Swift
Yep, it sure is. Why? Because I'm a sinner and need to be saved just as much as a homosexual.
That's ok, I'm sure in about 300-400 years (or who knows only 50), some of the Christian leaders (if Christianity still exists, that is) will apologize for your current behavior. And then everything will be right and forgotten. But you forfet that original sin is a concept invented to uphold the strength of the Roman Catholic Church, and nothing else. If you believe otherwise, you deny the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, or claim that his sacrifice is no longer valid and a new saviour is needed. But I don't think you believe in a second coming, as it is not spoken of in the Bible.
Arwin, if two straight guys were rasing a child they would be brothers, cousins or at least good friends. But NOT in a romantic relationship. So, yeah, I've seen that before and don't have a problem with it.
So, basically, you are not against Same Sex Marriage, so long as it only pertains to the legal aspects of it (guardianship, entitlement to pensions, inheritance - the tax cuts are the least of them). As soon as, however, same sex romance is involved, it is no longer allowed. It is sinful behaviour that must never be accepted by society and must never act as a rolemodel to children, because although it is proven you cannot catch homosexuality, it may lead to further acceptance of the sinful behavior.
Except that you have no right to impose such limitations on others, just as we have no rights to force you to have sex with men only, and only oral. This is not a joke, Swift, I'm being serious. Jews or Muslims have no right to prevent others from eating pork, and Buddhists have no right to prohibit us from eating steak. That's the way a just society in which its people are free functions.
In fact, in my opinion, the only people who forfeit those rights are those who try to cross their boundaries and force their beliefs onto others, thus severely limiting their freedom. The only neutral standard by which such limitations can validly be imposed is by showing that the freedom of some seriously impedes the freedom of others. Homosexuality is not such an issue.
Homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon in species that have an overabundant population, a natural way of curbing the procreation drive, by creating caring members of society who are not themselves primarily interested in procreating, by having their sexual desires redirected. (It is not a coincidence that homosexuality always becomes most prominent at the peaks of civilisation).
You know perfectly well that the Bible wasn't written by God - few modern Christians are dense enough to believe that - and you know all about human fallibility. Take it from this perfectly straight guy with high moral standards that if you open both your heart and your mind to this subject, you will see the error quite soon and quite clear.
This is not different from the repression based on the color of your skin (Pako et al take note), or repession of Protestantism by Catholicism and vice versa. The only difference is that this injustice has been allowed to exist in our society for much longer than either, and that the injustice doesn't seem equally harsh because we are discussing it in relatively civil times in this society, where outright slaughter is thankfully looked down upon (though beatings still occur, because some children of so-called Christians are still taught that gays are sinners, and many still live in fear of being discovered and then losing their job, social status, and so on).
I hope, Swift, that you will understand that I am just a member of society who takes the love thy neighbour part seriously, without believing in any form of reward in the afterlife. I would (and do) fight for your right to believe in exactly the same way. But the boundaries of freedom must be guarded with care - if one neighbour chooses to burn his crop, it is his or her choice and freedom to do so, but if this fire burns down the crop of others, a line must be drawn.
