Actually, in my state the official, do-not-alter marriage license ordered everybody to describe themselves as "Spouse A" and "Spouse B".  Anybody who crossed that out and wrote "Husband" and "Wife" wasn't legally married.  So that was sort of telling people how to think.

Also the Percy vs Schwarzenegger decision is a straight order to ignore those harmful religious teachings that homosexuality is not approved.

Also I think the whole point of getting married, and this is stated outright in the Percy v Schwarzenegger, is to compel everybody to acknowledge the marriage as equal "in stature and respect" as marriage between a man and a woman.  So yeah, you are forcing everybody to do something.

But they are compelled to accept labels whether they like it or not.  That is always significant.

That presumes that homosexuality is not a matter of choice, and that it is fully equal to heterosexuality, and that any cultural differences are meaningless, and they can be destroyed overnight, and it doesn't matter.  that's a lot of assumptions to impose on people.

I believe that all "deviant" or "unusual" self-identity issues like sexual identity, religious devotion, racial identity and extreme political dissidence, criminal activity, all "anti-social" self-imaging is probably reversible by some means.  I also believe that psychotherapy cannot resolve these issues, since they occur at so basic a level that the patient is unable to achieve full candor wtih the therapist, or, maintian that level of candor with the general public.  And its the interaction with the public that "reinforces" that self-image.  I'm talking about any behavior where the indivdiual assumes his "manners" require him to conceal his "true self".

I also think 21st century science forbids exploration of therapy outside counseling to deal with these issues.  The community and the government aren't going to allow experiments with drugs that allow devout Jews to be converted into Mormonism by talk, or surgery to make extreme reactionaries like me more persuasible.

Whether that is really a bad thing, depends on whether or not you are a real man.  haha just kidding. at least it'd polite to say so.

any commitment despite social pressures

how do you tell a subject's orientation in an autopsy?

apart from self-declaration, what defines heterosexuality?

how many gays are really bisexuals in denial?

sexual orientation is closer to religious identity than race, because you don't have any physical markers, just self-declaration

religion gets respect because of the violence that explodes when its repressed, maybe you should riot more

you make a big assumption that all people who are repressing their feelings are "perfectly happy"... would you be "perfectly happy" if you were an ugly mofo that couldn't get a woman to bed?

yeah that is why I say they make a mistake trying to insist being gay is like being black.  There's physiology behind race.  I can tell the race of a black guy in an autopsy.  Being gay involves dozens of combinations of technique or sex acts, but it's tied to a declared behavior. Negative evidence that we can't prove it isn't genetic doesn't mean much.

we give civil rights to religious groups, which is not genetic, it's a choice, because repressing religion is having a permanent civil war.  and that one you really can't shout down with articles in the New England Journal of Medicine.  I admit it'll be tricky since the New Left really wants to repress religion but ya gotta fight for your right to parity.

> East wrote:

> yes but the whole point is why should gay people suppress their feelings? why not let them be "perfectly happy" in a homosexual lifestyle?

no one is stopping them from being "perfectly happy" in their homosexual lifestyle.... i am just saying that if you choose to go against societal norms, you can't expect society to conform to your needs.

Addendum to my previous post:  Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, or lifestyle choice, any more than heterosexuality is.

> [TI] Lateralis wrote:

> Addendum to my previous post:  Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, or lifestyle choice, any more than heterosexuality is.

no one has said homosexuality is a lifestyle or lifestyle choice. Humans have preferences. Some want Guys, Some want Girls, some want to wear black clothes, some want to have sex with little children. the desire, the attraction is what makes you homo, hetero, goth, or pedo. Can a homo not [bugger] other men? yes, can he [screw] women? yes. Can he marry a woman, have a family, and be perfectly happy without ever living out his desire to [roger] another guy? yes. Can a hetero not [intercourse with] women? yes. can he [sodomise] and marry another man (if gay marriage was legal), have a family (adoption), and be perfectly happy without ever living out his desire to [hump] a woman? yes. Can a Goth never wear any dark clothes and never die his hair a dark color? yes. Can he wear white, get married, have a family, and be perfectly happy, without ever acting on his desire to act Goth? yes. Can a pedophile never act on his desire to molest children, get married, have children, and be perfectly happy without ever living out his desire to [Mr. Rogers] child? yes.

Gay marriage not being legal isn't keeping people from being gay, its not oppressing people that are gay, its about the gay lifestyle; and the gay lifestyle is 100% choice.

I say let them get married.  It effects nothing but their private life.  If you see a random gay couple, just like a random hetero couple, you would have no idea if they were married or not unless they told you.  And if your homophobic then chances are you will never speak, therefore never knowing for sure if they are married.  It doesnt effect straight people.  There is no reason to be against beside personal views.  The point is: #%@$ your personal views.  Deep down noone cares about them.