@GF I disagree there, but nothing either of us is going to change each other minds.

Well, CF, I can take your DNA and tell you what your skin color is...but it'll never tell me (at least with current science) who you're prone to sleep with...

Therefore, bawed upon current science, skin color is biology, and sexual preferences are a choice. That's the science. *Opinions* on the topic vary...and last I knew, opinions around here have about as much weight as a fart on the wind...

based upon current science, that is...not bawed...

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/12/11/scientists-may-have-finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay

Here's an interesting article on it. It's not genetic but epigenetic.

Wouldn't a gay gene eventually die off, since gays cannot naturally reproduce?

Also, I believe it is a choice. Of course, I did not consciously *choose* to be sexually/romantically attracted to females, but I *did* choose to be attracted to my then-girlfriend, who is female.

@Gun - So far you have twice said that you think homosexuality is a choice. I know that this is an opinion, but we are dealing with facts here. What facts do you have that show that this is so?

Actually it may not work that way GF. It's in our favor to have homosexuals so we have a stable couple who can take care of orphans without burdening other families.

So because we haven't yet mapped every gene and don't know how one's sexuality is determined, it must be a choice? I guess then that becoming a psychopathic axe murderer is a choice. I don't know of any gene that makes a person psychotic. Psychiatric issues don't have to be genetic and there can be no argument that love and sexual orientation comes from the brain. Once again, the extremist sees the issue in black and white and doesn't consider all the possibilities.

I'd like to extend the courtesy of pointing out that most of you have lapsed just a bit off topic. Sorry that this is such a difficult subject for most of you.

Regarding the homosexual marriage situation, I wanted to share that I'd had an interested conversation with some coworkers about this very subject yesterday. Young people, early 20's. I was of course interested to get the young people's opinion on the matter as young people are the future.

One woman, Rachel, mentioned that she felt the queer marriage should be legalized immediately for the simple reason that she was tired of hearing about it, and felt that she didn't want the Republicans obstructed a basic right that the homosexuals were meant to have anyway.

This triggered an epiphany on my part. I started to gain insight into the fundamental disconnect between both sides.

The leftists tend to assume that the 'default state' for homosexuals is to marry each other, and that it is only recent tampering by the right-wingers that is preventing the natural, default state of affairs.

The right-wingers tend to assume that the default state for homosexuals is not to marry, and that the entire queer marriage debacle involves underhanded sneakiness by a fringe group of leftists to distract everyone from real and important issues.

In essence, the real disagreement seems to regard what the default state should be. Until this is established, both sides are likely to view each other as requested a sudden or unnatural change to the default state of affairs, for strictly petty or personal reasons, without providing reasonable justification for this. In essence, both sides probably feel that the burden of proof resides upon their opponent.

Until this is settled, it seems that progress will unfortunately be slow.

@Al As it pains me to say this, but I have to agree. Not sue how that can be settled since they are complete opposites though.

Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is a gene, choosing to engage in homosexual acts *is* a choice. You can't argue with that.

The real issue is that the Supreme Court does not have the constitutional authority to overturn Prop 8.

@gunfighter - if acting on heterosexual/ hetrosexual urges is a choice and let's say the government in it's wisdom decided that being heterosexual was not compatable with society's current needs because the world is over populated, would you be quite willing to resist your urges for the good of society as a whole?

Krellin, I get your argument that this boils down to tax breaks, but again should we deny heterosexuals the right to marry so we can try to limit the population, or should we allow them to express their love anyway they choose?

Intersting thing is no state can stop same sex marriages. All they can do is choose to recognize them or not. They can't prohibit the ceremony or a ceremonial certificate as that would violate the freedom of religion. If a church is willing to conduct a ceremony that tells a gay couple they are married in the eyes of their God and Hos people, it does violate the constitution for the goverent to forbid it.

Maniac - I admitted long ago that government incentives for population growth/maintenance are an archaic notion (if you but the premise that that is why they exist, which some would argue). I also think you mistakenly assuming that I am for limiting marriage -- I have said let anyone marry anyone in whatever ceremony they want, and leave the Feds out of it. If you want to have X, Y and Z inherit your stuff, or visit you while you are dying in a hospital, have paperwork drawn up to that effect by a lawyer. If you want to wear a ring from someone and call it a wedding ring and have a ceremony to that effect, to that without the Feds being involved. "Marriage" of love and relationships has *nothing* to do with the Federal government.

It's rather hillarious that the people that have been crying for years for the Feds to get out of the bedroom, suddenly want the Feds to sanctify their bedroom activity...

They were right the first time: Feds need to get out of the marriage business.

GF - you are so right about the difference between a "choice"...but you will get nowhere with this argument.

I can point to studies suggestng the brain geography/function of killers differs from non-killers, and therefore make an argument that murder is not a choice, but a result of your genetic make-up....but I doubt anyone will forgive the murderer, and they will say he had a choice to not murder, regardless of biology. Apply the same log

apply the same logic to homosexuality and suddenly personal choice has no part in the discussion...

But none will admit to the inconsistent logic. It's baffling...

I think we agree if you are saying the Feds are to keep out of ALL bedrooms, those of straight or gay.

Maniac - I've said that repeatedly.

I think all of us except gun have said as much.

@gunfighter, lets consider your argument.

"engaging in homosexual acts *is* a choice"

Then isn't denying gay marriage a deprivation of liberty by the government, i.e. denying the extension of choice (marriage) that *is* granted to heterosexual couples also *choosing* and acting on their heterosexual impulses?

There is still a base inequality of liberty.

I agree with the federal government being out of the bedroom.

But do you agree that the current state is unequal?

What's the current state? it depends on how you define it.

I can state it two ways: *Everyone* has the equal ability to marry a member of the opposite sex, per the thousands-of-years-old definition of marriage.

This is a true statement, and by this statement everyone has equal opportunity under the law, and therefor there is no unequal treatment.

Or I can state the problem this way: Not everyone has the ability to marry whomever they want. This is also a true statement about marriage, and suggests an inequality exists.

@ Gigarion

I will not speculate on whether or not the status quo is equal or not. Furthermore, the state governments can legislate the hell out of marriage.

Gunfighter, i'm confused, isn't the point of liberty to have equality? Why won't you consider the possibility of inequality? That kind of attitude sets america up as a nation who is "devoted to freedom" but can't inspect itself to determine if/when/where it has failed.

Krellin, I have to believe that an inequality exists, in that being able to marry who you are sexually oriented towards is the necessary criterion for equality. However, I also understand that this opens up my flanks to every argument you propose involving bestiality, polygamy, man/boy, etc. In rebuttal to this, It may have to be looked at on a case by case basis in order to sift things out.

If the only criterion is love then we have to legalize all of your suggestions. However, if we look at other criteria, (statutory rape, emotional damage, health problems, etc.) then we may be able to understand where society will turn in the future. I personally believe that the immediate future is legalizing gay marriage. (as fast as possible so we can move on to the next one as well)

Actually, the simple solution is to determine if the parties desiring to et married could be held liable for breach of contract. If not (animals, inanimate objects, juveniles)then they can't get married.

@ Gigarion

I believe that the only freedoms you are guaranteed at the national level are the ones explicitly stated in the Constitution and incorporated to the States by the Supreme Court. Any other freedoms fall under state control (within reason) under the 10th Amendment. To be fair, I'm more of a constitutionalist than a "true" libertarian. Obviously, gay marriage is neither explicitly protected nor is a ban on gay marriage a flagrant violation of any part of the Constitution (particularly the 14th Amendment). Therefore, the power to regulate marriage should fall to the states, if they choose to exercise that power at all.

Okay, gunfighter I and pretty much everyone else agrees with you that the Federal Government should get out of the marriage business. This has been, is, and will be established many more times before this thread is out. But the logic you are presenting is thus:

The government already is involved in traditional marriage, but not gay marriage.
The government should get out of marriage completely and leave it to the states.

Thus, the government should not be involved in gay marriage and thus not recognize them.

I would agree with this *if it didnt leave the status quo completely imbalanced*. By arguing this you are leaving out the crucial piece that heteros still get marriage benefits *even though the government **should** get out of the bedroom*.

My belief is that:

Whereas heterosexuals get marriage benefits from the fed;
Whereas homosexuals do not get those benefits from marriage;
Whereas the government should get out of the marriage business completely;
Whereas America was originally founded to support equal liberty and protect rights;
And Whereas the power of deciding could/should go to the states;

My plan is resolved that due to the purpose of America being equal rights, and that equal marriage rights are not being granted currently, the federal government should recognize gay marriage and balance out the problem. *After the status quo is equal*, the federal government should relinquish the choice to the states and leave the marriage business entirely, taking away incentives and giving power to the states, who may have non-sexually discriminating civil unions but no state "marriages".

It's going to be a process,not an immediate switch. This kind of process makes it easier for people to take. Denying homosexuals marriage rights with your logic right now is a deprivation of a *currently granted* (if not 'correct') right and privilege. Equality first, relinquishing control second.

Gig - I'm going to backtrack here and propose another tact that was (possibly) presented earlier:"

"the purpose of America being equal rights, and that equal marriage rights are not being granted currently,"

This statement is factually incorrect. Every person has the opportunity to get married to a member of the opposite sex, therefore everyone has equal rights and opportunity.

The government does not *always* treat gender issues equally; that is, the government acknowledges that man and women are different. So, to say that we should completely ignore gender in any and all issues is a false statement.

So, in the case of marriage, it only *very* recently in history that we have had to start "qualifying" marriage; that is, it is only within the last few years that it has been common to have to say "hetero marriage" or "gay marriage". Why? Because, up until very recently in our history, marriage has been recognized by Democrats and Republicans alike, and by cultures throughout the world, as having a singular definition - a union of a man and a women. And, as a union between a man and a woman, this was available to all men and women - everyone was granted equal opportunity, and there is no discrimination.

The only way discrimination comes in to play is when the definition of marriage that has been widely held for thousands of years, across cultures and political lines, is suddenly said to be null and void.

The danger in doing this is that you are allowing a minority group to suddenly say "we don't like the definition, we're changing it" and what falls next?

The argument, "It's not fair" is really not a good argument in America. There is fairness - men and women can marry.

I can also use the argument "It's not fair..." to say I work at company X and I run a cash register and get paid $10/hr. Joe works at company Y performing the exact smae duties on a cash register and gets only $11/hr. It's not fair; I'm not being treated equally.

We all know we are supposed to have equal protection in the work place - so should the government step in and provide defined wages for all categories of work?

Should the government get involved in every single aspect of your life and define fairness?

The argument that certain people can not get married is blatantly false; everyone has the opportunity to get married, just not to certain people - but my choices in life are limited all the time; the notion that we have freedom of action in all aspects of our life is also blatantly false. I can't drive my car at 120 miles per hour anywhere. I can't grow a certain plant in my back yard and consume it. Hell, half the people telling me I should have the freedom to marry anyone will tell me that I should not be able to even own a particular gun, whether or not i intend to use it. So...clearly we have limits on action and behavior imposed by the government on a regular basis, and a desire by the same crowd that wants freedom in this instance to limit my freedoms in others.

I little rambling...sorry about that...and now I'm off to breakfast...