GifMike:  Come all donut punchers, rump rangers, rug munchers and Jodie Foster…

Demosthenes:  I think homsexuality is fine, but marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Locke:  Sex between two people of the same gender is the most unatural act there is.  Does it exist in nature?   Does it help keep the human race alive?  It’s a genetic defect in the hard wiring of certain peoples brains, and they’ve proven it can be cured.

GifMike: Oh man, you two are NOT going to like what I have to say.

Locke:  How are you going to argue that homosexuality is right?  Even if you don’t believe in the Bible, sex is OBVIOUSLY about procreating the species.  If it doesn’t help the human race survive what possible purpose could it have?  Don’t we have an obligation as humans to try and put a stop to it?

GifMike:  Well my first argument is against the word purpose.  As you know my belief is that the only purpose to anything is simply to exist.

Locke:  And If homosexuality becomes prevalant then our species will cease to exist, you just made my argument.   For once try to pick a side.  It’s either right or wrong, which is it?

GifMike:  Lol…That depends on how many variables you’re willing to see.  There are no absolutes, things are never just black and white as proven by the fact that there is a rainbow full of colors.  No subject can have only two sides.  Debates come in all shapes and sizes and can have an infinate number of sides.  In my opinion the more sides you can see the more compassionate and informed you will become, hence the term narrow minded.  I could form several arguments on why homosexuality came about, but they would all just be conjecture, so pretty much useless.

Demosthenes:  I’m curious, please name one…

GifMike:  Well anythings possible.  It’s possible that homosexuality is an evolutionary fail safe against over population.  It becomes more prevalant as we crowd the Earth in order to keep us from choking ourselves out.

Locke:  You must be kidding.

GifMike:   I’m merely theorizing.  The point I want to make though isn’t whether it’s right or wrong, it’s whether there should be a debate all.  To start let me ask you if you believe, in the eyes of all the cosmos, if we are all equals?

Demosthenes:  Yes, of course.

Locke:  Some more than others.

GifMike:  I’m going to disregard that.  Now if equality is a given, to me any argument about homosexuality being right or wrong is moot.  It exists, so you’re going to have to get past it.  So if you can concede that it exists the question becomes; Do I have the right to do anything about it?  I’m a firm believer in the ‘Mind my own business’ way of life.  If it doesn’t affect me directly I have absolutly no right to attempt to modify the behavior or actions of other consenting adults.

Locke:  By that rational, beastiality is fine.  One can have sex with a donkey or even a child as long as it doesn’t affect you personally.

GifMike:   Well, a donkey can’t consent,  just like a child doesn’t have the emotional or intellectual maturity to consent.  The real point is if one man or woman wants to be intimate with someone else of the same sex, or come together in marraige, how on Earth does that affect me? If they’re not harming anyone, even if my opinion is that it’s wrong (which I do NOT believe by the way) how would I justify pointing to them and saying ‘You! You can’t do that, or I can get married, but you can’t because I believe what you’re doing is wrong, or my religion says it’s wrong, or I find it gross.’   A group or the government can only interject a law banning something if it negitavely affects the masses.  YOUR Bible may say that marriage is between a man and a woman, but mine doesn’t.  YOUR moral code may say that two men or two women having sex with each other is wrong, but not mine.  I’m an adult, I’m a taxpaying American Citizen, I’m your exact equal whether you like it or not.  To the government marraige can be nothing but the legal act of tying one’s assets together;  Beyond that they can’t impose a definition on me.  That’s no different than any kind of censorship.  What’s moral or wrong is ALWAYS subjective and open to different interpratations.  When your governing a body of idividuals of all races, religions and morals you can only adjudicate the basics of behavior.  No killing, no stealing, share the road blah blah blah.  It’s one thing to look at a painting and say ‘I don’t like this, this offends me I’m not going to look at it again’ quite another to say ‘I don’t like this, it offends me, You! You can’t look at this’.  You, as an adult cannot make my decisons on how to live for me.  I’ll decide whether I like it or not thank you.  You are not my superior, it’s not like smoking where you can say ‘Please don’t smoke near me’.  The smoke can harm my health, it affects me therefore becomes MY business.  As long as two gay guys aren’t having sex in the booth next to me at Denny’s it does not affect me and I should shut the hell up about it.  There’s a saying that people creating laws or that are attempting to enforce their own moral code on the behavior of others should always keep in mind.  ‘Beware the man who would deny you information or an experience for in his heart he deems himself your master’ 

to be continued..