H, I work with people in handling transitions. little people, people who are dying, and with friends and family. Transitions are hard. In coaching parents to help little folk and even those assisting ailing parents, I remind folk of that unwary feeling some can have walking off an airplane and into a bustling airport. Disoriented and disconnected, people look for signs and sometimes assistance to get to their connection, to the baggage claim or even the exit.

The transition of recognizing that folk in SS relationships are looking to secure the benefits and privilieges granted in marriage. Some are looking to use the current system of government to gain those privileges, others use lawyers and some are just leaving it alone.

It is going to cause distress, like any transition. Some of us will be around to see whether or not SS relationships end up with the same benefits and privileges that are currently given to to folk through civil marriage. Boundaries will be adjusted. It’s a tough situation.

Which do you think has been around longer, gay sex or the western institution of marriage? I imagine there was a day when a gay was clubbed senseless for his advances. On the other end of the spectrum, do you predict a time when a young man will wonder if he should give gay love an honest effort before he settles on heterosexuality? Neither do I.

What is it about one man and one woman that has you so agitated? Certainly no cops are banging your door down. Can’t you just love, honor, cherish, obey, and slobber over your lover? Society has relented on letting you adopt children. If your boss is homophobic you have squadrons of lawyers who will represent you. Why this urge to be “married?”

What is it about “marriage” that sticks in your craw? To be fair, I will tell you what it is about about gay marriage that sticks in my craw. If you are going to change who the “two” are, just flush the whole concept and let the good times roll. Why bar plural marriage, unions with your toaster oven or ties between Fagin and his band of little boys?

At the core of it all, I am convinced that gay marriage is all about self-esteem, recognition and respect. If you think that you can legislate that threesome (think hate crimes) you are sorely mistaken.

Here is the corse truth. Midgets have a congenital height problem. I am not about to embark on a journey of pretending they are like the bulk of society. In many ways they are, but in critical ways they are not.

I’m no expert on why some people are gay. But I know that it is not a matter of legislation, vitamins or exorcism that will change gays into heterosexuals. Gays and heterosexuals each have to carve out their relationships with one another. There is brute bigotry and there is enlightened understanding. When you tell me that you deserve a seismic redefinition of marriage, I can not imagine what earthly good it will do for society. Most recently, Kevin Jennings has proved that much of the “gay agenda” is subversive, harmful and open ended. When a reasonable, thoughtful gay make his points about marriage, he is not speaking for the Christian hating, Mormon bashing, loose and militant gays who insist on floating turds in the societal punchbowl.

Your turn.

as for you H, well not quite sure what benefits you would come away with.

but Sullivan wrote his little snippet back in 2003. . .it is 2010 and I think there has been a little change. . .I think 5 states, plus the District. . .plus some other countries and municipalities across the globe.

We all have gays in our families. You were talking about natural evolution and embracing gay marriage. What’s in it for me and what’s in it for gays?

but just with the addition of Sarah Lynne and Samuel David into the Cheney family tree. . .there will be continued support of ss couples and families, all across the nation and the world.

even conservatives like moran can come to reasonable conclusions.
just in my little family and friends circle, I can number over 450 folk who support my little world. as more and more glbt folk increase their circles, the evolution will continue.

yes, you may have a point that glbt folk cannot naturally procreate, but you do have to admit, that even under the most harsh conditions, glbt folk still pop up in families, even the best of conservative families aka the Cheneys. . .

I believe conservatives can embrace this change as part of the natural evolution in society and the simple recognition that denying two people in love the legal and cultural benefits that come with being married simply because they are of the same sex is wrong.

When it comes to evolution, gays are flat out dead enders.

Please do explain on what grounds conservatives will EMBRACE gay marriage. What exactly is in it for me and the rest of society?

Can’t you and your partner or partners just get along in the privacy of your own homes? What, pray tell, is gay marriage going to add to your life?

And please explain why I need to change my attitude. I am all ears.

When Sullivan takes responsibility for his own choice to be a promiscuous idiot in full public view, then his argument will make sense. But for him to blame the fact that he can’t stop himself from having anonymous and unprotected sex with multiple strangers on the absence of gay-sex marriage is nothing more than a poor cop-out, and likely why the only people who believe it are the professional victims of the Obama Party.

Gay unions will eventually be established as legal in most of America — hopefully by state legislatures and not the courts. I believe conservatives can embrace this change as part of the natural evolution in society and the simple recognition that denying two people in love the legal and cultural benefits that come with being married simply because they are of the same sex is wrong.

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2009/04/18/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage/

Conservatives have long rightly argued for the vital importance of the institution of marriage for fostering responsibility, commitment and the domestication of unruly men. Bringing gay men and women into this institution will surely change the gay subculture in subtle but profoundly conservative ways. When I grew up and realized I was gay, I had no concept of what my own future could be like. Like most other homosexuals, I grew up in a heterosexual family and tried to imagine how I too could one day be a full part of the family I loved. But I figured then that I had no such future. I could never have a marriage, never have a family, never be a full and equal part of the weddings and relationships and holidays that give families structure and meaning. When I looked forward, I saw nothing but emptiness and loneliness. No wonder it was hard to connect sex with love and commitment. No wonder it was hard to feel at home in what was, in fact, my home.

For today’s generation of gay kids, all that changes. From the beginning, they will be able to see their future as part of family life — not in conflict with it. Their “coming out” will also allow them a “coming home.” And as they date in adolescence and early adulthood, there will be some future anchor in their mind-set, some ultimate structure with which to give their relationships stability and social support. Many heterosexuals, I suspect, simply don’t realize how big a deal this is. They have never doubted that one day they could marry the person they love. So they find it hard to conceive how deep a psychic and social wound the exclusion from marriage and family can be. But the polls suggest this is changing fast: the majority of people 30 and younger see gay marriage as inevitable and understandable. Many young straight couples simply don’t see married gay peers next door as some sort of threat to their own lives. They can get along in peace.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,460232,00.html#ixzz0bZSiiPXL

I am suggesting that [the] gay who is conservative is not the same as the conservative gay who is, in fact, two people…

Since I don’t count myself as a full-on conservative, I can’t speak to that directly. But I would say this: there is a conservative gay agenda, one based on American traditions of individual rights and formal equality-before-the-law. And there is a left-wing gay agenda, the “gay agenda” you mean that is based on equality of outcome, usually a forced and undeserved equality of outcome.

In the final analysis, the political weight of the gay vote is so minimal

Well, I believe it’s around 4% of the electorate. Not the largest, but larger than the Jewish vote.

If there was one damning and utterly illustrative quote that captured Wall Street in the past 10 years it was that of Charles Prince, CEO of Citigroup, in July 2007. Worrying investment trends were beginning to emerge, but why slow down? He told The New York Times, “As long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance.”

But she doesn’t name what “the music” was: namely, Greenspan’s 1% interest rate regime and now Bernanke’s 0%. Such rates destroy the dollar. They also set off investment booms (aka bubbles). They were/are the fundamental thing that enables Wall Street and Freddie-Fannie cliff-diving. Oh yeah, Peggy might also have mentioned Freddie-Fannie.

She talks about her hopes for rebuilding and repairing American institutions in the new decade, but that is in some sense a conservative project. Liberals can do it but they have to be the right kind: socialists and hippies won’t succeed at it. America will have to go Reagan – or go Palin, haha – for Peggy’s wish to come true.

I ask this because the “gay agenda” is largely liberal by definition.

This site has had many healthy discussions about DA/DT, gay marriage, the likes of Kevin Jennings, etc. Conservatives are prone to ask the benefits to society as a whole for such changes in the status quo. Liberals are prone to argue “equality” and other victim status issues.

In effect, I am suggesting that gay who is conservative is not the same as the conservative gay who is, in fact, two people. He is the conservative man and he is the gay man. If his issues concerning being gay outweigh his conservative values, then I would imagine that he and the rest of us need a lot of dialogue about the politics of being gay.

In the final analysis, the political weight of the gay vote is so minimal that liberal gays have only found political strength in selling their souls to the whims of the Democrat pandering machine. When Obama does not go full tilt into putting their agenda into action, they are stunned and saddened. But Obama’s polling shows that he is far better off tossing the liberal gays peanuts while reassuring the general population that he sees marriage as between one man and one woman, etc. etc.

Liberal gays have the easier job, because they will always be able to p*ss and moan about how nobody knows the trouble they have seen and nobody knows their sorrow.

As a hetero who has employed and worked with many gays, I have had many come to Jesus meetings with liberal gays who can’t leave their “victimization” problems at the door.

And against gold it’s lost nearly 98.2% of it’s “real value”; $20/oz. gold vs. $1100/oz. gold. That’s 1/55th in less than 90 years…

Great job, gang!!