Wendy wrote:
None of the gay people I know believe that their orientation is a matter of choice. They simply are attracted to people of the same sex as themselves. So, no, I don't agree that the discussion should start at 'personal choice'.
Being attracted to someone is not the same as having a sexual relationship with that someone. If a man is attracted to his neighbor's wife, that's one thing, but if they begin a sexual relationship that's something else altogether. If I admire a friend's new guitar, that's one thing, but if I steal it and treat it as my own that's another thing altogether. This is what's known as "anecdotal evidence," not scientific research. It simply isn't valid.
I have also met gay people who have told me the same thing. I have pointed out to them what I just wrote, that being attracted to a person doesn't mean you should have sex with that person.
This is what I meant when I said that the gay lifestyle is a choice. I did not say that we choose the person or persons to whom we are attracted. It isn't the same thing, although after re-reading my post I can understand why you'd draw that conclusion. I simply wasn't clear on what I was trying to say.
If I met you in person, Wendy, I might be attracted to you. (I figure that's more likely that you being attracted to me. I've seen my own picture.) That would not give me the excuse to pursue you and attempt to begin a relationship with you. In other words, my feelings do not create a "right" for me to do what my feelings want me to do. Feelings are not guides, they're indicators of where we are and where we've been. They're not supposed to be directional markers.
Another point which I rarely hear mentioned is that if we redefine marriage as being between two consenting adults irrespective of their physical genders, we are
making a fundamental change in an institution which has transcended cultures for millenia. Even cultures which established prostitution in the worship of idols defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Cultures where polygamy or polyandry were either allowed or even encouraged still, for the most part, defined marriage as being between man and woman. Plural wives weren't expected or encouraged to engage in sex between themselves any more than plural husbands were.
My point is that if we are going to change this institution, let's examine
why we plan to change it. Is it because of social pressures? If that's the only reason, it's not a sufficient one. Is it for moral reasons? If so, we have to define that moral code and examine its authority. Is it because gays and lesbians are becoming more and more militant and we don't want to start an actual gender war? I sure hope not. That kind of violence would be difficult to stop once it started.
So if you want me to consider same-sex marriage, give me some reasons to do so. I'm not predisposed to agree with your position, but I am willing to listen to what you have to say.
