State Senator Stan Rosenberg, Dave Sullivan (our next DA) and Congressman Olver march in the Amherst July 4 Parade.UPDATE: 4:00 PM: The Associated Press picked up the story (from the Springfield Republican, not the Gazette.) Yikes!
UPDATE: Tuesday 10:00 AM
The Springfield Republican reports:
I had wondered how my friends at the Springfield Republican were going to handle this story. After all, it is news.
But then, Stan went to their competition the Daily Hampshire Gazette (with a five or ten times smaller readership) with his coming out column, although he also distributed it July 4th morning to a large email listserve as well.
Safe bet the Amherst Bulletin will reprint Stan's column this Thursday, but it will be interesting to see if they assign a reporter to also do a follow up story on the reactions thus far (note to reporters: feel free to quote any of my Anon Nitwits.)
#########
So Stan's well-written, well-timed coming out column in the July 4 edition of the Daily Hampshire Gazette reminded me of Michael Jackson's sudden death: initially shocking but after a second or two of reflection, hardly surprising.
And yes, kind of like the courtship/marriage of Anne Awad and Robie Hubley--the Select Board sweethearts--it was one of the worst kept secrets in Amherst.
If the American flag and July 4 represent anything at all it's freedom. Gay marriage, a Massachusetts's milestone, certainly qualifies. Stan Rosenberg has always been a stand up guy. On July 4th he never stood taller.
From: Rosenberg, Stan (SEN)
To: amherstac@aol.com
Sent: Mon, Jul 6, 2009 11:30 am
Subject: RE: Today's July 4 Gazette column
To: amherstac@aol.com
Sent: Mon, Jul 6, 2009 11:30 am
Subject: RE: Today's July 4 Gazette column
Thanks again both for your email and for coming up to me at the parade. It means a lot to have such a positive response to the column and from a very wide ranging group of people all across my district and beyond. Have a great summer now that he sun has returned!
From: amherstac@aol.com [mailto:amherstac@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 11:35 AM
To: Rosenberg, Stan (SEN)
Subject: Re: Today's July 4 Gazette column
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 11:35 AM
To: Rosenberg, Stan (SEN)
Subject: Re: Today's July 4 Gazette column
Hey Stan,
You're welcome.
Getting on my bike right now!
Larry
You're welcome.
Getting on my bike right now!
Larry
Now I know why I got that cringe feeling when I met him a few years back. When women raise such concerns about heterosexual men, society supports them. And this is different because????
ReplyDeleteRosenberg is wrong on one very big point: Both the hanging of the alleged witches and gay marriage were ordered by Massachusetts judges, allegedly under law.
ReplyDeleteMarshall and Sewall are in similar positions here -- say what you want about the wisdom of prosecuting witchcraft or homophobia, you must recognize that it was by judicial fiat.
There has never been a vote by the people on gay marriage. It, like abortion, will never have any universal legitimacy until it does.
Governor Phipps dissolved the court and ordered that evidence of ghosts no longer be accepted in any other Massachusetts court. Governor Romney instead embraced the decision and went so far as to eliminate fathers in Massachusetts. (Go look at a birth certificate now...)
He should be applauded because standing up is quite unnatural for him:
ReplyDeleteMale Homosexuals Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:
· The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.
· Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.
In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.
· A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.
In homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of "committed" or "monogamous" typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage.
· A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous." According to study author Barry Adam, "Gay culture allows men to explore different...forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals."
· The Handbook of Family Diversity reported a study in which "many self-described 'monogamous' couples reported an average of three to five partners in the past year. Blasband and Peplau (1985) observed a similar pattern."
· In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that, in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years: Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.
Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170
. According to McWhirter and Mattison, most homosexual men understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of oppression.
In their Journal of Sex Research study of the sexual practices of older homosexual men, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that only 2.7 percent of older homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime.
Brad Hayton provides insight into the attitudes of many homosexuals towards commitment and marriage: Homosexuals...are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good "marital" relationship.
While the rate of fidelity within marriage cited by these studies remains far from ideal, there is a significant difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 90 percent cited for married couples. This indicates that even "committed" homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage.
Normal? Stand up? I don't think so.
Vermont
ReplyDeleteIn April 2000, the governor of the state of Vermont signed a law instituting civil unions for homosexuals. The bill conferred 300 privileges and rights enjoyed by married couples upon same-sex partners who register their relationship with the town clerk and have their union solemnized by a member of the clergy or the justice of the peace.
Estimating the homosexual and lesbian population of Vermont:
The number of homosexuals and lesbians in the state of Vermont may be estimated based on national studies. Contrary to the widely promulgated but inaccurate claims that up to ten percent of the population is homosexual, research indicates that homosexuals comprise one to three percent of the population. For example, a recent study in Demography relying upon three large data sets--the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the U.S. Census--estimated the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population to be 2.5 percent and the number of exclusive lesbians to be 1.4 percent.
According to the 2000 Census, the adult population of Vermont is 461,304.
Based on the Demography study, a reasonable estimate of the number of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont would be approximately 5,600 (2.5 percent of the adult male population) for male homosexuals, and approximately 3,300 (1.4 percent of the adult female population) for lesbians, for a total of approximately 8,900 homosexuals and lesbians. [Note: these are only rough approximations for purposes of statistical comparison.]
Number of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont who have entered into civil unions:
USA Today reports that, as of January 2004, only 936 homosexual or lesbian couples (for a total of 1,872 individuals) have entered into civil unions. This indicates that only about 21 percent of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population of Vermont has entered into civil unions. Put another way, 79 percent of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont choose not to enter into civil unions. By contrast, in Vermont, heterosexual married couples outnumber cohabiting couples by a margin of 7 to 1, indicating a much higher level of desire on the part of heterosexual couples to legalize their relationships.
CONTINUED
For purposes of comparison it may be useful to examine two countries that have granted special rights to homosexuals, including marriage-like civil unions, which grant gays and lesbians virtually all of the rights of marriage.
ReplyDeleteSweden
In 1995 Sweden passed the Registered Partnership Act which created civil unions for homosexual couples. In 2003 that law was amended to give registered homosexual couples the same right to adopt or have legal custody of children as married couples. The percentage of homosexual or lesbians in Sweden that enter into civil unions may be estimated as follows:
Estimated homosexual and lesbian population of Sweden:
Extrapolating from the Demography estimates in the U.S., a similar percentage of the homosexual and lesbian population of Sweden would be approximately 140,000 (2.5 percent of the adult male population of 3,531,554, and 1.4 percent of the adult female population of 3,679,317).
Number of homosexuals and lesbians in Sweden who have registered their unions:
The number of registered same-sex unions in Sweden is reported to be about 1,500 (for a total of 3,000 individuals) out of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population of 140,000.
This indicates that only about two percent of Swedish homosexuals and lesbians choose to enter into legally recognized unions. Put another way, about 98 percent of Swedish homosexuals and lesbians do not officially register as same-sex couples.
The Netherlands
A landmark law allowing same-sex "marriage" was instituted in the Netherlands on March 31, 2001, with a highly publicized communal ceremony that included two lesbian "brides" and six homosexual "grooms." The Netherlands instituted a "registered partnership" law in 1998 that accorded legal status to homosexual relationships similar to that of marriage. The new law, which explicitly recognizes same-sex matrimony, is restricted to Dutch nationals. However, as the following analysis shows, the percentage of homosexuals and lesbians that have entered into marriage-like civil unions is very low.
Estimated homosexual and lesbian population of the Netherlands:
Extrapolating from demographic figures for homosexuals and lesbians in the U.S., a similar percentage for the Netherlands would be 242,000 (2.5 percent of the adult male population of 6,161,662, and 1.4 percent of the adult female population of 6,311,338).
Number of Dutch homosexuals and lesbians who have registered their unions:
A news report by the Gay Financial Network predicted that "some 10,000 gay couples could be married" in the first year following the legalization of gay "marriage" in the Netherlands. In reality, far fewer chose to solemnize their relationships.
The Office of Legislative Research released a report in October 2002 stating: "The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs reports that 3,383 of the 121,776 marriages licensed between April 1, 2001, and June 30, 2002, involved people of the same sex."
Thus, as of October 2002, only 2.8 percent, or 6,766 individuals (3,383 licenses) out of an estimated homosexual and lesbian population of 242,000, have registered their unions as "married."
CONTINUED
ReplyDeleteSources:
U.S. Census Bureau, Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000, 2; Black, "Demographics," 141; U.S. Census Bureau Census 2000 Summary File 1; Bayles, "Vermont's Gay Civil Unions," 1; Census 2000 Special Reports, 4; Shane, "Many Swedes Say 'I Don't,'" 1; "ORL Backgrounder," 1. The much lower rates of homosexual and lesbian civil "marriages" in Sweden and the Netherlands must be viewed in the light of much lower marriage rates in both of those countries, a trend that the introduction of gay "marriage" in the 1990s has not reversed. Thus, as writer Stanley Kurtz argues, the granting of marriage rights to homosexuals and lesbians "has further undermined the institution" of marriage: "Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable."
Conclusion:
Level of Relationship Commitment Among Homosexuals Data from Vermont, Sweden, and the Netherlands reveal that only a small percentage of homosexuals and lesbians identify themselves as being in a committed relationship, with even fewer taking advantage of civil unions or, in the case of the Netherlands, of same-sex "marriage." This indicates that even in the most "gay friendly" localities, the vast majority of homosexuals and lesbians display little inclination for the kind of lifelong, committed relationships that they purport to desire to enter.
END
Wow!!! Who are these people? To devote so much time and energy to prove ...? And with so much disgust in their "anonymous voices". Kinda wonder why this subject pushes their buttons, don't ya.
ReplyDeleteI have two issues with gay marriage.
ReplyDeleteFirst, in a democracy, the people get to vote. We haven't.
And Second, gay marriage is an attack on fathers' rights. Marriage was created to formalize the rights and obligations between men, women and the children they create together.
All had certain rights, and certain obligations, and it was the family (and not the state) that was responsible for supporting the children. Gay marriage is the final nail in the coffin...
And why can't a gay man marry his brother or cousin? He can't - because of concerns about recessive genes in any child they may procreate -- which shows how insane all of this is.
Mass Family offered a very logical comprimise, a provision where two people in a caring relationship (sexual or not) could enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage. They saw this as not only including gay couples but also siblings and parent/child relationships of mutual caring.
The gay community rejected this. And for that they should hang THEIR heads in shame....
Then don't engage in it.
ReplyDeleteThat too is your freedom as an American.
"Now I know why I got that cringe feeling when I met him a few years back. When women raise such concerns about heterosexual men, society supports them. And this is different because????"
ReplyDeletehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/
4532029.stm
"The smell of gay men were the least liked by heterosexual men and women, and lesbians."
What the "natural" world has to tell us about gay men is???????
"Then don't engage in it.
ReplyDeleteThat too is your freedom as an American."
It's quite another thing to mislabel/celebrate it, Mr. Kelly.
I guess the anons are telling us that there is deeply rooted, visceral homophobia lurking not too far under the smooth liberal facade, "only in the republic of amherst."
ReplyDeletePeople are people.
ReplyDeleteSome smell unattractive. Some have strange desires (strange to you.) Fear and ignorance fuels your contempt.
Try to imagine that Stan for example, did not choose his sexuality any more than you or I did, and also that falling in love or having a relationship is for him and you or me pretty much the same human experience. Gay people experience the same range of emotions as you or me. The sex act is different but try not to obsess over it or your inability to understand will continue.
How about a few more posts on Homophobia. I like hearing from all of the conservative voices on the subject, especially the Christians who piously wear their religion on their chests like a medal and then cast the first stone.
ReplyDeleteYou got it:
ReplyDeleteThe risks associated with homosexual conduct are so drastic, in fact, that U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM) and women who have had sex with MSM, from even donating blood.
Consider that, according to the Food and Drug Administration, MSM, "have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors."
Adults and children who engage in homosexual conduct, especially males, are also susceptible, at an astronomical rate, to nearly all other forms of sexually transmitted disease (STD). For example, the Hepatitis B virus is about six times more prevalent among "gays," and Hepatitis C is twice as common.
But perhaps most shocking are today's syphilis rates among homosexual men and adolescents. A recent study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that although homosexuals comprise only a fraction of the population (one to two percent), they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.
SAN FRANCISCO, Jan 14 (Reuters) - A drug-resistant strain of potentially deadly bacteria has moved beyond the borders of U.S. hospitals and is being transmitted among gay men during sex, researchers said on Monday.
ReplyDeleteThey said methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, is beginning to appear outside hospitals in San Francisco, Boston, New York and Los Angeles.
Sexually active gay men in San Francisco are 13 times more likely to be infected than their heterosexual neighbors, the researchers reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
"Once this reaches the general population, it will be truly unstoppable," said Binh Diep, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco who led the study. "That's why we're trying to spread the message of prevention."
http://www.reuters.com/article/health-SP-A/idUSN1337175820080115
Anon 1:49 PM
ReplyDeleteI "celebrate" courage wherever and whenever I see it.
Like Father Judge, NYFD Chaplain and the FIRST "official" casualty of 9/11, who died while tending to a fallen firefighter.
Or Mark Bingham, one of the LAST casualties of that awful day, who died trying to retake Flight 93 before it took out the Capitol Building in DC.
Both gay men. Both Americans.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol8no8/01-0534.htm
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol8no8/01-0534.htm
Wow Larry...it's times like this when I want to throw my arms around you (in a manly, just-friends kind of way, of course) & ask: "Are you the same guy who seems to stand right next to Rush Limbaugh on most (other) issues?!?!" Amazing.
ReplyDeleteBut GOOD FOR YOU for standing up to all of these hate-mongering Anons who are obviously guided more by fear and prejudice than anything else. Speaking as someone who was raised right here in Amherst (back when it truly had a "small New England town" kind of feel to it, before all of the armchair QB's - who seem to like to talk more than act - moved in) I have seen a slow and steady movement towards intolerance in Amherst. What was once a bastion of true "liberalism" - as in, "i may not agree with what you have to say, but I celebrate your right to say it/feel it" - has now become an enclave of know-it-alls who can't see beyond their own noses (which are often up in the air). If they did, they would see that their predilection for trying to shout down into submission any opposing viewpoints/beliefs that they encounter is the flip side of the same coin that's used by all the right-wing, ultra-conservative groups that they profess to despise. Sad.
As much as you like to paint yourself as a lone wolf "conservative Republican" Larry, i see you as being more of a true "liberal" than many of the folks I encounter around town. Keep it up & thanks for offering up a few points to ponder for all of these closet homophobes lurking in the bushes of your blog. They obviously don't get out much because anybody who lives their life with their eyes open could name dozens of family members, dear friends, neighbors, etc. who are hard-working, good-hearted, wonderful people who just happen to be gay. You would have to construct some pretty thick, impenetrable walls of fear and prejudice to keep that fact out of your personal sphere of existence.
The focus here has strayed from the idea of tolerance that Senator Rosenberg was speaking about, to a series of rants fueled by hate and ignorance.
ReplyDeleteStan was courageous this past weekend. He has earned a round of appluase, a standing ovation even. His dedication to Hampshire and Franklin County, his dedication to civil liberties, his dedication to those who are cast in the shadows - has been unwavering for over 3 decades.
Stan Rosenberg is a hero and a leader, in the eyes of so many, including myself, and I am proud to have him represent me in the Legislature.
With this new found freedom, I hope Stan sticks it out in the Legislature and looks towards new opportunities - like Congress or the Governors Office.
Historian Paul Johnson admitted in The Quest for God (1996) that:
ReplyDelete“There were a great many of us, in the 1960s, who felt that there were grave practical and moral objections to the criminalisation of homosexuality, and therefore supported, as happened in most Western countries, changes in the law which meant that certain forms of homosexual behaviour ceased to be unlawful. Homosexuality itself was still to be publicly regarded by society, let alone by its churches, as a great moral evil, but men who engaged in it, within strictly defined limits, would no longer be sent to prison. We believed this to be the maximum homosexuals deserved or could reasonably expect.”
As an esteemed historian, Johnson felt he knew ‘better’ than biblical tradition. But…
“We were proven totally mistaken. Decriminalisation made it possible for homosexuals to organize openly into a powerful lobby, and it thus became a mere platform from which further demands were launched.
Next followed demands for equality, in which homosexuality was officially placed on the same moral level as standard forms of sexuality, and dismissal of identified homosexuals from sensitive positions, for instance schools, children’s homes, etc., became progressively more difficult.
“This was followed in turn by demands not merely for equality but privilege: the appointment, for instance, of homosexual quotas in local government, the excision from school textbooks and curricula, and university courses, passages or books or authors they found objectionable, special rights to proselytize, and not least the privilege of special programmes to put forward their views — including the elimination of the remaining legal restraints — on radio and television.”
“Thus we began by attempting to right what was felt an ancient injustice and we ended with a monster in our midst, powerful and clamoring, flexing its muscles, threatening, vengeful and vindictive towards anyone who challenges its outrageous claims, and bent on making fundamental — and to most of us horrifying — changes to civilized patterns of sexual behaviour.”
Some courage you have there, Larry.
ReplyDeleteI notice Stan doesn't hide behind the cloak of an Anon.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4rxHec9KpY
ReplyDeleteLarry, is gay okay?
Come on tough guy, "come out of the closet" (not literally, please). I dare you. Your PERSONAL opinion.
Old news...very old news.
ReplyDeleteBehind the comments of Ed and others on gay marriage, there's actually a serious strategic political issue, one that those of us who support gay marriage need to think about: do we really want this to become a federal constitutional issue, a la abortion in Roe v. Wade?
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to be pro-life to wonder: just what would have happened if the Supreme Court had stayed out of the abortion issue? How many states would have ended up by now with legalized abortion, or, to state it more accurately, heavily regulated, but legal abortion?
My guess is that, at this point in time, we would have had a very small number of states with a blanket prohibition on abortion, and those states would be confronted with a hefty ongoing economic and political price for it, in much the same way that the stragglers on enacting Martin Luther King Day were treated nationally, with boycotts and the like.
That status quo would have replaced what we have now: a neverending national battle about abortion at the Supreme Court level that threatens to go on interminably.
As a supporter of gay marriage, I like the way that this issue is progressing instead: through the states rather than the Supreme Court, with some states deciding to address the issue legislatively rather than through its highest courts. And the tide on this issue is turning into a tsunami.
Every single anonymous comment filled with hate and fear about homosexuals were posted by cowards who won't even associate their names with their own words.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way...to all of you Anons who like to use quotes and "facts" to support your argument re: "gay people are evil" i would just say this - the only thing that history has taught us about these sorts of hate-filled viewpoints is this: the inevitable result if you choose to walk down that road is death, destruction, and the loss of our humanity (think Crusades, Witch Trials, the Holocaust, and many, many other examples of hate-fueled atrocities committed by our ancestors).
ReplyDeleteC'mon people - let's actually LEARN from our mistakes and stop culling different people from our human herd just so we can create ways to make ourselves feel "better" and "superior" in some way. We all share the same basic human desires and aspirations (eg love, acceptance, respect, etc.) and THAT is where we should put our focus, NOT on meaningless things like skin color, sexual orientation, and the like. Because, if you don't watch out, YOU may be the next "target group du jour" (white, middle-aged, privileged men?) and find yourself out on that very same limb of isolation and persecution with folks who USED to be your friends/neighbors/co-workers sawing away.
Muslim Obama is going to deprive conservatives of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and gun rights and give it all to gays.
ReplyDelete"Old news...very old news."
ReplyDeleteCome on Larry, blurt it out. Is gay okay or not. Let's see what you're made of.
This IS Larry Kelley's blog
ReplyDelete...and we know what the Catholic church thinks;
-Gays are excluding from serving as priests in the US becuase the catholic church had a four decade long priest pedophile problem
-Gay people are not sinners unless they have gay sex.
...so what is Larry Kelley's considered opinion/beliefs/values/character?
"Every single anonymous comment filled with hate and fear about homosexuals were posted by cowards who won't even associate their names with their own words."
ReplyDeleteAnd you can't even associate your brain with facts. Not opinion, FACTS.
What is hell is wrong with YOU?
Wow is all I have to say.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Ryan this one looks like it's on the way to a new world record for hits/comments.
ReplyDeleteLucky me.
Isn't gay just great?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thebody.com/content/art21005.html
Married Couples:
ReplyDelete· A 2001 National Center for Health Statistics study on marriage and divorce statistics reported that 66 percent of first marriages last ten years or longer, with fifty percent lasting twenty years or longer.
Source:
National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001)
· A 2002 U.S. Census Bureau study reported similar results, with 70.7percent of women married between 1970 and 1974 reaching their tenth anniversary and 57.7 percent staying married for twenty years or longer.
Source:
Current Population Reports: U.S. Census Bureau (2002).
Male Homosexual Relationships:
The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.
While this "snapshot in time" is not an absolute predictor of the length of homosexual relationships, it does indicate that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.
Source:
2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census
· In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."
· A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.
· In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."
· In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years. MONOGAMY VS. PROMISCUITY: SEXUAL PARTNERS OUTSIDE OF THE RELATIONSHIP
Gay is great, innit?
Behind the comments of Ed and others on gay marriage
ReplyDeleteDo not paint all of us with the same brush. Let me be clear what my issues with gay marriage are: (a) this is a democracy where we vote, not a dictatorship where life-tenured dictators issue fiats and (b) it is about child support and child rearing and the rest.
To show the problem, take the following example: Two married lesbians decide they would like to have children. So one of them goes down to the local bar and finds random drunk guy and encourages him to have sex with her. (We won't get into the issues of "consent" and "rape" that would apply were it the other way around with an intoxicated woman>.) And the woman gets pregnant and the child is born.
Then the two women divorce. The mother is looking for child support - and who gets to pay it? Not the other partner in the marriage (although she may get hit with alimony) but the man whom the DNA comes back to. Who wasn't a party to the marriage.
Margaret Marshall said that marriage no longer is recognized in Massachusetts as a distincion and I wish that Romney had the guts to say "fine, then marriage no longer officially exists in Massachustts."
I firmly believe that marriage - like baptism and confirmation and bar/bat mitzvas and the rest should be CHURCH related and whatever the various religious groups (of any kind, including the 'lets worship the spotted turtle' folk) want it to be.
There is a clear need for two things. First, some sort of domestic partnership/responsiblity agreement (which may include more than two people) to address the issues arising where people (who may or may not be sexually involved with each other) have assumed a caring and medical responsiblity for each other.
And the second is to bring some sanity into the father/mother/child relationships. Right now the law is a quagmire and a house divided against itself will not stand, there needs to be a coordinated and equitable body of law where everyone's rights are protected. That doesn't exist now.
People say that "you have to have a license to drive but not to create a child" - my response is that "yes, you do, it is what the marriage LICENSE was all about in years past..."
Continued:
ReplyDeletethere's actually a serious strategic political issue, one that those of us who support gay marriage need to think about: do we really want this to become a federal constitutional issue, a la abortion in Roe v. Wade?
Ruth Bader Ginsberg - by no means a right winger - has said the same thing and added that _Roe_ was wrongly decided. For this very reason.
You don't have to be pro-life to wonder: just what would have happened if the Supreme Court had stayed out of the abortion issue?
It actually did the first time. There was a case where they could have outlawed it and they denied cert on the basis of it being a "political question" that should be resolved through the legislative process.
How many states would have ended up by now with legalized abortion, or, to state it more accurately, heavily regulated, but legal abortion?
As I understand it, when _Roe_ was decided, half the states (in which 3/4 of the population lived) had either legalized abortion or had passed laws that soon would legalize it. At the same time, some (but not all) states were lowering their drinking ages and young people had no problem crossing the state lines for beer, they wouldn't have been able to do so for an abortion?
My guess is that, at this point in time, we would have had a very small number of states with a blanket prohibition on abortion,
We essentially do now. There are many counties (more than in 1973) where there is no doctor performing abortions - and a lot more where they only do a couple a year. IMHO, any woman who has an abortion in a place where they aren't doing a lot of them is a damn fool because -- like anything in medicine -- you want to go where they are doing it enough to be familiar with it.
There are morbidity statistics that support this view in ANY surgical procedure.
and those states would be confronted with a hefty ongoing economic and political price for it, in much the same way that the stragglers on enacting Martin Luther King Day were treated nationally, with boycotts and the like.
No, they would find that other states became noted for all kinds of OB/GYN stuff and that the women from their state started going out of state for everything. Much like folks here go to Boston...
That status quo would have replaced what we have now: a neverending national battle about abortion at the Supreme Court level that threatens to go on interminably.
The abortion debate (and gay marriage debate) will never end because the loosing side never really lost. It is why this has to go to a referendum. Otherwise it becomes like the infamous _Dredd Scott_ decision, and could eventually spark a civil war.
"The abortion debate (and gay marriage debate) will never end because the loosing side never really lost. It is why this has to go to a referendum. Otherwise it becomes like the infamous Dredd Scott decision, and could eventually spark a civil war."
ReplyDeleteAmen.
Ask anyone you know... or don't know for that matter... any single person, "Would you have liked to have been aborted?" I dare you.
How many are going to say yes?
Now, think of all the thousands and thousands who didn't get a chance to say "Please, PLEASE don't do this to me!"
Killers.
Larry, you are alright! Down deep lives a very good person. Stay the course.
ReplyDeleteLarry,
ReplyDeleteStill waiting for your answer. Gay okay or no?
Reread my post you Nitwit
ReplyDelete"Do not paint all of us with the same brush. Let me be clear what my issues with gay marriage are: (a) this is a democracy where we vote" - Oversimply Ed
ReplyDeleteYour issues are your issues.
Our Court system is a co-equal branch of government. It'd job is to insure Equal Protection Under The Law. When it is demonstrated that laws or executive action create unequal protection under the law, the courts can act and impose a remedy. You may have the right to vote on other people's rights in a democracy but you can be sure that in the end the courts will strike down as unconstitutional law that deprives one class of people their rights under the law, and therefore denies equal protection under the law. Brown v. Board of Education says separate is not equal.
Why would you think the state can confer some rights on hetero's but not the same rights on homo's who desire equal treatment and equal protection?
Americans used to think of slaves as less than whole people and little more than property. Hopefully, we learn from our experiences.
Oh, your marriage needs no more defense from my marriage whether or not my marriage is homo or hetero.
Free the slaves. Free the gays, Equal access. Equal opportunity. Equal Responsibility. End don't ask don't tell. End discrimination against the remaining minority that our society (yes even in Amherst) treats with less than respect.
"...cowards who won't even associate their names with their own words."
ReplyDeleteAMEN.
Our Court system is a co-equal branch of government
ReplyDelete_Plessy v. Ferguson_
_Dred Scott_
Be careful of asking for dictators lest you get them. And read Marshall's decision before you start talking about "equal protection" because she never used that in justifying her decision.
Oh, and ladies who don't want guys watching you shower in the locker room - Marshall said that you don't have that right either. She interpreted the 1975 State ERA amendment to mean that no distinction may be made between men and women....
"Behind the comments of Ed and others on gay marriage, there's actually a serious strategic political issue, one that those of us who support gay marriage need to think about: do we really want this to become a federal constitutional issue, a la abortion in Roe v. Wade?"
ReplyDeleteYeah, because you know how close you are to losing:
Gay rights advocates will almost certainly continue to file lawsuits at the state level. It remains to be seen, however, if this legal battle will migrate to the federal courts, where the issue would be whether the U.S. Constitution guarantees gay and lesbian couples the right to wed. Filing such a claim at the federal level entails great risk for the gay marriage movement, since it would give the U.S. Supreme Court the ultimate say on the issue. An unfavorable outcome in the high court would prevent gay couples from arguing for a right to same-sex marriage under the U.S. Constitution, leaving only state constitutions, and thus state courts, as the only means by which same-sex couples could secure a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Although it is impossible to predict how the high court would rule on a same-sex marriage claim, there are clues. Given their dissenting opinions in Lawrence, it seems likely that Justices Scalia and Clarence Thomas would vote against a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Based on their generally conservative views, the two most recently appointed justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, also appear likely to vote against such a right. But Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens, who have voted in favor of gay rights claimants in every gay rights case they have considered, may be more likely to vote for the right to same-sex marriage.
Such a case may be likely to turn, then, on Justice Kennedy, whose vote is difficult to predict. On the one hand, he showed some sympathy with the gay rights movement in Lawrence. On the other hand, he emphasized in Lawrence that the right of gay and lesbian couples to engage in intimate conduct is a far cry, as a constitutional matter, from a right to same-sex marriage.
It is impossible to predict whether or when the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of gay marriage - or whether a change in the composition of the court in the coming years might influence the decision to take such a case. In the meantime, it is nearly certain that state courts will continue to wrestle with this question.
May god stop them, amen and amen.
Looks like you've got a tiger by the tail on this one, Larry...good luck "moderating" THIS thread!
ReplyDeleteLarry Kelley?
ReplyDeleteFlush.
As you can probably tell I keep my moderating to an absolute minimum: No libel, spam, double posts, or threats of violence.
ReplyDeleteAnd yeah, if things get really out of hand I can track (or have friends who can.)
Tom,
ReplyDeleteDo not mistake the Anon rantings as represenative of the conservative community. Both the extreme right and left wings are equally toxic as demonstrated by comments. We conservatives tend to be respectful towards differing opinions, for the most part. Most conservatives, particulary those in this area look at government waste and preserving individual rights. Many of us believe in gay marriage, as state marriage is a contract, a contract one has to pay the state to enter into, this all should partake in. We look at innefficient and bloated state government as the overarching problem, not the gals next door driving a Subie. Please remember a conservative is not a Republican. We practice restraint and moderation, and enjoy healthy and vigorous debate.
Ryan Morse
"Most conservatives, particulary those in this area..."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waIfewlf1yM&feature=channel_page
LOL.
"Straight" men feel the threat of being in the company of a gay man. I think they are afraid of their own sexuality. Each and every one of us is born with the prospect of being Gay, some more than others. Come on, this is 2009 and it is America, home of the free. Give it a rest and check yourselves, and your closets. Gay is okay!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteUntil later...............
"Give it a rest and check yourselves, and your closets. Gay is okay!!!!!!!"
ReplyDeleteSee how easy it was for you to admit that? Now, why can't Larry voice his opinion in the same way?
Larry, is gay okay or not?
"Straight" men feel the threat of being in the company of a gay man."
ReplyDeleteWith all do respect, I don't think you speak for all of any group.
Thanks.
So you think gay is ok?
ReplyDeleteFrom the experiences of a gay man:
http://current.com/items/89303964_gay-lifestyle-a-sewer-of-casual-degrading-sex-drug-abuse-and-misery.htm
LONDON, September 10, 2008 - A British homosexual journalist admits that his documentary on the London gay scene is likely to "burn every bridge in the gay world I've got."
Simon Fanshawe is a writer and broadcaster who created the documentary "The Trouble With Gay Men" after becoming increasingly alarmed at the shallowness and destructiveness of the "gay lifestyle." The film, made for BBC 3 television, questions the emotional and psychological immaturity, narcissism, nihilism and self-destructive tendencies of many in the homosexual community. Fanshawe says he wants homosexual men to "grow up" and get beyond their state of "extended adolescence."
Fanshawe, who was involved in the early homosexualist political movement, says, "We've fought discrimination and prejudice, only to wreck ourselves with drugs and wild sex."
"We're hooked on vanity, and regard older men with contempt. Despite AIDS we're still chasing the ultimate sexual high and what's more are determined to wreck ourselves on designer drugs. We're happy to assist the straight world in keeping alive the image of all gay men as limp-wristed queens."
He says that he has recently "started to worry" about the ways in which "gay liberation is celebrated" in his hometown of Brighton, a major centre of the homosexual subculture. At the annual "Mr. Gay" beauty pageant, which he describes as a "pathetic display of self-delusion", Fanshawe tells a contestant, "I'm old enough to remember when all those women were fighting against Miss World...What we're all saying about ourselves is that actually to be really gay, properly gay, what you've got to be is cute, and young."
"Extreme vanity" he says, has been "sewn into gay culture." It "is now so mainstream in the gay community that otherwise intelligent young men are happy to be treated as sex objects on a demeaning meat rack."
Gay men, he says, are so "hardwired" towards finding casual sexual encounters, some going as far as plastic implants to enhance their appearance, that finding genuine intimacy is "practically impossible."
CONT:
ReplyDelete"Vast amounts of our leisure time are organised around sex, straight or gay. But what gay men have done is organise our identity around sex. And that is corrosive. And to make things worse, promiscuity has become the norm."
The documentarian asks the proprietor of a gay sex bath house, "Paul", who had just related some graphic stories of group sexual encounters in the establishment, "Are we just swimming around in a sewer which we're just sort of saying is normal?"
Paul was adamant and forthright in his belief that the gay lifestyle is incompatible with happiness and fidelity in human relations, expressing his dissatisfaction with civil unions legislation. "The temptation of other things will always stand in the way of two gay men having a long-term, loving, caring relationship."
Fanshawe says he is horrified at the lack of emotional involvement and at the willingness of men to engage in "unsafe sex." The film includes statistics that show the deadly consequences of the homosexual lifestyle. One in nine gay men in London is HIV infected and new cases of HIV have doubled in the city in five years. Incidences of syphilis have increased in the same time period 616 per cent.
"Unsafe" sex, he says, is not the only way in which gay men are self destructive. "If there's a new drug, gay men will find it and take it," he states.
At one point Fanshawe interviews a homosexual man who has "done all the drugs" and now campaigns in gay clubs against the growing use of crystal methamphetamine. The man, who could not be identified for fear of reprisals from drug dealers, said that crystal meth is preferred in the gay community because it reduces the inhibitions and allows sex to be brought to an "animalistic" level "devoid of emotion." The film says that one in five gay men in London use crystal meth.
"At one point Fanshawe interviews a homosexual man who has "done all the drugs" and now campaigns in gay clubs against the growing use of crystal methamphetamine. The man, who could not be identified for fear of reprisals from drug dealers, said that crystal meth is preferred in the gay community because it reduces the inhibitions and allows sex to be brought to an "animalistic" level "devoid of emotion." The film says that one in five gay men in London use crystal meth."
ReplyDeleteSavagery.
Do we need this kind of influence in our societies?!!?
Say yes, I dare you.
Reminds me of the classic journalistic ambush question:
ReplyDelete"So when did you stop beating your wife?"
From the American College of Pediatricians:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.acpeds.org/index.cgi?cat=24&BISKIT=1059186137&CONTEXT=cat
Are children reared by two individuals of the same gender as well adjusted as children reared in families with a mother and a father? Until recently the unequivocal answer to this question was "no." Policymakers, social scientists, the media, and even physician organizations1, however, are now asserting that prohibitions on parenting by homosexual couples should be lifted.
In making such far-reaching, generation-changing assertions, any responsible advocate would rely upon supporting evidence that is comprehensive and conclusive.
Not only is this not the situation, but also there is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm.
Research data
Heterosexual parenting is the normative model upon which most comprehensive longitudinal research on childrearing has been based. Data on long-term outcomes for children placed in homosexual households are very limited and the available evidence reveals grave concerns. Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables.2,3,4 Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent. 5,6,7,8,9 Therefore, the burden is on the proponents of homosexual parenting to prove that moving further away from the heterosexual parenting model is appropriate and safe for children.
Risks of Homosexual Lifestyle to Children
Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. 10,11,12,13,14 Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. 15,16,17 Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed "committed relationships." 18,19,20,21,22 Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness,23,24,25 substance abuse,26 suicidal tendencies,27,28 and shortened life spans.29 Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures were the practice is more widely accepted.30 Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. 31,32,33,34,35 Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.36
Conclusion
The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.
Not sure who this Anon is who keeps spouting fringe "science" in support of his anti-gay rants, but he (or she?) would have fit in quite well back in the time of the Crusades. Were you maybe a priest back then, in a previous life, sentencing countless non-believers to a gruesome death? And what is your "ultimate answer" to the millions of gay folks in our midst today? Quarantine them? Arrest them? Or maybe just toss 'em in a gas chamber and be done with it? Unreal.
ReplyDelete"Not sure who this Anon is who keeps spouting fringe "science"..."
ReplyDeleteFringe science?
FRINGE SCIENCE?!!!?
Are you KIDDING me?!!!!!!
"Straight" men feel the threat of being in the company of a gay man
ReplyDeleteTwo words: Sexual Harassment
Like most straight women receiving undesired attention from a straight man, straight men receiving undesired attention from a gay man feel "threatened."
By your analogy, any woman not interested in the man attempting to charm her pants of secretly wants to have wild passionate sex with him right there on the floor. Really....
If the gays want to be equal, that includes the equal obligation not to make sexual advances to those not interested in them.
Hmmm...taking your argument a little further, are you trying to tell us that you feel threatened and "unsafe" in the company of some gay men? And, if so, why? I would hazard a guess that instead of feeling threatened/unsafe you instead feel uncomfortable with who they are, and what they represent, and THAT is where your discomfort comes from. That is not "harrassment" on their part but rather a "phobia" on your part.
ReplyDelete(and please get over yourself re: feeling "desired" by gay men...do you also feel like every heterosexual female who crosses your path "wants" you? I doubt it.)
"I would hazard a guess that instead of feeling threatened/unsafe you instead feel uncomfortable with who they are, and what they represent, and THAT is where your discomfort comes from."
ReplyDeleteLOL.
From above:
"Simon Fanshawe is a (gay) writer and broadcaster who created the documentary "The Trouble With Gay Men" after becoming increasingly alarmed at the shallowness and destructiveness of the "gay lifestyle." The film, made for BBC 3 television, questions the emotional and psychological immaturity, narcissism, nihilism and self-destructive tendencies of many in the homosexual community."
So let me say once again:
FLUSH
Hmmm...taking your argument a little further, are you trying to tell us that you feel threatened and "unsafe" in the company of some gay men?
ReplyDeleteNo, I just don't like being hit on by gay men. Hey, I appreciate the complement but I am simply not interested.
If a woman can say that with just a word or icy stare, why shouldn't I be able to do so?
If you consider it a "compliment" but are just not interested, then a simple lack of eye contact will suffice (you don't even need the icy stare). If, however, you ARE interested, and yet uncomfortable with those feelings, then that is a "problem" of an entirely different nature & perhaps one worth looking at.
ReplyDeleteAnd re: the Fanshawe viewpoint shared above - how would YOU like to be judged as a heterosexual male based on what is observed in the average bar across this country? Or in Fort Lauderdale during Spring Break? My point is that there are many, many different "types" of gay men just as there are many different types of straight men and god forbid if we ALL get painted with the same broad brush based on the behaviors of a select few! There isn't a "typical gay man" any more than there is a "typical straight man" and to try to squeeze everyone into a small, stereotypical box is showing nothing more than your ignorance (and prejudice) I'm afraid.
If you consider it a "compliment" but are just not interested, then a simple lack of eye contact will suffice (you don't even need the icy stare).
ReplyDeleteOh, really?!?! Do you have any idea why so many highway rest areas have been closed over the past two decades? Because too many people like me have been damn near raped in them. "Please leave me alone" is fairly clear and not subtle. "Which one of you are willing to die for your friend's fun" is less so but effective...
If, however, you ARE interested, and yet uncomfortable with those feelings,
Bullshit. I have had enough of this "everyone is gay" stuff. I don't find other men attractive, I am as certain of this as that if I went out into a downpour, I would get wet.
I am tolerant of the fact that others differ from me, and THAT was what I meant by appreciating the complement -- not unlike being respectful of someone else's religion. You are not going to intimidate me as long as it is clear that I am not available - I am not trying to tease, mind you, but I don't care what people think of me.
And re: the Fanshawe viewpoint shared above - how would YOU like to be judged as a heterosexual male based on what is observed in the average bar across this country?
If I go into a gay bar, that is a different story. (Although I would appreciate truth in advertising and it advertising itself as such.) But much as a woman has certain expectations for business situations, shouldn't I?
"the Fanshawe viewpoint shared above - how would YOU like to be judged as a heterosexual male based on what is observed in the average bar across this country?"
ReplyDeleteThe "average bar"?
THE AVERAGE BAR?!!!!?
My friend, the average "straight bar" (if there even is one anymore) would satisfy the savage "appetite" (if one may even call it that) of the avergae gay man for all of about 15 seconds.
Sorry, but with all do respect, can you read?!!? We're not voicing our OPINION.
But, gay men are.
And if you HAVE to deny it, then perhaps it is YOUR behavior that needs to CHANGE.
"The documentarian asks the proprietor of a gay sex bath house, "Paul", who had just related some graphic stories of group sexual encounters in the establishment, "Are we just swimming around in a sewer which we're just sort of saying is normal?"
Paul was adamant and forthright in his belief that the gay lifestyle is incompatible with happiness and fidelity in human relations, expressing his dissatisfaction with civil unions legislation. "The temptation of other things will always stand in the way of two gay men having a long-term, loving, caring relationship."
Now, do I need to copy the statistics AGAIN? Or should I add to them (because I can...)?
Or have I made myself,
clear?
Hmmmm?
"My point is that there are many, many different "types" of gay men just as there are many different types of straight men and god forbid if we ALL get painted with the same broad brush based on the behaviors of a select few!"
Select few?
SELECT FEW?!!!
Are you KIDDING me?!!!?
"There isn't a "typical gay man" any more than there is a "typical straight man" and to try to squeeze everyone into a small, stereotypical box is showing nothing more than your ignorance (and prejudice) I'm afraid."
Ignorance?
IGNORANCE?!!?
I base my persective on FACTS.
Whilst you, my little chickadee, base your perspective on NEED.
And with these needs, follow a lot of people... to their hurt, to their suffering, to their death.
What a thing to promote as "good".
Thank you gay community. Thank you.