I totally agree. The homosexuality movement is nowhere near the civil rights movement. Hell, it’s not even close to the women’s rights movement.

Homosexuals were not forced to be under educated, drink from different water fountains, told that the can not vote or there vote is only worth a third of a normal vote. No sitting on the back of the bus here.


While I don't think all gay people choose to be gay (lets face it nature is nature and people can be born different from the norm... this includes sexual orientation so someone CAN be born gay just like someone CAN be born transsexual... it happens and it certainly is not a choice)


I find this amusing that people want it to be a civil rights movement. The fact that they can even speak to the issue is because or people like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King who spoke to the OVERALL issue of human rights and civility.

Parading it in your face? You live in an interesting neighborhood. Or perhaps you mean parading in the sense of wearing wedding rings, having naked women mud flaps, and putting pictures of your spouse and children up everywhere.

Let's attack the straw man of the gay rights activist who doesn't care about anyone else's rights. I'm a gay activist and I definitely care. I also feel that any relationship that is contractually standardized by the government should follow a policy of extended that freedom to any adult, regardless of race, financial status, creed, gender and any other social class status. So not all activists or gay marriage supporters are the same. I also fully support any church's right to NOT recognize same sex marriage within the church.

Most gay people don't choose to be gay. There is hoards of evidence supporting this claim, and you all can whine about it as much as you want, but it doesn't change the facts. While we don't know specfically that there is a "gay gene", most agree that the propensity toward homosexuality isn't a conscious choice; the decision (if decision it is) is made in the depths of the psyche, not while browsing a menu of lifestyle options. Yes, the gay community owes a great deal of debt to human rights pioneers such as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr. and the myriad of others who came before us. That doesn't mean the push for gay rights isn't civil rights, simply because someone else was there first.

Civil rights is a push among any group to resolve disenfranchisement from constitutionally guaranteed rights. This can occur among a racial minority, a gender majority, a religious group, and even those of an alternate sexual orientation.

Let's look at a brief history of the gay rights movement, shall we? The modern gay rights movement started when a bunch of police raided the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village: a gay bar. This was the straw the broke the camel's back. After years of enforced hatred and stupidity being put into law (Eisenhower making it illegal for any homosexual to hold down a federal job in the 50's, for example). Gays fought back, there was a riot, and the aftermath lead to the modern movement for gay rights. It was heterosexuals who started it. At that point, there were no pride parades, no Queer as Folk as televison. Homosexuals did what you would still like them to do: they skulked along in the background, hiding themselves from the rest of the world. But the rest of the world wouldn't let us be.

The recent striking down of sodomy laws across the nation was based on a landmark case where a gay couple was having sex in the privacy of their own home, when police burst in and then arrested them for sodomy. It was the police who started it.

As soon as policy makers in this country began creating laws that treated homosexuals differently than other citizens, they created a social minority defined by sexual orientation. So bleat and blather about it all you want. Every time you claim that gays are this way or gays are that way, you redifine the boundary lines and strengthen the perceptions that lead to minority status.

Personally, I'm for marriage being defined in two ways: as a social contract and as a religious contract. The Constitution is set up so that the government shouldn't interefere in the latter, but has no right to pick and choose to whom they may extend the former. Like it or don't like it, I don't much care. If you're arguing against gay marriage because your undies are all in a twist that gay people have the audacity to think they're a minority status, stop treating them that way and the division will go away and you'll be right. If you're arguing from a moral perspective, read some Jefferson, read the Constitution and then get over yourself. If you're arguing from a perspective of religious belief, get to a church and lock the doors, then practice whatever beliefs you see fit. If you're one of those nut jobs who thinks that the sanctity of one's own marriage will be defined by what legal rights I may or may not have, see a therapist. Seriously.

Parading it in your face? You live in an interesting neighborhood. Or perhaps you mean parading in the sense of wearing wedding rings, having naked women mud flaps, and putting pictures of your spouse and children up everywhere.

Let's attack the straw man of the gay rights activist who doesn't care about anyone else's rights. I'm a gay activist and I definitely care. I also feel that any relationship that is contractually standardized by the government should follow a policy of extended that freedom to any adult, regardless of race, financial status, creed, gender and any other social class status. So not all activists or gay marriage supporters are the same. I also fully support any church's right to NOT recognize same sex marriage within the church.

Most gay people don't choose to be gay. There is hoards of evidence supporting this claim, and you all can whine about it as much as you want, but it doesn't change the facts. While we don't know specfically that there is a "gay gene", most agree that the propensity toward homosexuality isn't a conscious choice; the decision (if decision it is) is made in the depths of the psyche, not while browsing a menu of lifestyle options. Yes, the gay community owes a great deal of debt to human rights pioneers such as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr. and the myriad of others who came before us. That doesn't mean the push for gay rights isn't civil rights, simply because someone else was there first.

Civil rights is a push among any group to resolve disenfranchisement from constitutionally guaranteed rights. This can occur among a racial minority, a gender majority, a religious group, and even those of an alternate sexual orientation.

Let's look at a brief history of the gay rights movement, shall we? The modern gay rights movement started when a bunch of police raided the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village: a gay bar. This was the straw the broke the camel's back. After years of enforced hatred and stupidity being put into law (Eisenhower making it illegal for any homosexual to hold down a federal job in the 50's, for example). Gays fought back, there was a riot, and the aftermath lead to the modern movement for gay rights. It was heterosexuals who started it. At that point, there were no pride parades, no Queer as Folk as televison. Homosexuals did what you would still like them to do: they skulked along in the background, hiding themselves from the rest of the world. But the rest of the world wouldn't let us be.

The recent striking down of sodomy laws across the nation was based on a landmark case where a gay couple was having sex in the privacy of their own home, when police burst in and then arrested them for sodomy. It was the police who started it.

As soon as policy makers in this country began creating laws that treated homosexuals differently than other citizens, they created a social minority defined by sexual orientation. So bleat and blather about it all you want. Every time you claim that gays are this way or gays are that way, you redifine the boundary lines and strengthen the perceptions that lead to minority status.

Personally, I'm for marriage being defined in two ways: as a social contract and as a religious contract. The Constitution is set up so that the government shouldn't interefere in the latter, but has no right to pick and choose to whom they may extend the former. Like it or don't like it, I don't much care. If you're arguing against gay marriage because your undies are all in a twist that gay people have the audacity to think they're a minority status, stop treating them that way and the division will go away and you'll be right. If you're arguing from a moral perspective, read some Jefferson, read the Constitution and then get over yourself. If you're arguing from a perspective of religious belief, get to a church and lock the doors, then practice whatever beliefs you see fit. If you're one of those nut jobs who thinks that the sanctity of one's own marriage will be defined by what legal rights I may or may not have, see a therapist. Seriously.

This from the person who is repeatedly told that she's ignorant.

You all can call me ignorant until the cows come home. That does not make it so. Fact is, you're ridiculously ignorant. And judgmental. And, you all must live with your heads up your asses, if you think gay rights are not about civil rights.

Gay rights is an extention of civil rights for all; a continuation but NOT an equal.



Gay rights is about civil rights.... but it is not a repeat of the whole civil rights movement. Without the civil rights movement, there would be no talk about anything gay rights at all. Without the civil rights movement, all a gay person would have to do is pretend he or she is not gay in public. Obviously, a black man can not pretend he is not black in public and a woman can not pretend she is not a woman in public.



Gay rights is not a whole scale revolution that will dramatically change the American landscape. Gay rights activists can fight for what they are doing BECAUSE of people like Mr. King and Ms. Parks yet while their focus was on people of color, their goal was for EVERYONE to be treated as human beings. When you name a gay person who had to endur drinking out of a 'gay' water fountain, you let me know.

Let's attack the straw man of the gay rights activist who doesn't care about anyone else's rights. I'm a gay activist and I definitely care.

So, you are also pushing for legalization of polygamy and the right for adult siblings and parent/offspring to marry, along with same sex marriage?

While we don't know specfically that there is a "gay gene", most agree that the propensity toward homosexuality isn't a conscious choice;

I'd have to agree that the propensity towards homosexuality is not always a choice, but acting upon them is. I don't buy that excuse because our society is full of restrictions (both legal and social). Being married, I may feel attracted to other women, but I don't act on those attractions. A pedophile feels attractions towards kids, yet we don't celebrate their relationships. What makes homosexuality so special that we should force societal change?

I am all for equality for all. Being gay shouldn't keep you from renting or buying a place to live; in almost all cases, it shouldn't keep you from getting a job; and under no circumstances should it justify someone attacking you. However, as I've said before, unless they support marriage for other "alternative lifestyles", "equality" is not what gay activists are after.

True, not all gay activists are are the same, anymore than all of any "acivists" are, I'm just going on what I have seen and heard while on the news and while doing medic support for Gay rights rallies and gay culture activities.

Who the hell are we to judge? That is what this is about. It's not about sitting at the back of the bus. It's not about being black or white or yellow or green. It's about societal fair play. Choice is what makes us free. Take away the choices and we've got nothing but a religion-based notion of what is acceptable in society, and that is unconstitutional.

BullSh*t.

It's not about choice to be gay. It's not about civil rights. All that the gay community wants (as regard to this issue) is to be seen in the eyes of the law as something that they can never be. Marriage is one man and one woman. That may be an unpopular view but it is the right one, or at the very least this one man's opinion. The government jumped in and made something that a purely religious thing and made it a legal issue.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a homophobe or a gay basher. I don't take any issue with people who choose to be gay (All the medical studies in the world will never prove that there is a gay or straight gene, it's is about a psychological preference. Psychopaths have a chemical imbalance, but they are still 100 % human just like the rest of us. Same thing goes for homosexuals, chemically something is different than a straight person.) Let them have health benefits and all of the other rights associated with being a married couple, just don't call it that. Just because it offends them that they don't get that title, don't discount my opinion that it offends me if they do.

And Dabe... How far are you willing to go to allow someone’s rights? Is it only until it offends you? Need I mention a certain flag and your disgust over its use?

what about Jay and his hetero life-mate Silent Bob, aren't they entitled too

i also disagree with the coice issue (visit my link below) i made a poston my views a couple days ago. it was my first post. check it out

So you're saying that homosexuals that go back to being heterosexual are living a lie? Sorry, I disagree. I DO, however, respect your RIGHT to make an intelligent decision for yourself.

Could it not be a recessive trait? Like with straight carriers of a gay gene?

Could be. I have many off topic reasons for believing it's not, but I won't go into them because it detracts from my larger point; that the gay rights movement is about the right to make CHOICES when consenting adults are involved, even if those choices may conflict with our own values.

The thing is, this is a "pursuit of happiness" issue. It IS, and remains, about the right of adults to live their lives free of government interference. Incidentally, I DO believe the same rights should be extended to the polygamous, polyamorous, and other "deviant" lifestyles, provided that they involve CONSENTING ADULTS, and do not use force. If the homosexual community would press this as a choice issue and not a "civil rights" issue, I think they'd be a lot better off.

Could it not be a recessive trait? Like with straight carriers of a gay gene?

Could be. I have many off topic reasons for believing it's not, but I won't go into them because it detracts from my larger point; that the gay rights movement is about the right to make CHOICES when consenting adults are involved, even if those choices may conflict with our own values.

The thing is, this is a "pursuit of happiness" issue. It IS, and remains, about the right of adults to live their lives free of government interference. Incidentally, I DO believe the same rights should be extended to the polygamous, polyamorous, and other "deviant" lifestyles, provided that they involve CONSENTING ADULTS, and do not use force. If the homosexual community would press this as a choice issue and not a "civil rights" issue, I think they'd be a lot better off.

Marriage is one man and one woman.

I would be interested in knowing what you base this on. If you base it on the bible, then you effectively say that no nonChristian marriage is valid. You also ignore the fact that COMPLETELY ABSENT from the Old OR New Testament of the Bible is any prohibition against polygamy. Seems if God insisted that marriage was one man and one woman, he would have made sure that prohibition made the list. Incidentally, in Leviticus, you find rules for the proper conduct of polygamists within a polygamist marriage (cannot marry mother and daughter, don't take sister of wife as rival, etc). To say those are proofs of God's disapproval of polygamy would be akin to saying a driver's license is proof of the state's disapproval of driving. Put simply, you don't give RULES to conduct illegal activity.

Back to the point about Christian marriages, however. This is why I think it is crucial that government get out of the marriage business. What will you do if the government decides that gay marriages are acceptable and prosecute churches that refuse to marry gays? It's much simpler to tell the government this is not an area they should have a right to legislate, and let individual clergy make moral decisions as to whom they will or will not marry. They bear the moral responsibility for their choices, which is as it should be.

I did not realize that you agreed with me on the government and marriage.  Well done and very insightful!

Gid, Dr. Guy, I'm amazed. Both of you just gave the best example of all about how the institution of the family is under attack in modern society. Both of you applauding the demise.

Laws are nothing more than lists of acceptable and unacceptable behavior in a society. If you take government out of marriage, you take all the protections that go with it. Want to raise your kids as you see fit? If the institution of marriage loses its legal recognition, what is to stop the law from deciding that since marriage is only a religious relic, why should parents' rights be recognized? Why should an estate be transfered to the surviving spouse without an inheritance tax levied?

If marriage is only recognized by religions then the government has no authority to recognize the married from the unmarried, or the parent and the child. Sad future your applauding there.

Para,

Well, to continue the surprise, I'm surprised that you, an active member of a church that was persecuted in no small part because of its beliefs on marriage, are applauding the prosecution. While I am not a Mormon, I remain of the contention that the actions taken specifically against the Mormons are a historical travesty of monumental proportions.

When I married my wife, I married her before GOD. That's the ONLY covenant that matters. Your illustrations of inheritance problems, etc, are ineffectual, as nobody's denying an individual the right to pass their inheritance on to anyone they choose.

Personally and morally, the idea of a homosexual marriage repulses me. As an ordained minister, there is absolutely no way I would perform a marriage of such a couple (I couldn't do it in good conscience). But the government's role is not to legislate morality, it's to provide for the defense and general welfare of society. The gay marriage is yet another example of an area where I feel the government should butt out.

For the record, I KNOW polygamist familes firsthand. While my mom was not a polygamist, she did fellowship with some of the LDS "splinter" groups that retained their polygamist beliefs. I have seen the impact that government interference has had in their families, and I believe it's time to tell the government it has no interest in this area (interesting sidenote: many anti-polygamy laws in the US were enacted SPECIFICALLY to target the LDS).