@cutmasterfrost I imagine you're comparing "comments like mine" to every other vitriolic word that refers to homosexuals you can think of. Considering it's a Kevin Smith film, I wouldn't be surprised if it's just an endless stream of diatribes attempting to be viral with your typical cliche portrayal of an angry Christian person or population spouting any number of derogatory obscenities while quoting the scripture to justify it. And let me guess: this is complemented by a side story of one individual or multiple people from the Christian conflict being in the closet or having gay children that try to undermine their parents. Am I somewhere in the ballpark? Sorry to have to break this to you, but I haven't quoted scripture or used an derogatory language. Nice try though.

@Spahettificator That's an entirely fallacious example of common sense. Observation of descending horizons as well as tests that measure rate of descent are counter intuitive to the notions you expressed. I explained specifically WHY it would be confusing, and you've chosen not to address it. Keep that in mind. @Demanufactur3 "When are we gonna get through the granite plate in front of your head... homosexuality is not a choice, there's medical information about this, i suggest you visit your local university or hospital and request this info... it's not a choice, you'd blame someone for being something he didn't choose to be..." How about you offer it up yourself since you're apparently so well versed on the subject. Multiple people in this thread have already made this claim and have been unable to really back it up. Whatever attempts were actually made didn't really show how one is "born that way." Mostly it's just an endless stream of "they feel they were born that way, so don't rain on their parade," as if the emotional aspect of the matter is above all else the most important. The cognitive dissonance can be cut with a knife. Even if I were to agree it was physically wired to the brain--which I don't--that does not dispel the fact that homosexual behavior requires action to be expressed. As such, whatever your belief, it is a lifestyle.

Heh. How have I shown you any hatred whatsoever? I tell you that I disagree with your lifestyle and therefore, I'm showing hatred? Please. As for the cliche "What if your son came up to you and told you he was gay kneejerk....I find it odd that it's never "daughter," and always "son." Strikes me as kinda shock-jocky. Anywho, since I raised him with the same moral conviction that I keep, I would expect him to know my position on the matter. I'd still love him, but that doesn't mean I have to endorse his lifestyle and, ideally, he wouldn't ask me to.

@rat-fish "Outside sources" refers to adoption and/or artificial insemination. @Cutmasterfrost I love the fact that you're referring to me as "hateful" even though I haven't actually attacked you or referred to you using any sort of derogatory language....Yeah. @Spahettificator "Scientific evidence. If you have any then present it otherwise this is just an ill informed opinion and has no place in a debate." It's common sense. Why do you think people even bring up the importance behind the concept of having both a male and female influence? Even the homosexual community's beloved Freud made a similar observation through the "Phallic Mother" thesis in which the boy believed his mother had a penis simply because that was all he had to go on. Distinction creates context. It's not that difficult a concept to grasp really. "But homosexual couples can have children, so surely they should be able to get married so they can have access to the same level of support that a heterosexual couple can." As I already pointed out, homosexuals require outside help to make a family. In which case, they have all the time in the world to prepare for a birth.

@Demanufactur The institution of marriage didn't start interacting with the state until the late 1800s. Regardless, the age of the reasoning does not negate its validity: the nature of heterosexual coupling and its encouragement of family growth hasn't, and will not, change. To be clear, no one is stopping homosexuals from finding a chapel that would have them and getting married in the eyes of whatever they find most relevant. It is simply that there is no good reason behind a state endorsed marriage and--in fact--it would only be detrimental since you'd only be paying taxes towards a coupling that's never going to yield a family without adoption or artificial insemination. And, I must point out: it's disingenuous to claim that marriage refusal is a matter of discrimination. In the eyes of the law, a homosexual man and woman are very much allowed to marry each other. If it were true that this was a matter of discrimination, they would be banned from the altar regardless of the combo.

@rat-fish Cutmasterfrost doesn't agree with you though. He thinks I was born with my attraction to women just as he thinks he was born with his attraction to men. @Cutmasterfrost "because this is a article about a homosexual theme seen in gaming," That doesn't answer my question--nor does it address the topic established by your own statement. I repeat: The river runs both ways on this issue. I could just as easily argue that my attraction to women was developed with time and exposure to heterosexual concepts just as easily as you can argue that yours was not. What makes your observation more valid than mine? "why do you care so much that people are gay " It's not the existence of homosexuals that I'm concerned with. It's the developing cultural attitude towards the nature of their behavior that I have a problem with. I could even deal with that if it wasn't for the fact that the homosexual camp sees no problem with exposing such a cultural aspect to my children without my pre-knowledge or consent. I disapprove of it and I raise them with that same moral conviction. Why should I feel okay that the state and extraneous media outlets are trying to undermine that?

@Demanufactur "To put it basically you're saying homosexuals don't deserve the same rights as heterosexuals because they're inferior in some way shape or form... maybe not in the same words but this is what you're saying..." No. It's not. Keep your strawmans to yourself. Marriage has not and never has been a right. As an institution, it's a means for the government to both encourage and stabilize population growth through the family unit. Homosexuality doesn't and can't trend families without help from outside sources. As such, it makes very little sense to apply it to that social group. Pragmatism does not equate to persecution. Nice try though.

@rat-fish That's a fair point. I still wouldn't compare that to the persecution of blacks over the centuries--or Jews over the millenia. Homosexuality has seen both acceptance as well as disdain in cultures throughout history--true of many things actually. The Jewish on the other hand, have faced almost universal disdain. So I reiterate, it's rather inappropriate to try and compare disapproval of homosexual behavior to the mere state of being Jewish or black.

@cutmasterfrost "your arguing against me a gay man, who understands more then any straight person here that it's not a choice." it has been mentioned more than once in this thread: The river runs both ways on this issue. I could just as easily argue that my attraction to women was developed with time and exposure to heterosexual concepts just as easily as you can argue that yours was not. What makes your observation more valid than mine?

@Demanufactur3 I was actually referring to American culture exclusively. They're not being rounded up and killed here. They're arguing over laws using federalist and democratic means--which is very different. I retract the mention of the Jews however. in retrospect, they didn't face that kind of treatment here. I would point out however that, in the instances you cited, it's only behavior that was punished. People persecuted over race need only be SEEN to have the treatment that's put against them justified in the midst of a racist authority. That's also very different.