First of all you cant spell
second of all..

The debates about homosexuality, in part because they often involve public policy and legal issues, tend to be sharply polarized. Those most concerned with homosexuality, positively or negatively, are also those most engaged, with natural law theorists arguing for gays and lesbians having a reduced legal status, and queer theorists engaged in critique and deconstruction of what they see as a heterosexist regime. Yet the two do not talk much to one another, but rather ignore or talk past one another. There are some theorists in the middle. For example, If one man takes an Aristotelian approach from which he argues that gay and lesbian relationships can realize the same goods that heterosexual relationships do .He largely shares the account of important human goods that natural law theorists have, yet in his evaluation of the worth of same-sex relationships, he is clearly sympathetic to gay and lesbian concerns. Similarly, alot of others have written eloquent defenses of full legal equality for gays and lesbians, including marriage rights. Yet neither argue for any systematic reform of broader American culture or politics. In this they are essentially conservative. Therefore, rather unsurprisingly, these centrists are attacked from both sides. Sullivan, for example, has been criticized at length both by queer theorists and natural law theorists.

basically I do not descriminate anyone or anything, I have an open veiw to everyone and everything, but when it comes to the point were time is focused on a person sexuality just cause they feel they are being mis treated or descriminized against,when all they are being called is what they are.Then I feel they need to check themselfs.