Wendy wrote:
I am rather taken aback that you equate the election of a black president with this issue.
I did not and do not equate the two. I
compared the two. It is not the same thing. The comparison I wished to draw is that the country as a whole is not protesting the election of a black man to the presidency, even though forty-eight years ago (1960) he could not possibly have run on either major party's ticket. Yet large, organized groups of gays and lesbians are protesting the passage of Prop 8, and many of them are not being polite about it.
I am not surprised that you would hear that there are people agitating for secession. It's the kind of "how crazy are they" filler which news stations and networks run to gain ratings. There is no serious grassroots campaign to leave the Union in Texas or any other state.
I don't care that our new president-elect is black. His general skin tone was determined when he was conceived. If our new president were gay, however, that would be different. Despite the debate over the issue, no one has located a "gay gene" or genetic code to force people to be gay. People who are gay choose to live a gay lifestyle. It is a personal choice.
Whether that choice is right or wrong is a separate but related issue. However, I have yet to see any objective scientific evidence that the gay lifestyle is predetermined within an individual. Therefore it can be debated as a choice, not as something which cannot be altered.
And I do not mean that "being gay" is any kind of illness from which one may be cured. It isn't caused by a virus, bacteria, fungus, or spore from Venus or Mars. It's a personal choice, and that's where the discussion should begin.
