I will apologize here for my comment. It was a hasty and ill-advised remark. I am not a hateful person at all. I do not, however, think that gay marriage is the right answer to the problem. It raises many issues that have yet to be addressed. If the States want to go that way, then that is their decision. I just do not agree.
As to being hateful, take a look at some of the other comments on this very page, and let me know what you think about those throwing around phrases like "American Christian Taliban" and "homophobe" or shouting "BIGOT." Interesting, no?
Cheers
I, too, am tired of these conversations. I am also tired of the blanket label of homophobe. I think the best comment I have read on this is from two behavioral scientists, Drs. William O'Donohue and Christine Caselles,
" [Homophobia] as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality" itself, arguing that the term may be used as an ad honinem argument against those who advocate values or positions of which the speaker does not approve."
Check it out:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n0264m864t146585/
Abstract The construct of homophobia and the psychometric properties of instruments purporting to measure homophobia are critically evaluated. The history of the term and its various definitions are briefly reviewed. We conclude that existing measures of homophobia have been inadequately psychometrically evaluated and therefore it is not clear whether currently this construct can be accurately measured. It is also concluded that the construct of homophobia, as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality. Finally, proposals for theory development and construct definition in the domain of reactions to homosexuals and homosexuality are provided.
There was an excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal today (9 May 2009), which needs to be read by anyone serious about this discussion.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182908227302619.html
The article does not bear upon what particular beliefs a candidate may have, but goes beyond that. Here is a teaser, but be mature enough to read the whole piece before responding.
"The price of what Mr. Obama calls judicial pragmatism or empathy is a willingness to disregard the rule of law, the democratic process, and the Constitutional text in favor of judges' own idiosyncratic notions of fairness. And that is hard to square with the president's constitutional duty to take care that the laws and Constitution are faithfully executed."
What I want to know is how any nominee feels about supporting the Constitution of these United States, not any particulars about sexual orientation. We don't need more legislation from the bench and downgrading our 10th Amendment. (Go ahead, look it up)
One more state down the tube...
OMG, does everything have to be a BLTG issue? You already have Sean Penn in the tank calling Pres O "elegant" and wanting to shame those who voted against gay marriage? What more do you want -- and, please, don't call me a homophobe...
How much more are we going to be asked to giveup and/or pay for? There is already $50m to support "starving artists" just to mention one part of the pork. I rember immigration "reform" was a big issue in an article on this site when Kennedy was being considered for the Senate. The arguments have not changed since then, and the comments profered still apply.
Though I do not support Ms Schlossberg (Castle Town), I do agree with her immigration agenda, tho I would have worded it somewhat differently. And the "back of the line" is the back of the line behind all those who have applied legally for entry in the the United States. There will be plenty of time to learn English whilst they await their papers.