If It Worked For Interracial Marriages, Can't It Do The Same For the Gays?

July 9, 2010
Category: Politics

Originally Posted via the New York Times :

"A federal judge in Massachusetts found Thursday that a law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, ruling that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples.

Judge Joseph L. Tauro of United States District Court in Boston sided with the plaintiffs in two separate cases brought by the state attorney general and a gay rights group.

Although legal experts disagreed over how the rulings would fare on appeal, the judge’s decisions were nonetheless sure to further inflame the nationwide debate over same-sex marriage and gay rights.


If the rulings find their way to the Supreme Court and are upheld there, they will put same-sex marriage within the constitutional realm of protection, just as interracial marriage has been for decades. Seeking that protection is at the heart of both the Massachusetts cases and a federal case pending in California over the legality of that state’s ban on same-sex marriage..."

Read the full article at the New York Times

Tags: Gay Marriage, Gay Culture
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share this
Author
Post written by The Daddyhunt Team (View Author Profile)
About this author: The team of six individuals that keep Daddyhunt running like a well oiled machine.
View all posts by The Daddyhunt Team

Comments

I personally do not think this falls under the same umbrella as interracial marriage./////Forgive me for saying this and maybe i am just basing this on encounters with in this community with in the last few years.////It seems to be somewhat some internal bigotry and racism with in the gay community. Particularly with some websites.///I understand that sexually we as individuals have preferences, but when you speak to some people online just to say hello or strike a conversation, some individuals do not want to talk to u based on the race description in one's profile or based on a picture. What does that really say about us as individuals if we cannot talk online or be friends. What does that say about us when we deal with people of different races or backgrounds in the real world? Not everyone is online just looking for sex.i think with in the gay community we need to really look into that before we start trying to make similarities with the civil rights movement or things of that nature. I truly agree that we have been discriminated against various things, but we also discriminate against each other too. This is not only in our community. Same sex marriage is fine as long as two people really truly love one another and are commited to each other. maybe i am just ranting about nothing.// Maybe i should get out more, and maybe i should move to a different area.

Your argument has nothing to do with the issue at hand and is not consistent or logical.
To sum up your argument, since there is racial bigotry in SOME parts of the gay community, interracial marriage rulings cannot be applied to gay marriage.

1. Legally that's beyond ridiculous. Legal precedent does not care about individual bigotries or worthiness; it stands on its own.
2. Logically its beyond ridiculous. Since there is certainly racial bigotry in the straight community, your argument would seem to indicate straight interracial marriages should be outlawed as well.

While your point that racial bigotries exist within the gay community are valid, they have no bearing on the subject at hand.

I never stated an argument dude. I just stated my own personal opinion and experiences. Please read what dadslittleboy had to say. Thank you

After reading your post, Speed_demon06 I wonder if you are talking about Discrimination or Preference ? ..For Many people on this and other such sites, They are not looking for friendships and chat .. They are seeking sex !! Because someone does not wish to chat .. It does not mean that they are being Discriminating. It could easilly mean that they dont want to waste their time or yours !!

What ever the reasons .. It is not a *Gay Thing* .. It's *Sexuality Non Discriminate* :-)

I am open to all Races .. and try to be non sexist and non racist .. However I have a preference with Age .. as do other Cruisers .. Does that make me Discriminating ?? .. Surley that is my preference .. and by ststing it .. I dont waste your time or mine ... Same with those that don't get turned on by a certain race .. many state to have friends of a certain race .. but sexually they do nothing for him ... Discrimination or Preference .. ??

Time to *Tuff Up* .. and be comfortable with the fact that not all people want the same as us .. and respect their right to have a Preference and not be considered Racist or Discrimintry

Not everyone online is specifically looking for sex. Some people are looking for friendship(people to talk to, hang out with). We all have preferences and likes and dislikes. But when people dismiss other people regardless of race/sex/or whatever, without being open to conversation or friendship, what is an individual supposed to think. Overall as a human race( heterosexual or homosexual, Blk/white or polka dot) certain things we do not seem to be moving foward. Thanks for "Tuff Up" speech, but SAVE it.

The whole idea of matrimony( same sex or hetero) is a joke.

Why is it that we keep hearing of "gay marriage"................

Why has the "other side of the coin" never been explored??

That would be "gay divorce"............think the judicial system is clogged now??

My lawyer is currently going through a "lesbian custody hearing", in which the kids are the victims.........which is truly sad...........

Let me get my sword and shield out, the the barrage of comments can come in.......

I agree with you 100%

Why are you expecting a barrage of negative comments? With marriage WILL come divorce - presumably just as ugly as straight ones.

Actually, you yourself pointed out there already ARE 'divorces'...having marriage laws in place would simply streamline the divorce process, such as it is. Right now, all such 'divorces' are often handled case-by-case and vary greatly, since many states have no regulations or guidelines for such cases.

During the 90's and today I fought for same sex marriage in Washington, DC and now we have that right as of this year. After being on this site and others it really pisses me off to see guys who are married looking for a strange piece on the side, how pathetic some are! I agree with 'Christoph', have we now released the gene from the bottle, only to find that we might of released a monster instead!

I myself wonder if gay men might have screwed-up wiring in their heads when it comes for commitments, I hope I am wrong and hope I didn't fight the wrong fight!

It is unfortunate that we continue to label the topic "gay marriage", when in fact it is an issue of marriage for gay Americans. A gay American has the same rights as an African American, an Italian American, a Catholic American, a blonde American and the list continues. Why should a group of people who object to the "gay life style" have the RIGHT to deny gay Americans their rights? It was unacceptable when a group of people didn't allow African Amercans their rights. And the argument is advanced that this is not the same. But the question to the argument is why not? When you deny a group of people their rights, regardless of the group of people it is wrong. If next month a group of people decide that blonde/blue eye Americans should not have rights, is that acceptable? And yes I understand that I am taking the argument to an illogical end, but why not? In the 1930's a group of people decided to take away the rights of other groups because they were different. Again another stretch but consider it.

And how surprised we are that with marriage for gay Americans comes divorce for gay Americans! And we see gay American marriage infedility, another surprise. Why would there be any differences between "straight" marriage and gay marriage.

The bottom line in the recent ruling is that the Federal Government cannot regulate marriage which is the role of the states. And hopefully this issue will go to the Federal Supreme Court and they will decide that no state, no agency, no group of people can deny another group of people their rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Exactly right. There is only marriage. It is legal in 5 American states, the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, South Africa, Spain and Portugal. Everywhere else, marriage is not legal, only heterosexual unions. They can call it marriage if they want to, but it's not worthy of the name. It's just institutionalized bigotry.

Calling heterosexual unions marriage is as absurd as pretending that countries were democracies when they denied the vote to women.

In my opinion, divorce should not be a reason to deny gay people marriage. We obviously have been discriminated against forever, why continue that discrimination? We should have the right to marry who we choose. Whether that is a committed relationship or an open one. My partner and I have been together for 19+ years. While I don't need a piece of paper to tell me we're married, it certainly would help with legal issues, such as inheritance, child custody, visitation of your spouse in a hospital, medical decisions, taxes, etc... All the things that straight people enjoy and expect. I think eventually we'll get the same rights but not before a long drawn out fight. Here's to hoping it's sooner than later.

Folks, what I believe speed_demon06 was alluding to is the fact that if you are going to draw comparisons/metaphors with discrimination against interracial marriage, which let's face it, has at its center, a core of prejudice and bigotry, you as the gay community do not get a free pass to openly and cavalierly practice discrimination in your day-to-day interactions with gay brothers and sisters of color. The pervasiveness of racism in the gay community, and the seeming unwillingness of our community to address and challenge it, is the (pardon this metaphor,) "white elephant" in our midst, and it's nothing short of "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy when you ignore gay minorities at the local bar, or put "ISO" or "seeks same" in your personal adverts, or refuse to initiate chats or reply to emails from people because of their skin color. Refer to the book, "Fighting Words: Personal Essays by Gay Black Men" or Chapter 20 in Ron Suresha's "The Bear Book" for further insight into this phenomenon. When the gay community leads by example regarding non-discrimination and inclusion, instead of paying lip service to it during "Pride Events" for political expediency, we truly can serve as an example for all people, regardless of race or sexual orientation.

Again...a perspective totally missing the point. This is akin to arguing that because homophobia is rampant in the African-American community (and it certainly is) that African-Americans shouldn't defend themselves from racism or engage society on issues of racial inequality until they eradicate homophobia in their own community.

As an argument, it's a logical non-sequitur that gays and lesbians have to be willing to date inter-racially before they can demand equal marriage rights.

When people respond with "you're missing the point" you can believe one of two things: you've hit a nerve they have no intention of dealing with, or they've turned the art of rationalization into a science. By your logic, I suppose there's nothing wrong with PREFERRING TO LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH ONLY LIKEMINDED, WHITE HETERO COUPLES, now is there?

Am I STILL missing the point, or are YOU?

you're leaving one option out: when people respond with "you're missing the point", you may very well be completely missing the point. and yes, you're completely missing the point. you are making a comparison between two disparate social phenomena and then drawing a false conclusion that unfortunately has zero to do with the issue at hand.

neighborhood demographics have absolutely NOTHING to do with the legal discrimination discussed here. that is a red herring.

the fact that some gays are bigoted has absolutely NOTHING to do with the legal discrimination discussed here. that is a red herring.

trying to make a point about whether or not you've made a point has absolutely NOTHING to do with the legal discrimination discussed here. that is a red herring.

ad nauseum.

please do the gay, hetero, lesbian, tranny, black, white, brown, orange, mutant, racially mixed, and supposedly racially pure communities a favor and don't try to argue on their behalf. you'll just confuse everyone.

Discrimination is discrimination, whether by social, legal or political mores, and to say that neighborhood demographics as it pertains to say housing discrimination is a "red herring" is another example of hypocrisy and denial. Your self-righteousness however, I find very illuminating. So I guess gays don't have to lead by example, they can continue to ignore the implications of racism within OUR OWN COMMUNITY (see whether you like it or not, we are part of your group) and dismiss it with "yeah, but that has nothing to do with..." nonchalance. That may be a lavender tower you're content to live in, but some of us are tired of the lip service and want an honest dialogue here - if you're confused, its because you refuse to consider that discrimination by gay people because of skin color is just as cruel, ignorant and wrong as it is when straight people discriminate against you because they don't condone your "lifestyle."

Bingo---dadslittleboy

You reason like Sarah Palin, and you debate like Maggie Gallagher. Your logic is unrefudiatable.

Thank you so much sir. That is exactly what i was saying.

Perfectly said! The question, as you clarify it, is not about gay marriage but rather about what does & doesn't give one the right to a metaphor.

Come on people, there's nothing wrong with being attracted to a particular type or even race.
I'm white, but I find myself very attracted to Latinos and Middle Easterners. What is really the big deal here? So what if someone is exclusively into Asians, or Pacific Islanders, or Africans, or Native Americans, or people from India, or whatever! They should be allowed to be honest without the misunderstanding judgment from others. This is EXACTLY the problem with have with homophobes. They say we're supposed to be attracted to the opposite sex, but we're not, so are you saying we're a bunch of sexists, who refuse to give women respect? No, we're gay! We like the same sex. Again, what's the big fucking deal? Maybe you're just not getting enough, or maybe you're just angry.

Of course there is racism in our community. Fuck, there's even homophobia in our community! There's fear and hatred everywhere in the world, against everyone. Some more than others. History has shown this over and over, and it will continue. The best we can do is educate ourselves and others, seek truth, and treat every human being with EQUAL dignity and respect.

But please, back off the people who choose to announce up front, what type of people they're attracted to. It's a human right to do so. This is not a country where we're told who to be with or who we have to marry. We get to choose. That is freedom! And freedom is not an obstacle to equality.

What's astounding is that here you are, as a white man, expressing a preference to Latinos and Middle Easterners, but think your non-attraction to Black men is somehow a "preference" and not indicative of some underlying bias you are not ready to address. Why Latinos and Middle Easterners, and say not blacks or other white gay men? Is it physicality? lack of body hair? Machismo? Why is your preference any less discriminatory than the Conservative bigots who happen to have a preference to not treat you with equality or validate your identity as a gay man?
You may think you can have it both ways, but in terms of equanimity, you cannot.

So please explain how your preference for "daddies" and your absurd pretence that you're a liitle boy at 49 is a preference and not bias?

The heart wants what the heart wants. Only when you want something it's a preference and when someone wants something different it's prejudice.

And why is it that your buddy list contains no men of colour?

It is a "preference" and not a bias, because I do not base that as a conditional requirement, daddy (lowercase, underscore) david. Furthermore, unlike other gay men who express preferences on this site and others, I will date all men of all races and backgrounds who share similar interests and vocations with myself. I will not igore anyone in a bar, gay or otherwise, who does not conform or meet my dating criteria, and judging by what I see at most gay bars on a weekend night, I am certainly in the minority. And please dont go there in terms of "absurd pretense" when it comes to profile handles.....its only a clue to sexplay. In answer to your third question, until speed_demon06 contacted me, no other gay black men on this site requested to be a buddy of mine, as astounding as that may appear to you. Your heart can have whatever the Hell it wants, as long as you practice whatever religious/spiritual/secular credo you identify with, and remember that all your brothers and sisters are one, and learn to love them. Remember: every basic right and freedom you are struggling to achieve, someone else is fighting for as well - we are all "others" in that regard.

Okay, let's see if we can clarify this.

Traditional psychological thought states, "Attraction is subjective, it can't be analyzed."

So let's stop analyzing attraction into bigotry!

what's astounding here is your inability to understand that most words in English have more than one meaning. to draw your argument to its logical conclusion, if "preference" is isomorphic to "discrimination", then every single human who has ever lived, is alive now, or will ever live is practicing discrimination and a total bigot.

hell, my dog prefers compressed rawhides over real bones. guess my dog is a bigot. damn bigoted dog. might as well shoot it. hmmm, which gun should I use? I don't want to prefer a humane method because I'll be unfairly discriminating against painful methods of death. lord knows I don't want to be a bigot.

get my point here? probably not. given the nature of your posts, you seem to throw out any sort of accusatory blather, be it nonsense or... well, it's all nonsense so far. I beg you to accurately and adequately refute my claim and prove me wrong.

That's precisely the kind of logic I can expect from someone in El Paso, Texas, a state known for rednecks and homophobia - you do realize that, don't you, or does that not register a blip on your radar because you are probably perceived as straight? And I think you know, deep down how the average Texan feels about interracial marriage-

now you've gotta start throwing all sorts of ridiculous claims about Texas. what fucking difference does it make where I'm from, where I've lived, or how "gay" I'm perceived by the general populace in El Paso? not one bit. quit being an intellectual simpleton (if you can) and ADDRESS MY IDEAS, not who you mistakenly think I am as a person who just happens to reside in Texas.

I hope we end up with the same rights as everyone else, of course, but realistically, gay marriage does not affect me at all. I don't plan on getting married, and I don't know anyone that would last in a marriage, not even my straight friends. Things would be a lot simpler without marriage altogether.

I am just dumbfounded as to why this community will not change the battle field. First of all "marriage" is a religious ceremony. Do we really want to fight for a" religious right"? As far as our government is concerned all marriages are civil unions. We are using the terms to mean the same thing. They are not. Fight to change the name first! The battle will be almost over then

If marriage is a religious ceremony then it has no place in our laws and government terminology.
I think if the focus turned along these lines the religious groups would back down before losing again in a national debate concerning the separation of church and state.

It would appear to me that every minister is a government representative. How can that be? Why do you get the right to represent the state in the civil unions just by being a minister? Yes certain other people can perform marriage ceremonies, but we have relied on the church to be the major provider for this government function. The church is not the government and needs be reminded of that fact!

marriage is not a religious ceremony; it is a contract between two people and the state that guarantees and grants certain rights and benefits to both parties ONLY when they get married. people may utilize a religious ceremony to meet cultural convention but without the state-authorized contract, they are not married. this "gay marriage" issue is about whether or not states have the right [to use religious nonsense] to use force of law to discriminate against only one social group from participating in this type of contract called 'marriage'.

everything you write about ministers being government reps and separation of church and state, etc., is completely irrelevant to this issue.

If what I write is irrelevant to the issue then why are the churches so involved with this issue? Obviously they consider marriage a religious ceremony or they wouldn't be fighting so hard to keep a grip on how the government operates in respect to marriage. Separate the "religious nonsense" from the issue and there will be no issue. That is my point!

Irrelevant? Really? Who are the people leading and funding the opposition to "Gay Marriage"?
Makes it difficult to win if you won't recognize the opposition and go after them.

I already answered your question.

this "gay marriage" issue is about whether or not states have the right [to use religious nonsense] to use force of law to discriminate against only one social group from participating in this type of contract called 'marriage'.

and besides, an atheist homosexual man can marry an atheist lesbian to gain state rights and benefits by standing in front a magistrate and signing a contract. no religious ceremony involved or required. marriage is a CONTRACT, not a ceremony.

and yes, your claims are entirely irrelevant. it's one thing to recognize who is leading the opposition and another to have any idea as to what their opposition is based on. knowing who your enemy is without having the slightest clue as to their tactics, weapons, or legal arguments makes "knowing" the enemy entirely specious. religious wackos can spew all of the religious quackery they want... the basis for the lawful discrimination can be religious or not; that doesn't matter to the definition of marriage.

i can't resist ... sometimes i'm utterly confused by what other people think someone else should think or feel.

what's with this 'marriage is a religious ceremony'? its religious only if the couple chooses to make it so. it is first and foremost a legal issue. atheists are allowed to marry. hell, 2 strangers who meet on the vegas strip can go to the chapel on the corner and get married that very same day. don't give me that religious argument, it just doesn't work.

furthermore ... preferences vs. discrimination. what a bunch of bull!!! get with the program ... people are attracted to various features sexually which have nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination. perhaps there are those people who would be sexually attracted to anyone regardless of physical attributes but i'm certainly not one of them. i have lots of friends i'm not sexually attracted to. i'm not discriminating against them just because i don't want to go to bed with them.

Do you not speak to your friends whom you are not attracted to? Do you ignore them when they try to make contact with you? My daddy came from NC, and I am well aware of the "preferences" practiced in the South, as I visited my grandmother every summer when I was younger until she passed away. You remind me of that quote from Pastor Neimoller:

"First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me."

If you want someone to speak up against your injustice, you must be
willing to speak up against the injustices committed against others-
Racism=Homophobia=Prejudice=Discrimination. Period.

I looked at the article in the New York Times, which reported on the decisions, and it quoted one legal scholar as maintaining that the two decisions, apparently furthering gay rights, were actually contradictory.

However, the NY Times article was really bereft of much analysis, and I haven't had time to read the decisions.

I went to law school, but since I graduated a) this area of law has changed dramatically and b) I have never done con law or civil liberties law in my work (only crass commercial stuff)

So I have a bunch of questions:
a) How are the two decisions contradictory
b) One of the decisions was premised, at least in part, on the notion that the law or regulation in question failed the rational basis test. Up until at least 1990 or thereabouts, not a single statute had ever been invalidated on the grounds that it failed the rational basis test. In the past, a statute was upheld if any conceivable rationale basis could support it if rational basis was employed. How has the jurisprudence changed in the area of rational basis. (I am not talking about strict scrutiny)

Well, I read all the commentary from everyone that had some type of response to this issue, and I have to say that from every single thing I've seen in my adult life of how all men who have sex with men treat each other, marriage is not only beyond irrelevant but is indeed anathema to them. There are certainly men who are in loving, monogamous, totally committed long term relationships, as well as single men who strongly desire to make a long term romantic spiritual bond with a man, like I do, but we are a horribly small percentage of all men who have sex with men, most likely no more than fifteen percent. The vast majority that remains has an almost psychotic, pathological aversion to anything even remotely resembling commitment, and rarely even seeks to establish a regular sex partners arrangement with each other. The truth is men treat each other like disposable conveniences, and then cast each other aside like an annoying inconvenience, only to then seek another man to have sex with and cast out of their life quickly as well. It is truly pathetic that most men essentially use each other as paper towels, to serve a quick, meaningless purpose then be thrown away like garbage. Marriage could'nt possibly be more irrelevant or unnecessary for a group of people who treat each other like that about eighty five percent of the time. We should work to increase the depth, value, and substance of our contacts with each other, and make a much greater effort to form sexual unions that are unselfish and that allow us to respect each other, even if that sexual union is casual with no intention of commitment attendant thereto. If we, as men who love other men can aspire to that, and add to our sexual unions the moral value that no person is disposable, then we will not only be more interested in marriage, but truly worthy of it as well. My name is Brian, thanks for your time.

Brian, I am impressed with both the depth of your observations, and the ugly truth you had the courage to bring out into the light. All you have to do is look at the profiles that say "partnered" or newly-married gay couples who aren't looking for a relationship, but are looking for some extra-cirricular, no-strings-attached sex to see exactly what you're saying. Again, some sensitivity training is what's needed here. Gay men need a "love guru" who's equal parts Leo Buscaglia and Larry Kramer...................bless you for our insight.

if all mankind could spend one day walking in another man's shoes, we'd spend less time justifying our prejudices and more time getting along. To all the narrowminded and angry people making personal attacks because the truth hurts, go look up "inclusion" in the dictionary, and then try practicing it on a regular basis as a way of life.

and it's unfortunately the ones with the slimmest of capacities to present a valid and coherent argument that most often resort to lazy thinking and grandiose, empty language about "truth" (that they cannot define) and "prejudice" (which, again, they cannot define). might as well claim that locoism is a shamanic dance... makes about as much sense.

it's not narrowminded to point out the flaws in your reasoning. it's not angry to request clarification of ideas. do not confuse debating with a fight.

Are you ghostwriting for Glenn Beck?

your incessant demonstration of lazy thinking and avoidance of discussion of issue is precisely what Glenn Beck is known for. sensationalist pseudo-intellectualism does not a valid argument make. you have yet to present the slimmest valid defense of anything you've written in this forum. the inability to deliver coherent communication is precisely what keeps understanding from being shared. shame on you for resorting to a patently idiotic accusation instead of presenting defense of your views.

Man, if reincarnation and karma really exist, you are going to be in
for a very rude awakening in your next life...................and you're
not nearly as different from Glenn as you might believe

If we were in someone else's shoes then we wouldn't agree with the ones we have on now. Then once we are back in our own shoes then we would be the same again.

That being the case, all higher-consciousness ideologies would say we need to confront their fear with love.......

Well I would like to thank" dads little boy " for your approval and acknowledgement of the clearly inconvenient but very necessary truths I felt compelled to speak of regarding the shameful and valueless way that the vast majority of men who have sex with men devalue and marginalize themselves and each other, with an almost psychotic, pathological aversion to anything even remotely resembling commitment in their sexual dealings with each other. I stand by my observations regarding this issue and truly believe that the long term best interests of men who have sex with men lie in our working to drastically improve the depth, value, and substance of our sexual unions regardless of whether or not any type of monogamy or commitment is a part of those unions. I take no pleasure in the extreme truth of my observations or the drastic interpersonal behavioral changes that we must make to address it. What disturbs me still more is that you are the only person who had the courage and personal honesty to acknowledge and validate my crucial observations, while everyone else avoided the extent to which my sentiments may have applied to them by simply ignoring everything I said. This is most disturbing, but not surprising, and only serves to illustrate my point. Simply put gentlemen, PAPER TOWELS ARE DISPOSABLE, HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT!!!! So rather than get sidetracked with debates about male to male sexual racism or preferences based in part on subconscious insecurities, both of which certainly exist, let's use this opportunity created by the issue of gay marriage to seriously think about the issues I've raised and ask ourselves this question: IN YOUR SEXUAL UNIONS WITH OTHER MEN, DO YOU TREAT THOSE MEN DISPOSABLY, LIKE PAPER TOWELS, OR WITH REAL VALUE, LIKE HUMAN BEINGS? Let's make a commitment ( YES, I KNOW THAT'S A DIRTY WORD! ) to treat the people we sleep with as human beings that have real value, the way we know we really want men to treat us. Toward that end let's try this: even if you don't want a relationship with a man, if you don't like a man enough to sleep with him more than once, why bother to sleep with him in the first place? Think about it............
To " dads little boy ", you are intriguing, as a human being that is, please visit my profile and click on my e-mail address and send me an e-mail so we can discuss your interesting views and values.
God bless, Brian

"the vast majority of men who have sex with men devalue and marginalize themselves and each other, with an almost psychotic, pathological aversion to anything even remotely resembling commitment in their sexual dealings with each other"

if this is such an obvious truth, then you have facts to back your claims up. given I am very interested in seeing validation of your primary argument, I would appreciate a reference to a survey or study wherein the results clearly indicate that homosexual men "devalue and marginalize themselves and each other". I charge that you cannot do this, that you cannot meet the slightest request for information backing up your extremely specific claim.

your beliefs do not constitute facts pertaining to all homosexual men. based on the vitriol of your posts, it simply sounds like you've been burned and thus want to project your loathing for generalizable homosexual sexual behavior into a failing self-protective belief system. in more common parlance, you haven't been able to get laid or keep a boyfriend and thus your self-perceived failures are to be blamed on the "psychotic, pathological" behavior of other homosexuals. that'd almost be laughable if it weren't so darn insane.

as a caveat, you need to do a lot of studying of homosexual identity as it varies across a multitude of cultural and sub-cultural norms.

the ability to enjoy casual sex is not an automatic indicator of psychotic fear of relationships.

Dear chickenmilk, before I respond to your unnecessarily confrontational message to me, let me say that I have no intention of becoming engaged in a distracting, counterproductive, seemingly endless back and forth dialogue with you that becomes increasingly acrimonious with each successive message, as you established with" dads little boy ". Having said that let me say this, you have a pronounced tendency to avoid simple emotion- based responses to simple emotion- based issues by using language in a very cerebral, detached, and superior fashion. Your best efforts in this regard would be far from beyond me, as I hold an advanced degree in English and have taught the subject for many years. The way people perceive and express sexuality is indeed very subjective and as individual as fingerprints. As such, my opinions and observations pertaining to how men treat each other sexually are my individual subjective perceptions, and therefore cannot be quantified, verified, or conclusively proven through some type of detached clinical analysis as you suggest. The fact that it does not conform to that type of analysis does not wholly invalidate my views, nor does it eliminate any potential value created by raising these issues. Also, if you were as good at paying attention to detail as you are at hiding behind overly formal, overly complex use of language, in an obvious attempt to use it to elevate yourself above others, you would have noticed that I never suggested my views applied to ALL men who have sex with men, just a majority of them, and that there are many gay men who, like myself, highly value other men both in and out of relationships which sets a noble standard of HUMANITY for others to follow. In addition, I have no problem with casual sex, though personally I see nothing casual about one person putting a part of their body inside another person. I simply believe that even the most detached casual sex can still be done in an unselfish way that respects the humanity of both men, and should be. That's all I'm really saying. Finally your inappropriate speculation about my sex life, sex history, and what part it might play in the views I expressed were completely off base and beneath a man of your obvious mental acumen. I will not go into detail because they call it a personal life for a very good reason, but you can be certain that I have a healthy, rewarding sex life and I have no problem attracting quality, goodlooking men, being attractive inside and out myself. You are clearly a supremely intelligent man, too bad you appear to use your gift to demean and browbeat others instead of for the benefit of mankind. Most unfortunate.

"you have a pronounced tendency to avoid simple emotion- based responses to simple emotion- based issues by using language in a very cerebral, detached, and superior fashion"

you weren't making a simple emotion-based response. you were stating facts about the majority of homosexual men in describing them as possessing psychotic and pathological tendencies. no one should feel privileged to make such grandiose and negative claims about the majority of any social group without being able to defend them. allowing your ridiculous claims to go unchallenged is no different than allowing the ridiculous claims of the Vatican to go unchallenged. a lazy thinker should be called out; you don't get a free ride just because you're gay on a gay forum.

"Also, if you were as good at paying attention to detail as you are at hiding behind overly formal, overly complex use of language"

as if I'm supposed to apologize for having the skills sufficient to present my ideas in clear and precise language.

"in an obvious attempt to use it to elevate yourself above others"

no. what's obvious is my attempt to use highly specific language to get my point across. what's also obvious is that you are making very specific claims about MOST (in your words) homosexual men. if you have the slightest shred of evidence to back your claims that describe the majority of homosexual men as "psychotic", you'd present it. but alas, you do not. so why would you make those claims?

what tends to incessantly piss me off about guys like you in forums like this is the unspoken assumption that homosexuals dealing with homosexual topics in homosexual forums are allowed to spew gobbledygook and get away with it simply because of their homosexuality. can you imagine a lawyer struggling for gay rights trying to sway a judge with "simple emotion-based" responses instead of being able to clearly make his or her point? would that be okay with you? yes, this is not a court... nor is it an academic journal. nonetheless, as an self-described educated man, you should be ashamed for resorting to such lazy, ineffectual, and self-aggrandizing language when trying to make a point in ANY debate, online or in a physical conversation.

"too bad you appear to use your gift to demean and browbeat others instead of for the benefit of mankind"

pfft. again, there's the self-aggrandizing language. wishful thinking does NO ONE any benefit.