On Jan 27, 10:01 pm, "Vorlonagent"  wrote:

> I think gay public conduct is making the road to that end result
> harder and longer than it has to be, however.

I'm running out of time to post everything I wanted to in this
thread... but I have a few things to add about this point.

There are other groups of people for whom some of their members act in
a way that's way more socially unacceptable -- if there's any fair
objective standard of such -- than anything you'd see in a Gay Pride
Parade. For example, some people who frequent drinking establishments
will vomit or urinate in a public place, and some gambling addicts
will remain at their machine in the casino to the point of not leaving
to use the restroom facility as needed, and allow their bodily
functions to proceed while still at their machine. So, if you're
correct in asserting that what some people see in public gay conduct
influences their perception of this group, then there's something
going on that leads to them selectively judging some groups based on
the conduct of (some of) their members moreso than other groups.

Furthermore, there are also examples of heterosexual conduct that are
less than exemplary: most sexual assault and harassment (including
when it's committed against another man) seems to be committed by
heterosexual men, and there are a number of heterosexual women who
seem to be habitually attracted to rough, aggressive men. As an
example of both, here in New Zealand a convicted rapist and murderer
was allowed by the government to get married while incarcerated. His
wife has apparently said that she hasn't asked him whether or not he
committed the crimes he was charged with, but that she loves him
regardless.

So, should people's right to marry a different-sex partner be
influenced by examples of poor heterosexual conduct such as this?
Furthermore, this example also illustrates that there doesn't seem to
be any gatekeeping by the government in a heterosexual context based
on whether the marriage is of good character, but rather, the
government's role seems to be one of passively recording the marriage
for purposes such as taxation. I'm not saying this is a bad thing by
any means, but given that it's the case, it seems even more absurd to
deny someone the right to marry a same-sex partner. (Which I realise
you're not advocating; I'm just contributing discussion on the
issue.)

Matthew
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32