I had some interesting encounters at the legislature today. I was there lobbying on a wide variety issues which happened to be the same day OutFront Minnesota has their annual lobbying day.
I had some respectful, but passionate encounters with individuals who recognized me and came over to talk. (Someone even wanted their picture taken with me.) Which I'm fine with and all for. The public rhetoric by some homosexual activists is name calling and platitudinal statements not rational discourse.
A couple of grandparents came up to me and said how great their grandkids were doing with their two moms, one of whom is their daughter. I asked them if kids don't need a mom and dad. He said, no two parents of whatever sex is what's important. I said that's interesting. All one has to do is visit the state prison to find that 85% of the prisoners didn't have a father in their lives suggests other wise. Having a mom and a dad is essential for the existence of the child so to with their upbringing.
He also said that homosexuals are born that way. I said where is the evidence for that statement. After three or four repeated requests he couldn't cite the studies but he'd send it to me. (My view is there isn't a gay gene but that individuals may have a predisposition towards homosexuality which poor family or lack of an adequate relationship with a particular parent may trigger.) I noted that even if there's a biological basis, an individual always has a choice as to the behavior they engage in.
I also was engaged by a liberal baptist pastor and the parents with a homosexual son. The pastor of course couldn't find any example in the Bible for the endorsement of homosexual marriage though he did throw out the usual example of David and Jonathan and their relationship. I pointed out there's a difference between same sex love which is fine and a good thing and same sex sex which is not a good thing in addition to being unhealthy. People often confuse the two. So too with David and Jonathan's example.
The pastor also said it was wrong for me to attempt to impose my religious views on other people through the laws. It violated the separation of church and state. I responded that I thought it was hypocritical for him to say it was wrong for me to promote views consonant with my views in the legislature but not for him to promote his religious based views. I think he had one of those "ah ha" moments.
The mom told me it was hurtful when I opposed equality for her son regarding marriage. I said I find it hurtful to me when she attempts to redefine such an important institution in society which will harm so many people. (I think the appeal to personal hurtful is generally an emotional, manipulative technique.) I also said that the issue wasn't marriage equality, because nothing was preventing her son from getting married now. The difference was they were seeking to redefine the whole institution of marriage to something much different not just seek access to it. The father, though he didn't agree, said I made a fair argument.
I frankly enjoy interactions of people I disagree with when they seek to engage in a rational discussion of the issue. The more this can occur the better for all concerned.