societal?? so you are saying, if given the choice, someone would be gay? Someone would choose a life of being hated and discriminated against? I don't think so. And yes, homosexuality has been proven to be genetic in the majority of cases. Gay people act different from early childhood before they have even heard of sex. There has been studies of the rates of homosexuality in identical and non-identical twin brothers of gay men, as well as adoptive brothers of gay men. Fifty-two percent of the identical twin brothers were gay, as against 22 percent of non-identical twins and 11 percent of the adoptive, genetically unrelated brothers. In contrast, research on social factors has been fruitless. Despite many attempts, there has been no clear demonstration that parental behavior, even a parent's homosexuality, affects children's sexual orientation. Cultures tolerant of homosexuals do not appear to raise more of them than do less permissive societies.

Why can't people just accept us? We are not all high-heel wearing flamboyant freaks or butchy fat dykes whose main objective is to disrupt the lives of the straight. In fact, we do everything straight people do, except we aren't attracted to members of the opposite sex. But love is love.

And no, gayness is not societal. I would like not to be gay....but it's pretty hard not to be. Don't you think it would be hard for a straight person to fall in love with someone of the same sex? And what if marriage was not allowed to straight people? How would you feel if such a fundamental thing was taken away from you? Yes, marriage is important to us. We dream about getting married and having a lifelong relationship like straight people do. Try seeing it from our point of view before you judge so harshly.

Seeing it from the other guy's point of view is seldom the strong point of those who would beat you into heterosexuality with the family Bible. Logic and reason do not apply.

I think many have tried seeing it from both ways (if you read all of the comments) and still concluded that "marriage" is not what is needed to give gay relationships equal rights. Gay unions are not the same as heterosexual unions. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with either type or that either type should get different rights. They are not the same though and "marriage" is already the definition for a heterosexual union so the homosexual union needs a different name.

societal?? so you are saying, if given the choice, someone would be gay? Someone would choose a life of being hated and discriminated against? I don't think so.

It sounds crazy, but people do choose lifestyles like that.

Fifty-two percent of the identical twin brothers were gay, as against 22 percent of non-identical twins and 11 percent of the adoptive, genetically unrelated brothers.

If homosexuality is genetic, then if one of the twin brothers is gay, the other should be as well, since they have the same exact genes. It's stuff like this that makes me doubt that homosexuality is all genetics.

Dear Messy,

If it were proved to you 100% that homosexuality is genetic, then would you become pro-gay marriage? If most genetic scientists believe this, would that matter to you? Because it sounds to me, no matter what was proved or not proved, what matters to you personally is what you believe the bible says. And that is why we have separation of Church and State.

I also wonder this. When is the last time, if ever, you were able to call a gay person your good friend. And don’t give me platitudes like “some of my best friends are gay”, or “I work with gay people”. I would challenge you to know a gay person so well, that you know their parents, go to church with them and be able to call them close friends. Then I wonder if you could look that person in the face and say, “I don’t think you have the right to get married”.

Okay, I don't really know where to begin or what I want to say. I'm a little overwhelmed after having read Mr. Wardell's article and then the 50+ comments that followed, and yes, I read them all. There are so many different points of view that I cannot possibly address them all. There were a lot of good points as well as bad on both sides of the issue.

So you'll know from what perspective I'm coming from I'll start with saying I'm a gay man who's been "out" since the age of seventeen. I live in a conservative, rigidly religious portion of the US. I could be described as a liberal who holds true to the "live and let live" philosophy. I don't believe in telling people what they can and cannot do so long as they aren't causing harm. In addition to that information it's probably important for me to say first and foremost that I disagree with the article written by Mr. Wardell.

I'm not really interested in statistics or reports about "who's gay, who isn't." My objective here is to offer a personal viewpoint on the issue from a gay man.

The only issue I'd like to address that was mentioned in the comments is the issue of choice. Do people chose to be gay, or are they born that way? I have to honestly say I do not know. I cannot speak for every gay person in the world, I can only speak for myself and I know that I didn't chose to be gay. My first sexual attraction was towards a male, and so has every subsequent attraction. I have never once been attracted to a female in any way beyond that of friendship. I can see the beauty of a woman but I am not attracted to it. That's just the way it is, for me. In addition to that, of all the gay people I know none of them have told me they made the conscious decision to be gay.

Now for the initial issue presented by this article, allowing gays to marry.

Simply put, I don't think any one person, any select few, or any governing body has the right to tell me who I can marry based on my sexual orientation. It is not the role of the government to dictate how I live my life and with whom I live it. That's my emotional reaction to it, but I've learned that an emotional response is usually the wrong approach. So allow me to offer my intellectual reasons for disagreeing with this article.

The are two things Mr. Wardell said in this article that stick in my mind. The driver's license comment and the "super-majority" stance.

First, the driver's license comparison. To quote:

"But marriage isn't a right. It's a privilege. That is the fundamental problem with this debate. There are lots of people who can't get driver's licenses. But the state can forbid that because driver's licenses are a privilege, not a right. There are a lot of other things that go along the same principle. Cars and such, like marriage, are not mentioned in the constitution. Therefore, how they are handled is left up to legislatures." -- Brad Wardell

You're right Mr. Wardell in that marriage, like driving, is not a right but a privilege. However, I'm of the opinion that this is a poor comparison to this issue.

When a person goes in for a drivers license their eligibility is determined by testing them to make sure they know the laws of the roads and that they are safe drivers. The issue of sexuality is not relevant to whether or not someone is afforded the privilege of obtaining a license.

The same is not true of the privilege of marriage where sexuality is apparently a valid criterion to determine the eligibility of the persons involved.

I hope I've helped illustrate how the two situations are nowhere near being one in the same. The similarities between driving and marriage ends with both of them being privileges.

As for the "super-majority."

Quote:" also believe in two social principles: 1) That the traditions of the super-majority should be respected and protected. 2) The rights of the minority should be protected."

Honestly, I think this is a weak and ignorant stance in the defense of keeping marriage between a man and a woman. Not only does it show a lack of independent reasoning, but it's also the "easy claim to make."

Why do you say the traditions of the "super-majority" should be respected and protected? Just because the "super-majority" agrees with a practice doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. That kind of reminds me of lemmings...following the pack because you're programmed to, even if it means walking off a cliff.

Saying that if the "super-majority" says it's okay therefore it is would be the same as saying that since the majority supported (at the time) the slavery and subsequent oppression of blacks, the oppression of women, and the execution of "infidels of the church," that it was the right thing to do. Is that what you're saying?

You also said:

Quote:

"That said, gays should have access to civil unions that have the same legal punch as marriage."

Yeah, that's great in theory but what that does is, as someone else said in one of the comments, labels gays as second class citizens not worthy of "real marriage." Regardless of what I am for being gay, I am not a second class citizen.

In the end I'm an American citizen who should have the same rights, privileges and opprotunites as every other American citizen regardless of my sexuality. I'm tired of being judged against based on my sexual orientation. Judge me on my character, my actions as a citizen and on the simple fact that I'm a human being.

Not special rights or privileges, but equal rights and privileges.

~Melchiah

If it were proved to you 100% that homosexuality is genetic, then would you become pro-gay marriage? If most genetic scientists believe this, would that matter to you? Because it sounds to me, no matter what was proved or not proved, what matters to you personally is what you believe the bible says. And that is why we have separation of Church and State.

If homosexuality was proven to be genetic, then I would have to support it, as they cannot choose otherwise. However, until that is done, no matter how many genetic scientists believe it, I'll see it as ultimately being a choice, and therefore, should not have the right to marry if society does not accept it. It's not because of the Bible, as I am agnostic, but because of the fact that a minority who has chosen to be a minority should not have any right to force their beliefs onto others.

I also wonder this. When is the last time, if ever, you were able to call a gay person your good friend. And don’t give me platitudes like “some of my best friends are gay”, or “I work with gay people”. I would challenge you to know a gay person so well, that you know their parents, go to church with them and be able to call them close friends. Then I wonder if you could look that person in the face and say, “I don’t think you have the right to get married”.

That's why I don't discuss politics and religion with good friends.

Melchiah, why do civil unions rate you as second class? Just because you are different doesn't mean you aren't equal. It is "man kind" and I am a woman. I am not second class to men. I am different yet equal.

People who cry separation of church and state aren't looking at the whole picture. Our country was founded by Christians. The "super majority" of our nation is Christian in belief. Our currency states "In God we trust". Those things, as well as the definition of marriage are established. It is our history. You can't change history. You can complain that it was Christianity behind the definition of marriage but that is the definition regardless.

I agree that some people are against gay marriage for religious reasons or for their views about gays. I disagree for neither reason. I don't think any less of someone because of their sexual preferance. I don't believe in anything just because the bible says so. I believe that it is what is healthy for our society. I think the right move forward for us is to have a separate but equal union for homosexual partners.

If gay marriage is to be legal than it is up to gays to get legislatures to vote in laws allowing it.

It's called democracy. 

One could argue, and not unreasonably, that it is unconstitutional to forbid it, in which case it is not up to gays to do anything.

And we don't live in a democracy.

Messy:
You're were right when you said:

Quote:
"the fact that a minority who has chosen to be a minority should not have any right to force their beliefs onto others."

However, as I said in my first comment, I did NOT chose to be gay. Were I given the choice I'd of chosen to be straight. It upsets a lot of my gay friends when I say that but it's the truth. Use your rational mind when thinking about this question. Why, if given the option, would I chose a life of persecution, hardship, abuse and possible rejection from my family and loved ones? Nobody in their right mind would chose that. Maybe you're out of touch with the world but people get killed for being gay. I've had friends hospitalized for being gay. You don't even have to be gay to be subject to the abuse either. Just "look" gay and you're a target. I had a friend in high school that I thought might be gay, so I asked him if he was. You know what his answer was? He said, "No, but I might as well should be, I'm beaten up often enough for it as it is."

So again I ask, why would someone chose to be gay knowing that's the fate they're sealing themselves to?

Since I didn't chose it, I'm not forcing my minority ways of life on you by asking to be allowed to marry. I'm enforcing my right as an American citizen to be treated with the same protection under the law, the same equality and the same consideration as every other American citizen.

Bulbous:
You're right, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a government where the top dollar gets the law, where special interest groups and lobbyists who have millions of dollars at their disposal can buy their way in and out of the system affecting change wherever they see fit. Nobody can argue with me over the "democratic process" either and the "voting power"...Florida proved that with Bush vs. Gore. That's not the point of this article though...back to the issue at hand.


JillUser:
Why do I think it creates a second class citizen? Because you're telling one group of people that since they're different they aren't "allowed" to have a marriage, only civil unions. Regardless of the two being equal under the law I think it's a form of "branding" the group who can't have a "marriage" because they don't meet the "conditions" that define "marriage."

You're right about the Christian influence...it's a Christian country. It shouldn't be though. I have no problem with the majority of the country being Christian, that's their right. What I do have a problem with is when that Christian morality is forced on me through the law, something that is supposed to be free from religious influence. Of course though that's not going to happen and I'm going to have to live with it. As for "that's our history," it might be yours and you can claim it...but it isn't mine. I don't have a Christian family, I didn't have a Christian upbringing and my father would be spinning in his grave if he knew his son was being discriminated against because of Christian morality.

One last thing for all the detractors out there:
You'd have a different tone about this issue if you were the one being denied. It's easy to take the position of the "norm" or the "majority" when you aren't the one at the other end of that issue trying to fight for equality.

The last thing I'd like to say is that I'd like to be clear that I have no animosity towards anyone involved in this discussion. I thank you for your honesty and thoughts on such a "hot-button" issue that, for reasons stated earlier, hits close to home for me.

~Melchiah

Here is an article about gay marriage allowance in Ontario, the reasons why according to the Ontario courts, and my own opinion on the subject. I realize that it appears the majority of Joeusers are American, and therefore may not want to take a look because it is not from their own country, but there are several parallels that can be drawn comparing our system and societal similarities.
here