Politics of hate: Prop 8 on trial

Walks,

Can you explain how homosexuality is damaging society? I think that's the bases of everything you've written here, but I don't think you're able to succinctly and clearly explain that claim.

I believe that a homosexual relationship is as logical as an infertile heterosexual relationship. Can you clearly tell me what's wrong with this claim without digressing.

The only arguments I've ever heard against homosexuality have been theological; I'm intrigued you haven't referenced Christianity at all. You seem like a very thoughtful person and I'm sincerely interested in what you think.

Walks,

Homosexuality benefits the homosexual in the same way heterosexuality benefits a sterile or infertile heterosexual. It's exactly the same, except there is no possibility of reproduction. It's a relationship.

That's as simple as I can say it. Are you able to understand that?

What in the world is your point?

You keep on saying this over and over. What is the reality? You hide behind your vocabulary as if it somehow makes your opinion valid.

The reality is absolutely none other than this: gay people exist, and they will always exist, and denying a gay person rights is a bigoted act. Go ahead and respond to my last post, where I made a series of valid points concerning the self righteous axioms you are assuming when you suggest homosexuals are diseased. You begged me to make an argument, and when I did, the only answer you had was to belittle my intelligence and ask me to look up the word equivocate?

Step off your pedestal.

I assume your analogy with animals and food is about humans and homosexuality? That humans practicing homosexuality is like an animal eating food that is not nutritional?

So, you are saying that homosexuality is not natural, therefore it's wrong and it should be cured. Am I understanding you correctly?

There's a problem with your logic and your analogy. Let me point it out to you.

Food that is not nutritional will negatively affect an animal.
Homosexuality does not negatively affect humans.
If you think it does, please point it out to me.
And note that there are many happy and healthy homosexuals, who accept themselves and are upstanding citizens.

Walks, the things you are saying are really outdated. They've been said before, and no one takes them seriously anymore, because they're wrong.

Walks,

Going by your own logic, heterosexuals who are sterile and infertile have no "natural" business having sex. Also, masturbation should be stopped because it is using your reproductive organs in a way which does not reproduce.

"We should begin educating our children HOW? By telling them that homosexuality is not "homosexual?" That it's normal? What, then, does the child think "normal" means? Is the homosexual not a person who doesn't use his reproductive parts in the manner obviously intended by nature and the drive of his species? How do you teach a child about sex under those circumstances?"

This is how: Basically you tell them that there are some people who are homosexual and that it is OK to be a homosexual. We should teach acceptance. Now, a lot of critics of homosexuality see this as teaching our children to become homosexual. This idea is false if you believe that people are born homosexual, which is the prevailing scientific opinion.

This is why: Teaching children that homosexuality is "normal" in the sense that it is not a bad or evil thing, promotes social acceptance of homosexuality. Social acceptance of homosexuality would decrease intolerance of homosexuals. Homosexuality is obviously not "normal" in the sense that it is typical, but that does not mean that it is wrong or damaging to the individual or to society. There are many other human behaviors that are not normal, yet not wrong or damaging.

Walks, I can already tell where you are going to disagree with me. Can you be as clear and succinct as possible and please explain to me why you think homosexuality is damaging to the individual or to society to the extent that it should be "cured."

Yes Walks, lets drop the pretenses, OK. Everything happens by force. If force was not used to put a stop to slavery in this country then the civil war would not have happened. (I know that some frame the civil war around other causes, but slavery is what is the biggest concern.)

You have made it clear, even though you try to portray yourself as a moderate, that you are using beliefs as the basis for all your authority when you make statements that try to make you look like you are on the "right" or "correct" "knowledge". You take refuge in words like "natural" or "moral", you distort, spin and stretch what others here are posting into your own personal lecture based on your personal self righteousness. You are no more moral because you pump a vagina and would never entertain a penis in your mouth, then anyone here who would entertain that penis and would never dream of pumping a vagina.

We believe in true liberty for all, which includes removing all the sexual taboos. Our community is extremely diverse and not all of us are cut from the same cloth. In fact, we are the most diverse group encompassing lesbians, gay, bi-sexuals, transgendered, queer, questioning, intersexed and asexuals. I would say that there could be variations of these that include gender identification as a matrix. Diversity in all forms of nature is a sign of incredible evolutionary health and demonstrates a level of complexity that is found is only the most "beautiful" of nature's displays. Our community is a garden with a diversity of blooms and abundant fruit.

Homosexuals, oops I forgot, you don't agree that this word is even valid, well let me tell you, many of us don't like that word either because its very clinical and academic. Our community has made strides in assimilating words that were formerly used as to offend, as insults and demeaning and demoralizing affronts to our self esteem. Queer, faggot, dyke, trans, tranny and fem are words that readily come to mind that the most aggressive in our community are winning back as they wear those names proudly. The greatest power for anyone is in the taking ownership of communication skills and drawing your strength and validation from within yourself that leads to personal transformation and change.

Our community practices unconditional love. We don't abandon those with broken hearts and minds leaving them to the wolves. We carry our wounded and we nurture them back to health, unlike the shepherds of today who think nothing of abandoning a lost sheep, and all the more so if they are lame. Yes I am talking about the religious and civic leaders of today who sound the call to arms against our diverse community. We have organized. We have an agenda, and we are not going to stand by and be bullied anymore by anyone. Force is the only language that the truly hardened of hearts understands. Because it is the same measure that the hardened heart imparts from itself. It knows nothing of love, it only knows of sacrifice, control and blood.

Many in our community have paid with their blood. They have been burned, beaten, sodomized, drawn and quartered, hung, castrated, shocked with electricity, had our breasts cut off, lobotomies, dragged by horses, dragged by cars, shot, tied up and left to die in the wilderness, suffocated, strangled, had our eyes ripped out of our sockets, had our tongues ripped out of our mouths, beheaded, stabbed, and administered drugs all in an effort to change us, to transform us, to make us 'normal' again or to silence us or to eliminate us.

So herein lies the heart of the matter. You and people like you are terrified because of the jihad that awaits in retaliation, karmic justice that awaits those who continue to speak of peace and love, while they forcefully penetrate their daggers dipped in poison, using religion and politics to justify their lust for blood and their distorted reality. The irony is that for the most part our community would rather "live and let live".

It is the like minded minions of bigotry that are creating the backlash, that is why it has to marriage, that is why it has to be complete and total equality, that is why it has to start with the youth. The children are the future. A large percentage of our children don't make it to adulthood because of the social stigma of being different. They commit suicide because they are too fragile and don't have a support network. They aren't plugged into the community. That is why we have our own missionaries and ambassadors.

America is the last great vestige of intolerance for our community in the modern world. We don't expect to see great changes in the third or fourth worlds because of their extreme allegiance to religious political ideology. But it is surprising to me to see second world countries more advanced in regard to normalization of same sex relationships and families than America which claims to be the "land of the free and the home of the brave."

But the truth is that the battle is being fought here. It is a battle for our survival and for our right to live in peace.

You go ahead and think what you want and characterize me however you wish. You are not significant enough to worry about. Obviously this is a peeve issue for you, or you wouldn't have posted so many verbose and self admiring comments on this issue. You contribute nothing useful to the dialogue, that makes you insignificant. My comments do stand because they are sincere and truthful. I don't speak for the entire community. It is how I see it. Any oppressed group would have the same sentiments although they may not vocalize them.

You are a WOT. And a huge Egotist. You claim to be here to engage in real dialogue, but I don't have the patience that others here may have for you. I have been around 50 years on this planet and I can tell when someone is merely yanking the chain. You have an agenda of your own and its not friendly. So why don't you drop your pretenses, too.

My scorpion tale only gets excited when I feel like my family is being maligned and I consider every single black sheep to be my family.

@walks,

You are doing your best to make us all see that you can logically justify what you've said on this thread, and that is clear to me. I appreciate the effort, but my argument, and from what I understand, fylingkick's as well, are not with the reasoning that you've used.

That may be surprising, but the truth is that my problem (and the problem that most of the people who are offended by what you've said) is with the axioms you've used to make the argument.

Before reading what you have to say, I must remember that you believe that to be homosexual is to have a congenital defect. This is where the disagreement lies. Everything beyond this point that you have argued is inflammatory to the same degree as the presupposition.

If you say something that is "offensive," we should not suppose that it means we should consider it, because for flyingkick and I, it has no basis.

Your assumptions about the "normal" uses of reproductive organs are just that, assumptions. Nowhere is it written that one person should only use their bodies in ways that propagate their species, and furthermore, I personally believe that to do otherwise isn't even an offense to natural law. Instead, I would argue that if a person's natural tendency is to lust and love member's of his/her own sex, then that is nature's "intention."

THAT is what you can take to be my axiom. And from there, it's not difficult to see that instead of fighting homosexuality because of whatever disgust I may have with it's practices, or because I feel it is counter to nature, that I should embrace it for what it is, and to the other human beings (whose thoughts and feelings are every bit as important as my own) I should lend my full support. I cannot keep a clear conscience while I try to tell somebody that the feelings they have (at no fault of their own) are an epidemic on society. Beyond that, I can see no reason that it would be destructive, or even problematic, for the function of society.

You're repeated attempts to suggest that you're point of view is the most "realistic," are absurd. The reality of the matter, indisputably, is that we are all born onto this planet with a time limit, in which we have the opportunity to do whatever we please. Of course, those whose turns came before us have already decided on quite a few things to keep order while we find our way. No murder, rape, stealing, perjury, etc. For the most part, these laws are set down to protect us from one another, since, once again, in reality, we have the ability to do whatever we please.

So, in reality, to think that a human being is ill because of their sexual preference, that is simply a choice. But to tell that ill person that they may not participate in the ceremonies and rituals (at least to full extent) that the rest of us have the right to, despite the fact that they are law abiding, of good intention, and just as human as you or I, well, that's bigotry.

That is our stance, and in the system we've created, things will only change if, through any means, a majority can draw the same conclusion.

It isn't a silly stance, it isn't poorly though out, and it isn't without basis. It's basis is compassion. We have a fundamental disagreement here, sir, and I've not once succeeded at changing somebody's fundamental beliefs, so that is not my intention. But I won't end this statement by saying that we should all just get along, and agree to disagree, because the people who believe what you believe are not simply spouting illogical nonsense. In fact, the reason for the disgust that flyingkick and I have for your opinions is that your logic is clear,and that it stems from a belief we find to be intolerant, offensive, ignorant, and dangerous.

Walks,

"First, what I say in no way but the fevered mind of one extremely ideological (my point in the first place) does what one has said prove anything about him"

Absolutely correct. But, if you look at my post up there, you'll see that I claimed what you SAID was sexist and homophobic, not that YOU are sexist and homophobic. You probably are though.

""Feminists have already swiped a score of perfectly honest words, the better to serve their equally twisted ideology." How is that disputable (you really haven't read much of what these people write and say, have you?!); and being indisputable, I make the same reply as I have above."

I'll repeat how it's disputable.
-Feminism is Gender Equality
-Gender Equality is not "twisted"
-Feminism is not "twisted"

Now, if you think Gender Equality is "twisted," that would make you sexist.

About your Homosexual and projection comment, again, here is why it's offensive. Please read carefully:
Saying that homosexuals are merely projecting their own hate onto others is denying that they deal with being hated. One example of hate towards homosexuals is that they are executed in some countries for simply being homosexual. There are many more examples I can provide of hate crimes against homosexuals.

"As to your "decadent herd" reference, how does that - yet again, in your apparently fevered opinion - identify "decadence?" Might I not refer to the ideology and its irrational and illogical reasoning?"

No, you can't. Homosexuality is not an ideology, it's a state of being, a physical condition. People are born gay. That you believe it to be an ideology is a fallacy.

Back to your original comment:
"HATE?" Wow - does this decadent herd ever live in Never-Never Land! May you never, ever see real "hate." Do we perhaps mean disgust . . .?

Walks, buddy, please try to help me understand your original comment, because I'm really curious. You're saying that homosexuals have never seen "real hate." Is that right? OK. Let me walk you though this: I'm claiming homosexuals have indeed seen "real hate." Now, I'm going to provide evidence: Homosexual hate crimes, hateful anti-gay rallies and gatherings, execution. Are those reasonable examples of hate? Did you know that these things happen? Do I need to provide you with links to what I'm talking about?

I agree. I thought it was comical that someone responds with "oh yeah, well I'm a math major" or some equivalent hogwash. Your statement about your level of education was was called for because it was openly disparaged, you had the right to respond.

The other subsequent comments were just childish (not yours, theirs).

I've been impressed with your posts. You might dumb them down a little so the Current crowd can understand them.

Here is what Walks_in_Storms said:

“Flagpie,” since nothing you say requires an answer beyond that of suggesting that you pay more attention to reality, I won’t. You remind me of a student who recently butchered spelling, syntax, and diction so badly in his paper that it couldn’t be understood. When I told him no one could decipher what he said, he replied, “That’s their problem!”

That doesn't call my education into question, or at least insult my intelligence?

you've missed the point. it's not about what people do with their bodies on their own time. it's about the possible political and legal ramifications of the new definition.

think of it this way: the gay community is equating gay marriage with the inequality of slaver and racial discrimination. as we know, once we did away with slavery and then the Jim Crow laws, it became a crime to discriminate based upon race. A Doctor who refuses care to a person of color can be sued. A Minister who refuses to marry an interracial couple might also find himself sued for discrimination. It still goes on, and a reasonable argument can be made that no one should discriminate in this manner, but it does intrude upon the freedom of expression of the individual who thinks it's morally wrong. In this example I disagree with the notion, but I also think that if a Minister doesn't believe interracial marriage is a good idea and he doesn't want to participate in it, he shouldn't be forced by law to do so. The couple should instead find a more open-minded minister.

The conservatives fear that by redefining marriage we open the door to yet another parallel set of laws and persecution of those who abhore homosexual activity. A Minister may state "I don't accept homosexuality, it is a sin, and I will not violate my religious values by being forced to marry these two men (or wymyn)."

Is it possible then that he be sued for acting on his beliefs?

What about the ever increasing amount of pro-homosexual literature being introduced into our schools?Look no further than the Obama administration's safe-schools "czar" Kevin Jennings to find a person whose actions are emblematic of the ever-expanding gay agenda in schools.

From an article about Jennings:

Tax revenue.

What do you mean? Is it profitable to NOT allow same sex marriage? Small businesses would probably have to disagree. A marriage is a big to-do and there's a lot of money to be made off of it. Think about it - all that untapped revenue for local business owners.

Well, you know, if money is all you see and you're ignorant to actual humanity. Otherwise the benefit to same sex marriage is, you know, same sex couples can marry.

Really, a lot of countries have legalized this without the end of the world occurring. What's taking the US so long?

@Div

Well considering more than 1/2 of the US doesnt "believe" in evolution and more than 1/2 consider themselves "religious" it kind of makes sense why it takes so long for all people to have equal rights in this country. Religion breeds ignorance and hatred of those who are different (gays, non-believers, different ethnicities, other religions, intelligent people, etc.)

But Canada and the US have approximately the same relative amount of religious folk! 16% in both countries do NOT have religion! (source: Wikipedia).

So it can't just be religion we're talking about here.

Americans are just plain stupid then?

Lol, I don't have the answer to that, but I'd narrow the stupid down to just a select obstinate few.

Yeah, it was so much more fun when it was OK to openly express your homophobia.

A very reasonable post. I agree with you that the government should not regulate marriage- that would probably be the best way to approach this issue.
I think gays are looking at this as more of a cultural issue than a legal issue, though. Winning gay marriage would normalize homosexuality, promote acceptance, and make it socially OK to be gay. That's really all they want.

curtisreed, I often don't agree with your posts, but on this I agree wholeheartedly. Government needs to but out of marriage.

Wrong.
Same Sex Marriage is indeed legal in several US states.
* Connecticut
* District of Columbia
* New Hampshire
* New Jersey
* New York
* Maine
* Massachusetts
* Vermont
* Iowa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_status_in_the_United_States_by_st...

Then DOMA should be repealed.

that's not a very sophisticated understanding of the issues. and that is NOT how conservatives feel. Sure, there are a few bigots who hate gays, but that is NOT what the majority of heterosexual conservatives think.

there is a reasonable concern that the "militant" gay agenda is not just to seek acceptance, but to promote homosexuality, and this has been proven by seeing the things they have promoted in schools. What's more, there is a fear that once marriage is redefine sothat gay marriage is legal, it would be "discriminatory" for a minister to refuse to marry gays.

There are other concerns around the issue, but it's just not as simple as "those mean conservatives just hate gays".

I suggest you listen to the programs of conservatives like Dennis Prager, Mike Gallagher, and you'll hear that there is a compassionate sympathy from them, but they still disagree with the re-definition of the institution of marriage on specific grounds that has nothing to do with hate.

Please, you've heard the phrase "KNOW THY ENEMY". The gays do NOT know and do NOTunderstand their opponents. They have resorted to childish labeling and insults, and are therefore missing the opportunity to get equal protections because they are choosing a head-on conflict with the majority of people in the country.

@curtis

Actually, you've got it completely backwards- it's you who does not understand gays.

"there is a reasonable concern that the "militant" gay agenda is not just to seek acceptance, but to promote homosexuality"

You can not convert someone to become gay. That is not the gay "agenda." Anyone who thinks that is either ignorant or brainwashed. And frankly that theory is ridiculously old and washed up and straight from the 70's anti-gay hate campaigns like Prop 6, which would have banned gays from teaching in public schools.

Even conservative hero Ronald Reagan said "Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this.”

You did get one thing right. I agree that the issue isn't about hate, it's more about ignorance.

@curtis

I think that there is still a strong argument to be made against anyone who has made the decision to be compassionate toward the gay movement, but still fear what it may lead to.

It may be that in the case where all gay people were allowed to marry, that some ministers would refuse, and risk appearing intolerant. But what cost is that to a minister when most gay rights supporters see them as intolerant anyhow?

On top of that, I don't think that worry of a militant gay agenda is warranted, and certainly not compassionate. I think that to a gay person, being refused the right to marry someone they are in love with (as they probably figured they would do from childhood) might seem like a "militant straight agenda." Are we not pushing our social views onto the gay community through indoctrination that frequently occurs through religious institutions, parents, and even schools? How should a young person react when they discover that they are gay, and being gay will lead to social ostracism and eternal damnation?

Maybe what appears to be a "militant" agenda is simply a plea for understanding from a group of people who have had an enormous difficulty added to their life simply because of the way they were born.

Does getting beat to death constitute "hate" to you?
The fact that you can label all gays as a decadent herd shows how ignorant you really are.
Thankfully, your generation's bigoted ideology is dying. Not fast enough though.

It's all relative, @walks. Up is the other direction on the opposite side of the planet, and has no meaning unless you're standing on a planet anyhow. Who are you to say when a life begins? What about transgenders, people with neither male nor female genitalia?

The world isn't black and white.

Homosexuality is something people experience, and they don't choose to. You call that a defect, and say it needs a cure. Is it because it's not biologically sustainable? What about straight people who get vasectomies? Choose not to marry or have children?

And "claiming" words shouldn't really offend you. That's just how language works. Words change meaning all of the time, and new words are invented. A word means what people want it to mean since language is only relevant to those who use it any how.

Ha!
Just like I thought. Homophobic and sexist to boot.

The feminist agenda is twisted is it? Can you explain what's so twisted about wanting equal rights for women? Would you like it if we go back to when women couldn't vote. Or how about further back, when it was OK to beat them.
Sounds like you'd be happier in the Middle East.

Wow WalksinStorms, you must not have been paying attention in Linguistics class.

@walks

Congratulations on the knowledge you've acquired during your life. I myself have a masters degree in applied mathematics from UCLA, and work in finance. I also maintain close relationships with some natural scientists and consult on statistical analysis that they do. I'm only in my early twenties, but I also speak French and Italian and am working on Farsi. Want to compare resumes? Maybe we can figure out who has a bigger penis?

My point is, you aren't impressing anyone, because despite all of your knowledge, you haven't done anything but show us the ideology you've constructed based on your twisted axioms.

Fine, you think babies are babies from conception, and homosexuality is a disease. What you don't realize is that this is an opinion.

I have so much I want to say but I won't, because I know it's wasted time. I hope that one day some reason enters your mind.

First of all Walks, you're quibbling over semantics. Language is constantly changing. Sorry, but it won't stop just for you. Attacking the words someone uses instead of their actual argument is a sign of weakness.

I'll break it down very simply and logically for you.

-Feminism is gender equality.
-You said Feminism is a twisted ideology.
-Sexism is the belief that people of one sex or gender are inherently superior to people of the other sex or gender
-What you said is sexist.

-You said Homosexuals are a "decadent herd" and homosexuality is a "defect."
-Homophobia is being prejudiced against homosexual people
-What you said is homophobic.

A bigot is someone who's prejudiced and intolerant.
Because you are intolerant, you see Feminism as twisted.
Because you are prejudice, you see all homosexuals as a decadent herd.

OK, I'll keep it going cause it's fun and easy, and maybe you'll learn something.

You're posts are bigoted and sexist. I proved that logically. If you disagree with me then you should find a flaw in my logic and point it out to me.

I didn't take anything you said "out of context."
You said "Feminists have already swiped a score of perfectly honest words, the better to serve their equally twisted ideology."
You also said "'HATE?' Wow - does this decadent herd ever live in Never-Never Land!"
Were you not talking about homosexuals when you said 'decadent herd'?
Correct me if I'm wrong.

What you said was sexist and homophobic, even by the definitions you provided.

Let me give you another example using your own words.
You compare homosexuals use of the word hate to an alcoholic's projection of their own disorder onto others. This is an extremely offensive thing to say. Homosexuals have to deal with hate every day. In parts of the world, homosexuality is punishable by death. There are gatherings and protests in America that celebrate hate against gays. The word "gay" itself has taken on the meaning of "lame" in pop-culture. That you would belittle that struggle is ignorant at best.

Also, I have no problem tolerating other points of view. I'm not asking you to like gay people. The problem with the views you expressed is that they are prejudiced and intolerant, I'm simply pointing that out through logic, conventional definitions, and your own words.

flyingdick, I think Walks is right, and you've proven nothing except your inability to hold a rational argument.

At its best, feminism seems like a noble pursuit, but it has degenerated into an absurd dogma that is evidently contradictory. There are probably hundreds of examples, but I'll just give one or two.

Women's Liberation: the cornerstone of feminist thought, at one time women struggled to be able to carve out a niche within the professional world and acquire the right and freedom to meaningful work and the liberation that it would bring. Sounds great. But with that "liberation" came an arrogant disparagement of the importance of motherhood, and the effects on children has been widely documented. There is a direct connection between the decreasing quality of mothering our young have been receiving and the decadence we see within society. And NOW it has gotten to the point that many of these "wymyn" openly deride women who actually aspire to becoming stay-at-home mothers, and MANY women have reported feeling inadequate and being mistreated by wymyn who had previously been their peers and friends. This is feminism gone rogue. There are many other related issues this whole movement has created.

Feminism has attempted to promote the notion that men and women are the same, when we KNOW that they are NOT the same. Study after study has shown that there are real emotional and intellectual differences, but feminists try to silence anyone who says differently, resulting in a kind of fascist oppression and which has earned them the name "femi-Nazis".

Feminists have constantly complained that women should receive "equal pay for equal work", while conveniently overlooking the fact that women who get pregnant miss large periods of work at the expense of the employer. My wife works at a school where there are two campii and two principles: one was hired last summer and then purposely got pregnant, even though her last pregnancy had been difficult and had resulted in a LONG absence whilse she received full pay. This one has even MORE complications and she can't work for the whole 9 months PLUS 3 additional months after the child is born and all the while she draws a salary, and the one remaining principle has to do BOTH of their jobs--but is NOT paid ONE DIME more: "equal pay for equal work"? What work?!

And let's not even start on abortion, where feminists have promoted the systematic killing of over 40 MILLION babies.

You don't have to hate women to despise the unexpected results of "feminism".

And the Homosexual agenda promises to be yet another pandora's box of holocausts.

Exactly. Nobody should fight for equal rights because it may spawn some kind of undesirable militant movement. Remember the civil rights movement and the Black Panthers? A lot of good that did us... oh... wait.

Flyingkick, these guys have their minds made up, and no matter how much reasoning and simple logic you throw at them all you'll get back is angry ideology. I'd just let it go if I were you, unless of course you like seeing their reactions to reasonable thought.

Curtis,

You resort to name calling and then tell me I can't have a rational argument? You realize how ridiculous that is right?

I'm not talking about what Feminism "degenerated" into, I'm talking about real Feminism.
If you say Femi-nazis are crazy, I'd agree with you.
But, if you say Feminism is a twisted ideology, well, you're sexist.

And if anyone thinks I'm irrational or my logic is wrong, then please point it out, and be specific.

I agree. What I can't understand is why a community who negatively labels heterosexuals as "breeders" and which, by and large, is NOT religious, is so adamant that they be able to "marry".

Why aren't civil unions enough?

Do you realize, Curtis, that saying the entire gay community negatively "labels heterosexuals as "breeders"" is just as bigoted as saying the entire conservative community hates gays?

Civil unions are not enough because it's in effect saying that same sex couples are incapable of loving each other to the same capacity as hetero couples, that gay couples are less valid than straight couples, which promotes discrimination, hate, and ignorance.

It wasn't that long ago that interracial couples were thought to be an abomination against God and they couldn't get married. Do you think they would have settled for civil unions?

Agreed, flyingkick. Besides, curtis, we tried separate but equal before. It's kind of a matter of principle.

UncleCharlie you are the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black. You made a very hypocritical statement. You bash people all the time, I just read one of your posts about "liberal hippies"....what a hypocrite.

Jubal- you should know better. When I talk of "liberal hippies", "potheads", etc. it is strictly tongue in cheek. If we can't have civil discourse without poking fun at ourselves, we show ourselves to be humorless drones, mindless folks who believe they alone possess the truth, and everyone else is wrong. period. That's no way to live..........

Uncle, I am sorry, I guess I missed the humor of it.

nonsense. I never said that EVERYONE who is gay says that, but I've been around a LOT of gays in the US and heard that sad statement too often to think it's just a few people saying it.

It wouldn't be banned forever, there is too much gay in our society, its like alcohol, they can try to ban it, but i will never stay that way. Just like Women and black rights, this comes down to banning intolerance.

Actually, Saladin, the gay-marriage movement appears to suffer loss after loss and public opinion may be turning against the idea.

Gay activists might take a breather and rethink their strategy.

What are you going to do if you lose this court decision?
If you take it to the supreme court and lose, what then?