So I'm stupid and backwards because I believe that the right to life of one person is worth more than the right to convenience of another. In no other case, besides abortion, would this be even an issue. The right to life would always win out. Except maybe when it comes to the right to life of severely handicapped or elderly ill people now. They seem to be going the same way as unborn children.
I happen to have rather granola tendencies, and don't automatically believe everything doctors say. I had my last child at home, with a midwife, for example, and I would definitely do it again. So when all the hype over H1N1 came out, I went on the internet to see if anyone else said different. Turns out, a lot of doctors and other people do think it is not a very dangerous disease. I don't plan on getting vaccinated. Go on facebook, on some of the polls and that would make me stupid, not to mention perhaps even a public menace.
I'm against homosexual marriage. First of all, because you have to redefine marriage. So if you redefine marriage to include homosexuals, now we have to find a new word to describe what marriage used to be? Why not just use a new word to describe couplehood in general? Why get married in the first place? The whole point of getting married is to found a family, not to have sex. If sex didn't create children, there would be no need for marriage at all. Which brings us to present-day society, in which contraceptives provide sex with no children, and abortion takes care of the little oops that happen. No need for marriage. And certainly, fewer and fewer people are getting married, not even when they do have children. Add homosexual "marriage" to that, and high divorce rates, and marriage suddenly doesn't mean much anymore at all, other than a temporary (til differences do us part - not death), public commitment between two people.
Marriage used to be a life-long commitment between a male and a female, with the intention of bringing up any children they might have, together in a stable relationship. Marriage used to make the relationship that much more serious and stable. Marriage and fidelity exist to protect the children. Cheating on a spouse doesn't just hurt the spouse, it hurts the children, not to mention the risk of bringing other children into the world outside of the marriage. Divorce hurts children. Growing up in a single-parent home hurts children. These things should be the EXCEPTION not the norm as they are today.
Other than diminishing the sense and good of marriage even more than it has already been since "no-fault" divorce, making homosexual marriage legal automatically makes it illegal to speak out against it, or to say that homosexuality is not good for people. I happen to believe that homosexuals are people suffering from their "condition" for lack of a better word, rather than actually being the fully happy, fulfilled people they claim to be. But in our society, my point of view makes me a homophobe, and I could be sued for hate speech right there.
Funny though, insert alcoholic into that statement and there wouldn't be a problem. Alcoholics have the same tendency to deny they have a problem. But I guess given that alcohol actually impairs your thinking, while homosexuality does not, there is as yet, no alcoholics rights movements. But alcoholism is probably a bad example. It would probably be better to insert bi-polarism into that sentence instead, or something similar. Pedophilism? That would insult the poor homosexuals, yet it is unfortunately very similar. Adults who cannot help but be sexually attracted to children. "It's who they are. They were born that way." Unfortunately for the children, they can't really consent to having sex. My point is, though, even though homosexuals are not criminals (neither are pedophiles, by the way, as long as they are not ACTING on their attractions) if it is socially acceptable and even considered plausible and a GOOD idea for pedophiles to recieve treatment and therapy for their pedophile leanings and perhaps be rid of it, then it should also be plausible for homosexuals to receive treatment and no longer be homsosexual. In fact, I know of a few who have gone that route (despite it being so politically incorrect now) and who are no longer homosexual, and much happier for it. I also know of at least one who wrote somewhere, "If there were a cure for homosexuality, I would be the first to line up." Hence my inpolitically correct opinion that homosexuality is not good for the homosexual. Those who do not wish to be homosexual should not be told to deal with it, embrace it, live it... they should be referred to treatment if they want it. And if one treatment or therapy doesn't work, they should be referred to another. They should have at least the chance to try to be free of it, even if noone can guarantee that they will be.
I can't find any non-christian websites that offer that kind of service to homosexuals. The other websites say therapy is only destructive. I don't see how therapy can be destructive, if it is done properly. It may not work, but it shouldn't hurt the person. Also, it seems to really work only (or mostly) if there is a real conversion to God.
Now, I guess that could really diminish the validity of any kind of therapy if the only way for it to work is if you experience conversion to God.
On the other hand, Alcoholics Anonymous works in the same manner, and I don't know what the success rate is, but I definitely know recovered alcoholics who have also experienced conversion through AA.
In my clinical experience over the past twenty years I have witnessed the resolution of the emotional pain which caused homosexual temptations and behavior in several hundred males and females. Their process of healing occurred, first, through insight-oriented psychotherapy to identify the origins of their conflicts and then through the use of forgiveness and Catholic spirituality. Such a treatment approach is similar in ways to the employment of spirituality in the treatment of substance abuse disorders. In fact, major breakthroughs were made in the management of addictive disorders only after a reliance on God was made the cornerstone of the treatment plan. Prior to that time, traditional psychotherapy alone resulted in minimal improvement. The use of Catholic spirituality in the treatment of homosexuality follows a similar pattern. From : http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3112
So what does that say? Perhaps there are just some things that you need God to get over and noone/nothing else will do. That's an amazing opportunity right there, for homosexuals to be a witness of God's healing power to the rest of us.