Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Skylar]

Right wing nut job religious right, far left bed wetters and media are infatuated with gay anything. I support gay rights and have no problem with gay marriage but agree with redfish. Let court make a decision and live with it.

Sorry, but I didn't elect the judges on the Supreme Court and I don't believe they have any right to dictate to anyone as to how the Constitution can be bent to suit their own values and opinions. The only way the Constitution should be "adjusted" is through a Constitutional Amendment. Women's suffrage took an Amendment as did Emancipation. The judges didn't just let it slide by.

Interpreting the constitution is the job of the court. Says who?

Says the Fedearlist papers.

Wrong, the job of the court is to determine whether current law is being applied in accordance with the constitution. It is NOT their job to interpret the constitution.

I know its a subtle difference, but it is a significant difference.

U have it half right.
Court interprets the Constitution, which is the law of the land, to determine if current state laws comply with the Constitution. What Court should not do is stretch the Constitution, with claims that it is evolving and is a living document, to fit any and all claims of equal rights. Marriage is different in many ways as it is a religious sacred vow to many where in reality it is a legal contract.

Look up the word "marriage" in any dictionary. You will not find any definition that includes same sex couples.

Marriage:
noun
1.
(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example,opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage:

Marriage Define Marriage at Dictionary.com

Its not like you know what you're talking about. And its not like contradiction by the dictionary is going to matter to you in the slightest.

As your sole basis of credibility is that a source agree with you. If it doesn't, you ignore it. Including the dictionary on the meaning of words and the Founders on the meaning of the constitution.

And....so what? Its not like the rest of us are obligated to ignore these sources just because they're inconvenient to your argument. Nor does your willful ignorance have the slightest relevance to the law.

 

[Skylar]

Sorry, but I didn't elect the judges on the Supreme Court and I don't believe they have any right to dictate to anyone as to how the Constitution can be bent to suit their own values and opinions. The only way the Constitution should be "adjusted" is through a Constitutional Amendment. Women's suffrage took an Amendment as did Emancipation. The judges didn't just let it slide by.

Interpreting the constitution is the job of the court. Says who?

Says the Fedearlist papers.

Wrong, the job of the court is to determine whether current law is being applied in accordance with the constitution. It is NOT their job to interpret the constitution.

I know its a subtle difference, but it is a significant difference.

U have it half right.
Court interprets the Constitution, which is the law of the land, to determine if current state laws comply with the Constitution. What Court should not do is stretch the Constitution, with claims that it is evolving and is a living document, to fit any and all claims of equal rights. Marriage is different in many ways as it is a religious sacred vow to many where in reality it is a legal contract.

Look up the word "marriage" in any dictionary. You will not find any definition that includes same sex couples.

A gay union, while a valid legal document, is not a marriage.

Calling a duck a giraffe does not make it a giraffe.

Sadly, Webster's has recently revised the definition of Marriage to include the joining of homo-gender sexual deviants.

And....Websters will now be ignored.

As I said, your only standard is you. Anything that doesn't agree with you is dismissed as invalid. Even the dictionary on the meaning of words.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

so long as they are "Lesbian Seagulls" its fine with me.

 

[LittleNipper]

Laws are not interpreted by what Websters Dictionary says.

But right and wrong/good and evil are not defined by what people decide.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Laws are not interpreted by what Websters Dictionary says.

But right and wrong/good and evil are not defined by what people decide.

Where'd you get that nonsense from, Baptist Sunday School?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh! So Natural Law is straw reasoning. Wouldn't Locke be shocked to learn that?

There's no 'natural law of marriage'. You made that up.

So your conclusion is then that the argument is straw reasoning: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

I'll take that concession; noted and accepted.

Well ok... Let's you and I break it down, shall we... (Reader you can go on to bed, as Skylar will now become OBSESSED with something else... ANYTHING ELSE, except this discussion.)

Again, your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself. ...

WOW~ So you're going to invoke straw reasoning, after just lamenting straw reasoning? HYSTERICAL!

Love the irony.

I'll take THAT concession; noted and accepted.


So you've agreed that you conclude that the reasoning at issue is that of straw, a pretense which I conjured to escape the reality that is your need for sexual deviancy to be sexual normality?

Now the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

Skylar was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus concedes to this point. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

Skylar was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus concedes to this point. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.

Are you coming to reject that fact?

Skylar was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus concedes to this point. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.

There is no marriage in nature. [/QUOTE]

Humanity exists in nature... this is incontestable, thus Skylar's only contest is refuted in undeniable terms.

Thus demonstrating Skylar's and by extension, the homo-cult's concession to the reality that in point of unassailable fact, Marriage IS, the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And by virtue of that, there is no potential for a claim of inequity for those seeking to join with people of the same gender, who claim that their being disqualified from marriage, sets them so.

And with that said, Skylar's 6th Concession in a single post; a post wherein she lost the ENTIRETY of this debate... is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And THAT Reader is how THAT is done.

This post will be repeated about a million times everyday, until the SCOTUS scuttles the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

 

[Redfish]

Sorry, but I didn't elect the judges on the Supreme Court and I don't believe they have any right to dictate to anyone as to how the Constitution can be bent to suit their own values and opinions. The only way the Constitution should be "adjusted" is through a Constitutional Amendment. Women's suffrage took an Amendment as did Emancipation. The judges didn't just let it slide by.

Interpreting the constitution is the job of the court. Says who?

Says the Fedearlist papers.

Wrong, the job of the court is to determine whether current law is being applied in accordance with the constitution. It is NOT their job to interpret the constitution.

I know its a subtle difference, but it is a significant difference.

U have it half right.
Court interprets the Constitution, which is the law of the land, to determine if current state laws comply with the Constitution. What Court should not do is stretch the Constitution, with claims that it is evolving and is a living document, to fit any and all claims of equal rights. Marriage is different in many ways as it is a religious sacred vow to many where in reality it is a legal contract.

Look up the word "marriage" in any dictionary. You will not find any definition that includes same sex couples.

Marriage:
noun
1.
(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example,opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage:

Marriage Define Marriage at Dictionary.com

Its not like you know what you're talking about. And its not like contradiction by the dictionary is going to matter to you in the slightest.

As your sole basis of credibility is that a source agree with you. If it doesn't, you ignore it. Including the dictionary on the meaning of words and the Founders on the meaning of the constitution.

And....so what? Its not like the rest of us are obligated to ignore these sources just because they're inconvenient to your argument. Nor does your willful ignorance have the slightest relevance to the law.

Liberals can change the definitions in dictionaries, they can preach and cry and whine and hurl insults.

What they can't do is change human biology and thousands of years of human history.

A gay union is not a marriage

End of story and end of thread--------------please.

 

[Seawytch]

Interpreting the constitution is the job of the court. Says who?

Says the Fedearlist papers.

Wrong, the job of the court is to determine whether current law is being applied in accordance with the constitution. It is NOT their job to interpret the constitution.

I know its a subtle difference, but it is a significant difference.

U have it half right.
Court interprets the Constitution, which is the law of the land, to determine if current state laws comply with the Constitution. What Court should not do is stretch the Constitution, with claims that it is evolving and is a living document, to fit any and all claims of equal rights. Marriage is different in many ways as it is a religious sacred vow to many where in reality it is a legal contract.

Look up the word "marriage" in any dictionary. You will not find any definition that includes same sex couples.

Marriage:
noun
1.
(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example,opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage:

Marriage Define Marriage at Dictionary.com

Its not like you know what you're talking about. And its not like contradiction by the dictionary is going to matter to you in the slightest.

As your sole basis of credibility is that a source agree with you. If it doesn't, you ignore it. Including the dictionary on the meaning of words and the Founders on the meaning of the constitution.

And....so what? Its not like the rest of us are obligated to ignore these sources just because they're inconvenient to your argument. Nor does your willful ignorance have the slightest relevance to the law.

Liberals can change the definitions in dictionaries, they can preach and cry and whine and hurl insults.

What they can't do is change human biology and thousands of years of human history.

A gay union is not a marriage

End of story and end of thread--------------please.

Chickenfish can yell at clouds, tilt at windmills and shake his fist at the moon.

Gays will still be legally married.

The beginning of happy endings...

 

[thanatos144]

Wrong, the job of the court is to determine whether current law is being applied in accordance with the constitution. It is NOT their job to interpret the constitution.

I know its a subtle difference, but it is a significant difference.

U have it half right.
Court interprets the Constitution, which is the law of the land, to determine if current state laws comply with the Constitution. What Court should not do is stretch the Constitution, with claims that it is evolving and is a living document, to fit any and all claims of equal rights. Marriage is different in many ways as it is a religious sacred vow to many where in reality it is a legal contract.

Look up the word "marriage" in any dictionary. You will not find any definition that includes same sex couples.

Marriage:
noun
1.
(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example,opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage:

Marriage Define Marriage at Dictionary.com

Its not like you know what you're talking about. And its not like contradiction by the dictionary is going to matter to you in the slightest.

As your sole basis of credibility is that a source agree with you. If it doesn't, you ignore it. Including the dictionary on the meaning of words and the Founders on the meaning of the constitution.

And....so what? Its not like the rest of us are obligated to ignore these sources just because they're inconvenient to your argument. Nor does your willful ignorance have the slightest relevance to the law.

Liberals can change the definitions in dictionaries, they can preach and cry and whine and hurl insults.

What they can't do is change human biology and thousands of years of human history.

A gay union is not a marriage

End of story and end of thread--------------please.

Chickenfish can yell at clouds, tilt at windmills and shake his fist at the moon.

Gays will still be legally married.

The beginning of happy endings...

Homosexuals not Gay.... None of you perverts are happy.

 

[RKMBrown]

The right to life is not a choice, it's a right. Get over it. Oh and the SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a part of that right to life. See right to life in the fourteenth amendment. See SCOTUS rulings on marriage. Sorry, but the constitution is not dictated by the pope.

Hmmm, does your "right to life" argument apply to unborn human beings, or only to gay human beings? Just curious.

Yes. IMO when a baby has brain function and a beating heart, the baby is a living human being. As such that baby deserves protection from those that would do the baby harm.

I don't understand how/why you equate right to life with right to gay marriage. Its totally illogical.

Marriage is a part of life. That's how.

It is your "illogical" stance on gay marriage that makes you think marriage has nothing to do with life.

For the last time. I want gays to be able to legally commit to each other and get the same benefits as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is not a marriage. Look it up in your Websters.

Again, at the risk of being repititions, the current gay agenda is NOT about rights or equal treatment, its about using the govt to mandate societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition. But its not and never will be.

ROFL... no it will be a same sex marriage, not a heterosexual marriage but a gay/ssm marriage. Get over it. You've lost your war against ssm.

 

[Redfish]

Hmmm, does your "right to life" argument apply to unborn human beings, or only to gay human beings? Just curious.

Yes. IMO when a baby has brain function and a beating heart, the baby is a living human being. As such that baby deserves protection from those that would do the baby harm.

I don't understand how/why you equate right to life with right to gay marriage. Its totally illogical.

Marriage is a part of life. That's how.

It is your "illogical" stance on gay marriage that makes you think marriage has nothing to do with life.

For the last time. I want gays to be able to legally commit to each other and get the same benefits as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is not a marriage. Look it up in your Websters.

Again, at the risk of being repititions, the current gay agenda is NOT about rights or equal treatment, its about using the govt to mandate societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition. But its not and never will be.

ROFL... no it will be a same sex marriage, not a heterosexual marriage but a gay/ssm marriage. Get over it. You've lost your war against ssm.

maybe, and if so the country and society in general has also lost. But you fools will have succeeded in bringing down the traditional family unit and the religious beliefs that marriage is based on.

its very clear, the progressive agenda is the destruction of american society. We get it.

 

[Skylar]

Yes. IMO when a baby has brain function and a beating heart, the baby is a living human being. As such that baby deserves protection from those that would do the baby harm.

I don't understand how/why you equate right to life with right to gay marriage. Its totally illogical.

Marriage is a part of life. That's how.

It is your "illogical" stance on gay marriage that makes you think marriage has nothing to do with life.

For the last time. I want gays to be able to legally commit to each other and get the same benefits as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is not a marriage. Look it up in your Websters.

Again, at the risk of being repititions, the current gay agenda is NOT about rights or equal treatment, its about using the govt to mandate societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition. But its not and never will be.

ROFL... no it will be a same sex marriage, not a heterosexual marriage but a gay/ssm marriage. Get over it. You've lost your war against ssm.

maybe, and if so the country and society in general has also lost. But you fools will have succeeded in bringing down the traditional family unit and the religious beliefs that marriage is based on.

its very clear, the progressive agenda is the destruction of american society. We get it.

If your family unit is based on denying marriage to someone else......their marriage isn't your problem. Gay marriage takes nothing from you. It doesn't even involve you directly.

This is the part I don't understand. The adamant opposition despite virtually *no* impact on the individual getting so adamant. You're blessedly irrelevant to this process. No one is demanding that you marry someone of the same sex. Only that someone else be allowed to if they choose.

 

[Redfish]

I don't understand how/why you equate right to life with right to gay marriage. Its totally illogical.

Marriage is a part of life. That's how.

It is your "illogical" stance on gay marriage that makes you think marriage has nothing to do with life.

For the last time. I want gays to be able to legally commit to each other and get the same benefits as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is not a marriage. Look it up in your Websters.

Again, at the risk of being repititions, the current gay agenda is NOT about rights or equal treatment, its about using the govt to mandate societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition. But its not and never will be.

ROFL... no it will be a same sex marriage, not a heterosexual marriage but a gay/ssm marriage. Get over it. You've lost your war against ssm.

maybe, and if so the country and society in general has also lost. But you fools will have succeeded in bringing down the traditional family unit and the religious beliefs that marriage is based on.

its very clear, the progressive agenda is the destruction of american society. We get it.

If your family unit is based on denying marriage to someone else......their marriage isn't your problem. Gay marriage takes nothing from you. It doesn't even involve you directly.

This is the part I don't understand. The adamant opposition despite virtually *no* impact on the individual getting so adamant. You're blessedly irrelevant to this process. No one is demanding that you marry someone of the same sex. Only that someone else be allowed to if they choose.

it involves all of society because if gay unions are called marriages then society is telling its children that homosexuality is a normal human condition and they can choose which way they want to go.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is a part of life. That's how.

It is your "illogical" stance on gay marriage that makes you think marriage has nothing to do with life.

For the last time. I want gays to be able to legally commit to each other and get the same benefits as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is not a marriage. Look it up in your Websters.

Again, at the risk of being repititions, the current gay agenda is NOT about rights or equal treatment, its about using the govt to mandate societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition. But its not and never will be.

ROFL... no it will be a same sex marriage, not a heterosexual marriage but a gay/ssm marriage. Get over it. You've lost your war against ssm.

maybe, and if so the country and society in general has also lost. But you fools will have succeeded in bringing down the traditional family unit and the religious beliefs that marriage is based on.

its very clear, the progressive agenda is the destruction of american society. We get it.

If your family unit is based on denying marriage to someone else......their marriage isn't your problem. Gay marriage takes nothing from you. It doesn't even involve you directly.

This is the part I don't understand. The adamant opposition despite virtually *no* impact on the individual getting so adamant. You're blessedly irrelevant to this process. No one is demanding that you marry someone of the same sex. Only that someone else be allowed to if they choose.

it involves all of society because if gay unions are called marriages then society is telling its children that homosexuality is a normal human condition and they can choose which way they want to go.

So you oppose gay marriage because you oppose homosexuality?

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes. IMO when a baby has brain function and a beating heart, the baby is a living human being. As such that baby deserves protection from those that would do the baby harm.

I don't understand how/why you equate right to life with right to gay marriage. Its totally illogical.

Marriage is a part of life. That's how.

It is your "illogical" stance on gay marriage that makes you think marriage has nothing to do with life.

For the last time. I want gays to be able to legally commit to each other and get the same benefits as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is not a marriage. Look it up in your Websters.

Again, at the risk of being repititions, the current gay agenda is NOT about rights or equal treatment, its about using the govt to mandate societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition. But its not and never will be.

ROFL... no it will be a same sex marriage, not a heterosexual marriage but a gay/ssm marriage. Get over it. You've lost your war against ssm.

maybe, and if so the country and society in general has also lost. But you fools will have succeeded in bringing down the traditional family unit and the religious beliefs that marriage is based on.

its very clear, the progressive agenda is the destruction of american society. We get it.

How is liberty the destruction of American Society?

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't understand how/why you equate right to life with right to gay marriage. Its totally illogical.

Marriage is a part of life. That's how.

It is your "illogical" stance on gay marriage that makes you think marriage has nothing to do with life.

For the last time. I want gays to be able to legally commit to each other and get the same benefits as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is not a marriage. Look it up in your Websters.

Again, at the risk of being repititions, the current gay agenda is NOT about rights or equal treatment, its about using the govt to mandate societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition. But its not and never will be.

ROFL... no it will be a same sex marriage, not a heterosexual marriage but a gay/ssm marriage. Get over it. You've lost your war against ssm.

maybe, and if so the country and society in general has also lost. But you fools will have succeeded in bringing down the traditional family unit and the religious beliefs that marriage is based on.

its very clear, the progressive agenda is the destruction of american society. We get it.

If your family unit is based on denying marriage to someone else......their marriage isn't your problem. Gay marriage takes nothing from you. It doesn't even involve you directly.

This is the part I don't understand. The adamant opposition despite virtually *no* impact on the individual getting so adamant. You're blessedly irrelevant to this process. No one is demanding that you marry someone of the same sex. Only that someone else be allowed to if they choose.

No one ever said being gay is normal. Quite the opposite. But that does not mean it's illegal to not be normal. What's next you folks wanting to make it illegal to be super smart or super dumb? Anyone not within 10pts of average to be punished?

 

[kaz]

Marriage is a part of life. That's how.

It is your "illogical" stance on gay marriage that makes you think marriage has nothing to do with life.

For the last time. I want gays to be able to legally commit to each other and get the same benefits as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is not a marriage. Look it up in your Websters.

Again, at the risk of being repititions, the current gay agenda is NOT about rights or equal treatment, its about using the govt to mandate societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition. But its not and never will be.

ROFL... no it will be a same sex marriage, not a heterosexual marriage but a gay/ssm marriage. Get over it. You've lost your war against ssm.

maybe, and if so the country and society in general has also lost. But you fools will have succeeded in bringing down the traditional family unit and the religious beliefs that marriage is based on.

its very clear, the progressive agenda is the destruction of american society. We get it.

If your family unit is based on denying marriage to someone else......their marriage isn't your problem. Gay marriage takes nothing from you. It doesn't even involve you directly.

This is the part I don't understand. The adamant opposition despite virtually *no* impact on the individual getting so adamant. You're blessedly irrelevant to this process. No one is demanding that you marry someone of the same sex. Only that someone else be allowed to if they choose.

it involves all of society because if gay unions are called marriages then society is telling its children that homosexuality is a normal human condition and they can choose which way they want to go.

How do you chose which sex to be attracted to? When I hit puberty, I had no doubt who I was fantasizing about when I started choking the chicken

 

[PaintMyHouse]

For the last time. I want gays to be able to legally commit to each other and get the same benefits as a man/woman marriage. But a gay union is not a marriage. Look it up in your Websters.

Again, at the risk of being repititions, the current gay agenda is NOT about rights or equal treatment, its about using the govt to mandate societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition. But its not and never will be.

ROFL... no it will be a same sex marriage, not a heterosexual marriage but a gay/ssm marriage. Get over it. You've lost your war against ssm.

maybe, and if so the country and society in general has also lost. But you fools will have succeeded in bringing down the traditional family unit and the religious beliefs that marriage is based on.

its very clear, the progressive agenda is the destruction of american society. We get it.

If your family unit is based on denying marriage to someone else......their marriage isn't your problem. Gay marriage takes nothing from you. It doesn't even involve you directly.

This is the part I don't understand. The adamant opposition despite virtually *no* impact on the individual getting so adamant. You're blessedly irrelevant to this process. No one is demanding that you marry someone of the same sex. Only that someone else be allowed to if they choose.

it involves all of society because if gay unions are called marriages then society is telling its children that homosexuality is a normal human condition and they can choose which way they want to go.

How do you chose which sex to be attracted to? When I hit puberty, I had no doubt who I was fantasizing about when I started choking the chicken

For most gays they didn't either. Very few people ever make a choice, they just are who they are.

 

[kaz]

ROFL... no it will be a same sex marriage, not a heterosexual marriage but a gay/ssm marriage. Get over it. You've lost your war against ssm.

maybe, and if so the country and society in general has also lost. But you fools will have succeeded in bringing down the traditional family unit and the religious beliefs that marriage is based on.

its very clear, the progressive agenda is the destruction of american society. We get it.

If your family unit is based on denying marriage to someone else......their marriage isn't your problem. Gay marriage takes nothing from you. It doesn't even involve you directly.

This is the part I don't understand. The adamant opposition despite virtually *no* impact on the individual getting so adamant. You're blessedly irrelevant to this process. No one is demanding that you marry someone of the same sex. Only that someone else be allowed to if they choose.

it involves all of society because if gay unions are called marriages then society is telling its children that homosexuality is a normal human condition and they can choose which way they want to go.

How do you chose which sex to be attracted to? When I hit puberty, I had no doubt who I was fantasizing about when I started choking the chicken

For most gays they didn't either. Very few people ever make a choice, they just are who they are.

Yes, that's my point

 

[PaintMyHouse]

maybe, and if so the country and society in general has also lost. But you fools will have succeeded in bringing down the traditional family unit and the religious beliefs that marriage is based on.

its very clear, the progressive agenda is the destruction of american society. We get it.

If your family unit is based on denying marriage to someone else......their marriage isn't your problem. Gay marriage takes nothing from you. It doesn't even involve you directly.

This is the part I don't understand. The adamant opposition despite virtually *no* impact on the individual getting so adamant. You're blessedly irrelevant to this process. No one is demanding that you marry someone of the same sex. Only that someone else be allowed to if they choose.

it involves all of society because if gay unions are called marriages then society is telling its children that homosexuality is a normal human condition and they can choose which way they want to go.

How do you chose which sex to be attracted to? When I hit puberty, I had no doubt who I was fantasizing about when I started choking the chicken

For most gays they didn't either. Very few people ever make a choice, they just are who they are.

Yes, that's my point

Terrific, first good one I've ever seen from you...