You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
On the website of The Atlantic, Sullivan wrote about the importance of marriage. I agree with him and I think everyone should consider reading his essay.
It happened first when we told our families and friends of our intentions. Suddenly, they had a vocabulary to describe and understand our relationship. I was no longer my partner's "friend" or "boyfriend"; I was his fiance. Suddenly, everyone involved themselves in our love. They asked how I had proposed; they inquired when the wedding would be; my straight friends made jokes about marriage that simply included me as one of them. At that first post-engagement Christmas with my in-laws, I felt something shift. They had always been welcoming and supportive. But now I was family. I felt an end--a sudden, fateful end--to an emotional displacement I had experienced since childhood.
38 Comments:
Reading Sullivan's books and columns over the years, I always recognized his intelligence--regardless of whether his stance enlightened or enraged me. But holy cow, his wedding vows are the first time I've shed a happy tear for him. Best wishes to A and his husband. -Josh
posted by Anonymous, at
8/15/2008 7:49 PM
I was vacationing in Provincetown last week with friends and was dining at Frappo.
Andrew and his husband were just a few tables away.
They do make a nice couple. His husband is a big teddy bear.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/15/2008 10:00 PM
I really don't get it. Gay people should be allowed to marry their love just like anyone else! This is a contentious issue where there need be none.
As a conservative christian, who believes in religious rights, I totally an publicly support gay marriage.
That conservatives are crying relgious freedom is being trampled on - I say "Bull!" Religious freedom does not mean conservative christian religious freedom - it means RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
I am dumbfounded as to how they come up with the victim mentaliy on this one and sa their rihts are not bein respected. Really???
Why didn't the scream this loud when the rules of divorce changed. Why did they not scream a little louder when adultery became common place?
Becaue it they who they would have been screaming about.
Really, I became a christian a few yeas ago, and I am appalled at their hitory and choice of social issues they found relevant. They have forgotten their own history and instead decided to focus on some other group of people besides themselves.
Thanks anon., but i dont think you're as conservative as you claim. Maybe a more progressive church would suit you. Get away from those whackjobs before they infect your kind-heartedness. If you express those sentiments in your church i bet they'll ostracize you. Feel the Love!
posted by Anonymous, at
8/16/2008 9:30 AM
My husband (on Monday!!!!) and I just shot a small gay wedding yesterday. One of the guy's sister was his best man. she delivered the toast: "Kai, welcome to the family. You've always been a member of the family (10 years), but youre wedding makes it official."
Yeah, I hear you. However, someone has to stand up and say something.
Now before you get upset - let me clarify - I do believe homosexuality is a sin FOR ME. I am not speaking about you or anyone else - and I don't believe that people must live by my standard. I certainly would not want to live by the standard of many people in my own church!
So a pregressive chruch might not be the place for me.
While my religion is conservative - my politics are very liberal. I support my gay friends and people like Ben.
I know exactly what he means by that emotional displacement. Many people feel that and especially gay people. They have every right to follow their beliefs in the way that I follow mine. Feeling left out of one of life's moments of "vocation" is feeling empty. And gay peole should never have been denied this right and this will certainly be a marker for the history in america books.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/16/2008 2:13 PM
Anonymous-- you sound like a person of integrity and principle-- unlike a couple of other anonymasses I could name who seem to have neither.
Your Welcome Ben. Congratulations! I hope your lives together are fulfilling. And Thanks.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/16/2008 7:14 PM
There's a word for this - ABOMINATION!
Our Creator, to whom we are all accountable, categorically opposes homosexual "marriage." It violates His plan for man-woman permanence. It frustrates and denies complementariness in nurturing.
The legalization of homosexual "marriage" will erode the traditional family. For proof, go to Scandinavia. Stanley Kurtz, who has a Harvard Ph. D. in Social Anthropology, addressed a Senate sub-committee on this subject. He writes:
"Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of firstborn children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more...[In Scandinavia] married parenthood has become a minority phenomenon."
Can you imagine the complicated consequences of same-sex parenting? Distinctives between the genders will blur. Young people will have confusing and conflicting models from which to choose. Studies show that daughters with no father are more likely to experience teenage pregnancy than other girls. Motherless children miss the emotional security only a mom can give. Any opportunity for children to learn the skills of a husband loving his wife and vice versa will be gone. The benefits of marriage as God intended will be missed by many. Over ten thousand studies have proven that children do best when raised by a loving mother and father.
Homosexual "marriage" undermines God's plan for the family. And weakened families impact society. As marriage weakens, the costs are born not only by individual children or families but by all of us taxpayers, citizens, and neighbors. We all incur the costs of higher crime, welfare, education and health-care expenditures, and reduced security for our own marriage investments. Simply as a matter of public health alone a new campaign to reduce marriage failure is as important as the campaign to reduce smoking.
And legalized homosexual "marriage" will lead to legalized polygamy and other deviations. Utah polygamist Tom Green is using the same legal leverage gays have used to achieve the legal sanction of his marriage to five women. The Utah ACLU seems ready to help him, stating that the nuclear family "may not necessarily be the best model." If we reject the traditional and historical definition of marriage society becomes a weather vane whipped about by the whims and opinions of a black-robed panel of unelected judges.
Who's to say that one man can't marry five women? Or two men and two women? How about a commune marriage? Or a marriage between a daddy and a daughter or a woman and a giraffe? Don't underestimate the evil bent of the human heart. In 1972, the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demandedthe "repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of all legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers."
Rejecting the universal law leads not to a belief in nothing - but a belief in everything. It leads to abominations such as "gay marriage."
posted by Anonymous, at
8/16/2008 11:04 PM
To Anon at 11:04,
I'm certain that gay people are aware of your position. I doubt that your yelling at them has done anything more than produce ill well towards the one you call God.
As a conservative christian, I am ashamed at your approach to thers.
You obviously do not like gays, and gay rights. You obviously believe that your religion is the true religion. I invite you to consider that this is a free country and not a theocracy. You will have to share it with others who have differing opinions and beliefs. Please try to be civil.
You may want to read books from other christians who have a more christ like model of how to approach people with varying belief systems etc...
You may believe the it is your duty or a command to evangelize - but I doubt God has told you to make enemies.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/16/2008 11:10 PM
In addition Anon at 11:04
You might want to do a historical evaluation of the family in western society, Check out Staphanie Coontz. You will be surprised at the familial dynamics that have occurred since the time of antiquity. You might also be in for a shock when you discover that the American Family is already broken down and has been for a long time. "The gays" are not to blame.
That heterosexaul marriage is losing it's strength in European countries has nothing to do with gays marrying and everything to do with the people involved in the marriage who no longer see that marriage as valuable. In other words - it's a personal thing between those two people.
How about starting a marrige strengthening study at your church? Perhaps an indepth study of relationships. Start with a statistical analysis of marriages, families, and divorces in your own church?
People are so willing to point out what is bad about others without taking a look at what they can do within their own communities to strengthen their own families and individuals.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/16/2008 11:55 PM
Sorry anon, but that tired abomination chestnut fails to make to make us quake in our boots.
Here is the rebuttal to the "end of the world" gay marriage in Scandinavia portrait:
Prenuptial Jitters Did gay marriage destroy heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia? By M.V. Lee Badgett Posted Thursday, May 20, 2004, at 4:28 PM ET This week, Massachusetts began handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Amid the cheers, there are the doomsayers who predict that same-sex weddings will mean the end of civilization as we know it. Conservative religious leader James Dobson warns that Massachusetts is issuing "death certificates for the institution of marriage." And conservative pundit Stanley Kurtz claims to have found the "proof" that the institution will see its demise: Gay marriage helped to kill heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia. Indeed, Kurtz has become a key figure in the marriage debate: He and his statistics have been taken up by conservatives to support their argument that gay unions threaten heterosexual marriage. He has shown up in Congressional hearings, lawsuit filings, newspapers, debates, and anti-gay marriage videos across the country.
But Kurtz's smoking gun is really just smoke and mirrors. Reports of the death of marriage in Scandinavia are greatly exaggerated; giving gay couples the right to wed did not lead to massive matrimonial flight by heterosexuals.
Currently there are nine European countries that give marital rights to gay couples. In Scandinavia, Denmark (1989), Norway (1993), Sweden (1994), and Iceland (1996) pioneered a separate-and-not-quite-equal status for same-sex couples called "registered partnership." (When they register, same-sex couples receive most of the financial and legal rights of marriage, other than the right to marry in a state church and the right to adopt children.) Since 2001, the Netherlands and Belgium have opened marriage to same-sex couples.
Despite what Kurtz might say, the apocalypse has not yet arrived. In fact, the numbers show that heterosexual marriage looks pretty healthy in Scandinavia, where same-sex couples have had rights the longest. In Denmark, for example, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century but turned around in the early 1980s. After the 1989 passage of the registered-partner law, the marriage rate continued to climb; Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they've been since the early 1970's. And the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the partner laws were passed. Furthermore, in the 1990s, divorce rates in Scandinavia remained basically unchanged.
Of course, the good news about marriage rates is bad news for Kurtz's sky-is-falling argument. So, Kurtz instead focuses on the increasing tendency in Europe for couples to have children out of wedlock. Gay marriage, he argues, is a wedge that is prying marriage and parenthood apart.
The main evidence Kurtz points to is the increase in cohabitation rates among unmarried heterosexual couples and the increase in births to unmarried mothers. Roughly half of all children in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are now born to unmarried parents. In Denmark, the number of cohabiting couples with children rose by 25 percent in the 1990s. From these statistics Kurtz concludes that " … married parenthood has become a minority phenomenon," and—surprise—he blames gay marriage.
But Kurtz's interpretation of the statistics is incorrect. Parenthood within marriage is still the norm—most cohabitating couples marry after they start having children. In Sweden, for instance, 70 percent of cohabiters wed after their first child is born. Indeed, in Scandinavia the majority of families with children are headed by married parents. In Denmark and Norway, roughly four out of five couples with children were married in 2003. In the Netherlands, a bit south of Scandinavia, 90 percent of heterosexual couples with kids are married.
Kurtz is also mistaken in maintaining that gay unions are to blame for changes in heterosexual marriage patterns. In truth, the shift occurred in the opposite direction: Changes in heterosexual marriage made the recognition of gay couples more likely. In my own recent study conducted in the Netherlands, I found that the nine countries with partnership laws had higher rates of unmarried cohabitation than other European and North American countries before passage of the partner-registration laws. In other words, high cohabitation rates came first, gay partnership laws followed.
A subtler version of Kurtz's argument states that the advent of registered partnership caused an increase in cohabitation rates and children born outside of marriage (nonmarital births). If that were true, then we would expect to see two patterns: Cohabitation rates and the nonmarital birth rate would rise more quickly within a country after it passed partner registration laws; and the rise in the nonmarital birth rate would be greater in countries that had such laws than in countries that do not recognize same-sex partnerships.
Kurtz's argument fails both tests. From 1970 to 1980, the Danish nonmarital birth rate tripled, from 11 percent to 33 percent. Over the next 10 years, it rose again to 46 percent and then stopped rising in 1990s after the passage of the 1989 partnership law. Norway's big surge occurred in the 1980's, with an increase from 16 percent to 39 percent. In the decade after Norway recognized same-sex couples (in 1993), the nonmarital birth rate first rose slightly, then, after a couple of years, leveled off at 50 percent.
Cohabitation rates tell a similar story. In Denmark, from 1980 to 1989, the number of unmarried, cohabiting couples with children rose by 70 percent, but the same figure rose by only 28 percent from 1989 to 2000—the decade after Denmark introduced its partner-registration laws—and then stopped rising. From 2000 to 2004, the number has increased by a barely perceptible 0.3 percent. The fact that rates of cohabitation and nonmarital births either slowed down or completely stopped rising after the passage of partnership laws shows that the laws had no effect on heterosexual behavior.
Furthermore, the change in nonmarital births was exactly the same in countries with partnership laws as it was in countries without. The eight countries that recognized registered partners at some point in the decade from 1989 to 2000 saw an increase in the average nonmarital birth rate from 36 percent in 1991 to 44 percent in 2000, an eight percentage point increase. Among the EU countries that didn't recognize partners (plus Switzerland), the average rate of nonmarital births rose from 15 percent to 23 percent—also an eight-point increase.
No matter how you slice the demographic data, rates of nonmarital births and cohabitation do not increase as a result of the passage of laws that give same-sex partners the right to registered partnership. To put it simply: Giving gay couples rights does not inexplicably cause heterosexuals to flee marriage, as Kurtz would have us believe. Looking at the long-term statistical trends, it seems clear that the changes in heterosexuals' marriage and parenting decisions would have occurred anyway, even in the absence of gay marriage.
And all the conservative hand-wringing seems especially unnecessary when you consider the various incentives that encourage American heterosexual couples to marry. By marrying, U.S. couples obtain health-insurance coverage, pensions, and Social Security survivor benefits. Plus, in the United States we are required by law to be financially responsible for our spouses in bad times, since we don't have Scandinavian-style welfare programs to fall back on.
In addition, American society already wrestles with the social tensions that Kurtz claims have occurred as a result of gay marriage in Scandinavia: deepening divisions over gay issues in churches, the increasing acceptance of lesbian and gay relationships in the media, and the occasional radical voice arguing for the abolition of marriage. Yet heterosexual couples keep getting married—more than 2 million of them every year.
Concerns about the impact of gay marriage on heterosexual behavior are not unique to the United States, of course. European countries that recognize same-sex couples initially had their worriers, too. Over time, however, it became clear that civilization and family life would survive the recognition of gay couples' rights. Even the conservative governments that came into power have not tried to repeal rights for gay couples in France and the Netherlands.
Both demographic data and common sense show that the dire predictions of Dobson and Kurtz are just cultural prenuptial jitters. Now that gay and lesbian couples are marrying in Massachusetts, we'll have a home-grown social experiment that will undoubtedly compare to that of Europe: Letting gay couples say "I do" does not lead to heterosexuals saying "I don't."
posted by Anonymous, at
8/17/2008 2:12 AM
Good Rebuttal 2:12.
Ya' know - I think dope has killed he family.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/17/2008 2:23 AM
Anonymous Conservative Christian is exactly what I want to see in conservative Christians. They can think I'm going to hell for embracing my gayness, they can think I'm going to hell for being Jewish and not a "Jew-4-Jesus™", they can think I'm going to hell for believing in Old-Earth Evolution, and all that's just fine & dandy. But they know where their freedom ends, mine begins, and leave my freedom alone - and the reverse applies to me.
Someone once said "keep your Jesus off my penis and I'll keep my penis off of you."
posted by Emily K, at
8/17/2008 3:53 AM
Anonymous, you stated the following:
"Currently there are nine European countries that give marital rights to gay couples. In Scandinavia, Denmark (1989), Norway (1993), Sweden (1994), and Iceland (1996)."
If you mean marriage, not true. If you mean relationships offering the rights of marriage, true.
To date, only four countries offer full marriage in Europe, i.e. Holland, Belgium, Spain and Norway. Sweden is currently mulling it. Others offer other forms of legal recognition. The UK is unique in that it offers ALL of the rights and privileges of marriage at the national level without the name, including the right to adopt children. PACS in France and other forms or legal partnerships confer only limited rights of marriage.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/17/2008 6:10 AM
Emily,
I am econservative christian but not the one yelling abomination - anyhow - cc's are starting to change, thankfully. they don't think gay epople are going to hell fo being gay, and I do believe in evolution (though I think God was involved in evolution)and I don't thinkanyone is going to hell for believing that, and I don't think you're going to hell for being Jewish.
I am sorry that some people blog as a conservative christian and condmen others in such a way. I have my question - however - about their final resting place.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/17/2008 1:27 PM
What about fairness and equality and justice for children? A millennia of human history, natural law, and a plethora of scientific studies have clearly shown that that the role of a man and a woman in the family are complimentary and that children need both. Moms fulfill a role; dads fulfill a role.
The complementary aspects of parenting that mothers and fathers contribute to the rearing of children are rooted in the innate differences of the two sexes, and can no more be arbitrarily substituted than can the very nature of male and female. Despite the accusations of sexism and homophobia, and attempts to deny the importance of both mothers and fathers in the rearing of children, the oldest family structure of all turns out to be the best.
The bottom line? Children need a mom and a dad.
Concerning Badgett's critique of Kurtz's work, it's long on statistical tricks and short on meaningful engagement with Kurtz's actual argument.
Neither Badgett nor anyone else has been able to get around the fact that marriage in both Scandinavia and the Netherlands is in deep decline. In Scandinavia, that decline began before homosexual registered partnerships were established, but has continued apace ever since.
In the Netherlands, marital decline accelerated dramatically, in tandem with the growing campaign for homosexual "marriage."
The strategies for evading these hard truths don't work. Homosexual "marriage" advocates regularly cite steady or improving rates of marriage and divorce in Scandinavian countries to prove that all is well. These numbers are misleading. Scandinavian marriage numbers are inflated by remarriages among the large number of divorced, for example.
Scandinavian divorce numbers omit legally unrecorded breakups among the ever-increasing number of cohabiting parents. Total family dissolution rates in Scandinavia are actually up. Badgett and others just keep citing the misleading numbers.
The continued marital decline in Scandinavia and the Netherlands has provided concerned Americans with enough evidence to call the wisdom of government recognition of homosexual "marriage" into serious doubt. Which is why when the people are given a chance to vote on this matter, they continually reject homosexual "marriage."
posted by Anonymous, at
8/17/2008 5:50 PM
Anon at 5:50,
Following your logic then, you should be out adopting as many children as you can since there are orphaned children. Funny how those against gay marriage next bring up the welfare of children and ooops, seem to forget about those left in foster care or orphanages(which has really shown to be bad for children.) And it must be some of these same people since Barna shows that they are not the ones volunteering to adopt these children.
Sorry morally concerned citizen but your morals just got chopped when the reality of your bahavior was exposed.
Again, you might want to start an awarenesss group at church and start rasing money for families to adopt some of these unwanted children.
Oh and while your at that, start ministering to the single moms in your church who were left by adulteress fathers - their children have no father. And if your concern for the welfare of children is that they have a father - start helping the marriages in your own church, the single moms and dads, and the orhpaned kids.
And then, maybe then , someone will listen to you about your concern for children beng raised without a two gendered family.
Signed,
Conservative Christian. Yeah - you embarass me when you rant wthout the facts. And I really am a conservative christian.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/17/2008 8:39 PM
The wisdom of the broken family is in the individuals who decided not to legally marry, and those who are not pesonally well developed enough to get married, and those who decided to divorce.
Wake up and smell the coffee. The governement is not in charge of your persoonal life. You are and so are the people disolving "marriages". Did it ever occur to you that there is some personal responsibility in an individuals life?
posted by Anonymous, at
8/17/2008 8:42 PM
Scandinavia has a lower rate of abortion, out of wedlock births, teen pregnancy, child molestation, crime, incarceration, and just about every negative social problem you can think of then Here in the good 'ol us of a. Scandinavie and The netherlands and belgium, etc are the real shining cities on the hill.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/17/2008 10:52 PM
And they have socialized medicine.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/17/2008 10:56 PM
First, you've committed the hypocritical fallacy, a popular variation of the straw man fallacy. You're arguing against an idea or position by attacking its advocate(s) for (allegedly) not perfectly living up to their own ideals. This fallacy is a categorical fallacy in that it confuses hypocrisy with imperfection; that is it confuses hypocrisy, which is to pretend to have a set of values or ideals that one does not truly care about, with imperfection, which is to have a set of ideals that are so lofty that one strives but fails to perfectly attain them.
Next, last time I looked at who adopts the most it was self-identifying Christians. If that's changed, please demonstrate. And I say that absolutely more Christians should adopt.
"[Y]ou might want to start an awareness group at church and start raising money for families to adopt some of these unwanted children." Actually, we have such a program at my church. Hopefully yours does as well. The more the better.
"[S]tart ministering to the single moms in your church who were left by adulteress fathers..." Actually, our church does that too.
"[S]tart helping the marriages in your own church, the single moms and dads, and the orhpaned kids." Actually, we do that too. All good advice though.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/17/2008 11:00 PM
Dan Savage of thestranger.com at their slog link (slog is the Stranger's blog), has regular, almost daily entries for "youth paster watch" and "every child needs a mom and dad". I am shocked at the number of sexual misconduct cases among evangelical youth pastors in the news. And we all know all to well of the sad news articles that are too common in the USA of child abuse at home in two parent households. He has no shortages of entries for these two subjects. As you might well know, Dan Savage adopted the child of a homeless street junkie. His and his partners son, DJ have a well adjusted home life. He, and so many other, gay dads and moms will provide a good measure of positive outcomes for these kids. Try as hard as the focus on the family crowd will to skew the results of studies on kids in gay families to the negative, they will fall flat when we see Rosie O'donnals and dan savages kids in college and later in successful jobs and in most cases hetrosexual marriages. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that these kids will have stastically lower divorce rates then evangelicals.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/17/2008 11:02 PM
anon 11:00 PM
how many women in your church have been knocked up with the so called "snowflake babies"? You know the ones, the frozen embryos left over in fertality clinics waiting implantation. The ones that Bush made it a point of in a public appearance. There are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of them waiting to be implanted. and if you are a wing nut pro lifer, they are every bit human as a live breathing baby. feet of clay, these evengelical every-abortion-is-wrong-but-mine hypocrytes.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/17/2008 11:10 PM
I'll take scandinavians who set the moral bar low and surpass it in spades then the american evangelicals who preach piety and have divorce and abortion, and you name it, rates that are higher then scandinavia will ever be. tolarant people just behave better then the intolerant. I am a dual swiss and american citizen and my family in switzerland have no problem with me being gay. My swiss half sister and her husband have two married children. both her and her husband and two children are college grads. Their son is a phd in biology. None of them have a problem with my sexuality and treat me and my partner like family. They are swiss evangelicals, but that word means nothing like the nut jobs who call them selves evangelicals. My sister raised her kids in a home without tv. There is no divorce. no drug usage. None of that which is so common in the usa.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/17/2008 11:20 PM
Hmmm. Somehow, I find it rather strange that your church defies the statistics on every angle. Yes, that makes me wonder. What's the divorce rate in your church. Oh - wait - I know- it's only something like 10% because you do everything.
I'm sorry I don't buy that. Have you adopted a child? Is there an adoption ministry in your church - ummm... take care of the fatherless and the widower?
posted by Anonymous, at
8/17/2008 11:56 PM
Well if I did attack the straw man for nt living perfectly - then I did. I do have a difficult time accepting that someone would rather deny a child a home of love and instead allow the government to impose orphange or foster care. I'm not sure what studies you are reading - however, there are many homes where children have gay parents and things are fine. I don't know what criteris is being used to evaluate whether or not the children are better off et... citing research or a study would be more valuable if I could see the primary data, the structure of the research, what scoring was applied to which values etc... Where one researcher might find that a child who blends te "usual" gender roles of people and call that a deficit - someone else might call that a value. It is sort of like the test to see if a person is homophobic. There are some questions that when answered would be evaluated by gays as being homophobic but by another person as being "normal" So you can see my scepticism?
And I apologize for accusing you without knowing you - I get angered by the usual mantra.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/18/2008 2:08 AM
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama reaffirmed his stance that marriage is the union between one man and one woman this weekend in a Q & A with Pastor Rick Warren at a Christian fellowship in Lake Forest, CA.
Hmmmm. I've seen too much pandering to the crowd to cae about that candidate anyhow.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/18/2008 12:29 PM
Since it is so hard to find a loyal same sex partner and with all the social&religious discrimation against Gays I chose to be single and live a celibate life,It's hard but I'm starting to adjust.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/20/2008 11:33 AM
Since it is so hard to find a loyal same sex partner and with all the social&religious discrimation against Gays I chose to be single and live a celibate life,It's hard but I'm starting to adjust.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/20/2008 11:35 AM
buddy that's a big cop out...of course this is your right and your life....it's at times discouraging and seems hopeless... no reason to hang in the towel
posted by rob of nyc, at
8/20/2008 12:08 PM
Rob Of NYC,
I guess your right, perhaps I should'nt throw in the towel just yet,perhaps the right guy will come along (: I Hope.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/21/2008 12:26 PM
Dude! Things are changing all the time. Gay marriage will be part of society and acceptance of gays (though not in totality) will be more so. We've come a long ways in a short time. And you have to keep thinking that somehow, you will meet someone to partner up with.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/26/2008 1:54 AM
