects, the high tech, the gizmos and it doesn´t improve anything, Gibson is an example of the great number of humans that refuse to evolve one bit in even thousand of years.

posted by David Blankenhorn:
Here's another article arguing that preventing SSM is the same as preventing interracial marriage. Actually, it's not the same. The central aim of marriage as a human social institution is to bring together men and women into sexual union. (I know that the demand now is to change that definition, but until we do, that's what it is.) Banning interracial marriage introduces an extraneous and invidious consideration -- race -- in order to prevent men and women from joining together. That is, bans on interracial marriage are an affront to the deep strucuture, meaning, and aim of the institution.

Prohibiting SSM is also consistent with, and arguably necessary to, this very same objective: understanding marriage as an institution that brings togther men and women for sexual union, procreation, and mutual aid. In other words, if I see marriage as an institution that, at its very core, is about bridging the sex divide in the interests of children, it is perfectly consistent to support interracial marriage and oppose SSM.

I realize that this proposition is debatable. One can argue either that marriage is not what I say it is (that would be a hard case to make, I think) or that it shouldn't be. And I also realize that the validity of this analogy should not determine, one way or the other, one's ultimate position on this controversy. But before we read for the zillionth time that opposing SSM is the same as opposing racial integration, I want to register this small dissent.

--------------------
I think the way pro-homosexuals structure their discourse in this civil rights language merits more analysis, since it is highly manipulative and dissimulating. In order to equate homosexuality with race, you have to squash human sexuality to this highly dubious construct of "sexual orientation." Otherwise, there is no way one can equate some superficial physical characteristics (races) with profound spheres of psychology, mental and intellectual developments in a human being that results in homosexuality or bisexuality.

One more discourse strategy to ground profound human complexity of sexuality and relationship psychology into something stupid and minimal ("sexual orientation").

I also find interesting to see that pro-homosexuals only use this "sexual orientation" label for homosexual attraction. I never hear people saying the so-and-so has a feet sexual orientation or a dog sexual orientation.

Another annoying thing about how pro-homosexuals would love to make everyone a vaccuum headed "individual", is how they love to repeat over and over, "no one knows why people are homosexual"... actually, we know a lot about why people are one way or another, including homosexual or bisexual, why some people are violent, why some people are pedophiles, why some people are alcoholics, why some people are desensitized to violence, why some people are in denial, so many human mental problems have a so many things about them already explained, even if not complete or totally satisfying. But to say we know nothing about nothing is just another "let´s legitimize homosexuality with the most mediocre appeals and non-sensical tenets around." Unfortunately this suffices for a large number of people.

Mayor OKs Monopoly Money for 'Gay Licenses'
(2004-02-17) -- San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom today declared that homosexuals applying for so-called marriage licenses at City Hall can pay the application fee with Monopoly money.

"For too long now," said Mayor Newsom, "Monopoly money, and other counterfeit bills, have been treated as second-class currency. We are no longer captives to antiquated values based on majority opinions and legislation. Since I have power to override state and federal laws, I declare that Monopoly money is legal tender."

A local jeweler in San Francisco immediately began advertising that his shop would also accept Monopoly money for his "full line of genuine pyrite wedding rings."

Read the comments as well, many are just as good...:-)

Posted by: Pile On at February 18, 2004 06:17 PM
If you want to marry the dead all you have to do is move to Phrance. It is legal to marry the dead there, provided you can prove the dead intended to marry you prior to the extended dirt nap.

Recently a woman married a dead guy (like within the last two weeks) if anyone doubts this a quick google search will likely prove my accuracy.

Extended dirt nap... that is too good...:-) After reading so much nonsense and depressing fanatical pro-homosexuality news... finally something cool to read on the Net...

posted by Clayton - his blog- mar 3, 2004I Think It's Time To Travel To San Francisco

You see, there is someone who is very important to me. But because of the bigotry of the laws, there is no way to add my domestic companion to my health insurance. If I die first, there is no simple way to leave my estate; I would have to consult a lawyer, and the matter would become quite complex, especially the right of survivorship with respect to the house my companion loves so much.

We are discriminated against at tax time; I may not take my domestic companion as a dependent. True, we will never have children, but the same is true for many couples marrying today in San Francisco, Oregon, New York, and New Mexico. But my love for this domestic companion is very strong, and I resent how the narrow-mindedness of the bigots that write our laws keeps us apart.

As I sit on the couch watching TV next to my companion, I think how unfair it is that we remain trapped by the narrow definition of marriage imposed by the bigots. My companion yawns, and I look over, increasingly hurt that we must remain not "Applicant 1" and "Applicant 2" but only what Berkeley's city code now calls a "domestic companion." And her muzzle is graying; she chases the ball with less energy than in her youth. Those bigots, refusing to see how important love is, so focused on a minor difference in species.

Another interesting comment, that I don´t recall where I read it, inquired about the numbers of homosexuals that have tried to marry. If there are millions of homosexuals in the United States, why have only a tiny number tried to marry? And... would the California mayor marry two men and a woman if all 3 applied? If it makes them happy and they are committed in a 3 way relationship, shouldn´t they be allowed to marry? I think people who oppose homosexuals (and all that comes from this paradigm) should apply to marry their pets, marry many other people, etc etc... and if the mayor of California didn´t marry them, bring on the suits... What suits? The suits against the bigotted San Francisco mayor, who has discriminated against them...
That would be a lovely picture... thousands of people lined up with their donkeys, canaries, dogs, pigs, elephants (why not?) in front of the Mayor´s office demanding a marriage licence... Can you hear it? I now pronounce you man and pig... or man and squirrel! :-)

Thinking More Seriously About Going To Law School
- so says Clayton, and funny thing, I´ve been thinking about the same. Writing, journalism, law, or teaching? It is sad how powerless one feels without being a lawyer. (or having tons of money to hire the good attorneys...)

Happy to discover another person concerned with homosexuals perpetrating abuse and the carelessness with which it is treated.