Is Gay Marriage Immoral?

I don't understand in what sense it's a "lifestyle."I mean, yachting is a lifestyle. Competitive cycling is a lifestyle. These are activities that are more than hobbies; enjoying them fully necessitates a major rearrangement in your life and employment.Being gay? How is that a lifestyle? Gay people work all jobs, they live everywhere, they raise families and run businesses like everybody else. Humans have a need for amusement. Why is human amusement an insufficient justification for harming an animal? Check your shoes. Any leather in any of them? Why is it moral to cause suffering and death to an animal for no greater benefit than the protection and comfort of your feet? Just want to pin down the moral calculus, here.On point - when the majority of Americans support granting homosexual couples the rights and privileges straight couples enjoy under certain arrangements, I simply don't see what possible argument could be made, under a democracy, to deny them those rights.

Actually gay sex in the animal world is well-documented in over 1000 seperate species. Why wouldn't they? Uh-huh. Lesbians get "gay bowel syndrome"? From what, exactly?There's no such thing as "gay bowel syndrome." That's a fake illness made up to stigmatize homosexuals. I challenge you to find any reference to it in a standard physicians diagnostic manual. I once knocked my head so hard on a headboard in totally plain-vanilla missionary position that I saw stars for a while. I once got a leg-cramp in the same position so bad that I pulled a calf-muscle and had to call in sick to work the next day. And everybody has heard of the 80-year-old playboy who expires from a heart attack, with a smile on his face, in a romp with his 20-year-old trophy wife.Should heterosexual activities be banned because they pose these risks? Should my marriage to my wife be annuled because being married might encourage us to engage in these risky activities? (Realistically, of course, we need no encouragement from the government to engage in those dangerous acts. Why would it be different for homosexuals?) Hah! I thought they were joking, but you've proved that it's true! Bigots really do make an exception for lesbians. Even gay-haters like to watch girls make out. If it's not:1) A refereed medical journal article
2) A physicians diagnostic reference with citationsdon't bother. There's no such thing as "GBS." It's a fake illness invented to stigmatize homosexuals with arguments that their activities actually constitute a public health crisis. It's false.

Well, according to "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity"
by Bruce Bagemih, all manner of birds, mammals, and reptiles:preview from Google Scholar"A peer reviewed science journal that is not funded by special interests, is reputable, and not biased towards gay rights"Biased towards gay rights? What does that mean? Supporting the rights of homosexuals isn't the biased position; it's the moral position. Then why didn't you call it "Gay Male Bowel Syndrome"? "Gay" is not a term for homosexual males; it's a term for homosexuals. Don't blame me if your imprecise language causes confusion. Then why did you bring up your so-called Gay Bowel Syndrome? If gay sex isn't the topic of this thread, or relevant to your point, why did you bring it up in the first place? Yes. By definition your irrational opposition to the consensual sex practices of other adults, even to the point of denying them completely irrelevant constitutional protections, is what makes you a bigot.Just like the person who's convinced that having black skin makes a person unsuited to be a doctor - two completely unrelated thing - your position of opposing gay marriage because you find gay sex disgusting is bigotry. I appreciate that you might find that to be a provocative statement, but it's a true one.Imagine for a moment how utterly disgusting homosexuals find your sex practices. The intersection of penis and vagina? Absolutely stomach-turning to a lot of gay people.Do you see them lining up to keep you from getting married? Of course not. Despite the fact that they couldn't possibly imagine how you could enjoy something as disgusting and perverse as heterosexual sex, they're able to see beyond their disgust and recognize your constitutional rights.So what's your problem?

Bad memory. But you'll notice that both 450 and 1000 are much, much larger than 1 - which was your assertion. Morality. What else? That's hardly relevant. There is no such argument, because all arguments that denying people their just rights is the right thing to do is fallacious. You misunderstand. It's not your disgust that is irrational. What is irrational is that you allow that disgust to determine who gets justice and who does not. That, by definition, is bigotry. It wasn't relevant. You framed your analogy from the basis of a misunderstanding of my argument. I expect that when you correct that misunderstanding, you'll see that your analogy doesn't fit the situation.

Um, yeah. Like I told you, bad memory. Mine, I mean. Not sure how that wasn't clear, I guess. I don't think any of the "gay community" would care. Why would they? They're certainly disgusted by the kind of sex I have with my wife.But you know what? They're not trying to prevent me from being married. More on that in a bit. Ok, see, here's what I'm talking about. I understand that you find gay sex abhorrent. And that's fine. You don't have to have any gay sex. Nobody's gonna make you (I hope.)But how does that translate to being opposed to gay marriage? Even if you can't possibly countenance the sexual activities, what does that have to do with your position on gay marriage?Can you honestly not imagine a person who finds gay sex disgusting, but isn't opposed to gay marriage? That actually supports the rights of homosexuals, even though he doesn't personally want to do what they do? Is that really so hard to understand?Or is it that, if you don't like what someone does, you have to find any way possible to harm them and their children? That's kind of vindictive, isn't it? You'll have to point to the exact place where I said that people like you shouldn't be allowed to marry, or have other rights. How am I being intolerant by disagreeing with you?