I really am proud of Wanda. This decision to bring her personal life to the frontline could not have been an easy one. This “attack”, and that’s just what it is, needs more new voices—especially in communities that don’t understand this issue.

Even with my complete ANTI-marriage point of view, I am flummoxed by America’s opposition to same-sex marriage. “Marriage” has evolved over millenia. Prehistorically it was practiced much like what is now considered “common-law marriage” in which 2 people agree to share romantic, domestic and financial lives. This evolved into the property transaction between 2 men…a father and a suitor, wherein the valuable asset of a woman was sold and bought. Until the 1970’s “marriage” protected a man from RAPING his wife! Instead of religious people being so concerned about the sexual lives of adult individuals, why don’t they set their sites on the conduct of adult religious LEADERS who destroy the minds and lives of children through sexual perversion??!!

Well, this is interesting. Obama is for gay rights. However, Obama is against gay marriage, saying in part, “…my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.” If gay people are looking to Obama for support of gay marriage, this will not happen; Obama does not support gay marriage. Appears Wanda Sykes does not know Obama as well as she thinks. Personally, I do not care as long as gay rights and gay marriages do not infringe upon my rights nor my family’s life. We have rental homes. Our preference is to rent to gay people who we find to be neat, clean and very reliable. Gay people make excellent tenants; we like gay people. On the this issue of adopting children, I have some reservations. However, I believe having a gay couple adopt a child is much better than having this child remain in the “social services” system, which is typically destructive. My reservation on child adoption by gays has nothing to do with gender preference. My reservation is based strictly upon Mother Nature, more specifically, gender role modeling. We know Mother Nature intends for both a male and a female to be present as parents for mammals. This is critical for balanced role modeling; we are instinctive animals before all else. Girls need a mother for role modeling based upon instinctive feminine traits. Boys need a father for the same based upon masculine traits. These instinctive traits are many and are not learned behaviors but those instinctive traits do guide our learned behaviors. We measure successful parenting by looking at how a child turns out. This measure is based upon subjective observation. Is this child well behaved, abiding laws, a hard worker, successful in life? We measure successful parenting by societal standards which are set by acceptable behaviors. This is a subjective measure. I am concerned when a measure is performed by instinctive traits, this is, are instinctive traits normal, enhanced or diminished? An example is a gay couple of two women. No matter how much one partner works at a male role model, this will not succeed; he is a she. For male couples, she is a he. Another example, presume both women of a gay couple are feminine, no attempt at a male role model. This would skew a boy child’s instinctive traits to the feminine side. A girl child would be have her feminine instinctive traits amplified, far too much. We should not ban child adoption by gay couples but I do have sincere concern this might prove a disadvantage for children. Messing with Mother Nature almost always is not a good idea. Okpulot Taha Choctaw Nation

Okpulot Taha points out messing with Mother Nature is almost always not a good idea. However, a child raised in a loving family is almost always better off because of a loving foundation. Some social skills are always skewed in mixed relationships but so called normal families affect their children’s outlooks also. Better a loving relationship than a feeling of not being wanted anywhere.

Judy K adds to reader value, “Better a loving relationship than a feeling of not being wanted anywhere.” Precisely. This is why I suggest children should not be left in the “social services” system; much better to be adopted regardless of family type. We are faced with challenges. My point about Mother Nature’s “intents” can be easily defeated by a counterpoint of single fathers, single mothers, grandparents as parents, an older sibling as a parent or gay parents. We could also present a counterpoint of dysfunctional families; alcoholism, abuse, mental disease and such. We could debate these issues of child rearing in forever circles. I suppose my true point is children should be provided the most natural and well balanced upbringing as possible, but this rarely happens. I support adoption of children by any person or couples who can demostrate both an ability to and willingness to be the best possible parent or parents. Again, this is based on my notion removing a child from the social services system is always beneficial. Bottom line is what you, Judy, write, “…so called normal families affect their children’s outlooks also.” This challenges us to define what is “normal”. If we could role back society to being hunters and gathers living in the wild, I suspect “normal” would quickly become apparent and well defined; this is what Mother Nature intended for us. Okpulot Taha Choctaw Nation

Amid the noise about Prop 8 and who exactly is at fault for denying the rights of gays in California is a Daily Kos blogger by the name of Shanikka, who lays out some interesting facts that belie the oft quoted belief that it was conservative African Americans who are the cause of it all. Interesting reading if interpreting statistics and/or polled info interests you. First, here’s someone at The Root who quotes her: http://www.theroot.com/id/48845 The Prop 8 Blame Game ” … Of course, you don’t have to get into such devilish details to notice something weird about this blame-the-blacks narrative. Even if 70 percent truly did support the marriage ban, why single them out? So did six out of 10 people over 65. Ditto white Protestants and people with children under 18. Look at the electorate through any of these lenses and you identify a far larger share of the vote than when viewing it by race. …” And here’s a link to Shanikka’s blog: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/7/34645/1235/704/656272

Hmmm, I´m confused. I thought Wanda already had come out a couple of months ago.

Merrell G writes, “…homosexuals…are found in most if not all mammalian groups.” You are engaging in projection. Being gay is a state of mind and is exclusive to humans. I have read this point some animals are gay and I always soundly reject this argument. A person observes an animal engage in “homosexual like” behavior then declares, “You see! Some animals are gay!” This is completely untrue; this person is simply seeing what he wants to see. During my life I have suffered a lot of dogs not only sniffing my butt, sniffing my crotch but also taking hold of my leg then humping away. This almost always involves some worthless little inbred barking rat, like a minature French poodle. Yes, I am a dog bigot and most dogs prefer bestiality. There you are. A dog humps my leg therefore many dogs are neither heterosexual nor homosexual rather are bestial-sexual. Dirty dogs. No wonder I am a wet leg dog bigot. Before a reader jumps on this notion of mine, I have watched dogs hump rabbits, cats and most disgusting, filthy hogs. Those dogs will hump anything. This is not dogs displaying a sexual preference based upon gender rather is dogs displaying stereotypical human male behavior. Here you are, good Scientific Method. Dogs are bestial-sexual and display human male behavior therefore human males are bestial-sexual. This is a topic none us are much willing to discuss. Think of all these unfortunate housewives around the world who lie silent in bed at night, next to hubby, while thinking, “My husband would just assume to hump a cow as to hump me.” This is so tragic none of us are willing to admit men are bestial-sexual, closet bestial-sexual evidenced by men working so hard to conceal their penchant for farm animals. Shoot, I know men are actually bestial-sexual. I know this through good Scientific Method. My old man loves to have me give him a massage with rabbit fur. He loves more when I slip on my gorilla outfit then have wild animal like sex with him. I know my husband would love to have sex with a real gorilla and would if not for fear of having his head ripped off then used for a rousing game of soccer by soccer fan gorillas. You readers ever take in these reports of male dolphins trying to have sex with human females who are snorkeling or diving? Now that is kinky bestility on the part of dolphins. This is tempting; I love dolphins and I most likely would not resist a handsome dolphin, if I could hold my breath long enough. I love whales, too, but no, whales are simply too darn big! A Clydesdale, this is ok. My favorite term of endearment for my corn fed Okie farmboy husband is Clydesdale. I am a very content woman. Any can play this projection game which is serious anthropocentric thinking. There are no gay animals. There are animals which are so driven by this instinctive trait to procreate they are blind to which gender they are mounting. This is not a display of being gay by animals, this is a display of this madness which Mother Nature inflicts upon all of us, this madness of our being blindly driven to procreate to ensure survival of the species. Okpulo Taha Choctaw Nation