Gee, I wonder.

There's a rational way to say "You living your life the way you want to makes me uncomfortable, so I insist on trying to stop you"? Unless they're harassing someone or hurting someone, I don't see how that's rational. If you don't like it because they /are/ harassing you, then that is a distaste for being harassed, not distaste of all gay people.
.
as for the guest... they said homophobes say that, not that everyone who is against homosexuality is a homophobe, but at any rate... Uh, I kind of disagree. Until people stop protesting gay marriages (which, by the way, doesn't interfere in their life), it's absolutely the fault of people against equal rights.

If that truly was the rationale, then maybe (just maybe) you'd have a point. Saying it's a mere issue of discomfort is a dishonest distortion of the truth -- typical straw man stuff.
Is it really so hard to understand that someone might actually be concerned with the well-being of society? It's not like that's a new thing.

How are gay people marrying each other going to decrease the well-being of society? If shows like 'The Bachelor' exist, and if people who met each other 4 hours ago can get married, then why not people of the same gender?

Like not-so-me, I'm confused as to how gay people in general, let alone gay marriage, might harm society.

That's irrelevant to my current point -- whether you agree with the argument or not doesn't free you from the responsibility to take it as it is.
But if you actually talked to these people and listened to them, maybe you'd understand a little more. You have to be able to empathize with them and see the world from their perspective first.

I'm trying to talk to you, as you seem to understand. How are they a danger to society?

What on Earth IS your current point then? You said that people were 'concerned with the well-being of society', so we asked how homosexuality could possibly damage the well-being of society. I completely agree with miss-me: how they live their lives doesn't affect you at all. If they want to do the frickle-frack with people of the same gender, let them. If they want to kiss or hold hands in public, just like any other human being, then let them.

My current point was in regards to what these people believe. I wasn't trying to make their case for them, I was just pointing out that they were being misrepresented.
If you want me to make their case for them, I can give you some of the basics, but I need to give two disclaimers first: 1) Personally, I don't believe strongly in gay marriage being illegal. I haven't found a really good reason why it should be. I disagree with the practice, but I believe that outlawing something should almost always be a last resort. For that reason, I'm probably not the best person to ask anyway. 2) There's not much I can say to help you understand, because empathy is required. You have to be able to see the world the way that they do, or their reasoning won't make sense to you. That's not something anyone can do for you. With that said, here goes:

One of the most basic concepts is that gay marriage is viewed as an indicator that people are turning away from God. From a religious perspective, that's basically a self-imposed death sentence.
One of many more advanced concerns is the treatment of something like gender as irrelevant and something like homosexuality as perfectly normal and healthy. Totally valid arguments can be made against both of these attempts. Some are concerned that modern man had become so arrogant that he views his wishes to be more important than the constraints of nature. We go about doing our own thing as if we have reverted back to the idea that the universe revolves around us. That can be a dangerous attitude.

So in as few words as possible, does supernovamike support gays?

One word: Nope.

Gays: yes. Homosexual lifestyle: no.
Kind of a "love the sinner, hate the sin" sort of thing (except that being gay doesn't make you inherently sinful, so that's not the best way to say it).

define homosexual lifestyle. The only thing that gays do different than straights is sex and marriage and sometimes not even due to social pressure and whatnot.

That's all I'm talking about, really. I'm not referring to one specific and exclusive way of living -- just a certain set of decisions. Homosexual behavior, simply put. And the self-proclaimed identity that usually comes with it nowadays.

OK.
I accept and respect your point of view and heartily disagree with it.

Self-proclaimed identity?

Like, identifying yourself by that one particular part of you. It radiates outward from there. Like, I have a friend who "came out" a couple years ago, and starting with that change he quickly became a completely different person. His priorities, character, beliefs, and everything else always comes back to his sexual orientation, like nothing else matters to him. I know it's not the same for everybody, but it's never *just* that they have relationships with the same gender, as suggested above. There's always more than that.

I disagree with your belief that the gay lifestyle is bad, especially from the religious perspective that was brought up.

That's fine. I didn't explain the religious perspective hardly at all, but I doubt that would've made a down difference anyway. Whatevs

I think it's far worse to say that as long as they deny a part of who they are you like them rather than to just say you dislike gays. Why is a straight person any more right to have a loving relationship than a gay one? If you wanna say "I don't support sex without the intent to have kids" fine, but at least that includes people who use condoms, or whatever, rather than just gays. Marriage is the same - if you think marriage is only useful to signify two people who are having biological children together, then fine, be against gay marriage, but otherwise it seems a little hypocritical.

That's more than a little oversimplified. Whether you have children or not, male and female still exist.
Besides, "part of who they are" is a subjective concept anyway. The LGBT movement encourages people to deny their physiology in pursuit of their "heart." Is that not similar? But who's to say how to capture the essence of who someone "is?" What's in their mind counts, but nothing anywhere else in their body? Seems oddly selective.
Personally, I don't think your physical attractions are a part of who you are. I think identity is something deeper than that, for all of us. The things that our physical body craves are very real, but they should not define us. If they do, we're selling ourselves way short.

It isn't just about physical attraction. If physical attraction is the only part of your relationship, then I think you either need to cut it off or get counseling. It's about finding someone who makes you happy, a life partner, and just because someone decides they would like their life partner to be female rather than male, or vice versa, doesn't mean they're denying any part of their body. Yes, male and female exist, for the purpose of reproduction. If you're not doing that anyway, I don't see why it matters.
Secondly, I think you have a couple contrasting points since you claim that LGBT wants us to abandon our physiology, and yet you don't think those things should define us? I don't want to put words into your mouth, so I won't say what I assume you meant by that.
However, my physical body craves food, and I'm not about to deny it. No, sex is not that important, but physical attraction isn't something anyone can turn off, they can't just have a happy partnership with someone

they aren't attracted to, and that's a large part of the human life cycle. Telling someone that they can't have that simply because their body made chemicals for a person of the same gender rather than the opposite doesn't make sense to me.

One thing that's largely forgotten is that in non-human animals, homosexuality also exists. It's not a human thing, it's not a creation of our society.

Of course it's not the only part of your relationship, but it's kinda why it exists. If it was irrelevant, then neither homosexuality not heterosexuality would even exist. We'd all be "bisexual" (or pansexual, or whatever they're calling it nowadays).
Your gender is part of who you are. It is a characteristic that affects you not only physically but mentally as well. Sexual attraction is meant to be part of that, but for some people, the wiring didn't turn out the way nature intended. I don't see how it's any different than any other mental/emotional disorder. If we look at someone with a learning disability, for example, would we say that that disability is who they are? I wouldn't. I think their true self is merely being obscured by the impediment. I refuse to give our weaknesses power to define us
Just for clarification, I'm not trying to make a case for outlawing homosexuality. I'm just making a case for why homosexuality (the behavior, not the people) can be reasonably rejected.

And I didn't mean to have contrasting points, I was merely pointing out the contradiction in your own position, as a side note. I do believe that gender is important, so while the physical body itself might not define us, it is inseparably intertwined with things that do.
Fun fact: did you know that counselors are not allowed to help people struggling with their sexual orientation to adopt a heterosexual "identity?" It's considered abusive. They can only help them to embrace homosexuality.
That's irony, if I've ever seen it.

You might not define someone by having a mental disorder, but you also wouldn't tell them to pretend they didn't have it. It is /part/ of who they are, just as homosexuality is. You wouldn't tell someone with ADD to just pretend they didn't have it. You wouldn't try to tell them that acting ADD is wrong, because they /are/ ADD. No, having ADD is not the defining point of who they are, but that doesn't mean it isn't part of them.
Fun fact: it might be because encouraging someone to try to change part of them that they can't help /is/ abusive, whether it's homosexual or heterosexual. Suppressing part of them they didn't choose has driven people to suicide because they find themselves so terrible and they can't do /anything/ to change it.

I haven't told anyone to pretend they didn't have anything. That's not the point. What concerns me is when people don't allow themselves to do or think anything deeper than what their most basic urges and imperfections push them towards. What I wouldn't say to someone with ADD is that they should embrace their condition and rejoice in it, but that is what LGBT activists are all about.

That's what psychologists must do. You think it's fair that, whenever someone is struggling with their identity, the people that are meant to help them the most are only allowed to "help" them in one direction? That they are required to approach the problem with an agenda? I wouldn't want a counselor to have any objective other than helping me overcome my challenges and become the person I want to be. To go in and find out that he is only interested in making me embrace and adopt the things I don't like about myself, and making me become the person that someone else wants me to be, should be an immediate red flag.
Divergent sexual orientations are not all the same. Treating them as if they are only allowed to approach the issue in one way is clearly wrong, and it's exactly what this movement is supposed to be fighting against. It reveals the true colors of people who call themselves "progressive" but in reality are just as bigoted and self-protective as anyone else. No surprise there.

The reason people don't like the homosexual part of themselves is because of people like you who tell them they're wrong or an abomination who should try to make themselves attracted to people they're really not.

Saying that they would be /adopting/ a heterosexual identity means that they didn't already have one. Accepting homosexuality means that they are accepting something that they /have/. You didn't say to adopt a homosexual identity, or to ignore a heterosexual one. It is abusive to tell someone, homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, or anything else, that they are wrong. If they were catering only to our base urges, they'd say "yes SCREW EVERYONE~". No one says that, if they do, they're just as wrong as anyone else. LGBT activists are all about acceptance. They don't tell people to go get a boyfriend, they just tell people not to feel pressured into pretending to be something they're not. I have never seen, nor have I ever said, that everyone needs to go screw someone they're attracted to. I have said that if you do, there's nothing wrong with that (supposing both parties are legal consenting adults ;) ). I don't support ignorance, and I don't support acting without thought. I do support

people living their lives, regardless of whether it's "natural" or not. To me, that is far more basic than anything anyone else says. You know what isn't natural? Construction. Marriage. Cars. Science. Airplanes. /Antibiotics/. You know what is /very/ natural, according to, you know, nature? Rape, killing children that aren't yours, killing children that /are/ yours if you want /more/ children, murdering possible rivals, killing children that aren't normal. So yeah, let's all go be natural and forget about the things that make us human, like compassion and understanding, even for those we might not like. It's really none of yours or someone else's business what two (or more) consenting adults do behind closed doors, whether that's homosexuality, polygamy, or any number of other things.

The "identity adoption" problem you presented above applies equally to homosexual identities, so that's a moot point. You wouldn't be going to see a counselor in the first place if you already had everything you needed. There are scores of people, mostly religious, who struggle with homosexual affections but want to live in harmony with their sincere religious values. If you don't believe that you're lying to yourself. To not be able to receive professional help to live the way you want to live is a tragedy. You should agree with that.
I admit, I am relieved. I was worried you would pull the "animals are gay" argument, as people often do. But you have clearly and admirably explained why humans are best to not behave the way animals do. We are better than that. I agree with you fully.

You can't just not have homosexuality because it conflicts with what your preacher says, any more than you can just not have ADD because your teacher says you need to focus. I am well aware that people struggle with homosexuality, but I think that if true acceptance were taught rather than the "oh, love the people but hate the sin" stuff there wouldn't be countless suicides every year because people just can't cope with not being gay. A counselor can't make someone stop being gay. Even those terrible anti-gay camps can't do that, they can only make someone feel even worse and make others feel the same.

I disagree with the generalizations. Granted, I certainly don't agree with the way the problem is often approached, and I think there is a lot of improvement to be made among the Christian ranks. But it is getting better quickly. It takes time for people to shift their paradigms, so don't be too hard on them. The older ones, especially, were raised in a different world.
I know people with same-sex attraction that have gone both ways -- some have chosen to assert their gay identity and give ear to the bullies, and consequently spend most of their time complaining. Others have chosen to ignore the people who don't know how to deal with what they're going through, and instead live their lives as happily as they can. I have a lot of respect for the people who retain self-mastery of their own condition.

But you are right -- not everyone has that chance, because not everyone lives in am environment where their religious environment is sympathetic to them. Just remember that there are some who do. Not all of us who disapprove of homosexual activity are driving people to kill themselves. It would be nice if LGBT activists would be open to the possibility of civil discussing and friendly cooperation on the matter. So far I see mostly bigotry and hostility coming from that camp. I know that's also a generalization, but it is true. The label of "tolerance" is often just a covering to hide that they are just as assertive and rude as the people they claim to be better than.

I just tire of people who relentlessly demand to be understood but are totally unwilling to give that same right to others. That double-standard is a defining characteristic of modern politics, and it's high time we got over it so we can make real progress.

I never meant to sound like all religious people are against this, so I am very sorry if I do. I know that I did make a lot of generalizations. And not only does it depend on how the person who is against it handles it, it also depends on the person who is gay. Personally, I could handle any number of people telling me that I'm sinful, or I'm going to hell or whatever. But there are plenty of people who honestly care what their family and religion think, and that mindset, even though you love the person, and you really do want the best for them... It could be too much for them to handle. Struggling with those two parts of them, even if you are accepting of them as a person, could drive them to do something extreme.