Marriage, Back door laws and policies, and tolerance issues

Remove all ads!

To necessitate controlling one's urges, a reasonable argument needs to be made for why it is necessary for them to do so. We tell people not to be promiscuous because it spreads STDs and increases the chance of unwanted pregnancy. We tell kleptos that they must resist the urge to steal because it harms another person. We tell the violent they must resist the urge to assault because it harms another person. We tell people to drink and smoke in moderation because the excess is harmful to them, and in the case of drunk drivers, harmful to others. There is no good reason to demand homosexuals to resist the urge to have sex (which, again, I consider a basic human need). You haven't provided a compelling reason for them to make such a huge personal sacrifice. That you find it distasteful doesn't even come close. You need to demonstrate the harm before you can demand the abstinence.

This only applies if A) the "man and woman" part of a marriage is the only aspect of significance to you, and B) if somehow their being granted marriage rights negatively impacts the quality or significance of your heterosexual marriage. I would like to think that instead of living a life of promiscuity and dishonesty, the idea of a gay couple devoting themselves to one another for life would be an acceptable, even preferable, alternative to the closet. Far from changing or harming that tradition, they are asking nothing more than to be a part of it.

Not true at all. If you can provide a good, logically sound reason why gays having sex is a harmful enough act to require being controlled, I'm all ears. A good, logically sound reason why it's merely an "urge" to get off and not something far more meaningful, go for it. A good, logically sound reason why they should be permanently barred from seeking legally sanctioned marriage rights, I'll side with you. The reason I feel the way I do is, in the decade or so I've been seeking an answer to these questions, I haven't found one.

Thus, gay couples who want nothing more than to honor and live up to the vows of marriage should be given a chance. They deserve it.

 

I don't believe it's any of society's business what two consenting adults do sexually in the privacy of their own homes. I don't know where anyone gets off telling adults what they should be doing regarding any matter this personal, and does so little harm to anyone else. It's just plain stupid that anyone would stand for it -- or that anyone would even stick his nose into anyone's private life in such a manner.

 

First, Marriage, by definition, specifically excludes them. Second, is it Marriage or the legal benefits that have been tacked onto marriage over the years. I've put forward an idea to grant these legal benefits without changing the definition of marriage. And while they may not be asking me to abandon my faith, they want to "edit" it to be more palatble to them. This is something I object to.

I disagree. I believe what I say. Further, I have trouble believing many of the counter arguements made against me. I may not be able to point out the logical flaws, but I do know that they are wrong. I believe that many of the faults lie in the assumptions that the arguements are built upon...

Actually most of the arguements defending homosexuality are dead wrong.

Something I learned very early on--if you don't want your words scrutinized by people who disagree, then keep them to yourself. Further more, you should know better than to assume that I can simply ignore your false statements on something I feel strongly about.

Because they are pushing for that in Canada.

To gain that inclusion, they seek to change the definition for society in general. That's the battle we fight.

Both LKD and I have provided links in the past to support this. What we see in Canada is an attempt to re-engineer society in a way that we don't like. We also don't think we're alone...

But that can be accomplished WITHOUT re-defining marriage. That's the idea behind Civil Unions, an idea that was soundly rejected by others who have posted earlier in this thread. Instead, the solution that is continually thrown in our faces is the one that is the most contentious. That's why gay rights languish behind what they could be, and that's why these discussions are so heated. Honestly, I think that 2% you refer to (again, I think that number would be higher than that) would be better off if the straight people with an axe to grind against the religious faithful would stop trying to use the gays as martyrs for their crusade against us.

My understanding of the homosexual mindset comes from a Gay person that I knew. He's not the only person who's told me these things either.

Considering that I haven't been getting any for a LONG time (remember that my religious beliefs forbid fornication, and I've been faithfully observing my beliefs since 2002), I can tell you that it is a very strong desire, but not an actual need.

Nobody likes being told that they are wrong. And a great many will take it very personally.

And how well does that work? It doesn't. In the abscence of clear authority, people do as they damned well please with little regard for consequences.

Actually, if there is somthing to what I've been seeing on the subject, I may have an arguement for asking homosexuals to overcome their same gender attraction. It's termed Demographic Winter. The claim is that birthrates are not matching death rates in many cultures. The projections suggest that at some point, the number of seniors will be greater than the working population that would support them.

With an increase in educational requirements, couples are starting families later in life, when the women would be less resilient to pregnancy, and couples would be less suited to the demands of raising young children. Further, with divorce leaving many of these couples single through the prime child bearing years the birth rate is further reduced. Some of my sources also list contraception, abortion and homosexuality as contributing factors. As such, some critics have panned this as Christian/conservative propaganda, but I just think it's being dismissed too quickly there...

If what I read about Demographic Winter is true, then that not only forms a non-religious defence of Heterosexual marriage, but a non-religious, non-homophobic arguement against homosexuality. While it may not sit well with some image of an enlightened civilization, it may point to the importance of heterosexual marriage and the family.

The problem here is when their deviant behaviour enters the public arena. It is the social and civil ramifications of their private lifestyle that are under debate here.

 

That is NOT what this is about, it is about giving rights to a relatively large group of people who don't have them, not about destroying your faith. I am surprised you brought this to an Atheist-Crusade against religion. That seems a bit... low, to blame all of this on the 'unfaithful.'

 

Provide some examples. Since reading comprehension is sometimes a problem, let me repeat my point:

"...IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOMES."

I hope that helps.

Which are?

---------- Added 3 hours, 49 minutes and 54 seconds later... ----------

I find this rather odd. I'm curious as to what you are doing about it. You like to spend a lot of time, talking about what you think the rest of the world should be doing, but I don't see where you are taking any actions on these points yourself. You claim that you are all for marriage and family, and you like to bring up your personal experience and talk about yourself, well here's your chance to talk even more.

I'm one of those big Christian "liberals" that you guys like to complain about. Yet, I have a wife, with whom I am faithful, three children of my own, two of which are in school: we go to chruch, and take our kids to Sunday school; I don't really know a lot of gay people and have none as friends (not because I really care), but because most of our friends are all married and have kids like we do, and their kids are in school and go to chruch as well (and I'm not saying gays don't do those things, which I believe if you have your way, they won't be able to do anyway). Although they are not all liberals, most of our friends tend to be fairly moderate and vote for both Republicans and Democrats, depending on the person for whom they are voting. But yes, my wife and I are both liberals and progressives.

Almost all the atheists I know are conservatives and vote entirely Republican; most of them claim to have gay friends, (and are always sure to comment that they are "cool" with that); most of them are either single or divorced, except for the older ones, who tend to be pretty happy in their marriages.

I believe that you have a distorted view with all the "liberal and conservative" posturing in your rants. I'm sure somewhere in your mind, it must seem very comfortable for you to believe that the rest of the world cannot measure up to your standard of "how everyone should behave," because there are "liberal atheirsts" who just won't go along and are wrecking their countries for all those fine, up-standing conservative, church-going folk, and their families, with all their conventional morality. Nevertheless, we can compare personal experiences if you like, and see who is actually "walking the talk" regarding "traditional" mortality and lifestyles.

 

Congratulations. People believe nonsense all the time. You still don't know what you're talking about.

Religious fanatics always do. So do the pig-headed.

Which is why your arguments always fall short of convincing anyone, and why treating you as an intellectual equal often feels like such a charitable act on our part. You aren't giving us much incentive to continue doing so. If you want to be even remotely persuasive, simply "knowing" you are right is not enough. Not by a mile.

I quite obviously enjoy having my words scrutinized by people who disagree with me – thoughtful, rational people (like LKD). That is why I am here. What I cannot tolerate are people so entrenched in their own bullsh*t that they refuse to see reason, repeating the same hyperbole and unfounded nonsense over and over, despite being politely (and eventually, out of sheer frustration, impolitely) corrected on it over and over, even over the course of a few years. You've demonstrated time and again your refusal to listen or learn, rendering your presence in these discussions counterproductive to say the least. Even your fellow conservative SP travelers who would otherwise agree with you can see that. Why can't you? Ever wonder why these threads always drift off the subject matter and end up being about you? Everyone ganging up on you personally and/or throwing up their hands in frustration and leaving? This doesn't happen with anyone else around here but you. Not LKD, not Nog, not Richard Simmons...just you. If that's not a gigantic clue that you're a highly ineffective advocate for your views, I don't know what is.

And in case you're behind: the beauty of the ignore list is you will never have to see my posts, and therefore will never get hot and bothered by all of my horrible, awful "false statements." If I do indeed make a false statement, believe me, there are more than enough reasonable and realistic people around here to correct me on it. I in turn will never have to wade through your novels pointing out all times you've missed the point, selectively quoted, taken things out of context or just generally said something that makes no sense at all. I'll put you on mine as well, it'll be fun. You do your thing, I'll continue to do mine (engaging people who are actually worth my time), no more threads get derailed and BOOM - an angel gets his wings. Doesn't that sound lovely?

One single debatably "gay" person (sorry, given your past statements I don't trust your judgement on who is and isn't gay) and someone else who likely shares your views. Crack research team you got there. You've just admitted what is plain as day to everyone here: your knowledge pool on this issue is extremely limited. One of my best friends is a metalurgist, but I don't claim to know a thing about the melting point of carbon steel. You could know a hundred gays and your position on this issue would still be fatally flawed...because you've already made up your mind and no new information is going to change that. Congratulations - you're obtuse.

I've heard many rationalizations over the years from people who can't get laid. This is the most common. Please, just speak for yourself on this one.

Finally - a reasonable point. I've been waiting three years to see one from you. It's a bit of a reach, but let's explore this. So homosexuality should be discouraged to bolster the sagging birthrate. Good in theory, but is this practical?

According to the US Census, 57% of all Americans over age 15 are married. Of that number, around 20% never have children. I'll assume Canadian demographics are similar enough to the US to make a valid comparison. Let's say that all homosexuals (about 2% of the population) suddenly become straight. If logic follows, 57% of that 2% will marry the opposite gender (roughly 1% of the total population) and I will generously assume that about 80% of them have kids. Best case scenario, that's a .8% increase in the birthrate at best. Unless my math sucks, that would make a statistically negligible dent in the overall birthrate, and that's best case.

This entire theory, of course, rests on the assumption that being gay is merely a choice and that switching sides is a feasible, let alone possible, option for the people involved. I've tried to explain to you why you're kidding yourself on this point, but again, you just won't listen.

 

Now DR, that's not very nice.

Edit: Oops! That's your sig, not a comment directed at Gnarff.

 

Yes - it's my Animal House tribute. I figured it was universally recognized enough that I didn't have to credit the source. Oh well.

 

But why is it that when I propose something that does grant rights to this group without the contention and fighting, I am criticized and trampled by people that say that it's not good enough until it DOES force the religious to see their terminology degraded. That tells me that it's not about their rights, but rather degrading what one group considers to be sacred, despite repeated denials.

This whole thread comes frim such an example--the fight over the term marriage. It would be much simpler to simply allow for civil rights--ALL OF THEM--to be granted without such change, allowing this group (which nobody can agree on the size of) to return to the privacy of their own homes and get on with their lives. But there are people that insist that that is not good enough, forcing this issue into the open and delaying the rights that these people ought to have.

How does this group get their civil rights when they are not--and possibly cannot be--truly accepted by a major segment of society. You can have people spout conflicting estimates of the numbers involved without actually providing a link to back it up, have people speak authoritatively on areas where Science has yet to fully answer these questions, and spout various philosophical obligations until Hell freezes over, but with a lack of verifyable knowledge, it is insufficient to prove to the Religious that what they do is morally wrong. And it seems even worse for the guy who DOES try to grow, by trying to understand how to tolerate what I can't truly accept. When I insist that a line that's been pointed out ad freakin' nauseum for years now be maintained, I'm labeled a bigot and a hatemonger. Rather than working to find the best solution to accommodate both groups (civil rights to gays while still allowing the Religious the illusion of social sanction and approval), this issue is brought to the forefront to stir up a fight.

Basically the question my side of this debate needs to address is: How do we extend tolerance and love to people who's behaviour we can't accept?

What CAN I do? Because of a disability, the only job available to me consistently was working for my parents, and now that I have back troubles, that's drying up. I have enough wrong with me that I can't compete for employment, thus making me economically less desirable as a husband or father. I've tried getting to singles events within my own faith, but when the program starts for those 31 and older, it's discouraging being the only one under 40 at most of the events I was able to attend. I've even tried turning to the internet, but though I can find friends, there isn't relationship potential there. Because of my condition I can't drive, making getting out to meet people difficult. Even last year, a woman who seemed to be the "ideal" woman for me moved into the area, and I was introduced to her. Even though we did become close, her past experiences meant that she was not interested in dating or relationships, so again, I'm left all alone. So basically all I can do is ***** about the changes in society...

It's not the Christian liberals that I complain about, it's people that reject the obvious solution to the problem in favour of a more contentious solution that I really complain about.

That's not it at all. But I am within my rights to ask that tolerance of one group not lead to intolerance of another group when there is clearly enough room to accomodate both within society?

But I have seen some reason, and have ammended my views to accommodate it. I consider it having a better understanding. But what I don't get in this debate is why I'm asked to change my opinion based on vague or disputed facts. Without such actual information to support the desired change, what is there to call my faith into question? By its very nature, religion is vague and disputed, but it survives, hinting that there must be some truth behind it. Until your "reasoned" arguements are supported with some academic information (I'll insist on a link for that), that "vague and disputed" information relegates me to reliance on a "gut instinct", which at this time still favours my faith, which is more consistent that what I hear in this thread. And no, I won't be doing my own research on homosexuality because I have other things I enjoy more.

If you're comfortable doing that, that's your choice. I can't be comfortable with that. I also never used the words horrible and awful to describe these false statements. But I will challenge things I don't think are right--factually or morally.

LMFAO!

/me pauses to stop laughing, catch my breath and make sure I didn't piss myself laughing at that comment.

So let me see if I understand this correctly. If this guy didn't meet your understanding of homosexual, then he wasn't a homosexual? So if I can use the same "logic," then since my understanding is that homosexuality is not hardwired into people, homosexuals must not exist, therefore there is no need for gay marriage, and I win the debate! Is that strawman big enough to show you how stupid your point there was?

LMFAO! If I were to put you on my ignore list, I'd miss gems like that!

Of course there's a limit on my knowledge pool, because no matter what scientific and statistical data I'm told exists, and no matter what other straight people say about homosexuals, I will never truly understand unless I face the temptation to be homosexual myself as strongly as they do. But we both have our limits on our knowledge on this issue because we are straight, and our exposure to homosexuals is limited. But that doesn't make you right and me wrong...

The point remains that there are people that aren't getting laid. If sex truly was a need, it would be actively killing these people. Food is a need. Without it, you die of starvation. Shelter is a need. Without it, you die from exposure to inclement elements. Healthcare is a need. Without it, you die from otherwise treatable diseases. Sex is not a need. Even I would have trouble believing an account of a guy dying from excessive masturbation...

Sounds like my point wouldn't matter if homosexuals were only 2% of the population. I believe that number to be noticibly higher. I also believe that many homosexuals would be in that 43% that do not marry.

My point about Demographic Winter (again, if there is an actual concern here, and that this is not just some Christian conservative propaganda) was not that homosexuality is bad, but that heterosexuality is explicitly better than homosexuality, thus affording heterosexual marriage a higher place in society without mandating that it extend to homosexuals as well.

That there is a missed point on your part. But let's explore that. If homosexuality is a choice, we can assume it is the one that makes the most sense for a homosexual. In ancient Greece, homosexuality was viewed as superior, sexually, than heterosexuality. This led to declining birth rates, eventually spurring a law that made heterosexual marriage MANDATORY for men to advance to certain positions within society. This law didn't care what they did with other men outside the relationship, only making their social standing contingent upon a heterosexual union that produced offspring. Even though these men prefered their own gender, they would still marry and have a "lesser" relationship to maintain their social standing. So you see, it IS possible for a "gay" man to have sex with a woman (assuming she will agree).

 

Let me start off by saying that you are Canadian and I'm American. I'm stating the obvious because our governments have different founding documents. The principles of the Revolution were in the DoI: "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." It doesn't matter what the majority thinks about it, since the rights of the minority are firmly protected in those documents. Now, in your government it may be that rights are determined by the simple majority, but that is not the case here. So our experiences in this regard might be quite different.

Nevertheless, I'm glad we are in agreement on the "privacy" issue. And so there is lttle point in covering that ground again.

I'm sorry to hear that you are in that situation. And I didn't know that was the case. It is really tough to have those kinds of issues. But if you don't mind a little advice (if you are in the mood to listen): Become an English major. I was usually one of only 2 or 3 guys in a literature or writing class full of girls and most of them were single. Don't ask me why or to try and explain it. I can ony tell you that it is common knowledge among those of us who were in English programs, that we were surrounded by single girls in almost every class.

So if you work during the day, go register for some evening classes in literature at your community college. And remember they like study groups (that means lots of phone numbers). Go meet them at Starbucks with an arm full of books and sit around and talk literature and drink some good coffee. Nothing could be easier. And forget about those church single groups - those are for losers (and I'm not joking). Also, stop worrying about what all these gay guys are doing, since that won't help you much either (what do they know about girls?).

 

He did say he needed to be economically viable....

Work mantras --
Engineer: How do I make it run?
Scientist: How does it work?
Liberal Arts: Do you want fries with that?

 

I'm laughing, too - but for different reasons. No, you didn't understand correctly (no big surprise there), evidently you have no idea what a strawman is, and yet you laugh so arrogantly despite being totally unaware that you're making a complete fool of yourself. Now THAT'S funny.

Now I'm about to do one last time what I hate so much - walking you through the obvious point that you missed by a mile (which occurs far too often with you). Given your position that no one is really gay, and yet you base your position in part on what you learned from this "gay" person, it's highly likely that the person you gleaned all this knowledge from isn't genuinely gay at all (even by my definition), despite his claim to be (and let's be honest, you'd never know the difference). There are indeed instances of "confused" straight people out there, or bisexuals who aren't sure which side they fall on. Though you are indeed pig-headed enough to seize upon that statement as evidence that you're right, I assure you these people are indeed rare, especially compared to the actual gay population (which, whether you believe it or not, really is about 2% if you exclude bisexuals, bi-curious and transgendered...then it's closer to 4%). Considering how poorly informed your position is, and since you've based your position, by your own admission, almost entirely on what you learned from this one person (and your "gut"), it's only natural to conclude you've been fed bad information, since it deviates so sharply from the reality of what we're discussing.

Since this bad information supported your preconceived "gut feeling" and is analogous to your interpretation of your religious beliefs, it only served to entrench you deeper in your position. And even if this person was telling what they believe to be the truth, it's only one person. That is the worst possible sample size for any kind of research. You have no testimony of other gays to compare it to (and you've stated that you have no interest in speaking to more). Considering the rest of your ideas on this subject, and your admittedly limited pool of information, it follows that the "others" you spoke to about this didn't know what they were talking about either. And you further refuse to do more research on the subject of homosexuality because you, quote, have other things you enjoy more (considering your obsession with this topic, I kind of doubt that). There's no shame in admitting you are out of your depth and backing off from forceful debate, but there is something downright rude about claiming factual authority from such an obviously weak position.

Therefore you will never have the chance to be corrected on your bad information or refine your factual case, nor do you care to. This is the very definition of willful ignorance. Yes, our respective exposure to homosexuals is limited. But considering my gay family members, close gay friends, studies I've read, research papers I've done for school, and familiarity with my local gay community, my exposure is an order of magnitude greater than yours. It's the difference between a cub scout and an African bushman giving you wilderness survival tips. So when I tell you you have no idea what you're talking about, and you tell me your gut tells you I'm making "false statements," comparatively speaking, only one of us is speaking from anything resembling an authoritative position.

Thus, any further addressing of your points is a waste of time. I'll just stick to the other people in this thread worth addressing (people interested in expanding what they know, not just stating what they believe ad nauseum) and do my best to ignore you henceforth (for my own health). No one here really listens to you anyway. Respond to this if you must, but...you'll just be talking to yourself.

Peace.

EDIT - For the record, I think Chandos' idea about going into academics would be a good move for you.

 

T2 - He also said he wanted to meet chicks.

Liberal Arts: "We have the babes."

An English degree is also a pre-law degree. All Gnarff has to do is take the LSAT and he could go to law school. Then he could become an SP moderator.

 

That works for me.

Oh, wait. Is "moderator" different from "moderate"?

 

I'd love to go back to school, but my disability (Tourette Syndrome) ultimately made the academic demands more than I could handle. It became dificult to muster any kind of focus when I tried to study.

How's the Hot Chocolate there? Even when i didn't follow the tenets of my faith, I never did acquire the taste for Coffee. Mind you the nearest such place is about 45 minutes by car from where I live (seriously, iwhere I live makes the middle of nowhere look busy). Isolation seems the worst of the problem...

On a message board for an LDS single site, one of the members described us as the Island of Misfit toys. Even though I learned that Divorce in my faith is more common than I would have guessed, the divorced members felt isolated because there were so few in their home wards. Then there were ones that just never paired up in the Young Singles programs. And then there were poeple like me who just wasted their youth with "other" pursuits. I wouldn't apply the term losers, but we would be the odd socks drawer of the church. It's hard to find a match for us, but we're still there...

My hands aren't steady enough to do that, either!

I thought the Wiki page said that it was puttung up something so unrealistic and unbelievably stupid that nobody in their right mind would believe it in order to make an opposing point.

And you're doing the exact same thing. If I granted your wish and put you on the ignore list, I'd miss such comedy!

More than one gay person. There were others that I was introduced to (read into that what you will), and likely a few more than that whom I wouldn't know about (and not that I really care what they do). Further, some of this information comes from classes and textbooks I had from my college days (I tried to be a Psych major, more women than men, but I still struck out). Granted that was 15 years ago, but I don't think that much has changed. And for the record, this gay man was one of my best friends. Through our conversations, I began to understand that homosexuality was not a mental illness or genetic defect, and that they are real people. Nobody there ever said anything about not having a choice in the matter.

Also, when I was in College, I was exposed to the philosophy of Existentialism. Basically, EVERYTHING we do is a choice and to claim otherwise is a crock of horse ****. Until you can provide a link to scientific proof that homosexuality is NOT a choice, I'll remain skeptical of your pontification on this matter. I'll grant you that for these homosexuals, the decision to choose a partner of the same gender is easier for them than to choose one of the opposite gender, but it DOES NOT rule it out entirely.

Get me a link to back this claim up ot else you're doing the same thing you lambaste me for. You make a claim that pretty much makes the rest of this debate make little sense (like why are we having this discussion when it only affects 4% of the population at most). I still think that number should be much higher...

And being told to sit down and shut up when I ask you to provide a link to support your numbers makes you a paragon of manners? And just who made you God to call me a liar when I speak from my own experiences? Who gave you the power to tell me that my experiences don't count because they don't match your opinions?

Especially if my critics REFUSE to back up their claims by providing their sources.

Even that is beyond my capabilities. I had limited success at College, but when I tried to get into a more focused field of study, I just couldn't focus to study.

Is a "moderate" even allowed to exist? I don't feel quite comfortable with the position of the Christian Right, but likewise, what I've seen of liberalism seems awfully far from what I believe. Am I not allowed to have a position somewhere in the middle between those extremes?

 

Re strawman:

Nope. To quote wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

In other words, you're arguing with a person over a position that (s)he doesn't actually hold. So for example, you could make an argument defending the Mormon faith. If I were to say "Ah-ha! So you must be a closet polygamist", that would be a straw man, because I have nothing to base that on, and am just using the history of Mormonism to try to discredit you.

 

Gnarff, people back up thier claims with credible sources all the time. You just happen to ignore those sources if they are not Mormon. You, on the other hand, cannot seem to produce any sources that are not Mormon (or other highly biased source).

You are clearly confusing actions versus desires. We have little to no control over our desires -- but we can control our actions (and you can find volumes of psychological literature on that subject). For those people who believe homosexuality is wrong, they can choose to not act on their desires. For those who believe there is nothing wrong with homosexuality there is no reason to not act on those desires. You have yet to show homosexuality is wrong on any grounds other than religious -- which is not allowed by US law.

It could be an enjoyable debate if you would argue intellectually instead of falling back on the same old "my religion says it's bad, so it's bad" argument. Debates around here get quite boring and dull.

 

In this context, isn't "boring" pretty much the same as "dull"?

 

The Department of Redundancy Department has struck again....

Edit: I just have to quote this from Chandos:

I love that "cool with that" bit -- I know many people who are the same way. They are obviously "cool with it" but not "comfortable with it." A shame. I have had quite a few gay friends over the years -- I never really cared about their sexual preference. I don't need to be "cool with it" because it's a non-issue for me.

Gnarff had one "friend he knew" to base his experience (and bias) on. I have known hundreds (at least) -- starting in high school (a predominantly Mormon high school at that) I was one of the few who would be friends with the guy (only one obviously gay guy in school --who knows how many chose to hide their sexual preference). I was quite sad when he passed away due to complications with AIDs. My dorm roommate in college was gay. I've had co-workers who were gay. Many of the women Mrs Bruno plays basketball with are gay. Her college coach has been in a long term (30 plus years) same sex relationship.

On the flip side, while in the military I sat on admin boards to "kick out gays." They were witch hunts. To me, the fact they were gay had no bearing on any of the cases -- the only issue was they violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and performed sexual acts while on a ship at sea. I would have voted the same for hetero couples who performed sexual acts while on a ship at sea.

I just don't see the legal justification of denying rights here. "All men are created equal" means just that. I don't think the government should discriminate based on sexual preference -- what happens between two (or more) consenting adults is irrevelant (so long as others are not harmed by those actions).

 

I just want to pop in to say that I've been swamped with poop over the last few days but shall return to this debate once $$ problems, as well as a few other ones, have been dealt with. In the meantime, kids, try to play nice!