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 never aid it wasn't real, so I don't know where that came from. It seems you are a bit on the defensive, just because I don't understand it.
Relax, I can't understand why some guys like the girls they do either.
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.
Yes, I pointed out that analogy already with my plane flying. It's tough shit on me.
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!
Sure. I can even look at a guy, like Richard Gere, or whatever and say, man that guy is good looking, and attractive. But then I would probably follow it up by saying, he must get all the girls. I don't look at him and say, boy, I'd really like to suck his cock. I never said all guys are ugly.
Usually, an attraction to a woman is also coupled with the desire to make a baby with that woman, not just have sex with her. I am talking about a life partner here, not some hot bitch off the streets. I might see a girl like that, and be sexually attracted to her, but to have just sex with her enters into another arena. There is a part of me that thinks that just having sex is not a good idea, based on life lessons. So, all I could do is look.
Let me ask you. Do you have any desire to make a child in this life?
but it should not be regarded as a negative when evaluating a gay couple.
There is way too many needy children in this world, and they come first. I wouldn't want to hinder any chances a needy child might have.
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?
It's too hard for me to ignore that fact. It represents something, and is part of the equation. As far as there being more gay people, I just don't know either. It's like video games being responsible for columbine shooting. The more we see, the less sensitive we become to it. The more it becomes ok, the more likely people are going to do it. This is a seprate issue from whether it is right or wrong.
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.
If he is living in sin, then he is just like the rest of us. I am sure the church would not recognize that second marriage either.
I have mentioned that at no point did I ever use the gay/sin thing as an arguement against same-sex marriage. I never have felt that was right. We are obviously beyond that as a society, and our religious views do not govern our nation, even if we are under God.
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?
To me all sins are equal. But a repentant man does his best to turn from sin, and not let it lead his life. He is lead by the spirit of God, and should be held accountable for his sins before God. Not our government
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.
Yes, I am using my faith to define morals, and secular views. So there is no separation of church and state then,(in this instance) because if it wasn't for God, and the grace he has shown me, then I might not pass that grace on to you, and our nation. My faith is making me leave it up to God.
™ Version 4.2