Eddie, I am, indeed DEFINITELY against homosexuality. Because it is A LITTLE bad, at its best. At its lying, promiscuous, AIDS infecting worst, it is evil.

I know you want to equate "being" black or Hispanic (can I ask if you strongly or only slightly prefer that to "Latin" or "Latino"?), and the history of prejudice against those groups, with the gay sexual choice. But sex is a chosen action, even if you are �born� gay, which it is unlikely to be proven in the near future, even if it�s true.

I actually don�t think I am SO STRONG against gays, like advocating immediate discrimination against them, for the AIDS infected advocating quarantine, etc. My firm conviction that the �gay lifestyle� is a LITTLE bad, may well appear, because of its consistent firmness, to be that all gays are evil. The worst are, as I�ve said (but nobody else on this thread has deemed fit to actually agree with), the best are just a little bad.
(I quantified �gay life� at about 70% as an average for the lifestyle. For the �best gays�, they may even be above the year 2000 cultural average of 100%. To me, if gay marriage is accepted in 2003 say, the cultural average will go down; a little, maybe to 98%)

�Leaders of the gay movement� claim that it is. Visiting Castro street in Frisco makes it clear that there is a different �gay culture�. If JonO agrees with you that gay is just a sexual preference, it is certain we have a communication problem; I truly don�t see how you can claim it�s not more. It�s not just sex, and it�s not just private.

And I truly don�t want to see it or have it affect me. JonO mentioned his lpositive experiences in camp with gay counselors. And the majority on this thread know nice gays. I�ve known some in the past, too.

But to me, acting gay is somewhat similar to driving drunk. Most of the time, no big problem. Actually I support punishment for all drunk drivers, but not for most gays. My point, which your non-addressing leads me to believe you haven�t understood, is that the gay lifestyle increases the likelihood of problems, just as drunk driving increases the likelihood of accidents. And driving, even not drunk, is dangerous; just as a het life can have problems.

To judge by most writers here, if their ethic was applied (everything�s fine as long as no harm is done), drunk driving would be legal but everybody would be �against having an accident and killing somebody� while drunk. But I don�t believe they want to apply their/ your? ethic, because in the drunk driving case they want, somehow, to claim that the increased risk justifies preventative punishment. (My L-Libertarianism is also challenged by this, and arguments about privatizing the roads are obfuscation.)

It�s OK with me if we disagree; but I do want you to understand my side of the disagreement. I�m feeling better for myself about understanding yours (the pro-gay side).