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]