Excellent

Everyone should see this before they vote. Thank you!

1 man, 1 woman = marriage? This may be, and if you wish it so I hope it is, the end of YOUR story, Tom. (For many heterosexual couples it is not the end of their story as divorces change this equation over and over.) Is it so hard to see that YOUR story is not everyone's story?

Throughout my life I have had many reasons to be grateful. One of the things that has enriched my life so much is the wonderful diversity of all living things, including we humans.

In countless ways I have benefitted from and enjoyed the reality that we are not all created as exact copies of each other.

I will NOT vote to deny same sex couples access to the rights and privileges that our society extends to my husband and I every single day. I will NOT vote discrimination into our state's constitution. I will vote NO on the proposed marriage amendment, and this vote will express the respect and appreciation I have for my fellow human beings - whether they are very much or very little like me or somewhere in between.

I thank God for our diversity!

Sounds a little judgemental and intolerant there Rosco...

I have always found leftists to be the most intolerant of people. No room for differing opinions in their little world

Richard, did you read ANYTHING anybody posted here?

EVERYONE in the military is willing to give the ultimate sacrifice for this country so your narrow-minded and bigoted self can express these opinions on a public forum such as this. Why don't you move to Canada if you don't like it....oh wait....they support gay marriage there too.

We're going to have to find a way to mitigate the damages you speak of because the trend is apparent and the result is a foregone conclusion.

Richard, your comment is so full of ignorance about homosexuality, it is laughable!

1. One does not learn to be gay, one is born gay. The science is proving it.

2. Pedophilia and beastiality have victims, unlike homosexuality that has two consenting individuals.

3. To imply that homosexuality is the road to the above crimes isinsulting, and ignorant of the facts.

4. A legal contract between two people, recognized by the state, should be called a civil union. Marriages should be recognized only by the individuals and the churches that choose to marry them.

Since # 4 will not happen because Congress won't get off it's @ss and make these changes, then yes, everyone should be able to legally marry the consenting adult they choose, and benefit from the same legal & tax benefits as those currently married.

There are reasons Rick Santorum is no longer in the race - one of which is his crazy and completely out-of-line comments about animals and children.

You must give CONSENT to enter a LEGAL CONTRACT - animals, plants, and children can not give it. Implying otherwise for your argument is ridiculous!

There is historical proof that homosexuality has been around for a very long time. There is no proof that animals (or plants) and humans reciprically FALL IN LOVE with each other...how much easier can this be to understand? Just because the ultra Conservative politician said it, doesn't make it a viable, or even logical analogy.

A comment was removed for violating Patch's ban on comments that are "defamatory, abusive, obscene, profane or offensive." (http://southwestminneapolis.patch.com/terms)

Randy, you are obviously one of those I referred to who could not answer the question honestly about the effects of same-sex parents on children. As for your question about NAMBLA having a seat in the cafeteria....? They already do in the form of Kevin Jennings having a position in the Dept. of Education as our "Safe Schools Czar." He has been a longtime member of NAMBLA, has already demonstrated his support and promotion of their sickness as a superintendent of the Chicago Schools when he told a 16 yr old student "well I just hope you're using protection" when the boy confided in him that he had been involved in an affair for approximately 2 years with a man 10 or 15 yrs older than him. What he should have done is turn the matter over to the authorities but then he would have been shooting himself and NAMBLA in the foot thereby jeopardizing their agenda. My elementary school was in central MN and it was in the 60's. To the best of my knowledge, we didn't produce ANY gays, lesbians, bi's, or transgenders the entire length that I attended that school up to and including graduation. But then again, sexual awareness on the level it is being taught now was never a part of our curriculum. We DID receive sex education in 7th or 8th grade but the boys and girls were taught separately and it basically covered just personal hygiene and how procreation works. Can't say that about public schools today. And I fail to see your connection between NAMBLA and priests.

Well, if you didn't see them while hanging out at the rodeo and the local VFW in central Minnesota then I guess they just didn't exist. Simple as that. Hard to believe someone out there would keep quiet about something like that. Heck, you probably thought the catholic priests weren't molesting kids, either, since it wasn't mentioned in the sermon on Sunday.

Randy, while I will acknowledge that we saw/knew of such behavior back in the 60's we did not see or witness it where I grew up. Were there such relationships going on here in central MN? Possible. But if it was, those people kept it to themselves. As for the Priests? Yes, I will not argue that they are just as guilty of molestation of kids, etc. But I fail to see any connection between priests and NAMBLA. I have never heard of any being members as you are trying to say but I will concede that it is possible some were. They just haven't been "outed" as being members of that group to the best of my knowledge.

Richard wrote: "As for the Priests? Yes, I will not argue that they are just as guilty of molestation of kids". Just as guilty of molesting kids, as who, Richard?

As far as answering your question:" Can anyone seriously say that a child raised by two lesbian or two gay parents wouldn't be more inclined to follow in their footsteps as they develop and reach puberty?". I can honestly say that no, a child raised by homosexuals is no more likely to become a homosexual than a child raised by heterosexuals. I am an honest person, I do not have an agenda as I am straight, nor am I in denial. Unlike you, I have gay friends, have taken the time to read the studies and statistics, and am not intolerant of different creeds, beliefs, or opinions - which happens to be the opposite of the definition of bigot - in case you were interested.

Good for you, Jaw. I just want to point out that I have been flagged and had comments removed for far less than "lickass". I hope the comment stays up because your creativity just brought a great big smile to my face. Well played.

"It's you right"? Whatever. You're correct, everyone is free to believe whatever they would like. The only issue here is that this is not about beliefs, it's about rights and oppression of those rights based on sexual orientation. Guess what? The same thing happened in the 60's because people BELIEVED people of color should not be given the same rights as whites. Again, in the 40's because people BELIEVED women should not be given the same rights as men. Do you see where I'm going with this? Probably not, actually.

Yeah jaw is a true wordsmith.

You can just stop now, you're embarrassing yourself.

No, Joe Sickass, I am NOT joking! I'm serious as a heart attack in my views on this subject. If two men or two women want to get down and dirty with each other then fine. That's their business. But don't shove it in my face or expect me to accept it as normal or godly.

Richard, please don't shove your ignorance about homosexuality in my face, or expect me to accept it as normal or Godly.

A comment was removed for violating Patch's ban on comments that are "defamatory, abusive, obscene, profane or offensive." (http://southwestminneapolis.patch.com/terms)

Keep it civil and clean, folks. Please.

And Jaw, cut it out. Other folks in this thread seem to be able to talk about this issue in ways that approach civility—including you in some of your earlier comments.

Have to agree with you there Rob. Anytime there's an attempt to codify morality it is doomed to failure. Obviously marriage will soon no longer have a place in our future society. If the tax advantages/disadvantages are removed that would go a long way toward equalizing te issue but "separate but equal" has been ruled on repeatedly and found lacking every time.
So my question to you is this, if we're no longer going to venerate the traditional family as a goal then what exactly are we for? Some dismisses polygamy out of hand but their reasoning seems to fall victim to the same arguments made for gay marriage. Aren't drugs a moral issue too? Is there any stopping point to this or are we all going to just live however we choose to live?

Yes, Joe, but I would add: We are all going to just live however we choose to live, as long as we follow the laws. Morals and beliefs are personal, they have no place in governing.

Joe, I am bringing this over from the other thread. What do you mean by " If you're going to deconstruct traditional marriage you're going to have to deal with the unintended consequences as well."

Susan, when you say "Morals and beliefs are personal, they have no place in governing." you're getting to the heart of my question. I have to point out the contradiction that virtually our entire law library is an attempt to codify the morals and beliefs that prevailed at the time they were written. I do understand that our beliefs as a society are constantly changing and therefore what was once "moral" is now considered to be bigotry. That's why I ask if there's a stopping point somewhere. If, in fact, morals and beliefs are not pertinent to the running of our society then what constitutes our guiding principles?
As for deconstructing marriage, I hear and read non-stop about how horrible it is that this or that segment of society isn't accorded the benefits and respect that another segment of society has, and I really can see their point. Nobody wants to be on the outside looking in. What's never talked about though, is what is going to replace these "archaic" institutions that we've relied on for so long?
Just some stuff that I've thought about for a while...

True story, Joe (and Terry), as I was typing it, I had backspaced over "governing", ( I knew I would get jumped for it - although 8th grader is a bit unfair and unecessary for a civil discussion), but then reconsidered. Of-course many of our laws are based on morals, and even God's laws - thou shall not kill, comes to mind. But when looking at the actual definition of "governing", it says:

"Verb: Conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people).
Control, influence, or regulate (a person, action, or course of events)."
I find this to be a little different than law making, dont you?

"I do understand that our beliefs as a society are constantly changing and therefore what was once "moral" is now considered to be bigotry." That's right, it was once considered moral to think of an African American as 2/3 of a human being, and not only moral, but a sign of privilege, to own them. Our society is changing/evolving, and the farther away from our bedrooms, families, marriages, and private property that we can keep the government, the better.

To be cont...

Continued...

My suggestion for replacement is what I wrote above. Marriages recognized by the state are legal contracts and should be renamed civil unions. People can go to their church and get married. This keeps the sanctity of marriage that the religious hold so dear, but gives all consenting adults the same legal and tax benefits.

I am curious, what do you see as a stopping point? I am with the Libertarians when they say that government is there to enforce contracts. If there is a LEGAL contract to be made, by individuals qualifying and consenting to that contract, then so be it.

Joe, one more point. You said "then what constitutes our guiding principles?". How about wanting to be a good person, helping and loving thy neighbor because it is the right thing to do. And if all else fails, because it makes you feel good to do right by others...

We have to have laws, but when they are made, or forced upon others because of the ruling majorities religious beliefs, disguised and repackaged as "morals", we are on the path to what our forefathers ran from in the middle of the last millenium.

I don't have any problems with your views but I suspect we're a pretty homogenous group around here. If you are to allow government, through their coercive powers, to place incentives upon certain behaviours you are going to have problems with other groups whose behaviour is not rewarded.
Should our government therefore be totally removed from trying to encourage any certain behaviours? I'd say that they probably should. While you may draw the line at allowing gay marriage, there are others for whom that line is not the limit of where they would like the law to go. You can laugh and call it a ridiculous argument but there are others who believe just as strongly as you.
My belief is that the end result here is likely to be the eventual ending of all preferential treatment due to marital status. No tax breaks or penalties for marriage, civil unions, or whatever you wish to call them. That would have to be immediately followed by the ending of affirmative action and any other preference programs that weren't based on merit.
It sounds like pie in the sky and if it happens it'll probably be done by the courts, but if the argument holds for gay marriage it would certainly hold for polygamy, and so on. Maybe there's another stopping point but I can't see it right now.

Smokin' Joe - I agree that we should just end everything that is related to the government and taxation regarding the concept of marriage and send it back to being solely under the preview of religion.

However, I suspect that the anti-gay marriage folks wouldn't want this for at least one simple reason and it has to do with being able to use the government to define the word "marriage".

If it was outside of government then individual religions could grant "Marriage" to whomever they wanted and the "traditional marriage" folks could not go to the "government" or to the ballot to stop it - they would have no where to turn since it would be up to each individual religion and sub-group of each religion.

And for some folks that simply isn't good enough, while they (at lets be honest for the most part anti-gay marriage people are Conservatives) denounce government control, and government in general but this is one of the places where they LOVE government and work very hard to keep government control over an issue that they deem as vital to their beliefs...

Actually, those "centuries of law" are a bit more flexible than you might think, Terry. It was not illegal for lesbians to marry a hundred years ago. Maybe you need to go back to eighth grade.

One more thing, Terry: if we are to venerate "centuries of law", then we should still be paying taxes to the British throne. That is not what we do in this country.

If "marriage" didn't involve so many preferential laws and specific treatment by the government and other entities I would personally have no problem with the concept of "marriage" being left to the discretion of religion and each religion can bestow "marriage" on whoever they want.

If anti gay marriage folks want to get Republicans to repeal everything in our legal and tax system that specifically identifies "marriage" so that there is no difference between married and unmarried people - then I would be completely ok with putting "marriage" solely under the confines of religious organizations and each religion can do whatever they want with the word "marriage".

Then I suppose if government wants to allow some type of special treatment for two people those people would enter into a "Civil Union" that the government would recognize (but the government would not recognize a "marriage") and that Civil Union would be open to any two consenting adults regardless of sex.

Would that work?

Centuries ago (4 or 5) daughters were bartered into marriage for the political or financial benefits of both families. Do you propose that we follow those centuries, or the last one or two? 8th grade history class, Terry.

Haha, I've heard this on a couple tv shows, as well.

That's very funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Tell you what. I'll be happy to keep "big government" out of our personal lives as long as that also means keeping "big government" totally out of our personal lives.

And that means eliminating most of what government does -- and limiting it to certain constitutionally proscribed functions - which does not include taking rights (freedoms, property rights etc) from some to give to others based on specious value system.

Deal?

I got it, Jon. And you make perfect sense. God does love us. I believe that. And He loves us all.

"You don’t have to be “married” to “love”. People have the right to love who they want.

Making this out to be a hate campaign only clouds the facts."

Actually it does not. This isn't about love. It's about marriage and all the rights that go with that. When two people love each other and are denied the right to marriage they are also denied many other rights. Like the right to make decisions on behalf of their dying significant other (who cannot be their legal spouse). There are many others.

You say it is not a hate campaign, but when you seek to explicitly deny others rights because they don't look like you or love per your specifications it is a form of hate, just the same as when blacks were denied rights simply for having skin that is a different color.

So yes, it is hate - hate of anyone who is different from you, whether that be racial difference, gender difference, disability status, or gender preference in relationships.
How would you feel if you were denied rights and marginalized in a society because you had the wrong eye color or were left handed or belonged to a non-mainstream religion? Think about it. We don't discriminate in America because it is just plain wrong and unconstitutional. Discriminating against gays in the marriage law will ultlimately be struck down, but in the meantime we have to go through this nonsense with the people who don't get it.

Waste of time and money and it's just wrong.

I don't believe that MOST people who oppose gay marriage do so because of hate. I think it is intolerance, and this intolerance is usually brought on by one of two issues. The first (and biggest) are religious reasons - because of what the bible says. As I wrote above, this is easily fixed by changing the state's definition to civil unions and leaving the marrying to the churches.

The second reason is because of the distaste of homosexual lovemaking. Again I will say, if you find it distasteful, then you shouldn't do it. And secondly, I have to wonder why you are even thinking about, or caring about what other people are doing in their bedrooms.

Edward -
I believe you missed the part, "Those in a “committed” relationship should have the same rights as “married” without re-defining marriage."

Extreme intolerance is a form of hate. People didn't like interracial marriage because of "intolerance". They didn't want to give women the right to vote because of "intolerance". Intolerance is a euphemism for "I just don't like those people and I don't want to give them the rights I have." That's hate, but hate is a nasty word and people don't want to face up to what they really are saying so they cover with words like "intolerance."

Same thing, just semantic window dressing.

So we are voting on an amendment that is just about definition of a word?

Really? You all want to give gay marriage recognition as being legally equal, in all ways, to other marriages but you just don't want to call it "marriage"?

Then you should be working just as hard on getting all marriages declared civil unions by the state and making it happen for gays. I don't see the Republicans doing that, which makes me think their agenda is to kill all legal marriage rights for gays.

Which is it? If they believe in equal marital rights for gay couples why isn't that in the Republican platform?

Don't try to obfuscate.

Edward, I understand what you are saying, and you're right, I hate the word hate, and try to avoid it.

Just for the sake of trying to respect the English language:

Intolerant is defined as: Not showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

Hate is defined as: to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest

I just have a hard time accepting that those intolerant of the gay lifestyle actually "hate" gay people. If this is true (and I am sure it is of some), I would ask those same people who oppose this because of religious reasons, how religious can you be, to hate so easily?

Edward wrote: "So we are voting on an amendment that is just about definition of a word?"

YES, this is exactly my point. Those that want to use religion as a reason to oppose this are constantly citing "the sanctity of marriage" as a religious institution. When "marriage" became a part of our state vs. just our churches, the state overstepped hugely. It should never have been called marriage, as marriage is a religious institution - and why so many are opposed to gay marriage, they see it as a slap in the face to their religion.

Susan, I've met the marriage amendment crowd, and yes, many of them hate with passion. When they speak about gays they become angry and agitated and use extreme language and show extreme emotion. That is hate. Let's not be Minnesota nice about this (they aren't). It is hate.

If they, as a previous commenter said, are fixated on keeping the definition of a word "pure" while giving gay unions all the legal rights of any other marriage, well, then they are going about it in an ass backward way that makes no sense whatsoever. When was the last time we passed an amendment to the constitution to protect the definition of a word?

I find this obsession with definition of a word hilarious. People get married in secular services all the time, or they go to Vegas or whatever and nobody says, "Oh boy, they don't have the right to use the word "marriage" because it wasn't done in a church! It's just a civil union, and I'm offended that they are "married"! They are destroying the "sanctity" of marriage! Nope, nobody complains about those sanctity-destroying marriages. Why not?

Edward, you are right, I have seen these people as well, but I have also met others who are conflicted because of their religious views, but don't hate homosexuals just because they are homosexual. Because of this, I can not lump everyone opposed as: "So yes, it is hate - hate of anyone who is different from you, whether that be racial difference, gender difference, disability status, or gender preference in relationships."

I am sure I am being too optimistic, too nice, or just trying to ignore the hate that is out there, but maybe we need more of that.

And what about divorce? Doesn't that destroy the sanctity of marriage? What did the Bible say about divorce?

This ballot amendment is a hypocritical joke.

swimmom, you'd like to express yourself openly and honestly without fear of being put down or maybe even being harmed for having expressed your beliefs. Please imagine what it would be like to live your whole life like that - not fearing but KNOWING that there will be people who know VERY LITTLE about you but will judge you, put you down, deny you rights, and yes, even cause mental and physical harm (maybe even death) to you just because you came into the world wired differently than them, wired to experience romantic love toward members of the same sex.

swimmom, are you at all concerned that we have family members, neighbors, co-workers, and other friends who, from the moment they realize who they are and what they feel, must decide whether or not to "live in the closet", to hide themselves from the majority of us, in order to live an incredibly guarded but more "safe" life, in order to protect those around them from feeling the discomfort that comes from not understanding and/or being able to accept someone who is different than them?

The proposed amendment offers each of us the chance to say, "NO! I am not ok with members of a majority group denying access to rights and privileges to a minority group."

Please open your heart to seeing what the "other" experiences. Please join me in voting NO on this amendment, Swimmom.

You say the "amendment is not a hate campaign". I believe it offers each of us a chance to show love - to say "NO!" to discrimination.

Amen. Give all couples all the rights of marriage under our law and be done with it.
This amendment on the ballot is a just a right wing distractor and gimmick to get the Christian right out to vote. God knows they don't have another reason to go to the polls. Take a look at the broken MN Republican party (Koch, Brodkorb (costing the taxpayers in a big way), Sutton, can't pay the rent) and the Republican ticket and weep.

Time for Republican party to regroup and work on 2016.

Also, I do want to make it clear that when I say this, I don't mean that the GLBTA community be awarded with a lame "everyone's-a-winner" gold star. If we all must go through a civil union in order to obtain benefits, then we are ALL equal under the law. I stand with the GLBTA community, as just another American.

For some reason, the first part of my post did not make it. That said, I have stated my position on this debate and the reason for my position. Take it or leave it for what it's worth.

The slippery slope goes in both directions. If we outlaw gay marriage what's next? Outlawing interrracial marriage? How about marriage to someone with a physical or perceived mental disability? How about outlawing marriage for women who cannot bear children? After all, marriage is just for creating families, right?

Remember, the slippery slope runs two ways. I'm more afraid of people taking away rights than granting them. If we deny marriage rights to some then my marriage could be next on the chopping block. NO, THANKS. Let any two adults who love and consent marry. That's fair and right.

Richard, I too wish the first part of your comment had posted.

I will once again remind you that you must be able to give legal consent to enter a contract (marriage) and children, animals, and plants can not do this. The argument for these things has no merit.

On the idea of polygamy, yes, you have a point. I could say that marriage is between two people, but my argument there would hold not merit in this scenario. On this point, I will concede, but the other arguments are ludicrous, and I really wish you would stop insinuating that homosexuality has some connection to pedophilia and beastiality. This is what makes you look like a right wing extremist, judging people without having any understanding or compassion for those who are born gay.

Allright, I'm gonna try and reaccomplish the first part of my post that, for some unknown reason, failed to post even tho it appeared to be within the guidelines for content and limited size. It's times like this that I wish this post was run by Disqus but I digress.

My original composition was essentially to point out the hypocracy of the the LGBT community and some of their supporters by telling of an incident that happened to me on campus last year.

I had come out of one of the buildings on campus and needed to hurry to get to my next class on time. In front of the building is a large plaza or "commons" area and that particular day there was a large group of students/faculty members set up with tables and running around with clipboards. This group of people were associated with the local LGBT community on campus but I didn't know this as I started across the plaza. As I began to navigate my way through the crowd, a young lady ran up to me and grabbed me by the arm while shoving a clipboard in my face. She proceeded to "TELL" me (not ask) to sign my name. I asked why? What's it for? She told me it was a petition for our state legislators to legalize same-sex marriage. I "politely" told her that I could not sign the petition because it went against my beliefs. She immediately began shouting "HATER, HATER" while pointing at me. This naturally drew... (pick up with continuation here)

Richard, I understand your frustration, and this woman was completely out of line. But don't you think it is a bit unfair to categorize an entire movement by the bad behavior of one individual? I don't hold the entire Republican party responsible for the wrongdoings of Bush and Cheney, so I would hope you could somehow see it in your heart to try and understand what it is like to be a homosexual vs. dismissing them all, for the bad behavior of a few.

I might add that since she decided to make a public spectacle of the fact I wouldn't kowtow to their beliefs and go off on a tangent of calling me a "hater" and/or "homophobe", I gave it right back to her.

I said plenty loud enough for all within earshot that I have no problem with them living some unnatural (in my own personal opinion) lifestyle but if she ever grabs me by the arm and attacks me like that again that I would press charges of assault against her. And that went for anyone else who tried to do the same. Needless to say, she got a mortified look to her face as did many of the others of her group.

The University I attend is a "liberal" one at best. I am sick and tired of having to go to all these classes and seminars (as part of the requirement for a degree) that force us to sit through sensitivity training and seminars in an attempt to "normalize" their lifestyles as something good and perfectly fine. I'm paying good money to go to school to get a degree and, hopefully, a high-paying job. Not to be coerced or brainwashed into some belief or ideology that is not compatible with my upbringing, morals, or values or to be a champion for such a cause. If someone wants to call me a hater just because I don't agree with their viewpoint then so be it. If anything, it will only strengthen my resolve in the end. It's like smoking, research has shown that constantly badgering or harassing someone to quit in most cases has just the opposite effect.

I think you have a right to choose whatever school that will accept you. You could have chosen a conservative, religious institution, instead.

I am pretty clear on my distaste for the word hate/r above. Your moral convictions are your own, I only ask that you don't force them on others through laws and amendments.

Susan, I respect your views and my contributions to the post were only intended to express my concerns where this amendment is concerned. But, as you can also see by some of the responses to my original posts, there have been some who have resorted to vicious personal attacks (in my opinion) or have tried to divert from the real issue. I only ask that my views are respected in kind as I respect yours or any others whose views are not congruent to my own yet keep it as a civil discourse.

As for my options for a "conservative" school, I really don't have that option. I am unable to relocate due to family responsibilities and this is the only 4-year college with reasonable accessibility (i.e. distance to drive, cost of living, etc.).

And I respect your right to have those views....thank goodness we live in America! Although I too will go after people personally here, I have been trying very hard lately to keep the conversations civil and informative, as I appreciate all sides of an argument. I feel that the more we understand the other side, the more we may be able to work with them and come to a resolution that will work for the betterment of the country (state, city, etc)....too bad DC doesn't see it this way.

I did not mean to imply that you should change schools, only that it seems a bit unfair to complain about the school's curriculum after you CHOSE to go to that school.

Just a quick addendum to your latest post Susan: I'm not really complaining about the choice of school here. I knew going in that there would be professors with whom there would be some deep conflicts philosophically, morally, ethically, and value-wise. But hey! The way I see it is that it just makes the educational process all that more valuable. Although I expected to be at odds with some Professors, I did not expect to be accosted by someone over my views/beliefs.

And I also just wanted to touch on something else you said where I didn't read it correctly at first..."But don't you think it is a bit unfair to categorize an entire movement by the bad behavior of one individual?" I don't feel I'm categorizing an entire movement because of the bad behavior of one individual. I don't judge or condemn every pro-LGBT person and I'm sorry if you got that impression. Can we agree, however, that are many hard-line activists (from Hollywood to the East Coast) who are extreme in promoting the LGBT community and, in turn, are actually doing more harm than good to their cause(s)? It's only human nature that when one gets shoved hard enough or thrown to the ground hard enough there comes a point when the person being shoved will push back. Even the most mild-mannered, timid person has a threshold or breaking point where they say enough is enough and fight back. Unfortunately, in some cases, the response is much worse than the original shove.

Yes, I will agree, and add that there are individuals in every movement, group, and party that go way too far. Maybe it's for the sake of their position, maybe it's because they have been bullied or pushed too far themselves, but what happened to you was out of line and unacceptable.

I only ask that people see this amendment for what it is....pushing the moral and religious beliefs of one group on another.

Thanks for the chat, and have a great holiday!!

Judy, respectfully, I really do not understand. To some you would say, "I love you, but I don't believe you should have access to the same rights and privileges that I enjoy"? What kind of love is that?

We can not pretend that same sex couples can enjoy the same rights and privileges as opposite sex couples without a legally recognized marriage. We may wish it were so, but it just isn't.

If the majority votes to deny rights and privleges to a minority it will not feel or look like love.

Richard wrote: "But as far as pedophilia is concerned, research has repeatedly shown that victims of pedophiles have a much greater likelihood of becoming a pedophile later in life."

I do not disagree, but why bring up this subject when we are discussing homosexuality? That is what I don't like. Some (maybe not you) like to associate the criminal behavior of pedophiles and those participating is beastiality with homosexuality. This is an underhanded attempt to connect the issues, and it is unfair, and even sinister.

I hope I have relieved your concern about people wanting to marry children, trees, and animals, since they can not legally enter into a contract.

It all goes with the "slippery slope" I speak of. That's all I'm trying to say. Just like previous posters here have tried (and made in certain ways) the argument about "inter-racial" marriages. And yes, it DOES go both ways but I have to agree with this amendment. The sad truth and fact of the matter is that not everyone can be satisfied no matter what the issue or what is decided in this particular case. Times like this is when reasonable and civil discourse needs to be established and allow for ALL sides of the issue to be aired. As I've stated many times, I harbor no hatred or ill-feelings towards anyone who is attracted to someone of the same gender. I just don't share the same leanings yet it seems I'm getting bombarded by their lifestyle choice(s) at every turn. Especially when it comes to an education-based environment.

Richard, my understanding that homosexual pedophiles are the same percentage of the homosexual population, as are heterosexual pedophiles, of the heterosexual pedophiles. I think we're all agreed, preying on the vulnerable is just wrong. And this is probably just my own perception, but it seems as if society zeroes in on boys who have been preyed upon (and trust me, if it had been my own, I would be murderous), and the girls often get ignored.

Also, may I say, that we all need to stop screaming at each other, Richard, I agree. As to homosexuality spreading, it's interesting: I'm reading a book now on same sex marriage, and while the author doesn't want to inflict his own opinion on the reader, it sounds like the Catholic Church (can you tell I'm a "recovering Catholic" from my capitalizations?) approved gay marriage until the middle of the Middle Ages, and nobody cared about lesbianism until the 1800s. I wonder what changed? My own theory is that then, as now, two men could accumulate property and be a threat to those in charge. Even now, lesbian couples just don't make the same amount of money together.

Also, according to the author, who was a Yale professor, love and sex had nothing to do with marriage until the last two hundred years, and only in Western culture.

St. Croix Grandma, like, like, like. Oh, sorry, this isn't Facebook. : )

Seems so simple. I suspect that if you put your question to the vast majority that you'd be right, that nobody would care what people do amongst themselves. There is, however, a fear of creating yet one more protected class whose goal is not equal treatment but preferential treatment. Many of my gay friends are not only pursuing equality under the law, they're pushing for a mandated societal change of attitude where their lifestyle is "celebrated" and they're accorded status as a protected class. While I'm happy that they're happy, I could do without the celebration. I'm not thrilled when heterosexual couples "celebrate" their lifestyle in public either.
I really don't want my kids to be taught in a public school that it is simply another lifestyle. And yet by teaching them that a traditional family is a worthy goal I'm supposedly engaging in hate speech. Well I don't hate anyone for their sexual preferences, and even worse for the labelers, I don't care about their sexual preferences. All of this celebration needs to go back in the bedroom where it belongs.
Whether you're married or not really isn't the measure of a relationship and all of the legal issues can be accomplished with simple contracts. If you're angry because the tax implications aren't fair that's really too bad, and we have a lot in common.