Josh - That is a great post. I respectfully disagree with parts of it but you present a much more compelling and cohesive argument than screaming "SINNER!" from the church rooftops.
josh wrote:There could be a choice involved and maybe there is not. What about people who lived a homosexual lifestyle then stopped? Or people who lived a hetero lifestyle, messed around with homosexuality for a while, decided hetero was who they were, back and forth, etc, etc. Seems to be a choice there - right?
People choosing or people confused? Like those regular heterosexual people who decide they want to be married, then don't, then get married again?
josh wrote:Certainly there are people who claim to have homosexual tendencies from the time they were born. Ok - maybe that is not a choice. But dont sit there and tell me that all people engaged in homosexual activities had no choice in the matter. Patently false!
I agree and would not claim that all
people engaged in homosexual activities have no choice in the matter.
josh wrote:None of that has anything to do with the topic at hand. Should govt. provide a special right to those who want a marraige license to marry someone of the same sex. Two homosexual, "committed" couples have no more right to govt sanctioned marriage than I have to marry my best friend from high school who I dearly love. There is not State benefit to that relationship.
This is the heart of where I don't agree with you. I don't see it as special right or recognition. Just recognition of a relationship, whether it is 2 men or 2 women, that in my eyes, can have just as much benefit to the state or society as one between a man and a woman.
josh wrote:You are trying to bring a morality issue in to play and that has nothing to do here. I think by doing so you only weaken the arguement because the overwhelming "consensus morality" in the US is that homosexuality is wrong.
With respect, I was answering the morality issue brought up by Al. I don't see it as a morality issue (but that would mainly be because I do not see it as immoral). As an obvious follow on from that, I personally think that it is a shame that the consensus morality in the US is that homosexuality is wrong. However I do not disagree with you.
josh wrote:The problem with that is that many people choose to believe that because it is wrong morally, they have a right to pursecute homesexuals...nothing could be farther from the truth. Whether you are gay, think you might be gay, want to be gay sometimes...whatever. We are all children of God and deserve to be treated equally.
I'm not going to march hand in hand with you down the "children of God" aisle (pun intended), not quite my viewpoint, but I will agree with your sentiments here too.
josh wrote:Again. Explain to me reasons why two "committed" homosexual couples should have a right to govt licensed marriage, but two college roommates cant, or a man who wants to marry three women cant?
I don't have all the answers here. My gut initial reaction would be that today two college mates (they may not be room mates) of opposite sex can get married today if they like, how would that be different?
And as I already stated, obviously in the hugest of minorities here, if three consenting adults what to commit to a multi-party marriage I have no problem with that.
And Al - I concur you and I are fundamentally on different sides of this debate. You aren't changing your viewpoint and I'm sticking with mine.