[QUOTE=Valteron]
Thank you for your kind comment. I have found the posters with Caribbean roots to be quite open-minded and sympathetic.
But about New Jersey and Civil Union (presumably in place of full marriage rights). There is always disagreemnt in a civil rights movement as to whether something is better than nothing. My feeling is, the trouble with baby steps is that they are for babies, not adults with equal rights. Accepting someone’s demand that you take baby steps means you are accepting that you are a baby.
Read about the wonderful story of the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Initially, African-Americans were just asking for the right not to be ordered out of the “colored” seats by white passengers. But to have accepted that would have been to accept that it is somehow right for blacks to have to sit in separate seating. So an organization like the NAACP that never accepted discrimination, by accepting this “baby step”, actually would have been giving their blessing to the concept of racial separation, and by implication, to black inferiority.
In fact, the white government of Montgomery once or twice almost succeeded in derailing the boycott by getting a few so-called “moderate” (don’t call them that other term, have some respect 
) black preachers to accept a compromise solution, and then declare the boycott was over. It was all the leaders of the boycott could do to get the word out that the boycott was still on.
In Canada, conservatives offered us something that would be identical to marriage but would be called civil union instead of “marriage”. Why? Because our filthy fag presence would contaminate a good and holy word? Just like a “black ass” would “contaminate” a seat meant for the “superior” white race?
Sometimes “all or nothing” is the only way to go.
[/QUOTE]
In your opinion, is it legitimate for a person to distinguish between a behavior, just as gay sex, versus a genetic trait, such as being an African American?
From your previous posts, I would say that your answer is no, because as a homosexual, you believe that your plight is the same as the blacks in the 1950s, and you are a discriminated against minority.
Well, what about people who have religious beliefs against your lifestyle? Should we all die, or be forced to accept your lifestyle as legitimate, even though 200 years of our history have said otherwise.
Should the same constitution that allowed laws against homosexual sodomy as late as 2003, be construed to guarantee! the “right” of gay marriage in 2007?
What act of depravity will be forced upon traditional people in this country? Animal sex? Public sex? Please tell us, so we can prepare our children to fight the battle that we have lost…