ah yes, larissajo,
I indeed do not know what it is to walk in your skin, and probably never will. To sympathize or perhaps a better word empathize is without doubt tough in general. I am fortunate enough to be on the "majority" side pertaining to this issue (though not on this web site). I do, however, have some friends of mine who struggle with homosexual attractions. I also have a friend who had chosen a sex change. He called it, "transvestite" I don't know if that is the same thing you mean by "transsexual."? He experienced a dynamic life change, which led him back to being a man and now happily married to his wife of 20+ years (sorry I am not sure the exact years). He had always had struggles with same sex attraction growing up, and led him eventually to want a sex change and to pursue the operation which they offered at that time. But before the operation took place, he had a dynamic life changing experience. If you are interested at all his story it is online at syrogers.com.
Also, there is psychological research that says, a boy/man needs several years (I think the number was 15 years) of good male to male bonding (without sex) more along the lines of good friends or best friends to develop into manhood (including same sex attraction). I consider this a substantial find in science, and this actually supports the transition my friend Sy had.
I wish I could be more empathic, but understanding where a person is coming from is tough and so it is hard to obtain. I do have one question: Is life all about the pursuit of happiness? (though it is one of our rights).
And now to express my concern about somethiing you mentioned:
"Imposing the consequences of one's beliefs on others of different beliefs is a barbaric act." I honestly fear the consequences of such a statement. I fear it because of this reality: our beliefs never just affect ourselves. For example, person A is tolerant of person B; however, person B believes it good to kill person A. Person A suffers the consequence of person's B belief. (I am not comparing homosexuality to murder) I am merely pointing out the fact that tolerance (as defined today: "believing another person's beliefs to be equally truthful.") is self-controdictory.
So unfortunately, it is barbaric to force submission. But even in our efforts to allow people freedom of choice we will find that there are some who will abuse such freedom at the expense of other people dealing with the consequences.
As far as morality goes we can be confident of this truth: Cause and effect (this is a law of nature, although not positive, I think it belongs to thermodynamics): our actions as humans will carry with them unavoidable consequences.
So we have to as a society draw a line for morality otherwise we will suffer at the hands of those who will abuse its lack of for a platform towards tyranny. Which then will throw out all of our rights.
BTW, richardn, you can choose your sex. I am a transsexual and have found happiness in my own skin for the first time in my life. I know what discrimination is. You can judge all you want but until you have walked a month in my skin, you have no idea.
Unfortunately, richardn, morality is a useless word. It means nothing. Morality is nothing more than what the user defines. There is no such thing as an absolute morality. If you define something as wrong then you have assigned it a moral value. Someone else may have assigned it the oposite moral value. So to use the words, "comes down to an issue of morality" really is meaningless. Yes, who you choose to have sex with is a choice. One can choose to have sex with someone they are attracted to or to someone the society defines as "correct." For the people who have opposite sex attractions that is a "good" thing in our present society. For the people who have same sex attractions it is considered a "bad" thing by many judgemental people who wish to impose their control over others in the name of their beliefs. Imposing the consequences of one's beliefs on others of different beliefs is a barbaric act. That is one of the reasons Madison and Jefferson argued for seperation of church and state. In the times of our founding fathers many preachers were trying to control not only their own congregations but also the populace in general. I guess what goes around comes around. We are back in the cycle where powerful preachers are trying to dictate the rules of conduct for everyone, whether these people are followers or not. It is a great way to expand their power not to mention their ability to raise money. If it were up to me church size would be limited but that would be no more fair than the preachers efforts to control national conduct.
Who can decide better then ourself? That mind set will lead to a world of stupid mistakes a person never had to commit if they only had wiser people helping them out. Therefore, I think this as an argument for Anything, including homosexuality, is not solid and should not be used.
Another thing is that people cannot equate any form of sexuality with gender or color. IT IS NOT THE SAME THING. Every time a human decides to have sex, they chose, Every time a person decided to be black or female, oh wait, they didn't get to choose. Homosexuality comes down to an issue in morality whether accepted or unaccepted.
Good point, singhtjunior. I should rephrase my previous comment to say between consenting adults only!
The government obviously should step in if an adult is trying to marry a minor. (sick!) It is neither consenting nor legal. Not to mention it's predatory. I get sick to my stomach even just thinking about that scenario. Which brings me to your other comment, about polygamy. I agree with you wholeheartedly. In polygamous communities, like fundamentalist Mormon churches, those kinds of marriages are really a coverup for child abuse! (The abuse of power you mentioned.) It's often young teenage girls, girls as young as 14, being forced by her family or church to marry men much older than them. Who often have other wives already, which they took by the same method. In most cases of polygamy, it is also not consentual because the teenaged girl had no say. Not to mention that she is too young to make that decision if she were to have a say. Therefore, polygamy should also be illegal as well.
I rephrase my comment to say that the government has no right to tell consenting adults that they can't be married. But it does have the right to prevent marriages with minors, since child abuse is a crime.
The marriage is a state's affair, and it should be up the people of the state to define its boundaries. I can understand your argument about same sex couple, but there has to be a limit on polygamy. Otherwise it will lead to exploitation and abuse of power. The age should be another factor -- below a certain age people are not supposed to be married. So the state's statutes can not be substituted by complete anarchy. The statues should be respectful and non-discriminatory.
Who decides? The people who seek power. The people who believe they speak for God. The people who decide we should invade other countries with no reaason. It is all the same. Having power over others is an aphrodesiac for some. It is a more powerful drug than heroin or crack. If we locked up the power seekers instead of the potheads, we would have a much more peaceful, sane society. Of course we would have to find preachers who preach the gospel for all the vacant pulpits. We would have to find public servants to fill all the empty seats in government. We would probably have to rely more on small businesses because of all the vacancies in the world of corporate greed. OH, MY GOSH. It would be Utopia!
Why do people need to get married? I think it is totally irrelevant, why does a piece of paper matter? I think real love lies on the committment each person gives to one another. A paper is not going to make your spouse stay with you if you are in a lousy marriage.
Marriage is about living together and working things out together. If one the other one isn't up for that, then why do you want to be in that marriage?