>>431
I think you wanted to say "If people's gayness is determined by their genetics", which, by the way, probably isn't the case.
I don't think I like the concept of a person's sexuality being "legally recognized", and I don't understand why you would.
I'm not quite sure why you're trying to put this arbitrary restriction on gay marriage. Marriage as an institution is already sort of broken nowadays, and restricting people's access to it (or the benefits it provides) based on their sexual orientation alone is plain and stupid discrimination. I expect you have some vague ideas of why it isn't; let me tell you where you're wrong.