My favorite is from this old Rolling Stone article:

"Cameron, 59, a former psychologist based in Colorado Springs, issues a stream of data often used by anti-gay activists: that gays are far more likely than straights to molest children, that gays are more likely to commit crimes as mundane as tax evasion or shoplifting, and so on. “We’re kind of the wellspring of most of the statistics about the gay lifestyle.” Cameron says. Cameron, who in the 1980s called for quarantining gays to prevent the spread of AIDS, has been attacked not only by gay-rights groups but also by psychologists, psychiatrists and sociologists, who have engaged in decades long war with Cameron. Like many of his allies, Cameron believes that, if left unchecked, homosexuality will destroy America like God did Sodom. “Untrammeled homosexuality can take over and destroy a social system,” says Cameron. “If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get- and that is what homosexuality seems to be-then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men and women on women, if all you are looking for is orgasm.” So powerful is the allure of gays, Cameron believes, that if society approves that gay people, more and more heterosexuals will be inexorably drawn into homosexuality. “I’m convinced that lesbians are particularly good seducers,” says Cameron. “People in homosexuality are incredibly evangelical,” he adds, sounding evangelical himself. “It’s pure sexuality. It’s almost like pure heroin. It’s such a rush. They are committed in almost a religious way. And they’ll take enormous risks, do anything.” He says that for married men and women, gay sex would be irresistible. “Martial sex tends toward the boring end,” he points out. “Generally, it doesn’t deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does” So, Cameron believes, within a few generations homosexuality would be come the dominant form of sexual behavior."

That's possibly the craziest thing I've ever read. Atrios, one of the most popular liberal bloggers, said of the above "I couldn't have written it better if I was trying to make an over-the-top parody of their arguments", or something like that.

Also, the blogosphere has 3 fairly distinct political groups...the left, the right, and libertarians, who are like republicans without the "moral majority" aspect. In my experience, the libertarians generally tend to be repubicans for whatever reason, and the two combined outnumber liberals (at least in terms of the most popular sites). But yes, social liberalism is exteremly common ammongst the blogosphere. The "moral majority" part of the Republican party is vastly underrated compared to it's percentage of the US population (libertarians, on the other hand, are vastly overrepresented).

Doh, didn't realize HTML wouldn't work. The Rolling Stone article I mentioned can be found here: http://www.pflagdetroit.org/Holy_War_OnGays.htm

In silence there is consent, I'm glad you blogged!

I think most anti-gay sentiments are born out of ignorance. I'm privy to the happenings of two gay relationships within my small circle of contacts. One couple consistently break up and gets back together every month and will no doubt be spending vast amounts of their incomes on divorce lawyers one day if allowed and to marry. The other couple are in one of the best relationships I have ever seen and have no interest in marrying.
If you consider marriage to be a legal union, there are almost no arguments against allowing gays to marry that hold water. Yet nearly every day we see a strong group of ignorant traditionalists who stand strong in their beliefs that they can tell others who they can not marry.
It's eerily reminiscent of the racism against blacks so many decades ago when they were refused entry into common schools and common washroom facilities.
We're still a long ways away from equal rights for all.
The problem really boils down to a combination of religion and stupidity I think, which doesn't really surprise me because I use those two terms together quite often and both have caused most of the problems we've ever had anyway.

I am not necessarily in favor of gay marriage, but then I also try to get some perspective when things throw mw off-kilter. The open letter to the governor of Massachusetts by Gary Luepp is a good read and makes some interesting "non-politically charged" points.

The article is here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12132003.html

I find the notion that marriage of any kind will *lead* to sex of any kind to be grossly misinformed.

Referring to the comment, "polygamy, pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality mentioned as all viable concerns and bestiality mentioned as all viable concerns for why gay marriage should not be allowed", i've know some "hard core" southern baptist and down home southern rednecks that would fall into the mentioned catagories of extreme behaviors and practice such acts religously....does that imply that people in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks?

seriously, though... I think that the controversy has more to do with political power than with the issue of sex. At one point in time, Christians held enough political sway that their beliefs were the social norm. Letting go of that is difficult, and it's not surprising that a fight is being put up.

As a Christian, what I find disturbing is the notion of imposing our rules on the general populace through law. Yes, there are areas where our rules would coincide with those of the populace (murder, stealing, etc.), but you don't see laws on gluttony, etc.

Now, the notion that homosexuality is a sin is something that I'm going to have to ask God to explain to me someday, but in the meantime, if the church has rules about its sacraments, that's fine. But to impose those rules outside of the context of the church just doesn't make any logical sense to me.

If two people want to seal their commitment to each other with a social status that brings some recognition of that commitment, including (beyond the social recognition) the ability to file taxes, share healthcare benefits, etc., etc., etc. then what is the problem with that? I just don't see the big threat.

The "threat" then would appear to be that we're not in control anymore. But, personally, the notion of coveting political power is decidedly un-Christian.

Quoting from previous comment about: Cameron, ex-psychologist of Colorado...So powerful is the allure of gays, Cameron believes, that if society approves that gay people, more and more heterosexuals will be inexorably drawn into homosexuality, The evidence is that men do a better job on men and women on women, if all you are looking for is orgasm.” So powerful is the allure of gays, Cameron believes, that if society approves that gay people, more and more heterosexuals will be inexorably drawn into homosexuality".

Folks, I was not aware that I was looking for "just an orgasm". The act of sex is between two people who have affection and love for each other, it is a sharing of your bodies, it involves trust because of the vulnerablity you experience with another person. I really don't think that some psychologist in Colorado can speak for the general public or myself. AND I honestly don't believe that someone from the same sex could take care of my needs as I prefer...I am not dissing same sex relationships...it is a freedom of preference of who you want to be with...not the government telling us what to do with our bodies. Historically, government has tried to dictate to us/women what we can do with our bodies...Roe v Wade. From the news that I've seen, it would appear that there are more of same sex relationships than thought of...I believe that the alternative lifestyles will find their place in society.

First of all, I completely reject the inane premise that lovers of the same sex make better lovers. That’s nonsense, if people have been involved in a poor sexual relationship that’s their own fault. They didn’t ask enough questions and feel their partner out well enough. Some may try to blame it upon their old partners, but it’s a two way street and it there was an impediment it was about not knowing each other. Lovers of different sex have more to offer each other sexually. It’s not even debatable.

Now as far as gay marriage goes. Marriage is a legal relationship. If the gay people genuinely care enough about each other to want to pass benefits and property to those they love (without seeing an attorney) they should be allowed to do so. There’s no reason for the law to discriminate against who is genuinely loved. That legal relationship however is going to require things of them and if they want to bite into the divorce apple that’s their prerogative. The only people that should have an objection are those involved in the court system. Divorce Court is already overburdened and adding gay marriage issues will make it even more congested. However, that’s no reason to discriminate and granted gays only make up a small percentage of the population. Marriage licenses will give society the chance to see who really changes sexual partners most frequently. Which is not even to say that the relationship a marriage license is issued for has to be sexual.

I don't see what the hullabaloo is about. I've heard it said that if gays are allowed to marry it will "cheapen" conventional marriages.

Oh puh-leeeeeze. I don't care about the gender of couples, I just think that in this world where hate is so prevalent, it's amazing that two people find eachother and commit to eachother.

Why stand in the way of that? I don't think that it should be an issue.... it's just ridiculous!

AverageJoe: In your "3 groups" distinction, I think that the Libertarians who don't have marketable skills tend to vote Republican, where as those who make enough money that taxes are a reasonable tradeoff to get rid of the social constraints vote Democrat. I think most of my readers would self-describe as Libertarians, but I've gotten zero pushback on my Dubya bashing, and that's the only explanation I can figure out.

Overall, as much as I'm against marriage as a social institution, I'm quite happy for my friends who are deriving joy (and discovering new hiccups in their relationships...) from their opportunity to get married here in SF.