First, I have yet to hear of scientific consensus on the issue of the issue if sexual orientation is innate or learned. If you have, I would be interested in seeing some. And my definition is based on the fact that I personally can't measure with certainty someone's attraction to another person without some action. Until they act on the attraction, I (or anyone they didn't tell) would likely not know about it. And similarly, I don't want someones genetic tendencies to be a measuring stick or excuse for their actions. I don't see genetics as a foreshadowing of behavior. That is why I personally differentiate between those with attraction and those who act on it. Because honestly, I don't see how there can be discrimination against someone who has certain unexpressed thoughts. This isn't Minority Report, we can't predict the future.
And following that line of reasoning, I should have specified. I don't see gays as a natural minority, or someone born into a certain condition. Gays are indeed a minority, as are math majors, people who drive Buicks, people who listen to classical music, or any number of other segments of society. However, that doesn't give them specific legal rights or protections. Again, it comes down to a choice. That is why I cannot see the link between gay rights and civil rights. I can't live in the suburbs for 30 years, then one day start listening to rap and declare I'm black; however there are many instances of gays living a normal life for numerous years then suddenly coming out.
Many people see the ages of 12-14 as still being part of childhood, although I would concede this is greatly dependant upon society. In America the age of concent is 16 in most states. Most people would equate someone over 18 having sex with someone between 12-14 as pedophilia in America. Hence I see no inconsistancy.
My stating of possible leftist bias was to show that your opinions might not derive from reason but blind ideology. I don't really see how that would be an attack (unlike many of the comments directed to me). If you say they are your own and reasoned out, I will take you at your word. Many on both sides however follow party/ideological lines regardless of the validity of particular positions.
I did agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Texas case outlawing sodomy laws (can't remember the name offhand) and I don't support physical violence toward gays, but I don't think they should recieve the same marriage benefits of a traditional couple. I personally see modern marriage as a support system for allowing people to raise their children. I also think that the recent Florida court ruling said something similar. Marriage recieves benefits because it is assumed that society benefits more from having children raised in stable environments than not. That is also why I am only against the more financial aspects of giving marriage rights to gays.
And on a more personal note, i'm disappointed that I wouldn't get a dinner invite. For free food I could keep my mouth closed for a few hours
.