*sniff* 

...that's me shedding a tear for Hillary -- not!

NOW who will the HRC (Human Rights Campaign) support?

How are gays supposed to be treated?

Knowing Tom I think he mis-typed.

***

True -- thanks for the support, Geoff.  I was typing fast and a bit more emotional than I usually am when posting. 

But, to clarify: I don't want to be treated like a straight man.  I don't want to be treated like a gay man.  I want to be treated like a man.  A HU-man.  All the rest is window dressing.

Tom, you do realize when I said they didn't treat me any different from a straight-man, what I was saying is they didn't treat me any differently from anyone else, correct?  I might have been able to word it a little better but you caught me off guard with your armchair psychology since I consider myself very well adjusted.

A couple of my gay aquaintences have, in the past, questioned why gay rights aren't my number one priority.  For them, it's the most important thing out there.  But, they are also purely defined by being gay.  It's all they are and all their life revolves around.  They refuse to associate with "breeders".

It is impossible to think people treat you no different than anyone else, when those same people would deny you certain things because of a single trait you posses.  That is the very definition of bigotry.

Maybe you don't define yourself as a gay person, but your friends do.

I'm kind of curious about this statement.  It seems counter-intuitive to me.  I mean, two consenting adult men or women who love each other and want to marry (they choose each other) versus a gay couple who want to adopt a child who has no say in the matter?  I'm not saying adoption by gay couples shouldn't happen, but I can see many more potential problems there over gay marriage issues.  Adoption laws are pretty strict, and I would think that the "alternative" lifestyle might be a cause for concern for people who try to place orphans in traditional families.

First my point was (and is) that prohibiting a person from adopting simply because they are gay makes no sense to me.  If the person is a good and decent person who meets the necessary criterion to adopt what does it matter what geneder they find sexually attractive?  What is the basis at law to prohibit such adoptions? Thats my point. 

Turing to the substance of your reply, I have never adopted a child, but is it common for children to "have a say" in who adopts them?  I can't imagine someone will adopt a kid who doesn't want them.  I do think all kids respond to love and in my experience no parents love and appreciate their children as much as adoptive parents do, regardless of sexual orientation. So I think that last point is based on your asumption.  As to the last sentence in your reply I am confused.  Are you articulating that someone's prejudice (in this case a prejudice against gays) is an acceptable reason to prohibit an adoption?

True -- thanks for the support, Geoff. 

I got your back -- hang tough, my man!  To paraphrase Revenge of the Nerds: No one's free until we are all free!

They refuse to associate with "breeders".

How do they live in our society then?