Reply #4: Interesting point....

[ludwigb]

I am something of an exception--I happen to be a liberal who feels that homosexuality is more 'voluntary' than 'intrinsic'. I don't believe people are "born gay" while I acknowledge that genetics almost certainly plays a role in determining who is more likely to be/become gay. What's next--are people going to claim they were born criminals or addicts or what have you? Of course people do--but for obvious reasons this shouldn't be a basis for legislation.

Besides, what is wrong with choosing to be gay? Suggesting that you were stuck with being gay at birth reeks of accepting the other side's premise that you'd be better off straight.

That said, I think any law specifically targeting gay behavior is still discrimination. Whether it is 'intrinsic' or 'voluntary', identity is still identity, and since (as you seem to acknowledge) homosexuality is not immoral or infringing on anyone's rights or well-being, it would be discrimatory to legislate against it. Now discrimination, as I define it, is not always bad, but it certainly runs counter to the liberal principles of the Constitution.

So for me the epistemological debate is irrelevant. The debate comes down to whether the corrosive effects of gay marriage on society are bad enough to merit legislation banning it. For me the question is largely one of solidarity--it's hard for me to imagine that I could politically turn my backs and seek to ban the private sexual behavior of my fellow citizens. Still, I have some anti-gay friends and I try to keep an open mind. And to this point I have yet to read a convincing case that gay marriage will have corrosive effects on society.