Same-sex consensual activity in itself hurts no one, unless you believe that it is a sin in which case the soul is at stake. But even so, that is a religious belief, and while I respect Christianity, Judaism and Islam (in that order- joking!) I do not belong to any of these religions. So why should I be legally prohibited from engaging in consensual activities with another person that a religion I do not subscribe to says is wrong?

That fact has no bearing on adult-adult consensual private activities. This is not about “whatver feels good.” This is about, as President Ronald Reagan said, “Getting the government off our backs.” What could be a more illegitimate intrusion of government than discriminating against people because (ohmygosh) they like to do something with people built with the same plumbing instead of with people built that other way.

Respectfully,

I’m well aware that homosexuality is considered repugnant by most people. Such opinions don’t bother me – a person’s thoughts, opinions and feelings are his own business, not mine.
What does bother me is when people treat homosexuals like we are second-class citizens because of their own personal repugnance to the act of homosexuality.

You say that we all treat each other badly. Sadly this is true. But if someone is being treated badly, doesn’t he have the right to protest, to demand that he be treated with respect, simply as a human being? If someone is being wrongly scapegoated, as gays so frequently are, doesn’t he have the right to call attention to that fact? Of course he does. Yet when gay people complain, you tell us to go to Muslim countries (presumably to be beheaded!) if we don’t like it here. It seems to me that, because you find the act of homosexuality repugnant, you would deny homosexuals – human beings – the opportunity to speak out against unfair treatment.

You’re dangerously close to being booted off this blog. I allow a comment section for my own reasons, none of which has to do with you. I allow what I want in it when I want it. That’s the rule, and it’s not subject to explanation by me or interpretation by you. – Admin

* “You have to understand that homosexuality is repugnant to most people, regardless of what they might say to your face.”

Reply: In America, we don’t govern on the basis of “what’s repugnant to most people,” we govern on the basis of constitutional law. Also, La Shawn does not provide statistics to back up her claim, and I believe that most people now believe that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their own business.

* “I’m offended that you’d even come on to my blog and offering me advice on how I should cover this topic.”

Reply: The whole point of the blog is to get people to think, engage, and debate civilly. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

* “Homosexuals get the same treatment as anyone else”

Incorrect. In Virginia, a lesbian couple had their baby taken away because they are lesbians. Gays, unlike heteros, are not permitted to marry the person they love and pass on an unlimited estate free from inheritance tax. Gays, unlike heteros, experience difficulty in having hospitals recognize their rights to speak for the medical wishes of their partners. Gays are discriminated against in many aspects of life, including adoption and employment. In fact, official federal government policy prohibits openly gay persons to serve in the military. (This prejudice has been at the expense of national security; a number of translators of Arabic were discharged on this basis.) In many ways, gays do not get the same treatment as everyone else.

* “and at one time or another we’ve all been treated as second-class citizens.”

Reply: Even if true, two wrongs don’t make a right.

* “Sadly, we all tend to treat each other badly at times, but if you think I’m going to act as though homosexuality is normal, you’re on the wrong blog.”

The question is not what is normal. The question is, are we going to endorse loving families, or are we going to act on the basis of prejudice?

* “The very idea is vile and, as I said before, repugnant.”

Nobody is forcing anyone to engage in any activity she finds vile or repugnant. Some Americans consider the practice of heterosexual oral sex to be vile and repugnant, but we don’t discriminate on the basis of preference for this activity.

* “If you can’t deal with the way people feel about it, the problem is yours, not mine.”

In other words, I’m a member of a claimed but non=existent majority and I have a right to decide what’s best for everyone else. Well, before the Civil War, Southern slave owners could have made the same comment to abolishionists.

Respectfully,

Until VERY recently, gays did not have the legal right to consensual sex in many states. Yet you don’t even mention this fact. I do agree that there are gays who want special rights and that this is flat-out wrong. Hate-crime legislation is a perfect example of this. Still, I wish you would at least make mention of the fact that our societies do have a history of treating gays like second class citizens–without pointing to the abuses gays suffer in the Muslim world, as though that somehow mitigates our own.

Incidentally, the thing I would like straight people to think about is this: Many straight people, though certainly not all, OBSESS over homosexuality to some degree. Go to any schoolyard or boardroom and you will hear the words “faggot”, “homo”, “pansy” etc… tossed around like water. Go into politics or read the Op-Ed pages and you will hear straight people blaming us gays for the breakup of the family – as though WE’RE the ones who legalized no fault divorce and revoked the rights of the unborn! And yet, when homosexuals make an issue out of their sexuality, either politically or through pride parades, we are condemned. We are told to stop making our sexual orientation the center of our identity. Well I’m sorry, but it is heterosexuals who have made our sexualities the center of our identity. I will gladly give up “Gay Pride” once straight people stop doling out gay shame.

Anyway, that’s kind of off-topic. I just had to get it off my chest.

That’s a somewhat absurd statement, of course, but just as the right to marry a woman probably wouldn’t be very much use to you, La Shawn, the right to marry a woman isn’t of enormous use to a gay man.

It seems to me as though there are actually two things involved with the whole “gay marriage” thing – there’s the set of rights that each spouse bestows on the other – next of kin rights, shared property etc. and there’s things that the state gives to married couples (joint filing of taxes, say).

To my mind, it is invidious to deny a competent adult the right to bestow rights over his person and property to anyone he likes. Now, at the moment, gays can just about achieve the equivalent of a marriage bond here with a rather complicated set of legal documents, which may not be valid in all states. It seems reasonable to have one simple thing that would do this for such people, in a clear and simple manner that is not open to dispute – call it marriage, civil registration, figgy pudding or what you will.

Then there is the fact that the state has chosen to treat people who are married differently from people who are not married. One would have to examine the reasons for such different treatment to decide whether one wanted to treat gay couples as “married” or not in each case.

The third thing is the sacrament that the church calls “marriage”. Clearly, no action of the state can change that.

They should visit a Muslim country sometime and see how they’re treated if they think America is so “intolerant.” My intolerance for the word “intolerant” is growing every day.

of course not.

“The purpose of democracy is to support the majority while simultaneously protecting the minority”

Absolutely why I favor gay rights despite the opprobium it brings.

White communities by default are always protected in a democratic society where the “majority” rules…are you offended by that?

The purpose of democracy is to support the majority while simultaneously protecting the minority…

In regard to community policing, I just don’t see how an individual can oppose it…to actively solicit qualified individuals from a specific community who not only have the ability to be a solid police officer but also know the “lay of the land” has truly been the historical way of law enforcement…

An analogy would be the old small town western sherrif elected by people…

In short, the KGB, an intelligene agency, targeted homosexuals becuase it was a productive method of gathering intelligence, which was the KGB’s business.