When John Kerry says he is against gay marriage...

[Fawkin'Injun]

Good gawd, I didn't think that type of thing would go on here. I thought only we straights had LT's in our midst...

 

[Pookie]

Re: Re: Re: When John Kerry says he is against gay marriage...

You tell me Pookie. Before the Mass Supreme Court Decision he had this to say (I had a quote even more pro-gay marraige, but I can't find it right now, it'll come up again in the campaign, I assure you.)

Arlington man pushes Kerry’s gay appeal
Daley says senator was gay rights advocate before it was fashionable
By JOE CREA
Friday, January 16, 2004
Long before he became the gay liaison for Sen. John Kerry’s presidential bid, Tom Daley knew that Kerry was the candidate he planned to support. Daley said the Massachusetts senator has a long track record of supporting gay rights issues, dating back to 1985, “long before it was fashionable” to lend political support to gay rights causes.
…
Kerry has a 100 percent pro-gay voting record, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Kerry was the original co-sponsor of the hate crimes bill. In 1985, Kerry introduced a bill prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He also supports the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Additionally, he has called for an end to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy banning gays from serving openly in the military.
Additionally, Kerry was one of 14 senators — and the only one up for reelection in 1996 — to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans federal recognition of gay marriages, according to his campaign’s Web site.

[I[Kerry is also opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman. [italics mine][/I]

Daley said he did not know whether his boss would take a leadership role in defeating the FMA, but said Kerry had pledged to vote against the measure if it comes up for a vote.

http://www.washblade.com/2004/1-16/news/national/kerry.cfm


...

His official stand now (from FoxNews)

Supports partnership rights and civil unions. Opposed to gay marriage. Disagrees with the Massachusetts court's decision.


...

I have to read this as pandering to constituencies in order to get elected. First, he told your community what you wanted to hear to get votes in the primary, now he's telling middle America what middle America wants to hear in order to get elected. If he intends to always please the majority, then Gay Marraige, as an issue is in deep trouble. IMHO



Some pundits have gone so far as to speculate whether the activism of first Sandra Day O'Conner and now the Mass. Court are going to put the whole issue under constitutional ban.

I think he's afraid to make a stand in support of same-sex marriage because of the way it could be used against him, and hurt him potentially in a very close election. I said in a previous post that it's a shame he doesn't have more of a backbone to speak out against discrimination.

What many call activism is only Justices striking down discrimination. They're overturning discriminatory laws and rules that are illegal and violates the US Constitution. Yet many want to call it "making laws".

The proposed amendment to the US Constitution won't pass. It won't even get out of Congress. It doesn't come close to having the necessary votes.

 

[Pookie]

I disagree. All of America which you look at so suspiciously has grown increasingly tolorant of your lifestyle. If what you say is true about Bush, Cheney would be automatically disqualified for having a lesbian daughter and Reagan, who had a gay son, whould not be held in such utter high regard.

I think you are engaging in stereotyping for political gain.

They've grown more tolerant of my "lifestyle", but they have no reservation with allowing discrimination to occur as if we're only second class citizens. Bush wants to discriminate against us through either legislation or a constitutional amendment. Cheney apparantly isn't playing into his thinking at all. Cheney served his purpose during the election by bringing in some votes. The Vice President means very little to Bush beyond that.

Also ... as for Bush and Cheney, well politics can make for strange bedfellows. Look at Bill and Hillary.

 

[69forever]

____________________________________________________
See this is what scares me. Kerry did fight in the war. Then he came home and turned anti-war.
____________________________________________________

Kerry did not come home to turn anti-war, he turned anti-war after volunteering for the most dangerous duty in Viet Nam, running river boats up the Mekong Delta. After being wounded and serving with honor, he gave up his commission as an officer and left the military over his oppisition to the war. He went over there with star spangled eyes and had them rudely opened to the reality of Imperialist aggression. That is fact.

____________________________________________________
You would support hypocrasy if it fits your ideology.
____________________________________________________

That's pretty arrogant, considering you don't know me from Adam.
Anyone that knows me knows where my values lie and that above all else I come down on the side of truth and fact. Even if it goes against the mainstream. Think before you speak.

____________________________________________________
I dissagree that Kerry is an honest man or that he has any core values.
____________________________________________________

Then you do not know the man. I do. I was a member and leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. I know his history.
Again, know of what you speak before you rant. He has served on the Foreign Relations Commitee for many years and has America's best interests at heart. Fact.

____________________________________________________
Those guys thought he was one of them, but he was playing both sides against the middle.
____________________________________________________

That is ludicrous. Kerry left the organization after it was infiltrated by socialists and communists who wanted to use the organization for their own agenda. I know, I was one of them.

 

[Cigan]

Do you know what his official stance is? First, he doesn't want to support marraige being between a man and a woman and then he doesn't want to support it's ban...

It reminds me of Bill Clinton on women's issues. He passed harrassment legislation. He crucified the military for affairs. He then went on to harrass women and have affairs.

So do you support Democrats for saying the right things or doing the right things?

I don't know what you mean by he doesn't want to support marriage being between a man and a woman. All he has said from the literature of his that I have read and what I have seen of him in the media is that he is for civil unions, but can't bring himself to support actually allowing marriage. I personally would like us to have marriage, but I think going for civil unions now and marriage later when the repubes have calmed down is more realistic.

 

[Cigan]

Fawkin, I have to wonder about your motivations for being here. You have come in and been very confrontational, bordering on antagonistic. Your comments about Kerry and about us being "paranoid" are all unfounded. Of course Kerry is going to compromise with the desires of the mainstream. I love a good activist, but being an activist doesn't get you elected, and I would rather have someone who is willing to compromise, but thinks we deserve some rights in office than say Bush.

And as far as Bush is concerned, he has made it very clear that he thinks homosexuality is a sin. He even said it once in an informal speech. While I don't think he would have us taken off in pens he would certainly like to take away as many of our civil liberties as he possibly can without pissing off his moderate voter base. And Reagan and Cheney have gay kids. Big fucking whoop. Anyone can have gay kids, it has absolutely nothing to do with who you are. Do you heat Cheney talking about his Lesbian daughter on the campaign trail? Not really. You heard about her from the media or when he was forced into dealing with he as when he was first asked about gay marriage rights, before it became a major national issue. I think you give Bush are conservatives far too much credit when it comes to how they would deal with us if we didn't have the protection of the democratic process.

 

[Bitchslapper]

I love to debate issues and get to the heart of a matter...and have watched your posts sinse you have come here. I usually give slack to those younger than I am for their lack of experience and maturity...encouraging their growth. With you I make an exemption to that. You are arrogent, antagonistic and generally an asshole. If you get taken to task for that enough, you might think maybe there is some worth to others perception of you.

But then you would have to be humble enough to be teachable, and I don't see that happening anytime soon. Have a good day.

You're judging my character based on the posts I make on a sex board? Uh hello, does anyone else besides me see a problem with that? I have yet to see anyone on any board I post at make a post in response to something positive I say, whereas if I post something negative, people jump down my throat and insult me. You accuse me of being antagonistic, yet the only reason you posted that was to insult me. Can you explain that discrepency?

I would also like you to explain how you have come to the conclusion that I am arrogant or an asshole. I have been perfectly polite, unless someone attacks me and insults me. And I have not pontificated as others have done repeatedly in response to me. The fact remains that while I view my opinion as just that, an OPINION, others (who shall remain nameless) behave as though thier opinion is fact.

 

[Bitchslapper]

Is he telling the truth?

From what ya'll know of the subject.

This straight guy thinks he's lying and hence not presidential material...

Is he lying to us or to you or does it even matter?

Is this acceptable for my first visit here?

Anyway, to drop all the personal attacks (if that is allowed) and get back to the original subject...

I'm conflicted here. If he's lying when he's says he's aganst it, then I think that's good because on the one hand I would prefer if he were for gay marriage. But it would also mean he is lying, which doesn't exactly herald him as the most ethical candidate.

If he is lying, it's probably so he will have a better chance of being elected. As someone else said, activists don't get votes.

In the long run, I would rather have him lie and then later have it turn out that he was really for it all along. Not exactly the most honest way to go, but then when did we expect politicians to be honest?

 

[69forever]

Originally posted by Bitch Slapper
____________________________________________________
You're judging my character based on the posts I make on a sex board? Uh hello, does anyone else besides me see a problem with that?____________________________________________________

See that is a wrong assumption in and of itself...this is much more than a "sex" board. It is that, but for those of us who have come to know each other on other levels in Real Life, it is a community of shared and sometimes not opinions. Staying in touch via the internet, and a support network.

Originally posted by Bitch Slapper
____________________________________________________
You accuse me of being antagonistic, yet the only reason you posted that was to insult me. Can you explain that discrepency?
____________________________________________________

Your being antagonistic and blind on subjects affecting our lives and taking you to task over it is not an insulting post. I should have said something earlier. I gave you slack, feeling maybe you would listen and learn. My mistake.

Originally posted by Bitch Slapper
____________________________________________________
The fact remains that while I view my opinion as just that, an OPINION, others (who shall remain nameless) behave as though thier opinion is fact.
____________________________________________________

That is the arrogence of which I speak. When you have your head up your ass with posts saying that Marriage is an obsolete institution and why would the Gay community want in on it...

Think about the facts and privilages afforded by that State sanctioned relationship between two people (Marriage) before you go off half-cocked. Those rights are not opinion, they are fact. And they are being denied to same sex couples as though we are second class citizens. Think before you speak.

 

[Pookie]

... I would also like you to explain how you have come to the conclusion that I am arrogant or an asshole. I have been perfectly polite, unless someone attacks me and insults me. And I have not pontificated as others have done repeatedly in response to me. The fact remains that while I view my opinion as just that, an OPINION, others (who shall remain nameless) behave as though thier opinion is fact.

"Perfectly polite", huh? I guess you consider calling everyone "emotional" that responds to your post is just being "perfectly polite"? I guess you call replying to someone who wasn't even posting with you with your own completely sarcastic remark as "perfectly polite"? Get a grip, dude.

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=217684

You're an arrogant asshole because anyone that dares question an opinion you post is considered to be "attacking" you. And if you really think I "behave" as though my opinion is fact, well, that's your issue, bub. I guess it doesn't matter that you started saying this after I quoted facts to go along with my opinion. Noooooo. I was just quoting my opinion as if it was fact.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

*walks into the room, hammers a nail into the wall, and hangs up a large sign*


PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS

 

[Bitchslapper]

"Perfectly polite", huh? I guess you consider calling everyone "emotional" that responds to your post is just being "perfectly polite"? I guess you call replying to someone who wasn't even posting with you with your own completely sarcastic remark as "perfectly polite"? Get a grip, dude.

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=217684

You're an arrogant asshole because anyone that dares question an opinion you post is considered to be "attacking" you. And if you really think I "behave" as though my opinion is fact, well, that's your issue, bub. I guess it doesn't matter that you started saying this after I quoted facts to go along with my opinion. Noooooo. I was just quoting my opinion as if it was fact.

Who said anything about you?

 

[Bitchslapper]

Originally posted by Bitchslapper
____________________________________________________
You're judging my character based on the posts I make on a sex board? Uh hello, does anyone else besides me see a problem with that?____________________________________________________

See that is a wrong assumption in and of itself...this is much more than a "sex" board. It is that, but for those of us who have come to know each other on other levels in Real Life, it is a community of shared and sometimes not opinions. Staying in touch via the internet, and a support network.

Originally posted by Bitchslapper
____________________________________________________
You accuse me of being antagonistic, yet the only reason you posted that was to insult me. Can you explain that discrepency?
____________________________________________________

Your being antagonistic and blind on subjects affecting our lives and taking you to task over it is not an insulting post. I should have said something earlier. I gave you slack, feeling maybe you would listen and learn. My mistake.

Originally posted by Bitchslapper
____________________________________________________
The fact remains that while I view my opinion as just that, an OPINION, others (who shall remain nameless) behave as though thier opinion is fact.
____________________________________________________

That is the arrogence of which I speak. When you have your head up your ass with posts saying that Marriage is an obsolete institution and why would the Gay community want in on it...

Think about the facts and privilages afforded by that State sanctioned relationship between two people (Marriage) before you go off half-cocked. Those rights are not opinion, they are fact. And they are being denied to same sex couples as though we are second class citizens. Think before you speak.

So it's not just a sex board. So what? It's still just a message board. I am not belittling the importance it may hold for others, I'm just saying that I think getting upset about a few posts on it is overreacting (note the phrase "I think" in that sentence, implying that an opinions follows it, if that makes me arrogant, then so be it).

When have I been antagonistic and blind? I am the one who has been antagonized here as I am being antagontized now, in lieu of disussing the issue. After all, this i s adiscussion board, is it not? I think somene told me that once. Can anyone explain to me why I am continually attacked for expressing my opinion, even when it agrees with the consesnsus, and why I am harrased when I try to actually discuss the topic at hand, as I have been accused of refusing to do?

In any case, that is only your assessment of me. However, what is fact is that you (and others) continue to insult me for no reason.

Yes, I think the traditional concept of marriage is obsolete. But at no point did I say we should deny same-sex couples that privilidge. I merely asked some questions about it. How is that being blind and having my head up my ass? And how am I suppose to learn and listen when I am attacked and harassed for merely asking some simple, innoffesnive questions?

I always think before I speak. Again, you assume something about me when in fact you know nothing about who I am (and apparently you don't know anything about my views on the actual subject either, otherwise you would not be harassing me for AGREEING WITH EVERYONE).

Now, can we actually get back to discussing the topic, or does the Witch Hunt continue?

 

[Pookie]

Who said anything about you?

You're not being emotional, are ya?

You won't stand behind your own words. That's the biggest issue I have with you, especially in the other thread. State your position and stand behind it. People will have more respect for you that way. You can't go all the way through an argument and then say, "oh, I was just playin' devil's advocate." Wimps do that. I asked you a question at least four times in response to your reply to my opinion, and your only response was that I was attacking you. Admit you meant something different, or stand behind your words. Others seem to do it, and get along just fine. Why can't you?

 

[Bitchslapper]

You're not being emotional, are ya?

You won't stand behind your own words. That's the biggest issue I have with you, especially in the other thread. State your position and stand behind it. People will have more respect for you that way. You can't go all the way through an argument and then say, "oh, I was just playin' devil's advocate." Wimps do that. I asked you a question at least four times in response to your reply to my opinion, and your only response was that I was attacking you. Admit you meant something different, or stand behind your words. Others seem to do it, and get along just fine. Why can't you?

No, I'm not being emotional. How is what I said emotional?

I stated my position and stood behind it, yet you did not respond favorably. I admitted I meant something different, yet you did not respond favorably. I have tried any number of other things, yet you continue to insult me, such as your most recent "wimp" comment. I give up. I refuse to indulge your desire to find a fight any longer.

 

[deezire1900]

I give up. I refuse to indulge your desire to find a fight any longer.

Don't give up...i hate that people feel like they can't respond to a subject...could it be your name? ;0

 

[sigh]

Re: Re: Re: When John Kerry says he is against gay marriage...

You tell me Pookie. Before the Mass Supreme Court Decision he had this to say (I had a quote even more pro-gay marraige, but I can't find it right now, it'll come up again in the campaign, I assure you.)

Arlington man pushes Kerry’s gay appeal
Daley says senator was gay rights advocate before it was fashionable
By JOE CREA
Friday, January 16, 2004
Long before he became the gay liaison for Sen. John Kerry’s presidential bid, Tom Daley knew that Kerry was the candidate he planned to support. Daley said the Massachusetts senator has a long track record of supporting gay rights issues, dating back to 1985, “long before it was fashionable” to lend political support to gay rights causes.
…
Kerry has a 100 percent pro-gay voting record, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Kerry was the original co-sponsor of the hate crimes bill. In 1985, Kerry introduced a bill prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He also supports the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Additionally, he has called for an end to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy banning gays from serving openly in the military.
Additionally, Kerry was one of 14 senators — and the only one up for reelection in 1996 — to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans federal recognition of gay marriages, according to his campaign’s Web site.

[I[Kerry is also opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman. [italics mine][/I]

Daley said he did not know whether his boss would take a leadership role in defeating the FMA, but said Kerry had pledged to vote against the measure if it comes up for a vote.

http://www.washblade.com/2004/1-16/news/national/kerry.cfm


...

His official stand now (from FoxNews)

Supports partnership rights and civil unions. Opposed to gay marriage. Disagrees with the Massachusetts court's decision.


...

I have to read this as pandering to constituencies in order to get elected. First, he told your community what you wanted to hear to get votes in the primary, now he's telling middle America what middle America wants to hear in order to get elected. If he intends to always please the majority, then Gay Marraige, as an issue is in deep trouble. IMHO



Some pundits have gone so far as to speculate whether the activism of first Sandra Day O'Conner and now the Mass. Court are going to put the whole issue under constitutional ban.

I guess I don't see the conflict here, AJ. Kerry has a long history of supporting gay rights, no doubt about that, and he supports civil unions for gay couples. He's also against the Federal Marriage Amendment. The worst that can be said of him on this issue (from a gay viewpoint, at least) is that he opposes gay marriages.

And yet, even though he does oppose gay marriages, there's still no lying involved. It's quite possible to support all sorts of legislation protecting the rights of gays and yet still draw a line against gay marriage. Obviously, some gays (including Kerry's liason to the gay community) draw this same line. In order to prove a lie, you have to find a statement where he supports gay marriages, and then another where he says that he opposes them. Instead, all he's done is find a single point where he disagrees with a significant portion of the gay community. Tell me, AJ, how is that lying?

What it comes down to is this. The choice (assuming Kerry wins through to the general election) for those in the gay community who wish to see same-sex marriages made legal is now: Should we vote for Bush who has made it clear that he supports the FMA, or should we support Kerry who says he does not? Bush wants to slam the door shut. Kerry, even though he personally opposes gay marriages, at least would leave the possibility of it some day being opened.

It's an easy choice, AJ. And it has nothing to do with lying.

 

[Pookie]

No, I'm not being emotional. How is what I said emotional?

I stated my position and stood behind it, yet you did not respond favorably. I admitted I meant something different, yet you did not respond favorably. I have tried any number of other things, yet you continue to insult me, such as your most recent "wimp" comment. I give up. I refuse to indulge your desire to find a fight any longer.

Use whatever reason you want not to debate. You seem to do that well. It's obvious you don't want to. My question still stands in the other thread, if you ever decide you want to respond to it.

 

[Cigan]

When have I been antagonistic and blind? I am the one who has been antagonized here as I am being antagontized now, in lieu of disussing the issue.

I would personally like to address this issue. I point to the following thread.

Educational Thread on trans pronouns

Now BitchSlapper, you posted twice in this thread, and to be perfectly honest neither time stated an opinion, both posts merely belittled at least one other person who was taking part in the conversation. I have seen you actually discuss a topic, but you get very very upset when anyone get's offended at anything you say, and act like it's a personal attack. I would like to say right now that I have no interest in antagonizing you, and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. I personally do not think are are intentionally trying to upset people. I have seen that behavior before and you don't seem to be doing it, however you have posted without thinking about how others will feel about your posts. If you wouldn't say something in a room full of people then you shouldn't post it, and unless you are the most callous person alive I don't see you making the comment below in polite society conversation.
Originally posted by Bitchslapper
Yes, ma'am! Wow, no issues there... [/QUOTE]

 

[Bitchslapper]

I give up. I refuse to indulge your desire to find a fight any longer.

Don't give up...i hate that people feel like they can't respond to a subject...could it be your name? ;0

I've already explained my name on this message board, but I think it was on the GB, so I'll do it again here:

Bitchslapper refers not to one who slaps bitches, but one who one who bitchslaps. In other words, slaps in the manner of a bitch.

 

[Bitchslapper]

I would personally like to address this issue. I point to the following thread.

Educational Thread on trans pronouns

Now BitchSlapper, you posted twice in this thread, and to be perfectly honest neither time stated an opinion, both posts merely belittled at least one other person who was taking part in the conversation. I have seen you actually discuss a topic, but you get very very upset when anyone get's offended at anything you say, and act like it's a personal attack. I would like to say right now that I have no interest in antagonizing you, and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. I personally do not think are are intentionally trying to upset people. I have seen that behavior before and you don't seem to be doing it, however you have posted without thinking about how others will feel about your posts. If you wouldn't say something in a room full of people then you shouldn't post it, and unless you are the most callous person alive I don't see you making the comment below in polite society conversation.

Originally posted by Bitchslapper
Yes, ma'am! Wow, no issues there...

I wasn't belittling her, I was merely implying that she was a little too sensitive about it and others have expressed similar opinions. And you are also incorrect in saying that all my posts were belittling someone. None of them did, but particularly when I asked if "hey you...yeah you!" was a proper form of address (which was a joke, BTW). Please tell me who exactly I was belittling when I said that?

I have yet to see any evidence that you have given me the benefit of the doubt at any time. You have done nothing but criticize me (less than constructively I might add).

If you don't like what I say, then that is your problem. Most people haven't complained.

"you have posted without thinking about how others will feel about your posts"
It continually amazes me how people think they can read someone's mind based on what they post.

 

[Bitchslapper]

Use whatever reason you want not to debate. You seem to do that well. It's obvious you don't want to. My question still stands in the other thread, if you ever decide you want to respond to it.

You have never asked a reasonable question, you've merely made insinuations, insults and attacks. You are the one who refuses to debate issues. This thread is an excellent example. I attempted to discuss the issue, yet you apparently missed that in your blind rage.

 

[Pookie]

You have never asked a reasonable question, you'vemerely made insinuations, insults and attacks. You are the one who refuses to debate issues. This thread is an excellent example. I attempted to discuss the issue, yet you apparently missed that in your blind rage.

See the other "Bush" thread I started for a great example of your not wanting to debate. It's a perfect example of how you're just an asshole.

 

[Cigan]

I have yet to see any evidence that you have given me the benefit of the doubt at any time. You have done nothing but criticize me (less than constructively I might add).

"you have posted without thinking about how others will feel about your posts"
It continually amazes me how people think they can read someone's mind based on what they post. [/B][/QUOTE]

Alright I would like to know exactly how you would go about constructively criticizing you on this topic if what I have said is not constructive. I know you were joking in the thread I referenced earlier about Transexual pronouns, however many people are touchy about that subject, and it is basic manners to assume that they are going to be unless you are given some indication to the contrary, which none existed in that thread. The reason I posted here is because you have claimed in this thread that you have never done anything wrong, you have attacked both myself and Pookie. Now I do have to say Pookie has gotten emotional in this thread, and thrown some accusations your way. I never said you were an asshole, I never said you were a bad poster, and I will rephrase my comment about your not taking other people's emotions into account. I cannot read your mind, I think it is better put that you post things that could easily stir up negative emotions in other people, and don't care enough not to post them. You may well care, I can't read your mind, but you post anyway. The only thing I was hoping from these posts is perhaps that you would admit that you have said things that could be taken the wrong way. And you may think people who are touchy about their emotions have . . oh how did you put it? . . issues. But part of basic manners is allowing people to have those issues, and not tromping all over them. It would be awfully adult of you to admit that perhaps you have rubbed some people the wrong way. No one is expecting you to be a saint, and I have seen people jump down your throat on threads you did not necesserily deserve it, but I do have to say that the reason they do that is because of posts they have witnessed on other threads. Generally speaking if a lot of people get pissed off at you, no matter how much you think it is for no reason, logic dictates, that even if it isn't a completely fair reason, there is a reason.

 

[Irish_Kitty]

Rare Liberal View

I realize I'm walking into a minefield by posting here, but I'm going to anyway. I'm also going to say that most of us are generalizing (I just generalized there) and I am no exception. This post will be full of generalizations, and I appologize if they appear ignorant. Please, if I have misunderstood or misinterpreted something, please tell me. I see no point to discussion if I can't walk away from it having gleaned a new piece of information or a deeper understanding of an issue.

Aside from the fact that I am a straight woman who attends an extremely liberal women's college, my parents tried hard to teach me that people are different and that everybody has different things that make them happy. While I definitely understand that people are different, on various levels, I also believe that people are, fundamentally, similar.

Most people; regardless of sexual preferance, cultural origins, or religious leanings; have a desire to fulfill a sense of family. Some people never for lifelong partnerships, but have a community of friends. Straight people have it the easiest. While there is something of a stigma put on straight people (especially women) who do not marry, they do have more freedoms to create whatever sort of family they like.

There is almost no cultural acceptance for transsexuals or transgendered individuals. For the most part, American culture as a whole doesn't understand anything about people who would place themselves in these categories.

For some reason, which I am unsure about, "mainstream" American culture is increadibly uncomfortable by homosexuals. Because of this increadibly high prevelance of uncomfort, I agree that small steps are probably best. Ultimately, I believe that there homosexuals, like hetersexuals, have varieties of personalities and preferences. Sexual preferance has nothing to do with whether or not an individual would make a good parent. I believe that it is highly unfortunate that it is culturally accpetable for virtually all heterosexuals to have children. Just like good parents are not determined by sexual preference, abusive parents aren't limited either.