It happens all the time that Men or Women get married, have children, and live the life of a straight person because they knew that admitting their homosexuality publicly would have a tremendous negative impact on their social, political, and maybe even economic lives. Look at Senator Craig, or Ted Haggard.

Just because they bent to the pressure of society doesn't mean that they weren't actually gay all along. My brother went on a date with a girl in high school, but he's been gay all his life.

Without speculating too much, it's possible that, like my brother, your sister has always been gay, but felt like she had to date men in order to fit in. Or maybe she is bisexual, dated men because she was attracted to them, but decided to get a civil union with a woman because she fell in love.

 

Can we keep this thread going? It's the most reading I've done in months...

 

I think the argument is actually a lot simpler.

In California, same sex "Domestic Partners" have far more legal protection than heterosexual couples. That pisses people off. Its not about the gay, its about having additional legal protection for a minority.

Marriage, rather than civil unions, is a defacto religious act. The civil union is the legal act. Again, gays want extra-legal protections that go beyond the cited legal protections and want court mandated religious equality.

 

For example?

 

.... Only because the state is handing out "marriages." If "Civil Union" is the legal term, and a "marriage" just religious, then it seems to me that we should go back to the plan earlier discussed: the state never consideres you "married" only "unioned."--Getting a marriage would be something only a religious institution could choose to render.

 

i'd love to hear where you got that from.

 

I have never heard this argument advanced, and there would be no moral or legal justification for it. Gays want equality, and not under any religion, but under the law. They don't have it today, in California or even where states allow gay marriage, because those couples are denied the federal benefits of marriage. I really don't see how Gays have "more" protection today than straight people

 

Ok, I misread/misinterpreted that post and typed segregation instead of racism. I think we're on the same page. I was mixing and matching segregation and racism/hatred, as segregation is a common consequence of racism.

I agree: segregation is pretty near dead in the back-of-the-bus sense, although racism leaves many of the same barriers.

 

will the gay population improve the 50% divorce rate tho

 

I heard grey in the new black?