The Truth about Religion & Homophobia 

I think my main problem with this article can be summed up in this quote: "But the "gay rights" movement does not want tolerance; they want nothing less than forced acceptance of their lifestyle as normal, healthy, and moral; a position most religious people must reject for themselves and their children."

I have always separated homophobes from people who believe it to be religiously wrong. I understand the point of the article, that non-supporters of same-sex marriage are demonized, and that supporters of it are trying to impose their views on others by making it legal. But let me make this clear and I can only speak for myself here, but still: I do not wish to "corrupt" a religious person with my views on moral issues. I often ask ones against homosexuality to explain why, and I may argue with them, but in an exploratory manner more than anything else. In the end, it's their right to believe anything is wrong. What I dislike about this article (and just to add, Rush Limbaugh) is how it clearly misses the argument of the other side completely and immediately decides it's wrong without fully understanding it.

I also have an issue with this quote.

"Are there intolerant religious people? Of course, but they represent only a small minority not fully observing a basic tenet of both Judaism and Christianity, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Their religious practice, however flawed, at least constrains their behavior, and in the long run it is an effective tool for improving their humanity.

On the other side, without religion as the basis for the public moral culture, what will constrain behavior and lead to an improvement of humanity?"

I have long argued that religion CAN BE used for a BASIS in morality, but should not and IS not the only basis of morality. I disagree that the intolerant religious improve their humanity because the intolerant religious are completely different from the tolerant religious. This quote makes it seem as if being intolerant but religious is better than being secular and tolerant, which I believe is simply not true. Intolerant religious people is the perfect example of why religion cannot and should not be the soul basis for morality. If you used the Bible for all your morals, society would be filled with mysoginists and slave-owners. Similarly, just because you're secular doesn't mean you don't have morals. This quote bothered me gravely.

As this person admitted that there are religious intolerant folks, I will equally admit that there exists secular intolerant folks, but much like the author of this article I'm sure, I do not associate with the intolerant, secularist or otherwise. But this author also implies that secular intolerance is worse than religious intolerance, and I beg to differ. Intolerance is intolerance, no matter where it stems from.

Additionally, while the majority of America is Christian (roughly 76%), the number that oppose same sex marriage is significantly lower (59% according to CBS poll). Of course, that is still the majority, but allow me please to list a few other statistics from 1948, 1961 and 1991 respectively.

1948: Roughly 90% of Americans opposed interracial marriage when it was legalized by the Supreme Court of California, and California became the first state that allowed loving, committed interracial couples to marry.

1967: Roughly 72% of Americans were still opposed to interracial marriage. This was the year when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage everywhere in the U.S.

1991: Those opposed to interracial marriage became a minority for the first time.

In 1999, a majority of Canadians supported same-sex marriage, a majority which still exists today.

Gay marriage will not effect the religious if it is legalized, and the religious can continue seeing it as a sin. I understand how it's a blow to those against homosexuality because as the article states it will mean that it's "publicly sanctioned" but all the public is sanctioning is the right to free practice. Besides, there are plenty of other "publicly sanctioned" sins that I rarely hear argued about, such as gambling. Secularism, while a minority, still exists, and we still have as much a right as you do to pursue happiness. In a way, it's a clash of religions. But a good number of people see nothing morally wrong with homosexuality, and in addition to that it's economically beneficial to our society.

I have always supported same sex marriage, and the legal rights they entail, and I have always supported a church's right to refuse to marry a gay couple, should they so choose. Because THAT is the church's choice. However, as far as legal rights are concerned, if two people regardless of sexuality wish to marry, they should be granted all the legal rights that entails.

For now, I'm willing to compromise with the religious and accept a civil unions law in place of a marriage law, simply so they can at least share the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. I understand that marriage is holy to religious people, however the holy institution of marriage has been defiled for years by highly publicized, twenty-four hour celebrity marriages in Vegas. But anyways...

All in all, I DO understand the point of that article, and I do understand that sometimes the religious feel like they're being attacked by gay rights supporters and may fear for their rights to practice their religion. I understand that the issue is that it will be publicly sanctioned more than anything else. I understand the author is far from homophobic, and is not judging homosexuals.

But I still disagree, and I hope my reasons above were clear enough.

I agree with you Cinders but seriously coming from someone who literary lives with religious people they are all like BAWWW!!!111 GAY MARRIAGE CAN'T BE LEGALIZED!!!! or BAWWW!!!!111 TRANSGENDERS CAN USE THE BATHROOMS NOW THERE GONNA RAPE ME!!!!!! It can get pretty dumb and whats even worse I fully support lgbt community and I am an asexual aromantic.