I’m not quite sure where to go with this question. Firstly, lesbians depress me because those are two perfectly good females that have taken themselves of the dating pool. Well, I say PERFECTLY good, some of them are rather scary. Yikes. Gay men are fine with me because they reduce competition and are often fun to watch in their antics (as in Queer Eye for the Straight Guy or that air traffic controller character in Airplane!).
Seriously, though, I guess I should weigh in as if this were a heavier issue, because it is very real.
Honestly, I don’t think open homosexuality is causing quite as much damage to our society as a lot of people tend to put on. Two men (or women; or a man and a woman, for that matter) having a consensual sexual relationship has ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT on my right to life, liberty, or security. If a homosexual couple wants to be committed to each other, be legally responsible to each other, and bear all the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage, by all means, they should be allowed to!
“But wait, Atari, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman!”
If that’s your religious belief, then that’s fine, just don’t press it upon anyone else. While you’re at it, let me have my science textbooks without a disclaimer, please. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS sacrament, not a LEGAL one. The government has no place to tell me who I can or can not marry, that is only up to me and God. I am of the opinion that we, as a people, should do away with the “legal marriage” idea and replace it with a “civil union” or some such title. A justice of the peace can still officiate a wedding, if you so prefer, but that is up to your RELIGIOUS preference. If you don’t believe that God cares that you were married by a civil judge or a ship’s captain, then that’s your perogative. A judge can issue a legally binding certificate of unity (commonly called a “marriage license”) to those couples that meet certain obvious legal requirements (age, blood separation, etc.), but there should be no requirement that stipulates that a (wo)man can not be legally bonded to another (wo)man. A priest (rabbai, judge, tribal elder, military officer, chaplain, helicopter captain; whoever either holds civil/military command over the sacramental ground or between the couple and God) of the couple’s choosing can then perform a RELIGIOUS ceremony to avow their marriage.
“But wait, Atari, how can it be a religious ceremony if it’s not performed by a religious leader?”
As I alluded to before, I’m using “religion” in this sense to describe any set of values and beliefs you hold to be true. If you believe a priest has a much power to avow a marriage as a civil justice of the peace or a ship’s captain, then that’s between you and your God(s).
“Now, Atari, you just contradicted yourself! You said that the government has no place telling you who to marry and, later in the same paragraph, said that there were ‘certain obvious legal requirements’ to marriage. What gives?”
Seriously? Are you going to call me on that? Anyone below the age of consent (or age of majority, really) should not be allowed to marry. Sexually abusive fathers should not be able to marry their young daughters, just to “make it right.” These are obvious provisions that, unfortunately, any society would have to accept for protection of others’ life, liberty, and security.
As far as consequences from homosexuality, I’m going to assume “negative” consequences. Obviously, there are public displays of affection between homosexuals, and I suppose that more conservative parents would take offense to their children seeing such actions. Frankly, I don’t want to see two guys making out either, but I’m not going to stare at it. Govern yourself, people. I don’t particularly like Emo kids, but I don’t think that shitty bands should be outlawed. Parents can be honest to children, like mine were, saying that they were adults and that children should never engage in such behaviour noting that I would understand when I was older. I honestly think that if everyone had a little more respect for each other, the problem would eliminate itself.
I think the biggest problem facing homosexuals and society, in general, is this so-called “gay pride.” People who are overtly, over-the-top, hilariously gay are setting the equality movement back decades. Martin Luther King, Jr. did so much for equal rights for blacks and minorities because he led PEACEFUL protests, FIRMLY, but RESPECTFULLY, demanding equal treatment. These homosexual “shock mobs” (as I just found out that I like to call them) only succeed in (pardon my French) pissing people off, making more enemies, and detracting any would-be allys from their cause. If you (homosexual “shock mobs”) want to be taken seriously, don’t parade around in drag, leopard print bikinis, or other fetish gear, show us (the heterosexual population) that you are capable of being legitimately respectable, productive members of society. On that note, I’m not saying that there’s no room for flamboyance. I have friends that are very obviously (read: “stereotypically”) homosexual, but it doesn’t mean that they’re not respectable and productive members of society. I’m just saying that what you do behind closed doors is your business, there is no need to make it the world’s.