@Spahettificator "On what legal grounds should marriage between two people of the same sex be illegal?" It completely misses the point behind the principle of marriage as it interacts with the state. The institution of marriage, as it interacts with the state, is designed for a man and woman to be better prepared for unexpected chilluns. Not all heterosexuals can or will procreate, but that doesn't mean the government should assume they won't. The trend still remains the same: a married man and woman will generally reproduce. Homosexual relationships do not follow that trend, and they will not have any unexpected children; they have all the time in the world to prepare for adoption or artificial insemination. What's more, the tax benefits afforded to these married couples are only totally activated in the event of children being born. As an addendum: it's ridiculous to claim the government should endorse homosexuals to be adopting children. I'm not necessarily against children going to homes under the care of homosexuals if there's no one else, but it is--to put it mildly--inappropriate to claim it's healthy for the child to have two guardians of the same sex. The lack of a male and a female figure in a relationship will confuse the child as to the nature of their own bodies without outside clarification--which should not be required. I mean, are you going to say Rosie O'donnel's son made an unreasonable request when he w asked for a dad?

@Spahettificator Normal isn't relative--unless you're trying to compare it to the word "norm" which isn't the same. It's not difficult to observe the behavior of homosexuals and find that acting out their attractions is a practice that runs counter-intuitive to their own bodies. It does not take renowned scientist to see two males or two females attempting to couple and arriving to the conclusion that they have a disorder. Propriety is established by what's "normal," and that is established by what's anatomically correct. Homosexuality is, unarguably, anatomically incorrect and an inherent cultural weakness. As such, I would not want my children being exposed to a curriculum that says otherwise, and forcing me to pay for something that violates my morality--as well as the morality I'm trying to teach my children--is outrageous. This has nothing to do with bullying or discrimination.

@Demanufactur Heh. Trying to compare me to JIm Crowe will not do you any good. I realize that homosexuals have a habit of trying to compare their situation with other instances of oppression like, say, with the Jew or the blacks. But in the end, that only makes light of what they went through considering they're in fact not, and haven't been, rounded up, shackled, and/or executed by the culture that houses them. It's rather disgusting to make such a comparison really. You cannot, and will not, ever be able to successfully compare behavior to skin color. One is subject to choice, and the other is not. I'm sure you will try to paraphrase the party line "born that way" all over again, but I will just keep reminding you that no such thing has been proven nor does it dispel the fact that--regardless of whether or not it's a trait from birth--their behavior violates the anatomical propriety of their own bodies.

@Demanufactur3 No. You will have to clarify your meaning with regards to Rick Santorum. Aside from keeping an opinion homosexual marriage shouldn't be legal, that examples of homosexual activism shouldn't be taught in school,, and generally disagreeing with the lifestyle altogether (all of which are opinions I share), how has he proposed or physically tried to oppress homosexuals?

@rat-fish I already addressed that earlier "The civil rights movement was conceived because people were being discriminated against for characteristics they couldn't control. Thus, whether or not someone is "born that way" is very relevant to the issue. Even if I were to entertain the idea that they were "born that way" though, it would still be accurately identified as a disorder since the behavior they say they're predisposed to violated the anatomical propriety of their own bodies. And, of course, unless you have Tourrettes, you always have control over your behavior. "

@WCK619 I didn't compare the practices. I applied your principle of allowing the unrestricted and unwarned exhibition of a behavior simply because it exists to other practices apart from homosexuality. Nice try though. Lord knows I haven't heard that ad hominem defense before....*cough* I don't know who Carolyn Petit is. And I really don't care. What I do care about is that you feel justified in violating the the morality of others simply because you value your own more than theirs. By your own admission, you would teach my kids about homosexuality according to your own biases simply to spite and undermine my morality. That's outrageous. @Demanufactur3 How has Rick Santorum sought to oppress anyone? Or is this another gay marriage is a right and anyone who disagrees with it is a monster' attitude?

@Demanufactur3 "Homosexuality is present before birth (when the fetal brain begins to form (first few weeks of pregnancy)" Another baseless claim. There's no proof such a thing. "and homosexuality is not human exclusive... EVERY species on this planet has gay specimens and I'm talking from primates to insects." No one's debating whether or not it can be established as a trend. But simply because it has the potential to be a cultural norm, and because animals have been seen behaving in such a way, that makes it functional? And, really, the animal kingdom only reaffirms the view that behavior is a product of developed infatuations. Animals of the same sex have been seen trying to copulate, yes. But they've also been seen attempting to copulate outside of their respective species. By your logic, that gives zoophiles carte blanche to have at it. I don't think anyone here has attacked the game for trying to be "real." The concern is the context by which the topic is addressed.

@CAPCOM I have yet to see you post a citation. Regardless of that however, the very fact that DSM is subject to change does not make it a credible source. Full frontal lobotomies were once considered normal standard practice endorsed by mainstream medical associations as well. @WCK619 Okay, so for the record, you would have no problem violating the moralities of others for the sake of your own simply on the basis that whatever you shove in people's faces exists in the world? By that same token, one could apply racism and/or rape to a piece of media without a warning label simply because you see them in the world today. @cutmasterfrost "i still can't believe people are saying being gay in a choice! why would i choose to go through the hate and homophobia. saying it's a lifestyle choice is outrageous, you might as well shout in the faces of all minority groups." You've either missed a great deal of this thread or you're just ignoring its contents. Either way, your claim doesn't address anything aside from its own outraged tone. @rat-fish The point is that polite debate is just as capable of forming movements against people of differing social groups as "hate-speech" is. Therefore, you should consider that illegal as well.

@rat-fish Again, I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a damning factor of either "hate-speech" or the US. The concept of "hate-speech" in an of itself identifies an irrational mentality to censor whatever people are uncomfortable with. @CAPCOM I don't believe for a second that anyone posited black skin color to be a genetic disorder in the 1950s....or eve for that matter. I think you've just come up with another desperate spin that tries to conflate sexual behavior to race.

@Jarret You misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that you're overstating your support for homosexuality. If you "accept" homosexuals, then that means you endorse their cultural influence through same-sex marriage, public school curricula, etc.. However, since you obviously don't do that, yours is an example of tolerance. You acknowledge their existence without necessarily endorsing them. The reason I'm a stickler on mistaking the two terms is because the campaign launched by the homosexual camp involves conflating the two and redefining "tolerance" to mean total endorsement as opposed to simple acknowledgement. As such, if anyone disagrees with them on...anything, they can scream, "you're intolerant!" It's an erroneous claim, but it still has influence over an impressionable culture. @rat-fish I don't particularly understand how hate-speech is supposed to make a case for inhibiting people's words. If anything, it's a damning example of censorship. Very polite phrases of dissent towards other social groups could cause movements too. Does that mean people should be thrown in jail for them?