One of the more interesting truths about so-called “gay marriage” is the fact that gays actually don’t marry all that much where it is legal. Only 10% of gays get married in such places as Massachusetts, Canada, Belgium, and Netherlands. There is low demand and low motivation among the gay community to actually marry. Therefore, the reason gays vociferously protest for the formality of “marriage” must go beyond their interest in the institution itself. For the record, two-thirds (66%) of all heterosexuals enter into marriage (married, separated, divorced, or widowed).

So far, in California, approximately 18,000 “same-sex marriages” occurred. That’s about 36,000 gays out of an estimated community of over 1 million. Admittedly, California stats are tough to analyze given the quirky political climate the past year. You have pent-up demand but you also had a lot of uncertainty. Typically, where gay “marriage” is legal (see Massachusetts and Connecticut) you have an initial surge that drops off dramatically in subsequent years and levels off at 5% to 15% of the total gay population that marries. (note: I assume approximately 2% to 4% of the state’s population would identify itself as gay.)

In other words, approximately 90% of gays choose (prefer) not to “marry”. As a result, less than 0.5% of an entire population will require this “re-definition” of the historical, traditional institution of marriage. 99.5% of the population of a state/nation has no need for redefining marriage and “civil unions/partnerships” are perfectly acceptable to gays. Unless, of course, there’s more at stake than actual “marriage” which would only imply some kind of “hidden agenda”.

So what’s my point? Other than the obvious points above, the data suggests the following:

1) There is a substantive and profound natural difference between gay vs. straight sexual relationships. Hence, different terms to define the “relationship”. There’s something about opposite sexes having a much more natural desire to “marry” than “same-sex”. Empirically, we know opposite sex unions are fundamentally different and functionally superior to the partnership of two identical genders. Obviously, opposite sex unions with the complexity of complimentary genders, husband/wife roles, ability to produce life, and the creation of father/mother relationships, sets them apart from same sex partnerships. It’s comparing apples to oranges (i.e. “unequal”). It appears same-sex partnerships vs. opposite-sex unions are inherently separate and unequal.

2) The issue of “marriage” is not the real driving force behind No on Prop 8 supporters. It appears to be a red herring or possibly a “front” for some other “unspoken” issues. Maybe it’s the “symbolism” of marriage, not the reality? If so, this is where gays lose credibility in their protests and appear disingenuous about their real motives. Also, the recent gay intimidation, harassment, and open persecution of Prop 8 supporters reveals their long term intentions to restrict the free exercise of religion and stifle free speech. Let’s be honest here – who can deny there is a fundamental clash of opposing moral visions?

3) Elton John just makes way too much sense to me:

“We’re not married. Let’s get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage.”
“I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership,” John says. “The word ‘marriage,’ I think, puts a lot of people off.
“You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.”

Essentially, there is no harm and no injury to gays while defining marriage as a union between a husband and wife. Elton John apparently lives a happy and free life. He certainly doesn’t play the victim card. And there’s no comparison to what the blacks suffered in America.

By the way, is Elton John a hate-filled ignorant bigot?

4) Gays appear insecure about their own morality. Let’s assume I’m an atheist and I think morality is in your own head. Then it’s your guilt-trip not mine. There is no moral or value judgment being placed on a civil union vs. marriage. It’s a definitional issue. Heck, for all I know, maybe civil unions are more righteous – who really cares? The gay community comes across as very insecure about their own morality. Maybe this issue in the minds of gays is all about “moral equality” not marriage equality? If so, then the gays vs. religious are both engaging in the same moral play (i.e. defining foundational values).

Hypothetically speaking, as an atheist, I find this debate silly and I find gay activists far more concerned about pushing their own moral agenda than they are willing to admit (i.e. transgenderism, alternative family constructs, sexual adventurism, etc.).

5) Finally, will the supporters of No on Prop 8 please describe the harm and injury gays suffer because I label the gay partnership a “civil union”? Again, what is the harm to gays because I hold to the historical definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife? Please provide specifics and examples of your injuries – make your case – how are gays injured? So far, the silence has been deafening.

The advocacy for “gay marriage” appears to be mostly a self-image issue for gays (i.e. psychic pain, deep insecurities, etc.). It certainly isn’t about the loss of housing, education, employment, opportunity, health, integration, relationships, love, and sex. There’s just no observable lack of freedom and opportunity for the gay community. Please spare me the comparisons to the plight of African-Americans. About the best one can do is compare gays to the plight of other self-identified minorities such as atheists, bisexuals, communists, nudists, Jehovah Witnesses, vegans, Muslims, transvestites, polygamists, etc. who feel they are misunderstood by the majority.

Are we obligated to redefine our institutions only to accommodate everyone’s self-image, emotional issues, morality, and eccentricities for the sake of inclusion? Is that even remotely possible? Where do you draw the line on inclusion? And who sets the boundaries? What foundational values unite us? Where do our inalienable rights come from – society or our Creator? Either way, doesn’t the Prop 8 victory only confirm that society, history, and religion are all in agreement as to the definition of marriage?

Bottom line: Gay marriage is on the wrong side of history, illogical, unnecessary, and will never be embraced as a legitimate institution in society. However, though it may be autocratically coerced (i.e. via court system edicts) gay marriage will never be truly accepted in the hearts and minds of a civilization without sound reasoning and the underpinnings of great moral wisdom. Try as you may, gay marriage will never achieve the same consensual acceptance as that which exists for ethnic and racial civil liberties – there’s no comparison.

Respectfully yours,
Sean Ragan
Camarillo, Ca.

Attmay apparently holds me in high regard.

The Livewire- Evil overlord

One thing I do notice, despite emotions running high, is a lot of the ‘regulars’ can disagree on issues civilly. ILC and I have similar beliefs on how to get to different goals.

Livewire, I agree with that although I’d go a little farther because to me it seems like we agree on a majority of issues.

I knew what ILC would say even before I opened this comment box.

You’re finally learning! Good for you.

ILC, you can continue to lie, and lie and lie, but no matter how many times you repeat your lies, you remain the ONLY liar.

Nope. Wrong again. But hey – Next time, AE, try using *more* lies and personal invective. You really didn’t use enough, in this thread or in the other. We need more of that from you, on this blog.

WordPress sucks.

I mean I supported the Ohio DOMA (and still do) and likely would have voted for 8. My arguements are heard and respected, even when they’re not agreed with.

I respect no one who supports anti-gay legislation.

I respect no one who believes gay relationships deserve the Orwellian “separate but equal” status.

And I certainly respect no one who insults me.

What I do is obey the house rules on comment manners.

You’re not self-hating. It is obvious you have a very high opinion of yourself. It’s the rest of us you hate and you would cut off your nose to spite your face rather than admit that conservatives are wrong on this.

I have just finished reading a fine book by Jonathan Rauch entitled “Gay Marriage: Why it’s Good For Gays, Good For Straights and Good For America”. Read it. It explains how gay marriage can and should be legalized without opening the door for the usual red herrings dragged out constantly by the usual liars.

You “same-sex marriage opponents” are a stain on conservatism that will take years to erase. I don’t consider social conservatism to be conservative at all, just Christian socialism. And unlike the claims by that anachronistic rag Newsweek, we are NOT all socialists now. I know I’m not.

Many of the enemies of gay marriage are enemies of gay EVERYTHING. If they ban gay marriage in all 50 states, they won’t stop there.

Okay, LW, let me see what I can do. My grandmother was a matchmaker in the Old Country. (Cue “Fiddler on the Roof” soundtrack.)

Regards,
Peter H.

Way to go Dan! I am really happy for you. (Of course, this means I have to suspend my “Get Dan a Date” contest.)

Just kidding.

Regards,
Peter H.

Now if only I had a social life

Now, I “suffer” from a lack of free evenings.

Even Attmay and Michigan Matt, who I think I personally disagree wth the most, I can find ground we do agree on, and even sometimes not shoot a snarky reply to Attmay

It’s funny to me, to read and celebrate diversity every day, and yet to have new readers with such calicifed opinions, that they don’t see it.

And given that you fully endorse and support Obama Party members who say things like this about you, we conservative gays can rather convincingly demonstrate that you’re projecting your own problems onto others.

Except Laura wasn’t hosting — she was gone for the day. So, the evil, homo-hating, social-conservative had asked raging L-E-S-B-I-A-N Tammy Bruce to host her show and talk with her evil, homo-hating, social-conservative audience. Indeed, Tammy seems to be the most frequent guest host on Laura’s show.

Once again liberals world view is contradicted by the facts.

“Your rigid devotion to an ideology espoused by people who mostly hate you clearly demonstrates a pathology of some sort.”

And this one…

“When they have conservative conventions like CPAC, blogger or otherwise, do they let you gay conservatives near the kids? Or are you segregated off into your own little area “for everyone’s safety”

I have to wonder if these people ever even set foot outside the gay-left ghetto. They don’t deal with actual conservatives, they deal with boogeymen. In the same way, the only way they can conceive of a conservative gay person is as a self-loathing caricature.

They probably think of themselves as the best educated, most worldly people around. And yet their mindset is very narrow, and exceedingly provincial.