Dogs and Cats living together:

Allot of the folks over in the Raging RINO land are pro-gay marriage/Pro-civil unions. And then we have folks like me. I am lukewarmly tolerant to the idea about civil unions, but I would vote down any presentation of gay marriage –and would make a marginal politician in my mind one I’d be less likely to vote for-

Now that I have your attention let me start you out with some full disclosure: My mother worked in lighting and control systems for a while and I’ve come to know many of her gay coworkers from that period in her life. As a nurse she has had many more. I had a cadre of friends from a gifted school and an art school growing up. And one of my regrets is, at the urging of the offended party, I didn’t raise a stink about some folks in DeMolay who pushed him a tad on his sexuality in an uncool way. (Though he probably shouldn’t have volunteered the information which set them off)

Second full disclosure: I had a Transgendered phase in my life, which allot of folks go through in their awkward teen years but I got over it. And of my readings on human sexuality I have looked at a gambit of things from various time periods.

Now on to what *I* believe.

I don’t believe in heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or omnisexuality. I know they exist and I know people practice these sexual behaviors but I don’t believe they are some fundamental biological imperative. I believe sexual development is a process in your brain that develops for whatever reason your brain grows and becomes what it is.

I also believe relationships (I.E Marriage) don’t have a blessed thing to do about what you do with your tab a, your slot b, or some one else’s tab a and slot b. I believe this is a product of the modern age and the liberation of women. Men plowed the oats but women weren’t viewed as a “proper” oater so they went out and decided to do some of that themselves and so sex became more open and things went more sideways.

Don’t misunderstand me… I am not advocating Misogyny and a return to another day here. I am pointing out that historically sex and relationships were a different set of things. In ancient Rome a male-male lover pair was not viewed as the same thing as a male-female lover pair. You had your male lover but were still expected to marry a woman and produce some sort of continuation of the lineage.

Sexual matters in those ages were products of power, politics, and economics. Today they are emotional and products of being fully actualized in your desires. Marriage was born to fuel the power aspects of sex into organized societal ends. Marriage today is about personal happiness.

We can’t use arguments of a different era’s treatment of “gay” relationships (when the sexuality wasn’t the same) nor can we claim marriage as an unbroken legacy of tradition. Attitudes can and do change.

I want to present civil unions as my political libertarian nature tells me is the “right thing to do” but when I look at the past of the “gay rights movement” and look at what other civil rights movements I am left with a problem “they will use it to try and bully society into giving them shakedowns and the like ala Jesse Jackson.” See sexuality is about power. They sued groups and pressured groups who supported the boy scouts. And in today’s world they can do the same to church groups and any other civic group that dares to disagree. We simply aren’t able to come up with an evolved answer right now as a human family.

In Europe, where such things are more likely to have happened, we see the decay in their birth rate, their family rate, and a far more cavalier attitude in much of Europe about sex. There the desire to present civil unions comes out of the sense that much of the civil rights laws do of “we are the bad majority so we have to pass laws to make ourselves feel more enlightened.” Instead of as the movement in the United States is packaging it (gay Main Street) the European model shows about the same amount of familial decay as the rest of their familial structures.

Economically we are going to have to do something because the modern era has the basic gist “we really don’t care who you have sex with” and the reality of some homosexual couple’s demands paperwork for it. But socially we are doomed to fail because we cannot be honest about human sexuality or even its very origins. When I know of gay men who enjoy everything short of insertion on a heterosexual woman and “straight” men who don’t consider drag queens men we have a real disconnect here.

Sex and loving commitment are two different things, maybe if we can discuss how loving committed relationships that build families and help people function better in society can be supported we might have a chance of developing something socially that might work… tab a and slot b won’t work when people will argue that a “trouser snake” doesn’t count if the person with it has “fun bags”.

Some relationships make the person in them better, and make both people a more productive unit of society. That should be where we build from… the gay marriage movement has shown it is no more a product of that philosophy then heterosexual marriages because both are sexually focused, and not relationship focused.

I am with Tom cruise the crazy: In my mind, sex is pointless and not any good without the relationship to go with it. But maybe I am as crazy as tom…

When political thugs are out to get people civil rights I know they come for my rights and my money. When we change society we can get it done without redistribution of my wealth (cause I am poor gosh darn it) or changing of my social contract without my permission.