The little known fact in all this is that many homosexuals have had "marriage" ceremonies in religious venues, and that option is very much free and open. No one is preventing gays from celebrating a "marriage." The real issue is government recognition for the purpose of gaining legal and social status, and the consequential entitlements and government benefits that have previously been reserved for conjugal marriage.

If we are truly going to re-define marriage at the foundational level by removing the opposite-sex requirement, what is badly needed is a nationwide dialogue on the nature of marriage. Is the primary purpose and function of marriage to use the force of government to enable and support the emotional commitments of citizens? To what end? What is the legitimate state interest in the emotions of adult citizens?

Several other questions arise. What other limits on the definition of marriage are arbitrary and discrimintory? Are there ANY limits on marriage that are necessary and sufficient? On what basis are these necessary and sufficient conditions justified?

In my view, it is a serious mistake to view marriage and the state's interest in it, as primarily companionate or emotional in nature.

One might respond, so what, who does it hurt if we define marriage one way or another?

If marriage is conjugal, then removing any necessary connection between marriage and biological offspring, i.e., making that relationship accidental instead of necessary, changes the social dynamic of marriage such that its privilege and status, in being extended to everyone, no longer can serve as incentive for biological parents to "work it out." The net effect will be the increasing fatherlessness/motherlessness of children. Now today, we don't think much of that because we've been working on an egalitarian program of re-imagining the "family" to mean any group of individuals of any sex or age living in a dependent relationship. The dissolution of conjugal marriage as unique and deserving of special status runs directly against this egalitarian urge.

Either conjugal marriage is unique and deserving of special status in order to create social incentive to keep biological pair-bonds and their offspring in intact stable families, or the egalitarian destruction of that special status is morally imperative. These goals are mutually exclusive.

Lots of things are "outside normal" and we protect them as freedom. On the other hand, I agree with you that marriage is a specific term that does not apply to same sex intimacy. Those who favor treating same sex intimacy as identical to heterosexual intimacy are asking to suspend physics, biology, and truth. But all that said, what is really at issue is not the freedom for individuals who practice homosexual intimacy to do so. The practice is widespread and no longer viewed as criminal. Americans are free to engage in it if they wish. What is really at issue is social approval of those relationships and entitlement benefits enforced by government edict, and often in direct contradiction to the right of religious conscience. I know there is specific wording about the freedom of religious conscience in the Constitution. I have yet to find the part about governemtn benefits and entitlements for the support of homosexual intimacy. But guess which "right" is winning in our contemporary courts? The power of the mainstream media coupled with a powerful public education system in the hands of one party has never been more obvious.

Are we really unsure about whether kids should be taking pictures of one another in showers and posting on the web, or that our sense of public propriety, which would have shamed such actions, has dramatically slipped? Not to mention the apparent lack of ANY enforcement or threat of enforcement on the part of the school or legal system. (I'm sure there's more to the story than what we've seen, but sheesh, if only the fact itself is true, what have we wrought? What are we missing here? Yikes!

Could be any one of us! LOL!

Chardo: Is that supposed to be an indictment? Is it bad to be "a little queer?" If not, why mention it as you have?

Terbreugghen responds to TheChardo: My first point was to respond to your challenge to provide data, which I did, unless the Journal of Epidemiology doesn't qualify as an authority.

My second point in forwarding a small selection of data points was to demonstrate that such data does exist, but is NEVER taken into account when public policy is discussed, and this absence is purely driven by ideology.

My final point is that the homosexual population has always been a part of the human continuum, it does not make sense to try to eradicate it. I have to laugh at the shock of those Anti-Western/Anti-American progressives at Columbia who invited Mahmoud Amedinijad to speak, and when they asked him about how Iran deals with Homosexuality, he responded, "we don't have that in Iran." ROFL! Sooo much better than the evil oppressive west, right? LOL!

Anyway. I don't favor laws restricting homosexuality. I favor equal protection of all citizens. I also favor education about homosexual practices and their psychological, social, and pathological consequences. Let free people live our lives as we see fit.

On the other hand, I definitely want to keep sexually active gay men from contributing to the blood supply, don't you? Or would you rather act personally on your principles of equality before the law and use donated blood from that population for your elective surgery?

So what to do? Nothing. Enforce the law as it stands. Eliminate laws against homosexuality, but let's not enact new law that will create a new victim/entitlement group. And if the question is homosexual marriage, no, I'm not in favor of redefining marriage. I do think heterosexual marriage, i.e., conjugal marriage, should have a special place in society, elevated status and specific benefits not available to non-married individuals regardless of orientation or sex. I could go into that if interested.

And here's a nice one about the realities of the "gay holiday."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-005-1003-y#

Terbreugghen answers:
I did not use the term "epidemic." I suggested that you look for statistics that break out homosexuality and see how that lifestyle compares with others across psychological, sociological, and pathological outcomes. I suggested that if you were not willing to look at that data, that you were not willling to participate in an objective analysis of the population in question, and therefore not serious about dealing objectively with questions of public policy with regard to that population.

Here are some links you might find worthwhile:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.short
(Journal of Epidemiology, for starters!)

http://gsappweb.rutgers.edu/cstudents/readings/Summer/Summer/Kelly_Diversity/Cochran%202003%20LGB%20MH%20prevalence.pdf
(Statistical psychological outcomes of homosexuals)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140197100903658
(Negative outcomes associated with homosexuality)

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.91.11.1869
([Negative] Mental Health Correlates of Homosexuality)

I did love this one,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v46n01_03
(The Positive Effects of Cruising for Homosexual Sex on College Campuses)

Every lifestyle or choice has an "epidemiology."

I am aware that homosexuality was taken off the DSM by a small group of political activists, that process is well-documented. I wouldn't call homosexuality a "disease" like you've implied it is. I believe the proper term is "paraphilia," and it was (and still should be) classed as a "disorder."

But I was talking not about the orientation but the consequences of the behavior. While statistics and anecdotal research are murky when it comes to private sexual conduct, there are clear statistical outcomes to homosexual behavior.

I doubt you've ever heard of them, or if you have that you'd admit to it. No, I won't go into that here, no point. All that would happen would be denial and feigned (or real) offense. But let's not consider the position of being offended as any objective, rational, or scientific analysis. It is a power-play on the basis of an emotional tantrum, nothing more.

As I said, look at the epidemiology of homosexual behavior. But as an experiment, instead of "homosexual," replace the term with "conservative" or "right wing" and see how it parses. See if you want to protect the rights of that group. . .

TheChardo wrote: I guess that I jumped the gun in saying that you were rational. No matter, public policy is changing. The train has left the station. We've been having that dialogue long enough. Hate is pathological , not being gay. You should be considering the psychological, and sociological consequences of treating a group of people like lepers.

Terbreugghen replies:
Unfortunately, it appears I ascribed sentience too soon as well.

Your reply is simply a well-worn dodge.

We look at epidemiological data all the time to craft good public policy. What makes this issue so different that such data must be excluded?

Additionally, the question about re-defining marriage is not an individual question, rather it is about public policy and a social institution. It doesn't matter one bit whether an individual is good or not good. We craft the institution based on sensible public policy and one either qualifies or does not.

The essay was entered into the congressional record. That doesn't validate its content in any way. A Representative can enter anything they want into that record. Please, please, please, find out about the real stuff. If it seems too good, make sure it's correct. This essay is bogus. But there's a whole lot of stuff that nobody treats that is factual. Before we radically change public policy we need to have a frank and very public dialogue on the psychological, sociological, and pathological epidemiology of the homosexual lifestyle, and damn those who are offended by it.

Sorry, I couldn't make sense out of the preface. I don't see the term "satire." In looking up "outre'" I only see "going beyond the bounds," which this essay surely does. Of course the "author" Michael "Swift" is obviously a reference to Jonathon Swift, the famous British Satirist.

The piece apparently originated in "CA congressman William Dannemeyer's 1989 book, "Shadow in the Land". Dannemeyer's "Gay Manifesto" is a complete fiction by his own admission in the book. It is a paraphrase of what HE thinks a "Gay Agenda might be."

My point stands, this thing, if it represents anything, represents a conservative fantasy.

But I would challenge anyone to look beneath the surface of the contemporary and very sanitized picture of homosexual lifestyle. That is as much a fantasy as the essay above, though in the opposite direction. I challenge advocates of the homosexual lifestyle to examine the psychological, sociological and pathological epidemiology of the lifestyle and confront those realities instead of hastily sweeping them under the rug as is the usual practice.

Richard:

Thanks. Not sure where you are on the spectrum. I tend to come down conservative. My biggest problem with conservatives, however, is that some of us feel it necessary to invent noxious lies to aid our case, and therefore we all end up looking bad. The political opposition should stand or fall on its own merits. When we invent stuff, we look as bad as they are. This false meme only took a few clicks to verify. I wish more conservatives would distrust information, ESPECIALLY information that appears to support our most deeply held beliefs. Our beliefs should be able to withstand an internet search. Liberals, if you're reading along, just ignore that advice. . . LOL

Sorry, the "gay manifesto" printed above is a hoax. It is a work of fiction.

A young woman about to finish her last year of high school. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words, redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on her experiences in class, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs, especially those intended to help the homeless.

Her father challenged her thus: The neighbor's two acre lawn needs mowing, and I know for a fact she pays $50.00 to the kid who does it because it takes an entire morning to complete. The neighbor supplies him with the mower and gas, and just pays for the labor. Go over there, cut her grass, then take that $50.00 and give to a homeless guy downtown.

The daughter thought for a second, then asked, "why doesn't the homeless guy just cut the grass?"

The father replied, "welcome to the conservative side of the fence."