Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
Being gay is not the same as being black or Hispanic. If I look at a baby, right from the start, I can identify that baby as the race they belong to.
****sexuality is not a race. You are correct—but nobody is claiming otherwise.

****sexuality is a behavior, not a biological characteristic.
You are mistaken. Attractional orientation is far deeper than "a behavior"—it speaks to attractions, likes, predilictions. I was heterosexual long before I engaged in sexual activity—indeed long before I knew what sex was. When I was a child, the entirety of the set of people to whom I felt attractions or schoolboy crushes were women/girls.

For this reason, we shouldn't lump bigotry against race as the same thing as, if you want to call it, bigotry for a behavior.
Bigotry is bigotry. Nobody is saying racial bigotry is the same as bigotry against non-heterosexuals—rather we are saying it is ****ogous.

Now, if I want to take this to the extreme, couldn't I make any behavior that I want to do and society doesn't accept it as bigoted.
It depends on if there's a basis for the bigotry, apart from tradition and religious preference.

N.B. If you insist on reducing ****sexuality to the same-sex sex act, I'm afraid the ship has sailed on whether "society" is permitted to forbid it under law: "anti-sodomy" laws have been ruled uncons***utional for over 8 years now.

Let's say that I want to have sexual relations with animals and society doesn't accept it? Are they bigots? What about with children whose parents give their consent?
Two words: Informed Consent.

There are whole animal rights movements that think that sport hunting is inhumane. Are they okay to call those who hunt bigots?
You can call them whatever you want: you can't restrict their behavior using the force of civil law without a rational justification.

The gay movement right has tried to play this on both sides of the fence. On one side, they want to say they are born that way. On the other side, they say it is their choice to do what they want.
It's really quite simple: behavior is a choice; attractional orientation is not.

You could choose to listen to heavy metal music; could you choose to like it?

I think Alan has a good idea. Allow the gays to have the freedom to unite or gain protections, but don't call it "marriage."
I appreciate your willingness to consider equal protection under the law for gay people. Honestly. Thank you.

A marriage, as defined today, is a union between a man and a woman.
And as it was defined 40 years ago, it was a union between a man and a woman of the same race.
And as it was defined 100 years ago, it was the union between a man and his property.
And as it was defined 500 years ago, it was the union between a king and his national ally.
And as it was defined in Biblical times, it was the union between a man and as many women as he wished, or a man and his rape victim, or a man and the spoils of war.
...

Marriage has undeniably evolved over time. Allowing a small minority, who has traditionally been excluded, to marry will not upend the social order—and will certainly have no effect on my marriage with my wife.

A man is not the same as a woman and a woman is not the same as a man. This is obvious, not just by visual inspection , but also there are unique traits (biological things such as differrences in eye-sight, hearing, how we respond to sound, movement, etc.) that make us uniquely a man or a woman. A gay person obviously recognizes these differences or there would be no such self-description as "gay." My thought is, if a gay person can tell the difference between a man or a woman when choosing a partner, certainly, they should not be upset if likewise we recognize the difference between a gay partnership and a marriage.
Perhaps you should meet some gay people and see what they think of your suggestion.

Thanks for the discussion.