It is very ironic to hear Obama, who is supposedly African American, talk about gays needing to be patient. I can just imagine Obama 50 years ago telling Blacks that they needed to be patient or going back 100 years before that and telling the slaves...just to stay a little longer on the plantation and let the people give the people in power more time to "discuss" and "disentangle".

I for one am considering voting for the worst candidate….probably a Republican. My way of thinking….why should I have all the fun waiting and being patient for change and improvement in our Country?

For those who will give me flack for having the gall to compare the plight of African Americans and Gays. I am not saying they are the same. BUT they are exactly the same when it comes to the government NOT giving FULL LEGAL STATUS to a particular people.

Bill Richardson either doesn't know any gay people or doesn't know them very well.

The gay people I know and worked with told me that they knew from the time they were little kids that they felt attractions to other members of their sex. It's also a scientific fact that homosexuality occurs in nature.

A former boss of mine had four daughters one of which disdained the usual girl stuff when she was a toddler and held true to form right up through her teenage years when I knew her. She went on to a committment ceremony where my boss and the other woman's father walked both of them down the aisle. There wasn't a dry eye in the house.

The hilarious part about Richardson's statement is that he really knows better. He actually used to work out in a gym in Washington, DC, (security agents in tow) that at the time was predominantly gay in membership (which should not be construed as an implication that he is gay...it is not). He has worked with literally hundreds of GLBT staffers as part of the Clinton Administration (we were everywhere). His answer was a politically-calculated one. I don't for one minute believe that he can use such an answer to try to bridge the gap between the more conservative caucus of Democratic Party members backing his campaign, and the other people who him personally and therefore know in their hearts that he really isn't that ignorant. Its sad, but he needs to get out of the race if he thinks that kind of baloney is going to fly with the GLBT community. He absolutely nixed himself from consideration for me with that single statement.

Civil unions for Gays, SO LONG AS they confer the exact same, full legal rights as a marriage does, will be fine. I'm sure very, very few gays would object to having their committment signed-off at city hall instead of a church, if it afforded full property rights & inheritance (the real, original basis of "religious" marriages anyway), rights and obligations of caring for each other, medical and financial control of their joint lives and the right to live in peace and privacy. Those gays who would want to be "married" in a church, will find a church that understands and accepts tolerance and love.

Let the people who object on religious grounds alone with their religion to be as open-minded or as close-minded as they choose. Freedom of religion is, and should be, guaranteed for all by our Constitution. That same right MUST prevent them from forcing their personal religious views on everyone else. Religion & marriage going hand-in-hand is fine.

Civil Unions and the rule of law and equal rights under the Constitution should also go hand-in-hand.

In several countries, couples MUST have two ceremonies for just such reasons. Poland, for example, requires the Civil union for legal purposes and the Roman Catholic Church is where the ceremony that matters more to the people are held. Both are respected. The state is happy and the church is happy and the participants just accept it's two different ideas, pay the extra $ bucks and get on with it.

Being gay is genetic. Anyone who believes otherwise is either mistaken or willfully ignorant. Just ask anyone who is gay if it's genetic or not. Just ask anyone who is left handed if it's genetic or not. Society being set up to make things hard for a group doesn't mean it's not genetic. Ask anyone who is less over 6 feet tall if it's genetic. Some of our states, particularly in the south and lower midwest, actually had laws on the books as recently as the 1960's forbidding inter-racial marriage. How do you think that would go down today?

To this day, I haven't heard one single, convincing fact-based arguement against civil unions. Civil unions will, in no way, affect marriage. Those who call for the ridiculous need to amend the Constitution are simply choosing to remain either bigoted, uneducated or both.

Civil Unions is the right way to afford all USA citizens the same rights that matter.

Snaig,

Some say child molestation is genetic. Does that make it right?

Nope!

If sexual preference is a choice for you, then you are bisexual. It is not a choice for some of us. My brother is homosexual. He is four years older than I and we both know it was never a choice for him. I am heterosexual and it is not a choice for me, it is just what I am. I am amazed to hear Gov. Richardson admit that he is bisexual.

Civil UNions. How would Obama like it if the GOv made a law that said Blacks can have all the legal status of a marriage but cannot actually be married. Listen if gay people want to get married who are we to stand in there way.

[quote]
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson waded into a contentious debate over whether homosexuality is innate or a personal choice. When asked, he responded, "It's a choice."
[/quote]

Considering how much hate is dumped onto gay people by the "Religious Right", how can any candidate think that people choose to be gay is behind comprehension.

Richardson is clueless.

According to LOGO, the organization that sponsored the Dem debate, the clear winner was: Dennis Kucinich.

To be exact, they said: "Dennis Kucinich Is Fantabulous!"

That's the actual headline on their website.

Dennis Kucinich... "Fantabulous".

Stewart,

One situation is statutorily codified as a crime the other involves consenting adults.

Sexual orientation is irrelevant when a minor is involved as that individual does not have the right to consent to be with an adult.

I look forward to this same debate with the Republican candidates. Oh wait....they refuse to debate on this topic.

So Bruce, we can assume you think gay people are "funny" and what, strange? I am sure many hetero women think the same of you.

"Civil unions for Gays, SO LONG AS they confer the exact same, full legal rights as a marriage does, will be fine. I'm sure very, very few gays would object to having their committment signed-off at city hall instead of a church, if it afforded full property rights & inheritance (the real, original basis of "religious" marriages anyway), rights and obligations of caring for each other, medical and financial control of their joint lives and the right to live in peace and privacy. Those gays who would want to be "married" in a church, will find a church that understands and accepts tolerance and love"

Thanks, Snalg -- couldn't agree more. I wonder sometimes what would happen if the converse were true for heterosexual married couples -- if we agreed that God blesses their union from here to next Tuesday, but we're not giving them a dime in tax benefits, and if they haven't thought to take care of their wills, powers of attorney and any other legal/financial matter, we'll consider the nearest BLOOD kin to be the beneficiary. Bet some eyes would be opened pretty quickly as to what a nightmare they'd be caught in!

Ummm, unless I'm mistaken we are more self aware than animals....having sex is a choice, not a biological urge we have no control over, therefore having gay sex is a choice...a wrong choice but still a choice...therefore being GAY is a choice since being gay is defined as having sex with people of the same gender.

Which cave in the Tennessee hills did you crawl from Drew?

Stewart, don't be an ass. There is no good reason for you to start hurling irrelevant barbs. Just remember, over 95% of the pedophiles and rapists are straight. And NO - that doesn't make it right, either! It's actually more evidence that what you said is just silly.

Child molestation - as the very name implies - is a willful violation of someone else. Hurting children, in particular, is the lowest of the low. Even discussing that question in this forum is mean spirited, at best, and woefully ignorant in either case.

Please discuss the issue without trying to splatter us all with hatred.

Vinny: good point. Marriage is, ultimately, the right way to go if we keep our current legal structure in place. IF, however, we make one small change to revise the current "Marriage License" granted by the states to say "Civil Union License" and then, people wanting a church-based marriage "certificate" can go get one as an optional step they privately choose to take. With this simple change we remove the religious intolerance from our legal structure and protect the rights of the churches to their various rituals and rites. The church part then becomes, by statute, just what it already really is - an optional, private religious matter.

This change could take the wind out of the sails of the anti-gay bigots.

I agree - having separate terminology sounds bad and sounds unequal. And, it is. Still, I'd rather get equal rights and protection in reality than not have them for another generation because we got hung up on terminology.

Snaig (9:07 a.m.) actually hit it right on the head. There's just one problem, and Vinny (10:07 a.m.) illustrated it nicely: Civil unions won't be enough for the gay community. It's never enough for liberals.
"Go ahead and enjoy all of the rights bestowed on hetero marriages, just compromise by NOT calling it 'marriage'." That gets met with what, "No, not unless we can call it 'marriage' too."
It's THAT kind of rigid intolerance that plays a big role in moving forward on this issue.

While I am in favor of civil unions (I actually really like the Polish idea of a separate civil ceremony for everyone, then a church ceremony if you'd like), I cannot accept that being gay is genetic.

While I agree that some gay people may not feel like they have a "choice" in the matter, it seems clear that all sexual issues and orientations are products of our experience as children. Normal children are not born with sexual desires until they reach a certain age and they are socialized into dealing with those desires. A lot happens to kids before they reach that age and it has to affect their sexuality. Being abused for example can lead to all kinds of sexual dysfunctions, and you will often find that some gay individuals(especially ones with gender confusion issues) were abused either physically or emotionally by a trusted individual.

I still think that gay people deserve all the rights I enjoy as a married man, but it doesn't make sense to me to say they were born that way. And in regards to the homosexuality occuring in nature argument posted earlier: Animals born with 3 legs occurs in nature too. If you want to appeal to nature you are only hurting your argument. Obviously being gay is not a beneficial trait to have when it comes to biological survival. If every member of a species was born gay they would quickly cease to exist.

Drew;
Having sex is certainly a choice. However, to whom one is attracted is not a choice. If you are able to choose who you are physically attracted to, you are a very unique individual indeed.

Dennis Kucinich, the candidate that the LOGO group loves (In their own words, he's "fantabulous"), barely registers a blip with Democrat voters. For example, Kucinich is at 1% in the latest Gallup Poll of Democrats.

This shows how outside the political mainstream, even outside the Democratic Party mainstream, the LOGO organizers are.

Drew,

Your logic is faulty. The urge to engage in sex is biologically driven since anyone aho has ever been a teenager (or the parent of a teenager) knows that the urge to procreate is hormonally driven.

If you're trying to procreate by having gay sex then you must have been misinformed somewhere along the way....

First off, Bill Richardson, whom I previously considered a reasonable candidate, has lost any chance of receiving my vote next November (or in the primaries). There is FAR too much scientific, empirical and anecdotal evidence that points to the genetic elements of homosexuality to deny them. This is the equivalent of those knuckle-dragging Republicans who volunteered that they don't believe in Darwinian evolution.

People, it is really time to get past this stuff. We are wasting our collective energy talking about it. Darwin was 1,000% right, and it is pretty darn clear, unless you are a blind and deaf Fundamentalist, that homosexuality is not a choice, any more than heterosexuality is.

If one must insist on questioning whether or not it is a choice, please do explain why anyone (much less 6-10% of the population, consistent across different cultures and societies) would make a choice to be persecuted and ostracized by society for perpetuity.

"Some say child molestation is genetic. Does that make it right?

Nope!"
Posted by: Stewart | August 10, 2007 9:49 AM

"Some say," Stew? "Some say?" Like who? Nice straw man. Let's hear about necrophilia and beastiality and how THAT is somehow related to homosexuality. Even better, lemme know who these "some say" child molestation is genetic, and further what the h*%l that has to do with gays. You are aware that most child molesters are straight white males, right?

"Ummm, unless I'm mistaken we are more self aware than animals....having sex is a choice, not a biological urge we have no control over"
Posted by: Drew | August 10, 2007 10:59 AM

First, sex is not a biological urge? You simply MUST be joking! Have you reached puberty yet? Why do you think there is SO MUCH sex on television connected with advertising? Could it be that those connections are made specifically because sex is a biological urge, and therefore the linking of sex with a product is a highly effective marketing tool?

How do you think the species has propigated itself for so long if sex is not a biological urge??

As for animals, over 450 animal species engage in homosexual activities, not necessarily in situations where it is necessary (such as if there are no members of the opposite sexs present). http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm . The "its against nature" arguments that homophobes like to trot out is bogus.

"it seems clear that all sexual issues and orientations are products of our experience as children."

Really? That seems clear to you? Maybe you could point to a peer-reviewed study that agrees with you?

"Normal children are not born with sexual desires until they reach a certain age"

This is true, though that age appears to be getting younger and younger, whether it be from hormones in food production or over-sexualization of media, but then:

"and they are socialized into dealing with those desires."

First, you talk about "dealing with desires," accidentally admitting that those desires are likely natural, but it is the way they are DEALT with (i.e. chosen to be handled) that makes up the "socialization" side. Again, that's a fancy way of saying its a choice, but I'd really like to hear how my heterosexuality was "socialized." Frankly, I was interested in girls well before my parents expected that to be the case, and there would have been nothing they could have done to stop it. Now, do you really think that a person with that sort of biological drive can CHOOSE to be attracted to members of the same sex? Your "choice" argument cuts both ways.

"A lot happens to kids before they reach that age and it has to affect their sexuality."

Please provide evidence. This is an assertion based on "truthiness." It feels right, so it must be true.

"Being abused for example can lead to all kinds of sexual dysfunctions,"

No doubt.

"and you will often find that some gay individuals(especially ones with gender confusion issues) were abused either physically or emotionally by a trusted individual."

Just as some go on to be perfectly normal, some will marry women, some will abuse children, some will be burglars, some will be dentists...

Anyway, me thinks you've been reading too much "literature" such as this gem from the Family Research Council: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/may/02053107.html

Most gays were not abused. What made them homosexual? Why oh why would anyone choose to be a pariah of society? Can YOU choose to be a homosexual, Devin?

Well, Doug, we are on a bit of a roll here, you and I. I agree with you.

Stewart, no child molestation is not OK, no matter what. Homosexuality, from the best I can tell, is not a choice but genetic.

I used to think it was a choice, but a lifelong friend, who is gay and came out to me a few years ago, began an evolvement in my thinking on this subject, as well as some other people (coworkers and relatives of friends who are gay).
As someone else stated, homosexuality does not equate to child molestation, all types of people engage in that.
Bill O'Reilly (hated by the Left) has been at the forefront of getting Jessica's Law passed in all states that requires a minimum sentence for child rapists. O'Reilly and Jessica's Law puts that minimum at 25 years. Some states have passed Jessica's Law but with the minimum being few years. The object of this law though is to make it so judges cannot handout probation of short sentences to child rapists. I am fully behind this law.

Also, the ACLU has been fighting for and protecting NAMBLA, which advocates raping boys and teaches men how they can do so. NAMBLA should be out out of commission as well as the ACLU.

But to equate gays with deviant sexual behavior is not right, nor is it fair.

Bryan,
First off I'm on your side on one thing, Drew and Stewart are idiots. But to expand on my previous point regarding the nature arguments consider this:

There is no debate that under Darwinian evolution that homosexuality is counterproductive to a species. It reduces the number of potential mates within a population, thereby thinning out the gene pool and decreasing overall number of offspring, threatening the survival of any population. If homosexuality was genetic, it would at best be a disadvantageous mutation that would immediately breed itself out of a population, because theoretically homosexual animals would not procreate. The appearance of homosexuality in most major civilizations across time can only be explained by common psychological characteristics that all humans share and the similar structure of most human societies that causes deviant behavior.

Again I don't think that this means homosexuals are damaged or less-human, merely socially deviant by virtue of their experiences and certainly entitled to equal rights and the freedom to choose their own lifestyle.

Snaig (9:07 a.m.) actually hit it right on the head. There's just one problem, and Vinny (10:07 a.m.) illustrated it nicely: Civil unions won't be enough for the gay community. It's never enough for liberals.
"Go ahead and enjoy all of the rights bestowed on hetero marriages, just compromise by NOT calling it 'marriage'." That gets met with what, "No, not unless we can call it 'marriage' too."
It's THAT kind of rigid intolerance that plays a big role in moving forward on this issue.

Posted by: JR in Wisconsin | August 10, 2007 11:28 AM

JR the Neonut,
I didn't see any of the Republic Party candidates at this debate, did you?

Come to think of it, I didn't see any of the Republic Party candidates at the Black caucas debates, did you?

Most of the Republic Party candidates aren't going to show up for the upcoming YouTube debates to answer questions from average American citizens.

JR, which party is "intolerant" again?

Sexual orientation is irrelevant when a minor is involved as that individual does not have the right to consent to be with an adult.

Posted by: Doug Zook | August 10, 2007 10:27 AM

Amen Zook. If my child is victimized, the abusers sexual orientation is not as issue to me. Seeing that they go to prison where their dance cards will be filled day in and day out is the goal.

If I had to prioritize todays issues facing our candidates, I do not put this very high up. We have soldiers dying everyday. We have an economy that is teetering. We have people being killed in the streets, many innocent bystanders. I am trying to belittle gays, or their rights, but to be honest I cannot put this in the same category as these issues. It does not matter to me who others want to be with. Who people choose to be with does not prevent soldiers from dying. We need to take a harder look at our priorities.

Anybody blogging, answer this. Do you truely feel that ANY of the politicians supporting/criticizing gay relationships really care whether or not people are gay? Or, are they such "zealots" simply to secure the votes of an extemely large population? This is an example, one of many, that show how politicians are only concerned with any issues until that get votes. I have seen many local/national politicians passionately fight for/against gay rights when they are running for their office. When they are elected however, you never here or see them doing anything. They got the votes, period.

What a Choice,
You sound like someone with some half-hearted philosophy training trying to make your cloudy thinking sound exacting.

Socialization cannot be equated with "choice" as it is not a personal endeavor as an example from the animal kingdom will illustrate: I socialize my dog with other dogs so that he will feel emotionally fulfilled and remain contented. His experiences with other dogs can sometimes be positive, and sometimes be negative. The negative aspects tend to over-shadow the positive ones and can affect his future behavior (being scared of other dogs, barking frequently, being skittish). Human socialization is largely a product of our experience with other individuals and takes on a far more complex dynamic as our deeper emotional capacities get involved. It is also largely out of our control, therefore we aren't choosing anything.

Your claim that "Most gays were not abused" is ridiculous. Virtually all of us were abused at least emotionally by someone(our peers, a weird uncle, neighbor etc.) to varying degrees. The specific nature of that abuse and how we have been taught to deal with it determine the outcomes.

I am arguing that homosexuality is caused largely by environmental factors out of our control, with a slight nod to psychological tendencies based on genetics. Sexuality is a complicated thing that is not perfectly understood, the same with genetics. Besides misunderstanding me and trying to discredit my points without offering counter evidence you are just wasting my time. You made up your mind and went looking for "facts" rather than thinking through carefully.

What a Choice, I read the FRC article you posted the link to. What a load of crap. It reminds me of this public domain video I once saw from I think the 1950s which basically says that pedophiles and homosexuals are the same thing. Sad thing is, I'm sure some people believe that.

I grew up a good little Baptist girl, and of course I was told all the things you expect most churches to say about gays. I believed them for a while. Then I grew up and got the opportunity to know my favorite uncle, who happens to be gay, as an adult. I know from talking to him that being gay was not a choice for him any more than being straight was a choice for me. (Yeah, I know, acting on your feelings is a choice, but wouldn't it be wrong if your whole life is one big lie? Last time I checked, the 9th commandment forbids lying, so how would you reconcile that with expecting a person to deny their sexuality?)

I support civil unions for gay couples, because I think my uncle and his partner should have the same legal status as other couples. I think the previous poster who said that civil ceremonies giving property rights to couples should be separate from religious ceremonies is definitely onto something. I think that would preserve the sanctity of religious marriage while still giving all couples equal protection under the law.

For the record, I'm no bleeding heart liberal. I'm a moderate Republican who believes that this country has a lot more important issues hanging over our heads than what people choose to do in the bedroom.

It's supposed to be a free country. People can do whatever they want with their body as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (that includes being gay, free basing, just about anything). I don't support gay marriage, but since it does not hurt anyone, who am I, or anyone else for that matter, to say that gays can't marry? It does not matter if you are born gay or if you have a choice. The fact that this is even an issue shows how uncivilized/savage we truly are.

What a Choice, I read the FRC article you posted the link to. What a load of crap. It reminds me of this public domain video I once saw from I think the 1950s which basically says that pedophiles and homosexuals are the same thing. Sad thing is, I'm sure some people believe that.

I grew up a good little Baptist girl, and of course I was told all the things you expect most churches to say about gays. I believed them for a while. Then I grew up and got the opportunity to know my favorite uncle, who happens to be gay, as an adult. I know from talking to him that being gay was not a choice for him any more than being straight was a choice for me. (Yeah, I know, acting on your feelings is a choice, but wouldn't it be wrong if your whole life is one big lie? Last time I checked, the 9th commandment forbids lying, so how would you reconcile that with expecting a person to deny their sexuality?)

I support civil unions for gay couples, because I think my uncle and his partner should have the same legal status as other couples. I think the previous poster who said that civil ceremonies giving property rights to couples should be separate from religious ceremonies is definitely onto something. I think that would preserve the sanctity of religious marriage while still giving all couples equal protection under the law.

For the record, I'm no bleeding heart liberal. I'm a moderate Republican who believes that this country has a lot more important issues hanging over our heads than what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom.

"DEMOCRATS TALK TO AMERICA"

BUSH TALKS TO CHERTOF!

THE DEMOCRATS TALKED TO AMERICA LAST NIGHT. NO SEPARATISM JUST US, JUST YOU. NOW THATS A DEMOCRACY WORKING, THATS AMERICA STANDING PROUD AND STRONG WITH ALL THEIR CHILDREN.

GOOD SHOT.

I consider myself a moderate who leans GOP based on financial issues. However I just do not see how sexual orientation has anything to do with politics. Both gay rights and abortion are not political issues imo. How can a democrat on one hand pretend to be all for gay rights and then on the other hand say well you can have all the legal rights of a mariiage just that you can not actually get married. That is discrimination any way you want to spin it. What business is it of Obama/Clinton/Bush if 2 consenting adults want to get married and they find a church that will perform the ceremony. WHo are we to tell them that they can not be married. God himself told us not to judge lest ye be judged.

Doug:
"the urge to procreate is hormonally driven."

Yeah right, you're making the animal argument again, does this mean we can force procreation with whoever we find attractive instantly on the street like animals or dogs?

No, we were built with self awareness which God gave us, unfortunatly it also gave us the ability to follow our own desires of the flesh, not what God desires for us. Many people desire to use drugs because they feel good, does that make it OK to persue? NO!!

Maria:

How is obstaining from a personal desire lieing? I desire chocolate but I'm deciding not to have any, am I lieing?

By your deffinition yes....

"There is no debate that under Darwinian evolution that homosexuality is counterproductive to a species. It reduces the number of potential mates within a population, thereby thinning out the gene pool and decreasing overall number of offspring, threatening the survival of any population."

Your point is completely taken, but I hope you can see that because a trait is not desirable (using the logic you have employed) does not mean it does not get passed on. That's the beauty of recessive traits. The argument that because homosexuality would be a negative to the species is in no way a sound rebuttal to whether or not homosexuality is genetic.

I'm sorry, but I do not agree that homosexuality is largely a "socialization" issue. That may be the case in some instances, but I live in Washington DC and have many gay friends, and they would be glad to tell you that they exhibited classic feminine traits at such young ages that your socialization argument falls apart.

I have a friend who like to play with dolls and dress up with girls since he was 5 years old. His parents suspected he was gay even then, and they were loving and non-abusive (according to him).

Your argument that everyone is abused is perfectly over-the-top. That's a bit too "Oprah" for me. We are not all victims. I, for one, was never abused. Neither were any of my closest gay friends. I turned out heterosexual, them, gay. Until you can provide some evidence that most homosexuals were abused I'll put that in the "truthiness" category.

Drew,

The urge to procreate or posess sexual desire, is not the same thing as acting on it.

Self control is a virtue and enforced by many a law and has nothing to do with ones belief (or lack thereof)in the Almighty.

Anonymous, if that is your real name, you are CHOOSING of your own free will not to eat chocolate. A lot of gays conceal their sexuality because they feel PRESSURED to do so (by their families, churches, society), not because they want to. I see a very big difference.

I have a hypothetical question for those who disagree with homosexual relationships. Would you be okay with two men or two women living together and acting as partners, but with no sexual contact between them? My guess is no, because I think this has less to do with your objection to the "sexual immorality" of gay relationships and more to do with your own discomfort at seeing two people of the same gender in a relationship. Religion seems to be a convenient excuse for intolerance here. If you think I'm wrong, I'd love to hear from you.

Zooky,
Drew is part of the W. 26% club who still believe the earth is flat....let it go, these Wingnuts like Drew have their heads stuck in their arses.

John E.,

It's not necessarily about changing Drew's mind. (Keep hope alive!)

It's also about others who read our Pulitizer Prize wannabe prose here in our Swamp that we'd like to vote "D" in ought 8.

Rob S. asks:

"Anybody blogging, answer this. Do you truely feel that ANY of the politicians supporting/criticizing gay relationships really care whether or not people are gay? Or, are they such "zealots" simply to secure the votes of an extemely large population?"

My answer is NO, they don't really care one way or the other on a personal level. They are just trying to position themselves for the maximum number of votes. It's a shameful process they go through every even-numbered year. "Vote Whore" is the term that comes to mind. If they really, really cared, you'd hear about it all through both even and odd numbered years - especially from the conservatives. Their silence and non-action in non-election years is proof, in and of itself, of their calousness.

And here I thought the only time Democrats didn't believe in choice was for poor people's children going to a better school.

But to equate gays with deviant sexual behavior is not right, nor is it fair.

Posted by: John D | August 10, 2007 12:19 PM

Thank You, John. I really believe that your heart is in the right place. Although we usually don't see eye to eye. I really don't understand when the topic of Gay Marriage, Gay Vegetable Gardening, or anything else warranted calling Gay people child molestors. All stats will show that well over 90% are frustrated and violent heterosexuals. I really think Obama got this right more than any of the candidates. I've done fundraising for the Human Rights Campaign and I can tell you that people get hung up on the word "Marriage", but they still think everyone should be treated equally. Marriage does have a religious connotation to it and Barack got that right. Fair enough. Call it a Civil Union, Domestic Partnership, or whatever. Just treat these people equally under the law.

Religious arguments such as Drew's are negated by its very nature-unprovable and subjective -convincing him and those like him is a futile exercise....these are the same type of people who gave people like Galileo grief....the prefer to abstain from reality.

Who really cares if its a choice or a natural state of being? As long as it involves two consenting adults, what difference does it make to anyone?

AS with heterosexual behavior, it's a personal matter and should be kept private - as in one's home or domain, not in the public.

No to public holding hands or kissing, either. Only losers kiss in public: see Al Gore and Tipper.