This post is an attempt to describe some of the conflicting Ideals that relate to Gay Rights. Since Gay Rights means different things to deifferent people, and since politics can be a matter more of belief, than logic, it is possible for strong opinions to be expressed on these topics, and politics in general. On other forums where political discussions have a separate sub-category, there is a warning to members that posting on a political thread can bring up strong rebuttals. Ideally, rebuttal posts should discuss the issue, rather than the qualities of the person making the argument being rebutted. Argumentun ad Hominum means an argument against the man, and is the name for a rule in some debate contexts, that means personal attacks or crticism of the individual debater, should not be made. With the annonymity of internet forums, it is tempting to slam anyone with different political ideas. This forum has largely been a support forum, so posting on this thread should probably be considered differently from posting on the non-political threads on this forum. There have been political discussions on other threads, but this may be the first thread intentionally dedicated to political discussion. My personal intent is to lay out some issues that are current, and in contradcition, leading to no real right answer. My personal belief of the correct mix of the priorities, fluctuates, and I often function to describe obscure positions, so that all ideals may be balanced. One ideal is for Gay Pride. Anyone who is Gay, should not feel ashamed of being Gay. Ideally, a Gay person should feel comforable about coming out of the closet, and announcing to anyone with whom contact occurs, about being Gay. Public displays of affection between same sex partners should be protected and encouraged, to maximize Gay Pride. A different and somewhat conflicting ideal, is to elect liberal minded public officials, who will make appointments and vote on public policies that are favorable to Gay people. Many judges and commission members are apointed by the elected public officials. It is my belief that there is a concerted effort by the religious right to defeat liberal minded public officials, judges and commissioners, so that the Christian Right agenda of anti-abortion and anti-family planning can be advanced. Ideally, there would be a separation of the issues of abortion, family planning and Gay Rights. In reality, the Christian Right is using the backlash against advances in Gay rights, to generate votes against libveral politicians. In Ohio, a swing state that would have given Kerry the election, a deliberate effort was made to get out those voters with fears, or misunderstandings, of the Gay Movement, to vote against liberals. What is the best way to educate those voters who fear progress in Gay Rights? What is the best way to allay the fears of the right to a Gay Marriage? Why did President Bush drop the idea of a Constitutional Amendment aganst Gay Marriage as soon as the election was over? If a Gay person is interested in the advancement of Gay Rights and the Right to Gay Marriage, is it in the best interests of avoiding generating fears in possible voters, to avoid public displays of affection with a same sex partner? Which Republicans can be trusted to advance Gay Rights, including the appointment of liberal judges and commisioners? I do not have good or clear ideas for educating the general public on Gay Issues, to alleviate backlash voting. Ideas? Suggestions? Corrections? Bashes?