You're right. Most Americans are quite tolerant, which is why we're sinking into a morass of immorality like the Romans, and we'll wind up in the same place too. In the history books.
So if homosexuality is A-OK, then why not let them get married? That's where the "sanctity of marriage" argument breaks down.
I don't think that gays should be 'married'. Civil unions are okay with me, though.
Nonsense. What homosexuals do to or with each other in no way influences the morality or immorality of the American people. In any event, the Roman comparison is silly. Rome lasted for a 1000 years. If America lasts that long, we should be so lucky.
So if homosexuality is A-OK, then why not let them get married? That's where the "sanctity of marriage" argument breaks down.
I'm fairly neutral on this subject, but I have to ask: How would allowing homosexuals to marry in any way influence heterosexual marriage?
I disagree. My "secular" understanding of "sanctity of marriage" agrees (I think) with the "sacred" understand of it, but I do not share the religious view of homosexual behavior as sin per se.
Naturally, I think the wildly promiscuous sexual behavior by many gays in our country is unfortunate. Plus, I heartily condemn the refusal of the gay community to respond to HIV crisis by adopting epidemiologically prescribed procedures to identify and isolate sexual partners. And I don't disagree that these goings-on in our midst has a generally bad effect on everyone. And I don't think it is appropriate for schools to be actively preaching anything about homosexual sex.
For all this, I am excoriated as a right-wing intolerant homophobe by my own family.
I do not subscribe to some mythical equality of heterosexuality and homosexuality, especially when it comes to marriage. Neither church nor state, in my view, is under any obligation to equalize them.
However, for homosexuals themselves, love and sex are what they are: love and sex. I do not see anything sinful or inherently wrong with homosexual activity.