Originally Posted by
MbalmR
My personal opinion is that being gay or lesbian has nothing to do with morality, but is in the genes. No one, in their right mind, would choose a lifestyle that subjects them to a lifetime of cruelty, discrimination, slander, ridicule, or which condemns their souls to eternal damnation.
For members of the clergy weighing in here (and I thank you for sharing your thoughts, truly I do,) I must ask: why is it acceptable for clergy to go into a prison to preach to murderers and rapists, apparently accepting those sins as "forgivable?" Is it perhaps because the sinners are incarcerated and can't go out to do anymore damage, thus making them worthy of the time and effort it takes to get them to "find God?"
How can you justify "saving" a felon, despite his/her morally reprehensible acts against humanity, while holding the "sins" of gays/lesbians to the same standards as murderers? Gays and lesbians are being honest about what's in their hearts; most felons are not. They are con artists. There is no grace in a prison. Is it not also true that gay and lesbian members of the Christian faith accept and worship God just as fervently as do heterosexuals? Isn't it pretty obvious that vicious felons "find God" in prison because they think it makes them more eligible to get out sooner and because they have nothing better to do? So on the side of religion, I say there's an awful lot of hypocrisy in play here, without even getting into the sexual abuse scandals or crazy sects that condone bigamy and child rape "according to scripture."
From a legal standpoint, in the United States, if there is a domestic dispute, the only recourse any couple has in a court of law is if they're married, and that's not always a bargaining chip with issues like health insurance or Power of Attorney matters. Even heterosexual couples don't reap the benefits of "marriage" when insurance companies hold all the power to deny coverage, and when situations like the Terry Schiavo debacle go to court. In a heterosexual union, the law says that the spouse has the final say as to what happens, but the courts are still batting that issue around like it's a tennis ball. Either the spouse has the final say or he/she doesn't. I don't see how you can have it both ways.
It's a complicated debate, and anyone who bothered to read my entire post deserves a good stiff drink and a neck massage, but thanks for listening to my little and loud opinions.