But then I hear the some people say allowing homosexuals to exist freely will makes God angry at the nation and jepordizes everyone; or jepordizes their immoratal soul ( and hey, if one accords that belief equal respect then who in their right mind can say that an immortal soul means less than another person's earthly safety. But if there is no immortal soul... you get the idea). I am fine with those who say that homosexuality is wrong and then truly leave it up to their God to sort out. I do think that there is some responsibilty for those who feel that way to make it clear what "wrong" means when they know that if left unclear then some will take it to mean, "homosexuality is wrong so let us take steps against homosexuals" The diffenece between having an opinion and giving that opinion the weight of earthly consequences gets way overlooked. And part of the problem is that the Christians who believe that they are to emulate compassion and save the judging for God and those who decide that they are called to judge go by the same name. So when the non-religious side says Christian with a sneer it isolates those who believe the same as they do. Just the words mean different things to them. And somehow for most people words mean more than or are equivalent to reality. And I have seen people who feel caught in the middle and would take the "sinners" side but the compassion dries up when the name calling starts and it is just because they don't take a second to consider arising from pain or need are less considered than what one is feeling. Sometimes it seems like some really cold blooded person or group is playing on human nature and pushes at the right times to keep the lack of understanding going. If people don't reach out they can't unite and things will never change. I understand this. But I also understand that the ones fighting for survival and dignity now are the desparate ones. They have less luxury and ability to reach out. How do you legislate that ohers really try to empathize instead of reacting immediately to a percieved harshness?

What do you do when idealogies are set up so that no competing idealogy can coexist with them. Equal respect becomes an impossibility. And that is the situation as it is being set up and pushed by many. And my ability to respect ends there. Perhaps it is a flaw. But giving equality to those who would use any tactic to destroy you is - well, it only makes sense if you believe in something greater that will reward the sacrifice just because it is made. Common sense says that taking the high road while others fight dirty usually ends in defeat. And knowing one did the "right thing" is very cold comfort - especially when the ones who use what you are against you cites your misery as proof that you are wrong. And that is where the biggest problem with hate speech comes in. It allows enough people to shed any guilt, any feeling of responibilty for the suffering of others - because if "those people" would just be like everyone else then they wouldn't suffer. It masks the cause of the suffering. Well constructed hate speech molds things in such a way so that it makes it sound like the consequences are natural, not a result of human decision. It literally makes it okay for the people to act on their prejudices. Not even conciously. Many people don't grasp a cause if it remains unnamed. So they attach the cause to something that is named. It is not even a matter of intelligence. It is a natural mode of thinking that is very predominant - largely because the educational system trains people to respond to sequential thought. I know enough to take advantage of this when I want. Multimillion dollar think tanks probably have it perfected, you know.

And I'm rambling. I'm not trying to be difficult. This is just one of the areas where my idealistic side and my pragmatic, cynical side meet head on and I can't find an answer that satisifes myself. I would welcome any comments or suggestions. Adding new thoughs to the equation is the best way to see a path that was hidden before.