You obviously don't care about the society in which your children and grandchildren will live. You should care, because you have an obligation as a citizen to pass on a healthy, safe enviornment for normal development. Teaching youth that two men smearing excrement on each other is the same as a nuclear family is morally and concretely wrong. However, one has to acknowledge objective truths and concrete morals---and to face reality instead of dwelling in relative libertopia.
What about reaching for the optimum instead of encouraging vices. What benefit will it bring to our children? You encourage that kind of behavior?
Q: Why should society be involved in personal issues such as (marriage, drug use, homosexual sex, etc.)?
A: People exist in society not by convenience but because people are social by nature.
We do not exist well in a vacuum. Part of the function of our society is to maintain norms of interaction that will allow us to survive. We call these norms our culture. Historically, cultures must be based on concrete fundamental truths. They can't be based on the whims of the moment or they will fall apart. In fact, historically, those cultures that have lasted the longest were based on concrete fundamental truths and they fell only when the societies stopped enforcing those rules. To date, only one culture in all of human history has been able to reconstruct itself after it fell, and that was because it returned to those concrete fundamental truths and cherished them until it could regain its land. I'm talking about Jewish culture and Israel.
America was founded on concrete fundamental truths. France was not. Both governments had similar ideals, but America had a culture to sustain those ideals and the government has been working here for over 250 years. You can't say the same for France because their culture is not based on concrete fundamental truths. If America lets those truths go, we will go the way of France, which is headed for the same fate as Babylon or Ninevah or Rome or any other ancient culture.
Do you have no better defense of your position than to make up things about those who find a problem with your position and put words in their mouths?
If I ever have children, then I will take the time to teach them what behavior is right and that which is wrong.
However, one has to acknowledge objective truths and concrete morals---and to face reality instead of dwelling in relative libertopia.
So, you assume that because I do not think that the Church should not prohibit private activity that I do not acknowledge objective truths. Why don't you come up with a better argument than, "_______ isn't natural," or "God says ________ is wrong," so the state needs to prohibit it. In Leviticus 19:28, God tells us that people shouldn't tatoo themselves; should the state also prohibit that activity (btw, the argument that, "God says _______ s wrong," is hardly an objective truth)
You should also notice that I say that the state should not force the Church to give "sensitivity" training on homosexuality, because the state has no business telling church what they should teach on matters of morality, ie, freedom of religion.
It is the Church's job to tell, and concince, people that such activities are wrong; it should not attempt to pass this job off to the state, or use the state to accomplish this work.
Q: Why should society be involved in personal issues such as (marriage, drug use, homosexual sex, etc.)?
A: People exist in society not by convenience but because people are social by nature.
Well, this justifies lots of things doesn't it? Where is the point at which society can no longer interfere through means of the state?
There are other and more effective means for discouraging immoral behavior, such as, simple societal opinion on a subject. Society can enforce norms without resorting to the state, which is often less effective than social stigmatization of something, such as homosexuality, drug use, etc.