There are strong indications that there are genetic components, but okay, I admit I haven't seen rock solid proof yet either. But even if it is purely nurture, how does that change the debate completely? It's not something people can control, or have a choice over, regardless of whether it's genetic or a result of nurture somehow.

Certainly it's a choice to engage in sexual acts of a homosexual nature, precisely like it's a choice to engage in sexual acts of a heterosexual nature. In that sense, obviously people do have control over their sex life. But one doesn't control who one feels attracted to, or who one falls in love with. As is explained rather well in Judge Walker's opinion, this was less relevant back in the day when marriages of convenience were standard, and the primary goal of marriage was to form an economical unit, if at all possible with offspring, in which a certain labour division existed between men and women. It made sense for society to expect gay men and women to get married to someone of the opposite sex (or else to remain alone, in a role requiring celibacy or simply as life-long bachelor/old spinster), and to either suppress their sexual orientation or keep their actual romantic life hidden from the public eye. That's really not the case anymore. The purpose of marriage has changed, societal expectations have changed. There's absolutely no reason anymore for gay men and women to marry someone of the opposite sex. While the current view of marriage as being primarily a romantic matter, and a partnership of equals in which labour is divided in whichever way the spouses see fit, has made it entirely relevant to gay couples, and so they want it too. Makes perfect sense. And the arguments to keep it from them are based mostly on a religious view dictating that homosexuality is wrong and that apparently the religious should force their views on society. Fortunately there are also religious people who espouse the first belief while rejecting the second.

How so? How does the legalization of gay marriage in any way inconvenience people who disapprove of homosexuality? How does it in any way hinder their First Amendment rights of openly disapproving of homosexuality? It should be rather clear that trying to force any church to give its blessing to gay unions when that church doesn't want to, would be monumentally stupid, would be a blatant violation of the Constitution, and would never fly. And it's not like legalizing gay marriage is going to force them to have more contact with gay couples (okay, unless they happen to work for the county handing out marriage licenses...) or with homosexuality in general.

On the other side of the debate, a point that for some strange reason religious conservatives always seem to ignore: if they find marriage preferable above "living in sin" for straight couples, then why exactly is it that they don't think the same for gay couples? Sure, they disapprove of gay sex in general, but surely gay sex within a marriage is better than gay sex outside a marriage, even to those who find both abhorrent. It's not like banning gay marriage will stop any gay person from being gay or from having sex, after all.



When was the last time you made a conscious decision on who to love? And how well did that work out for you?