[Moneyguy1]

My point wasn't about anything that is "illegal" or "prohibited by the constitution" being voted into law, it was about things that are legal being overturned.

Although the physical aspects of homosexuality do not appeal to me, I would agree that people have a right to live with whom they choose to live with, and should have some legal recourse in the system. I also believe that if the majority wish unions between same-sex to be referred to as something other than "marriage", then the public has that right.

I find it interesting that the gay rights movement has sucessfully been able to pin the label of "homophobe" on anyone who tries to present a different point of view to theirs. It is simply a case, of which history is replete, of one group attempting to convince the majority that the lifestyle of that group is a valid as any other, be it religious, political, sexual, or any other.

I do not see a differentiation in terms to be "bigotry", as long as equal rights are available under the law and there are no legal differences in how the partners are treated. A word has only the meaning society gives it. If the majority is uncomfortable with a certain use of a word, then why shouldn't society have a right to limit the use of that word or meaning of that word?

Hey..we all seem to like to use a certain word in describing things as a adjective, noun, pronoun, gerund, adverb, expletive and so on. Wayne, in his infinite wisdom, prevents us from doing so in this forum. So, we invent new words, that, to the reader, portray the same precise "meaning", but are not offensive to the majority.

Any society that attempts to become all things to all people runs the risk of becoming nothing to anyone. (don't know who said that, but I like it)