If gay people think this is a victory, they’re sadly mistaken.

These are political/social matters that the voters should decide on in their legislatures.

If so, I’d have to disagree, and point out that I didn’t have any intention of implying that in my post.

I am talking not about psychological problems, but a combination of natural male tendencies and libertine attitudes that have become prominent in the gay community because of the combination of those natural male tendencies and having been forced underground by society for so long.

But regardless of how, the fact remains that the gay community has far different attitudes about monogamy and promiscuity than mainstream society and far more liberal attitudes about marriage.

My point is that while its possible gay marriage could have a civilizing effect on gays which I think would be good for society and good for gays, its also possible that if gays are allowed to marry and the gay community doesn’t change its attitudes about promiscuity or its overall behavior, that that could have a very negative effect on the institution of marriage.

I have restrained myself from introducing the stink bombs that bother me most. I am not anxious to engage in the firing back. However, I will scratch the surface. The best research shows that the population of true homosexuals is slightly under the 2.5 per cent level. Additionally, there is a small number who cross into the practices of homosexuality. The total number or the two groups being something under four per cent of the population. Research by the APA also shows that physical abuse among lesbian couples it extremely high and way out of sync with the numbers for physical abuse among all couples in general.

Frankly, our society has turned a blind eye to many of the psychological concerns that arise specifically from within the gay world and the psychological concerns that come along with many who cross into the gay world. (There is an interesting study on girls in the professional level of tennis and the lure of the lesbian world.) I suspect that political correctness has had a great to do with this.

The argument for gay marriage seems to be heavy with the concept of “equality.” But how gays express and practice their sexuality is certainly not “equal” among themselves.

The countercharge that heterosexuals have their fair share of problems is not germane for the simplest of reasons. The overwhelming power of the majority is being asked change the definition of one of its basic institutions. For a gay to argue that our worst and your worst are no different is not much of a justification, nor is it salient logic.

Clearly, I realize that the statistics I have given can be countered by special interest studies that have been concocted to dispute them. That is to be expected. But the medical school research and the foundation work by noted researchers is very consistent.

I have been very impressed with your concern for the institution of marriage as I read your various posts on the issue. While I lean towards supporting gay marriage for many of the same reasons you do, I really am neither for nor against it yet, because, though I hope it would, I honestly can’t be certain that the effect on the institution would be positive.

I certainly understand the arguments that allowing same sex couples to marry would strengthen the institution, and I am hopeful that same-sex marriage would also have a positive effect on the “gay community”, but I simply don’t know if either would really be the case.

The hope is that marriage would “civilize” the gay community (and yes, I am specifically talking about gay men here more than lesbians) the same way it civilizes heterosexual men by encouraging them to settle down with one woman. But would it? It seems to me the gay community rather likes its promiscuity, thank you very much, and I am inclined to doubt they are ready to give it up. I know a great many gay men, and very few of them are in long term relationships. Moreover, the “civilizing” effect works in heterosexual relationships, because women, who are much more inclined to monogamy than men, are the ones who exert the “civilizing” influence in the first place. And they also happen to be the figure that is missing from the gay marriage equation.

Much of the gay community also has a very different view of marriage than the rest of society, specifically the tendency towards and acceptance of “open” marriages to a far, far greater degree than the rest of society. I don’t see any evidence that these attitudes are going to change, and what is the effect on the institution if they dont?

Also, the gay community has always been able to point to the inability to marry whenever the issue of promiscuity comes up. What if marriage doesnt have a “civilizing” affect on the gay community? What happens if they remain just as promiscuous as before — or if society throws a big gay wedding and nobody shows up? With the excuse of “they cant get married” gone, what influence does it have on societal attitudes towards marriage if, finally granted the opportunity to marry, gays opt not to and instead keep partying it up and sleeping around as much as ever?

I’ve gotten the impression, reading your posts, that you would try to consider these questions objectively, so, i am very interested in your thoughts. And anyone else who wants to address them objectively.

And I’m sorry they are somewhat disjointed, like I said, I simply don’t know the answers, and I’m still working through the questions myself. it doesnt help that there is very little real objectivity coming from either side. But if there is one thing I have learned from Barack Obama, it is that “hope” is not a good foundation for sound policy.

What needs to be taught is how to engage in sexual relations in safe, responsible ways where informed consent between partners is regarded as an indispensible element.

Honestly, how did mankind survive so many millenia without liberals to tell them, in school, how to have sex? It is a wonder that there are any human beings to teach sex-ed to!

You are now free to stimulate yourself with nipple clips and a power drill.

I’m pretty sure theyre called nipple clamps. And to think I learned that without the help of the public school system! (and no, its not from personal experience …not that there’s anything wrong with that)

What in God’s name is that awful banging and screeching?! Does anyone else hear that?! It sounds like an 18-wheeler plowing through a glass warehouse filled with vampire bats.

Oh, there. It stopped, thank God. What the hell was that?

That said, we are clearly a country where a majority carries the vote. If gays can make a compelling argument for homosexual marriage, our tradition of respecting the minority view and the heterosexual majority will make it happen.

Sadly, poor Mr. Madison and Federalist #10 have fallen to the level of sloganeering by activists who have little, if any, understanding of the conundrum of majority rule.

Please forgive my misunderstanding. I agree that kinksters are not the best agents to make the case for same-sex marriage.

As for the wishes of the majority. the founders had the wisdom to create a constitutional republic that protects the liberties of minorities and not a pure democracy where majoritarianism is a threat.

I do not think that the kinky behavior engaged in by gay people has any bearing on the issue of same-sex marriage.

You clearly misread my meaning.

Gay marriage is in the hands of the majority of the the population which is heterosexual. If gays are going to woo the heterosexuals into expanding marriage to include homosexuals, I humbly suggest that kinky gay behavior is not the ideal battle plan.

Perhaps the California Supreme Court will prevail and perhaps every other state supreme court will be in awe of California and follow suit and perhaps the Supreme Court of the United States will decide that what is good for the 50 states is good for United States and gay marriage will bypass the majority heterosexual population that remains unconvinced.

Color me skeptical. (And so far as the public reaction to sexual bravado and adventure is concerned, take that up with Spitzer, Willie Clinton, and toe-tapping Senators in public bathroom stalls.)

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Which means it has no effect on the Domestic Partner ruling. Especially now that the CA supreme court said that they are two different things. Since the court agreed that DP gave gaves the same rights and responsibilities as Marriage - only difference being the word marriage.

(Leah) NGLTF is stuck in it’s own world of the gay left.

That’s how they make their money. Look no further.

(Christopher) Allowing gay marriage represents a civil rights victory

That assumes a State marriage license (compelling third parties / institutions to treat your particular form of relationship a certain way) is a civil right.

In my belief system, a State license for *anything* - be it fishing, driving, a monopoly on India imports, straight marriage or gay marriage - is always and inherently a privilege, not a right.

(Robert) I certainly favor allowing same-sex marriages - but by democratic means.

Same here!

OK, what I came to ask: So what does the new CA initiative say? Would it preserve the CA’s pre-existing (before last week’s decision) civil union law?

[My point exactly. Except I was add the word, "most" between "that" and "same-sex" above. --Dan]

(I have the opportunity each year to spend time in a variety of states and have personally witnessed the constitutional amendment efforts in Nebraska in 2000, Ohio and elsewhere in 2004 and Kansas in 2005. It has been my experience that a majority of those who circulate petitions and sign petitions and vote “yes” for the amendments to ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc., are good, decent people who have sincerely-held objections to — or reservations about — same sex marriage. It has also been my experience that most of those who initiate these efforts to amend state constitutions are, indeed, evil people so full of hate that no argument whatsoever can convince them they might be wrong.)

[Well said. And it's important that opponents of the CA initiative understand that. Part of the point of m my post. --Dan]

What Dan is trying to do is to have gays live up to that ideal - sex is sacred and has it’s place in marriage. You would rather stay the petulant child and demand that not only are you entitled your unfettered sex, but that such sex should be rewarded by the rights of marriage. As all of us who have been married for many years can tell you - the rewards are great, but so are the responsibilities.

If society discards all of it’s ideals - we might as well be pigs in a sty, something that may appeal to you - but not to most of us.