Marriage ammendments support weak parenting.

For its supporters, the marriage ammendment is essentially about a problem with parenting, i.e. since homosexuality is a choice, then how do parents raise their children in such a manner as to get them to choose heterosexuality. If parents are too confused to figure this out, why is it the responsibility of the state to support, and thus perpetuate, their weakness at the expense of innocent others who are trying to make loving commitments to one another?

For its supporters, procreation of children always trumps anything else having to do with marriage. God didn't make the human body to fly either. Is taking an airplane trip wrong?

we have all these straight people running around telling us that being gay is a choice. Well, speaking as one, it is no more of a choice than your eye color.

Yes, while I can make my green eyes blue with contacts, they are still very green and always will be. It's not a choice.

The other fallacy is that if it is a choice, at least as far as men are concerned, they can be aroused by either men or women but choose men. That's not true for most gay men on the far gay end of the spectrum - arousal by a woman is no more possible than arousal by someone of the same sex for most heterosexual people (beer goggles aside).

Children of gay couples turn out to be straight (or gay) in exactly the same ratios that they do to heterosexual parents. I would say that the worst possible parent to have is the parent who is obsessed by what your child's sexual orientation turns out to be. Now THAT'S unnatural.

Live, laugh, love - that's the most important thing you can do for your family.

heterosexuality would see the whole homosexual phenomenon and ask themselves "What are we(heterosexuals) doing "wrong"? How should we correct that?" - Just thinking about it from their perspective, you understand.

BTW - The logical underpinnings of the statistics upon which science depends say that if you could devise a valid and reliable test for the causes of homosexuality (and note that validity and reliability are very exacting scientific standards), and apply that test in research, the results would fall into a normal (bell shaped) distribution, with a few people who were highly biologically determined, a few people highly environmentally determined, and the rest evenly split around 50:50 (biology:environment). So saying things about groups doesn't mean as much as trying to understand where a given individual falls in that spectrum.

I'm a Liberal, to me this question is not that important. Choice or otherwise, what I want to know is how well something/anything functions.