Really? Where? Just curious. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color = lightgreen>I personally know of three couples here in the Metroplex area. In fact, Tom had David on his medical coverage as a "domestic partner" while I couldn't carry <font color = red>Belle</font> because she was a female who was not (at that time) my wife.

This alone leads me to the conclusion that the only thing homosexual couples cannot attain right now is an official Certificate of Marriage. By itself, that piece of paper doesn't add anything they cannot already have.

I think this whole "gay marriage movement" is simply a collective desire to prove something, to force acceptance and recognition of their lifesyle by the general population. [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] If you have to force recognition of something upon others, is it really worth having? Are you not content with your own personal acceptance? Why the need for external recognition?

*shrug* It's the 2000s. It's hip to be homosexual.</font>

Really? Where? Just curious. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color = lightgreen>I personally know of three couples here in the Metroplex area. In fact, Tom had David on his medical coverage as a "domestic partner" while I couldn't carry <font color = red>Belle</font> because she was a female who was not (at that time) my wife.

This alone leads me to the conclusion that the only thing homosexual couples cannot attain right now is an official Certificate of Marriage. By itself, that piece of paper doesn't add anything they cannot already have.

I think this whole "gay marriage movement" is simply a collective desire to prove something, to force acceptance and recognition of their lifesyle by the general population. [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] If you have to force recognition of something upon others, is it really worth having? Are you not content with your own personal acceptance? Why the need for external recognition?

*shrug* It's the 2000s. It's hip to be homosexual.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, but I find this reasoning to be shallow and inneffectual. Not to mention the total ignorance of some ( more than 1,000) crucial financial and legal rights granted by legal marriage unattainable to unmarried and same-sex couples (except in MA).

Your example is flawwed as well. I was able to add my fiance to my insurance under the domestic partner heading. I think the real problem is with that employer's benifits package if they only include same-sex couples as domestic partners.

To Azred -- G'on Girlfriend!!!!

To Chewie -- yes, in light of the current situations, it would seem apropos to include same-sex domestic partners.

Of course, if there were "Civil Unions" or "Marriages" universally in place for those folks, the rules could revert to how they were -- requiring couples to obtain legal validation of their union/marriage prior to obtaining benefits.

<font color = lightgreen>Shallow and inneffectual? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] Perhaps...there are worse mistakes I could make. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] Total ignorance? [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img] I would beg to differ with that assessment, but I never beg.</font>

<font color = lightgreen>It is impossible for my example to be flawed, as it was a fact. I certainly didn't imagine that ridiculous cannot-think-for-herself Human Resources director! [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

*****

Personally, I support those who happen to be homosexual and would like to add an offical, state-authorized marriage into their relationship. However, I have not yet heard any compelling argument as to why homosexuals should be allowed to obtain marriage licenses other than "Because we want to." Perhaps a better argument might win them some more legal battles.... [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] </font>

I'd say not. I've known far too many homophobic people. Maybe my experience is just jaded.

I'd say not. I've known far too many homophobic people. Maybe my experience is just jaded. </font>[/QUOTE]You may simply need to "get out more". Chelsea and the West Village are the hippest areas in NYC precisely because of the gay element. As is Oxford St. and Paddington in Sydney for the same reason. Homosexual "chic" is "hip". Designers, pop stars, movie stars. Since Andy Warhol and Oscar Wilde, mardi gras and fashion trends. The politically correct answer is "I'm bi".

But what happens when it's politically correct to NOT be politically correct?

See above post.

Really? Where? Just curious. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color = lightgreen>I personally know of three couples here in the Metroplex area. In fact, Tom had David on his medical coverage as a "domestic partner" while I couldn't carry <font color = red>Belle</font> because she was a female who was not (at that time) my wife.

This alone leads me to the conclusion that the only thing homosexual couples cannot attain right now is an official Certificate of Marriage. By itself, that piece of paper doesn't add anything they cannot already have.

I think this whole "gay marriage movement" is simply a collective desire to prove something, to force acceptance and recognition of their lifesyle by the general population. [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] If you have to force recognition of something upon others, is it really worth having? Are you not content with your own personal acceptance? Why the need for external recognition?

*shrug* It's the 2000s. It's hip to be homosexual.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Well said. I agree wholeheartedly. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I agree. I can't see why it's such a big deal. But it obviously is, else they would've been allowed to marry each other ages ago.

Gnaarf, its an "in your face" thing. a desire for official recognition. no matter what happens though, some people are just never going to recognize those marraiges as valid... no matter what certificate the government gives them.

True. Is that an argument for something, or just pointing out a fact?

I'd say not. I've known far too many homophobic people. Maybe my experience is just jaded. </font>[/QUOTE]You may simply need to "get out more". Chelsea and the West Village are the hippest areas in NYC precisely because of the gay element. As is Oxford St. and Paddington in Sydney for the same reason. Homosexual "chic" is "hip". Designers, pop stars, movie stars. Since Andy Warhol and Oscar Wilde, mardi gras and fashion trends. The politically correct answer is "I'm bi".

But what happens when it's politically correct to NOT be politically correct? </font>[/QUOTE]Well, as for dating, my taste in men are usually the type that could be mistaken for straight, and are fat. I'm not really into the types of guys that are 25 desperately trying to look 15.

But I wouldn't mind going to a predominantly gay area to mingle. However, it seems that it's mostly only popular in such areas. Everywhere else I go it's easy to encounter groups of homophobic people. And I'm mostly talking about hearing the word Fag tossed around so easily in a spiteful manor. That's one of the major reasons I'm closeted to most people. The only people who know (That I know in person) are friends and my sister.

I'd still like to know if you think Criminal prosecution (One of the benefits listed) is important.

I wouldn't go so far to say it's an "in your face" thing.

From childhood, it seems that a lot of aspects of society require recognition. Recognition is important.

For example, I never once saw a particular person post about how sad they are that people died in Iraq and how these people were brave. Yet as soon as a football player died, they wrote one big honking post about how this guy was so brave to enter a war he didn't have to, how great he was, and how much of a hero he was; without mentioning any other soldiers dying or how much they had to lose too. He gave that guy lots of recognition, based one one little ability to throw a ball well.

Recognition of marriage matters for some legalities in life. Like being able to sue a criminal for the death of a loved one so you can actually pay for their funeral.

(btw, my "true" comment was for the "no matter what happens"-part, not the "in your face" thing)

Ah ok.

let me clarify what i meant by the in your face thing... its an attempt to bring official acceptance to the practice by gaining a legal sanctioned status. i didnt mean like, its an in your face thing as though next we're all going to be forced to watch gay porn...

<font color=deepskyblue>I have to agree with you <font color=lime>Azred</font>. The list of benefits denied to gays provided by <font color=red>Jerr</font> is intimidating and impressive at first glance. But - as <font color=tan>Timber</font> pointed out several months ago in a similar thread - MOST of the legal benefits CAN be attained by gay couples. It requires a lot of paperwork and the cost is fairly high ($5,000 - $10,000 IIRC), but it can be done.

And the plain fact is that "Gay Marriages" or "Civil Unions" won't do diddley-squat to change the items on that list that can't be attained through the proper legal paperwork. Since gay marriages or civil unions are NOT being universally recognized in all 50 states, there isn't much that can be done to FORCE an employer to acknowledge the union and offer health insurance to a same-sex partner/spouse. The same applies to any other item on that list. If a lawyer cannot draw up paperwork to obtain those benefits, having your relationship officially sanctioned by one or two states isn't going to help either.

I realize there are heartbreaking examples of gay couples being denied basic rights most of us take for granted...the lesbian partner who was not allowed to be in the room with her dying partner, the gay couple that manage to adopt a child (or procreate through a surrogate), only to lose custody of the child when one of the partners die. The problem is that having the State gov't declare the union "legal" isn't going to change the bias of the nurse that refused to let the partner into the room of her dying lover. And while the State may considered the union between the two "legal", the custody of the child could still be contested since a "legal union" still may not be considered equivalent to "next of kin".

There are two aspects to most marriages - the legal aspect and the religious aspect. The two are usually combined into one ceremony for those that desire the religious aspect. And - while gays say they just want the same legal rights as hetero couples - they aren't going to have the same level of acceptance until they overcome the religious aspects associated with marriage.

So I agree that the whole "gay marriage movement" IS primarily an attempt to force this acceptance through State Legislation. The only problem is that you can't force acceptance or eliminate bias through legislation. Instead of eliminating the problem, it usually escalates it - and this is exactly what we are seeing in Virginia and other states that are taking steps to specifically deny the "legality" of gay marriages or unions sanctioned by another state.</font>

This "acceptance" rational continues to grow more and more shallow. I see it as just another apologetic ( like the "lifestyle excuse") designed to allow the continuance of inequality.

Social acceptance? Look no further than just about any TV network or many movies these days. We are getting well passed the "acceptance" stage, except for the anti-gay idealouges and the politicians who pander to them, clutching their hate-speech filled religous tomes and fake illusions of traditional marriage.

A bunch of insubstantial excuses and sketchy rationale shattered by the fact that giving gays the equal right to marry that hetros already have won't very much effect on the anti-gay marriage people.

Heck, I could imagine it may be good for the soul to favor equality rather than inequality.

It could very well be a good deed to discredit this notion being introduced in Virginia rather than try and justify it, no less, by blaming the very people who are downtrodden for trying to help themselves out.

chewbacca, a gay man has the very same right to marry as a straight man does.

if a gay man wants to marry a woman, he can do that. if a straight man wants to marry a woman, he can do that. no inequality.

if a gay man wants to marry a man, he can't do that. if a straight man wants to marry a man, he can't do that. no inequality.

i hate it when people try to gain pity points for the movement by arguing for "equality" when legalistically its already there. we're not talking about equal rights, we're talking about an expansion of rights to include a new factor... even applied society wide it is STILL an expansion of rights, not correcting an "inequality." so please, cut the BS about unfair or unequal because that arguement just doesnt float.

Ah one of my favorite run-arounds of the issue...the ole- a gay man can marry a woman so the gays already have rights. Its poppycock.

A gay man can't marry the person they love and want to commit to for the rest of their life in a married sort of way.... ie. -another man.

A hetrosexual man can marry the person they love and want to commit to for the rest of their life in a married sort of way- ie. a woman.

So it is unfair and it is unequal..and it certainly floats. [img]smile.gif[/img]

well, chewbacca, now you've entered into the realm of INTENT. a realm which is IRRELEVENT in the courtroom. in fact, its very similar to the supreme court case RE burning flags in protest. they ruled that intent was irrelevant and that legality lay in the action, thus one action in one intent could not be illegal simply because the intent was changed. namely, because they love each other has no regard to the equality of the action whatsoever. its what you call... poppycock.

Actually, the cost I think I quoted is upwards of $20K, and any of these costs is unfair to thrust on a couple just because of their gender. Let me be clear: while I think that calling it "marriage" is only a minor "to-may-to, to-mah-to" issue, I do believe that insuring the rights of coupling inure to a gay couple is important. IMO, every state *should* have a "civil union" for these couples, to allow them the same substantive benefits.

Additionally, I think the law as first proposed by Mass works best -- call it a "civil union" and pass a law stating that all mentioning of "marriage" in the law must also apply to "civil unions" -- making them substantively equal, while preserving the nomenclature difference.
Actually, this is wrong, as well. For instance, the employer in VT, no matter their state of origin, must follow the VT law and make sure the rights in question (such as shared medical insurance) also go to the "civil union" couples. The state does control that. The same is now true in Mass.

As for the states refusing to recognize the marriages/unions, that is still an issue. However, that too is changing -- NY will recognize the MA marriages for instance.
Yes, As I mentioned before, these are issues that even some staunch conservatives can see as being very wrong from a "humanity/compassion" standpoint. Actually, in the states protecting such unions, this is also wrong as well. In VT, a nurse who is biased against gays, will nevertheless grant the access to the "death bed" that a next-of-kin gets (as required by law), because that nurse knows that the way the law is now, he/she can be subject to JAIL TIME for refusing those rights. Additionally, refusing those rights could get the hospital *sued,* which result in the nurse at least losing their job -- even more incentive to do the right thing under the law.

Just some thoughts and clarifications. Not meaning to slam you about, Cerek. I think you listened to the concerns rather thoughtfully, I just think you misunderstand and misunderestimate (to use a Bushism) the ability of the law to change things.

Ah one of my favorite run-arounds of the issue...the ole- a gay man can marry a woman so the gays already have rights. Its poppycock.

A gay man can't marry the person they love and want to commit to for the rest of their life in a married sort of way.... ie. -another man.

A hetrosexual man can marry the person they love and want to commit to for the rest of their life in a married sort of way- ie. a woman.

So it is unfair and it is unequal..and it certainly floats. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]I generally agree with Whatawookie, so long as I restate the caveat that the substantive rights are important, not the nomenclature, so a "civil union" works as well as a "marriage."

Here, Promethius, let me put your argument to its logical conclusions:

"If a gay man wants to have sex with a woman, he can. But, gay men cannot have sex with each other."

That is your premise stated with "sex" instead of "marriage" -- and the Supreme Court has expressly denied that and upheld the right to gay sex, based on the Right of Privacy. Your argument is simply logically flawed as to what the law can do.

Here's another parallel:

"If a white man who likes black women wants to marry a white woman, he can. But white men cannot marry black women."

Do you see the flaw in your logic yet?

I'm closer to being on-board with this line of thinking now than before- so long as civil unions get the exact same substantive legal rights and priviledges, at every level, as marriage.

I *think* we are a long ways off from this at a federal level unless a potential future court ruling finds the DOMA unconstitutional. Right?

I just got married a month ago and I am still learning all the new stuff involved legally. Like I was able to give my wife a car when hers went kaput, and she paid no taxes on it. As merely my longtime live-together girlfriend she would have shelled out around $500 (that's why they call it Taxxachusetts!) A real set of lessons will come, I think, next year at tax time.

We're not talking about any extension of rights. We're talking about giving men and women the same rights. A woman can't marry a woman, but a man can. That's inequality.

TL, your arguement is flawed:

Here's another parallel:

"If a white man who likes black women wants to marry a white woman, he can. But white men cannot marry black women."

Do you see the flaw in your logic yet?

first, black women and white women are both homosapian FEMALES. they are the same. there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic so the whole race card doesnt even come into play.

second, and i think we can both agree, to marry a man is an entirely seperate act from marrying a woman. and yes, it is legal to distinguish between men and women when declaring an act legal or not. thus a man cannot walk into a lady's lockeroom shower without getting arrested for sexual misconduct. in the same way we can legally distinguish between a womans right to marry a man and a mans right to marry another man.

like i said, there is no legal inequality right now. if this were an arguement to expand rights then i would be more comfortable on it, but i will always be sketchy of a movement that skews the numbers and bases arguements on faulty premises.

True, men and women don't have the same rights when it comes to lockeroom showers either. OMFG <<

Actually, there's plenty of research posted online that shows that Homosexuality most likely does have a genetic disposition. Just Google it.

TL, I Agree with a lot you've stated so far. Especially with the nurse example.

Because if a nurse were racist, and wouldn't let a black person see their white lover in the hospital, wouldn't he or she be disciplined?

I also have to agree it's unfair to thrust $20,000 dollars worth of processes on people. Hell, I couldn't even afford that myself! All I get is SSI.

[ 05-30-2004, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Jerr Conner ]

okay, jerr, we have a trend here... why don't you cite ONE study which conclusively proves that homosexuality IS genetic? be forewarned, there are studies which DECLARED that it was, but were later refuted or were flawed in some way which, when corrected, made the expirement irreplicable. please, by all means, cite one which is conclusive proof, since, as you say "there's plenty of research posted online that shows that Homosexuality most likely does have a genetic disposition"

To my information, no such study exists... But even less sources agree that it's a choice made. Therefore, discriminating against sexual preference is on par with discriminating on race.

I'm not aware of any studies saying that homosexuality is genetic/hormonal, but research is being made on it. It IS a fairly new research area, so I don't expect any conclusive results yet.

http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

That one is a bit old, though. But I recognize it as something I found on Google two years ago. I haven't googled homosexuality genetic in two years, so a lot of the URLs are different now. But I'm continuing the search as I type this.

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/...s/nih-nyt.html

This one is too old too, but I figured minus will put these up anyway. Interesting reads.

Gay sheep may shed light on sexuality
November 5, 2002 Highlights
Complete article at http://europe.cnn.com/2002/TECH/scie...eut/index.html

Scientists studied 27 sheep -- 10 ewes, nine rams that mated only with other rams and eight rams that mated only with females.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Gay sheep that mate only with other rams have different brain structures from "straight" sheep, a finding that may shed light on human sexuality, U.S. researchers said on Monday.

The differences are similar to those seen in some homosexual humans, but probably only go a small way to explaining the causes of different sexual preferences, the team at Oregon Health & Science University said.

Brains may hold the answer
First the scientists watched the sheep to be sure of their behavior -- something that cannot be done with humans. Then they took apart their brains.

"There had been reports in humans that a certain area of the hypothalamus, the preoptic area ... was usually larger in males than females," Roselli said. This area was also found to be larger in heterosexual humans than in homosexual men.

But the researchers had used the brains of men who had died of AIDS in their study, which meant the disease or drugs used to treat it could have had an effect on the brain.

"With an animal model you can be more selective and do more controlled studies," Roselli said. The sheep had similar differences in their brains, the researchers told a meeting in Orlando, Florida, of the Society for Neuroscience. "In a sense we confirmed what been found in humans," Roselli said. The brain cells in this area also made greater amounts of an enzyme called aromatase in the heterosexual rams. Aromatase is involved in the action of testosterone, the so-called male hormone.

Roselli believes that exposure to hormones while still in the mother's womb may affect the brain and cause differences in sexual preference, and more experiments will aim to show whether this is true.

((((That's the most recent I could find.))))

Although I found it at a religious site http://www.libchrist.com/other/homos...ndanimals.html

Besides, if it were a choice, then why don't some straight people here choose to be attracted to the same sex to prove me wrong?

[ 05-31-2004, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: Jerr Conner ]

Studies, schmudies. I've known kids as early as age 8 who would go to bed everynight praying to God that they would not think the thoughts they were having about other boys. I've also been in the awkward position, when I was 16, of helping my RA, who was 19, through certain "confusions," when I was actually the object of his affection (not to worry -- I only ever had "relations" with my female RA's [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] )

Point being -- in some cases it's more nature than nurture, and in other cases it's more nurture than nature. Some I have witnessed are born with a genetic predisposition. That's a fact, based on my own two eyes witnessing it -- so, for my part, the tests (which so far are inconclusive) provide less evidence than experience.

And, promethius, if you don't get my analogy, then I just can't help you. I can only take you through so many steps of logic, the final connections are ones that you must make.

At one point, the "species" difference was not seen as any different than the "race" difference. That view changed, when people realized it was a distinction without a difference. The same is applicable to gender, and we are now understanding that.

As I said, if you don't get it, you just don't get it. You can draw all the boxes and categorizations you like, but if they are not meaningful, they do no good -- not logically.

differing brain structure has nothing to do with genetics. it is a known fact that psychological effects, even the education process, changes the structure of the brain. simply aging changes the brain structure. the patterns in the brain could indicate behavioral upbringing patterns, difference in feeding, and difference in testosterone levels just as easily as it could indicate genetics. that study was clear, they have a different structure, but inconclusive as to whether or not it was genetic.

second, the first study you proposed injected a female gene into a fly which had already been raised as a male. essentially, they turned a male fly into a female with a male fly body. thats not surprising, if you took a fetus and transplanted its genes for a pair of X chromosomes, i wouldnt be surprised if it came out gay as well. But theres a problem... men cant be born with a second x chromosome. in order to validate the experiment you must tamper with the genetics. im not arguing that if you unnaturally inject female genes into the male DNA structure at a crucial developemental stage that a creature could be manufactured gay... but this study comes nowhere close to even remotely proving that homosexuality could occur naturally.

Third, timber, as you said, children can often behave in a "gay" manner. that is true. if you will look on the first source i posted you will see a list of psychological patterns which are prevalent in almost 90% of homosexual men who seek behavioral counciling, meaning that those children could easily be a product of their environment (as our dear Dr. Frued so clearly stated) or their genetics, which is an arguement as old as the field of genetics itself. if you prove that behavior is solely based on genetics though, how are you ever going to prosecute any criminal? their genes made them do it...

edit: another point to be made is that none of the studies you pointed us to are conclusive. they all "point" to something, but cannot prove it. and studies which begin with a behavioral hypothysis "point" to behavior as well. both sides are, at this time, unable to prove anything... which is all i meant when i stated that the fact that homosexuality is genetic is open to quite a bit of speculation.

[ 05-31-2004, 06:12 AM: Message edited by: promethius9594 ]

<font color=deepskyblue>I should have realized that figure was a bit small, but I couldn't remember the figure you had provided last year. Thanks for clarifying that.</font>

Actually, this is wrong, as well. For instance, the employer in VT, no matter their state of origin, must follow the VT law and make sure the rights in question (such as shared medical insurance) also go to the "civil union" couples. The state does control that. The same is now true in Mass.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>Really? Then I stand corrected on that point. But does that also apply to companies or corporations that are self-insured? My former place of employment was self-insured and I know that they were able to specify certain stipulations regarding the benefits and deductibles (for example, when I had surgery at a different facility, I had to pay an additional deductible even though I had TRIED to have the surgery at my own facility and the resident surgeon refused to do it. I fought it for 6 months, but still had to pay the extra $500 because that was a specific stipulation in the policy).

I realize that commercial insurers (the Big Name Insurance Companies) would have to comply with State Law, but I wondered if that would apply to corporations that provide their own self-insurance? That's why I was questioning how enforceable the shared medical benefits would be.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>But just as many states will follow the same path as Virginia and write legislation that now specifically excludes gay marriages or civil unions. I know that Georgia is considering such a law (I believe as an amendment to their State Constitution, but not positive on that). I haven't heard of any legislation either way in my home state of NC yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if they introduce similar legislation within the next year or two also.

It may be entirely possible that "gay civil unions" DO finally recieve universal acceptance in all 50 states someday, but it certainly isn't going to happen anytime soon. I'm guessing anywhere between 10-25 years minimum, but I'm no expert so I could be wrong about that.

Yes, As I mentioned before, these are issues that even some staunch conservatives can see as being very wrong from a "humanity/compassion" standpoint. Actually, in the states protecting such unions, this is also wrong as well. In VT, a nurse who is biased against gays, will nevertheless grant the access to the "death bed" that a next-of-kin gets (as required by law), because that nurse knows that the way the law is now, he/she can be subject to JAIL TIME for refusing those rights. Additionally, refusing those rights could get the hospital *sued,* which result in the nurse at least losing their job -- even more incentive to do the right thing under the law.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>I understand the point your making, <font color=tan>Timber</font>, but I still don't completely agree with you. The nurse that denied a same-sex partner to comfort her dying lover had no real justification for her action in the first place. She can quote hospital policy if she wants, but I've worked in hospitals for 13 years and I know for a fact that "policy" can be (and is) bent or overlooked all the time under certain circumstances. It seems to me the main reason the nurse denied allowing the same-sex partner into the room was because of her prejudice against gays, pure and simple. My point is that NO AMOUNT of legislation will change that type of prejudice. It's like sending a bigot to "anger management classes", it's nothing but a waste of time and taxpayer money.

I admit that the hospitals I have worked for a very small and I agree that making "civil unions" officially recognized under State Law will help, but I'm also saying from a practical viewpoint that it won't magically eliminate the problem the way you are suggesting. I've seen nurses and doctor's both do things that could get the hospital sued or even conceivably get them into legal trouble, but they still did it. It happens all the time, and I'm sure it happens even more in larger facilities.

The state may recognize the union, but if the blood relatives of the person don't want the same-sex partner being allowed into the room, chances are the partner is NOT going to be allowed in there. Yeah, they can turn around and sue the hospital, but the family can turn around and sue the hospital for denying THIER wishes if the partner IS allowed into the room. Trust me, in THAT situation, the nurse and/or doctor is going to take the path of least resistance and honor the wishes of the blood relatives.</font>


<font color=deepskyblue>No problem, <font color=tan>Timber</font>. Maybe my view is too pessimistic. But I still agree with <font color=lime>Azred</font> that the primary goal for gays is not to just recieve "equal benefits", but to recieve universal acceptance by society as a whole. My point is that simply isn't going to happen - and least not for a couple of generations. And it CERTAINLY isn't going to occur because the law says we have to do it. The ONLY way that will occur is for people to accept homosexuality on their own. You can't eliminate emotions, bias or prejudice with legislation.

The good news (for homosexuals) is that the younger generations DO seem to be more accepting of homosexuality in general, and it's reasonable to assume their children will be even more accepting, etc etc. So the universal acceptance MAY come eventually, but it will take a few generations to accomplish it.</font>

That site you posted is nothing more than hateful, conservative bunk and I give no credence to anything posted on a site that claims homosexuals can be 'cured.'

Timber, there were times when I was a kid I prayed to God to change me. So I know what that's like. Good point there.

I believe this is in violation of the first ammendment... Then again... I'm not sure...

That site you posted is nothing more than That site you posted is nothing more than hateful, conservative bunk and I give no credence to anything posted on a site that claims homosexuals can be 'cured.'
and I give no credence to anything posted on a site that claims homosexuals can be 'cured.'

that site i posted was worked on by a doctor in psychology, who researched via other doctors of psychology. they are EXPERTS. you base your entire OPINION on the mislead concept that homosexuality is a genetic aberation, and not on any REAL research whatsoever. there is no proof either way, so until the results come out either for or against, i think we would both be wise as to hold our tongues before declaring one side "hateful, conservative bunk." remember, when hateful conservative bunk yields a scientific answer, it becomes scientific fact. same goes for biased liberal garbage research.

im not so sure the gay community WANTS what is entailed by the genetic "solution." i mean, think what will REALLY occur. do you expect opposition to roll over and say that it is now morally okay? NO!!! don't be foolish. what will most likely occur is the overwhelming sentiment that it is then a genetic DISORDER, like autism, or such. gays will be treated as sub par to straights by homophobic types and they will be pitied by those who oppose but arent homophobic (yes, there are those of us who are opposed to homosexuality that are niether homophobic, nor hateful). they won't gain an inch, they'll lose ten miles.

it would be much better for the gay community if they defended it as their right to make a moral choice for themselves rather than to mistakenly make it look like they suffer from a genetic abberation, which is where the line of thought is going to head.

Do not presume to tell me where my opinions come from. I did NOT say it is based in genetics, and if that did happen to be what I believed, I would most certainly not refer to it as an abberation. As it stands, this website uses the words "Symptom" "Preventable" "Therapy" "Hope" and "Cured" in reference to homosexuality. It's not a disease.
Consider the following quote:
"It is very important for every Catholic experiencing same sex attractions to know that there is hope, and there is help... Support groups, therapists, and spiritual counselors who unequivocally support the Church's teaching are essential components of the help that is needed."
Homosexuals do not need help to stop these feelings. More often than not, they need help dealing with the guilt that society in general and the church in particular instills in them. If a counselor or therapist unequivocally supports the Church's teachings, they do not have the "patient's" needs as their foremost concern, but rather the Church's. This is quite the conflict of interest.

You've based your entire agrument, so-called, on an imagined opinion of mine. And it's not a moral choice. Hell, it's not a choice, period. Don't make it out to be one.

[ 05-31-2004, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Illumina Drathiran'ar ]