Homosexual Marriage is an Insult to Homosexuals

March 30th, 2013 Post by

The following was originally posted at Pr. Lovett’s blog.

Before I begin, I will lay out some parameters for my position. I will not be arguing against homosexuality. I will not be arguing in favor of heterosexual relationships. I will not be arguing using the Bible or talking about God’s love or God’s purpose. In short, I will not here be making a religious argument as so many think of religious arguments. I will argue from reason, pure and simple. However, as optimistic as I am that reason will convince the reasonable, I am also sure that it will harden the unreasonable. Not because they do not agree or can’t see the reason, but because they will think they are being discriminated against.
To the matter at hand:
It seems to me that the general and oft repeated argument in favor of gay marriage is for our society to recognize and treat homosexual couples as equal to heterosexual couples. The way to do this, as the argument goes, is to make the two different relationships the same in the eyes of the law. So the pro-homosexual marriage camp says that homosexual couples ought to be able, as their heterosexual counterparts are, to receive tax benefits and have children. To deny homosexual couples these two rights is, in the homosexual argument, treating them as unequal or even worse, as illegitimate.
But let’s look at what’s going on in this argument. I will speak to the last point first. It seems to me that the homosexual camp ought to repel the idea that being taxed the same and having children should legitimize their relationship. After all, especially to the latter point of having children, this is something only a man and woman can do. A homosexual couple will never have children because they are homosexual. Their relationship will never produce a child. Their relationship to others might. They might gain a child by surrogacy or adoption or other ways, but it will not ever, ever, ever be because they are in a committed, monogamous relationship with one another.
On this point alone – an argument from nature – we see that homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are not equal. Nature says they’re not equal. To try and force the law to see them as equal is to insult the very thing that makes them different. Why not make laws that says men have the right to be pregnant or women have the right to impregnate? It’s insulting to both man and womanhood. Such an argument for the right to have children is illegitimate and makes homosexual relationships illegitimate. After all, a woman isn’t legitimately a woman because she can do what a man can do. She is legit because she’s a woman. Homosexual relationships are legitimately homosexual because they involve two of the same gender. The law can only operate within the parameters of nature. To try to do otherwise is simply idiotic.
So what about taxes? The tax code that affects married couples was set up to help them with children. It may have evolved from that, but that was and is still the basis. Children are the future of our (and any) society, so the government helps and protects both them and those who produce them. Since homosexual couples cannot – remember nature – produce children, why would they need the same tax codes as those who can produce children? Taxes were not set up to benefit married couples EXCEPT THAT they might have children. So those married couples who cannot have children are still taxed like married couples because the estate of marriage is what legitimately produces children. So singles and non-married couples are not equal in the eyes of the law to married couples. Equality is a red herring.
So what benefit is there for a homosexual couple to be declared as married? They can already legally enjoy a committed, monogamous relationship until death do them part. The law already protects their persons because they are persons. Under the law they are already protected from discrimination in terms of employment, public facilities, and so forth. And under the law, companies are within their rights to cater their services and goods to whomever they choose. So a lodge for married couples is withing their rights to not serve a couple that is not married – hetero or homosexual. To force the lodge to do otherwise is not making homosexuals equal, it is promoting them as superior to others.
When it comes down to it, it seems that the real reason homosexual marriage is being pushed is to legitimize their relationship. But this only makes it seem as if they don’t believe they’re legitimate to begin with. Why not then make laws benefiting and recognizing best friends or boy and girl friends? Why not make laws benefiting or recognizing school and work relationships? Is it the law that legitimizes these relationships? What’s the fundamental difference between this and homosexual marriage? There isn’t one. Besides which, the law already allows people to benefit from their non-married relationships. A person can have life insurance and leave to whomever he or she wishes. A person can open a trust fund for whomever he or she wishes. This has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a recognized estate because of the possibility (and hope for) children. Period.
In the end, any reasonable person will see that heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships are not the same. They are not equal. They do not deserve to be treated the same because they are not the same.
I want to conclude by drawing attention to the fact that I have not belittled homosexuality. I have not argued against homosexuality. I have not used the Bible. I have not argued from religion. I have simply argued based on what many see as the homosexual’s biggest ally: nature. After all, if they’re born that way, who’s to keep them from behaving that way? But their behavior, no matter how legit, cannot produce children of its own, and so will never be and cannot be equal to or the same as or even remotely related to heterosexual marriage. To argue otherwise is truly insult the homosexuals among us.

Click here to read some responses to the original blog post.


Categories: Uncategorized Tags:




Rules for comments on this site:


Engage the contents and substance of the post. Rabbit trails and side issues do not help the discussion of the topics.  Our authors work hard to write these articles and it is a disservice to them to distract from the topic at hand.  If you have a topic you think is important to have an article or discussion on, we invite you to submit a request through the "Ask a Pastor" link or submit a guest article.


Provide a valid email address. If you’re unwilling to do this, we are unwilling to let you comment.


Provide at least your first name. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example.  If you have a good reason to use a fake name, please do so but realize that the administrators of the site expect a valid email address and also reserve the right to ask you for your name privately at any time.


If you post as more than one person from the same IP address, we’ll block that address.


Do not engage in ad hominem arguments. We will delete such comments, and will not be obligated to respond to any complaints (public or private ones) about deleting your comments.


Interaction between people leaving comments ought to reflect Christian virtue, interaction that is gracious and respectful, not judging motives.  If error is to be rebuked, evidence of the error ought to be provided.


We reserve the right to identify and deal with trollish behavior as we see fit and without apology.  This may include warnings (public or private ones) or banning.

  1. March 30th, 2013 at 08:20 | #1

    Brilliant! Deserves publication far and wide. They don’t want to be seen as equal, but as superior, clearly.

  2. Rev. Weinkauf
    March 30th, 2013 at 10:13 | #2

    @Paul Becker #1
    They do want to be superior. Consider the rhetoric.

    I must be tolerant of their position. If I disagree with homosexual lifestyle what is said of me? Hateful, mean, a bully, against human rights, egual treatment of people, closed minded, holding to primitive thought. Who doesn’t want people to be treated equally? How are they hurting you? Who is against humans having the same rights and treated like everybody else?

    As with the abortion debate, language is powerful, and Planned Parenthood have intentionally moved from the “Pro-choice” moniker (if its just a decision people can have different opinions) to a “Reproductive rights” “Women’s rights” “War on women.” So its no longer just decisions or opinions -but who doesn’t want people to have rights? Who wants to have war on women?

    See where the debate goes for homosexuality and abortion. The rhetoric is not about your religion or your God/gods or your opinion or beliefs. Ultimately it’s human rights. And who’s against human rights? Inferior people like me.

  3. jim davis
    March 30th, 2013 at 10:17 | #3

    If you have not already done so, please read the comments referenced above.

    The author seems to imply that natural born children are not the same as adopted children in a marriage; how sad for him. Also, he is implying that married couples that are past the age of menopause should not get tax benefits; how sad.
    My wife and I, both past menopause, are planning on recommitting ourselves before God to each other on our next anniversary. The love that God has given us for each other transcends children and tax laws. There is much more to marriage that just those two items.

    Le the state do what it wants with the definition of couples. The church does not have to confirm or validate all such unions, and can say so in any public forum.

  4. helen
    March 30th, 2013 at 10:36 | #4

    @jim davis #3
    Le the state do what it wants with the definition of couples. The church does not have to confirm or validate all such unions, and can say so in any public forum.

    So far, the church can “say so in any public forum”; that will be the next thing to be attacked.
    The remarks that “religion is a thing to be practiced in the privacy of your own home” are becoming more frequent, as, not coincidentally, the teaching of homosexuality as an approved lifestyle, of promiscuity, and of abortion, goes on in our public schools.

    Apparently, as deviance comes out of the “closet”, religion is supposed to go into it.
    [This idea is brought to you by the people who prate about “equality”!]

  5. RK
    March 30th, 2013 at 11:50 | #5

    @helen #4

    Hear, hear!. Disorder is being enshrined into the civil law to be followed by the consequences which you describe.

    As far as the subject of reason: A true marriage is consummated via the ‘marriage act’ (the physical union of a man and a woman) at least once. Homosexuals are physically incapable of this. Acts of sodomy don’t qualify. Anything else is a sham and a lie. This is the truth; arguments counter to it are sophistry.

  6. March 30th, 2013 at 12:08 | #6

    @jim davis #3
    Please also read my follow up blog post, http://prlovett.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/homosexuals-and-their-rights/.

    Heterosexual couples that cannot have children naturally or are beyond childbearing years are privileged with the same rights and benefits of those who have had natural children and they should be. I do not argue otherwise.
    The reason they should have the same rights and privileges (and do) is because marriage isn’t honoring the couple but honoring the estate of marriage, which naturally produces children. The two people in a heterosexual marriage may or may not be able to have children (for whatever reason), but the estate of marriage is still theirs because their union doesn’t prohibit conception. The union of homosexuals prohibits conception, so it is not marriage.
    A married couple should always receive the benefits and privileges of marriage because of he estate of marriage, not because they can or cannot have children.

  7. Joe Strieter
    March 30th, 2013 at 13:00 | #7

    The Toledo Blade (no friend of LCMS Lutherans, Roman Catholics, or Christians in general, especially “Evangelicals) published an editorial cartoon this morning, showing the only argument against homosexual marriage as “God says it’s yucky.” Unfortunately (or fortunately), today’s print cartoon is not available on line.

    Of course, the intent is to ridicule and marginalize the Christian position. However, I suggest you look up the meaning of “Yucky”. You’ll see that, unwittingly, the Blade’s cartoonist (who is from the “Herblock” school of nastiness), is spot-on.

    What this does show us however, is that the anti-homosexual marriage arguments have not been voiced sufficiently. Given the culture and media’s pro-homosexual marriage advocacy, it has been all the more difficult to make our arguments heard.

    I have to wonder, also, where are the Muslim voices? It seems they have been silent on this issue. As I recall, Allah also thinks homosexual marriage is yucky (with a vengeance, I might add).

  8. Dutch Stoeberl
    March 30th, 2013 at 14:18 | #8

    What this really, boils down to is this, does your sexuality define you as a person (whatever it may be) or not?
    Those who’ve I grown up w/knowing were of that persuasion, were people, I loved, trusted & respected, it was a mutual respect. they knew me & mine, and disagree they did, yet…respect & trust, still remained, why not now? They had lives, family, friends, jobs, and a life, their sexuality, was a part, not the whole parcile. It was a part of them, just as mine is for me. It doesn’t & never did “define” me or any cause I may have had or have.

    Agenda, is very different that what defines a human life. I’ve never been asked, as I’ve always been vocal about Sola Scriptura. Those who know what I believe, have not thought less of me, degraged me, nor vilified me, for my stand. They know me & I in my turn know them. I have always stood for what the Trinity teaches is Good, Right & True. If I didn’t or would not, there would be far more questions, about why the change.

    What about what we were warned, when many would not “to sound Doctrine”, is a leap? The world & those of it, have always been & those who are of it, who attend His House, have always been…I don’t throw rocks, I know full well, we do not defend marriages, in our own houses & His houses we attend. Those who abhore our beliefs, know more & sometimes better than we do.
    We clean our own houses first, and then we look to others. We are to set the bar, not follow by comment, behind as issues present or press exposes.

  9. Joel Dusek
    March 30th, 2013 at 15:25 | #9

    Good argument. It also negates the Gay Mafia’s use of racial civil rights to argue for homosexual civil rights. A black man and a white man are unequal in physical characteristics, just as a blond haired-blue eyed Swede is physically unequal to a brown haired-brown eyed Slav. But they are not unequal as people, especially before the law and in nature. A homosexual is equal to a heterosexual as a person (and, to make the Biblical argument, a sinner in need of a Savior), but the behaviors are inherently unequal.

    Spenglergeist.

  10. helen
    March 30th, 2013 at 16:08 | #10

    @Joe Strieter #7
    I have to wonder, also, where are the Muslim voices? It seems they have been silent on this issue. As I recall, Allah also thinks homosexual marriage is yucky (with a vengeance, I might add).

    The Muslims have no need to attract unfavorable attention to themselves by defending conservative Christian beliefs. Where there are enough of them, they demand Sharia… and get it, from the same people who tell Christians to “go along and get along” with HHS mandates, same sex marriage and abortion.

    [However, if we obeyed our own teaching about marriage, divorce and such, as we did 50+ years ago, we could make a better case for letting us live under our own law, too.]

  11. March 30th, 2013 at 19:35 | #11

    Ridiculous unfortunately this is the mentality that Gays have to defend themselves against.

    Richard Brosniak
    (Homosuperior)

  12. March 30th, 2013 at 21:02 | #12

    Richard Brosniak :
    Ridiculous unfortunately this is the mentality that Gays have to defend themselves against.
    Richard Brosniak
    (Homosuperior)

    And you have done such a fine job of it, calling it rediculous. Show me why it’s rediculous.. Oh, and avoid talking about love, companionship, or anything else that the law doesn’t refer to or care about In regard to marriage.

  13. Greg Werdin
    March 30th, 2013 at 22:40 | #13

    (with a bit of sarcasm) When the government is allowed to define marriage … (not sure who gave them that authority) Once “gay marriage” is allowed will not the next step be polygamy? Why not have multiple “spouses”? How can the government step on my rights to “love” as many people as I want? We’ve already legalized murder. Here in Arizona a man shot his wife (married almost 70 years) The court decided he did what was best for her.) Once we let the government determine morality there is no right or wrong. The will rule. Christians have had so many poor public examples what Christianity is about is difficult to hear over all the noise. (Moral morjoity and others)

  14. March 31st, 2013 at 02:08 | #14

    @Mark Lovett #12

    Mark I’ll take a stab at it. But before I do I’d like to preface my remarks by saying, and I think you will agree that no matter what I say and no matter what you say neither of us will be able to convince the other of our respective position. I do think it’s important to have dialog though. I’ll leave out love and compassion and companionship. One thing we may have in common is I’ve been told I can be very literal, not always a compliment but for our interaction it may work for both of us. I would also like to say that I shouldn’t have used the word ridiculous. I’m passionate about my position but could have been a little more subtle.

    My position Mark is, it’s all semantics. I could drill down and say, what if I were married to a woman and I had a child and that woman died and I chose to marry a man? I would have procreated; would God then say I’m invalidating the fact you procreated because you dared marry a man. I could say that the world has changed and our society has evolved we’ve had medical advances since biblical times and I can now use a surrogate to procreate. I can think of other scenarios but I wont bore you. I try and put myself in the shoes of a person on your side of the argument, and to a degree I understand to the extent that I can understand. You are faithful and this is your belief. I’ll latch onto my points you’ll latch onto yours- semantics. So in a nutshell my position is you don’t know definitively what gods view is nor do I. I say God wouldn’t distinguish between Straights and Gays

    Years ago I attended bible camp with a group of wonderful Christian people. During a bible study our leader made a great point and it gave me a great deal of clarity at the time. He said If someone says to you, how do you know Jesus was the son of God? You should say well how do you know George Washington was the first president of the United States? Very literal right and very true.

    I hope I haven’t offended any of you and I thank you for invitation to try and explain my position.

    Richard Brosniak

  15. Joe Strieter
    March 31st, 2013 at 07:16 | #15

    Richard Brosniak :
    Ridiculous unfortunately this is the mentality that Gays have to defend themselves against.
    Richard Brosniak
    (Homosuperior)

    It is traditional man-woman marriage that is being defended these days (and not very well, either). The homosexual community has hardly been on the defensive–quite the opposite, it’s been on the offensive (very successfully), and, from the looks of it, will continue that offensive into the future.

  16. DK
    March 31st, 2013 at 08:23 | #16

    I agree with this article completely. However, I think the gays would come back and argue the fact that they can now adopt–therefore, there are children involved to protect–just as a heterosexual couple. That is another “right” they want to manufacture–the right to have children that they’ve already been granted. How would one argue that point?

  17. March 31st, 2013 at 09:15 | #17

    The irony of ironies, that the battle cry of those who are also pro-abortion is now: “We have to do it for the children.”

  18. March 31st, 2013 at 10:16 | #18

    @Joe Strieter #15

    I agree with you Joe in a manner of speaking.

  19. Carl Vehse
    March 31st, 2013 at 10:27 | #19

    “When it comes down to it, it seems that the real reason homosexual marriage is being pushed is to legitimize their relationship.”

    A more likely reason is that the Demonicrat party, homosexuals, pedophiles, necrophiles, polyamoriphiles, and every other kind of animal-, vegetable-, and mineral-philes have no interest in marriage, but simply want to destroy the concept of normal heterosexual (and Christian) marriage and any associated standards.

  20. Greg Werdin
    March 31st, 2013 at 10:42 | #20

    The government wants to do away with “traditional marriage” because of the children. As president Obama administration has publicly stated it is cheaper for the government with fewer children in society. It is cheaper for the government when children are aborted. We should support homosexuality because there will be fewer children and less of a financial support needed for children from birth to the grave. Just look at the birth rate in the US now and the number of schools that are saving money by closing and reducing the size of their class rooms. When we take out the caring and loving element that only Christians know, (not who am I hurting false love of some) the main idea is financial. How great to know that in the end Christ wins!
    We are told that at the end the angels need to come and explain to people the end is happening because by nature without faith, people will still not believe. Even so come Lord Jesus.

  21. Joe Strieter
    March 31st, 2013 at 18:03 | #21

    @Greg Werdin #20

    An insightful post.

    As the number of children declines, who is going to pay for all our entitlements? Other countries are already starting to feel the effects of a birthrate lower than “replacement” or maintenance populations. These children will grow up with oppressive taxes and debt, and little expectations of the entitlements that are now seen as “normal.”

    You are right, however–the war is not on women or homosexuals or Hispanics, but on children. A frightening prospect.

  22. S. Norris
    April 1st, 2013 at 09:40 | #22

    “….And stay tuned for my next blog post: ‘Why Freedom Is Insulting To Slaves.'”

    The author may believe he is “arguing from reason, pure and simple,” but if he believes he came about his reasons purely by logic and that his motivation for finding those reasons developed from anything other than confirmation bias, he is sadly deluded.

  23. April 1st, 2013 at 11:42 | #23

    @S. Norris #22
    So homosexual marriage is to homosexuals what freedom is to slaves? And I assume by your comparison you’re attempting to levy all the emotion of the abomination of American slavery in support of your rational position.

    S. Norris :
    “The author may believe he is “arguing from reason, pure and simple,” but if he believes he came about his reasons purely by logic and that his motivation for finding those reasons developed from anything other than confirmation bias, he is sadly deluded.

    Then color me sadly deluded. However, you might first take into consideration that you provide absolutely no evidence for your position other than your bias and apparently emotively charged opinion on the matter. Deluded, indeed.

    If you’re going to insult the arguments of one, at least do so without violating the very thing you find reprehensible.

  24. April 1st, 2013 at 13:21 | #24

    @Richard Brosniak #14
    Richard,
    Sorry I haven’t posted anything (Holy Week keeps me quite busy).
    You have certainly not offended me. One of our society’s weakness (an extreme weakness, if I might be so bold) is that we are far too easily offended. Everything seems to offend. Would that while it may not be that we could all get along, at least we could all get along at not being so quickly offended.
    That being said, I am fully aware of the sensitive nature to the homosexual debates (et. al.), which is why I am choosing not to argue my position using the Bible or the Church’s teachings on the matter. I would rather argue (discuss, if one prefers) based on what we can prove with the current empirical evidence. Something the Bible and the Church are not against (contrary to much popular opinion).
    Anyway, I’m working on a post right now with the hopes of addressing some of the more reasonable positions pro-homosexual marriage, such as yours. When it’s finished (hopefully by Wednesday), I’ll post a link on this post so all who’ve commented here can read it.l
    Until then, I wish you well.

  25. April 1st, 2013 at 14:59 | #25

    @Mark Lovett #24

    Mark,No need to apologize about timing. It occurred to me that you would be very busy and the fact that you have taken the time to preliminarily respond is appreciated.

    I look forward to reading your post.

    Best Regards,

    Richard Brosniak

  26. April 1st, 2013 at 15:00 | #26

    @Mark Lovett #24
    Mark, No need to apologize about timing. It occurred to me that you would be very busy and the fact that you have taken the time to preliminarily respond is appreciated.

    I look forward to reading your post.

    Best Regards,

    Richard Brosniak

  27. Becky
    April 2nd, 2013 at 14:46 | #27

    How about an experiment? completely isolate a group of 100 men. Then do the same for 100 women, and then also a group of 50/50 men and women. Ignore the issue of marriage for any of them. Come back in 100 years and count the populations of each group.

  28. Richard brosniak
    April 2nd, 2013 at 14:50 | #28

    I think this is a great idea. I would suggest revisiting the statistics every 5 years though over the 100 year period.

  29. Richard brosniak
    April 2nd, 2013 at 15:09 | #29

    Sory Becky I should have quoted you. I’m still learning how to use this site.

    Best Regards

    RB

    Richard brosniak :
    I think this is a great idea. I would suggest revisiting the statistics every 5 years though over the 100 year period.
    Click to EditRequest Deletion

  30. John
    May 27th, 2013 at 14:14 | #30

    I am neither gay nor religious, but I will say this; if your argument that gay marriage is wrong because gay people can’t have children, you make make two false assumptions:

    1) That to have children you must be married, or to be married you must have children.

    2) That gay people cannot have children.

    Both are false. I think people here are 50:50 on point 1), because many people do associate marriage with impending children – but many married couples don’t or can’t have children, be it age, illness or sexual orientation. You wouldn’t prevent two 50 year olds from marrying. You wouldn’t prevent an infertile man/woman from marrying. So why prevent two gay people from marrying? For the record I’m against gay marriage, but only because marriage is a religious thing and is up to the head of the churches to decide on.

    Point 2) no one has addressed yet, and it’s quite a serious one. A gay, fertile man *can* have children. So can a fertile lesbian. If you say “bisexuals cannot adopt”, you will push gay people to have sex-for-babies with people they don’t love. You also prevent orphans from being adopted. Both seem rather cruel.

  31. May 29th, 2013 at 08:21 | #31

    @John #30
    Thanks for the comment, John.

    However, I make neither of the assumptions you mention. First, I never said that one must be married to have children. What I said was that the institution society has always recognized as good for and to create children is marriage. No society has uniformly or for very long accepted the idea that babies can or should be conceived and raised outside of a marriage (whatever word one might use for marriage – the estate in which children are created and reared).

    This isn’t my opinion, one must only look at the world’s societies. It’s easy and obvious, even if one doesn’t agree it should be so, one must agree that it is so. That every society has honored the estate of a man and woman creating and rearing children as the norm (there are always deviations in societies) speaks volumes against any argument – especially an evolutionary one – that homosexual couples are the proper institution for children.

    Secondly, you’re right: not all heterosexual married couples have children. Some by physical defects, some by choice. But – as I mentioned somewhere above – neither of these conditions is natural to the union, but, as the philosophers say, incidental. Men and women who cannot have children for physical reasons won’t know that until they are married (or try to have – ahem – natural children). So they enter the estate of having and rearing children with the expectation to do so – or at least the possibility. No homosexual couple can do that precisely because they are homosexual. They can’t have natural children.

    The couple who knows they can’t have children, say post child-bearing years, still enter the estate in honor of the estate; that a man and woman are meant to go together for the purpose of the society. This opens a whole can of worms about society and the estate of marriage and how we’ve screwed the pooch on our understanding that people get married not for selfish reasons, but for the society. But I digress.

    Lastly, I never said gay people can’t have children. They are biologically fully capable (normally) of procreating. But a union of homosexuals cannot, ever, produce children in and of itself. They must adopt, or use a surrogate, or something else. So while the individuals are capable of procreation, their union is not. Therefore, the two unions are not the same, not equal, and not for the same reasons. Any two same-sex people who decide to join in some from of sexual relationship – for surely we can’t say simply enjoying one another’s company makes for a gay couple since then we’d all be gay if we enjoy the company of our same-sex best friends, etc. – must know that their union can never, will never, and is incapable of producing children.

    So I conclude that any relationship between a man and man or woman and woman for the purpose of sexual pleasures and intimacy is not and cannot be what our society calls marriage. And to make the law say that it is, is to deny basic logic, common sense, AND biology and nature.

If you have problems commenting on this site, or need to change a comment after it has been posted on the site, please contact us. For help with getting your comment formatted, click here.
Subscribe to comments feed  ..  Subscribe to comments feed for this post
Anonymous comments are welcome on this board, but we do require a valid email address so the admins can verify who you are. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example. Email addresses are kept private on this site, and only available to the site admins. Comments posted without a valid email address may not be published. Want an icon to identify your comment? See this page to see how.
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.