Discuss Katherine Gould's Nov. 7 Blowback

I really like this sane and sensible article. I'm a relentlessly straight male who doesn't feel remotely threatened by either homosexuals or homosexual marriage. Not only do I not want to poke my nose into other people's private lives, I especially don't want to encourage the government to take an interest in regulating other people's private lives. That is essentially what all those social conservatives are doing and it's amazing they don't see the intellectual contradiction or the political dangers of doing so.

Nick Van der Graaf @ 9:45 AM PST, Nov 7, 2008

Gallagher's bioanthropology was factually wrong. *Untrue "Government did not create marriage." *True "Marriage is older than the Constitution, the Bible or the Koran." *Untrue "Marriage is rooted in biology not bigotry." *True "Marriage is a public union" *Untrue "a sexual union & not some other kind" *True "rights & responsibilities publicly defined & supported" *Definitely untrue. Marriage in the civil sense is always social (govt). Marriage as a religious institution may or may not be. In the US, religion is not supposed to be intefered by govt. "the historical cross-cultural meaning of marriage will be replaced"

mpb @ 9:28 AM PST, Nov 7, 2008

Biology will always be right. You NEED a MAN AND a WOMAN to CREATE A Child. So unless a woman and a woman can create a child, (imposible Biologicaly)I don't see why they should have the right to marriage. You already have civil Union.

Cesar @ 9:25 AM PST, Nov 7, 2008

Bravo Ms. Gould! Thank you for explaining what Ms. Gallagher might have learned had she paid attention in her high-school biology class.

Yusuf-Tonci @ 9:23 AM PST, Nov 7, 2008

First of all, we are humans. Let us not compare ourselves to animals. That is denigrating. Secondly, Mother Nature gave men and women different sex organs for a purpose. Both are needed in the procreation process. Any other combination is against nature.

ProudMom @ 9:22 AM PST, Nov 7, 2008

Serious, Humans are just like chimps, Except we have the welfare system to replace the male head of household

Bubbles @ 9:10 AM PST, Nov 7, 2008

It is prejudiced to try and prevent people from getting married, adopting children, etc.. just because of they are gay. However, the evolutionary argument for homosexuals raising children is very thin. I think every anthropologist knows this. It is important to acknowledge that the laws in this country are VERY POOR at protecting children. Your right to pursue freedom and liberty, including gay marriage, can not infringe on someone else's right to liberty and freedom, including children.

SG @ 9:02 AM PST, Nov 7, 2008

Thank for saying it so well. I am sick and tired of the ban supporters pushing the "it's good for the children" angle when research into both human and animal behavior have proven that they are wrong. Many people voted for the ban based on that wong information.

cmello2 @ 9:02 AM PST, Nov 7, 2008

Fantastic Article!

jeff @ 9:00 AM PST, Nov 7, 2008

part 2 Young males need strong male role models and structure. Two females (whether lesbians, or the typical mom & grandmom) are not enough. We are not chimps, lions, or penguins. Marriage by universal definition has always meant a man and a woman or a man and multiple women. To redefine marriage without gender, is to render it as a meaningless emotional attachment between two people without taking into account children or families.

indio @ 9:00 AM PST, Nov 7, 2008

Next