It is an option, but like I said, I haven't seen a good explanation yet (I take that back, I am related to a psychologist who claimed that he'd cured two homosexuals through therapy). An unnatural lifestyle means not in nature: we know that's not true. To preserve marriage as between a man and a woman--why...why should that be preserved?
I don't know and, at this moment, I don't care. I'm tired, it's 90 degrees outside (not bad for a Sept. afternoon in Milwaukee) and I'm starving. That was unpleasant.
I guess I'll wrap this up by stating that I view life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as core values to the constitution...to our way of life. If we are going to continue to deny these people their own pursuit, we'd better have a damn good reason why. I just cannot accept from the majority--I just don't like them.
I don't think we are denying anyone their liberty. A man can marry a woman and vice versa. We don't let a person have more than one wife. That's not a denial of liberty either. We regulate lifestyle choices all the time. For example, we recently banned smoking in bars over here (in other words, we regulated a lifestyle choice).
It's currently 81 degrees. Not bad for September in Honolulu. Go get some food mang.