Hi Scott,For the record, I don't think my opinion is better. But I do think it's right.
No, you don't know me. Opinions are for everyone and yours don't count any more than anyone else's. You already know that but I expect that you think yours are better.
The problem with homosexual so called "marriage" is that it doesn't remain a matter of free choice once it's submitted for an "official" State policy and "legal" definition. You're right that the State shouldn't define such a "marriage". The State should not even be considering such a thing as "legality" of homosexual "marriage". Thinking people (if there are any) probably don't object too much to what homosexuals do in their private lives but they sure don't want to be told that they have to accept or recognize that lifestyle as a normal definition of what marriage should consist of.
To me, "homosexual" means just what it says. It's all about two people choosing what kind of sex they'll have, although it's a mystery to me what that could be. After all, two people of the same sex just don't "fit' together. This is NOT about civil rights because they're still free to choose that life. It's NOT about religious standards either.
It IS about the universal laws of nature which require a male and female to produce offspring (children) for posterity. Two homosexuals cannot produce a thing under the natural laws of the universe. I wonder why some people lose sight of this FACT when deciding whether homosexuality is "right" or "wrong". The decision shouldn't have to go beyond this one universal law.
And frankly. more letters like this will only help the cause.