Pro-Gay Communities Fare Better Than Anti-gay Places

As the immense population of impoverished Haiti struggles to survive, the real business of the world continues to evolve in interesting ways which we must examine closely even if this means stepping on many ideological toes and pushing the usual hysteria buttons.  Namely, the triumph of the Asian empires in the area of mercantile trade and the successes of liberated gay communities in the West both show us where the centers of dynamic economic power really lies: in the very things the US right wing fears and hates the most.


I have been pro-gay rights since 1966 when I discovered one of my favorite childhood friends was gay.  The storm of hatred and the terrorist threats against him startled and horrified me.  Over time, as gays struggled in this long, titanic battle for simple civil rights, the harsh treatment of gays by the ‘straight’ (mostly religious) communities caused gays to gather in specific places and do business mainly with each other.  This is due to not being discriminated against or mocked or treated like a second class citizen.


In turn, this has caused many side effects beneficial to the gay community.  One is, they can openly have a culture which they enjoy, in public.  Secondly, this congregation in specific neighborhoods increases political power.  Thirdly, the birthrate in the gay community, both lesbian and homosexual, is much lower than the general population’s birthrates.  Just this week in China, a gay event was cancelled by the government.  China and Japan have a long history of not being homophobic compared to say, Muslim empires or official Christian ideology centers.


But the main point here is, the connection of NOT having children with the ability of a community to grow wealthy is very powerful.  For example, in the Dark and Medieval phases of the former Roman Empire, the one economically dynamic center of commerce and wealth creation was the single-sex, non-childbearing sector, the Catholic Church.  While the peasants remained mired in poverty and the nobility constantly fought over inheritances, the Church sailed merrily along, accumulating wealth quite rapidly compared to the other sectors of Medieval economies.


Below is an article from today that shows clearly how this dynamic works:  Gulf between rich and poor cities widens – Home News, UK – The Independent

Brighton has been tipped as one of the cities best placed to rise from the ashes of the recession; Hull is likely to be one of the last to recover. The South Coast city, known as the gay capital of Britain, is blessed with a highly educated workforce, entrepreneurship and a strong private sector that will drive its recovery.


But Hull has suffered the biggest increase in unemployment compared to other cities and is weighed down by a legacy of low skills and economic isolation, a report shows.


The comparative prospects of Hull and Brighton highlight the widening economic chasm between the country’s cities caused by the recession. Hull has 16 jobseekers for every vacancy and suffered the biggest increase in youth unemployment; in Brighton a third of the workforce is graduate level and 20,000 new jobs have been added in the past decade.


OK: first point is the misleading headline of this story.  It should read, ‘Gay Communities Are More Productive Than Anti-gay Towns’ or something along those lines.  Then, the number of hits on this story would soar but the Independent, which is a conservative newspaper, would have to deal with the rage of many readers.  The reporter who wrote this interesting article was very sly to mention the gay economic powerhouse dynamics but didn’t dare expand on it.


Haiti, for example, has one of the highest birthrates in the world.  If we broke down the GDP share of a community and its birthrate, we would see within various countries, where the poverty centers are coincide with high birthrates.  Africa, the continent with the highest overall birthrates, is wracked by homophobic violence and anyone with an education who is gay, flees the entire continent and seeks out gay-friendly communities in places like Bath or NYC or LA, for example.  Many big cities in the West like Berlin, London, Paris and Tokyo are destinations for educated gay singles as well as couples.


Long ago, pro-gay researchers in evolutionary systems figured out that there must be a ‘gay gene’ in animal populations that are social.  That is, families of apes and monkeys that had members who didn’t reproduce but instead, made the families stronger in the area of group protection while at the same time, not competing for sex or promoting their own offspring, the advantages of ape families with ‘gay’ members is, these ‘uncles’ and ‘aunts’ would be second mothers to others inside the families.


This meant the mother having children could concentrate on each baby while the toddlers and older children could gambol off with the non-childbearing relatives who are gay.  So roughly 10-15% of any population of apes that move about in families evolved to be gay since genes for ‘no gays’ would lose in competition with ‘recessive gay gene’ families.  I would venture to say, cultures and political systems that persecute gays (say, the entire Republican Party in the US) end up shooting themselves in the foot because this insures rising poverty and social chaos, especially if, like all Muslim and most Catholic lands, this includes the religious leaders forbidding birth controls.


Now, on to another story equally interesting in the wrong way.  Here is Friedman of the NYT, unable to understand the simplest international dynamics:  Op-Ed Columnist – What’s Our Sputnik? –

As the terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman noted in an essay in The Washington Post: “In the wake of the global financial crisis, Al Qaeda has stepped up a strategy of economic warfare. ‘We will bury you,’ Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev promised Americans 50 years ago. Today, Al Qaeda threatens: ‘We will bankrupt you.’ ” And they will.


Duh.  Glad Friedman notices this.  Bin Laden knew that if he were like a gadfly and nip the US again and again, we would kick apart our entire system while bellowing with rage.  He said, from day one, his strategy is to lure the US into the poorest places on earth and have us bleed to death, fighting the poorest….and therefore, the fastest population growing regions of the earth.  That is, Afghanistan is one of the highest birthrate areas on earth and thus, one of the poorest.


And the culture there is extremely homophobic as well as antifeminist.  Feminism as well as gay civil rights together, make nations much, much richer.  While antifeminism and homophobic cultures get poorer and poorer.  I hope the GOP figures this out before it is too late, by the way.


Our presence, our oil dependence, our endless foreign aid in the Middle East have become huge enablers of bad governance there and massive escapes from responsibility and accountability by people who want to blame all their troubles on us. Let’s get out of the way and let the moderate majorities there, if they really exist, face their own enemies on their own. It is the only way they will move. We can be the wind at their backs, but we can’t be their sails. There is some hope for Iraq and Iran today because their moderates are fighting for themselves.


China imports lots of oil from the Middle East and yet, isn’t hung up in all the clan or religious battles raging there. The US, on the other hand, is involved and NOT because of the oil. We are involved because of our religious bigotry and our desire to control and own the Holy Land. Of course, Friedman won’t try to understand this because he is pro-Zionist. This is why he weeps for the ruins of Haiti and the dead children and sheds not one tear for the victims in the Gaza Ghetto living in similar ruins.


Indeed, the selective humanitarian feelings are at the bottom of much of the ‘why do they hate us’ business. The Muslims know we don’t care if they all die, indeed, we hope they all die. This is pretty obvious. Naturally, this leads to them feeling that all of us should die, instead. A very bad dynamic. But then, the Christian right in the US and the Zionists both also believe, just like the Muslim leaders, the key to future dominance lies in having as many babies as possible.


But this backfires on them all for too many babies=economic poverty. And any culture that follows strict religious dogma ends up very, very poor. The temporary exception to this rule is the Muslim oil pumping nations. But they are not ‘growing economies’, they are excess commodity profit centers where the massive hikes in population are rapidly eating into profits and will eventually lead to economic collapse as we see in the rising tide of families on welfare in Saudi Arabia, for example.

. Has anyone noticed the most important peace breakthrough on the planet in the last two years? It’s right here: the new calm in the Strait of Taiwan. For decades, this was considered the most dangerous place on earth, with Taiwan and China pointing missiles at each other on hair triggers. Well, over the past two years, China and Taiwan have reached a quiet rapprochement — on their own. No special envoys or shuttling secretaries of state. Yes, our Navy was a critical stabilizer. But they worked it out. They realized their own interdependence. The result: a new web of economic ties, direct flights and student exchanges.


HAHAHA.  I detailed this for years, the slow dance between China and Taiwan and like the one going on right now with Japan, this dance is done by cutting out the US entirely from the process and much of this being done in secrecy so the US gets to learn the results, not influence them. But then, Germany did this too!  The fall of the Berlin Wall was engineered by Germany quietly paying off Russia to remove Russian troops from East Germany!  Afterwards,the sudden reunification of Germany was done with NO US input at all.  Secretly and suddenly, this left the State Department gasping for air.


A key reason is that Taiwan has no oil, no natural resources. It’s a barren rock with 23 million people who, through hard work, have amassed the fourth-largest foreign currency reserves in the world. They got rich digging inside themselves, unlocking their entrepreneurs, not digging for oil. They took responsibility. They got rich by asking: “How do I improve myself?” Not by declaring: “It’s all somebody else’s fault. Give me a handout


Friedman thinks Taiwan became a world export power due to not having any oil.  The reason Taiwan became a world trade power was due to the anticommunist dogma of the US: we thought that by letting all the countries surrounding Russia and China were to be allowed to export like crazy to the US, they would get stronger and stronger and we would then stand triumphant and yell at the commies, ‘Capitalism works!’


Well, this plan backfired on us.  Taiwan, Japan, Germany, South Korea and others merrily penetrated and destroyed our own domestic markets.  Their successes are easily gaged with our own dire trade statistics.  Strengthening them meant destroying ourselves.  China figured this out and piled in, too, and we wanted to show the Chinese that ‘capitalism’ works so we let them pour exports into the US, too! And bingo!  We ended up deep in debt to the Chinese.


Now, the deal with China and its neighbors is based on a very dangerous idea: the US is doomed.  So everyone is rearranging themselves into a new series of alliances with the new world power, China.  Taiwan is no exception.  The Taiwanese know that they will be destroyed if they fight China and they also know that in alliance with fellow Chinese, they can dominate the planet even more so they are jumping ship, just like Japan is in the middle of jumping ship.  They see our ship sinking.  Duh.


As for all of this being due to no oil: how silly is this?  If ‘barren rock’ is a requirement for a dynamic economic system, Haiti would be the dynamo of this planet.  It has been looted of all natural resources and is basically a rock with no future.  Friedman gets away with bad analysis because of his connections.  This is why he publishes total twaddle every day and gets paid handsomely for this.  Sigh.


Tiny Chinese Juice Company Wins Derivatives Case Against Morgan Stanley, Sending Hand Grenade To Wall Street

How these cases are resolved is crucial, and indeed it looks like one prominent one — the case of a Chinese juice maker — did not go well for Morgan Stanley (MS). Platts explains that the juice maker is paying $7 million after a settlement, despite ostensibly owing $26 million. Like many buyers who dealt with Wall Street, the firm felt it was sold a shoddy bill of golds. (ELAINE: hahaha, Freudian slip here!)


Chinese Firm Refuses To Pay Goldman

According to Reuters, a Goldman subsidiary, J. Aron and Company, says that Shenzhen Nanshan Power owes them $80 million. But Shenzhen Power is refusing to pay. They say that J. Aron is trying to collect $80 million in terminated oil option contract fees and losses, but the contracts were signed without company approval.


Looks like the Chinese are not going to bankroll the Derivatives Beast.  Goldman Sachs doesn’t control the Communist Party of China unlike in the US where they control both political parties.  The Senate and House are holding hearings about the corruption of the top US international bankers but this is a charade since no one wants to go for the jugular (except Ron Paul and Kucinich).


Rampant hostile takeovers using borrowed money is a blight on the entire economic system of the West.  China will not allow this so the bankers pulling off these stunts are confined to burdening all corporations in the West with tons of useless debts.  This, in turn, is ravaging whole economic systems and should be outlawed.  Here is an example from Britain: Cadbury takeover likely to be a ‘disaster’, MPs warned | Business |

Kraft has proposed paying about £10bn for Cadbury in a cash-and-share deal, which will be partly financed by a $9bn bridging loan. The Unite union warned the committee that Cadbury’s UK workforce feared “mass redundancies and restructuring” as Kraft sought savings of up to $1.5bn if it succeeded in claiming its prize….


…Dromey cited Kraft’s purchase of another British chocolate maker, Terry’s, in 1993. Despite promising to keep its York factory open, the site was closed in 2005 and production moved overseas.


According to this article, 80% of all takeovers are destructive to jobs and weaken corporations!  The central banks of the US and UK claim they are trying to save jobs which is why they manipulate the currencies to create inflation since inflation=more jobs (HAHAHA) but the truth of the matter is, cheap loans to international financiers leads to job destruction since the only way these behemoths can make oodles of bonus money payouts is to dump immense amounts of debt on others to repay.


100% of the time, companies that are merged, fire workers.  Thus, more mergers=more job losses.  And to pay for all this, companies must move to cheaper labor areas like….Asia!  And so it goes, round and round.  Right now, the central bankers are pointing to mergers and acquisitions to show that economic systems are returning to ‘normal’.  But ‘normal’ is destructive of jobs!  And so, as fewer and fewer people have jobs, the entire economic system goes down the tubes.  What a surprise!  Eventually, for example, few in England will be able to afford to buy any Cadbury candies or much of anything else.  Sort of like Haiti.  Wake up, everyone!  Time will run out eventually.  Ditto, to the US.


Where homophobic and race hatreds twists the lower classes into knots.  Oh, and hatred of unions.  Good grief, time to commit hari kari.

sunset borger

side picture begging boneEmail:



P.O. BOX 483

BERLIN, NY 12022

Make checks out to ‘Elaine Supkis’

Click on the Pegasus icon on the right sidebar to donate via Paypal.

sunset borger


Filed under .money matters, evolution, Free Trade, religion

74 responses to “Pro-Gay Communities Fare Better Than Anti-gay Places

  1. csurge

    I’d be more comfortable about homosexuals if I saw the same sort of thing happening in the wild… but it doesn’t happen… ever. They claim it’s a ‘natural’ and ‘beautiful’ thing, when clearly it isn’t natural, and ‘beauty’ is in the eye of the beholder. What does that mean?

    Just some thoughts.


    ELAINE; It absolutely happens in the wild. And definitely in the Great Ape family of animals.

  2. justiceatsqualor

    Economic productivity isn’t the whole picture. Raising children takes a whole lot of time, money and effort.

    I’m no advocate for overpopulation. On the contrary, overpopulation may lead to a die-off event. But once upon a time people had to rely on well raised children for retirement support in the absence of pension plans, annuities, savings or other social programs. In the not too distant future, it may be so again.

    It’s another conundrum.

  3. sharkbabe

    csurge, do you live under a rock? Google “animal gay behavior” sometime. wishing you comfort with your problem.

    great post, Elaine.

  4. csurge

    Uh, oops. Wow. I googled it…and…holy shit, I really didn’t know. Never bothered to look it up… and I’ve never seen or heard anything about it on TV or in text books.

    And no, I don’t have a ‘problem’. I said I’m _uncomfortable_ around homosexuals, but I make every effort to be polite and hide my discomfit, and I treat them the same as everyone else … with equal contempt. Does that make me a hate monger? *sigh* Whatever. I’ll shut up now.

  5. scarletfire

    Interesting article ems…In a bit of synchronicity I just got a mailing from one of my local real estate agents summarizing the local southern maine market. The town that has faired the best and values have dropped the least is Ogunquit, a historically gay and artistic sea side community. So in this small example your point has been proven.

  6. flipspiceland

    Whether or not it is genetic, the idea of gay animals whatever species inserting their probscis into the anuses and moving it around in disease-ridden dung is somehow perverted (the opening has not evolved for incretion, but excretion) not to mention the horrific damage it has done to the male of the species engaged in this type of behavior.

    It seems to be an aberrant and now fatal deviation from the normal propagation of the species; an unnatural act.


    ELAINE: ALL SEX IS DIRTY which is why we have so many sexual diseases of all sorts and types. Think sticking something into where we piss is clean???

  7. John

    but I make every effort to be polite and hide my discomfit, and I treat them the same as everyone else … with equal contempt.

    Haha. Good for you csurge!

  8. Hennes

    Hi Elaine

    So my beloved Köln(,keulen,c.c.a.a.,colonia)
    will fare better because of its big gay-community? Great,couldn‘t happen to a
    nicer place.Google rosa funken(first gay carneval society).
    By the way,without support from papa doc
    Bush there would have been no re-unification.
    Our friends and allies like thatcher and mitte-
    rand tried everything to sabotage it,but in the
    end only the two big dogs(us&ussr) had a say.
    So we paid the russians to leave and they did.UK and US forces never left. That reminds me of the weirdest thing i read last
    year,i.e. tory leader cameron last year said that the UK would,in case of a tory victory, recall its troops from germany and that these
    would be replaced with polish troops. I guess
    that‘s what its like in a non sovereign part of
    the crumbling US/UK empire.Anyway,good
    luck with that plan.
    On a happier note, screw cadbury.They bought and destroyed ,among many others,
    Chocolat Poulain,where my grandfather worked all his life .He was not happy that les
    anglais took over “his” company but he was
    actually appalled by the shitty quality and
    taste of cadbury and i‘m sure he is smiling
    today on his little cloud in heaven.


    ELAINE: Polish troops occupying Germany? HAHAHA. History laughs her head off.

  9. PLovering

    A study of gay college students before and after graduation posts the following results:

    Before graduation, 5% of male college students self-identified as gay while 11% of female college students self-identified as lesbian.

    After graduation, the same male college students self-identified as 5% gay, while the same female college students self-identified as 1% lesbian.

    Thus the female acronym “LUG” for Lesbian Until Graduation.

    Male gays are genetically disposed. Females
    are not genetically disposed to lesbianism, which is an acquired taste.

  10. the fool on the hill

    I doubt that there is a ‘gay gene’.

    The actual sex of an offspring is determined by genetics. After that, the offspring is given doses of male and female sex hormones while in the womb. Occasionally there is a ‘malfunction’ and the fetus is oversaturated with the ‘wrong’ hormone. Depending on the degree of saturation different results can occur from transgender to homosexually, etc.

    It is more likely that any genetic aspect would be found by looking at the mother, rather than the offspring.

    Birth order can play a role as well.

    But in any case homosexuals are entitled to the same respect of dignity as anyone else based on their status as rational beings, if, say, Kant is to be believed. I would say that position is consistent with a rational construction of the ‘New Testament’ as well, for folks that like to take their moral cues from it.

    That’s always been our problem, too many Caesars/fascists/Nazis, not enough philosophers.

  11. emsnews

    There is one gene or rather one MISSING leg of one gene…for sexual differences but the expression of sexual desire is part of a very big complex of many different tidbits of genetic coding. Got that?

  12. flipspiceland


    Yes, it is since urine is practically sterile. Do you know how filthy Shit is in comparison?

  13. justiceatsqualor

    Perhaps a champagne enema?

  14. Jim Dandy

    gays are the end of the genetic that there is no progeny thus no future for that unique set of genetic coding.

    Kind of like a prisoner getting an elaborate last meal, gays are getting some additional creature comforts for their final days while the rest of us soldier onward.


    ELAINE; on the contrary, we have much more than direct descendants, all living things have family relations of varying degrees. ‘Sacrifice’ for supporting nieces and nephews is very evolutionary smart tactics which is why so many living things do this say, bees, wasps, a number of mammals, birds, etc.

  15. justiceatsqualor

    No, just like a-sexual ants or bees, gays achieve genetic success indirectly through enhanced family success, at least historically before the nanny state.

  16. eschew

    Homosexuality is bad business for the religious right because it doesn’t propogate the species and add to the coffers. Acceptance also means the veil of shame can be lifted to expose all aberrant sexual behavior, including pedophilia, which has been really bad business for the Catholic church. The last thing they want to pervert is their revenue stream..

  17. RobG

    Over at Denninger:

    Use this search to find the appropriate entries for your web servers and other devices to permanently block all Chinese IP addresses.

    When you shop – look at the product first. If it says “Made in China” PUT IT BACK, DO NOT BUY IT, AND TELL THE MANAGER OR OWNER OF THE STORE WHY.

    Look folks, we either stop this crap now or we will NEVER stop it.


    They managed to buy, during Clinton’s administration, highly restricted radar technology that has military uses. They used that technology to upgrade their nuclear ballistic arsenal. Instead of being able to hit within a mile or two they can now hit within a few dozens of feet. Guess where they have them pointed: AT YOU.

    They infiltrated Clinton’s campaign and illegally provided campaign funding (and got caught doing so.)

    The Cox Report set forth very specific allegations related to the theft of US nuclear secrets, including warhead designs for essentially every advanced nuclear warhead we have ever built.


    ELAINE: Won’t fix anything since we import from all nations.

  18. PLovering

    Ron Paul means business.

  19. larry, dfh

    Iirc, the Chinese got military and weapons know-how from our buddies the Israelis.
    Long ago, DuPont was a major chemical company run by a chemist CEO and NOT a businessman. When business finally got at the helm, DuPont acquired Conoco, and had to go into debt to do it. DuPont has never been the same since then, and many of their strategic decisions have been debt management. They are now a shell of their former selves.
    Recently I got to try some chocolate, La Iberrica, from Peru. Never had any chocolate as good, but then again, cocoa is an Inca product. Cadbury seems to travel with Hersheys on the product shelves; that’s probably a more natural fit.

  20. flash

    “Females are not genetically disposed to lesbianism, which is an acquired taste.”

    But seriously, folks, the fact that male and female homosexuality has occurred throughout recorded human history (as well as in other species, apparently) convinces me that there is a functional necessity to humanity for it to exist. Not the end of the line, but a supporting role?

    BTW, if internet porn is any indication, there are plenty of married people (I suppose with children) who do gay things with their partners, as in male/female anal sex. Sexuality is a wide spectrum, not a short series of pigeon or other holes.

  21. K-Bo

    Another thought provoking article, as usual, so here’s some thoughts and questions.

    True – (being gay and) not having children to raise makes one richer materially, but I’m sure most parents would argue they’d be much poorer in the more important life satisfaction score. Not to mention that if everyone were gay or chose not to have kids in order to live an easier, richer life for themselves, society would be much poorer.

    Society is based on the nuclear family – a mom, a dad, and kid(s). I think the “conservative right” is trying to preserve that traditional basis for society against lots of pressures – high divorce rates, single motherhood (no father to begin with), and various other cultural influences. Promotion of homosexual relationships as equal to heterosexual ones is one of them. They’re not the same.

    Sure, gays should have rights. Probably not “marriage” but civil unions are OK. And people should definitely be more tolerant and accepting. Society does need to be careful about opening up a big can of worms: if two men can get married and two women can get married, then why not a man and many women, parents and children, siblings, two friends, etc… What makes a gay relationship special, if it doesn’t lead to the future of society – children? Further, if not recognizing gay partners as “married” is discrimination, then isn’t it also discrimination not to give civil benefits to heterosexual couples who are just dating and make no commitments to each other? I think there have already been such lawsuits.

    BTW, just because some animals do certain things, doesn’t mean it’s natural and moral for humans to do those same things. However, the issue of the genetic component of homosexuality is interesting from an evolutionary perspective, similar to infertility: what purpose do these genes serve if they don’t help those same genes propagate into the next generation? The idea that the gay uncle or lesbian aunt helps raise their nieces and nephews or builds useful public infrastructure (or otherwise contributes to the fruits of society) is plausible.

  22. K-Bo

    I was looking for statistics about kids raised in homosexual households vs. heterosexual ones, and ran across this site:

    Lots’ of interesting statistics. I know, “right wing,” Fox News, … but the facts are the facts. Heterosexual and homosexual relationships are much different. People can make their own judgments about what’s good for society.

  23. justiceatsqualor

    Sexuality is boring.

    More importantly, our only meaningful political discourse has devolved into disagreement over who, how and when we screw. Perhaps because people trying to get laid are people not revolting, like livestock rutting in squalor.

    Another distraction.


    ELAINE: Men think about sex about 1,000 times a day. 🙂

  24. the fool on the hill


    Yeah, I got it.

    Of course you realize that, from a standpoint of logic, your comment did not contradict mine in the slightest.

  25. JSmith

    “the triumph of the Asian empires in the area of mercantile trade and the successes of liberated gay communities in the West both show us where the centers of dynamic economic power really lies: in the very things the US right wing fears and hates the most.”

    Your article doesn’t exactly back up your thesis – unless “the very things the US right wing fear and hate the most” is smaller family sizes. Gay has nothing to do with it – you actually got to it in this sentence:

    “If we broke down the GDP share of a community and its birthrate, we would see within various countries, where the poverty centers are coincide with high birthrates.”

    Two factors correlate with declining birthrates: increasing wealth and education for women, of which the latter is the more important. Europe and the US are currently breeding below – or just at – replacement rates. “Traditional” societies that educate their girls see declines in birth rate as well.


    ELAINE: All my long life, I have had to fight the US right wing lunatics over the business of birth control and abortion rights. And you say I don’t understand what this is all about? HAHAHA. Yes, education is most important which is why my grandmother fought so hard for the right to go to a top men’s college.

  26. Jeremy/Nashville

    Elaine, you are awesome! It means a lot to know that you have been supporting the gay community all these years and making a difference. As a gay guy, that means a lot to me!

    Anyone who says it isn’t natural or doesn’t see homosexuality in nature amongst animals needs to have a long discussion with a veterinarian or a zoologist.

  27. nah

    had a bunch of gay neighbors once… 2 really… one had 2 kids… they would have parties and man bash with their lesbian friends and have a merry old time…
    sing kereoke on overload in the middle of the day… and generally act gay ‘i got the only corsica hatchback in the world, look it opens from the rear?’
    see i tell my friends you are a fag, bitch, asshole or whatever endlessly to express my dominance ‘and they often feel the need to return the favor’… and we drink beer, BBQ, and play poker
    i am civil around the LaDIeZ as best i can be… and they like me… im a champ
    now im not saying gays arent the most successful people in the world and generate modern cities that are generous and caring… it just doesnt affect me, i cant be gay…. and gays cant be me…. and its probably better that way

    some organizations just look marginalized

  28. Gary

    America “debates” homosexuality and abortion with such vigor because it CANNOT
    debate far more serious matters that are OFF LIMITS in our carefully manipulated society.

    We cannot debate the role of the Military Contractor Complex, the role of Wall St banks and brokerages, and the role that Corporate power plays in molding our minds via the media

  29. emsnews

    We debate race and sex because of phobias. Note that ALL phobias shut down key parts of the thinking brain. These are all located in the same part of the deep brain where religious faith resides so they are all very tightly intertwined with each other.

    When I was a child, I was very puzzled why so many gods were worried about our sex lives. Well, that has to be the funniest thing of all things human. And a very interesting thing to examine scientifically.

    By the way, ‘trust’ emotions are deep inside, too, not where we think but the emotional well inside our more primitive parts of the brain! Which is why we are all so easily conned on nearly every possible thing.

  30. the fool on the hill

    Actually, we debate that stuff all the time here.

    But debating the hereditary science underlying homosexual behavior is also off limits in our ‘carefully manipulated society’.

    What if the science gave support to the idea that homosexuality was a hereditary birth defect? Why, we would have to suppress it, of course.

    As someone with a birth defect, I can assure you that ‘mother nature’ makes mistakes.

    Still, I don’t expect my birth defect to affect the recognition of my human rights.

    Of course, people that tell the truth are hated, and that might affect the recognition of my human rights.

  31. N00b

    The concept of a “nuclear family” is about 50 years old. It hails back to the 1950’s and “Father knows best” and Doris Day. It’s all a fantasy.
    You can read a book as simple as “Anne of Green Gables” to see what family was like. When a woman lost her husband, she had to “break up housekeeping.” That meant that various children were sent out to relatives who were childless or whose children were grown. Nuclear family busted.
    You can read tales of pioneer times, when women died in childbirth on the trail and in the woods. The father remarried another woman and took in her children as well. Often, she died in childbirth as well. That meant another marriage, because men could not take care of little ones. Again, nuclear family busted.
    You can walk through old cemeteries and see many gravestones of young women buried with their babies. Nuclear family? Nope.
    If you go to the middle east, there is no concept of “nuclear family.” However, there is a concept of FAMILY. That means that your aunts, your uncles, your 2nd and 3rd cousins, your grandmother’s sister and your grandfather’s brothers are all known to you
    very well. They even go so far as to have different appellations for the sister of the father vs the sister of the mother, to distinguish what family she belongs to. In Western cultures, we only have the word “aunt” to cover those cases. The same goes for the brother of the father vs. the brother of the mother–we again only have one word, “uncle” to name these people.
    The conception of nuclear family is a new construct, just like the construct of a “retirement,” which the boomers will have, but which will be unlikely for everybody coming after them in the US. And of course, “nuclear family” like so much of everything else is meant to be restrictive and exclusionary.

  32. emsnews

    Clans are the main family form in many nations like Afghanistan. And the nuclear family was recognized as a concept of modern automobile-style societies that have industrial basis for earning money.

    Farmers cannot be ‘nuclear families’…too much labor is needed.

  33. charlottemom

    Of course homosexual behavior has been
    around in man and animals since well… forever.

    Curious though about push for acceptance of a separate and distince “homosexual” lifestyle. Is the gay community a self-selected group? Like choosing/converting religions or is it like ethnicity that is genetically hardwired? Or both? Or different for different people?

    Look, heterosexuals prefer man/woman sex; homosexuals prefer same-sex sex. But really…it’s just about sex so why construct an elaborate new cultural classification – gay, lesbian, transgender.

    Yes, animals engage in same-sex sex, but these animals don’t carve out separate homosexual behavioral communities onto themselves. And as far as pro-gay vs anti-gay communities, isn’t it that “pro-gay” (is it pro-gay or just gay agnostic?) communities tend to be more open minded, diverse, tolerant and/or educated.

    I think openminded, diverse, tolerant and educated is our goal…NOT espousing homosexual practices (which are by their nature unsanitary).

    I don’t care about anyone else’s sex life (except my husband’s) and we ALL deserve the same rights and previleges, but stop the madness in elevating preferences (albeit sexual) into separate cultural identities.

    p.s. Identity politics (religious, sexual, gender etc) are my pet peeve.

  34. Last week, this week and next week, there has been and is still a trial proceeding to get California’s Proposition 8 overturned. The plantiffs who want the proposition declared unconstitutional (because it is) have their ducks lined up in a row. They have expert witnesses who know what they are talking about and even have both opposing lawyers from Bush v. Gore. This is expected to go all the way up to the SCOTUS where the four liberal judges who will interpret the constitution will face off against four homophobic conservative judicial activists. The wild card is Justice Kennedy – he withheld judgement on government recognition of same-sex unions in Lawrence v. Texas

    And recently I have discovered that the Jewish and Christian scriptures are a lot more pro-gay than they are anti-gay. In fact, what appears to be obvious injunctions against homosexuality could very well be prohibitions against heterosexual men engaging in homosexual behaviour. It’s not natural for them, it hurts their wives and in doing it, they horn in on our territory! And guess who contacted me when I discovered this: a certain Jesus (not the death god version, obviously!).

    @charlottemon, have you ever considered the reason why lesbians and we gay men segregate ourselves into neighborhoods and cities that are gay-positive or at least gay-agnostic is because of the invidious prejudice against and denial of the existence of us homosexuals? I grew up in a suburb of Boston and the denial was so wide and deep it might as well have been the Nile, flowing through Egypt (which is also a neighborhood of that Boston suburb, HAHAHA). However, recognition of same-sex marriage rights could vary well facilitate the assimilation of the gay and lesbian population into the population at large? When I returned to Mass. for a visit in 2008 I saw that the gays and lesbians there were beginnning to assimilate, 4-1/2 years after legal recognition of same-sex marriage there. Oh, and Mass. has a declining divorce rate, as well.

  35. Jim Dandy

    animals don’t seem to have evolved in the way that humans have. I fail to see drawing any comparisons to the animal kingdom support the gay uncle thesis.

    How about the kids traumatized from being molested by that uncle?


    ELAINE: I was raped by a married heterosexual family man who had two sons. At the age of 7, no less. Full rape, not ‘molestation’….had to be operated on to fix the mess he caused.

  36. Jim, the overwhelming majority of adults who molest children are heterosexual men. That said, there are kids molested by gay uncles (I knew one such molestee when he was an adult 😦 ) but they are in a tiny minority compared to kids molested by straight uncles, fathers, grandfathers and other straight relatives.

  37. CK

    La nuit tous les chats sont gris.
    When push comes to shove, there is always another knight in the barrel.
    If you can’t be with the one you love, enjoy the one you’re with.
    Friends with benefits, itch scratching without worries.

  38. Lois T.

    I remember when we first started hearing about AIDS in the early 1980’s, there seemed to be some sort of public consensus (at least around water coolers at work) that the disease was pretty much confined to the gay community, and, for some strange reason, also to Haitians. There was even speculation that homosexual activity was a lot more rampant in Haiti than what the Haitians were letting on. So, as long as you weren’t gay or Haitian, you couldn’t get AIDS.

    Finally, the public was informed that AIDS could be transmitted due to the exchange of bodily fluids in any type of sexual activity, not just gay sex. As odd as it seems to us now, it took a couple of years before the word finally got out.

  39. charlottemom

    I think that the model society is one that is tolerant and diverse and accepts universality of humanness. I can see why homosexuals would seek out these communities. Are these communities truly “pro-gay” (what does that mean exactly? Encourage homosexual behavior? Or just tolerant of diversity in general? Notice I stress commonality of man (and woman).

    I am not however in favor of an overly sexualized society — hetero or homo. You do what you want sexually and I do what I want. Pro-gay or anti gay. I am neither. Why does it have to be with me OR against me? Do you want a hetero sexualized culture in your face? Probably not. Nor I want a overly homosexualized culture. Its about respecting people, their choices and everyone coexisting in that framework.

    I can see why would a marginalized group feels the need to congregate together for support. However this is a defensive move, ghettoizing minorities lead to anger, frustration, identity politics, “I am better/more special/more enlightened than you” attitudes. I hate that.
    p.s. what the gay uncle has to do with any of this is a mystery to me.
    ps. I’d have hated to live that Boston neighborhood. They probably hated other non-mainstream groups and ideas. What an intellectually dead and uninspirating place.

  40. Jim Dandy

    Ed M…if an uncle molests a young boy, it’s hard to come to the conclusion he is a heterosexual.

  41. emsnews

    I enjoyed immensely living in ‘gay friendly’ communities in both NYC and Sand Francisco. Far from being uncomfortable or scary or whatever, it was great.

    And ARTISTIC. Good gods! The arts community in specific, takes off like a rocket.

  42. norcalkid

    Elaine- This is but one of the reasons I stay in California (even with the ninnyies and prop 8). I cannot imagine living somewhere like the Midwest or South. I doubt that we would be doing so well, in spite of our financial mess, without the contributions of the gay community here. There are, of course, still homophobes, but they tend to be of the older generations.

    Me, I have no problems with gay couples. I think all civil “marriages” should be called civil unions and be done with it. Let the churches have their holy marriage BS, and leave the rest of us alone. After all, the highest divorce rates are in the Bible Belt.

  43. Wu Wei

    Dogs suck their own balls, should i now too?

    I am not an animal, i am human.


    ELAINE; as a hetero female, I assure you that all things gays do, straight men like to do too. Very, very much IDENTICAL. Ask any female prostitute what men like more than anything…and it ain’t ‘normal’ sex.

  44. charlottemom

    I agree with norcalkid

    Govt need to get out of the marriag business. Govt should decree all marriages – homo and hetero – as civil unions and bestow rights and privileges of civil union to all. Done. Problem solved. Let the marriage be a religious term and let churches grapple with that issue.

  45. JSmith

    “And you say I don’t understand what this is all about?”

    I say that “the successes of liberated gay communities in the West” is a trailing indicator, not a leading one – as communities become more educated and successful they generally become more tolerant.

  46. emsnews

    Wrong, Smith. It is much, much deeper. As a person who lived in these wonderful communities in the past, the gay neighborhoods improve very swiftly as people care for their homes and surroundings more and more. Example: I was part of a tree planting club in Brooklyn, NY. 85% of the members were gay. When we tried getting people outside of Park Slope (this was over 30 years ago) to plant trees, the fewer gays around these other places, the less interested people were in getting trees planted in front of their homes!

    Worse, when we finally, in desperation, said we would plant the trees, all they had to do was sign paperwork, THEY REFUSED!

    Multiply this by all sorts of things and you see the obvious: the civic attention gays give to everything is a blessing, trust me on this. Big time. They love doing special things to make public spaces much better. I ended up in a gay political club simply because IT WORKED MUCH BETTER than other political clubs. The enthusiasm gays brought to our projects was just awe inspiring.

    Indeed, I became the ‘door opener’ back then when it was literally illegal to be gay (you could be arrested for this!) so I would arrange a meeting without telling the politicians who was coming with me. At the meeting, I would introduce everyone and explain briefly the point of the meeting and then stand in the back of the room and watch.

    Often, the politicians would be very rude once they found they were cornered by a group of articulate gays. If the politician objected, I would step in and keep them talking and keep them from fleeing the room. It was all very amusing.

    Today, things are much, much, much better. But the religious leaders are antigay and this is going to be a long haul. But again: gays run much nicer public communities because they care passionately about public spaces. They use these a lot.

  47. CK

    Is you the penetrator
    the penetratee.
    Other issues are just widow dressing.
    Ask the Spartans.

  48. charlottemom

    “But again: gays run much nicer public communities because they care passionately about public spaces. They use these a lot.”

    What?! A gay person cares more passionately about public spaces that nongays? huh? Quite a broad brushstroke there.
    I completely disagree with this conclusion. Stop implying that “gays” are more green, more enlightened, better etc. than anyone else. Sexual preference doesn’t necessarily make anyone anything

    These communities you describe INCLUDE gays and NONGays are better not because indidual sexual preferences but because its members are like minded in embracing diversity, tolerance and respectfulness within their community.

    That these communities accept gays (and other “others”) is a symptom of their diversity and and respectfulness and not due to any’s sexual preference. Stop making this all about sex.


    ELAINE: That is also correct. To a point. Which is why I mentioned PUBLIC spaces. I have lived in very gay hot spots and very ‘family oriented’ communities. In the suburbs, of course. And the suburbs had nice houses and pretty yards but few community spaces while in the city we renovated the public spaces via political action which required hefty time allotments and frankly, the majority of the people doing this were gay.

    I know this pisses people off but as an organizer who spent fruitless hours trying to get people involved, I can attest to this DIRECTLY and not theoretically.

  49. Jim Dandy

    it could be argued that gays have more time on their hands, thus more willing to donate time to civil causes. or perhaps it is an effort to assimilate in non controversial ways.

    As a father of 4, I don’t have time to do much but work and child rear.

    In any event, I agree with Charlottemom and elaine. Let people pair off as they see fit and stay the hell out of their business. I have never had any issues whatsoever with gays, and doubt anyone else has either.

  50. flipspiceland

    My fave gay person is the huge dude on, “Modern Family”, who demonstrates that gay is not primarily about sex at all but football (he was an offensive lineman in college) , exquisite sensitivity, and interior decorating.

    And Sofia Vergara is my ultimate hetero fantasy woman-woman-woman.

  51. @Jim Dandy, but what I was getting at is that the incidences of nephews being molested or raped by their uncles is small when compared to all incidences of child molestation… most of which, I am convinced, is committed by heterosexual men against girls.

    “The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

  52. @Charlottemom: actually that Boston suburb was quite liberal towards other minorities and women, despite its Republican leanings and widespread practice of traditional gender roles. These days, it appears to be more understanding of gay men and lesbians: in ’08 I had found gay-positive materials in the town library, something you couldn’t do back in the 70s even tho’ Newsweek reported on “the Gay phonomenon” back then.

    Of course, I had a gay male history teacher who was just barely in the closet, but just enough in there. He would tell us of his sexploits in Providence but discereetly enough so that noone would get the point that he was talking about! Until we, his gay students, would remember many years later, what he said back then. It would have been better for ALL of us if he were openly gay. Then he would be a resource for gay kids to turn to and also would not skate on such ethically and morally thin ice by telling us those stories.

  53. CK

    Under the heading of sexuality and its purposes:
    Which either supports EMS’s gnomic theory of finance or just that one gets what one pays for, which is EMS’s theory of prostitution.
    And gentlemen for your reading pleasure:
    The article suggests that 100+ orgasms a year will add 3 to 8 years to your life expectancy. An orgasm a day then might add 9 to 24 years might it not? If sex is linear.
    Which reminds me of my youth, when I was an automatic weapon, a few years later I was a semi- automatic, a few more years and I was a reliable hunting rifle, as the years passed, I became more like a flintlock or matchlock, long delays, poor aim, the occassional hangup, the occassional dryfire.
    So having an orgasm a day might indeed add years to your life as a wall hanging antique … oh the stories it could tell.

  54. charlottemom

    Elaine – I don’t doubt this was your experience:
    “I was part of a tree planting club in Brooklyn, NY. 85% of the members were gay. When we tried getting people outside of Park Slope (this was over 30 years ago) to plant trees, the fewer gays around these other places, the less interested people were in getting trees planted in front of their homes!

    Worse, when we finally, in desperation, said we would plant the trees, all they had to do was sign paperwork, THEY REFUSED!”

    However, have you considered other non-sexual factors in these people’s refusal to comply with planting trees — economical (they didn’t believe the trees were free? They’d be taxed for them later? or cultural (many culture’s have little to no interest or regard for public spaces), Example: In Peru, Panama, Bolivia (latin america) where i’ve lived, the dumping, littering, trash burning by people was rampant. Forget about planting trees — they were burning them in deforestation! Residences are hidden from public view behind security walls, NO emphasis on public spaces, public asethetics, fear of theft in displays of wealth and well-being.

    Perhaps other reasons why people could be reluctant to sign papers? Recent emigres from politically corrupt oppressive countries? Fear of audit trail paperwork if illegally in country?

    I’m sorry but I flat out reject the theory that just being gay makes you more green.

    I’m sorry that I mischaracterized your Boston suburb. Were gays ostracized? Rejected? singled out or descriminated against? The social norms of conformity often appear unbreakable, but are not so when challenged in reality. Did your community experience a difficult transition moving from non-gay to gay-inclusive? If not, perhaps your community would have been more open to gayness that you thought back then. And I agree with your assessment of your teacher, you all could have supported each other in the open.

  55. Colin

    “Society is based on the nuclear family – a mom, a dad, and kid(s). I think the “conservative right” is trying to preserve that traditional basis for society against lots of pressures – high divorce rates, single motherhood (no father to begin with), and various other cultural influences.”

    Wrong. Sheer-faced ignorance of the worst possible kind. The nuclear family is wholy ABNORMAL, it is not, nor ever, was the traditional basis for society. It is an invention of the nineenth century created to serve the ends of industrialisation. It never existed before that in human history. It always amuses me, coming from Ireland, that americans seem to think that their protestant anglo-saxon culture is universal and attempt to force it on everyone else. (in my fathers family the children where swapped arround between the aunts and uncles depending on who was thought to be the best parent for them: my spinster aunt had no children so was given two of her brother’s children to raise as he had too many, etc.)

    For most of human history children where raised in tribes, and through the medieval period in an arrangement called Manorialism basically a large extended related unit headed by a don. For many other cultures arround the world children never see their genetic mother or father depending on whether it was a patrilineal or matrilineal culture. (ireland was the later untill the tenth century).

    Actuall Manorialism is interesting here because it breaks down in the 16th century which is also the time when the persecution of homosexuals starts (in the middle ages no one cared – generally – sex was a more open topic). But it’s interesting because there is a change of attitude towards all single childless people at that time. Before the 16th century having a childless brother or sister was considered a great honour to the family but after the 16th century it became a disgrace. (in medieval english cadency only the first two sons were supposed to have children of their own, later boys either became preists, monks or sent to university to become, litterarly, ‘batchelors’ of law or medcine) Words even change their meaning: the word ‘spinster’ always meant a childless female, but originaly it was a complement (the spinster aunt was one of the most important people in the family unit – she, litterally, was the one who did all the cloth spining) but after the 16th century it progessively became an insult to call someone an ‘old spinster’.

    The part about, “lots of pressures – high divorce rates, single motherhood” is equally dim. Shakespeare had a failed marrige. A few years back the BBC did a investigated it, they found the divorse rate in Elizabethan england was more or less the same as the divorce rate in england of the 1990’s, also england had statistically the same number of single parent familes in the 1990’s as they had had fourhundred years before. So, no, marrige is not under any pressure at all, it is eactly the same as it has been for four-hundred years.

  56. emsnews

    OK: about the upper class nobility—NO child was allowed to clutter up the castle of his own mother. All the kiddies were farmed out to learn to be civilized and for political reasons: they were the eyes and ears of mummy and daddy.

    Worse, these brats then grew up and would…um….KILL DADDY or try to kill…EACH OTHER fighting over the thrones and baronies, or if they were fourth sons, they got to be archbishop or even pope and would fight their own…families like fiends from hell.

    Heh. Royal clan loyalty was about the distance between the hand and the tip of a sword.

  57. SurfBoy

    Regarding “Gay Marriage”…Why do they need to “get married” per se? What do they gain by being married? How is that different from a “civil union” or even complete power of attorney? Personally I have believed that the only reason for getting married was if I was planning on having children (I have 2 daughters). Otherwise what’s the point?

  58. K-Bo

    @Colin, thanks for your history lesson. I’m sure you know a lot about Shakespeare, and I’m sure we all ran around like a bunch of monkeys at some point in our history. I’m talking about America in the 20th century, which is the society I know, but apparently you think is some abberation of nature.

    See a nice article about the *recent* history of divorce in America:

    “From 1960 to 1980, the divorce rate more than doubled — from 9.2 divorces per 1,000 married women to 22.6 divorces per 1,000 married women. This meant that while less than 20% of couples who married in 1950 ended up divorced, about 50% of couples who married in 1970 did. And approximately half of the children born to married parents in the 1970s saw their parents part, compared to only about 11% of those born in the 1950s.”

    and what are the effects of this breakdown in the family on kids?

    ” Social-science data about the consequences of divorce have moved many scholars across the political spectrum to warn against continuing the divorce revolution, and to argue that intact families are essential, especially to the well-being of children. Here is a characteristic example, from a recent publication by a group of scholars at the Brookings Institution and Princeton University:

    Marriage provides benefits both to children and to society. Although it was once possible to believe that the nation’s high rates of divorce, cohabitation, and nonmarital childbearing represented little more than lifestyle alternatives brought about by the freedom to pursue individual self-fulfillment, many analysts now believe that these individual choices can be damaging to the children who have no say in them and to the society that enables them.”

    I guess you are free to claim that kids don’t need two parents or a stable home, and that I am “dim,” “ignorant,” and am “forcing” my views on you. Sounds like you’re advocating we all run around and do what we please because it’s only natural, and who really cares what happens to kids. Nice.

  59. K-Bo

    Then again, maybe my social commentary was unwelcome, and maybe anything goes for families and we’ll all survive regardless.


    for some more history of families.

  60. @Surfboy: Your argument doesn’t hold water. Separate civil unions and marriages would be OK were separated according to church and state and not according to straight and gay/lesbian. And getting married only to have kids? That may be fine for you but if the state were to make that mandatory, it cheapens marriage into a license for BREEDING. And we have too many people on this planet already. Rather, marriage is the most widely regarded, most highly esteemed legal, religious and social contract by which two persons enact to cement themselves into one spiritual, emotional, romantic, sexual, and socioeconomic UNION. And restricting marriage to opposite-sex partners is dangerously close to turning marriage into a license for breeding. You see my point?

  61. K-Bo,

    Your post sounds like a good argument for same-sex marriage! 🙂 The Proposition 8 Trial testimony has revealed that gay men and lesbians are no worse parents than heterosexual people are and that children raised by two gay parents or two lesbian parents are just as well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. What counts is love in and committment to the relationship and unconditional love for the children. And the kids don’t grow up confused about their sexuality, despite the shibboleth put forward by the religious right.

  62. A new study done by Dr Carole Jenny at Children’s Hospital reveals that gay men are or may be less likely to molest children then other men.

    “When our opponents demonize openly gay men and falsely shine the spotlight on us, they’re letting the real abusers hide in the darkness. And continue the abuse. They’re literally sacrificing children to their own homophobia” – Rob Tisinai

  63. K-Bo


    I never argued that gays couldn’t be good parents. However, gay relationships tend not to be as stable or committed as heterosexual marriage, and are less healthy (STDs, violence, suicide …). Not to mention, there is physically no way to produce children, so obviously that means adoption or IVF or surrogate parent. BTW, one of my ex-coworkers was a very sad, HIV+ gay man that committed suicide. Another of my ex-coworkers is lesbian, in a committed relationship for a while, trying to adopt, and I think would be a good mommy.

    “What counts is love in and committment to the relationship and unconditional love for the children.” Amen, brother.

  64. emsnews

    You certainly do NOT have to be married AT ALL to ‘reproduce’. Gads. And as for stability: I have personally known quite a few gay male or female couples who were ‘married’ many more years than nearly all of the ‘straight’ couples I know.

  65. K-Bo

    Of course any heterosexual couple can reproduce. Homosexuals can’t, without a sperm or egg donor. Yes some gay couples have stable relationships. But just look at the statistics from my previous link:

    Only 15% of homosexual relationships have lasted at least 12 years, whereas 60-70% of heterosexual marriages last that long.

    How long does it take to raise a child?

  66. emsnews

    The statistics have a huge flaw: gays can’t marry legally so they have no incentive to stay together (splitting the estate). #2 reason is simple: if we don’t include the WWII generation which is dying off rapidly, the numbers get much, much, much worse.

    For example, in the straight community, the marriage rate has plummeted in the last 50 years and more children are now being born out of wedlock than in a marriage. See?

  67. CK

    I suppose we should stop at this point in the discussion of in versus out of wedlock births.
    Leave it as a straight versus gay thing and not delve into any of the economic or racial breakdowns. Let us also not delve too deeply into that marriage rate decrease either. Tough to find a husband when close to 1/3 of the potentially available men are doing prison time.
    If a polity wishes to have more of something than the market will deliver at the current price, the polity has to subsidize the wanted thing. Conversely if a polity wants less of a thing than the market wishes to provide at the current price, the polity must tax and criminalize the thing.
    As a polity, the USA subsidizes, out of wedlock birth, and reduced marriage rates. As policy of the polity, not as an unintended consequence of some misguided idealism but as clear headed and cold hearted policy.
    Or as you have shown so colourfully in other areas of discourse, a polity gets what it pays for.

  68. K-Bo

    You claim that gays have no economic incentive to partner and stay partnered. That may be true for most of the world without civil unions, but again that site shows that even when gays are “allowed” to marry, they appear not to want to do so. See the graph showing over 50% of heterosexuals married in the US, versus only 20% in gay-marriage-legal Vermont, and under 3% in gay-marriage-legal Sweden and Netherlands. We’ll see if the gay-legal-marriages indeed last longer, as you hypothesize. It’s too early to tell in Vermont, but I think the Scandinavian countries have had legal same-sex unions for a while, and they still have low rates of “marriage,” despite assumed economic incentives.

    I think gays are not as committed, for various reasons. Reason #1 may be that they like to be promiscuous – 80% of straight couples are “faithful” to their partners vs. less than 5% of gay males.

    Regarding point #2, that the situation is getting much, much worse generationally (with respect to the traditional family), I agree; that’s what I was saying. I’m not sure which “numbers” you are referring to which are getting worse.

    I agree that more kids are being born out of wedlock, that’s what I said before, but I don’t see your point. See:

    “Over the last several decades, marriage in our nation has declined, while cohabitation, divorce and unmarried childbearing have increased.”

    In 1960, 11% of children were born out of wedlock. In 1998 it was 33%, and in 2007 it was 40%! It’s much worse for blacks, with 72% of kids born to an unmarried mother!

    @CK, You’re right. Policy dictates behavior, unfortunately.

  69. @CK and K-Bo: Yes, policy does dictate behaviour. So do societal attitudes. In ancient Greece and Rome, amongst other societies that were not impacted by homophobia, same-sex unions were held in high esteem and the result was that gay men (people didn’t use THAT particular term back then but observers like Plato in his Symposium knew what they were talking about) entered into unusually stable unions. Ref. John Boswell’s Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe.

    It was not until 342 CE that the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans banned gay marriage throughout the Roman Empire. The edict comes off as literally something the Puritans would have written. This was the beginning of traditional Christianity’s removal of gay men from societal approval and oppressing them (now US, dammit!) under a stigma. So if you have no legal venue to have a relationship with your beloved and and worse, are considered less than the others because of whom you love and what gender you are instinctively attracted to in order to find the object of your affection, of course you are much less likely to have a stable relationship! K-Bo, it is obvious that all of you who look down on us want us to have the same high conduct of morality as heterosexuals, but you refuse to give us the tools we need (same-sex marriage and RESPECT) to do the job!

  70. “Same high conduct as heterosexuals” HAHAHAHA. Half of all marriages end up in divorce. Look to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: they know how to repair the damage to marriage and the decline in divorce rates have continued AFTER same-sex marriage was legalised in that state.

  71. More on drop in Massachusets divorce rates:

    Drop has been 20% since 2003, when the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court ruled a ban against same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

  72. Canada has since it started off with same-sex marriage has had about 100,000 same-sex marriages enacted.

    How many same-sex divorces? Exactly…


  73. Pingback: Gay and lesbian retirement community wins approval in Santa Rosa : Retirement Communities — Senior Living and Care

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s