OK, I tried really hard not to jump in here (other than letting Roy Zimmerman say it for me ;)) but here it is:

akenaton: "As I said earlier they have become in large measure a pressure group, bent on coercing society into accepting a lifestyle which a large majority find abhorrent . The push for marriage rights is just one example...We have come a long way indeed if hetrosexuals in conventional marriages should feel ashamed of their way of life and beliefs."

I don't understand the logic here at all. Homosexuals aren't trying to coerce anyone to change THEIR way of life in any way, shape, or form (unless you count asking society at large to treat gays with the same respect, compassion and empathy you would give anyone else). They are asking to be given the SAME rights as the rest of the population. No one outside of the legislative body is being asked to put themselves out or exert themselves one jot. They can keep on having dinner with the family, watching the game, going to church, loving their neighbor as themselves, etc. They can keep on enjoying the privileges that marriage allows them under the law. There is NO action required on the part of Joe and Jane Sixpack whatsoever.

The biggest flaw in your logic is this: why do you put forth the idea that hetero couples are being "coerced" into being "ashamed" of themselves and their way of life? Homosexuals are asking to SHARE that way of life, not criticize it. With all due respect, ake, your assertion makes utterly no sense.

As for "coercing society into accepting a lifestyle which a large majority find abhorrent", I find the actions, words and "beliefs" of a great deal of the most fundamentalist religious practitioners abhorrent, especially when they preach hatred and bigotry. But I am forced to accept them and allow their way of life to impact that of myself and my friends. They are given a special privilege by way of their highly unscientific "faith" that my homosexual friends are denied on the basis of their body chemistry. How is that fair? (To forestall your inevitable reply: no, I may not be in the majority on this, but our Constitution--or what's left of it--guarantees me equal rights and equal protections under the law.)

By the way, I certainly don't mean to offend the faithful among us. I don't condemn spiritual or religious beliefs; I just don't believe they should be used as a crowbar to jimmy the lock on rational discourse.

Ugh, baaaad metaphor. It's a sign of my overcaffeination that I can't think of anything wittier. ;)

Molly