Of course the real point of this is that there are all sorts of different desires that people have all different sorts of sexual desires and forms of expression. Gay and straight is merely the beginning of description, and are (in my opinion) overly broad categories anyway, which overlap in some cases. Some guys like to watch two girls doing it, some girls like to watch two guys doing it (though that’s more rare - a female friend of mine in college loved soft gay porn, “two for the price of one” is how she termed it).

Trying to force everyone down into the one man, one woman, only after marriage, missionary position, stare at the ceiling and think of the Queen kind of sex is so…mean.

It always strikes me as odd that anti-gay folks are so turned on by lesbian sex…yet so repulsed by gay men having sex…you’d think at least the women would like the idea. Well, maybe they do, but in that culture they’re supposed to keep their mouths shut and their wombs full. No wonder so many of their women become lesbians ;)

Note to Obama: (Lesbian sex between really hot chicks should be recognized if not in “civil unions” as a “public recreational activity”).

“Is there a correlation, then, between same-sex marriage and a strengthening of the institution of marriage? It would be difficult, and suspect, to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between these trends in heterosexual marriage and marriage rights for gays and lesbians.”

The article simply claims there have been no “slippery slope” effects. To which the obvious rejoinder is: Yet.

Seventeen years after recognizing same-sex relationships in Scandinavia there are higher marriage rates for heterosexuals, lower divorce rates, lower rates for out-of-wedlock births, lower STD rates, more stable and durable gay relationships, more monogamy among gay couples, and so far no slippery slope to polygamy, incestuous marriages, or “man-on-dog� unions.

So there ya go.

However, I do agree with you Dos that the statement isn’t clear so I’ll change it. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

And regarding abortion…there’s nothing you can tell a conservative to make him support abortion…unless it’s that his daughter is pregnant and the father is black.

A) If by religious right you mean the anti-choice, gay hating, pedophile enabling, hypocritical bigots, no.

B) Rick Warren is not James Dobson or Lou Sheldon. It’s time you start to learn the differences and stop lumping them all together if you ever hope to understand/divide them.

Pro-abortion vs. pro-life? Notice how in the conservative mind set they refuse to acknowledge the concept of pro-choice being a reality. How about pro-choice vs. pro-theocracy? It’s just as valid as what DosPeros posted given that I could say that I haven’t seen a religious conservative yet who couldn’t be convinced that who wouldn’t be happy banning anything that is frowned on by their minister. My state senator is one of them.

Well, then I’d ask that you more carefully craft your rhetoric. You see, to “stamp out” certain rights implies the pre-existing condition of having certain rights. Since much of the “gay” equal rights that you speak are in fact rights that gays have not had at any time in the past in the country, it might be more appropriate to say “the thwarting of new equal rights” or “hindering the emergence of” or “interference with the finding of”, etc.

Those of us of a more socially conservative bent are simple people and are easily confused with verbage. I thought you were talking about black people.

is it’s encouraging to see some movement towards inclusive religious doctrine where we work together to help out the truly poor and destitute

I entirely agree with this statement.

The overall point, however, is it’s encouraging to see some movement towards inclusive religious doctrine where we work together to help out the truly poor and destitute, instead of trying to pass legislation that embraces exclusive religious doctrine in a cynical attempt to get votes. One point of view actually helps people, while the other helps those afraid that the gays will somehow “destroy” marriage.

Does this mean the church could support somebody who wants to stamp out poverty instead of equal rights?

You mean like supporting economically based affirmative action over racial affirmative action? I’m not sure what you are talking about here, please clarify. Who has “the church” supported that wants to “stamp out equal rights”?

http://www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com