Gary B- Your analogy is weak. Disease organisms are a direct threat to the well being of the individual and keeping diseases viable benefits no one. To imply that homosexuality is on an equal par to an organism whose only function is to ultimately destroy its host and thus bring about its own demise is farcical. Once you can show me a benefit to animals or plants that these diseases promote, I will gladly hear your argument.

Mai- You are too kind. I am glad you stopped by. Hope you come back again.

you’ve got a great mind (and i bet you know it!), and you are very well-spoken.

as to the issue itself, i concur. i find it reprehensible to discriminate against anyone based on what they do behind their bedroom door. that’s their own business, not anyone else’s (unless, of course there are children involved, and that goes for heterosexuals as well). as long as no one’s being hurt (as pertains to this issue), there isn’t a problem, in my opinion.

Further, if restricting homosexuality is wrong because it is “natural” then restricting those above diseases is wrong for the same reason.

windreader- thanks for dropping by. it’s high time that gay and lesbian people are afforded the same legal status when they commit to each other in a relationship. i hope that the day comes sooner rather than later.

windspike- i have a family and job and all that stuff going on too. i just stay up really late. thanks for joining the fight to end this kind of discrimination, one that exists because of ignorance and irrational fear.

mags- thanks for putting this issue in another perspective. true enough, abridging the freedoms of one segment of society opens the door to easier acceptance of it happening again. Our country was headed in the direction of recognizing and appreciating the differences in people and then all of a sudden, we found ourselves a new public scapegoat. let’s help turn this back around.

diogenes- interesting take on the biblical side of this debate. personally, i feel that religion should have nothing to do the legal recognition that gay people deserve. we have no problem taking their tax dollars, do we…?

M+
The reason we are seeing homosexuals as different is because the laws prohibit them from having the same things we all want to have with regards to family situations. We make them different, so they become different. To eliminate the difference, and thus the discrimination, we need to normalize the situation.

The term marriage, like many other societal institutions, means different things to different people. For some, it is an affair of the heart, a natural union of two people. For some, it is a business realtionship meant to tie two families together and increase the family fortunes. For some, it is a sham of appearances sake. Marriage is as maleable as the golden bands that symbolize it. If the problem then, is merely semantics, let us call no legal unions “marriage” at all. Let unions seeking legal recognition be performed in a secular ceremony without regard for the sex of the individuals. Call it a “legal marriage.” Keep them cheap, but make them necessary for tax and benefits purposes. This makes the law blind in matters that do not concern it. Then, everyone who wants a “religious marriage” can go to their palce of worship and have their union blessed by their god(s).

Because the term “marriage” has the intended meaning of a joining of two individuals into a union forged from mutual love, affection, support, and attraction, the analogy you provide doesn’t fit either the hetero or the homo sexual definitions of marriage. But you do bring up a good point. I see no reason why a form of domestic contract could not be formed to allow such circumstances to enjoy the same tax advantages and benefits provided they too ahd entered into a legally binding partnership, which is really all a legal marriage is.

Marriage is many things to many people. But at it’s core, it represents two people attempting to find happiness and love between themselves. With the dearth of broken families, self-centered partnerships, and loveless households, what possible good comes from preventing anyone from making a go of it? But if it is just a “name thing” then homosexual people should also not get hung up on the word marriage. They, and the rest of us, need to focus on ensuring their ability to have a family of their making, as we all do.

To say that homosexuality is simply a behavioral thing akin to alcoholism or obesity conversely means that heterosexuality is also a behavioral matter. Does that mean that if you just concentrated hard enough, you could easily slip into a loving, physical relationship with another man? Something to think about….

Whymrhymer- Thanks for backing me up. I’m coming to think that this is just a semantics issue, being whipped into something of great social importance. With no real sound argument for the legal codes as they stand now, it shouldn’t be all that ahrd to come to some sort of equitable solution that solves the problem. But not if people just let it go…we have to work to save the freedoms we have while we work to make other freedoms come back.

Great, thoughtful post as usual. I was really surprised that none of the hardcore homophobes showed up to comment (yet anyway).

I can’t disagree with any of your points and have posted many of the same thoughts (see: My Take on Same-Sex Marriages). Since posting this however (especially since the last election) I’ve come to the realization that the small segment of the gay population that is pushing the gay marriage agenda is doing more damage than good to the eventual wide-spread acceptance of the gay lifestyle as a normal part of society.

If there was any question about how the majority of Americans feel about marriage being ONLY between a man and woman, this last election should have answered it. That doesn’t make it wrong or invalidate any of the points you and I have made but, realistically, I don’t feel that now is the time to try and change the traditional definition of marriage — especially since all the practical objectives can be obtained through the legal system.

If we were to take this a step further – and many people I’ve talked to say I’m reaching here – who’s to say that one day people will rally against interracial marriages as being “immoral” and “unnatural” and “icky”? Not too long ago in our country’s history did we discriminate because of the arbitrary notion of the color of one’s skin. Who’s to say it won’t happen again?

I’d like to think of myself as a fairly well-educated person, so I try to empathize with people whose views oppose mine. However, aside from using the crutch of “religion” to justify their bigotry against homosexuals and gay marrage, I struggle to find any kernel of understanding or common ground with people who feel so strongly against this. What, seriously, do they have to lose if gay people marry? How does it affect their lives if gay people exist? I’m Catholic, but my faith – my spirituality – won’t allow me to pass judgment on other human beings. I just don’t understand how some people believe that it is their God-given right to do just that.

Anyway, great post. I’ll be coming back to read your future musings.