Gay Marriage - At Last Some Sense

[Craig Read]

Finally someone who pronounces the obvious - that homosexuality and sodomy and marriage are not the same.

Socially, eocnomically and politically this is a smart move.

Roll back the PC crowd and let's stop pandering to the gay community and elevating homosexuality to the same status as heterosexuality.

[Guest Michael J Harvie]

As a gay man living in this country I thank god ( yes god ) that I live in a country that will allow me to be who I am. I think of myself as a law abiding citizen who pays just as much federal. provincial and municipal taxs that every one else pays. It seems to be though that people like you either dont understand our way of life or maybe your just scared of the gay community. I will bet you that you probably know someone who is gay but you dont know it yet. We are not sex freaks we are just ordinary people who want to spend our lives in a safe enviroment and that will allow us to have the same opprotunities that you do, and if you want to suppress us well you can try but we will always be here

[Lost in Manitoba]

That's right-on Michael. And as for your comment Craig, you're absolutely right that it's a good move economically...... for Canada. Citys, from the politicians to the business community, should move towards advertising the freedom and open-mindedness of Canada, from a tourism stand-point as well as emmigration from the US. Just imagine a massive influx of American gays flowing across the border. To stereotype them, it would be a swarm of well-dressed, nopn-violent, intelligent and well cultured couples. Or not juyst couple!! Canadian gay communities could be advertised ' Move to Canada and find Love, get married and have a family!'

[Hugo]

I can't speak for Craig, but I myself have six homosexual friends. This doesn't alter my position on homosexuality because that position does not entail imposition of my morals on the private activites of homosexuals. None of my homosexual friends do anything offensive in public. Two of them wouldn't even be readily identifiable as gay. This is all fine with me.

Let's look at something, though. When you watch TV, or a movie, that has gay characters, how often do you see them actually having sex or foreplay? How about even kissing? How often do you see Will from "Will and Grace" french-kissing his boyfriend? Almost ever. When it happens, it's a sensation people talk about for weeks. However, the same media are absolutely overflowing with heterosexual kisses, foreplay, sex, you name it. 97% of the populace is straight. While homosexuals may not disgust them, homosexual behaviour does. That's why depictions of homosexual acts are so rare.

Those who have seen the Gay Pride parade in Toronto will know that it is a very sordid and degrading spectacle the likes of which has not been seen since the Roman Colosseum, and definitely not suitable for children. This is the kind of gay movement I oppose: flagrant and sordid sexuality, thrust into as many people's faces as possible purely for shock value. I would do the same were straight groups doing this, but it's interesting to note that virtually everyone "pushing back the sexual boundaries" is gay.

Gays already have the right to marry. They can marry a person of the opposite sex, above the age of consent, and not closely related. If they can't find anyone who fits into that criteria, TOO BAD. A lot of straight people can't either. Every person on the planet does not have the automatic right to membership in any institution they feel like. If we're going to have gay marriages, why not blind drivers, profoundly retarded university students, weakling firefighters, deaf Bell operators, quadriplegic mailmen, etc?

Michael, you imply that you are religious, yet how do you reconcile the fact that all monotheistic religions (whichever one you "belong" to) absolutely condemn homosexuality as a sin? How can you claim membership of a group that categorically rejects you on general principle?

What a lot of "liberated" minds fail to do is to examine consequences. This is always a problem for them. Who could have predicted that legal abortion and sex-ed would have resulted in skyrocketing teen pregnancies, the end of options for single and young mothers, and a death toll beside which the Holocaust pales? Who could have anticipated that granting women the mere right to work would have resulted in women being obliged to work merely to support themselves and their families, like it or not? Why is it that the cheaply available automobile has created a society where ownership of one is virtually obligatory - along with smog, rising gas prices, traffic jams, etc? Who could have guessed that after the Rhineland, Austria and the Sudetenland were ceded to Hitler, that he would not stop?

Look at where this society is headed. Gay marriage is not the start - the gay rights movement has been going a long time now - and it sure as hell won't be the end. Already groups are campaigning for the lowering of the age of consent to 8 years, the striking-down of all public decency laws, etc, and these groups are all gay-rights groups. This path leads to a society of political repression and complete and sordid sexual freedom, much as Huxley prophesized in his "Brave New World." Anyone doubting my words should read it and think about how possible, nay, probable a vision of our future it is. As he said, soon a marriage license will be like a dog license, renewable every year if you choose, with no laws barring changing spouses mid-marraige or having more than one, and increasing sexual freedom accompanies diminishing political freedom. Sex, not religion, is the opium of the masses, and while Chretien passes his pot and gay marraige laws, nobody is noticing his quiet reform of partisan election campaign funding in a way greatly biased towards his own party. It begins.

[Lost in Manitoba]

Would a blind driver be safe on the road? Would a deaf operator be able to do her job? This is a last resort kind of argument, Hugo, and I'm sure you are smarter than this. Two men or two women can be as loving and as committed as a man and a women can be. They can fulfill and perform all of the functions and roles that a members of a hetero-union can. They can work, love and raise their children, they can pay their taxes, and on and on and on.

I can understand and do appreciate the argument of consequences and forthought. Like you said, and have said before, that our culture is super-saturated with sex and sexual images. Little girls wearing belly shirts, fake tattoos, and sweatpants with 'hot stuff' written on the ass cheeks, is entirely, intentionally, made out to be an object of sexual attraction. A 12yr old should not fill this position. Guys should not look at a elementary school girl and pop a stiffie.

Who markets this stuff and who are they trying to get to buy their products? Is it the gay community? Are they the ones that are responsible for Britney, the pepsi ads, jean commercials, and every other product out there? Probably not. Theirs is a niche market that would probably be more inclined to buy butless chaps or sailor uniforms than a revealing nightie for kids. Is it really the gay community that is responsible for teenage pregnancies??? C'mon now. Your values and beliefs are more threatened by the corporate greed than by gays.

[Ronda]

Two men or two women can be as loving and as committed as a man and a women can be. They can fulfill and perform all of the functions and roles that a members of a hetero-union can. They can work, love and raise their children, they can pay their taxes, and on and on and on.

So can a brother and sister. But they cannot marry. That's the point. This conversation always has to wind back up at whether or not gayness, in and of itself is good or bad. It doesn't matter for our purposes. The point is that marriage is discriminatory. It discriminates based on sex, age and relation to name a few. Marriages have to be consummated by sexual intercourse between the couple and are voidable if impotency is discovered.

Traditional marriages are given some recognition because of the dynamics between a husband and wife and because they are typically the ideal household to breed children into. And yes, I know gay ppl can have kids from a previous relationship (apparently one's 'orientation' is not as set in stone as it's made out to be) or through adoption but that doesn't change the fact that barring abusive situations, the ideal situation is to have a child with their natural parents.

No one is telling gay people they cannot have relationships. They can do whatever they bloody well please. However, marriage law states you must marry someone of the opposite sex, someone you are not related to, someone who is not currently married, someone over the age of __, etc. It is not explicitly discriminating against "gays"!

[Hugo]

Two men or two women can be as loving and as committed as a man and a women can be.

That is simply a lie, as you'll remember if you take a look at the statistics I posted in another thread. Potential is not reality. Gays are theoretically as loving and monogamous as straight people, but actual studies of their relationships tell a completely different story, and it's one of absolutely nonexistent commitment and fidelity, lists of sexual partners more populous than some towns out West, vastly increased incidences of STDs with consequently far shorter life expectancies, and so on.

As regards raising children, the evidence (especially given studies on the psychological history of homosexuals themselves) indicates it is almost certainly psychologically damaging for the child involved. They may pay taxes, but they certainly don't fit into the tax/benefit system in the way that people were intended to.

My point with the blind drivers is that it is not a fundamental human right to belong to any group or institution you feel like and demand that all their requirements be stricken down to accomodate you.

Life is full of institutions that certain people can't belong to, and not just for practical reasons as you seem to think. Zoroastrians do not accept converts, no matter how piously Zoroastrian they may be. Only Christians can become Freemasons. You can only call yourself Cockney if you were born within the sound of the Bow Bells, no matter how long you've lived in the East End of London. No immigrant, no matter how "naturalised", may be President of the United States. Only a mafioso who can trace his unbroken lineage back to Sicily can be a made man. Only Communist Party members can be officers in the People's Army of China. These "discriminations" run all through human history, and span borders and cultures.

People just have to live with these things! Life is not an all-you-can-eat buffet, and you cannot just stuff yourself with whatever you want to eat without responsibility or accountability, and homosexuals have to grow up and realise this.

Regarding the pervasiveness of sex in our culture, well, gays may not be responsible for the problem in the first place but they are definitely making it a lot worse. Witness, as I said, Gay Pride, the attacks on public decency laws and the "too-high" age of consent by gay rights activists.

Quick scenario: you are out at a family restaurant with your wife and kids. You take your 10-year-old to the bathroom and find two gay men sodomising each other over the counter. While you are paying your bill later, you see one of the same men taking your 10-year-old son aside and making sexual advances towards him. If the gay rights groups I mentioned have their way, all of this would be perfectly legal and you would have no recourse against any of it. Xtra.ca article Click on the petition and see exactly what they want to repeal. Sound good to you? Nice sort of society to live in?

[Lost in Manitoba]

Well well. Only Christians can become freemasons.... well then, you have totally proved your point! Gay people should not be married! ( they could become freemasons though)

In the end, all I can say is, gay marriage will be passed because the majority of people are much more open-minded than you and elect politicians who represent that tolerance.

(BTW the tale of gays corrupting children reminds me of the Germans telling their kids that the Jews will steal them from their beds)

[Hugo]

This is absolutely not an answer of any kind.

You have elected to pass up the facts, in favour of a viewpoint that cannot distinguish between "tolerance" and "endorsement", that basically amounts to "favour those with the richest/loudest lobby groups".

Good answer. I'll expect to see you decrying the plight of "oppressed" boy-lovers when their movement gains more momentum too - clearly you are gullible enough to do so.

[Ronda]

No one ever said "gays" are all child molesters. That wasn't the point. The point was, if you'd read the link provided, that a prominent Canadian GAY lobby group is actively trying to banish laws banning sex in public and to lower/abolish the age of consent. The info was found on a popular gay website and there's a petition to sign to "keep the criminal code out of YOUR sex life!" This leads one to believe that it's assumed that gay people would be interested in striking down these laws. I have NEVER seen another website with a petition to strike down these laws. If MOST gay people were not interested in sex with or as minors, or sex in public (ie. washrooms/bathhouses - a couple examples from the site) - why on earth would that link be there...? Why would they assume?

Regardless, you totally ignored the point I made regarding gay sex vs. gay marriage - ie. we're talking about gay marriage, not the "morality" of gayness. Instead you've chosen to deliberately miss Hugo's point and set up a strawman argument based loosely on what he said.

[Craig Read]

Ronda, Hugo. I agree, we are going down a slippery slope with Gays. Soon they will want Gay Prostitution legalised under the 'Charter' as part of their 'Rights'.

I was reading about ancient Greek homosexuality and how it developed. It was entirely a socially induced phenomeon. Ancient Greeks did not care for women too much. They were deemed if not evil at least worrisome. Hence the myth of the Amazons, which was the Ancient Greek Man's worst nightmare - chicks who could kill and be equal to men.

The Greeks formed social clubs of men, in which an older man would teach a younger about civic life, war, the arts and so on. Over time this relationship grew into one of sexual favors for good teachings. Eventually such habits became accepted especially in Thebes and Sparta and the man had a dual sexual life - one at home with a wife he rarely saw, and one with his male mate.

Such male bonding was also deemed essential in a world full of war and uncertainty. It created an ethos of dependability.

I can't help but reflect if being Gay is still a societal issue or if in fact there is some evidence that 'tumours' or 'genes' cause it.

I doubt it, but some say they do.

[Neal.F.]

Couple of things.... Freemasons accept non-christians... It is atheists and agnostics they do not accept. To become a mason, you must believe in God, the Supreme being. In fact , many Christians say you cannot be a Christian and a Mason at the same time, since Christ is not part of the Godhead that one must believe in.

Zoroastrians do accept converts, under certain conditions only: ie: if a Zor. man marries a non-zor woman, she can become zoroastrian, as will their children be. In fact the non-zor woman would not have to convert in order for the child to be a zor. I know such a family.

However, in the case of a Zor woman who marries a non-zor man, their children will not be Zor. as the religion, as oposed to Judaism, goes through the line of the father

[Neal.F.]

Now onto the points about homosexuality.

I will preface my comments by saying that I am speaking from first hand knowledge of the vice to which I am about to compare homosexual behaviour.

I think all hands can agree that abusive drinking, ie: misuse of alcohol, is destructive, harmful behaviour. Yet many people who suffer from this, ie: alcoholics.

Many alcoholics will tell you, in similar fashion to homosexuals that they "can't help it" that they are "wired differently" "Born that way" etc.

I can tell you that all of this might be true. In my own case, I can tell you that from the very first time I drank, I drank to excess. Whether this was nature or nurture, I cannot say for certain. What I do know is that it was destructive behaviour. Harmful to myself, hurtful to others who knew me to watch me behave in that manner, and potentially destructive to other people . Homosexuality qualifies on all counts as well.

Destructive behaviour must not be rewarded or "affirmed" . You are not "building self-esteem" or being "tolerant" or doing the person who practices destructive behaviours any favours.

They need to find a way to deal decisively, and permanently with their "thorn in the side"

In the case of a problem drinker, they must abandon the old behaviours and attitudes, and replace them with new ones. Homosexuals can and must do the same.

The most successful treatment programs for these behaviours (whether drinking, gambling, drugs overeating or sexual behaviour) are God based 12 step style programs. I known I will have some people disputing that statement, but AA is time tested, as is Gamblers Anonymous, and even Cocaine Anonymous, and Narcotics anonymous have had successful track records in their much briefer histories. Faith based organizations have sprung up to deal with obsessive sexual behaviours (sex addiction) and specifically homosexuality (such as Courage RC & Exodus International) . Both organizations have helped many people emerge successfully from the homosexual lifestyle.

Do temptations still exist? I would imagine so, since my mouth still waters when I see some Coronaq and a bowl of limes on a table , however, I must resist ACTING ON the temptation , knowing full well the pricetag attached... Trust me, you don't do this alone. You do it with the help of your higher power, which for me is the God of the Bible.

I have gone into this, because it had to be said that we , as a society can't go about rewarding wrong, wrong behaviour. we define the term "wrong" to mean any behaviour that does harm to oneself and others.

I gave you my story because I wanted to make it clear that I am not pointing out the log in my brother's eye, without firts having sought to remove the one in my eye, and to make it clear that I have a first hand understanding of the nature of the beast and am not prepared to make excuses for it, nor allow others to make the same puked-up excuses.

[Hugo]

Right, but you see my point, which is that both those institutions "discriminate" against groups of people and not on practical grounds. Is this unconstitutional and a violation of the rights of those discriminated against, or is it the right of the organisation or religion to exclude anyone they see fit?

Your story about alcoholism is bang-on. I think also, a telling story is that of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Jesus accepted her and tolerated her even though she was a prostitute, but he certainly did not encourage it, or aid her in prostituting herself. This is the difference between tolerance and endorsement, and what we are doing is not tolerating homosexuals, but actively endorsing them.

[Neal.F.]

Clear cut. It is the sole discretion of any private organization to define the terms of its own membership.

If one doesn't like it, they can start your own group, instead of trying to force their way into a group that doesn't want them.

And as for Jesus & Mary Magdalene, you are absolutely correct. We must respect them as individuals , but not condone their behaviour. they may resent it when you speak up, but you are making them face the facts rather than placing them at greater risk to do harm to themselves and others by saying "eveything's cool! I'm OK, You're OK!"

[Lost in Manitoba]

Just to confirm what you said Neal; Homosexuallaity is just as bad and as destructive as Alcoholism? And you figure that you can cure, or at least control, Homosexual urges by a religion oriented 12-step program? Just want to make sure I'm reading this right.

[Neal.F.]

You are reading it absolutely correctly. Just ask all the AIDS patients whether homosexual behaviiour is destructive or not. Ask a doctor who does not kneel at tha altar of political correctness.. He'll tell you about gay bowel disease, schistosomiasis (aka flukes), having to surgically repair torn anuses that have resulted in incontinence, the mental ilness that is born of homosexual baggage.... Ask the family members of homosexuals as they watch them die of AIDS, or suicide, another common cause of homosexual death. The average age of death for a male homosexual is 42 when AIDS is not factored in. When it is, it drops to 39. The average lifespan of the acverage man in North America is 78. Try to tell me a behaviour that cuts a life in half is not destructive, and should be affirmed.

Ask women who have been infected by partners who live the double life...... Who have delivered HIV+ infected children unknowingly. Ask the person lured into the lifestyle and gets AIDS the "first time" from someone who put his pleasure before the safety of others......

Yes homosexual behaviour hurts the practitioner, as well as those around them. Very similar to alcoholism and gambling, and drugs... is it not?

And yes, whether you like it or not, faith based programs have been far and away the most successful ways to break with any destructive behaviours.

[Hugo]

Lost,

I originally posted all this in the "Beyond Satire" thread, but I will repeat it for your benefit:

From "Public Education Against America” by Marlin Maddoux:

In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently 20 years of age will not reach their 65th birthday.

A Bell and Weinberg study found that 43 percent of the gay men surveyed estimated having sex with 500 or more different partners. 75 percent estimated 100 or more partners. 28 percent estimated more than 1,000 partners.

In this same study it was revealed that 79 percent said that more than half of their partners were anonymous, and 70 percent said that more than half of their partners were men with whom they had sex only once.

A later study by these two researchers estimated that only 2 percent of homosexuals could be considered monogamous or even semi-monogamous (having ten or less lifetime partners).

One study found that 38 percent of lesbians surveyed had between 11 and 300 sexual partners. Another revealed that 41 percent of lesbians admitted to having between 10 and 500 lifetime partners.

From the Center for Disease Control:

Homosexuals account for 80 percent of America’s most serious sexually transmitted diseases even though they constitute a mere 3% of the population.

Youths engaging in homosexual behavior are 23 times more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease than strictly heterosexual youths.

Lesbians are 19 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had syphilis, twice as likely to suffer from genital warts, four times as likely to have scabies.

Male homosexuals are 14 times more likely to have syphilis than male heterosexuals. They are also thousands of times more likely to have AIDS.

In 1991 and 1992 the Family Research Institute surveyed 5,371 obituaries from sixteen American homosexual newspapers. It was found that across the United States, the median age of death for a homosexual male not having AIDS was only 42 years, with a mere 9 percent living to old age. Of 106 lesbians surveyed, the median lifespan was only 45 years, with 26 percent living to old age.

Homosexuality is bad for you. That's all there is to it.

[Lost in Manitoba]

Maybe the problem is promiscuity. Does Homesexuallity necassarily imply promiscuity?

A promiscuous heterosexual probably risks all the STD's that a homosexual one does. What about risk-taking heterosexuals, as in ones not practicing safe-sex? What about those women who engage in anal sex? They would suffer the same problems as homosexuals who have anal sex, I would guess. Wouldn't simple sex-ed lower the stats for the diseases and other health problems?

Why do you figure homosexuals are more likely to commit suicide? Is it that they are self-loathers or mentally disturbed? If they are, then would it be because of congenital defects or would it be outside societal pressures? I would think that intolerance and out-right hate would definitely lead to a negative self-image and low self-esteem, and ultimately depression which is often a precursor of suicide.

Religous conservatives condemn sex-ed in schools and condom machines in public bathrooms. Religious conservatives decry homosexuallity as ammoral, against natural law, and in doing so cause intolerance and even hate towards homosexualls. I don't think it takes a great leap to connect religious conservatives with the rise of STD's and the high suicide rates amongst homosexualls.

As for the 12step program Neil, why not go back to therapy pairing homosexuall images with electric shocks. All in the name of curing them of course.

[Neal.F.]

Anyone who practices anal sex is placing themselves at risk. However, 90% of homosexuals preactice anal sex, while among heterosexuals, the number is much, much lower.

Promiscuity whether straight or gay, increases the risks. However, it is a fact that homosexuals are far more promiscuous tham the vast majority of straights.

Condoms are a sham. and they should not be available in high school bathrooms. Students should be expecetd to adhere to certain standards of behaviour when on campus, and face discipline should they fail to observe them. Condoms may be an effective method of birth control, but the HIV viris is small enough to pass through the pores in a latex condom.

Now we must revisit anal sex vs vaginal sex. Rectums are made from different types of cells than vaginas. One is meant for the reception of a penis while the other is for the excretion of waste, The cells cannot withstnd the friction, and this resulys in bleeding , allowing diseases easy access direstly into the bloodstream. Combine that with fecal matter and you are asking for trouble.

I do not believe sex ed should be taught in schools. It's a paren'ts responsibility to teach that to children. I should not have to submit my childfen to some liberal's idea of sex-ed. It always boils down to whose agenda will be taught. I don't need leftist social workers coming to school to inform my kids how to get the pill or an abortion, without having to inform dear old mom & dad.

I think promiscuity is being encouraged by the gay crowd that controls things down in Hollweird. Misery loves company..

The homosexuals are seeking allies, and are doing so by pitching the message that promiscuity is fun and that "everybody's doing it" in order to create a culture of sexual libertines who will undoubtedly suffer like they do, so they can point to promiscuous straights and say that homosexuality is no different.

The numbers don't lie. I have William gairdner's "War against the Family" in front of me.

It says: According to Gebhard & Johnson's "The Kinsey data-corrected" 70% of homsexuals admit to haveing sex just once with over half their partners.

Bell & Weinberg report that 28% of homosexuals engaged in sodomy with over 1000 partnes in a lifetime, 43% with over 500. Other studied report 20-106 new partners per year is the average.One Homosexual reported in "Gay report" that he had been with over 4000, cataloguing 2-3 per week, and 10-12 each time he went to the bathhouse.

A Bristish survey appearing in "The British Journal of Sexual medicine" reported 2 London Homosexuals who hasd over 500 partners in one hear and twelve who estimated 5000 in their lifetimes.

When a heterosexual has 20-30 partners in a lifetime they are considered promiscuous.

Oh and BTW, when AIDS hit hard the first time in the '80's many homosexuals started reducing the number of partners they had...f down to a mere 50 from 70 per year.

[Hugo]

Maybe the problem is promiscuity. Does Homesexuallity necassarily imply promiscuity?

As Neal has said, some of the problems are caused by the actual acts that homosexuals indulge in. However, I concede that the majority of them are caused by promiscuity - a monogamous and uninfected couple have absolutely no reason to fear AIDS.

Promiscuity, though, is generally a sign of psychological problems, especially with self-esteem and self-worth or, rather, lack thereof. Excessively promiscuous people usually have an inferiority complex that they are subconsciously attempting to salve with sexual gratification, hoping that the sexual encounters will give them some affirmation of their worth as a person. Sadly, the effect is usually the opposite of that, since multiple, meaningless sexual encounters just build the image of self-worthlessness. The behaviour a disease encourages is often contrary to that required to cure or even to perpetuate life (e.g. rabies/hydrophobia).

That, combined with the staggeringly high number of homosexuals who suffered sexual abuse as children, excessive bullying, or had difficulty fitting into their peer groups, shows me that homosexuality and promiscuity are both symptoms of psychological trauma.

I have heard people say that low self-esteem in homosexuals is due to social stigma, ridicule and so forth. This is plainly clap-trap, as we can see by the fact that homosexual behaviour is becoming progressively more outrageous and promiscuous as we progressively relax stigma attached to the condition. If it were the case that social stigma caused this low self-esteem, we would see a homosexual trend towards monogamous and sexually conservative behaviour as society grew more tolerant.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that homosexuality is a mental disorder that usually has underlying causes needing treatment. It's a self-destructive behaviour symptomatic of real problems. Anorexics are not encouraged to see themselves as fat and to diet excessively, in fact, many are treated and force-fed against their will to save their lives. That's no reason to pelt anorexics with stones, though, and this is much the same attitude we should adopt with homosexuality: to respect the sufferer as the human being that they are, but to acknowledge that they have a disorder that needs treatment.

[Lost in Manitoba]

Not the only conclusion...

With the social acceptance, of sorts, of gays, they rightly have little to fear in the form of retribution -either physical beating or open hatred. This gives them a sense of security and with this they may act outrageous to taunt those who don't like gays.

To put it in another way: a little brother may fear his older sibling and be bullied by him. While mom is in the room, however, the older brother cannot threaten or beat on him, so out of spite the little brother may do all that he possibly can to get under his brother's skin.

[Hugo]

A constant and driving need to assert yourself against others in a way that's detrimental to them is also a sign of low self-esteem and an inferiority complex.

What you've said is just another way to reach the same conclusion: homosexuality is a psychological scar.

[Lost in Manitoba]

But in my analogy, you are looking only at the taunting little brother. What about the bullish older one? Is that not a sign of low self esteem and an inferiority complex? I believe they say of bullies that they are unsure of their place in the social group and as a result they strike out in fear. Is it healthy to try to impose your will on someone else, either by threats or by actual force? Who's got the psychological scar?

[Hugo]

Anybody who actually attacks a specific homosexual person, physically or verbally, obviously has a complex and a problem of their own, and I won't dispute that. As I said, I myself have homosexual friends and I don't have a problem with them, nor will I preach to them about their condition. That's tolerance.

However, social conservatives aren't really neo-Nazis or the KKK looking to beat and lynch gays. They are people such as Neal and myself, who see the obvious facts about homosexuality and object to the promotion of such a dangerous lifestyle - much as you object to America invading Iraq, but you do not wish harm to any specific US soldier or policymaker.

I think it's clear that, right now, gays have all the psychological angst, as witnessed by the fact that 3% of the population is attempting to force their will on the other 97% by court action, protests, political lobbying or whatever means, fair or foul, will work. Is that not bullying?

As regards your analogy, children all generally have self-esteem problems to a lesser extent simply because as children, they are inferior to adults in every way. As they mature and improve, they get over this.

The fact that gays haven't and are attempting to flaunt their behaviour in everybody's face and overturn majority will in favour of their own, just further proves their psychological issues - of which their homosexuality is just one more symptom.