News

Comments (27)

• Carmstrong 09/09/2009 4:53:36 PM

  We human beings may or may not like, or even accept the fact that our collective actions continue causing the demise of entire civilizations, but history records this fact over and over. We ignore history; why? Sex is the root of much human deviancy, deviancy from species propagation in particular. Maybe we humans find sex an entertaining element in our existence, but the reality is that sex is species propagation-centric, not a form of pleasure-centric pass time, as the current world view in vogue appears to list it as being. Preoccupation with same-sex sexual activities-as-pleasure is limited to exactly that, a non-reproductive, pleasure-centric pass time, and one that history has shown over and over to literally seed the demise of every civilization that embraced the "Lifestyle," of more precisely termed, the "Deathstyle." Not only is homosexual-centric relationship un-productive in species propagation, it has historically produced a mindset of violent reaction to anyone who shows any level of objection - witness the so-called "Hate Crimes Bill now in our U.S. Congress, that provides for sexual molesting of minors by homosexuals (Yes it does! - read the bill!!) - and it also goes on to give homos the right to take offensive action against anyone considered a threat! - and then, historically, the mindset continues its digression of the mental stability of its homo victims into self-destructive activities. Don't agree? Maybe you consider your own homo mindset above the possibility of being consumed by the disease of historical homosexual degeneracy? Think again, as just this activity of denial of consequences for maintaining a homosexual lifestyle have lulled millions into their untimely demise over the course of history. Contrary to the excuse factories that people are born with homosexual genes that define their orientation, the reality is that the individual's mind literally reformats the dominant cells and sexual hormonal characteristics that develop pre-birth. Every person born can change personal sexual orientation, thus reducing the claim of gene-guided orientation. Perhaps the worst offense that is caveat with the homosexual deviancy from best-interest heterosexual mindset is that exceedingly overwhelming end result of continued, and socially-broadened homosexual conduct; human species genocide. There is no war, no other disease, and no known genocide agent that so mercilessly destroys a species anywhere like the historical homosexual beast. This is where we can best determine the existence of a Sovereign Creator of Humankind, and of all else. The Creator gives Mankind enough "rope" to literally destroy almost all his species, then Creator simply yanks the foreshortened rope back, and from the homosexually-devastated ashes, raises a new generation with enough memory of the heinous aftermath of the mass destruction caused by homosex mentality to make commitment to never allow its formation again. But that resolve is again worn off in succeeding layers of progeny, and homosex is again practiced for a little time, before it again destroys all its victims, and most of the society that turned a blind eye toward those who embraced it. It's history, folks; study on it.

• patrick 09/01/2009 3:45:34 PM

  i think it's unconstitutional for any any anti gay marriage law to even come to a vote, for the simple fact that gays are a minority, and if it came to a vote it would be the conservative majority voting against the gays, the majority against the minority, that is un-american.

• Lorena Garcia 08/31/2009 4:57:23 PM

  Kevin, Thanks for the article. It was a wonderful eye opening indication of how our society is, but fails to admit. Amanda and I would love to be married in Texas, but have to go across the country to be legally declared married. Keep writing, we are listening. Always, Lorena

• Reggie 08/31/2009 1:38:09 AM

  The answer to the fundamental question raised by the article, have straights already destroyed marriage, is a simple "no." But of course, anyone who is paid by the word, or has a homosexual agenda, wouldn't phrase it like that.

• Kevin Phinney 08/30/2009 10:19:25 AM

  Perhaps some folks missed the point of my bringing PACS into the discussion. My intention was to illustrate how more heterosexual couples than ever are sidestepping both church and state in order to establish a bond that resonates for them, irrespective of any outside regulations, traditions or judgments to the contrary. I do agree that the clause "having to invite the Holy Roman Catholic Church" might have been better served had I mentioned civil marriage yet again. So while it may seem parsing for some, I appreciate the nuanced scrutiny -- it's a sign of a reader paying close attention, and one can never be too grateful for that.

• Ray 08/30/2009 10:15:14 AM

  I understand that civil and religious marriages in France are separate entities, however, heterosexual couples are still using the PACS to get around some of the connotations of civil marriage. It is my understanding that although a couple may have participated in a PACS, they are still considered single in certain respects other than taxation and property law. Basically, as Mr. Phinney is suggesting, straights are using the PACS because they recognize that the institution of marriage is an antiquated system that assumes an inequality of power between parties. In our modern world, I think that a larger portion of couples (both straight and gay) consist of members that are closer to equals in terms of education, social status, and earning potential. A bas la difference!

• Paul 08/29/2009 11:02:45 AM

  The same old arguments from people against gay marriage. Gays are already getting married, as they belong to churches which will marry them. Also, marriage had been restricted to couples of the same race and the opposite sex, and a serious fight was put up over that and eventually marriage was redefined to include interracial couples. It's not as if people involved in interracial coupling couldn't get married, they just had to marry a person of the same race, right? I mean, interracial coupling is as much of a choice as same-sex coupling. If homosexuality isn't a choice then same-sex coupling is even less of a choice. And while a white man and a black woman in a relationship have little choice over what race they are, so too do a man and a man in a relationship have little choice over what gender they are. If banning interracial marriage was considered unconstitutional, I don't understand how banning same-sex marriage can be legal? You find anal sex disgusting? Then don't do! You act as if couples are going to be having anal sex in public. Nevermind the fact that not all same-sex couples have anal sex. Look at lesbians, not likely to have anal sex and they actually have a GREATER fidelity rate than heterosexuals! You act as if what the couple next door is doing somehow sullies your own marriage. Do the swingers next door sully your marriage every time they wife swap at a swingers convention? Oh, as long as they're straight, I'm sure swinging is ok. Why haven't the defenders of marriage done something to defend marriage from wife swappers, or divorce? Because this has NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE. It has to do with keeping a group of citizens down because some people take pleasure in seeing others miserable and denied. There are a few fringe people who do it out of ideology, but if those were the only ones supporting their side, they would lose. The same people who did not want to see women as equals, as happy, or did not want to see black people as equals, as happy, do not want to see gay people as equals, as happy. Draw whatever differences you want and demonize gay people all you wish, at heart these movements were all motivated by the same kind of people, and they were all losing battles. As long as there is even just one decent, upstanding gay citizen, with a healthy, respectable relationship with their partner, both making positive contributions to this society, they deserve to be treated equally and have their relationship treated equally by the government that they pay taxes to.

• Matthew Ellis 08/29/2009 3:26:19 AM

  One of the strongest, well informed papers I've read in a while. It brings up many good points for those able and willing to hear them.

• Reggie 08/28/2009 10:20:26 PM

  I'm straight, been married 23+ years now to my permanent soul mate, and my parents just had their 61st anniversary. Some people have problems in their marriage, but I am not one of them. Any problems some people may be having, are their own problems. To me, marriage is not screwed up at all. To suggest that it somehow is screwed up or ruined already, is a thinly veilled attempt to suggest that straights have nothing to lose by redefining the word marriage. That strategy won't work, and cannot work, because there are plenty of us straights out here with excellent marriages. And by the way, if you hadn't noticed, I'm posting from Minneapolis, once and perhaps still the #2 city in the nation for homosexual population, behind only San Francisco. I do know several gays, including three who are close friends plus a lesbian couple and one TGirl.

• 7 12/31/1969 6:00:00 PM

  7

• 7 12/31/1969 6:00:00 PM

  7

• DP 08/28/2009 6:06:40 PM

  The people have spoken.. Not many folks listen to the "religious right" leaders you like to blame for this. I voted against gay marriage strictly for my own reasons as did the majority of california.... twice.. Sorry, again the people have spoken.

• John S. 08/28/2009 2:11:16 PM

  Although I'm a fairly devout Mormon, I have to agree with Kevin: 1% of all marriages being gay versus 50% of all marriage ending in divorce... what's the bigger threat to society?

• Bill 08/28/2009 1:19:24 PM

  To comment on Gil's posts about indoctrinating children into a lifestyle, wouldn't all of the rites of the Catholic church count. I don't know too many Catholics who wait until their children are 18 to let them decide if they want to be baptized, recieve communion or be confirmed.

• A Quiles 08/28/2009 1:04:15 PM

  Great article but I agree with comment #8: the part on the French PACS has a BIG mistake: in France only civil marriages are valid, Church marriages are, legally, just a ceremony. So people are not "pacsing" because they want to avoid the catholic church, but because they do not want to marry, just that. I personally think it is a residue from the Left of the 60s which tended to see the institution of marriage (civil one) as something "bourgeois" and not modern at all. These guys did not want to seem conservative, but they also wanted the tax benefits and recognition to their partners. Thus PACS was born.

• jadeataii 08/28/2009 11:49:26 AM

  Excellent article. I wish you and your beau the best, and I sincerely hope your optimistic outlook on what is to come for marriage is the correct one.

• John Doe 08/28/2009 11:38:46 AM

  It's not a choice to be a woman or black, but it is a choice to be gay, so they're subjecting themselves to persecution. Oh, and why is it that gays are trying to make it legal to be married? It makes no sense, a marriage is between a man and a woman, and has been for thousands of years. I don't care if they're together or on what level they're relationship is on, just don't allow them to ruin a tradition that is, and always should be, exclusive to straight couples.

• Gil Costello 08/28/2009 10:38:10 AM

  There is no denying that the sexual revolution is on a roll: abortion as a form of birth control, divorce, escalating incidents of sexually transmitted diseases, and now gay marriage, and even some of my Catholic friends tell me to just let it go, that the war is not only won - it has been institutionalized! Gay marriage is just a matter of time. For example, there are many persons who truly believed they were gay who ended up exiting that identity. These are honest persons who have become anathema in contemporary culture after the almost complete victory of the sexual revolution. They have no voice in popular culture, and will certainly never appear on Oprah. They have been thoroughly ostracized. Even gay leadership will admit there is no way to definitively determine what child is gay when experiencing same-sex attraction, simply because that attraction might simply be a stage in the child’s maturation (the majority of children who experience same-sex attraction don't stay in that place). Yet many counselors who hear from children about their experience of same-sex attraction immediately refer the children to gay support groups where they will be encouraged to embrace a gay identity. This is an act of violence against children. No child at any time should be taken and indoctrinated into any identity – gay, straight or anything else. But this is only because I am certain that all sexual identities are reductive and destructive of the truly rich and complex nature of identity (John Waters got in big trouble when asked where the gay movement should go now, and he said that gays should get rid of the notion of sexual identity). We have thrown out all that we have learned about narcissistic personality disorders’ effects on sexuality and the neuroscientific evidence that clearly demonstrates that repetitive thoughts, images and behavior can actually change the structure of the brain, resulting in permanent propensities, sexual and otherwise, that eventually become orientations. We can’t look at any of this if we are going to accommodate the sexual revolution. The reason I continue on in what seems to be a losing battle is conscience and a rejection of complacency, and as a Catholic it isn’t so hard, knowing of the futility that entered the world after the Fall.

• Taylor Morrison 08/28/2009 5:58:47 AM

  I can't see gays destroying the marriage union or the marriage society. It's already crumbling with divorce and infidelity. Hollywood has helped make marriage appear to be nothing but a joke and honoring it they will never do. They like to make movies that are filled with infidelity and when you do this for years then the image of a good solid marriage begins to be eroded and the material that is shown in movies is played out in the lives of real people. mercedes front bumper mercedes bumper

• Gerard Koskovich 08/27/2009 9:17:55 PM

  The discussion of marriage and the PACS in France is misinformed on one key point: Unlike the United States, civil marriage and religious marriage in France are completely distinct. Marriage in a Catholic church (or any other religious institution) bestows no civil status, rights or privileges whatsoever. All couples must get married at City Hall to have their marriage recognized by the state. They're also free to have a separate religious marriage ceremony if they wish, but that rite is utterly ignored by the state and bestows only religious recognition.

• Joe McDoogle 08/27/2009 5:33:36 PM

  my very simple minded dad with a very conservative outlook and despises homosexual relationships very very much. Said it like this, when I was having a discussion with him and he was having an argument with me, about why christian/religious/conservatives oppose Gay Marriage is. "it's going to take away his life" that cute little story in the bible says God destroyed a city 'S&G' because of homosexuals... he thinks it can happen again, bringing his life to a premature end.... I told him a person that you are denying their rights is gonna do the premature ending...

• Gil Costello 08/27/2009 5:16:23 PM

  Yes, I agree: the sexual revolution was waged mostly by heteros. I was part of that revolution, and would live to regret it, especially with all the dead babies, destroyed teens and abandoned children (even the ones dressed well and doing good in school).

• Gil Costello 08/27/2009 12:20:31 PM

  Ah, censorship. A trait shared lovingly by both left and right, a kind of wedding ring. It reminds me how Trent Reznor censored the Leonard Cohen line "Kill another fetus now - we don't like children anyhow" when he included Leonard's apocalyptic song "The Future" on the soundtrack of Natural Born Killers.

• Kevin 08/27/2009 11:35:36 AM

  Gil---well reasoned and articulate response, albeit to a very specific point, particularly from a catholic perspective and a child advocacy perpective, however this begs the question for those couples who are neither catholic (nor christian) and not raising children, either because of age, economic status or interest. Also, those same sex unions that do have children, even if not optimal, is better than having children aborted, placed in foster homes, single parent homes or a child of divorce. How many children are in households as described in the previous sentence (other than aborted, of course)? yet, divorce laws are lenient, single parent biths represent 40% of current births, 50% of couples divorce.....really---shouldn't these "family issues" be addressed as far more urgent than same sex marriage? Would this not help the "majority" of families? I mean allowing same sex marriage may be considered adding insult to injury, but homosexuals did not degrade the concept of meaning of marrige---heterosexuals did that on their own.

• Gil Costello 08/27/2009 11:20:51 AM

  Back in the '60s, many fundamentalist Christians objected to gay rights because they claimed once you embrace that lifestyle, gays will begin protesting that their lifestyle should be taught in schools, and the refrain from the leaders of the gay community was unanimous: "We don't want to indoctrinate anyone into anything. We want to be left alone! What you are witnessing from these Christians is a fear-based, homophobic mindset." Now here we are in the year 2009 and the leadership of the gay movement wants precisely what the homophobes said they want. We should not be teaching children that harmful sexual practices prevalent in the gay lifestyle are normal. Anal sex, for instance, is claimed by many gays to be a form of intimacy equal to vaginal sex. The only problem with this claim is that there is nothing inherently or medically wrong with vaginal intercourse, but anal intercourse is always an assault on the body, regardless how much masochistic delight a person, male or female, experiences. This is a medical fact - no way around it. Why would anyone want to lie to children concerning this medically proven hazard? To grant gay marriage is in fact modeling and encouraging sexual behavior that is extremely dangerous (anal sex is now taught in sex education classes as being harmless if you wear a condom). Holland has done away with every aspect of "discrimination" against gays, including the proscription of marriage. Yet all of Holland’s most recent and purely scientific studies on the lifestyle of gays clearly show that the damaging aspects of that culture have not abated since the total embracing of that lifestyle. Keep in mind that the gay leadership throughout their history has claimed that the high suicide rate, drug and alcohol addiction and premature death involving sex practices is only the result of discrimination. In other words, wipe out the discrimination and gays will fit neatly into the medical statistics of straights. Guess what? The medical evidence is glaring that this just won't happen, regardless how much we desire to wish it away. Let's not force children to seriously consider embracing a lifestyle that dances at death's door.

• Kevin 08/27/2009 11:45:07 AM

  Gil---3 questions....when you state things are "facts" references would be nice, as your "facts" are not self-evident(nor, do I believe correct). Second, it is not a "lifestyle" any more than being a christian, or woman or black is leading a lifestyle...do you believe blacks lead a certain "lifestyle"??? it's called living a "life". Third, although my writing will not influence you in the least, please remember that civil marriage is quite different than religious marriage, and we do not all believe in your religious constructs.

• Chef Thunder 08/26/2009 10:31:09 AM

  Nice article. Remember there are 1,000s of State & Federal Laws as well as numerous international agreements that use the word marriage. For us to try and implement a different system would be time consuming at the very least. During integration many places in the south did things like close swimming pools rather than let them be integrated, thereby following the letter of the law if not its intent. The push to domestic partnership laws often feels much more like a way to deny LGBT people the right to get married then a way to protect us. Washington families Standing Together www.wafst.org the organization working hard to protect the domestic partnership law (We are years away from full marriage equality here) in Washington State needs volunteers and money. I know many people have been waiting to give until this qualifies…It is highly unlikely that that we won’t be voting on this in November. www.wafst.org needs money now so they can continue to prepare for what promises to be a very ugly fight. Get involved “all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing”. A vote to APPROVE referendum 71 is a vote to retain Washington’s domestic partnership law.