If homosexuality is genetic then homosexuals are a violent people. Just look at how many of them are in prison!

I don’t know or care (outside of general scientific curiosity) whether or not homos are that way because of hardware or software, when I hear about two guys having sex the last thing going through my mind is that I want to get involved. You don’t “allow” gay people to get married because objectively speaking they can do whatever the hell they want with or without your permission (or in spite of your condemnation). The proposition cannot therefore be whether or not gay marriage is to be “allowed.” The proposition is whether or not you have a right to take action against them, to codify in law that marriage shall only consist of certain groups, and establish a tax code which exempts those select groups.

If you can exclude one group then you can exclude any group. If you can discriminate against others on my behalf then you can discriminate against me on the behalf of others. The same logic behind the separation of church and state applies to every other sector of our lives from separation of bedroom and state, separation of radio and state, separation of economy and state, and separation of marriage and state. Government should mind its own freggin’ business, and that business is to use coercion to stop coercion (put murderers in jail, put rapists in jail, put stick-up men in jail). Now if our jails happen to fill up with violent homosexuals, then so be it, but don’t put people in jail for being gay, don’t establish government monopolies which exclude gays from participating, and don’t give gays special privileges with hate crime laws or other BS.

Leave us alone.

I feel that when the great scales of justice weigh the benefits of discussing race against the negative impacts, there will be a clear argument for eliminating the concept from our vocabulary.

It is one, among many, of our “badges” or “signs” that are either hung on us or are chosen by us to signify membership in a club. (Sadly, race has been most often “hung” (pun intended)on other people to exclude membership.)

Are we genetically pre-disposed to not join groups that will act in common defense of like-minded (or like-gened) individuals?

Are the various pogroms and witch-hunts through the ages exactly what you describe: kill those you perceive to be different AND whom you see as a threat to the status quot power structure. Clearly liberal thinkers are constantly arguing that “there is a better way… we can improve.”

If aversion to “different”, and willingness to act on aversion, are genetic, we may be doomed to perpetual minority status… our lot in life being to rise up in prominence JUST enough to prevent species suicide (providing a deliberative brake), and at the same time provide i-pods, medicine, sanitation, nuclear physics, the internet… on and on… then, when we approach critical mass, to be exterminated by a powerful majority that has JUST enough faculties to determine that if our ideas keep growing, their power will disappear.
Per Kurt Vonnegut… So it goes?

A related question is can a male become a female (or visa versa) by surgical or chemical means? Remember to include, again, children born with ambiguous genitilia who are surgically “modified.”

Same-sex “marriage” is possible because the word “marriage” is (or will be) re-defined. The word “Marriage” has NOT meant the same thing for about ten thousand years: the committed union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.

For one the word is only as old as the English language. (Earliest record around 1290. (See also: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/marriage) Oh and for your information, the fact that a word had a specific meaning for and during a certain time does not mean it will always stay like that. The interesting thing about language is that, just like life, it evolves over time. Words change, words appear, word disappear and so on. The good thing really is that there has never been any group, legislative body, pressure group, government or any other socio entity such as a religeous congregation that has been able to claim ownership to a word. Hell, even the words god and atheist have multiple meanings. (thank your brain for that btw)

This entire argument is being obscured by those who think they might loose certain rights if they allow others (oooh, scary, different people) to “marry.” This is patently true.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with two (or more) people (or other species) living together in a committed relationship. There are even long-established legal AND SOCIAL procedures for doing so. “Partnerships, tenants-in-common, tenants-by-the-entirety,” etc.

The question IMHO is why should agitators be able to have government HIJACK a word (for the underwhelming minority (POV is very important here)) that has clearly changed over the past decade. WOW, eons of anthropological conservatism.

If different-sex couples (or other multiples) wish to cohabit, let them feel free to do so and call their relationship by any term they so wish INCLUDING “MARRIAGE,” because “marriage” means: A joining of two parts (Amongst a slew of other things)

Churches and all other religeous institutions should be brought around to allow same-sex family visitations (between consenting adults please, the other stuff we’ve seen too much off already) and POA (Power of Attorney) rights merely by boycotting those who don’t offer such recognition.

This same principle can be applied to any other situation.

Call ‘em “civil unions.” “partnerships,” “companionships,” or any other word that some word smith deems appropriate, INCLUDING “marriage,” BECAUSE “MARRIAGE” BY NEW TRADITION IS BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING (as opposed in certain cultures/religions) ADULT PEOPLE

I wonder why such “oppressive and restrictive” people can’t solve such a simple “problem” without stirring up such a brouhaha ! Could it be that there is something more (sinister and disclosed) on their agenda? Such as to rid the world of non-believers or to bring heaven to earth or …?

As for genes, I firmly believe what I have read from the experts.

Genes in humans surely can make suggestions” or “create urges” toward certain human actions. Genes in human do dictate irresistible, “soft-wired” behaviour (Proper spelling is with of without an u?) patterns as we see in “other-animal” behaviour.

This means that I think heterosexuality is not a definite choice. In some, it is a conscious choice (often made by others) (the IQ crowd pleasers). In others, they just feel “drawn to it” (the EQ crowd pleasures)

In any case, “can’t we all just get along?” Live and let live and quit trying to HIJACK a word from us “ultra-hot” people.