Julie,
Nice to meet you, too.
Thank you for the clarification, but I have to say, I'm still a bit confused. How is that you, a heterosexual, can be sure that our relationships are different from yours? And it doesn't seem like you're very involved with "the gay community"... so how do you know what it's biggest problem is?
Two gals going out for lunch isn't what homosexuality is about, of course not -- if that was all there was to it, my grandmother would be gayer than I am! She has a half-dozen "girlfriends," and I don't even have one.
That said... gay people <I>do</I> date. Since we're generally <I>not</I> just interested in each other's bodies, we <I>do</I> try to get to know each other, and spend time with each other... and, same as heterosexual dating, that can involve going to lunch, or seeing movies, or what-have-you.
As for marriage: While it does create legal responsibilities, marriage is also a right. Heterosexual couples can get married; homosexual couples cannot. You have a right that we don't.
A quick note on your ex-coworker: gender issues and sexuality are somewhat linked, but not entirely. There are gay men who are unusually feminine... and gay men who are macho manly-men, too. And then there are <I>straight</I> guys who have stereotypically "gay" traits. There are also genetically male people who are psychologically female.
So, there are gay guys who would be extremely offended by "he's not a boy." There are gay "guys" who would <I>agree</I> with it. And there are transsexual <I>women</I> who would firmly correct the pronoun to "she."
In short, there are umpteen different ways to be "wired differently." Gotta love diversity.
I have no idea what "the Skipper and Gilligan" or your other reference is about. But I'm ignorant about a lot of pop culture... and I'd take anything in the "entertainment industry" with a grain of salt. To me, the "proof" of gay relationships are the gay people I know who are <I>in</I> relationships. All of them were single at some point, so it gives me hope.
What, dare I ask, is the "darkest side" of the homosexual community? If it's horrific and ought to be talked about, then let's hear it... and don't worry about offending me. I've debated a guy who was convinced that all gay people were child molesters; I think I've developed a pretty thick skin.
Aineo,
I'm uncertain as to why you think the Supreme Court is the wrong channel for this. If we were seeking "civil unions," <I>that</I> would have to be done through law. But if the current laws on marriage are reinterpreted as being inclusive of same-sex marriage -- as they were once reinterpreted as being inclusive of mixed-race marriage -- then there's no need to pass a law or constitutional amendment saying "gay people can marry, too." There never was such an amendment passed in favor of mixed-race marriage, and there were state laws specifically <I>against</I> that. Now, you may not think that was right, or remotely justifiable... but people of the time did. Did the Supreme Court have the authority to overrule them, then? Or do you actually see the outcome as a good end from improper means?