Doesn't really matter if it is a choice or not...
Bottom line would be if a person has the Constitutional right to act on that choice.
If there was no innate Constitutional right to act on that choice with another consenting adult, and also to be married, there would never have been any talk of a Constitutional amendment to prevent the choice of gays to marry...
We had a Constitutional amendment at one time that prevented buying or selling, and transport of booze.
Certainly drinking booze or sticking a needle in one's arm to get high is a choice.
However, if these actions don't harm anyone but the person drinking or doing drugs, should the government prohibit people from these choices?
Apparently not, as they discovered the revenue stream available both above board and in the black market.
There isn't any money to be made from gay marriage, so what incentive is there to allow the same essential freedom that is granted to straights as gays?
I've said this before, and it bears repeating.
The only reasonable thing to do is to approach this scientifically, not religiously.
Allow gay marriage. Then track the results of gay marriage on the participants and the family members (including children adopted or born of surrogates) and see if there is a genuine danger to America as a result of gay marriage.
We let consenting adults smoke themselves to death, and let adults eat and drink themselves to death, but people want to prohibit gays from the joys and sorrow of marriage? We want to keep other Americans from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
It really makes no sense, which is why we see the nonsensical opposition from the religious kooks who care more about what other people do in their lives than they do about practicing their own religion of perfecting themselves in their own lives...
Bottom line would be if a person has the Constitutional right to act on that choice.
If there was no innate Constitutional right to act on that choice with another consenting adult, and also to be married, there would never have been any talk of a Constitutional amendment to prevent the choice of gays to marry...
We had a Constitutional amendment at one time that prevented buying or selling, and transport of booze.
Certainly drinking booze or sticking a needle in one's arm to get high is a choice.
However, if these actions don't harm anyone but the person drinking or doing drugs, should the government prohibit people from these choices?
Apparently not, as they discovered the revenue stream available both above board and in the black market.
There isn't any money to be made from gay marriage, so what incentive is there to allow the same essential freedom that is granted to straights as gays?
I've said this before, and it bears repeating.
The only reasonable thing to do is to approach this scientifically, not religiously.
Allow gay marriage. Then track the results of gay marriage on the participants and the family members (including children adopted or born of surrogates) and see if there is a genuine danger to America as a result of gay marriage.
We let consenting adults smoke themselves to death, and let adults eat and drink themselves to death, but people want to prohibit gays from the joys and sorrow of marriage? We want to keep other Americans from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
It really makes no sense, which is why we see the nonsensical opposition from the religious kooks who care more about what other people do in their lives than they do about practicing their own religion of perfecting themselves in their own lives...
