[Ernie.cal]

Judith, I am not presenting a "straw man" argument. The logical progression of the arguments being made in this thread is inescapable and, once again, you have confirmed that my understanding is correct. Apparently, the situation you described at hospitals is abhorent to you and you would prefer that gays not be permitted to work in any medical environment. OK, we have now eliminated churches and medical employment. I presume you will want to add schools. What other types of employment should be forbidden to gays and bi-sexuals?

Incidentally, as this discussion continues, I ask everyone to go back to the message which claimed gays have been seeking "special rights". Apparently, in YOUR scheme of things, employment is a "special right" too! What's next?

[Judith Anne]

Employment IS a special right. I cannot be employed as a nurse without a license, doctors cannot operate without a license. Registered sex offenders or persons with a DFS record cannot work in day care.

But apparently homosexuals want SPECIAL rights--the right to potentially infect a helpless patient, the right to change diapers or give advice to a helpless child, the right to force churches to say they aren't sinners, and the right to compel churches who do to marry them and employ them.

Question for you: Is the Bible (pick a version, any mainstream translation) hate speech?

[Travis McGee]

Ninth time:

Stop hiding from the polygamy issue. Why do you think your marriage definition must stop at any two persons? Why not three or five.

Stop hiding.

Ninth time on this issue as well:

You: GAY BROTHERS: How many gay brothers do you suppose there are in our country? If they ALL decided to marry, what adverse consequence do you anticipate occurring?

Me: So, you would permit gay brothers or sisters to marry. Thank you for being clear. Now, how about a father and son? Father and 18 year old daughter? Please state your reasons why or why not in each case.

Stop hiding, PeeWee Herman!