how do you feel about it? do you think it should be allowed? if you say no why? if you say yes, why? do you think children raised by gay parents turn out to be gay? do you think gays should be allowed to adopt children.

_________________________________________________________________

I AM NOT SAYING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER I AM JUST POSTING A QUESTION

I absolutely think it should be legal. I definitely don't understand any agruments against it. I know a few gay couples, one of which is married, but not legally, and they raise 2 children. NO, this will not turn the children gay. They simply understand that it's ok to have 2 mommies. I know these children and I do not believe they will turn out to be any certain sexuality because of their moms. Gay couples will have relationships and live together, why can't they enjoy the legal benefits that hetero couples do? You're not going to "turn them straight" by forbidding marriage, that's stupid! I feel passionately about this. Live and let live. Love and let love.

love is a feeling, emotion, the way you care and show ur love. why should that matter btw sex? I hate the whole thing. i grew up w/my aunt being a lesbian and she can't marry her lover. and she's a superattendent at a HS and got forbid they find out! i hate she has to live her life like that.

I think homosexuals should have all the same rights as every other couple in America. They love eachother just as a heterosexual couple does, they feel the same. I actually believe that they would raise more well rounded children b/c they had to learn acceptance and tolerance. Homosexuality does not rub off and it is not learned it is something you are born as so the idea that they would raise gay children is rediculous.

Yes, I think it should be allowed. Who are we to say that two people who love each other and want to make that committment can't get married...?

I think gay people should have the same rights as straight people.

Being gay and engaging in homosexual activities has always been taboo and kept behind closed doors. I don't think our society is ready for gay marriages and will unlikely be ready any time soon. The fact that society has finally reached some kind of tolerance towards gay relationships is a step towards that end but it's like expecting a baby to start running after they take it's first step. It takes time. I respect the laws of the land I live in and will accept legalized gay marriages as such when it happens. My personal opinion is something I couldn't even describe because I feel torn between my religious beliefs and my brother's happiness who is gay.

I'm not a relegious person, but marriage is a relegious binding between man and woman:

God created man in the image of Himself,
In the image of God He created him,
Male and female He created them,

The marriage of a man to a woman is a relegious binding between that couple and God. Hardliners will state that any variation of this unity between couple and God is blasphemous, regardless of the violation. This is where the church is getting it's stance on homosexual marriage.

Since marriage is a RELEGIOUS institution founded on the basic principles of Christianity, I don't think gays should be allowed to be "married". This would undermine the very principles of the relegion, and nudge us into a chaos we can't fathom. I do believe, however, that they should be given the right to enter a binding legal agreement, and offered the same federal and state perks that are offered to married couples.

Relegious or not, we ARE Americans, and should be entitled to the perks offered to others, even if the circumstances are slightly different.

Relegious or not, we ARE Americans, and should be entitled to the perks offered to others, even if the circumstances are slightly different.

Religous or not though, where does it stop? What about the 50 year old man who "loves" and wants to marry a 14 year old girl? What about someone who wants to marry their sibling or 1st cousin? What about the Mormans who consent and believe in marriage to more than 1 partner?

I think legalizing gay marriages will just open a huge old can of worms. All sorts of "lifestyles" will come out of the woodwork wanting to be legalized as well.

Personally, while I can see the side of those who just want to marry the person they love, I believe in the traditional institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

I think that gays should have the same rights as everyone else. Why should we tell them that they can't be married or have childeren just because of their sexual preference. No, childern of gay parents do not always come out gay. If your going to be gay then your going to be gay whether your raised by straight parents or gay parents.

i think it should be allowed for gay people to marry. you cant help who you fall in love with, it is there destiny to fall in love with that person whether or not that person is the same sex. they should also be allowed to adopt, they are helping a child that doesnt have a home or could have a better home, just bc the couple is gay doesnt mean they arent capable of raising a child. they are human beings just like straight people and they shouldnt have to be treated different.

the concept of marriage is not founded in christianity. goes back farther than that. while i respect the beliefs of christians and others alike, i do believe that the "word" that people so tightly bind themselves too must be remembered as a book written and interpreted by MAN. I believe in the mystery of God and the love of humanity, gay and straight alike.

Yes!! gay people should be able to marry just like straight people. They should be able to adopted children to b/c face it some straight people can't parent so why not let gay couples adopt? If they are happy who gives a shit? They are humans just like the rest of us. I see no problem in gay marriages or familes. I don't believe you are made gay I feel you are born that way. Weather you feel it when you are 10 or 100. I have a few gay and lesibian's in my family and see nothing wrong with it. They are not harming me, my children or my cousins. I think people need to realize we can't control everything and we can't be offended by everything.

i think that homosexual couples should have the same RIGHTS in the sense of insurance rights, power of attorney, the right to make the decisions regarding the love of their lives. however i am a firm believer that a man and woman is what marriage is intended as. this may be the minority opinion on here but i do think that based on my religious affiliation marriage is between a man and a woman only. i think homosexual couples should have the same rights though with the exception of marriage. that may sound contradictory but that's what i believe. so in sum: i think gay couples should be allowed to have the same insurance rights, homeowners rights, etc etc but not be allowed to be legally married.

as for the child turning gay from being raised by two gay parents i think there is nothing wrong with that. they should be able to adopt a child, use a sperm bank anything--like has been said on here before no one has the right to deny someone a child. recent studies have proven that there is a genetic component to homosexuality using twin studies. i believe that if you are going to be gay that it is already written in your genes to a degree. if you are brought up in a loving and nuturing environment that allows you to freely express your feelings then you will be more open to admitting your sexuality. being raised in a gay home does not make you gay at all.

the concept of marriage is not founded in christianity. goes back farther than that. while i respect the beliefs of christians and others alike, i do believe that the "word" that people so tightly bind themselves too must be remembered as a book written and interpreted by MAN. I believe in the mystery of God and the love of humanity, gay and straight alike.

True. I wasn't specific to my argument. The American translation of marriage is founded on Christianity, and laws were put in place according to the written word. Assuming that my mistake is cleared up, I'll reply.

Regardless of ones beliefs, there are VERY specific laws in place, dictated by the bible. Regardless of the translation or transcriber, the laws have been written. If you remand just ONE of the rules, the whole of the people's faith will begin to crack. Pedophiles will claim it's their right to marry and have intercourse with children. People will claim that beastiality is their god-given right. Murderers will claim it's their right to kill others. If you can cross just one of the lines, then all of the others are allowed to blur.

We know that most of the bible is inaccurate; even the Son of God's name is a misinterpretation. This is irrelevant, since the entire foundation of the relegion is faith. Blindly believing something. Even if it's wrong, we still feel some connection to it.

Gay couples should be allowed to enter a legal binding contract and given the bonuses allowed for couples in a similar contract. But it most certainly shouldn't be called a "marriage".

True. I wasn't specific to my argument. The American translation of marriage is founded on Christianity, and laws were put in place according to the written word. Assuming that my mistake is cleared up, I'll reply.

Regardless of ones beliefs, there are VERY specific laws in place, dictated by the bible. Regardless of the translation or transcriber, the laws have been written. If you remand just ONE of the rules, the whole of the people's faith will begin to crack. Pedophiles will claim it's their right to marry and have intercourse with children. People will claim that beastiality is their god-given right. Murderers will claim it's their right to kill others. If you can cross just one of the lines, then all of the others are allowed to blur.

We know that most of the bible is inaccurate; even the Son of God's name is a misinterpretation. This is irrelevant, since the entire foundation of the relegion is faith. Blindly believing something. Even if it's wrong, we still feel some connection to it.

Gay couples should be allowed to enter a legal binding contract and given the bonuses allowed for couples in a similar contract. But it most certainly shouldn't be called a "marriage".


well said

I think that gay marriage should absolutely be legal. I think that gays should be given the same rights as straight people. I believe that no one gets hurt when a gay couple gets married, as opposed to when a 40 year old marries a 12 year old.

I'm sorry, but doesn't religion reject abortion, yet that's legal?? I am not pro-abortion or anything, just making a point. It irks me that it's legal to kill a fetus, but not legal for two people to love each other "the way a man and woman do". So, you do not want to remand one biblical law, ok, but what about Americans' freedom of religion? And as far as calling it a marriage or not, that's simple word-choice. call it whatever you want. to be honest, i'm not sure gay couples are seeking the church's approval at this stage!

I'm sorry, but doesn't religion reject abortion, yet that's legal?? I am not pro-abortion or anything, just making a point. It irks me that it's legal to kill a fetus, but not legal for two people to love each other "the way a man and woman do". So, you do not want to remand one biblical law, ok, but what about Americans' freedom of religion? And as far as calling it a marriage or not, that's simple word-choice. call it whatever you want. to be honest, i'm not sure gay couples are seeking the church's approval at this stage!

You will never once hear me say that organized relegion "makes sense". Truly, they do claim abortion is murder, yet millions have been killed in the name of God. According the bible, you either believe or you're to be left behind to endure hell on earth. For such a violent background and nothing but violence on the horizon, it doesn't paint a pretty picture. Some believe that Rowe vs. Wade is a linchpin that secures mankind to the end days.

A "simple word choice", when out of tune with the pulse of the nation, can ignite a fire. Just ask Ross Perot, Jessie Jackson or Bill Clinton. Ask Dee Snider or Dr. Dre. Hell, I went to jail for robbery because of a simple word choice.

The difference simple. Abortion wasn't even a viable option without the advances in medicine. Perhaps we forget that women were DYING from chop shop abortion clinics. The law was passed to save at least ONE of their lives, instead of both mother and unborn child dying in a gutter. Marriage, however, was ingrained in American society before we even hopped on those three ships.

The fact that gay couples, none of which I know personally but through articles and surface research, are demanding to be married with or without the churches blessing should say something. They want to be treated as a "married" couple more than they want the God's blessing. THIS is why letting them marry presents a clear and present danger to Christianity.

Now, let me clear this up. I am NOT a relegious person. If you ask me, there is no God. There is no higher being. There is no afterlife (as you would call it). I am NOT a relegious person AT ALL. So either way, this doesn't affect me in the least. I'm merely expressing the argument of the church so that everyone can see what their argument and NOT just saying it to "bash gays".

Religous or not though, where does it stop? What about the 50 year old man who "loves" and wants to marry a 14 year old girl? What about someone who wants to marry their sibling or 1st cousin? What about the Mormans who consent and believe in marriage to more than 1 partner?

I think legalizing gay marriages will just open a huge old can of worms. All sorts of "lifestyles" will come out of the woodwork wanting to be legalized as well.

Personally, while I can see the side of those who just want to marry the person they love, I believe in the traditional institution of marriage between a man and a woman.I agree

I'm not going to lie, I use to be against it. I felt that marriage should be between a man and women. However over the last 2 years my younger sister has came out of the closet and I've seen how much love she has for her girlfriend and have come to respect what they have. I still am uncomfortable with it being called a " marriage" but its not my place to judge. As for children, i'm undetermined. I'm not saying its wrong, but I'm also not a huge supporter. So I guess what I'm saying is " whatever floats your boat" :)

Religous or not though, where does it stop? What about the 50 year old man who "loves" and wants to marry a 14 year old girl? What about someone who wants to marry their sibling or 1st cousin? What about the Mormans who consent and believe in marriage to more than 1 partner?

I think legalizing gay marriages will just open a huge old can of worms. All sorts of "lifestyles" will come out of the woodwork wanting to be legalized as well.

Personally, while I can see the side of those who just want to marry the person they love, I believe in the traditional institution of marriage between a man and a woman.


I think it rediculous to bunch gay marriage with the pedophiles, polygamist, and those who are involved with incest. A child is not being harmed (be it by sexual means or genetic defprmation). The slippery slope arguement is one that can not hold up because there is no valid reason to believe that may be the case.

I think it rediculous to bunch gay marriage with the pedophiles, polygamist, and those who are involved with incest. .

I explained how these things are related in my post earlier.


A child is not being harmed (be it by sexual means or genetic defprmation).

Actually, the child would be "double damned". The child is abandoned by it's birth parents and taken into an unholy "marriage" that recognizes the rights of man over the word of God. Physically, the child probably won't suffer any more than others, but relegiously, the child is in for a tough fight.

The slippery slope arguement is one that can not hold up because there is no valid reason to believe that may be the case.

I have no idea what this statement means. I am unfamiliar with the "slippery slope" argument.

However over the last 2 years my younger sister has came out of the closet and I've seen how much love she has for her girlfriend and have come to respect what they have.

So if you see a 48 year old man and a 13 year old girl with the same look in their eyes, should pedophilia be legal? How about between a man and a sheep? Simply because it's close to your home and on the tip of pop culture doesn't mean it's right. Don't let outside sources shape your opinions!

I don't believe you are made gay I feel you are born that way.

Genetically speaking, that's impossible. A "homosexual" gene would have died out thousands of years ago because the owner simply wouldn't have sex to procreate. If it "is" genetic, it's a mutation that keeps recurring. Scientifically speaking (and a bit of reach for some), this is the earth's way of trying to rid herself of human beings.

I totally believe in it! Then again I'm not religious at all, but even when I was I thought that gay people should be able to marry.

I was once told by a Baptist Sunday school teacher that a kid stealing a piece of candy was as bad as murder in god's eyes. For all sin is equal, I was told! Looks like were all doomed then since sin is not something any of mankind can ever escape:yes

genetics - by thinking that it would have "died out", so would autism, mental retardation, down syndrome and others. that doesn't mean you aren't born with it. (and i don't mean to clump disabilities with homosexuality, those are just examples). secondly...a child is "double damned" because it is abandoned by it's birth parents??? adoption is a topic very close to home and I do not believe adopted children are damned in the least.
lauren, i agree with you :)

i simply said that studies using twin studies have shown that there are genes that produce more enzymes and neurotransmitters that are characteristics of homosexuals as well as doing CAT scans and it proves that their brain functioning is different. i'm not saying that genetics is the only cause but there is a component there.

by no means am i lumping homosexuality into a mental disorder. it was taken off the DSM and that is good enough for me.

Maybe gays have a chemical imbalance like other things such as ADD you never know. :dunno I have a gay friend and if he wants to get married that's fine with me. I'm not religious at all... I got married in a court house lol not a church so for me it didnt have anything to do with religion.

that's a-ok harrisons...mine was in response to hatetank's comments about genetics being impossible.

*my key that comes in the alphabet ater e is broken lol, that's why this post may look unny. :lol

I am not a very religious person so I can't quote straight rom the bible on much o this. I will, however, say that I don't understand why people use the "it will be a disgrace to what marriage really means' argument. Will two gay men marrying cause you to love your wie any less? Will it somehow 'change' what you think o marriage?

that's a-ok harrisons...mine was in response to hatetank's comments about genetics being impossible.

ok sorry i haven't read every single post because i can only check at school during the day and then i just skim when i get home at night because i have so much other stuff to do KWIM?

So if you see a 48 year old man and a 13 year old girl with the same look in their eyes, should pedophilia be legal? How about between a man and a sheep? Simply because it's close to your home and on the tip of pop culture doesn't mean it's right. Don't let outside sources shape your opinions!

actually in many states it is legal to have sex with an animal as long as the animal is not hurt :lol

"don't let outside sources shape your oppinions"
that's a pretty strong statement considering we've cited the bible...
of course outside sources shape oppinions! there isn't anything wrong with that, it's life.
missinghim....that's *unny!
the point about pedifilia is that a child is not considered "consenting" because he/she is a child. a gay adult is certainly consenting. sheep...well, can't vouch for them but apparently some states can!!!

genetics - by thinking that it would have "died out", so would autism, mental retardation, down syndrome and others. that doesn't mean you aren't born with it. (and i don't mean to clump disabilities with homosexuality, those are just examples). secondly...a child is "double damned" because it is abandoned by it's birth parents??? adoption is a topic very close to home and I do not believe adopted children are damned in the least.
lauren, i agree with you :)

Adoption is a very Christian thing to do, surely. Abandoning your child, however, isn't. While the child itself isn't damned because of the parents' decision, that family line is: The parents for the abandonment and the child (eventually) will grow to accept gay relationships as "OK". Again, this is the churches argument, not mine. While the child can seek solice through the church and God, most children wouldn't tell their parents that they are damned to hell when they die because of their lifestyle choice.

Autism, Mental retardation and Down Syndrome are actual hereditary mutations that can be tracked to specific gene. We have tests that can detect this gene or trait while the fetus is in utero. Homosexuality, despite Kinsey's personal-agenda research, does not have a linked "gene". It is a product of environment, nurture and do some degree, choice. If you know of a non-Kinsey related source for rebuttal information, please share this resource!

"don't let outside sources shape your oppinions"
that's a pretty strong statement considering we've cited the bible...
of course outside sources shape oppinions! there isn't anything wrong with that, it's life.
missinghim....that's *unny!
the point about pedifilia is that a child is not considered "consenting" because he/she is a child. a gay adult is certainly consenting. sheep...well, can't vouch for them but apparently some states can!!!

I quoted the bible because that's the core of this debate. Christian lawmakers and societies are the reason this is even a debate. If the Christians didn't care, this wouldn't be a debate at all.

Once again, I am NOT a relegious person in the least - I'm simply versed in topics that I've found interesting. Relegion happens to be one of those topics. I'm playing the devil's advocate in this debate - I don't care either way. I think it's only fair that this side of the debate be represented to show you what you're up against: A community of millions who blindly believe that allowing gays to marry will bring about the Rapture.

Adoption is a very Christian thing to do, surely. Abandoning your child, however, isn't. While the child itself isn't damned because of the parents' decision, that family line is: The parents for the abandonment and the child (eventually) will grow to accept gay relationships as "OK". Again, this is the churches argument, not mine. While the child can seek solice through the church and God, most children wouldn't tell their parents that they are damned to hell when they die because of their lifestyle choice.

Autism, Mental retardation and Down Syndrome are actual hereditary mutations that can be tracked to specific gene. We have tests that can detect this gene or trait while the fetus is in utero. Homosexuality, despite Kinsey's personal-agenda research, does not have a linked "gene". It is a product of environment, nurture and do some degree, choice. If you know of a non-Kinsey related source for rebuttal information, please share this resource!

in the textbook Human Genetics: Conepts and Applications 7th edition written by Ricki Lewis they cite the research from a 1991 study that found identical twins are more likely to both be homosexual than are both members of faternal same-sex twin pairs. specifically 52% of identical twin pairs in which one or both were homosexual, both brothers were homosexual, but only 22% of faternal twins. also proven in this same study are that 2 brain areas are different sizes in homosexuals v. heterosexuals.

also cited in the above textbook is a study conducted in 1993 by the National Cancer Institute and Dean Hamer who traced the inheritance of 5 genetic markers on the X chromosome in 40 pairs of homosexual brothers. although highly variable in the general population, they were identical in 33 of the 40 pairs. no causative gene was determeined.

also another research group confirmed the above work and extended the work to find that when 2 brothers are homosexual and have another heterosexual brother the heterosexual brother DOES NOT share the X chromosome markers. the markers however were not found in pairs of homosexual sisters.

researchers are now studying autosomal genes not just the sex genes. it is possible to manipulate genes to demonstrate homosexual behavior in other animals such as flies, and mice.

*my key that comes in the alphabet ater e is broken lol, that's why this post may look unny. :lol

I am not a very religious person so I can't quote straight rom the bible on much o this. I will, however, say that I don't understand why people use the "it will be a disgrace to what marriage really means' argument. Will two gay men marrying cause you to love your wie any less? Will it somehow 'change' what you think o marriage?

Marriage, as defined by www.dictionary.com:
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

By allowing same sex couples to marry, this would undoubtedly change the very definition of the word. There are gay couples out there right now that have no effect on my marriage at all. I don't see how this is relevant, and it does nothing to the mortar and brick that my marriage is founded on.

It's not a disgrace to what marriage means if homosexuals get married - it's an abomination to God. God, Man and Woman enter marriage as a Trio. All three must exist for the marriage to be permissible. Any violation of this trio results in an "unholy" marriage, or one not condoned in the eyes of God. By man making laws that allow this to happen, God's word is tossed aside. This equates to, quite literally, man telling God, "Take a walk, we can make our own rules now."

I'm getting sort of off topic here. I have a male cousin who has very female features...while his brothers have very large men builds and extra deep voices! The family pretty much knew from the time he was very little that the day would come when he would announce he was gay.

I've seen women who have had VERY male features and deeper voices. Come on there has to be some sort of reason and I WON'T ever agree that it's upbringing!

Upbringing doesn't make some men have more female "like" features and some females have more male "like" features:rolleyes

It's like nobody wants to discuss that gay people often have more differences than just their sexuality....period!!

Adoption is a very Christian thing to do, surely. Abandoning your child, however, isn't. While the child itself isn't damned because of the parents' decision, that family line is: The parents for the abandonment and the child (eventually) will grow to accept gay relationships as "OK". Again, this is the churches argument, not mine. While the child can seek solice through the church and God, most children wouldn't tell their parents that they are damned to hell when they die because of their lifestyle choice.

Autism, Mental retardation and Down Syndrome are actual hereditary mutations that can be tracked to specific gene. We have tests that can detect this gene or trait while the fetus is in utero. Homosexuality, despite Kinsey's personal-agenda research, does not have a linked "gene". It is a product of environment, nurture and do some degree, choice. If you know of a non-Kinsey related source for rebuttal information, please share this resource!


Well, they have also done studies on Homosexuality and I remember, though not verbatum, reading one in my psych class that they are actually close to possibly finding the gene that may carry homosexuality.

SOmething that seems to get forgotten a lot is that the Bible is written by man. If God is the creator of all then why would he create homosexuals and then speak against them?

And as for the slippery slope arugment statement i made early. In philosphy there is an argument known as the "slippery slope" meaning that if you do "A" it will then case "B" to happen. Example: If you allow homosexuals to marry, then pedophiles and beastomist are to follow. It pulls away from the point at hand and is not considered a valid answer in an arguement.

I'm getting sort of off topic here. I have a male cousin who has very female features...while his brothers have very large men builds and extra deep voices! The family pretty much knew from the time he was very little that the day would come when he would announce he was gay.

I've seen women who have had VERY male features and deeper voices. Come on there has to be some sort of reason and I WON'T ever agree that it's upbringing!

Upbringing doesn't make some men have more female "like" features and some females have more male "like" features:rolleyes

It's like nobody wants to discuss that gay people often have more differences than just their sexuality....period!!

I agree with you but in some cases it can be a the by product of nurture. A significant amount of homosexuals have been sexually abused... but a higher percentage of heterosexuals have been as well. This is one of those arguements that is always debated with nature/nurture. Though I do have to believe that ALOT of it has to do with nature.

i believe its partially both. i believe you are predisposed to be homosexual or heterosexual and the life you lead will encourage one behavior or the other.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't care if gays adopt, have legal rights, receive benefits, whatever - but again - Marriage is between a Man and a Woman.

What about people that have a sex change operation and LEGALLY become another sex........do they then get the right to marry who they wish.

Oh boy I just threadjacked:lol

BTW I'm all for sex change operations:yes

What about people that have a sex change operation and LEGALLY become another sex........do they then get the right to marry who they wish.

Oh boy I just threadjacked:lol

BTW I'm all for sex change operations:yes

I agree with you there aswell. On another note...How is it they can legally change there sex? Wouldnt that be against the way of God? Im for it but I dont get how it can pertain to one but not another.

I've heard that they can. They can change their birth certs. and drivers license as well. As far as the law is concerned they become the sex they have chosen. Maybe some states are different......not real sure:thinkin

oh and I'm sure that anyone debating on the side of religion will see it as exactly the same......WRONG and immoral! But technically in the eyes of the "law" it would be a "man" and a "woman", for arguments sake and all:rolleyes

Oh and where do the hermaphrodites fit in the whole religion plan as well:rolleyes

God made them too ya know:yes if you believe in god and all:yes

Well, they have also done studies on Homosexuality and I remember, though not verbatum, reading one in my psych class that they are actually close to possibly finding the gene that may carry homosexuality.

SOmething that seems to get forgotten a lot is that the Bible is written by man. If God is the creator of all then why would he create homosexuals and then speak against them?

And as for the slippery slope arugment statement i made early. In philosphy there is an argument known as the "slippery slope" meaning that if you do "A" it will then case "B" to happen. Example: If you allow homosexuals to marry, then pedophiles and beastomist are to follow. It pulls away from the point at hand and is not considered a valid answer in an arguement.

Thanks for the "slippery slope" translation! Haven't heard of it that way. I'm not trying to pull away from the initial debate by redirecting attention. I'm stating this: Believers will tell you that these sins are one and the same, and the violation and condoning of, through mans law, will allow the other sins to be more accessible. As one stated before, sin is sin, regardless of flavor.

Even the presence of a gene (or mutation) will probably not be an all encompassing "If you have these gene, you'll become a homosexual." It will more than likely be a percentage of people with that gene. This is where the research I've sifted through briefly is pointing.

Homosexuality, by most Christian definitions, range from Satan implanted suggestion to flat out choice. God does not make creations that violate his will without the ability to think freely. Therefore, Satan or choice have a roll in it. Christians believe that all people have the ability to make their own decisions, and that by choosing to be homosexual, those people violate God's will. The violation of God's will generates the Rapture, and the rest is pretty gruesome. Concievably, God would not create the vehicle of mankinds demise in this manner - every living being would be subject to being left behind, merely because they let the abomination live. Even the scientist in me argues that this must be fact, unless he's up to something.

What about people that have a sex change operation and LEGALLY become another sex........do they then get the right to marry who they wish.

Oh boy I just threadjacked:lol

BTW I'm all for sex change operations:yes

People who have sex change operations do so because they believe they were "created wrong". "I should have been a <insert opposite gender here>." They feel this way because, in every case I've studied, were sexually attracted to the same sex, had dominate opposing sex features and presumably carry a dominate thought process not associated with their sex.

No matter one's personal feelings towards the cards they were dealt, they had a decision to make. They chose to alter their body in a way that was more befitting of their own mental image, and not that of Gods. They chose a lifestyle they envisioned to be "correct", succumbed to the temptation of Satan, peer pressure or self-loathing, and simply told God that he was wrong.

This isn't the argument, however. Homosexuals want to be recognized for who they are and what they are. They refuse to change either of these ideals, either by choice or ignorance.

oh and I'm sure that anyone debating on the side of religion will see it as exactly the same......WRONG and immoral! But technically in the eyes of the "law" it would be a "man" and a "woman", for arguments sake and all:rolleyes

Man and woman are defined by body composition and reproductive status, not personal belief.

i believe its partially both. i believe you are predisposed to be homosexual or heterosexual and the life you lead will encourage one behavior or the other.

I don't think it's the life you lead as much as your interpretation of emotion. I know I've had 'girly' emotions in my life. I'm certain women have had an insatiable urge to drive that cell-phone-while-driving-moron-who-cut-me-off idiot off the road and bludgeon them to death with a roadkill rabbit. Some would say that you have male tendencies if a woman were to do this, and some women would believe this statement and begin re-arranging her life around it. This doesn't make you a freak or "soul searching", it makes you HUMAN. Try explaining to a post-partum woman that the emotions she's feeling are just her bodies way of expressing excess hormones. She'll not in agreement, say "I know", then begin crying, screaming or giggling. Technically, this would be classified as one with sociopathic tendencies, but we know better.

Your welcome for the explantion.

I understand what you mean and i understand why you use the Bible as a reference in this argument but I still cannot use something that has SO many different versions and was ultimatly written by man. Homosexuality will NOT cause the demise of the human race. Yes it can be argued that marriage is ment for the purpose of procreation but lets face it... we really dont need to procreate any longer. The Bible which is used for that arguement was written in a time when the world was in a different place. It can be said that this which is argued about so much could have been written in the Bible to stop men from having realations with their goats.

This is something that needs to be looked at by the government as just basic human right. It isnt wrong to love someone of the same sex who is of legal age. Yes it can be viewed as a choice but it is a choice that isnt hurting anyone.

I only worry about myself getting into Heaven. I know what i believe and feel. if i worried about everyone else that died and where they were going, i would go crazy.

with that said i dont agree or disagree with gay marriages. it is non of my business and wont effect my life or my husbands. as for the adoption.........if any loving family wants an unwanted child why stop them? as long as they go along with the laws of providing and protecting that child, then it is fine. JMO:dunno

Your welcome for the explantion.

I understand what you mean and i understand why you use the Bible as a reference in this argument but I still cannot use something that has SO many different versions and was ultimatly written by man. Homosexuality will NOT cause the demise of the human race. Yes it can be argued that marriage is ment for the purpose of procreation but lets face it... we really dont need to procreate any longer. The Bible which is used for that arguement was written in a time when the world was in a different place. It can be said that this which is argued about so much could have been written in the Bible to stop men from having realations with their goats.

This is something that needs to be looked at by the government as just basic human right. It isnt wrong to love someone of the same sex who is of legal age. Yes it can be viewed as a choice but it is a choice that isnt hurting anyone.

We truly don't need help procreating, surely. I can, however, see the point: If there was even the smallest chance, a remote inkling of a possibility that allowing gays to marry would bring about the end of the world, would you REALLY want to risk it?

The pursuit of happiness is a basic American right, and we chose whatever lifestyle we want. But make no mistake, this country was founded, governed and still maintained by deeply devout Christian politicians and lawmakers. I'm not even going to TRY to argue the validity of the bible - there isn't enough room on the internet to do this. I will tell you that if this were to be passed into law, the way the government works now will cease. All bets will be off. The lawyers will have found a way to change the law of God, even if only in words.

But this doesn't affect most of us. We're pretty liberal in our thoughts, and think that everyone should be treated equally as long as their pursuit of happiness doesn't interfere with someone else's. I personally say it doesn't matter either way. If ya like it, let it kill ya.

We truly don't need help procreating, surely. I can, however, see the point: If there was even the smallest chance, a remote inkling of a possibility that allowing gays to marry would bring about the end of the world, would you REALLY want to risk it?


If it were really going to cause the end of the world it would have happened. We are one of the last civilized societies to take any steps to making gay marriage legal. what about that? Wouldnt that have caused the end already?

We truly don't need help procreating, surely. I can, however, see the point: If there was even the smallest chance, a remote inkling of a possibility that allowing gays to marry would bring about the end of the world, would you REALLY want to risk it?

Hatetank, first I gotta say I'm loving your posts on this topic. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I'd have to go do my homework, but if I remember correctly there are some studies out there showing that in other countries where homosexuality has been accept and marriages are legal (the Netherlands/Holland and I wanna say Sweden -could be wrong though; this is where I'd have to do my homework again to refresh my memory) Anyway these countries are finding that their birthrates have dropped considerably enough that it's speculated that in another 20-30 years (again going on memory here) they will have wiped out their nationality! Between the younger generations marrying other nationalities and those being gay they are literally wiping out their nationality!

I need to leave the house for the evening otherwise I'd look some of this up and quote some resources but I know I've heard it on radio talk/news shows when this topic comes up.

Oh and about the whole goats men bible thing... it was just a theory i had heard and found it to be an interesting way to look at it. The bible was/is the law for a society then just as we have our laws now.

Hatetank, first I gotta say I'm loving your posts on this topic. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I'd have to go do my homework, but if I remember correctly there are some studies out there showing that in other countries where homosexuality has been accept and marriages are legal (the Netherlands/Holland and I wanna say Sweden -could be wrong though; this is where I'd have to do my homework again to refresh my memory) Anyway these countries are finding that their birthrates have dropped considerably enough that it's speculated that in another 20-30 years (again going on memory here) they will have wiped out their nationality! Between the younger generations marrying other nationalities and those being gay they are literally wiping out their nationality!

I need to leave the house for the evening otherwise I'd look some of this up and quote some resources but I know I've heard it on radio talk/news shows when this topic comes up.

A nationality is something you are born into a race or species is another thing, those are things that you are born as. Regaurdless, they are being wiped out anyways. We as a species are going to merge so much that there will be no difference between races. I read another one that said by the time my generation has great grandchildren (or somethig like that) there will be no difference between the races. I find it hard to believe that there is a solid correlation between gay marriage and our species (not nationalities or races) being wiped out. But if true stats say it then :dunno

People who have sex change operations do so because they believe they were "created wrong". "I should have been a <insert opposite gender here>." They feel this way because, in every case I've studied, were sexually attracted to the same sex, had dominate opposing sex features and presumably carry a dominate thought process not associated with their sex.

No matter one's personal feelings towards the cards they were dealt, they had a decision to make. They chose to alter their body in a way that was more befitting of their own mental image, and not that of Gods. They chose a lifestyle they envisioned to be "correct", succumbed to the temptation of Satan, peer pressure or self-loathing, and simply told God that he was wrong.

This isn't the argument, however. Homosexuals want to be recognized for who they are and what they are. They refuse to change either of these ideals, either by choice or ignorance.

While I realize all of that I just wonder how our government would view the union of (for example) two "men" if say one had "changed" their sex in a legal manner. Kinda throws the whole religious argument right out the window in a sense....well IMO anyway:yes

A nationality is something you are born into a race or species is another thing, those are things that you are born as.

I guess that depends on how you look at people. I don't see races. We are ONE race - the human race. We are however made up of alot of different nationalities, cultures and a race of different beliefs. If more people thought of ALL being ONE maybe racism wouldn't be as bad as it is or even exist at all. ;)

Hatetank, first I gotta say I'm loving your posts on this topic. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I'd have to go do my homework, but if I remember correctly there are some studies out there showing that in other countries where homosexuality has been accept and marriages are legal (the Netherlands/Holland and I wanna say Sweden -could be wrong though; this is where I'd have to do my homework again to refresh my memory) Anyway these countries are finding that their birthrates have dropped considerably enough that it's speculated that in another 20-30 years (again going on memory here) they will have wiped out their nationality! Between the younger generations marrying other nationalities and those being gay they are literally wiping out their nationality!

I need to leave the house for the evening otherwise I'd look some of this up and quote some resources but I know I've heard it on radio talk/news shows when this topic comes up.

It's true that in some European countries the birth rate has slowed, but it doesn't correlate with the introduction of same sex marriages. The UK is one of those countries - it's birth rate has been slowing for decades yet same sex marriages were only introduced in the last 12 months.

As for the genetics argument, it has been found that there is a neural sex-determination gene that, when mutated, will result in homosexual courtship. It's perfectly feasible that the gene will not have died out due to evolution, just like the gene for beta-thalassemia or the gene for fragile X syndrome havent died out. Certain circles argue that it's nature's way of preventing humans from overpopulating the globe.

Now onto the religious argument. Marriage was not originally deemed a religious ceremony - it was a social institution brought about to bestow certain rights and duties to both parties concerned. To say that the American translation of such is religous and confined to heterosexual couples is a moot point. The American marriage laws were changed to allow for religion, and then later chenged again to allow divorce and abortion, why not same-sex marriages?

On a more personal note, I'm attending a same-sex marriage next month. The men in question have been together for decades and are very much in love, but have only been able to make it publicly known within the last 10 years. Why deny them their happiness? Why deny them their rights as a couple? If anyone truly thinks that they're going to burn in hell for their actions, why not just let them? How's it going to affect anyone else? It's their life and their decision.

sorry i peetered out last night, i went to bed...but #1 - the cause of autism is not yet known, possibly heriditary. #2 - please let's not get into "damned" adoption, that is a different debate and I don't want to get upset over it. #3 - just because a couple is gay does not mean they cannot or will not have children. I do not think nations or "the human race" is at stake if we allow gay marriage. like I said, there are gay couples out there and we will not "stop" them from being gay by forbidding marriage. the original intent of marriage was based around pro-creation and that is now a load of sh*t. we won't forbid a straight couple to marry just because they are unable to have children. marriage was originally set up, people didn't have much of a choice. now we do, let's excercise it.

Marriage, as defined by www.dictionary.com:
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

*I'm at work now so my F key works :giggle

Yes, I agree, this is the 'current' definition of marriage, but don't these change all the time? At one time wasn't the defininition of 'landowner' only a white male? I'm sure they found reasons in the bible for their argument as well. I wish I were more knowledgable about the bible to really argue my point but I'm not. I will just say that I truely believe that in 30 or 40 years our children or their children will look back on our current ban on gay marriages and find it so outdated and stupid, much the way we look back on events in our history.

I'm a little behind here, but here it goes...

I don't know much nor have read much about genetics, but my thoughts were always basic animal procreation. It is animal instinct to procreate, so why would you be attracted to someone that you can't procreate with? To me that would seem to be some sort of genetic issue.

I don't think religion should be a factor in decisions regarding law. I do understand that it is now, but that doesn't mean I think it's right. Gay marriages don't hurt others and the only reason they are illegal is the religious views on it and the word marriage.

I agree, that the slippery slope theory doesn't hold water for certain of those other things mentioned. A 14 year old is not a legal adult, siblings getting married and having a child can harm the child. Sure polygamists may argue there case, but that is a whole different thread. And well, beastiality, that is a whole other thread too since technically the animal isn't a consenting adult either....

As far as the country being ready for it, it never will. The country still isn't ready for abortions, but Roe vs Wade was passed and has been fought against ever since. As long as religion exists and says gay marriages are sinful, this country won't be able to handle it. The plunge needs to be taken anyway.

On a more personal note, I'm attending a same-sex marriage next month.

I went to a same-sex marriage 6 years ago. They were married in a unitarian church and have a wonderful relationship still. (Of course, they aren't "legally" married.)

I am not going to read all the responses. I am against Gay Marriage because marriage is a religious bond. I am not against people who are gay but I do not agree with it for my own personal reasons.

If we did not legalize marriage but allowed a legal document of committment than what about those people who just co-habitate. I can understand the benefits thing but then what do we tell the couple who have been cohabitating with each other for 10+ years? Where do the lines get drawn at? I do not know. I am happy with the way the laws have been concerning marriage.

ETA~ I do not think gay people raising children will influence children to be gay. I do not agree with the lifestyle but I do feel they are still very loveing people like anyone else.

I am not going to read all the responses. I am against Gay Marriage because marriage is a religious bond. I am not against people who are gay but I do not agree with it for my own personal reasons.

I can understand the benefits thing but then what do we tell the couple who has been cohabitating with each other for 10+ years? Where do the lines get drawn at? I do not know. I am happy with the way the laws have been concerning marriage.

Generally speaking, a couple that has been cohabiting for that long are legally regarded as commonlaw - they have the same benefits as most other marriages, so there'd be nothing to tell them. (plus they could probably get married if they wanted to!) :dunno

As for the genetics argument, it has been found that there is a neural sex-determination gene that, when mutated, will result in homosexual courtship. It's perfectly feasible that the gene will not have died out due to evolution, just like the gene for beta-thalassemia or the gene for fragile X syndrome havent died out. Certain circles argue that it's nature's way of preventing humans from overpopulating the globe.

This is true, and proof that homosexuality is not a hereditary pass down. A mutation is still required to occur. I stated that I believe environment has more to do with homosexuality than genetics. The fact that this is being viewed as a means of population control is just too compelling to ignore. What a great debate this would become!

To say that the American translation of such is religous and confined to heterosexual couples is a moot point. The American marriage laws were changed to allow for religion, and then later chenged again to allow divorce and abortion, why not same-sex marriages?

I think the American translation is solely the point. The American translation of marriage is what defined our version of the word marriage, (though I'm not sure if the Queen's English definition is the same, I'd assume it was.. and long before all the fools sailed away.) The laws for abortion were changed, as I stated earlier, to save at least one of two lives, which is the most "christian" of the two options. Divorce can also be placed in the same category, since the only way out of a marriage was death. A few Kings and dozens of beheadings taught us this.

On a more personal note, I'm attending a same-sex marriage next month. The men in question have been together for decades and are very much in love, but have only been able to make it publicly known within the last 10 years. Why deny them their happiness? Why deny them their rights as a couple? If anyone truly thinks that they're going to burn in hell for their actions, why not just let them? How's it going to affect anyone else? It's their life and their decision.

By Christian mandate, they are a "couple" in an unnatural commitment with one another. They don't HAVE rights as a couple.

Like I said, I don't care either way. Pursuit of happiness should only be limited by the impeding of someone else's happiness. My opinion is that I have no opinion. I don't care either way, except for their rights. When these rights are violated, THEN I'll take up arms. Their rights haven't been violated legally yet.

I don't think religion should be a factor in decisions regarding law. I do understand that it is now, but that doesn't mean I think it's right. Gay marriages don't hurt others and the only reason they are illegal is the religious views on it and the word marriage.

Freedom of Relegion is actually a Catch 22. We "assume" it means we can worship whatever god we want, or not worship at all. What it actually translates to is that you can worship God anyway you want - but you will worship.

I agree, that the slippery slope theory doesn't hold water for certain of those other things mentioned. A 14 year old is not a legal adult, siblings getting married and having a child can harm the child. Sure polygamists may argue there case, but that is a whole different thread. And well, beastiality, that is a whole other thread too since technically the animal isn't a consenting adult either....

A 12 year old girl was a prime candidate for marriage 100 years ago. In Canada, a 14 year old girl could make a consensual sex decision (It's recently been changed.) Age of consent is an environmental quandry. The age of the girl being of consensual age should technically coincide with her ability to produce viable off spring. Having children at that age would be traumatic on a 12 year old girl, and essentially solidify a position for her as a brood mare for the state, as she wouldn't have any practical experience outside of home making.

As far as the country being ready for it, it never will. The country still isn't ready for abortions, but Roe vs Wade was passed and has been fought against ever since. As long as religion exists and says gay marriages are sinful, this country won't be able to handle it. The plunge needs to be taken anyway.

I disagree. Those who are strongly against abortion are putting thousands of women's lives at risk. If they can't go to a hospital to have an abortion under controlled medical supervision, they're going to do it in chop shops. We can't make people seeking an abortion take responsibility for their actions and have the baby, then throw on a new series of "America's Top Model". A 15 year old girl is going to be shattered if she has stretch marks visible through her high-fashion clothing that society is telling her she needs to wear to be accepted.

Generally speaking, a couple that has been cohabiting for that long are legally regarded as commonlaw - they have the same benefits as most other marriages, so there'd be nothing to tell them. (plus they could probably get married if they wanted to!) :dunno

Actually no they do not have the same rights. They do not get eachothers medical benefits etc.

*I'm at work now so my F key works :giggle

Yes, I agree, this is the 'current' definition of marriage, but don't these change all the time? At one time wasn't the defininition of 'landowner' only a white male?

Defintions are frequently amended to include new concepts and theories, and only after years of observation. "Landowner" has always meant "one who owns land". The difference is that women and slaves weren't allowed to own land - they were considered to be a man's belongings. So by this, all land owners were white males by default.


I'm sure they found reasons in the bible for their argument as well. I wish I were more knowledgable about the bible to really argue my point but I'm not. I will just say that I truely believe that in 30 or 40 years our children or their children will look back on our current ban on gay marriages and find it so outdated and stupid, much the way we look back on events in our history.

The old Testament mandated "an eye for an eye". That if a man kills your brother, you were REQUIRED, by God's law, to exterminate that mans entire family. This was refined in the New Testament to simply mean "Do unto others". This is one of the first amendments to the "Death Penalty".. and we've been arguing about it for hundreds of years. Racism isn't tolerated in Christian relegion (save for the People of the Bow, but that's not relevant in this argument) yet it's still alive and kicking, often in ways we never predicated. Hundreds of years have passed and people are STILL torn on mixed couples.

Don't give mankind credit where we've proven we don't deserve it.

Actually no they do not have the same rights. They do not get eachothers medical benefits etc.

http://www.unmarried.org/common.html

'Common law marriage makes you a legally married couple in every way, even though you never obtained a marriage license. If you choose to end your relationship, you must get a divorce, even though you never had a wedding. Legally, common law married couples must play by all the same rules as "regular" married couples.'

Not everywhere ackknowledges common law marriages. I know more than 10 people who are or have been in relationships over 10 years and they are seen as two people who live together by the law.

Not everywhere ackknowledges common law marriages. I know more than 10 people who are or have been in relationships over 10 years and they are seen as two people who live together by the law.

That's why I said 'generally speaking' ;) Either way, it's beside the point - you asked what about the couple who have been living together for 10yrs. Well, what about them? If they want the benefits I'm sure they have the option to marry, even if their state doesn't recognise commonlaw marriages. Same sex marriages don't affect them in any way.

I was thinking faster than I typed. Sorry.

If we did not legalize marriage but allowed a legal document of committment than what about those people who just co-habitate.

I was thinking faster than I typed. Sorry.

If we did not legalize marriage but allowed a legal document of committment than what about those people who just co-habitate.

I'm not sure of what you mean - can you explain?

People have suggested that instead of letting people marry there be a document that basically states they are in a commited relationship. This would allow them the same rights insurance and death benefits wise as a married couple.

People have suggested that instead of letting people marry there be a document that basically states they are in a commited relationship. This would allow them the same rights insurance and death benefits wise as a married couple.

aaaah ok, thanks! :)

I would assume that the states that recognise a commonlaw marriage would be the first to allow same-sex relationships to be recognised, so I'm not sure that it would really matter.

It will because people will hear about it and want to prevent it from happening in their state. Also while all of our states do have some varying laws marriage has to be recognized in all 50 states no matter where it happened. Couples who have a "contract would be mad if they could not go to another state and keep their benefits for better job oppurtunities etc. It really would end up causing (and has caused) many more heated debates.

Ok I actually had to sleep and go to school but I am back for a moment.

I guess that depends on how you look at people. I don't see races. We are ONE race - the human race. We are however made up of alot of different nationalities, cultures and a race of different beliefs. If more people thought of ALL being ONE maybe racism wouldn't be as bad as it is or even exist at all. ;)


Scientificly... nationality is something such as we are American, Sonia is British. Yes... it can be said that we are a human race (we are) but that is a species as far as science is concerned. Just as you said if people thought of ALL being ONE then discrimination against homosexuals would not exist either.

It will because people will hear about it and want to prevent it from happening in their state. Also while all of our states do have some varying laws marriage has to be recognized in all 50 states no matter where it happened. Couples who have a "contract would be mad if they could not go to another state and keep their benefits for better job oppurtunities etc. It really would end up causing (and has caused) many more heated debates.

Yes, but those couples who have a 'contract' have the option to get married if they want to!

So if you see a 48 year old man and a 13 year old girl with the same look in their eyes, should pedophilia be legal? How about between a man and a sheep? Simply because it's close to your home and on the tip of pop culture doesn't mean it's right. Don't let outside sources shape your opinions!

I understand but the point I was trying to make is I may not like it, ( but then again I don't like alot of things) but that doesn't mean I can't respect it. As long as they are ok with it and not afraid of the effect it'll have on their life then I'll support them b/c like i said its not my place to judge:) And I don't say that only b/c its close to home. like you said whose to say its right, but also whose to say its wrong ( yes you( not you personally) can use the bible as your backing, but not everyone is a christian so that shouldn't be peoples main reason to say its wrong) :)

Just as you said if people thought of ALL being ONE then discrimination against homosexuals would not exist either.

The only problem with that is the issue of are they born that way or do they chose to be that way. That's still a division. I cannot say a black person, or an asian person wasn't born that way or even the person born with autism or down syndrome. They definately were whereas there is still the question for some people that gays choose to be that way. That it's a lifestyle.

Many states have taken this issue to the polls and most times gay marriage looses. 45 out of 50 states have changed their state constitution or their state legistlature to either ban gay marriages or state marriage as to be between a man and a woman. That alone tells me that it will be sometime before this country accepts the idea of gay marriages. Maybe in another generation or two but for now overall it's not an accepted idea.

Marriage is different than what many consider a civil union. I think civil unions are much more accepted; ideally speaking. I don't really see the difference between the two.

how do you feel about it? do you think it should be allowed? if you say no why? if you say yes, why? do you think children raised by gay parents turn out to be gay? do you think gays should be allowed to adopt children.

Why shouldn't they? They are people in love just as any man and woman are. I don't know why its not allowed. They also have the right to raise and adopt children like anyone else. Children raised by a gay couple wont necessarily be gay, they will have the same chance as being gay as every other child born.

Yes, but those couples who have a 'contract' have the option to get married if they want to!

If people who are homosexual have a 'contract' for insurance and other such benefits then no they would not be able to get married if they want to. That is an option that people have tossed out for idea lately.

If people who are homosexual have a 'contract' for insurance and other such benefits then no they would not be able to get married if they want to. That is an option that people have tossed out for idea lately.

You're not understanding my point. You said what will people (I'm assuming heterosexual) who have been together for 10 years say if homosexual couples are allowed a legalised contract of co-habitation? Well, the couples in question always have the option to marry if they want to - homosexual couples are not currently afforded that luxury.

You're not understanding my point. You said what will people (I'm assuming heterosexual) who have been together for 10 years say if homosexual couples are allowed a legalised contract of co-habitation? Well, the couples in question always have the option to marry if they want to - homosexual couples are not currently afforded that luxury.

I get your point and I agree. I think people that argue the definition of "marriage" is religious and between man and women and that the word should be not be used, is just trying to justify not wanting to see gay marriages. If the homosexual community stood up and said they only wanted a legalized contract of their union, those same people would have to find another argument and we'd still be in the same place.

The only problem with that is the issue of are they born that way or do they chose to be that way. That's still a division. I cannot say a black person, or an asian person wasn't born that way or even the person born with autism or down syndrome. They definately were whereas there is still the question for some people that gays choose to be that way. That it's a lifestyle

But why should lifestyle choices be discriminated against? That is like saying we should discriminate against the Amish or any other such lifestyle choice.