Thanks, Brian, for your informed commentary.

Okay, Mr. Bush. Here it is one more time so you can understand why you're here: The purpose of the U.S. government and the constitution is to protect human rights (i.e., the rights of human adults and sometimes children). This is not an opportunity for you to pass legislature deciding once and for all about moral issues that are dependent upon individual circumstances (e.g. abortion). Morality is a fine thing to hold in high esteem, as indeed having a poor sense of morality usually leads to violations of other people's rights and thus illegal activity. Whose rights are being hurt by gay marriage? It doesn't matter whether they are "living in sin", or "denigrating the sanctity of marriage" because they are doing nothing constitutionally wrong. The constitution is not a moral document--it is a legal document.

I think President Bush just needs to sit down Christmas Eve Day and watch the Queer Eye For The Straight Guy marathon on Bravo. He would surely learn that they are a very clean, articulate and most importantly, very beautiful people. I admit, I don't even pretend to understand how gay marriage can be banned on moral grounds. What are people so afraid of? Science has already proven homosexuality a genetic trait--we let people with blue eyes get married, even though that grosses me out. For moral reasons. I'll tell you this, my kids ain't going near any of those blue-eyed freaks.

Umm. Let me know when you find that "proof" in the science journals. I'm not suggesting that it's not genetic: Just don't put words in the scientist's mouths (or Bush's for that matter).

I of course realize that a single article/study proves nothing but here's my reference at least:

http://www.narth.com/docs/biological.html

The article you cite seems to me to be implying that human sexuality and sexual behavior is far more complex than can be accounted for by either genetic or environmental factors alone. Eye color, on the other hand, is a somewhat more tractable genetic question. Many people (some quoted in the article) are trying to legitimize homosexual behavior by reducing it to a simple genetic trait. This perspective simply ignores the (also *quite* complex, but far more important) moral and cultural issues concerning whether same-sex couples are able to provide the same quality of parenting to children. Successfully showing the answer to this question seems to me to be the point from where legitimacy of gay marriage can gain acceptance.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the use of legitimize. If two people love each other isn't that legitimate enough? I guess I just don't understand what moral issue is at hand. Sodomy? Or it just creeps Joe American out to have two guys shagging next door? I just flat out don't understand. Because of the bible? I can't wait for fifty years down the road when our kids rolls their eyes on the issue just as we roll our eyes at the sheer thought of blacks not being equals.
Finally, just because there are a man and a woman together, that does not necessarily make for a good household. I'm sure a great male-female couple and a great male-male or female-female couple would all do a fine job raising kids. It's not the sex of the parents, it's about the qualifications of the parents. I'd be happy to chair a committee deciding which couples (straight, gay, whatever) were allowed to have kids.

It's also about parent-child relationships, which aren't necessarily the same across all genders and sexual preferences. The optimum situation for a child is thus to have a parent of each sex. This does not automatically disqualify alternative arrangements. There may even be certain benefits for children living in gay-parent homes. I'm just sick of people on both sides of the argument trying to oversimplify the issue. Taking it on an individual basis is indeed one solution.

Name: Comment:

Have a blog or a Facebook page you would like linked to your posts? Need a new avatar? Email me at .