Advertisement weblogs Science Becoming Religion

Same Sex "Marriage" Is Biologically Impossible


Marriage is a biological function, not something created by government to discriminate against homosexuals.

Regardless of how government may artificially define marriage in legal terms, marriage is really the union of the two different types of human beings -- males and females. Two members of the same sex cannot have a marriage relationship regardless of what ignorant politicians like President Barack Obama say.

Marriage unites members of the different sexes to form a unit that has all the human characteristics. Two men or two women cannot form such a unit. They are like two left shoes or two right shoes. A man and a woman fit together like two puzzle pieces. Two people of the same sex are just mirror images.

Males and females not only have anatomical differences, they have different biochemistries, including different skin PH ( ) . Men's and women's brains function differently. ( )

Males produce chemicals called pheromones that are beneficial to females. ( ) ( ) The research on how males might benefit from pheromones women produce is less clear because most research on female pheromones deals with how they attract men. Research does indicate that men benefit from marriage and the benefits may involve biochemistry. (

The fact that men's and women's brains function differently complicates relationships, but provides the couple with the benefit of viewing the problems faced from two different perspectives. This difference stimulates the relationship and makes the opposite sex more intriguing. A member of the opposite sex is more likely to respond "unexpectedly" to a situation than a member of one's own sex.

The brain differences can potentially allow an opposite sex partner to provide a type of support that someone with the same type of brain cannot. However, some people may be psychologically unable to provide or accept support from others.

Having sex with a member of the opposite sex allows an individual to experience the physical sexuality of the opposite sex. Having sex with a member of one's own sex provides no such benefit.

To women, men are strength. To men, women are energy.

In many cultures a man will refer to his wife as his "better half". A woman may call her husband her "other half". A husband or a wife is half of a unit. Both together are a complete unit.

When a man calls his partner a wife he is indicating she is his female half. For a woman, a husband is her male half.

A woman who calls her partner a "wife" is implying the partner, rather than her, is the female part of the unit making her the "male". A woman who calls her partner a "wife" and expects her partner to have any children is acting like a man and is very likely a transsexual rather than a homosexual. She may call herself a lesbian because she fails to understand that she is attracted to other women because she has the brain of a man.

Some male homosexuals claim that they look at other men the same way men look at women. However, scientific research by Dr. Ivanka Savic of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, indicates that in their brains, homosexual men "look at" other men the way women look at men. This tendency could indicate that these homosexual men have female brains and are thus transsexuals. They call their partners "husbands" because subconsciously they think of themselves as women.

A study by of lesbians by Dr. Savic indicates their brains responded to certain chemicals that might be pheromones in the same way as the brains of heterosexual men rather than in the way that heterosexual women's brains responded.

Homosexuals don't understand that the characteristics of the human body only determine how the body can engage in sexual activity. Human sexuality is determined by the sexual identity of the brain. A female brain is attracted to a male body. A male brain is attracted to a female body. A person attracted to someone with the same type of body most likely has a brain of the other sex.

A study of brain structure by Dr. Ivanka Savic and Per Lindström, of the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, indicates that homosexual men and heterosexual women have similar brains and that homosexual women and heterosexual men have similar brains.

Heterosexuals desire a marriage relationship to gain a feeling of completeness by being part of a unit that contains a member of each sex. Homosexuals cannot become complete by having a relationship with a member of their own sex, even though they may think that calling a relationship a marriage gives them what heterosexuals have in a marriage. Homosexuals who want to call their relationship a "marriage" are implying they are dissatisfied with being homosexuals and want what they believe heterosexuals have by being married.

Homosexuals don't understand sex. They don't understand marriage. They don't understand their own medical condition.


Liberty_One 2 years, 8 months ago

Umm, marriage is a legal status and a contract. The only biological requirements to meet those two concepts are being a human being who is old enough to make a binding contract. Your further biological definitions are arbitrary and inconsequential.

Reason McLucus 2 years, 8 months ago

The law is an artificial environment. The biological process called marriage existed long before the American legal system. American law has often been incredibly stupid. For example, in the Dred Scott case the U.S. Supreme Court decided that slaves were not persons.
Based on your comment I would guess you believe that a father should be able to marry his daughter or a sister be able to marry her brother.

Glenn Reed 2 years, 8 months ago

There is no "marriage" process in biology. It is a legal contract.

The option to marry one's immediate family members is likely regulated or simply prohibited by the state.

Biologically speaking, incest isnt unheard of.

I believe that legally speaking, it's considered to be a crime.

Lane Signal 2 years, 8 months ago

Your argument then is that marriage is not a legal concept? While I disagree, I think it could be argued that marriage should not be a legal contract. In that case, the law would need to change to recognize no one as married and those who wanted legal rights associated with their relationship would need to seek a civil union. I think that's fine if civil union is the only option and it is an option for any couple. If the law is going to recognize people as married, then it is a legal contract. You can't have it both ways. Either it is a legal contract, or the law should not recognize it. Pick. (Resorting to incest, polygamy and/or bestiality in your argument might make you feel like you are gaining the moral high ground, but it just makes you look stupid).

Chuck Anziulewicz 2 years, 8 months ago


You're confusing the legal institution of civil marriage with the biological act of sex.

Couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the ability or even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

The the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.

THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing, whether the couple in question is Straight OR Gay

Reason McLucus 2 years, 8 months ago

Animal species use various different processes to encourage production of new members.

Some species like bald eagles mate for life. Humans call this option marriage even though human unions don't always last for life, particularly in modern day America.

Other species like dogs engage in what humans would consider "free love". Males will have sex with whatever females are receptive to sex at the time.

A third basic option involves herd behavior with individual males having exclusive access to a group of females. Humans who pursue this option often call the group of females a "harem".

I realize you police state types think government creates everything and possibly is a substitute for a god. Governments often attempt to control human reproduction by regulating sexual behavior. Some prohibit all approaches to reproduction other than marriage and may kill those who engage in sex with someone other than their marriage partner.

Marriage developed as part of human reproduction. If government wants to call other types of unions "marriages'" than it must eliminate any special benefits that it provides to marriage partners because such action violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. It cannot arbitrarily provide benefits to married persons unless there is some social benefit associated with such unions.

I realize that those transsexuals who consider themselves homosexuals believe that if they call a relationship a "marriage" it will make them like heterosexuals. But it won't. If they want to feel normal they will have to follow the example of Chaz Bono and get corrective surgery to make their body type the same sex as their brains.

karc 2 years, 8 months ago

Again, you are confused and wrong. Marriage and mating for life are not synonymous. I do not need to be married to mate with one person for life, I can be with one person without marriage. Marriage and biology are NOT interrelated.

Your entrie argument is so rambling, deluded and lacking of common sense that is completely discredits any fact you might have dug up (although I fail to see any fact that was used in a correct argument).

Kirk Larson 2 years, 8 months ago

Actually, since DNA typing has become more common in biological studies, Scientists have found that monogamy is pretty much non-existent in the natural world. Species once thought to mate for life were tested against their offspring and the males were found not to be the fathers in their nests. Some studies show similar behavior in humans.

Stuart Evans 2 years, 8 months ago

yeah I can't tell if this is sarcasm or an attempt to use science as a tool of bigotry.

somedude20 2 years, 8 months ago

"Marriage is a biological function" No, the fluid you secrete during climax (so hard not to be dirty) is a biological function and there are many sexless marriages out there. Just Google it and you will see.......

Now, if you are worried that same sex marriage would kill the sanctity of marriage (the kind you like)think about these other ways to get married: rapist on victim unions (don't forget to pay the victim's father 50 shekels) or male soldier and prisoner of war marriages (wives must submit sexually to their husbands) The many ways to get hitched, now I know why you want to protect it

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago

You should submit this to the Onion.

/I'm assuming, given the glaring assumptions, leaps of logic, and other flaws in this piece, that it is satire.

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago

My favorite part was when you utilized common slang terms for spouses to bolster your supposedly biological argument.

Well played.

asixbury 2 years, 8 months ago

Hey, if science can do it, why not? Then all these laws restricting women's reproductive rights would never be made!

ccp 2 years, 8 months ago

Click on his profile and go to his blog site.... Wow. Just wow.

Fossick 2 years, 8 months ago

We are at a societal crossroads where we do not know what marriage is for us. Is it a public (i.e. government-approved) contract that gives rights like visitations and tax breaks? Is it an agreement between families making them de-facto friends and even allies? Is it a celebration of true love and the monogamous dedication that the chemical feeling of "being in love" drives us towards? Is it a special relationship, joined by God himself (and therefore subject to his tacit approval approval and rules) between a man and a woman? Between a man and 5 different women?

The problem is not just that marriage has been all of these things, but that while all of us agree that our own marriages might fit 2 or 3 or 4, they may not be the same ones, and we probably disagree about the relative importance of those things we share in common.

One good solution was that proposed by CS Lewis 70 years ago: "My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."

The church (or churches) can have their own rules, and the state can have rules that apply to everyone, or it can have (as I'd prefer) no rules at all.

pace 2 years, 8 months ago

If my spouse tried this argument on me, that "Marriage is a biological function" I would suspect someone dipped into the budget to buy a boat. My spouse and I think this partnership as something more substantial than a roll in the hay. If that is all this guy's marriage is, just a biological function, he needs to talk to his spouse and see if there is agreement. It may be true for him , that is all he has made of it, but most marriages are much more, more work too. He should probably get to work.

Reason McLucus 2 years, 8 months ago

The process associated with Marriage is more than a simple role in the hay. Marriage is a relationship that in an earlier day provided for the division of labor necessary for raising a family. When cooking and cleaning were time consuming processes the mother needed the father to go out into the world to provide for the acquisition of goods and services the two of them could not provide for themselves.

Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 8 months ago

Is it still a "marriage" if the man has had a vasectomy? Or if a woman is past menopause? Because after that, they couldn't have any children, so there would be no point in having a biological "marriage".

I would recommend that you read the Kinsey Reports that were published in 1948 and 1953 before you blog on this topic again.

Ron Holzwarth 2 years, 8 months ago

From the last sentence: "They don't understand their own medical condition."

Take a look in the 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders', fourth edition, (DSM IV), which is the guidebook that psychiatrists use to diagnose mental disorders. Guess what. Homosexuality is not listed, because it is not considered to be a "medical condition".

If you have some new discoveries that the psychiatric community should know about, you should be writing a thesis and having it peer reviewed, not blogging about it here.

But, the joke is on all of us, because we are taking you seriously in what has to be some kind of joke.

Alyosha 2 years, 8 months ago

Clearly you have no historical understanding of the history of marriage. For instance: "In the period up to roughly the thirteenth century, male bonding ceremonies were performed in churches all over the Mediterranean. These unions were sanctified by priests with many of the same prayers and rituals used to join men and women in marriage. The ceremonies stressed love and personal commitment over procreation, but surely not everyone was fooled. Couples who joined themselves in such rituals most likely had sex as much (or as little) as their heterosexual counterparts. In any event, the close association of male bonding ceremonies with forbidden sex eventually became too much to overlook as ever more severe sodomy laws were put into place." See

Fossick 2 years, 8 months ago

I'd be very careful using Sullivan as a reference. For the first part, Eric Berkowitz, the author who wrote what Sullivan is quoting, admits that "No Latin versions of the ceremonies survive—presumably they were destroyed—and several of the surviving Greek texts appear to have been defaced over time by disapproving churchmen." (from a source). Therefore most of what exists vis-a-vis the sexual nature of these agreements, and even the words of those agreements and the extent to which they existed, is guesswork.

For the second part, Medieval society was predicated on bonds of fierce personal loyalty and service - the specific term is "fealty" - in the same way ours is predicated on citizenship. While Berkowitz argues that "It is difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact," his evidence is imagination rather than documentation. Because fealty passed with property, such oaths of undying love and brotherhood could be expected between men who might not even live in the same country or even see one another again. There is simply no need to presume that all or even most of them were in reality any more personal than someone typing LOL is actually laughing out loud.

While it is possible that some unknown percentage of oaths might have been considered akin to marriage by the participants, Berkowitz (and therefore Sullivan) eliminates a very important fact found in the source of Berkowitz's quote:

"There is lively contemporary debate as to the significance of these ancient and medieval weddings. It seems clear that, in general, European societies did not consider them real marriages..." (from a source) Larocque, et el, "Gay Marriage: The story of a Canadian Social Revolution (2006), p. 61.

"There is lively contemporary debate" combined with a lack of documentation means that we are dealing with very little knowledge and a lot of speculation, to say the least.

Paul Decelles 2 years, 8 months ago

I wouldn't make a big deal of the Savic and Lindström study. The sample sizes were small and the statistical analysis might not have been appropriate. Also, homosexuals are not transsexuals and I suspect even Savic and Lindström would disagree with you.

Reason McLucus 2 years, 8 months ago

Yes they are but most aren't as smart as Chaz Bono who after many years thinking she was a lesbian recognized she was a man in a woman's body and got corrective surgery. A growing body of evidence indicates that those people who call themselves homosexuals have a brain of one sex and the anatomy of the other which is the definition of transsexual.

A woman's brain is attracted to men even if that brain is in a male body.

This condition is something that cannot be changed except with surgery to make the body consistent with the brain.

Paul Decelles 2 years, 8 months ago

You are over simplifying the brain differences that have been might look at Evolution's Rainbow by Joan Roughgarten (who by the way is a transsexual) for a pretty good summary of brain differences related to sexual orientation and gender identity. I have a number of gay and transsexual friends and they are really quite different in terms of how they identify. My experience is that gender identity and sexual orientation don't correlate all that well.

Another book-not directly dealing with Brain Differences but a personal memoir of a transsexual is Jennifer Boyan's "She's not there anymore". By the way I have lesbian friends that would take issue with your simplistic statement that "A woman's brain is attracted to men even if that brain is in a male body."

I do agree that surgery (and hormones) can make the body consistent wit the brain and there is a whole medical protocol related to transitioning and sexual assignment surgery.

gl0ck0wn3r 2 years, 8 months ago

I'm curious: do you actually have an MA in history from KU? You state that you have "130 hours past" an MA but I'm not certain if that means you actually have an MA and your are working in a PhD or if you are simply auditing classes. If you did get an MA at KU, who was your advisor and what was your thesis? If you are currently working on a PhD, who is your chair?

Leslie Swearingen 2 years, 8 months ago

Reasonmclucus I think you make a lot of sense. I think that people should be able to be married in a church with no legal paperwork and still have the marriage recognized by the law in case of divorce. If I am understanding this right, if you live with someone for six months it is considered a common law marriage even though those involved may not think of it that way.
Maybe we should just make decisions about ourselves and our families and let everyone else do the same. It seems to be the legal aspects that has everyone tied in knots.

sleepy33 2 years, 8 months ago

"If I am understanding this right, if you live with someone for six months it is considered a common law marriage even though those involved may not think of it that way."

You are not understanding this right. Kansas is one of the few states that allows common law marriage. Statutory requirements are that you must be of age (18), you must have the capacity to marry (mental capacity, not under duress, eligible for marriage ie you can't marry your sister, can't already be married), you must have a present agreement to be married, and you must hold yourself out to the community/friends/family as being 'married', ie you must refer to yourselves as husband and wife, file joint tax returns, etc. Kansas does not recognize common law marriage between same sex couples.

Leslie Swearingen 2 years, 8 months ago

Thanks, I was way off on that one, which is why I am glad I asked for clarification. I meant that sentence as a question not a statement but it sure does not look like one. LOL

verity 2 years, 8 months ago

"I think that people should be able to be married in a church with no legal paperwork and still have the marriage recognized by the law in case of divorce."

They can---or at least they used to be able to and I've not heard of the law changing. I know several people who were married in a church without a state license. They would still have to get a legal divorce as they proclaimed themselves married.

esteshawk 2 years, 8 months ago

Do youthink gays should be sble to get married in a church with no paperwork?

Glenn Reed 2 years, 8 months ago

Your first sentence is wrong. Just plain wrong.

So wrong, in fact, that it's hard to venture further into the writing without reading that first sentence over again.

It's essentially the same thing as saying "home loans are biologically impossible."

Or "Cell phone contracts are biologically impossible."

Why should anyone take you seriously if you're going to fail at even making the distinction between biology and civil law?

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 8 months ago

@ Reasonmclucus...Excellent, excellent, excellent!! Thank you!!

We could have guessed the very ones who would find all sorts of wrongs with your blog!!

Thank you for knowing you would be pounded and still putting your thoughts "out there"...I discovered a long time ago that one is not allowed on LJW to have different views from the majority of posters. They will try everything within the power of their words to beat you to a pulp.

So, thank you...again!

asixbury 2 years, 8 months ago

Why is his blog excellent in your eyes? What he said is a ridiculous reason not to allow gay marriage. Marriage isn't about sex; it's about commitment!

Glenn Reed 2 years, 8 months ago

You're missing a very important point here, Florida.

Reasonmclucus wrote the blog post as a "science" article. Suggesting that he has "evidence" to support his position.

And that's a good thing, it's the way things like this, most topics in fact, should be handled.

The point you're missing is that, once such an article is written, it suddenly becomes the reader's responsibility to find things wrong with it. Ask questions regarding the articles validity.

Was the research done right? Did the author have excessive bias on the subject, and was this mitigated? Do the citations endure scrutiny?

You're supposed to ask these questions. Even, especially, if you agree with the premise of the article.

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 8 months ago

Morichalion.....I go back to what I said to Reasonmclucus.

You say I'm "supposed to ask these questions." How do you know I didn't??? Most of you people on these threads do this sort of thing to others all the time...always assuming you know what everyone else is thinking...or else, assuming you know how they should think. It gets old really fast...which is why you'll hardly ever find my thoughts on here. I much prefer discussion, rather than being annihilated.

I've lived in more than a few big cities in my adult life. Never have I seen anything like the commenters on LJW. I'm not quite sure why. Most of you all have a grandiose opinion of your own thoughts and ideas...and others be dam*ed. It's almost to the point that you all with the grandiose opinion of your own ideas and thoughts are the only ones left posting!


Glenn Reed 2 years, 8 months ago

I thought I was being reasonably respectful. I didn't call you names. I simply pointed out that the article written was "scienceish" and one should read it in that context.

Which means reading the article with a critical mindset. You read a science article TRYING to find something wrong with it. ESPECIALLY if you want it to succeed. The worst thing you can do is pretend it's beyond reproach.

I'm assuming you failed to read the article critically because you began and ended your comment with hugs and kisses and "don't let the meanie comments make you feel bad."

Maybe I was wrong, and you did ask these questions. Of yourself. Where no one could tell you asked these questions.

What kind of critique did you come up with as you read the article?

On another note, simply becoming offended when someone disagrees with you doesn't do much to further the conversation.

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago

"Most of you all have a grandiose opinion of your own thoughts and ideas...and others be dam*ed."

Interestingly, it seems like that's what you're doing as well.

But hey, that's your prerogative. The same as it is our own.

The basic premise of this blog is wrong. Marriage has nothing to do with biological functions. It does not exist in nature outside of human social structure.

I see no reason to coddle such a failure of reasoning. Particularly not when the ultimate conclusion drawn (with very poor support) is that homosexual people are mentally ill.

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 8 months ago

jonas_opines...I hardly ever visit here, but just had to tell you, and anyone else who may be interested, what my granddaughter said as we were having a conversation about your saying that marriage has nothing to do with biological functions and does not exist in nature outside of human social structure. (I paraphrased in a way that she would get the drift of what you had said.) My granddaughter is nine-years-old and we carry on some enthralling conversations.

She said, "Oh, Grandmama, think of the soaring bald eagles. How grand and majestic they are flying home to their wives or husbands! And the families of wolves, Grandmama, with their little babies to take care of...oh, how sweet! The beautiful swans get married for their whole lives, too, Grandmama. We studied several animal groups that get married and are together their whole lives just like Grandmommy and Granddaddy!" (My parents who have been married 73 years.) She then wanted to get out her paperwork and review the animals she couldn't remember...altogether her class had studied seven. Can't get around a nine-year-old!

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago

Yes, that's very cute.

You should tell her about how sometimes a lion male will come into a pride and kill the existing male lion, then mate with the female, and then murder all of the old male lion's cubs. As long as we're on the topic of nature and the relationships that it spawns amongst animals. I think Chimpanzees do that from time to time as well.

Actually, no, you probably shouldn't. You should let a nine year old be a nine year old for the time being. They'll find that story out eventually on their own.

But anyway, cute story. Kids are fun.

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago

Whoops, amend that to "females" as lion males are polygamists.

A large number of animals, of course, mate once with whoever happens to be around and has the shiniest coat.

/cheers, enjoy your Disney movies

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 8 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 8 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago

I'm not in any fashion criticizing the words of your nine year old daughter. I'm criticizing you, for believing that they have any relevance or truth in the world.

It's perfectly fine for children to believe in fantasies. It's quite cute.

In a grown-up, it's sad.

In general kids like me quite a lot. In general, I'm a very friendly person.

I'm sure that many people would say the same about you, as well, despite the fact that you, to start this whole conversation, said that it was "excellent" to an idiot saying that people (ya'know, other living, breathing people, who love and try to live the best that they can) are mentally ill, solely because they have a different sexual orientation that the writer, or yourself.

So yeah, you want to talk about tawdry, ugly words.

"You love differently than me. You are mentally ill, and you don't even know it."

Those are ugly words. As such, you deserve nothing more in return.

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 8 months ago

I'm writing this because I love my granddaughter more than you could ever possibly know what love is. For you to suggest I say those horrendous things to her...and then taking it back (to save face) leaves me with a feeling of pity for you and what must be a very empty life.

The reason I was cheering reasonmclucus on was that he was actually willing to put himself out there to all of the ridicule and bashing from the mainstreamers on this site such as yourself. If you would take the time to notice in my posts on this thread, I never even said if I agreed or disagreed with what reasonmclucus wrote...but you were so eager to denigrate, to bash others who have different thoughts than didn't even notice! You thought my cheering him on was agreeing with him. You know NOTHING about know NOTHING of my thoughts and my belief system.

I admire anyone who is willing to risk the bashing of their thoughts and ideas by those, like yourself, who think they are 100% correct in every thought they have...even correct for everyone else on this planet. I cheered reasonmclucus on for being brave enough to put his thoughts out there.

This only shows you cannot read every person's mind and know what their intent is in any given situation. Seems this knowledge would slow you down in your criticism, but you only get better at hating as you go along...and the same for your LJW cohorts who act in the same manner.

As I said in a post above, I wish I could be the incredible person my granddaughter is and try to see the good in you. As it is, I've lived too long and have seen too much to believe there is good in everyone. (And, by the way, she is not my daughter...she is my granddaughter...if you're going to comment, at least take a second or two to get the facts straight before commenting.)

All of this only reinforces why I never visit these threads (I allowed myself to be pulled into this one and another lately, much to my regret) accuse me of things I never said, nor agreed with (as far as you know)...and, yes, I deserve MUCH MORE than your opinion of who I am. You didn't even know (or care) why I was cheering reasonmclucus on. And even now that I've explained my reasons, you will find some way to belittle what I said and bash my words to shreds. You don't have a clue and never will. Get a life.

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago

That's interesting. In the same post, you say I know nothing about you, and then make up a whole lot of crap about me.

I wonder how far you read down his blog before proclaiming how excellent he was for writing it.

I have quite a good life, thanks.

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago

But you're right about one thing: I don't give a damn why you proclaimed this tripe of a blog as excellent. If the topic had been how interracial marriage was unnatural, using the same convoluted logic and made-up bs, and you had proclaimed That as excellent for being unpopular or non-mainstream (though of course, it actually corresponds here with the larger public opinion, I would have excoriated you with as much force as here.

Of course, chronologically speaking, I took very little notice of you at all until you jumped into my wordplay with tange and tried to insult me by calling me a know-it-all on a subject that I actually do know and have studied at great length. After that, sorry, game on.

Don't throw punches and then whine when you get punched back.

And then don't try to hide yourself behind the shield of a nine-year old.

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 8 months ago

To jonas_opines...

I sincerely apologize for interrupting the conversation you were having with tange on May 17th...and I apologize for belittling the knowledge you have of certain subjects which are of interest to you and tange. The sarcasm on my part was simply not appropriate nor necessary. I am so sorry.

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago

You know, I'm going to take that literally at your word, and not as sarcasm. So I'll make this my last post on this dialog and be done.

To be honest, I'd rather you not apologize to me. Nothing in this topic, or on this board, effects me at all once I log off this site and shut off my computer. I was fortunate enough to have my brain align in the standard fashion, and was thus free to fall in love with someone that I could legally enter into marriage with, and I did. It effects a number of my friends, though. Good friends, who are good people, who did not make, at any point, a conscious choice to buck the norm, and feel not only the direct impact of this mentality and the laws that it spawns in their inability to enjoy the same rights as myself, but also the sting of being roundly condemned by a society that they have done nothing -- Nothing -- to harm in any fashion.

I'd rather you, in your heart or your head, apologize to them, for proclaiming as excellent a blog that claims them to be mentally ill, and unable to understand both sex and biology.

And -- in case that Was sarcasm -- if your granddaughter, who you love so much, turns out to be gay, I hope at some point you'll show her what was written in this blog and on this thread, so she can understand why she has to suffer.

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 8 months ago

Evidently, you still have not read why I commended reasonmclucus on his article. As I said on 5/20 @ 12:30 a.m. in a post above us, here's just a snippet of my REASON for cheering reasonmclucus...taken from the post above:

"The reason I was cheering reasonmclucus on was that he was actually willing to put himself out there to all of the ridicule and bashing from the mainstreamers on this site such as yourself. If you would take the time to notice in my posts on this thread, I never even said if I agreed or disagreed with what reasonmclucus wrote...but you were so eager to denigrate, to bash others who have different thoughts than didn't even notice! You thought my cheering him on was agreeing with him. You know nothing about know nothing of my thoughts and my belief system.

"I admire anyone who is willing to risk the bashing of their thoughts and ideas by those, like yourself, who think they are 100% correct in every thought they have...even correct for everyone else on this planet. I cheered reasonmclucus on for being brave enough to put his thoughts out there."

THAT, jonas_opines, is why I was cheering him on...I NEVER stated if I agreed with what he said...or not. I wasn't praising the words he said...I was praising the fact that he was willing to risk being bashed. I HONESTLY DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY MORE TIMES I NEED TO REPEAT THIS.

As tange mentioned to me...we all don't even know each why go through this? If you want to take my post for exactly what I wrote regarding reasonmclucus' article on 5/20 @ 12:30 a.m., then so be it. If not, you'll just think of me the way you wish, anyway, so any further explaining is just a loss of our time.

You seem to think I owe apologies to a whole lot of people. There is no way I owe an apology to ANYONE because I made NO indication of what my belief system is, jonas_opines!! Why would I apologize to anyone for something I never said...never even indicated??? I apologized to YOU for interrupting postings between you and another commenter. THAT'S ALL. If that's not enough for you, then that's the way it will have to be...just not enough for you. I have never mentioned your sexuality nor anyone else's that I recall. Last I recall, sexuality is a very personal is to me, anyway. I honestly do not know what else to say....

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago

I read your reasoning, and I rejected it. The quality of the content, to me, should matter more than the popularity of the viewpoint. I find it simply abhorrent that it does not, apparently, matter to you.

But I said I was done, and I'm done. Respond if you wish, but I am not going to return to this conversation. As you said, only you truly know what you believe, past the words that you put up on this screen, and you'll negotiate them however you wish.

grammaddy 2 years, 8 months ago

Homosexuality isn't just about having sex with someone of the same sex. Some folks just don't get it.

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 8 months ago

:~) I just love it when you talk "Southern"!!

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 8 months ago

I must have missed grammaddy referring to the fish and bicycles "thang"...HA!!!

50YearResident 2 years, 8 months ago

Two (2) of the same sex is only a civil union, like has been said many, many times.

deec 2 years, 8 months ago

Marriage is a civil contract. It is no different legally than signing a car note or renting an apartment. There is no reason two consenting adults should be restricted from entering into the legal contract of a marriage. Signing a marriage certificate confers no magic spiritual specialness on the relationship between two people.

Glenn Reed 2 years, 8 months ago

"Been that way for a long time" is a poor reason not to change something for the better.

pace 2 years, 8 months ago

I have two friends or the same sex who are legally married. The are a nice couple with a good relationship. With your argument, all I have to do is repeat , then you can say "like has been said many, many times" . There is no reason that is logical to me that same sex people should not marry. Their rights need to be recognized.

gl0ck0wn3r 2 years, 8 months ago

This is so full of lulz that I thought it was satire. Wow.

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 8 months ago

Hi tange...enjoying your comments immensely!! Great seeing you again...s-m-i-l-e

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 8 months ago

Well, tange, all I have to say about that is (I sound like Forrest Gump!)...your not holding your mouth the right way, nor consistently yielding right of way, doesn't hold a candle to jonas_opines suspecting my facade of abused innocence, which I try very hard to portray on this site, is only skin deep.

Now, admit canNOT top that!! (Wish I could stop laughing...I'm going to get the hiccups and I simply detest hiccups!)

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 8 months ago


I apologized to your friend, jonas_opines, for interrupting the converstation you two were having below (May17th). My sarcasm was, as I told him, inappropriate and unnecessary. I also apologized for belittling any knowledge he has of the subject that was interesting to both of you. I sincerely apologize to you, tange.

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 8 months ago

I don't understand any of this stuff...I don't understand your post above (5/17 @ 9:21 p.m.)...I thought from the sound of that post, this guy had been a mentor or some great friend of yours. It took me five days to think about insulting your friend...and I find out now you know him no better than you know me. (Wow...that's a familiar breeze blowing through here from the past...) You seem to have a need to keep telling me, from time to time, through the years, that you don't know me...I do realize that, tange. Even when we haven't had communication for a long time until just lately...I do still remember that we don't know each other. It's rather difficult to have a personal-type correspondence going on here in front of all of Lawrence...but when you don't respond to a very urgent PM (I suppose you didn't consider it urgent)...well, I suppose it's NOT urgent any's difficult to know just how much to say to you in this open forum. BUT, I think it doesn't really matter what is written one knows us anyway...we don't even know who we are!! I'm exhausted. I'm going to bed. G'nite.

deec 2 years, 8 months ago

Just because marketers have successfully made marriage into a multi-billion dollar industry doesn't negate the fact that a legal marriage is nothing more than a contract. That contract exists in part to protect offspring. All the bells and whistle have nothing to do with the legal status of marriage.

deec 2 years, 8 months ago

Committed intimacy has little to do with marriage.Two people can be totally intimate and committed to each other with or without a civil contract, or a religious or cultural ritual. Or they can have all the cultural and legal trappings, and one person can still mishear the vow "forsaking all others" as "for dating all others." Nether the ritual nor the piece of paper guarantee commitment or intimacy. What the paper does do is ensure a better chance of an equitable distribution of property and debts, and theoretically provide for any offspring should the marriage fail. The paper also allows hospital visitation, end of life decisions, survivor's benefits et. al. to go to the other partner.

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago

They do to some. Perhaps simply not to you.

Presume not to know the truth, except to thyself, how people commit to their own intimacies.

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago

Except that you Did.

“When the people of the world all know beauty as beauty, there arises the recognition of ugliness. When they all know the good as good, there arises the recognition of evil.”

-- Laozi, The Dao De Jing

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago

(how do you Pronounce "Tao Te Jing?")

I can give you a hint: "Dao De Jing."


FloridaSunshine 2 years, 8 months ago

Oh, you DO make this lil' Southern heart o' mine run away with all your vast knowledge of every dammmm thing there is to know in this big ol' world!!! I'm in a tizzy heah...just about to faint oh, my...get th' smellin' salts, puleeze, somebody, puleeze!! jonas_opines has made me purely dizzy with admiration in givin' tange that hint!!

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago

That's some nice snark.

It makes me suspect that your facade of abused innocence, that you try very hard to portray on this site, is only skin deep.

FloridaSunshine 2 years, 8 months ago

What the heck are you talking about...abused innocence?? I never even come to this site anymore...except for this one sideshow of a thread!

But gee, thanks for the compliment on the snark!! HA!!! You take yourself MUCH too seriously, jonas_opines.

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago

The pinyin alphabet was updated some few decades ago. I suspect because the old one only made since to professional linguists who understood what a voiced and unvoiced glottal stop was.

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago


/and that last was directed to Tange.

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago

Only really in the circles of those who study it, and in the prints that are in China, or Chinese academic circles. Most of the brand names, so to speak, like Lao Tzu/Laozi, Tao/Dao, TsingTao/Qingdao, didn't change in popular consciousness.

OrestessonofAgamemnon 2 years, 8 months ago

This guy and all righties are just plain dumb. where in the bible does Jesus say hate and revoke human rights. If you agree with them you are kin to the KKK.

Fossick 2 years, 8 months ago

Wow, so many rhetological fallacies in a single comment. Seriously, this is amazing:

"This guy and all righties are just plain dumb." - Argumentum ad Hominem, bypassing the argument and launching an irrelevant attack on the person (from a source)

"If you agree with them, you are kin to the KKK" - Guilt by Association, attempting to discredit an idea or claim by associating it with an undesirable person or group (from a source)

"where in the bible does Jesus say hate and revoke human rights." - Appeal to Irrelevant Authority, while changing the definition of what is under discussion, an Undistributed Middle, and a Straw Man to boot. It's a changing definition because what's under discussion is gay marriage, not "hate" and revoking "human rights." It's a straw man because no one on the right proposes that Jesus says what is being put in his mouth. It's an undistributed Middle fallacy because it assumes that because two things have one same imputed quality (opposition to gay marriage, hate) they are they same thing.

But the appeal to Jesus is an interesting one, and leads into why this sentence is an appeal to irrelevant authority - claiming something is true because an unqualified and untrustworthy 'expert' says it is (from a source.)

Jesus said that, "from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife." -- Mark 10:6-7 (KJV)

That might have relevance to the original issue, and for many on the right, Jesus is the final authority. However, in this case it is an appeal to irrelevant authority because even though those on the leftern side of the argument understand what Jesus said, they really do think he knows what he's talking about.

JackMcKee 2 years, 8 months ago

Bartender, cut this man off. He's had enough.

Zazzman 2 years, 8 months ago

You know what your "scientific evidence" actually means, in every day life? Homosexual people are attracted to people of the same sex, as if they themselves were members of the opposite sex. Wow, that's like... something we already knew from the definition of the word "gay".

That's not "marriage" that's attraction. When two people are attracted to each other, they form a couple, they don't get a marriage license on the first date. If they drift apart, it's less of a big deal if people aren't married.

In the end, I'm left with this:

Cai 2 years, 8 months ago

if the law is artificial, why does it need to butt in?

You want to make this point, you want to believe this point? fine. You have that right.

But the fact irrefutably remains that there ARE people who want to live in homosexual relationships - people that are HAPPY in homosexual relationships. The "artificial environment" of the law provides things like social security benefits, tax breaks, right of kin, automatic inheritance, automatic child custody and other rights in this "artificial environment".

Why, exactly, can't the artificial environment that we as society create and control allow for these rights to be given to all happy couples? We're in an artificial environment anyway - the 'natural' environment - by definition of the fact that we all live in and under the law, becomes less relevant.

mjkiran 2 years, 8 months ago

Dear Well-Intentioned but Only Partially Informed Author,

You like to rely on science and experts? Please read the following statement on marriage from the largest anthropological professional association in the world:

To sum up, a) marriage is a social construct NOT a biological relation, and b) it is not defined in all times and places as between one man and one woman...not even in the US.

Leslie Swearingen 2 years, 8 months ago

The way I see it is that I would feel bad if I had the right to deprive someone of a lifestyle that would make them happy. What would I say to them? Sorry, and I do know this is what you want for your life, and I do know it would make you happy, but I wouldn't do that, so you can't do it either. Seriously? No. You live your life your way, I live my life my way and we can still meet and greet and be friends. Simple, ain't it?

funkdog1 2 years, 8 months ago

"Homosexuals don't understand that the characteristics of the human body only determine how the body can engage in sexual activity. Human sexuality is determined by the sexual identity of the brain."

Well then you should declare yourself king of the homosexuals and teach them the errors of their ways.

Gregory Newman 2 years, 8 months ago

Marriage is a spiritual principle ordained by God and is conducted in a ceremony with a man and a woman that professes and confesses that they acknowledge God as their spiritual Head and possess His Spirit to set as an example for a divine purpose.

It is stated in the 14th amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge- (reduce, curtail, slash, cut) the privileges or immunities (the condition of not affected) of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

According to this amendment of our constitution Gay couples have a right to marry regardless of anyone’s personal feelings. Bible principle is not constitutional.

It is stated in the first amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress (to remedy or rectify) of grievances.” So therefore same-sex marriage should never be heard in court at any level period.

In America it became a habit to announce the 1st amendment as the separation of Church and State. But the term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.

The original text reads: "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution.

Since our civil liberties have accepted marriage as a privilege. The institution of marriage is not anyone’s idea or personal property to manage as one would deem fit. So therefore, it would be profane to determine what is fair or equitable about a principle that belongs to God to define humanity. So any magistrate that grants homosexuals to marry will result in an unexpected unfavorable consequence for that stated jurisdiction by God.

jayhawkca 2 years, 8 months ago

To adequately support the claims in your blog, you need peer-reviewed sources, not Wikipedia.

Leslie Swearingen 2 years, 8 months ago

"There ain't nothin' I can do or nothin' I can say That folks don't criticize me but I'm going to do Just as I want to anyway And don't care just what people say."

Lyrics from "Ain't nobodies bidness if I do", sang by Billie Holiday who was known as Lady Day. You go your way, I'll go mine and maybe we will meet in the fork in the road and then, maybe not.

pace 2 years, 8 months ago

As tragically silly as the premise of this piece is. I just think, good luck to the same sex marriages, as I wonder about opposite sex marriage being possible. As I feel tonight, same sex marriage might be easier. I sometimes can not fathom the differences between the sexes. Why has god forsaken me. Can't two people agree on what being on time means!!!!

Jeff Barclay 2 years, 8 months ago

Reasonmclucus- What is most helpful to me is that you have largely left religion out of your discussion. Well said. Well done. I embrace the religious arguments favoring heterosexual marriage, but approaching this scientifically and psycho-socially is an excellent approach. Thank you.

pace 2 years, 8 months ago

Junk science is more harmful, the argument was junk science.

Leslie Swearingen 2 years, 8 months ago

This is all we know and all we need to know. Like I said above, really very simple when you get down to it. No need to complicate things.

Bill_Slu 2 years, 8 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

ssteve1 2 years, 8 months ago

I'm thrilled to have read this. I just learned that two men can NOT have a baby. Please, somebody just slit my throat.

Melinda Black 2 years, 8 months ago

This has got to be one of the oddest posts I've ever read on the site.

Marriage is a social and legal construction. Reproduction is a biological function.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.