Originally posted by MissBlondie :
Quote:
|
I'm not attacking anything, RBatson asked how we felt, and that's how I feel. I believe homosexuality is wrong, and I also believe that taking the covenant of marriage between a man, a woman, and God and bringing homosexuality into it is a joke. Fine if you and your same sex partner want equal rights as a married couple, but then call it something else, don't squander the word marriage.
|
I agree. In my opinion, homosexuals are seeking forced societial approval for their choice of sexual expression via the courts, stealing the mantle of 'civil rights' (from African-Americans, who's race truly is immutable, with the exception of Michael Jackson, apparently) to gain supporters who hear: 'civil rights' and leap to defend 'gay marriage'. Homosexuality is not genetic and not innate. Therefore, homosexuals not being included in the legal definition of 'marriage' is not 'discrimination' or in any way a 'civil rights' issue. Homosexuals do not have a 'civil right' to be legally married and this tactic, while successful with many, is a bogus claim. That they (and their many supporters) instantly charge anyone not buying into their demands for the re-definition of marriage to include homosexuals as: 'bigots', 'homophobes' and 'haters' is pretty cheesy but sadly common with the so-called 'gay lobby'. This tactic effectively shuts down any rational debate and simply 'demonizes' the opposition with no basis in fact. As I said, an all-too-common ploy, today.
Homosexuals don't like it but the serious scientific studies on 'What makes a homosexual' came to the conclusion that while there are many factors involved, almost all are enviromental and none are demonstrably genetic in nature. I happen to believe there is a
proclivity in a tiny minority of people, male and female, for an attraction to the same sex, but that it is usually outweighed by other factors and can be reversed via therapy. This happens more than the homosexual advocates want you to know. In most cases, any ex-homosexual who goes public with his story is generally declared by the homosexual advocy groups as a 'fake' and either ignored or demeaned as being 'in denial' or simply as someone who was never
really homosexual to begin with. Few ex-homosexuals need or want that kind of rejection and vilification so they keep quiet and just get on with their lives, often marrying and fathering children, leaving the 'gay' lifestyle far behind them. They are mostly invisible.
Meanwhile, the homosexual advocates trumpet the lie that homosexuality is immutable and as such, 'normal', as they push for more and more recognition by the law, now including the legal right to 'marry'. In my opinion, homosexual activists care little about actually being 'married' but a lot about forcing social acceptance of homosexuality on the public. It appears that this time, after decades of unbroken successes, the homosexual activists may have gone a bridge too far.
Like most reasonable people, I don't wish to stop those who wish to express their sexuality by engaging in same-sex relationships from doing so. I have no interest in being part of the Sexual Police Force. Let them do as they please with other consenting adults in the privacy of their homes, as the cliché goes. I do wish they would pay for their own AIDS treatments more often instead of pushing the expense (sometimes inevitable) unto taxpayers for what amounts to a preventable disease, same as drug addiction, alcholism and the many other non-fatal sexually transmitted diseases. However, that's a separate issue.
Like you, 'Miss Blondie', I hold no animus for any homosexual, although in all candor, I also disapprove of homosexuality on moral and religious grounds. That's my personal point of view and I have as much right to it as any homosexual activist (or anyone else on this board) does to his or her view. I believe the homosexual activists have little real grounds to make their insistence that we change the long-established law to appease their demands, which are emotional, not legal or sometimes even logical. So, I stand opposed to this latest attempt to re-define marriage in America. It has always been reserved for the (logical and rational) legal uniting of a man and a woman. This makes sense and always has. Now, after thousands of years, w're being asked to abandoned the traditional and logical definition of marriage to suit a tiny minority of people who go against the sexual norms and then demand to be called 'normal' by virtue of having their sexual relationships called a legal marriage. I think not.
That's what I think about it.
