I die with an estate of $4,000,000 and leave all to my domestic partner. Federal estate tax of $225,000.

Do your own research.

Spare me the anger and the angst. Gay marriage is coming whether you like it or not. And we’re not going to shut up about it and we’re not going to be quiet about it and we’re not going to go all “uncle Tom” like the nitwit who wrote this story. If it takes a little anger and it Miss California’s feelings (or anyone else’s) get hurt, then too bad.

Every conservative must be as turned on as I am right now.

Only to the extent that you wish to prohibit infertile couples from marrying.

When I see and listen to the likes of Perez Hilton I understand better the eugenics philosophy although its unlikely that Hilton,and others like him, will add numbers to the human gene pool short of some miracle. The guy adds no value to the human race, and is a typical taker and fame seeker. Let him spew his venom – he only embarasses himself. Note though two things; one, the difference between a hetero and homo couple is that one can produce life and the other cannot. I think that is meaningful. Two, a leader of the eugenics movement went on to found Planned Parenthood and her name was Margaret Sanger – was she promoting abortion as a way to manage entre to the human gene pool. Maybe so.

Regardless, I didn’t say that people have a choice about whom they have a relationship; I am speaking about attraction, and love, and all in between. Your example of animals (unintentionally, I’m sure) supports my position: Bright plumage, scoring the final head-butt on the other buffalo, having the prettiest scent or singing the loveliest song illicit a reaction in animals (not to mention humans) that is involuntary. To what extent to animals have a choice about whether to act on that impulse? Depends on the animal; humans have a lot, ants none, everybody else, somewhere in between. But nobody chooses to have the /reaction/. It just happens. It’s nature, and psychology, and whatever else, but it isn’t voluntary.

You’re simply not capable of suddenly deciding to be attracted to a person. Sometimes you can talk yourself into it, sometimes you can talk yourself out of it, but it’s work to do so, and you know it’s never quite genuine, regardless of how necessary it might be. And again, as I’m trying to broaden the debate beyond sex and into loving, committed relationships, same thing–sometimes you can talk yourself into it, sometimes you can talk yourself out of it, but you don’t have a choice about whether you desire it in the first place.

I’m still confused by the focus on “choice” amongst people against gay marriage (or homosexuality in general). Perhaps that’s because my notions of right and wrong are broadly utilitarian and not based in Biblical (or any other religious) law. Because there is no harm in homosexual sex, homosexual relationships, or even the widespread acceptance thereof, I believe it is wrong to interfere in those activities–and also wrong to exclude gay couples from the same rights and privileges enjoyed by straight couples.

I suppose if wrong is only wrong because the Bible says so, and right is only right because the Bible says so, then this particular issue must me starkly clear–after all, there’s no ambivalence in the Bible about homosexuality, just perhaps some wiggle room on whether gays ought to be killed now or left to live the rest of their lives before suffering eternal torment. Yet I have yet to meet anyone who can really read Leviticus (for example) and state that we ought to live by those rules, from shellfish to slavery.

I don’t know if your objection is religious or not; that just seems to be a very common trait, so I’m throwing it out there. I’d actually be quite interested to hear from anybody who support straight marriage and opposes gay marriage for reasons that are not religious–I haven’t met that person yet.

No. Homosexuality and all the different trani stuff are psychological issues not not genetic one.
I am commenting on the statement below.

“Most people have little if any choice about whom they’re attracted to and who they love.”

People use nothing but choice, looks, personality, strength, money perhaps, etc. it’s not random like astroids swinging around the middle of nowhere. even natures animals use choice, like who’s got the biggest most colorful feathers, or the best song or growl.

But if she’s right about no choice then that might explain the divorce and unwed mother thing in society, but then again I still just consider that to be under “poor choices” as in not thought through honestly by mature psychologically stable adults.