I was just explaining the concept of burden of proof, not accusing you of taking a stance

If the way I have worded it implies otherwise, then I apologize

It's not assertions if you treat all people equally.  For persons 1 and 2 to have marriage rights but persons 3 and 4 to be denied them is discrimination.  I said morals don't even come into the matter as a legal case.  And morals don't remove peoples rights; that's a large part of why separation of Church and state is so important.  The reason is all people are suppose to be equal and not separated by preferences, beliefs or traits.  The reason you can't see the reasons a lot of people including myself are saying is because you separate homosexual people because their sexual preference.

If a gay person didn't kill or steal they have committed no actions to have their rights be taken because sexual preference is not a crime.  Being gay is not illegal; to deny their equality and rights is discrimination.  The same way denying any innocent person equality and rights is discrimination.

Frankly, comparing being homosexual to murdering and/or stealing is somewhat insulting and I'm not even gay. 
Gays are people and entitled to the same rights as all other people.  Denying gay marriage is placing them on an inferior level to heterosexuals.  Like denying women's right to vote, people of darker skin the right to attend schools or sit in the same section of a bus with Caucasians, etc.
There's no moral opinions that can convict people of wrong doing in a legal or human rights sense (in a not corrupted system :/ ).  Regardless of moral views, religious teachings or the fact, I largely feel is unacknowledged, that people feel creeped-out by sexuality different than their own, it's not illegal to be gay. 
People who have committed no crime except in the highly subjective area of moral views deserve to not be separated, like many other prejudices have done to people all throughout history I'll add.  They deserve and are entitled to equal treatment and rights, legally and by human rights.

/If anybody’s buying, nobody’s hero.

Huh? Why would the latter claim make this an argument? My main point wasn't really to 'prove' homosexuality was a choice (although it kind of does), it was to show some of the effects homophobia has. Claiming homosexuals have an innate higher suicide rate isn't an argument, it's just... wrong. Homosexuality is, in most parts of the US (and the world, for that matter), looked down upon, seen as something disgusting. This causes stress, low self esteem, and all other kinds of bad psychological issues for individuals. THAT'S the cause of the higher suicide rates, NOT the fact that they find their own gender sexier.

Society's treatment of homosexuals is actually behind most 'arguments' anti-gay activists have, I'm pretty sure.