A Gay in the Life: Our Dastardly Plan to Destroy the Institution of Marriage.

For one, it suggests that you think the only form of gay sex is anal sex. It also suggests that you don't know about the existance of the prostate.

Personally, I've found your statements regarding homosexual people "deserving" what they get particularly hateful.

...you are remarkably ill-informed. Perhaps this will shed some light on the subject for you...

What most doctors say about homosexuality: A collection of policy statements by the major professional associations

TTFN,
percivale

-------------------------

Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.

Thank you, sonja. That is, in one sentence, the entire point of my blog.

I am surprised that a few people are occasionally taking it as a slam against them. That must mean they hold some of the beliefs I lampooned, because otherwise, why wouldn't one laugh at the sheer ridiculousness of some of the accusations leveled at gays and lesbians? We lead dull, decent lives. The accusations and assumptions people make about us are unwarranted. If the above poster does not harbor any of those baseless, incendiary, discriminatory stereotypes about gay and lesbian people, the blog was not about him/her, so it wasn't making fun of him/her.

Thanks for addressing that for me!

http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman

In the words of Coretta Scott King, Jr....

"For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people" King said at the 25th Anniversary Luncheon for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.... "Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement," she said. "Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions." - Chicago Tribune, April 1, 1998, sec.2, p.4.

There is something severe about black culture generally disapproving of GLBT lifestyles. I can't exactly figure out how or why.

The source of the friction in the civil rights movement concerning the inclusion of gay people comes from...yes, you guessed it...religion. Black churches played a major role in the early Civil Rights Movement, and the more conservative elements of those churches are confusing their religion's inherent bigotry with the true goals of the Movement, which is equality for all.

percivale

-------------------------

Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.

I've never put anything in my or anyone else's anus. Can I get married now? Is that your stipulation? Stop using that as an excuse to be discriminatory. It is an inflammatory, divisive, and ill-informed statement that exposes you as the bigot you claim not to be.

http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman

we havent finished fighting, and RACE is different than sexual orientation....

Speaking before nearly 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton Hotel,
Coretta Scott King, the wife of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Tuesday called on the civil rights community to join in the struggle against homophobia and anti-gay bias. "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood," King stated. "This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group." - Chicago Defender, April 1, 1998, front page.

TTFN,
percivale

-------------------------

Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.

The American Psychological Association is a “scientific and professional organization that represents psychology in the United States.” With over 150,000 members, the APA is the largest association of psychologists in the world (APA).
The American Psychological Association defines sexual orientation as, “an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person.” Sexual orientation, according to the APA, is not a black and white issue; rather, it exists along “a continuum that ranges from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality.” The American Psychological Association strongly affirms that, “human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight.” Furthermore, a person’s sexual orientation transpires, for most people, in “early adolescence” sans any previous sexual experiences. Notably, the APA states that “although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.”

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -F.N.

It seems that you feem the need to argue over some point or another no matter what it is. Your being black is something you were born with and you can;t change it. My likeing woman is something I was born with. It just isn't something that is on the surface and can't be seen with the naked eye but argueing with you will not convince you of this. And you indulting me and others like me will not convince us that you are right. All that you do is sully yourself with negative energies. So I wish you happiness is any aspect of your life that you can find it in and hope that you are able to find a way to get rid of your anger in some more productive way than attacking people who do not deserve your judgement. Your judgement means nothing here and never will. Your acceptance is not asked for nor is it required. But may you be happy, healthy, and like I said find a way to deal with your anger.

OMG a black nazi! How absolutely delightful! Do you have a flag?
Because everyone knows that its wrong to discriminate people because they're black, or jewish (thankyou hitler/crusades for that lovely littel morsel) but its fine to discriminate people because, now what did you say
Penis's belong in vaginas et cetera et cetera
Well frankly sir, I find your very existence and stance ludicrous, and incredibly funny.
In fact, several of us have spent the last 20 minutes, pissing our selves laughing at your misguided, mysogenistic, stereotypicallly unitelligent remarks.
Perhaps if you were to loosesn your arm joints, crouch down, make grunting noises and throw excrement at people, then you might have more credibility, but other than that...
I'm afraid there's no room for you in the modern world.
Go back to 1953 where you belong.
Ta ta

This is the way I am, if you do not like it, I apologise, but don't be naive in thinking that I will go away just because you want me to. As a wise woman once said, I am am infallible with flaws, I am ancient, I am imminent, I am just getting started.

You make a good point concerning Common Law marriages, but it is factually incorrect to say that "only within the last century-and-a-half has the State seen fit to regulate marriage." In fact, it is only since the tenth century (or thereabouts) that the chruch first got into the marriage biz. In Ancient Greece for example, marriages were arranged by contract, and even the Code of Hammurabi contained an extensive collection of marital statutes relevant to the regulation of the marital contract by the State. Honestly, the Libertarian in me is always attacted to the idea of taking marriage out of the hands of the government, but from a practical and historical perspective, it really just doesn't seem like a reasonably feasible option to pursue.

TTFN,
percivale

-------------------------

Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.

...I feel the need to respond to this.

So you don't want people with conviction to attempt to change things for what they perceive will be better?

What do you mean, exactly, when you refer to "people with conviction attempt[ing] to change things," and "better" for whom? Citizens possess their basic rights as individuals, and as such those rights are not generally subject to infringement based on the will of the majority. The concept of individual rights is (or is at least supposed to be) a fundamental principle behind the Libertarian philosophy.

Regardless, the states are bound to obey the federal Constitution as well (read the illegally-passed 14th Amendment).

"Illegally-passed?" Now you're sounding less like a Libertarian, and more like a Neo-Confederalist. The ratification of the Post-Civil War Amendments (such as the the 14th Amendment) were certainly irregular, due to the unique set of circumstances of the Reconstruction Period, but to suggest that these Acts were illegal is not really accurate. The question of legality was legitimate, but it is a question that our Supreme Court has answered, repeatedly and consistently, and most specifically in the case of Coleman v. Miller (1939).

Nowhere in the Constitution is mentioned matters of sex, race, sexual preferences, etc. Reading the 10th Amendment will tell you that powers regarding any issue not mentioned in the Constitution are left to the States, or to the people.

Actually, the 10th Amendment doesn't say anything about "issues." What is says is:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

"Powers," are generally defined, while "issues" are assigned applicability under certain powers though the process of constitutional interpretation, which is of course the purview of the Supreme Court of the United States. Specifically, the question of marriage, for instance, falls under the power to make laws effecting the "general welfare" (from http://www.usconstitution.net//const.html>Article I, Section 8). This interpretation is further supported by the observation that Marriage is first and foremost a form of Contract whose obligations the States are specifically prohibited from imparing under the "Powers prohibited of States" (Article I, Section 10).

Now, I grant that prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, this interpretation is less clear (though still valid from a strict constructionalist point-of-view), but after that Amendment became Law, that lack of clarity was completely resolved. As such, the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that while marriage statutes are generally instituted at the level of the State, the basic civil right of marriage is possessed by all citizens, thus subjecting those statutes to the Judicial Review of the SCOTUS (c.f. Loving v. Virginia (1967), Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942), etc.)

The States, having no legitimate authority over churches, have no regulatory powers over marriage.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here, but you seem to be suggesting that the marriage has some sort of unique historical or legal origin as a religious institution. This is factually incorrect on both counts. The recognition of purely civil marriage contracts (presided over by Justices of the Peace rather than a minister or priest) has been a consistent part of Early American History since the original settlement of our Puritan forefathers (who utterly rejected the idea that marriage was a religious sacrament). I am aware of no point in the history of our nation at which it was universally required for a religious officiant to certify a marriage, however common that certification may have been in practice. Further, there is not to the best of my knowledge any serious suggestion that churches would be effected in any way be regulated to participate in the practice of marrying couples of the same-sex. That decision would be (as it is now) left to the members of the individual sects.

Or, if you're more of a "marriage is a familial contract," then standard contract law applies. No excess legislation required.
Even as a contract between two people, no excessive legislation is required.

On this, I essentially agree. Whatever else a marriage might be to any individual, couple or sectarian group, the only consistent element of the marital institution which can legitimately be applied to all such arrangements, regardless of circumstance is the recognition of a special legal status that is entered into as a contract between the affected parties. Whether one is married by a priest, or a justice of the priest, or simply though the mutual affirmation and demonstration of a common-law arrangement, the legitimate role of the government ends at the recognition and enforcement of the pre-agreed upon contractual obligations of the affected parties.

TTFN,
percivale

-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.