You have a reading comprehension problem. I don’t respect the individuals who flaunt their sexual immorality.
How am I to know that they are “gay”? What is private about “gay cruises”?
Of course it’s an abomination, as is any sort of sexual immorality. Of course we should not encourage open sexual immorality. Of course I do not respect anyone who openly practices sexual immorality.
As to your next post after this one: You are trying to confuse the issue by changing the definition of both marriage (union of one man and one woman) and equality.
“Equality” does not meant that you can do whatever you want and change the rules (and definitions) to fit what you want. It means that if a given act is legal for one, it’s legal for all.
I can own my home. I can’t declare that “home” now means my neighbor’s house or city hall or a State park and I now own one of them.
My reading comprehension is actually quite good, but I question yours, doctor. You’re the one changing the plane of the issue. I have said that this is the government taking a stance on private behavior, and you have failed to controvert that. You’re also conflating what you feel as an affront to your personal views with my condemnation of the government stepping into this arena. Like I’ve already said, I want you to have the freedom to believe anything that you want to. But I don’t want the government stepping into these matters.
As to your characterization of my second post, as I’ve already said, I find a civil union to be more or less tantamount to equality. There are a few issues that concern me (I previously mentioned spousal privilege in legal matters) but I am not advocating that the states change the definition of marriage. I do think that equality calls for at least a civil union option, however.