I have no idea what those comments mean....

I was referring to recent development of "sexual preference" as something to be "protected" - along with all the smug and solemn posturing that goes along with such pronouncements.

The left decides that their current pet project - in this case, the sexual relations between people of the same sex - must be described, discussed and addressed with the same reverence and seriousness of tone and purpose once associated with matters of relgious faith, and that a lack of government "protection" amounts to a crime. The fact that there is no history for this at all does not matter. All that matters is that this issue is (for some unknown reason) beyond criticism. Anyone who dares to question or disagree with this peculiar development is then buried under an avalanche of insults.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

Nothing about my outlook is Socialist at all.The government hasn't engaged in intrusion or encroachment.

I can't imagine who would intrude. Your claim is ridiculous.

Activist judges appointed by Mcgreevey are legislating from the bench. In Mcgreevey's new book, "The Confession" he reveals everything.

__________________
United We Stand.

I am unaware of any efforts involving "reverence and seriousness of tone and purpose once associated with matters of relgious faith" so I won't argue that with you. As far as I am concerned this is a civil issue and has nothing at all to do with religious faith.
I have no idea what this "protection" is that you're talking about. Unless you have cut the "equal" out of "equal protection"? Because that is what this is about.
If I've insulted anyone I apologize. That was not my intention.

I am not remotely offended, and to be honest I have no idea what you are talking about. But I don't think you are understanding my comments either....

Conservative Tim vs. Liberal Tim - and confusion reigns....

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

In your response to my post you saidSo I apologized for any insult.

In your response to my post you saidso I said "I am unaware of any efforts involving 'reverence and seriousness of tone and purpose once associated with matters of relgious faith' so I won't argue that with you. As far as I am concerned this is a civil issue and has nothing at all to do with religious faith"

In your response to my post you said
andso I said "I have no idea what this 'protection' is that you're talking about. Unless you have cut the 'equal' out of 'equal protection'? Because that is what this is about."

Does that clear anything up?

I probably shouldn't post this late at night- especially when I'm dialed in to work - it's a recipe for confusion. I just hope I'm more lucid in my commands to the server I'm working on or I'll be driving in to fix it.

Well, the part about the insults was a general statement and certainly not directed at you. Neither you nor I make the official statements on these matters.

The idea that equal protection includes homosexuality is very, very recent - and the idea that sexual behavior is the basis for protected status is also very new - issues that were once understood in moral terms have been changed to civil rights issues. It's a shrewd and brilliant move, certainly, but I have never heard an explanation as to why, suddenly, this has happened. That is the part I find strange: the idea that "of course" it's a civil rights issue and "of course" homosexuality is something to be protected.

This is an aspect of left-wing thinking that I dislike and distrust. Who knows what the next pet project will be? What new issue will be dressed up in "civil rights clothes" and presented to the public as the "new cause"?

The left needs to be far more honest. I can do without the sentimental posing and posturing. They want to have homosexuality protected in a way that it has never been protected before, and thought of in a new way as well. That is their demand - and they are getting what they want. But I don't want to hear the civil rights analogies. They are false.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

ha, ha - I was thinking the same thing - I am at home and posting - which I never do. I'm never here on Friday nights, but the family are at a birthday party - or asleep - so it's just me and the remote and the computer...

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

Homosexuality is still understood in moral terms. It is morally right to offer equal protection under the civil law to homosexuals.
There are lots of legal things that I regard as immoral. When we see politicians denied equal protection under the law for lying and heterosexuals denied equal protection under the law for adultery then maybe I'll be willing to allow homosexuals to be shortchanged too. In the meantime I will teach my morals to my children while allowing civil society to treat even immoral people equally.
Slippery slope is never a strong argument. Who cares what the next "pet project" will be? It will be addressed on its mewrits and has nothing to do with this discussion.
Both sides need to be far more honest. I can do without the pretence that the homophobic argument has some basis in reason instead of being strictly a religious or visceral reaction.
Historically you are wroing. Homosexuality has been accepted inother places and times. So there is nothing "new" about homosexuality being viewed differently than it has been in this country. But it doesn't matter anyway. Because the "newness" of the idea that homosexuals should enjoy equal protection under the law is completely irrelevant to its legitimacy.The civil rights argument is not an analogy at all. It is a simple fact. All US citizens deserve equal protection under the law.

They are false only if the scientific research of the last decade or two is all false, not likely. We have discriminated against people for religious reasons that have no basis in fact. As we learn, we should change our behavior.

__________________
The apocalypse is coming... we're gonna need more ammo.

I wish I could put it as well as you have.

Ok...Mare, you post in here all the time so what gives you the time to be such a pro on this subject???? You post all these "opinions" and try to pass them off as science....from the time I started posting on these boards I don’t think you have enough time to come up with a fair and balanced opinion on this subject. It seems to me you ONLY read and research anything that satisfies your opinion and reject and accept as myth anything that discards your pre judged opinions on the given subject.

__________________
America’s political correctness is a disease that will bring down our once fine nation.

So is it fair to say that you believe homosexuality is a choice? I am not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to get a better idea of how you think of it.

Fair enough. I don't know how many judges McGreevey put on the bench, but it stands to reason that they would hold similar values. So what? Conservative, Family Values governors put their own people on the bench, too. And then someday a liberal governor comes along and puts her own people on the bench alongside the previous governor's conservative choices. That's the way America works. I'm sorry you yearn for a more Big Brother style of government.

It must be because you are a Socialist that you want to give the left all the credit. The will of the people of New Jersey has been undermined by the HOMOSEXUAL agenda. No one else was devious enough or had enough fashion sense to pull it off.

Homosexuality is a mental defect anyway you look at it. I know you lefties love to say its natural but what the hell is natural?.. Look homosexuality IS not normal like the left would love to believe it is. When homosexuals make up less then 2% of the population its not normal plain and simple...would you concur on that one or do we need to change the English language to make homosexuals feel more comfortable about what’s "normal"? ...now the real issue is should homosexuals be accepted? Sure at an adult level but homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to just walk around and act like a normal heterosexual couple in public....I don’t want kids to see that, kids are open to suggestion.. You know that? Otherwise you dems wouldn’t be trying to ban violent movies and violent video games......A kid couldn’t possibly be turned into a homosexual BUT kids can be effected by violent video games?

You know what I think? this is a fucking issue blown way out of proportion by the dems an issue to run on a fucking issue all the hippies can say "this is just wrong" because we know that we are all created equal and some how the democrats are going to change man kind and make everyone equal.... the second people are equal is the second we all turn into sheep, in order for people to think equally they would have to ALL think the same? Yea I think that would have to be a fact, now think about it... wait I think some of us are smarter then that, we know that all that really matters on this "homosexual" issue is that gays can get married... Well what about bi-sexual people???? Fuck, ill bet there are more bi-sexual people then gay people! Do they have the right to marry a man and a woman? Mmm tricky?...now wouldn’t it just be better if a man married a woman and vice versa? keep it simple? Now that doesn’t mean that homosexual and lesbian relationships are less moral or illegal, it means that society is trying to avoid a snowball effect and if you think one wont happen well your just naive.

I could write a book on this subject..

__________________
America’s political correctness is a disease that will bring down our once fine nation.