Why we shouldn't have gay marriage. (2 Viewers)

[Andy]

Taken from facebook.com, here are a few reasons why gay marriage should be outlawed:

"01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans."

Just for laughs, but...

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Taken from facebook.com, here are a few reasons why gay marriage should be outlawed:

"01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans."

Just for laughs, but...

It's amazing. As I look at these 'reasons', I realize that there are those people who might legitamately use some of them to debate against gay marriage. It makes my mouth water just thinking about all the debating fallacies and incorrect information included here.

 

[Jerry]

Taken from facebook.com, here are a few reasons why gay marriage should be outlawed:

"01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans."

Just for laughs, but...

You do realize that not a single one of those is an anti-GM argument made by a serious debater, right?

FYI: I do not support the current GM movement because it makes no effort to distinguish between a born sexual orientation and a sex related stress disorder, thus it condones homosexual behavior brought on by rape and abuse by blending all homosexual acts together.

Got a counter to that?

I'd love to discuss it with you.

 

[Andy]

I guess it depends on your definition of who is a serious debater. #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 are rather commmon, and #8 is often the root of the disagreement.

Now, before I continue, I want to clarify one thing. When you say that you don't support the current gay marriage movement, do you mean that you are open to the concept of gay marriage, but for the stated reasons don't want it now, or are you generally against gay marriage as well?

Now here is my counter: you're saying that you don't support the current gay marriage movement (GM and GMM, I'm in a bit of a rush) because it fails to differentiate between natural homosexuality and homosexuality brought on my tramatic events. Correct? My contention is that the GMM is still in the right. Even if a person's homosexuality is emerges from a tramatic event, it is still their right to decide what they plan to do with there life and who they will marry, regardless of previous events. However, if a person were to be so grossly affected that they cannot be trusted to choose whom they wish to marry, then not only should they not be allowed to choose who they want to marry, but they probably need psychiatric counciling. Basically, my belief is that, short of major psychological or emotional trama, every person has every right to chose whom he or she intends to marry regardless of past circumstances, including circumstances that affected their decision to choose a spouse of whatever sex, or their intended spouse's sex.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

You do realize that not a single one of those is an anti-GM argument made by a serious debater, right?

FYI: I do not support the current GM movement because it makes no effort to distinguish between a born sexual orientation and a sex related stress disorder, thus it condones homosexual behavior brought on by rape and abuse by blending all homosexual acts together.

Got a counter to that?

I'd love to discuss it with you.

People have the right to do what they want so long as they are of proper moral agency, and are not harming others or infringing on their rights.

If you're gay because of hormones, you have the right to choose. If your'e gay because you have parental relationship issues, you have the right to choose. It doesn't matter why you're gay you still have the right to choose your partner.

The government should encourage monogamy. Gay, Straight, I don't really care. One person, one person. It is my personal opinion that a man and female are ideal, but that doesn't mean that two people who don't fit into that ideal don't have the right to make the same commitment, legal and perhaps spiritual, to one another.

 

[Jerry]

People have the right to do what they want so long as they are of proper moral agency, and are not harming others or infringing on their rights.

If you're gay because of hormones, you have the right to choose. If your'e gay because you have parental relationship issues, you have the right to choose. It doesn't matter why you're gay you still have the right to choose your partner.

The government should encourage monogamy. Gay, Straight, I don't really care. One person, one person. It is my personal opinion that a man and female are ideal, but that doesn't mean that two people who don't fit into that ideal don't have the right to make the same commitment, legal and perhaps spiritual, to one another.

The government has no "compelling state interest" in the mental illness of it's citizens, and citizens who choose to remain unhealthy are just that, unhealthy. Illness is to be cured, not condoned.

 

[Jerry]

I guess it depends on your definition of who is a serious debater. #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 are rather commmon, and #8 is often the root of the disagreement.

Now, before I continue, I want to clarify one thing. When you say that you don't support the current gay marriage movement, do you mean that you are open to the concept of gay marriage, but for the stated reasons don't want it now, or are you generally against gay marriage as well?

I partition my thought in this regard into 2 schools of thought: Legal and personal.

Legaly, the government has no "compelling state interest" in the mental illness of it's citizens, and citizens who choose to remain unhealthy are just that, unhealthy. Illness is to be cured, not condoned. People have the right to refuse treatment, but not flurish their psychosexual disorders into sociaty. Thus if one is under the influence of a sex related stress disorder they are to keep it to themselves, in their own home and out of the ballot box and out of my school.

Personaly, It is my position that no person has the right to marry whomever they choose, that marriage serves a specific purpose to which people need to comply, and that anyone, gay or straight, not willing to comply with the natural purpose of marriage remove themselves from access to marriage.

The purpose of marriage being: Taking what even ally-cats can do and elevating to "holey"; as this is most beneficial to the individuals immediately involved and society as a whole; To form and maintain the Nuclear Family, the end of which is to produce the best possible situation to raise children, prevent bastard children and fruitless relations, and to maintain societal cohesion.

Scripture reviles that gay marriage will happen, so I know, through my trust in God's word, that gay marriage will happen ( I give it 20 more years, tops). It is one of many signs of the great change.

Now here is my counter: you're saying that you don't support the current gay marriage movement (GM and GMM, I'm in a bit of a rush) because it fails to differentiate between natural homosexuality and homosexuality brought on my tramatic events. Correct?

Correct.

My contention is that the GMM is still in the right. Even if a person's homosexuality is emerges from a tramatic event, it is still their right to decide what they plan to do with there life and who they will marry, regardless of previous events. However, if a person were to be so grossly affected that they cannot be trusted to choose whom they wish to marry, then not only should they not be allowed to choose who they want to marry, but they probably need psychiatric counciling. Basically, my belief is that, short of major psychological or emotional trama, every person has every right to chose whom he or she intends to marry regardless of past circumstances, including circumstances that affected their decision to choose a spouse of whatever sex, or their intended spouse's sex.

Allowing secular legal rights for a minority who can not help their circumstances-of-birth is one thing. Condoning mental illness is another. Men and women who are raped and abused should be encouraged to become healthy again, not encouraged to stew in their misery.

 

[Kandahar]

The government has no "compelling state interest" in the mental illness of it's citizens, and citizens who choose to remain unhealthy are just that, unhealthy. Illness is to be cured, not condoned.

Umm, define "mental illness." Usually the word illness implies that they're somehow being HARMED by their condition. How exactly is a homosexual harmed?

Not every slight difference in brain chemistry has to be labeled as "mental illness."

 

[Kandahar]

Legaly, the government has no "compelling state interest" in the mental illness of it's citizens, and citizens who choose to remain unhealthy are just that, unhealthy. Illness is to be cured, not condoned. People have the right to refuse treatment, but not flurish their psychosexual disorders into sociaty. Thus if one is under the influence of a sex related stress disorder they are to keep it to themselves, in their own home and out of the ballot box and out of my school.

So you don't think homosexuals (or at least these allegedly "mentally ill" homosexuals) should have the right to vote or attend school either? Wow...

Personaly, It is my position that no person has the right to marry whomever they choose, that marriage serves a specific purpose to which people need to comply, and that anyone, gay or straight, not willing to comply with the natural purpose of marriage remove themselves from access to marriage.

So you're opposed to sterile people marrying? Older people? People who don't want kids?

The purpose of marriage being: Taking what even ally-cats can do and elevating to "holey"; as this is most beneficial to the individuals immediately involved and society as a whole; To form and maintain the Nuclear Family, the end of which is to produce the best possible situation to raise children, prevent bastard children and fruitless relations, and to maintain societal cohesion.

Gay marriage would encourage every one of those things.

Allowing secular legal rights for a minority who can not help their circumstances-of-birth is one thing. Condoning mental illness is another. Men and women who are raped and abused should be encouraged to become healthy again, not encouraged to stew in their misery.

They don't seem to be "stewing in their misery" any moreso than straight people...

 

[Andy]

Besides the problems listed above by Kandahar, who decides who is and is not "mentally ill?" In theory, can't we say the same thing about some straight marriages? What about all these kids who have sex with their teachers and then, once the teacher gets out of jail, marries her? What if the marriage is forced by parents? What if one of the spouces is being abused by the other? If we make an exception and let the government decide what gay marriages are and are not "natural," then don't we by extension allow the government to determine the validity of all marriages?

 

[naseuy]

Allowing secular legal rights for a minority who can not help their circumstances-of-birth is one thing. Condoning mental illness is another. Men and women who are raped and abused should be encouraged to become healthy again, not encouraged to stew in their misery.

Human sexuality is a bit...vague. I don't believe that it is quite possible to "become gay" under stress or that abuse would lead to homosexuality. But I'm not an expert in that field, so if you can support that claim with scientific evidence, that would be greatly appretiated.

And lets assume that it is indeed an "illness", however it is not about condoning it or not, or "giving into the disease" or not. Homosexuality doesn't -want- anything, and it isn't harming the individual. All that matters is that the person is able to have happy and healthy relationships. However, if the person is unable to establish healthy relationships (whether they are straight or otherwise), that is an issue totally separate in itself.

As for the purpose of marriages building the "nuclear family", look, that obviously hasn't work. Straight families have their issues like everyone else. Spouses cheat on each other, domestic abuse is rampant, and children are subjected to those occurances.

And on the other hand gay marriages may actually encourage the creation of homes for otherwise homeless children.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Umm, define "mental illness." Usually the word illness implies that they're somehow being HARMED by their condition. How exactly is a homosexual harmed?

Not every slight difference in brain chemistry has to be labeled as "mental illness."

Mental illness can be best defined as one suffering from a diagnosable disorder. All diagnosable disorders cause some sort of distress resulting in an impariment in functioning or they wouldn't be disorders. Homosexuality itself does not cause distress and, therefore cannot be classified as a disorder. If one's homosexual behavior is causing distress and impariment in functioning, then some sort of psychosexual disorder or a mood or personality disorder must be explored.

Some homosexual behavior results from traumas or situations. This is completely different then being sexually oriented towards homosexuality. These people may or may not be sexually oriented towards homosexuality or heterosexuality, but clearly have some disorder that should be processed before their true sexual orientation cold be determined.

Now where this is heading could lead us to a terrible 'slippery slope'. Should gays who want to marry go into therapy to determine that they are truly gays? Should straights then be required to do the same? Should only those not determined to not be mentally ill be allowed to marry? See where this is heading? One might say that I am commiting the slippery slope debating fallacy here. Perhaps, but I lean more towards the concept of precedence.

So what's the answer? Here's a possible one. Allow gay marriage to proceed as straight marriage has. There is no evidence that shows that a gay relationship is any more problematic than a straight relationship. The same sorts of problems can affect either. The same sorts of mental illness in regards to sexuality or any other issue can affect either.

 

[ngdawg]

Scripture reviles that gay marriage will happen, so I know, through my trust in God's word, that gay marriage will happen

Um...could you point out the passage? I don't think gay marriage is mentioned; in fact, arguments have been made that the passages that claim 'lying down with a man as if a woman' could be construed as not merely a homosexual act but one of female submission; women were second class property with no say back in the day.

Condoning mental illness is another. Men and women who are raped and abused should be encouraged to become healthy again, not encouraged to stew in their misery.

Again, you're using a scenario that is not 'common' within the community and only based on a relative's experience. Gay marriage has nothing to do with mental trauma; straight people going through it marry and we're not after them to stop 'stewing'.
I like the phrase in the commercials for "Man of the Year': EVERY marriage is 'same sex marriage!'

 

[Jerry]

Besides the problems listed above by Kandahar, who decides who is and is not "mentally ill?" In theory, can't we say the same thing about some straight marriages? What about all these kids who have sex with their teachers and then, once the teacher gets out of jail, marries her? What if the marriage is forced by parents? What if one of the spouces is being abused by the other? If we make an exception and let the government decide what gay marriages are and are not "natural," then don't we by extension allow the government to determine the validity of all marriages?

Kandahar is only interested in persecuting people of faith. As such, the majority of what he has to say on the matter is either flame, irrelevant, or has already been answered in that thread.

The posts of his you refer to are good examples, thus proving my claim.

Now then, to your questions.

"who decides who is and is not "mentally ill?"

The APA sets the standard and a psychologist or similar makes a professional judgment call case by case.

The APA declaration of 1973 does not differentiate between a born sexual orientation and a sex related sex disorder, hence my beef.

"In theory, can't we say the same thing about some straight marriages?"

When there is Hyper-Masculineization or similar involved, yes, as they are also forms of Gender Identity Disorder.

However, one could only introduce such comperasens in this thread by changing the subject. Changing the subject in a civil, logical way is usualy a Red Harring.

If you would like to discuss the broader question of what should be acceptable as or in a marriage you should start a thread specifically on that. There was such a thread not long ago....I believe that it was called "The Sanctity of Marriage" or something similar.

"What about all these kids who have sex with their teachers and then, once the teacher gets out of jail, marries her?"

Again, since this has nothing to do with gay-marriage, it is a Red Herring.

"What if the marriage is forced by parents?"

Do you mean if a gay-marriage were forced by the parents? If so, then I would only point out that one can not secure the legal standing of "married" by force, compulsion, or even while intoxicated.

If you did not mean a forced gay-marriage, then this would be another Red Haring.

"What if one of the spouces is being abused by the other?"

If a gay-man is being abused by anyone, I strongly recommend that he remove himself from that situation and get counseling (and a restraining order).

"If we make an exception and let the government decide what gay marriages are and are not "natural," then don't we by extension allow the government to determine the validity of all marriages?"

The government currently does have the power to determine the validity of all marriages. That is why there are legal challenges in the courts. If the government had no such power to regulate marriage validity, then people could do as they please now and there would be no pursuance of legal action.

Also, be careful with likening gay-marriage with terms such as "natural", as incest is also "natural". Folks like Jamesrage will make the case that perihelia is also "natural", which perihelia is, and he would also source groups who strive to reduce, and eventually eliminate, the age requirement for marriage.

 

[Thorgasm]

Jerry, you seem pretty articulate. I have to wonder why you base your whole position upon hypothetical constructs(a concept or idea with no physical properties). Mental illness is a hypothetical construct. This is why psychology is a pseudo-science. You also cite the bible(without actually citing it:lol: ). Do you have any logical reasons, without using hypothetical constructs, to be against gay marriage.

 

[Jerry]

So what's the answer? Here's a possible one. Allow gay marriage to proceed as straight marriage has. There is no evidence that shows that a gay relationship is any more problematic than a straight relationship. The same sorts of problems can affect either. The same sorts of mental illness in regards to sexuality or any other issue can affect either.

That's the argument which will win it in the courts.

 

[Jerry]

Um...could you point out the passage? I don't think gay marriage is mentioned; in fact, arguments have been made that the passages that claim 'lying down with a man as if a woman' could be construed as not merely a homosexual act but one of female submission; women were second class property with no say back in the day.

Aside from my disagreements with your interpretations of a woman's social status, the following is my personal religious opinion:

Where as:
Within the continuum of Christian faith the commands of God are law. Obeying God's law is established as good. Disobeying God's law is established as evil.

Where as:
Laviticus 18:22
"'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

..also..
Laviticus 20:13;
" 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Therefore:
All 'homosexual sexual acts' are in disobedience to God's law, thus by nature of being contrary to God's law they are evil acts.

Where as:
Genesis 6:5;
The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time..

Therefore:
'Homosexual sexual acts' were one of many evil acts being carried out with the approval of society in the days of Noah.

Where as:
Luke 17:26;
"Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.

Therefore:
Societal approval of 'homosexual sexual acts', which is what gay-marriage legislation is, is not only inevitable, it is a sign of Christ's return.

Again, you're using a scenario that is not 'common' within the community and only based on a relative's experience. Gay marriage has nothing to do with mental trauma; straight people going through it marry and we're not after them to stop 'stewing'.

Straight marriage has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. However, I will briefly entertain this tangent by saying that I oppose straight people with versus disorders/ traumas from marrying.

I will not entertain this tangent further.

It is my personal religious opinion that sexual orientation has nothing to do with gay-marriage, as there are straight people who choose the same-sex lifestyle and defend their ability to make such a choice.

 

[Jerry]

Jerry, you seem pretty articulate. I have to wonder why you base your whole position upon hypothetical constructs(a concept or idea with no physical properties). Mental illness is a hypothetical construct. This is why psychology is a pseudo-science. You also cite the bible(without actually citing it:lol: ). Do you have any logical reasons, without using hypothetical constructs, to be against gay marriage.

Then the APA's 1973 declaration that homosexuality is not a psychosexual disorder is a "hypothetical construct", void of "logical reasons", thus collapsing the entire gay-marriage movement.

FYI: I avoid quoting the bible unless directly challenged. It is a certicy I afford my fellow DP'rs.

 

[Jerry]

<edit>

The APA declaration of 1973 does not differentiate between a born sexual orientation and a sex related sex disorder, hence my beef.

*Sex related stress disorder.

 

[Duke]

FYI: I do not support the current GM movement because it makes no effort to distinguish between a born sexual orientation and a sex related stress disorder, thus it condones homosexual behavior brought on by rape and abuse by blending all homosexual acts together.

Got a counter to that?

I'd love to discuss it with you.

Give me a few facts about this "homosexual behavior brought on by rape and abuse".

I would like to point out that it is not the government's job to recognize this disorder or that behavior. It is the government's job, in my opinion, to provide legal rights to marry for whatever couple.

Your logic doesn't click, so to speak.


Duke

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The APA declaration of 1973 does not differentiate between a born sexual orientation and a sex related stress disorder, hence my beef.

Not specifically as there is no diagnosis of 'sex related stress disorder', however, there are other disorders that identify sexual behavior, either straight or gay, as defining criteria or as specifiers that address this issue. Homosexuality was removed as a disorder because research showed that sexual orientation in itself was not a factor in causing distress or impairment. Disordered sexual behavior are symptoms of other diagnoses.

 

[FallingPianos]

FYI: I do not support the current GM movement because it makes no effort to distinguish between a born sexual orientation and a sex related stress disorder, thus it condones homosexual behavior brought on by rape and abuse by blending all homosexual acts together.

Got a counter to that?

I'd love to discuss it with you.

I do not support the current SM movement because it makes no effort to distinguish between a born sexual orientation and a sex related stress disorder, thus it condones hetersexual behavior brought on by rape and abuse by blending all hetersexual acts together.

 

[Saboteur]

The government has no "compelling state interest" in the mental illness of it's citizens, and citizens who choose to remain unhealthy are just that, unhealthy. Illness is to be cured, not condoned.

I could just blast you but.... Oh what the heck, I think you are the one with the mental illness.

 

[Saboteur]

Taken from facebook.com, here are a few reasons why gay marriage should be outlawed:

First of all I get that this is a joke... And it's funny.

"01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

Being gay is completely natural.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Some people do need laws to make them feel safe from themselves that's for sure.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

While beastiality isn't legal there's plenty of crazy sexual behavior going on in both straight and gay lifestyles.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

Tell that to my wife.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

Hee Hee.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

My wife had a radical hysterectomy before we could have kids but after we got married, does that mean my straight marriage is null and void?

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

I have 2 brothers that are gay yet I'm not and neither were my parents HMMMMM.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

Yeah and God was at my wedding.:roll:

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

When my dad died when I was 13 I should have been given up for adoption.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans."

Actually the Christian madness is the new social norm, it was totally acceptable for ancient Greeks and Romans to have sex with both men and women or exclusively one or the other. In fact the Romans would have sex with whoever they found attractive regardless of gender.

Just for laughs, but...

But the Irony is thick and pasty.

 

[Thorgasm]

Then the APA's 1973 declaration that homosexuality is not a psychosexual disorder is a "hypothetical construct", void of "logical reasons", thus collapsing the entire gay-marriage movement.

FYI: I avoid quoting the bible unless directly challenged. It is a certicy I afford my fellow DP'rs.

No, lack of hypothetical construct is not a hypothetical construct. Nice try with the circular logic. That is like saying that atheism is a religion. The negative is the default position.

Speaking of the bible, you quoted Leviticus. Do you also not eat shellfish? Do you smite your neighbor for working the sabbath. Do you wear clothing made up of mixed threads? The cherry picking of the bible is what is disgusting about the opposition to gay marriage.