I've not had a lot of time for internet message boards lately, but I wanted to say I was pleasantly surprised to log on today and see this post by you. I'm glad you're still trying to be thoughtful and fair. It's obvious you're trying to separate what you think from what you know, and even though you still hold views I find indefensible and offensive, the fact that you recognize that you
could be wrong is refreshing.
Before I say anything more I'd like to point out that I haven't reviewed this thread beyond your OP. I'm going to scan over it, but as is typical for me lately my time is limited. I may or may not be able to respond to more posts.
Now to a few of your continuing misconceptions:
quote:
I just can't understand how two people of the same sex can be attracted to each other.
It isn't required that you understand it. The only thing you
must understand is that the attraction is real. We're not lying about it. What possible motive could we have for misleading you into thinking that we guys like other guys when we really like girls?
Like we used to say a few years ago: we're here! we're queer! and we're not going shopping! The point is that you belittle us when you talk about how you don't understand us, especially if you would use that as a reason to treat us as unequals. Just understand that we're sincere and that we're human.
I don't understand why people like to go fishing. It's boring and the fish you catch around here are usually about as good as what you get at Capt. D's. But people like to do it and I don't have to understand it.
I was about to say that I know the desire for sex and the desire for food are two different things, but I backed up and started this paragraph over when I remembered the hilarious Henry Fielding novel
The History Of Tom Jones (they made a movie out of it, best picture of 1963 I think). You should read it, or watch the film. It's uproarously funny and it presents some provacative questions about love and marriage in the context of society's ever-changing morality.
But ultimately the only sensible comparison to your inability to understand gay attraction is my own inability to understand straight attraction. Sure, Jessica Simpson is cute. So's Britney. Hell, even the Coultergeist can
look decent with the right make-up and lighting - adam's apple notwithstanding - but a sexual attraction to any of them? Are you kidding me? Yuk!
I'm sorry, that's just me. I don't get it. I mean, they have
breasts and everything. Why would you want to..., oh nevermind!
quote:
Given the choice, people would always choose to be raised by their biological parents, provided they were treated with love.
I don't entirely disagree, but for whatever reason too often they aren't able to be with their biological parents. And given your views on abortion, you should be a strong supporter of adoption. Although I'm opposed to gay adoption bans - and I'm thrilled to see that you apparently are too - I don't think the sexuality of the adopting couple needs to be entirely ignored if more than one responsible couple is available. The presence of both a male and female influence is a factor that could be regarded as a postive when evaluating the suitability of a straight couple, but it should not be regarded as a negative when evaluating a gay couple.
quote:
Please keep in mind, that I do not hate!
It wasn't too long ago I'd have disputed that, but now I believe it.
quote:
I do know that if all men and woman stop having sex, then we cease to exist.
That's a fact that can't be disputed, but it's totally unrelated to the issue at hand. Legalizing gay marriage is not going to make straight men any more attractive to other straight men than they already are, so this is not a legitimate concern. Why don't we agree to drop it?
quote:
It is a sin, period.
We are all sinners.
That sounds misleading. There are sins that affect other people and sins that don't. You would say that I sin when I have consensual, loving sex with another man behind closed doors, but you can't say that I've affected anyone else. Somehow that sin deprives me of the right to marry. But a straight man can get married, have three children, meet a woman younger than his wife, commit adultery and get divorced, but his sin doesn't result in a loss of his right to marry. In fact, he's now free to marry again and have more kids. Then he can repeat the cycle if he chooses, affecting even more people, while still retaining the right to marry yet again.
I can understand that your faith says that this straight man is a sinner too, but why is his sin less egregiuos than a private, personal sin that affects no one other than the sinners themselves?
quote:
Regardless of everything I just said, I have decided to be for same-sex marriage in our government, and let God deal with it.
I take you at your word and I thank you.
quote:
So pretty much I am forcing my religious views on others, and suppressing my secular view on it.
So here's the question, am I wrong now, for forcing my religious views on the rest of the nation?
I don't understand your logic. It seems like you're trying to twist things to make it appear that your religious views in favor of gay marriage are somehow forced on society if you support secular gay marriage. But how can that be? No one will be forced into a gay marriage and no one will be forced to recognize gay marriage. The government will be forced to recognize it, just as it is forced to recognize your marriage. I don't have to approve of your life or your marriage and you don't have to approve of mine. Even the government doesn't have to
approve of my marriage or yours. It only has to
recognize them. Nothing more.
™ Version 4.2
