Then perhaps you'd care to explain your opposition to homosexuality. It's either "it's against my religion" or "it's yucky".I'm sorry, does the two princes book include any sex? At all? If not, then it is exactly like any fairy tale that ends up "and they lived happily ever after. I mean, if you want to get into sexual isues of fairy tale characters, then Cinderella's Prince was a massive foot fetishist and Snow White's was a necrophiliac.

Speak for yourself; I've already judged him. :-)

And have equal legal status to straight marriage? Cool...now let's figure out why The State should be involved in it at all.

If it does, I withdraw my objection to removing it from an elementary school curriculum...no matter who the Prince[s] is/are boffing.

Of course this is a sane and considered response. You hate queers. Why mince your words. You want us to agree with you that its ok to hate them. Sorry, no, I'm not going to agree. It looks most people here don't agree with your hatred, either.

Gosh, you seem to have that all sorted out. Does your whole life fall into two such easy categories?

Who said I was opposed to homosexuality? I disagree with it being pandered to seven year olds.

I don't hate queers either, but if you give me shit, prepare to get it shoved right back down your throat coated with Drano.

Yes, Civil Unions should have equal legal status to marriage. The govt should license Civil Unions to anyone, and let individual religions dispense marriage sacraments.

Among Pagans there are Covens composed entirely of Lesbians and others of Gay men. While some rituals are common to us all, they also have rituals specific to their sexual inclination. No gay man would insist on being allowed to participate in a Moon Lodge ritual for Lesbians. No Lesbian would insist on being included in a Gay coming of age ritual. Homosexuals should write their own rituals and sacraments, rather than simply imitating the heterosexual marriage rite. There is no hatred in that. The hatred is in the minds of you who are so eager to perceive it. But sadly, instead of any genuine debate, all you want to do is fling poo.

This does, unless you're willing to provide a counterexample.You did, with your "reading list" that implied that if kids are shown fairy tales about two princes in love, the next step is showing them hardcore gay sex. The same is obviously not true for Sleeping Beauty, so why would it be for the two princes?I agree with this. Of course, everyone will still call it marriage, since the ones who think marriage must be religious in nature will have it done by their religion, and the ones who don't won't care what the religions think.Marriage ceremonies are based at least as much on culture as religion. In homogenous societies, where there's only one religion and only one culture, that may be hard to distinguish, but a Catholic marriage in Ireland will be considerably different than one in Ghana. "Gay" isn't a religion. If their church performs gay marriages, then their marriage will be whatever their church does. If they do it without a church, it will be whatever they want it to be, which will probably be informed by the culture they grew up in.

I see. If we say a man loves a woman, that's romance. But if we say a man loves a man, that's "pandering". But you're not prejudiced against gay people, of course.

(By the way...you need to look up "pandering". Gramatically, if a child is "being pandered to", it's an appeal to his existing vices, not an attempt to seduce him into new ones.)

Wooo I like you people already :) .. .. well put

Well, either your objection is based on religion or it isn't.. Let's start by answering that one.

I assume we'll now see some handwaving approxiately along the lines of why "Intelligent Design is different from Creationism": religious objections trying to sneak into government policy masquerading as something else.

Confusion began when you did not distinguish between teachings of a lifestyle verses teaching how to live that lifestyle. Having not provided sufficient details - distinguishing between both concepts - your responses assumes you are so opposed to homosexuality as to even condemning teaching of its existence.

To better understand what was posted: first legal marriage requirements. I read you saying that laws should make no distinction between same sex and opposite sex marriages. Is that correct?

Second, religion. You stated that sacraments (I take that to mean Catholic Church) should be denied to same sex marriages. Is that correct?

Third, education. You insist that children should never even be told that homosexual couples exist? That existence of standard society features (lifestyles) should never be taught to kids? That some realities should never be taught to kids (answering this question in detailed terms of what exists and of how it exists)? Is that correct?

I do, I do, I hate queers. The bastards ruined the word gay. Gay was a great descriptive word. There isn't another word that can take it's place and be as effective. I'll always hold it against 'em. :mad:

You're so full of shit you're developing buck teeth. My objection to 7 year olds being exposed to homosexuality is based on simple human decency.
:dedhors2:

Nope. Never said that. However your assumption is quite telling.:lol:

Blythe
Bonnie
Jocund
Merry