JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: The One and Only Mo on March 05, 2010, 10:18:44 AM
-
I figure if 2 members of the same sex can get married, pretty soon marriage will encompass more than just two people. Eventually a group of sicko perv (probably leftist-jews since it all starts with them) will say that the 3 of them are in love and if 2 people (of the same or opposite gender) can get married then why can't we? Once the line is drawn at gay marriage we will see multiple partner marriages, the age for consent will probably go down little by little, and there might be even be an Islamic President in the future who claims he's Chr - - - wait a sec - - - .
-
That is the next thing after gay "marriage" bisexual group "marriage". Well people, enough tolerance of the intolerable, time to get OUTRAGED and take our society back from the sickos!
-
That is the next thing after gay "marriage" bisexual group "marriage". Well people, enough tolerance of the intolerable, time to get OUTRAGED and take our society back from the sickos!
Just think about how much lawyers will make over "group parenting" custody lawsuits.
-
I envision that the sickos will press for marriage with animals... And legalized bestiality... Why not? Without Torah there is no ethics.
-
I envision that the sickos will press for marriage with animals... And legalized bestiality... Why not? Without Torah there is no ethics.
We can only hope that real Christians will draw the line somewhere.
-
What next after marrige, oh let me guess. Hmm maybe adoption of an innocent child, oh wait aren't they doing that already. ::) Then hmm maybe Lion Dancing. ;D
-
The realistic next perversion to be sanctioned is pedophilia. It is on the edge now, and largely universally frowned upon and legally punished but there are academics starting to justify it. Years ago there was a study done that concluded it did not hurt children. Yeah right.
That Michael Jackson could be honored upon death is a first clue.
-
The realistic next perversion to be sanctioned is pedophilia. It is on the edge now, and largely universally frowned upon and legally punished but there are academics starting to justify it. Years ago there was a study done that concluded it did not hurt children. Yeah right.
That Michael Jackson could be honored upon death is a first clue.
Have you heard of the Man/Boy Love Association?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association)
-
I think pedophilia is being encouraged in the media.
-
Next thing you know they'll leaglize child marriages.
-
The realistic next perversion to be sanctioned is pedophilia. It is on the edge now, and largely universally frowned upon and legally punished but there are academics starting to justify it. Years ago there was a study done that concluded it did not hurt children. Yeah right.
That Michael Jackson could be honored upon death is a first clue.
Have you heard of the Man/Boy Love Association?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association)
Moshe, in the Gay Pride Parade in San Francisco Nambla used to be given a spot in the parade. I know of a guy who was an heir of a major corporate fortune who used to go to India and buy himself a 13 year old boy as a sex slave and bring him back to the USA. His neighbors knew all about it and thought it was cute. If I had heard about it while it was going on I would have paid him a visit myself. Fortunately the pedophile died of unrelated causes.
-
Kids. That's what's nxt. And islamic like marraige
-
Islamic thighing. Google and puke. The Ayatollah promoted it.
Yes, group marriage is the next foreseeable advance of immoral society.
-
Yes, I said the age of consent will go down. It will keep going down. Sickos, huh?
-
I think there is already an establishment of group marriages (several husbands and several wives).
-
I envision that the sickos will press for marriage with animals... And legalized bestiality... Why not? Without Torah there is no ethics.
I completely agree with you that all true morals come from Torah.
-
I am sure many demoncrat members of Congress are longing to legalize pedophilia, polygamy and bestiality.
-
Speaking from experience, gay relationships lead to what most other relationships these days lead to: heartache. Saying that gay marriage is going to lead to marriage between animals is just DUMB and beneath us. So attack me for what you will, but this forum has value and insinuating insanity makes us look like cranks. I'd like to think that more people could be against homosexuality and still be a moral, logical thinking person with some compassion for their neighbor. The next time a post degrades into something like this one has, I want you all to ask yourselves some questions:
--What if this were me or my child? And if you say this couldn't be your child, you aren't informed. What if I were a person struggling with these thoughts and I came to JTF, would I stay or would I go?
Just some thoughts. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, it's even better to use it intelligently.
I want to point out that when people use words about homosexual persons who are enemies to our people--all of us, I can completely relate; it evokes hatred, it's normal. So while I'm biased by having lived with the problem, something most of you haven't, I'm not a moron, nor am I unaware of what reading this kind of crap does to a decent person who is looking for answers.
Most of you should know a lot better.
-
JTFEnthusiast, I don't think most gay people would ever engage in something like bestiality or pedophilia, etc. However I don't think that's what this thread is about. I took it to be about the general moral decline of society and the lessening of all sexual taboos, homosexuality being one of the milder ones in comparison to some others.
-
JTFEnthusiast, I don't think most gay people would ever engage in something like bestiality or pedophilia, etc. However I don't think that's what this thread is about. I took it to be about the general moral decline of society and the lessening of all sexual taboos, homosexuality being one of the milder ones in comparison to some others.
I disagree Ruby. More importantly, I do appreciate your response. If people do feel that homosexuality will lead to the legalization of beastiality (yes, this was stated), then I would like them to become educated.
'Educated' doesn't mean 'agree with.' I am not interested in shoving PC down anyone's throat. I won't have it shoved down my throat< i'm not going to do it to anyone else. There is a difference between being PC and grossly misinformed.
I am personally against 99.99 percent of people who say they are for gay rights. The gay rights movement thinks it shines when it spits at traditional values. Gay leaders are often exactly what people on this forum say.
That being said, I read the thread very carefully before I responded.
-
Sorry to burst your bubble JTFEnthusiast... But...
If there is no moral reason for marriage, and it only serves as a legal document concerning a perverse sexual arrangement, then what is the purpose? Why do gays need to call their relationship marriage? Is there any other reason than to seek divine approval of this relationship? This is the reason the Torah proscribes marriage, it is the fufillment of the contract between a man and a woman which makes sexual contact OK, and it also establishes certain legal and emotional responsiblity on the participants of the marriage.
Why does a relationship which can have no children, which is against the mandates of G-d, according to the Torah which was given to the Jewish people at the Mountain, why does this relationship need to call itself in the name of marriage? I have been all supportive of the idea of civil unions, which are legal ways of establishing a relationship...
By why do gays who don't have this divine need to procreate, because they decided to follow their desires instead of the word of G-d? What in heavens name do they think? Marriage has been and should be a scared union, not some document which legalizes sodomy...
If there is no law preventing this kind of desecration then it is 100% logical that all laws which regulate morality can be questioned. Why not have sex with an animal? There are probrobly some very nice bestial people, who hold good jobs, and donate money and blood to others. There are probrobly some very nice pedophiles also, who look like your neighbors and shop in your markets. They all are people too, and why should there be laws which prevent them from "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of their happiness"?
I am not saying that gays also are bestial pedophiles... But if there is no moral laws, as I said without Torah there are no morals, then anything goes. This includes murder, idolatry, and sexual immorality... The big three cardinal sins...
-
Muman, I didn't read past the first line initially because what you said in your first sentence, in your attempt to paraphrase me, I never said and don't think. So coming at me like you're all tough when you have it wrong from the start is a way for me to not bother reading anything else you have to say.
Now that I have read your entire post, your protestations would be better served to someone else.
Why? I haven't made a point in favor of ONE thing that you articulate in your entire post--not one!
My criticism of your ranting and conflating homosexuality with a teleology in beastiality is what's being addressed. Your entire post shows that instead of thinking about my commentary, you reacted to every thing that pisses you off about the gay right's movement. Unfortunately, that has absolutely not one iota to do with my comment.
-
Muman, I didn't read past the first line initially because what you said in your first sentence, in your attempt to paraphrase me, I never said and don't think. So coming at me like you're all tough when you have it wrong from the start is a way for me to not bother reading anything else you have to say.
Now that I have read your entire post, your protestations would be better served to someone else.
Why? I haven't made a point in favor of ONE thing that you articulate in your entire post--not one!
My criticism of your ranting and conflating homosexuality with a teleology in beastiality is what's being addressed. Your entire post shows that instead of thinking about my commentary, you reacted to every thing that pisses you off about the gay right's movement. Unfortunately, that has absolutely not one iota to do with my comment.
I read your post and it seems you did not read mine... Thats a bit unfortunate because I spent good time to write it to explain to you why morality breaks down when the law is changed to allow gays to marry. Holding this belief has nothing to do with my compassion on other people, as I am compassionate even to people who may be gay. I do not discriminate in my compassion nor my charity... If that is what you are implying, believe me, you are wrong.
But compassion is not the issue here. What most of the posters I have read here are posting are the logical conclusions of a morality free society. I have not read hatred, or calling for the death penalty, or whatever... What I have read here are the same conclusions I come to when I think of laws which 'have no victim' which are detrimental to society. Many laws, even for those who commit crimes which are detrimental to society, often are given sentences which are shortened...
Society only survives when there are laws which establish what is true, what is acceptable, and what is right. There will always be some who break the law, and some laws are more important to enforce than others, but the society should not have to legally accept something which is socially wrong. This is why I still am against legalizing drugs, despite the fact that I have had a history with drugs {over 20 years ago}.
I hope that you do not think that I am arguing with you, If you have any questions I would be interested to hear them.
-
It's a bit of a slippery slope. Gay culture is to some degree being normalized and in all types of situations people are expected to not only tolerate but to accept as normal flamboyant behaviors. With that kind of mindset, other deviancies can worm their way in. People who don't like it will be treated as bigots. Many of the same arguments made in favor of accepting gay lifestyles can be made for things like bisexual plural marriage. (It's between consenting adults, etc.)
What you don't seem to understand is that this weakens the moral fabric of the country where this is highly tolerated. Someone who fully accepts one type of sexual sin as normal might be more likely to be open to arguments in favor of other types of sexual sin.
We know that age of consent laws vary by culture and country. Mexico for example tends to see teenagers under 18 as more ready for sexual activity than Americans do, and we are getting a lot more immigration from Mexico. Even worse, we also have a lot of Muslim immigrants who come from cultures where rape of young girls and boys is quite common. There have been pro-pedophile groups attending gay pride parades and this is something you can't really deny. People don't want to accept this, but there have been a long string of movies and tv shows that have had (in a comical context), talking babies that think dirty sexual thoughts. The deviants producing these programs know that American society is not ready for a show that openly promotes pedophilia, but they are slowly desensitizing people to it.
The ultimate aim of liberalism is to put everyone under one world-wide government. Taboos and mores that limit sexual activity are going to be eroded as much as possible to further this goal.
-
Ruby is correct, I started this thread not to contradict homosexuality, yet to show that the world is heading in a direction where everything will be tolerated - - - there will be no line drawn to prevent us from doing ANYTHING. Slippery slope, one thing leads to another etc.
-
Muman,
After my other posts on this forum, do I seem like a person with below average intelligence?
Your posts, including this last one, have nothing to do with my earlier point which was again re: the analogizing of homosexuality with other forms of deviant behavior, specifically beastiality.
I envision that the sickos will press for marriage with animals... And legalized bestiality... Why not? Without Torah there is no ethics.
If you don't want to address my initial points clearly, succinctly, fairly, that's your prerogative. However, don't portray me as not having understood what is entirely self-evident from your initial posting under this thread, and then your first response to my criticism.
-
Look, from a pure religious standpoint, be it Judaism, Christianity, and as far as I know, Killslam, homosexuality is forbidden. Before this thread goes any further, I just wanted to point out the longer society goes with accepting homosexual marriage, which we'll call x, the greater the chances they will allow something worse, we'll call that y. Once they allow y, it will lead to a world where z will be accepted and so forth. If the rules of the Torah, Old/New Testament, and other religions are continuously broken, one can only imagine that the madness will not stop here. >:(
-
Muman,
After my other posts on this forum, do I seem like a person with below average intelligence?
Your posts, including this last one, have nothing to do with my earlier point which was again re: the analogizing of homosexuality with other forms of deviant behavior, specifically beastiality.
I envision that the sickos will press for marriage with animals... And legalized bestiality... Why not? Without Torah there is no ethics.
If you don't want to address my initial points clearly, succinctly, fairly, that's your prerogative. However, don't portray me as not having understood what is entirely self-evident from your initial posting under this thread, and then your first response to my criticism.
I think I was misunderstood when I said 'sickos'... I was not referring to the gays as 'sickos' but actually I was referring to those who want to legalize marriage to animals, and having sexual relations with them. But aside from that I don't really understand what you disagree about concerning what I posted. You think that readers would think that I am a bigot and close-minded? If this is so, I apoligize. I was just being short and to the point about what I thought. Im sorry if it did not communicate effectively...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-animal_marriage
Human-animal marriage, i.e., marriage between humans and non-human animals, is not recognized in law by any country at present, although historically people have married animals as part of religious traditions or to bring good luck, often involving elaborate ceremonies. Such marriages as are allowed by tradition, or within a culture, are often symbolic or ritual, rather than the more usual recognition of a relationship.
Horse
* In some parts of Celtic Ireland, kings (often called "sacred kings") had to wed the local goddess of the land. A druidess was usually chosen to represent the land goddess as the king's wife, but one king in Donegal married a horse, a representative of their local goddess. [1]
Dog
* June 2003 - a nine year old Indian girl of the Santal (or 'Santhal') tribe of Khanyhan, near Calcutta was formally married to a dog, in order to ward off a bad omen. The wedding was attended by more than one hundred guests, who danced to the beating of drums and drank home-made liquor. The girl told Western press, "I have no regret in marrying the dog Bacchan. I am fond of the dog who moves around our locality," and tribal elders added she was free to remarry in future as an adult. [3]
Dolphin
* December 2005 - forty-one-year-old Sharon Tendler of Great Britain unofficially married Cindy, a male dolphin held at the Dolphin Reef dolphinarium in Eilat, Israel, in a ceremony where she offered fish and the dolphin 'kissed' her. She had been visiting Cindy regularly for the past fifteen years. Tendler requested permission from the dolphin's trainer for the "wedding". The marriage, painted romantically by the media, was in her words considered "a bit of fun" after her friends joked about her being single at that age.
-
Mo,
Your response has nothing to do with my criticism. I wasn't even beginning to think of anything about so called gay marriage.
I'm really disappointed with the lack of personal responsibility and the frank disingenuity with which some of you chose to handle this. Instead of being honest, you compounded the sin by being deceitful. For those of you who like to judge as if you are sitting at the right hand of God, I wonder what he will have to say about that kind of behavior. Next time, you cast the first stone, chew on that.
-
Mo,
Your response has nothing to do with my criticism. I wasn't even beginning to think of anything about so called gay marriage.
I'm really disappointed with the lack of personal responsibility and the frank disingenuity with which some of you chose to handle this. Instead of being honest, you compounded the sin by being deceitful. For those of you who like to judge as if you are sitting at the right hand of G-d, I wonder what he will have to say about that kind of behavior. Next time, you cast the first stone, chew on that.
So is your issue here with the criticism of gay (marriage)?
-
I think a clear distinction needs to be drawn between tolerance for homosexuality which I think is almost universally accepted by Americans and sanctioning or endorsing homosexuality which is the plan of the gay lobby and the left. It is one thing to say that I don't want to pay policemen to break into someone's home or even into a bar to look for and arrest people engaging in homosexuality. It is another to say that I want to officially sanction homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality by legally sanctioning gay marraige. I think gay people would do well to settle for tolerance because I think most people don't want to go the sanctioning route.
I agree with JTF2 that there is meanness and immaturity on these boards in discussing the issue. I don't think it is helpful to refer to them as faggots, to pretend that they can just be converted to heterosexuality, or to claim they chose for evil purposes to adopt this lifestyle. I have met many homosexuals and there are some in my immediate family. I know them well enough to know that they did not choose their orientation. They spent their adolescences and young adulthoods trying to be straight. They found it very painful to come to grips with the fact that they are homosexuals.
I honestly don't have a good answer for their situation. I don't think religions have an answer for them. Real religions just call them sinners while pseudo religions sanction them and make them Rabbis and Priests. I don't think either is an answer but I don't have one either.
-
I don't think gay people choose to be gay the vast majority of the time. I think they can't help feeling the temptation. It's acting on it that's the problem.
-
I did not see anyone call them faggots in this thread. Nor did I see anyone say that they are evil. What I said is that without moral codes there is nothing which is not permitted. And I believe that many of them do choose to be the way they are, because they are fooled into believing that by the media. When it is acceptable to act in this fashion it encourages very immoral behavior by many innocent people. Some are seduced into it by friends and since the media and gay agenda has tried to make it more acceptable.
I do not hate anyone for their dispositions. But I will not stand by and say that it is acceptable. Everyone has temptations and urges and challenges that they deal with. Hopefully by the end of a persons life they will have acted in a mostly ethical and moral way. We must stand against making it more acceptable. Civil unions are a good compromise. But I still stand against having homosexual marriage.
-
I did not see anyone call them faggots in this thread. Nor did I see anyone say that they are evil. What I said is that without moral codes there is nothing which is not permitted. And I believe that many of them do choose to be the way they are, because they are fooled into believing that by the media. When it is acceptable to act in this fashion it encourages very immoral behavior by many innocent people. Some are seduced into it by friends and since the media and gay agenda has tried to make it more acceptable
I do not hate anyone for their dispositions. But I will not stand by and say that it is acceptable. Everyone has temptations and urges and challenges that they deal with. Hopefully by the end of a persons life they will have acted in a mostly ethical and moral way. We must stand against making it more acceptable. Civil unions are a good compromise. But I still stand against having homosexual marriage..
Muman, you are correct that faggot and evil were not used on this thread but have shown up many times on threads on JTF. As it turns out we are pretty close to agreement on most aspects of the issue (we both oppose homesexual marriage but oppose persecuting homosexuals) except that I think it is unrealistic to think that abstinence is more than an abstract idea that has no chance of being widely accepted. Homosexuality has existed throughout history. It is often widely practiced by those most opposed to it (J Edgar Hoover, many of the Nazis, many of the Taliban).
-
I did not see anyone call them faggots in this thread. Nor did I see anyone say that they are evil. What I said is that without moral codes there is nothing which is not permitted. And I believe that many of them do choose to be the way they are, because they are fooled into believing that by the media. When it is acceptable to act in this fashion it encourages very immoral behavior by many innocent people. Some are seduced into it by friends and since the media and gay agenda has tried to make it more acceptable
I do not hate anyone for their dispositions. But I will not stand by and say that it is acceptable. Everyone has temptations and urges and challenges that they deal with. Hopefully by the end of a persons life they will have acted in a mostly ethical and moral way. We must stand against making it more acceptable. Civil unions are a good compromise. But I still stand against having homosexual marriage..
Muman, you are correct that faggot and evil were not used on this thread but have shown up many times on threads on JTF. As it turns out we are pretty close to agreement on most aspects of the issue (we both oppose homesexual marriage but oppose persecuting homosexuals) except that I think it is unrealistic to think that abstinence is more than an abstract idea that has no chance of being widely accepted. Homosexuality has existed throughout history. It is often widely practiced by those most opposed to it (J Edgar Hoover, many of the Nazis, many of the Taliban).
Yes it was accepted by much of the world before Judaism and Christianity were accepted. But I believe that is part of the reason we should attempt to reduce the amount of public homosexuality. Any sexual immorality is against the Torah, and the laws of the Bible have been what morality is judged by. The point you make about some of the people most against it doesn't negate the fact that it is wrong.
I doubt you attempt to eat Kosher. But for me it is a constant temptation to eat things which are not kosher. I dont have any desire for pork, but it is so tempting the smell of bacon and pork ribs. I am able to restrain myself from eating these things. I also restrain myself from doing things on Shabbat, a day which presents many challenges for someone like me. If I am able to restrain myself from these things I believe anyone can be in control of themselves.
-
Hi everyone,
I can understand how straight men are squeamish about male homosexuality. I feel the same way when I look at Ellen De Generes.
On the other hand, I went to college in Manhattan. I knew plenty of young gay men, as I used to hang out with the artsy crowd. One thing I've always heard from them was how they knew they were different, from a *very* young age. It's not like they woke up one day and decided to sleep with a man just to spite their parents.
Now I've heard people say that these men should try and change. But I disagree. Would any of you want your sisters or your female relatives to marry a man who has to force himself to be attracted to females? It's wrong to do that to any woman.
But anyway, the topic Mo2388 brought up was gay *marriage.* I believe most JTF'ers are against it for religious reasons. But I think what is also bothering people here is how the left is hell bent on shoving it down people's throats through judicial fiat. From what I've seen, most Americans vote against gay marriage. They believe marriage to be for a man and a woman only. However, these people are being overruled by a dictatorship of leftist judges who view our constitution as a "living document."
As I see it, marriage is by definition, a religious ceremony. For the world's main religions, the purpose is for a man and woman to build a home together, and eventually a family. And no religion, as far as I know, condones homosexual relations. (With Islam, only the person on the receiving end is considered homosexual.) So if gay marriage is legalized, that would mean rabbis, ministers, and other religious clergy would be forced to perform these ceremonies, which would be a violation of *their* religious beliefs.
Buy anyway, let's try and keep our language clean.
-
In the end, every such city will be treated like Gomorrah.
-
I did not see anyone call them faggots in this thread. Nor did I see anyone say that they are evil. What I said is that without moral codes there is nothing which is not permitted. And I believe that many of them do choose to be the way they are, because they are fooled into believing that by the media. When it is acceptable to act in this fashion it encourages very immoral behavior by many innocent people. Some are seduced into it by friends and since the media and gay agenda has tried to make it more acceptable
I do not hate anyone for their dispositions. But I will not stand by and say that it is acceptable. Everyone has temptations and urges and challenges that they deal with. Hopefully by the end of a persons life they will have acted in a mostly ethical and moral way. We must stand against making it more acceptable. Civil unions are a good compromise. But I still stand against having homosexual marriage..
Muman, you are correct that faggot and evil were not used on this thread but have shown up many times on threads on JTF. As it turns out we are pretty close to agreement on most aspects of the issue (we both oppose homesexual marriage but oppose persecuting homosexuals) except that I think it is unrealistic to think that abstinence is more than an abstract idea that has no chance of being widely accepted. Homosexuality has existed throughout history. It is often widely practiced by those most opposed to it (J Edgar Hoover, many of the Nazis, many of the Taliban).
Yes it was accepted by much of the world before Judaism and Christianity were accepted. But I believe that is part of the reason we should attempt to reduce the amount of public homosexuality. Any sexual immorality is against the Torah, and the laws of the Bible have been what morality is judged by. The point you make about some of the people most against it doesn't negate the fact that it is wrong.
I doubt you attempt to eat Kosher. But for me it is a constant temptation to eat things which are not kosher. I dont have any desire for pork, but it is so tempting the smell of bacon and pork ribs. I am able to restrain myself from eating these things. I also restrain myself from doing things on Shabbat, a day which presents many challenges for someone like me. If I am able to restrain myself from these things I believe anyone can be in control of themselves.
I am not strictly kosher but I do refrain from eating pig products, shellfish, and from mixing meat and milk. That is a very minor inconvenience compared to a life of abstinence. I am not even sure abstinence works well for society. All of those molesting Priests were officially practicing abstinence. Driving things underground has at best a mixed record of benefiting society.
-
Hi everyone,
I can understand how straight men are squeamish about male homosexuality. I feel the same way when I look at Ellen De Generes.
On the other hand, I went to college in Manhattan. I knew plenty of young gay men, as I used to hang out with the artsy crowd. One thing I've always heard from them was how they knew they were different, from a *very* young age. It's not like they woke up one day and decided to sleep with a man just to spite their parents.
Now I've heard people say that these men should try and change. But I disagree. Would any of you want your sisters or your female relatives to marry a man who has to force himself to be attracted to females? It's wrong to do that to any woman.
But anyway, the topic Mo2388 brought up was gay *marriage.* I believe most JTF'ers are against it for religious reasons. But I think what is also bothering people here is how the left is hell bent on shoving it down people's throats through judicial fiat. From what I've seen, most Americans vote against gay marriage. They believe marriage to be for a man and a woman only. However, these people are being overruled by a dictatorship of leftist judges who view our constitution as a "living document."
As I see it, marriage is by definition, a religious ceremony. For the world's main religions, the purpose is for a man and woman to build a home together, and eventually a family. And no religion, as far as I know, condones homosexual relations. (With Islam, only the person on the receiving end is considered homosexual.) So if gay marriage is legalized, that would mean rabbis, ministers, and other religious clergy would be forced to perform these ceremonies, which would be a violation of *their* religious beliefs.
Buy anyway, let's try and keep our language clean.
I agree with everything you say except that marriage does not have to be a religious ceremony you can get married in a civil ceremony. Still I think society has every right to say that marriage is sanctioned by society as a union between one man and one woman because society has a stake in such unions. I think gay people should be able to live comfortably but I don't think they have a right to demand that they be recognized as on the same level as heterosexual couples.
I have made the same point about the futility of "converting" gays.