"Most of these people hold very strong views on homosexuality, views which they see as perfectly valid...These views are further reinforced when [fundamentalists or lay church members] see that a large majority of the general public see homosexuality as something shameful." - Akenaton

Again, why does the fact that they are in a religious group give them the right to dictate to the rest of us? There are a lot of various religions in this country, and yet those of us who do not belong to any of them are free to go about happily eating pork, wearing what clothing we like, working on the Sabbath, etc. I simply don't recognize the validity of the "it offends religious people" argument. That's not a basis for legislation.

I agree with McGrath that the "definition of marriage" is what seems to be at stake here. And I truly fail to see how the commitment of two people who care about each other and want to spend their lives together, share benefits, be allowed to visit each other's hospital beds in an emergency, etc. can possibly threaten these rights for anyone else.

If gay people are seen by a LARGE MAJORITY of the population as "perverts", plain and simple (an assertion I'd like to see backed up by some cited statistics), one would think their desire to marry and make a lasting, monogamous commitment/contribution to society would be looked on as a step in the right direction.

I would also be interested to know whether you feel there is an alternate solution for the gay community. Are you saying they should recognize themselves to be "perverts" and decide to be celibate, give up any chance at love, because their behavior--indeed, their very existence--might offend someone? I promise you I'm not asking this to be belligerent or confrontational...I'd honestly like to know.

With respect,

Molly