Originally Posted by
MK27
This is just a soft way of saying you agree with the fundamentalists, because what is essential to the debate is whether or not homosexuality is "natural". That is totally tangential -- a red herrring. In what sense would this "get into a much murkier area about what is allowed and what isn't according to our Constitution"? Malarky. Absolute BS. Religion itself is a choice, but we include it as a possible class of people to discriminate against. If it were not this way, I could hang a sign on my resturant, "No Jews allowed -- that's your choice!"
It is none of your business why someone is or isn't a homosexual and I am sure the Constitution will support that. It also will never satisfy Christians, who are against sin and sin can include any number of irrefutable "natural" acts (such as adultery). You saying that we should rule a country based on the opinion of witchdoctors and supernatural cultisits.
By saying the debate is about nature vs. illness (or whatever), you are just saying "until the homosexuals can prove they deserve our respect" and -- short of Christ returning to Earth with the message "being gay is okay" -- the bar for the evidence here will simply always remain out of reach. You've already made up your mind, but you want to appear as if you are a reasonable person. Sad sack disguise IMO.