In defense of monogamous heterosexual marriages.(with apologies to Roxanne Appleby)

[amicus]

In defense of monogamous heterosexual marriages.



So as not to threadjack Roxanne's post and because either my son or daughter in law purposely (I think) placed a newspaper article on my desk, I got both a forum piece and a freelance article from her thoughts on heterosexual marriage.




In this somewhat decadent and backwater small Oregon coast tourist town I find myself in(not even a KFC or a Taco Bell), there is a recent political development: “…became the first city (sic) to pass a non discrimination ordinance based on sexual orientation and gender identity…” “…safety is what it comes down to for Gay and Lesbian travelers…

“…Speaking of the emerging awareness of gay tourism, “It’s been here all along…they’re not much different than other guests…Gay travelers want - like all people - to go to an environment where they will feel…welcome and safe…”

I also had the questionable pleasure of residing in Gulfport, Mississippi when the tourist political council there decided to feature, ‘Black Spring Break’ for students. The City changed that ordinance after a single years experience.

Oregon, left coast Oregon, is a peculiar state in some ways; although the people rejected a Gay Marriage amendment in the last general election, the minority pressures for gay rights continues. In Oregon, a sore tooth will get you a Medical Marijuana card and with the proliferation of Pot on the streets, young people openly buy and sell small amounts of very high grade resin loaded sensimilla at outrageous prices. And Oregon was the first State to authorized physician assisted suicide.

Over the past generation, disgruntled Californians have migrated northward, bought up all the reasonable real estate and turned the Oregon coast into another San Francisco by the Bay, “put some flowers in your hair…” Shades of Haight-Asbury and the flower children of the 60’s, it’s like stepping back in time here.

But back to the subject. I am proud to be a natural citizen of the United States of America, pleased that we have laws protecting individual rights and for the most part, are a tolerant society, welcoming diversity of all kinds.

However, I personally have a visceral reaction, an automatic emotion that bristles the hair on the back of my neck when I encounter an effeminate male or a butch cut, strident female dressed in men’s clothing. I don’t apologize and I am not a latent homosexual, I just prefer the company of heterosexual individuals.

But, personal preferences aside, I take the time to pen this missal because I seriously question just what kind of a role model society presents when it officially recognizes the gay lifestyle on equal terms with the traditional heterosexual pattern that has been in place for centuries.

I write and publish a little poetry from time to time at places like AllPoetry.com and Myspace.com, both sites populated by young writers, some in their early teens. I note, with some consternation, when these young people publicize their profiles, many of them, perhaps near half, identify themselves as ‘bi-sexual’.

Gender identity in the early formative years can be a frightening experience as boys and girls begin to really learn and understand the differences as they seriously begin the courting and mating process.

Women’s Liberation and the Gay and Lesbian explosion, which I see as a partial result of independent self-sufficient worldly women, has, in my opinion, seriously threatened the very foundation of heterosexual marriage and even more important, the institution of the nuclear family that we have all known so long.

I’ve not been here long, but long enough to know that hotel rooms are fully booked from June to September. I also know that local residents choose not to even venture forth on weekends as the traffic congestion is prohibitive to travel.

Imagine what might happen if the Gay and Lesbian grapevine creates a massive influx of thousands and thousands more ’gay’ tourists during the summer months. I can tell you from experience what happened in Gulfport, Mississippi with the Black Spring Break experiment.

I don’t mind greedy businessmen out to make a buck from tourists; I do however, question the ’politically correct’ motivations of a few who act without regard to possible consequences.

The citizens of this little backwater burg might well consider a petition drive to repeal the recent ordinance.

Amicus…

(Hmmm..now that I pasted this from the files, I noticed that I had revised and added to it somewhat in the actual freelance piece I emailed off to the newspaper, but...ah...let it fly as is...)

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Like you said, you haven't been there long. I've been in Oregon for about 30 years. Western Oregon (especially Portland and a few places on the Oregon Coast) is a mecca for gays. That's nothing new, it's been going on since the 1960's. I can remember when I was a child, Cape Lookout State Park was entirely gay.

Oregon is a very strange state. The state is ruled by a stanch Republican Base, but the party tends to be quite liberal. There is a very large Democratic party here who get along well with the Republicans. Idologically there isn't much difference between them West of the Cascade Mountains.

However, if you go east of the Cascade Mountains it's an entirely different world. The Republican Party is arch-conservative and the Democratic Party nonexistant.

Gays are openly welcomed in Western Oregon between Cottage Grove and Portland, the Cascade Mountains and the Oregon Coast. That happens to be the area you are in. If you want to escape the gays, you need to move south past Gold Beach. That's the way this state is.

The fortunate thing is the gays are not openly butt fucking on the street corners or anything else. Our attitude towards them is "Live and Let Live."

You are correct about the defeat of the "Gay Marriage" law. However, that was a backlash of a poorly written law passed in the Portland Metro Area several years ago. That law was passed and enacted for a short time but ruled unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court. The Gay Marriage law you refer too was the exact same law. I'm sure that will come up again in another rewritten form that complies with the Constitutions of both the State and the Federal Government when the Bush Administration is finally only an evil, smelly blot on the history of this country. In the meantime, the State Insurance Law has been amended to include "same sex couples". What's the difference?

I've watched Californians, as well as, people from other States move into Oregon for years. They are easy to spot with their brand new L.L.Bean "I'm Roughing It Now" duds and their new Jeep Cherokee's. Before they came I remember reasonable, if not cheap, land prices, many fewer cars on the freeways and, frankly, a lot more trees that have now gone away to build their ostentations homes. I even hear them complaining that the environment they came to Oregon to enjoy is rapidly disappearing because of all the "new comers".

Oregon is a State in the throws of change, and not to the liking of those of us who have been here for most or all of our lives. The changes have nothing to do with gays, but with changes demanded by people who have moved her in the past few years and the havock they have caused our standard of living and the environment we value.

Thank you very much.

JJ

 

[amicus]

You are quite welcome, Jenny and thank you also for the time you gave to the reply.

I should perhaps clarify; I went to high school in Albany, lived in Deer Island, Scappoose and across the river in Vancouver for many years. I also did a talk show on the old and now defunct, KKEY in Portland for 10 years.

I am well aware of the political make-up of the state and interviewed most of the politicians that were in office in the 80's, both local and statewide.

I also appeared as a guest on the Sunday night interview program, (forget what is was called) on KATU television, invited mainly because I was quite controversial then, as now on this forum.

But now...sighs...I am tired and retired and should not have even submitted that article to a local newspaper, maybe they will ignore me, as most do here, I hope so.

thank you again...


amicus...

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Did I miss something? I read the entire post, saw a lot about gays and lesbians, but didn't find a word "in defense of monogamous heterosexual marriages." That's either a very badly-titled article, or a very unfocused one.

 

[Guest]

Did I miss something? I read the entire post, saw a lot about gays and lesbians, but didn't find a word "in defense of monogamous heterosexual marriages." That's either a very badly-titled article, or a very unfocused one.

Well... it is by ... amicus.

 

[amicus]

Well, gee whiz, ladies...I even left a mis-spelling in Haight-Ashbury, a street corner in San Francisco for you to nag about...take what you get, judge accordingly, if you want something else...write it. (twits) (chuckles)

amicus...

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Well, gee whiz, ladies...I even left a mis-spelling in Haight-Ashbury, a street corner in San Francisco for you to nag about...take what you get, judge accordingly, if you want something else...write it. (twits) (chuckles)

amicus...

Don't sweat it, Amicus. As you know Oregon is a State of both wonders and contrasts. Roxanne can handle the MF couples. The gays and bi's can still gather here

JJ

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Well, gee whiz, ladies...I even left a mis-spelling in Haight-Ashbury, a street corner in San Francisco for you to nag about...take what you get, judge accordingly, if you want something else...write it. (twits) (chuckles)

amicus...

Hey, I was trying to help you. If you're OK with it, I'm OK with it. Knock yourself out.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Ami, I disagree with you about "role models." I agree it's an experiment underway in this society, that is clear. But I think loving people in stable relationships who have made a committment to take care of each other for the long haul is a good role model no matter who the people are.

Why is marriage priveleged above other kinds of contracts, with extra rights and benefits? Because it has unique social utility - it creates the stable environment in which to raise children, and the partners assume the burden to take care of each other not just in good times, but in bad. That lifts a burden that would otherwise fall on "society," and thus we give that contract special benefits.

As for your personal tastes in personal appearance, I think you need to broaden your outlook, my friend. Now if you had specified "effeminate male or a butch cut female dressed in men’s clothing" spouting subjectivist, socialist, collectivist claptrap - well, I might be able to sympathize. But folks like that just minding their own business, and not otherwise violating the dress conventions of a particular place (like excessively skimpy clothing at Chuckie Cheeseburger's, or rough biker outfits in a fine restaurant), well - I think you need to go back to the drawing board.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Ami, I disagree with you about "role models." I agree it's an experiment underway in this society, that is clear. But I think loving people in stable relationships who have made a committment to take care of each other for the long haul is a good role model no matter who the people are.

You are quite correct, Roxanne (Good morning, BTW ) Some of you know the trials I've been through with Linny over the past two years, but we are still a couple and always will be.

JJ

 

[CharleyH]

But back to the subject. I am proud to be a natural citizen of the United States of America, pleased that we have laws protecting individual rights and for the most part, are a tolerant society, welcoming diversity of all kinds.

However, I personally have a visceral reaction, an automatic emotion that bristles the hair on the back of my neck when I encounter an effeminate male or a butch cut, strident female dressed in men’s clothing. I don’t apologize and I am not a latent homosexual, I just prefer the company of heterosexual individuals.

In regards to homosexuality, I am not so certain that the United States (as a whole) has ever protected those persons individual rights? Certainly, in recent years, individual states have upheld the individual rights and freedoms of gay and lesbian and transgendered persons, but on the whole? Whether homosexual or other, I am not certain that your country does uphold certain individuals' rights.

I understand your primitive reaction, it's common place. I have nothing against your moral or belief system and I know that you are not a latent homosexual (lol). As a lesbian-identifying bi-natured and sexual individual I must agree with you. I also get those raised tiny hairs on my neck when encountering certain individuals of type as well, but I have a different experience than you, so the reason for my chill is a bit different. The prejudice is still there, though, however minute.

But, personal preferences aside, I take the time to pen this missal because I seriously question just what kind of a role model society presents when it officially recognizes the gay lifestyle on equal terms with the traditional heterosexual pattern that has been in place for centuries.

I would have to question why. I understand morality is the consensus of the majority, but historically? Isn't the majority often wrong? Aren't the majority often followers? Doesn't the majority often cave to the avant-garde (and we must think that gay culture is still underground or avant-garde in some way if we must question what kind of role model the common denominator presents in the face of the minority). The question certainly is "WHAT KIND of role model does society present when it doesn't acknowledge the existence of minority culture?

I note, with some consternation, when these young people publicize their profiles, many of them, perhaps near half, identify themselves as ‘bi-sexual’.

Gender identity in the early formative years can be a frightening experience as boys and girls begin to really learn and understand the differences as they seriously begin the courting and mating process.

I think they mean bi-natured, but bi-sexual is a common term. In your time, Ami? I have no doubt that gender identity was frightening. It was frightening in my time and that was barely a blink ago. These days? I think it's great that a young person can figure out, question and talk of their gender and sexual affiliations without a total fear of being terrorized verbally or physically by peers or parents.

Women’s Liberation and the Gay and Lesbian explosion, which I see as a partial result of independent self-sufficient worldly women, has, in my opinion, seriously threatened the very foundation of heterosexual marriage and even more important, the institution of the nuclear family that we have all known so long.

You are seriously wrong here. First, the nuclear family is truly a North American concept and second? The womens liberation movement and gay and lesbian rights movements in the 20th century have nada to do with the destruction of the so called 'foundation" of the heterosexual marriage. What is this foundation you speak of, anyway? Who wrote this book?

Imagine what might happen if the Gay and Lesbian grapevine creates a massive influx of thousands and thousands more ’gay’ tourists during the summer months. I can tell you from experience what happened in Gulfport, Mississippi with the Black Spring Break experiment.

I would like to hear what happened. In my small town (where I grew up) of 1500 people? The influx of tourism at any time means more money for anyone as a business owner. In a capitalist system, which you so highly regard? What's wrong with that?

I don’t mind greedy businessmen out to make a buck from tourists; I do however, question the ’politically correct’ motivations of a few who act without regard to possible consequences.

But what are the motivations in a capitalist society? You say it all the time. If I hate gays, should I put a sign on my restaurant: NO GAYS ALLOWED? Well, let me tell you how fast I will go out of business.

I need to know more about what you mean about politically correct motivations and what the terrible consequences are for having them, Ami.

(Hmmm..now that I pasted this from the files, I noticed that I had revised and added to it somewhat in the actual freelance piece I emailed off to the newspaper, but...ah...let it fly as is...)

Oh, sure NOW YOU TELL ME its an op ed piece. lol - nods to you if you publish lol, and let me know. I personally would write a letter to the editor, without as many kind words as I have given you. LOL

 

[Pure]

ami said (or was he quoting)

But back to the subject. I am proud to be a natural citizen of the United States of America, pleased that we have laws protecting individual rights and for the most part, are a tolerant society, welcoming diversity of all kinds.

However, I personally have a visceral reaction, an automatic emotion that bristles the hair on the back of my neck when I encounter an effeminate male or a butch cut, strident female dressed in men’s clothing. I don’t apologize and I am not a latent homosexual, I just prefer the company of heterosexual individuals.

But, personal preferences aside, I take the time to pen this missal because I seriously question just what kind of a role model society presents when it officially recognizes the gay lifestyle on equal terms with the traditional heterosexual pattern that has been in place for centuries.

I write and publish a little poetry from time to time at places like AllPoetry.com and Myspace.com, both sites populated by young writers, some in their early teens. I note, with some consternation, when these young people publicize their profiles, many of them, perhaps near half, identify themselves as ‘bi-sexual’.

Gender identity in the early formative years can be a frightening experience as boys and girls begin to really learn and understand the differences as they seriously begin the courting and mating process.

Women’s Liberation and the Gay and Lesbian explosion, which I see as a partial result of independent self-sufficient worldly women, has, in my opinion, seriously threatened the very foundation of heterosexual marriage and even more important, the institution of the nuclear family that we have all known so long.

P: It's pretty murky, here, as Lauren said. The defense seems to be that because of the gay's progress in changing legislation:
1) there are fewer good 'role models'; and 2) teens are getting confused about gender identity, and disproportionately--and mistakenly--labelling themselve 'bi sexual.'

This is the classic circular argument, since more 'gay' activities are alleged to occur, and this is an argument against the gay activities that formerly occurred.

I might equally say, "Look at the terrible situation of liberals in the US: 1) There are fewer liberal role models, and people put pictures of Bush and Cheny on their walls. 2) many teens now label themselves 'conservative' or 'pragmatic conservative'; very few nowadays say, 'I'm liberal.'

---
Besides, if ami wants to defend an institution as it existed in the US in the first part of the 20th century, or the 19th century Victorian times, it's called "monogamy + prostitution." It's not a bad system. Esp. if you're man.

 

[Antfarmer77]

Monogamus hetero sexual marriage has worked out very well for me for the last 17 years

 

[CharleyH]

This is the classic circular argument, since more 'gay' activities are alleged to occur, and this is an argument against the gay activities that formerly occurred.

I do not see the 'classic' circularity of the argument, Pure?

 

[elsol]

But, personal preferences aside, I take the time to pen this missal because I seriously question just what kind of a role model society presents when it officially recognizes the gay lifestyle on equal terms with the traditional heterosexual pattern that has been in place for centuries.

A lot of traditional patterns were in place/have been for centuries...

Slavery.
Deism.
Monarchies

So clearly, the fact that something is a 'traditional pattern' is irrelevant to recognizing the oppossite as either valid/invalid/equal.

Otherwise, nothing changes and I don't know about you... but I see a lot of things that are done because they are traditional patterns which need to be re-investigated.

 

[Liar]

However, I personally have a visceral reaction, an automatic emotion that bristles the hair on the back of my neck when I encounter an effeminate male or a butch cut, strident female dressed in men’s clothing. I don’t apologize and I am not a latent homosexual, I just prefer the company of heterosexual individuals.

A bit off topic for the thread, but I just wanted to comment on this. Is it sexual preference, or feminine and masculine traits that you are talking about? Because they are far from the same thing.

The most feminine man I know is straight as an arrow. And none of my lesbian friends are any more butch than the average female. In general I'd say that most homosexuals, you wouldn't know they were, unless they told you.

 

[Pure]

to charley

ok, how about this.

times are bad. why?

they're bad for liberals. why?

conservatives abound, for example the Canadian Prime Minister.

and the problem with that?

not many liberals around for examples. mostly one sees conservatives.

why is that bad?

because you hardly see any liberals around.

===
iow, the author's main objection to gays having come forward is that... more gays are coming forward.

This leads to the decline of straight role models, which is bad because... there is more decline of straight role models.

Because the gays are coming forward even more.

 

[Guest]

A bit off topic for the thread, but I just wanted to comment on this. Is it sexual preference, or feminine and masculine traits that you are talking about? Because they are far from the same thing.

The most feminine man I know is straight as an arrow. And none of my lesbian friends are any more butch than the average female. In general I'd say that most homosexuals, you wouldn't know they were, unless they told you.

Of course not.

For that you need your super-secret extra heavy-duty quasi-religious combination homosexual detector and X-ray specs.


Edited to add: I think Pat Robertson sells 'em.

 

[Liar]

Of course not.

For that you need your super-secret extra heavy-duty quasi-religious combination homosexual detector and X-ray specs.

Strike the "quasi-religious" bit and throw in a "fabulous" and you have your average gay-dar.

 

[elsol]

A bit off topic for the thread, but I just wanted to comment on this. Is it sexual preference, or feminine and masculine traits that you are talking about? Because they are far from the same thing.

The most feminine man I know is straight as an arrow. And none of my lesbian friends are any more butch than the average female. In general I'd say that most homosexuals, you wouldn't know they were, unless they told you.

Reads to me that Amicus is locked on gender roles. He doesn't specify that the male need be gay nor the female a lesbian... he chose, whether concious or subconcious, to leave 'sex' out of the statement.

 

[CharleyH]

ok, how about this.

times are bad. why?

they're bad for liberals. why?

conservatives abound, for example the Canadian Prime Minister.

and the problem with that?

not many liberals around for examples. mostly one sees conservatives.

why is that bad?

because you hardly see any liberals around.

===
iow, the author's main objection to gays having come forward is that... more gays are coming forward.

This leads to the decline of straight role models, which is bad because... there is more decline of straight role models.

Because the gays are coming forward even more.

LOL great try! Circular arguments don't require questions - such arguments- classic or not - are a series of statments, no?

 

[amicus]

CharleyH...I am honored that you took the time to respond and pleased at the method you did so.

There is no doubt was have intense disagreement on many issues and even if it is an 'op ed' piece, I was already working on something to respond to Roxanne Appleby's piece when I noticed the article on the front page of a newspaper, curiously left upon my already cluttered desk top.

I think you have followed my posts for quite some time, perhaps not as far back as the 18 page thread that followed my initial 'The Feminine Mistake' statement quite some time ago.

In that, I took the very unpopular position that the past half century or so, a little more if you include the women who worked in factories during the war effort from 1942 to 1945. That 'taste' of independence and self sufficiency, with most of the men off to war, coupled with the Playboy revolution in the 1950's and the womens movement shortly thereafter, seems to me to have empowered the women's movement towards equality.

I further implied that the new found independence of the female became a very serious threat, (long overdue according to many), to male domination in all aspects of social existence.

Later on, in the 60's and 70's the social tinkering by the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, the welfare reforms that enable women with children to find support outside a male dominated situation, aka, welfare, aid to dependent children, head start, free childcare...a whole host of programs that, in my opinion, made it possible for women with children to exist without a male breadwinner.

Add also that in the early 70's, that bible of the world of psychology, the DMV...hope that is the right acronym and forgot the words, suddenly, after intense pressure from the then just budding gay community, changed homosexual behavior from an aberrant mental illness, to just an alternative life style.

I proposed, and was beaten severely about the head and shoulders for it, that the advent of all those things caused both a crisis in gender identity, and a crisis in the tradition family situation.

It seemed to me a logical assumption and many professionals wrote similar treatises, I was certainly not the first.

Now good ole Sigmund Freud, a long time ago, postulated that gender identity and recognition is perhaps the most intense of all human attributes. Then the Kinseys, published in the 50's, I think, muddied the waters somewhat with their research and their conclusions.

Not believing in a Supreme Being, I can only surmise that 'nature' must be possessed of a sense of mirth as the natural coupling of man and woman to produce and nurture offspring when the sexes are so physically and psychologically different, almost in opposition to each other. Rather nasty of nature to do that, doncha think?

However, thas the way it has always been. Now, as many erudite Litsters have pointed out, the is a long history of homosexual behavior both in humans and animals, I don't disagree. But I saw those as anomalies or aberrations, something one might suspect to see as evolution continues to change the make-up of homo sapiens in general.

Nature can do what the hell ever it wants and does so independently of my opinion, whatever it may be but politics and social manipulation by incumbent government officials is something I have a say in and can attempt, as you can, to influence that which takes place.

Now, humor me here...supposing there is a 'kernel' of truth in what I say, maybe even a 'chunk' of truth concerning societal changes brought about by social legislation that is friendly to a certain aspect of public and private behavior. Now you may applaud those changes and others may not. But grant me the same right you claim; to make my opinions known even though you think I am a dinosaur from out of the past.

I choose not to socialize with gay people, I try to keep my children from accepting homo sexuality as just an 'alternative lifestyle' I work assiduosly in the 'op ed' world to express my positions, here included.

Thas my story and I'm not gonna change it!

amicus...

 

[amicus]

I like to try to keep up with a thread and respond to cogent replies, sometimes time does not permit that. Pure, Sweetsubsarah and sometimes Liar, of those who have posted, seldom if ever, add anything to a discussion (not just mine) but rather pick away at minutia or criticize in general, thus I seldom find it necessary to reply.

Once cannot cover all aspects of an issue in the length of a post and oftimes, this time included, except for the original post, the words come forth spontaneously, without edit or after thought and I just toss them out to see if they fly.

I agree, a homo sexual person, male or female, does not always have it stamped on their forehead. And yes, some very sensitive and gentle men and aggressive, extroverted women in my lifetime are straight arrows. I suppose I thought you would understand with the great acceptance of the gay lifestyle, more and more are flaunting that difference and demanding attentionand I am sure there is more...perhaps the next go-around.

amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

CharleyH...I am honored that you took the time to respond and pleased at the method you did so.

There is no doubt was have intense disagreement on many issues and even if it is an 'op ed' piece, I was already working on something to respond to Roxanne Appleby's piece when I noticed the article on the front page of a newspaper, curiously left upon my already cluttered desk top.

I think you have followed my posts for quite some time, perhaps not as far back as the 18 page thread that followed my initial 'The Feminine Mistake' statement quite some time ago.

In that, I took the very unpopular position that the past half century or so, a little more if you include the women who worked in factories during the war effort from 1942 to 1945. That 'taste' of independence and self sufficiency, with most of the men off to war, coupled with the Playboy revolution in the 1950's and the womens movement shortly thereafter, seems to me to have empowered the women's movement towards equality.

I further implied that the new found independence of the female became a very serious threat, (long overdue according to many), to male domination in all aspects of social existence.

Later on, in the 60's and 70's the social tinkering by the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, the welfare reforms that enable women with children to find support outside a male dominated situation, aka, welfare, aid to dependent children, head start, free childcare...a whole host of programs that, in my opinion, made it possible for women with children to exist without a male breadwinner.

Add also that in the early 70's, that bible of the world of psychology, the DMV...hope that is the right acronym and forgot the words, suddenly, after intense pressure from the then just budding gay community, changed homosexual behavior from an aberrant mental illness, to just an alternative life style.

I proposed, and was beaten severely about the head and shoulders for it, that the advent of all those things caused both a crisis in gender identity, and a crisis in the tradition family situation.

It seemed to me a logical assumption and many professionals wrote similar treatises, I was certainly not the first.

Now good ole Sigmund Freud, a long time ago, postulated that gender identity and recognition is perhaps the most intense of all human attributes. Then the Kinseys, published in the 50's, I think, muddied the waters somewhat with their research and their conclusions.

Not believing in a Supreme Being, I can only surmise that 'nature' must be possessed of a sense of mirth as the natural coupling of man and woman to produce and nurture offspring when the sexes are so physically and psychologically different, almost in opposition to each other. Rather nasty of nature to do that, doncha think?

However, thas the way it has always been. Now, as many erudite Litsters have pointed out, the is a long history of homosexual behavior both in humans and animals, I don't disagree. But I saw those as anomalies or aberrations, something one might suspect to see as evolution continues to change the make-up of homo sapiens in general.

Nature can do what the hell ever it wants and does so independently of my opinion, whatever it may be but politics and social manipulation by incumbent government officials is something I have a say in and can attempt, as you can, to influence that which takes place.

Now, humor me here...supposing there is a 'kernel' of truth in what I say, maybe even a 'chunk' of truth concerning societal changes brought about by social legislation that is friendly to a certain aspect of public and private behavior. Now you may applaud those changes and others may not. But grant me the same right you claim; to make my opinions known even though you think I am a dinosaur from out of the past.

I choose not to socialize with gay people, I try to keep my children from accepting homo sexuality as just an 'alternative lifestyle' I work assiduosly in the 'op ed' world to express my positions, here included.

Thas my story and I'm not gonna change it!

amicus...

I am saving your post to my things to do tomorrow - thank you. I am never far from your opinion, though. I know you are a GOD FEARING I am not ever going to change your opinion because you are rigid and non-adaptable - I am the opposite. My purpose is always to give you something to argue about. I am so happy your girl put something on your desk. I imagine it was the antithesis to what you believe.

 

[Guest]

Ami - arguing with you has no purpose. You never concede a point, never fathom that a different opinion may have merit, never believe that -

Ah, hell. Even this is pointless.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Of course we threadjack. It's far more enjoyable.