"If Sen. McCain wants to take a moment to explain the difference between "making" and "applying" the law, I am all ears."

Well put. The court is applying the equal protection clause, not creating new law, just as courts did when they struck down laws against segregation and interracial marriage. Despite what the Bible suggests, homosexuals have no more choice over their sexual orientation than blacks do over the color of their skin. People act in their own self-interest: no one chooses to be a member of the most despised minority in society.

The claim that because it's a choice (to some dulard thinking idiots)and not what you are born as ,the right can't exsist is just plain stupid .if that were true then beacuse religion is a choice and not "how one was born"then it can't be a right.(and the "it's a choice "argument is wrong anyway as far as rights go)No matter how it's parsed it is still a thinley veiled theocratic minded argument.Scratch the surface and you find the truth.The opponents do not have any idea what country they live in or what "rights" really are under the constitution.

A doofus named TexasPete insisted that homosexuality is no different than smoking cigarettes. You choose to have man-sex, you choose to smoke cigarettes, and neither is rational. It was such a stupid opinion I didn't know how to reply.

"The claim that because it's a choice . . . and not what you are born as, the right can't exist is just plain stupid."

I agree that the right to marry should extend to homosexuals whether or not homosexuality is a choice, but from a legal perspective, I think it is a more difficult case for the opponents of gay marriage if homosexuality, like race, is biological. Discrimination based on race is subject to "strict scrutiny" by the courts presumably because people have no choice about their race. Discrimination among voluntary groups may be subject to a lesser judicial test, and greater deference may be given to the "wisdom" of the legislature or the voters.

"No matter how it's parsed it is still a thinley veiled theocratic minded argument."

No doubt about that. It's about "God's Law" as expressed in Leviticus, which seems to bear a great deal of similarity to Islamic law.

While I'm 100% for same sex marriage and agree that the case was decided correctly based on 'equal under the law', NO ONE knows why homosexuals are homosexuals.

One question, IF science discovers that homosexuals behavior was LEARNED and NOT generic would it then be OK to treat homosexuals differently since then you wouldn't have any basis for your point of view?

I say NO (because it doesn't matter HOW they got to be the way they are, they should be treated as equals under the law).

How do you know it isn't a choice?

See my post below where I say it doesn't matter as it relates to this ruling but I just wonder why you are SOOOO sure about something that science isn't even close to determining. Yes, there have be studies but most (on both sides) are very bias.

To me being soooo sure is the position of the religious (who feel they know all the truths when they really just know myths).

Just like with the concept of a so called 'god' I'm an agnostic as to the origins of homosexual behavior.

jazzy, for the simple reason that when I was in high school and took showers in the football team's field house, not once did I ever feel inclined to sport a woody.

Having gay intercourse is certainly a choice. Having the inclination to do so can't possibly be explained as a simple choice, however. There is clearly something that drives homosexuals that may only be a matter of intensity and degree in comparison to everyone else (one chick I know insists that everybody is a little bit bisexual), but I think we're being presumptious to assume that all of this is based on conscious choices. Sociobiology is an emerging field built on the premise that even the conscious decisions we make every day have subtle, subconscious, and scientific explanations.

But you are correct: the basis of the law shouldn't depend on this question. If gay people can't help it, you can easily twist that up and say they're mentally deranged, which is how people have described homosexuality for generations. As long as you are a consenting, law-abiding adult, the government should butt out.

How do you know it isn't a choice?

Because when I was 13 I had fantasies about naked women, not men. I can not explain why or when I decided to become a heterosexual, as far as I can tell I just always have been. Even the idea of gay sex was (and is) something I can't relate to emotionally.

How can I expect someone to choose or explain being gay when I can't explain my own "choices"? And if I never had a choice, then how realistic is it to expect that they did?

You call your fantasies science???

Your story sounds just like the type people use to prove there is a god.

These are nice stories but not science.

Note that my GUESS would be that people are born with homosexual tendencies but I would never say I know this as if it was some type of fact as determined by scientific methods, especially when the orgins have nothing to do with how society should treat gays.

My reason for bringing this up is that when debating issues with religious people often their entire 'rant' is based on these personal GUESSES (myths) treated as facts.

Secular people shouldn't use this bogus technique.

Jazz, from an evolutionary perspective, gay sex is counterproductive and potentially harmful. Now, you could cite that as some kind of proof that homosexuality is a choice...or a biological deviancy.

I think science is beginning to understand, more and more, that what we think of as the mystery of human motivations and consciousness are actually based on the chemical make-up of our brains, the influence of hormones in response to various environmental stimuli, all that stuff. The lack of perceived logic in a particular behavior doesn't diminish the idea that we're just organic robots who will be completely predictable once all the data comes in.

Anse:

A doofus named TexasPete insisted that homosexuality is no different than smoking cigarettes. You choose to have man-sex, you choose to smoke cigarettes, and neither is rational. It was such a stupid opinion I didn't know how to reply.

HOW about laughing?

Epicurus:

"The claim that because it's a choice . . . and not what you are born as, the right can't exist is just plain stupid."

I agree that the right to marry should extend to homosexuals whether or not homosexuality is a choice, but from a legal perspective, I think it is a more difficult case for the opponents of gay marriage if homosexuality, like race, is biological. Discrimination based on race is subject to "strict scrutiny" by the courts presumably because people have no choice about their race. Discrimination among voluntary groups may be subject to a lesser judicial test, and greater deference may be given to the "wisdom" of the legislature or the voters.

"No matter how it's parsed it is still a thinley veiled theocratic minded argument."

No doubt about that. It's about "God's Law" as expressed in Leviticus, which seems to bear a great deal of similarity to Islamic law.

OK, you can call me mr. obvious.

I support the 'idea' and the research should continue but what I say were people making statements about ideas as if these ideas were proven facts based on science.

We are still to early in the process at this stage. BUT we are NOT to early in the process to grant gays equal rights (something you support, and I thank you for that support since I have many gay friends that need it).

...because the consenting adult one chooses to have sexual relations with is none of anyone else's business. It impacts other people not at all.

Same for marriage. If two men want to marry each other it does not affect my heterosexual marriage one micro-iota. Saying it does is pure fantasy.

So I agree the how and why are irrelevant.

You call your fantasies science???

What would you call it then? Learned behavior? Instinct? I call it first hand experience of our species sex drive.

Your story sounds just like the type people use to prove there is a god.

Reasonably people can disagree about whether or not god exists. Saying the sex drive doesn't exist is absurd. Comparing it to god is equally absurd.

I can't think of *anything* that would change my orientation. Worse, as far as I can tell, I don't think anyone has thought of anything that can change people's orientation.

As my experience demonstrates, said orientation shows up young. Self recognition at 13 and I'm not especially self aware. To my eye there doesn't appear to be anything that smacks of "choice" and my personal experience (not belief) strongly suggests that there is none.

Anyone claiming orientation is a choice needs to explain what it would take to change his own.