<<Trying to take a KNOWN factor of race, one that the person has zip control over, and using the emotional rhetoric of the civil rights movement & segregation as some valid comparison to what many consider an immoral/sinful act, one that has no scientific basis what-so-ever of no control over such acts, is patently disengenuous at the least.>>
Factually I think you're out to lunch and at least 25 years out of date. Most of the informed comment that I've been reading about this subject seems to indicate that it's inborn and the individual has no choice in the matter. The people who say it's a matter of choice seem to be mostly ignorant red-necks of the born-again variety, the last people in the world whose opinion on scientific matters would be worth anything. The same kind of people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old and that evolution is a myth. Fucking idiots, for want of a better term. Most of the life stories that I've read or seen recounted on TV seem to indicate the person struggled for years against his own sexual orientation before being forced to acknowledge his or her gayness. It's a lot more like race (in the sense of being a part of one's identity that one has no control over) than the ignorant would like to admit.
<<YET, Civil Unions allow for precisely such, LEGAL, with EQUAL RIGHTS. >>
Yes, LEGAL for sure. But as long as there's a dividing line between civil unions and marriage, even the fact that the rights are equal does not remove the fact that the law has discriminated against one class of citizens, the gay population, telling all the gay Adams, You do not have the right to marry Steve; Linda can marry Steve, but you can't. That is OBVIOUS discrimination. And discrimination based on nothing more than identity factors, who the person is. In that sense it is no different than the Nuremburg Laws, which (for example) barred Jews from teaching in the universities solely on the basis of one factor in their personal IDs. That was discriminatory, and the discrimination would not have been removed even if the Nazis had provided equal Jewish universities for the Jews to teach in. Separate is NOT equal. That's the lesson of Brown v. Topeka.
<< The fact you don't support that, and are all hung up on the "marriage" angle, demonstrates your obvious disregard to the legal aspect>>
Well naturally I would be all hung up on the marriage angle, since it is with respect to the right to marry that the gays are being denied their Constitutional right of equality. You don't remove the discrimination of being deprived of one right simply by creating a new right and saying, here, you can have this right (civil union) but not that one. What if a gay person WANTS to be married just like a hetero? What happened to HIS right of free choice? Why should he be strait-jacketed into a new right he doesn't want while he's still being denied the old right that he does want? I thought you right-wing fruit-bats were all in favour of individual choices unfettered by the evil state's interference.
<<Well, considering how hard you're trying to pound the immoral act of Homosexuality as legitimate & normal, only you can really answer that question regarding the immoral act of adultery>>
Huh? moi? where did I ever pound the immoral act of homosexuality as legitimate and normal? How can it be normal if most people are anything BUT homosexual? I never said homosexuality is normal and I never would. It's obviously not normal any more than 4 ft. 5 in. is normal height for an adult American male. Who gives a shit if it's normal or not anyway? WTF does normal have to do with anything? And as far as legitimate goes, what the fuck am I, the bedroom police? How can I or anyone else legitimize what is basically a personal choice? As long as an activity is permitted by law, it is legitimate enough for me. That doesn't mean I'd want to do it or I'd be happy if someone in my family did it, but it does mean that I respect the freedom of others to choose it if they wish. It's basically none of my God-damn business if others get into it.
Personally, you have every right to consider homosexuality to be an immoral act. But I don't think the laws should discriminate in any way against homosexuals, because that is taking one personal view of the morality of the homosexual act (yours) and elevating it from one man's opinion into every man's law. This ignores the opinion of the homosexual, who does NOT think it's immoral. I don't believe the law should take his side or your side - - it must remain neutral and respect everyone's POV. Otherwise the law would be discriminatory and unconstitutional.
