More O'Reilly homophobia, frankly I am sick of it.

Wow. I guess the vast majority of the American people who oppose gay marriage are homophobes as well.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

I never said that.  This is strictly about Bill O'Reilly.

Then what did O'Reilly say that was homophobic, in your opinion?

From the article: 

Regarding O'Reilly's comparison of gay relationships to "triads," Media Matters for America has documented occasions on which O'Reilly discussed gay marriage and went on to warn of "poly-amorphous" marriage, in which "you can marry 18 people, you can marry a duck." He has repeatedly stated that gay marriage will eventually lead to people petitioning courts to marry goats.

Frankly, demonizing gay people in the manner he does -- "So what next, letting them marry three people?"  That kind of nonsense is demonizing and homophobic.  It's irrational. 

"Frankly, demonizing gay people in the manner he does -- "So what next, letting them marry three people?"  That kind of nonsense is demonizing and homophobic.  It's irrational"

Not really. Polygamists have already come out for "civil rights" in the wake of the gay marriage movement. If you're going to give "civil rights" to one special minority interest group, then you're going to have to give "civil rights" to all the other minority interest groups.

Well, it all started when we allowed those darn heterosexuals to get married.  All of this was inevitable.

Heterosexual marriage actually benefits society, because heterosexual couples are able to reproduce and have kids. The government doesn't get any benefit from allowing any other minority interest group to have marriage rights.

In that case, you must be all for polygamy cuz boy, if one woman can make a big family, imagine what two or three might do.

Hey, let's get rid of the annoying marriage issues altogether.  Let's just jump in and start birthin' babies everywhere if the goal is to create lots of kids.

And while we're at it, let's keep those defective sterile people from marrying, cuz they don't have any bidness tying up the breeding power of a potentially fertile partner.  And you women who can't have kids because you're past a certain age, free up that trophy husband of yours so he can get back to the bidness of makin' babies! 

Heterosexual marriage actually benefits society, because heterosexual couples are able to reproduce and have kids.

Gays can reproduce but not in the conventional way.

The government doesn't get any benefit from allowing any other minority interest group to have marriage rights.

Heterosexuals get special privileges from the government and this is part of the reason why gays are seeking their right to get marry.

I personally see it as homosexuals being denied their rights under the Constitution.  If not, why would so many be pushing amendments to the US and various state constitutions to take away that right?

"If not, why would so many be pushing amendments to the US and various state constitutions to take away that right"

Because we have so many activist judges in this country who are trying to thwart the will of the people and force their own liberal political views on the American people.

Activist judges are making new law by affirming that citizens in this country are allowed to exercise their rights? 

Heterosexual marriage actually benefits society, because heterosexual couples are able to reproduce and have kids. Rino

Yeah the Hilton's have really helped society by producing Paris Hilton. :)

On the contrary, allowing homosexual and naturally infertile couples to have legal union rights also allows them rights to adoption, which benefits society by providing potential homes to all of the kids in the orphanage and adoption system that the breeders left behind.

It is, truly, a win-win.

Not really. Polygamists have already come out for "civil rights" in the wake of the gay marriage movement.

They're two separate things.  Worse than comparing it to polygamy, others have gone so far as to compare it to marrying animals.  Both comparisons are invalid.

Further, as it stands, there is nothing in the Constitution that would deny two citizens the right to get married.  Apparently most state constitutions didn't or don't block it either, given the rush to add amendments that LIMIT THE RIGHTS of gay people.  As would any of the various proposals to amend the US Constitution.

I'm not sure why polygamy isn't allowed or why it was outlawed.  But it has nothing to do with why marriage is being denied to same sex couples.  

"Further, as it stands, there is nothing in the Constitution that would deny two citizens the right to get married"

There's also nothing in the Constitution that gives two citizens the right to get married. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about it. That's why we vote on issues that the Constitution is silent on.

There's also nothing in the Constitution that gives two citizens the right to get married.

The Constitution doesn't give us rights. 

And no one should be allowed to vote anyone else's rights away unless it conflicts with their rights.

"The Constitution doesn't give us rights"

Have you never heard of the Bill of Rights?

The Bill of Rights put limits on the government.

Look beyond the first ten -- to, oh, say, the 14th Amendment.  Little hunk of juicy legaleze in there about "equal protection."  Fascinating stuff.

The 14th Amendment applies to someone of a particular race or gender who is being discriminated against. It would apply to homosexuals if you could actually prove that people are born gay, but until that day the amendment doesn't apply to them.

and on that (inevitable) day, you'll still be bitching.

I note, with some amusement, the sheer number of posts you have on this particular topic. This appears to be a hotbutton issue with you.

How, exactly, does gay marriage affect you?

(This oughta be good...) 

Actually, I just post a lot on this topic because I'm really the only poster here with a different point of view. Even the conservatives on this site are liberal on this issue. I just like to stir things up a little bit. But also, I will admit that it angers me when someone calls an opponent of gay marriage a "homophobe." I think that you can disagree with someone without calling them names.

But in actuality, I don't think that gay marriage is one of the most important issues we face. And it doesn't really affect me. But I just think that it would hurt society as a whole. I've explained over and over again why I think that. But I don't think that I would even put gay marriage in the Top Ten most important issues. To me, abortion is a much bigger issue than gay marriage. Abortion is the #1 issue to me.

Also, I'll try to post less often on this subject. I think I've made my point of view quite clear.

how is abortion the #1 issue? And, how does it effect you?

Both issues have similarities...both are essentially one group telling another group what they can or cannot do based on the first group's BELIEFS.

High on everyone's "issue" list should be keeping all the cultic lunatics from dragging us down into a dark age theocracy.

Abortion doesn't affect me personally, but I like to think of other people as well. I don't like the thought of 1 million of my fellow human beings being slaughtered every year. To me, abortion is the #1 most important issue because it's a life and death issue. Terrorism is also a life and death issue as well, but only a little over 3,000 Americans died on 9-11, compared to 45 million babies that have been murdered since 1973. So abortion has obviously taken more lives than terrorism has so far.

The 14th Amendment only applies to you if you're not gay?  Fascinating.

The 14th Amendment doesn't protect behavior.

IT protects equal RIGHTS like say the right to marry.

First that is YOUR interpretation and WHERE did you get your degree in Constitutional law again? Second since it is YOU trying to DENY them this right it is YOUR burden of proof the show they are somehow disqualified under the 14th amendment which basically says if a right applies to one group of citizens then it must apply to ALL groups of citizens HERE is the relevant text

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now what I DONT see in there is any specificity that it applies ONLY to race or gender.

No we dont. You get blown out of the water EVERY TIME you try this dumb argument yet you just keep trying it again. There is NO support for your baseless assertion that this is how it works. IF something were either IN the constitution or we vote on it why do we have Miranda rights? That is not in the Constitution nor was it voted on. This might be the way you WISH it were but if it were that way we wouldnt NEED a Supreme Court.

"something were either IN the constitution or we vote on it why do we have Miranda rights? That is not in the Constitution nor was it voted on"

You're right. The liberal Warren court created those rights out of thin air.

So YOU know better than the Supreme Court. Why do we spend so much money on them. We should disband them and when we have constitutional questions ask YOU. And you got your degree in Constitutional law WHERE AGAIN? Or MAYBE the guys whose job it is to interpret the constitution know a bit more about it than YOU do.

Well, 46% to 53% doesn't sound vast to me, but I did notice the polls also say the majority support gays serving in the military and adapting children. Those OK with you, or are you one of the ones bucking the system?

"Those OK with you, or are you one of the ones bucking the system"

They aren't completely OK with me, but they're OK with Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly actually takes a moderate to liberal position on homosexual issues. He supports civil unions for gays but not actual gay marriage. That's a position that most Democrats in Congress have. He also supports gay adoption as a last resort. That seems to be a moderate position to me. I agree with him on that. I just don't know why he should be called a homophobe for opposing this ridiculous piece of legislation.

Well, I guess that's what's the problem for me. I don't know enough about the legislation yet, but I'm not about to trust O'Reilly's word on exactly what can happen under it. And his stupid "worst case scenarios" don't exactly enspire confidence in his reasons to oppose now, does it?

Bill doesn't take a moderate to liberal view on anything. Case in point Bill O'rielly says he doesn't believe in the death penalty because he says the death penalty is too easy, he believes that US prisons should be managed more like the Russian gulags where prisoners were  essentially used as slave labor. The prisoners in these gulags generally died before they reached the end of their sentences from physical exhaustion and malnutrition. In actuality he advocates a defacto death sentence where a prisoner is slowly tortured to death over a period of years

"Bill doesn't take a moderate to liberal view on anything"

Hmmm. Could've fooled me. The other day on his radio show he was saying that we need a big EPA. He said that the government needs to do more to clean up the environment, and he said that they should put a limit on greenhouse gases. He was also talking about how the government should have more over sight and regulations on the oil companies and airline companies. It was like listening to a liberal radio show.

Taking care of the environment is a "liberal" position?  Please put that on all your conservative propaganda in the future.  It'll really help the Democratic Party.

Lynn said that O'Reilly doesn't have a MODERATE or liberal position. Advocating a larger EPA that puts more regulations on corporations is AT LEAST a moderate position.

I'll give you that it's more and more a mainstream position.  But I'd want to see more info on what O'Reilly says and has said before saying his position on the environment is truly moderate.

hello! RINO can't even tell us why he backs Bill on this bill. What exactly does this one propose? What are the potential loopholes? And most important, how can Bill, with falafel in hand, be better at finding those holes than a whole team of lawyers who helped put it together in the 1st place?

Unless they can provide a logical reason to oppose gay marriage, then, yes, they are homophobes.

I have yet to hear a logical reason to oppose it...slippery slope arguments are, by definition, illogical.

"Unless they can provide a logical reason to oppose gay marriage, then, yes, they are homophobes"

So are the vast majority of Democrats in Congress who oppose gay marriage "homophobes" as well?

Possibly.  They're definitely political animals and have to kneel down to polls (or whatever it was you linked to up there) like any other politician.

Yes. I know a lot of Democrats who are homophobic.

Yes, they are.  Or, rather, they're either homophobic or deliberately playing TO the homophobes in order to avoid being voted out of office.

Which I would consider to be homophobic as well.  Selling out the rights of a group simply for electoral considerations shows a complete disregard, disdain, and comtempt for that group.  It's a cavalier attitude that reveals one sees the other person as something less than oneself, i.e., less than human.

RINO,

Just because the majority believes something is good doesn't make it true. The majority of Americans at one time thought it was just dandy to hold other human beings captive and make them work for free. I'm sure there was someone just like you back then arguing how good slavery must be since the majority of Americans supported it. Might doesn't make right.

"Just because the majority believes something is good doesn't make it true"

It may not make it true, but people with that view point shouldn't be denigrated and called "homophobes" simply because they have a different point of view than you do.

The majority of the people that believed in slavery did so because they believed Blacks were inferior to them and they felt entitled to be served by these inferiors. The majority of people at that time were RACIST even though they didn't see it that way. They truly thought they were superior because that's what they had been taught all their lives. Sometimes people are bigoted out of convention and they aren’t evil they are just mistaken. Have a good night RINO. 

I don't know how you can compare homosexuality to slavery. Blacks were born that way. They had no control over it. Homosexuality is a behavioral trait. It's very possible that people became homosexuals because of their upbringing. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that people are born gay. It's not a valid comparison.

"There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that people are born gay." You have not repeated this particular piece of factoid 20 times today, better get busy.

While I wouldn't doubt for a second that there are a very few people who choose sexual behaviors, the day I'll believe that your sexual orientation is "chosen" or "learned" is the day all the homophobes tell me what day it was when they chose to be straight.

Agreed. I certainly don't remember "choosing" to be heterosexual. In fact, like most boys, I didn't even like girls until I was about 11 or 12. Then they suddenly became quite fascinating.

I'm not denying that there may be some cases where a person's sexual identity is warped by abuse or imprisonment, but there is no logical or empirical reason to believe that it is simply a "choice".

I didn't even like girls until I was about 11 or 12.

Really?  I remember liking the girl next door when I was four and getting teased about it.  Now I had no clue what it meant that I liked her.  Nor when I "liked" a girl in the sixth grade.  I was just attracted to girls in a way that was different from the ways I made friends with guys.

And that is how I began "practicing my love of women." 

Maybe I shouldn't have said "like most boys". I may have been a little weird. I had girls as friends, certainly, but I always thought of them as "different". Maybe I paid too much attention to the Little Rascals' "Wimmin Haters Club".

Nerzog and Marv, you obviously had to "choose" to like girls, and are making Rino's point. Rino is so sure that it's a choice, I imagine he had to struggle, self-hypnotize and go into all sorts of denial to convince himself he wasn't gay.

I, on the other hand, was very attracted to the ladies from the moment the two cells that began my creation met each other.

Once again, I have verified that I'm straight as an arrow, and  much more manly than any of you. I would almost feel sad for you, except that emotions like sadness are much too effeminate for me to experience.

Masculinely yours, HBL.

What a deeply touching and warm confession.  Now go forth and practice your love with women.

I didn't know Huntington was a GYN.

Lynn, I freelance, when I'm not lumberjacking,working as a hit man or flying stunt planes.

Did I mention that I'm very manly? Please let me know if you need verification.

Do you skip and jump?  Do you like to press wildflowers?

heck, I didn't think about it until I went to Marine Military Academy, then all of a sudden I liked every cadet's sister!

Wow.  How is it you're still alive?

You'd be surprised, but being in deep south Texas, you can't believe why Mexican women are sooo sexy! Must be why I eventually married one?

I live in the San Francisco area.  Latina heaven.  I share your deep appreciation.

"Agreed. I certainly don't remember "choosing" to be heterosexual. In fact, like most boys, I didn't even like girls until I was about 11 or 12. Then they suddenly became quite fascinating"

That just shows that it's very possible that sexual orientation comes from one's upbringing and isn't simply something they're born with. I liked girls from a very early age, but obviously not from the time I was born.

"That just shows that it's very possible that sexual orientation comes from one's upbringing and isn't simply something they're born with."

How?

Because most people aren't attracted to girls when they're one or two years old. If people were really "born" with a sexual orientation, then you would think that they would be attracted to either the opposite sex or the same sex from the time they are born.

Because I didn't choose my sexuality; my sexuality chose me.  But I understand your case is different because you chose your sexuality and your opinions are based on that.

"Because most people aren't attracted to girls when they're one or two years old."

My voice became deeper during puberty; hair started growing all over my body during puberty; there were some growth spurts during puberty; and I gained the ability to reproduce during puberty.  I didn't choose any of these things.

Because most people aren't attracted to girls when they're one or two years old.

At one or two, most are happy if they can feed themselves.  They're not really seeking out a life partner.  Even if an infant feels some sort of attraction, which they very well might, they're not likely to be able to express it in any meaningful manner, nor remember it later in life.  You're gonna have to come up with something a bit more convincing.

(Anecdotally, I've also witnessed and heard about infants and toddlers whose parents refer to them as a "ladies man" or whatever.  They just seem to gravitate toward men or women more.  There's no good way to prove why something like that would be.)

But in the end, it doesn't matter.  In this country, you're free to be who you want, and love who you want.  You should be afforded the various legal protections of marriage should you choose to spend your life with that person.  Particularly if you care about the stability of familes and homes.

"If people were really "born" with a sexual orientation, then you would think that they would be attracted to either the opposite sex or the same sex from the time they are born."

Oh my god!  Are you a freaking pedophile or something???  In case you were somehow unaware of this, babies are not sexually attracted to anyone.  Have you never heard of sexual maturity, adolescence, etc.?  As someone else pointed out, you must think stuff like breasts are a "choice" too, since we're not born with them.

That just shows that it's very possible that sexual orientation comes from one's upbringing and isn't simply something they're born with...rino hunter

================================

Hmm. So exactly what was it in Mary Cheney's upbringing by Dick and Lynne that turned her into a lesbian?

There is also no evidence that they are NOT born that way. Even if it is a choice, which I strongly doubt, that is no reason to deny them the right, or privilege, to get married. After all, religion is a choice.

"Even if it is a choice, which I strongly doubt, that is no reason to deny them the right, or privilege, to get married"

Why? Should we give drug dealers the right to sell drugs on the street?

It wouldn't be a thread about homosexuality without an idiotic comparison to crime.

Where's the harm here?  Who does it hurt?  Is the population going to dwindle because five percent of the people don't reproduce?  Is it going to damage other people's marriages?

Of course not.  The only issues of harm are external, results of narrow-minded people who are more concerned with the words in a two-thousand year old book than the lives of actual people.

I agree that that comparison is insulting not only to homosexuals, but to anyone with half a brain.  Being gay isn't a crime, and your suggestion that it is is way out of line.

I don't think that "being gay" should be a crime. I'm against anti-sodomy laws. I just think that marriage should be between one man and one woman, as it has been throughout our country's history.

Then don't compare it to criminal behavior.  Fair enough?

I thought you said that drug use shouldn't be criminal behavior? Aren't you one of the ones who want drug use legalized?

Oh, I do.  Making drugs illegal isn't the best way to deal with the problem.

But your comparison isn't based on my view of it, now is it?  It's based on your view, which reflects your view of homosexuality.

Did that really have to be explained to you?

Are we really going to base laws on how they have been through history?  We didn't treat blacks like human beings for 88 years!  By your reasoning, they should not have equal rights.

On another topic, what type of proof would you accept for people being born gay?

No, drug dealers and their products should be licensed, taxed and regulated just like any other hazardous chemical. But, it sure is convienent to have a huge underclass to declare war on, and imprison to show what a tough on crime guy I am.

PS I am not  good speller and will not be using spell checker anymore.

I see. We should just treat drugs the way we have treated tobacco. We should just legalize it and regulate it so strenuosly that we cripple an entire industry. It's all about creating a bigger government with you guys. You simply want to have drugs legalized so that the government will have one more thing to regulate and one more industry to cripple.

Yes, that is correct.

We should just legalize it and regulate it so strenuosly that we cripple an entire industry.

Your concern about tobacco is that that an industry is being harmed?

I'm not for making cigarettes illegal by any stretch.  But in the discussion about cigarette smoke, boy howdy does the tobacco INDUSTRY drop to the bottom of the list of my concerns. 

What type of "proof" would you need, Rino, to change your position?

I have gay friends who were brought up in households where parents were very homophobic (much more than against gay marriage) and tried to date women, but they just were not attracted to them.  They tried, Rino, but, for some reason that they could not explain, they were not attracted to women, but were attracted to men.

Frankly, with how mainstream society treats homosexuality, I don't know why anyone would "choose" to be gay.  The gay friends I have certainly didn't make a behavioral choice.  Have you had this conversation with a gay man or woman about "why" they are gay? 

It really doesn't matter any way.  While I don't know Rino's position on the matter, there are those homophobes who would say that if one is "born gay" then they should just not act that way and fight the urge, because the urge was wrong.  There are those who use the "it's a choice" meme for now until it's proven otherwise, then they'll continue to hate gay people for some other reason. In that manner, it's just like racism.   

Of course, both homophobia and racism are primarily learned behaviors and can definitely be overcome. 

You are correct. Bigotry is a chosen lifestyle.

"You are correct. Bigotry is a chosen lifestyle"

And since you're bigoted against evangelical Christians, you apparently chose to be a bigot yourself.

Because you have to be a bigot to criticize a bigot, is that right?

Hey!  You should be more tolerant of the evangelicals intolerance!

"While I don't know Rino's position on the matter, there are those homophobes who would say that if one is "born gay" then they should just not act that way and fight the urge, because the urge was wrong."

I'm not sure but I think this is what [most] Catholics believe.  When I use to watch The Factor (this was before BO went psycho), he said something similar to your comment.

Many Christians like Rino are greatly invested in the belief that homosexuality is a "behavior" that one "chooses." I saw a bumper sticker today that said, "If God hates gays, why did he make so many?" And this is the main problem for many Christians. They believe that God made everything, so if homosexuality isn't a chosen trait, then all their bitterness, bile, fear and hatred towards homosexuals (and yes, Rino, I'm thinking of your past posts on the subject) goes against God. There's no way in hell they will ever accept that homosexuality isn't a learned and chosen trait.

"If God hates gays, why did he make so many"

God doesn't "hate" gays. He loves gays. He loves everybody. He loves gays but hates the lifestyle that they live. That's why most of us traditional people have adopted the phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner." We should show love to gays in every way possible, but that doesn't mean that we have to accept the lifestyle that they live when it conflicts with basic biblical principles.

"He loves gays but hates the lifestyle that they live."

So your God hates? 

He hates sin.

So your God does hate.  Thanks for clarifying that.

God hates sin, because he's perfect. And it's not just "my God." It's the God of the 92% of Americans who believe in God.

I do believe there is an omnipotent being but I don't believe in any man-made religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.).

And why are arguing with me?  I'm agreeing with you that your God hates.

I think if I was God, I'd be wondering why RINOs faith was so shaky that he has to cite a survey to proclaim his love for me.

Then I'd give him an ingrown hair up on the inside of the thigh.

God is perfect.  And the Bible is His word.  And we know that homosexuality is a sin because it says so in the Bible, right?

But yet, the Bible is inconsistent.  A perfect entity can't contradict itself or change its mind, because then at one point or other it would have to be imperfect.  Therefore, the inconsistencies of the Bible show that it can't possibly be the word of the Lord.  Which means it's the word of man, which makes the damnations of homosexuality nothing more than bigotry in the guise of something holy.

I simply don't see any way around this.  If God is perfect, the Bible is not His word.  If the Bible is the word of God, and he kept changing his mind on so many things, then he is imperfect.  That would mean that homosexuality may be acceptable on the grounds that God was wrong!  If the Bible was mistranslated, then it's not God's exact word, and you can't trust anything it says.

No matter how you slice it, the "God is perfect" concept completely obliterates any Biblical justification for discriminating against gays.

Barb, I'd like your permission to put your post on a bumper sticker, ok?

If you can find one of those guys who can inscribe a book onto a grain of rice, be my guest.

Sorry, meant Brab. I like to park my truck so lots of pedestrians get a chance to read my ever so clever collection of stickers. Like Gore/Clark 08' + 12'

That's 20 years of sanity!!

God appointed you to speak for him, did he?  You might think a little humility would be in order when one is dealing with the Supreme Being of the Univererse and all, but today's self-righteous christians know everything on his mind, I guess.

Question: when are the holy rightwing activists going to get to work on constitutional amendments (and, in general, overwrought screeching) against the usurer lifestyle?

Then how exactly do you explain the fact that most people who claim to be gay are actually bisexual to some degree? Do you believe that some people are born bisexual? And do you think that a bisexual person should have the right to marry a man and a woman? If they're attracted to both sexes, then should they have the right to marry a person of EACH sex?

"Then how exactly do you explain the fact that most people who claim to be gay are actually bisexual to some degree?"

Who cares.

"Do you believe that some people are born bisexual?"

Yes.

And do you think that a bisexual person should have the right to marry a man and a woman?

They can marry a women and have a men on the side (only if the wife is okay with that) and vice versa.

If they're attracted to both sexes, then should they have the right to marry a person of EACH sex?

I really don't care what other people do unless it affects me in some way.

I think you are confused about the definition of the word "fact."  Would you mind providing some sort of proof that the majority of gay people are actually bi?

Sexuality is a continuum, not a black and white issue. Black and white thinkers like Rino can't seem to understand that.

Many people are wholly heterosexual, and many are wholly homosexual, but there are many who are also mostly one way, but will get excited rather than repulsed by the 'opposite' behavior. A few have no real preference at all, and are equally comfortable with either activity.

It's not just gays who are also bi-sexual.

There are two kinds of people who exhibit homosexual behavior and then stop exhibiting that behavior. One group would the bisexuals who for one reason or another choose to replace their homosexual behavior with heterosexual choices. The others are people who are brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is wrong, so they go contrary to their nature to act like a heterosexual.

There is one kind of person who chooses to "be" homosexual. That would be a bisexual person who chooses to be strictly homosexual. There are bisexuals who choose to be strictly heterosexual too. Those are the only people who "choose" their sexuality.

I wish more people understood this.

I don't know how you can compare homosexuality to slavery. Rino

Simple, there was a time in this country that white folks felt the same way about black people. It was a crime to marry someone who was black. Black people were considered 1/3 of a human being. You could only marry someone who was the same race.

For many years, prevailing attitudes of racism in the United States prompted many states to adopt laws that explicitly denied "Negroes" the right to marry whites. By 1940, a majority (31 out of 48) of states had banned interracial marriage (or "miscegenation") in some form

It took this country till 1967 to ban something that many people thought was a crime. I'd be willing to bet that some of the same reasons against interracial marriage (the children, the children) are the same ones used against gay marriage.

For some reason you think that people wake up and decided to be gay. Rino use that brain of yours, do you truly believe someone would “come out” and take all the sh** that people dish out to gays.

Do those “Log Cabin Republicans” choose" to be gay? With all the crap your party dishes out they continue to support your party but they also continue to be gay. The party affiliation is choice, being gay is how they were born. If being gay was a choice they would simply have sex in the privacy of their bedroom and never subject themselves to the bull sh** that some in this country give.

Again trying to reverse the burden of proof here. Since YOU are making the argument that Lynns observation is wrong because homosexuality is a CHOICE, which itself is counterintuitive then its up to YOU to provide the proof or even scant evidence that it IS a choice. When are you rightwingers going to stop making arguments by making a baseless assertion then saying prove me wrong. Hey I think you molest small furry animals prove you dont.

"Since YOU are making the argument that Lynns observation is wrong because homosexuality is a CHOICE, which itself is counterintuitive then its up to YOU to provide the proof or even scant evidence that it IS a choice"

I'm just saying that it's still an open debate. Most liberals here come out and say that people are born gay without any proof at all. I'm still saying that it's still an open debate. My personal opinion that it has more to do with the way a person is brought up than with someone all of a sudden "choosing" to be gay. Many gay people simply didn't have a dominant father figure in their home when they were growing up. And many others didn't receive love from their father. So later on in life, they tried to find love from another male figure since they didn't get it from their father. That isn't true in every case, but I believe it is true in many cases. I think that being gay has more to do with the way one was raised than anything else.

Lack of father love, blah, blah, blah.  It's claptrap, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it's true.

WHY ON EARTH should such people be punished by the government for their parents' personality quirks?  Why should the loving relationships they form be denigrated and disrespected?

"WHY ON EARTH should such people be punished by the government for their parents' personality quirks"

I don't believe that they are being punished or discriminated against. My position is that the government should simply stay out of the issue all together. The government shouldn't try to control what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. But they also shouldn't give explicit approval to homosexuality by giving gays the right to marry. No other minority interest group has that right either. The government should just leave things the way they are and just stay out of the issue.

Refusing to recognize that the committed relationships of gay and lesbian people are as valuable as the committed relationships of heterosexuals is denigrating and disrespectful.

To ignore them as if they mean nothing is cruel and immoral.

Not only that, but marriage comes with an entanglement of something like a thousand different tiny rights -- notably among them rights to visit your partner when the partner is hospitalized, this green card issue discussed above, inheretence rights, tax status, parenting rights, and so on.

If the Republicans in Congress hadn't gotten rid of the Marriage Penalty Tax, people would actually be worse off financially to get married.

So you acknowledge that heterosexual couples get tax breaks that homosexual couples don't get?  Thanks for agreeing.

Rino, I have a gay friend. When he was growing up no thoughts about boy or girls until puberty. He only kissed one girl and that was because she ate a lot of candy (no lie). He had sex once with a girl and hated it. He was 15/16 at the time. He has never had sex with anything other than men. There is nothing attractive about women to him, nothing. Yes he had a father, mother, sister and brother, no neglect or anything. He is simply a man who like men. 

In saying people are born that way doesn't mean at two or three you can tell people are gay. I don't think sexuality appears in children that young. But my gay friends all tell stories when they were 12/13 and knew that they were different. Whether they came out or stayed in the closet they knew that Dick like John and Susie liked Pam. 

RINO,I have a first cousin who is Gay; He is from a family of two boys and two girls. His brother is 14 months younger. This is what they have in common, same sperm, same eggs, same womb and they grew up with an intact parental unit.  They grew up in the same exact environment, but one brother is Gay and has always been Gay, I knew he was different from my brother and all of my other male cousins when I was little, but he was just what he was. Now his brother is like Huntingtonbeach he does like the ladies. My cousin is very lucky because his sexuality has never been a problem with his immediate family, he is actually very close to all of his siblings and his Mom. Their Dad is now dead. It also isn’t a problem for the sane members of our extended family, and thankfully we're the majority and we keep the insane ones in check. My cousin is invited and attends many family gatherings and on many occasions he has brought a date.  He's a good guy and he's Gay, so what. I couldn't imagine my cousin being with a woman or any woman wanting to be with him for that matter. BY the way you said comparing homophobia to racism is wrong, well I disagree strongly with that. Bigotry is bigotry and not liking someone because they are different and wanting to discriminate against them is wrong. Oh yeah and that old tired argument that you can't hate Black people because they can't help that they were born Black implies that there is something wrong with being Black, and if we could change it we would. I wouldn't change one thing about myself..well maybe I'd make my self a little taller. I'm 5'4 but I always wanted to be tall.  (smile) 

Lynn, absolutely loved your post.

"Now his brother is like Huntingtonbeach he does like the ladies."

I see my manly and straight =as -an arrow reputation is pretty well verified.

Nice posts, Lynn and Pearlene.

"Oh yeah and that old tired argument that you can't hate Black people because they can't help that they were born Black implies that ther