The Same People

NEWSWEEK

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: softwarelaw @ 06/01/2008 8:55:59 AM

    Only amoung the far left liberals is the debate over. Anna - America is not a left-wing nation.

    Anna - homosexiality is not like being a woman - people are born man and woman, but no one is born homosexual. Homosexuality is learned.

    If Anna and the liberal totalitarian justices knew that the justification for marriage is not the interests of the indivuals, but rather the the justification is the state's interest in stable marriages that produce successful children for the future stability of the nation, Anna and the liberal justices would reject the underlying public policy behind legalized homosexual marriage.

    • Posted By: InTheSouth @ 06/01/2008 8:32:12 PM

      So you're suggesting that making gay marriage legal will make straight marriages more unstable? That everyone will turn gay and stop reproducing? That the whole marriage system will come crashing down? lol. Straight people are gonna get married and reproduce regardless of whether gay marriage is legal or illegal. Besides, "stability" hasn't been a frequent strongpoint in marriage for quite some time, despite gay marriage being illegal.

    • Posted By: TGCA @ 06/01/2008 4:21:09 PM

      As a gay male, I believe that gay marriage would not be good for society so I do not support it. However, I do not think you can so definitively state that homosexuality is learned. I think in certain circumstances that may be true but I do not believe it is the norm. You may believe that but there has been no definitive proof of that yet, and many studies have shown just the opposite, though those same studies have also not proved it was hereditary.

      I can tell you that I was raised in the same environment as two straight brothers and two straight sisters, yet I turned out different from them though we shared the same experiences and environment growing up. I knew from the youngest age, probably 4 or 5 that I was somehow different from others but I did not know how or understand it; I just knew I was different and I was not thinking about sex at that age either. I knew from the earliest age that boys just don???t show affection to other boys the way they do to girls. My point is, I do not believe there was any factors in my youth that taught me homosexuality, especially since I grew up in a very liberal but very macho environment where any feminine characteristics in a male were strongly discouraged and almost always subject to ridicule by adults and children alike. In fact, I remember most of the woman in my family (mom and aunts) often spoke of gay men they encountered disparagingly. So my personal belief, though I cannot prove it, is that I was born that way. Every gay male I know who I have discussed this with seems to have had this exact same experience. Growing up gay in the 70???s and 80???s was not easy and I do not know any gay male that would willingly choose this lifestyle because it could be very isolating and painful at times. Just as straight guys and girls do not choose what gender to be attracted to; it just seems to come naturally. No matter how much I tried to change it???and I did, it was not natural. I dated girls but it just was not the same and like many gay men, I finally accepted my sexuality and moved on, as I see my sexuality as only a part of me, and not the most important part of me. So I respectfully disagree with your statement that ???homosexuality is learned.???

  • Posted By: Toujours @ 05/31/2008 11:54:04 PM

    Great piece. I'm very happy that ignorant people like BoGilles and others will be aging out. In the future, people will view this time the way we view the Civil Rights Movement today. It WILL happen and there's nothing that you can do about it. Come on, BoGilles, tell the truth -- you oppose gay marriage because the idea of two guys kissing freaks you out. Well, get ready, because it's here to stay.

    • Posted By: lulu20 @ 06/01/2008 4:28:05 PM

      The fight against slavery and racism is historic. Homosexuality is not historic. Many societies have embraced homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia, prostitution and in every instance the loss of morality has ultimatly destroyed every single one. People often mock how uptight the British always were. Look what it did for their society. Having structure, rules, social pressures is what makes a society thrive. Racism is in no way related to gay "marriage." A lesbian relationship has no husband and gay couple no wife. This is not mean or cruel it's a clearly defined word. We give a word value to change the definition because some fully grown adults are getting their feelings hurt is silly. It's time to accept the reality of that life choice. It means you cannot procreate with your partner, you can't be "man and wife" you can't be "married." That's life. I can't be 6 ft tall. Should I ask the world to redefine what 6 ft tall means so I can be?

      • Posted By: InTheSouth @ 06/01/2008 8:12:45 PM

        lol homosexuality is not historic? Then how do you explain it being such a big political issue? Homosexuality has always been around.Yes many cultures have been much more tolerant of it then the U.S. and there is absolutely no evidence that it has ever led to the destruction of any of them. Speaking of the British, did you know that King Richard the Lion Hearted was gay? How's that for historic? And Britain is still standing, even though it had a gay king. Amazing. Socrates and Alexander the Great were also gay,or at least bisexual, just to name a couple more historic figures. The Roman Army was one of the most powerful and innovative in history. It was common practice among it's soldiers to have homosexual relationships. They believed it made them stronger as a fighting force and it was not considered abnormal or unusual by Roman society. Homosexuality not historical? What a laugh.

  • Posted By: Rubbersoul4163 @ 06/01/2008 3:59:47 PM

    TGCA, I am curious if you are a trained sociologist?? As one, I will firmly come out and say that you are WRONG about second marriages lasting longer than first ones. It is a well known fact that people that have divorced once are MUCH more likely to do it a second and even third time. Before you go spouting off facts, you really should check them, or hope that someone like me does not call you out of them. As for polygamy, it has actually been the normal form of marriage across time and space, throughout the world. "One man and one woman" is actually a relatively new form of marriage, historically. If you are opposed to gay marriage, that is one thing, but please do not make comments about things you clearly do not understand or know about.

    • Posted By: TGCA @ 06/01/2008 6:09:33 PM

      I apologize for my error and should clarify my intended comments. What I was trying to get at was that within different demographics 2nd marriages can last significantly longer. You are correct that I should not have extrapolated that across the board. My real point was to challenge the original poster???s comment which implied that gay relationships are just as stable or more stable than hetero ones. That is absurd and no existing study or experience supports that! Personally, as someone with some background in statistical studies, I do not always agree with the way numbers are taken to support studies no matter what point of view they support. However, sometimes you do not need a detailed study to refute obvious erroneous claims. In addition, I would like to see some divorce rate statistics related to very specific demographics such as race, religion, and economics. Though I have no proof, my guess would be that the divorce rate of white, Hispanic, and Asians who are devout, conservative, suburban Christians with a middle-income status would have lower divorce rates than their opposites in the metro areas where large gay cultures tend to thrive, which would then skew the statistics that the poster was trying to reference. In addition, not everyone divorces either, as there are permanent separations to consider in statistical analysis. I was trying to compare apples to apples, in a short concise manner and I did a bad job of that, so I apologize if that offended you.

      I would also like to address your apparent anger by what I admit was a mistake I made. Just because you are in a field does not make you an expert at it either, whereas others cannot have a point of view. Many professionals in the same field often disagree. That is prevalent in my own field too, where I hold advanced degree. It is ironic because I just gave a speech last week in which I addressed that being professionally trained does not always mean you are right or make the right decisions. And to be more specific, the soft sciences are much more difficult to prove because some things do not lend themselves to proof, and this includes social sciences, psychology, psychiatry, and even statistics. I noticed you only addressed the one mistake I made but did not address the crux of my argument, and you did not address the author of the article who made incorrect assumptions and flagrant errors (she evidently does not understand tax law and should acquaint herself with the concept of the marriage penalty before suggesting married couples benefit most in tax rules). I wonder if it was my mistake or my viewpoint that riled you the most. If it was the latter, than I understand. It just seems suspicious to me that you did not give equal time to arguing against the author???s viewpoint, which as a trained sociologist, you would know that no evidence exists to support all her claims or other posters positions

  • Posted By: lulu20 @ 06/01/2008 4:00:38 PM

    I didn't know the debate was over. It's interesting to me how there is an assumption by Anna and many others that we are simply to naive and ignorant to realize that not supporting gay "marriage" is equivocal to not supporting interracial marriage. I would argue that it is equivocal to not supporting polygamy. Consenting adults - different interpretation - historical precedent: all similar and neither changes the fact that both are bad for society. Both as accepted norms would dramatically change our society and both when they've been taken up by societies have been detrimental. Polygamy is harmful to less affluent men's prospects and is sometimes argued as to true cause of terrorism. Gay marriage changes the moral compass of our nation. Proof? Anna's comments about her sons. There was a time when a gay person was truly gay. They were disgusted by the idea of intimacy with an opposite sex person and were drawn exclusively to same sex relationships. In the past 50 years we have found all people are "bi" to one degree or another and most young people now "experiment" with same sex relationships, group sex, and as we recall most of our television programs assume it's normal. Sex in the City one of the women had a temporary relationship with another woman, friends and scrubs have shown same sex kissing. So the argument is that by trying to normalize homosexuality we our creating a "bisexual" generation. This is an unnatural over sexing of our youth. When I was young no one ever questioned if they "might be gay or bi. one benefit of this is that when a friend of mine admitted she was a lesbian we all knew it already. She was different and it was obvious. Doesn't mean it's her fault somehow - doesn't mean she was no longer my friend, but it does mean she'll never be married. Marriage is already defined. I'm tired of grown adults getting their feelings hurt. Big deal you can't call yourself married. It's no one else's fault that your relationship doesn't fit the traditional guidelines. Accept the reality and feel free to fight for better rights for the relationship you do in fact have. It is sad to me that we can't see how our parents said showing elvis' hips on tv could change our society. Sounds so silly now - but then I've seen madonna and a girl young enough to be her daughter making out on the evening news. Being over sexualized doesn't seems to have been good for brittany - don't think it's good for our kids today, but maybe I'm wrong, because I hear the debate is over.

    • Posted By: EQUALITY @ 06/01/2008 5:56:55 PM

      lulu20.......you make me sad to be a straight person! Its people like you that will not allow this country to move forward. Change is good, it may be uncomfortable for you older folks, but good nonetheless! How can you equate homosexuality with polygamy, there is no comparisson! I think that you probably were not loved enough as a child, therfore, your afraid of allowing others to share love! This issue is over, over time like Anna said this will be another stich in the history of our nations fabric! Also have you wathced televisoin lately? Your worried about a couple of GAYS KISSING on TV? You can watch just about any television show, commercial, etc. and see all sorts of STRAIGHT FOLKS kissing, having sex, abusing children, divorcing....I just dont get your comparrisons...but then again I'm probably demented for supporting LOVE, CHANGE, AND EQUALITY!! I hope you find peace!

  • Posted By: Mark In Irvine @ 06/01/2008 5:11:46 PM

    "Democratic Party Liberals are determined to take away freedom, and to replace majority rule with politically correct dictatorship."

    Funny - it's the so-called religious folks who are trying to dictate to people who they may and may not marry.

  • Posted By: Mark In Irvine @ 06/01/2008 5:04:50 PM

    "Democratic Party Liberals are determined to take away freedom, and to replace majority rule with politically correct dictatorship."

    Funny - it's the so-called religious folks who are trying to dictate to people who they may and may not marry.

  • Posted By: damitajo1 @ 06/01/2008 5:04:08 PM

    Honestly, this should be a nonissue. Who cares about same- sex marriage so much but the most homophobic. Honestly, opinion polls show that most gay people don't even care about it anymore. Marriage rates are declining across the country, and divorce rates are skyrocketing. The "two people, living in the suburbs with kids and a dog and white fence" sounds drab.....And is not really how most people are living these days. Is there anything more progressive we can deal with than this?

  • Posted By: jcsid @ 06/01/2008 10:57:48 AM

    Unlike many of the posts below, I agree with the author. I am high school teacher and a mother of three children. We live on a farm and I drive a minivan to soccer, baseball and to the YMCA. We are active volunteers in our community, members of the PTO, home room parents and attend church most Sundays. While people will always have different opinions and make different choices for themselves, today's young people have a very tolerant "live and let live" attitude. They are a generation that accepts differences. Whether it's hair style, fashion, music or politics, they don't all fit into the same box anymore. "Yeah, so s/he is not the same as I am; so what?" That is their attitude. "What's the big deal?" Years of teaching about diversity and inclusive policies, teaching people not to"judge others" and "do unto others" has finally sunk in. My same sex partner and I have been together for 25 years, and we were married in our church 15 years ago in front of 200 of our closest friends and family. Maybe sometime soon that marriage will be recognized as legal, and we can protect our family like opposite sex couples can. We won't have to worry about if we can see each other or our children in the hospital, we will get the same tax breaks or the other 1100+ federal "special rights" given to those who are heterosexual, we can collect from the social security system (which we have been paying into for decades), we will be able to keep our property in our family in the event of our deaths, we will have the same protections in custody and family courts, and so much more that straight people take for granted. The youth of today are the laws of tomorrow, and it's right around the corner. And, by the way, Kitchenaid is one of the LGBT community's greatest supporters. We love their appliances even if we had to buy them ourselves.

    J

    • Posted By: lulu20 @ 06/01/2008 4:14:30 PM

      It is great that you have found a happy and successful life what you have not found is a husband. Right? Can't call a woman a husband because it doesn't fit the definition. You also don't have a marriage. You are clearly a responsible adult and are living a life you're proud of. If you have concerns about your partners visitation rights etc. work on establishing a better understanding of the relationship you do have.

  • Posted By: carminejd @ 06/01/2008 4:09:33 PM

    I agree, but now for the REALLY big issue; when can we get past the liberal's academic requirement of inter-gender loathing? When will inter-gender relationships again be valued? When will fathers be valued again in families? When will women forgive men for not getting pregnant and for the fact that they do? When will the Church and all the churches get up the gumption to stop hating gays and start helping straight people succeed in marriage? I am a professor of twenty years at a women's university, and trust me it is still considered good taste for women to loathe men.

  • Posted By: keb1980 @ 06/01/2008 4:06:43 PM

    I personally don't have a problem with who marries whom, but I do have a problem comparing gay marriage to the "rights" of abortion... in the beginning of the article, the author said "love wins." How does love win when it involves ending the life of a child? While many can claim the gay marriage issue is settled, the abortion issue will not be settled, because there will always be those who fight for the freedom of all people, regardless of their age or physical or mental development.

    While the scientific and moral debates about gay marriage remain somewhat unsolved, the science and morality behind abortion has been finalized for quite some time. There is no scientific doubt that a fetus is a human being, and the fact that abortion should be "safe and rare" is proof it is not morally sound.

  • Posted By: allgoodnamesgone39 @ 06/01/2008 9:12:29 AM

    I have to agree with Toujours. Just as Racists have begun dying out, soon those bigotted against homosexuals will also begin dying out. My kids and their friends can't see the big deal about gay marriage. They are so much more accepting than their elders. It's so encouraging to see hatred and bigotry decline with each generation. Anna, your right, the debate is really over, of course those who believe the church should run the government and those with hate in the heart will fight on. But it's a pointless fight that they will loose in the end. Gay marriage is inevitable. It may be 10 - 30 years before it's available in all of the States, but there can be no doubt that it's coming. Any one who disagrees, go to a high school, talk to the next generation about their feelings. You'll see the future, one with less hate than today. Makes me smile!!

    • Posted By: TGCA @ 06/01/2008 3:52:38 PM

      I hope you will be equally understanding and smiling when the future allows polygamy and incestual relationships. Those same relationships can be based on love and the only reason they are not allowed today is because we have been taught they are wrong. Though I am against polygamy and incest because I do not think they are healthy for society, I have not seen one argument that can demonstrate how gay love is superior to love demonstrated in polygamy and incest, especially since polygamy has been and is still currently practiced greatly in parts of the world. Allowing gay marriage and not polygamy or incestual marriages is simply political correctness and not based on fairness, and would lead to discrimination. Some things are just not as simple as they appear. In addition, just because times change, it does not mean they change for the better.

  • Posted By: TGCA @ 06/01/2008 3:11:11 PM

    ...contined from a previous post

    Personally, my biggest concern about gay marriage is the indoctrination of children in schools. I was brought up in a very liberal environment and I now realize that many teachers spent too much time trying to change my values to theirs instead of teaching me the basics of education. If gay marriage succeeds, I would bet my life there will be an effort to change school books to reflect that it is also normal to have two mommies and daddies. People will feel pressured to accept the gay marriage concept, and ridiculed or discriminated against if they do not. Here???s an example I foresee happening: a teacher asks the class what their plans are when they grow up and a little girl responds that she wants to be a doctor, marry a nice guy, and have a children. I can envision the teacher responding that her desire is noble but that she may also find that someday she might also want to marry a woman and not just a man so she should be open to that option. I also envision schools being sued to teach gay sex to ALL students because some students may not be out yet or aware they are gay yet or just experimenting, so it is important to include gay sex in the curriculum for everyone. Sorry! But I do not think most parents want schools teaching their children about the importance of safe anal sex.

    Finally, as a gay male, this is painful to admit, but I think society would be best suited if marriage remained a traditional institution. Some things are just too important to our overall well-being as a society to change. If marriage is to be based simply on love, then we will need to consider other alternative lifestyles too such as polygamy and incestual relationships, which though very rare, also may be simply based on love.

  • Posted By: hamiltonr @ 06/01/2008 3:10:28 PM

    Thank you, Anna Quindlen! As a student of history, I am appalled that we only recently banned interracial marriage and argued against blacks and women serving in the military. And I am disgusted still today that we are having the same arguments over a different group of people --gays are a different composite of people, but they have so much in common with women and blacks who have been disenfranchised and discriminated against by our government. I am saddened thinking about the day, 30 years from now, when a younger generation than I question the stupidity of the discrimination that was occurring during the prime of my life and why we couldn't learn from the mistakes of our past.

  • Posted By: hamiltonr @ 06/01/2008 3:09:13 PM

    Thank you, Anna Quindlen! As a student of history, I am appalled that we only recently banned interracial marriage and argued against blacks and women serving in the military. And I am disgusted still today that we are having the same arguments over a different group of people --gays are a different composite of people, but they have so much in common with women and blacks who have been disenfranchised and discriminated against by our government. I am saddened thinking about the day, 30 years from now, when a younger generation than I question the stupidity of the discrimination that was occurring during the prime of my life and why we couldn't learn from the mistakes of our past.

  • Posted By: gommy goomy @ 06/01/2008 2:27:40 PM

    So Anna Banana thinks that the Gay Marraige 'Issue' is settled, and that love won. So, is that it? What about Brothers and Sisters getting married? Wouldn't "LOVE" win then too? What about Father and Daughter, or Mother and Son? Sounds like Love winning, to me. Three or Four gals, to one guy? What about, the other way? A bunch of guys for one gal. THIS, is the idiocy of the Left. "If it feels good, do it". Either they agree to ALL LOVE WINNING, or they should SHUT UP. As for the IMBECILIC, Anna Quindlen, she's right where she belongs. Writing in a dinosaur of a publication, that's only application, is that of proving reading material for guys and gals who find themselves sitting on the toilet in some gas station, somewheres. The Mens' Room and Anna, Perfect together.

  • Posted By: Ezag @ 06/01/2008 1:09:43 PM

    This court decision further undermines the traditional family. Our social programs, tax structure, and legal have been pushed to minimize the role of men in family life. Time will tell whether this assault is a benefit to our society.
    Ezag. .

  • Posted By: Demosthenes @ 06/01/2008 12:42:59 PM

    While I happen to be pro-gay marriage and support all my gay friends an relatives' chance to tie the knot, I think your article is archetypal left-wing tripe in it's structure:

    1. The left-wing argument structure always tries to shut down the other side merely by saying "The Debate is Over." That's so intellectually dishonest that it begs the question of why do you have a Newsweek column. Obviously the debate is not over for millions of people, and even though I disagree with those people, at least I have the decency to consider their argument rather than condescendingly dismissing it as backwards. Elitist crap.

    2. Solving this through the judiciary is just going to place gay marriage in the rancorous ranks of the abortion debate, because 4 entitled, rich judges get to decide what's best for all of us and legislate from the bench. If the people could vote, they may not vote Yes now. But you're right about the grassroots movement. That's how I came to approve of gay marriage. Taking away that chance to change from the people by activist judges will just make them even more resentful of the judiciary, and gay marriage by association.

    Really, this article is a shame to thoughtful pro-gay marriage supporters. And it's one of the many reasons I've just canceled my Newsweek subscription.

  • Posted By: dboc_99 @ 06/01/2008 12:22:32 PM

    Marriage is:
    1. One man, one woman
    2. PRESUMABLY generative BY DESIGN
    3. Permanent
    4. Exclusive

    If marriage is allowed to mean anything, it starts to mean nothing. That would be tragic in the long term for society. Whether or not my marriage crumbles because of gay marriage isn't the issue its what happens to the INSTITUTION that impacts society. Just as one divorce didn't cause my marriage to crumble but divorce has hurt the INSTITUTION of marraige.

  • Posted By: RowanMI @ 06/01/2008 11:45:58 AM

    I have no problems with gay civil unions with the same rights to partners as those that spouses have in marriage. But I don???t want a gay union called marriage. You don???t redefine a centuries-old word to suit your selfish aims. The reason the word is crucial, though, is because they want to force those with a different viewpoint not just to accept, but to endorse their lifestyle.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse