CC and others can try and pretend that if you define homosexuality into subsects long enough it will somehow lend crediance to the argument that it is a behavior that cannot be helped.
I like you really enjoy the left/right hand argument since one can learn to use the left or right hand.
What it boils down to is this. People who want gay marriage, not civil unions but gay marriage have to be able to provide an argument that shows some kind of equal footing with the practice of heterosuxality going back thousands of years and by its very nature is essential to the procreation of the species. They cannot do that but it is an alternative lifestyle. That is why it continues to fail when called on for a vote. The majority of people in this country understand that. Civil unions is a very sound compromise but for the zealots, it simply isn't enough until they are on equal footing with traditional marriage but since they cannot explain or prove that the genetic nature of this lifestyle is equal to heterosexual marriage, their goal changes from proving their case to declaring victory with repeated "you don't understand" despite not explaining their conclusions with factual backing.