Gay marraige and the end of the world

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

If right wing fundie conservatives are not worried about hurting our enviroment, because they say that God doesn't care, and the end of the world is near anyway, then why do they care if people are gay or not? Why do they care about gay marraige?

---

That's a pretty darn good question, rat. I've been following your debate with arachnophilia on this topic and I want to thank you for continuing to think about this issue and not just assume that you know all there is to know. I used to take you for a pig-headed fundie bigot, but from my interaction with you over the past year or so on other issues I realize that you aren't pig-headed. Perhaps you're still a bit of a bigot, but you seem to be open to that notion and as far as I'm concerned we're all bigots of one type or another. The question is whether we're willing to admit our bigotry and work on it. You seem to be doing that in regards to some gays, just as I'm trying to do it in regard to some fundies.I take you at your word that you don't mean to want gays treated unfairly. The trouble is that you really are bigoted in this respect, rat. I'm not trying to be pejorative here, I'm simply stating what I see as a fact. You will not give us the consideration that perhaps there really isn't anything wrong with us. You're convinced that what we do sexually is a sin, and that there is no way that sex between gays can be performed sinlessly. Therefore, to you, it must seem that there is no need for gay marriage, since it would simply validate what you see as sinful and thus lead people away from Christ.The trouble, as I see it, is that even if you're right you'll never convince me this way. If you challenge what I am - which whether you realize it or not is exactly what you're doing - what choice do I have but to join the battle? I want to enjoy the exact same rights and priviliges you enjoy under the law; not in your church, but only under the law. That means that I want to be able to marry the person I love.That's all I want, rat. Equal treatment under the law. Why is that so difficult? Why is it so necessary that you deny me the pleasures of life which you're able to take for granted? You have the full right to the pursuit of happiness, but since marriage is an integral part of happiness for most of us you have more right to happiness than I do. That's the fact. It's not fair and I'm tired of being a second-class citizen in my own country. I deserve equal treatment under the law.Once again, I believe you when you say you're trying to be open-minded, rat, so please give me an honest answer. What threat would my marriage to the person I love pose to you or to your children?

riVeRraT writes me:

quote:

---

Again beberry, I have to say that I greatly respect you, and your opinion, the way you talk and express yourself is wonderful. I like you. But I don't know how you can say you are following our debate and then claim these following things about me:

​

"You will not give us the consideration that perhaps there really isn't anything wrong with us."

---

But you won't, rat. I know you're trying and that's why I like you, but you're not there yet. If you didn't feel that there was something wrong with gays then you wouldn't oppose our right to marry nor would you worry whether your children are exposed to us.Let's take a look at that issue for a moment. You say:

quote:

---

I see how it has affected certain areas in NYC, and I would not bring my children into those areas. Its Gays gone Wild down there, and it sucks.

---

I can understand that. But I see you making a mistake here in equating what you see in "those areas" with homosexuality in general. Those "Gays Gone Wild" areas of town are a lot like the "Straights Gone Wild" areas of town, aren't they? I'm not as familiar with New York, but even in little ole Jackson, Mississippi we have what is usually called a red-light district. I wouldn't characterize all straight people by what I see in that area of town, and I don't think it's fair for you to characterize us gays by what you see in the "Gays Gone Wild" areas.One important thing to remember, rat, is that those of us who grow up gay get the unmistakable message that we are not fully a part of things. No matter how fair-minded and law-abiding we might be, we won't be allowed to marry and we won't be a part of the mainstream. Given those facts, why should I want to be a law-abiding citizen and conform to the rules of straight society? If I'm a societal reject no matter what I do, why should I even try to fit in?And no, we don't have the same marital rights. You have the right to marry for love but I don't. If I wanted to marry, it would have to be to a woman and therefore to someone I don't love in that certain way that makes marriages work. Besides, this "we all have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex" logic worked just as well back when the question was miscegenation. Everyone had the same right to marry someone of their own race.

quote:

---

Do you realize that the Canadian government is trying to pass a law, that will take away churches tax free status if they do not agree to marry gays in the church?

---

If it's Canada then I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about it, but if such a law were proposed here I would be every bit as opposed to it as I am opposed to these cruel, inhuman, anti-gay constitutional amendments. The state has no right to tell the church what to do, just as the church has no right to tell the state what to do.

quote:

---

Very simply, it is not equal, if were equal then the involved partys would be of opposite sex.

---

Again, the logic applies just as well to miscegenation. If such marriages were equal to traditional marriages, they wouldn't involve people of different races.

quote:

---

You have called me, and labeledme a bigot, you and a few others in here. I hate that word, I really do, and I do not want to be considered a bigot. So I am search myself deeply to see if I really am a bigot.

---

Yes, and I meant it too. There was a time when I meant it as a condemnation but that's no longer true. I've come to know you better and I trust your motives a bit more than I did. I still think you're wrong, of course, but it's clear you're making an effort to be more open-minded. I appreciate that, and since I believe you're trying so hard not to be a bigot I'll quit calling you one.

quote:

---

I am not convinced what you do sexually is a sin, the bible says it is though.

---

Anyone who doesn't think you're trying, rat, should pause for a moment over that quote. You really are trying and I love you for it. You deserve credit for keeping your mind open. A couple years ago I never would have thought it possible that you might say something like that.And I have to say, the bible might just be right. I've read those passages, and it sounds to me like the references are to prostitution, not just gay sex. Temple prostitution was a problem in Paul's day, you know. So maybe the bible was right to condemn it, but maybe you're wrong to misread it as applying to all gay sex.The only thing I can ask of you now is that you continue to try to see things from my perspective. Perhaps it might help if I explain part of the reason why I'm so passionate about this issue. I don't know if I've ever brought this up before, but reading the short story Brokeback Mountain has had me thinking about it more lately.Back in the 80s I had a boyfriend that I now realize was probably the love of my life. He was good-looking, athletic and very, very passionate - in private. He couldn't deal with the idea of anyone finding out what was going on between us. He couldn't deal with the idea of everyone knowing he was gay. People had us figured out, of course, but it wasn't until about the fifth year we were together that he started to realize that people knew. He couldn't handle it. He wanted me to move with him to another city, but I wouldn't do it because I felt that once we did that, it would only be a matter of time before we'd have to move again. I insisted that we stay here. He left. Eventually, he got married - to a woman, of course - had kids and now lives in a closet. I kept seeing him from time to time for a few years, but eventually I stopped because I don't like sharing a mate with someone. I still hear from him about once a year, usually at around Christmas. It's obvious he isn't happy, but he's got himself locked into a situation he can't get out of now.If gays were a part of mainstream society we might very well still be together, probably married. I'm sure he'd be happier than he is and I know I would be. That poor woman he married may yet have no idea what her husband does when she's not looking, but one day he's going to get caught and she and the kids are going to suffer needlessly.Why can't we just get this whole marriage thing out of the way and let people be whatever they are in order to find happiness? I shouldn't have to live a lie, not to mention ruin the life of an unsuspecting woman, in order to enjoy the comfort and security that comes from marriage. Why can't I have marriage on my own terms so long as I don't interfere in someone else's life? What's the danger?

quote:

---

...it seems every time I open my mouth on this subject, I will be attacked.

---

Not from me, not any more. I might very well get angry with you, but I won't attack. If anything I say sounds like an attack, please point it out.

riVeRraT writes me:

quote:

---

But 2 things, many so called sterile people have had babies in their faithfulness to God...

---

But what if they're senior citizens, past their child-bearing years?

quote:

---

...if sterile people cannot reproduce, isn't there some kind of natural selection going on there, that we are interfering with?

---

Perhaps, but wouldn't the same logic apply to gays? Maybe homosexuality itself is a type of natural selection. If so, why should we be punished for it by having marital rights denied to us?

quote:

---

I am all for civil union, or whatever name you want to give it. But there is a clear difference between the two.

---

What is a civil union but a civil marriage? And why is a marriage between two people who love each other any more or less valuable because of the sexuality of the parties to the marriage?I would be entirely willing to settle for civil unions if the state only recognized civil unions whether straight or gay. In other words, if you and your wife were only able to acquire a civil union from the government, then I'd be willing to settle for a civil union. You could go to your church and get a marriage and I could go to a gay-friendly church and get a marriage, but the state would only recognize a civil union in either case.That would have been a decent option, but I'm afraid it's off the table now considering all these cruel, degrading, anti-gay constitutional amendments that were passed in '04.

quote:

---

So I do not believe that the behavior I saw in the city, is limited to the city, and as it becomes more widely accepted, it will continue to grow.

​

Of course I realize, that it is not all gay people, as I pointed out.

---

Two things: one, as I said before, many of us have known all our lives that we'd never be accepted into mainstream society. Mainstream society treats us like freaks, so why shouldn't we act like freaks? (Incidentally, I'm not saying we should act like freaks, I'm only trying to explain why some of us do.) For another thing, I don't think it's fair for you to judge all of us based only on your own experiences, just as it wasn't fair for me to judge all Christians based only on the small-minded creeps who populate Mississippi. I'm learning that some people who might seem like fundies really aren't, and that it's wrong for me to treat anyone who opposes gay marriage as though they were a fundie.That's what I mean about bigotry. You've been a bigot where gays are concerned but you're apparently trying to change. I've been a bigot where Christians are concerned and I'm trying to change, too.

quote:

---

I don't think that you can sit there and say that what you believe to be right, is any more right than what "religious" or "God fearing people" believe to be right.

---

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I'm absolutely right and you're wrong regarding those bible passages. What I'm trying to do is create a bit of reasonable doubt about the exact meaning so that in the spirit of fairness you might give us the benefit of that doubt.

quote:

---

It's a moral issue, and everyone has a right to think what they think.

---

But I don't see it as a moral issue, I see it as a fairness issue. The government has no place enforcing anyone's morals on anyone else. The churches are in charge of morals. The government MUST be value-neutral.You and I are both too young to remember much about the African-American civil rights struggle, but since I'm from the South and my mother was very much involved in it I do know a little about it, and I can assure you that Christians regarded segregation and miscegenation as very important moral issues. If the government had been charged with enforcing the morals of the majority of citizens rather than protecting the rights of all the citizens, we'd still be segregated down here.

quote:

---

I have been wrong before about things, and I will be wrong many more times in my life before I die.

---

Same here, absolutely! But if you can't be absolutely sure that homosexuality is a sin, why would you not err on the side of being fair to everyone rather than on the side of forcing a moral code on me that I don't subscribe to?

quote:

---

Where do you get your morals from? Science? TV? Your gay partner? life? What makes your morals more correct than anyone elses?

---

I get my morals from what I feel is right in my heart. Of course I think my morals are more correct than anyone else's, otherwise I wouldn't hold them. However, I don't think I have the right to force my morals on anyone else.

quote:

---

Change takes time, and over that course of time, you must prove yourself to be worthy of that change.

---

I disagree. Blacks were not required to prove themselves worthy of change before they were given equal protection of the laws, why should I be required to do so?You weren't required to prove anything about yourself before you were allowed to marry. Why should I?

quote:

---

What will happen to that poor woman is 100% the fault of your friend.

---

I agree, he was selfish and irresponsible to get into a marriage that he knew could never make him happy. But the fact remains that had it not been for society's intolerance, the marriage wouldn't have happened.Once again, rat, this is an issue of fairness. You and I both pay taxes to the same government. The fact that that same government allows you to marry for love but doesn't allow me to is fundamentally unfair. This must change.Or would you prefer to allow gays to get big tax cuts to compensate us for the unequal treatment we receive from our government?

I understand where you're coming from, DrJones*, but in this case I don't think such an acknowledgement is as important as it might seem. For one thing, I think there's more to riVeRraT's claim that it would seem at first. Let me explain:I think rat is about at the place where he thinks there's nothing inferior about homosexuality in comparison to heterosexuality but that there is something about marriage that should rightly exclude gays. I think he's genuinely worried that perhaps he is being unfair, but he's trying to balance that with his worry that our culture might be losing something precious if it makes what he sees as a fundamental change in one of our greatest institutions. I think gentle persuasion is going to go a lot further with him than standard debating tactics.Besides, in spite of the fact that this particular assertion from him is easily shot down, there are other cases he could cite to make the same point. I remember a few months ago some priest was arrested somewhere in Scandinavia for making inflammatory statements about gays. It was deemed to be hate speech and apparently violated the laws of I-forget-which-country. It was the sort of thing most of us would consider grossly offensive yet protected speech, but in this country it was apparently a prosecutable offense.

riVeRraT writes me:

quote:

---

Look, the main difference between gays and straights is that no matter how hard you try, a man cannot get another man pregnant, that has to mean something. Thats the thing that makes me think the way I do.

---

If the main purpose of marriage is to have kids and that's why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, then how can you say that straights who have no intention of having kids and may in fact have had surgery to prevent having kids should be allowed to get married? Think about it, rat: other than the sexuality of the parties to the marriage, there is no difference in that surgically-altered straight couple and a gay couple. So why are the two straights who are determined to not have kids good enough for marriage but the two gays are not good enough?

quote:

---

To me, a family is all about trying to make one, having one, and then caring for one. There is something special about a child that lives in a happy home, that has his/her natural mother and father.

---

But what about people who adopt? Can't a kid be just as happy with adoptive parents as he or she could be with natural parents? I have an uncle who was adopted by my grandparents and he's one of the happiest people I know. By all accounts he had a lovely childhood. I don't think it's fair to imply that he would have been happier with his natural parents.In my life, I've only known two gay couples and one gay individual who've reared kids. Each case involved one kid, and all are grown now. The gay individual's kid grew up to be a drug dealer (his father was one also) for several years until he got serious about his education and quit dealing. One of the couples had a girl who is now studying music at the Julliard School. The other couple had a son who is now an Ole Miss med student.So that's three children of gays I've known, 100% of whom have gone to college and 66% of whom would have to be characterized as high achievers. Those percentages certainly wouldn't hold for the kids of straights I've known; they wouldn't even hold for the young adults in my own family.I realize this is all anecdotal but I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply trying to show that gays can be just as effective as straights at parenting. Of course they can't produce the kids themselves, but until straight people quit making babies that they don't want I say thank God someone is out there who will take care of those kids.

quote:

---

One would argue that if I do not accept gay marraige, then I do not accept gays, but I have outlined why I feel the way I do in this post pretty clearly, and it is not some predjudice, bigotted, religious reasnoning. It is just who and what we are. How we survive from one generation to the next.

---

You don't have to keep repeating that, rat, I'm taking you at your word. I think prejudice does have something to do with your opinion but I believe that you honestly try to leave prejudice out of it. The trouble is, regardless of the fact that gays can't reproduce by themselves, there is simply no way you can say that straights are good enough for marriage but gays aren't without causing some degree of offense.From the perspective of the legal system, marriage is nothing more than a contract between two consenting parties. There is nothing in that contract about reproduction. Therefore I don't see how the ability to reproduce can be legally imposed as a requirement for marriage, and if it isn't to be imposed then how is it that gays aren't good enough to participate in marriage?People who have committed murder - even mass murder - are allowed to get married (Scott Peterson got married a few months ago as I hear). People who've been convicted of child rape are allowed to get married. People who've been convicted of any crime you can think of are allowed to get married. All of these people are good enough for marriage so long as they're straight, but law-abiding gays are just shit out of luck cuz they're not good enough for marriage. I don't think there is any argument that can be made to show that this situation is fair.

quote:

---

Many other supposedly bible experts would say that God does consider the act of being gay a sin. That doesn't make you any better or worse than any other sinner.

---

Ah, but it does too. It says that my sin is so terrible that I'm not good enough for marriage, but none of the other sins are so bad as to render a straight person not good enough for marriage.

quote:

---

By your way of thinking we should make all drugs legal, and raise the speed limit to infinity.

---

I have mixed feelings about the legalization of drugs, but clearly removing speed limits puts innocent people at risk. How exactly would allowing gay marriage be putting any innocent person at risk?

quote:

---

One does not choose to be black.

---

Neither does one choose to be gay. I certainly didn't choose it, and the insinuation that I did is insulting, whether you mean it that way or not.

quote:

---

I do not apprciate the comparason, and I bet that many black people wouldn't like it either.

---

I know many black people don't like it, but why should that stop me? Blacks set the paradigm for civil rights struggles. If they don't want other people to follow the same pattern they did then perhaps they should have been willing to accept the second-class status that the good, white, heterosexual Christian citizens wanted then to accept. They didn't accept it, and in fighting it they set a pattern. If they don't like to see others following that same pattern, then too bad for them.

quote:

---

Then you go one to say that gay marraige should be allowed. I'm confused. And remember, I don't really think it is a moral issue with me.

---

You asked where I get my morals and I told you. I don't want to impose my morals on anyone else, but I can't see how my getting married to the person I love is imposing anything on anyone. Are you saying that my marriage would be an imposition on you? Is Scott Peterson's marriage an imposition on you? How?

quote:

---

Your either gay, or your not.

---

Then why did you earlier characterize it as a choice?

quote:

---

Don't tell me he is bi-sexual, because if he was, he would have found a woman for himself that he could love for the rest of his life, and a woman who would accept him as bi-sexual.

---

I didn't say he was bi, in fact I said quite the opposite by saying that he knew the marriage couldn't really make him happy. But there's something you seem to be missing - many of us gays can perform with a female. I did it several times when I was young cuz I didn't want people to know I was gay.The only choice I ever made was to not live my life in the closet. I could have easily done so but I didn't think it would be right. I certainly would never be able to marry a woman and live a lie. That would violate that personal moral code you were asking me about.

quote:

---

Hell no, I like nascar, and I will do what pleases me, regardless of what the society around me thinks is right. They can all kiss my ass.

---

You need to be a little more careful, rat, and think about what you're saying. I've put a lot of trust in your honesty, but when you equate societal disapproval of NASCAR to societal disapproval of gays you're insulting me again. There is no comparison. Being a NASCAR fan does not mean that you're not good enough for marriage, but apparently being gay does.But I like your attitude that says you're going to do what you want to do regardless of what society thinks of it. Would that I had the luxury to just ignore what society thinks and get married anyway. Unfortunately, I have no choice but to care what society thinks.

quote:

---

In my line of thinking, it is more than just love. It's the continuation of a race of humans. You can't make that a small issue.

---

It's not a small issue, but I cannot fathom any threat to the human race resulting from gay marraige. Can you 'splain that one for me?I still think you're a good guy, rat, and that you're trying to be fair. But you need to give this a little more thought. Maybe take a day or two to get back to me; don't feel that it's necessary for you to respond at the earliest possible moment.

I haven't had a lot of time lately, rat, and my time will continue to be limited. I'm responding to this message way out-of-sequence, but I reserve the right to respond to some earlier posts at any time.

quote:

---

So should we make it legal to have multiple wives also?

​

I mean whats the difference, if everyone consents, then its a go.

---

Although I've heard plausible arguments for allowing plural marriages, I'm not yet on board with it. I'm dealing with the gay marriage issue right now; inter-racial marriage has already been tackled (I certainly would have supported that back when everyone thought it was insulting to God) and any other changes to marriage are for another day. As I've said before many times, I'd sooner have the government out of the marriage business entirely and instead allow people to make whatever social contracts (civil unions or whatever) they wish, so long as they don't violate the rights of anyone else. Let the churches control what is and isn't a marriage within their own faith.Think about that, rat. Why get the government involved at all? This change to marriage is bound to happen, and more changes will follow. Marriage was once nothing more than a property arrangement, as you've been discussing with some others in this very thread. Look how much it's changed since then, the latest fundamental change having come as recently as the 1960s. Did you expect that everything was just going to stop there? All societies between those ancient ones and ours today have been allowed to change the meaning of marriage as the needs of those societies changed. Did you expect that all of these changes would just suddenly stop?Why should the government be responsible for any of these changes? Why not leave it up to the churches and simply let people make their civil unions or whatever style agreements they want, so long as they don't abuse their children or in any other way violate the rights of others? What compelling interest does the state have in endorsing the religious aspects of marriage?-------------------------------------I wish you'd go back and re-read some of your posts over the past 2 or 3 pages. You've been very insulting, whether you meant to be or not. I don't want to have to point it out to you. I want you to find it, but be advised I'm not going to let the issue drop. I'm still taking you at your word that you have no ill will or feelings of superiority over gay people. So do me the favor of looking back and seeing what you've said that I thought was insulting. You don't have to offer any explanation, just see if you can point anything out. I promise that if you can point it out, I'll keep the discussion friendly and won't get more than mildly angry with you.Please do me this favor, rat.

holmes writes me:

quote:

---

It sounds to me like a cop out, and it raises serious doubts in my mind whether people that claim the above would have been for interracial relationships any more than plural marriage.

---

Well, of course I don't know for sure what I'd have done if I'd been older at the time when miscegenation was the big marital issue, but since I've always been sensitive to civil rights matters I think I'm on safe ground assuming that I'd have been in support. I'm also not sure how I would have felt about gay marriage had that issue come up in discussion concurrent to miscegenation. Since the Stonewall incident is roughly contemporary with Loving vs. Virginia (if I remember my legal history correctly), it's conceivable that the issue might have been discussed by someone somewhere. But I think it'd have been crazy to support gay marriage at that time - at least actively - and would have done nothing but drive further away anyone you might have been trying to convince that there was no harm in miscegenation.In other words, I'm "not on board" with either the pro- or the anti- just now. If someone I cared about was in a Jules & Jim type relationship and seemed to be happy I would certainly support his or her right to pursue that relationship, even with legal recognition, but as yet I don't know any such person and so I'm not particularly concerned. My mind is still open to whatever might come up, but I'm not going to risk freaking out the Christians anymore than necessary just now. Doing so wouldn't do much to serve either cause, at least as I see it.

riVeRraT writes me:

quote:

---

I want you to know, that I really have been praying to God about this for a long time. I do not get any answers. It is one of the few things that I do not get an answer for. That fustrates me.

---

Is it possible that God in fact is telling you something, like maybe that he trusts your judgement? You've been opposed to gay marriage for a long time, but you say you've been thinking about it a lot. Why do you think you can't get it out of your mind? I've been talking with you for years and I don't have any sense that you're gay, so I don't think that could be the reason. Maybe you keep thinking about it because you really have been wrong, and God won't let you quit thinking about it. Maybe he's continuously challenging you. Is that possible?

quote:

---

#1, since I am not gay, I need to some how understand why people are gay. This has not been explained rationally yet, and has not been proven in science yet.

---

When you put it that way, rat, I don't really have a satisfactory answer. I don't really know what causes it - probably a variation in the brain's development, but I truly have no idea. What I can tell you, with the very certainty with which I know my own name, is that I never made any choice. God made me this way. I've been attracted to other boys for as long as I can remember; when I hit puberty boys were absolutely all I could think about, and I thought about them every bit as intently as straight boys thought about girls. But I couldn't tell anybody. Not anybody at all. Even on the rare occassion that I might get to have some fun with another guy, I had to treat it as though it was almost accidental and didn't mean anything, when I knew damn well it meant everything. So even when I got to "do it", I didn't get to talk about it. It was too shameful.

quote:

---

Is it possible that if you were born gay, that there may have been an experience that turn you gay that you were not aware of?

---

That would be some sort of so-called "repressed memory" and I'm not sure I believe in such a thing. The science seems dubious to me. But even if there were something to the idea of a non-remembered incident that made me gay, why should that have any bearing on the way I'm treated by the state? Why should that affect whether or not I'm allowed to marry for love?

quote:

---

Tell me, do you think as a Christian, should I accept gay marriage or not?

---

Let me put it this way: the more Christians like you do come to accept it the more likely it is that my faith in God might be restored.I can't tell you why you should do it from a Christian standpoint better than arachnophilia can so I'll defer to him on that point.I would like to thank you again, rat, for keeping your mind open.

Please read this article from the Indianapolis Star about a real-life Brokeback Mountain-type situation, only one where the two do get together and operate a ranch and raise kids. This one ends in a different type of tragedy, one which shows why this fight over gay marriage is so important.Please read it.

riVeRraT writes me:

quote:

---

Do you think that it is fair that you place that responsibility on me?

---

That's not what I meant to do, sorry. I'm simply saying that if Christians would become more accepting and stop insisting that our secular laws follow their religious beliefs and traditions, I would become much more open to any message a Christian might have for me, just as I am in fact more open to any message when it comes from someone who accepts me as his or her equal. If someone feels that I'm not entitled to something that he or she is entitled to based on something other than merit, I will almost certainly reject any message they might have because such a message would necessarily be tainted by bigotry.I'm trying to emphasize to you that I'm not challenging what you believe, rat, I'm challenging your right to put that belief into law. If you can't provide secular reasons for opposing gay marriage then you shouldn't oppose it so far as secular law is concerned.It's not fair to subject me to your religious beliefs, whatever they are. I should have the right to pursue my own happiness in whatever way I choose so long as I don't hurt you or anyone else. If I marry another man, you won't suffer one whit. Why should you oppose it?Can't you see that you're passing judgement when you do oppose it, rat? Didn't Jesus himself say something about passing judgement on your fellow man?

quote:

---

I do not see how I could possibly think that way, because I am 99.99% sure that God is against it.

---

God may indeed be opposed to it, although I wouldn't be quite that sure. The question is whether you think God would want you to make that judgement for him; and I would bear in mind the fact that, as you say, this is one of the rare times that God has not given you much direction when you've prayed about it. It really does sound to me like God might be leaving this one up to your own judgement, rat, allowing you to make up your own mind.

quote:

---

What I am trying to define, is why I am against it in my heart, and do I have a right (or logical reason other than God) to force my moral beliefs (no matter where they come from) on the gay nation.

---

Well, we're hardly a nation. We're quite a small minority, in fact. Which is one more reason we don't stand a chance of controlling anything, so there's really no reason to be afraid of us.I think that the Supreme Court should rule on this issue. No minority group, especially such a small one as ours, should be subject to majority rule regarding their basic civil rights.I want to thank you for that last quote, but I also want to skin you alive for some of the insensitive things you've said in this thread - and not just to me. Your redeeming grace is your basic attitude as reflected in that quote. So long as you retain it, you might be an insensitive clod but you're still a decent guy. You are one of those rare Christian opponents with whom I feel like I can conduct an honest dialogue on an issue like this.