If that's what you want to believe....

Hate to break it to you, but any christian church that supports gay marriage, is B.S. - marriage being the key word. A christian church is NOT homophobic for not changing it's rules to fit the society. I'm afraid it works the other way around in legitimate churches.

In addition the "Under God" should be removed. We're clearly a nation that has proven many times that it think's it's far above any God.

Actually....my roomate is gay. He is also my best friend. He is welcome to date who ever her wants, and bring whoever he wants home. (I draw the line however when in public.) In addition I went to a school with a large gay population. This is not bigotry, and it's people like you who confuse people with my viewpoints with bigotry, and that is a shame, because your assessment is incorrect.

The truth is neither of us have real scientific studies to back our claims up about why people prefer members of their own sex. What we do know is the last couple generations have grown increasingly confused about love, why we love, why we get married, why we grow up and make families, why we have sex with that one person - GAY/STRAIGHT ALIKE.

Meanwhile some people will stretch the words of a man such as MLK to change moral standards. EQUALITY FOR ALL they say. END DISCRIMINATION they say. It's impossible for two things to be unequal they think, as if people and things were the same thing.

Well if that was true, there would be no discrimination - good and bad. There would be no laws. No standards. From marriage, to prostitution, to legal privileges such as driving, to the justification of killing another human being in one's eye of justice. If the people had no power to establish a collective right from wrong, society would fall apart. You can tout the slavery institution argument all you want, as I will be the first to admit it can't be denied our system has failed it's people in the past when it's come to equality. That being said, history IS NOT repeating itself as some would like to believe. This IS different.

That isn't true. It simply isn't true.

First of all - none of these are directly MLK's words on homosexuality. Second, it's a safe assumption MLK would support gay rights. For example, not losing a job for being gay/ or being paid less). He would oppose violence towards gays.

This wouldn't mean he endorsed the lifestyle as morally acceptable. He would support tolerance.

But he taught Christianity for crying out loud - he didn't support gay marriage. His wife can say whatever she wants.

"Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds." .... Seriously? Seriously? That's a stretch, and consequently carries no weight in regards to homosexuality. In race it's absolutely correct.

No... it's not how you're born. All scientific studies have been inconclusive. There actually are parallels, when you look at it in a "religious freedom" sort of way, but no - hate to break it to ya - homosexuality is not a race, or a genetic trait.

Furthermore - evidence "suggests" that it's complexly learned overtime. Certain things happen and don't happen in one's environment where the person develops same sex attraction. They don't "choose" to be gay, but they aren't born that way. They become gay over time. Their attraction either forms for the same team, or it can even shift. There is many a once happily married man with kids who became gay.

I strongly believe it's not an overnight choice, but it is the effect of many choices and exposures or lack there of that a person makes/receives in his/her development.

The teachings of MLK apply to every race, religion, or gender. It applies to blacks, whites, hispanics, and all races, muslims, catholics, agnostics, atheists and any religion, men and women.

It does not apply to gays and lesbians in the same way it applies to races. Being gay is not being a race. It is a lifestyle. MLK would most likely support gay rights, and equal protections in the workplace and military, and protections from hate crimes.

However, he would not support changing the definition of marriage. I think people need to consider that you can't just lump sexuality in with race. MLK himself would say in terms of marriage, a gay union is separate and unequal. That being said, considering he was a womanizer and a hypocrite, which we rarely remember him for, the sanctity of marriage wouldn't mean much coming from him - even a preacher who accomplished so much good.