That's an interesting question, if not overly insulting. Are you implying that the sexual activity of the gay community, or of the human race as a whole, is nothing more than that of an animal? The whole issue that sets us above animals is not communication or the use of tools, many cases have been found where animals already have this, what sets us apart is our ability to not be slaves to instinct. We CAN CHOOSE to NOT HAVE SEX.

Ultimately, animals do NOT have a choice BECAUSE they are ANIMALS, the human gay community doesn't really have this excuse to fall back on. They have choice simply by being human.
Animals are also known to mount entirely different species and inanimate objects when a candidate from their own species isn't present when their instinct to mate hits them. Are you saying beastiality should be accepted and supported among humans because they apparently don't have a choice?

(No, I am not drawing an equivalence between homosexuality and beastiality, but merely the equivalence between using animals in those arguments)

 I feel I should start by apologizing. Looking at my statement my point was not as clear as I thought it would be. I meant the the notion that if everyone thought about the points you made would change how they think about everything is a bit overly arrogant. Hopefully it didn't get lost too much in the poor presentation.

 You did kind of dance around one point in your response though. I doubt it was intentional though so I am not trying to be an ass with this. Is it possible for there to be a genetic predisposition then in humans as we are just animals in the end? Yes, we are animals that can think and that is something unique to the primate family. I am gathering you think regardless of this it should be abstained from, but that is an arguement I am too tired to get into.

 @bardic
You have my answer. The sociopath would kill without remorse. Similarly the gay man would have sex with a man because he naturally enjoys it. The other two would kill and feel remorse. The straight man could have sex with another man, but it wouldn't be what he really wanted. You need a different analogy to get your point across.

Ah, actually I never intended to imply that thinking about those points would change their views from what they are, but I do think that if they thought of those views earlier before it became an issue or as it started to become an issue, that the issue might have been less likely to come up or not as severe.

I honestly don't believe there is a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality, I think most of it is.... not so much learned, but influenced by our experiences as we develop, and the only part any genetic predisposition plays is how those influences are handled.
This isn't really something you can test accurately though, so I'm not going to try to say that it's factual, but I'm also not going to accept if someone says that the opposite has been proven. The amount of data that can be held back by people is far too debilitating to get an accurate analysis of the issue, and the sheer number of variables that may or may not influence the issue is again debilitating.

Also, thinking is hardly limited to the primate family. Communication and tool use has been found in Elephants(their communication is actually subsonic, and there are apparently elephants that paint or use sticks for backscratching and the like. there are also aquatic mammals, as well as many other pack animals.

Either way though, my main issue is that I have no problem with a person who is homosexual, such that a man is having a relationship with another man or a woman with another woman. My only issue is that I do not consider homosexual intercourse to be natural (refer back to my "if everyone was straight/gay" point) and I do not believe it should be treated as such.
However, even with not accepting homosexual intercourse as being acceptable, I'm not saying they need to be taken out and punished for it, simply that it should not be billed as equivalent to heterosexual intercourse.

 I'll grant you we have no hard evidence. Still there are signs pointing to some genetic predisposition. Mostly this is seen in twins studies, and presence in other animals. Still we have wandered wildly off-topic. What I was trying to get at was if it was genetic in origin it would easily be considered discriminatory. Of course it looks like we can't agree on the genetic disposition so I don't think that point really stands.

Two issues:

1. I don't see how anyone who's been in love can only talk about sex when talking about marriage.

If straight marriage isn't only about sex, then why is gay marriage reduced to that by some straight people talking about the nature of being gay.

2. I don't understand the motives or emotions of gay people or anyone who's not me, for that matter - I can guess but I wouldn't speak as authoritatively as you guys.

How do you know what it's like?

 Grey's argument is based more on the religious aspects rather than the legal aspects it seems. It is not directly relevant to the topic I suppose, but one worth exploring all the same iif you ask me. It highlights why people are so against the concept despite it not affecting anyone negatively directly. It is what will need to be addressed to get accepted by the main stream of society.

WEll (I don't knoe why I'm bothering with this other than I like to join in debate) thats something that's instintive to my personality and I have the choice of saying no to it, but I choose not to. ha ha ha

Any rate. I think one thing that is failed to be missed here is the fact that why are homos asking for marriage? I don't think it's because they want to represent the classic family structure just in there own way. I mean, Homosexuality is inherently non-standard to the practice of marriage.

What the TRUE matter of this whole thing is, like virtually everything, money.

Gays want rights because it's far more affordable for legal-married citizens to live, through tax benefits and other things. Two men (or women) living together don't qualify for this among other things. To me there in lies the whole debacle. If tax practices where changed to a non-family oriented structure this argument would die out. Though of course, others would surely arise.

To me all this other banter and civil rights bricka-brack is just the smoke screen liberal chat, chosen because it sounds more viable of a vantage point. It's crap. Homosexuality isn't a race. It's not even a religion. (It's not even mexico - Homer Simpson)/lol. but seriously, it's not a civil rights issue. That notion is insulting.

and that insults me.

I disagree with what you said. I believe it is a civil rights issue since I believe that most don't choose to be gay. So certain rights are being taken away from some people just because they were born gay. wtf?

 Denying certain people a tax break based on their sexual orientation absolutely is a civil rights issue. You are favoring one group over another. How is it aythign other than a civil rights issue?