The biological facts on marriage | Napa Valley Register

Home » Opinion » Letters To The Editor

The biological facts on marriage

Thursday, January 08, 2009

Comment

Dear editor, I agree with Jeffrey Schulz that the California educational system — presuming there to be any such thing — is in a deplorable state (“In diverse land, a narrow-minded vote,” Jan. 4).

But this judgment is not supported by November’s vote on Proposition 8. It is supported, on the contrary, by the illogical and self-contradictory arguments trotted out by people like Schulz when they’re unhappy with the democratic process.

Schulz argues in essence that the diverse character of the California electorate requires all voters to cast their ballots in accord with the judgment of rich, white, urban and suburban people.

The fact is that diverse ethnic groups, such as blacks and Latinos, voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 8 because they didn’t buy any of the goofy propaganda spouted against it under the auspices of enlightenment. Good for them! May they prove impervious to these lies for generations to come!

Schulz also displays a complete lack of historical perspective when he suggests that the American experiment in self-government and religious tolerance requires us to allow homosexual marriage.

If this is true, why didn’t Thomas Jefferson marry George Washington? Why didn’t Sam Houston marry Davy Crockett?

If Jefferson Davis had married Abraham Lincoln, could their union have averted the Civil War? We’ll never know — because it never occurred to them. And it shouldn’t be occurring to us.

Wizards of smart like Schulz are missing one important thing. The drive to recognize homosexual marriage is rooted in an implicit denial of the biological fact that men and women are different.

All marriage customs from cultures around the world, no matter how diverse, proceed from this fact so that even cultures highly tolerant of homosexuality traditionally insist that men marry women and vice versa. When a man concludes some sort of relationship with another man, it is no more a marriage than kerosene is a fine wine. Saying otherwise will not alter the fact.

Tom Riley / Napa

193 comment(s)

pharper wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:34 AM:

" Uhhh. I know this is logical, so take a deep breath and hold your nose - but perhaps Thomas Jefferson didn't marry George Washington because...now, just wait for it...they weren't gay?

I know, I know. It's crazy, right?

See, the thing is, if biology were a factor lots of people couldn't get married. Old people, infertile people, first cousins (who can, by the way, marry in some states).

If it wasn't possible, people wouldn't even try to have a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. See, that whole "which piece fits where" thing can get blown to bits. People are pretty darn creative.

The whole biology thing can really get sticky, Mr. Riley, so I'd look for a new argument. "

Raven wrote on Jan 8, 2009 5:07 AM:

" impervious to lies?.....what lies have been spoken?.....that marriage is a basic civil right for all legal, consenting adults and the Prop 8 takes away that right?

So, give us a rational reason why same sex marriage should not be allowed and remember, moral indignation is not a legal justification for discrimination according to the US Supreme Court, so come up with another.

btw, those same diverse ethnic groups also made up the groups who voted against prop 8. "

this_is_alfred wrote on Jan 8, 2009 5:48 AM:

" Gays need to move on already! "

a teacher wrote on Jan 8, 2009 6:27 AM:

" " Uhhh. I know this is logical, so take a deep breath and hold your nose - but perhaps Thomas Jefferson didn't marry George Washington because...now, just wait for it...they weren't gay?"

I thought it was because Washington had a crush on Lafayette...

Mr. Riley, I would also avoid the argument of tradition argument also. If you examine the history of marriage you'll find it has little to do with sex or love and more to do with property and alliances. The idea of romantic love and the nuclear family is a recent invention. The institution of marriage evolves constantly to suit the needs of the general culture.

If you believe that homosexuality is wrong and shouldn't be accommodated, that's an argument that I can respect even if I don't agree with it. All the rest is smoke and mirrors. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 8, 2009 7:07 AM:

" We don't know much about the Founder's sexuality in the early days of the USA. We only know about some of their marriages, not who they slept with.

And it doesn't matter, because the US Constitution guarantees religious freedom, which varous churches have tried to suppress over the centuries.

Religious freedom means that churches that don't approve of gay marriage don't get to impose their morality on churches that do approve of gay marriage.

The fact that homosexuals have had their rights trampled on for thousands of years doesn't mean they are not entitled to equal treatment under the civil laws of the USA.

Equal means Equal.

Napa County voted against Prop 8, why don't Napa votes count for Napa?

Why should churches in Fresno decide who can and can not get married at the County Recorder's office in Napa?

~Ruff "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 8, 2009 8:17 AM:

" While education level was a factor, with more highly educated people voting for equality, the primary factor was conservative religious and party affiliation. It was Republicans and conservative religious people who chose to take away the right, as recognized by the courts, to marry.
Your arguments reflect either a profound lack of understanding of what it means to be gay, or a denial of reality. Straight people would not want to marry a person of the same sex any more than gay people would want to marry a person of the opposite sex. Forcing gay people into straight marriage only causes suffering in the long run. Gay people have been around forever, and their relationships have been tolerated in various places and times. Conservative religious organizations have however used the biological argument to single them out for persecution, based on a belief system, not on science or any other rational assessment of reality. "

VERUM wrote on Jan 8, 2009 8:24 AM:

" Was not Thomas Jefferson busy fathering children from Negro slave women? Not a lot of time left for any marriage of any sort. "

misfit wrote on Jan 8, 2009 8:31 AM:

" Rich...you have completely exposed yerself now! "

Paddy wrote on Jan 8, 2009 8:32 AM:

" Back into the closet. Everybody. "

That's Me wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:02 AM:

" No. No more closets. Prop. 8 is unconstitutional and will be found so by the courts.

The constitution _protects_ citizens' rights. It is not there to take rights away from anyone.

Mr. Riley, not only do you not know your history -- you are on the wrong side of ours. "

NapaCitizen wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:17 AM:

" My Christian beliefs mandate that I love and accept others for who they are, sins and all. I am not the one to judge others for who God created them to be.

Tolerance and love folks, not Hate. "

Rocketman wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:28 AM:

" Ruff, GREAT idea! Let's remove ourself from the chains of the California polictics and become the Republic of Napa.....just like San Francisco and Bezerkley are trying to do!! "

Raven wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:49 AM:

" and those of us who aren't gay alfred?..we can keep fighting against Prop 8? "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:30 AM:

" In a new study, based on polling data, funded by Equality California Institute and conducted by David Binder Research, the study found that voters who supported Prop 8 were primarily influenced by:

Ideology – 82% of voters who identify as conservatives voted “Yes”
Party – Republicans voted more than 80% in favor of Prop 8
Religiosity – 70% of weekly church goers voted “Yes”
Age – 67% of voters born before World War II voted “Yes”

The study also showed that race was not a driving factor in the election, as was purported by the National Election Pool (NEP) poll which said 70% of African-Americans voted for Prop 8. Our study found the number closer to 57% to 59%. "

Is it 2012 yet? wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:42 AM:

" Wow!...That is a really "ugly crowd" who supported Prop 8, equalnotspecial.

I bet that DID NOT make you feel specially equal. "

wpr wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:47 AM:

" "Mr. Rough", I disagree with you. Don't lump all of Napa County into your world. Not all of us voted "against" prop 8. And what do you have against churches in Fresno? You've been busy this morning. A wry, sarcastic comment on everything. I hope you do rest some times. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:13 AM:

" Is it 2012: I have never felt legally equal in my life. I wouldn't say it is an "ugly crowd" though. I prefer to believe most are good people who are simply misinformed.

We are all taught prejudice for gay people from early childhood and throughout our adult years. Some people resist, while others embrace the teachings and pass them on. Some use the bible to teach discrimination while other religious leaders and followers read the bible differently and find only a message of love and acceptance for all of God's children. Some cite tradition, but ignore that we couldn't have continued slavery for as long as we did without citing tradition as well as some select bible verses. But prejudice is hard to overcome even once you realize your actions, based on your beliefs, cause real harm and suffering, including permission for violence, to real people who only want to live their lives free from persecution and with equal rights. Equal protection under the law is a fundamental constitutional guarantee and is the foundation of our society. Our constitution should guarantee the same freedoms and rights to everyone. You don't have to overcome your prejudice, just don't write it into law. "

Is it 2012 yet? wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:35 PM:

" A misinformed crowd? I totally doubt it. Intelligent and informed people from every background imaginable fall in that "ugly crowd" who voted YES, according to your information.

Nobody in that "ugly crows" seems to be forcing gays to stay in the closet or taking away ANY already given rights as US citizens. I believe what supporters of Prop 8 are saying is "ENOUGH" of special treatment based on what sexually pleases you best. "

glenroy wrote on Jan 8, 2009 1:32 PM:

" Has nothing to do with equality….has to do with the nonsense that if the government sanctions something gays think they’ll be ‘viewed’ equally or ‘thought’ of equally….seeing how few identify with same sex sex, I find that hard to imagine especially from a physical perspective….…

This is an attempt at mental affirmative action, you must believe because the government says it's marriage….silly…because it ain't going to happen.

Civil Unions provide every single benefit as marriage….yet they claim not. They can’t explain 'not' because legally it is exactly the same…

Big deal….even if marriage becomes legal by definition, it won’t change anyone’s opinion.

I wonder how they determine who's the husband?....husband and husband? "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 8, 2009 1:39 PM:

" 2012: "ugly crowd" is your description, not mine.

But prop 8 did clearly remove a "fundamental right", as recognized by the courts, from gay people.
Being gay is about who you love and want to spend your life with. Love, though hard to define, is recognized as being a basic part of being human. Sexuality is one part of being human as well. All medical organizations in the U.S. recognize being gay as a natural expression of human bonding. You can deny the reality of gay people if you like. You should not however be able to use the law to discriminate against gay people based on you beliefs, even if they are shared by a majority. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 8, 2009 1:57 PM:

" 2012. Responding to you assertion that "nobody... seems to be forcing gays to stay in the closet", consider this:

FBI hate crime data shows that attacks founded on sexual orientation continue to be characterized by a high level of violence, with a higher proportion of personal assaults than in other categories of hate crime.
In the United States, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) and more than thirty of its member organizations across the country released an annual report in May 2008, showing a 24 percent increase in incidents of violence against LGBT people in 2007, compared to 2006. They noted that 2007 also had the third-highest murder rate in the ten years that NCAVP has been compiling the report, with murders more than doubling from 10 in 2006 to 21 in 2007. "

wpr wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:04 PM:

" "Mr. Limbluff", I know you are out there... You must be busily typing up yet another set of talking points taken from the Huffington Post? I'm waiting.... "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:09 PM:

" Glenroy. A partial explanation: Even if domestic partnerships covered all of the rights of marriage, they would still not be equal. The US Supreme court recognized that "separate but equal" opportunities created a feeling of inferiority for the minorities being segregated, and that this feeling of segregation could cause permanent emotional injury".
The Ca. Supreme court found: "the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite sex couples likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples. Furthermore, because of the historic disparagement of gay persons, the retention of a distinction in nomenclature by which the term "marriage" is withheld only from the family relationship of same-sex couples is all the more likely to cause the new parallel institution that has been established for same-sex couples to be considered a mark of second-class citizenship. Finally, in addition to the potential harm flowing from the lesser stature that is likely to be afforded to the family relationships of same-sex couples by designating them domestic partnerships, there exists a substantial risk that a judicial decision upholding the differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples would be understood as validating a more general proposition that our state by now has repudiated: that it is permissible, under the law, for society to treat gay individuals and same-sex couples differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals and opposite sex couples.
In light of all of these circumstances, we conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same -sex couples. (p.118) "

Raven wrote on Jan 8, 2009 3:16 PM:

" so, wpr....the majority of Napans voted against prop 8, make you feel better knowing you are a minority? and if you check the Bakersfield paper, you will see that church leaders in Bakersfield demanded that the county not perform same sex marriages or even issue licenses, saying that their church's beliefs were more important that the law.

2012, no one is asking for special treatment...just equal treatment "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:36 PM:

" wpr-

I read the Huffington Post once in awhile, but not more than once a week.

What of it? Generally, the HuffPo is a bit too wishy-washy for me.

The internet is so amazing... for instance, I can just go read US Supreme Court decisions myself! Or read the histories and notes of the Founders, the Federalist Papers, the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Are you really wanting to get into where I find the facts you don't want to face?

Heck, I'm game today... where did you get your non-factual "information" that the ACLU lost the Iraq Occupation for our poor put-upon Mr. Bungle?

~Ruff "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 8, 2009 5:16 PM:

" Alfred. Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
(MLK) "

Rocketman wrote on Jan 8, 2009 6:20 PM:

" I agree with equal-not-special......lets call this union, "same-sex couples". End of debate! "

Raven wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:15 PM:

" again with the making it something different, rocketman...why not just call all marriages either marriage or civil unions... "

winewoman wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:23 PM:

" Mr Riley, Unfortunately for you, sarcasm and name calling could not distract anyone from your glaringly illogical argument. Here's a dime, try again. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 9, 2009 6:13 PM:

" Teacher wrote: "If you examine the history of marriage you'll find it has little to do with sex or love and more to do with property and alliances. The idea of romantic love and the nuclear family is a recent invention."

Not so. Marriages arranged for property and alliances may have been the rule among the upper class (kings and nobles), but was not common for the lower and middle classes. If you study the works of Shakespeare, for example, you can't escape the fact that even then, marriage was often based on love. Another example, much further back in time: read the story of Ruth and Boaz in the Old Testament. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 9, 2009 6:19 PM:

" equalnotspecial wrote "The US Supreme court recognized that "separate but equal" opportunities created a feeling of inferiority..."

Then how do you explain the legality of separate but equal public restrooms, or separate but equal sports programs for men and women (per Title IX)? "

John Richards wrote on Jan 9, 2009 6:28 PM:

" equalnotspecial wrote: "The study also showed that race was not a driving factor in the election, as was purported by the National Election Pool (NEP) poll which said 70% of African-Americans voted for Prop 8. Our study found the number closer to 57% to 59%."

One can argue whether the 59% number is closer to the truth than the 70% number, but the fact remains that blacks voted for Prop 8 in greater numbers than the 52% recorded for the average voter. As such, race was definitely a factor. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 9, 2009 6:33 PM:

" NapaCitizen wrote "My Christian beliefs mandate that I love and accept others for who they are, sins and all. I am not the one to judge others for who God created them to be. Tolerance and love folks, not Hate."

That's a rather one-sided view of what the Bible teaches. It also teaches us to hate sin, and to discipline the sinner, and if he does not repent, to shun him. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 9, 2009 6:43 PM:

" equalnotspecial wrote: "I prefer to believe most are good people who are simply misinformed."

You delude yourself. And as someone with a great deal of higher education, I resent the characterization of being "misinformed". "

a teacher wrote on Jan 9, 2009 7:05 PM:

" JR, OF COURSE! What was I thinking? Why didn't I consult the great historian and anthropologist Shakespeare? EVERYONE knows that MEDIA accurately portrays everyday life. Why in a thousand years people will study recordings of "The Simpsons" to understand the American nuclear family.

Perhaps you should put down the Bard and pick up an actual anthropology text. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jan 9, 2009 7:58 PM:

" Thanks for your many comments. I’ll try to give the substantive ones due consideration. Of course, I can’t answer all of them here.

I need to point out that I was not constructing a positive argument for Proposition 8 – which has already stood on its own merits. I was merely critiquing the absurd idea that our Founding Fathers intended us to legalize homosexual marriage. If they did, why didn’t this necessity occur to anybody till more than 200 years after our polity began?

I found it entertaining that someone cited Alexander the Great as a famous “gay.” In reality, Alexander was not “gay” in the modern sense, since gayness implies a complete personal identification with a homosexual orientation. But Alexander did harbor, and indulge, homosexual proclivities – as did his father, Philip, who was murdered by a former homosexual lover. Greek and Macedonian society at the time was highly tolerant of homosexuality.

But both Philip and Alexander married only women. Whatever their sexual proclivities, they knew what marriage was – and knew that marriage between a man and a man was no marriage at all. Q.E.D. "

a teacher wrote on Jan 9, 2009 8:20 PM:

" "But both Philip and Alexander married only women. Whatever their sexual proclivities, they knew what marriage was – and knew that marriage between a man and a man was no marriage at all. Q.E.D. "

And yet, Mr. Riley, The Romans, who adopted many Greek customs, allowed men to marry. The Roman Emperor Constantine outlawed it in 339 AD (I think). "

Tom Riley wrote on Jan 9, 2009 11:17 PM:

" Nice try, teacher -- but no cigar. Roman law did not recognize the marriage of two men.

Your assertion derives ultimately from the work of John Boswell, who wrote two well-known books about "same-sex unions" in ancient times. Boswell's evidence is historical (Suetonius' accounts of how Nero underwent wedding ceremonies with men, once as groom and once as bride) and literary (Cicero's "Second Philippic Against Antony" and Juvenal's "Satire II").

If you read Boswell's sources, you'll find that none of the "marriages" referred to were legally recognized.

Nero also castrated and murdered free men -- but Roman law did not allow such outrages. When Nero underwent his homosexual weddings, he was just doing the things that crazy emperors did. It had nothing to do with what Roman law allowed.

Cicero specifically says that the younger Curio "tamquam ... in matrimonio stabili et certo collocavit" with Antony. That's "cohabited as if in a stable and certain marriage." Note the word "tamquam," meaning "as if."

Juvenal similarly describes a "wedding" ceremony without legal sanction and represents it as disgusting, as if "mulier uitulum uel ... bos ederet agnum" ("a woman bore a calf or a cow a lamb").

Please note that all three Roman authors disapprove of the mock marriages they describe. One of them even cites the appeal to biology I used in my letter.

Also note that Boswell himself never asserts that these homosexual weddings were sanctioned by law.

If you want to lecture me about Roman history, learn some Latin. "

a napa student wrote on Jan 9, 2009 11:58 PM:

" a teacher wrote- "And yet, Mr. Riley, The Romans, who adopted many Greek customs, allowed men to marry. The Roman Emperor Constantine outlawed it in 339 AD (I think). " The two problems with this are: 1) Constantine was never a Roman emperor but was an emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire or more commonly known as the Byzantine Empire, and the second problem is that Constantine was dead by A.D. 339, he died in A.D. 337. Just putting my eccelent education from Tom Riley to use. "

eyeamme wrote on Jan 10, 2009 2:32 AM:

" JR -

The bible also says not to eat shell fish! And to stone our wives and sell our daughters into slavery! Do you follow EVERYTHING the bible says? I doubt anybody does. Perhaps the reason is, is that we (as a society) have found reasons to not. Shell fish is quite tasty when prepared properly! Slavery was ended. Stoning our wives? Well... if she does not repent... I guess we should stone our wives. People have also found that it's okay to be homosexual. A lot of homosexuals lead very successful lives. They have children. They raise a family. They go to church. They eat shell fish! Get over yourself! Just because you're not having as much fun as homosexuals are, doesn't mean you have to condemn them. "

eyeamme wrote on Jan 10, 2009 2:37 AM:

" "If this is true, why didn’t Thomas Jefferson marry George Washington? Why didn’t Sam Houston marry Davy Crockett?"

Well, because they wern't in love! (Obviously)... Plus... who'd want to marry a guy with the last name of Crockett? Then he'd be Sam Crockett! Plus, Houston had commitment issues (he had three marriages). Who wants to deal with that? Certainly not Davy! "

a teacher wrote on Jan 10, 2009 9:20 AM:

" Well Mr. Riley, I will have to bow to your apparently superior knowledge of Roman History. I haven't the time to learn Latin, I'm too busy teaching math.

That said, I would question the relevance of Roman and Greek history to the year 2009. Or Biblical History, for that matter. It's true that we get a great deal of our culture from those sources, but it is also true that we have departed significantly from that culture in the last 100 years.

But I realize you were commenting on using Alexander's "homosexuality" as relevant information in this issue.

To a Napa Student- The "Byzantine Empire" was a word invented by historians to describe the Eastern Roman Empire. Constantine would have considered himself a Roman. It was Constans and Constantius(sp), Consantine's sons, who outlawed same sex marriage in 342 AD. I admit I was unsure of the date. "

Raven wrote on Jan 10, 2009 10:24 AM:

" For all you students of Rome - Constantine started out as Ceasar for the west, then co-emperor with Licinius (who had married Constantine's half-sister) and then eventually became emperor of all the Roman empire, in 329, moving his capitol from Rome to what became Constantinople. "

winewoman wrote on Jan 10, 2009 11:24 AM:

" This conversation is too high-brow for me. We do overanalyze things. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 10, 2009 2:00 PM:

" JR. The separate is not equal argument was about marriage, and I think the Ca. court explained why separate is not equal in relation to marriage. Sports and restrooms are very different institutions, but wasn't title 9 an attempt to equalize opportunities? The restroom situation doesn't grant any unequal rights, just separate facilities that no one is complaining about in significant numbers. The trend however is moving toward individual facilities that are open to everyone equally. I have also observed women using men's facilities on several occasions, and no one objected. But in both cases, everyone has equal legal rights if not equal abilities, just like in the case of those with physical impairments. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 10, 2009 2:06 PM:

" JR. As to race, yes, it is a factor, but not as much as Ideology, Party, or Religiosity. It also seems those who push the race distinction want to divide rather than bring people together. Clearly a lot of education needs to take place across the board if gay people are ever to achieve equal treatment under the law. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 10, 2009 2:14 PM:

" JR. "I prefer to believe most are good people who are simply misinformed." Yes, I delude myself. Notice I said "prefer to believe". Denial is a useful psychological defense mechanism, and while I try not to rely on it too much, it allows me to go about my life knowing that many people want to harm me because of something I cannot change. Despite the fact that "all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country ... conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience", I know many operate under a belief system which denies that reality. They see my existence as a sin, and believe they should "hate sin, and to discipline the sinner, and if he does not repent, to shun him." Or worse.

"Misinformed" doesn't imply a lack of information or education. In fact it requires having information. It does however imply that the information is not accurate. Prejudice has to be taught. And it is heavily taught in subtle as well as straightforward ways. Some accept it and spread it around, while others reject it. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 10, 2009 2:23 PM:

" winewoman. Don't let the details put you off. What you can take from the history lessons however, is that gay people have been around forever and they and their relationships have been accepted to various degrees in different times and places. There have also always been those who disapprove and have persecuted gay people to various degrees, throughout history. Gay people by nature are and always will be, a minority of the population. It is easy for a majority to persecute a minority, even though many are realizing it is immoral to do so. "

Raven wrote on Jan 10, 2009 3:00 PM:

" lol "

Tom Riley wrote on Jan 10, 2009 7:03 PM:

" I might agree that the mores of ancient societies are distant from decisions we make today – if they weren’t always cited back to me, inaccurately, by the other side. And there may be another way in which they’re relevant.

I want to show that granting legal recognition to homosexual marriages is a step never taken before our time in any human society, no matter how tolerant otherwise that society may have been. Another case in point: warlike Sparta, in which the majority of those tough guys practiced homosexuality in young adulthood – then married in their mid-thirties and, with their female wives, raised families.

This may not prove we can’t take this step today – but it does indicate that we shouldn’t take it without powerful reasons. Yet all we are given is an abstract equal-treatment-for-all slogan. When we object, we are told our reasons derive from religion and therefore are not “rational.”

Yet where does the idea of equal treatment come from? It comes from the New Testament – specifically the Letter of James. That’s where the Founding Fathers got it. That’s where the French Revolution got it, too. It is no more “rational” than the many reasons cited from the Bible to oppose homosexual marriage. You can’t construct a geometrical proof to show that all people must be treated equally.

In my mind, therefore, it needs to be balanced against other principles – such as the creation of humanity “male and female.” The way I assess that balance makes me support Proposition 8. I understand that other people may assess the balance differently, but I resent being told that my assessment is irrational, or makes me ignorant. "

sicksense wrote on Jan 10, 2009 10:02 PM:

" Tom Riley...you sir have done some homework! I appreciate your input on this subject. "

wonkagirl wrote on Jan 10, 2009 10:31 PM:

" To All People: The people have voted, because that's what they were asked to do, and yet, no one can accept the outcome of the VOTE..? That makes no sense.
In my opinion, letting everyone know your sexuality prefernce isn't anyone's business. I feel that "Gays" have to show it all to everyone without people asking them. I love men, tall, brown hair attractive men, but I don't have a sticker or a flag waving to let everyone know that, because 1: it's no one's business and 2: If I had a sticker on my car stating such fact, I probably would be considered a "Tramp", are you getting the point?
Regardless of it all, the Gay community has to accept it because it was voted on by their peers and people that either shared their belief or not.

And just to make them feel better, I DIDN'T VOTE, but had I I would have voted YES on PROP 8 "

pharper wrote on Jan 10, 2009 10:33 PM:

" Tom Riley - I'd like to point out that the men of Sparta did not practice homosexuality. As a matter of fact, rape was a very powerful and commonly used tool in war. To have sex with another man had very little to do with sex, and much to do with power - such is also true today. Most people commit rape and sexual assault not for sex, but for power or to hurt someone else. As is the case today, most people were not actually gay (I presume about 10% of the population, same as it is now); they were simply using an effective way of humiliating and hurting their enemy. You can look that one up.

Secondly, the Founding Fathers were far more heavily influenced by John Locke than by the New Testament when writing both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

Thirdly, you say that we "can't construct a geometrical proof to show that all people must be treated equally." No, we can't. However, we can't construct a geometrical proof that democracy is the best form of government. We can't construct a geometrical proof for a lot of things that we consider moral. And yet, women have the right to vote. Black people are no longer enslaved. Some things may not have a "geometrical proof," whatever you mean by that. There is no geometrical proof that people should be free. But we are. Sometimes, we know right from wrong without having something tangible in front of us. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jan 11, 2009 12:04 AM:

" Once again, the experts on everything don’t know what they’re talking about. The Spartans did not systematically practice the rape of prisoners in warfare. They did practice sexual dalliance between men and teenaged boys – usually military trainer and trainee. It’s mentioned, among other places, in Plato’s “Laws.” Some ancient authorities, such as Plutarch, claim that this contact was typically “chaste” – but appear to mean only that it excluded some sexual acts. What the Spartans practiced would certainly be prosecuted under current laws protecting minors.

I understand that rape is an act of aggression rather than of sexual expression. But Pharper is apparently confusing the Spartans with the Assyrians. At any rate, he doesn’t know beans about ancient Sparta.

If you want to lecture me about Greek history, learn to read Greek.

I’m aware of the influence of Locke on the Founding Fathers. By citing him, Pharper is missing my point. I maintain that the idea of equal treatment originates in the Letter of James and that all expressions of that principle, including Locke’s, proceed from that origin. Prove me wrong.

Pharper’s critique of my assertion that we can’t construct a geometric proof of the principle of equality only supports my point. It’s stunning that he can’t see this. Of course such moral principles exist beyond the realm of geometrical proof: they aren’t “logical” in that sense, but they are reasonable. Yet when social conservatives assert such a principle – such as the idea that people should live in accord with their biological natures – they are told that the assertion is not “logical.” Our side is required to deliver geometric proofs where Pharper’s is allowed merely to assert unquestioned principles. "

eyeamme wrote on Jan 11, 2009 12:40 AM:

" Wonkagirl-

The rainbow flag, which I'm guessing you are referring to,

"but I don't have a sticker or a flag waving to let everyone know"

does not mean, "Look at me! I'm a homosexual!" It's a symbol of unity. It's used by other cultures. The reason it is more commonly associated with homosexuals is because we've been striving for equality and unity for decades (probably even longer, it's just been more evident in the last few decades).

The cultures I mentioned above that also use the rainbow flag are those that reside in South America. It is the official flag of Cusco, Peru. It is also connected to the people of the central Andes and Bolivian Amazon. It is also the symbol used by the International Co-Operative Movement, the Peace Movement, and is the official flag of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. All of which have used the flag for the symbolic meaning of unity and equality, not "We're homosexuals!" "

eyeamme wrote on Jan 11, 2009 12:42 AM:

" I thought there was something a little peculiar about the Spartans in "300"! XD "

pharper wrote on Jan 11, 2009 1:21 AM:

" SHE is not confused about anything. SHE may be seventeen, but she's very well-read in history, thanks very much, and SHE doesn't need to learn Greek to understand history.

You use lots of pretty words, but it's quite difficult to discern what you actually mean, Mr. Riley. By the principles we as Americans live by, all people are created equal and deserve equal treatment. The moment that is not a key part of the American belief, you let me know. Until then, don't tell me where such an idea came from or to prove it. I don't need to. It does not matter where it came from. That's the principle.

Mr. Riley, what "proofs" do you have to support the assertion that gay marriage is detrimental to society and humanity? As far as reproduction goes, many heterosexual couples can't reproduce. Gay couples won't "convert" straight ones, and many will reproduce. So that argument doesn't work. In countries (and states) where gay marriage is legal, nothing bad has happened as a result. Polygamists still cannot marry, the age of consent has not been lowered, and incest is still not legal. Yet another argument blown out of the water.

You're very perceptive in saying that people should live in accord with their biological natures. I couldn't agree more - no gay person should have to deny what they were born as simply because people like you are obsessed with the kind of sex they may or may not have. (Here's an interesting fact - 70% of gay men do NOT and have never engaged in "sodomy," in a committed relationship or otherwise.) "

winewoman wrote on Jan 11, 2009 8:51 AM:

" Anyone else find it interesting that John Richards and Tom Riley use every opportunity to remind us how "smart" they are - "as someone with a great deal of higher education" and "If you want to lecture me about Greek history learn to read Greek." "

Raven wrote on Jan 11, 2009 9:15 AM:

" Tom, no one is asking for a geometric proof of anything, what is being asked is a rational show of how same sex marriage would harm, two different things...that is the basis required by the supreme court before discrimination against a group is acceptable. Mere disapproval on moral grounds is not acceptable according to the court.

As for the reproduction argument, even if all same sex couples married, you would be taking at about 5 percent of the population, leaving 95 percent able to reproduce, more since lesbian couples could have children, so the impact of species survival would be at most negligible, and you leave unspoken the impact of heterosexual couples who cannot or do not have children.

and, Tom, re the Spartans, there is no 'geometric' proof that the Spartans practiced sexual dalliance between the young men, (not children, as their were considered adults) and their mentors. You have a number writings that would say otherwise. Frankly I doubt if Plutarch (CE 46 to 120) was really worried about make excuses for the Spartan behavior, since he lived long, centuries, after the height of Spartan power. And yes, rape after taking a city or village, was a common practice by all armies of the time and has continued to be though the centuries....Spartans included.

(btw, one doesn't have to learn Greek to study Greek History) "

napanfrombirth wrote on Jan 11, 2009 9:59 AM:

" Mr. Riley how refreshing to see a point of view that is clear, concise and to the point. You never said that homosexuality is detrimental to society. You make the assertion that in no society before ours was gay marriage allowed and that we should tread cautiously into this arena in lieu of plunging headlong into this abyss.

It is quite amusing to see people trot out their proofs for gay marriage and then when they are blown out of the water by you, then there is no proof necessary now. I did not study Greek, except for mythology, or Latin but I understood your thoughts quite well. You are a breath of fresh air indeed. "

a teacher wrote on Jan 11, 2009 11:10 AM:

" Mr. Riley. I agree with you about the concept of equality. I have never believed that equality is a natural law, nor even a moral one. Equality exists either because people agree to treat each other as equals or because some one fights for and to maintain equality.

This is the crux of the matter.

I think you will agree that homosexuality has been with us through our history. There seems to be two camps on this matter, that homosexuality is an aberration of human sexuality or that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexuality. The Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Islam and Christianity, which have become major forces in today's world, see it as immoral, an evil choice. The Greeks and the Romans saw it as pretty normal.

Today we live in a society where rather than literally fighting for equality, we argue for it, holding ourselves to a high standard of being a free society. If you believe that homosexuality is normal then there is no reason I can think of to deny a right that everyone else enjoys. If you believe it is an immoral choice then I understand your objection. However, admit that your choice comes from a religious perspective (even if you don't follow a religion) and in a free society religion is a personal choice, not a public one.

The rest is smoke and mirrors. Marriage has been mutable throughout history (with the exception of man and woman, although there have been exceptions - Native American cultures, for instance). I have heard no convincing argument that same sex marriage would be harmful in any way. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jan 11, 2009 12:20 PM:

" Pretty Words

(for pharper)

Pharper (who is certainly a she)
has recognized my verbal prettiness.
Though she and I may fiercely disagree,
That is a stunning triumph nonetheless.
I count that far, far greater a success
than if she'd simply said, "Wow, Tom, you're right!"
The world's a mess. The language is a mess.
I do not seek to win that kind of fight.
Rather, it's an oblique and subtle light
I seek, in my own backward way, to shed.
That's discourse, commentators, at its height.
That alone makes the language move ahead.
"Pretty words"? I take no offense -- but sigh,
glad she's a girl, not some tough Spartan guy.

(N.B. For purposes of scansion, I pronounce "pharper" as "P. Harper," not "farper.")

T.R. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jan 11, 2009 12:32 PM:

" Gee, sorry, Pharper. My mistake.

If you call my words pretty again, I’ll blush.

You appear to be maintaining that the Spartans did not practice consensual homosexuality but instead the rape of prisoners in warfare. My contention to the contrary is supported by Plato’s “Laws,” and the phenomenon to which I refer is discussed in a defensive fashion in Plutarch’s “Lycurgus.” There are many other sources also – but I’d have to go look those ones up.

What are your sources proving that the Spartans raped their male prisoners and did not practice consensual homosexuality? "

Tim wrote on Jan 11, 2009 3:17 PM:

" pharper wrote on Jan 10, 2009 10:33 PM: I'd like to point out that the men of Sparta did not practice homosexuality. As a matter of fact, rape was a very powerful and commonly used tool in war. To have sex with another man had very little to do with sex, and much to do with power.

PHarper...you seem to be all over the map with your thoughts...you contradict yourself from one post to the next, You have firmly stated that homosexuality is not a choice, it is something one is born with.

Now you post that the Spartans were not homosexual...but were clearly committing homosexual acts, you are unwittingly saying they were not born that way but CHOSE to act that way.

What is it you mean to say???

The dictionary says a homosexual is a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex. A man cannot commit that act unless certain biological factors come into play...if he isn't attracted it would be impossible for him to preform that act.

pharper wrote on Jan 11, 2009 1:21 AM: an interesting fact - 70% of gay men do NOT and have never engaged in "sodomy," in a committed relationship or otherwise.) "

Now THAT is quite a statement...since you said it is a fact please show the fully vetted or peer reviewed article that came from. "

Raven wrote on Jan 11, 2009 3:47 PM:

" Tom, the issue here is same sex marriage in the 21st century....and comparing modern society to the Spartan and any Greek society....nice but really irrelevant..

Plutarch wrote hundreds of years after the height of Spartan society so I wouldn't consider him a first source on anything, just regurgitating what others had said.

as for plato, there is this....

Plato argued that unchanging truths underpin the changes in the material world. Reality, including eternal moral truths, is a matter of birth or nature. Even though there is clearly a great degree of variety in conventions from one city to another (something ancient Greeks became increasingly aware of), there is still an unwritten standard, or law, that humans should live under.

In the Laws, Plato applies the idea of a fixed, natural law to sex. In Book One he writes about how opposite-sex sex acts cause pleasure by nature, while same-sex sexuality is “unnatural.” In Book Eight, the Athenian speaker considers how to have legislation banning homosexual acts, masturbation, and illegitimate procreative sex widely accepted. He then states that this law is according to nature (838-839d). Probably the best way of understanding Plato's discussion here is in the context of his overall concerns with the appetite part of the soul and how best to control it. Plato clearly sees same-sex passions as especially strong, and hence particularly problematic, although in the Symposium he found that erotic attraction could be the catalyst for a life of philosophy, rather than base sensuality. (from the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy)

So Plato sees as unnatural something which occurs throughout the natural world. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 11, 2009 5:06 PM:

" wonkagirl. Wedding rings are a sign of a sexual commitment, as are photos of family and loved one, so maybe not a flag, but an outward and public expression of a relationship. Gay people have had to hide those relationships in the past, and now that it is becoming safer to not have to hide, many gay people believe it is important to let you know that we walk among you, and yet you have nothing to fear from us.
As to the vote, it was the people who wanted to eliminate marriage equality who put it on the ballot. And thank you for not voting, but it was not our peers who took our rights away, it was the straight majority who wouldn't consider us their peers.
While writing on a different matter in 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court expressed it well: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections" "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 11, 2009 5:20 PM:

" a teacher. Minor clarification: While many religious organizations condemn homosexuality, many religious leaders, congregations, and followers including the ones you cited, interpret the bible differently and accept gay people and their relationships completely.

Additionally equal treatment under the law is the foundation of our society, regardless of where it came from. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 11, 2009 5:24 PM:

" History is written by the victors. Straight people always have been and always will be the majority, and they have often used their power to try to erase ideas they didn't like, including the existence of same-sex people and their relationships. Even Tom admits our understanding of "homosexuality" is not what it was at various points in history. Many admit our understanding of marriage is vastly different than it has been in various times and places. So, clearly, we can not understand how same-sex relationships have been viewed at all times and places in the past. We can imagine however, that they were often about love as well as a physical expression of love rather than an unemotional sex act based on a physical attraction (or even an act of domination) "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 11, 2009 5:27 PM:

" The term "homosexual" is a clinical term with a precise definition. While a necessary tool for a scientific discussion, it nevertheless has a specific meaning that leaves out important nuances involved with being human including the role of love, which any scientist can tell you can't be measured because it has such a broad range of meanings, so we have to break it down and establish terms we can agree on that can be measured. Kinsey and others have measured sexual acts in an attempt to understand sexuality. But being human involves much more than measurable behavior. The term "gay people" attempts to encompass the totality of the human experience as it relates to our experience of love, including the expression of love in it's many forms.
While some currently apply it mainly to men, it was originally and still remains an all encompassing term which can be used to describe anyone who is not strictly heterosexual. So if you view human sexuality as more than a collection of acts, it may help you understand what it means to be gay. Then, if you can accept, as all US medical organizations do, that being gay is a natural and normal expression of human bonding for a minority of the population, you can understand why so many of us believe it is wrong to deny equal treatment under the law to gay people. "

pharper wrote on Jan 11, 2009 7:08 PM:

" Cute poem, Mr. Riley, but I notice you're playing semantics with history and not actually refuting my statements.

My apologies, Tim. I can no longer find the article that cited that 70% of gay men do not engage in "sodomy." However, I did find a few studies (by UCSF and the Stop AIDS Project) that confirm that only between 50 and 61% of gay men ever commit "sodomy." 25% of straight couples do too.

I'm sure you'll agree that engaging in certain forms of intercourse and being of a certain sexuality are separate issues. I'm also assuming that you're male, judging from your name. Therefore, I must presume that you know there are certain male reactions that can be induced despite the fact that the man is not physically or sexually attracted. As I'm sure you know, rape has very little to do with sex, and far more to do with power. Many (I would venture to say most) rapists do not rape their victims because they are attracted to them, but because they wish to hurt them.

I am sure the Spartans (and all the other armies that used rape as a weapon of war) were well aware that rape was the ultimate form of humiliation, especially the rape of men in a very masculine society. That is the reason I imagine they were able to "perform."

I don't know what dictionary you're using, but homosexuality is considerably more than just wanting to have sex with people of the same gender. It is exactly what heterosexuality is - an emotional, physical, and sexual attraction and attachment to other people. Sex is only a portion of it. To call it a choice is to say one can choose whom they fall in love with. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jan 11, 2009 11:24 PM:

" Cute? Cute? I’ve just been demoted from pretty to cute? Pharper, of all your unjust comments, that one stung the worst.

I’m not playing semantics with anything, Pharper. As regards the historical question at issue – whether the Spartans practiced consensual homosexuality or the rape of male prisoners – I’m the only one who’s cited any evidence for my position. Raven has commented on my evidence but offered no contrary evidence. In a court of law, I would be adjudged the victor because the other side has offered nothing.

The reason is that I’m right. There is no contrary evidence.

Address this question honestly and I’ll address your other points. However, on the other points, my response really isn’t necessary. Other correspondents have already refuted you.

But your posts are still cute. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 12, 2009 12:05 AM:

" eyeamme wrote "The bible also says not to eat shell fish! And to stone our wives and sell our daughters into slavery! Do you follow EVERYTHING the bible says?"

I have written about this issue quite a few times already, but here we go again.
Just like our Constitution has amendments that modify or supersede the earlier parts, the Bible has newer parts (NT) which supersede some of the older parts. For example, Acts 15:19-29 clearly states that the apostles all agreed that non-Jewish Christians were not required to observe Jewish laws. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 12, 2009 12:19 AM:

" equalnotspecial wrote: "The separate is not equal argument was about marriage."

The point is that "separate but not equal" has been bandied about like some sort of holy grail or universal truth. In fact, there are many exceptions to it in many different fields. There is no compelling reason to believe that marriage is not similarly one of those exceptions. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 12, 2009 12:35 AM:

" winewoman wrote:
" Anyone else find it interesting that John Richards and Tom Riley use every opportunity to remind us how "smart" they are - "as someone with a great deal of higher education"..."

Every opportunity?
The plain fact is that I never mentioned my education before, and only did so in this thread to counter being called "misinformed". Show me where else I mentioned being educated.

Note to Tom Riley: Having received two years of Latin education myself, I enjoyed your analysis. Don't let the know-nothings drag you down. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 12, 2009 12:46 AM:

" pharper wrote: "there are certain male reactions that can be induced despite the fact that the man is not physically or sexually attracted."

I assume you are talking about arousement via physical touch. The point is that I would wallop any male who tried that on me. I think most heterosexual males feel the same way. "

Raven wrote on Jan 12, 2009 9:12 AM:

" JR, I think people that would wallop at the first contact with another have some latent homophobia issues to deal with...every time you try and find an example of where separate but equal exists it doesn't deal with a basic civil right.

And as far as the bible is concerned, you cannot get all Christians to agree which parts are superseded so how can you declare that some parts apply and others don't?

Tom, being the most patronizing doesn't make you a victor and even more important, how the Spartans did or did not treat male prisoners has nothing to do with same sex marriage in the 21st century. And you have cited no evidence....just the writing of two people...one who lived hundreds of years after the Spartans and the other who decided that something which occurs throughout nature was somehow not 'natural'...you haven't proven anything. "

Is it 2012 yet? wrote on Jan 12, 2009 10:46 AM:

" As long as "they" consider themselves different, "they" will demand equality on special circumstances. "

Raven wrote on Jan 12, 2009 11:56 AM:

" 2012, how is demanding equality asking for special circumstances....do you not want to be equal to your friends and neighbors?...if not, where would you like to be made unequal? "

a teacher wrote on Jan 12, 2009 12:01 PM:

" is it 2012 yet?: Then stop treating THEM differently and allow THEM to marry. Then THEY will be like everyone else. "

Is it 2012 yet? wrote on Jan 12, 2009 12:26 PM:

" I am equal. I receive equal treatment and opportunities based on who and what I am and what I know.

ANYBODY can marry. "They" want to marry under "special" circumstances: not a man and a woman, but a man and a man, and a woman and a woman. That's special treatment.

"They" don't want to be like everyone else, and that's where the problem lies. "

Raven wrote on Jan 12, 2009 1:25 PM:

" no, 2012, you want to be superior and to deny people the opportunity you have.. same sex couples just want the same choice you have - to marry a legal, consenting adult of their choosing, not to be bound by what you think is right or proper. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 12, 2009 2:11 PM:

" Raven wrote: "people that would wallop at the first contact with another have some latent homophobia issues to deal with."

I'm not talking about innocent contact. I meant overt sexual contact. I'm sure practically every heterosexual male will agree with me on this. Strange, how libs like to throw around that buzz word "homophobia". Even the average heterosexual female will slap a heterosexual male who tries an unwanted sexual contact. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 12, 2009 2:15 PM:

" Raven wrote: "as far as the bible is concerned, you cannot get all Christians to agree which parts are superseded so how can you declare that some parts apply and others don't?"

There will always be fringe sects whose doctrines depart from mainstream Christianity. However, the mainstream Christian churches (who represent the overwhelming bulk of Christians) have no trouble agreeing on the basic tenets. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 12, 2009 2:22 PM:

" Raven wrote: "how is demanding equality asking for special circumstances....do you not want to be equal to your friends and neighbors?...if not, where would you like to be made unequal? "

If I was a cripple I would not demand to be entered in Olympic foot races.
If I was ugly, I would not demand to be entered in beauty contests. If I was gay, I would not demand the right to same-sex marriage. "

Raven wrote on Jan 12, 2009 4:02 PM:

" JR, Just how often do you think gay men do that? This is more of the same irrational fear that looms behind much of the anti-same sex marriage crowd. I don't think you will find as many heterosexual men as you think worried about that and I would also wager that woman are in more danger from unwanted sexual advances from those heterosexual men that you are from gay men.
We have had this discussion before JR, who determines the mainstream churches and who doesn't? Seems you do, but I have a hunch you may find some who disagree. I have had solid protestants tell me with all sincerity that Mormons and Catholics are not true Christians. When you all decide what applies, come on back.

But the cripple has the right to marry JR, and while you may not want the right to marry, there are many that do...and your moral indignation over homosexuality is no legal justification for a policy of discrimination, of denial of a basic civil right.

BTW, the qualifier for the Olympic foot races is not whether you are crippled or not, but rather how fast you run...anyone can run, crippled or not, as long as they can run fast enough.

and yeah, an irrational fear of homosexual qualifies as homophobia JR "

pharper wrote on Jan 12, 2009 4:21 PM:

" Mr. Riley, I don’t know if you’ve ever taken a debate class, but one of the basic principles is that an argument does not simply stand on the statement that one is right. Not only does such a statement not further your argument, it makes you sound petty and childish, and for someone who seems as confident in themselves as you do, I would think such a characterization would be unwelcome. I am sorry that I am currently unable to provide sources for you; the readings I’ve done on ancient warfare, along with the notes I took in World History two years ago are not enough to prove my point, unfortunately, and at this point in time I am not equipped to search for reputable sources. However, you discredit your entire argument and all of your “facts” by making such a statement as “I’m right,” and frankly I have little respect for any person who thinks their argument can stand on such uneven ground.

In this case, it is very much a matter of opinion and personal belief. The problem with the issue of same sex marriage is that both sides feel quite righteous in their beliefs. It comes down to whether or not mainly religious viewpoints should be allowed to dictate law. I have not yet found a single argument against same-sex marriage that does not stem from religion, even if the person holding the belief claims no religion or religious belief. Until you can provide me with, as you have said, geometrical proof that gay marriage will adversely affect our society, I am going to have stick with my beliefs, and look to places like Spain and Massachusetts, where although gay marriage is legal, society is alive, well, and thriving. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 12, 2009 7:18 PM:

" JR. Really? If you were gay, would you not want the same opportunities at happiness everyone else has? What would you do? "

Tom Riley wrote on Jan 12, 2009 8:48 PM:

" Come on, ladies. (If Raven is a guy, I apologize, but I'm not going to write him any sonnets.) Stop pretending you know something about ancient Sparta. You started out demonstrating ignorance on a topic you yourselves protest is irrelevant. But now you're being irrational.

Of course literary references to Spartan pederasty prove that the Spartans practiced pederasty. Why would Plato comment on the phenomenon if all his readers knew there was no such thing? Raven discounts what Plato has to say about the phenomenon. Maybe Plato's right, maybe Plato's wrong -- but he wouldn't have anything to be wrong about if the Spartans didn't practice pederasty.

In reality, pederasty was formally recognized in the Spartan constitution, attributed to Lycurgus.

Hence the importance of Plutarch's "Lycurgus." Contrary to what Raven claims, Sparta had not ceased to exist in Plutarch's day. It was under Roman governance, but many of its internal institutions were still intact. And the written constitution was still available to Plutarch in his native language.

Here's one pertinent quotation from Dryden's translation: "Their lovers and favourers, too, had a share in the young boy's honour or disgrace."

"Lovers and favourers" translates the Greek word "paiderastai." You don't have to know much Greek to know what that means.

Against this evidence -- the only kind anyone could cite -- Raven and Pharper cite... well... nothing. They assume. They assure us. They imagine. (These are the actual words they use!) They know nothing.

If I'm wrong, ladies, tell me where you get the idea that the Spartans did not practice consensual homosexuality but did rape their male prisoners. I'm still waiting. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jan 12, 2009 9:04 PM:

" I urge anyone in doubt on this historical question simply to Google the phrase "Spartan pederasty." They will find a huge number of web sites and numerous references to various scholarly books, some written from a gay-friendly viewpoint. Some will argue that pederasty wasn't the only expression of Spartan homosexuality. Some will argue about the purpose of Spartan pederasty. Some will be reliable, some unreliable. None will just deny that it existed.

There's much debate on Spartan pederasty, but no informed commentator denies its existence.

Period. Check for yourself. "

pharper wrote on Jan 12, 2009 9:13 PM:

" Mr. Riley, did you bother to read anything I wrote? As I said, I am not currently equipped to search for evidence; I have homework to do and don't have the time to go sifting through articles on Spartan warfare. As I said, I recognize that what I learned in 10th grade World History and the reading I did on ancient warfare is not enough. When I have the time, I'll see what I can find.

But, Mr. Riley, it seems that you are still playing semantics with history. We do not live in ancient Sparta, or in Greece, or in any other country or time but present-day America. It really doesn't matter, in the end, what the Spartans may or may not have done. So far, I haven't seen you refute a SINGLE argument other than the ones having to do with Spartans. Is it because you don't have empirical evidence to support your claims?

Ramble on about Spartan history as long as you like - though I'd advise against it. You aren't proving any points and you certainly aren't showing anyone with any sense that same-sex marriage should be illegal. You want to put up a valid argument, fine, but until such a time, you might want to tone down the rants about history just a little bit - they're hardly relevant to the issue at hand. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 12, 2009 10:39 PM:

" Raven wrote: "an irrational fear of homosexual qualifies as homophobia."

This is the typical spin that libs put on that word. I have no "fear" of homosexuals, I just don't want them touching me inappropriately. Whether it happens frequently or infrequently or never is not the point. "

napanfrombirth wrote on Jan 12, 2009 10:47 PM:

" Once again when a point of argument is brought forward and then refuted the fall back is that the original point of argument doesn't really matter and is irrelevant. I wonder why if it is truly irrelevant then how come it was brought up in the first place? Why was it debated adnauseum? Peculiar.

The adage about learning from our history or being doomed to repeat it comes to mind. But heck history is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with what is going on today, right? Why do we even bother studying and learning about history?
We are so different now from then. Right. I got some swampland to sell you if you buy that whopper. There is nothing new under the sun.

I voted for prop 8 and was seriously reconsidering my point of view because I felt it would not cause harm to make that change. I felt that maybe it was time. Then I got a load of some of this fodder in support of gay marriage. The intolerance of the pro gay marriage camp is at the zenith of pettiness and putdowns. Totally lost me on that one. I guess some are tolerant of other's opinions as long as you agree with them. Their opinion > yours.

I appreciate Tom Riley's background and knowledge. Gee I guess I have no sense since he convinced me. I had no idea I was so ignorant and uninformed. Gee I need to get me some kollege edumacation. I guess honor rolls and dean's list don't matter. I really do need to smarten up. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 12, 2009 10:50 PM:

" equalnotspecial wrote: " JR. Really? If you were gay, would you not want the same opportunities at happiness everyone else has? What would you do?"

I would settle for a domestic partnership. What counts is that one is together with one's soul mate, not what it is called. As a conservative person and traditionalist, I believe that marriage is only meant for heterosexual couples. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 12, 2009 10:55 PM:

" Raven wrote: "the cripple has the right to marry."

Your missing the point. It's a simile. Just like a cripple isn't qualified for entry in the Olympic foot races, likewise a gay person isn't qualified to enter into marriage. "

zist707 wrote on Jan 12, 2009 11:24 PM:

" Does it matter what the Spartan's did or didn't do?
Honestly, I could care less. All I want is to have equal opportunities under the law.
And no, I do not care about what my public bathroom has or doesn't have.
I want my relationship to be recognized and RESPECTED.
I'm not trying to get some secret "homosexual agenda" out or anything. I'm not trying to "convert" or "recruit" anybody.
I'm not a rapist or a pedophile.
I could care less what Christians or any other religion says about who I can or cannot love. I am not looking for their acceptance.
I want the opportunity to marry a person, legally, by what's in their heart and mind and not by what is or is not in their pants. I don't understand how all of you who claim to have a high degree of education can't grasp those simple facts.
Am I perverted or a threat to society for believing this way? "

napanabroad wrote on Jan 13, 2009 5:18 AM:

" This is ridiculous!!! While I was home at Christmas, this is all I heard about. Certain scenes were even violent by the anti-8 crowd…….and they call others ugly intolerant bigots! Don’t look in the mirror, you won’t like what you see.

I find it interesting that this is how the left acts when they don't get what they want.....Picket pro 8 storeowners and harass its customers, hold protests, etc., etc. etc. Anyone with a differing opinion be damned. Heaven forbid, a person has traditional moral values and actually votes against any one of their pet initiatives!!!

They can move to France and learn how to riot properly. You people act like 5 year olds on a tantrum.

THE MAJORITY of PEOPLE want the definition to of marriage be between the OPPOPSITE sex. NO one is denying any right to you, so get over it. Besides, marriage is NOT A RIGHT, it is a PRIVILEDGE!

Just as I can't marry my sister or a 12 year old no matter what “feeling involved”. Society has spoken and rejected this as inappropriate, so deal with it and move on!!!

And which is it zist707? “I want my relationship to be recognized and RESPECTED.” Or “I could care less what Christians or any other religion says about who I can or cannot love. I am not looking for their acceptance”.

Am I perverted or a threat to society for believing this way?........I certainly don’t think this is a benign issue, The left is systematically destroying the foundations of society with its anything goes agenda. Ask the Romans or the Greeks how well that worked out.

And for the people who put down religion, religion was what banded societies/kingdoms together to enable the stability to prosper. "

napanfrombirth wrote on Jan 13, 2009 6:24 AM:

" zist707 you have made the best argument for gay marriage on this board to date. You have made a clear case and personalized it a bit. Thank you for your point of view, I appreciate it very much. "

Raven wrote on Jan 13, 2009 7:52 AM:

" and again JR, being a cripple does not disqualify anyone from running in the Olympics....not running fast enough does...your simile doesn't hold water. and if you have a fear of something that happens rarely or doesn't happen at all, JR, that is an irrational fear, and fits neatly into homophobia. You're settling for a domestic partnership is really a specious argument, since you can marry whom you want.

Tom, the Sparta under roman control was not the Sparta of ancient 'greatness, that ended with the defeat of Sparta by Thebes in BCE 371 ' and if you were this student of Greek history you would know this. By Plutarch's time, Sparta was a quaint tourist attraction where Romans went to observe exotic Spartan culture.

But as pharper says, this relates to same sex marriage how? Napanfrombirth, explain who how Spartan customs apply to same sex marriage in the 21st century? Explain how wanting the same rights as you have makes the pro same sex marriage group intolerant, what are we taking away from you? "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 13, 2009 8:33 AM:

" Tom. While I don't intend to stifle the history discussion, I don't see how it supports your position that we should deny equality to gay people. The fact that human bonding has included same-sex relationships throughout history only supports the position of all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country that "these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding.” "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 13, 2009 8:35 AM:

" 2012 Your position reflects either a profound lack of understanding of what it means to be a gay person, or a total denial of the reality we exist.
Your rights do not depend on what you know, what or who you are with the exception of your expression of love for another person. Your rights are automatic as long as you are "straight". Only gay people are still singled out for legal discrimination. The push for marriage equality is an expression of wanting to be "like everyone else" as much as possible. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 13, 2009 8:47 AM:

" JR Thanks for addressing that. I suspect that if you were gay, you might not be content with domestic partnership, but second class citizenship is better than where we were a hundred years ago.Yet some conservatives believe singling out any group for second class citizenship is a threat to our constitutional goals of equal treatment under the law. Andrew Sullivan does a good job of explaining how equality is a conservative position, but too lengthy to post here, and I have house work to do. "

zist707 wrote on Jan 13, 2009 11:40 AM:

" napanabroad...
Acceptance and respect are not the same thing. I don't care if a person accepts my relationship or not, but I do expect it to be RESPECTED. Hetero or homosexual, they should both be respected. "

alucawanza wrote on Jan 13, 2009 12:01 PM:

" zist707
Thank you for such a concise posting. I hope you soon have the opportunities you so rightfully deserve. Don't let anyone tell you that you are a pervert or a threat to society. Quite the opposite. Those who tell you that are the threat to this society so proud of its stand on civil rights and history of righteous self-determination. "

napanfrombirth wrote on Jan 13, 2009 12:16 PM:

" Raven I don't need to explain how Spartan customs apply to same sex marriages today because I am not the person who used that factoid in any way, shape or form. Perhaps Pharper or Tom Riley are the ones you need to ask.

The same sex marriage groups wanting the same rights that I enjoy is not in any way shape or form intolerant. I understand and can agree with that point. What I said was that this contingent is very intolerant of contrary views. You can look at the tone of some people who post and see for yourself if you are able to be introspective enough. This intolerant and borderline beligerent tone lost me is what I was said. Zist707 has done more for me with his/her post to help me understand a view that differs a bit from from mine.

I never said that my rights were being taken away from me. I have no idea where you came up with that idea. "

Is it 2012 yet? wrote on Jan 13, 2009 12:33 PM:

" equalnotspecial:
Since you don't want to be equal but special instead (based on your sexual preference) let me ask you why haven't you been to Massachusetts and marry whomever you wish and then claim those rights you seem to think are taken away from you based on your sexual preference.
That's not biology, it's geography, right? "

John Richards wrote on Jan 13, 2009 4:21 PM:

" Raven, "being a cripple does not disqualify anyone from running in the Olympics....not running fast enough does."

Talk about splitting hairs! Obviously a cripple doesn't qualify because he can't run fast enough. Duh. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 13, 2009 4:30 PM:

" zist707 wrote: "I want my relationship to be recognized and RESPECTED."

And a registered domestic relationship or civil union doesn't qualify???

You do realize that if by some hook or crook Prop 8 is overturned and gay marriages become legal again, it does not mean that your gay marriage will be respected by a large part of the population? In fact, it is more likely that conservatives would respect your civil union than your 'marriage'. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jan 13, 2009 6:32 PM:

" All right, Pharper. I’m sorry I yanked your chain. I’ll accept your last response as a provisional admission that I am right about Spartan pederasty. But if I get yet more evidence by visiting a university library, I’ll stop just for an instant to rub it in. After all, you told me I was wrong when I know I’m right.

The Spartan example doesn’t matter that much, I admit. I certainly don’t want it followed. The Spartan state was a totalitarian one – though great virtue was often displayed in its maintenance. The Spartans were warlike for no reason and ferociously oppressed their slave class, the helots.

My point was that, even in a society governed by homosexuals, even in a society that formally incorporated a form of homosexuality into its constitution, marriage remained the union of man and woman. I was trying to put the extreme case to demonstrate one of my central points: that homosexual marriage is an unprecedented measure that our society should not take lightly.

May I point out that the whole tone of this discussion was initiated by Mr. Schulz, who was intent on telling those who supported Prop. 8 how ignorant, uneducated, and irrational they were? If I wax supercilious in response to that kind of sass, you can hardly blame me.

The thing that hurt No-on-8 the most wasn’t anything uttered by people like me. It was something Gavin Newsome said: “Whether you like it or not!” Remember? If you folks learn from that mistake, you’ll have a better time in future conflicts. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jan 13, 2009 6:38 PM:

" Raven: Sparta under Roman control was not the Sparta that repelled the Persians – but it preserved the same constitution, which Plutarch could read in the original. And the constitution made provisions for the practice of pederasty. Are you still intent on denying the obvious? "

zist707 wrote on Jan 13, 2009 6:46 PM:

" A registered domestic relationship or a civil union is something, it is a step in the right direction and far better than no legal recognition. However, it is nowhere near equal, both under the law and in (most) social respects. What heterosexual couple would introduce their relationship as either a registered domestic relationship or a civil union and not get strange looks or be the odd couple out in the bunch.
If I want a partner I'll start a business. I want a wife! "

Tom Riley wrote on Jan 13, 2009 6:51 PM:

" Oh, by the way, Raven, you still haven't cited any evidence that the Spartans did not practice pederasty, or that they typically raped their male prisoners. You've cited not one source to either effect. The reason you've cited no sources -- and only tried, rather feebly, to impugn my sources -- is that NO sources support your assertions.

If you were a student of Greek history, you would know this. "

pharper wrote on Jan 13, 2009 7:37 PM:

" How very mature of you, Mr. Riley.

No one's taking gay marriage lightly. Have you seen footage of gay couples who were finally legally granted their right to marry? The tears of joy on their faces, the trembling hands as they took their vows, and the expressions of absolute love, adoration, and happiness are quite enough to ensure me and most other people that such a thing is NOT taken lightly.

At any rate, you haven't made a single argument against anything we've said unless it's with regards to Spartan practices, so I have to assume the only evidence you have to back up your statements has to do with ancient history, and not with current events. Your efforts at sounding knowledgeable are valiant, but it doesn't change the fact that you have no solid basis on which to rest your argument that gay people should not be allowed to marry. "

pharper wrote on Jan 13, 2009 7:58 PM:

" I'm sorry, I should have said, enough to assure me and other people. I hope my English teachers don't read this.... "

Raven wrote on Jan 13, 2009 9:35 PM:

" Tom, I never said they didn't, I was disputing your reliance on sources that were more than either 200 years after the collapse of Sparta or by someone who dismissed homosexuality as not natural, despite it prevalence in nature....if I weren't as patronizing as some, I would know that what the Spartans did or didn't do doesn't really matter in relationship to same sex marriage....in the debate terms I believe the phrase would be.... your assertion has no relevance to the question at hand....you lose.

But if you want some references regarding pederasty in ancient Greece, including Sparta, try these...Herodotus Histories 1.135;
Xenophon, Memorabilia 2.6.28, Symposium 8; Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 13:601-606

And there is this supposed quote of Phillip the II written down by Plutarch demonstrates:
"It is not only the most warlike peoples, the Boeotians, Spartans, and Cretans, who are the most susceptible to this kind of love but also the greatest heroes of old: Meleager, Achilles, Aristomenes, Cimon, and Epaminondas."

I would still say not to be too trusting of Plato's unbiased reporting since, as an Athenian, his feelings towards Athen's most hated enemy might not be as pure as one would hope, and his attempts to sweep under the carpet his mentor's (Socrates known lack of control with adolescent boys, also written about by another of his students, Xenophon. ) may also color his view of the situation. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jan 13, 2009 10:28 PM:

" Raven, you don’t slide off the hook that easily.

You did too deny that the Spartans practiced pederasty – or at least stated that their practice of this vice was an open question. Here’s what you said in a post on Jan. 11, 9:15 a.m.:

“Tom, re the Spartans, there is no 'geometric' proof that the Spartans practiced sexual dalliance between the young men, (not children, as their were considered adults) and their mentors. You have a number writings that would say otherwise.”

All I’m asking is that you supply references to some of those writings you mentioned.

All the sources you cited – and especially the one you quoted – support my contention and do not contradict it. You’ve actually strengthened my case.

Finally got around to doing your homework – and discovered you were wrong. Isn’t that it?

I’m still waiting for the evidence you promised in the post quoted above.

But there is no such evidence, is there?

You lose.

You lose in the big picture, too. Remember? Prop. 8 passed. Despite what Pharper claims, most people who looked at pictures of joyous gay weddings were either indifferent or vaguely repulsed. "

ADark1 wrote on Jan 14, 2009 5:28 AM:

" a finger snap and a Z ! You GO GURL!

~smiles hello a/all "

Raven wrote on Jan 14, 2009 8:50 AM:

" Tom, I have looked at my posts and I have never denied they, along with much of Greece, not only practice pederasty but thought it was an esteemed practice, but rather what constituted geometric proof, whatever that is, about the use of rape as a matter of policy, and since every armed military force in history, including modern times has used rape as a weapon, you are claiming the Spartans were the exception ... and while you seem obsessed with turning this into the Spartan debate society, I am not, so you have the references which confirm that yes they did.

so as I said, show the relevance to same sex marriage in the 21st century. "

Raven wrote on Jan 14, 2009 9:19 AM:

" JR, the running fast enough rule applies to all who want to run, so where is the discrimination?

And now you can reward the minds of most people, Tom, to know how they felt after seeing pictures of same sex weddings? You are truly an amazing man. In the big picture, tom, equality does win, it just takes a while, so enjoy your victory while you can. "

AmCan Mom wrote on Jan 14, 2009 2:18 PM:

" I first wrote this last summer, but here it is again.
I think we all know that men and women are different. Even my six year old, who helps change her baby brother's diapers, knows that boys and girls are different. To quote a movie featuring our governor "Boys have a p**** and girls have a v*****" (Kindergarten Cop) even the youngest children are aware of these differences. Whether you believe in mono-theistic creation or single cell evolution, I don' think there is a rational person alive who can deny that man and woman are natural complements to each other. The scientific fact that only a man and a woman can together make a new human life (without help) is evidence of that.

That said, I in no way deny the human capacity for love. Human love knows no boundaries, nor should it. Nature does, however, dictate the forms of love towards different targets. It is not natural for humans to have "romantic love" towards animals and plants, yet it is perfectly natural to love our pets and the beauty of our gardens. I for one think of my cat as my furry child and I can't get enough roses in my yard. It is likewise not natural (biologically speaking here) for man and woman to have "romantic" love for members of the same sex. It just isn't how we are designed (see the above quote from Arnold's movie).

As in nature, there will always be abberations. (Please do not get angry over my use of that word, I use it merely to illustrate the fact that there will always be unexplainable variations in the natural course of all life.) That does not make them any less loveable, but it does not make them any more natural. "

pharper wrote on Jan 14, 2009 3:44 PM:

" AmCan Mom, that is your belief.

In many animal species, we see homosexuality. Did you ever read the children's book And Tango Makes Three? I can't remember the title, but I found it an adorable, sweet book.

The difference between having romantic love towards a plant or animal and having romantic love towards a human (no matter the gender) is vast, and the two can't be compared. An animal, no matter whether you believe that it has a soul or not, cannot give consent for a sexual or romantic relationship. It cannot (so far as we know) love you back romantically, as another human can. Nor can a plant. Saying "it isn't how we are designed" is perpetuating the idea that somehow people can choose who to fall in love with, which simply isn't true. Clearly, some of us ARE designed that way.

A consenting homosexual relationship is exactly what a heterosexual relationship is - two people who are emotionally, spiritually, and yes, sexually attracted and attached to one another. It is true that homosexuals represent a small minority (between 5 and 10%) of the human population, but it in no way makes them aberrations or abnormal. All mainstream medical associations agree that homosexuality is a natural, normal form of human nature and sexuality. "

winewoman wrote on Jan 14, 2009 4:43 PM:

" So, what ended up as the biological facts on marriage? I stayed awake through most of the posts (had special permission from JR to skip his posts - that's a gift better than jewelry). I googled "biological facts on marriage" and what I found had nothing to do with the content of the letter or subsequent blogs. Was this perhaps a red herring, meant to divert our attention from the real issue of same-gender marriage? Hmmmm. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jan 14, 2009 7:27 PM:

" Well, Raven, anybody who looks at the post that I quoted can see that you did deny the existence of Spartan pederasty. At the very least, you denied that it was certain the Spartans practiced pederasty. You insisted that “many writings” would say they didn’t practice pederasty. Of course, there never were any such writings – because all authorities agree on the existence of this practice.

Your attempts to save face after the fact are more embarrassing to you than the initial blunder.

Here’s what really happened. I mentioned the Spartan experience with homosexuality as a tangential point. Pharper took offense because she thought I was equating consensual homosexuality with male-on-male rape. I corrected her mistake – and you, not knowing anything more about the Spartans at that point than she did, joined her side in a more mealy-mouthed fashion.

Finally, you did a little frantic superficial research and discovered that (of course) I was right. So you started backpedaling and denied that you’d denied what you denied. Your cover-up was about on the level of Clinton asking what the meaning of “is” is.

But it’s too late, Raven. Anybody who read all your posts knows that you’re contradicting yourself. Give it up. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jan 14, 2009 7:45 PM:

" My argument against the legal recognition of homosexual marriage is simple. No other society in the history of the world has recognized homosexual marriage – not even among societies that were run by homosexuals (of which ancient Sparta, as I have proved, was one). I tend to think there must be some reason for this.

Various commentators think the reason must be irrational prejudice against homosexuality. But why would a society run by homosexuals have an irrational prejudice against homosexuality? It doesn’t make any sense.

So I think to myself – here’s the biological fact part – that the human race is divided (like most other species) into male and female. Hey, perhaps marriage is intended to unite these two halves. Do you think? And what a coincidence! The union of male and female is necessary for the normal propagation of the species! Gee, do you think that such an end might have something to do with marriage customs around the world? Could that be why Plato wasn’t as smart as Raven and didn’t see that of course guy should marry guy and save money on bridal gowns?

Well… could be.

Maybe I’m just crazy – but I am being honest about the way it seems to me. That’s more than many of my opponents are doing. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jan 14, 2009 8:18 PM:

" Oh, may I add that Pharper’s and Raven’s reaction to my tangential mention of Spartan pederasty betrayed a more degraded level of stereotypical thinking about male homosexuals than anything I ever said?

Pharper saw the word “Spartan” and immediately thought that such tough guys couldn’t be involved in consensual homosexuality but had to be committing male rape out of aggression.

In reality, there are plenty of tough homosexuals around. I’ve met some of them.

Raven went right along before she did her last-minute research. Of course the mighty Spartans couldn’t be homosexuals! They weren’t sensitive enough.

But the broadminded Mr. Riley wasn’t deceived by stereotypes. No, indeed. And he’ll add something….

Not only were the Spartans homosexuals. So generally were the samurai. So was almost every warrior culture outside Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Yet all those tough homosexual warrior cultures allowed only heterosexual marriage.

It gives one pause…. "

pharper wrote on Jan 14, 2009 8:56 PM:

" Mr. Riley, I said originally, "As is the case today, most people [of Sparta] were not actually gay (I presume about 10% of the population, same as it is now)." I did NOT say that they couldn't be gay. Read everything before you comment on it, please. My best friend in the entire world is gay, I have other friends who are gay, two family members, and many acquaintances. Don't you dare accuse me of stereotyping.

Also, I don't know where you've been for - oh, gosh, must be all of humanity - but marriage is CERTAINLY not necessary to bring male and female together. You may not be aware of this, but according to USA Today, 4 in 10 children in the US are born out of wedlock. I don't think we're in danger of dying out as a species any time soon.

Here's the thing, Mr. Riley. America doesn't do or not do things just because other countries have or haven't. It's called sovereignty. And, though you pride yourself on being right ("of course") you are actually wrong on this one. Homosexuals can marry in Spain, South Africa, Belgium, Canada, and very recently, Norway. And wouldn't you know it? Those countries haven't collapsed. Pedophilia is still illegal, bestiality still thought a deviation, polygamists still unable to marry. Society has not died.

Society run by homosexuals? I can't think of any of those, being as homosexuals are a minority. You have any current examples? Or are you going to revert back to ancient history, when women and black people were little more than property? I mean, that’s how they did it back then! "

a teacher wrote on Jan 14, 2009 10:29 PM:

" Mr. Riley. I don't see how marriage has anything to do with either sex or children. I doubt Australopithecus married. I doubt Neanderthal Man married. My recollections from my anthropology primitive cultures don't marry in the sense we do. It's a more recent invention.

From what I can see, marriage is a purely social convention. It seems to me it has more contract to form a family and adhere to certain legal obligations. It has nothing to do with biology. I don't see how same sex marriage changes anything. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 14, 2009 11:19 PM:

" zist707 wrote " A registered domestic relationship or a civil union is something..."

You didn't address my second point. You mentioned before that you wanted your relationship to be respected. You have a much stronger chance for respect for your relationship from the 52.3% who voted for Prop 8 if your relationship is a civil union or domestic partnership rather than a gay marriage. Hijacking the age-old definition of marriage will only result in making traditional folks angry. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 14, 2009 11:27 PM:

" pharper wrote: "In many animal species, we see homosexuality."

Yep. Animals have no morals. They just do what feels good. That doesn't mean we humans should imitate them. Animals also lick themselves clean instead of using toilet paper... "

John Richards wrote on Jan 14, 2009 11:34 PM:

" "It is true that homosexuals represent a small minority (between 5 and 10%) of the human population, but it in no way makes them aberrations or abnormal."

If your sexual behavior is shared by only 5% of the population, then you are deviating from the norm, and by definition your behavior is abnormal. "

Raven wrote on Jan 15, 2009 1:57 AM:

" JR, once again, the supreme court has ruled that 'morals' are not sufficient reason to discriminate against homosexuals.

If it is only shared by 5 percent, it just means it is a minority, not abnormal...one could say that people who voted for Ralph Nader were abnormal since less than 3 percent did so. If simply being less that the majority, then all who voted for John McCain in November were abnormal.

A bigger question might also be, regarding zist707, is why his/her relationship needs change the relationship to get the approval or respect of the 52.3 percent. "

a teacher wrote on Jan 15, 2009 6:23 AM:

" "If your sexual behavior is shared by only 5% of the population, then you are deviating from the norm, and by definition your behavior is abnormal. "

So JR, what's your point exactly? Your "IQ" has a significant effect on your behavior. Having an IQ of under 70 or over 130 would make you abnormal. What rights do we deny people with abnormal intelligence? How about the rights of those over 6 feet 4 inches? What about people with physical handicaps?

The Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the documents that out line the rights of Americans is written in language that makes it clear that the rights of the people cover ALL the people, not most of the people. "

equalnotspecial wrote on Jan 15, 2009 10:02 AM:

" If you define "abnormal" as everything not statistically average, you would have to include those with red hair, blue eyes, or any physical "abnormality" and a long list of others. Ethnic groups? Religious groups? Yet we don't use the law to deny equality for those people based on their abnormality, so why should we restrict the rights of gay people? It is hard to justify harming people if you think of them as people, so emotionally charged words like "abnormal" or "deviant" are used to tell ourselves it is alright to inflict suffering on millions of people because they are "different".

All mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country ... conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding.” (APA) "

sicksense wrote on Jan 15, 2009 12:16 PM:

" So what you're saying is that there really isn't an abnormal in the sense that we shouldn't treat people who are completely outside a normal range any differently than we do someone who falls in the normal range (in any instance)?

If this is the case then I just can't imagine why we bother with a society at all. Everyone should be able to do whatever he or she wants for any reason because even the pedophile, axe murderer or liberal is normal. Your utopian ideal is scarier than hell itself.

Social liberals have no use for history. They want what they want because they want it for the here and now. They don’t regard history as a tool to understand where something will probably lead. No one can see the future but we can predict with a high degree of success that the light will illuminate when we flip the light switch.

I think it’s important to remember where we’ve been and what we’ve done to understand where we’re going. There is a right and wrong and there is a normal and abnormal. The difficulty comes when we try to decide who should determine the differences. This is where history should be examined and then logically applied to our present and future. "

sicksense wrote on Jan 15, 2009 12:17 PM:

" For those who don’t believe in applying the standards of right and wrong or normal and abnormal (liberals for example), where does that lead our society? I really want to understand how every individual can possibly be untouched by long accepted and useful societal discriminations if we plan to continue a society. How is that possible? Every individual has to conform to some degree of what a society considers right or wrong to be able to keep a society intact, don’t we?

So who or what makes that determination and why? "

Raven wrote on Jan 15, 2009 1:22 PM:

" sicksense, you and others seem to refuse to accept that society changes and evolves, that you cannot keep things static.

What we are saying, and what the courts have said, is there must be a cause before you can legally discriminate against someone, you cannot simply because you disapprove of them. So, where is the harm, where is the cause to discriminate in same sex marriage?

If holding onto long-held societal norms were the rule, women would not be able to vote; slavery would still be in fine form in the US and we would probably be bowing to the Queen. Times change, societies that refuse to adpat and evolve die.

No one is talking about pedophiles, or ax murderers, though your connecting them with liberals is almost laughable. "

rickw wrote on Jan 15, 2009 1:41 PM:

" it was put to a vote and the majority has spoken. whether or not you agree with it does not matter. it's called a democracy, don't like it? move to a non democratic country! "

alucawanza wrote on Jan 15, 2009 1:47 PM:

" rickw:
It's not a democracy. It's a republic. If you don't like it you do have some protection under the Constitution which looks after the minority. The majority may never pass a law that is not in alignment with the Constitution and injures a minority of people. It will go to the Supreme Court of California where a ruling will be made. That's how a representative republic works.

Sick Sense:
Being a homosexual is normal. Relax. "

sicksense wrote on Jan 15, 2009 2:06 PM:

" Of course it’s laughable…that was the point. Somehow I knew you’d reply, Raven, using the same old tired argument about slavery, women voting, etc. I do believe, however, that you did answer my question about who determines what is right or normal and what isn’t. It’s the judges that decide! Judges that interpret the law whichever way they feel is politically correct I suppose. Sometimes judges make mistakes don’t they?

Evolving is an interesting term. Will we eventually evolve into a nation we would never recognize or has that already happened for those who’ve lived long enough to see it? Is evolving just understood to be something that happens for the good? Some evolutions are detrimental. Have you forgotten that? Hitler evolved for example. Bad thing most people would say. Do we really have to accept something that we see as harmful to our society just for the sake of evolving? "

sicksense wrote on Jan 15, 2009 2:08 PM:

" As far as human evolution goes, I just don’t see it. We are fundamentally the same as our ancestors…greedy, selfish, hateful, perverse, envious…the list goes on. We have the capacity to be loving, generous, encouraging, etc. but it’s a choice we must make daily. Mostly it seems like we are all just trying to get something over on our neighbor.

I really don’t understand how pro 8 voters are considered hateful for just seeing things differently than the con 8 voters. I’m not ignorant but am being accused of it because my acceptable set of data is interpreted differently than someone else’s set of data.

I think we can all understand that data/statistics can be interpreted differently based upon someone’s perspective and their honesty. I honestly believe that homosexual behavior is a chosen behavior that is not only detrimental to individuals but also to communities and society. No I can’t convince you but I have firmly come to that conclusion based on my personal experiences and credible information I’ve acquired over my 50 years. Honestly! "

sicksense wrote on Jan 15, 2009 2:09 PM:

" I honestly believe that by combating the homosexual agenda that I’m showing love and consideration for practicing homosexuals. I may be wrong in your eyes but you can’t know what I understand in my heart to be absolutely the truth. That’s all each of us has is what we honestly consider as the truth and then the courage to follow it. Quite often I fall short of the goal but I do have a goal. On a small and contemporary level my goal is also shared by about 52% of the voters so it’s not an abnormal goal.

Your arguments thus far haven’t made a dent in my beliefs. "

pharper wrote on Jan 15, 2009 2:52 PM:

" Believe it all you want, sicksense, it doesn't make it true according to the medical community or according to a vast majority homosexuals. You're free to believe whatever you want about gay people, but a) the scientific and medical community of America views it as a normal, natural form of human emotion and sexuality, and b) it is not a chosen "behavior" anymore than being heterosexual is a "behavior."

You can absolutely believe whatever and however you like, but it doesn't make you less wrong. "

sicksense wrote on Jan 15, 2009 3:41 PM:

" People always want to justify their behavior if they can. You can’t ask people practicing homosexual behavior to argue against themselves. Of course they will attempt to justify it otherwise they wouldn’t openly do it. That’s just a silly argument.

As for the “medical community”, that is a nebulous term that refers to a group of people who have human flaws and prejudices just like the rest of us. Their data pointed in just the opposite direction a short time ago. Political correctness has invaded every avenue of our culture and the “medical community” is no exception. Ditto for the “scientific community”. There are people in each of these groups that do believe that homosexual behavior is a choice. If they happen to be in the minority does that mean they are wrong? Or just see the data differently? Or are just being honest regardless of whose feelings are hurt?

I appreciate you stating three times that I can believe whatever I want to believe. The fact is you can’t stop me from doing so and for fighting for what I, and many others believe in. "

Raven wrote on Jan 15, 2009 4:34 PM:

" sicksense, 52.3 of the voters who cast ballots...but only about a third of the total number of registered voters in the state., down from 61 percent in the balloting for Prop 22.

Glad I didn't disappoint you though, and keep believing what you want, but just remember that those judges you dislike have said that disapproval upon moral grounds in not reason enough, by itself, for the state to discriminate against homosexuals. As for whether they are following the PC winds, seems like it is PC if you don't like their decision but sound judgment if ya do. "

sicksense wrote on Jan 15, 2009 5:27 PM:

" I'll use your numbers...ok so only a third of registered voters? So? We only count the votes of those who voted. That's how it works.

I don't recall saying I disliked any judges. I only know one former judge and he’s a great guy.

So you agree with me that judges can make mistakes?

I’m not sure what makes you think I disagree with same sex marriage on moral grounds. I thought I had been clear in all my posts. What exactly is moral grounds? "

alucawanza wrote on Jan 15, 2009 7:39 PM:

" sicksense:
You can believe in your heart anything you want. The California Supreme Court will decide what is Constitutionally correct.
You're also wrong about the majority of the voters making the decision. The majority cannot take away the Constititutional rights of a minority. Doesn't work that way. This is a three part government. The judiciary will decide if the majority has made the right decision. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 15, 2009 9:15 PM:

" equalnotspecial wrote: "If you define "abnormal" as everything not statistically average, you would have to include those with red hair..."

Note that I was specifically talking about sexual behavior, not traits in general.
By your definition there is no such thing as 'abnormal'. That is absurd. "

Tim wrote on Jan 15, 2009 9:24 PM:

" Raven wrote on Jan 10, 2009 3:00 PM:
" lol "

I agree..."lol" "

pharper wrote on Jan 15, 2009 9:31 PM:

" Mr. Riley, my objection is not to you as a person, nor even to your willingness to hold on to ancient beliefs. I enjoy spirited debate and the general give-and-take of two people with opposing ideas. I'm sure you're a very fine, decent person, and I'd like to think of myself as one. Sarcasm and insults don't read well over the internet (lack of inflection and all that), but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you weren't being facetious. Throughout our...conversation, I hope I haven't insulted you, as I certainly haven't meant to. But I will say this: please don't talk down to me or disregard what I say because of my age (or, God forbid, my gender).

But society changes. No other society ever embraced women as being anything more than property or pawns with which to gain status or favor. No other society (well, up until the 1800s, at least in America) ever embraced the principle that all men are created equal, and as such have the right to live freely. We're America - trendsetters, revolutionaries, and world-changers. This is a big change, no doubt, but so far no one can provide me with any sort of evidence that homosexual marriage will have a detrimental effect on society. I'd venture to say it might even have a positive one - bringing people together, encouraging monogamous relationships, ensuring families for children to be raised by, and all that. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jan 15, 2009 9:46 PM:

" Teacher, I’ve been calling to mind my own undergraduate courses in cultural anthropology – and, as I remember, they do support the view that marriage is an institution designed for the governance of sexual impulses and for the propagation and upbringing of children.

I recall especially studying the customs of the Navajo of the southwestern U.S. In connection with this material, I learned about “exogamy.” I was studying Greek at the same time, so I understood immediately that the word “exogamy” meant “outside marriage.”

The Navajo, you see, have an elaborate system of clans through which the ancestry of each Navajo is classified. When Navajo boy meets Navajo girl, they are careful to inform each other of their clan affiliation. The reason, according to what I remember, is to ensure exogamy: Navajo marry outside their clan to prevent genetic damage to their children.

Sounds like sex and childbirth to me.

The Navajo don't marry boy with boy.

If I’m wrong on this, teacher, you should easily be able to cite societies where these considerations don’t apply.

I’m patiently waiting to consider them. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jan 15, 2009 9:52 PM:

" Pharper, when I said you were a beautiful person, I was, as I protested at the time, utterly sincere. I know you have good intentions. And I know gay people to whom I have the same warm feelings.

I'm just not as confident as you are in the results. "

a teacher wrote on Jan 15, 2009 10:49 PM:

" Tom. It's funny how different texts and teachers can lead to a different conclusion. My Prof. was an expert on Native Americans. We talked a lot about marriage in the Iroquois and Huron tribes. They were matriarchal societies and men married to gain status within the tribe. Child rearing was commonly done by aunts and uncles, not mothers and fathers. Divorce was common (and as easy as putting your ex's belongings outside of the long house). I took from my classes that marriage was about politics and that marriage as an institution is very flexible between societies.

I have heard and read about Plains Indians taking gay wives, but I don't know if I buy that.

But none of that matters to me. We've walked on the Moon. We commonly live lifespans undreamed of by our ancestors. Women no longer have to be baby factories. I can travel anywhere on the planet in a matter of hours. I can get almost any bit of information on the internet. We live in a different world

I can see no harm from same sex marriage. Most arguments against it are moral or religious. Both are subjective. "

sicksense wrote on Jan 16, 2009 6:43 AM:

" Really a teacher? No harm at all? None? You are either blind or unable to see if you can't possibly find one argument against same sex marriage. Maybe you're just not being entirely honest on this subject.

I can see a positive or two for same sex marriage but the negatives outweigh them by a mile. "

Raven wrote on Jan 16, 2009 8:12 AM:

" and what are those negatives sicksense...what is the harm caused that would justify it...not because of moral disapproval, but actual 'harm'

and JR..when did being a 'cripple' become a sexual trait? "

pharper wrote on Jan 16, 2009 9:07 AM:

" What specific negatives can you name, sicksense? I don't accept "oh, you should know" as a valid answer, either. I honestly don't know. All of us who support same-sex marriage have given very detailed, very concise reasons as to why same-sex marriage would not only be detrimental, but would be a positive for our society. The only specifics I've heard from the pro-8 side have been Biblical.

And sicksense, your tirade about the "medical community" is just semantics. By that logic, you could discredit the medical community for just about anything. And then what's the point of even having one?

In that case, yes, the very few doctors who claim homosexuality is a choice are wrong. Whether it's psychological, genetic, biological, or a combination of all three, it is most decidedly not a choice to be homosexual. That's exactly like saying you can choose who you fall in love with.

I think what you're referring to is sex. Yes, it is a choice to have sex with someone of the same gender (although you can’t choose to be attracted to them), but in that sense, heterosexuality is a choice as well, since people make the choice to have sex with someone of the opposite gender. But that's only a very small part of the equation. "

a teacher wrote on Jan 16, 2009 9:43 AM:

" OK SickSense, I can think of one down side. If Same sex marriage was allowed I'd have to listen to your rants on how America is sliding into a cesspool of immorality. Other than that, no, I don't see anything major. "

Tim wrote on Jan 16, 2009 12:05 PM:

" pharper wrote on Jan 16, 2009 9:07 AM:Whether it's psychological, genetic, biological, or a combination of all three, it is most decidedly not a choice to be homosexual.

You continue to make this statement in a dogmatic fashion and you know the "medical community" who do the actual research in this (not just your average psychologist/psychiatrist who would tend to agree with you) area also includes environmental and social reasons for why someone is homosexual.

Do you know what they mean by environmental and social??? they mean by the environment and social surrounds that you chose to be part of or were raised in.

Just one such example is as follows:

"Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project

"sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations."

"environment can influence gene expression, and free will determines the response to whatever predispositions might be present."

This goes directly against your statment "it is most decidedly not a choice to be homosexual.

Just because you say otherwise with conviction doesn't make it so...remember what the "medical community" says.

Now I give you the opportunity to rebute this Doctor with references of your own...but please limit them to experts in this field who do the actual research in this area, not just your average Dr. who has no real expertise here. "

Raven wrote on Jan 16, 2009 2:02 PM:

" and tim, you choose to be heterosexual when? And what made you make that choice?

and pharper, myself and many others, are relying upon the APA, the AMA and a dozen other scientific and medical organization who are at odds with your opinion. "

Tim wrote on Jan 16, 2009 6:02 PM:

" Raven wrote:
" tim, you choose to be heterosexual when? And what made you make that choice?

pharper, myself and many others, are relying upon the APA, the AMA and a dozen other scientific and medical organization who are at odds with your opinion. "

As flattering as that is, I am not Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project..it is his opinion, nor am I Dr. Dean Hamer or Dr. Simon LeVay both prominent brain researchers who have written multiple books on just this subject...both gay by the way, and they both came to the conclusion that Dr. Collins did...that factors that include environmental and social comes into play...I am sorry that the scientific research didn't come out the way you wanted.

Yes the AMA and APA fine organizations with fine Drs. I am sure....full of general practitioners...foot doctors and ear, nose and throat specialists, psychologist/psychiatrists..not one with the experience in brain research such as the Drs. mentioned above.

let me give you a simile...Say you have a brain tumor that needs to be removed, are you going to a General practitioner to do the work or a specialist in the field, a neurosurgeon?

I don't know about you but i would stick to the specialist.

I have yet to hear you name one expert that has studied in the field that the above Drs. have. (I will mention more if you would like)

All you have is your inner feelings and what your gay friends tell you and the constant thrumming of "when did you decide to be heterosexual"?
And a bunch of Drs. that don't have any experience in this field.

Reread Dr. Collins thoughts they are huge to this discussion. "

a teacher wrote on Jan 16, 2009 9:00 PM:

" Tom Riley: The thoughts of Dr. Collins is food for thought. However, to dismiss the opinions of the AMA and the APA as uninformed and irrelevant is staggeringly arrogant.

For the record, I think the good Dr. Collins is correct. I don't think there is a "gay gene". There are probably a collection of factors that determine sexuality. But again, it's irrelevant, because it seems to me that once the die has been cast, there is little choice involved.

So Tom, aside from the fact that no society has allowed same sex marriage, What harm can at most 10% of the population cause by marrying? "

tim wrote on Jan 16, 2009 10:25 PM:

" a teacher wrote on Jan 16, 2009 9:00 PM:" Tom Riley: The thoughts of Dr. Collins is food for thought. However, to dismiss the opinions of the AMA and the APA as uninformed and irrelevant is staggeringly arrogant.

Sorry a teacher Tom didn't write this I did (Tim)

I didn't say they are uninformed and irrelevant....but I did say they have no expertise in this specific area.

It is no more arrogant than Raven and pharper claiming that just because the AMA and APA are M.D.'s they somehow can pass judgement in an area that they really have no training in.

How arrogant is it for pharper to say this? "the very few doctors who claim homosexuality is a choice are wrong."

That comment is the height of arrogance...first of all it isn't a few doctors, I could give you a list that would make your head spin, and the doctors she is talking about are the ones that have done the research in this area, yet she claims to know better.

She claims Dr. Collins a world renown geneticist and took the lead in tracking the human Genome is wrong.. She claims Simon LeVay a neuroscientist known for his studies about brain structures and sexual orientation is wrong..she claims Dean Hamer who is a geneticist and has a Ph.D from Harvard Medical School and has won many awards for his scientific work is wrong.

And you claim I am arrogant!? "

Raven wrote on Jan 16, 2009 11:49 PM:

" Tim, If we are reading your post correctly, you say homosexuality is a choice, if it is, then heterosexuality is also a choice, so when did you choose?

and what harm will same sex marriage cause? "

a teacher wrote on Jan 17, 2009 11:29 AM:

" My Bad, Tom Riley, I should have known better.

Tim:

When the AMA puts out an opinion on something like Homosexuality they are basing that opinion on medical research done by experts and reviewed by experts. The AMA has also put out an opinion that cigarettes cause cancer and are generally bad for you. Would you dismiss that?

The APA is an organization of Psychiatrist, doctors whose expertise is human behavior. Who could be more qualified?

The people you note, by the way, don't claim that homosexuality is a choice, they claim that it has more than a genetic basis. "

Tim wrote on Jan 17, 2009 5:48 PM:

" a teacher wrote on Jan 17, 2009 11:29 AM: The people you note, by the way, don't claim that homosexuality is a choice, they claim that it has more than a genetic basis. "

Gee...no kidding?

And what would that "more than a genetic basis" be??

You can't even bring yourself to say it can you?

I would assume being a teacher you would have better comprehension skills....but as you said...."I should have known better."

First you don't know who is writing what..then when you do finally figure it out with some help, you get it all wrong.

I NEVER said it was fully and wholly a choice and I never said that those Doctors said that either.

This is the person who continually said that I said it was a choice:

Raven wrote on Jan 16, 2009 11:49 PM: Tim, If we are reading your post correctly, you say homosexuality is a choice.

This is what I have consistantly said:

tim wrote on Jan 16, 2009 10:25 PM:

they both came to the conclusion that Dr. Collins did...that factors that include environmental and social comes into play.

Did you notice that? FACTORS THAT INCLUDE??? meaning other factors are involved as well... I have through out all my posts said homosexual orientation stems from a combination of biological, social and environmental factors.

EXACTLY what the doctors above stated.

I have one question for you a teacher...when Dr. Collins says this:

"environment can influence gene expression, and free will determines the response to whatever predispositions might be present."

What do you think he means by "environment can influence and free will determines"? "

Tim wrote on Jan 17, 2009 9:33 PM:

" Here is another one of those "very few doctors" that pharper and raven say are wrong.... Douglas Abbott, Ph.D., Professor of Child and Family Studies at the University of Nebraska.

Abbott points to studies that look at the sexual orientation of the offspring of gay people. "If homosexuality was caused by genetic mechanisms, (born that way) their children would be more likely to choose same-sex interaction," he says. "But they aren't more likely, so therefore it can't be genetic."

For Abbott, the answer to the nature-vs.-nurture question is very clear. "I think the primary causes of same-sex behavior are environmental and personal choice and free agency."

How about this bombshell as posted by the Harvard University Press: this statement is made by a prominent member of the American Psychological Association "...it may be that for now, the safest way to advocate for lesbian/gay/bisexual rights is to keep propagating a deterministic model: sexual minorities are born that way and can never be otherwise. If this is an easier route to acceptance, is it really so bad that it is inaccurate?"

Wow!..did this member of the APA who as an organization says that the gay lifestyle is normal and natural really saying that being "born that way" is inaccurate?

Question for you a teacher..is the APA really an advocate/activist for the gay community? is he being intellectually dishonest? Would you say this is at least unethical? possibly to the point of pushing a gay agenda?....claiming on the surface it is unchangable..but admitting that it is based on inaccurate information?
I await your response. "

winewoman wrote on Jan 17, 2009 10:05 PM:

" Tim, There are many credible sources on both sides of the homosexuality nuture/nature issue and, I believe that you know that. Dr LeVay's work (which you referenced) has been challenged because of it's small sample size, small budget, funding source and professional affiliation. I have previously cited medical and psychological sources supporting the nature aspect of this issue. My question to you is - does it matter? Will the definitive proof of orientation by nature change the way you and others feel about same gender marriage? Will you suddently support same gender marriage if it is sexual orientation is proven to be nature? "

a teacher wrote on Jan 17, 2009 10:36 PM:

" Tim, your snarkiness is wasted on me, I don't care enough about your comment to be insulted.

Here is the good Dr. Collins on the subject of how his research has been taken out of context and used to support a position he doesn't hold:

"The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.

Your note indicated that your real interest is in the truth. And this is about all that we really know. No one has yet identified an actual gene that contributes to the hereditary component (the reports about a gene on the X chromosome from the 1990s have not held up), but it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years."

Taken from "Major Geneticist Francis Collins Responds to NARTH Article".

Dr Collins doesn't seem to think there is much choice involved.

YOU haven't said that a choice is involved, you have questioned those that claim there is no choice. What does THAT imply? "

a teacher wrote on Jan 17, 2009 11:01 PM:

" Tim. My response. You should look beyond the NARTH website for reliable information. "

Raven wrote on Jan 17, 2009 11:42 PM:

" so again, tim, is there a choice involved or not...and if it is choice...when did you choose...it isn't hard a question. "

winewoman wrote on Jan 18, 2009 12:16 PM:

" Angelican Archbishop Benjamin Tutu of South Africa wrote, “if this sexual orientation were indeed a matter of personal choice, the homosexual persons must be the craziest coots around to choose a way of life that exposes them to so much hostility, discrimination, loss, and suffering.” Homosexuality is not a choice. It’s a way of life. "

Tim wrote on Jan 18, 2009 11:39 PM:

" a teacher wrote :" Tim. My response. You should look beyond the NARTH website for reliable information. "

What website would that be? The website that you visited to find your above quote? More than likely Ex-Gay Watch..is this the "reliable" information site I should visit?

Is it more reliable because you agree with it's findings?

Ex-Gay Watch ( as well as the other pro gay websites that carried the statement by Collins ) is the antithesis of Narth
and is as biased towards one point of view as Narth is the other.

What I find interesting is that all of the pro gay websites that relished the correction of two minor points (which many quoted)
were silent about the most damaging quote to their cause when Dr. Collins said this:
"sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations."

I am sure they would have jumped all over that quote. they didn't get an answer they liked so it wasn't included in their complaint.

a teacher wrote :YOU haven't said that a choice is involved, you have questioned those that claim there is no choice. What does THAT imply? "

It imply's that the jury is still out...we don't know causation yet, I question those who are dogmatic and claim they know better than current knowledge which is that homosexual orientation stems from a combination of biological and environmental factors. "

Tim wrote on Jan 18, 2009 11:54 PM:

" Raven wrote on Jan 17, 2009 11:42 PM:
" so again, tim, is there a choice involved or not...and if it is choice...when did you choose...it isn't hard a question. "

Ok Ok I was 3 1/2 maybe 4 when my family went to see the latest Rock Hudson movie.... I think it was named 'Come September' or something like that..anyways
Rock Hudson came on screen and I thought...WOW! he is pretty good looking ...so i thought to myself maybe I'm......But just at that moment Gina Lollobrigida walked on screen....and I was like...double WOW!! so i thought Rock or Gina Rock or Gina, Gina or Rock....then I made my choice...Gina it is!!!

Your right...it wasn't that hard of a question. "

Raven wrote on Jan 19, 2009 11:02 AM:

" 3.5 years old, eh..... "

Tim wrote on Jan 19, 2009 4:29 PM:

" Raven wrote on Jan 19, 2009 11:02 AM:
" 3.5 years old, eh..... "

Yeah.....I matured early....i think it is genetic. "

glenroy wrote on Jan 19, 2009 4:40 PM:

" Of course homosexuality is not genetically predetermined…there have a studies on identical twins separated at birth. Those raised in a homosexual household tended to become homosexual while those raised in a heterosexual households tended not to …. identical twins, identical genetics with orientation differences amazing. "

a teacher wrote on Jan 19, 2009 5:51 PM:

" Tim, I looked for a quote from the man himself and found it there. He is unhappy with how his research is being used to push a point and feels misquoted (I left that part out of the quote).

He also pointed out that while genetics does not 100% determine sexuality, the other influences that determine sexuality are not necessarily alterable. That is, there may not be much that a homosexual can do about their orientation, it is not a choice. "

steph wrote on Jan 19, 2009 6:23 PM:

" So ironic that the pro-8 crowd wants to get all "scientific" and "biological" when ordinarily they shy away from such things.

Probably it's for the best if they do stay away from things they know little about. "

winewoman wrote on Jan 19, 2009 6:46 PM:

" glenroy,
...and there are studies that find the opposite. Like I said, there are credible sources on both sides of the nature/nurture issue. Even more interesting are the studies on brain structure. Here are some twin studies findings:

Department of Psychology, Northwestern University. Research has generally supported the existence of familial-genetic factors for male sexual orientation

Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine. Behavioral genetics research on homosexual and heterosexual orientation. Family, twin, and adoptee studies indicate that homosexuality and thus heterosexuality run in families. Sibling, twin, and adoptee concordance rates are compatible with the hypothesis that genes account for at least half of the variance in sexual orientation.

Centre for Violence Prevention, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. School of Biological Sciences, Queen Mary-University of London, London, UK. Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College-University of London, London, UK. Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Found that same-sex behavior was explained by both heritable factors and individual-specific environmental sources (such as prenatal environment, experience with illness and trauma, as well as peer groups, and sexual experiences), while influences of shared-environment variables such as familial environment and societal attitudes had a weaker significant effect. "

Tim wrote on Jan 19, 2009 8:36 PM:

" a teacher wrote on Jan 19, 2009 5:51 PM:
other influences that determine sexuality are not necessarily alterable. That is, there may not be much that a homosexual can do about their orientation, it is not a choice. "

that is a double edge sword you are wielding...

I find his careful wording a little strange, he doesn't say it is NOT alterable..he said it is not necessarily alterable...which means it is also not necessarily unalterable.

If he believes that it is unalterable why doesn't he just say those simple words?

winewoman wrote on Jan 19, 2009 6:46 PM: there are credible sources on both sides of the nature/nurture issue.

Thank you winewoman for your research...you show a nice cross section of both points of view.

Some studies seem to be saying it is genetic in nature as Northwestern U. says...others say that environmental factors come into play (such as prenatal environment, experience with illness and trauma, as well as peer groups, and sexual experiences)

my problem lies with the people who look at this latter research and automatically dismiss it and say it is "very few" or they have a hidden agenda or are flat out wrong.

There IS strong research for both views. "

Raven wrote on Jan 19, 2009 9:09 PM:

" yeah you must be exceptional, tim...because the research shows that most adults can not recall accurately memories of events that happens before the age of 3 or 4. A number of theories are out there as to why.

One often-cited explanation of childhood amnesia is that the infant’s mind is not neurologically mature enough to create long-lasting autobiographical memories. In particular, it is not until the age 3 or 4 that toddlers have a mature hippocampus and prefrontal cortex. These regions of the brain are known to be associated with the formation of autobiographical memories of the type notably missing from adult recollection of early childhood (Henry Gleitman, Alan Fridlund, and Daniel Reisberg. Psychology. 2004; Nora Newcombe, Anna Drummey, Nathan Fox, Enhui Lai, and Wendy Ottinger-Alberts. " Remembering Early Childhood: How Much, How, and Why (or Why Not)." Current Directions in Psychological Science. (2000).

Children do remember events; however, these memories accessible as children are lost to infantile amnesia in adulthood (Bauer, Patricia. “Oh Where, Oh Where Have Those Early Memories Gone?” Psychological Science Agenda 18., 2004.

So you would be the exception in even remembering the event, not the rule, it appears, must be genetic. "

a teacher wrote on Jan 19, 2009 10:08 PM:

" Good Lord Tim, try reading. The man said:
""The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.

Your note indicated that your real interest is in the truth. And this is about all that we really know. No one has yet identified an actual gene that contributes to the hereditary component (the reports about a gene on the X chromosome from the 1990s have not held up), but it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years."

He seems pretty clear to me. He is saying that the specific contribution of genetics to homosexuality has yet to be determined. There are probably other factors. He says that nothing he has said implies that one can alter those other factors. "

Tim wrote on Jan 19, 2009 10:55 PM:

" Raven wrote on Jan 19, 2009 9:09 PM:
" yeah you must be exceptional, tim...because the research shows that most adults can not recall accurately memories of events that happens before the age of 3 or 4. A number of theories are out there as to why.

Sorry Raven...tongue was firmly in cheek on that answer. "

Raven wrote on Jan 20, 2009 8:49 AM:

" so, you have never had to make that choice is what you are saying? "

Tim wrote on Jan 21, 2009 5:37 PM:

" Didn't take a rocket scientist to figure this would happen...It will happen, they don't have a moral or legal ground to stand on...that all flew out the window with the gay marriage arguments.

AP Associated Press
VANCOUVER, British Columbia - Canada's decision to legalize gay marriage has paved the way for polygamy to be legal as well, a defense lawyer said Wednesday as the two leaders of rival polygamous communities made their first court appearance.

The case is the first to test Canada's polygamy laws. Blair Suffredine, said during a telephone interview that marriage standards in Canada have changed.

"If (homosexuals) can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can't marry more than one person?" said Suffredine, a former provincial lawmaker. Canada's Parliament extended full marriage rights to same-sex couples in 2005. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 21, 2009 11:53 PM:

" "Canada's decision to legalize gay marriage has paved the way for polygamy to be legal as well."

Yep. Once you meddle with the traditional definition of marriage, the floodgates are wide open for all sorts of 'unions'. There goes the neighborhood. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 21, 2009 11:57 PM:

" steph wrote: "So ironic that the pro-8 crowd wants to get all "scientific" and "biological" when ordinarily they shy away from such things."

That's not only insulting but also very wrong. "

John Richards wrote on Jan 22, 2009 12:03 AM:

" “if this sexual orientation were indeed a matter of personal choice, the homosexual persons must be the craziest coots around to choose a way of life that exposes them to so much hostility, discrimination, loss, and suffering."

That doesn't prove a thing since drug addicts also choose a lifestyle that exposes them to much hostility, discrimination, loss, and suffering. "

winewoman wrote on Jan 22, 2009 10:50 AM:

" Oh for Chrissake - it was a Defense Attorney that made the statement that was quoted in the AP. Of course he is going to say that - he's the defense attorney! Same old overreaching and scare tactics we have here. "

Tim wrote on Jan 22, 2009 1:47 PM:

" Gee winewoman settle down....it will happen, just like it took the gay marriage issue many small steps to get where they are today.

The advantage the polygamists have is the gay community did all the heavy lifting for them....got rid of those pesky moral issues and changing of laws. "

Raven wrote on Jan 22, 2009 2:03 PM:

" wait until after the case Tim....nothing has happened until then. "

Tim wrote on Jan 22, 2009 4:04 PM:

" Oh I don't expect much will come out of this single case...they will most likely lose..but it is a first step.

Next step will no doubt be to petition the CCLA for their help...( the Canadian version of the ACLU)

It will take a while..but I don't see on what basis they will have to say no to them. "

Tim wrote on Jan 22, 2009 5:53 PM:

" Of course we already know where the ACLU stands on this, this is from the President of the ACLU.

From the Yale daily news:

In response to a student's question about gay marriage, bigamy and polygamy in certain communities, Strossen said the ACLU is actively fighting to defend freedom of choice in marriage and partnerships.

"We have defended the right for individuals to engage in polygamy," Strossen said. "We defend the freedom of choice for mature, consenting individuals." "

Raven wrote on Jan 22, 2009 8:23 PM:

" and tim ... did you miss the part where it is pointed out that while the ACLU may have defended polygamy ... they lost. And for the moment, it is a non issue in the US....the issue is same sex marriage. "

Tim wrote on Jan 22, 2009 11:26 PM:

" Raven wrote on Jan 22, 2009 8:23 PM:
" and tim ... did you miss the part where it is pointed out that while the ACLU may have defended polygamy ... they lost. And for the moment, it is a non issue in the US....the issue is same sex marriage. "

Raven....is it lost on you that for years the gay marriage issue has lost too?

Times are a changin'...gays will win the right..and so will polygamists. after all how many times have we heard from you, pharper and others that "consenting adults should be able to marry whom ever they choose..what right do you have to tell mature women and men who, and how many they can marry? Also you have asked many times...how can gay marriage harm you?

Well how can polygamy harm you Raven? "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: