response 18 of 293:

Dec 2 21:04 UTC 2003

If we ever find ourselves in a position where we have a draft, I have a 
feeling that homosexuals will be allowed to serve openly in the 
military. Either that or you'll have a whole lot of young men 
pretending to be homosexual in order to avoid going to war. If they 
drafted women and didnt allow lesbians in, I would be french kissing 
some chick while waiting in line. 

response 20 of 293:

Dec 2 23:49 UTC 2003

(Apparently, homosexuality was NOT used to avoid the draft during the Vietnam
War.  Of course, homosexuality was not as acceptable then as it is now.)

response 22 of 293:

Dec 3 03:36 UTC 2003

If you read historical accounts, you wouldn't believe how Harry Truman was
attacked when he ordered the military de-segregated.  The old guard military
leaders screamed that it was against the military culture, that blacks had
to be in black troops and whites in white troops.  Truman, to his credit, told
them basically, "get over it"  Truman signed Executive Order #9981 in 1948
and unilaterally de-segregated the army.  And you know what? the military DID
learn to live with it, and became more tolerant as a result.  Sometimes people
WON'T accept cultural change unless it is forced upon them.  That's just life.

There is no question that people would get used to gays in the military and
gays getting married, and after a while not even think about it anymore.  

response 24 of 293:

Dec 3 14:47 UTC 2003

Leonard Pitts, Jr. did a column about gay marriage recently, too:
http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/pitts28_20031128.htm

He thinks that the focus on gay marriage is a misdirection ploy by the
Republicans, meant to distract people from the war and the budget
deficit.  He also thinks that Republicans will focus on "gay marriage",
not "civil unions", because including the word "marriage" gets more of a
visceral reaction from people.

response 28 of 293:

Dec 3 17:44 UTC 2003

Uniform Code of Military Justice, maybe?

response 30 of 293:

Dec 3 22:30 UTC 2003

interesting to note that several american military leaders have, erm, "come
out" against "don't ask, don't tell" recently. . . . there was an article in
the NY Times recently, I believe, but I don't have the URL at hand at the
moment.

and, of course, some two dozen militaries around the world, including Canada,
Israel, and the UK, have lifted bans on homosexuals in their services with
no ill effects.

response 32 of 293:

Dec 4 03:20 UTC 2003

Re #25:  My impression is that admitting you're gay is illegal, and engaging
         in homosexual sex acts is illegal, but being gay itself is not.

response 34 of 293:

Dec 4 10:14 UTC 2003

  Some argue that the legitimate function of government is to provide
  a basic set of circumstances (such as national defense) and serve
  as the guarantor of basic rights for citizens. 

  Others seem to believe part of the proper role of government is to
  discourage behaviors they find merely distasteful.

  View with extreme skepticism anyone who loudly proclaims that they
  want less government interference in people's lives while fighting
  tooth and nail to maintain or even expand government involvement
  in people's intimate private lives.  What they usually mean is that
  they want less government interference in their own lives but will
  be happy to tell you how you must run yours.

response 36 of 293:

Dec 4 17:27 UTC 2003

Yeah, I don't buy that either.  I don't see any reason to believe that
gay people wouldn't mess marriage up just as often as straight people.  

Of course, this isn't even close to being a reason not to legalize gay
marriage.  

response 38 of 293:

Dec 4 18:10 UTC 2003

Based on the following article, Mr. flem may be correct.

http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/5_May/053003_mn_gay_definition_of_
marriage_is_not_the_equal_of_heterosexual_marriage.shtml

May 30, 2003
Gay Definition of Marriage is Not the Equal of Heterosexual Marriage
Facts Show Sexual Fidelity Not a Part of Gay Unions - By W. Moran
. . . 
"There is, in fact, a large body of evidence which shows that gay 
relationships are not the equal of what heterosexual marriage is. . .
 
"The first revelation we could examine is commitment.  The 1984 
book "The Gay Couple" was written by a psychiatrist and psychologist 
(who happened to be a homosexual couple). . .  After much searching, 
they were able to locate only 156 couples in lasting relation-
ships. . .  (O)nly 7 couples had actually maintained sexual fidelity 
and none of the seven had been together more than 5 years.

" . . . (H)ow about the health aspect of all this?  Here's something 
from the upscale gay magazine Genre, which surveyed 1037 
readers . . .  "One of the single largest groups in the gay community 
still experiencing an increase of HIV are supposedly monogamous 
couples."  . . .  42% have had sex with more than 100 different 
partners and 16% claim between 40 to 100 partners.(2) . . .

"According to Dr. (Martin) Dannecker . . . (o)f the homosexual men in 
steady relationships . . . "the average number of homosexual contacts 
per person was 115 in the past year."  In contrast, single gay men had 
only 45 sexual contacts. (4)

"According to gay icons Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen . . . "The 
cheating ratio of 'married' [committed] gay males, given enough time, 
approaches 100%." (5)

". . . For whatever reasons, and it can be backed up by research and 
anecdotal evidence, few gays form unions that are exclusive to their 
partner. . . ."

(Wally Moran is a life-long journalist and publisher from Ontario.)

response 40 of 293:

Dec 4 19:09 UTC 2003

Not all homosexuals are men.  On my block there were three divorces, all
heterosexual, one heterosexual couple still married, and one female couple
with a kid who had been together a long time and bought a house.