[sparky]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

What are you getting at there? I can't see how that coincides with what Brian said.

What I am getting at is just because there are exceptions to rules, it doesn't mean rules and actual results should be ignored in order that we can be free to do what feels fun and good to us.

I agree that some people are like this, but you don't feel at least somewhat confident that Brian is not one of them?

I didn't realize I was discussing Brian and his personal life. I am talking theoretically. This isn't personal.

So, what is the answer to that? I wasn't consulted before I was brought into this world, and there were times when I've wished I was consulted beforehand. Those of us who are unhappy should kill ourselves? (I know you didn't mean that; I'm being sarcastic here).

The answer ? I think the answer is that people shouldn't impose their choices on unwitting bystanders. Let's face it - it's a bitch growing up. And it isn't made any easier having two same gender parents. I am sure you could refer me to a dozen rosy articles written by people who say they wouldn't have it any other way. The fact remains that I don't think it's fair to saddle a kid with what may turn out to be an enormous obstacle. Should it be an obstacle ? Of course not. Should a child's life be used as an element in a social experiment that "wishes" people were kinder, more sensitive and politically correct ? Not on your life. (I will point out again here that I am talking not about adoptions but about making new kids.)

If the shoe fits? What about procreation as something basic that a lot of human beings feel inclined to do? (I know, I know--some don't have the right intentions, as you've said, but others do). It isn't a desire that is exclusive to any sexual orientation. How could one by copying the other when people of all sexual orientations have been having children for centuries?

There's a biological component, sure. I am referring to jumping in and buying into the whole 50's myth of a nuclear family. That is a dynamic with some serious flaws anyway. And BTW, while people of all orientations have been breeding for centuries they weren't hooting and hollering about getting married and registering at Baby Gap. LOL.

The whole fight for marriage is based on the idea that separate is not equal.

Dude, I don't need a class in civil rights history. That wasn't my point.

If you want a separate instituion because you think heterosexual marriage is so corrupt, that's fine, but to me it's something of the symbolic equivalent of having different schools and bathrooms. And I don't see why the word "husband" is so creepy. I think it's what you make it.

I don't know that I am interested in institutions at all. I don't particularly care if the city or state approves of my relationships.

"Husband" is creepy because it implies there's a wife. Among other things. I could get into a rant here about semantics and historical power dynamics, but what's the point ? I think the relationship between two men is intrinsically different between that of a man and a woman, and that it is counterproductive to borrow a loaded term to define it. Talk to a few men who were married to women and have then gotten involved with men and I'd love to compare notes. The relationships are different animals altogether.

I am DYING to go on, but I have go to a meeting.