Creatural said:
Completely agree. People should also realize that whether or not homosexuality is "natural" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) is irrelevant to whether it's right or wrong. They seem to forget that mother nature is a complete and total *****. We generally don't imitate the brutality of nature in most things, so why the hell would it suddenly be important in regard to sexual orientation?
However, I do worry that there are certain religious doctrines that will make anti-gay sentiments a lingering phenomena. Everything you described above is pretty much factually true. Consensual homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone. But unfortunately none of that matters to people who think that it's a sin regardless of whether it has bad consequences. Remember that many of these people think that
any sex that is for pleasure rather than procreation is sinful. I just don't see how you can change their minds without violating their right to religious freedom. Some super-progressive types might think that religious freedom is trumped when the traditions it protects involve some form of bigotry, but that argument scares the living bejezus out of me.
Some make the argument that there's weak textual basis for anti-gay sentiments in the Bible (e.g. taking Leviticus out of context), but the fact of the matter is that there's still plenty room in there. (E.g. Paul basically says that Christians should ostracize those who engage in "sexual depravity", and he certainly considers homosexuality to fall under this category.) I don't know very much about the Koran, but my understanding is that it is even more explicitly anti-gay.
As much as we might hate it, they have the right to be as hateful and ignorant as they want, as long as they don't try to violate the rights of others. Though it obviously becomes a lot more complicated when instead of breaking the law, they try to influence it. But thankfully we have the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause, so hopefully the judicial branch will rule against these laws. (And hopefully there will never be enough radicals to actually vote for a congress that would overturn the 14th amendment, but if that ever happens I'd say it's time to get the hell outta Dodge.)
The outcome that I would opt for is simply to declare marriage a religious institution and make it so the government can only give out "domestic partnership" licenses that give the same tax benefits to gay and straight couples. That way gay couples get the same rights and no one can complain about the government attacking marriage. Obviously some people would argue that the government has a duty to "defend marriage", but frankly the government has never historically had a duty to defend cultural institutions, only individual rights, so their argument is crap.
If the definition of marriage is a huge cultural issue then let it play out culturally. Legislation follows culture, not the other way around. I should hope that most gay people don't think they have a right to get married in a church that opposes homosexuality at a doctrinal level, because the government ain't gonna make it happen. To be frank, if someone is gay they probably shouldn't be Catholic, they shouldn't expect Catholicism to change to suit them, and they DEFINITELY shouldn't expect the government to
force Catholics to allow them to marry in Catholic Churches. But I doubt that there are any more than a handful of gay people that think that way, if there are any at all.
