I don't see how that if I do not personally approve of homosexual behavior, then I am condemning them to celibacy or forcing them into a loveless relationship.
Homosexuals do not require, or are otherwise waiting for, my approval for whatever they want to do in the privacy of their own bedroom, obviously. They don't HAVE TO have my approval, and withholding my approval does not condemn anyone to a life of anything. Each person is responsible for their own life. Loveless? Come on! Sex isn't everything. Certainly a person can enjoy very close, intimate, loving relationships with another special person without having sex.
That's really silly, if you think about it. What about the Bounty survivors? They became stranded on a remote little island, if I remember right, just off the north coast of Australia. As I recall, many died from various causes, and soon the remaining people began intermarrying in incestuous marriages. What if some of the survivors were opposed to that, from a personal moral perspective? Are they then, condemning the others to celibacy or forcing them into a loveless relationship? Certainly not. If there was disapproval, it sure didn't stop many of the Bounty survivors from going ahead and having an incestuous marriage.
Anyway. I don't think I want to go much further with this, because we will undoubtedly disagree. I think that holy matrimony should very much stay a covenant between a man and a woman only. That has been the traditional definition for the covenant of holy matrimony for countless centuries, and it is the covenant designed for the procreation of the species. If gays want to have their own ceremony, nobody is stopping them.
Benefits? What are benefits? Is someone holding out on me? -G- |
