Opposition to Gay Marriage is anti-Jesus, and probably means you're gay

(obviously the headline should be considered tongue-in-cheek)
One nagging question that's been bouncing around in my brain for the past several years is what version of the bible that far right religious extremists and so-called evangelicals are reading from?

Was there a new abridged version released in recent years that had some really radical changes in it? I sometimes believe that must be the case, when I hear the thinly-veiled hate-filled rhetoric spewing out of the mouths of so called Holy Men in this country.

I'm referring to a lot of stuff in general, but specifically the anti-human rights faction focused on keeping homosexuals as second-class citizens. I'm going to address some points on a pretty basic, factual level...and I'm going to do it from the standpoint of a Christian....one who still believes that Christ is part of Christianity.

First, let's break down the quaking sand dunes holding up this house of cards the religious right calls an argument. It breaks down into several major points.
1. Gay marriage goes against Christianity.
2. Gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage.
3. Gay marriage destroys morality.

The first one is probably the most dodgy. It only really holds up if there's some attempt at consistency with other Old Testament laws, and if you just really don't care what Jesus actually had to say about sin, vice, and the whole point of his presence on earth. My biggest fear is that people will look at these nut jobs and think they are actually representing Christianity. I don't believe that any more than Osama bin Laden represents Islam.
Passages against homosexuality are in the Levitical laws (which were not even written for the common man, but for a special order of priests) in the old testament. They are pretty straightforward. However, they also equate homosexuality with other sins of the time, such as eating shellfish, and wearing two different textiles at the same time. No, I'm not making that up. According to the Bible, homosexuality is as bad as wearing cotton and silk at the same time. But then, the same section of the good book indicates you should stone a priest's daughter to death for having sex on her period.
Now, I'll buy following levitical law for going against homosexuality just as soon as I see Christian Religious Right groups push for a Constitutional Amendment banning Red Lobster and polyester blends. Remember, the bible doesn't indicate it's worse than any other. In fact, according to the bible, the worst thing sexually you can do is jerk off. You sin "less" if you buy a prostitute.
Now, of course, if you ever cracked open the Bible to do more than look at the pretty pictures, you know that levitical and other old testament laws are moot to Christians anyway. Not only did Jesus say that all the old rules were out and "do onto others" was in, but he specifically spoke out against those who would call themselves "righteous" and attack the sinners. Before going to dine in a place filled with sinners, Jesus was chastised by the disciples, saying that being seen with the sinners would ruin his reputation. Jesus replied that prostitutes, moneylenders, pimps, cutpurses, and a whole host of unsavory individuals had more of a place in his father's kingdom than any man who believed himself so righteous that he cast judgment on others. And, of course, there's the "cast the first stone" speech.
I mean really, did any of these guys go to Sunday school?

Second argument: That gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage.
What? Huh? Can someone explain this to me in a way that does NOT make my head explode? First, how is what two other people are doing in their own home, going to ruin your marriage? Your vows are between you, your spouse and God. If two guys down the street, next door, or in the next penthouse, getting married disrupts that, then I have news for you: You had problems already. There should be no way the fact that two people get married should have any impact on your personal marriage. And lets' face it. The so-called sanctity of marriage has taken more of a beating from other venues...and evangelicals haven't made a peep about them. Where were they when Britney Spears got married and anulled in less than 24 hours? Where were they when Fox aired "Who Wants to Marry a Midget"?

Third, the argumeht that gay marriage will lead to rampant immoralism. Okay, so, let me follow the logic trail on this one: Putting provisions in place for a sexually active group of people which would allow them to enter into legally binding committed relationships is going to.....decrease moral behavior? How does that work? One of the things the gay community has been criticized for is allegedly being too promiscuous. Now, if you are or were married, did you fool around and engage in generally risky behavior (if at all) more BEFORE you were married...or AFTER? If you answer AFTER, you have issues that have nothing to do with gays or straights. In addition, they argue that allowing gays to marry will lead to polygamy (which I personally have no problem with between consenting adults) and people marrying their pets. Whoa....how did we get from two consenting adults entering into a willing, contractual relationship that allows them to share property rights, tax benefits and health care, to some guy marrying his yorkshire terrier? Somebody draw that map for me.

Now, be warned, the next bit is going to tick you off severely if you disagree with me.
One of the cruxes of the arguments against homosexuality is that it must be voluntary. That it is a choice.
Bullpucky. Nobody chooses to go through that. Science repeatedly keeps finding that EVERY indication is that nature has more of an influence than nurture. But let's not even deal with that. Think of the psychological logic behind saying that every man or woman has a choice of being gay or straight.
Here's a factually, logically, unavoidable conclusion. Anyone who espouses the belief that being gay is a choice, must believe that they themselves have homosexual tendencies. You can't escape it.
if you believe that being sexually aroused by someone of the same sex is a choice, it is INESCAPABLE that you believe that you have made this "choice" yourself.
That means that you, personally, believe that you could, if you choose, enter into a homosexual relationship with someone whenever you decided to.
Unavoidable logic. If you believe sexual orientation is a choice, then you believe you yourself chose one path or the other, meaning that the OTHER path, that of being gay, was a viable, considerable option to you.
You cannot believe being gay is a choice unless you yourself "CHOSE" (meaning it was a viable option for you) to be straight.
I don't know about most other guys, but I know that, simply put, biologically I could not function with another man. I never chose to be straight. I get stimulated by women, I don't get stimulated by guys. No choosing there. Mr. Happy just won't rise up for the occasion.
If you believe that being gay is a choice, then your Mr. Happy obviously has risen at some point for a man (or whatever the same anology would be for a woman). Can't dodge it, can't avoid it, can't work or logic your way around it.
If it's not a choice, then it's a biological condition that you are born with, like race or gender, which means it should enjoy the same protections, which places it squarely in the way of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court decision that shot down laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
If you do not believe that, then you probably believe homosexuality is a choice, which means that you, yourself, are a bit gay.