Fun Tails

Isn't Reichen Lemkuhl just fucking HAWT? He certainly makes *my* little gay soldier stand at attention.

Because any candidate who openly supported gay marriage would never stand a chance of winning a primary, much less a general election. There's a limit to how far idealistic stances will get you in politics. Real progress doesn't come from politicians, anyways, so they're irrelevant. If Martin Luther King had been an office holder he'd never have been as successful as he was. Queer activists, advancing education through things like the gay pride events and anti-bullying programs are where the battle for queer equality will truly be won. And, of course, by the gallant, iron-willed souls who dare to live openly in oppressive communities and strike a blow for progress by their mere presence.

Did you get laid at least? Getting drunk is a waste of time unless you get sex out of it...

Also, to add. I think this case could be humongous in its reach because California is 1/8 the population of the USA and probably has 1/5 of the gay population. If gay marriage starts happening there, they will become visible throughout the coutnry very quickly. Soon, states like FL and Wisconsin etc are going to have to deal with gays married in California who move there and want to adopt or jointly own holiday property there etc. This could force the whole country to accept gay marriage as a fact of life, even if they don't like it. ------------ On a sad note, CNN says that an appeal of the decision is likely.

Just before this announcement FoX News had a legal expert on, going on about how the Cali. Court was conservative and wasn't likely to stick its neck out and be 'activist' against the law of the legislature etc. Then they broke for a commerical advertising a Christian Rock CD collection. Fair and balanced, my hairy left nut...

Yeah, my last question got posted at the end of page one, so it's easy to overlook. Here it is again: How hard has it been to stay faithful to your wife? Back before, when I was religous, I had pretty much resigned myself to marrying a woman. I figured that the mere physical closeness of sex would be enough of a turn on that I'd be able to um perform when needed but, that if I had to, I'd fantasize about guys when I had sex with her so I could get it up. ANy thoughts on this area?

So Pecman, you don't think Juveniles and adults should be treated differently?

I'm not following how this: justifies this:

Des just made me realize that I *do* have murderers in my neighborhood. One of my Dad's employees killed his step-brother over money. He served his time and ended up being a pretty decent father and member of society. He has a reputation as a quiet, softspoken guy who does not drink and never ever fights or quarrels. One of my friends has a step dad who killed his first wife (motivation unknown). By her account he's been a good stepdad to her and he's also a guy with a reputation for staying out of trouble.

I agree that the Texas standard seems messed up, but I fail to see why a federal code is the solution. The Texas law can be changed at the state level. Instituting a Federal code seems like an unnecessary solution that impinges on the 'laboratory of ideas' model of statehood. Don't forget that it was the right of states to set their own rules that allowed gay marriages and unions to take hold in many places at a time when George W. Bush and the religious agenda were in control of the Federal government. Massachussets and other states have therefore been able to make the case to the rest of the country that gay marriage doesn't destroy society.

I got to agree with Graeme's comment that locking a 14 year old away for 10 years is a hell of a long time. Think of how much the average person can change in 10 years of normal life, much less 10 years of punishment. I can't see the point of punishing him past that age. I realize you feel that as the one closest to being 14 in this discussion, that you understand how rational this kid was. What I think you're missing is the flip side of that, which Graeme touched on. You aren't old enough to realise how much more mature people get by 25. I was a very mature kid from an early age. YET, the me of 14 had hugely different ideas about right and wrong and justice than the me of 25. And the me of 25 was kind of naive compared to the me of today, come to think of it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To answer your other question... If this kid came to live in my neighborhood at age 25, I wouldn't be scared for my safety. Most murders are crimes born of emotion and even in the remote possibility that those circumstances occur again, it's unlikely that the person would choose to kill again.

Can't argue with the court here. THe bonehead voters made this law and now all the court can do is enforce it.

And my question, Anthony?

Anthony, what form did the pressure to get married take? I know I'm feeling a some of it now and it's usually in the form of 'when're you gonna settle down and give your mother some grandkids?" Thankfully, my brother got twins recently so a lot of that approach has eased up. -------------------------- How hard has it been to stay faithful to your wife? Back before, when I was religous, I had pretty much resigned myself to marrying a woman. I figured that the mere physical closeness of sex would be enough of a turn on that I'd be able to um perform when needed but, that if I had to, I'd fantasize about guys when I had sex with her so I could get it up. ANy thoughts on this area?

Wow, I'm glad you decided to stop by this thread. I recently completed a short story that touches on the way older gay men got married to women back in the bad old days. (The story will be emailed to the Dude for posting when revisions and editing are done in a couple days time.) I would be interested to hear about how life as a married gay man was. Are you out now to anyone in your family? Of course, the bad old days are still with us in many ways. I have a 22 year old gay friend from a religious family who got married to a girl last year because he felt it was what he was supposed to do. Lately he's been hinting to me that he misses the gay side of life. I think he's contemplating stepping out on his wife.

Wow. you really are a hippie. ------------------ Well, dude, all I can say is that as long as we disagree on the efficacy of science and capitalism we'll just have to go our separate ways for this thread. (Though you could probably start another thread about Capitalism if you want to take up that part of the argument.)

I never said this world was perfect. So obviously you are right to point out the abuses of power that exist in the world. What I am pointing out in opposition is that this age we live in is the most free, safest and most prosperous age of all human history. Take any measure of human progress, like literacy, infant mortality or starvation and you will find that humanity is better off now than ever before. A large part of that is that we now have a system that rewards people for being smarter, not for being a better fighter or a better hunter. A little prone to hyperbole are we? Science isn't Elzar in the kitchen, you know (A little bit of this and a little bit of that and Bam!)

By 'christian gene' I meant a gene that many already speculate does exist which makes people more likely to be religious. (not necessarily Christian, but I called it that so I could have a catchy name) Intelligent people, by and large, are more law abiding and see more gain in a fair and moral society than less intelligent people. It therefore seems to me that, far from creating a master-race of overlords, the creation of more geniuses will allow for development of a society that has more opportunity for all. I mean, philosophically speaking, there is no difference between rich people giving their kids intelligence genes and rich people giving their kids a Harvard education. Having private education, the best of which is accesible only to those with money, has not lead to less freedom, but to more. We live in the most democratic age ever, today. As for your charge of fascism, There is more dictatorialism in denying people the chance to use this technology.

I don't say this often, but, wow, what a bitch...

Lots to say, but I'll stick to 2 points for simplicity's sake. 1) What's wrong with manipulating genes for a Mozart or Einstien? 2) What would your views be on the 'christian gene' I gave as a 'what if'? Would you be against such a screening?

I'm still hoping to hear more about the questions I asked, especially if young gays feel pressured to get into a hetero normative relationship and how much monogamy matters. (I think the few younger ones who've posted so far say it's important. I was very struck in the article by the two divorced gays. They spoke about feeling pressure to stay married when the relationship went bad to prove that gays were normal. I certainly think that *I* would feel that same way in the same situation. BTW, I'm 29. Am I a young gay or an old gay?

To help clarify my position on this, let me offer up a counter-example. I am an atheist. I find irrational beliefs of all kinds imfuriating. There is some evidence that some people are more genetically disposed to be religious or open to irrational beliefs. Now, if a genetic screening procedure was ever created that would stop my kid turning out to be a Christian or a Muslim, I want to have it. I *will* use it. To me, the choice genetics will offer us in the future, to choose and customise many aspects of our children, is a plus and should be given leeway. Genes for homosexuality, gray eyes, height, large penises, intelligence, curly hair, pointy ears... all of them should be available for selection or deselection if the technology exists. --------------- As a further examination of this idea, let me ask you this Des, Would it be OK with you if the parents of a fetus decided they WANTED a gay child and CHANGED their heterosexual kid into a gay kid? It's very likely that this choice will be made, since the example of deaf parents shows that parents often pick 'bad' genes for their kids. Suppose a pair of healthy parents decided that they didn't want their child to be deaf or to be a dwarf. Those aren't immoral or (in the modern world) unhealthy options. WOuld you prohibit parents from choosing to have a deaf or dwarf child if that child could be made physically perfect? After all, deafness and dwarfism are also part of the human experience.

The only danger I see here is Throckmorton using the APA forum to try legitimize himself after with patients etc. Other than that, I hope he does go to that forum and I hope he gets his ass handed to him by the other participants when they challenge him on his lack of evidence and results. As an aside, I know I'm opening a can of worms here, but I don't accept the article;s criticism of Albert Mohler. I think that if a gay gene is ever identified and a way to reverse it found that parents SHOULD be able to reverse it. Even if they're removing it because they think it's sinful, etc, I see no problem with it. *Fixed

I've been noticing a divide for a while now between younger gays who grew up with a bit more freedom and older gays who lived with more discrimination and stigma. This article in the NY Times seems to be a case in point: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/magazine/27young-t.html (Note, the article is long, requires you to register and login and will only be available online for about a week) I'm very interested in what you guys think about a few themes that come up in the article Are younger gays REALLY that into marriage? Is monogamy more or less of an issue in gay relationships with younger people? Is there pressure on young gay guys to get married and stay married?

I'm surprised to hear the verdict went this way. In the past the courts have usually ruled that schools have the right to prevent students from wearing clothes that would be 'disruptive'. Usually, that was in cases of kids with pro drug legalisation messages etc. I always thought those decisions were wrongheaded. I agree with the court this time that bigotted students hsould be allowed to broadcast their bigotry. I just hope they continue this trend when other students start wearing clothes with controversial messages "Eat a queer fetus for Jesus!" (I actually saw that on a bumper sticker once)