Advocating Reality

I don't know if there just isn't enough debate, or if we just don't pay enough attention to it, but either way there needs to be a change. Have you ever seen a debate over, for example, gay marriage?  I've heard people speak against it, and I've heard it mentioned briefly in debates, but I have yet to see a true debate on the matter.  Perhaps the reason is because of how little actual data the anti-gay marriage side has (aside from bible verses, which should not be used when discussing a legal matter such as marriage). In general, though, what's the deal?  Internet forums, though you have to dig to find them, tend to contain excellent, well-written assertions and responses.  However, these are obscure, long, and wordy, and are not feasible to present to a mass audience, such as through television.  Televised or recorded debates provide bite-sized chunks of useful information with the potential to reach a far larger audience.  These days, however, televi...

The Minnesota Family Council is pushing for a statewide referendum in 2012 to place a ban on same-sex marriage. GLBT - Constitutional ban on gay marriage hits the fast track -  http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2010/11/constitutional.php If it passes, Minnesota Republicans will have proven that promoting discrimination, division, and hate is more important than working on solving problems.  It disgusts me that so many people are so quick to disparage same-sex marriage when there has never been a single good reason to do so. It seems to me that all of the arguments against same-sex marriage tend to boil down to religious beliefs.  Doesn't that make a ban like this un-Constitutional based on the protection of the First Amendment?  Perhaps we will have a 'Kitzmiller v. Dover'-esque thrashing of BS with evidence.  I can dream, can't I?  *EDIT:  There may be reasons why this doesn't happen more often  - in Iowa, three state Supreme Court ju...

For most of my life, I saw homosexuals as 'deviant' from the norm, but I never honestly considered that they were somehow sub-human because of this.  I would hear stories about Gay Rights activists not always being gay, and I accepted this reality - I didn't fully understand what it meant, however. What it means to me is this:  It is completely acceptable to advocate equality for a cause, even when it has absolutely no direct impact on you personally.  Something is either justifiable or it is not.  There is absolutely no justification for treating individuals who have a different sexual orientation as 'inferior' and thus less deserving of basic human rights. It doesn't help, of course, that so many people and organizations over the years have flat-out lied to the public about homosexuality.  Statistics have been skewed and tortured to support ridiculous conclusions, though these tactics seem to have failed so utterly that they are few and far between in this...