Can we please distinguish between innate, instantly recognizable physical traits (e.g. sex, race, ethnicity) and predilections for a behavior? Sure, you don't choose your proclivities, but at the same time no one else can even be aware of your proclivities - let alone judge you - unless you choose to act on them (we have free will/self-control don't we?), and usually not unless you choose to make that choice public. Take any paraphilia, say paraphilic infantilism. It would be odd for someone to claim that infantalism is central to their "identity," "who they really are," etc., and in any case no one would consider infantalists an identity group, criticism of infantalism (or the moral position that infantilists should suppress their desires) an act of bigotry, or the suggestion that infantalism is tied at least in part to environmental factors (even, specifically, childhood dysfunction) somehow grossly offensive. How is homosexuality any different? Note that the choice for people in that case is usually not between homosexuality and total abstinence; sexuality is more fluid than that. Even Takei has fucked women, and he's as gay as it gets. We've had sexual freedom in this country for a long time. It seems what liberals want now is to achieve freedom from judgment by delegitimizing traditional moralism as another form of bigotry, and, ironically, punishing those who dare challenge liberal dogma with the same kind of social sanctions and ostracism from which they long suffered. ---------- Re: Indiana - do you want to know why a religious person (who does that kind of work) might not want to help put on a gay wedding? Because they don't consider it a wedding! It's a celebration of debauchery for them. What's next - we force them to help out with the raunchy bachelor party as well?