Why is this a matter of prejudice? It's an easy label but it's really a matter of one's perception of what is right and what is wrong. People aren't against child molestation (to use an extreme example) because they are prejudiced against child molesters. And the vast, vast majority of those who were against Mr. Obama's election weren't against it because he was black, but because they disagreed that his liberal ideas would be best for our country or that he was really just unqualified. The prejudice tag is always the simple knee-jerk reaction. Perhaps those in opposition are worthy of some credit for having principles that go well beyond such immature sentiments.

John, thanks for your comment. Prejudice is holding certain thoughts about a group of people because of who they are. The child molester has a choice as to whether or not to violate the law.

A gay person is gay, the way Barack Obama is black. He/she was born that way.

If you believe that a gay person is free to choose whether or not to be gay, then we're talking about education here, not principle.

The principle has nothing to do with whether someone is gay or not (although I do believe it is a lifestyle choice a majority of the time), it has to do with whether or not marriage becomes a right for those whom profess to be gay. If someone disagrees with the appropriateness of marriage for gays, it doesn't make them prejudiced against gays any more that being aginst somone marrying a 12 year old makes them prejudiced against 12 year olds. MHO

Dear John,

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

As a matter of fact, I don't believe that heterosexuals should be allowed to marry. I am not prejudiced
against them, simply because they are
heterosexual. I simply feel that it is in-
appropriate to continue granting marriage rights to a group that
clearly does not value such a right:
their divorce rates support that fact.
Further, the impact on their children, as well as society overall, has been absolutely devastating.

Again, I am not prejudiced. I am simply upholding principles that go well beyond the antiquated and, might I say, immature sentiments of those supporting heterosexual marriage.

I could not agree more with this column. The truth hurts.

John Tryon,
There are many very bad marriages for many reasons. No arguement. Immaturity and selfishness probably top the list. I am happy for anyone whom is gay and has a loving long term relationship, but it just is not, nor should it be in my opinion, marriage. Basic biology tells us that we need a player from each team to survive. We didn't get to have a say in what the natural order of things would be. We will obviously have to agree to disagree on this point, but society should promote that which sustains itself and that which is natural. A large segment of the gay community undoubtedly are gay by choice. I think it is appropriate to encourage young people to make the more natural choice.

John,

Absolutely.

We should also make certain that every heterosexual marriage reproduces.
Birth control should be banned and those who cannot have children for medical reasons, should have their marriages ended immediately. We should only promote marriages that sustain themselves as natural unions,
resulting in the survival of the human
race.

"Prejudice is holding certain thoughts about a group of people because of who they are. The child molester has a choice as to whether or not to violate the law."

So, these two sentences show hypocrasy in action. Gays = Natural, Pedophile = Unnatural?

Both are acting on their natural preference. When sodomy was illegal in Georgia, there was a guy like Chan saying "The gay man has a choice as to whether or not to violate the law."

"A gay person is gay, the way Barack Obama is black."
Really? Folks go from gay to straight and from straight to gay all the time. When Barack can turn fully white or Bush can turn fully black, then I will buy that argument.

"If you believe that a gay person is free to choose whether or not to be gay, then we're talking about education here, not principle."

If you believe that a pedophile, sheep-lover, foot fetishist, or rapist is free to choose whether or not to be prefer that method of getting their rocks off, then we're talking about education here, not principle.

You cannot have it both ways. Married men suddenly turn gay, but they didn't "choose"? Girls in college "experiment" and then decide to be lesbian, but they didn't "choose"?

It is a choice if the other sexual preferences are a choice, OR it is hardwired AND the other preferences are hardwired.

How about the Nambla people? Their gayness is hardwired, but their youthness is not?

You cannot have one criticism be prejudice and another criticism be justified. Fifty years from now, when married gays are fighting against youth marriage, (it was legal in the 1600s, illegal now (except in Texas/Utah), but will be legal again and some cartoonist will claim it is prejudice to be against it.