best friends forever. don't worry, I won't hold you to it.
Just got to this part and it looks like we agree...
I don't know why I switched to gender when I have always argued orientation.
:lol:
Yeah... sorry I did miss this, what with all the pookie/BH stuff going on.
understandable.
Now, dealing with orientation, it adds perfectly to the bigotry, IMO. Not for any that disagree with me, but certainly for those that argue against homsexuals for the fact that they are homosexuals. I am not including you, my dear, for you are debating a "devils advocate" on terminology...
I find that those that argue against the issue merely because they don't like gay people are rather uneducated, but more rare than people may assume. I make a distinction between the uneducated and the deeply religious, who oppose the practice of homosexuality no more vehemently than they oppose other types of sexual deviance. for those types, I have some sympathy because I was raised among truly spiritual people and I know that nothing exceeds their compassion for homosexuals. perhaps that is why I tend to resent the word "bigots" being thoughtlessly applied to anyone who "imposes his morals on others."
As for your rebut, I would counter with... marriage contracts and the specifications required to get one must change so that orientation does not matter, and it must state so, for as it is now... it is a clever way to hide State Sponsored Discrimination
it bothers me to no end when people care only about the terminology. that is so far from rational that I want to puke on them. :lol: if we are going to have gay marriage, let us call a spade a spade.
part of me thinks we don't need gay marriage, that it is just an attempt to legitimize the lifestyle culturally/socially and needlessly expand government. gay people can have wedding ceremonies and commitments and things, but the intended purpose of state sponsored marriage precludes homosexual couples being given them.
the other part of me recognizes the present-day need for homosexual couples to have hospital visitation rights and other things that come in handy in emergencies, or for legal matters like buying a house, dying w/o a will, etc. there should probably be some sort of way to recognize that two such people are joined that would be useful to them legally. that doesn't mean they need all 1400 benefits (or whatever it is) that heterosexual couples have. there is a very good reason to encourage heterosexual unions.
sadly government has gotten so intrusive that it's sometimes necessary to be able to prove your legal connection to a loved one in order to exercise the most basic rights. smaller government would do away with the issue altogether.
lastly I'd like to say that "separate but equal" has gotten such a bum rap. a common misconception is that gays have to have every single thing straights have, otherwise it's Discrimination. that's not really true. it can be the little d kind and not at all heinous. this issue though is so emotionally charged that pro-gms are not often willing to settle for anything less than the whole enchilada, and anti-gms are simply unwilling to surrender unconditionally and immediately.
this is a beautiful composition and quite true to myself. :applaud