Being homosexual is no more a lifestyle choice than being heterosexual is.

I think the difference is that heterosexuality has an actual purpose in nature, where as homosexuality doesn't. Of course, an attraction might not be a lifestyle choice, and I might not have any control over my lust for redheaded babes with big ol' boobs like Alyson Hannigan.

Lets face the facts. This ammendment isn't about "Nature" or saving the institution of marriage, it's about forcing a particular brand of morality onto a minority.

That's true, and even if we legalize gay marriage, there will stil be much forcing a particular brand of morality onto a minority. There are minorities as significant as homosexuals unable to marry (polygamists, relatives), and yet, notice how supporters of gay marriage never even mention other areas where marriage discriminates, and I honestly doubt that they will make a deal about these other minorities even after gay marriage is legalized.

One area where lefties continued to be discriminated against is military salutes. The traditional salute is done with the right hand, which discriminates against left-handed members of the military.

However, proposals to allow a left-handed salute have been met with opposition. One general notes, "We have always saluted right-handed. Allowing a left-handed salute undermines the seriousness and respect of saluting."

Pro-lefty activists disagree, arguing that, "There are plenty of sloppy right-handed salutes that do more harm to the salute than snappy, crisp left-handed salutes would."

But right-handed traditionalists maintain, "If we allow left-handed salutes, what other salutes will be allowed? What if someone decides to salute by scratching their neck or touching their nose."

Lefties counter that that is rediculous, "A salute has always been a hand above the eyebrow. Everyone knows this."

Calling it a lifestyle choice is interesting. It's interesting that through the ages the percentage of leftyism has been fairly constant by both culture and times (bad times, good times, etc.) and the genetic studies done this far at least imply that a genetic component exists.

Such as identical twins that aren't of the same sexuality but have exactly the same DNA and genetics?

As for Darwin, many species seem to have no real purpose or function in the kaleidoscope of nature, for example: the duckbill platypus or the komodo dragon. So if you drag Darwin into this I would say you need to appreciate that species that do have a purpose sometimes become extinct and others that don't, survive. I can't see how that applies to this.

Of course they have a purpose as do all living beings: to live and procreate. That's the point of life. I can see how heterosexuality promotes procreation and the survival of a species, but I don't see how homosexual serves this purpose or any other. Point is, homosexuality and heterosexuality aren't the same thing just like homosexuality and pedophilia and rape aren't even though they all involve sex and sexual attractions.

Lefties counter that that is rediculous, "A salute has always been a hand above the eyebrow. Everyone knows this."

It is funny how they do this. Supposedly, it's all right to switch the hand, but to change anything else is forbidden and lefties can't offer any decent argument except "it has always been" (just like it's always been with the right).

Who gives a damn if it is a choice or a predisposition?

Welcome to reality. If the people of a nation are denied the right to make a decision, then the choice is imposed upon them. To be blunt I don't give a rat's ass whether gays can marry or not. Frankly if George Washington came down from the mountain with two new Constitutional slabs stating that the founding fathers are all for it, I *still* would be opposed to shoving the decision down the throats of the voting public.

Eventualy people will understand that, like the Bible, you can make the Constitution say any damn thing you want. So, with enough influence and some judges in your pocket, you can impose your views on everyone.

Dredge up all the racist stuff, women's rights, I don't give a damn. If the people had voted against allowing interracial marraige, that would be the people's decision. To say, "No, you just aren't evolved enough to understand that you are wrong." allows not only the "correct" choices to be imposed, but creates a huge loophole in the Democratic system to be abused as well.

For gay marriage? I lean toward the negative., but I'm fine either way.

For a constitutional amendment? Honestly, against.

Why the conflict? Because I don't think it should have ever come to a constitutional amendment, because in my opinion it isn't a constitutional issue. There is no constitutional right to marry. In addition, marriage is a state issue. Beyond that, the people of a given state have the ability to decide for themselves.

The only reason it is becoming a national issue is because activist judges have thwarted the will of the voters who have already spoken. The courts are taking a power that should be used only in the most imperative of circumstances, and making it a commonplace occurance.

Let the voters speak, and then you'll have the ability to change minds and laws. Force a constitutional amendment and it will be much more difficult to reverse later if people's attitude's change. This isn't about winning the hearts and minds of the public, though, this is about shoving a decision down the throats of the voting public whether they like it or not. This is about power and spite.

The attitude toward homosexuality has changed immensely in the last ten years. Every year the nation becomes more moderate. Why now? Why antagonize people you might easily win over in the years to come? Spite is all I can come up with.

I posted my own ideas about the problem a while back: A Solution to the Gay Marriage debate.

I think activist judges are just a tool, not a cause. The abuse of the system to bypass the will of the people is the real problem, either with a stretched intepretation of the Constitution, or a revision of it. Neither is the way this should be decided.

The 'State's Right's' argument is based on the principle that the FEDERAL goverment has no business dictating to the States what they can do. I'm generally in favor of this. I'm ALSO, somewhat contradictorily, in favor of the federal government periodically telling the States what they CANNOT do (they can NOT prevent inter-racial marriages, they can NOT keep children from receiving education, etc. Well. Mostly).

The Supreme Court Ruling in Loving v. Virginia very clearly told the STATE governments that THEY had no business preventing marriage based on the color of the individual citizen's skin. The ADULT, COMPETENT, and CONSENTING citizens who should, in general, be free to pursue their lives, liberty and happinesses so long as it interefered with nobody else.

You see where I'm going with this, don't you?

To those going on about how 'Actist Judges' have no business telling THEIR State what it can or cannot do legislatively should recognize that the judiciary has an OBLIGATION to protect individuals and minorities from the 'tyranny of the majority' (as expressed in bad laws or poor executive decisions). They are the appointed Check and Balance of Legislative and Executive power (and, absolutely granted, vice-versa). It is one of the things judges are FOR. So back off the ad hominem 'activist' conceit, already.

In the case of gay marriage, it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that EVENTUALLY a powerful enough panel of judges is going to recognize that NO government - Federal, State, or Municipal, has ANY business preventing the union of competent, adult individuals where such union does no material harm to anybody else. The Socially Conservative Right (who are DEDICATED to limiting everybody else's freedoms - from inception to grave. And beyond if it were up to them) KNOW this, BTW, which is why they are behind this end-run to enshrine it in the one document that a body of judges CAN'T over-rule.

"But it offends us!" "The MAJORITY doesn't approve!" "GAWD commands that it be so!" "It's gross!" So What? Deal. Get past it. Move on. It ain't your beeswax.

What business is it of YOURS (or ANY level of government) which consenting adult marries which consenting adult? Why should ANY government of any level be empowered to prevent such a thing? If somebody was preventing you from marrying the (consenting adult) spouse of your choice ('cause she/he/it was black, polka dotted, left-handed, or whatever) you'd be screaming about it too - and, with luck, eventually you'd have your just grievance redressed by a panel of black-robed individuals...

Ghu HELP you if you needed to rely exclusively on the kindness, understanding, and big-heartedness of the 'Majority'...

And PLEASE, for the love of whatever, STOP trotting out the asinine and childish arguments about marrying children and dogs and how those activities are somehow 'equivalent' to gay marriage. ("Well heck Mabel, if we done gonna 'llow Cath-a-licks an' all to worship herebouts, how long it gonna be 'till there's satanists too!") Uh huh. Look, Children or dogs are definitively NOT consenting adults. There are plenty of laws in place to protect persons and property from the abusive attentions of criminals. It's covered, okay?

As for the "'gay' has no place in Darwinian evolution", or "Not a part of GOD'S PLAN!" (or whatever BELIEF system you invoke to truncate the rights of your fellow citizens) position.... Well, LOTS of homosexual activity has been observed at statistically meaningful rates throughout history and throughout the natural world (apes, octopi, sea lions, birds, dolphins, deer, yada, yada yada). So, ahem: YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW THE PLAN WELL ENOUGH TO COMMENT ON BEHALF OF DARWIN OR GOD!!!


Baffled

I think it's a bit rich to assume that homosexuality could serve absolutely no purpose in Darwinian science. The sole purpose of life is not necessarily to procreate. Look at bees for example. The vast majority of them will never, ever be capable of reproduction. And yet that doesn't matter because what is most important is the survival of the species. You see, that's the key. Gays can serve a useful purpose in keeping population growth down. As they cannot have children themselves, they are a mildly effective counter to potentially catastrophic population growth. So an efficient and well-organised system will use this sort of feature, much as various animals like some octipusses (octipi?) do, to limit in some ways the problem of overpopulation.

In any event everything boils down eventually to a "lifestyle choice" (one of the most hackneyed cliches of this modern world). Living is itself "a lifestyle choice"; there are trillions of people who have chosen the alternative. And yet most governments recognise the right of post-womb humans to live a life free from an early or unnatural end. Should these laws be removed from the books for being too proscriptive?

"I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR GOD OR DARWIN! AND WRITING IN CAPS IS A LITTLE ANNOYING, YOU KNOW?"

Yeah, I know it's annoying. I was yelling. Which is what caps represent, y'know?. Perhaps it weakens my argumentative position to do so. Fair enough. I'll tone it down.

As for "not speaking for God or Darwin"... Well, to quote you:

"it's not natural by Darwinian standards. Procreate and live. Emphasis on procreate."

Sorry to contradict you, but in fact you ARE quite obviously and directly (albeit poorly and simplistically) trying to speak for Darwin. It's not 'natural'? Well, Beebes, it's IN nature, therefore it' IS 'natural'. QED.

Granted, it obviously serves no function that YOU understand. Hypothetically, it might not serve any purpose. So what? There may not 'gasp!' even BE a purpose. Again, so what?

Mind you, many intelligent and well-schooled individuals have hypothesized numerous 'purposes' for homosexuality, I'm not the originator of any of this, but I'll cite a couple for your edification and consideration:

1. Many hands make light work. Additional sets of hands that can help raise and support offspring without clogging the landscape with a surplus of said offspring is pure gold in evolutionary terms. Look at how increasing the ratio of adults to offspring has substantially helped the '1st world' raise its standard of living and establish stable societies (which in turn foster the support and survival of extended genetic lines).

2. Procreation may not be the entire 'Point' of sexuality (again,'gasp!'). There is ABSOLUTELY no doubt that the process is FAR more complex than it needs to be to ensure the efficient conversion of gametes to zygotes... (See fish if you want efficiency). Such a thing is unlikely without some sort of 'utility', so what is all this sweaty, gasping, complex sexuality be FOR?

One suggestion is that sexuality and attraction is part of the glue that allows the formation of stable societies (again fostering the conservation of genetic lines). Sex (hetero/homo and 'other') as an effective societal binding agent has been observed in bands of Bonobo's (one of our closest genetic relatives - 98% human) illuminatingly, they're rather famously peaceful and cooperative as a species. Interestingly, the other candidate for 'closest genetic relative' - the common chimp - doesn't make as much use of social sex and spends a much larger proportion of its time and energy jockeying for power and engaging in quasi-random acts of violence...

I think the above also speaks pretty loudly on behalf of genetics (as oppsed to, say 'lifestyle choices') playing a strong role in the development of an individual human's sexuality. I'm sure that 'Nurture' plays a role as well - particularly if you include exposure to natal hormones as part of 'Nurture'. Fer instance, there has been strong observed correlations between natal exposure to heightened levels of testosterone (usually supplied by adrenal glands) and the subsequent predisposition towards homosexuality. (Also mathematics, musical ability, double jointedness and autism, but hey - it ain't simple, y'know?

'It 'ain't natcheral' just don't cut it, see?

Still Baffled

After reading all this, I have a headache. If only they hadn't come out of the closet! There's definitely something wrong when the southpaw can't feel that the right hand is reaching out to the opposite sex. As one blog noted the ambidextrous or bisexual wants it both ways and the constitution can't handle that. The issue is overbearing--I'm going to take two aspirin and sleep it off. 

"How very tolerant of you to portray all Conservatives as bible thumping ignorant rednecks dedicated to limiting everyones freedom!"

A few Points.

1. I wasn't discussing 'All' Conservatives - that is a collectivization YOU are attempting in order to weaken the strength of my position. (Nice rhetorical trick, by the way. Stop it.) Nor, for that matter, was I 'dissing' ALL rednecks (many of whom are plenty good people. Lot of them are my ancestors). No. I was very specifically addressing - by name - a political constituency collectively known as the Socially Conservative Right. The anti-gay constitutional ammendment is specifically aimed at placating THIS constituency, so I do not feel I was off side addressing them.

2. As to decrying their policies - 'limiting everybody's freedom' - I call 'em as I see 'em. In what way does the 'Socially Conservative Right' constituency seek to enhance freedom? Examples?

3. In highlighting 'bigotry and ignorance' (satirically) I was simply responding to a series of remarks already posted in this discussion that I felt revealed bigotry or ignorance:

"...because as a deviant, one cannot expect to be embraced by the mainstream "vanilla" world. Tolerated to a degree, but legally legitimized?...its never going to happen."

"They chose to be left-handed, and live in sin."

" is there really anyone who thinks that gay marriage is the sort of thing our founding fathers had in mind to protect when they wrote the Constitution?" (Explicitly? No. In general? Absolutely. Please don't invoke the Founding Fathers before reading them...)

"...being gay is a choice you make about your life. Heterosexuality, vegetarianism, and a whole host of other things are lifestyle choices."

"being gay is a choice. You aren't born gay."

"Many do not have "the right" to marry, like brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, adults to minors, women and dogs, men and sheep" (like these are equivalent?)

"heterosexuality has an actual purpose in nature, where as homosexuality doesn't."

"I don't see how homosexual serves this purpose or any other" (then attempts a ham handed link to pedophilia and rape)

There's more. a barrage of thinly disguised venom and hatred. Yes, my responses have included some hyperbolic and unkind characterizations (wasn't feeling kind). However, I DID take the time to explain my various positions in between satrical one-liners (which were included for emphasis: For instance my 'red neck' trotting out the 'satanism's next' position is DIRECTLY equivalent - to my mind - with the gay marriage = deviancy, incest, bestiality and pedophilia arguments previously alluded to in this thread)

@little_whip: I note with interest that while you chose to highlight and respond to my satire (primarily by ascribing to me a number of beliefs and medical conditions I don't actually have), you elected to totally sidestep any of my comments of substance. Why is that?

4. "Tyranny of the Majority". Well known phrase used (first?) by Tocqueville to describe the homogenous moral and legislative force created by the psychology of democratic politics. The basic argument is that there is little toleration of divergent opinions in democratic societies because with short election cycles, elected legislators are beholden to the interests of this 'majority opinion'. Those with another opinion are typically left by the wayside.

Suggesting that we don't live in a REAL tyranny because nobody is actually shooting gays is simply changing my argument to one you can more easily discredit. (Nice rhetorical trick. Stop it.

I suggest you read Federalist 51: Madison (yikes! I'm invoking a founding father!) argues that one of the real dangers to democracy is the "oppressions of factious majorities" because the legislature is so exposed to the whims of the majority. He also suggests that it is of paramount importance for government (all branches) to protect the weak (religious and secular minorities) against the strong (majority).

Jefferson agreed: "the tyranny of legislature (in the United States) is the most formidable dread at present and will be for many years. That of the executive will come in its turn, but it will be at a remote period". I'm tempted to suggest that this 'remote period' is in progress too. Interesting that the founding fathers didn't identify the independant Judiciary as a potential 'tyrant', but rather the solution to this problem...

Baffled

BTW, I'm Anonymous because I was a lurker spontaneously moved to respond - and did so before quite figuring out HOW to establish an identity on this system (I kind of assumed that the process would occur as I replied - yeah, I was lazy). I remain anonymous largely through inertia... Besides, who knows how long I'll stay?