And I see people here who describe homosexuals as lesser beings, because homosexuality (without applied science, even if its a turkey baster) does not naturally lead to reproduction. As I recall, Darwinism is based on reproduction, too. I think if you forced the issue, many Freepers would consider gays subhuman, too. At least that's the impression I get from reading posts at FR.
However, from what I can tell everywhere I look, those of us who consider homosexuality to be the evidence of a mental illness are strongly in the minority and have no say in society whatsoever.
I remember being outraged myself when I discovered the American Psychological Association took homosexuality off the list of psychopathologies back in the mid 1970's. I was a psych major at the Univ. of WA in Seattle, and was flabbergasted. I even stood up in front of a class of 400 people in 1975 (Psych 210-Human Sexual Behavior), and lambasted a lesbian mother for allowing her kids to grow up in a homosexual household (you'd have been proud of me) and got no support for the idea from my fellow students. Since that time, I've come to agree with the APA, that while there are gay people with neuroses, the gayness is not necessarily a cause of the condition. Rightly or wrongly, the rest of society has also come to that view. About the only people that seem to be opposed to homosexuality are religious people, and in my part of the country, religious ideas that try to express themselves in law are viewed with suspicion. I would suspect such is the case in many urban areas of the country.
Nice liberal rant, by the way. I'd love to discuss affirmative action with you on an affirmative action thread.
You were asking for an honest answer from a Freeper as to why the disconnect between the concepts of marriage and civil union in people's minds. I used AA as an example, not as a solution. I personally feel that AA has become a hinderance to the protected groups, but it was an idea that took root during the civil rights movement, and acceptance of AA can explain aspects of the acceptance of gays. For an answer to your question, you're not going to learn as much from a Freeper who is religiously opposed to homosexuality as you are from a Freeper who is not threatened by homosexual rights. If you dismiss my observations as "liberal rants", then you are left with the analysis of people who post on these threads as a way of "witnessing", they believe their deity is watching this thread, and that they're building up heavenly brownie points.
I've long insisted to conservatives that want to fight gay marriage or its equivalents that they need to understand how not only the liberals think, but how the mushy middle thinks. The fact that there is a disconnect between gay marriage and civil unions in the minds of the middle shows how they are indeed, mushy. While they do not feel comfortable with the most strident homosexual advocates on the left, they are not going to be persuaded by reasons of religion or tradition. Most folks in the middle are unwilling to impose their religious beliefs on others, and resist the efforts of the religious to do so. They've all seen the nature of marriage changing in their own lifetimes, let alone the changes that have taken place since pre-historical times in the institution, and they are unwilling to freeze marriage in stone, so tradition does not play too heavily into their thinking. They'd rather be eased gently into change, and civil union provides that psychological comfort zone. It's much easier in their minds to add an institution than to change an existing one.
If you confront the mushy middle with the idea that gay marriage and civil union are the same thing, and expect them to oppose CU, I think you'll be disappointed. They'll swallow hard, and conclude that maybe gay marriage has reached its time, will not oppose it, and will resent the side that has forced them to confront it. That's how the Republicans can overplay their hand on this issue. If conservatives cannot come up with arguments against either CU or gay marriage that do not involve "natural law" or Biblical doctrine, then they can expect to lose this issue. You cannot exploit the cognitive dissonance that the middle feels about gay marriage vs. civil union to persuade them. This seeming contradiction is just their way of getting used to the idea that gays have as much right as straights do to form stable monogamous relationships. Ben and Jay-Lo have already shredded the image that marriage had when they were kids watching their own families' marriages.
I would rather they do that than the current effort to pretend a pig is a horse.
Shalom.