Really? Well, what I do is that where I claim a right to privacy, I sustain that right by keeping that which I rightfully claim as private: PRIVATE!
Because I recognize that where I claim something as private, but make such public, I forfeit my right to claim it as rightfully private.
That's another laughably false dichotomy. You sacrifice no right to privacy by making public your sexual orientation. If you declared you were straight, that doesn't mean that the police now have the authority to break into your home in the night to watch you and your wife have sex. Likewise, gays publicly acknowledging their sexual orientation and demanding equal recognition for their unions under marriage laws doesn't mean they sacrifice any right to freedom. Or the absurd 'sodomy laws' of Texas apply again.
The choice that you demand gays make.....they don't have to. They get both the right to privacy AND the right to marriage. Just as you do. As the rights they are demanding are the same as yours.
Because my sexual behavior comports with the natural design of the human species, I've not had my sexual desires outlawed.
Sodomy laws are unconstitutional. Ergo, nothing about a gay union has been outlawed, as the laws in question do not apply to anyone. Ending yet another pointless spasm of bigotry in its tracks and demonstrating yet again the irrelevance of your claims with the rights and freedoms of anyone under the law.
See... we do not demand that others accept our behavior, because our behavior rests upon the recognition, respect, defense and adherence TO the laws of nature.
Save of course that your conception of the 'laws of nature' aren't a legal standard, nor are you their arbiters, nor do they have any exclusive relevance to marriage. As no product of your conception of the 'laws of nature' are required by anyone who gets married.
No one is required to have children or be able to have children in order to marry.
You're insisting we invent a standard that doesn't exist, apply it only to gays, exempting every straight couple, and then use that standard as an excuse to strip gays and lesbians of fundamental rights.
Um, no. Why would we ever do that? It simply makes no sense.
You are absolutely correct. And just as I am required to comport myself within the standards of nature, they are required to do the same. Nature defines marriage by the standard of human biology, wherein one man and one woman join, analogous to sustainable coitus.
Your 'comporting yourself with the laws of nature' standard has nothing to do with the law. Nor any right or freedom. Rendering it irrelevant to any discussion of the rights or freedoms of anyone.
What the sexual deviant is NOT rightfully entitled to do is to claim that which deviates from the standard, thus sustainable norm, IS NORMAL... as a means to influence those who may be ignorant of such, to accept their perverse, ABNORMAL sexuality, as NORMAL, who will then use that fraudulence, to mislead others, all as a means to 'feel better' about themselves to BE LEGITIMATE, without having to bear the burden of BEHAVING LEGITIMATELY.
You don't define what 'legitimate' sexual behavior is for anyone but yourself. Your argument is predicated on the fallacious assumption that the only valid reason a person could have sex is for procreation. That's simply not the case. There are a myriad of reasons.....as blow jobs, handjobs, sex toys, masturbation, vacetomies, birth control and old people having sex demonstrate elegantly.
You're telling us what the purpose of sex
is to you. And then laughably insisting that we and all law are all bound to whatever you decide.
Smiling...we're really not. Nor is the law. And before you start babbling about 'the laws of nature', you aren't nature. Nor is your conception of 'the laws of nature' any part of our laws. Ending your argument twice before it even began.
