I caught one of those last week and I have to say that I was amused in a gory car accident kind of way - I knew I shouldn't look (I didn't want to look) but I just had to look. If this one show doesn't epitomize the death of our culture, then I can't watch the one that does. America, "you're fired".

I believe that many in our fora are sucked in to this obvious little "election year political" tarbaby issue because they believe that it will further their electoral goals. I understand and agree with much of what Ross says. He could definately soften the language, but I never really gave a rat's ass about political correctness to begin with.

If egg and sperm do not unite, then the species does not propogate... In this sense, homosexuality is probably "unnatural". Having said that, natural does not equate to good. Arsenic is natural. Additionally, I believe that homosexuality is most probably inate, which then makes the "unnatural" argument even more specious... Perhaps this genetic makeup puts homosexuals as outlyers as opposed to being unnatural. My daughter has a genetic "defect" (Down Syndrome). I think of her as an outlyer and not unnatural or defective.

I think that homosexuality is most probably innate. I base this premise on purely anecdotal evidence (my life). I do not look at other men in a sexual way. It would be very hard to "teach" me to think otherwise. Given that belief, I do not fear homosexuality will "spread" to me or my children just by proximity. Teachers should continue to teach. Boy Scout leaders should continue to lead boy scouts. Until someone shows me decent statistics that prove that homosexuals have a higher proclivity for child molestation than the non-homosexual population, I can't see the point in discrimination of jobs.

Now, as for marriage - I don't see it as black and white. There is the civil union that the state recognizes (marriage certificate, divorce decrees, etc...) and there is the marriage ceremony. I can think of absolutely no reason why gays shouldn't be able to have the civil union. Even our President agrees with this, so let's move on...

Marriage is predominately a religious ceremony. Each culture has its own rules. In India and many other parts of the world, arranged marriages are the norm. In Nigeria and many other African countries, bigomy is the norm. The countries laws are set up to accomodate these "norms". Traditional Western Judeo-Christian "norms" (though not always one man and one woman) have always stated/strongly implied that at least one member of each sex be represented. I see the reason why this debate is so heated. I also see the "logic" behind not being a gay hating homophobic troglodyte if you hold an opinion that says, gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. It is strongly engrained in the ethos as well as the mythos. I believe that the reason gay advocates are so strongly pushing their black/white "either your for us or you're against us" rhetoric is pent up (closeted) frustration of having to deal with life as an outlyer.

Having said that, because of the way our insurance, tax laws, etc... are set up to discern only between "married and single", it would be a hell of a lot easier for the state to sanction unions/marriages between gays. If people insist on formally bestowing "second class" status on gay marriages, let them be known as garriages or what not. Make them wear a scarlet "G" when they want to visit their spouses in the hospital.

What's the hoopla? I have kids... I'm not going to teach them that gay people are anything other than different. Just like kids with Down Syndrome are different. Not less than, different.

Ashton, have I mentioned that I hate election years?