What would be considered "flaunting"? Not lying when a co-worker asks what I did last weekend? Holding hands in public? Having a picture of my boyfriend on my desk at work? These are all things that heterosexuals take for granted, yet they must be calculated activities for some of us.

Once again, the conditional rights for any gay person. Don't ask, don't tell. You have the right to be gay, but not the liberty to be gay in public. Perhaps we ought to require gay people to wear arm bands with pink triangles. We don't want any impressionable "heterosexuals" out there getting mixed signals, do we? Imagine the frustration and embarrassment of the dominate sexuality being rejected because they are the opposite gender. That would destabilize American values and our way of living--a complete corruption of our moral code. The masses are not ready to accept the fact that gay people are, well...gay. And if an individual is not permissable of any gay expression then anything they witness can easily be perceived as gay people flaunting their own deviance. There ought to be laws, right goamerica? More legislation and enforcement on people's personal lives, that's the type of freedom we fight for, eh?

I'm not sure what you mean. How does one "flaunt" one's marriage? Having a church wedding and a reception? I personally find big, splashy, heterosexual weddings to be in rather questionable taste, but I don't think of them as "flaunting" heterosexual marriage. Should same-sex couples be married in secret?

Open display of sexuality in public is a question of taste, and each case should be judged individually. Certainly, some sorts of behavior are not appropriate in a public place. This is as true of heterosexual behavior as homosexual behavior.

I voted yes...I mean its not like the ability to marry is going to encourage otherwise straight people to "go gay." I mean comeon...why not let gays have their life partnerships recognized in the same way many straight people do. I really don't understand what the huge deal is with this issue...

First, I'd have to agree with LoraX. Conditional rights are not rights at all. How do you propose enforcing your proviso? Make it part of the vows? "Will you, Bill, take this man to be your lawful spouse, will you love him, honor him, comfort and keep him, and forsaking all others remain true to him, yet not flaunt your marriage in public, as long as you both shall live?" Should we legislate against such "flaunting"? What do you propose as the legal definition of "flaunting"? Kissing? Touching? Exchanging affectionate glances? I don't think anyone is advocating public fellatio.

Like Grendel and Victoria, I'm not at all sure what you mean by this, GA - especially in the context of your rather random parade simile. You mean gay couples shouldn't ride around on floats after marriage, wearing sashes and tiaras, waving at the crowd? I imagine we could live with that: legal marriage so long as no marching bands or twirlers are involved - and no Shriners in miniature cars.

"Flaunting" is clearly in the eye of the beholder. My partner and I (with whom I just celebrated our twenty-third anniversary - on our way to our foster son's wedding) will occasionally hold hands in a public place or drape an arm over the other's shoulder or - oh, my GOD! - exchange a brief kiss. We don't do these things in order to "flaunt" anything. We do it - hello - because we kinda like each other. We often call each other "Honey" rather than Sean or Bill, even - take the children inside! - when other citizens are present. This is totally unconscious and we would probably both be completely unaware of it, except that others sometimes react (mostly with good nature amusement). Again, we don't do this to "flaunt" our relationship, we do it because we have a relationship.

Or - and this could be read into your argument - is our behavior okay as long as we haven't gone through some civil ceremony? Can I only call my partner "Honey" if we remain "unmarried"? Can we "flaunt" our sexuality only as long as we continue to endure discrimination? I've already stated that I'm not all that interested in "gay marriage" myself - Sean and I love each other and have successfully circumvented many of the penalties we might otherwise suffer by being denied the rights that you enjoy in our free society. That, for us, suffices. But if I have to call him "Mr. Farrell" in public following some silly ritual, then I'd move from disinterest to opposition.

What you seem to be saying is that it is okay for gay men and lesbians to form loving partnerships so long as they never behave naturally, so long as they are not human. Sorry, GA, I don't believe anyone can do that, regardless of their legal status.

Grendel72 writes:


For one thing, nobody can force any church to marry *ANYONE*, it's a religious ceremony and the church is free to put whatever restrictions on it they wish. After all, I don't know of a lot of Christian churches who will marry Muslim couples or vice versa. Where did this silly idea that a church that doesn't believe in homosexual marriage would be forced to perform them come from?

goamerica writes:


But I guess it's fine that heterosexual couples can 'flaunt' their marriages in public, huh? Just like it's fine, apparently, for heterosexuals to flaunt their sexuality in public places, right? Have you been to a mall lately? Sheesh, look at the people wearing things that barely cover the naughty bits, straight couples who grope each other and ram their tongues down each other's throats. Nah, homosexuals are definitely the only ones to worry about here.

Maybe we need to install 'gay only drinking fountains' next, huh? After all, homosexuality might be contagious! Wouldn't want to catch it, would you?

Homosexual marriage is not an issue that just affects the gay community. It affects us all. The Preamble to the bill of rights strives to ensure "liberty and justice for all" If one group of people are denied freedoms in this country, then EVERYONE is in danger of having their freedoms stripped from them. Until recently, interracial marriages were illegal in some states, becuase SOME people believed it to be immoral. We cannot allow the opinions of the misinformed and ignorant to shape National policy. By giving committed homosexual couples the right to enjoy over one thousand rights, priveledges, and responsibiles that come with marriage, we will ensure the equality of every American. The tide is turning. Attitudes are changing. It is time for Amerca to embrace that change.
Recent studies in science, sociology, psychiatry, and even religion have revealed that homosexuals do NOT CHOOSE their orientation. It is an innate part of our nature. Why should we continue to be treated as second class citizens just to placate those who are not homosexual. The bigotry, hatred, and grave injustice MUST end to ensure that this country is safe for future generations. As for the religious issue, homosexuals are NOT seeking to force religious institutions to honor our marriages. We just want the same CIVIL rights given to our hetrosexual counterparts. Religious institutions can and should be free to make their own poicies reguarding the matter. Gay marriage is about equality and justice. It is a civil matter. Gay affirming Churches do exist if we feel the need to have the Church sanction our unions. So I offer this plea to every American, SUPPORT EQUALITY. SUPPORT JUSTICE. SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE.

Joseph Bennett
Hixson Tennesee

I'm gay (you can use the word "bisexual" if you want, but I am quite happy being called gay or queer), so count me as another out participant.

As it happens, I've been married to a wonderful woman for 22 years. This gives me a perspective which might be different from many. I know that a successful marriage is a lot of hard work, but that it can be rewarding in ways that you can't understand if you haven't experienced it, much like parenthood. Why should anyone have denied me those pleasures had I decided that my life partner was to be a man?

If homophobia becomes so serious in this country that the threatened Constitutional amendment "protecting" marriage actually occurs, I will renounce my US citizenship and seek citizenship in another country.

I see no reason whatsoever for not allowing a human to marry whomever they may want to. I also do not see a problem with a person having multiple spouses. As long as they have reached the legal age of consent (18 in most states and countries) I dont have a problem with it. The church or religion can choose not to recognize it but in the end the legal definition of marriage is a union between entities. My wife is bisexual and we both share a girlfriend... This is considered wrong... and if we wanted to marry her... we couldn't... marriage in gov't is there to preserve the assets of the union, not to proclaim a relationship righteous.

Some of the lesbians I have met and a few gay men are somewhat straight. In the instance of my friend Tiffany, her boyfriend forced himself on her and she has been afraid to be involved with them since. She is still attracted to men, but finds herself unable to get involved with one.

Once again, you seem to be confusing action with orientation.
A person can be attracted to the opposite sex and still have their primary orientation be towards their same sex. From personal experience I can tell you that I have certainly found some women physically attractive, while finding the idea of vaginal intercourse just icky. I know a man who identifies as bisexual because he is attracted to both genders, yet he is married to a woman and she is the only person he has ever had sex with.

It must be noted though, that saying that being gay is a "choice" still doesn't justify discriminating against same sex marriages. If being gay is a choice, that means being heterosexual is also a choice.

We need to remove the entire religious argument from our legal definition of marriage. Any consenting adult ought to be able to enter into any marriage contract they wish to, without goverment interference, but rather goverment facilitation of the contract. Right now the church basically determines what marriage is, or at least how marriage is defined. This is clearly wrong on many fronts. If 12 poeple want to have a group marriage, they should be allowed to do so.

What about all those illegal immigrants that marry in the US with out licenses. They don't seem to care what the government says. And people get married to the people they love, because they trust them to start a family. Look at the entire history of marriage prior to women entering the workforce, it was all centered around raising a family for thousands of years. Now the GLBT comes along and want to redefine it to suit their purposes. And if the GLBT can change what a marriage means here, then so can the pedophiliacs, bigamist, the crazy animal lovers, .... Because its all comes down to sex or what turns them on, thats the only difference between GBLT, heterosexuals, pedophiliacs, bigamist, animal lovers,....... Using your logic they where born that way and some coutries allow marriages at 14 as well as multiple partners, so why should we deny them their urges as well.

That is a sham marriage, and is illegal. If they are caught they will be punished.
You seem to be arguing that their sham marriage is valid, which is a bogus argument.

So are you going to be the one to tell infertile couples they aren't married?
You are the one redefining it. When you get married you vow to love, honor and cherish your partner- the standard vows don't say anything about breeding.

Children and animals can't consent. Children and animals don't understand the emotional attatchment involved in grown-up love.
I really wonder how heterosexuals would feel if every mention of their significant other wound up being compared with someone raping a puppy.

But you just said she is attracted to men, hence she isn't a lesbian. Not being involved doesn't change your sexual orientation, otherwise every nun on the planet is a lesbian.

Sexual orientation is inborn. You have a choice how you express it, but you can't suddenly decide to be attracted to a sex that you're not attracted to, any more than you can choose to genetically change the color of your skin.

Unfortunately 'Don't care' wasn't one of the choices (and of course not very conducive to highly charged debate, either . But that's basically my attitude. I don't see my life changing one way or the other regardless of which way this falls. Whether two people who want to get married do so or not is really pretty irrelevant to me.



I think this is true, and is why I am so confused by the reaction of many who are so vehemently against 'gays'. In essence (no offense intended), it strikes me that that this is essentially a birth defect--yet it seems to be the only one singled out for the treatment it gets. For those who doubt the truth of this, I find it difficult to understand why someone would purposely subject themselves to the treatment 'gays' seem to get.

I appreciate that you are coming to our defense, Hobbes, though I am slightly startled to read of my sexuality referred to as a "defect."

I certainly don't feel defective; all of limbs work, and I can impregnate if I wish to, having done so twice, with two lovely daughters to vouch for me. :-)

I'm "out" because I would find it hypocritical not to be, but otherwise I don't feel that my sexual orientation is anyone's business. Okay, truth be told, I came out after my eldest daughter came out to me, and I felt shamed that I had lied to her, even if only by omission.

What's the big deal? Sex isn't only for procreation, it's for recreation, too. Are most of you agreeing, homophobes included? If you DON'T agree that sex can be enjoyed recreationally, then I really don't have anything to say to you. if you DO agree, then view sex as you might skiing. Some people enjoy skiing, some don't, and we don't penalize people who aren't skiers, do we?

Penalizing them is what you are doing them by denying them the right to marry.

The word "marry" is already evolving, changing to mean "an agreement whereby two people are joined in social and legal co-dependence for the purpose of maintaining a family," to paraphrase and amend Merriam-Websters.

Don't fight it! You don't want to be one of the people that your grandchildren are ashamed of, do you, lumped together with racists?

I didn't think so.

I'd like to throw my own ideas in on this debate. It is a long one (22 pages and counting), and I have not read through it all, so please forgive me if I repeat some things.

First off, I am gay. I would put bisexual except I have not slept with any female nor do I think I ever will (that being said, I do find them attractive). However, I would not discredit the option of doing so. Who knows...

My main issue with gay marriage can be pared down to two or three factors.

First, if homosexuality is a choice (and let's just say for the moment that it is), then this is an extremely large group of people choosing to live as ridiculed humans. Why would anyone choose to live a life that can result in bashings and verbal abuse? Perhaps if it were a few here and there, I'd accept this argument. But when 30,000 gay and lesbian people show up at Gay Pride in Utah, there's something to be said.

Therefore, I purport that homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality. My own experience supports this. I was raised as a member of the LDS church with two loving parents and three siblings. It was the picture-perfect middle-class suburban white American home. All that was missing was the picket fence. I was never told about homosexuality. In fact, all I remember was being told not to be sexually involved with women until marriage. Could it be that I was psychologically traumatized by my church to fear women? It is possible, although I doubt it. I was physically attracted to many men and I figured it was just an "admiration" of their bodies and physical beauty. By 16, I finally had come to the realization (thanks in part due to having a definition of how I felt) that I was gay.

But let's digress. From the point of view where homosexuality is viewed as immoral, often compared to beastiality and incest, this comes mostly from religious ideology. Since we allow religious freedom in this country, one could deem homosexuality as a form of religious expression. It is not a religion, as religion is chosen. If it were chosen, as the religious right will have you believe, then why not prevent Buddhists or atheists from marrying? Why stop at gay marriage?

Because it is immoral? Who says it is immoral? The religious right. Of course, at one time over a hundred years ago in Utah, it was legal for plural marriage. It has since been restricted, though it still occurs in a very small percentage of the population. This proves that the institution of marriage is pliable, and can be altered with the moral views of the majority. Throughout history, marriage has been redefined again and again. It used to be illegal for a black man to marry a white woman.

The religious right will argue that marriage is holy and should not be cheapened by gay marriage (an argument the religious similarly espoused during the Civil Rights era--replace gay with interracial where applicable). Homosexuals are not asking for religious acceptance of their marriage, but legal acceptance. It is against all common sense and, furthermore, the Declaration of Independence, which proclaimed equality for all citizens, to deny this right. You may not agree with it (just as I don't agree with 15 year olds being allowed to marry 30 year olds), but that doesn't mean I should prevent it from every happening.

Finally, when I hear homosexuality compared to beastiality and incest, I feel a twinge of anger. I don't like feeling angry, but this is one area that really provokes me. Altering the definition of marriage to state "Two consenting adults" would harm nobody and benefit everybody. It would not allow incest, simply because there is genetic proof that children as a result of such a sexual act could be genetically harmed. This also does not allow beastiality, which obviously does not involve two consenting adults (or at least not until the dog/cat/goat/whatever can say "I do"). In Utah, it is legal for a 15 year old to marry with permission of his or her parents. It is not legal for a 24 year old man to marry another 24 year old man. This is insulting--15 year olds can enter into matrimony before an adult gay male could.

Gay marriage would not result in the destruction of our country's moral code. Morals are opinions, and they vary from person to person. The people who complain about this country's lack of morals are basically saying, "I'm right, and everyone should agree with me." While you may not agree with me on gay marriage, that does not mean it should be prohibited. Given all arguments (and I've heard hundreds from both sides), it is fair to say--the law should allow an adult to marry any other adult he or she chooses, regardless of sex, race, religion, etc. Religions can prohibit as they are private institutions, but marriage is not simply a right withheld from a certain group for "moral" views. It is illegal. Twenty or thirty years from now, when gay marriage is legal (and it will be), people will look back with embarrassment as they do with prohibiting interracial marriages. The past is done and gone--the future is still to come. Where are your priorities? In preserving the past or preparing for the future?

Isn't this just lovely. It's national hate week.
This is quite purely and simply a disgrace, why do these jerks insist on having their bigotry enshrined in the government? It's a desecration of the country I love.