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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think it's entirely possible to screw with someone's head so much that it can be both consensual and extremely abusive. This wouldn't be the only example.

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

Plus it's flippin' porn, and even Twilight is better than that filth.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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:

@chocolatefeces: does that matter? Your ancestry doesn't determine your nationality. Besides, go back far enough and we're all from Africa.

Just call them black. I'm white, they're black. If they think that's offensive, then they have bought into the idea that being black is a lesser condition.
We're never going to convince ourselves that races are equal if we don't think it's okay to be black.

I don't see where I said that his standard weren't where they need to be (but if you asked me, I'd say they probably weren't... But then, whose are.) We don't have to agree whose standards are 'higher' than whose. Let's just go with 'different', and my point still stands.
If you guys don't like the concept of repentance and forgiveness, take it up with Jesus. He's the one who introduced radical concepts such as this. To be honest, your grudges against and lack of faith in someone are no reason why they can't change. If you were to hypothetically see such a person in heaven and it made you so uncomfortable, then ultimately you would be the one that would need to leave. Grudges don't belong there.
Just a point of clarification though : Jesus asks that we forgive all men, not necessarily that we trust all men. Trust is another issue.
And yes, missraven, you're right, that isn't how it works. That's not true repentance, and therefore is not what I'm talking about.

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.

But if it's a continuum, then what is between a day and a month, or a month and a year? It suggests that days can get longer until they become a month, and months can get longer until they become years. And by the triangle shape, it suggests that there are days bigger than other days.
Don't worry too much about it, I know I'm nitpicking. ;P