Thanks for clearing up your stand, but I don't think someone acts gay out of an inferiority complex, or just to get attention, and are you saying all gays are this way? This sounds like a you're basing your opinion on a stereotype rather than on facts.
Politics affect everything. If you've never been discriminated against, marginalized or bullied because of who you are, look like, or believe in, you may not understand or form a sense of empathy. It is a shame that a law must be passed to allow gays to have the same rights as everyone, but it seems that is the only way to correct an injustice, much like the way a civil rights bill needed to be passed.
Your stance is based on the belief that a person is gay because they choose that life style (and again, no one chooses to be gay, no more than I choose to be Black), and therefore have brought on all the hardship themselves and don't deserve to have any law protect them. But, sorry, homosexuality is not a choice, or a mental illness. I'm far from a doctor and would not venture any scientific reason for why one person is gay and another is not, but I do believe that human sexuality is far, far more complex than we know, and that the notion that everyone fits into a square pegs doesn't apply anymore.
The political party -- and lets be frank here -- the Republicans, and their (neo) conservative, Angelical Christian/Tea Party base are against gay marriage because of their (base's) religious beliefs. Not wishing to isolate and turn them off they have no choice to not only be against gay marriage, but to use it as a political issue to strengthen their clout. Personally I find this reprehensible, and is the worst mixture of religion and politics. I also see this as no different than those who were against segregation and civil rights because they believed that African-Americans were 2nd (or lower) class citizens and should know and accept their place in society. This same stance seems to now apply to gays, one formed on misconceptions of gays, or on their religious beliefs.
I can respect a person's stance against gay marriage based on their religion (though I think such a notion is antiquated), but gay marriage doesn't mean that churches will be forced or allowed to have gay couples married in their churches. That was never implied by the potential law. The issue here is to have gay couples have all the rights and privileges apply to themselves and their partners that married couples have. It's as simple as that.
You said that you wanted to preserve what we have? What exactly is that? At one point in US history interracial couples were not allowed to marry by law. Would you be in support of that in order to preserve 'what we have'? Members of the status quo tend to forget that they are standing on the shoulders (or throats) of others. Things look great from where they are, but unless you have been disenfranchised or marginalized you may not know what it's like to not be 'on top'.
Zombie, I'm not asking you to radically change your opinion, but I think you should re-examine the facts it's based on. How will too much 'red tape' directly affect your life? How will it be different than the red tape used to pass new laws generated every day, week, month, and year by local, state and the Federal government?
-Wolf
