[Ernie.cal]

The same argument goes for farm animals and homosexuality. Why is it so hard for people to understand that homosexuality is not a matter of skin color, choice of creed, or political affiliation, it is purely a deviant sex act with a wide ranging social/health reprecussions?

We all want to live in a prosperous and decent society. As Sully points out, gays engage in "deviant sex act(s)" and their behavior as "social/health repercussions" by which I suppose he means expensive and dangerous health problems.

So I ask everyone again to focus on the issue of why we should allow such people to have any rights whatsoever. If gays are a danger to good order, a danger to health, a danger to morals, a danger to children, a danger to all that is good in a decent society---why permit them to influence public policy by allowing them to vote or publish articles or run for office or participate in anything which might cause someone to praise them or regard them in positive terms?

As Judith has candidly pointed out, there are many employment categories that should be forbidden to gays and bi-sexuals.

As others have mentioned, homosexuality is "against God's law" -- and, thus, we presumably "offend God" by doing anything that facilitates or endorses homosexual behavior or objectives.

[unbalanced but fair]

We allow plenty of people who are a danger to health, morals, children , etc. do all the things you mentioned. We allow convicted prisoners to vote. We allow just about anyone from pornographers et.al. to publish articles. And anyone with qualifications can run for office {of course they have to take the consequences of their lives being exposed.}

[weegee]

Homosexuality WAS outlawed or did you forget the judicial activism that granted this sex act constitutional protection (but still prohibited incest and prostitution between consenting adults in private).

I'd be for reinstating the laws against this aberation. Would you?

[FastCoyote]

So I ask everyone again to focus on the issue of why we should allow such people to have any rights whatsoever. If gays are a danger to good order, a danger to health, a danger to morals, a danger to children, a danger to all that is good in a decent society---why permit them to influence public policy by allowing them to vote or publish articles or run for office or participate in anything which might cause someone to praise them or regard them in positive terms? You got a great point there, Ernie. There isn't much reason to allow them a voice, other than a sense of civility. As you (and others like you), push the position that anal penetration which leads to the mixing of sperm, virii, bacteria and feces is a "normal" activity, there may come a time when civility is exhausted. Not only is that physical act destructive, but the mentality of those engaged in it is also warped and destructive. So ernie, I hope you continue to push your gay rights agenda until you are crushed by the backlash.