@Jazzhead
I don't disagree with much of this, and am fine with the concept of "live and let live" when it comes to people being gay. But I think you're sidestepping a core component of the "gay agenda" that goes beyond just wanting to be left alone.
The truth is that a lot of gays want to use the power of the government to force other people to openly acknowledge that their relationships are no difference than heterosexual relationships. They believe they have the right to compel not just tolerance, but acceptance. It popped up a lot in the gay marriage debate, where some states offered "civil unions", and many gays opposed that. Why? Those unions offered the exact same legal rights. The issue was they wanted everyone else to agree with them regarding morality/normalcy (or whatever you want to call it), and for me, that goes too far.
I opposed gay marriage, and it had absolutely zero to do with religious belief. I'm no more "accepting" or "understanding" of gay relationships/behavior than I am of someone who fornicates with chickens -- I just think it is gross as hell. Now, I think people have the right to be gross. Just because I think something is rather disgusting does not mean I think nobody should be permitted to do it if that's what floats their boat. And honestly, I don't even judge them morally at all. But that doesn't mean I'm not entitled to think it is weird/deviant/gross.
And unfortunately, that's what this has morphed into. Many gays apparently believing that they have the right to force other people to change their moral views and behaviors to recognize them as they wished to be recognized. No longer arguing "just leave us alone" but "you have acknowledge that what we do is no different from what you do." And that's just a bridge too far for me.
Thanks for your response, Major Bill. I understand your perspective, because it used to be my own. For many years, I supported civil unions as conveying similar rights to civil marriage, and viewed them as an acceptable accommodation with traditionalists. I changed my mind, if I recall, when I read the California Supreme Court decision that affirmed the right of gays to marry. Civil marriage isn't just a bundle of legal rights, protections and obligations; it has a value in the larger community as a status worthy of respect. That is, of course, the linchpin of your objection to it - you claim that gays want to "force" others to recognize and respect their relationships.
Well, what's wrong with that? Don't we all seek respect and acceptance, especially when what we seek is objectively virtuous - to live permanently and monogamously with the person we love? I was forced to conclude that civil union status was as repugnant as black and white drinking fountains in the Jim Crow south - separate but equal doesn't cut it.
I understand that you feel differently - some traditionalists are uncomfortable that government "blesses" gay unions with the imprimatur of the word "marriage". Some traditionalists are like that - they want government to conform to their view of the world, and are loathe to accept cultural change. But traditionalists have the same rights as everyone else, no more and no less. Choose your friends, choose your associates, choose your lifestyle and live with the consequences of your actions.
Nowadays, gays want the same respect that Christians want. That's not hard to understand, just as it's not hard to understand why others may find homosexual relationships "gross". I haven't a clue any more than you do what prompts a guy to dig another guy. I don't understand why folks like rap or sushi either. But my attitude is simply this - whether gays (or anyone else) earn my respect is a function of how they conduct their lives. I respect my gay neighbors who've been with each other for over 20 years (and who were just able to marry last year), far more than my Christian neighbor who's now on his third marriage. Just as I respect my Christian neighbor who spends her free time counseling pregnant teens to do the right thing far more than my gay colleague who spends his free time meeting up at bars.
What I oppose is government taking sides and calling my union a marriage and my neighbors' union something else. Separate but equal isn't equal; it is an official acknowledgement that my neighbors' relationship is less worthy of respect and acceptance than mine. But rest assured, no one's "forcing" such acceptance - as it has been seen the time of Jesus, respect must be earned.
