AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Free Dating

I HAVE BEEN WRONG ON GAY MARRIAGE AND MUST CONFESS IT

posted 7/1/2013 2:02:07 PM |
2 kudosgive kudos what's this?
    report abuse
  J1958

Sometimes, it takes me decades to catch on to a simple truth. Invariably, my epiphany is caused by arguing my point of view. It turns out my position on same-sex marriage is one such issue.

For years I have been arguing AGAINST gay marriage on the premise that legally sanctioning these unions might alter the social fabric of humanity, encourage the orientation, suck in youngsters by social pressure and result in millions of people living gay who might, otherwise, have avoided it, regardless of their birth orientation.

This could not be good for the species, I reasoned. It cannot be good for the survival of humanity. Therefore, by the barometer I use, it is bad and should be discouraged – not facilitated.

I have been stupid. Thanks to the, albeit inane, arguments of trouble-making member Twist-one-up and Shout, I have come to a fuller understanding of the dynamic that underlies gay marriage.

I still believe homosexuality is counterproductive to human survival. But Twist caused me to rethink my premise in practical terms of application. And from that thinking the following reality was revealed:

Gay people wish to be married just like the rest of us. So long as same-sex marriage is not legally sanctioned, they will continue to marry straight people, thereby passing along whatever genes may be involved in homosexual behavior.

If gays are free to marry other gays, those aberrant genes will die out. Therefore, the quickest, surest path to the virtual end of homosexual behavior is to encourage gays to marry other gays.

I love it when my stumbling mind reaches clarity on a subject. Thank you Twist.

Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)

   read more blogs!

Blogs by J1958:
more satire - WHAT? YOU WANT TO USE YOUR STRAP-ON?
satire - TEN THINGS COMING IN THE NEXT 50-YEARS
WHY THE LONE RANGER CAN’T CATCH A BREAK
I’M COMING OUT OF THE CLOSET !
EGYPT; A Lesson in Sociology
I HAVE BEEN WRONG ON GAY MARRIAGE AND MUST CONFESS IT
PRIMER ON USE OF THE BRAIN
IT'S TIME SOMEONE MENTIONED...
BE GLAD YOU'RE ALREADY HERE !
THE ALL NEW ALL LIBERAL OSCARS


Comments:

post a comment!

TwistAndShout

Jul 1 @ 8:27PM  
You know, J, I very nearly made that same genetic argument to you Saturday. I didn't make that argument because I don't like advancing a dishonest premise. The fact is, even when gays marry each other, more and more they are producing their own biological children in vitro through sperm and egg donors. Vanity will always triumph. People think the world is better when populated with their own progeny, and medical science allows gays to do that.

Of course you could make that illegal. Write a letter to your Congressman. Tell him human survival depends on it. I'm sure he'll get right on it.

I'm heartened that it has FINALLY occurred to you that being gay may be an innate characteristic caused by genes.

Now, with a few more years of thinking, it may ALSO occur to you that this means that cultural factors and Supreme Court decisions really don't turn people gay. I have faith in you, J. Keep pondering it and you'll get there.

And while I know you insisted that the cause of homosexuality is irrelevant to the argument, it will at least make you feel better. Once you've reached this conclusion, you'll stop worrying that Marlon Brando macking on Sal Mineo or Justice Kennedy writing an opinion will turn straight kids gay.

Should be a big load off your mind, J. Keep workin' it.


J1958

Jul 1 @ 10:33PM  
The fact is, even when gays marry each other, more and more they are producing their own biological children in vitro through sperm and egg donors.

I've already considered that argument. By and large, gay activity is harmless, until it becomes socially embraced. Only then does it influence otherwise straight kids in numbers sufficient to damage the future. Vanity will surely continue to produce biological children of gay people, but not in numbers large enough to produce the harmful influence. The premise holds true whether genes are the sole cause of homosexual activity or not.

Moreover, when gays marry gays fewer children will be raised in homes with a homosexual environment than when gays marry straight people.

And BTW, nobody said you were right about anything. What I said was that your inane arguments caused me to rethink the issue on the level of practical implementation. Thanks again for being you. And thanks for that post demonstrating what an utterly confounding lack of grace is in your personality.
TwistAndShout

Jul 2 @ 5:06AM  
And thanks for that post demonstrating what an utterly confounding lack of grace is in your personality.

I know, J. After you so gracefully admitted you were wrong while continuing to spew your usual level of grandiose silliness laced with unfounded arrogance, I suppose I should have been more gracious.
Wordsofwit

Jul 2 @ 3:13PM  
I just want to say that I am too familiar with you to want to read your post Yeah, I may be shallow, ya de ya da. Not that it means a shit. But even though you may have an excellent, articulate, intelligent perspective (I have no doubt that you do), I am not going to read it because, speaking frankly, you're a dick. No other way to put it, guy
countonit666

Jul 2 @ 11:15PM  
Two twits for the price of one. One who never has an original premise to present and the other whose premises never get comments when he does present them. Just an observation.........
J1958

Jul 3 @ 1:54AM  
I am not going to read it because, speaking frankly, you're a dick

Young swain like yourself? A dick may be just what you need. Besides, Words of Wit, you read the essay and we all know it.

But seriously, for everybody here who hates my bones, it's not good policy to avoid wisdom just because you don't like its source. You have to consider...if the truth were not often ugly, we wouldn't need lies. It's counterproductive to personal growth to turn a blind eye to a statement or a thought just because it's ugly.

And, to my mind, delivering thought-provoking commentary is the only way to earn superlatives like, "you may have an excellent, articulate, intelligent perspective."

Once you've established that a speaker has that capacity, it's better to pay attention to what he has to say than to ignore it just because you don't like his personality.
TwistAndShout

Jul 3 @ 5:13AM  
And, to my mind, delivering thought-provoking commentary is the only way to earn superlatives like, "you may have an excellent, articulate, intelligent perspective."

Articulate? Yes, although a little on the verbose side. It doesn't go with the Hemingway beard. His prose was elegantly spare..

Intelligent? Above average, but not enough to support the weight of your arrogance.

Excellent perspective? Sometimes. But then again you'll come out and spout the value of rudely correcting a Walmart clerk because he said "Have a nice day" instead of "Thank you for shopping at Walmart" because you feel it will greatly benefit the clerk, the store, and the business. A sense of perspective would tell you that it's simply not important enough to make such a big commotion about.

Unless you just want to be a dick.
Wordsofwit

Jul 3 @ 1:07PM  
Besides, Words of Wit, you read the essay and we all know it.

Not true. I just saw the picture that has an uncanny resemblance to a prof. I had in college that I got two A's from, and threw my comment out there. If your intellect was a big as your ego I might consider your post despite your boorishly bad manners.
J1958

Jul 3 @ 1:30PM  
A sense of perspective would tell you that it's simply not important enough to make such a big commotion about. Unless you just want to be a dick.

Correcting a clerk who fails to thank a customer may not be important to you, but it can be life-altering to the clerk. It is an encounter he may remember the rest of his days as it will return to him every time he is moved to omit those two words from a transaction. And when he becomes an employer and must rely on his clerks to express his gratitude to customers, he will again be grateful for the confrontation.

If you regard your own impact on the world so lightly that you believe your small contributions are “simply not important enough to make such a big commotion about,” it is unlikely that you will ever say anything that IS important.

But if you are blessed with the capacity to enrich even one life with wisdom it might otherwise miss, you too may look upon such a small contribution as a duty; a duty to put a little something back.

You may be the quiet, steaming shopper at the back of the line impatiently waiting for me to finish my lesson to the clerk, but you are invariably swallowed up by the applause from others in the line who feel as I do about the omitted “thank you,” but could never find the language or the balls to make an issue of it.
J1958

Jul 3 @ 1:33PM  
Not true. I just saw the picture that has an uncanny resemblance to a prof. I had in college that I got two A's from

Generally speaking, people who look like me don't give A's to people who write like you.
TwistAndShout

Jul 3 @ 4:25PM  
If you regard your own impact on the world so lightly that you believe your small contributions are “simply not important enough to make such a big commotion about,” it is unlikely that you will ever say anything that IS important.

You have predictably arrived at one of the least likely explanations as to why someone wouldn't bother to lecture the clerk.

Here's my actual reason, which is a far more obvious one. Whether a clerk says "have a nice day" or "thank you for shopping at Walmart" makes no difference to me whatsoever. I would not choose to waste my time on something that's of so little consequence to me.

Now, this is where write a tedious response as to why it should be of supreme importance to me to be thanked by Walmart clerks. But I won't feel bad if you don't. I might even thank you.

...but you are invariably swallowed up by the applause from others in the line who feel as I do about the omitted “thank you,” but could never find the language or the balls to make an issue of it.

Yes, J. I can see it now. Then the cheering crowd hoists you onto their shoulders, overjoyed that you have freed them from the emotional pain of not being thanked when they pay for their toilet paper at Walmart.
J1958

Jul 3 @ 5:15PM  

Yes, J. I can see it now. Then the cheering crowd hoists you onto their shoulders, overjoyed that you have freed them from the emotional pain of not being thanked when they pay for their toilet paper at Walmart.

Really, this is nothing. You should hear the oratory I deliver when a young female retail clerk addresses me as "honey" or "dear", as if I'm a drooling patient in a mental ward.

And you should be on hand when the bank teller (age 12) addresses me by my first name, rather than "Mr." or "sir."

I honestly believe I, sometimes, bring about a healthy reevaluation to the subject of my discontent, but that's not all there is to the tale.

I speak for millions of disenfranchised seniors who are sick and tired of being kicked around by a younger generation of citizens who hold the mistaken impression that they own the world, and the rest of us are Alzheimers patients.

When I do not receive the ordinary courtesy my age entitles me to, I don't just suffer in silence like a stomped on hound dog in the mud. I make damn certain the effrontery is noted and the offender regrets it.

People who refuse to learn how to deal with the public have no business in retail jobs. They are stealing money from their employers when they insult customers. That is NOT what they are paid for.
RJ53

Jul 4 @ 3:22PM  
I started to read this blog and kind of lost interest in it as I found some misconceptions about gay people in it, First of all even if a gay person has a child that is not saying that child will be gay, A bit more tolerant than some more than likely because they do not come from a traditional family and will understand that it takes multitude of types to make the world otherwise it would be boring as hell, And the gay gene will not die out because two perfectly straight people can have a gay child, There have always been gay people and there always will be, deal with it dude, The difference is how most people choose to treat them,

Don't you have some communists to look for under your bed or something?
J1958

Jul 5 @ 3:02PM  
RJ…what the hell is the matter with you?

I might have taken your post seriously and delivered an informative response explaining THERE IS NO GAY GENE and that prevailing opinion among scientists is that an explanation for homosexual behavior is more likely found in the study of epigenetics than genetics.

I might have have quoted your naïve remark:
The difference is how most people choose to treat them
and explained that is exactly my point, and it profits us as a species to treat homosexual behavior as unacceptable – not encourage it by legally sanctioning unions.

Instead, this catty remark at the end of your post:
Don't you have some communists to look for under your bed or something?
renders the entire piece unworthy of serious treatment. Moreover, the subject is not gay people or what makes them as they are…the subject is marriage between them and how the heterosexual community is obliged to treat it.

Is there never a time when a serious thought passes between your ears? Must every encounter with the keyboard produce uninformed, unjustified, self-righteous character assassination? You miss so much.
RJ53

Jul 5 @ 5:39PM  
RJ…what the hell is the matter with you?

I have a problem with your kind stuck somewhere back in the cold war era who spew hate and hold back the possibilities of what this country could become, No one ever moved forward by getting stuck in some kind of outdated point of view, This is 2013 not 1953 or in your cane maybe 1853, Time to move on and catch up with the times,
RJ53

Jul 5 @ 5:45PM  
Generally speaking, people who look like me don't give A's to people who write like you.

And my old professor would have said your style is a bit too rambling before it gets to the heart of what you are trying to say, In short you are not writing a thesis where you are trying to fill pages to a required length, you are writing a blog which should get straight to the point in a clear and decisive manner, I would give you a B- at best on this one,
J1958

Jul 6 @ 1:34AM  
Time to move on and catch up with the times,

It's easy to ignore history when you don't know anything about it. It's also easy to repeat it.
J1958

Jul 6 @ 1:42AM  
I would give you a B- at best on this one,

This is like Gomer Pyle giving infantry lessons to Audie Murphy. Does that make the point quickly enough?
RevDocLove

Jul 6 @ 8:32AM  
Hey Mike..How's AbbyDabby and I forget the skanky name she had here, doing??

http://michael416.wix.com/web-page-2#!__the-american-male
RJ53

Jul 6 @ 4:14PM  
This is like Gomer Pyle giving infantry lessons to Audie Murphy.


Before you make any more of an ass of yourself, my work has been published in the Village Voice, the New York Times and several other newspapers and my book of poetry sits in the library of congress so yes I give you a B minus because if I had ever turned in anything resembling this it would not have been published,
J1958

Jul 6 @ 7:15PM  
...my work has been published in the Village Voice, the New York Times and several other newspapers and my book of poetry sits in the library of congress...

Silly lady...when I am being paid to write, I write according to the publisher's guidelines or I don't submit, and I have made my living as a writer for over 30 years. When I need to come straight to the point, I can tell you everything of consequence that happened in your town today in 3 1/2 minutes with no single story taking up more than 20-seconds. And I can do it twice an hour, every hour all day long, every day without repeating a single sentence as written

But when I blog, I write for my own entertainment at my own speed and make my points in my own good time.

Here's what I'd like to know...

1 - Where did you find the guidelines for blogging and on what authority do you quote them?

2 - Where did you study blogging and what degree do you hold in the activity?

3 - If you are such a capable writer, why do your blog posts read as if they were written by a 12-year old?

4 - What do you call a person as riveted to style and the craft of writing, who is unable to grasp the information or the point of the piece she is reading?

5 - What is the sum total of the money you have been paid as a writer?

6 - In the end, don't you really think worthy writing is worth something? And don't you really think the value of one's issue can be measured by the amount of money one has been paid to write it?

7 - My 8-year old grandson has his own blog. I really do believe virtually anyone can do it. And I really do believe no particular skill as a writer is necessary to meet the requirements. The only rules I know of are those posted by the blog host. So where oh where are you finding this presumptuous lesson you've given me about how to write a blog post?

Become a professional, RJ. Do it for a few years before you start dishing out unctuous guidance to people imminently better qualified than you.

And one more bit of advice...when you write, have something to say, know what it is and make sure the reader walks away with something he didn't have before he read you. Don't squander the tiny morsel of talent you were born with pecking out annoying little accounts of what you did at the grocery store today as your pals here like to do. And whatever you do, don’t take up blog space posting URLs to other people’s work and then promoting yourself as an accomplished writer.

Don’t tell me how talented you are. Show me.
RJ53

Jul 6 @ 10:19PM  
Silly lady...when I am being paid to write, I write according to the publisher's guidelines or I don't submit


Silly lady huh? There is writing by guidelines and then those who just have a talent for words. Sure they have guidelines to follow but to get published by the big guys they need some talent as well. And writing on a blog page you own does not count,
DanteAlighieri

Jul 6 @ 11:51PM  
Objection your Honor, please council the witless, er witness to refrain from evasive responses and please answer the questions.

Since the woman has no formal degree (from her profile) we can assume question #2 is moot. And with a total of three blogs current on the site, all linked, I respectfully request she answer the questions.

my work has been published in the Village Voice, the New York Times and several other newspapers and my book of poetry sits in the library of congress so yes I give you a B minus because if I had ever turned in anything resembling this it would not have been published,

Be more specific concerning your body of work. Blogs, ads, jobs sought, Hints to Heloise, or Ask Abby; possibly an article on Paganism as it exists in the world today. Seems whenever someone writes a blog she quotes herself as being an authority based on her past work experiences, on which we must rely on her credibility. Scant, redundant and superfluous.
MsPat

Jul 7 @ 1:30AM  
OMG!!! Rambling is the least of the problems with this blog .. with every word I read I can hear your voice Mike .. I think you have actually got a preacher beat when it comes to annoying me!!! Your voice is like fingernails on a blackboard.

Here let's have a little

radio ... that's more your speed
MsPat

Jul 7 @ 2:28AM  
I see you now have a J in your name I guess your now calling yourself John again or was it Jon, no if I remember right Jon was your sons name. Well retirement will do that to you. Brings you back to your roots.
J1958

Jul 7 @ 4:21AM  
Aw, jeez...isn't there a single dangling member of this club who can address the subject of a blog post? What is this contentious venue -- the literary equivalent of "Pile on the ball carrier"?

Have you all forgotten points must be put upon the board to win the game? A gaggle of players cannot simply lie in the middle of the field screwing each other up the butt and call it a game.
MsPat

Jul 7 @ 4:58AM  
Aw jeez, I think your right .. I was way I think a marriage should be between a man and a woman. Going back to the old saying.. God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. jmo
theSkwirl

Jul 8 @ 9:00PM  
Ahh sorry I missed this one. Still some misinformation here.

Gay is not a genetic defect. No one has yet found the "gay" gene. It is simply a chemical reaction same as any love interest we have. If there were a simple Gene, do you not think that most parents would opt to have their child's genetics modified in vitro?
theSkwirl

Jul 8 @ 9:30PM  
Before you call me a "silly woman", my work has been featured in OMEN, Llewellyn's Pagan Book of Days and in American Artist Magazine. :D So, I may be silly, but I can back my shit up bitchez.

Doesn't matter what your level of education. Intelligence cannot be measured by just one rule. There are all manner of different intelligence types and measures. You have proven, in the few blogs that I have taken the time to peruse, your ignorance on genetics, marriage laws and homosexuality. I quit reading after that.
TwistAndShout

Jul 8 @ 9:42PM  
Here's a dry but interesting paper from a medical journal:

Research on sexual orientation

They propose that it is not genes that determine sexual orientation, but the response of DNA to androgen exposure in the womb.

These epi-marks buffer XX fetuses from masculinization due to excess fetal androgen exposure and similarly buffer XY fetuses from androgen underexposure.

It would explain why being gay appears to be an innate characteristic (and not a chosen path) and why you don't see homosexuality typically running in families.
J1958

Jul 9 @ 1:26AM  
Before you call me a "silly woman", my work has been featured in OMEN, Llewellyn's Pagan Book of Days and in American Artist Magazine. :D So, I may be silly, but I can back my shit up bitchez.

I see. Regrettably, I have never been featured in such prestigious publications as the Pagan Book of Days or OMEN. Clearly, we are making our headquarters in different quadrants of the universe. Nevertheless, if your shit is “backing up” I can recommend a fine laxative to relieve your stress. Let me know.
J1958

Jul 9 @ 1:48AM  
It would explain why being gay appears to be an innate characteristic (and not a chosen path) and why you don't see homosexuality typically running in families
.

Excellent article! I read quite a bit on epi-genetics before opening my mouth on the subject of gay marriage, but came away with the impression that elements of the “scientific community” are simply hell-bent to develop some evidence that gay people cannot be held accountable for their appetites or behavior.

Here’s what... as a teenager, I had an irresistible urge to mount every decent looking woman who showed up on my radar screen. I didn’t do it because it was socially unacceptable and not sanctioned by law. Those impulses were just as genetically bequeathed as any unerased epi-marks passed along from mother to son or from father to daughter.

We each get a unique package and it comes with its own set of inherited predispositions imprinted by early childhood experiences and, later, the world outside the home. But in an orderly civilization every person has a responsibility to control his impulses whether they were inherited or programmed during development.

The question, therefore, is what behavior shall be considered “orderly” in the civilization we create. Nobody gets a free ticket to ride just because they have DNA.
TwistAndShout

Jul 9 @ 6:26AM  
Here’s what... as a teenager, I had an irresistible urge to mount every decent looking woman who showed up on my radar screen. I didn’t do it because it was socially unacceptable and not sanctioned by law. Those impulses were just as genetically bequeathed as any unerased epi-marks passed along from mother to son or from father to daughter.

Analogies really aren't your strong suit.

You equate going with the urge to have sex with every woman you see (as opposed to practicing heterosexuality with restraint) to a gay person engaging in any homosexual activity.

It's so far from a valid analogy it seems unnecessary to mention it. Refraining from engaging in indiscriminate humping doesn't force you to give up satisfying sex. For a gay person to refrain from gay sex, they are indeed giving up satisfying sex entirely.

I'm going to question your motives again. You clearly have an antagonistic attitude toward gays. I don't buy your line that it's purely out of concern for survival of the species, for the simple reason that any reasonably intelligent person can see that the existence of homosexuality doesn't in any way threaten the species. Period.

So are you just a bigot, albeit a secular bigot? You tell me.
J1958

Jul 9 @ 11:57AM  
You equate going with the urge to have sex with every woman you see (as opposed to practicing heterosexuality with restraint) to a gay person engaging in any homosexual activity.

Perhaps, you should rethink your criticism. First, let’s resist the urge to digress into a discussion about the application of analogies and try to stick with the point the analogy attempts to make, which is quite clear – everyone is responsible for his behavior, regardless of the reason for his impulses. No one gets a free pass just because he has “urges” that may spring from his DNA.

Secondly, If I MUST defend the analogy, I’m compelled to point out “heterosexuality with restraint” would not include a formal ceremony to legally sanction a lifetime devoted to heterosexual activity. Nor would I consider the legally sanctioned marriage of a same-sex couple as homosexuality practiced with restraint. The difference is that one facilitates propagation of the species and the other is aberrant, unnatural activity that puts the process at risk.

I merely mean to say homosexuality does us no harm so long as it is confined to a small percentage of the population. But “mainstreaming” it by applying a new coat of paint and dressing it up with new language and new law encourages the growth of that percentage and that is not healthy for the future of humanity.

It’s too bad we must discourage some behavior in the interests of survival, but life can be a cold business.
J1958

Jul 9 @ 12:07PM  
For a gay person to refrain from gay sex, they are indeed giving up satisfying sex entirely.

I can't help wondering how you know this. A survey, perhaps?

Do you think ALL human activity which produces "satisfying sex" should be legally protected and socially promoted? Have you considered those who can only enjoy "satisfying sex" when the partner dies during climax? What would be your barometer for measuring a person's "right" to "satisfying sex"?
J1958

Jul 9 @ 12:15PM  
I'm going to question your motives again.

Why? What does my personal motive matter, except to an observer with prurient interests, unwilling to engage the issue on face value or ill-equipped to defend his position without the tired old ruse politicians use to discredit the source?
TwistAndShout

Jul 9 @ 12:44PM  
Your motives matter if your only real reason for advancing your agenda us a personal bias against gay people. If you don't have a rational reason to oppose homosexual activities, you're just a bigot and discussion is a waste of time.
J1958

Jul 9 @ 12:51PM  
Why You clearly have an antagonistic attitude toward gays. I don't buy your line that it's purely out of concern for survival of the species, for the simple reason that any reasonably intelligent person can see that the existence of homosexuality doesn't in any way threaten the species. Period.

Perhaps, I DO sound a bit exercised over the issue. Maybe, another thorn in my paw contributes to my passion on the matter. Let me tell you what it is.

I am sick to death of people who refuse to take responsibility for their own behavior, laying it off on conditions they cannot control and lobbying for the right to do whatever they wish because, after all, they are poor, disempowered, frail, bullied, undereducated, in a minority, great, great grandchildren of oppressed people, tortured by their DNA, and – in effect – having difficulty dealing with the sand traps between where they are and where the wish to be.

That’s the well from which my discontent springs. My personal sexual orientation in no way flavors my position on same-sex marriage. But I wonder what kind of twisted reality inspires a person to believe people against gay marriage MUST be gay. I would be quicker to suspect those who defend it MUST be gay. It seems to me any reasonable person would consider such a theory as the issue of a libido that can only find fulfillment by sitting about fingering his own fundament…but that’s just me.

If you truly do not believe that the popularization of homosexuality precedes the collapse of an empire, tell it to the Greeks or the Romans.
J1958

Jul 9 @ 1:04PM  
Your motives matter if your only real reason for advancing your agenda us a personal bias against gay people. If you don't have a rational reason to oppose homosexual activities, you're just a bigot and discussion is a waste of time.


You should make a public announcement when you appoint yourself as the sole arbiter of what is rational and what is not, so that we will all know who is in charge of regulating reason.
theSkwirl

Jul 9 @ 2:22PM  
In other words, gay men should do what gay men did in the dark ages and join the church as monks. That way their gayness doesn't offend anyone and they deny themselves the rights of love and liberty. Sure. I refuse to further engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed.
J1958

Jul 9 @ 9:20PM  
In other words, gay men should do what gay men did in the dark ages and join the church as monks. That way their gayness doesn't offend anyone and they deny themselves the rights of love and liberty. Sure. I refuse to further engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed.

Well, skwirl...I come unarmed because I see no need for artillery in this skirmish.

What gay men should do doesn't interest me here. My concern is about legally sanctioned same-sex marriage and whether it's healthy or harmful to future generations.

On balance, I'd say the decision to refuse further engagement in a battle of wits is a good one. I just don't think it's wise to alter the social fabric and the law of an entire nation purely so that gay men won't have to work as monks. I could be wrong.

free dating | mission statement | testimonials | safety warning | report abuse | safe list | privacy | legal | 2257 | advertise | link to us

© Copyright 2000-2014 Online Singles, LLC.
OS-WEB02
I HAVE BEEN WRONG ON GAY MARRIAGE AND MUST CONFESS IT