It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Montrovant]

Morality has two different definitions .
One refers to the principles of right and wrong. By this definition I can't see where is the moral fault: no one gets harmed in the act of having two same sex persons engaged .
On the other hand rejecting them because of their preferences does harm them, THAT is moraly incorrect and probably as ridiculous as rejecting someone because he splits eggs by the little end.*

Because homosexuality is sexual depravity. It's pervasiveness destroys family which is the cornerstone of society, thus it contributes to destroying society. We reject all manner of sexual behavior that doesn't harm us personally. Why is that "morally correct" in some cases and not in others? There is no difference, you've drawn an imaginary moral line one place and I've drawn it somewhere else but we've both drawn a moral line.

Why do you think it is that we expect people to control their sexual urges when it comes to all the assorted -philias, but not for homosexuality? Why do we run around changing definitions and modifying our laws to accommodate the sexual urges of one group to the exclusion of all others? We don't excuse pedophilia by reasoning they were just born that way and there is nothing they can do about it, so we must accept their sexual behavior and find a way to accommodate it in the name of their rights. We don't surmise that the exhibitionist isn't "harming anyone" by exposing themselves to others in public, therefore we have to accept their sexual deviancy and change all our laws to accommodate it. In virtually ALL other instances, including basic normal heterosexual behaviors, we expect people to be able to control their sexual urges.. .we're not monkeys in the zoo.

So now homosexuals are monkeys in a zoo?

As usual you bring up non-consensual behavior and compare it to homosexuality.

Homosexuals are expected to control their sexual behavior in the same ways heterosexuals are. Homosexuals are not allowed to expose themselves in public, not allowed to rape someone, forced or statutory, etc..

Can you name a single law or statute in which homosexuals are able to engage in sexual behavior where heterosexuals cannot? Of course not.

The more you post on the subject, the clearer it is that you despise homosexuality and your arguments, whatever terms you try to couch them in, comes down to that disgust, hatred, and fear. Homosexuals are destroying society!

 

[Boss]

As usual you bring up non-consensual behavior and compare it to homosexuality.

No I didn't. An exhibitionist is not exposing himself without his own consent. A zoophile isn't being serviced by her rottweiler without his (implied) consent and hers. Necrophiliacs don't need consent from dead people. And even more to the point... a 14 year old in West Virginia is not any more 'of age' to consent as a 16 year old in Ohio or 17 year old in Kansas.

What I brought up is control of your sexual urges. Either homosexuals are like monkeys and can't, or they are like humans and they can. Why do we need to change our definitions of tradition and laws to accommodate this single perverse sexual behavior and not so many others? I surmise the ONLY reason is because you have morally embraced it. The problem is, you're not really about "equality" and bucking "tradition" as much as you thought you were. Turns out, you still have a moral line you can't cross.

 

[Pop23]

Morality has two different definitions .
One refers to the principles of right and wrong. By this definition I can't see where is the moral fault: no one gets harmed in the act of having two same sex persons engaged .
On the other hand rejecting them because of their preferences does harm them, THAT is moraly incorrect and probably as ridiculous as rejecting someone because he splits eggs by the little end.*

Because homosexuality is sexual depravity. It's pervasiveness destroys family which is the cornerstone of society, thus it contributes to destroying society. We reject all manner of sexual behavior that doesn't harm us personally. Why is that "morally correct" in some cases and not in others? There is no difference, you've drawn an imaginary moral line one place and I've drawn it somewhere else but we've both drawn a moral line.

Why do you think it is that we expect people to control their sexual urges when it comes to all the assorted -philias, but not for homosexuality? Why do we run around changing definitions and modifying our laws to accommodate the sexual urges of one group to the exclusion of all others? We don't excuse pedophilia by reasoning they were just born that way and there is nothing they can do about it, so we must accept their sexual behavior and find a way to accommodate it in the name of their rights. We don't surmise that the exhibitionist isn't "harming anyone" by exposing themselves to others in public, therefore we have to accept their sexual deviancy and change all our laws to accommodate it. In virtually ALL other instances, including basic normal heterosexual behaviors, we expect people to be able to control their sexual urges.. .we're not monkeys in the zoo.

So now homosexuals are monkeys in a zoo?

As usual you bring up non-consensual behavior and compare it to homosexuality.

Homosexuals are expected to control their sexual behavior in the same ways heterosexuals are. Homosexuals are not allowed to expose themselves in public, not allowed to rape someone, forced or statutory, etc..

Can you name a single law or statute in which homosexuals are able to engage in sexual behavior where heterosexuals cannot? Of course not.

The more you post on the subject, the clearer it is that you despise homosexuality and your arguments, whatever terms you try to couch them in, comes down to that disgust, hatred, and fear. Homosexuals are destroying society!

Of course there might be disagreement on subjects that should be discussed openly and honestly.

I've encountered quite the same opposition, expressed hatred, when, for several year trying to have civil conversation about the impact that a ruling such as Obergfell might have on the institution of marriage.

I was called a hater, a bigot, a racist and that brilliant marketing moniker, a homophobe.

Now, when the shoes on the other foot..........

It would be refreshing if both sides could put away their anger and discuss issues in a calm and honest fashion, but I'm not seeing that happen anytime soon.

 

[Montrovant]

As usual you bring up non-consensual behavior and compare it to homosexuality.

No I didn't. An exhibitionist is not exposing himself without his own consent. A zoophile isn't being serviced by her rottweiler without his (implied) consent and hers. Necrophiliacs don't need consent from dead people. And even more to the point... a 14 year old in West Virginia is not any more 'of age' to consent as a 16 year old in Ohio or 17 year old in Kansas.

What I brought up is control of your sexual urges. Either homosexuals are like monkeys and can't, or they are like humans and they can. Why do we need to change our definitions of tradition and laws to accommodate this single perverse sexual behavior and not so many others? I surmise the ONLY reason is because you have morally embraced it. The problem is, you're not really about "equality" and bucking "tradition" as much as you thought you were. Turns out, you still have a moral line you can't cross.

You continue to show how clueless you are about the definition and concept of consent.

The person(s) and exhibitionist exposes themselves to generally do not consent (and if they did, no one would report a crime). A dog cannot consent. They are incapable of the kind of thought which consent requires. A corpse cannot consent. Age of consent laws are obviously more of a grey area, but still, the concept remains. You seem incapable of understanding the concept.

Everyone has moral lines they will not cross. As has been explained to you over and over, for many, consent is a moral line that is unacceptable to cross. It happens to also be a legal line that cannot be crossed. For those of us who understand consent, that is a happy convergence. For you, who seems to think consent is a meaningless concept, it's less pleasant.

Again, you equate homosexuals to monkeys. Homosexuals are just as capable of controlling their sexual urges as heterosexuals. Traditions and laws change. Sorry you are so opposed to homosexuality that the same sex marriage decision makes you this uncomfortable. That's just something you'll have to deal with. Apparently you deal with it by telling people how tolerant you are of homosexuals, how you have so many friends and family who are homosexual, at the same time you describe them as immoral, perverse, unable to accept themselves because they know what they do is wrong, likely to try and rape you, destroyers of society.

 

[Boss]

Again, you equate homosexuals to monkeys.

I did not equate homosexuals with monkeys. I questioned how you seem to think they are like them, in that they can't control their urge to engage in homosexual behavior. I know gay people who have been celibate for over 30 years. They know they are gay, there is no question they are gay, they could probably find a "lover" and engage in homosexual activity but they are fulfilled with close relationships of a different kind. They might even have the sexual urge to engage in homosexual behavior but they are able to control it. The same way I am able to control my urges to spunk on Kate Upton's titties. The same way you control your urge to fuck trannies. We ALL have what 'cranks our tractor' and that's fine... that's why Algore invented the Internets.

What makes homosexuality something that we have to change our society and culture so radically and fundamentally in order to attempt normalizing it? How does this rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity somehow overcome the boundaries of reason with regard to consideration of the human condition... namely, our ability to control our sexual urges?

 

[Boss]

Everyone has moral lines they will not cross. As has been explained to you over and over, for many, consent is a moral line that is unacceptable to cross.

Everyone has moral lines they will not cross.
No shit Sherlock? How long did it take for you to reach that enlightenment, Einstein?

consent is a moral line that is unacceptable to cross
Bullshit! We do it all the time!

How can a 16 year old give consent with a parent but not a 17 year old without a parent?

And why 16 and not 14 or 12?

A human as young as 6 months is capable of exhibiting "consent" but we construct a line that prohibits their consent. And all through our laws we establish acceptable crossing in lines for consent. I did not consent for you to wear clothes today and deprive me of your naked beauty. And why do I need your consent to look at your nakedness and masturbate in public? It's a perfectly natural sex act... right? There is really no "harm" to you... it's just this stuffy old church-based morality that stands in the way of my liberty and freedom!

I did not give anyone my consent to redefine traditional marriage or demand that I recognize it as anything other than the union of a man and woman.

 

[Montrovant]

Morality has two different definitions .
One refers to the principles of right and wrong. By this definition I can't see where is the moral fault: no one gets harmed in the act of having two same sex persons engaged .
On the other hand rejecting them because of their preferences does harm them, THAT is moraly incorrect and probably as ridiculous as rejecting someone because he splits eggs by the little end.*

Because homosexuality is sexual depravity. It's pervasiveness destroys family which is the cornerstone of society, thus it contributes to destroying society. We reject all manner of sexual behavior that doesn't harm us personally. Why is that "morally correct" in some cases and not in others? There is no difference, you've drawn an imaginary moral line one place and I've drawn it somewhere else but we've both drawn a moral line.

Why do you think it is that we expect people to control their sexual urges when it comes to all the assorted -philias, but not for homosexuality? Why do we run around changing definitions and modifying our laws to accommodate the sexual urges of one group to the exclusion of all others? We don't excuse pedophilia by reasoning they were just born that way and there is nothing they can do about it, so we must accept their sexual behavior and find a way to accommodate it in the name of their rights. We don't surmise that the exhibitionist isn't "harming anyone" by exposing themselves to others in public, therefore we have to accept their sexual deviancy and change all our laws to accommodate it. In virtually ALL other instances, including basic normal heterosexual behaviors, we expect people to be able to control their sexual urges.. .we're not monkeys in the zoo.

So now homosexuals are monkeys in a zoo?

As usual you bring up non-consensual behavior and compare it to homosexuality.

Homosexuals are expected to control their sexual behavior in the same ways heterosexuals are. Homosexuals are not allowed to expose themselves in public, not allowed to rape someone, forced or statutory, etc..

Can you name a single law or statute in which homosexuals are able to engage in sexual behavior where heterosexuals cannot? Of course not.

The more you post on the subject, the clearer it is that you despise homosexuality and your arguments, whatever terms you try to couch them in, comes down to that disgust, hatred, and fear. Homosexuals are destroying society!

Of course there might be disagreement on subjects that should be discussed openly and honestly.

I've encountered quite the same opposition, expressed hatred, when, for several year trying to have civil conversation about the impact that a ruling such as Obergfell might have on the institution of marriage.

I was called a hater, a bigot, a racist and that brilliant marketing moniker, a homophobe.

Now, when the shoes on the other foot..........

It would be refreshing if both sides could put away their anger and discuss issues in a calm and honest fashion, but I'm not seeing that happen anytime soon.

Homosexuality is a bit l

Again, you equate homosexuals to monkeys.

I did not equate homosexuals with monkeys. I questioned how you seem to think they are like them, in that they can't control their urge to engage in homosexual behavior. I know gay people who have been celibate for over 30 years. They know they are gay, there is no question they are gay, they could probably find a "lover" and engage in homosexual activity but they are fulfilled with close relationships of a different kind. They might even have the sexual urge to engage in homosexual behavior but they are able to control it. The same way I am able to control my urges to spunk on Kate Upton's titties. The same way you control your urge to fuck trannies. We ALL have what 'cranks our tractor' and that's fine... that's why Algore invented the Internets.

What makes homosexuality something that we have to change our society and culture so radically and fundamentally in order to attempt normalizing it? How does this rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity somehow overcome the boundaries of reason with regard to consideration of the human condition... namely, our ability to control our sexual urges?

Make up your mind, is homosexuality a promiscuous and self indulgent sexual activity or not? If it is, what of your gay people celibate for 30 years anecdote? 30 years of promiscuous, self indulgent celibacy?

I never even hinted that homosexuals are unable to control their sexual behavior. I never made any comparison between homosexuals and monkeys. That's entirely you. You can try to pretend that somehow I'm at fault for your various insulting comparisons between homosexuality and other things, but you are the only one making them.

We don't have to change society. That doesn't mean society will remain stagnant and accept the kind of anti-gay bigotry you like to spout. Society has been changing its view on homosexuality recently. You don't agree with it. You are taking your unhappiness with it and trying to say that society would be better off had it not changed to accept homosexuality, that same sex marriage is an immoral bit of judicial activism which will lead to all forms of marriage being recognized as legitimate.....none of which seems to matter when you also say that homosexuality is contributing to the downfall of society.

You hate homosexuality, you find gays immoral and evil and icky and whatever the hell it is you actually think about this group of people you are so incredibly inconsistent about. You have so many gay friends and family, you get along great, they are destroying society! Bunch of monkeys!

 

[CultureCitizen]

Morality has two different definitions .
One refers to the principles of right and wrong. By this definition I can't see where is the moral fault: no one gets harmed in the act of having two same sex persons engaged .
On the other hand rejecting them because of their preferences does harm them, THAT is moraly incorrect and probably as ridiculous as rejecting someone because he splits eggs by the little end.*

Because homosexuality is sexual depravity. It's pervasiveness destroys family which is the cornerstone of society, thus it contributes to destroying society. We reject all manner of sexual behavior that doesn't harm us personally. Why is that "morally correct" in some cases and not in others? There is no difference, you've drawn an imaginary moral line one place and I've drawn it somewhere else but we've both drawn a moral line.

Why do you think it is that we expect people to control their sexual urges when it comes to all the assorted -philias, but not for homosexuality? Why do we run around changing definitions and modifying our laws to accommodate the sexual urges of one group to the exclusion of all others? We don't excuse pedophilia by reasoning they were just born that way and there is nothing they can do about it, so we must accept their sexual behavior and find a way to accommodate it in the name of their rights. We don't surmise that the exhibitionist isn't "harming anyone" by exposing themselves to others in public, therefore we have to accept their sexual deviancy and change all our laws to accommodate it. In virtually ALL other instances, including basic normal heterosexual behaviors, we expect people to be able to control their sexual urges.. .we're not monkeys in the zoo.

Arguably pedophiles do harm someone else, so I can't consider that a valid argument.
An exhibicionist, hmm not sure Boss, nude beaches and strip clubs seem to be ok, because people going to those places know what they will see, whereas in the rest of public places the "default" assumption is you don't conscent to it. So, yes, I'd be even inclined to accept that if there is a previous concensus on that topic ( is it acceptable to go naked in the streets ).Some societies do that, I guess it's a matter of concensus.

On my morality scale running nude in a street is a minor moral offense, drunk driving is much more dangerous and serios from my view point. That doesn't make an argument to forbid alcohol, but rather to have controls to avoid drunk driving.

 

[Montrovant]

Everyone has moral lines they will not cross. As has been explained to you over and over, for many, consent is a moral line that is unacceptable to cross.

Everyone has moral lines they will not cross.
No shit Sherlock? How long did it take for you to reach that enlightenment, Einstein?

consent is a moral line that is unacceptable to cross
Bullshit! We do it all the time!

How can a 16 year old give consent with a parent but not a 17 year old without a parent?

And why 16 and not 14 or 12?

A human as young as 6 months is capable of exhibiting "consent" but we construct a line that prohibits their consent. And all through our laws we establish acceptable crossing in lines for consent. I did not consent for you to wear clothes today and deprive me of your naked beauty. And why do I need your consent to look at your nakedness and masturbate in public? It's a perfectly natural sex act... right? There is really no "harm" to you... it's just this stuffy old church-based morality that stands in the way of my liberty and freedom!

I did not give anyone my consent to redefine traditional marriage or demand that I recognize it as anything other than the union of a man and woman.

Hey nitwit, you are the one that brought up moral lines that can't be crossed. I agree with you and it makes you upset?

Now you have decided you are in charge of what other people consider moral lines that cannot be crossed?

Again, you seem unable to understand the concept of consent. Just because the laws regarding age of consent are different in different places doesn't invalidate the concept or make it impossible for someone to consider consent a moral line. You sound like a dangerous person with all the incredibly dense statements you make regarding consent and rape.

Comparing a change in law regarding marriage to sexual consent shows just how clueless you are about the entire idea.

At this point I can only conclude that you are either trolling or truly are mentally unbalanced. Your contradictory arguments, wild variations in opinion, inability to understand why an animal cannot consent, not to mention your jumping from claims of tolerance and acceptance of gays to demonizing them as immoral, evil facilitators of the destruction of America are not indicative of someone with the ability to make a rational argument.

 

[Boss]

Make up your mind, is homosexuality a promiscuous and self indulgent sexual activity or not? If it is, what of your gay people celibate for 30 years anecdote? 30 years of promiscuous, self indulgent celibacy?

Oh dear, do you actually not comprehend there is a difference between "being gay" and having homosexual relations?

 

[Montrovant]

Make up your mind, is homosexuality a promiscuous and self indulgent sexual activity or not? If it is, what of your gay people celibate for 30 years anecdote? 30 years of promiscuous, self indulgent celibacy?

Oh dear, do you actually not comprehend there is a difference between "being gay" and having homosexual relations?

I certainly do. Do you actually not comprehend that homosexuality is 'being gay' and not having sexual relations?

Here, let me help by quoting you....

What makes homosexuality something that we have to change our society and culture so radically and fundamentally in order to attempt normalizing it? How does this rather promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity somehow overcome the boundaries of reason with regard to consideration of the human condition... namely, our ability to control our sexual urges?

Notice you are talking about homosexuality, calling it a promiscuous and self-indulgent sexual activity. Or did you mean something else in the second line but fail to mention it? With the way you jump around in your statements about homosexuality and homosexuals, it's never certain what you might mean.

 

[Pop23]

Make up your mind, is homosexuality a promiscuous and self indulgent sexual activity or not? If it is, what of your gay people celibate for 30 years anecdote? 30 years of promiscuous, self indulgent celibacy?

Oh dear, do you actually not comprehend there is a difference between "being gay" and having homosexual relations?

It is impossible to actually talk sense with those suffering from OCD.

See nobody (other them then) can possibly use the excuse they were born the way they were.

 

[Montrovant]

Make up your mind, is homosexuality a promiscuous and self indulgent sexual activity or not? If it is, what of your gay people celibate for 30 years anecdote? 30 years of promiscuous, self indulgent celibacy?

Oh dear, do you actually not comprehend there is a difference between "being gay" and having homosexual relations?

It is impossible to actually talk sense with those suffering from OCD.

See nobody (other them then) can possibly use the excuse they were born the way they were.

What are you talking about now? Is that somehow supposed to relate to the conversation between me and Boss? I don't recall anything about people being born the way they are involved.

 

[Pop23]

Make up your mind, is homosexuality a promiscuous and self indulgent sexual activity or not? If it is, what of your gay people celibate for 30 years anecdote? 30 years of promiscuous, self indulgent celibacy?

Oh dear, do you actually not comprehend there is a difference between "being gay" and having homosexual relations?

It is impossible to actually talk sense with those suffering from OCD.

See nobody (other them then) can possibly use the excuse they were born the way they were.

What are you talking about now? Is that somehow supposed to relate to the conversation between me and Boss? I don't recall anything about people being born the way they are involved.

Homosexuals do indeed claim they were born the way they were.

 

[Montrovant]

Make up your mind, is homosexuality a promiscuous and self indulgent sexual activity or not? If it is, what of your gay people celibate for 30 years anecdote? 30 years of promiscuous, self indulgent celibacy?

Oh dear, do you actually not comprehend there is a difference between "being gay" and having homosexual relations?

It is impossible to actually talk sense with those suffering from OCD.

See nobody (other them then) can possibly use the excuse they were born the way they were.

What are you talking about now? Is that somehow supposed to relate to the conversation between me and Boss? I don't recall anything about people being born the way they are involved.

Homosexuals do indeed claim they were born the way they were.

Some do, certainly. I haven't made any claims about that, nor Boss that I recall. So again, is that supposed to relate to the conversation you're interjecting yourself into in some way?

 

[Boss]

Morality has two different definitions .
One refers to the principles of right and wrong. By this definition I can't see where is the moral fault: no one gets harmed in the act of having two same sex persons engaged .
On the other hand rejecting them because of their preferences does harm them, THAT is moraly incorrect and probably as ridiculous as rejecting someone because he splits eggs by the little end.*

Because homosexuality is sexual depravity. It's pervasiveness destroys family which is the cornerstone of society, thus it contributes to destroying society. We reject all manner of sexual behavior that doesn't harm us personally. Why is that "morally correct" in some cases and not in others? There is no difference, you've drawn an imaginary moral line one place and I've drawn it somewhere else but we've both drawn a moral line.

Why do you think it is that we expect people to control their sexual urges when it comes to all the assorted -philias, but not for homosexuality? Why do we run around changing definitions and modifying our laws to accommodate the sexual urges of one group to the exclusion of all others? We don't excuse pedophilia by reasoning they were just born that way and there is nothing they can do about it, so we must accept their sexual behavior and find a way to accommodate it in the name of their rights. We don't surmise that the exhibitionist isn't "harming anyone" by exposing themselves to others in public, therefore we have to accept their sexual deviancy and change all our laws to accommodate it. In virtually ALL other instances, including basic normal heterosexual behaviors, we expect people to be able to control their sexual urges.. .we're not monkeys in the zoo.

Arguably pedophiles do harm someone else, so I can't consider that a valid argument.
An exhibicionist, hmm not sure Boss, nude beaches and strip clubs seem to be ok, because people going to those places know what they will see, whereas in the rest of public places the "default" assumption is you don't conscent to it. So, yes, I'd be even inclined to accept that if there is a previous concensus on that topic ( is it acceptable to go naked in the streets ).Some societies do that, I guess it's a matter of concensus.

On my morality scale running nude in a street is a minor moral offense, drunk driving is much more dangerous and serios from my view point. That doesn't make an argument to forbid alcohol, but rather to have controls to avoid drunk driving.

But again... all those things are dealt with by society having a collaboration of opinion to form a policy we can all live with. We don't run around getting our 5 judges to rule something upon us and to hell with what the opposition thinks.

Drunk driving is yet another area where we apply an arbitrary moral judgement on what constitutes a crime and what is acceptable. I've known people so uncoordinated they didn't need to be driving sober, much less under the influence. I've also known people who could be 3-sheets and out-drive Richard Petty. This is something that varies between individuals but society has collectively come together to establish a "moral based" point at which something becomes "intolerable" by law. People's entire lives might be ruined by .0001 amount in a blood alcohol test.... is that "fair" for us to destroy someone over? We've decided... yes, in order to ensure people don't do this behavior, we can make this law.

You have your view, I have my view, the guy down the street has his view. We all have a view and they aren't all the same... and that's okay. It doesn't mean someone is terrible or awful people, they simply have a different view.

 

[Boss]

Do you actually not comprehend that homosexuality is 'being gay' and not having sexual relations?

No, homosexuality is the sexual attraction to same gender. It does not imply an act.

 

[Montrovant]

Do you actually not comprehend that homosexuality is 'being gay' and not having sexual relations?

No, homosexuality is the sexual attraction to same gender. It does not imply an act.

Right.....I said homosexuality is being gay and not having sexual relations. Being gay is being attracted to the same gender.

 

[Pop23]

Make up your mind, is homosexuality a promiscuous and self indulgent sexual activity or not? If it is, what of your gay people celibate for 30 years anecdote? 30 years of promiscuous, self indulgent celibacy?

Oh dear, do you actually not comprehend there is a difference between "being gay" and having homosexual relations?

It is impossible to actually talk sense with those suffering from OCD.

See nobody (other them then) can possibly use the excuse they were born the way they were.

What are you talking about now? Is that somehow supposed to relate to the conversation between me and Boss? I don't recall anything about people being born the way they are involved.

Homosexuals do indeed claim they were born the way they were.

Some do, certainly. I haven't made any claims about that, nor Boss that I recall. So again, is that supposed to relate to the conversation you're interjecting yourself into in some way?

There indeed was conversation as to who claims justification for their acts, and what they claim that justification is.

 

[Boss]

Do you actually not comprehend that homosexuality is 'being gay' and not having sexual relations?

No, homosexuality is the sexual attraction to same gender. It does not imply an act.

Right.....I said homosexuality is being gay and not having sexual relations. Being gay is being attracted to the same gender.

You didn't say anything, you asked me: Make up your mind, is homosexuality a promiscuous and self indulgent sexual activity or not?

There is no activity implied by an attraction. As I said, I know people who have been gay for 30 years and haven't engaged in homosexual behavior. You seem to not be able to distinguish between attraction and behavior. It's as if you think gay people only have one way they can possibly behave and they can't control that urge... so we have to change society to allow them to behave that way in order to have "fairness" or whatever. We do not accommodate ANY other sexual behavior this way, including heterosexual! In ALL other cases, we understand that people can control their sexual urges and modify their behavior accordingly... except the homosexuals.