Orontes
Master of the Horse
And up until a handful of decades ago, the Britannica Encyclopedia listed Noah's Ark as a scientific fact. So what's your point?
Certainly our understanding of human sexuality has increased as the Scientific Method is applied and homophobia, whether religiously motivated or "ick" motivated, is removed.
My point was that the Modern rhetoric on homosexuality is anachronistic. The claims find no corollaries in the past. This is a problem if one wants to argue homosexuality is inherent over and above the failure to find a gay gene.
This doesn't change the basic fact that homosexuals are indeed being discriminated against when they are denied an Equal Right enjoyed by every other adult US taxpaying citizen.
Do you feel the same about all other claimants for marriage status/recognition?
The APA, the scientific peer review organization responsible for the diagnostic and treatment codex used by the vast majority of the world's mental health professionals, states quite clearly that homosexuality shares the same mechanics and basis as heterosexuality, and that all three of the major classifications seek the same exact things from a relationship. Those relationships only differ in the target gender.
http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf
The APA's change on homosexuality was political not scientific.
By what can only be loosly termed as your "logic", gingers, being uncommon, should be discriminated against too. After all, a ginger can tan their skin and colour their hair, can't they.
There is nothing in my post that concludes an uncommon thing therefore should be discriminated against.
Note: if you want to engage me, you need to move beyond all the invective. It simply demonstrates a lack of maturity. You a pro-gay marriage. I am not. If you want to discuss the difference of ideas control the venom and simply discuss.