Posted by mangeek:
” As far as I can tell, your team has already lost. When time completes stalking your generation and starts on mine, your attitude will gone with it.”
More likely, with regard to attitudes on homosexuality, history will repeat itself. In ancient Rome it was tolerated until an emperor wished to have himself castrated to please his lover. He was killed and repression of homosexuals re-emerged. Even before that, boys under 18 were not permitted togas, but were required to wear full coverage garments to protect them from predation. One need not go back that far. Consider the situation in the Weimar Republic referred to above, that was immediately followed by Nazi repression of homosexuals.
Good luck to Miss USA. But we should not expect uncorrect statements from her.
“everything old becomes new again”

Posted by Dan:
“Why anyone would want to kill people over a factor that has no practical bearing on their lives is beyond me.”
Precisely. Makes me wonder why gays prefer to reaise the temperature with terms like “homophobic” (why not “homo averse”?) and demands for “marriage”.
Except for some medieval actions by the church. Most killings of gays that I am aware of, Roman, German, were heavily burdened with a political agenda. Rome was in severe decline at the time, Germany sought ascendency.

Posted by Jim Jeboe:
“If that happens can I look forward to people coming out against interracial couples too?”
I do not intend to express any opinion here more than when I observe the motion of the tides. Nor do I feel qualified to predict the future. I will offer that if you have a black girlfriend and desire social acceptance, make sure she is a beauty. Be prepared for well meaning women to ask if they can “touch her hair”.
In the millennia before we decided to “celebrate diversity”, we observed that “birds of a feather flock together”.
Although “segregation” has been illegal for more than 50 years now, most people still self select to live in neighborhoods formed along racial lines. Undoubtably, “class” is also a factor. Now we have a political season infused with “class warfare”.
“Futurists” predict an America divided along racial/ethnic lines. Southwest Hispanic, South and Eastern Seaboard, black and the Mid-West, white. Of course, “futurists” come in all stripes. I cannot determine if this “future” is based on discernable facts or is simply a “prediction”.

Helen,
You overlook many governmental factors that attend a marriage. Not the least of which is inheritance. “Spouses” and “heirs” have varying rights of inheritance. When push comes to shove, most would prefer a governmental certification of marriage to an entry in a family bible.
Of course, this could all be handled by a will. But, how often is that overloked?

Posted by Jim Jebow:
“The homophobic vs homoadverse
You bring that up every time there is a gay post
Phobic = fear
Hetros fear gays, fear they will convert the children”
Yes, I have posted that several times, although I use “Homo averse”, not “Homo Adverse”
As I understand it, “Adverse” indicates opposition, perhaps hostility. “Averse”, as I understand it, means disinclined. To suggest that one party is opposed to the other immediately sets the paramaters of the discussion.
As to fearing their children will be “converted”, there may be some truth in that. As Seinfeld put it, “If you don’t have the courage to tell your parents you are gay, tell them you are going to make your living in the arts”.
If “conversion” is thought unlikely, because you are “born that way”. Consider the goings on in prisons. An awful lot of prisoners must be “born that way”.

Jim,
I understand that “born that way” has become axiomatic, and necessary to a claim of minority status. Since you assert it, I must ask what evidence you have of the assertion. Please do not respond with “everyone knows it”, or anecdotes about people who realized at age 8 that they were gay.
As I understand it, decades of scientific research has established only one thing. Lesbian women have a greater degree of “left handedness” than the general population.

Posted by Jim Jebow
“The American Psychological Association”
And not so long ago in it was listed by the APA as a “treatable disease”.
In quoting a “please everyone” roundabout from the APA, you have not sustained the burden of “evidence”.

Posted by Jim Jebow
“Because you assert my quote from a science journal is wrong, you must be right?
Where is your evidence that they are not born that way?”
Read your quote again. It suggests a possibility that they are “born that way”, among other factors. It offers no clincal, scientific, evidence of the assertion. Having regarded it as a disease for so many years, the APA may have an “agenda”.
As I said, after years of research, the only “hard fact” established is that Lesbians are more likely to be left handed than the genral population. The search for a “gay gene” has produced nothing.
Research it yourself, it ain’t there.
The need to be “born that way”, in order to establish “minority status” has overcome the need for hard evidence.
A “choice”, whether voluntary, or involuntary, does not establish a claim “civil rights”.