I must address my first comment to No Trust. First off, there are several laws that discriminate homosexuals besides marriage. Several states have anti-sodomy laws directed specifically at gays, and just last year near where I live they ran a campaign to legalize discrimination against gays as a way to prevent 'criminals from entering the education system'. Yea, right. Luckily, it didn't pass, but that is besides the point.

Great essay, it definately helps get debates flowing ^^;

You have a good point. I liked this essay.

Damn. I sometimes hate discussing this issue because I feel so strongly about it. I'm Christian myself, Catholic actually... and while I'm bisexual, I never realized that in the eyes of the Bible it was considered wrong. My elder sister was the one who enlightened me - what a lovely shock *that* was. Sigh. Anyway... moving on...

I really like your conclusion and mentions of love throughout. Overall... nice job.

As soon as I saw your name, I knew what this would be about. Wait, that sounds like I'm stalking you. I'm not.

I agree with you completely, and congratulations at being able to look at the reasons some people are anti-gay. I'm one of the loud-mouthed ones on the other side of the spectrum. I don't think I CAN accept people being homophobic, and I can be quite...um...vicious and argumentative at times. This has nothing to do with the essay.

Anyway, yes, well written, I agree with your opinions, and that is all.

There are no laws that I am aware of in America that prevent homosexuals from getting jobs, moving in together, owning property, or engaging in any other non-coercive activity. Individuals may discriminate against homosexuals and refuse to accept homosexuality as normal, do business with them, etc. This is not a violation of rights. Contrary, it is a violation of rights to insist that individuals conform to the views of those who see nothing wrong with homosexuality. Individuals should not have to change their entire worldview—their heritage, their cultural, religious, moral beliefs—to conform to socially-acceptable norms, whether they be those of self-aggrandizing traditionalists or self-styled progressives.

The issue at hand is not whether homosexuality is good or bad. That is entirely irrelevant. I do not approve of homosexuality, nor am I a relativist. But vices should not be crimes unless they are vices that involve initiating force against someone else (for instance, someone who gets a kick out of rape certainly cannot indulge that vice without violating the rights of others). As long as homosexuals leave me alone, don't try to steal my property, don't point guns at me, don't lay their hands on me, or infringe on my sovereignty in any other way, I could care less what they do in private or whether two (or more) of them call themselves married. Currently there is a very passionate and equally worthless debate on whether homosexuals should get the legal privileges that heterosexual couples get from official, licensed marriage. But it is precisely the fact that government is involved in marriage at all that this issue is a problem.

I acknowledge that this is a problem that began with social conservatives. As far as I am aware, in America, the whole involvement of the State with marriage goes back to Ohio, which began requiring marriage licenses as a measure to prevent whites from eloping with blacks. As a strict secessionist (in that I believe in divorcing myself as far as possible from government), if I ever get married, I intend not to involve the state in it at all—the vows legitimately concern only the couple involved. If the government does not view such a union as “legitimate” or “legal” for its own purposes, so much the better. I suggest that if homosexuals are truly interested in any kind of real freedom that they adopt this position.