Why is being yourself so wrong? Lesbian, gay, bisexual, straight, and transgender will always find love no matter how much it is hated upon. You are you, I am me, and everyone is who they are, not what they choose. Is our society really that crooked that its thought of as a choice and we can be "saved" because its not a choice, we don't want or need to be saved. We are happy the way we are. I can honestly say I live and love that I am lesbian. I have been me through all the crap I have been put through. I lost a relationship with my mother, that one person you so desparately want to understand and be there for you no matter what. She wasn't there for me. She hated that I was and will always be lesbian. It hurts to lose someone, but It kills to lose your very own mother. I move forward though because I know that I need to make my life MY life. We will always have those people who won't understand, but if we stand together and never stop fighting for our rights and own love they can't do anything to stop us. We will be the ones sleeping comfortably at night.

ILGA is an education in homofascism. ILGA discriminates against people based on sexual orientation - the ultimate hypocrisy. ILGA sucks.

I work for the Hubert Department of Global Health at Emory University and for CDC's International Emergency and Refugee Health Branch. I recently wrote an article in support of marriage equality and thought you all might find it interesting or potentially useful.

Here below is a link to the article:
http://liberalislogical.blogspot.com/2012/11/does-equality-threaten-sanctity-of.html

Warm Regards,
Jeff Freeman

Cast the Last Stone
or
I Got Your Civil Union Hangin’
or
From Selma to Montgomery to...

Do you take this man and this woman
Do you take this woman and man
To love and to honor and cherish
Like only a good Christian can

Will you throw a few stones at the heathens
Will you tell ‘em all where they can go
Will you hate everyone who’s not like you
For the Bible tells you it’s so

Or will you listen to that old hippy Jesus
Who said Leave all the bullshit behind
And let two dear sweet lesbian lovers
Enjoy all the love they can find

{chorus}

I’ve always loved you
And you’ve always loved me
You’d think love would be easy
In the land of the free
In a world full of bitterness
Hatred
And stone
Why don’t they leave all the lovers alone?

The love police say we can’t marry
The thought police say we can’t think
While the lawmakers locked in the closet
Say we can’t watch them buy the boys drinks

I love you like your soul is my soul
I’ll stay till the end of the world
But the minister ran from the altar
When he found we’re a couple of girls

Tradition can be a real mother
Those weren’t cruise ships in the triangle trade
And the two dear sweet lesbian lovers
Know history’s meant to be made

{chorus}

Money is nice if it’s decent
And handy when push comes to shove
But the two dear sweet lesbian lovers
Know everything’s lost without love

They say Jesus he died for the sinners
And he fought so that true love can win
But the two dear sweet lesbian lovers
Forgot they should read the small print


Charlie Manson can legally marry
Any woman that’ll give him the time
But the two dear sweet lesbian lovers
Were told that their love is a crime

{chorus}

Yeah, Charlie Manson can legally marry
Any woman that’ll give him the time
But the two dear sweet lesbian lovers
THEY KNOW THAT THEIR LOVE IS SUBLIME

hank ezralily@ca.rr.com 714 915 5814

ILGA is fascist.

I'm 37 years old gay from Algeria and there are no LGTB rights and freedom in this country ,local traditions are obliging me to live a life which is not mine ,mom is always obliging me to marry a woman ,this will never happen because i was born naturally gay and i have no pleasure with girls,,my story is so sad and i want to have a situation and a natural life i cannot change myself ,,if any help ,any solution please advise me !!

SORRY. TRY THIS ONE:


Cast the Last Stone
or
I Got Your Civil Union Hangin’

Do you take this man and this woman
Do you take this woman and man
To love and to honor and cherish
The way only a good Christian can

Will you throw a few stones at the heathens
Will you tell ‘em all where they can go
Will you hate everyone who’s not like you
For the Bible tells you it’s so

Or will you listen to that old hippy Jesus
Who said Leave all the bullshit behind
And let two dear sweet lesbian lovers
Enjoy all the love they can find

{chorus}

I’ve always loved you
And you’ve always loved me
You’d think love would be easy
In the land of the free
In a world full of bitterness
Hatred
And stone
Why don’t you leave all the lovers alone?

The love police say we can’t marry
The thought police say we can’t think
While the lawmakers locked in the closet
Say we can’t watch them buy the boys drinks

I love you like your soul is my soul
I’ll stay till the end of the world
But the minister ran from the altar
When he found we’re a couple of girls

Tradition can be a real mother
Those weren’t cruise ships in the triangle trade
And the two dear sweet lesbian lovers
Know it’s time to make history fade

{chorus}

Money is nice if it’s decent
And handy when push comes to shove
But the two dear sweet lesbian lovers
Know everything’s lost without love

They say Jesus he died for the sinners
And he fought so that true love will win
But the two dear sweet lesbian lovers
Were told they should read the small print


Charlie Manson can legally marry
Any woman that’ll give him the time
But the two dear sweet lesbian lovers
Were told that their love is a crime

{chorus}

Yeah, Charlie Manson can legally marry
Any woman that’ll give him the time
But the two dear sweet lesbian lovers
THEY KNOW THAT THEIR LOVE IS SUBLIME

hank ezralily@ca.rr.com 714 915 5814

in my country same sex marriage is accepted in i think 3-5 states.unfortunately it is not accepted where i reside.in fact, my girlfriend and i have to be very discrete.another word:
'HIDE"! so we are preparing to move to another state.

Hello, I am a teenage boy in a small town in New Hampshire. Recently I have been noticing more and more people and children in my town have been more aggressive towards gay and lesbian people nere me, including myself. I was walking down a sidewalk heading toawrds my friends house, when a kid I knew from school pushed me into a wall and spit on my pants, calling me a faggot. I am never one for Violence, or any type of any type of hurting, but I need something to happen before I burst.

I am a 28 year old woman, in love with a 30 year old woman from Finland. I've always felt that gay and lesbian communities deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples, but to be honest, the issue has never been more personal. I would do anything to be with the woman I love, even move to Finland, but sadly, my entire life will change in a big way. Im studying clinical psychology and I want to help people. I have a large family I will leave behind, and great friends. Im writting this story because I want others to know the pain of being a second class citizen causes. Its not about rights, its about love, and no one deserves to be treated different because the love someone. I will leave my country knowing that Im different and under our federal law, undeserving of love. I love you Emma

This is to announce the establishment of a worlwide online jewelry storem offering designer jewelry for same sex marriages and relationships, there will be a selection of over some 23 hundred styles amd designs of rimgs and weddimg bands for Gay Market and the General Public, These Designs are unique and differant from any jewelry ever seen in the entire world with a money back guarantee in writing take a look @ MyRainbow.com and make your selection from the hundreds offered.

The Honolulu Pride Festival Foundation is starting to kick off this years 2011 Hawaii State Pride Fest hosted in beautiful Honolulu Hawaii September 15 - 17, 2011 and encourage all to come and participate as this year we strive to bring PRIDE AROUND THE WORLD!

As Hawaii and the rest of the United States takes pro-active choices in sharing in the equality and justice for all with long roads ahead the little steps we take will lead to bigger victories for all of our LGBT brothers and sister who do not have the same freedoms we do in America. Help our politicians to understand that PRIDE is one way of showing that we are equal and we do not have to fear the hate and discrimination from the world around us which view us as a minority community who is filled with so called "Sinners". Take a stand and support all of your PRIDE organization around the world as we work hand in hand to creating peace, equality and justice for all!

To whom it may concern:

Please support Patrik Ian Polk, creator of the hit series Noah's Arc, as he continues producing quality representations of members of the GLBT community of color on the big screen! Click here to find out more! If we can help Mr. Polk raise $30,000 this movie will be able to come to the big screen! There are also some great prizes at each level of commitment!

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/75663717/the-skinny-a-new-film-from-patrik-ian-polk

Please lend any amount of support that you can! You won't be disappointed!

Kentucky Equality Federation confirmed today that it is beefing up its board of directors with the appointment of veteran activist Richard T. Jones as non-executive Chairman of the Board of Directors. The members initially appointed Jones to the Board, immediately thereafter, the Board elected Jones Chair.

Jones has been with the organization since October 2009, assisting the the president with administration and communications. Jones also chaired the non-Board Discrimination, Hate Crimes, and School Bullying Committee who has handled more than 40 cases in 2010 alone.

Previously, President Jordan Palmer served as ex officio executive Chairman of the Board in the absence of an elected Chair. Palmer had previously resigned from the organization, but returned as interim president at the request of the Board of Directors.

"I will be very involved with our volunteers and officers," stated Jones. "I will continue to work for equality for all people and expand Kentucky Equality Federation's reach as the Commonwealth's largest all-volunteer grassroots gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender organization and mold our future endeavors and alliances."

Jones continued: "Since my involvement with Kentucky Equality Federation, I have been honored to be able to work with Jordan Palmer and be part of an organization who has worked so hard for equality, but most important, a dream of equality for those who truly have yet to experience it. When I wake up in the morning and begin my work for the day, I feel as though I am helping to fulfill a dream that one day will make a difference for a people who eat, sleep and dream of freedom from persecution."

"Welcome to the 21st Century" by Reinaldo J. Rendon
Oct.04 2010

It hasn’t been too long since the recognition of civil rights for women and our black brethren has allowed their successful integration into what has become a more tolerant, even welcoming society to those that were originally oppressed by outdated laws, and fearful politicians. Although society and laws are still adapting to these modifications, their success has depended mostly on the efforts of those who saw conservation of unnecessary old customs as misguided way to conceal inconvenient or uncomfortable truths. By truth I refer to something universal, unaffected by our perceptions; by truth in this case I refer to equality and freedom.
Thousands of years have passed since certain flawed corrupted/outdated values of the church began to persecute "the wicked", from witches to demons as its doctrine spread through all corners of the Earth. Meanwhile, science has been evolving alongside human civilization and society. Although our knowledge and justice systems have supposedly evolved to the point where we understand all capable humans as equals, (and those not fully capable, as still human…sometimes more), we still don’t have laws that protect and grant gay citizens the same rights, protections, and benefits as our heterosexual counterparts.

Greater understanding of the human mind has been achieved since the consolidation of psychology as a social science. No longer “witches”, nor possessed, we understand mentally ill patients and their conditions; we create treatments to aid them, and structure adequate processes to integrate them into society in a way that they can successfully “fuse” with the system. With the progress of science, and its imminent exposure of the truth, many conservatives have come to re-awaken to the idea that Christianity promotes love and tolerance, not hate nor discrimination. I remember a great quote from a great man who once said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” with a hooker-made-apostle lying at his feet. Although we now frown upon societies that throw stones as ways of punishing their “criminals”, many still throw verbal/mental stones at those who are different simply because they were not educated properly and laws haven’t progressed rapidly enough to protect those in need.

“In recognition of the scientific evidence, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973, stating that “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities.
After thoroughly reviewing the scientific data, the American Psychological Association adopted the same position in 1975, and urged all mental health professionals “to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations…Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life” (American Psychiatric Association, 1975).

This is true in every sense but the legal one, for denying homosexuals the right to benefit from social/financial unions such as marriage deprives them of certain benefits such as tax-breaks, insurance coverage, or even to be treated as a family member at the time of an accident. The right for a gay American to marry their foreign lover in order to live happily in their free country is impossible; their relationship has no option but to end the moment their foreign “life-partner’s” Visa expires.

Furthermore, the absence of laws that prevent the hate word “faggot” being as commonly used as the hate word “nigger” was before the creation of civil laws that protected the blacks, prevents the social boundaries that allow proper growth of youths in a non-hostile environment. Evidence of this are the (now due to the increasing growth of general acceptance, as the next generation of straight and gay citizens whose education has been updated steps up to the plate) recently public wave of juvenile suicide cases...that are sadly, and ultimately, nothing new...
The point is that people’s lives are still ticking away while bureaucrats place the issue on the back-burner generation after generation, refusing to accept that gay people are equal, and therefore deserve the same rights as everyone else. While most other developed nations in Europe, and even Latin American (Colombia, Argentina, Mexico currently debating it) permit civil unions between homosexuals with equal recognition of all their rights, “The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave” continues to ignore the silent screaming of a small, but definetly existent percentage of their population that seeks nothing more but an equal opportunity at happiness. If the constitution and even the declaration of independence place us all as equals, defining America as a nation ruled by majority, that protects minorities…then how can we allow our rights to freedom, financial prosperity, protection of our nation, and even to live safely in peace without being forced to deny who you are slip away from us.

Is there not a separation between Church and State? Does scientific evidence hold any value over social struggle against the conservation of ignorance? Aren’t we all guaranteed the same protections and rights regardless of our race, gender, sexual orientation, or favorite ice-cream flavor? Do societies evolve or change on their own?

Gay (much like “straight” or “bi”) is also not a choice, but it is something that affects everyone, regardless of their race, gender, or religious preference across the globe since the beginning of civilization. Even animals may choose a same-sex life partner as evidenced by the study of the University of Oslo, that states “More than 1500 species where homosexuality have been observed” (“Against Nature? Oslo). Gay should not be a taboo. Gay is not an illness that can be prayed nor drugged away. You can attempt to brainwash someone into becoming straight, but then you would just be hindering their potential to fully experience their lives, and their rights to explore themselves as human beings without hurting anyone.

Would you want your children, or a loved one's child to live unhappily repressed simply because God/Genetics made them in a certain way that the world hasn’t updated fast enough to fully accept them as people? In a world of repression and lies, it would not be difficult for one to marry someone that is secretly gay, and refuses to come out simply out of lack of courage that it takes to live under such different conditions...do you think that could truly be a happy and honest marriage? Think about the children caught within the parental struggle to stabilize their personal mentality and sexuality and their mental health compared to those that grow up in open and caring environments.

With Florida being one of the many states that recognizes gays’ right to adopt (instead of permitting an vast number of children stuck in orphanages or foster homes relying on state budget/care), we join many developed nations who understand the full personal/economic value of all its tax-payers without any form of discrimination. Furthermore, if the violation of the sanctity of marriage is in question, then know some consider divorce a far greater offense, for it breaks an oath made in front God and the State (perjury?)...but it was still implemented into law due to the social necessity that so many people required in order to find financial and personal stability in their lives.

To simplify the concept a bit more:
If Gay-Joe and Gay-Jane were perceived as “people” instead of “gays” by the majority, our society would improve a lot more having provided every normal human being the rights and protections they deserve. People shouldn’t be perceived legally or socially by who they are biologically, but by what they hope to do for the world around them. This would promote a more accepting co-existence between all members of American society, as well as monogamy and general honesty.

Most conservatives that still discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation are mostly misinformed, or choose to ignore truth simply out of the comfort brought on by tradition or some form of profit. Others are closeted gays who envy the freedom, while others are simply out to hate on someone for what they’ve been taught as “sins” to feel a little better about their own faults; however they’re not the ones we allow to write our academic texts, nor are they the knowledgeable authorities we quote when we teach facts in our schools. Also, if gays were allowed to formally unite under the state, and their individual interpretation of God (we all see our Creator differently, we have a right to do so), that alone would promote monogamy and prevent sexually transmitted diseases among all groups (not that gays are statistically in the lead anymore; now replaced by African-American men). This would also allow more people to reconcile with the bonds that have been severed by temples that promote hate and discrimination, instead of providing help to those in need, or uniting the children of God without casting any stones (if they truly do see him as the supreme judge).

I invite you all to re-examine your definitions of justice, violence, and empathy for we are forging today the world of tomorrow, and as we do, we must do so carefully given how this nation has remained the center-stage of the world (at the very least in terms of democratic ideals) for a couple centuries. It shouldn't take global calamities, waves of pestilence, the bloody (in a term familiar to most: expensive) aftermath of riots and wars, or financial meltdowns for people to focus more in building the bridges and crumbling the walls that separate us, before they become bars in the dawn of an age with diminishing natural resources, and the decaying socio-political values that impede people from realizing how much influence they have lost over the basics of their democratic principles. We are all still working on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s dream to make this nation “rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal”…and that no one should be judged by the color of their skin (or the way God/Genetics brought them into the world).

We shouldn’t wait for it to “get better”, it should be “alright” for all who support and believe the democratic spirit of America, a nation conformed of different states that in spite of being slightly different in their ideology, most stand united as those who wish to protect freedom and peace.
Remember, America is “The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave”.

This is a paper I wrote a while ago entitled "A Proof Against Marriage Conservancy"... I figured I might as well share it somehow before I forgot it. Enjoy.

A Proof Against Marriage Conservancy

Explanation
The marriage conservative is a hypocrite. A person is a hypocrite when they hold two contradictory views simultaneously as if they were not contradictory.
The marriage conservative says that “same-sex” couples should be prohibited from marriage. This would mean: same-sex persons should not be married, same gendered people should not be married, and, presumably, people who are closet homosexuals should not be married (an issue we will not cover in this article). But, clearly, this position is unjustifiable, for it is contradictory. Let me demonstrate why.

The “Same-Sex” Couple
The marriage conservative says that “same-sex” marriages should be prohibited. However, this is clearly unjustifiable for these reasons:

A: to prohibit something, it must be clear what it is you are prohibiting.
1: A same-sex marriage is an ambiguous definition.
2: If a same-sex marriage is an ambiguous definition, then it follows that it is not clear what to prohibit if same-sex marriage should be prohibited.
B: It is not clear what to prohibit if “same-sex” marriages should be prohibited

The “same-sex” marriage conservative’s position could either be held as the homosexual position, the homogender position, or both position.
By one position, male-male marriages and female-female marriages should be prohibited. By another position, man-man marriages and woman-woman marriages should be prohibited. However, logically neither of these positions makes sense. The conservative cannot justifiably hold both of these positions without contradicting himself (or herself). Thus, the conservative cannot hold any of these views justifiably. But, do not take my word for it. See for yourself.

The Three Positions Of “Same-Sex” Marriage Conservancy
When we say that someone is a male or a female or when we say that someone is a man or a woman what do we mean exactly?

Sex:
By definition, a person is male if they possess XY chromosomes and a person is female if they possess XX chromosomes (regardless of their gender).

Gender:
By definition, a person is a man if they possess the physical attributes of a man and a person is a woman if they possess the physical attributes of a woman (regardless of their chromosomes).

1.

The homosexual conservative position would hold the following:

A: If a person is male, then he should be prohibited from marrying another male
B: If a person is female, then she should be prohibited from marrying another female.

Naturally, however, this does not make any sense.
If the marriage conservative says that a homosexual relationship is determined by the chromosomes of each person in the relationship then the following could be true:

@: A male could marry a female.
@2: A female could marry a woman
@3: A male could marry a man.

In all 3 cases a male would marry a female, however there is obviously a contradiction here. Neither @, @2, or @3 imply that a man marries a woman. The marriage conservative could try to defend this position. Although it is fairly clear that the marriage conservative would object to this conclusion.

The marriage conservative cannot, then, justifiably hold that a “same-sex” couple is determined by the chromosomes of each person in the relationship.
Now, the marriage conservative can hold that a “same-sex” couple is determined by the gender of each member in the relationship. Let us see how defensible this position is.

2:

The homogender conservative position would hold the following:

C: If a person is a man, then he should be prohibited from marrying another man.
D: If a person is a woman, then she should be prohibited from marrying another woman.

It would appear this argument solves the contradiction present in the homosexual argument. But that is simply not the case. Rather, C & D are equally as confusing as A & B and, thus, equally as unjustifiable.

For C and D to be true the following must also be true:

#1: A male could marry a female.
#2: A female could marry a female.
#3: a male could marry a male
#4: a woman could marry a female.
#5: A man could marry a male

The homogender argument allows for even more of a contradiction! If the marriage conservative holds that homogender couples should be prohibited from being married then it makes it no harder for homosexual couples to still be married—which is contradictory to the conservative’s position to begin with.
All that must be allowed for the homogender position to hold is that a person who is physically not a woman marries someone who is physically not a man. However, this position has nothing to say about the sex of those individuals or the “real” gender of those individuals. Based on the homogender argument the following could be true.

%: A man who is male can have a sex-change operation and marry a man.
%: A woman who is female can have a sex-change operation and marry a woman.
%: A male who is a woman can have a sex-change operation and marry a woman
%: A female who is a man can have a sex-change operation and marry a man.

If we allow C & D then we have completely contradicted A & B! Similarly if we allow A & B we have completely contradicted C & D!
It must be that there is something inherently flawed or wrong about the marriage conservative’s position because the marriage conservative cannot justifiably hold positions A & B or positions C & D (or both) without contradicting themselves.
In other words, the homogender conservative argument is contradictory and the homosexual conservative argument is contradictory. For the marriage conservative’s position to be justifiable, it must be, then, that when the marriage conservative tries to prohibit “same-sex” marriages they are neither prohibiting homogender marriages or homosexual marriages. It would appear, then, that the marriage conservative cannot believe in prohibiting “same-sex” marriages. Perhaps, then, the marriage conservative does not believe in prohibiting “same-sex” marriages…
Clearly this is not the case, though. The marriage conservative most definitely takes a stance on marriage and proclaims: “same sex marriages should be prohibited.” However, it is doubtful, then, that the conservative knows what he (or she) is even speaking about when he (or she) is even saying this.
Let me explain this further. For, perhaps, it is not clear yet that the marriage conservative cannot justifiably hold that “same-sex” marriages should be prohibited. Perhaps, you may think, the marriage conservative can justifiably hold the position that combines both the homosexual and homogender positions

3.

The conservative position of both the homosexual and homogender positions would hold the following:

E: Only a male who is a man can marry a female who is a woman (vice versa)

This position, however, proves to be simply the most flawed of them all! Let us examine why.

How does one know, in the first place, that they are, in fact, a male (XY) woman? Or, in other words, how would a woman know that she is not a male with androgen-insensitivity-syndrome (AIS)?
It is conceivable that she may live her whole life as a woman and never truly know that she is a male. She may very well indeed marry a man. She may very well indeed marry a marriage conservative. If neither the male (XY) woman nor the marriage conservative knew about her condition, would it matter? I beg the question, does the fact that she is an XY woman matter? That is, does the fact that she is a male matter? Or does the fact that she is a woman matter? Or, furthermore, does the fact that she is a person who wishes to marry the marriage conservative matter most, instead? Let us, in this case, call the female man Dibs and the conservative Dobs.
I’ll give another example.

Suppose Joe marries Alex. A man marries a woman. The conservative has no problem (he assumes…).

Now, suppose Joanna (XX) was born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). In females this syndrome may likely result in an elongated clitoris and a fusing of the labia. In other words, masculinization of the genitals occurs and, essentially, Joanna (XX) is a man. She is a female man. Suppose, then, Joanna changed her name to Joe and, eventually, met a woman named Alex. They fall in love and, legally, they are married. Problems?

Anyone who is not a marriage conservative would see no issue with this story. Why would we? Joanna (Joe) is in love with Alex. A man is in love with a woman. What is the problem? However, there should be something awfully tangy to the conservative about this: Joanna is a female marrying a woman.

Now consider that Alex was really a female man (like Joanna) but (unlike Joanna) had a common surgery to correct CAH during her infancy.

Does this fact make the story any more revolting? For the conservative, most definitely. It becomes clear, any way you spin it, that a “same-sex” marriage has not only occurred but it has been sanctioned! How could the conservative have justifiably prohibited this?!

Pretend for a moment that Joe was from a small town in Brazil, where no doctors knew of the condition CAH. In this case, Joe would always be Joe and never know the difference. For all intents and purposes, Joe would feel like a man and think she were a man. In this case, could the marriage conservative justifiably prohibit Joe and Alex’s marriage?
The answer is no. The marriage conservative cannot justifiably distinguish what it is he (or she) wishes to prohibit in this case. If the conservative wishes to take the homosexual position then the marriage of Joe and Alex would be impermissible but the marriage of Dibs and Dobs would be permissible. If the conservative wishes to take the homogender approach then both cases would be permissible. If the marriage conservative, then, took the position of both positions neither the marriage of Dibs and Dobs nor the marriage of Joe and Alex would be acceptable.
Can the marriage conservative rightly argue, though, that neither the marriage of Dibs and Dobs nor the marriage of Joe and Alex would be acceptable? The answer is no. When Dibs marries Dobs or Joe marries Alex, for all intents and purposes, a man marries a woman and a female marries and male. For, there is no easy way of knowing that Joe was a female and Dibs was a male. And, if we cannot know it, then why should it be relevant?
Of course, you may say, that we can know this. However, what you are really saying is that we can test for this information. The fact remains, we cannot simply know it—or at least, in many cases, it may be hard to know it, just as it is hard to know that someone plucks their eyebrows or has broken their wrist before. The contradiction here is that the marriage conservative knows what it is he (or she) is prohibiting, when really he (or she) does not.


There are an infinite variety of stories I can make up along these lines to illustrate the point. The point does not lie in my creativity—or anyone else’s for that matter. The point is merely that the marriage conservatives should see the flaws in their position, namely that the position of “same-sex” marriage prohibition cannot justifiably be held the way it currently is. It is simply absurd and contradictory.
But, this is not the end of our discussion. The “same-sex” marriage position certainly has not been completely defeated!

Revisions to the Marriage Conservative’s Approach

What then is there for the marriage conservative to do? If he (or she) cannot hold his (or her) position justifiably, then, what?

X: We reject the idea of “same-sex” marriage prohibition
Y: We revise the idea of “same-sex” marriage prohibition

Let us start with Y.

Y.
How may we revise the position of “same-sex” marriage prohibition?

First of all, we need to know what it is that the “same-sex” marriage prohibition cannot justifiably hold.
If the “same-sex” marriage prohibition holds that no two people of the same sex may be married it would be absurd and contradictory. A person’s sex can be completely independent of their gender. Furthermore, while it is fairly obvious what a person’s gender is, it is not obvious what a person’s sex is. This position threatens to confuse what it is that the marriage conservative stands for in the first place. This position would even threaten to dissolve many marriages that have already been deemed permissible.
If the “same-sex” marriage prohibition holds that no two people of the same gender may be married it must specify the following: no two people who are currently of the same gender may be married. This qualification would rightly end the contradiction in the “same-sex” marriage prohibition.
However, this qualification does not make the “same-sex” marriage prohibition any more justifiable! In the following section I will demonstrate why this is true:

X.
We reject the idea of the “same-sex” marriage prohibition.

The only defensible position the “same-sex” marriage prohibition can hold is that we qualify the homogender argument to mean any two people who are currently of the same gender, rejecting the homosexual argument altogether. However, this qualification is clearly arbitrary and seems to be absurd in respect to the bases for the “same-sex” marriage prohibition to begin with!
That is, if we accept the homogender argument under this qualification that would mean that the conservative would have to accept Joe and Alex’s matrimony as completely permissible. But, it does not seem that this is the conservative’s position.
Furthermore, it does not seem justifiable to permit the matrimony of Alex and Joe… but not that of Alex and Joanna. The change between these two circumstances is merely superficial. Fundamentally Joanna as a man and Joanna as a woman is entirely the same person, Joe. Similarly, Alex as a man and Alex as a woman is entirely the same person, Alex.
Why should it make any difference what gender a person is, when we consider the case of Alex and Joe, if they are to be married? If, for some reason, Joe decided to get a sex change as well and become female, like Alex did early on, well… is there anything more wrong about this than the fact that a female married a female in the first place?!
Strictly speaking, the conservative cannot win. The conservative cannot win simply because the “same-sex” marriage prohibition just does not make any sense! No matter how the conservative swings it, their position is absurd and contradictory. It is impossible to justify an absurd and contradictory position.

Yet, despite this, the “same-sex” marriage prohibition still holds! Surely this must be some sort of mistake. The marriage conservative does not have a clear idea of what he (or she) is prohibiting when he (or she) prohibits same-sex marriage. If the same-sex marriage conservative does not know what it is he (or she) is prohibiting, then it follows that they cannot rationally prohibit it! That is, either he (or she) is irrational or he (or she) just has not thought about the issue clearly.

I hope to (the conservative’s) god that he (or she) just simply has not seen this issue clearly. I would hate to think that those that run our government and, subsequently, our lives are irrational…


Discussion

Despite what you may have thought, the point of this paper was not to prove that the marriage conservative is a hypocrite and that his (or her) position is unjustifiable. No. That is true. Any reasonable person would see this. As such, it is not worth discussing.
There is another point that is worth discussion, though. That is, these sorts of conversations are useless. Who really cares if we can prove that the marriage conservative is a hypocrite or if his (or her) position is unjustifiable? You may say that we should be interested in the truth. But, I would posit that for most, the truth is highly irrelevant.
In minor discussions such as these we distract ourselves from major issues. Right now, the world is in distress. People are suffering unnecessarily: starving, homeless, and dispossessed. They are victims of frivolous brutality: rape, murder, and genocide. But, despite this, we could help them. Shouldn’t our concerns be on those in need as opposed to on petty squabbles concerning ideology? If the question of “same-sex” marriage prohibition is one of morality, then how can we rightly call ourselves moral people and neglect the real, solvable issue pressing us: the global welfare of humanity.
My argument is that this paper, really, serves no purpose. I never should have had to write it in the first place. That is, those same people who champion marriage conservancy would be better off attacking real problems like human trafficking in India, gang violence, or the HIV pandemic. Similarly, those people who try to fight the marriage conservative should save their breath and disengage. Both of their efforts could be better spent.
The liberal and the conservative are always going to disagree. It is in our genes. This does not mean, however, that we cannot overlook these trifling interests and see the big picture. As technology advances and burgeoning countries develop, the world community is growing tighter than ever. While only yesterday it may have been that the problems of our neighbors were none of our concern, today we cannot ignore them. Doing so we are no better than the proverbial ostrich burying its head in the sand. Closing our eyes does not make issues go away, despite that being the most immediate and accessible solution to our global problems. In this same way, attacking different issues may satisfy us and keep us occupied in the short term but that will most certainly prove to be our undoing in the long term.
Perhaps the marriage conservative should see this problem of “same-sex” marriage not in the sanctity of the thing itself, marriage, but in perspective of what it means altogether. The problem of the people of Sodom was not directly in the nature of their actions. Rather, it was that they were “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” (Ezekiel 16:49). But, in our petty debate, are we no better? What have we achieved for the poor and the needy in this argument? I would go so far as to say: nothing. The poor and needy are still suffering, and we, neglecting them to argue over ideology, have all become no different than those arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned people of Sodom.
If people wish to marry, let them. Who are we to stand opposed to another person’s happiness when such happiness is of no consequent to us? I say, drop it. We’re bigger than this. Instead of fighting over ourselves, we could help the poor and needy. There are bigger fish to fry, let’s not miss the forest for the trees.
Either way the marriage conservative loses. Really, what does he (or she) win from winning this debate? Sure there’s pride… but surely that is not worth the suffering of those whose happiness such a conclusion deprives. Perhaps we can create a win-win situation: The marriage conservative drops the issue and starts attacking real problems, the conclusion of which would actually prove to be a valuable contribution to this world. This horse is dead. The only thing left to do now is bury it and walk away. To continue beating it would be insane.
Thus concludes the proof against marriage coconservancy.

Hello,

My name is Alberto Morales, I am a videographer at the New York Civil Liberties Union. I am writing to let you know about a video we just made that features your map of lgbt rights around the world prominently. I wanted to share with you so that you would know that your work is appreciated and that it is our honor to share it with our members. We also hope that you find occasion to send to your members and interested parties.

Again, thank you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcD5eHsgHLY


-Alberto Morales
amorales@nyclu.org

Dads and Moms of Michigan Gay Rights Marriage Organization. We can help you through a divorce based on alternative lifestyles. We offer education, seminars and private consulting for couples going through seperation and/or divorce.michigan.org
For more information please contact gayrights@dadsandmomsofmichigan.org

Hello,
I am the daughter of a lesbian. I love my mom very much and support her completely. As I child I was ridiculed, and isolated because of this. I lived in the bible belt and the people there were closed-minded and hurtful. I want to be a part of this movement to CHANGE MINDS! Equal rights are for everyone! One day, (wo)mankind will realize that we are all equal.
I just want you all to know that there are other people that support your cause, not everyone has hate in their heart. I cannot wait to live in a world where foster children get placed in loving homes instead of being moved around and feeling unloved because "there aren't enough straight people to adopt them". A world that understands that there are more than two genders. A world that will let my mom get married. A world where everyone really is equal.
and I want to help any way I can.
I love everyone.

I completely agree with Germán's comments on marriage. Why do some people feel they have the power to decide who gets married or not, and do so with such absurd views...

As Germán says - many heterosexual marriages break down - and do by no means guarantee commitment of fathers. I have a friend who's father abandoned her and her mother at a young age.

Marriage to me is much then 'feeling'- love for someone of the same sex is no different to love for someone of the opposite sex. There are the same elements of love, hope, trust and dependency that you get in a heterosexual union. So why shouldn't that be recognised by law?

I really don't understand the way some people believe they have the power to decide who deserves the right to get married, and who doesn't.
Being straight doesn't make you a moral and perfect citizen, nor assures you that your marriage will last forever, or whether you will raise your children properly or not.
If that was true, there wouldn't exist divorces, or family abuse, because straight people would always defend family values and cohesion within society. I guess I don't need to explain that's absurd.
I have never heard about societies that collapsed because of a sexual revolution. I dont' think Mayans dissappeared becuase they legalised gay marriage, or maybe Romans collapsed because they tended to organize orgies, am I right?
The only thing I can agree with you, is that feelings are the only requirement people should have to get married. If a man and a woman who love each other can marry so easily in a small Chapel in Las Vegas (oh, what a nice way to honor the sacred definition of marriage!), why can't gay couples do that?
I don't understand the fact that marriage can be put on jeopardy by gay couples... throughout History there has been (and it still exist) polygamy and family marriages between members of royalty. However, I don´t see anyone complain about it.
So let's be sincere on this: gay marriage won't put on risk families, because straight people will continue to get married and they will also have children!