It's not about what kind of consensual sex people engage in, it's about not discriminating against some citizens based upon whom they have fallen in love with.
It's also not about your disgust, or your childish "ewww," or your socially-dictated and highly conventional response to what is already and has always been
natural to a small group of people as an exclusive orientation.
Regardless of your earlier experimentation.
Why do gay and lesbian people exist? Dunno. Nature or nurture? Dunno. But we're here, and we've been here throughout recorded history. So we've always and already a part of it all.
As long as "marriage"--the religiously-blessed and -pronounced state of romantic longterm loving-kindness with another human being--is publicly promoted by my government via special legal privileges, then HELL YES! I will continue to argue that I deserve those special legal privileges associated with marriage, too.
. . . . Although given the wording of the U.S. Constitution, it'd be smarter--both politically and constitutionally--if religiously-understood and -promoted marriage were de-linked from its government-promoted legal privileges. That way,
everyone would receive the legal privileges associated with a civil union, while only religious organizations would be able to call any such union a "marriage."
Which has been proposed on this board and in the larger public environment many times.
What's stopping us from agreeing on that point?
NCbear (who knows a few Unitarian ministers who'd happily bless my marriage to my man--which may be one reason why some of my fellow citizens are practically frothing at the mouth at the prospect of having to agree to this compromise, thus answering my question

:irked
