Show me the science that people can choose their bisexuality. You'll find there is just as much as the other side. The only thing left is to use logical thought on this matter.

What you have shown me is a list of a select few people who have changed their minds, and given it's from a conservative site, no doubt a lot of these were "persuaded" through fear or other unnatural means. You get  a person scared enough, they'll change their mind on anything you tell them. Does that make it a just cause? Of course not. 

For you to prove that being gay is a choice, you'd have to provide evidence that ALL gay people have the ability to turn straight, not just a select few. That's known as cherry-picking. Once again, shades of grey; It's all about levels of tolerance as to whether one can willingly jump back and forth. It doesn't necessarily prove that their mindset (ie. How "grey" their bisexuality is) has changed.

Now how about you answer my original question: if being gay was a choice, who would choose it? It's one of the most socially rejected, culturally supressed groups in history. So tell me, WHY would people CHOOSE to be part of such a group if they had the choice? Are you implying that they're self-masochists or something?

Read my previous post about interpreting a mind from another mind. you might think you know the mindset of another, but it's impossible. Is your only defense as to why people would choose a culturally repressed lifestyle that "people make stupid decisions"?

You lost what shred of credibility you might have had the moment you referenced conservative fantasy website Conservapedia, something the most right wing nutters came up with because reality, unfortunately, has a liberal bias. And you went into negative territory when you completely misquoted that Atlantic Wire article. AP isn't ceasing the use of the word homophobia because people aren't born gay, they are ceasing to use the world because it ascribes a mental illness to bigotry. Its kind of like when the media calls a magazine a clip: they used the wrong word, so now they are just correcting their terminology. Bigotry is NOT  a mental illness. So they use anti-gay instead. AP is not saying anti-gays aren't bigoted ;).

Here's a real source:

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

"

How do people know if they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual?

According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence. These patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction may arise without any prior sexual experience. People can be celibate and still know their sexual orientation-–be it lesbian, gay, bisexual, or heterosexual.

Different lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have very different experiences regarding their sexual orientation. Some people know that they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual for a long time before they actually pursue relationships with other people. Some people engage in sexual activity (with same-sex and/or other-sex partners) before assigning a clear label to their sexual orientation. Prejudice and discrimination make it difficult for many people to come to terms with their sexual orientation identities, so claiming a lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity may be a slow process.

What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

No gay gene has been discovered. But it also isn't a choice. These are things that people begin to discover about themselves as they become sexually mature, often times when they are children or pre-teens. There are countless studies showing that homosexuality isn't a choice and "can't be cured".

Here's something about a study conducted by the American Psychology Association declaring just that:

http://archive.truthout.org/081209C

" Not only does the APA warn its members against that "treatment," but it also advises them to no longer present homosexuality as an illness or a problem of personal development. That position, supported by the organization's senior leadership, will undoubtedly not be held unanimously by all psychologists. It is already rejected, in any case, by some religious milieus. Thus, according to Focus on the Family, faith remains "an anchor and a guide" for a number of people struggling with sexual problems. Evidence exists, declares the organization's spokesman, Jeff Johnson, that a person may change sexual behavior, identity, and orientation.

    Faith and Therapy

    The APA has ruled that people cannot change their fundamental attractions. "They may perceive them differently once they've modified their sexual identity," notes Judith Glassgold, president of the committee, "but those attractions do not change."

Again, a 40 year study from the largest scientific psychology establishment in the united states TRUMPS conservapedia.

Homosexuality cannot be cured. It is not a choice. People who hate homosexuals for their sexual orientation are bigots. People who just disagree with what homosexuals do but still respect them are NOT bigots, though.

In what possible way can gay marriage lead to marriage with an animal? This makes absolutely no sense. Two consenting adults should be allowed to get married. At one point it was illegal to marry across races too and people fought that pretty hard in different parts of the US and now it is (in most places) accepted and is the law of the land.

depends on how you look at it...

For = All legal rights within a government

Against = procreation

It's a bit difficult to not bring religion into this argument considering marriage is generally considered a religious institution. In the UK we have civil partnerships where gay people have the same rights as heterosexuals. Do I think this is an appropriate compromise? No.

Whilst it works as a neutral piece of legislation, it still allows religious institutions to discriminate against a minority and for the simple reason of clinging to an archaic tradition. Why should religious bodies get a free pass when everyone else has to be treated fairly? After reading this thread, I have yet to see a good, sound and logical reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

You missed the meaning of an important key word and left out the second part of the definition: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".

Specifically, the person you were referring to stated that he treats everyone with decency and respect, regardless of their sexual orientation, so he therefore is not a bigot. He may disagree with actions of certain people, but if he treats them with respect, and is not exhibiting hatred or intolerance (one can disagree with somebody and still be tolarant, in fact, you can only be 'tolerant' of people you do disagree with), he is not a bigot. You have no reason to believe he treats anybody with intolerance or bigotry in his life, none. Leave emotionally charged insulting words like bigotry out of it if you want to have a meaningful discussion.

Read my post that you replied to once again....

He stated a desire, a guarantee that his child would not be gay. That requires at least some degree of effort to work towards a bigoted agenda. Hence, bigotry.

Now before you reply again, I suggest that you read the entire thread, especially by the one who has already stated this, instead of following him into the pit like some kind of lemming...

Love the headline. Explain why a religous ceremony is wrong for people who dont follow the religion without bringing the religion into it. Question really should be. Why would gay people want to be "married" which is a Christian religous belief when there are so many other types of couplings from other religions or beliefs that do not restrict based on sexual preference.
I have no issues with anyone gay, straight, animal lovers or furries except for those that feel their sexual preferences make them better than others and label themselves in a way to set themselves apart as superior. Such as Gaymers. Never liked the term and never will. It's just an elitist term like hardcore mean to make people feel superior to others because they have some self esteem issues

Well...there isn't one. Thats kind of the problem. Thats why so many arguments here are either ridiculous, deny scientific understanding of sexual preference, or fall back on religion: any aversion towards homosexual marriage is purely cultural, and is not based on the fear of any genuine, well founded potential consequences. Homosexuals getting married affects quite literally no one but homosexuals.

As for religious institutions being able to discriminate...seperation of church and state work both ways. Government cannot enact any laws favoring specific religions, but they also cannot enact laws that force religious institutions to do things that go against their core beliefs. Within reason, in any case.

But its not a religious ceremony. Marriage is a legal contract between two people that give them the rights to certain benefits. Thats the issue here. Its not about gays having a Christian marriage, its about gays having a government recognized legal marriage.

You're 100% wrong in your statement (as well as for calling me a lemming). If he believed that drinking alcohol was wrong and worked to ensure his children do not drink alcohol, that would not make him bigoted against people who do drink alcohol, your assumption is a logical fallacy. Parents try to instill their moral beliefs of right and wrong into their children, so if he believes homosexual acts are wrong, It is perfectly logical that he could teach his children that doing those acts would be wrong while still instructing them to treat others with dignity and respect REGARDLESS of what their personal choices are. He may not be acting logically when he 'guarantees' his child will not be gay, but it is a leap to say that is bigotry, it is not. I'm not saying for certainty that he is not a bigot, but that you do not have any real evidence to say that he is, so the jump to crying 'bigotry' is kind of pointless.

It's perfectly fine to disagree with people, but jumping to calling people bigots and lemmings is a pretty poor debate tactic, that's my point.