I know, I know, I post way too many YouTube clips. But this one is really short and very funny.

Hat tip: Dwindling in Unbelief

I am ultimately in favour of allowing gay people to marry.  I can’t see any reason to prohibit marriage to a group of people based on the shape of their partner’s genitals.  It seems as arbitrary to me as banning mixed-race marriage.  I just think gay activists should focus on civil union first, then gay marriage after.  It’s a difference of opinion on tactics, not goals.

I see strong parallels between the process of racial equality and gay rights in the US.

I think civil unions are an important step along the way to equal-access marriages.  Even though the ultimate goal is full equality, I think the gay activists should focus on civil unions first.

You have to remember that many people today grew up in a time where marriage was a breadwinning husband and a housewife.  Homosexuality was not only condemned by the clergy, it was considered a mental illness and was actually illegal.  Many, probably most, people brought up in that era will never get past their built-in bias against homosexuality and will strongly resist the redefinition of marriage to include it.  However, they are likely to be less opposed to a newfangled civil union including gay people.   They will probably still oppose it, but not with the vehemence they will oppose a redefinition of marriage.

Social change doesn’t happen because individuals change their minds.  It happens because the people with the old ideas die, and the younger generation that replaces it has more modern ideas.

Further down the track, once civil unions are firmly established it will be much easier to have marriage opened up to everybody.

The Family Research Institute conducts research with the purpose of proving that homosexuality is a scourge on society.  They publish "Educational" pamphlets about homosexuality.

Their information leaflets are largely propaganda: a combination of half truths, distortions and ocasionally things that outright contradict the consensus of the scientific community.  Much of it is inane statements that pretend to be logical arguments:

• "Most of us fail to understand why anyone would want to engage in homosexual activity. To the average person, the very idea is either puzzling or repugnant."  That’s because the "average person" is straight.  The very idea of heterosexual activity is either puzzling or repugnant to the average gay person.
• "societies that accept homosexuality have more of it and those that disapprove of and punish it have considerably less of it "  No shit sherlock?  And just why do you think that would be?
• "only about half as many homosexuals had gotten married and, if married, were much less apt to have children"  Gee, I wonder if the fact that two homosexuals can’t actually get married has anything to do with that?  Frankly I’m surprised that so many were able to repress their homosexuality long enough to get married.
• "Almost every child is taught to avoid feces. …Yet most homosexuals eventually learn to immerse themselves in feces"  Of course … that’s why I see so many gays and lesbians rolling around in manure.  Now, I understand why people keep swimming in the sewers.
• "if married, homosexuals were about 3 times more likely to cheat on their spouse"  Hmmm, I wonder if this was because they had to repress their homosexuality in order to acquire said spouse the first place?
• "Compared to heterosexuals, homosexuals exhibited less "relational connectedness" to those of the opposite sex or in different generations."  Well, I wonder if this is because their significant other is the same sex, and that homosexuals are much less likely to have children, and much more likely to be ostracised by their family members?
• "By contrast, 47% of homosexuals’ intimates were unrelated friends or neighbors, compared to only 27% of heterosexuals’ intimates."  Right, so following on from above, gay people are closer to their friends and neighbours.  That sure sounds like a receipe for social disaster.
• And therefore "Homosexuals fail to display the kind of connectedness between sexes, generations, and social classes that leads to social harmony.  If we are too focused on "people like us," we help to divide society into competing groups instead of a fabric of interwoven and connected interests."  And who is the one dividing society into competing groups here? 

The author, Paul Cameron, claims that his research has been published in peer-reviewed academic journals.  In some cases that is true, but the journals he publishes in are pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel.  Psychological Reports doesn’t seem to be peer reviewed and charges per page.  And half of the citings his papers receive are disputing his findings. 

The problem I have with stuff like this is that I think there are a lot of people who are gullible enough to swallow this tripe.  They may find it enlightening, whereas I find it only sad and amusing.

Apparently, US Christian conservatives want to have the US Constitution amended to prohibit gay marriage.   They’d like to see an amendment preventing consenting adults from legally committing to each other right alongside freedom of speech, abolishing slavery and granting women’s suffrage.

I came across this while reading through a conservative message board (it’s like watching a car crash, you don’t want to look, but at the same time it’s morbidly fascinating).

Here are some of the comments on the message board supporting this proposal:

• "Same sex marriage is only a step in a vast plan to pervert society. Anyone who thinks otherwise, isn’t paying attention."  Yep, there’s a whole bunch of gay people who do nothing but plot and scheme to turn society gay. All they care about is getting in your heterosexual pants.  Sure.
• "Until there is an amendment, there will be a real risk that the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court will impose on all of us its own view of how society should be ordered"  And as we all know, only the conservative bloc of the Supreme Court should be able to impose it’s view of how society should be ordered on everyone.
• "A protection of marriage ammendment would stop government from imposing sodomite marriage on us."  Because if gay marriage was allowed, then everyone would be forced to take it up the ass?
• "Since we have the right to freedom of religion, and forced recognition of sodomite marriage would violate that right, a Constitutional ammendment barring government from recognizing sodomite marriage is legitimate."  So allowing two men to marry somehow violates your freedom of religion?  It somehow forces you not to be Christian anymore?  Riiiight.  Does allowing atheists to marry violate your freedom of religion as well?