Kindest Regards, Pagan-prophet! Great to hear from you again! Oh now, how can you possibly confuse the autonomous systems with lifestyle choice? I do believe it is a choice, because I have seen nothing to prove otherwise, other than hearsay taken on faith. How could such a discriminating mind as yours be content with such little evidence? There are few examples in nature to support what is said about no control over same-sex infatuation. The few examples I have seen that tenuously imply such, such as fish changing gender, are without exception to continue the species. I am truly saddened for your friend, and for your experience. I too, have seen grown people cry over their addictions and lifestyle choices, wondering why they do such things as get hooked on drugs, and return to those choices anyway. One of my professors pointed out only this morning, that all men are equally unable to marry other men. I presume that applies to women as well. In other words, by your position, "gays" are already being treated equally with everyone else. There is a validity to your point here. I am not saying wholesale that they should not be allowed. I do believe society should have input into that decision, and if the minority does not specifically get their way, they should be willing to abide by it. Civil union seems to me a reasonable accomodation for the protection and distribution of assets and the other legal concerns. This is already covered above. Men are not currently legally able to marry men, same for women. Allowing gay marriage would be giving something to a select minority in preference to everyone else. Point taken, I suspected I picked a bad choice with that specific example. Yet it serves to demonstrate an addictive (seemingly arguably "genetic" and/or "natural") lifestyle choice. Agreed. I don't foresee any specific economic damage. I do see a serious shift in social mores and norms. Whether good or bad, only time can tell, but I have my personal suspicions. Not to mention, I too, have "rights." Should I not have the right to live my life in an environment that does not encourage or endorse what is socially viewed as unacceptable behavior? I mean this in no way intolerant, yet my considerations (and those of a like mind) are left out of the equation. I am not so naive as to think it does not go on around me, but must I be acceptant? Understand, I do not have to accept to tolerate. Tolerance, even respectful tolerance, is not acceptance, adoption or endorsement. It is an opinion based on scientific fact. See above regarding Francis Collins and the genome project. It is also based on religious wisdom traditions from around the world. You are correct in one regard. However, might I pose another consideration? Does one ask a person with a cold about the rhinovirus? No, one asks a doctor. Does one ask a drug addict about the recreational drug of his choice? No, one asks a pharmacist. Does one ask a pedophile for advice in caring for a young child? Does one ask a person in an adulterous affair for marriage advice? Do you see how asking the person intimately involved will get an answer slanted in a direction favorable to that person? Rather, to better understand, is to find a specialist who has spent time in study and observation of the subject, who is neutrally removed from the subject and has no inherent bias to slant his/her posiition. Again, I recommend Mr. Collins. Thank you for your input. It is always a pleasure to hear from you.