# A Mother's Reflections



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 6, 2005)

Reposting from LiveJournal....
  =====

  [font=Arial,Helvetica][size=+1]_*A Mother's Reflections*_[/size][/font]
_reposted from 

*auraseer11*_

  The following is a very strong and moving letter written by the mother of
  a gay boy in Vermont...

 "Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I've taken enough from you good people. I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny.

 My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay.

 He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called "fag" incessantly, starting when he was 6.

  In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be 
 doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn't bear to continue living any longer, that he didn't want to be gay and that he couldn't face a life without dignity.

 You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that. 

 At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won't get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during a critical time of fetal development, I don't know. I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn.

 If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it. For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will? If that's not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?

 A popular theme in your letters is that Vermont has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am heart and soul a Vermonter, so I'll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for "true Vermonters."

 You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn't give their lives so that the "homosexual agenda" could tear down the principles they died defending. My 83-year-old father fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart.

 He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn't the measure of the man.

 You religious folk just can't bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance.

 How dare he? you say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage. You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin.

 The deep-thinking author of a letter to the April 12 Valley News who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about "those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing" asks: "What ever happened to the idea of striving . . . to be better human beings than we are?"

  Indeed, sir, what ever happened to that? "

  ________________________________________ __________________

 If you believe that homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else, repost this, and be thankful that there are people like this mother, because without them, where would we be?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 6, 2005)

People have asked me why I repost notes like the above, and imply that because I do I must be "one of them". The answer is a simple one. I believe everyone has a right to be treated equally, and that to discriminate based on gender, orientation, religion, or any other difference is wrong. I believe the US is wrong to try to, and often succeed in passing discriminatory laws against any group, and that it is a crime to try and use a document that in the past has promoted rights, to revoke and deny them. I salute the Canadian Government for doing the right thing, even though many of them were against the idea of "Gay Marriage". Everyone has the right to love and be loved. While that path is not mine, I do have several friends who walk it, and suffer the hatred of those close minded individuals who would deny them both the joys and the agonies that the "straights" have. Love is love.

 There are those who argue that "gays" are degenerates, child molesters, pedophiles, sexual deviants, etc. I think that is an unfair, and unfounded allegation. One might as well say that priests, or politicians, boy scout leaders or karate instructors are just as "evil", since those groups are also often in the news in connection to such things. Every group has it's share of scum, and every group needs to be judged as a whole, not on the evil of a minority portion of it's members. 

 Too often, these same "moral crusaders" who condemn "male-male" relationships, as "Satans Own", will get all excited about "female-female" relations, as 2 guys is "ick" but 2 girls is "yum". It's the same dual standard that allows men to go shirtless, but keeps women's tops on as somehow, a womans breasts are evil, but mens aren't. The topic of nudity is also often seen as somehow corrupting of children. Thankfully, we are born fully clothed so as to avoid that unnatural state. Oh wait, we aren't. Guess it's ok to be naked. Well, thankfully we are born knowing that only "boy-girl" is ok. Oh wait, that's not true either. We're programmed by our environment. If it wasn't for that programming, we might be very much accepting of others.

 People need to relax, stop judging and condemning others who are different. Accept the differences, and get on with themselves. Straight or gay or bi, it doesn't matter. Everyone has the right to love, and everyone deserves the rights and responsibilities that making a commitment en tales.

 It's like country music...don't like it, don't listen. Don't like your own gender? Don't date em. But some folks like country, let em listen to it.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 6, 2005)

I dunno. Homosexuals are free to "love" whomever they want in this country. There are no laws against homosexuality. The issue of "Gay marriage" is a legal/social one. If a homosexual couple wants to draw up legal documents regarding power of attny., wills and so forth they are free to do so. The gay mariage issue in this country (as I see it currently at least) is one of forcing a social/political agenda on a population that apparently isnt ready handle such a change.


----------



## andy (Aug 6, 2005)

Homosexuals are free to love whomever they wish. Noone challenges that.
But when a homosexual promotes the agenda on a heterosexual or their children as 'normal'--therein lies the problem.

If any given species cannot procreate thru the act of sexual intercourse then an anomaly of nature has been introduced into the system. what do we do as a caring society with someone who has a physical or mental problem?--short answer we treat and help as best we can. 

 The political agenda is clear here. 
 Society does not need to change to an anomaly that creates grief and tragedy. society needs to help perhaps, but not adhere to an abnormality.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 6, 2005)

The problem I see is politicians doing what is "popular", not what is "right".

Anyone should be able to get married. 2 humans, gender doesn't matter.
No horses (though it was done), no cars (though it's been done), etc.

If not in a religious ceremony, then in a civil (??) ceremony at least.

You can draw up all the papers you want.  Civil Union is not the same as "Married" when it comes to property rights, inheritance, visitation, child custody, or health proxy.



> There are no laws against homosexuality.


Not accurate. As late as 2003, there were 13 US states with laws on the books that banned same-gender sexual relations or certain activities that were selectively denied same gender while allowed for opposite gender.  Canada nationally does not limit what activities consenting adults may indulge in, though it does have a higher age of consent for same gender relations.

See http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fuel2.htm for more information.



> But when a homosexual promotes the agenda on a heterosexual or their children as 'normal'--therein lies the problem.


If that agenda is "gay is good, straight bad" I agree, there is a problem.  If it is "Follow what suits you not what suits society" I would disagree that there is any problem.



> forcing a social/political agenda on a population that apparently isn't ready handle such a change.


Sometimes, you must do that which is unpopular, for the good of all.  Discrimination is bad.

At one time, it was illegal (under pain of death) for a colored to marry a white. Today, it is perfectly legal.
At one time it was illegal for a colored to drink from the same fountain as a white. Today, there is no more "colored" fountains.
The social changes required then, were forced upon the population, in some cases at gun point.  The courts said that "separate by equal" was wrong, and "separate by equivalent" was also wrong.  The same applies today.

As to this:


> If any given species cannot procreate thru the act of sexual intercourse then an anomaly of nature



There are many "straight" couples who due to whatever reason, can not procreate through intercourse.  They adopt or go artificial to generate their children. If they are "ok" even though they go through such artificial means, then why is it not "ok" for a gay couple to also adopt, or go artificial? (I've heard there are procedures that will allow a male to carry a child...expensive, painful, but artificially natural).

A number of countries currently recognize  (Two people of the same sex who live together as a family) same-sex marriages. A number of jurisdictions now allow gay couples to adopt children. I think that it is only a matter of time before the discrimination ends.  A pity that it will take longer for the intolerance, hatred and fear to follow suit.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 6, 2005)

First, i'd like to say that I hold no malice toward homosexuals. What two adults (or more) do in the privacy of their own home is their business. Further, if two adults want to enter in to a civil union for the purposes of property rights, inheritance, medical/life insurance, etc., then so be it, allow them to do so.

That having been said, I find it ironic that the same people telling me that the US has no right to interfer in the beliefs of other people in other nations (i.e. violent dictators), are the same who sit in New Hampshire, California, New York, and desire to dictate to other states and other groups of people what they should and should not accept. Could it be that their beliefs on the matter are entirely rooted in their politics. 

For example, if it were politically expedient to them, they have no problem interferring and imposing their standards on others, but when it comes to a intervention by people they hate politically, they come up with all sorts of sophist arguments about how it's wrong? 

Take Iraq versus Kosovo for example. I agreed with both interventions. Republicans attacked Clinton for Kosovo and backed Iraq, Democrats agreed with Clinton on Kosovo and attack Bush on Iraq. 

I myself believe that the rights of homosexuals should be protected, even if states desire otherwise. I also believe that violent dictators should be rooted out of this planet for the same reasons.

Am I missing something? It's the blatant hypocrisy of it all that I find distasteful.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 6, 2005)

It is (in my opinion) 2 majorly different issues (outside intervention vs domestic equality) but I can agree with your point.

In the case of the Iraq/Kosovo thing, if interfering in the internal affairs of other nations was right in 1 case, it should be right in the other. (Especially if the reasons given [topple dictator, save the kids, kill terrorism, etc] were similar).

Now, a point I'd like clarified if possible: Civil Union vs Marriage.
If I goto my local church and do the ceremony there, it's marriage right?
Is it also Marriage if the ceremony is done by the local justice of the peace? Or is that a civil union?  Or is the activity the same, but the title (and a few rights) different depending on the gender of whom I go through it with?  That's a point I'm fuzzy on.


(BTW, I liked the "What two adults (or more) do" comment.) :cheers:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 6, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> It is (in my opinion) 2 majorly different issues (outside intervention vs domestic equality) but I can agree with your point.
> 
> In the case of the Iraq/Kosovo thing, if interfering in the internal affairs of other nations was right in 1 case, it should be right in the other. (Especially if the reasons given [topple dictator, save the kids, kill terrorism, etc] were similar).
> 
> ...


 Actually, i'm not sure about that either.  I think the big issue is really civil union.  I don't support forcing religious institutions to recognize gay marriage, mostly because it isn't really necessary to achieve the goal.  I believe that the state must recognize both institutions equally, and therefore, going down to the local county court house and being joined in civil union should be a right for homosexuals.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 6, 2005)

andy said:
			
		

> If any given species cannot procreate thru the act of sexual intercourse then an anomaly of nature has been introduced into the system. what do we do as a caring society with someone who has a physical or mental problem?--short answer we treat and help as best we can.
> 
> The political agenda is clear here.


From wikipedia



> *Asexual reproduction* the simplest form of reproduction and does not involve meiosis, gamete formation, or fertilization. In laymen's terms, there is only one "parent" involved. This form of reproduction is most common among simple organisms such as amoeba and other single-celled organisms. However, many plants produce asexually as well.
> 
> Because it does not require male and female participation, asexual reproduction occurs faster than sexual reproduction and requirss energy. Additionally, asexual reproduction produces an exact replica of the parent due to the lack of genetic recombination. From an evolutionary standpoint, one could thus argue that asexual reproduction inferior because it stifles the potential for change. However, there is also a significantly reduced chance of mutation or other complications that can result from the mixing of genes.
> 
> ...


So many anomolies of nature. 
So many political agendas.

Or maybe, it is just 'fear of the other' that causes people to behave as they do.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 6, 2005)

> forcing religious institutions to recognize gay marriage


That's the part of the Canadian sollution I like.
They don't have to do it if they don't want to. (The religions that is.)  
The option is there for individual clergy to not do the ceremony.
Of course, the religions that do allow it, will most likely see some increase in numbers..as well as some decreases as closed minded bigots leave in huffs.


----------



## andy (Aug 6, 2005)

interesting points,
 however, If a species cannot procreate thru abnormal sexual interaction. Then an anomaly is created. and what does the human race do with an abnormality? 


humans are not asexual.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 6, 2005)

> humans are not asexual.



You've never been to a sci-fi con huh? 

(Sorry, had to pick on the geeks.) :wavey:


----------



## Tgace (Aug 6, 2005)

Yeah..adultry is a crime in NY too. We couldnt build enough jails. Perhaps I should say "nobody is going to be prosecuted for homosexuality in the USA".

BTW: Id have no problem with a civil union either. Its just a contract.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 6, 2005)

Well, it would fix many of out political problems, what with half our "leaders" locked up. LOL!


----------



## Matt Stone (Aug 6, 2005)

andy said:
			
		

> interesting points,
> however, If a species cannot procreate thru abnormal sexual interaction. Then an anomaly is created. and what does the human race do with an abnormality?
> 
> 
> humans are not asexual.



Nor are we the only species that engages in sexual activity strictly for sheer enjoyment or for bonding purposes, nor are we the only species that engages in homo- or bi-sexual behavior for the same reasons...

Bonobo chimpanzees and dolphins both mirror human sexuality.

Get over your fear...  "God" made them just as they are.  If "God" is perfect, aren't *all* of his creations made just as He intended them to be?  Or, if they are created imperfect, doesn't that imply that "God" is imperfect?  If you cite "original sin" as the source of human imperfection, shouldn't we all be stricken with debilitating diseases and physical deformities to equal the imperfection of our souls?  "But what about those born deformed or disabled?"  Is that due to the sins of the parents?  Hardly.  If we're going to be religious, let's treat "God" as the truly all knowing, all powerful entity He is professed to be, and realize that people are as they are according to His plan, not their choice...  It is the daily choices we make according to how He made us that is getting a report card after we kick off, not how we showed up to class...

Finally, let's not discuss the entire "sodomy" issue, since I doubt very highly that there are many heterosexual couples that absolutely refuse to engage in oral sex of any kind...  Oral or anal, both are "evil" according to the religious community and many laws that remain on the books today.

Again, get over your fear.  Let people be people, let "God" do His job and sort out who was right or wrong.  Love your neighbor as much as you love yourself and your own.  Doing that, we can't go wrong.  Or, in the alternative, continue to segregate and separate, love conditionally only those who think the same way you do, and in the end we all die and get judged exactly on how much love we spread in His name...  If you're okay with your tally of good things done only to good people, feel free to sit in front of the guy that hung out with exiles, alleged prostitutes, other social outcasts (the diseased, the dying, etc.), and was executed along with common theives, and be judged for how you behaved "in His name."

Somehow I think He's gonna be a little pissed...   :idunno:

It always amazes me how selective people are with "the word of God."  I guess it's easy to forget that little maxim "judge not lest ye be judged."  I'm all for letting Him do His job...  How 'bout you homophobes?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 7, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> That's the part of the Canadian sollution I like.
> They don't have to do it if they don't want to. (The religions that is.)
> The option is there for individual clergy to not do the ceremony.
> Of course, the religions that do allow it, will most likely see some increase in numbers..as well as some decreases as closed minded bigots leave in huffs.


 That's an entirely different can of worms. From a philosophical persective I can never understand why anyone would desire to join a religion that clearly condemns their lifestyle. 

I mean, unless it's some excessive desire for exceptance, I really don't understand it. If you truly believe that god exists, and you truly believe he is the god described in the bible, then it is very clear that he doesn't approve of the homosexual lifestyle. 

Now, if you simply don't believe in god, or don't believe in the judeo-christian god, then it doesn't matter. But why force yourself in to a belief system that at it's very core condemns your lifestyle? Further, any judeo-christian that modifies it's teachings and beliefs simply to accomodate homosexuals solely for the purposes of being seen as tolerant and increasing membership (and, thus, profits) really has moved in to the realm of being a McChurch. 

It seems far easier to me to simply be an agnostic or atheist, than to have to rationalize how christianity REALLY doesn't condemn homosexuality, it just appears that way.



			
				andy said:
			
		

> interesting points,
> however, If a species cannot procreate thru abnormal sexual interaction. Then an anomaly is created. and what does the human race do with an abnormality?
> 
> 
> humans are not asexual.


 I kind of like the fact that homosexuals aren't breeding.  Too many people breeding indiscriminately as it.  Hard to argue with their lifestyle when it is only their lives they are effecting.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 7, 2005)

andy said:
			
		

> interesting points,
> however, If a species cannot procreate thru abnormal sexual interaction. Then an anomaly is created. and what does the human race do with an abnormality?
> 
> 
> humans are not asexual.


andy, you statement addresses 'species', not 'humans'. If you wish to amend your statement that is perfectly fine, but what you claim is not true. Asexual reproduction is not an anolomy for some species. It is perfect 'normal'.

The human race gets to decide, with its cognative abilities, what to 'do' (as if something needs to be done) with a person or activity that is outside the norm. Abnormality is defined as 'exceptional' or 'unusual'. 

I would point out the obvious, that when viewing human behavior, most behavior falls within the average. From the average, behaviors can be measure in both directions, (i.e. higher than average, lower than average). I would point out that often the human race recognizes and rewards 'abnormality'. Hell, every four years, we feature a world-wide celebration of abnormality (the Olympics).

If the 'average' member of the human race can run a mile in, oh, say six and a half minutes, we praise people like Roger Bannister, who was first able to complete the mile in less than four minutes (an abnormality) and Hicham El Guerroui, the current world record holder (three minutes, forty three seconds).

We human beings are an amazing species. We are flexible and creative. When the behavior of the species is viewed, and analized, I think, we might find that what actually qualifies as 'normal' might be eye-opening. But, importantly, as we observe, we must leave aside our own prejudices to accurately recognize 'normality'. And then we need be careful to not project our own beliefs onto anothers observed behavior. 

Or, maybe, 'they' just aren't like 'us', and that makes us uncomfortable.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 7, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Or, maybe, 'they' just aren't like 'us', and that makes us uncomfortable.


 That seems to apply in politics too. Unfortunately no side of any disagreement is immune from demonizing those that disagree.  We are, afterall, all too human.


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 7, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I kind of like the fact that homosexuals aren't breeding. Too many people breeding indiscriminately as it. Hard to argue with their lifestyle when it is only their lives they are effecting.


I'm not sure that I can understand the reasoning behind your statement here.  If what you're suggesting is that a child is more likely to be homosexual if one or both parents are, I don't believe that to be accurate in any way.  In fact, the difference between a homosexual parent and a heterosexual parent is that the homosexual parent is more likely to raise their child to be open minded, accepting, and tolerant of diversity.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 7, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I dunno. Homosexuals are free to "love" whomever they want in this country. There are no laws against homosexuality. The issue of "Gay marriage" is a legal/social one. If a homosexual couple wants to draw up legal documents regarding power of attny., wills and so forth they are free to do so. The gay mariage issue in this country (as I see it currently at least) is one of forcing a social/political agenda on a population that apparently isnt ready handle such a change.




Tom et al,

They (* Homosexuals *) can "Love" whom ever they want. But they cannot have sex, as they is considered wrong in many states, and or local laws. 


I understand a Church or private organization not allowing for people to be marriedn and recognized wiht said PRIVATE organization. But, the issue of Power of Attny, and wills, and such costs a lot more money then $30 for a marriage license, and the $100 for a judge to marry you. And even with these paperwork(s) in place parents and siblings can challenge, and a hospitable may error on the sie of caution, and not allow the Spouse in to see a dying person, because they are not legally family. 

As to the social/political agenda. If those that are making it political stopped making it a religous agenda, then everyone could look at it from logic and see that it is a matter of rights, and the denying of them, which is discrimination.

My problem is that the Political leaders who are against this, only can site Religion, as the problem. If their religion is so important, and this country supports them so much, then maybe, this country is not really a replubic of ideas and Freedom and the use of the U.S. Constitution, but a Theocracy, similiar to those countries we are at war with. 

I live an mixed race neighborhood, because I do not like being told to move out of my house, becuase people think I am not caucasion. When I lived in an apartment building after my divorce, I numerous Homosexual neighbors, they were great! They were quiet, and polite, and no door dings, it was not until the "White Trash" with the crying babies and little kids moved in that cars got broke into, and kicked, and lots of noise. So, the homosexuals, and later myself, all ended up moving out, because we could buy houses, for the most part, or move elsewhere, and not put up with these types of people. 

So, the social issue will be there for a long while, the issue, here, is a legal one at first. It must be recognized that they also have rights, and that those rights are the same as women, and the same as African Americans, or , ..., and yes it will take time for society to accept, and in places they may nevern accept, but it begins with the legal. IMHO.

:asian:


----------



## elder999 (Aug 7, 2005)

There has been much discussion in the past several years, concerning the sanctity of marriage. Most of this discussion has come about as a result of a push, from some quarters, for the sanction _of_ same gender marriage.

Back in the 1990s, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as between one man and one woman only. Now, in the first place, Bill Clinton defending marriage is a little like Sen. Ted Kennedy teaching water rescue and CPR. In the second place, the president, congress and the courts can define legal civil unions, however, they have no authority to define the sanctity of marriage.

Civil union is a contract having to do with legal rights and obligations. The government has every right to legislate with regard to these unions. At the same time, in order to serve justice, truth, and freedom, government has a duty to extend the benefits of civil unions to all competent adults. The individual religious, spiritual or political beliefs of any segment of society must never be used as an excuse to deny equal opportunity, or equal civil rights to any competent adult, or classes of competent adults. This seems so obvious to me, that I feel a bit foolish even stating it here. The most important benefit of civil union is that of ownership and transfer of property. Civil union defines a family unit, for purposes of civil law. When we speak of civil marriage or civil union, were speaking only of a legal relationship, not a spiritual or religious one. It is wise to take religious principles and opinions into account when contemplating civil law, but it is reckless, unjust and unconstitutional to base civil law and the relationships of competent adults on religion.

Pope John Paul II recently released a message tot the civil leaders of the world, urging them not to extend legal recognition to same gender relationships. The Catholic Church teaches that such relationships are seriously disordered against natural law. This means that same gender relationships are, in and of themselves, evil. As it happens, I disagree with that teaching, as I have a great deal of love and respect for the Holy Father; he is the leader of an ancient religious tradition. (Don't get all crazy, Tony. I'm not Catholic, and I have a great deal of love and respect for you, both as a person and as a representative of a religious tradition.) However, I think he-and our president-need to be reminded of something Jesus once said. Jesus told a group o f religious leaders, who laid heavy, unjust burdens on their followers that if they misled the innocent, it would be better for them if heavy stones were tied around their necks, and they were sunk to the bottom of the sea. The Pope has every right, even obligation, to spread the teachings of the Church, using his spiritual authority, but he crosses a dangerous line when he attempts to have the teachings of his church encoded into civil law. This mentality has been a curse upon the Church almost since its inception. From what Ive seen of the words of Jesus, I doubt he would approve of the merging of civil and ecclesiastical power. When the Pope urges civil authorities to deny equal rights to competent adults, based upon the teachings of his church, he leaves the realm of spirituality and casts himself as a power in the manner of this material world. He departs from the teachings of Jesus, who urged us to walk through this world, but not be of this world, who urged us to accumulate spiritual treasures, rather than corruptible material possessions, who urged us to extend mercy, not judgment. It is the Popes right to define marriage for the faithful of his church as the indissoluble union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. I do not agree with that position-to me, for the record, neither the state, a priest or God marry you, you marry each other: marriage is a covenant. Neither, though, do I have a desire, or the state have a right, to outlaw it. I would never dream to tell the Pope his teachings are fundamentally disordered-though I might believe it.

In most western countries, there are two marriage ceremonies. A couple go before a civil magistrate, who is empowered by the state to confirm their civil, legal relationship. Next, the couple may go to a church, and repeat their vows in front of friends, family and a minister. The minister-of any sort-is empowered by the church to witness the religious marriage, and, in some instances, by the state to administer and witness the civil one, but the reality is that they are separate ceremonies. One of the results of the Enlightenment was the separation of civil and religious authority. Before 1700, there was no civil union; only the religious ceremony, and it had the force of law. The Catholic Church doesnt recognize divorce, yet civil law has accommodated the reality of changing social values, through allowing divorce. Divorce is a civil law concept, having to do with ownership and transfer of property, as well as other legal obligations and rights. 

The Pope, along with prominent Protestant and Jewish leaders, tell us that same gender unions would threaten the sanctity and stability of the family, but they dont; tell us how that would happen. Couples already marry and divorce with abandon, and children are raised in broken or single-parent homes, or neglected and abused with both parents present. There is no magical formula for raising nurturing homes, save love, and you cant legislate that. As a country, or government, and as a president, no one has any business attempting to stop people from creating supportive relationships.

Religious marriage is sacred, having deep, significant meaning for the adherents of each particular religion. It ought to be respected by all members of society, but not forced upon anyone. The ownership of property ought to be protected for all members of society, even those engaged in ways of living that religion disapproves of. For example, same gender couples ought to be able to enjoy the survivor benefits of Social Security, pensions and a host of other programs; they pay the same taxes as the rest of us, yet they are denied equal rights because of religious objections to the way they live-in America, in 2004! This is unjust, unconstitutional, and it must be changed. All attempts to prevent it-especially, as Mr. Bush has hinted at, a constitutional amendment-will be one step further away from the constitutional principle of freedom of religion, as well as freedom from religion, and one step closer to the sort of tyranny that I, for one, will continue to rant against until it is really and truly-and, I believe, inevitably-here.

_edited to add one word._


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 7, 2005)

andy said:
			
		

> Homosexuals are free to love whomever they wish. Noone challenges that.
> But when a homosexual promotes the agenda on a heterosexual or their children as 'normal'--therein lies the problem.
> 
> If any given species cannot procreate thru the act of sexual intercourse then an anomaly of nature has been introduced into the system. what do we do as a caring society with someone who has a physical or mental problem?--short answer we treat and help as best we can.
> ...


Homo Sapians have sex for reproduction, but they also have sex just to have sex.  Masturbation is a good example of this.  Sodomy in prison is another example of this.  Our sex lives bind us together.  Why should this part of human nature be looked down upon by anyone?  There are many types of sexual behavior in which humans have always engaged.  Homosexuality is but one of them.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 7, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yeah..adultry is a crime in NY too. We couldnt build enough jails. Perhaps I should say "nobody is going to be prosecuted for homosexuality in the USA".
> 
> BTW: Id have no problem with a civil union either. Its just a contract.


Maybe we should do away with marriage altogether in this country.  Perhaps civil unions for everyone would be the most fair for everyone.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 7, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Maybe we should do away with marriage altogether in this country. Perhaps civil unions for everyone would be the most fair for everyone.


All state sanctioned marriages are, simply, civil unions.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 7, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Tom et al,
> 
> They (* Homosexuals *) can "Love" whom ever they want. But they cannot have sex, as they is considered wrong in many states, and or local laws.



Nobody is going to be prosecuted for consentual sex regardless of whats on the books. As I said adultry is on the books in NY. As is consensual sodomy (which outlaws anything but straight sex between unmarried people). I could just imagine the circus that would result if somebody was prosecuted for any of these.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 7, 2005)

The paradox of the Pope. The Catholic Church states that it is against homosexuality, which it has every right to do. He may say he disagrees with countries passing civil union laws which is within his rights too. Now if citizens/lawmakers/politicians are practicing Catholics (which as far as I know isnt illegal yet) and agree with/follow the Popes opinion is the Pope really "meddeling in politics"?

The Constitution states that no law shall be passed regarding the "establishment" of religion not that religious belief shall have no influence on lawmaking. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Which protects the the office holders right to believe what he wants as much as its designed to prevent the government from requiring some sort of religious belief.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 7, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The paradox of the Pope. The Catholic Church states that it is against homosexuality, which it has every right to do. He may say he disagrees with countries passing civil union laws which is within his rights too. Now if citizens/lawmakers/politicians are practicing Catholics (which as far as I know isnt illegal yet) and agree with/follow the Popes opinion is the Pope really "meddeling in politics"?
> 
> The Constitution states that no law shall be passed regarding the "establishment" of religion not that religious belief shall have no influence on lawmaking. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Which protects the the office holders right to believe what he wants as much as its designed to prevent the government from requiring some sort of religious belief.



And the US Constitution also states that all Slaves and Indentured Servants will only count at 2/3's  So at one time it was ok and exceptable to own slaves and indentured servants. Now it is not.  Yet, as you say there are laws on the books that no one uses, or enforces, but there are laws in place to make sure that people can vote and the bill of rights does not make note of anyone being male or female or Black or White, or , ... . So, I just would like to see everyone have the same rights here in the USA. What the Pope preaches is fine, and as a religion people can support him, and follow his or the Churches' ways, and still apply logic and common sense.

I have stated it before, if you take your Morals (* no matter where they come from religion or elsewhere *) and you learn these from Family or Religion and such and you then apply these to make your personal Values. These Values allow you to decide what is important to you and what you would hope for in society, and then you argue, and discuss with people the Ethical points of an issue, based upon your Values, that are influenced from your Morals. Once Society (* the population at large decides somethin is ethical or unethical, then a determination of law can be made. 

So, if Marriage is recognized by the State, (* Federal and State and Local Levels *), no matter if it be a religious marriage or a cival union by the State. With this Marriage people gain rights and priviledges and responsibilities to each other. 

So, now we make it not legal for someone to get married. One has to ask why is not desired to allow a certain people to get married?

The first and most popular answer is that it is not allowed or right from their religion. So, from my point of view, this is the problem, they are applying their religious concepts to this issue, when it should be an ethical discussion, even though peoples morals and values will affect their ethical decision, but the great thing about humanity, and most religions is that they state they humans are greater than the animals, and they also have free will and or the capabilities to make a choice. They could choose to allow this to be accepted, and continue to practice their religion. for nothing has been done, to take away any of their rights. Yet, if you look at it from an ethical and logical point of view then one realizes that if you can discriminate against one group then you can discriminate against others, and eventually you might be on the discrimination side. 

Just MHO.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 7, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Maybe we should do away with marriage altogether in this country. Perhaps civil unions for everyone would be the most fair for everyone.


 Or maybe you should just accept the reasonable compromise of allowing civil unions for homosexuals and allow those with a religious bent to engage in church recognized "marriage". 

I mean, according to your argument, this is really about contracts, wills, inheretance, medical and life insurance, right, not about ramming one lifestyle down someone else's throat, and forcing christians to fully accept a certain lifestyle...or is it? The law should recognize all civil unions equally....the church does not have nor should have any such responsibility.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 7, 2005)

How could the government ever "force a Church" to do anything like that anyway?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 7, 2005)

The Constitution has an amendment that ended slavery Rich (13th amendment). That superceded the 2/3 vote issue. Article IV still stands. There are no "Blue Laws" in the Constitution or rules that are no longer enforced like there are in State Laws. Old rules are amended.

You cannot remove peoples beliefs from law making. People make laws so there will always be personal (and political) beliefs involved.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 7, 2005)

There are ways to force issues, but most of them will violate the separation that is supposed to exist.

Tom,  I will partially disagree with 1 point: "People make laws"
Politicians make laws. I wish the people had more say in their structure, review and passage.  Same with taxes and "user fees". But thats mostly a tangent.

I both wonder and fear what would happen if they put a properly phrased law proposal before the nations people.  Something like "Should the right of marriage be granted universally regardless of race, religion, gender or pairing to all humans?"  Might be too plain english for our "leaders" though, and need to have a highway paving add-in added to make it acceptable to them first.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 8, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> There are ways to force issues, but most of them will violate the separation that is supposed to exist.
> 
> Tom, I will partially disagree with 1 point: "People make laws"
> Politicians make laws. I wish the people had more say in their structure, review and passage. Same with taxes and "user fees". But thats mostly a tangent.
> ...


We know what many people would do, Bob, as same-sex marriage laws have been on direct ballots in several states. If you want the right to same sex marriage, your best bet is to deal with the legislatures or the courts. 

The voting public as a whole is far less progressive, accepting and accomidating. That's because people vote, many times, from the gut, not from a reasoned philosophical perspective on what laws might do, should do, and can do. 

That's why we are a republic, not a direct democracy. Many leftists claim a desire toward a direct democracy, but in reality, it would go against them far more than it would go with them.   

The needs and desires of the people need to be heard and enacted. The passing passions of the people need to be filtered through a body of statesman (whether they fail often at that role or not).

In a well run republic, the people review the work of these elder statesman periodically and decide to retain them or replace them.  In a dictatorship we have someone else to blame.  The fault, blame and ultimate credit for the success or failure of the republic rests firmly in the hands of the people themselves.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 8, 2005)

Yeah, but politicians that dont work from their personal beliefs (which they platform to get elected in the first place) will probably sway with "popular opinion". If they believe that passing a "gay marriage" act wont get them re-elected......Beliefs, religious or otherwise will always be part of human activity.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 8, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yeah, but politicians that dont work from their personal beliefs (which they platform to get elected in the first place) will probably sway with "popular opinion". If they believe that passing a "gay marriage" act wont get them re-elected......Beliefs, religious or otherwise will always be part of human activity.


 This is true, however, if you put same-sex marriage on a direct ballot, then bombard the media with special interest messages on both sides, the majority of people will vote against same-sex marriage 

1) Because they don't like to be told what to do and 2) Most people aren't gay, so they don't exactly feel motivated to vote FOR something that isn't going to positively benefit them.

same-sex marriage, as a hot button issue, is actually rather low on the list of the averageAmerican's priorities.  Most American's are not diametrically opposed to the idea, they simply don't like the way it's presented and feel rather coerced about the whole thing.

Place the same ballot in a state legislator, however, and you'll find that legislators as a rule are somewhat more progressive than the average voter, and will back this kind of law IF the mood in the state is not so anti-same sex marriage as to make it a real issue.  

A lot of unpopular laws are passed simply because nobody really cared enough to oppose, except for a few interest groups.  Further, most of the legislatures aren't up for reelection for another 2 or 3 or 4 years anyway, and by then everyone will have forgotten about it.  Hence, the best route for this law is through the legislatures.....OR

Federal judges are appointed for life, if you find a sympathetic one, he has no reason not to vote where his personal passions and sympathies lie.  It's not as if anyone can second guess him, except a higher judge.  And if the issue is on a Supreme Court level, they are the final arbiters.  This route is probably the most advantageous for backers of extremely controversial, unpopular and political unsupportable issues.  It's one many on the left want to leave open, and are most angry about with this administration.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 8, 2005)

True


----------



## DngrRuss (Aug 8, 2005)

I am pleased to see that the conservatives that have weighed in on this thread seem to have come to the conclusion that issues like "gay marriage" truly are about civil rights and should be dealt with as such.  The church should not have sway over what is actually a legal issue.

 I would hope that people on both sides of the aisle would read this woman's letter for what it is- a cry for compassion and understanding.  I hope that the day will come when people are truly judged on their meritt, and not their color, religion, orientation, etc.  

 I remember when a friend of mine from high-school "came out" to me.  I was the first person he told, and I could see the fear and pain on his face with the prospect of rejection and, possibly, hatred.  It is one of my fondest memories to see his relief when I not only accepted him for who and what he was, but extended him the offer to assist him in any way I could to cope with family and other friends.  I passed no judgements, and that is all that he wanted.  

 When, later at college, I saw him become the target of harrassment, I saw him filled with such confidence that the threats and taunting didn't drive him to depression- like in high school.  I can only assume that it was the simple acknowledgement from family and friends that he was still loved and accepted that helped give him the strength to rise above the bigotry that prevailed around him.

 My hope is that conservatives take up the banner in the cause of simple civil rights for this group of Americans, and that liberals not only accept conservatives joining the cause, but do more than just give lip service to this issue.  If we truly want to be a society governed by laws, not men, then this issue has some very clear cut conclusions.

 Hatred, bigotry, and discrimination should be stamped out with regards to our civil rights and liberties.  No matter who likes it or not.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 8, 2005)

DngrRuss said:
			
		

> I am pleased to see that the conservatives that have weighed in on this thread seem to have come to the conclusion that issues like "gay marriage" truly are about civil rights and should be dealt with as such. The church should not have sway over what is actually a legal issue.
> 
> I would hope that people on both sides of the aisle would read this woman's letter for what it is- a cry for compassion and understanding. I hope that the day will come when people are truly judged on their meritt, and not their color, religion, orientation, etc.
> 
> ...


On this issue we are in agreement as far as the rule of law. Everyone deserves equal protection, and acts of discrimination should not be tolerated.

On the issue of the church, I have only this to say. What a church decides to allow or tolerate within it's congregation and within it's faith is it's own business. If they do not allow same-sex marriage rituals, or allow homosexuals ministers, etc, I DO NOT wish to see the Federal government seek to force the issue on them. It is the right of every citizen to take religion or leave it. We are not forced to participate in any organized religion, and that's the way it should be. The seperation of church and state goes BOTH ways, meaning government has no business regulating churches.

We cannot outlaw or legislate hatred and bigotry.  We can outlaw acts committed toward others and make sure that everyone is granted equal rights and protection under the law.


----------



## DngrRuss (Aug 8, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> On this issue we are in agreement as far as the rule of law. Everyone deserves equal protection, and acts of discrimination should not be tolerated.
> 
> On the issue of the church, I have only this to say. What a church decides to allow or tolerate within it's congregation and within it's faith is it's own business. If they do not allow same-sex marriage rituals, or allow homosexuals ministers, etc, I DO NOT wish to see the Federal government seek to force the issue on them. It is the right of every citizen to take religion or leave it. We are not forced to participate in any organized religion, and that's the way it should be. The seperation of church and state goes BOTH ways, meaning government has no business regulating churches.
> 
> We cannot outlaw or legislate hatred and bigotry. We can outlaw acts committed toward others and make sure that everyone is granted equal rights and protection under the law.


 Say it ain't so Sgt... we actually agree on _more than one point?_  This must be my lucky day.

 A couple more posts like the above one and you will be asked to turn in your conservative membership card.  But, it's ok.  We of the left-leaning-independant crowd won't hold your past agianst you.  You are more than welcome to hang with us- though we may ask the _Queer Eye_ guys to give you a makeover just so your better dressed for the party in Hell after the Falwellian Right has us all executed.  

 Dang- took a serious post and made it all goofy-


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 8, 2005)

DngrRuss said:
			
		

> Say it ain't so Sgt... we actually agree on _more than one point?_ This must be my lucky day.
> 
> A couple more posts like the above one and you will be asked to turn in your conservative membership card. But, it's ok. We of the left-leaning-independant crowd won't hold your past agianst you. You are more than welcome to hang with us- though we may ask the _Queer Eye_ guys to give you a makeover just so your better dressed for the party in Hell after the Falwellian Right has us all executed.
> 
> Dang- took a serious post and made it all goofy-


 Contrary to popular opinion, most of my views fall in the Libertarian category. Gun control, same-sex marriage, abortion, taxes, etc. I lean right, but not conservative per se.  I vote Republican because they are most in line with my issues, but I certainly don't fall lock-step behind their entire platform.  

As for the Queer Eye guys, I really don't care to hang around gay guys much. It's not that they aren't decent folks, I know several, and they are caring, likeable people. I just find gay guys annoying. It's like all of the baggage of women, with none of the charm. All my homosexual friends are lesbians. We go out and shoot together, do martial arts, and have a good time. They're like hanging around with a guy, but more attractive (sometimes).


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 8, 2005)

My 2 cents:

Legal marriage is a contract, period. And not even a very good contract, in my opinion. Most people enter into this contract without having a clue as to what they just agreed to, and they only discover the provisions when they try to dissolve the contract, surprise, surprise. They wouldn't buy a car without reading the fine print, but marriage? Sure, where do I sign?

So I don't see any reason why two individuals of any gender shouldn't be allowed to sign that contract, if they want to. The only people who really benefit are the divorce lawyers, who are, by the way, drooling over the prospect of gay marriage.

Religious or spiritual marriage is a completely different thing. If you feel you need to have the blessing of God, the Creator, the Goddess, or whomever, by all means, go ahead. And I agree that you are then bound by the tenets of your particular religion or spiritual belief. But I fail to see what that has to do with the legal marriage contract.

It's true that you can make a variety of legal contracts regarding ownership, health care, inheritance, etc, but the one provision you cannot provide for is Social Security benefits. That, in my opinion is unfair, and should be addressed. You should be able to assign your benefits to any individual you deem appropriate. And health insurance, IMO, should not depend on whom you marry...it should be universal.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 8, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The Constitution has an amendment that ended slavery Rich (13th amendment). That superceded the 2/3 vote issue. Article IV still stands. There are no "Blue Laws" in the Constitution or rules that are no longer enforced like there are in State Laws. Old rules are amended.
> 
> You cannot remove peoples beliefs from law making. People make laws so there will always be personal (and political) beliefs involved.




Tom, 

Let me clarify, the 2/3 (two thirds) was for census, and is still there. The 2/3 thirds vote, was not mentioned by me, as I can only assume you mean 2/3 thirds of congress, and yes teh 13th admendment is in place, not requiring a vote. And I believe that was law, and might nto have been in the US Constituion or admendments.

Yet, in the northern states, all it took was a proclamation from the President, and the Slaves were free. It was not until after the war, I believe that the 13th was ratified.


Yet, I see no one argue that my logical approach and or looking at the possibility that in the future they might be on the discriminating end, if this is allowed to continue.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 8, 2005)

Doesn't the Constitution read three fifths? 

Article I - Section 2 - Clause 3



> Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, *three fifths of all other Persons*. _(See Note 2)_ The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 8, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Doesn't the Constitution read three fifths?
> 
> Article I - Section 2 - Clause 3




My Memory is not correct.

Thank you for the correction.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 8, 2005)

This article shares a lot of my opinions regarding politics and religion.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/032905B.html



> A Double Standard
> 
> Now, some liberals might object that it is one thing for religious intellectuals to weigh in on matters of public policy, but quite another for redneck Bible thumpers to do so. Yet why should the educational level of a person supporting a particular policy matter to the evaluation of the policy itself? If a policy can be supported with serious arguments made by serious thinkers, what does it matter whether someone who is uneducated also supports it for less sophisticated reasons? Do liberals and secularists think twice about supporting their own favored policies simply because some uninformed and inarticulate rock star or Hollywood starlet might favor them too? Why does the liberal always judge his own creed in terms of its most sophisticated representatives, and yet insist on judging rival creeds -- conservatism and traditional religious belief, for example -- in terms of their least sophisticated representatives?
> 
> ...


However I also agree with this point

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/pol-rel.html



> *Pluralism in this Country*
> 
> This country was founded on the idea of a tempered pluralism that allowed for a civil debate among the citizens. Although we take this pluralism for granted, it is instructive to remember how radical this concept was in the history of political philosophy. In the past, secular political philosophers argued that a legitimate state could not tolerate much freedom and diversity. After all, how would the dictator or monarch rule effectively if that much dissent were allowed?
> 
> ...


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 8, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Tom et al,
> 
> They (* Homosexuals *) can "Love" whom ever they want. But they cannot have sex, as they is considered wrong in many states, and or local laws.




Rich,

Actually, they can have sex in any state they want without penalty.  The Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that sodomy laws were unconstitutional.  Texas had to update their laws on their web site the last time I checked, but regardless the law they had is null and void.  Homosexuality amongst consenting adults is legal everywhere in the United States.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/

http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm

Oddly, that ruling got almost no press...and when the "talking heads" on the  cable news channels were asked what the big news stories were for the year, they mentioned Kobe Bryant, Lacey Peterson, Michael Jackson...nothing about the Supremes and their decision.

You'll note on that one site that many of the states in which sodomy was illegal were reasonably fair...even a heterosexual couldn't sodomize a consenting person of the opposite sex.  I confess, I so looked forward to breaking the laws in those states.  I'm bummed in a way.  The Supremes took all the fun out of my civil disobedience.  How can one become iconoclastic with them periodically going all progressive on us?  

I too am pleased, and surprised, to see some of the conservatives here addressing this issue as they have.

In the last year I've had two of my former students "out" themselves to me.  I thought well of these two men prior to their revelation, and think even better of them now.  Both are tremendously moral men with great gifts.  Neither is emotionally flawed, nor suffering any psychological disorder.  I don't believe, and they don't believe, that they "chose" this orientation.  Its the way they were wired.  Homosexuality isn't learned...it isn't a choice...it isn't a disease...and it isn't the business of government to meddle in the affairs of Gays and Lesbians.

For the straight folks here...it is worth noting that many of those who which to clamp down on homosexual behavior also want to clamp down on heterosexual behavior.  Prudery in this country is not rare.  There are those who would make illegal the "gentlmen's club," censor Playboy and Maxim, attempt (vainly) to crack down on the internet, and make Angelina Jolie wear more clothes when she's on the silver screen.  Personally, I have a problem with that...and the fact that she's dating Brad Pitt and not calling me, but I digress....

Francis Shaeffer, a Christian theologian, wrote that we can have "too much feedom."   I submit that we can not have too much freedom if our behavior involves consenting adults.  If the individual--be he Christian, Jew, Muslim or atheist--wishes to exercise restraint in the name of morality...then they ought.  The rest of us should  be allowed to go our merry way, and flirt with Hell if and when we please.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 8, 2005)

A recent episode of Tripping the Rift looked at this issue, but in reverse.  Chode and crew visit a planet where hetrosexuality was illegal, punishable by death in fact.  Despite the shows parody nature, it did show an alternate view on this issue. A viewpoint that in the reverse, is seen as "right" by a small group of narrow minded bigots.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 8, 2005)

By the way, Bob...you said that for posting things like this people say you're Gay.  

Well, if you're Gay, then I think you need to stop all this heterosexual behavior I've seen you displaying whenever I come to Buffalo.  Stop it RIGHT NOW!  Its deviant and unbecoming a Gay person.



Regards,



Steve


----------

