RoR: Forum

You are so correct - this is a tiresome issue, but not for the reasons you post.
"Gay Marraige" is a non concept. When we form concepts, we do so by observing certain given referents. When people observed that man-woman couples made a contract (in the original days both legal and religious for reasons largely based on property and social cohesiveness), they called the concept of what they were doing "marriage". And that, quite simply, is what "marraige" is. Thus, there can be no such thing as "Gay Marriage". It is a contradiction of concepts, and an attempt to steal a concept. There are no referents which relate to two people of the same sex forming a public sexually based relationship.
So, should governments be involved? Of course not, any more than they should in any private issue. It's not a matter of Governments. It's a matter of understanding concepts. Gays can do any sort of "linking" ceremoney the want, and call it anything they want (apart from stealing words), but it aint "marriage" by definition.
And why they should want to ape a society which disapproves of them baffles me totally. Unless, of course, we are talking Socialist talk here, which is "gaining Government grants" etc. Which is immoral, no matter who is doing it.
Cass

Post 1

Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 10:54am

Cassandra,

I have to agree with you... but I need to go a bit further.

I think that all people who link together and cherish not just who they've managed to find -- but the beauty of linkage itself -- tend to want to enshrine to themselves and before the eyes of the world, the beauty of that linkage.

So I see two main factors here: one, the importance of linkage ceremonies. But I also see the importance of what I've stressed before, in my essay called Controlling Language, that we need to control our vocabulary and assign certain terms to mean very specific things... otherwise, there will be confusion on very important things, as is the case here.

When we use the term "marriage", we may need to know precisely what it means.

Your argument -- as is the argument of many others -- that the term "marriage" should apply only to linkages with the very specific potential to actually breed children, seems valid to me... if I understand you correctly, that is.

Now, as I see it, there are linkages for the sake of emotional and physical support and sustenance, and linkages for the sake of doing something else. We create terminological variations on the concept of "marriage" to apply to situations outside of intimacy: we refer to corporate marriages as "mergers", but also "marriages". If two people of prominence in their respective fields collaborate to accomplish a mutual goal, we call that a "collaboration", but also a "marriage".

The interesting thing to me, is why I see so few people having an issue with the hijacking of the term "marriage" in those instances. Hell, even Reese's Peanut Butter Cups are the "marriage" of chocolate and peanut butter.

But back to the two-person issue... Should it be that important to differentiate between a potential breeding and child-rearing union, versus all other unions? Oh, I definitely think so.  Despite the fact that there are even many married couples who think of child-bearing and raising as a "hateful duty" (a la Ayn Rand's own mother), it is still probably the most critically important human endeavor there is. In my eyes, that needs to be sanctified to the nth degree.

I think that there should be an institution whereby the penalties for abandoning a child-bearing relationship should be heavy, and where the incredible importance of that union is reverentially stressed as something which should not be disturbed by outside Casanovas and Loreleis, lest the penalties also be severe.

But I also think that the other kind of linkage -- which exists for the fulfilling of non-reproductive, intra-personal, profoundly important needs -- is also crucial. Lonely, unappreciated people are unhealthy, miserable, disease-prone people... (believe me, I should know), and when you find somebody who finally and truly "gets" you after too many lonely, lonely years, you want to celebrate... and you want to proclaim the specialness of that linkage to all the world.

But that sort of thing can happen between two males, two females, or a male and a female.

In this day and age, however, where the fear-based social pressures are so great for males and females to "be together", I see that very coercion creating quite a lot of deep-seated animosity and contempt for the entire notion of heterosexuality... heterosexuality which would likely be a much more natural and pleasurable thing, if it weren't being so noxiously shoved down our throats all the time, and if the way we are told we're supposed to act as hetero males and hetero females, wasn't such a confining and contemptible disgrace.

Given the overall setup for heterosexuality -- and this is something I've said before -- my gut almost feels like someone has perverted it into something that they intended to be unpleasant and sado-masochistic... almost as though it was intended to foster homosexuality through resentment of said "heterosexuality", as an aversive set of conditions.

But I suppose even through all of this, that there are males and females who truly do come to like and even cherish each other, and even enjoy pulling each other's hair and saying "Give it to me" and "Who's your daddy?" behind closed doors. I have been there, and all I can say is that today's female seems far too dangerous, sadistic, and profoundly loveless and malicious, for me feel at ease any longer to even try for that oasis of sustenance.

At any rate, because there are so many pressures and aversions associated with the role of heterosexuality, I don't think you'll ever be able to make it disappear... and trying to "stamp it out" -- which, let's face it, is really what this is all about -- will only add fuel to the fire of resentment of heterosexuality, and as I see it, create more homosexuals. (This is how insanely dumb the militant hetero camp really is).

Instead, the only way to increase the popularity of heterosexuality, is for us as a society to make being heterosexual actually enjoyable again.

The role of "ideal hetero male" should be re-written so that he is no longer an amoral and degenerate, pussy-chasing conquistador who takes pleasure in leaving an accomplished and wide swath of destruction behind him. And the role of "ideal hetero female" should be re-written so that she is no longer a sadistic and litigious siren, hell-bent on the emotional, psychological, and financial destruction of any male she can "lure in" with her "feminine wiles".

This is a hellish situation for both males and females to have to conform to, and I don't give a rat's ass what anyone says in rebuttal... this is what drives people away from the entire institution of heterosexuality and marriage. And rightly so.

I have even heard several pastors on the radio, proclaim their resentment for homosexual unions, because those people are actually enjoying themselves. Their implicit argument is that marriage isn't supposed to be about pleasure... it's supposed to be a protracted ordeal... a miserable sacrifice... that two people must inescapably suffer through, for the sake of the eventual achievement of some warped sense of "character building" and "goodness". Their explicit argument is that "homosexual unions are wrong because they're about hedonistic pleasure". What rational person shouldn't cheer at such a prospect!?

But do you see the point?  All of us implicitly understand that heterosexuality should mean misery, and who in their right mind actually wants something like that?

but if you change these things (the conditions of heterosexuality) and actually let them become natural and pleasurable as they were for each of us before social and religious mandates enslaved us, then you have something you can truly be proud of... and heteros will actually be enjoying themselves so much, that they won't give two shits what any homos that still exist, are doing! (To get a sense of such a forgotten state of bliss, rent the movie entitled The Blue Lagoon).

At that point, nobody should really give a flying damn who is getting married and who isn't.

Post 2

Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 7:39am

Although I agree with the overall premise, I did have a problem with this one line:

"And it�s hard to see how forcing something on an unwanting public would result in greater acceptance."

How do you think blacks and women got the right to vote? It was forced on an unwanting public because it was the right thing to do, and because people had grown up with the ridiculous notion that blacks and women are naturally inferior to a white male and therefore should have no say in politics, as well as many other aspects of life. Perhaps this is the same situation? I think it is. I think that much of America has been raised with a ridiculous sense of homophobia. Ultimately, if you love someone, does it really matter if they're a guy or a girl? Our culture says it does, because many are uncomfortable with working outside of the box that says there can only be two delineations in gender. Many other cultures in the world have not evolved these behavioral restrictions. It's really just another facet of American partisanship. For example, just like the Republican and Democratic parties have a stranglehold on our political system (and are slowly choking it to death), the notion of "stricly male or strictly female" has a strangehold on our cultural values.

That said, I don't think that marriage should entitle people to preferential status. However, marriage should allow the transfer of property and other benefits in case of death. Single people have the same right, they just have to declare it in a will. Outside of that, it's not the government's responsibility to say who can and can't get married. And it's certainly not the church's responsibility to tell the government what to do.

Post 3

Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 12:30pm

First, Cass: I generally agree with you about the conceptual definition of marriage--that if it isn't what it is, it's no longer "marriage"--but I didn't have time to go into that. As you can see from the bottom of the article, this was written for my school paper, which has a strict word-limit. Ditto for anyone other developments that could've been made from what I've said.

Now Nix:

I do not believe that women got the right to vote contrary to popular opinion. Ditto for blacks. However, in the areas in which blacks weren't popularly supported, there was a tremendous backlash (specifically in the civil rights era). But overall, the change in attitude preceded the change in law.

More later...

Post 4

Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 11:58am

Although I could argue other issues, I have some familiarity with the politics involved and would like to correct what I believe are mistaken impressions of fact.

The gay community is divided. It's the gay moderates who support gay marriage, while the gay cultural left is unenthusiastic. The first wants inclusion in American mainstream society, and is willing to conform and appear "respectable" and dispense with the color and sexuality of historically gay American culture for a gay version of the American dream- their politics range from moderate conservative to liberal. The second wants to preserve and extend the color, drama, sexuality, and transgressiveness of gay life, and is tepid towards gay marriage as selling out the best in gay society for state and social privileges that should not be institutionalized. But they also tend to embrace identity politics and harass non-cultural left gays as not 'really' gay, and they share the economic shallowness of left-liberals generally. There are occasional libertarians in both groups.

I am not totally in agreement in either side; the first group are dull conformists wanting the same maritial and corporate staleness that I object to in the first place, and is sometimes sickeningly opportunistic in throwing GLBTs lacking respectability to the wolves for politics' sake; they are however at least universalists and treat opponents to the right honorably. But the cultural leftists, while they might likely agree with the majority of this article posted, and are good at supporting the voices of those too individualistic for marriage, are frequently irrational, prize style over substance, and are impoverished in self-criticism.

I am simply correcting fact here, I have limited affinity for either side, and I have worse to say about mainstream society, which I personally found no life worth living within. I support both equal rights to marriage and the disestablishment of the institution; I think it is foolish to oppose the first in the name of the latter on the basis of history and realism; I think it is wrong to oppose the second in the name of the first as a matter of principle. I think it is unfounded to say that the advocates of gay marriage are forcing anything on the rest of the country; it is those who attached various privileges to straight marriage that did so. And I do not think the historical meaning of 'marriage' is relevant- many ancient legal terms have changed meaning as the political regimes they have existed in has changes- indeed, 'marriages historically signified an economic and reproductive alliance between families of no romantic connotation.

Historically, the purpose of marriage has been to cement the respectable into the social order; the only thing worse than marriage was exclusion from its social resources. In the recent past, companionate marriage, initiated by the parties involved and pursued ostensively on romantic grounds, has become socially common. But marriages are still made with economic considerations in mind, and hurried by the frowns of relatives who most people count on for a start in life, and unhappy marriages are still quite common. I would personally see the extension of companionate marriage carried to its logical conclusion; believe it or not, I am an incorrigable romantic who would take the 'marriage' out of companionate marriage and see unbonded unions of love, or bonded only for purposes of adjudicating common property and custodial rights.

But we do not live in that world. Straight people who are intelligent, artful, and independent-minded remain in marriages because they cannot socially afford not to- sometimes because issues such as hospital visitation rights may be the only may to maintain a relationship against state restrictions; simply imagine if your lover was hospitalized for a long-term illness and you were locked out for lack of a piece of paper; this happens.

Right now, there is no good answer, but gays should have access to the imperfect and mixed economy choice of marriage rather than being forced on to the black or grey market. The matter is precisely parallel to a system that finances public services out of collective tax revenues and then excludes some persons from their use. Believe me, this is not a situation one wants to promote.

I myself lived in a nonregistered heterosexual relationship for five years; I can tell you we payed a price for it. How much worse that price would have been had we been the same sex, obviously without legal marriage at a glance... is not something I wish to dwell on. I am hardly a supporter of the institution of marriage, which I regard as a trap and a death of love; I've counted too many wedding rings to believe it promotes happiness. But mandatory social exclusion is worse.

my regards,

Jeanine Ring {))(*)((}

Post 5

Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 12:22pm

Orion Reasoner:

Wow. That argument is the best I've ever heard concerning homosexuality and heterosexuality. I feel as if some chains have been broken in my mind. I have myself felt the very feelings you talk about. Shortly after I moved to college I began to toy with the idea of homosexual experimentation, because I was sick of being tossed about as every girl's plaything. It seems that just as many girls are conquistadors these days are guys are. The stress that it put on my relationships was unbearable, even after only a month. Homosexual realtionships, however, don't have that stress and strain that society puts on heterosexuality. You're free to just be yourself and be accepting and accepted.

I then realized that what I wanted was what I had under my nose all along, with my ex-girlfriend, so I abandoned the idea and now I'm back with her. (And I plan on staying that way.)

It seems that you've put words to things that I've always felt but never even knew enough about to begin to articulate.

Post 6

Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 12:25pm

"There are no referents which relate to two people of the same sex forming a public sexually based relationship. "

This is not true. Consider the berdaches of pre-Columbian North America. Besides, there are no clear historical referents for a "libertarian government", which as Chris Sciabarra points out in Ayn Rand, the Russian Radical, is an "ideal type" that abstracts elements of historical governments defensible in terms of a rational approach to politics, detaching them from less than ideal historical associations. "Capitalism" has historically been a historically state-subsidized system of commercial privilege, but Rand defended capitalism, the *unknown* ideal.

A capitalism consisting of freely organized corporations is an improvement of a capitalism of selectively chartered companies. Similarly, a maritial system of freely arranged marriages is better than one where marriage is granted only to the straight favorites of the court.

I would argue that in both cases the ascriptions of privilege to marriages or corporations as such as the natural forms of economic or socio-sexual organization is far from ideal. But it is better that such forms be available to all, and it is better we apply human intelligence to free ourselves from the detritus of history constrained by the irrational accretion of referents from the past. What is valuable in marriage- or what value uncomfortably takes form in marriage- is as logically applicable to homosexuals as heterosexuals.

Let us have the romanticism to aim for the highest incarnations of individualism, including the transcendence of restrictive marriage, but let us have the realism to open up existing institutions by expanding their best aspects and discarding their worst. Let us realize the endless roads that humanity can travel, but with a clear eye to how badly and partially disentangled we are from a long and atrocious past.

We are still so neolithic, is our nanotechnic age.

my regards,

Jeanine Ring {))(*)((}

Post 7

Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 2:53pm

Nix,

Thanks for the acknowledgment. I try very hard in my life to connect with people by laboring over finding precisely the right words and phrases to describe precisely what is going through my logic and, subsequently, my emotions.

The hardest part is digging below the surface and dredging up what lurks down there, exerting its influence, and pulling it up into the light... and my focused visual field, in order to meticulously analyze things for patterns and connections.

After that, if I find improper connections, I try to disconnect what shouldn't be connected, then connect what does makes sense, and then "drop the hood" back down, and see how it then runs on a test track.

What can I say? It works for me.

Post 8

Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 9:02pm

Orion,
I like the first half of your post (#1 of this thread) regarding the improper combination of "guy" and "marriage" . But I have to disagree with several other issues raised in your post regarding heterosexual relationships.

You wrote

"...today's female seems far too dangerous, sadistic, and profoundly loveless and malicious,..."

and

"The role of "ideal hetero male" should be re-written so that he is no longer an amoral and degenerate, pussy-chasing conquistador who takes pleasure in leaving an accomplished and wide swath of destruction behind him. And the role of "ideal hetero female" should be re-written so that she is no longer a sadistic and litigious siren, hell-bent on the emotional, psychological, and financial destruction of any male she can "lure in" with her "feminine wiles". "

I wonder are you confusing Hollywood movies with reality?

I believe it is a common misconception that married life (heterosexual, of course. Urrrgh, should not have to specify it!) is always tedious, miserable, and less pleasurable. Movies, fictions, newspapers would never report on happily married heterosexual (again, urrrgh) couples - it's not news worthy and it will not sell. What you wrote above is almost a direct lift of what are generally depicted in so many novels and movies nowadays. But they often stray far from the reality.

Post 9

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 12:09am

Hong,

Please don't be deceived by my use of the term "role"... It's not meant literally. I meant it in the sense that Shakespeare did when he said something to the effect that "all the world's a stage, and all the men and women... merely actors".

But as far as reality goes, what I comment on, is what I have repeatedly observed in the world today... at least for the age group thirty and younger. Those older than this age were not incubated with the same poisonous mindset as is prevalent now.

Thanks for the feedback.

Post 10

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 8:14am

"...what I comment on, is what I have repeatedly observed in the world today... at least for the age group thirty and younger. Those older than this age were not incubated with the same poisonous mindset as is prevalent now."

I certainly can't claim that I know the mind settings of today's younger people well. If what you observed are true, it is indeed sad. Though I still have doubt...

Post 11

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 8:14am

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 10:03am

Hong,

I would have to back up Orion here. I definitely see, at least in those around me, a confusion between movies and reality. Meaning, many people my age (I'm 18) think that the relationships depicted by the entertainment industry are what real relationships are supposed to be like. So they "play the game" and instead of seeking true happiness and acceptance, the play to "win." But the problem is that when you go into a relationship looking to "win" over the other person, you both lose.

That's why I was considering homosexual relationships for awhile. I've found that there are guys that I know that I would rather be in a relationship with than most of the girls I know. The structure of the relationship isn't "scoring points" or showing off a trophy, it's just about being comfortable with someone that shares your values.

And that's why I got back with my ex-girlfriend, because I realized that that's precisely what I had experienced with her. (Why keep searching when you've already found the treasure, eh?)

It's rather unfortunate that our society has been reduced to the state that the entertainment industries decide how we live our lives, but that's where a lot of people are at.

Post 13

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 4:14pm

Words are man made and, as such, subject to change. Just as Ayn Rand properly condemned the popular definition of "selfishness" and the immoral philosophy that created that definition, I condemn the popular definition of "marriage" and the immoral philosophy that improperly limits the term to a union of man and woman.

Post 14

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 6:34pm

Mr Palin,
I think you misunderstood Ayn Rands' issues with the word "selfishness". She stated that Selfishness was defined as "concern with ones' own person, the self". She pointed out that nowhere did this specify whether this was good or bad; that what she took issue with was the modern acceptance that to be concerned with oneself and ones' own life was a bad thing. If you decide you don't like the modern definition of the concept of "marriage" and want to change it, you are living in a "Humpty Dumpty" world, where "a word means exactly what I want it to mean". And then there would be no meaningful discourse, learning or cohesion, with each of us defining words to suit ourselves. This way madness lies. There are specific rules which govern language, and they are there for a good reason - and it was exactly this that Rand pointed out and wrote, thought and lived by.
"Marraige" is the word, in English, given by the Western world, to a concept describing the referent activities of one man - one woman publicly stated and religiously / legally sealed sexually based relationships. Thats what it is. And trying a "saying its different will make it different" can't have any effect in reality.
If gays want to have some sort of ritualistic linkage to celebrate unions, they can. But because the referent activity is specific to itself, ie gays and the reasons they are "linking", then the concept word to describe it must be different, because the activity and all the associated existents are different.
Orion: I am more sorry than I can say to see you express such bitterness. Believe me, no-one knows better than I the apalling pain and anguish people can inflict on each other. But when you give into bitterness, and turn away from being loving and having warm relationships, you let the person who hurt you win - you let the dark side of life defeat you. I'm sure you are worth better than that - as I'm sure that, if you give it a try, you will find the happiness I believe you deserve.
Cass

Post 15

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 7:30pm

Cass,

"[One must] distinguish metaphysical facts from man-made facts--i.e., facts which are inherent in the identities of that which exists, from facts which depend upon the exercise of human volition. Because man has free will, no human choice--and no phenomenon which is a product of human choice--is metaphysically necessary. In regard to any man-made fact, it is valid to claim that man has chosen thus, but it was not inherent in the nature of existence for him to have done so; he could have chosen otherwise."
Leonard Peikoff, "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy," Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

Language is man-made. It does change with time. Have you ever tried to read Old English. It bears little resemblance to modern English.

"marrriage n. 1a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. b. The state of being married; wedlock. c. A common-law marriage. d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage...."
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, fourth edition

I stand by my statements.

Bob

Post 16

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 8:00pm

This article was awful.

Firstly, the title. As the author suggests it might do, it takes me back to the juvenile schoolyard language of what seems an eternity ago. The author could have used a more precise word to point to what he was getting at. "Gay marriage is a non-issue" perhaps, as reads the byline. Instead he chose to buy into the pejorative use of the word "gay" - which use existed, I thought, only in those barbaric halls of homophobia - high schools. It seems the intellectual level of his own university has not matured much on it. Now, of course I'll be accused of being too "politically correct". But, like Rand, I believe language has the power to aid in reinforcing certain philosophical errors. Here it's implicitly reinforcing the view that there's something disgusting or pathetic about homosexuals. It's disappointing to see that here. I thought I left high school five years ago.

Next point. This is really the worst bit, and the root of all else that is wrong with his article. Alec wouldn't have a problem with gay marriage because "everyone has a right to self-harm." Of course it's true that everyone does have such a right; it's also true that I'd certainly rather an anti-gay bigot realise that fact than try to ban homosexuality, to say the least. But the view that it is an act of self-harm to enter into a committed and loving relationship - gay or lesbian - is truly awful. Alec, if you have respect for reality, I would ask you to talk to a committed gay couple wishing to get married, ask them about their lives and their feelings for each other, and then retract your view based on a better understanding. I can only assume that you've had no exposure to gay couples and that you've been twisted by the language of the homophobic environments you've clearly been a part of. I'm being civil here. The truth is that I don't expect to visit this site of all sites and be told by a posted article that my relationship is an act of self-harm. [This is not an attempt to reopen the debate about homosexuality had on this site recently; it is, however, extremely disappointing that such positions continue to be widespread.]

The next, rather naive thing about this article is its claim that: "It�s also claimed that disallowing gay marriage encourages social castigation and results in more closet-homosexuals. But having sex in closets is a fetish hardly confined to homosexuals." Come again? *That's* an argument?! I'll give you a better one: because a crucial social institution, with very real material benefits and rights involved (not all welfare rights) is limited to straights and denied to gays, the implication is this message to gay people: "You're not good enough. Your relationships are inferior. You are second class citizens." That's the kind of thing that breeds and reinforces, indirectly but definitely enough, anti-gay violence and irrational and unjust actions towards gays. A no-brainer, I would have thought.

Now, imagine if marriage were, say, limited to white people. Nobody else of any other races could marry. And then there was a proposal to equalise the situation. And up pops some Objectivist-libertarian and says, "Oh no, we can't do that. Some black couple might be able to get more on welfare." The Objectivist-libertarian of this ilk is actually committed to institutionalised racism, just so a bit of welfare money that the government would spend somewhere else anyway doesn't go to an extra married couple. It's just so so breathtakingly stupid! To anyone who buys this argument I say: get your priorities right.

My final point is in response to some of the favourable responses to this article. There have been some examples of gross mis-use of Objectivist epistemology to claim that because "marriage" as a concept has no same-sex couples as referents, gay marriage is ruled out "by definition". My response is: remember that essence is epistemological, not metaphysical. What is essential to a concept is contextual, and as context expands what is essential possibly changes. At present, what distinguishes marriage from other kinds of relationships is its legal protections and its heterosexual basis. But marriage is simply a legal concept, which is, as Bob Palin pointed out well, man-made. As such, in Rand's words, "it must be judged, then accepted or rejected and changed when necessary" (See 'The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made' in Philosophy: Who Needs It). If we find that the rules of this particular man-made institution are unjust, we can change them. We then expand the context of referents: it would then include homosexual couples. What is essential about marriage thus changes accordingly, as does its definition since its heterosexual basis is no longer a distinguishing feature. To claim that because the concept of "marriage" only has heterosexual referents and can therefore never include gay couples is akin to saying, in times past, that the concept "citizen" only has white referents, it does not include blacks and can never therefore include them. Objectivist epistemology this is not.

(Edited by Cameron Pritchard on 10/15, 8:06pm)

Post 17

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 7:24pm

Nix,
I can imagine that today's young people are under the bombardment of TV, movie, pop magazines, news, etc. and inevitably influenced by them. I only hope that they will eventually grow out of it and start to look at life with their own naked eyes instead of through colored and biased lens of the entertainment industry.

You remind me of my university days when I developed deep affection for my roommates and it lasted to this day. At that time homosexuality was not even in my conscious. But those relationships are completely different from my later real relationships. They don't substitute for each other. Also, it was in my 3rd or 4th year in the university that I decided to just be myself and stop trying to be something or somebody else that I had wished myself to be.

Post 18

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 8:38pm

Cameron Pritchard-

Thank you, thank you, thank you! <smooch> <smooch> With some reservations on the language of 'maturity' (adulthood is partly the adjusting to conformities one cannot fight), thank you for saying what needs to be said.

Your parallel to institutional racism is precise- and rationally unarguable.

my gratitude,

Jeanie Ring {))(*)((}

P.S. In a high school in Virginia near where I lived for five years, gay students walked in groups between classes for self-protection, and the feud between homophobes (and collaborators) and gay-friendly students reached near the pitch of an institutional civil war... a straight friend (who later called himself bi) came home wish a bruise one day because textbooks were being thrown at the 'faggots' and those who walked with them.

Post 19

Friday, October 15, 2004 - 9:29pm