In the realm of human discourse, it behooves humankind to think and communicate logically, not merely to avoid misunderstanding and being ostracized, but even for the sake of life-survival safety. Lamentably, such propriety is frequently not performed, with examples:
Attorney: Are you sexually active?
Witness: No, I just lie there.
Attorney: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
Attorney: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
Witness: I forget.
Attorney: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
Attorney: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his
sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
Witness: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
Attorney: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?
Witness: He's twenty, much like your IQ.
Attorney: Were you present when your picture was taken?
Witness: Are you serious?
Attorney: So the date of conception of the baby was August 8th?
Attorney: And what were you doing at that time?
Witness: Getting laid.
Attorney: You had three children, right?
Attorney: How many were boys?
Attorney: Were there any girls?
Witness: Your Honor, I think we need a different attorney. Could we get a new attorney?
Attorney: How was your first marriage terminated?
Witness: By death.
Attorney: And by whose death was it terminated?
Witness: Take a guess.
Attorney: Can you describe the individual?
Witness: He was about medium height and had a beard.
Attorney: Was this a male or a female?
Witness: Unless the Circus was in town let's go with a male.
Attorney: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
Witness: This is always how I dress for special occasions.
Attorney: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
Witness: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
Attorney: All your responses must be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
Attorney: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
Witness: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
Attorney: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
Witness: If not, he was by the time I finished.
Attorney: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
Witness: Are you qualified to ask that question?
Attorney: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
Attorney: Did you check for blood pressure?
Attorney: Did you check for breathing?
Attorney: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
Attorney: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
Witness: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Attorney: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
Witness: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
Seriously, some questions cannot be answered with a simple 'Yes' or 'No' because it is not known what the Yes or No would apply to.
For example, the question: "You don't support gay rights, do you"? is improperly formatted. If answered 'Yes,' would that 'Yes' apply to the: "You don't support...." part of the question, or instead the "....do you?" part of the question? Moreover, the sample question is particularly invalid, being that it is a loaded question, in that any affirmative or negative answer necessitates the internal [wrong] presumption (not assumption) that homogays have a "right" - not merely a capacity of choice (to be homogay, of course).
Recently, there are presently three States of the Union in which the Supreme Court of those states have temporarily declared that the legal definition of "marriage" should not merely include heterosexual unions but also homosexual unions. Vermont is the latest addition (as of this writing) where the legislature of Vermont has done the pro-homogay same-gender [pseudo]-"marriage" "legalization.".
As of this writing, the California Supreme Court has upheld an understandable negation against same-gender "marriage" unions with that Proposition 8 which a majority of Californians already have voted on in favor of. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont have yet to experience the equivalent. But such is inevitable, from a obviously Biblical plus an admittedly American cultural point of view based on United States historical precedent and the will of the majority to maintain only a [non-extinctively-logical] heterosexual definition of "marriage" related to reproduction and wellbeing of offspring and the rights and safety of such progenie.
For example, federal law clearly defines "marriage" as the union of a man and woman, as for instance is the plain definition printed in Form 1040 books of the IRS. Now, some homopervert might attempt to file a lawsuit in federal court against that, thus suing the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Government of the United States of America, and some nutcase federal judge might go along with it and declare the heterosexual-only definition of marriage "unconstitutional," but appeals would be filed and heard in District Federal courts with perhaps the case going all the way to the United States Supreme Court where it would be considered by Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, etc. Anywhere along the way, a judge or group of them could throw out the lawsuit as frivolous, and severely fine the accuser and his or her lawyers with some serious financial penalties...whether they object to it or not:
Job 34:33 Will he then make requital to suit you, because you reject it? For you must choose, and not I; therefore declare what you know.
For the sake of brevity, an allowably-literal application of Scripture is adequate to reveal the will of The LORD and His righteous associates concerning (not regarding) the homogay effeminate/sodomite issue:
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
Romans 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
Such as AIDS.
1Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the non-righteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,
1Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Correctly discerning the Bible in term of legitimate understanding of genuine Christian doctrine in NO way allows a sinner, sinners, nor the sin or sins he or they commit (not perform) to be exonerated or tolerated with heresy-based pseudo- "christian" misapplication of "love, patience, kindness," and so forth.
'God is not mocked,' and NEVER tolerates sin (homosexual nor any other), especially when the defiant try to force their depravity on Christ's saints legally or otherwise:
Heb 10:26 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries.
The context, along with rightly interpreting and dividing the Word of Truth, in many other places throughout Scripture likewise gives absolutely NO grounds to tolerate nor compromise with homosexual nor any other sin. Not only that, but the relentlessly-recurring repentance of sinning then being forgiven, sinning then being forgiven, finally culminates in life-function termination against the hopelessly wayward by The [increasingly-angered] Impartial Judge against the incessant repeat offender with motionless and silenced confinement in the morgue, funeral home, casket, and cemetery.
Enough said, for now, on the religious case against homogay offenders and promoters.
Pertaining to cultural and traditional precedent(s), this webauthor gives his own public opinion (which opinion, being "merely" a singular utterance (quite concordant with what he has already actually heard within his immediate religious and not-so-religious community, neighborhood, city, county, state, and nation) is the feeling of the overwhelming majority of those who are rightly considered sensible and sane. Publically-imposed lustful (and obviously not "loving") display of homosexual connections, and particularly lawsuit harassment and enforced mandatory assignment of State marital benefits for homogays, is sickening and disgusting. It is obnoxiously indecent conduct which is a public nuisance, disturbing the peace, as an insidious type of non-domestic terrorism. It is no wonder that the powerful Nazis during the 30s and 40s consigned pink-triangled homogay trouble-makers to concentration camps and execution, completely aside from SS antisemitic racism. Most who attend orthodox Christian churches, Jewish synagogues, and Islamic mosques agree that public homosexual pseudo-affection displays are despicable and nauseating. Shoppers in grocery stores, department stores, shopping centers, post offices, public-utility businesses, and more consider quasi-"legal" homogay impostions shocking and disturbing, much like a child suddenly shrieking terroristically, much to the pride of their want-attention asinine mothers fearful of child-abuse boogeymen and boogeywomen. Such display is definitely a public-safety hazard in the determination of law enforcement officers.
There are legal prohibitions that courts have adjudicated and supported which are benign, like most everyone agreeing without objection that red stoplights are meant to stop vehicles from proceeding forward and let cross-traffic pass, while green is meant to proceed forward with the confidence that cross-traffic will obediently wait patiently for their turn to move ahead. Somewhat similarly, stop signs are benign to the driving public and more or less obeyed without objection to various extents, while those who do not obey enough but instead slide through without slowing down enough are at the mercy and discretion of whatever cop who sees them decides to do about it.
But a court deciding that everyone must consider [illogical] same-gender marriage legally legitimate and acceptable has illegally duressed the vast majority of rational citizens to accept what is (according to even plain common sense) disruptive, needless, illogical, non-necessary, repulsive, abhorrent, etc. thus causing confusion, anger, irritation, hostility, chaos, assault, and homicide.
The police cannot stop the illegal act of a person committing suicide, which victim/murderer suddenly jumps off a bridge, blows their brains out with a handgun, or hangs themself off in some wooded area. Courts have ruled against suicide but can do nothing to stop it. Added to that, there are numerous other sexual or non-sexual infractions people do more or less privately or secretly as couples, and the State can do little to stop them. But to make a law and civil statute where everyone has to accept same-gender marriages as sacred, holy, right, good, true, acceptable, allowable and so on without objection and without discrimination.....is not and never will be acceptable for civilized society:
Genesis 18:20 Then the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave.....
Genesis 19:24 .....the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
Jude 1:3 Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
4 For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
5 Now I desire to remind you, though you were once for all fully informed, that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
6 And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day;
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.