Hey mfa, I think it was decent what you wrote.
I’ve never wanted to open the topic of gay marriage because it’s a sensitive topic on one hand, but on the other hand it does not seem as a controversial topic in most of the US society, for example. It was started by someone else here, and I was automatically accused from many things.
Some people believe that the gay marriage is the civil right topic for the next decade, and they create the feeling that it is immoral to consider homosexual intercourse as less important and holy than the usual one.
Well, in a democratic society, declaring moral value as parts of the law requires some direct or indirect support from the majority of the people. Such a change of the US constitution has not occured for 216 years or so, and I don’t believe it will.
You can ask me what I think about homosexuality. None has done so yet.
I have no serious problem with the idea that some other people have sex with people of the same gender - as long as they don’t show me what they’re doing. Yes, I would still view it as more moral if the people avoided - much like I find it more moral if people are able to avoid drugs and alcohole.
Much like Bush, I sort of feel compassionate about the gays, and on the other hand, I am sure that they can be doing everything else just like the straight people, and they should not have any problems to keep their composure and self-confidence.
If a gay tries to pick me, of course that he is doomed to fail, but on the other hand, I am not insulted by it - it is flattering even though less fortunate than a similar case from women. ;-)
But if someone proposes that the homosexual relations should be rewarded e.g. by tax advantages - advantages that we, single straight people, don’t even have ourselves - then my answer is quite a resolute No, even though, of course, I would survive if someone introduced it.
The family is a unit important for the society and its future. Families can be childrenless, but they’re still created with the purpose to create the environment for raising new children - especially in an emotionally positive atmosphere, if it is possible. If someone says that the purpose of the family is to f**k anyone or anything, depending on one’s tastes, and this f**king is what justifies various types of support from the country, then he or she has really very different moral values than I do.
Otherwise, I don’t care about your code words. In my opinion it must be absolutely clear that what I am saying, if interpreted correctly without some undefinable codes, is manifestly legal, moral, and plausible, and the accusations of bigotry are just not satisfied.
I don’t believe that the question today is about putting gays in the prison - this may have been relevant during Hitler’s era in Germany, but not later. The issue today is definitely whether gay relations should be put on equal footing as marriage and family relations, and my answer, much like the answer of majority of America, is No.
I don’t believe that the South or someone else important in the USA (large groups of people) want to put women or minorities to the pre-civil era. This may be your polarized interpretation, but it is completely wrong. The people who believe that women should be banned from universities, for example, are irrelevant in the USA. It’s only for the left-wing extremists, who believe that any deviation from the statistically predicted percentage (50% of women, 10% of blacks, etc.) in any field indicates that something is wrong with the field.
This is a left-wing form of Nazism, and it is not surprising that the people with these extreme opinions view all mainstream people, with a balanced common sense approach, as right-wing bigots. It’s simply because EVERYONE who is not an extremist of the same type looks like a bigot from the extremist’s viewpoint.