1) Sex, itself, is gross and revolting when you think in terms of mechanics and not in terms of love and affection. For heterosexuals, though, they cannot separate the idea of het sex from love because that is how they love (except the really evil ones who hate all sex, even when they are having it, those people are just sick). But on the flip side, they see gay sex a just sex because they don't identify with gay love and gay affection and gay-being-human. It is alien to them. But at some point, one might be able to educate het people that hey, het sex is a little gross when you think mereely in terms of mechanics, but it is beautiful when it is the expression of love. Well, gay sex is the same way. And is being fought for is the gay expression f love.

2) There's been research done on the revulsion reflex and how it is stronger in some people (who tend to be "conservative") and weaker in others (who tend to be politically liberal). This has to be taken into account because some people are always going to be more strongly revolted and they will always be strongly revolted. But does that mean that they can deny human rights to others because those people revolt them? I mean, the story of human civilization is that they TRY. Blacks, Hispanics, Indians, geeks, the disabled, the severaly mentally challenged, people who don't bathe, people who color their hair blue and greeen and the list goes on and on and ON. At some point, unless the people with strong revulsion reflexes can be moved to see the "other" people as human too, they will continue to think that it is right and good to deny them human rights based on their personal revulsions.

Much apologies for all the typos. The type is very, very small and I can't see it worth a damn.