wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

As sympathetic as I am to the fact that no one should be denied the right to marry or cohabit with whom they want, I do take exception to anyone who equates sexual preferential freedom within marriage with that of denying rights of human beings based on their skin color or ethnic origin.

To equate the marriage of a man and a woman of different skin color to that of the marriage of a male and male or a female and a female with or not with the same skin color is not exactly the same argument. Color prejudice is quite different from a prejudice against two men or two women laying together in the biblical sense.

Maybe the argument for your guest should be that sexual preference should not be a reason to deny someone a marriage license.

Sex has always been a problem for the people of the United States even when the participants are of the same skin color.

Consider what is always stated by those who would deny the marriage right to others. They state that marriage is between one man and one woman, thus denying the polygamous rights of Mormons.

In some states it is illegal to engage in sexual intercourse in any other manner other than that of the standard missionary position.

The truth is that these people who would deny people to marry within their gender are really afraid of what they consider to be too much sexual freedom. The thought of two people of the same gender engaging in a sexual act is a sexual depravity to those who would deny those of the same gender a marriage license.

The honest truth about it all is it is really about sex and we need to stop denying that is what it is really about.

We really need to grow up in this nation and stop denying sex exists between or among consenting adults.

It seems that this was a last-minute addition to the program, as it wasn't in the original lineup and was pretty brief.

Capelle has a lot of nerve and he is quite a propagandist.

How can he get away with claiming there is 'gay apartheid' just because the gvt. hasn't capitulated to his demands? Apartheid? Are they confined to separate neighborhoods? Shows you the lengths they will go in their propaganda to push their cause, true or false.

Shame!

ed
isn't it more dangerous to put human rights to a vote?

You call it marriage equality, of course, but those who do not support it say that everyone is eligible to marry, but marriage is between a man and a woman.
One reason it was defeated in Maine was that they saw that in Massachusetts teachers were forced to teach that there was no difference between a man and a woman marriage, and a same sex relationship.
Isn't it dangerous to use the courts to over-rule popular sentiment?