If I want to be romantically involved with a dark-haired woman, does the fact that it's a choice give anyone the right to make altruistic judgments on my choice?
It is statements like the above that destroy dialogue. If someone states that homosexuality is a choice and someone else challenges the statement, then they are accused of making judgments. This is an ad hominem argument and is thus invalid.
What it does, instead of presenting evidence for your opinion, it attempts to degrade, debase. or discredit those who disagree with you.
Basically, the example that Justin gave has nothing to do with the question at hand. My objection to the concept that people were born gay has to do with the fact that they have really not presented any solid evidence support it and that anybody who disagrees with them is attacked as being either homophobic or judgmental and so, unless someone wants to risk being labeled as such, they must accept what these people say, even if there is little or no evidence, as truth.
Does the fact that some (and I emphasize some) interpretations of the Bible call it a sin, make it so?
First, it would depend on what one believes the Bible to be. If one believes the Bible to be the word of God, and whether or not the practice of homosexuality is said to be sinful in the Bible. Also, if it doesn't directly say it, and requires interpretation, is the interpretation reasonable and correct? If one doesn't believe the Bible to be the word of God and rejects its authority, then what is the point of discussing what the Bible does or doesn't say with them?
Secondly, for those who actually do read the Bible, and I'd prefer to discuss this on a separate thread I'd started, it would be very difficult and dishonest to say that practicing homosexuality is not a sin. So, if one can't accept what is clearly there, they do one of two things. They try to find a way to wiggle out of what was actually said and written finding ways to misinterpret, usually by ignoring context and what might be written elsewhere in the Bible.
Or they do what the people on the website that Justin has apparently used. They state that the translation was wrong because the translators had an agenda.
What they're really saying is that they don't like what the Bible is saying because it doesn't match their own agenda, and if you have any doubt about that, all you need to do is go to their web site.
This might or might not surprise you, but I often don't like what the Bible said because I don't measure up to its standards. But then, nobody really does.
What I do know is that, if I do manage to keep the Bible's standards and do what it says to do, my life works a whole lot better than if I follow my own way. In my own life, sometimes the results have been amazing, perhaps even miraculous. However, when I have done this, rarely did I get what I expected or what I asked for. What I always got was what I needed when I needed it, not a moment sooner or a moment later and, through that process, I've learned to be patient even though patience for me in most of those matters was not very comfortable.
Assuming it is a sin, should we use that as justification to deny them the same rights as a married couple?
First of all, when did marriage become a right? It's not. Various jurisdictions throughout the world have certain requirements that must be met before you can be married. Rights don't presuppose that one must meet any requirements other than being a citizen or resident of a particular place. Also, the government cannot bestow rights. At best, it can protect them or take them away. E.g., I have a right to express my opinion because I have the gift of speech and can type or write. The government didn't give that right to me. However, if the government chose to do so, it could arrest me for what I say. In other words, it could take my right away, but it certainly never gave it to me.
The above paragraph I wrote has nothing to do with the topic at hand but neither does Justin's question. Nobody is talking about denying anybody any rights. And, if you must know, my opinion is this. If two adults live together and this is a permanent arrangement for whatever reason and they're willing to accept financial responsibility for each other, then by all means, set up a way of giving them at least some of the privileges that married couples now enjoy. Many states, California, where I live, have already done this. It's called the Domestic Partner's Act. However, I don't want to know nor does the government need to know why those two people are living together. I had two aunts, sisters, in Illinois, who lived together their entire lives, even adopted a child together and I don't think that it was an incestuous relationship nor would I want to know. I believe that also answers Justin's last question as well other than the rest of his post which has to do with interpretations and translations of the Bible.