Incredibly, this issue continues to mystify me, brings me back again and again to trying to understand the rationale. I just can't. So, this post is going to be a bit choppy and unpolished. But, please, add your thoughts...
There are some out there that seem to think that a homosexual would be a heterosexual if only being a homosexual was not so easy.
A good example: the marriage equality controversy. You see, somehow, by denying a man the option of marrying a man, it will somehow make a society more stable and conducive to rearing the succeeding generations. Why? Well, supposed by these such people, a mother and father are the best pairing for raising children. Therefore, that is reason for denying a homosexual marriage.
But, if I consider that logic for a moment, they are saying that a man - or a woman - who find themselves sexually attracted to those of the same gender, who orient as same sex attraction, should just marry one of the opposite sex if they want to have a lasting, loving, caring and stimulating relationship. What's better, they intimate this with a straight face - no pun intended.
So, let's follow that logic, again, for a bit. If I as a gay man were to marry a woman, who at best I loved as a friend but who I did not find sexually enticing, would I not be miserable? I would imagine a person in such a relationship soon growing angry and short tempered, feeling miserable and alone, uninspired and uncaring. Suicidal? Wouldn't such a person be likely to seek sexual fulfillment outside the marriage?
Now, what part of that is great for rearing children and stabilizing society?
Here is a link to another persons ideas on this. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/the-logical-fallacy-gay-marriage-opponents-depend-upon/251486/
The simple fact is that homosexuality is a part of every culture. It just is, and no refusal to accept that will change the fact. The concept that homosexuals are lascivious and a detriment to society and therefore should not be allowed to marry is just as idiotic.
Ok, let's play pretend and presume that is a fair statement. Marriage to a sexually stimulating, mentally challenging and joyful spouse would likely "tame" the wild homosexual -- gees, suddenly sounding like a Mutual of Omaha Wild Kingdom narrative! But, that would likely result in that person staying home a bit more, or if going out, doing so with a committed partner which would then quite likely inhibit dalliances, right?
No, when it gets right down to it, there really is no real rationale for not allowing equality in marriage so that two consenting adults can become one, be they hetero or homosexual. Even the concept that a hetero relationship brings children into the world presumes: a) the marriage will produce children. b) we need more people in the world. c) there are no orphans in the world who would love to have two mommies or two daddies rather than none of either. No, even then the argument has no leg.
I guess this could go on forever. The thing is, sooner or later marriage equality will be a fact rather than a fantasy. There are too many smart people in the world - idiocy can't last forever. Can it?