I wish you had a weekly column in the NYTimes.

Oh, come on, Dan, you are totally an A-gay. That doesn't make your opinion any less important.

It was such fun stumbling across your article. I didn't catch the byline at first and I was thinking, jeeze, this sounds like...oh! Wait! It is! Then I saw that Hernandez *was* invited, and my head started spinning :)

And yeah, that Gibbon conference is a real head spinner as well. I dunno, I just dunno.

A "skeezy sex-advice columnist and his DJ husband"? Cute :) Calling you an A-gay sounds to me like coded language for "white", though.

We're ALL A-gays.

I'm not... :(

Really, "A-Gay". Blaze should be ashamed of calling you that. You should think about calling him on the carpet a little more prominently.

But when? Do you call Blaze out in your next New York Times Op-Ed? Or next time you're on Maher or Colbert or AC360?

At a stop on the latest speaking tour your agent arranged? Maybe wait until the cameras are rolling on the MTV pilot? Or while doing press in New York the next time a book of yours is made into a musical? In your nationally syndicated column? In the pages of your own newspaper? Or just here on Slog?

Dan, you are both wrong. Arguing over which is more important is a silly and useless argument.

Marriage is not more important than EDNA if you are single and living in a region of rampant discrimination. EDNA is not more important if you are in a relationship and living in a region with very little discrimination.

Both rights are very important, and which one is more important depends very much on individual circumstances. Given your circumstances (zero chance of job discrimination, in a long term relationship, with a kid), marriage is obviously more important to you. But you should not assume that marriage is the single most important right that all gays must agree on next.

There are few things more cringeworthy than false modesty: skeezy sex advice columnist, editor for a well known magazine, nationally syndicated columnist, TV personality, author. I think you're one of our leading voices, so by all means, please let your light shine.

The point is not marriage itself, but rather the equality of all rights. And marriage is the big one because it's the most controversial.

Once you've won the right to marry who you love, there's really no argument left about any other right, because you are already considered equal as a human being. What bugs homophobes the most (that your orientation is equal to theirs) is already firmly estabilshed by law.

So it may not be the most important right in the number of people it affects, as pointed out @ 6, but strategically, it's the most important one to win.

Dan,
Been reading your stuff since I was 16, am 22 now, and I think you may be a little wrong on this issue. More and more people are looking critically at gay marriage as "the most important right we're currently denied." Blogs like the Bilerico Project, groups like Queer Youth Space Seattle, and authors like Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore are getting more and more attention from the more mainstream left and are all people that reject marriage as something worthy of fighting for.

The way I see it, and the ways I see the people around me experiencing it, is that we're all too poor and disenfranchised to really worry about marriage at this point. Marriage to a lot of us is not something that is necessary to continue a strong movement in queer activism. We're worried about our gender, about getting bashed, about being able to have a job while still being a total queen, about HIV, and so many other things.

To say that marriage is the most important thing in the world of being queer is completely ignoring all history of rejecting assimilation into the straight world, something the queer world had been so proud of for the longest time.

-kyle

Reverse Polarity @8, your point reminds me that Alex Blaze does live in Paris with his boyfriend.

He spends every day in a country where they have civil union protections so appealing that large numbers of straight parents and couples don't see much point in marrying any more.

Granted, Blaze didn't think much of marriage even before that, but the daily life around him would tend to underscore the seeming strangeness of the "marriage or nothing" motto of American gays.

MTV pilot? How does Gus always know these things?

Yeah, you're definitely an A-gay. I dunno, seems like a constructive disagreement, though. There is a time for sustained and coordinated pressure on single issues; but in this day and age does everyone gay have to read off the same script?

@ 14 - If you first try to eliminate job discrimination, you'll still have to fight the same lenghty battle to get marriage rights.

If you get marriage rights first (and it is not an impossibility, since various states have allowed it, not to mention other supposedly very traditional countries), every other battle is going to be short and easy.

That's what I mean by "strategically".

Go Kyle!

@8 adn @10, I've gone around this in my head any number of times. I think they're both important, because they both touch on very similar legal issues -- get one, and the other has to follow. I'll grant you that psychologically speaking, marriage seems to be the bigger one -- but there are also plenty of us single -- wishing to be single, that is -- folks around as well...

What @8 said more or less. But I'd go one step beyond.

Marriage would be nice, but I'm pretty sure that my family would defer to any long-term partner I may have in the future, whether there's any legal bond between us or not. I don't have to worry about discrimination much; I'm a tall, white, college-educated man who more or less follows gender norms (other than the gender of my preferred sexual/relationship partners) and lives in a city which is generally pretty accepting of us GLBT folks, especially for the part of the country that I live in. The problem is that there is one part of town (ironically enough, it's where the gay bars are at their most dense) that I don't go to late at night because I can't take it for granted that I will be safe and that the police will do something about it if there is violence against me.

There have been two high profile cases of anti-gay violence in the last couple years in that area (one literally inside city hall, one on a busy sidewalk two blocks away.) The police pretty much shrugged their shoulders, said they weren't there to catch anybody in the act, read off all the reasons it could have been the victims' fault short of "they were asking for it by being gay", and, according to the accounts I've heard, haven't put much effort into the investigation or stepped up their patrols in that area.

I'll believe that same-sex marriage is the biggest issue facing the federal government when the Department of Justice sends its civil rights investigators after these guys and everyone else who looks the other way (including the school districts where kids are being bullied to death.)

Why the fuck does it have to be either or? American homosexuals should have both, as we do in Britain. America is currently not the land of the free and they should bloody well do something about it.

of course @16 wasn't showing up for me yet :-P. Not sure -- ENDA would for example start unravelling DOMA's prohibitions on designated beneficiaries at the federal level. DOMA is very specifically federal level and ENDA is across the board, so argubly would affect more. But DOMA/marriage is the big psychological one, so yeah, hard to say.

@ 21 - ENDA would have a positive effect for a lot more gays, sure. But marriage rights would have an impact on the whole population, which is what you really need if you don't want this to go on for another 30 years.

1) I agree with Dan that the whole "Marriage is being pushed by the A-gays, while poor brown people don't care about it" line of thinking is totally silly. I also don't really see Alex pursuing that line of argument here. He's just frustrated at how narrowly defined the agenda is. I think he would have liked to see at least some nod to different parts of the community having different sets of priorities.

2) Alex was my college roommate! He is awesome!

@ 22 - You're interpretation is very creative. "A" for effort.

I want to agree that marriage equality will end a huge part of institutionalized discrimination against LGBT people and will make the rest of the fight easier, but part of me can't help thinking about other countries with gay marriage where LGBT people are raped and beaten to death on a regular basis.

as a gay brown dj husband, i'd like to have all my rights alex..yes thank you very much.

@ 26 - Women are raped and beaten to death on a regular basis in quite a few countries, too. No amount of legislation can change that, and positive attitudes about the equality of women can't stop it either.

@ 29 - Because it's hard to keep discriminating against people whose orientation the law already deems equal to that of the majority. It's called a precedent.

Whereas, if you first attack workplace discrimination, the only thing you get is that homosexuality becomes one of the reasons you can't fire somebody for. Effect for gays: brilliant. Psychological impact on the population at large: nil. The bigots can still oppose same-sex marriage for all their religious-based reasons, and they will. You fight two battles instead of one, and your timeline extends accordingly.

What many of you don't seem to get is that by fighting for marriage rights, which is the hardest battle, you're also fighting for everything else at the same time. Politicians might be more willing to pass ENDA if they see it as a way to avoid discussing same-sex marriage without alienating their gay voters. (I believe that's what people call a strategy, and it's worked many, many times before on a variety of subjects.)

But yeah, you're right: on this issue, you should never take the word of someone who's lived in four countries where they have gay marriage. Obviously, his opinion is a lot more questionable than that of those who are still many years away from getting it.

@24: "Marriage is being pushed by the A-gays, while poor brown people don't care about it" line of thinking is totally silly.

The implicit suggestion is that by fighting for gay marriage, the rich white gays are somehow oppressing poor brown gays. It's beyond silly. It's the reductio ad absurdum of identity politics.

Two observations:

1. In some ways, the "A-gays" have less need of marriage than Kyle's "poor and disenfranchised". Relatively well-off gay couples can probably afford lawyers, financial advisors, and all the other things they need to arrange their affairs to give them financial and legal status that is almost equivalent to married. They have the capacity to structure their lives to provide the things that straight marrieds get automatically. The poor and disenfranchised can't do that - without the protection of marriage, they can do little to give their relationships the same protections.

2. What about the impact of the DADT repeal on all of this? I'm not an American, but I would guess that within a couple of years of a full repeal, there will be some married gay soldiers who start demanding equal treatment and protection for their partners and their relationships. What happens when the first (officially) gay soldier is killed in battle and his husband is denied a pension or benefits because they weren't really married?

But Dan... do any of those things ever come into the picture if you can't get a job or a place to live?

@31: "The implicit suggestion is that by fighting for gay marriage, the rich white gays are somehow oppressing poor brown gays."

Not even close.

The explicit suggestion is that, by diverting their efforts from issues that affect all of us (single, coupled, or poly, and the poor and of-color disproportionately) such as employment and housing protection to the issue of marriage that (a) affects only that subpopulation that wants to marry and (b) expends most of that effort on a battle of terminology that makes no difference at all in the resulting benefits but makes them more cozy in their religious upbringings, rich white gays are being selfish, privilege-drunk brats.

@Ricardo: I dispute your claim that acceptance of marriage makes any difference in employment or housing discrimination.

Or we could remove those government marriage benefits alltogether. Why should the non-coupled pay extra into social security so that non-working-halfs of couples can pull extra benefits out of a system that they never paid into? While we're at it, how about removing employment non-descrimination protections entirely? If some cracker wants to flatter his prejudices by rejecting a perfectly well-qualified employee, it's his business and it's all the better for his competitors.

Pardon my ignorance...but what exactly IS an A-gay? Is it the same sort of idea as an A-list celebrity?

@ 37 - OK, and I dispute your claim that it doesn't.

Case closed!

THANK YOU DAN! I fell in love with a wonderful, wonderful person, who is funny and smart and sexy and gets me and complements me in every way, happens to be a girl and so am I, and she lives in another country.

And if one of us were a guy, I could marry her and bring her over here and live with her happily ever after. So, yeah, I totally agree that marriage IS one of the big issues!

ENDA is important, but the idea that ENDA protects "all" gays, not "just the ones who want to marry" is ridiculous. ENDA only protects those who want to work for bigoted bosses. The vast majority of workers are already protected by state non-discrimination laws or corporate non-discrimination policies.

Passing ENDA will do nothing to advance acceptance of homosexuality. It will only force bigoted employers to come up with some other excuse when they want to fire gay people. Passing DOMA repeal helps change society such that employers will think that it's *wrong* to fire someone just because they're gay. Whether you want to get married someday or not, you should want straight people to recognize that gays and lesbians have the right to marry.

@40: unfortunately for you, he who asserts, proves.

Yea what #43 says. Ending DOMA and then making all states recognize foreign and domestic gay marriages (the easiest path to 50-state legalization probably) + 5 years will do a lot to change how people think about gay folks.

People like Brian* who probably think the whole institution of marriage is a bit silly should remember how seriously other folks consider it. *Especially* the conservatives that still need to be reached. Like racial civil rights, they will find themselves looking a bit ridiculous and will be reduced to communicating with dog-whistles.

*Who apparently lives in France btw... doesn't make him a-gay, but certainly a "la-de-da" ex-pat undoubtedly drinking espresso at a trendy Parisian cafe. This sort of classwarfare is stupid (I would be eating a real baguette right now if I could), but Brian started it. :)

@43: Corporate non-discrimination policies -- and I've written several -- do not protect people. They state the current policy of a company; it is free to interpret it as it pleases, and free to revoke it. Corporate non-discrimination policies are not benefits -- they are recruiting tools.

And state laws are as relevant in this mix as they are in the marriage issue: subject to being trumped by Federal law, and therefore in need of Federal protection.

I think the whole "responsibilities before rights" agenda -- we're just like you, we want to form and raise stable two-parent families, we want to kill for our country -- is a pile of crap. It will in no way produce social change that encompasses housing and employment. People will still insist on their rights to fire or evict -- which they will have. And they'll feel even freer to discriminate against non-married cohabitants and poly families.

Besides, history has proven that legal protection must lead, not follow, social change. The Civil Rights Act of 1965 catalyzed social change more than it reflected it. If you want people to think we have a right to a job, legislate it. If you want them to think we have a right to housing, legislate it.

Expecting DOMA repeal to somehow create some sort of attitudinal change about unrelated issues is, well, like treating a brain tumor by getting a mani-pedi and a massage and expecting your body to respond to being treated nicely by making the tumor go away.

@43: "Ending DOMA and then making all states recognize foreign and domestic gay marriages (the easiest path to 50-state legalization probably) + 5 years will do a lot to change how people think about gay folks." WHY?

What other change has brought about unrelated rights and protections by this sort of wishful thinking?

Besides, even if marriage miraculously happened tomorrow... what percentage of same-sex couples will avail themselves of it? 10%? 20%? And what do you think will happen in terms of general attitudes when the fact that whatever the percentage, a majority of them are open to other sexual partners, remains the same and becomes the leading edge of right-wing opposition?

I don't think ENDA actually matters that much.

Labor laws aren't enforced for shit in this country and proving discrimination is basically an impossible task, at least to a legal level, even if it is readily apparent. More importantly, it is also damn near impossible for a low-wage worker (those most vulnerable to discrimination) to sue an employer on his/her own, it would basically have to be a class-action to be affordable in any real way, as well as facilitating the legal claim through empirical evidence. So unless you're working at a huge corporation, and/or your employer out right puts on paper "I'm firing you for being gay," you're pretty well fucked.

Marriage rights, are, however, marriage rights. These could allow for all kinds of direct and indirect benefits, many of which do not even occur to people until it comes up.

I'm dating an academic right now, and, as you may know, they have a tendency to move across the country for jobs. The university she's obtaining her phd from does offer job placement assistance for partners for just this reason. However, homophobic state laws about gay marriage prohibit me from being helped by the same services that would help, oh, any other student in her fucking department.

Bullshit.

At bottom this is the issue. A gay or lesbian person chose their lifestyle. They do not have the same legal protections against discrimination as my black wife does, or my mexican workers, or my friend in a wheelchair who did not choose those conditions. In my wifes skin color two things are true. She had no choice, and it makes her no different from any other human being, except that she doesn't spend much on sun block. A gay man or lesbian woman chose to put themselves at odds with their own culture, a difference the rabid homosexual activists conveniently forget.

Savage and the other commenters here have every right to pursue lifelong partnerings with people of the same sex. They have every right to have attorneys draw up durable powers of attorney, or visitation rights at hospital, or inheritance issues or any other means to ensure that they have the same rights as legally married couples. Tax law wouldn't help them, as without kids filing jointly is a net loss, and for obvious reasons kids aren't an issue for those who wish sex with those of their own gender. As for social security- get over it. You makes your choices and you takes your chances, as the old movies used to say.

Homosexuals do not and never will have the right to force people to accept them. If this happens (and it likely won't) it will happen with time, not the force of law. Having chosen a lifestyle at odds with the dominant values of their culture they must accept the consequences. That is, many will feel uncomfortable around you and your significant other/others/volkswagen bus. Many won't want you in social settings making other guests uncomfortable. My advice? Change your lifestyle, or man up and deal with the consequences of it.

@47 re: your question, The Civil Rights Amendment (and the movement that went with it)

you could argue that enfranchisement is quite different, but I think its a similar in its scope of acknowledging equality and past wrongs. The legal landscape does affect how we see the moral landscape. Actually this is primary argument against gay marriage (or fear really) if you read between the lines. I think the NOM-crowd are right on that point.

If you are adverse to such back-of-the-napkin sociology: marriage equality guarantees rights that the government has an easy time guaranteeing.

Why is Seattleblues even on here?

Nobody reads Bilerico. Alex is a good editor, but Bilerico can't afford to pay him. I think he'll end up at a popular website soon.

Oh, Seattelblues.

Once upon a time those who opposed interracial marriage—a wide majority of Americans—would have told you to change your wifestyle, or "man up and deal with the consequences."

Those bigots were wrong then, and you, bigot, are wrong now.

Dan's right.

"And that whole only-A-gays-care-about-marriage/poor-black-queers-don't-care-about-marriage line you're pushing is complete and total bullshit." Bravo, Dan. . . BRAVO!

"A-gays" are the Bilericos and the HRCs who want their minimalist "incremental" changes. They presume to speak for the gay community when THEY DO NOT. They (Including young Mr. "Blaze") are so out of touch with the reality of having lived and fought for civil rights that they have no concept of the struggles of real-life gays. They're the people who are against progressive ideas and actions, yet show up after others have done the work and try to claim the glory for themselves.

Anybody remember in 2009 when HRC and Bilerico were AGAINST the march for equality? They fought against it. They poo-pooed its potential effectiveness. They actively discouraged it. But when it happened, against their will (because the masses of REAL LIFE/grass-roots queers WANTED it) they showed-up and celebrated and claimed the glory for themselves.

Alex Blaze needs to just STFU.

I'm a contributor to the Bilerico Project and I did a year as a member of the editorial team under Alex and Bil. The reality is, Mr. Savage, that anyone who pays attention knows that this is hardly the first time many of us have had reason to question your credibility on this issue.

One of the most memorable examples for me is when you went on Countdown and told Keith Olbermann that the only issues of concern to the gay community were DADT and marriage. This has been a pattern with you, Mr. Savage, and Alex is right to call you out on it.

The truth is that basic common sense tells you that before a couple, regardless of sexuality or gender makeup, call the caterers and send out the wedding invitations, they first make sure they have a place to live and an income to support their life together when they get home from the honeymoon. In the real world, the world in which most LGBT American working families live on lower and middle class incomes, employment and housing must come first or the rest just isn't possible.

And there's also another factor, one that you and so many other marriage-hungry gay elites either refuse to acknowledge or just simply ignore:

As unfair as it is, no one's going to die because they can't get married. On the other hand, people can and do die every day in this country because they can't provide food and shelter for themselves and their families. In short, the lack of housing and employment protections can be and often is literally life and death for many.

When lives are on the line, the priority must be saving those lives by any means possible. To do otherwise is the very height of selfishness, shortsightedness, and, frankly, cruelty to those not as well off as yourself.

So, you go stump for your joint tax returns, Mr. Savage. The rest of us will be fighting to save the lives you and the rest of those who think as you do feel aren't as important as your right to make your own lives more comfortable.

I'm a contributor to the Bilerico Project and I did a year as a member of the editorial team under Alex and Bil. The reality is, Mr. Savage, that anyone who pays attention knows that this is hardly the first time many of us have had reason to question your credibility on this issue.

One of the most memorable examples for me is when you went on Countdown and told Keith Olbermann that the only issues of concern to the gay community were DADT and marriage. This has been a pattern with you, Mr. Savage, and Alex is right to call you out on it.

The truth is that basic common sense tells you that before a couple, regardless of sexuality or gender makeup, call the caterers and send out the wedding invitations, they first make sure they have a place to live and an income to support their life together when they get home from the honeymoon. In the real world, the world in which most LGBT American working families live on lower and middle class incomes, employment and housing must come first or the rest just isn't possible.

And there's also another factor, one that you and so many other marriage-hungry gay elites either refuse to acknowledge or just simply ignore:

As unfair as it is, no one's going to die because they can't get married. On the other hand, people can and do die every day in this country because they can't provide food and shelter for themselves and their families. In short, the lack of housing and employment protections can be and often is literally life and death for many.

When lives are on the line, the priority must be saving those lives by any means possible. To do otherwise is the very height of selfishness, shortsightedness, and, frankly, cruelty to those not as well off as yourself.

So, you go stump for your joint tax returns, Mr. Savage. The rest of us will be fighting to save the lives you and the rest of those who think as you do feel aren't as important as your right to make your own lives more comfortable.

Rebecca Juro: Right to marriage isn't about receptions or fancy clothes. Many stay-at-home spouses (gay or straight) would be out on the street if their partner dies and they are unable to collect their spouse's pension.

That you are only thinking of this in terms of parties and socials demonstrates how two-dimensional your understanding of marriage equality is.

Got an EXACT quote there, Rebecca? Or a link?

In my experience, people who paraphrase are invariably chickenshit liars who deliberately spin what the other person actually said in order to suit their own agenda.

Bil's House Blend and Pam's House Blend need to be ANGRY to be relevant. Nobody pays much attention to those blogs - I don't see why Savage does. Each site has a few dozen regualrs that bitch about e v e r y t h i n g .

Bil and Pam are not helping the LGBT movement. Their little clubs are way beyond the "internet fringe." Although I think Alex will end working for an authentic blog eventually. He is at least thoughtful - Pam and Bil are not.

Andrew, everyone knows that with you it's just sour grapes because Bil banned your ass when most of us got tired of your trying to tear down practically every everyone and everything at Bilerico, but always ran the other way when challenged to provide a viable alternative.

An exact quote RB? Of what, Savage claiming that DADT and jobs were the only items left on the gay agenda? Well, if you were a regular Olbermann watcher you'd have seen it for yourself. Obviously, Savage himself is conscious of this as he was thoroughly disparaged for those comments on the blogs and in social media and has now begun making a point of including ENDA in his more recent public statements.

Unfortunately, there's no online video of this segment I can find, but any regular Olbermann watcher saw it for themselves.

@ 60 And I remember when Dan pulled a purple pony out of his ass. I can't link to it, but any regular Olbermann watcher saw it for themselves.
Human memory is fungible. Particularly if there is an ax to grind, and you appear to have a mighty big ax there. But I am more than willing to accept your accusation as fact when you can show me a link.
I also take exception to your some what hyperbolic statement that no one will die if denied the right to marry. To wit: married people share each other's health insurance automatically. Not every one is privileged to work for a company that recognizes domestic partnerships be they same sex or otherwise, so it can indeed be a matter of life or death.
I realize that Dan can be a short tempered snot, and HIGHLY IRRITATING, but I'm pretty sure you two are on the same side here as far as wanting equality in all spheres, be they public OR private. Framing this debate as one of class warfare seems needlessly divisive.

@Savage

Bigot? I don't hate gays or fear them. I don't think myself superior to them as a human being. For all I know one of my employees is gay, or not. I don't ask, as it isn't my business. They perform the tasks they are assigned well, and get paid well to do it. That's all that matters to me. I don't ask potential renters if they are gay, or let any belief I might have that they are reflect on my renting decisions. Again, they pay the rent and don't damage the place and I could care less with whom they share their beds.

Callling those with whom you disagree a bigot is lazy at best. At worst it's intentional calumny. Some, like me, just think that personal choice means personal responsibility, and that the terms of social life are not to be dicated by tiny minorities without the maturity to accept those responsibilities.

My wife is who she is because of the choices she makes, not because of the color of her skin. So am I, though she is black and I white. The color our skin is not a personal choice. She's not ashamed of being black or I white, or proud of it, it is simply a genetic fact without any reflection on us. With regard to law as a society, we make ignorant people who believe otherwise table their objections and serve her in restaurants or public offices or in employment or housing the same as they would me. We make laws which forbid my marrying her illegal, because her color and mine don't speak to anything but biological luck of the draw.

Being in a wheelchair means a friend of mine can't get into his 3rd floor dentists office without an elevator and ramps. Because he and others similarly situtuated can't be denied services based on accidents of luck or biology, we as a society mandate that new construction and public offices have a means for him to access them. He made no choices, so can't be held to account for the consequences of his physical challenges.

If he rode around in a wheelchair because it was easier than walking or because he liked the feeling of rolling, that would radically alter things. We would say of this person complaining about lack of ramps- get off your ass and walk up the stairs. And we should. Personal preference does not equal obligation on the part of others.

You chose the condition that puts you at a disadvantage in some respects legally and socially. Asking that law and society change to enable your choice is not only absurd, it is supremely childish.

I'm a straight guy who follows the gay rights movement online and discusses it with my friends (straight and gay) every now and again, and from my vantage point the divide between those who think gay marriage is the most important item on the agenda and those who don't is a generational divide. To put it bluntly, young people who live in cities (straight and gay) don't care about getting married, and won't care for another ten years. Many of my friends are against marriage as an institution, and I personally would only ever do it to make my parents happy. Paychecks are more important at this stage of life (we haven't yet published a handful of books or created a media empire), so marriage just isn't a priority for us. No op-ed is going to change that.

Finally, it's not about rich-and-white vs. poor-and-black. That's an unfair caricature of your "opponents." It's about young vs. old. And, sorry Dan, but you're not getting any younger.

@62: I've asked you before, I'll ask you again: When did you "choose" to be straight, SB?

@62: Answer me this: What if your friend was in a wheelchair because he'd been driving drunk? Would you still feel he had a right to special accommodations if his disability was due to his own poor choices? What if he consequently also lost his job and private health insurance? Would you object to tax dollars being used for his care?

@64

And I'll ask you again-

Either all sexuality is inborn and inescapable or none of it is. If homosexualilty is innate, and the gay man or lesbian the helpless victim of their sexuality, so is the pedophile or rapist.

Since both the latter involve unconsenting victims we could put those who hurt children or forcibly sexually assault others into mental institutions but we could not make them subject to the criminal law. Crime requires intent and, by definition, choice. So, if homosexuality is entirely unavoidable, we need to reconfigure the criminal law and get the courts busy institutionalizing all pedophiles and rapists instead.

Since I believe homosexuality to be chosen behavior acting on innate inclinations, I'm perfectly comfortable throwing child rapists into general population in prisons with 'child molestor' embroidered into their prison garb. But someone who believes sexuality isn't chosen couldn't also say that we can hold these folks criminally accountable for their actions.

So, which is it, hard wired or chosen, BB?

You answered your own question: it's both. There is an innate inclination, and there is a decision to act in accordance with that inclination. In the same way, heterosexuality is "chosen behavior acting on innate inclinations".

As long as that chosen behaviour does no harm to others, no one suggests it should be punished. When it does - when a heterosexual chooses to exercise his sexuality through rape - it is a crime and should be punished.

(It is interesting the way you refer to rapists in your post. Men who rape women are not some different orientation - as a straight male, you cannot disown them. They share your orientation - they just choose to act on it in a harmful way.)

Some are born with a sexual orientation that they cannot exercise at all without doing harm to others - pedophilia, for example. They have the capacity to choose not to act on it, and many do. Those who don't are deservedly punished for the harm that they do. (Note that it is not a crime to be sexually attracted to children - it is a crime to act on that attraction.)

Those who are born homosexual do no more harm when they act on that inclination than you do when you choose to act on your heterosexuality, assuming they do so with a consenting partner.

You said, in reference to homosexuality, "You chose the condition that puts you at a disadvantage in some respects legally and socially." That's wrong - it isn't the "condition" of homosexuality, or the choice to act on it, that creates the disadvantage. It is the prejudice and bigotry of people like you.

Seattleblues,

Rape is using sex as a weapon, as a tool to manipulate, control, and humiliate the victim by overpowering them. The power and control is the primary gratification, not the secondary orgasm, of the rapist. Rape is an act of violence, an assault, a choice. Rape is a choice to violate another's body without their consent. A batter achieves gratification and submission of their victim with their fists, and a rapist achieves gratification and submission of their victim with their genitalia. Rape is not a sexual orientation, it is a choice. And, you should know that most rapist are straight males. Just my $0.02 as someone who worked with victims, and with a program that provides counseling to rapists.

You may want to re-read the definition of what a bigot is.

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance (Merriam-Webster)

To be clear, I'm going to paraphrase many of your own statements on Slog threads into questions. Are you, or are you not, obstinately devoted to your opinion that homosexuality is a deviant choice, a mental problem? Are you, or are you not, obstinately devoted to your opinion that homosexuals have chosen a condition that puts them at a disadvantage in some respects legally and socially and should therefore be kept at a disadvantage? Are you, or are you not, obstinately devoted to your opinion that homosexuality is a chosen behavior acting on innate inclinations? Are you, or are you not, obstinately devoted to your opinion that Mr. Savage is not married, although he has a Canadian marriage license, and that he, his husband, and their son, although they have legal US (Oregon) adoption papers, are not a family? If you've answered yes to any of those questions, then you fit the definition above. Then, let me welcome you to the human race, sir. You are just like the rest of us, you have obstinate opinions and are intolerant. Just remember that obstinateness and intolerance do not magically turn your opinions in to facts. And, that it is best not to kid ourselves, doing so makes us appear like cups only washed on the outside to others, in my opinion.

Have a good day.

@ 40 - "I dispute your claim... " is also an assertion, and you did nothing to "prove" it (i.e. on what basis?). And besides, I gave you enough elements already to figure it out, do I also have to connect the dots for you?

@ 47 - On your answer to 43 - Because it does. Maybe you should read up on what's happened in the rest of the world before you speak. See how dead the Canadian anti-gay-marriage movement is now, for example. And see how the fight for gay marriage there led to the acquisition of rights for gays along the way.