Replies

Homosexual soilder? OK but keep quiet about your bedroom pals and bedroom behavoior. What is being legislated? They still should be able to serve openly, not every gay is flamboyant, but if one can say he is writing home to his girlfriend/boyfriend of the opposite sex, so should the one, who has a bf/gf of the same sex. I am not advocating special rights only equal, whatever codes/rules apply to heterosexual soldiers, applies to gays. Homosexual marriage? Well, form a legal contract with whomever you choose. Again, you don't need to bring the behavior to a public place, Do you? Here I believe the homosexuals want the legislation. Somehow creating within the area of sexuality a "civil right". I don't like PDA's (public displays of affection) that much, from straight or gay. But not every gay, is so flamboyant, we as heterosexuals are more apt to notice, because a man/woman holding hands, is so common we would be hard pressed to look at it twice. As I said above, part of the issue is, if you don't associate with many homosexuals, you are prone to only think of gay sex, being what defines them, I have gay friends in longterm relationships, and they don't fit the typical perception of an effeminate, flamboyant gay, just normal individuals, who never talk about their sex life, and are actually rather conservative, but cannot enter a contract with each other, and are denied over 1,000 rights. It doesn't have to be equal in the eyes of a citizen, but the state, as I also said above, no special rights, just equal. I look at it as a contract, and two gay men or lesbians surely can buy cars from each other, but are forbidden from a marriage contract. I agree with you about the religious right. Religion is a private matter, and I am as irratated over the door to door evangelicals as the next person. I don't care whether homosexuality is a sin, it is enough for me to realize my feelings run counter to public variations of sexuality. (Actually too much public heterosexuality is too much as well.) But I don't worry about offending someone when I say you can't join our club and stand for open homosexual behavior. It should not be an area for the courts or the legislature. But remember who is pushing the agenda, and who is simply resistant to it The courts are prone to get involved in civil rights issues, people don't like to hear the comparison to interracial marriage, but in a few respects it is exactly identical, in 1964 80% opposed it, most citing moral reasons, and it took loving v virginia to allow legal interracial marriage in every state. It is a volitional contract, and it is a severe violation of rights. I would prefer the Unsupreme court be left out of it, because they are growing ever more tyrannical, but as a pragmatist, I doubt they will be able to.

I read down a little and see that you don't want the government endorsing hetero or homo sexuality. But there is a clear rational for the government endorsing one and not the other. If you cannot see this, perhaps your blinded by feeling of kindness toward your homosexual friends. Note that I don't mind your friends being openly homosexual with you. I just don't want them being openly homosexual with society as a whole.

What I really don't want to see is a society endorsing the "anything goes" attitude that somehow sexual preference is a protected Civil right. I don't buy that there is an analogy with interracial marriage. What society has moved to the "progressive" position of free homosexual - transgender -- man boy -- Etc relationships? How can you be so sure you would like living in such a society here in this day and age? I don't doubt that society could give a license to any behavior they wish, including but not limited to PDAs, rape and murder. But we have a social need to have some rules. (This is really the origin of the Old Testament treatement of homosexual behavior.)

What bothers me is a small group of societies members raise a "freedom and civil rights issue" when one really does not exist and claims that the rest of us will really like the new society when they acheive it.

And as for marriage rights, the only right being sought is financial. The right to be declared a dependent and share in medical and pension benefits. All other aspects, like consulting in medical treatements can and have been covered by contracts. Give someone your Power of Attorney and you will see what I mean. That you don't see this is evidence of a lack of research, or worse (you have the same agenda and have not yet admitted it.)

In regards to your last point. I dont see the homosexual marriage thing anywhere near the interracial thing. Regardless of race they were still heterosexual. Homosexual marriages cannot say that.

Set up the legal framework for gay couples, dont call it marriage. Marriage is a religious connotation. Call it whatever the heck you want but dont call it marriage. In that vein, states should get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses and instead issue a document showing legality of the "contract" Let the churches issue the marriage papers.

And thanks for the South Park ping!