[quote="GalvestonDuck"]
I'm gay, Republican, armed, Texan, American, four-eyed, and hungry.[quote="GalvestonDuck"]
Republican? Thank God for that

j/k...read on..
[quote="GalvestonDuck"] J - did you choose to be straight or weren't you just born that way. Doesn't it all feel natural to you?[quote="GalvestonDuck"]
I have NO idea what way I was born. I was nothing but a fetus slightly more matured. As time went by, I matured, developed a personality, made freinds, and somewhere around puberty (ok a little before that), I couldn't wait to see my first naked woman. I credit my sexual orientation with my environment, my upbringing, my siblings, the whole package that from the time I knew the difference from a boy or girl, I saw that the girl was what all us boys wanted. I never got an erection looking at a male, but had me plenty when a bikini clad female walked by at the beach ( ...normal puberty thing). I suppose if a male had eroused feelings within me, I would have felt inclined to investigate those feelings. Never once in my life was I put in a situation where anything but a heterosexual model was put before me. I guess what I'm getting at is that (and its JMO) No...I do not think I was born a heterosexual. I feel I was born a helpless totally dependant
BABY, that had my life molded by my parents number one, and my environment number 2.
[quote="GalvestonDuck"]Gay rights agenda? Come on...that's a joke in my book. What can I not do that anyone else can do? I have a job. I get insurance. I drive. I can rent an apartment. I can be approved for a loan. Okay, so my partner can't be on my insurance policy. I agree with that...until marriage is allowed. If John and Mary live together, but John can't put Mary on his insurance policy until they are married, then the same should hold true for Ellen and Anne. Until there is a legal matrimonial bond between the two individuals, then they should NOT have the same rights as a married couple. Gay rights advocates try to say, "We want equal rights, not special rights." Well, I say that if they want it to apply to them, but not to a straight couple living under the same circumstances, then it's not equal, it's special. And I don't advocate that.[quote="GalvestonDuck"]
I agree with all of this...I just wish the crowd (the "dancing in the streets crowd") could adopt this approach. What then would people like me have to complain about?
[quote="GalvestonDuck"]We're not all out parading around with flags and banners trying to force our "agenda" on everyone else. Some of us actually despise the whole "out" there bit.[quote="GalvestonDuck"]
Again...I commend you and the way you choose to live your lifestyle.
In closing....I just want to go back to this SC decision and the Post heading (Dancing in the streets). I knew this would incite strong reactions on both sides. The ruling however has already had troublesome ramifications as I learned over the weekend (On Fox News...I"m digging for the story today) that a Homosexual that was in prison has been released by a Court order due to this decision. What crime did he commit? ----> Sodomy. How old was the partner? ----> 14!!!!
If....this man was a heterosexual... he would still be in Prison, but because he is Gay, he was able to use this twisted ruling to have his sentence re-voked. There are plenty of the Gay activists that see this kind of release as a victory for their cause. This has pissed me off bad!
EDIT ---> I did some digging and I got this story wrong. But I was close. It is as folllows:
An 18-year-old Kansas man, Matthew Limon, was sentenced to 17 years in prison in 2000 after being convicted of sodomy for having consensual oral sex with a boy just shy of 15. If Limon or his partner had been female, Limon would have been charged under a different law for having sex with a minor and, if sentenced to the maximum penalty, he would have spent 15 months in jail. But because the two are both male, Limon was charged under the (much more severe) sodomy statute. He will be in prison until 2016, when he turns 36.
So...the point being....this man WOULD be out today had this law been in effect back then, (If I'm interpretating this correct) Fast forward to today, and this same man would feel free to pursue more under age homosexuals for endless acts of sodomy inside a dwelling, with minimal criminal risk. Not that it matters to a person like this. The partner was only 14.