The one-sided argument almost makes me want to act like my priest on this just to even the sides, but I won't. Speaking of which, people against homosexuality often use the Bible as their sword, free speech as their armor, and the few gay rape cases as their shield. I find problems with each of those arguments. The point of this small essay is not to offend, but to persuade. Take it as you will, but with a bit of rationality.
I realize many people on the internet are atheists, so disregard this paragraph and go on to the next one. At the risk of ticking someone off, I'd have to say that the Bible argument is flawed. I realize that this theory may already be beaten to death, but I don't care. Paraphrasing, it says that all men and women are flawed. God used men to interpret the Bible onto paper, so my theory is that one naysayer whose job it was at the time decided to throw his/her personal opinions into the book. The only words not paraphrased are the Ten Commandments, which say nothing about homosexuality short of controlling your lust, regardless of sex or gender. It doesn't even say anything about women at all, nothing about lesbianism, although that was probably chauvinistic neglect. Besides, we've interpreted the Bible wrong before, around the 1600's, and what do you history buffs guess happened then? Is that a desirable future, to have fellow man locked up in prison or physically abused while they perform back-breaking labor? Again? That's nothing that the right backwards legislation couldn't accomplish.
Free speech is probably the least flawed, in my sight. I observe that you can say anything you want in public or private(except "Kill the President")in this country. That's true. But somebody shouldn't just be allowed to spew hate into the air, over the press, onto television and radio. That's probably why we have mods and program planners who act at their discretion, but nevertheless. It's my personal opinion that it should be in some constraints, but that's my personal opinion and therefore lacking in any substantial logic.
There is the argument that I've heard surprisingly often in certain places, even today, that homosexuals are crazy for the action that makes us call them "homosexuals", and have no restraint. I find while that is bound to be true in some gay individuals, that they will stop at nothing to find and violate people, that is also true with heterosexuals. It's what I prefer to call the "Atticus Finch Defense" for you literates out there, and it is no less true for race as it is in sexual preference.
They can't even control their own biological sexual preferences, yet some would punish them for being different. It's no different from kicking a black man because he offered to shake your hand or ask you for the time. You wouldn't do that, I hope. I'm going to be as impartial as I possibly can after that, by saying that homosexuals might be slightly more guilty than someone born with more melanin, because it is a somewhat controllable aspect of the personality, if not by much. If anyone in the currently 494 of the indifferent and against isn't still convinced, I'd love to hear your reasons why you would prefer to punish the majority of these upstanding, tax-paying citizens who are only different from you in their preference.
EDIT: I just realized this, but I would like to reiterate so there is no question that I am a devout Southern Baptist, as hard as that may be to believe.
