One City

One City

Prop 8: Sexual Positions for Gay Married Couples

I imagine it must have been a pretty steamy session  yesterday as the California Supreme Court all had to imagine graphic gay sexual positions (consciously or not)  as they decided whether people who engaged in those sexual positions were entitled to gay marriage under Prop 8. Sonia Sotomayor be damned, diversity was not the order of the day at this Supreme Court.  What “no gay marriage” means is simply this – men who are genetically pre-disposed to putting their parts and hearts in the hands of other men, and women who are genetically pre-disposed to doing the same with other women, are still considered too outside the societal norm to be trusted to say who makes them happy as a life partner in the eyes of the law.

 Just as you cannot define the emotional spectrum of what is “a heterosexual relationship”, so too you cannot define the infinite varieties of what constitutes a “gay relationship”.   The only thing you can say for sure about straight people is that they prefer getting their jollies with someone of the opposite sex.  The only thing you can say for sure about a gay person is that they prefer to tickle their ivories with someone of the same sex. To consider “gay marriage” vs. “straight marriage” is quite literally a consideration of the sexual positions that people prefer.


God only knows what those California judges were picturing in their minds as they shuddered in disgust and handed down their decision.  Pigs in a blanket? Oil rigs drilling mercilessly into soft mounds of earth? Two pink coin purses locked together in a dark handbag? Double meat sausage platters?    Regardless of what lustful imagery they (and all the folks who voted for Prop 8) used to enable their decision, there’s only three explanations for creating  and supporting laws that deny others their happiness, and none of them have anything to do with whether  your taste includes oysters, snails or both. 

Reason Number One:  

You are really sure that you have the universe figured out, and want to make sure that everyone else gets it the way you do.  This is also known as “moral superiority” or “intellectual superiority”.   Though this worldview frequently masquerades as confidence, bullying, assuredness, and deep conviction, but like all bullies know from watching after school specials,  it is actually a habitually learned behavior that hides a deep insecurity.

Anytime you feel that your security is dependent on denying rights or happiness to someone else, you are acting out of insecurity and fear, which I think is at least two of the poisons we talk about in Buddhism.  A truly secure person with a healthy sense of the role their ego should play in their lives is able to live their life according to their own values, and not have to impose their values on others personal lives.  Your church may not condone gay marriage, or letting women speak in public, but I don’t go to your church, nor would I want to.  In other words, a healthy person knows where their territory ends and another’s begins. An unhealthy ego urges a person to extend their dominion over other’s lives as well.  

The gay marriage argument has absolutely nothing to do with where people put their penises or vaginas. It is simply another opportunity for people who are suffering from a dissatisfaction with the level of their control over their own lives to spread the pain derived from their fear of non-existence.  Like racism, war, and domestic abuse, it’s not about the issue – it’s all about power.  I can marry my boyfriend, do whatever we do between the sheets, in the kitchen or in the woods, and if that somehow affects a “straight marriage” then that’s probably a “straight marriage” that needs a little work. 

Reason Number Two: 

You secretely admire, desire, or otherwise covet the thing that you are trying to eliminate.  Inherent in every act of denying rights or happiness to others is a desire to eliminate that thing.  Short of eliminating, a burning resentment can often manifest as a desire to “wipe that smile off your face”.  Due to several hundred years of religions trying to make gay people feel guilty, there are loads of queers who will never come out and many of them are going through life as self-hating “heterosexuals”.  Nothing makes an unhealthy ego feel as good as taking away something happy from the thing it cannot have.  

Witness little kids playing together, and you will see that they frequently grab each others toys even if they already have plenty of their own.  This is the nascent beginnings of racism, homophobia, war, and all other forms of denial of happiness.  “If I can’t have it, neither can you,” goes this argument, even subconsciously.  Not to say that everyone who voted for Prop 8 is a closet case, but odds are that a lot of them would (to mis-quote Jerri Blank) trade the pole for the hole, or vice-versa, if their church, society, or job wouldn’t demonize them for it.  Voting against another’s happiness requires a great degree of insecurity in your own.

Reason Number Three:

 You have confused your habitual behavior with reality, and believe that what you habitually believe to be reality is actually reality.  This is closely related to reason number one but is a little more subtle. By nature human beings cannot be all things at once, so we choose certain habits and lifestyles.  Many people in America eat beef all the time, while many people in India consider cows sacred.  Some people in Korea eat cheddar cheese ice cream, while many in America consider Korean pickled cabbage an abomination against food.  Wheat and marijuana both grow in the ground, but because of habitual conditioning some people say wheat is natural and to be enjoyed, while marijuana is a mistake to be outlawed. 

You think what you do is natural; that’s only natural.  But that does not equate to “what other people do is unnatural”.  Beating up on someone for how they were born is the most primitive kind of ego boost – beating up on women, blacks and homosexuals is easy, because when you deny someone something based on who they intrinsically are, you’ve got an airtight argument. I can’t become un-gay any more than you can become un-human.

The religious argument against homosexuality is so silly as to not to bear even mild scrutiny.  The bible also says you cannot shave, grow two kinds of plants in the same field, or be near a woman for seven days around her period. To the religious who say these are minor issues, while homosexuality is a major one, I say “who says?” The answer cannot simply be “those in authority”; that is letting yourself out of responsibility for infringing great heaps of unhappiness on people in love.   Let’s outlaw marriages for clean shaven farmers whose wives are having their period while helping him harvest potatoes and carrots.  Why not?  Throw the heathens out!

There is nothing wrong with buying into the cultural, familial, and societal conditioning that is designed to make us each believe that we are right, and that our way of life is the best one, and that we are an isolated unit working our way through the universe – though this way of thinking often leads to an endless road of dissatisfaction, requiring ever greater consumption of things, emotions, and energy to satisfy an unsatisfiable emptiness.  

To those who accuse me of being a liberal making an intellectually dishonest and morally lazy argument in favor of gay marriage, I say you are absolutely correct.  Marriage should be allowed between whomever the church performing the marriage wants to allow it between.  Marriage is a religious institution, and out of respect for those institutions we should not force them to marry anyone they don’t want to.  The state should absolutely not have any say in this matter.  As a growing movement suggests, the state should offer civil unions and the attendant benefits  to anyone who wants one (gay, straight, or otherwise) and leave the business of marriage to the churches.  

Meanwhile as a Buddhist I can offer compassion to myself, to those who want to marry yet cannot pursue their due of liberty and pursuit of happiness, and most of all to those who still find it worthwhile to invest their energy in the continual manipulation and manufacture of their perception of “reality” by subjugating their true boundlessly kind and compassionate Buddha-nature to the more superficial adrenaline rush the ego gets from asserting control and power over the inner workings of other people’s lives. 

To those folks, I offer this question: If you think this issue is so important, do you plan on laying on your deathbed thinking about all the love you experienced and gave to the world, or do you plan on thinking about how successful you were in denying the queers of the world the right to marry? 

Because one day soon, sooner than you think, you’ll be gone. Your kids will be gone.  The queers will be gone – and some of them may even be your kids.  This whole society will fall and decay and a new one will be born.  Continents will drift apart, sink, and re-emerge.  Oceans will dry up, explode, burn and become wet again.  No one will remember you, yet you are inextricably a part of the fabric of all of it just for having been here. To think of the precious time you spend in vain trying to keep “the others” under your thumbs makes me indescribably say.  

 Please, meditate, pray, go for a walk, think about what really comes back to you whenever you “win” by taking away others happiness and come up with a different way to build yourself up.  You’ll feel better about yourself.  I swear you will. And you won’t have to make decisions based on thinking about the icky/hot things boys who like boys and girls who like girls do to each other when their naked, unless of course you want to.

Now here’s a little video I cooked up for ya’ll:

Comments read comments(21)
post a comment
Wade Pedro Segura Moore

posted May 27, 2009 at 1:45 pm

This was a great blog, I have no time to hate or discriminate. I pray everyday that people with stop with the hate and learn how to love. Some people who call themselves Christians are nothing like Christ, the meaning of Christian. I pray that people will stop the hate and learn to love.

report abuse

Steve Silberman

posted May 27, 2009 at 1:55 pm

Jerry, funny post, and as a married gay man (STILL MARRIED to you, O misguided Mormon church elders!), I appreciate your intention.
But your projection of homophobia onto the Supreme Court is probably misplaced. They were in a tough spot. For an illuminating look at how carefully they worded their decision to minimize the damage caused by the mean-spirited Prop. 8, check this out:
There’s plenty of reason to hope for an outbreak of sanity in the future, and the Court did what it could to clear the way for it.

report abuse


posted May 27, 2009 at 3:08 pm

Wheee! references to the long-suppressed “mollusc” scene in Spartacus, plus the interspecies love shocker from Planet of the Apes. Jer, I have sorely missed you.
As for Prop 8, make way for sanity–the sooner the better. They had no problem with state-sanctioned civil unions in Iowa. Must be all those “mixed-crop” fields out there that made ‘em more open-minded.

report abuse

Jerry Kolber

posted May 27, 2009 at 3:22 pm

Ellen, how I’ve missed you too, and I am now back to make all the cultural references I can to “cutting room floor” gay scenes between American movies stars.
Steve – you are correct and I should have tempered my argument somewhat. I am responding from a position of idealism and naivete, and did not mean to project homophobia onto the supreme court of California who did, technically, do the right thing.
By the way, is this the great Steve Silberman of Wired Magazine? If so – rock out dude. You’ve written some of my favorite articles ever.

report abuse


posted May 27, 2009 at 10:30 pm

Great read!
The only thing I don’t really agree with was when you said that “marriage” belongs to the church!
That seems to be a common myth taught by the church, when in fact Our civil laws are inherited pre-Christian laws created by the Pagan people. Much like Easter taken from Ostera or Christmas taken from the Winter Solstice Celebration.
Marriage wasn’t about sex to the Pagan’s or Roman citizens, they understood that sex comes, well from having sex. The other misconception is the church teaching that kids and families come from marriage, well, those also come from having sex.
Marriage, CIVIL Marriage has nothing to do with sex. Civil Marriage is a CIVIL Law, NOT religious law, that is used for the purpose of proving your heir, whether by blood or adoption, and to prove property rights under Roman CIVIL LAW, and ALL CITIZENS of Rome befitted equally to that law.
The church is the problem.
The church didn’t even adopt the practice until around the 8th century, and prior to that people were married just by stating they were married, if they had property then they would more than likely have the registered, as in a marriage to protect their property rights and heirs.
Religious marriage is between the church and it’s followers, and has nothing to do with the greater population of citizens. The church can tell their followers who they can marry or not marry. CIVIL Marriage is a CIVIL Law and all citizens of the state should benefit equally to that law.
“A government, in which all men, rich and poor, magistrates and subjects, officers and people, masters and servants, the first citizen and the last, are equally subject to the laws.“
– John Adams

What the justices were thinking is beyond my comprehension, maybe they’re afraid of the Fanatical Edicts being thrown around my the Prop 8 supporters. [Are we not in a war fighting alleged terrorists because of religious edicts?]
How can the Justices see the equality in there decision? Though, I am happy that they didn’t divorce those 18000 already married, but how can you allow some and not others under the law of equal treatment?
Maybe they are leaving it open for this to go federal, so every one will be free from these fanatical edicts.
For those that claim this isn’t about religion; well, it shouldn’t be, but the backers and supporters of Prop 8 are religious people pushing their particular religious faith on the rest of us who are not even part of their faith, and that is disturbing.
Some were phone banking long after I had voted through absent ballot. Seems to be illegal for the church to be interfering in any of this, but that brazen attitude and disregard for our common laws is very scary.

report abuse


posted May 28, 2009 at 8:01 am

As a person who perfers men but has had the opportunity to love both men and women it would be interesting to see the faces of homophobes when they realize that sometimes thier perferences are just habits. Sexuality is a malleable as everything else.
Btw – Charston Heston was the man in the 70’s. Planet of the Apes, Omega man…… Moses….Mosssess….Mosesss parting the Red Sea.

report abuse


posted May 28, 2009 at 11:51 am

Why is it that people start comparing animals and minors to consenting same-sex adults who want the same right to marry with all the benefits afforded it in our society?
Why are you in their bedroom? Why are you the bedroom police?
Civil Rights have never been placed on a ballot to be voted on by the majority to oppress a minority.
If that’s the best rational against Gay Marriage -because the bible says so- It is not good enough nor is keeping someone down with an archaic mental health claim; in a none existenced Federal Mental Health Act. It sounds like suffering to me.

report abuse


posted May 28, 2009 at 2:51 pm

I like your refreshing way of making your points. BTW, also like your Planet of the Apes photo, but, you know, that’s really very hetero (VERY hetero!)

report abuse

Your Name

posted May 29, 2009 at 5:28 am

DT, I understand your anger but the experiences involved in violating the civil rights of human beings in this country far outweighs what you have stated. The governemnt didn’t have to put it on a ballot. It was already in full effect within society.
I think it is a mistake to make comparisons between the Civil Rights movemement and the Gay Marriage movement. They are being fought differently in a different time and place in American history.

report abuse

Jerry Kolber

posted May 29, 2009 at 12:28 pm

There’s a pretty direct parallel to the civil rights movement; in fact, the gay marriage movement is a civil rights movement. The reason it matters is because with this religious/political contract we refer to as marriage comes literally hundreds of rights that you do not get as a non-married couple. Even in states that recognize the right of all adults to make a decision about who they want to marry, the federal government’s “marriage rights” do not apply to the folks the federal government has decided are not capable of deciding who they want to marry. i.e. gays.

report abuse


posted June 2, 2009 at 2:11 am

@ Jerry
I agree with what you wrote above. Gay marriage is a civil rights movement and the whole Gay movement is parallel to the Civil Rights Movement of the Late 1950’s and 1960’s.
But to make comparisons of the Gay Marriage Movement of today with the Civil Rights Movement of the Late 1950’s and 1960’s is to completely ignore the violations of basic human rights AFTER government passed legislation. That’s 1 difference.
2nd difference is at this point in our history Gays are able to organizing and vocalized without the threats that existed in the past. Threats that consisted of home and church bombings, the Ku Klux Klan and lynching.
Even now as you express yourself on this blog there is no danger of the violations that existed in the past. You don’t have to worry too much about risking your life because chances are your adversaries are not going to hang you from a tree.
This is what I mean.

report abuse

Ethan Nichtern

posted June 2, 2009 at 8:28 am

@ Jerry. I agree that it’s a civil rights issue. How could it not be? Defining it as such is the way to gain support of other oppressed groups
@ Damaris. Absolutely I agree with you about the differences in the dangers and other differences between now and the 50-60’s movement.

report abuse


posted June 2, 2009 at 11:35 am

btw – sorry about the grammer.

report abuse


posted June 2, 2009 at 11:37 am

lol grammAr

report abuse

sexual positions

posted October 7, 2009 at 3:32 pm

… best sex positions …

report abuse

Your Name

posted November 4, 2009 at 8:34 am I love to be on my back facing my lover with my legs spread around his back while he’s inside me and with me french kissing him.

report abuse

Survey Magnet

posted August 6, 2010 at 7:54 am

We have an interesting debate about this topic at the following link:
Come join the discussion.

report abuse

Best Oil Rig Jobs

posted December 31, 2010 at 7:46 am

On the lookout for Great information on the oil rigs, visit Best Oil Rig Jobs

report abuse


posted April 13, 2011 at 10:42 am

WOW!! My dad is g*y and I feel really embarrassed. He was g*y for 3 years. Him and my mom was great couple when my mum passed away,so my dad is gay with this man they are from the same country TORONTO ONATIRO CANADA but the man hes kinda cute (the man he’s buff)but i dont have feelings for 15 now!!

report abuse

Pingback: Anal Bleaching, For the Sodomite Who Wants to Look His Best | ChristWire


posted April 19, 2012 at 9:23 pm

you to taste me……. if you want txt me or chat me on my fb. account……..

report abuse

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to and may be used by in accordance with the agreements.

Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting One City. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Most Recent Buddhist Story By Beliefnet Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!

posted 2:29:05pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Mixing technology and practice
There were many more good sessions at the Wisdom 2.0 conference this weekend. The intention of the organizers is to post videos. I'll let you know when. Here are some of my notes from a second panel. How do we use modern, social media technologies — such as this blog — to both further o

posted 3:54:40pm May. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Wisdom 2.0
If a zen master were sitting next to the chief technical officer of Twitter, what would they talk about? That sounds like a hypothetical overheared at a bar in San Francisco. But this weekend I saw the very thing at Soren Gordhamer's Wisdom 2.0 conference — named after his book of the same nam

posted 1:43:19pm May. 01, 2010 | read full post »

The Buddha at Work - "All we are is dust in the wind, dude."
"The only true wisdom consists of knowing that you know nothing." - Alex Winter, as Bill S. Preston, Esq. in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure"That's us, dude!" - Keanu Reeves, as Ted "Theodore" LoganWhoa! Excellent! I've had impermanence on my mind recently. I've talked about it her

posted 2:20:00pm Jan. 28, 2010 | read full post »

Sometimes You Find Enlightenment by Punching People in the Face
This week I'm curating a guest post from Jonathan Mead, a friend who inspires by living life on his own terms and sharing what he can with others.  To quote from Jonathan's own site, Illuminated Mind: "The reason for everything: To create a revolution based on authentic action. A social movemen

posted 12:32:23pm Jan. 27, 2010 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.