Very nice Zombyboy.

Funny to read your lesbian story: I was having the same thoughts last week in my car, that I scribbled down. (Got to find those notes.) I discovered the biggest challenge to homosexuality right now was the loneliness.

I wonder about your Indian question, though. Isn't even less religious there? What I know, it's much more a commercial transaction. Still a lot (majority?) of arranged marriages. Not love or religion, just commerce. Which underlines the point all the more: it's different things to different people in different cultures and times.

I have read several discussions of this issue, many of which generate considerably more heat than light.

Your post has given me a good deal to think about with respect to this issue.

Thanks.

Well, you really inspired me. And screwed up my sleep schedule. I've been promising myself I'd spill what I really felt about this ever since May 30, when an unexpected TV show grabbed my attention. It's 4:02 and I've been writing and editing and gathering pictures and pasting for four hours. I hope I like it in the morning. Let me know what you think:

http://blogs.salon.com/0001137/2003/07/03.html#a160

As you know, Z, my opinion on this issue is pretty much the same as yours. There is one thing that I would like to add:

"Marriage," as it is practiced in the United States today, has two meanings. The term is used to apply to both the civil ceremony and the religious ceremony. Two people may be married in a civil ceremony that is totally absent religion. Two people cannot, however, be married in a religious ceremony that is totally absent the civil union. The government, via separation of church and state, does not recognize a religious union as a "marriage" unless it is accompanied by the necessary civil union. This is why a couple married in a religious union always signs the legal documents immediately after the religious ceremony. It is also why a religious figure who is empowered to conduct a marriage by his/her religion must also be licensed by the government. Keep in mind the phrase "by the power vested in me by God and the state of..." when you think about this. In actuality, then, our government doesn't recognise the religious union at all. It only recognizes the civil union. In a country that is based on the idea of separation of church and state, this is the only defensable position. Our government should NOT recognize the religious union (I say this as a practicing catholic). To do so puts the government in a position of determining which religions are to be officially sanctioned and which are not. This is a position that our government should never be in.

Given the separation between the religious marriage and the civil marriage, marriage laws that are contrary to religious marriage practices become defensable. Take for example polygamy. As I understand it (and I could be wrong) the Mormon faith does allow for polygamy (even if I am wrong about the actual Mormon belief, my legal argument stands). The United States has made polygamy illegal. Most people have no problem with this, mainly because most people find polygamy to be an undesirable practice. We have consensus so we don't examine it to closely. An examination is warranted, however, in light of gay marriage. What we have here is further evidence of the absolute separation that the United States has made between a religious marriage and a civil marriage. If the US were to accept a religious marriage as the legal equivalent of a civil marriage, we would have to allow polygamy for any religion that supported this. Polygamy is illegal simply because we draw this separation.

Following this understanding, which is established legal fact, can only lead to a support of gay marriage. Many of the arguments against gay marriage are religious in nature. My own church, the Catholic church, is one such group. Under our system, however, the Catholic church's position on gay marriages is irrelevant. The Catholic church is free to limit a Catholic marriage (religious union) to straight couples. The concept of freedom of religion ensures this. This restriction, however, does not and should not have any bearing on the requirements for a civil marriage. In as the civil marriage is the only marriage that is legally recognized by the United States, the concept of "marriage" from the civil standpoint can easily be extended to support gay marriages much the way that it hae been narrowed to disallow polygamy. This is why I like the term "civil union." Although I am normally opposed to word games that obfuscate the real issue (think abortion: you are either pro-choice or pro-life, no one is "against" anything), the term "civil union" actually clarifies the issue, cutting through the rhetoric.

Thanks for all the comments.

For anyone who hasn't checked out Dave Cullen's article yet, it is highly worth the time to read.

For the cut-and-paste disabled:
Dave Cullen's Article

Well, but if you start with 360 million people, more than half being female, 3% still leaves 5.4 million women to choose from. Okay, subtract out those too old or too young, but it still should be possible.

...on the other hand, a lesbian who is close to me said that if all the gay people in the world suddenly turned green, everyone would be surprised, both gay and straight.

...of course, that assumes that someone is definitively 'gay' or 'straight', an assumption I'm not willing to make.

Yeah, I know a young lady who thinks of everyone as existing somewhere between the two points--some are very close to hetero- and some are very close to homosexuality. I think the absolute middle of that spectrum is pretty barren, though--I think most people gravitate toward one end or the other.

As to the numbers, all I can say is that with the historical issues I've had with dating, even "good" numbers don't necessarily work in your favor.

My personal experience with dating has been that apparently you can't polish a turd.

Hey, I think I've been insulted! But I'm sure it was meant (all together now) "in the nicest possible way."

Anyway, I took a lot more abuse yesterday after the Sage interview.

nononono. I thought I made it clear: "my personal experience", meaning it can't be you...and the addition of "apparently" should make it clear that it is the demonstrated conclusion of girls who dated me.

thanks for the plug zombie.

nathan, calculating out the total numbers sounds sensible, but takes you to a misleading destination. no one has access to the entire u.s. population: it's fairly irrelevant.

what she means is, most people meet most of the people in our lives through personal interaction via the daily activities of normal life: work, school, church, grocery store ...

for a straight person, half of those at least make the first cut, of having the opposite sex. but some are married or dating, children or elderly, or just too old, too young, too fat, too thin, just not what you're looking for.

that drops the pool down to a number that many straight people find insufficient to find what they're looking for. so slice off 90 to 97 percent of that, and you're really screwed. luckily gay bars, gay chat rooms etc. help you concentrate the candidates for you, but there are still only so many to go around.

if you're a gayguy in denver, and you encounter most of the gayguys you know of in the gaybars in denver, you see the same faces week after week after week.

if all those 5.4 million were circulating through denver at the gay clubs where i could find them, i'm sure i could find an acceptable candidate in the pool. but they're not, and i haven't.

jumper: the mormons don't allow polygomy anymore, but a breakaway sect does.

i like to marriage a nice man in age of 18 to 27 yuears old any contact me my email ar my mob no
00306947240680.yours lovely

i am a man [a gay man] looking for a man [a gay man].

i am a man [a gay man] looking for a man [a gay man].

hey hi my names ozman,im 18 and im gay and im not an american republican,so i wanted to get married to n e 1 whos gay...and whos from vegas..i want to know weather i can get married in las vegas and weather its legal for gay marriages in vegas...love u all...and check my website for pics of me..love u ozzie

Here are my thougts in a nutshell...

I am outraged to learn, in this modern day country that espouses the concepts of liberty and justice for all, that there are still people who make every attempt to deny adult citizens their basic rights simply because they are different. Marriage, defined as a union of two competent and committed adults who decide to codify their mutual commitment to each other, has bestowed numerous benefits and protections to the vast majority of couples. These same protections and rights are denied to the approximate 42,912 (according to the 2000 census) same sex couples in the state of Texas. The number represents an increase of 445% since the 1990 census! Continued denial of rights to an increasing population is frankly ludicrous, and flies in the face of the principals outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America, unarguably two of the most important documents of freedom that exist in the world. Some may present religious arguments against same-gendered union, I do respect their disagreement; however, the Constitution does guarantee free exercise of religion, and prohibits the imposition of a national religion. Many of us do NOT share in this religious belief; therefore should not be subject to discrimination. In the full interest of the United States, and in keeping the Constitution as a document bestowing and defending rights, do not use this instrument to deny rights. Furthermore, do not use legislation in any form to deny the rights of consenting adult citizens to engage in activities that do not endanger the general public. Consider that if rights are denied to one, they can, and probably will be denied ad libidum to all.

Here are my thoughts in a nutshell...

I am outraged to learn, in this modern day country that espouses the concepts of liberty and justice for all, that there are still people who make every attempt to deny adult citizens their basic rights simply because they are different. Marriage, defined as a union of two competent and committed adults who decide to codify their mutual commitment to each other, has bestowed numerous benefits and protections to the vast majority of couples. These same protections and rights are denied to the approximate 42,912 (according to the 2000 census) same sex couples in the state of Texas. The number represents an increase of 445% since the 1990 census! Continued denial of rights to an increasing population is frankly ludicrous, and flies in the face of the principals outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America, unarguably two of the most important documents of freedom that exist in the world. Some may present religious arguments against same-gendered union, I do respect their disagreement; however, the Constitution does guarantee free exercise of religion, and prohibits the imposition of a national religion. Many of us do NOT share in this religious belief; therefore should not be subject to discrimination. In the full interest of the United States, and in keeping the Constitution as a document bestowing and defending rights, do not use this instrument to deny rights. Furthermore, do not use legislation in any form to deny the rights of consenting adult citizens to engage in activities that do not endanger the general public. Consider that if rights are denied to one, they can, and probably will be denied ad libidum to all.

Here are my thoughts in a nutshell...

I am outraged to learn, in this modern day country that espouses the concepts of liberty and justice for all, that there are still people who make every attempt to deny adult citizens their basic rights simply because they are different. Marriage, defined as a union of two competent and committed adults who decide to codify their mutual commitment to each other, has bestowed numerous benefits and protections to the vast majority of couples. These same protections and rights are denied to the approximate 42,912 (according to the 2000 census) same sex couples in the state of Texas. The number represents an increase of 445% since the 1990 census! Continued denial of rights to an increasing population is frankly ludicrous, and flies in the face of the principals outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America, unarguably two of the most important documents of freedom that exist in the world. Some may present religious arguments against same-gendered union, I do respect their disagreement; however, the Constitution does guarantee free exercise of religion, and prohibits the imposition of a national religion. Many of us do NOT share in this religious belief; therefore should not be subject to discrimination. In the full interest of the United States, and in keeping the Constitution as a document bestowing and defending rights, do not use this instrument to deny rights. Furthermore, do not use legislation in any form to deny the rights of consenting adult citizens to engage in activities that do not endanger the general public. Consider that if rights are denied to one, they can, and probably will be denied ad libidum to all.