Really. Sorry, wrong answer. Next contestant, please.

Also, Sam is most likely affiliated with some Conservative Congressman or Mega-Church Preacher who hates himself cuz he won’t follow his natural feelings of being attracted to the same-sex and has to use self-hating language to help himself feel better that he is trying to peel away his true inner feelings. Yet Sam craves for a man at night so he won’t be alone.

Any of this ring a bell Sammy Boy ?

Oh My Gawd! Did that sound like blacksteel?

Yes.

“That’s the height of narcissistically hostile behavior toward individuals that are not neurotic and recognize the difference between neuroses and immutable characteristics.”

No it’s not. Think of it this way:

Is religious practice and belief immutable? No, it’s not.

Is following the teachings of Christ or Muhammed immutable or innate?
No, it’s not.

Does that therefore mean a particular religious belief and its practice should not be protected as a fundamental right since it is not immutable and/or innate?

See the problem with that kind of argument regarding human rights?

Look at another example involving interracial marriages:

Is it immutable and/or innate for a black person to CHOOSE to marry a white person instead of a black person?

Is marriage immutable or innate itself? Considering how the definition of marriage has changed throughout history and how people divorce and re-marry all the time or choose not to marry at all – I think you would have to say that marriage itself is not immutable nor is it innate.

See what happens when you start to argue the basis for human rights like that?
Now you tell me how many religious people who argue that homosexuality should not be treated equally regarding civil rights because they believe it is a choice would also support religion being treated the same way, since any particular religious belief and its practice is itself obviously a choice?

Now read again your qout at the beginning of this post..

First of all, the term marriage is not a religious term, it’s not owned by anyone. It’s wrong to allow religion to ‘own’ it out of bigotry, simple.

Secondly you said, “What happened to the tollerance that we DEMAND, is not the other side allowed the same tollerance?”

The other side is not being tolerant by voting to ban gays from being able to marry. Would you be tolerant of blacks by voting to ban blacks from marrying whites? No, of course not. The same applies to gay marriage – it doesn’t matter WHY or HOW they justify being intolerant, it is still being intolerant.

Gay aren’t protesting to make straight marriages illegal or protesting to make religion illegal. Gay people are protesting the fact that other people voted to make them less, to have TAKEN AWAY their legal right to marry.

If the same thing had happen to straight people they would be protesting as well.

Don’t forget that what happened in California was that the right to marry for gay people was taken away. It was declared a fundamental right for gay people to have – this has not happened anywhere else in the country.