What seems to sway the undecided people you've talked to, Luke?

(An aside: For anyone interested, that MinnPost story I linked to on the "flukey" comment has a breakdown of some of the scads of variables and issues involved when you do have these smaller sample sizes.)

Ask, and you shall receive. PPP just released a new poll with some rather different results: http://southwestminneapolis.patch.com/articles/second-new-poll-says-marriage-amendment-could-fail

Thanks for the PPP poll. The closer we get to the election, the more polls we'll have to look at. The article about Survey USA and its flukes was spot on. The problems explained in that are the same Nate Silver gives for the low REI rating. Of course, so much confusion exists around this amendment, it be interesting to see how many who say they support the amendment actually do.

In politics, people respond to emotion. Listen to a good speech, such as Obama 2008 acceptance speech, and you will be moved. Policy mixed with personal narratives and emotional connections are by far the most effective to sway voters. Likewise, fear and racism work as well.

30 states have lost such amendment battles, so in Minnesota something new is being tried. We only talk about equality and the constitution if we have to and instead focus on personal stories. A friend, a loved one, a family member, someone who will be hurt by this amendment. Very few people are not moved when they learn of someone our state is singling out to be discriminated against.

Currently we can change 1 in 4 yes votes to a no with a single conservation. Follow it up later and the moved voters increase even more. The goal is to give everyone someone to remember, someone that needs their help for when the attack ads start in October.

It's not about anyone being against freedom and equality. A person who is addicted to a sexual perversion is a slave to that perversion. He is not free and can never be free until he acknowledges that what he is doing is wrong and commits to change his ways. His perverted relationship can never be equal to a healthy relationship because pretending that a man is a woman doesn't make a man a woman. The marriage amendment is about making it perfectly clear that if you are a man, you were meant to marry a woman, and if you are a woman, you were meant to marry a man. That's just the way it is whether you like it or not.

AS, I'd like to remind you (or perhaps in this case INFORM you) that when a man has sex with a man he is NOT pretending that he is a woman. Same thing when a woman has sex with a woman.

Also, at the end of your comment you said "That's just the way it is whether you like it or not." Again, I'd like to remind you (or perhaps in this case INFORM you) that homosexual people exists on this earth whether we pass this amendment or not... and THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!

My husband and I have two kids, 6 and 2 years old. Nothing about our marriage or family life will change when this amendment is defeated. We love our homosexual friends just as much as our heterosexual friends. They deserve the same happiness and benefits of marriage that my husband and I share.

I assume you're referring to the fact that anyone who leaves the question blank will be counted as a "no" under MN election rules?

An amendment ballot left blank counts a no vote. 50% of all ballots cast must vote yes to pass the amendment, but seeing this is such a high stakes issue with so much attention on it, the estimates of people leaving the question blank is at most a few percent.

There is no "right" for a man to be a woman. Pretending that one is the opposite gender doesn't change one's chromosomes. Your chromosomes are what they are and you can't change them. It is your chromosomes that determine your gender. That is a scientific fact. Wishing that you were the opposite gender doesn't change who you are biologically. Trying to be something that you can never be makes no sense.

Sodom had homosexual "marriage" thousands of years ago. You want to follow their ways, and you think that would be progress? Homosexual "marriages" didn't work then, and they won't work now.

Yes AS,
allowing homosexual marriage would be progress. just like biking and walking to work/school would be progress....just like you're jesus did. more progressive than driving a polluting car/truck; better for the environment, and our health. And allowing homosexual marriages would be progress for multiple reasons too. Emotional benefits for those who want to get married, financial benefits for the government because we're taxed higher when we're married, and the old joke that the money spent at gay weddings alone would bring us out of our economic slump aren't too far off the mark.

My children are TOLERANT. That statement is IGNORANT.

For the children who were born gay, how is voting YES good for them?

How about the 1000s of children of gay folks? You'd be harming them...does that matter to you?

I think Mr. Scoscia's comment was made in jest. Nobody who can actually work the CAPS key could possibly be so ignorant as to be for the amendment.

Vote NO for the children!
Same sex couples can, and do have children; the children of married parents enjoy certain protections not afforded the children of unmarried parents.
Why, Bob Scoscia, do you want to punish the children of same sex couples?

You can be sure that I will vote YES. There is no such thing as a person being born homosexual. Every homosexual, without exception, is descended from heterosexual ancestors. How does a homosexual know that he is a homosexual? By the fact that he engages in homosexual behavior. Homosexuality is a behavioral issue, not a civil rights issue. A YES vote is only common sense.

What if the children are gay? Then what have you told them?

I was raised by a single parent, from the day I was born. My mom has a gay best friend. My mom also had a coworker who is lesbian - her and her partner became close family friends of ours. Of course we also had friends who were heterosexual. I am now married, and my husband and I have two children. I am very thankful for the diverse circle of friends that my mom introduced me to as a child. They made me who I am today.

So now, what are you worried about the kids for? Do you think they will make children gay? Well, my mom's gay friends did not make me gay. They never once tried to make me gay or talk me into it in any way. In fact, I don't remember ever talking about it. It's just the way it was.

Are you worried about them kissing in public? I have only seen them kiss on a handful of occasions - and it was a holiday or special event, where it was socially acceptable for anyone to kiss, not just a gay couple. Quite honestly, there are a few heterosexual couples that I would like to see display their affection a little less. Never has it made me uncomfortable when a homosexual couple has kissed in front of me.

Are you worried about explaining it to the kids? It's the same has having the sex talk or a drug talk. You just tell them how it is. My kids think it's just they way things are. They understand it is different than the way we are, but that's ok.

I think people fail to realize when you take away the rights of any minority group you better be aware that your minority group might be next. Every last one of us belong to SOME minority group whether we admit it or not.

This has to do with religon which is part of our constitusional rights. Its already part of the government.

Excellent point!

The problem with this theory is that if voted into reality this amends our constitution. Unamending the constitution is much more difficult than abolishing a law.

You have no idea how many of the older voters you are waiting to die-off are opposed to the marriage amendment and support equal rights for all. Or how many young adults are vehemently supporting the amendment. Don't make assumptions about people.

Yes Bob, it truly does take a village of 3 times legally-married, 4 times legally-divorced, unhappy opposite sex couples who only got married in the first place to appease others, and who stuck together "for the children" for multiple years while being mentally/verbally/sometimes physically abusive to each other while their children watched/learned.......to raise our children. I love the perspective of people like you, that legally-married opposite sex couples are always what's best for children rather than two people (of any sex,race,religion) that truly love each other.

Also, since most of you yes-voters consider marriage so sacred, what would you say about making divorce illegal altogether, just like your bible intended? Probably wouldn't sit so well, since many of you have already been divorced huh?

In marriage, the two become one flesh in a union joined by God, (Mark 10:8). Jesus speaks about divorce: "Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate," (Mark 10:9). So for a marriage that meets the requirements of being a sacrament, divorce in the Catholic Church is not possible.

Jesus says, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery," (Mark 10:11-12).

You do realize that amendments and debates such as this, especially if it does indeed pass, only help to reinforce the negativity that children exhibit...it lends itself into further teen suicides and creates an acceptable atmosphere for bullies. Shame on any adult who plays into this. If there is a god, he will judge.

Mr. Scoscia is funning us. It is so very easy to put we libs into high dudgeon. Well done! As for the ID issue. If that passes, I shall show up at my voting spot with no ID. It will be an interesting time.

I'd simply ask them whether they are married, and if they replied that they're not able to marry due to a state constitutional ban, then I would know they are a gay couple, whether or not they had children or were planning to do so.

Bob seems to have a need to regulate the behavior of others. His colors are showing.

Know what Bob? You're right. This is a lesson for my children. One day I'm going to tell them that there was a time when close-minded homophobes tried to deny equal marriage rights to people that love each other and deserve them.

Bob - we are very open-minded to the idea that a woman and a man are necessary ingredients for a marriage. Why are you so close-minded and homo-centric in the face of such a notion? I hope your children don't acquire your lack of tolerance.

My money's on Bob being against taxes(freedom w/ his money), pro gun (freedom to have a firearm), Pro-Life (taking away people's freedom), too.
So, freedom should only apply to him, being a white, Christian, male.

Bob you what is really BEST for the children? To grow up loving EVERYONE, not just the people that think/look/believe like them. I know my children will grow up to be accepting, loving adults and they will not see color, they will not see religion, they will not see sexual orientation...they will see a PERSON.

I support that idea Eric. Although maybe we should leave intergalactic marriage legal...just in case.

Good idea Eric 8) But just think how many lawyers specializing in divorce would end up out of work.

I don't know if you're being facetious, but I actually agree with this, in that the state should recognize only "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" between people, regardless of gender. Such arrangements would be contracts that have the same legal effect that marriage does.

How is enacting a constitutional amendment limiting someone's freedom "tolerant"?

FYI- Tolerance= a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

Everything you've written is the opposite of tolerance.

Whether the amendment passes or not, opposite sex couples will be able to marry and, for the foreseeable future, same sex couples will not be allowed to marry in Minnesota.

Bob, what about opposite sex couples who do not or can't reproduce? Of course, there are options for couples who can't biologically reproduce. In addition, child free couples may still make significant contributions to the kids and families in their village.

Same sex couples, with or without children, live in and contribute to our village, whether or not everyone is ready to accept that reality.

My parents being heterosexual did not make for a healther child rearing environment. There still were significant and varied forms of abuse and neglect, and my mother exercised her right to marry two times while my father exercised his right to marry four times. In my case the VILLAGE saved my life.

Some opposite sex couples parent well, and some do not. Some same sex couples parent well, and some do not. The fact is that all children and families can benefit from some help from the village now and then.

Right now the village can help some families by rejecting this amendment!

Children with same sex parents do not need extra help from the village BECAUSE of their parents' sexuality; they presently need some extra help from the village because of how we treat them and their parents. We have a long history of denying them access to equal rights and privileges, and that hurts them.

Please vote NO.

Bob wrote: "the proper thing to do will be to allow opposite-sex couples to continue to marry in recognition of their naturally-endowed reproductive capabilities".

Apparently, in Bob's world, only women between 18-43ish should be allowed to get married. So men can get married at anytime, as long as it is to a woman of child bearing years, but women over 45 and homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. Do I have that right, Bob?

Bob, Robert has giving you a very good definition of tolerance, above. I plead with you to study that definition and then tell me how it relates to your above comments.

You sir, are a freak. You're advocating no one out of menopause should be able to get married. (And a one point advantage in the beginning of September does not make a clear passage come November.)

How, Bob, will allowing same sex couples to marry in any way prevent opposite sex couples from marrying? Seriously - if same sex marriage becomes legal in Minnesota, will you and your wife (assuming you have one) have to divorce? How, in any way, would allowing same sex couples to marry have any effect on heterosexual marriage?
As for "naturally-endowed reproductive capabilities", when was a fertility test added to requirements for marriage? I am a 61-year-old widow who is engaged; clearly, I cannot have more children, so should my pending marriage be forbidden?

Very nicely put, rob - loved the paragraph about interracial couples.

Wonderfully said Rob

keyword is: "current". SCOTUS will indeed wipe this off the books.

I'm surprised we haven't seen more Hitler references in the Obama-related and same-sex marriage related comment streams. I was starting to doubt ol' Goodwin.

Please keep it civil, kids. Calling each other Nazis is not in the spirit of civilized debate. Most of this thread has been good thus far.

Well, Mussolini never had a moustache, but that's neither here nor there.

You know, it's a worry that I can understand my fellow LGBTQ folks having in their wilder-eyed moments. However, I'm a fan of the policy that discourages attacking individual people for beliefs they haven't professed. When Bob starts advocating for a massive, state-sponsored campaign of concentration and extermination of anyone exhibiting sexually deviant behavior, then I won't take issue with anyone comparing him to Hitler.

In the future I will abide with Mr. Sanna's request to not call folks "Nazis". Still, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ... I firmly believe, with no hyperbole or hesitation, that the Marriage Amendment should be written in German.

Read the Nuremberg Marriage Laws and then claim that the Marriage Amendment was not inspired by like-minded volks.

http://www.yourfunnystuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Michele-Marcus-Bachmann-Eating-A-Corn-Dog-3.jpg

That may be. It's possible. I could imagine it, even though I don't believe it.

But listen. The hatred involved in the disputes over this ballot question (which doesn't even take away any rights, for now), is by far more destructive than it would be (or might be) to allow gay people to marry each other. If you've met and sincerely talked with gay people, you'll know that most of them are honestly living life in a way they feel is right. If it truly is a vice, that fact is hidden from them. If you truly think these people are hurting their potential to contribute to society by being gay and acting on it, preventing them from being formally married will not accomplish your goal of turning them away from that. If anything, it will harden their hearts and make them see people like you who support this type of legislation as bigots who want to destroy their lives.

If you truly believe that being gay is a vice, then I challenge you to fight homosexuality by befriending gay people, and loving them in a way that convinces them of the error of their ways. You may be surprised to find that a lot of the people you meet in this way have fewer vices than you do.

The marriage amendment contains no hatred. It does no more than affirm the existing law on marriage. It takes away no rights. It oppresses no one. It makes it harder for the courts to change the laws on marriage as they have done in several other states.

Explain why you think it should be harder to change the law. If it is a bad law, why should it be harder to change. If it is not a bad law, why do you think so? What makes it a good law? What is good about banning gay marriage?

.....and yet, you will vote for Romney. I bet my life on it. A millionaire supported by billionaires, with 6 Grandmothers by the same Grandfather. Oh, how conveniently we spin the truth to somehow make it our own. This issue is about NONE of what you rant. What you spew is hate.

John, Funny you attack a political party and me personally but cannot refute what I am saying. What truths have been spun? What hate am I spewing? How am I being dishonest or hateful? It is common to throw these terms about when someone disagrees with your side because there is so much lacking to your argument. You call me hateful but yet post like this?? Look in the mirror, you will be shocked.

It appears that those who bring forth logical argument and lay out likely consequences are scornfully dismissed as haters. Those who stand up to defend traditional culture and moral values are "ignorant" and "intolerant".

Those who want to redefine marriage find the traditional limits on human behavior unacceptable, but they are the "enlightened" ones - "modern" and "fashionable".

Limits on human behavior as expressed in morality have impact and purpose. The limits may be inconvenient, but we will find that the consequences of eliminating those limits far more so.

Kent, civil marriage is a legal contract. Children, animals, plants, and inanimate objects can not enter into a legal contract, and I wish people would stop using this example.

Marriage by the state should be between two consenting adults, but you are right, I can not give you a specific reason why polygamy wouldn't eventually become legal. But I do question this statement "There are few people who would agree with marrying of multiple spouses. Although those that reject the amendment would be forced to support it"

How would you be forced to support polygamy? Or gay marriage, for that matter?

Let's keep in mind that most marriages of past were about property and status. Girls were married off by their families, not for love, but because it would somehow help the family, through monetary gains or status. Marriage HAS CHANGED in the last few centuries, and continuing to evolve (as long as the parties involved consent, and are of legal age to do so), seems to be a natural progression.

Susan,
In the past children as young as 9 were allowed to marry and therefore had that right and it was taken away. You may not like the analogy/argument but it is EXTREMELY appropriate and accurate. As you say, in some of those marriages were for money or property. But how is that different from the current argument. Those that oppose the amendment want to be able to pass along money to their same sex spouse. They want to be able to save money by putting their partner on their own health plan. If you support a law that redefines marriage to allow alternative lifestyle choices then you must support everyones choice. Remember the premise of the vote no group is I should have a choice to be myself and be happy. Then the person who wants to marry xxxx wives should, by that same argument, also have the same rights. You cannot limit them just because their alternate lifestyle is different than yours and you dislike it. Anyone who votes against the amendment because it "limits the definition" must accept all definitions then.

Kent, what you keep missing here is legal consent!

Kent wrote: " If you support a law that redefines marriage to allow alternative lifestyle choices then you must support everyones choice."

No, you don't. We do not have to support pedophiles or beastiality because they involve victims, not willing participants, and there are specific laws criminalizing this behavior.

The difference is that a 7 year old does not have the mental capacity to decide for themselves whether they want to marry or not. Which is besides the fact of if the individual proposing marriage is a 40 year old pedophile or a 8 year old of the opposite sex. They are both WRONG! Not until the onset of puberty do children really begin to explore the realm of emotions, but their ability to control their range of feelings usually doesn't fully develop until into the twenties. It also isn't until this point in time when a child fully becomes aware and able to control their thinking and decision making.

When a homosexual couple enters into a legal partnership it would be between two consenting ADULTS. They are both of the age of marriage and have the capabilities to evaluate their emotions and make their own decisions. It's not the same comparison AT ALL!

Also, John R, you may not shove a fork up my nose, because by my same reasoning as above, I am not a consenting partner. However, if you find a partner who has your same joy of shoving forks up your nose, then I believe you are quite perfect for each other and I wish you all the happiness in the world (and I hope you have good health insurance, because that sounds dangerous to me).

Katie,
The thought of a young child getting married turns my stomach but the analogy is still valid. In past year’s children as young as 13 were left alone to tend farms and hold down the house. Many people considered them emotionally mature and capable. They were considered just fine in making decisions that meant life or death for themselves, family members, or animals. Younger children had responsibilities that some adults today cannot seem to handle. You are therefore making a judgment that they cannot decide what they like and do not like which is taking away their right to do so. Whether they are adults or not should not matter given the argument that we should just let people be happy to marry whomever they want. Wasn't it the government that created that artificial age limit taking away rights already given people in the1800's? The government took away the right to marry multiple wives? Those apposed to the amendment would therefore be imposing the same limits on others they claim to be against now. Why, because they only care about themselves and their particular lifestyle choice. You are prejudging anyone under 16-18 as unable to make decisions, which historically may be wrong. You say they are not yet able to evaluate their emotions based on what? I see kids that know what they want and like and know what things said hurt them and what doesn't. Sorry but the analogy is ENTIRELY correct as disturbing as it is. It's all about love right?

How about those that believe they should have multiple wives? It was allowed for a time in the USA and still is in some countries? Shouldn't we be as "enlightened" as they are? What about those families? Come on don't discriminate against them. If we are going to recognize one alternate lifestyle choice then aren't we forced to recognize all of them? Its about our free choice and being happy right? Why cant I marry anyone not covered under insurance to get them coverage if it makes me, and them happy? How about marrying relatives? Children? Pets? It gives everyone the same benefits right? Everyone is equal.
No I don't believe this, but neither do I believe we should allow one alternate lifestyle choice because those that choose it are so vocal and in your face.

Excellent point! The Catholic church is pushing for this amendment, but the Jewish community wants to be able to marry same sex couples; what gives the Catholic church the right to tell Jews how to practice their religion? That, in a nutshell, is what this misbegotten amendment is all about.

And John, where does your thought process begin? I can't seem to find any coherent argument in your response to Jennifer. But I respect your right to put in your 2 cents...or no sense? :-)

Gays and lesbians are Americans; why shouldn't they, as consenting adults, be eligible for all the rights enjoyed by straight Americans?

I agree that divorce is a terrible thing that destroys children's trust and makes many angry or bitter. I also agree totally that the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves. They have "seen" a federal government take away freedoms we were specifically given in the constitution. They have seen a country go from a faith in God to attempting to destroy anyone who believes in him. They have seen freedom of religion replaced by freedom from religion. They have seen schools that were created to help people learn how to read the bible become places that just mentioning your belief in God may get you suspended (unless you are Islamic). They have seen a government of limited control be disgustingly grown to control all aspects of our lives. They have seen the people "taxed" because they do not want to buy the government mandated product. Equanimous?? Huh? When has our government been even tempered or composed? When have opposing parties gotten along?

I agree.

sorry (fat fingered the keyboard)... I ment to start: "Is it discrimination to NOT call a squirel..."

So are you saying it's wrong for squirrels and horses to have sex? Yes, I agree - squirrels and horses should not have sex. On everything else I disagree with you.

I did not mention sex, but since you did... Why is it wrong???
It can't be wrong if the only requirement is that they "love" each other?
After all, this is the core argument of the gay right to marry argument.
Right???
What about sex between people and pets? What if I really love my dog?
Even though you disagree with me (opinion, apparently not based on fact), I find it interesting that something in you has identified that some things are just wrong.

John R, your examples fall short because they don't consider the obvious....squirrels don't hang around with horses, Superman doesn't exist, and Katie offered a wonderful explanation to your fork up the nose analogy.

Currently married couples receive tax and legal benefits because they are married. Denying these same benefits to gay couples is discrimination.

John R wrote: "when the "rights" of the individual triumph over the good of the whole, then chaos is introduced and society starts its downward spiral. Look at history."

How would allowing homosexuals the legal right to marry be triumphing over the good of the whole?

You're right, I am making the assumption that BOTH the squirrel and horse have not consented. The reason you can't have sex with your pet is because even though your dog loves you, I make the assumption that as soon as your dog realizes your intentions to have sex with him he would run away or try and defend himself from you. It is not a mutually consented action. Whereas a healthy homosexual relationship will have 2 consenting participants.

My opinion is based on fact and good old life experience that has taught me how to think for myself. There comes a point where there is no use arguing with plain old CRAZY!

It this thread REALLY discussing whether squirrels and horses would consent to cross-breeding?

Our nation may or may not be in severe decline, but this comment thread is in serious trouble. ;->

Yeah, Donald, but isn't it great to point out an obvious flaw, that you and I can agree on?

;->

Why don't you think stable families are good for society? Marriage creates a committed family relationship, so same sex marriage is actually beneficial to society.

John R. asked: "What about sex between people and pets? What if I really love my dog?"
Need I point out the obvious? Rover and Fido are not consenting adults and they cannot enter into any legal contracts.

I appreciate an open discussion, and this has been interesting...
Look back at ancient civilizations. Historically speaking they reached their "peak" and started the descent into chaos when the rights of the individual trumped the needs of the society. Rome, Grece, Babalon, Persia all went this path and disapeared. I am not sure if we will follow what seems to be an inevitable slide into oblivion, but if we do not stand up and question such arguments, I fear we will walk that path.

I do find it interesting that even through the "vitrol" thrown above, no one has factually disputed the core of my question. This appears to be an issue of smoke & mirrors. As long as you can shout louder... then you must be right.
Very disapointing.

Yes John unfortunately it is only a matter of a short time before our country ceases to exist as we know it. The masses as a whole have figured out that they can vote for a party that will give them things for free no matter what it costs. We have a country where a supreme court justice who is responsible for interpreting our highest law has stated we MUST look at other countries constitutions when interpreting ours. We have citizens who feel they should have the right to be happy no matter what it costs the country as a whole. We have a country that now believes when you move here you should bring your own countries beliefs and language along and we must accept it as part of our country. Yes John, We are in the decline.

In the past children as young as 9 were allowed to marry and therefore had that right and it was taken away. You may not like the analogy/argument but it is EXTREMELY appropriate and accurate. As you say, in some of those marriages were for money or property. But how is that different from the current argument. Those that oppose the amendment want to be able to pass along money to their same sex spouse. They want to be able to save money by putting their partner on their own health plan. If you support a law that redefines marriage to allow alternative lifestyle choices then you must support everyones choice. Remember the premise of the vote no group is I should have a choice to be myself and be happy. Then the person who wants to marry xxxx wives should, by that same argument, also have the same rights. You cannot limit them just because their alternate lifestyle is different than yours and you dislike it. Anyone who votes against the amendment because it "limits the definition" must accept all definitions then.

Kent, we seem to be going up and down the thread on this one. I just left a comment above so I won't repeat it again, and I will stay here.... :)

I said those marriages in the past were for monetary gain or for status, not as an argument for or against any marriage, but to point out that the definition of marriage is evolving as society does. The monetary gain would only be in that homosexual couples would receive the same tax and legal benefits as current married couples do.

This could be made very easy if the government would just get out of the "marrying" business. Churches should marry people, government should enforce contracts. If two people (consenting adults) want to enter into a legal contract, they should be able to do it.

Freedom, ha! Better change your log in name to other things you aren't: respectful, intelligent, tolerant, even nice.
How is voting yes for "freedom"?

Jesse,
I hat to burst your preconceived bubble but I am very happy for your marriage. I have many friends from different races who are married and the idea that it was ever illegal is puzzling. A man and a women from whatever race have the anatomical ability to have children. I understand sometimes, for medical reasons, they cannot. I do not know a single person who supports the amendment that wishes to take away that right from you. However, there is enough proof that same sex attraction has nothing to do with genetics and is a lifestyle choice. Yes, those that chose the lifestyle will flame me intensely for saying that, but then isn't that in your face manner how they scare many into silence? If you express a different opinion and you own a business they will attempt to drive you out of business and quiet your freedom of speech. You even see people being called nazis here because they express a different opinion. How will you vote when people try to return the freedom to marry multiple wives? How about returning the age of consent to 9 as Delaware had in the 1880's? At what point do we finally say that a lifestyle should not be forced on the country as a whole? There is much evidence that points to homosexuality as a lifestyle choice. Those that support the lifestyle will immediately demonize those that scientifically studied it and disagree that it's genetic. They will get called names and attempts will be made to destroy there careers.

Other than a possible study coming out of Oral Roberts, can you let me know where to find all this evidence that suggests sexual orientation is a choice?

Per Kent: “…isn’t that in your face manner how they scare many into silence? … they will attempt to drive you out of business and quiet your freedom of speech … a lifestyle should not be forced on the country as a whole … attempts will be made to destroy there careers.”

Most homosexuals spend a significant percentage of their lives “in the closet” to some degree or another. So …

1. There is a whole lot of the extreme opposite of “in your face” going on all around us every day, and it is pretty safe to assume it is not because anyone enjoys hiding who they are. I believe it is predominantly to

a. spare some people the discomfort of facing a reality they don’t understand and/or can’t accept, and

b. avoid some of the discrimination that would certainly result.

2. Who is scaring who? It is hard to imagine that those of us in the majority (heterosexuals), those of us who have the greatest amount of power and privilege, are the victims in all of this.

3. Whose freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom to be who they are is really being denied? As a heterosexual, I don’t need that closet.

4. The minority, homosexuals, are trying to force their lifestyle on us, the heterosexual majority? Really? Members of the majority have proposed an amendment to ensure that we will be able to continue forcing our lifestyle/marriages as the only acceptable lifestyle/marriages.

Even if the amendment doesn’t pass, homosexuals will likely still feel like the heterosexual lifestyle is forced on them. (That is part of being a member of a minority group; the minority experience is overshadowed by and potentially even invisible to the majority.) Failure of the amendment won’t even give homosexuals the option to marry in MN.

5. Ever been afraid you might lose your job if your employer found out that you were a heterosexual? Theoretically, homosexuals should not be afraid. Uh, huh … I am sure that homosexuals never worry that someone who doesn’t like their “lifestyle” will find a subtle, covert way to take away their job.

6. It is very hard to picture people choosing a lifestyle that requires them to be “in the closet” and/or face discrimination day after day.

I am sorry if I sound angry here, but sometimes it does make me angry that we are not further along, that members of a majority group can still do this kind of thing to a minority group. I can only hope that we will grow in our love and understanding of each other and evolve in our attitudes and behaviors toward each other.

“Those … they … them” … Can we try to get to US, all of us, PLEASE?

Shari,
You didn't sound angry and I appreciate people who can express their opinions in an educated way although I disagree with some of what you say. Attempting to close down a business for expressing their beliefs is actually worse than them coming out against homosexuality. There is evidence that the lifestyle is a choice. EVERYONE has a conciense or voice inside them that wishers to do things. For some it is a voice that tells them to be attracted to a same sex person. To others it may be to desire multiple wives. A serial killer has the same little voice inside ( No I am not trying to equate homosexuality with serial killing but explain the conflicting things different people hear). It is how we answer that voice that makes all the difference. If we are going to consider it discrimination to accept the alternative lifestyle of homosexuality then we must also consider it discrimination to reject other choices in lifestyles. At what point do we stand up and say enough? There is ample evidence of people who were "straight" becoming homosexual and the turning back and loving someone of the opposite gender. Part of our problem is we are indoctrinating our children in schools with the idea that no matter it is ok to love someone in a physical way and we equate that to a emotional level. I have same sex friends who I care deeply about. However, I was taught that there is a difference between a physical and emotional love.

Emotional love is simply the desire to be able to connect with a person and understand each other on a stronger level. Some people find it easier to connect with same sex people on that level but then they are immediately labeled as homosexual and are told they must embrace the lifestyle. Those people would be very happy in a heterosexual lifestyle but feel they must be what they are being told. There is nothing genetic or mysterious behind it. They end up in a physical relationship that may very well have done better on an emotional level. There are many wives who cannot communicate with their husbands well on an emotional level. Some seek out girlfriends to connect with on that level and maintain a very healthy relationship ion both sides. The number of people who are called homosexual is artificially inflated by those that try the lifestyle thinking that is how they will find true love only to get stuck because they now feel stuck. Yes they are trying to force a lifestyle choice on everyone. Most if not all heterosexuals do not drive around with signs or bumper stickers saying they are straight. They do not purposely display a religious symbol that has been stolen to support a cause that is directly in conflict with those that are religious. It is no accident they chose a rainbow. They knew it would directly attack those that understood its meaning. People choose a lifestyle that gives them satisfaction.

A serial killer does not choose it because he wants to go to jail. A bigamist does not choose the lifestyle because he wants people to think he is a pervert. A 24 real old teacher that falls in love with a 16 year old student does not want to lose their job because they could not help who they fell in love with. But they all chose that path when they listened to the voice in their heads and did not fully understand the implications or alternatives. I know I am unpopular here because in todays world we are being taught to accept everyone no matter what. It will not be much longer before our country is forced to accept a religion (and its laws) that turns women into something similar to slaves under the guise of tolerance. We allow other religions space in school to pray but the ACLU will sue a school district because a teacher puts up a menorah but does not even tell the students what it means. Our "tolerant" society forces cities to not allow a cross that was placed on a building over 150 years ago but accepts when another religion is taught in school under the guise of teaching our children alternatives. If you really want to look at a group of people who are "discriminated" against ( I realize they are whatever religion by choice) maybe we should look at christians. They are being attacked by every direction. Hmmm I wonder how many people are now labeling me because of the direction my post took??

Kent, "Christians are being attacked from every direction"; really? You make that claim, even implicating the ACLU in fostering discrimination against Christians, when the ACLU DEFENDS the rights of Christians:
http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/
You make that claim when stores are full of Christmas decorations before the end of October, when even government buildings sport Christmas trees and wreaths, when almost every radio station plays Christmas music non-stop in December, when there is a church on almost every other corner where I live, when almost every home is decked out in Christmas decorations, when Christians openly practice their religion without impediment and without coercion to stop or to convert. If same sex marriage is legalized, you and your church will not be forced to do anything, your church will still be free to refuse to officiate at or to recognize same sex marriages, just as the Catholic church is not required to recognize civil divorce.
Homosexuality is neither a choice nor a lifestyle, and discrimination against homosexuals is heinous, resulting in real abuse of homosexuals.

Joyce,
Yes from my readings the ACLU has done more harm than good to the Christian religion. The fact that there is a small list of lawsuits they have taken up to support the faith does not really help hide their general leanings. Stores selling Christmas trees and radios playing Christmas music really has nothing to do with Christians. Try singing a true Christian Christmas song in a school sometime they will run you out as soon as the lawyers can arrive. A long time ago Christmas became about Santa clause and gift giving (getting) more than the Christian celebration of a birth. In fact if you attempt to celebrate in a traditional way on public grounds you will most likely get sued by one of the many groups who have appointed themselves guardians over everyones "right" to not be uncomfortable in thinking there may be something more out there. Churches on every corner also does not mean people support them. In fact I hear all the time of churches closing and merging. Christmas lights and trees are not a "Christian" symbol in todays world. I am happy you brought up this misconception though because it helps prove my point. You seem to believe we are a Christian nation and I see us headed in the opposite direction. Many lawsuits have been brought against Christians and their celebrations to remove them from the mainstream of our society. But this thread was not supposed to be about the Christian faith so I will not digress further.

Thank you Jesse. This whole issue IS the same. Our children will look back on the people now fighting against same-sex marriage with the same shame and awe at the bigotry it takes, as my generation does, at the whites who fought against mixed race marriages.

Alexis,
You are right in the future our children will look back and shake their heads. Why? Because "science" in the US is a joke. The society we now face of allowing anything that makes us happy will destroy us. If it makes you happy, then do it. Get pregnant? Don't worry, just kill the kid and keep going. Want to do drugs? Don't worry we will have it all legalized soon after all you should be allowed to do what makes you happy.
Smart kids who can think for themselves will not equate a lifestyle choice with a skin color. One can be changed the other cannot. And yes there is proof of changing homosexual tendencies successfully. Kind of kills the genetic claims.

AC,
Gladly, and thank you for asking. Although you have already stated that facts cannot change your vote as you are voting no so I am I a bit confused why you ask. I would encourage you to begin with the following paper I just found.
http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf
Do not accept the writers words only though, especially since many here will immediately slam the source website as "conservative". Read the studies and research cited. Notice the part where the author describes one researcher who was "roundly attacked by homosexual activists". This is how research and "science" get twisted. If the research does not give the desired put pressure on the researcher to change their position. Read the part about how the homosexual activists attached themselves to research that they claimed proved genetics when the researcher himself did not make that claim. In fact the researcher pointed to other possibilities. Vote no and I am sure others that choose alternate lifestyles (you don't agree with this time) can rely on your vote as well.

Homosexuality is about choice because it is about behavior, and behavior is always a choice.

Donald, Ah, you're in that camp, where you think homosexuality is a choice. Is being left-handed a choice? How about being color-blind? Why do you think that homosexuality is just about behavior?

Wow, homosexuality as a choice. It amazes me that there are still people who believe this.

Kelly,
Interestingly his research was not retracted. Why not, if he now "apologized" for his previous study. The publishers of his study cited Mr. Spitzer does not state the data was incorrect but rather he decided to interpret it differently. Why is that? In the original study the question about self reporting was brought up as a flaw in his research. He addressed it "I acknowledge that some response bias could certainly have occurred, but I find it hard to believe that it can explain all of the reported changes…Surely if bias were present, one would expect that subjects (as well as their spouses) would be motivated to give particularly glowing accounts of marital functioning. They did not. (p. 471)" Now in his "retraction he stated the opposite. His retraction and the "new findings" of science has more to do with science wanting to be liked than actually reporting on facts.
More facts about him and his retraction "Before and after the study was published, Spitzer confirmed that he was getting a high volume of hate mail and anger directed at him (Spitzer, 2003b; Vonholdt, 2000). A decade of being hammered by your friends, colleagues, and the gay community that once revered you would surely take a toll on any of us"

This is the common MO for groups attempting to push their agenda. Push the hate and anger and destroy the persons career until they agree with you.

Do you wonder why the APA and other institutions do not conduct research into the outcome of SOCE? Why do they find it unnecessary to attempt to get to the real truth? An APA task force actually called for further research into SOCE but was ignored. Why? Because it is not politically popular. You can ignore the facts that science today is becoming a joke because it is more about whats popular that factual. These types of "retractions" help prove it. Isn't it interesting that the APA canceled a 2008 study on the relationship between religion and homosexuality because "gay activist objected". Why would seeking answers be objectionable? Why did ex-gay groups concerns over the lack of representation of "pro-reparative-therapy" on a 2007 task force about reparative therapy seem to get ignored. Remember these were people who had previously been labeled homosexual saying they thought there should be more representation of their side.
It is anyones right to stick their heads in the sand and accept our "enlightened" science as honest but the data does not back it up. Here is a bother interesting fact
“In an attempt to evaluate the research findings, the APA put together a very biased, six member task force of individuals to look at the scientific literature regarding the issue of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE). Each member of this task force was opposed to SOCE, and not one proponent of SOCE was included on the task force.
This is our current "science" at work

You are right. Science cannot prove it is genetic. They make wild claims about all sorts of possibilities and hope you will ignore the facts. Read the articles about all the different ways they claim a person who chooses the lifestyle might be different and therefore its genetic. Most are laughable. There is plenty out there go read it. Problem is must opponents of the amendment immediate attack the source of differing opinions to minimize the impact on their psyche.

"Discrimination" is already ingrained in our constitution. Try marrying more than one spouse at the same time. Try being 14 and trying to marry your 18 year old boyfriend/girlfriend. Try being 18 and marrying a 10 year old. Try being a 22 year old teacher and having a relationship with a 17 year old student and you are both in love. Remember in the USA as late as the 1800 the age of consent in some places was 9. Granted kids were more mentally and emotionally mature than they are now but then again to say everyone age XX is incapable of making decisions may very well be wrong. A 17 year old knows full well what the results of a relationship are. All these examples involve two people that "love" each other but their relationship is illegal.

Nice that you can see this so black and white when it is convenient. Why is 18 the legal age of consent? It wasn't in the past when kids moved out and began their own farms and careers at 16. Why should the current definition of "adult" take away a 16year olds rights? Why can't a 20 year old drink? Where is their rights as "an adult" as you say. Why can't a world war 2 vet smoke in the local bar? Who decided it? How many people have been tried and convicted for disagreeing with your "red herring"? In some cases they served their time and married the person our legal system tried to force them from not being with. So what you have said is your definition of right (and whoever created the current law taking away others rights) is what we should all go by. Interesting...

What make a consenting adult? You cannot make claims like this without considering all the lifestyles. No analogy to the military is appropriate. Otherwise there are pedophiles who also served our country, are you going to say lets support them? Remember in recent times somebody claimed that 16-18 was a good age of consent when it was previously 9 as late as the 1880's. Some people emotionally mature sooner than others and may desire to get married. Who are you to stop them? Remember despite claims to the contrary there are people who have returned to a heterosexual lifestyle and been even more happy. That would seem to prove a lifestyle choice.
Yes it is no more "injurious" than stopping someone from enjoying themselves smoking. Remember it is a lifestyle choice despite the claims just as smoking is. There is no science to prove otherwise and even the APA refuses to study those that have gone through therapy. Why? Because it is not popular to go against a militant group that labels those that disagree as haters.
Label it red herrings and ignore the facts thats fine. You cannot defend your lets let everyone be happy claims when asked and therefore admit you are the same as those who support the amendment.

I don't know that I see gay people as broke. However, there is a growing community of former gay people who now live a very happy heterosexual life.
You say it is a legal issue not a religious one yet I have not spoken of religion. In fact I have spoken about how if our legal system allows one alternate lifestyle it MUST allow all.
I cite how our legal system defined the age of "adult" and that definition means some, even heterosexual, cannot marry despite being in love and only wanting to be happy. We already have laws on our books that limit certain lifestyle choices. The same legal system created the 18 years old adult age and will not allow the same soldiers you point to to drink alcohol. Yet you try to make me feel bad by bringing up the soldiers who are gay as apparently being better than others who lack rights to be happy. I am surprised that you cannot understand the comparison. No, maybe I am not.

It isn't about military personnel. Pedophiles put on a uniform too but should we support them after all they "love" the person? While asking yourself these questions ask yourself at what point do we say a certain lifestyle choice goes over the edge? Despite others trying to trivialize the question it is very valid.

Ahh yes, the American Academy of Pediatric the same group that came out in support of a form of doctor genital mutilation to appease a religious group. They then retracted it after growing outrage. Now they come out in favor of gay marriage to appease the LGBT community. Isn't that interesting... So, for them, its more about supporting groups then science. They cite 25 years of studies but ignore conflicting studies.
The comparison to any other lifestyle choice is appropriate weather or not you like it. Our society calls an 18 year old adult who falls in love with a 13 year old a pedophile. Why? a 13 year old can certainly be emotionally mature as they were in the past. Do I agree with the idea? No but that does not change the validity of the argument. As for your comment of how well kids do with same sex parents, nothing beats a child raised by a married mother and father. In fact some studies have shown that being raised by same gender parents causes feminization of boys and masculinization of girls. I guess the GLBT community likes this study as it guarantees they will get their way in the future. If you believe in evolution then you must accept that it takes a man and women to continue or race. If we are to believe in evolution then we must believe that homosexual tendencies (if genetic) would have been eliminated from our society by not procreating. However, we rate being told it is increasing. Why? because or society is now teaching homosexual tendencies.

It is difficult to give credence to a position that "this amendment would be harmful to children and adolescents in Minnesota" when the amendment does no more than legally affirm the status quo.

This implies that the organization believes that marriage as currently defined is "harmful" in some way. I'd be interested in knowing exactly how they think that works.

Donald, how can legislating bigotry and hate into the State Constitution not affect kids? What do you say to gay kids as to why they don't have the same rights as heterosexual kids?

The marriage amendment does one thing. It reserves the word "marriage" to the currently defined institution of marriage. It does not "legislate bigotry". It changes almost nothing. Any "bigotry" that was legislated is already in state law.

Donald, I said that it writes it into the state Constitution, which is very significant. It it weren't, and the change were "almost nothing," why are you going through this exercise?

The purpose of the amendment is to make it harder for the courts to change the law by judicial fiat. That is significant, but the amendment changes nothing in state law. The definition of marriage and the status of homosexuality WRT marriage are unaffected.

If this is "bigotry", it is a very strange definition of bigotry - support of the status quo.

Donald, call it what you want, and justify it any way you want also. It's prejudice, and it is forcing us to follow a religious beliefs of others. Remove this from the government dockets, and have the government define what a union is. That way you and your church can define marriage any way you want, but a union is the only thing a government recognize.

Spewing hate? Please explain how having a difference of opinion is spewing hate? I am not trying to get companies closed that oppose the amendment. I am not trying to get the government to silence opponents by writing laws that make it a crime to speak out. I am not calling researchers and trying to force them to change their minds. It has been documented there is no compelling science on either side of the argument that is indisputable. In fact the lack of non biased science proves the lack of genetics. So we are back to lifestyle choice.
My having an "axe to grind" is equally laughable. Definition is: having a selfish reason for saying or doing something. Since I am not asking these questions for any personal gain but rather a hope that our society will not begin down the road of accepting lifestyles as equal to race and therefore protected by law. Once this happens we MUST allow everyones lifestyle as equal no matter how much we dislike it.
So just label me a hater and forget thinking critically. You cannot deny what I have said and can only offer flawed and politically motivated research. One person even cited a retraction by a scientist who spoke against homosexual marriage. Unfortunately the researcher could not retract his data as it was not considered faulty. He could only claim to have a new hypothesis created by pressure from the LGBT community. What I offer has a lot of substance. It just takes logic to understand and not emotion.

By the way your "hypothesis" of my past is a pretty funny joke and one used often by the LGBT community to try an d discredit opponents. So I guess you have nothing new to offer.

Inclination, or as some call it "orientation", may or may not be "born that way", but homosexual behavior is about behavior, just as heterosexuality, and asexuality.

Inclination is secondary for human beings, who are ruled by the higher brain, not base, uncontrolled passions. We are not animals at the mercy of whatever instincts we are given.

So you say that we ARE animals at the mercy of whatever instincts we are given?

I certainly hope not. Civilization is based on the idea that we are not.

Donald, your notion that homosexuality is simply the manifestation of a behavior is bizarre. Are you suggesting that this legislation is about controlling a behavior? I see it as codifying in the state Constitution the denial of legal rights (Government-sanctioned marriage, after all, is a legal contract, not a religious one) to a group of individuals based on their sexual orientation. Even if your hypothesis that homosexuality were solely an inclination were true, so is the practice of religion, so one could easily argue that denying a religious group the ability would also be just simply because you find their "inclinations" to be immoral or against your own beliefs.

By the way, no need to put the word "bigotry" in quotes, because it's not just so-called, this measure suits the definition of bigotry, which Webster says is "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."

"Bigotry" should be in quotes because it refers to something people cannot control such as skin color. The current definition has been changed by people who want to. If you want to take it one step farther you are a bigot as well. I am sure your alarms are raised and saying how dare you but the rest of the current definition says:a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". You do not tolerate opposing points of view and probably never accept they might be correct. Are you prepared to wear a burka anytime you go outside? To do otherwise shows you are intolerant to a religious belief.
There is plenty of people that have turned from homosexual to heterosexual and been even happier. That alone is PROOF it is not genetic. Of course those that support the lifestyle will say "oh that person was not really homosexual" What a joke.

Kelly,
There is NO concrete proof that homosexuality is nothing more than behavior. There are studies that try to link everything they can to prove a genetic link but non exists. Eventually science will say it enough times and perfect a good enough lie that even more people will believe it. You see it as allowing legal rights to something you agree with. That makes it fine because you agree. But when the next alternative lifestyle uses the same argument what will you say? It has been argued here that its between 2 consenting adults and that makes it legal because they are both happy. However, that ignores the fact that we also legally defined "adult" first to be an arbitrary age imposed on everyone.

Donald,
That is exactly what they are saying. They say they cannot control their desires which is the same thing they say when they lock up predators. It is the same thing a polygamist says when they get exposed. And if you didn't notice our civilization is changing. The groups that kill and intimidate are growing in power. It is the ones who dumbly let it happen that will some day wonder what happened.

Kent, I joined the conversation early and then just sat back and read the comments. Now I feel inclined to jump in again. I have a few questions, if you don't mind. As this conversation has been going for several days, and I have also been monitoring and taking part in other debates, please forgive me if I am asking you to repeat things you have already stated. First, how many gay people do you know, and have you specifically asked them if they were born gay? Have you told them that you feel they can be "fixed"? And if these questions are yes, may I ask what their responses were?

Although I did see one study that you linked, it seems to have been refuted. Can you tell me what all your proof is in reference to changing a homosexual's sexual "preference" to that of heterosexual? Thanks.

Kelly, just a head's up. I used that same definition recently, and it was Donald that said almost the same thing that Kent did here. Donald is fond of asking for specific definitions and then taking on said definition instead of the core issue.

Kent and Donald seem to have the same position on homosexuality, and I would like to see more proof that homosexuality is a choice, or that it can be "fixed". This of-course will bring on questions of proof that it is not. Science is getting there, but not quite there yet, so I would ask, why would someone "choose" to live a life that goes against society norms, brings on great ridicule, hostility, discrimination, and judgement? Or maybe ask, why do some people choose to live this life in secret instead of in public? Who would "choose" this for themselves?

Please don't give me the "well pedophiles don't choose to be pedophiles either" argument.....Pedophiles prey on victims, which is why it is illegal....homosexuals are consenting in their relationships, and to imply otherwise or that there is a similarity is beyond insulting.

I know a couple of gay people including family members. One family member began to consider themselves gay. However, they were abused as a child by school mates of the same gender. I am purposely leaving out gender their gender. Other gay people I know considered themselves gay younger but all had situations like low self esteem or broken families. As a result of low self esteem were uncomfortable talking with members of the opposite sex. Are they happy now? Depends on who you talk to. Some will tell you it is not the life they expected or desired but to "go straight" now would alienate the only friends they have. You see people who leave the homosexual lifestyle prove the choice component. I am perfectly willing to discuss this with anyone. In fact, I feel our society is doing them more damage by telling them to do whatever makes them happy. Howeer, I will say that when I talk to homosexual people about the subject they are normally VERY combative I am called names and told I am ignorant. When I show studies they do the same thing people here do. Ignore and claim bias or ignorance by the papers writer. If the person is discussing others research they simply discredit them because what could that person possibly know?

Susan,
As for "refuting my comments" only speculation and bogus research have been pointed too. Our "scientists" have been told by a militant community what the results will be. They have labeled anyone who disagrees as haters and worse. People here will never believe anything that is contrary to their beliefs not matter where it comes from. They refuse to accept that people are "cured" from the lifestyle choice. Groups that show it can be done and are supported by former homosexual community members are called hate groups and all attempts are made to discredit them. Even the APA that was cited here would not properly study "treatment" despite their own workgroup suggesting it. They pointed to one study to refute me saying the researcher retracted his research. However, That was not true. Under documented pressure he rewrote his conclusions. The publisher and general community said there was nothing wrong with his data. As for pedophiles remember a 19 year old that falls in love with a 13 year old (who could previously run a household just fine historically) would now be labeled a pedophile. A 22 year old teacher who falls in love with a 16 year old student (even if not in their class) is called a predator. When I link a study or paper written I expect people will read the citations and see if the writer has a point. Nobody here really does that. But what do I expect?

THANK YOU KELLY. You just proved my points.
"This of-course will bring on questions of proof that it is not. Science is getting there, but not quite there yet"
Despite supporters of the lifestyle calling it genetic it cannot be proved. As I have stated before scientists will continue to make things up until they create a lie enough people will believe or the lifestyle choice gets accepted and there is no longer a need to research it. Remember research today is built on studies already done. Previous studies/research is cited in current papers despite the previous results being proven as not accurate. People do not look back at the research and vet it properly and instead accept it as fact. Those that disagree and point out the problems are again labeled as haters.

You then say "I would ask, why would someone "choose" to live a life that goes against society norms, brings on great ridicule, hostility, discrimination, and judgement?"
Really? Why would anyone do anything to create this response? Yet how many people are in jail or demeaned in society for their decision to do what they wanted to? Why do we outlaw prostitution and many look down on those that participate on either side of the transaction? Apparently President Obama rich people should be looked down on. They should never be able to run for office. How many people consider it cool to be in conflict with norms and rules? President Clinton was upheld as honorable by a large potation of the US despite what he did impacting his wife, child, and the nation as a whole. Being counter to accepted norms is a growing theme in our society and probably will continue. Someone asked earlier about our societies future. I would say that given the direction we are on now it is over. Our country has lasted for this long because of its beliefs and rules. I disagree with slavery and the idea that race=superiority and was a result am glad that was overturned. Race is not changeable and nor should it be. However, there is PROOF that homosexuality is changeable.

Kent, first, read Kelly's link above about Dr. Spitzer. Please pay close attention to what he is saying. The remorse, the apologies, and what changed his mind....it was someone referred to him for said study (although he did not participate), who was confused at the time, but realized that this type of thinking actually hurt him overall.

Kent wrote: "How many people consider it cool to be in conflict with norms and rules?" I don't know, but it certainly seems counterproductive to their cause to commit suicide while in their teens because they can't stop this "conflict" within their own body, or "coolness" of the mind.

Kent wrote: "Why do we outlaw prostitution and many look down on those that participate on either side of the transaction?" What on earth does this have to do with homosexuality?

Kent wrote: "Apparently President Obama rich people should be looked down on." Really? He's one of them, that also seems counterintuitive.

Kent wrote" "However, there is PROOF that homosexuality is changeable." Wrong, read what Doctor Sptizer says today. Continually relying on one study, with 200 subjects only giving testimony of memories, to show proof that sexuality is a choice is such a weak argument it is almost laughable. The fact that the person who conducted the study is now apologizing for that study, makes it not only laughable, but hysterically disingenuous.

Just a correction above. Kent incorrectly attributed this quote to Kelly: "This of-course will bring on questions of proof that it is not. Science is getting there, but not quite there yet." This was my quote. I do not say this for the supposed glory, but because I don't want Kelly getting any condemnation (if it should come) for the comment.

We are not ruled by our inclinations or attractions. All sexual behavior is under our control.

The amendment does not say one word about homosexuality.

It is revealing that the "vote no" crowd zeroes in on the amendment's likely effects, and ignores its core, which is to make it more difficult for the COURTs to change law without legislative action.

There is no hate, or bigotry, or discrimination in the amendment. It re-states the status quo. If the status quo is so hateful, then it needs to be changed, but that can happen whether or not the marriage amendment passes. It can and should happen via the people's representatives - in the legislature - not the courts.

The intolerant are here in this forum, believing that they have a monopoly on science, truth, and virtue.

Donald, the notion that this isn't about homosexuality is incredibly disingenuous. And by codifying it into the Constitution, it doesn't leave it to the Legislature, it leaves it to the voters because that's the only way the Constitution can be changed.

As to the allegation that this amendment doesn't change anything, it most definitely and substantially does. We do not have a true democracy in this country; it is a representative democracy.

We elect legislators to legislate, officials to execute the laws, and jurist to rule on the legalities of both. Suggesting that "judicial fiat" is more onerous that a ballot initiative is absurd. Ballot initiatives leave legislative decisions to the people who are least-prepared to make policy decisions, and thus are most easily influenced by persons such as you who mislead them.

Having lived in California for more than a decade, I have seen first-hand that the majority of people don't take the time to understand issues, much less the long-term consequences of their decision. For example, Proposition 13, which limited the government's ability to raise a homeowner's property taxes, is more responsible than anything single action for the state's economic troubles.

As I suggested to Kent, explain to me where you find intolerance in my comments. I fully accept and respect your opinion, but I disagree with it and do not want your view of normalcy, and the discrimination it implies, to be written into the Constitution.

Donald, anyone can make the connection from the vote on this amendment to gay marriage, it's easy enough to understand - although I will admit, I am shocked when I come across those few people do think this is a vote for gay marriage.

Donald wrote: " It can and should happen via the people's representatives - in the legislature - not the courts." Then why the need for this amendment? It is just so these "activist" judges can not impose their will on the people....well, not quite. Their job is to determine a conclusion based on the law, the Constitution. This amendment is nothing more than an attempt to take that away....it goes against how our system should works...or should we do away with the judicial system?

Donald wrote: "The intolerant are here in this forum, believing that they have a monopoly on science, truth, and virtue." I think you know better. If someone voices science as an affirmation of their argument, why can we not dispute that argument with science? Or at least disprove said science? Aren't truth and virtue in the eye of the beholder if the argument can't be made with science?

Donald, I think you can do better than this, and because you haven't makes me believe that you also have no argument against homosexuality other than you think it is immoral. Whether it is religious belief, morals, or values, you can still hold them, but don't force them on others...

To Kelly: there is nothing disingenuous about my comments. I do not accuse others of dishonesty and expect the same in return. Read it.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Minnesota_Same-Sex_Marriage_Amendment_(2012)

Nothing in the law - statutes - will change one way or another on election day, whether the amendment passees or not. "Gay" marriage will remain illegal. Traditional marriage will be exactly the same as it was on November 1st.

What will be different, if the amendment passes, is that it will be much harder to use the word "marriage" in future legislation for "other relationships". It will also be much harder for the courts to make that decision for us.

To Susan: There are obviously many people who do not know what this amendment does, as shown by many of the comments on this forum.

I have no political position, for or against, homosexuality. It's none of my business.

I object strongly to the idea that activists might force a redefinition of the term "marriage" down my throat, enforced by law.

Who are the real "haters"? It may be they are those who hate religion, standards of behavior, and traditional limits on sexuality.

It is striking to me that when I express an opinion, I'm a bigot, a hater, or ignorant, simply because I do not accept the currently fashionable ideas of virtue, science and truth.

Civil discourse depends on _mutual_ respect.

gaaahhh...
It is not different. Why is 18 considered legal age? Historically kids much younger ran households. Someone created a law limiting their rights to be happy, love, and marry. You are now saying homosexuality is more important than those people because under 18 do not have your legal blessing. Remember neither do homosexuals right now. So, for you, it is fine to say change the laws for your point of view but not someone else's.
So your lifestyle choice is better than theirs and you simply say thats the way the law sees it... It is part of my debate because the say no group says it is all about being happy "just let me be happy". But when I point to other lifestyles and choices you simply point to a created legal age and say well it's not legal for them because they are not adults. You talk in a complete circle. If you support one lifestyle choice then you must support every one. When you do kiss our society goodbye.

Kent, as a guy who supposedly relies on studies, have you read the studies (proof) that the adolescent mind is not fully capable of adult thought, deduction, and consequences? This is why law, and marriage evolves. We learn from past mistakes. We learn from science, we learn from tragedies, we learn, and we change. Homosexuality is no different.

My answer was already in my posts. Historically kids in their early to mid teens had farms and careers. There was no study needed to tell them they were mature enough. When their parents felt they were ready off they went. In some schools the male students would be older than the teacher. Now we have a government that lumps everyone together and says too bad if you are more mature than someone else that happens to be the same physical age..

Kent, so do you want to base your opinion on "studies" or not? You can't have it both ways....deny and/or ignore the studies about the adolescent brain for the purpose of your argument, but rely solely on one study for the sake of your homosexuality argument.

Failure of the amendment will not change the law on marriage.

Passage of the amendment will not change the law on marriage.

The amendment will make it harder to CHANGE the law in ways that some wish.

If there is bigotry in the law, it is already there.

Those are the facts. I would hope that such facts, in black an white, are beyond dispute. Without agreement on unassailable facts, it is hard to have a useful conversation.

Some of us do not consider my position bigotry. So far, at least (see below), this is not established in law.

Today, it's called disagreement. Unless you think you have a monopoly on virtue and the truth, it is wise to avoid name calling.

Homosexual marriage does not affect me any more than homosexual behavior in private does. However, recognizing those marriages in law, and declaring that those who disapprove are "haters" or "bigots", and enforcing that declaration with "anti-discrimination" law is poison. It means that thousands of years of sexual mores will become illegal hate speech. It means that anti-discrimination law will be applied to a class that is defined by its *behavior*. THAT is completely unacceptable, and is precisely the agenda of many on the "vote no" side.

My planned "yes" vote looks better every time I read another rant about how ignorant, bigoted and wrong I am. It is clear that the agenda on the "no" side is aggressive, intolerant, and "hateful" toward its opponents.

Okay, Donald. You have read many of my comments. I am just trying to get a handle on where your comments are directed. Do you consider me one of those people who considers you a bigot, ignorant, or wrong? Or should I assume you will ignore this because it is directed at you specifically?

I make an effort to avoid directing my comments at individuals, especially when they can be interpreted as attacks. I have not kept track of who has accused me of what, but this issue often boils down to simply dismissing anyone who supports the amendment as "religious", "prejudiced", and other less gentle critical descriptive terms.

I know you (Susan) make an effort to be civil and courteous. I thank you for that.

I don't always ignore directed comments, but there are only so many hours in the day.

Kent, I certainly don't hate you, you just don't seem to understand what it means to be a homosexual. You are also coming to conclusions based on false information. If you are open to a suggestion, I would just ask you to get in your community and get to know some gay people. Ask them questions, and try to really listen to their answers without judgement.

I would also like to say that if gay marriage does eventually become legal, it will not change your morals, values, religious beliefs, or your marriage. No one is asking that those be taken away from you, they are just asking that you consider what it might be like to be different through no fault of your own.

Empathy is not a prerequisite for judgement. I am not a gambler. I don't have to "know what it's like" to disapprove of gambling.

"Gay marriage" is not about changing my values, but is very much about limiting my exercise of those morals and values. It is about "putting me in the closet" with any action or belief that may be "discriminatory" - by force of law.

Donald, please tell me how gay marriage will impede the practice of your values by force of law. Then please explain how you're OK with the converse: That it's OK to prohibit homosexuals practice of their values by force of law.

Kent, I don't hate you. I don't know you. And as I've said before, I respect and honor your freedom of choice and opinion. What I object to, and I guess hate is an appropriate word, is the imposition of your morals, your view of what is legitimate science and the world, your theory of what is "normal" on others, whose behaviors and lifestyle have absolutely nothing to do with you. And while you object to being called a bigot, you've no qualms about comparing homosexuals to predators and animals.

One of my favorite book titles is "What You Think of Me Is None of My Business." I believe that's true. Where it becomes my business is when you start to act on your opinions in a way that affects me, my family, and my friends. Gay marriage doesn't hurt you, it merely goes against your notion of what is right and wrong. You should have no more ability to impose your value system on me as I do you, and as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, we should be able to live as a community. I believe that is a fundamental our country was built on, and too many have died for that freedom for it to be so casually and callously ignored.

Ahh yes another name caller. Just because someone disagrees with you they must be repressing some tendencies? It is common in militant communities to create labels in an attempt to demean those opposed into silence. After all who want to be called names. The same argument could be said about you but from the opposite side. Some could label you socially subversive, morally bankrupt, ethically challenged, or a host of other names. Broad brush strokes are very dangerous to use. You have not done the vote no argument any help.

Joyce,
That is precisely what will happen and already is.
In Canada it is now considered a hate crime to speak against the homosexual community. You can be fined or jailed for having a conservative view of marriage and not providing the homosexual community with the same rights as heterosexuals. In other words churches are FORCED to not discuss or preach positively about homosexuality. Google it you may be surprised at why you read.
http://stevenbirnspeaks.com/2012/04/26/homosexual-agenda-attacks-religious-freedom/
In England the 2006 "Equity act" made it illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation even if it goes against your beliefs.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270364/Christian-preacher-hooligan-charge-saying-believes-homosexuality-sin.html

In the US President Obama signed a "hate crime" bill that gives sexual orientation the same rights as race in violent crimes. Although I deplore any violent crime this is the first step in what will be a short series of steps to make it illegal to even give opposing opinions. This is already evident in our science community that attacks those who speak against homosexuality.
So yes Joyce those that support the amendment will be forced to either shut up or support the homosexual agenda. The religious freedom written into our constitution will once again be walked all over. By the way what is the definition of a liberal church? One that decided to rewrite the bible to suit their beliefs instead of the opposite.

Once again, Kent, your so-called research is not scientific research. You rely on information from such organizations as the True Origin Archive, which identifies its mission as exposing the truth about evolution. Your citations about restricting freedom of speech are not from original sources and fail to accurately describe the laws and their intentions. For example, the prohibition on restricting the use of churches to heterosexuals targets churches that open up their facilities to the general public. So long as they keep their operations and facilities available only to church members, there is no problem, but opening them up to the public puts them on the same plain as any other meeting or event facility. The proposed ordinance clearly states that.

So, let's be clear. To maintain religious freedom requires churches to "keep their operations and facilities available only to church members"??

This would mean that if sunday services were "open to the public", the church would become a "public accommodation", and would be barred from "discriminating", right? Can facilities "on the same plane as any other meeting or event facility" refuse to marry homosexuals?

That would be an interesting court case.

It seems to me that churches in that environment would face some pressure to have "closed" services. What a sad day that would be, when welcoming new members can only be done by subjecting your liturgy and freedom to practice to government scrutiny.

Kelly,
... I expect you will read the articles and then follow to the citations given. Just because you do not like the group writing the article does not mean they are wrong or less accurate. Since you cite the True origin article, which was written by 3 Ph.D's, did you google the reports they discuss? Who wrote that research? If you are going to discredit an author you had BETTER understand why you are doing so. Since you deny the author's assertions how are they inaccurate? What education level do you have and in what field that allows you to discredit their findings?
As for churches. Almost every church believes in talking to the people and expressing their beliefs and has been open for people/groups to come in. So you are for starving people now? A church that feeds starving people no matter what their beliefs is not allowed to discuss their beliefs. To limit any religion from expressing themselves outside their walls is against our constitution. That is expressly being done currently in other countries and it will be only a matter of time before it is done here. Our government is trying to stop churches from following their beliefs and force them to either stop offering services or be forced to go against their teachings. How can you possibly see that as good? Oh yeah because the churches are being forced to do what you want. In that case government is good. If a church attempts to use the constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and religion then church is bad.

More recent research than many of the articles cited actually are showing that there may be some genetic factor at play.

To believe that there is a "final" answer as to the nature of homosexuality is clearly not a realistic reading of the current research and evidence.

But the argument is really quite beside the point since we live in a Free Country and not a Religious State.

In a Free Country consenting adults should be allowed to have sex with who they want, form relationships with who they want, and marry who they want.

That is one of the "risks" of living in a Free Country where people vote and where attitudes change.

This has been a constant battle, most recently with Gays in the Military, prior to that mixed race marriage, women voting, blacks voting, blacks not being bought and sold, blacks and whites serving together in the military, oh the list goes on and on and on - and in many if not all cases people used Religion, Genetics, etc... to justify many arguments against not allowing some group do something and of course once that "something" happened society went on and the people who were opposed moved on to some new cause.

Once Marriage is legalized for gay folks (and there is no doubt it will be - it is just a matter of time) - those opposed to it will quickly drop it as an issue as their prophecies of doom won't occur - and they will run along to join a new cause that unless stopped will certainly destroy us...

Kent wrote: 'Our government is trying to stop churches from following their beliefs and force them to either stop offering services or be forced to go against their teachings. How can you possibly see that as good? Oh yeah because the churches are being forced to do what you want.'
No, Kent, the government is not trying to stop churches from following their beliefs; no church will be forced to recognize same sex marriage.
However, Catholics and Conservative Christians are, in fact, trying to dictate to other religions, preventing them from following their beliefs. The fact is, Jews support same sex marriage, as do some Christian sects. Why should Catholics and Conservative Christians be able to tell Rabbis and the Priests and Ministers of Christian sects how to practice their religions?

Rob,
I have seen zero reports conclusively saying it is genetic. If you have something different please post it. As you say there is no conclusive evidence. But yet... we are told everyday it is genetic and therefore must be protected. How does that work?
We gave up a free country a long time ago and if you believe otherwise I would be surprised. Now militants trying to get laws passed that tell churches who they can associate with (must only be members). Laws are being passed saying it is a hate crime to speak out against homosexuality. Buildings that have had religious symbols on them for a hundred years are are having those symbols forcibly removed. No there is nothing free unless you hate religion and wish it was gone.
You then rehash the race discussion despite saying "To believe that there is a "final" answer as to the nature of homosexuality is clearly not a realistic reading of the current research and evidence." You cannot equate the race debate to this because as you point out there is NO proof it is genetic race is only a genetic argument.

Then you move inn to another previously discussed argument that it is between consenting adults. Why is 18 considered adult? Why must socially and emotionally mature 13 year olds not be allowed to marry? Why can't people marry multiple spouses? After all they are all consenting. Will the vote no people win? Eventually it will be forced upon the rest and open the door for every sexual vice to claim equal rights.

... Joyce... It's the same thing. Churches that are told they cannot open their doors to non-members because they preach against homosexuality are being restricted by the government from following their beliefs. How do you define conservative Christians? I see conservative Christians as those who do not believe in rewriting the bible to suit current social beliefs. If you would like to drop the religious aspect from the argument thats just fine. We are being told we must accept homosexuality as equal despite no proof it is genetic. If that holds then we must accept all lifestyle choices. Ready for your husband/wife to become a polygamist? Ready for your 13 year old to get married? No? Then you are a hypocrite.

Kent: I'm not sure which reality your worldview is based in, but it's certainly not the one the rest of us live in. You aren't being asked to accept homosexuality any more than you're being asked to (as Chris Kluwe so eloquently put it) "start thinking about penis." You're being asked to respect and honor your fellow Americans who are not doing you or your heteromarriage any harm by asking to be treated equitably under the law. Regardless of whether it's genetic or not, our Constitution provides equal protection for all citizens, which means that the law is applied without prejudice. Since opposition to and arguments against same-sex marriage are entirely religious in origin, the burden of proof is left to produce a convincing secular argument for why the LGBT community isn't deserving of equal recognition concerning marriage. Arguments against interracial marriage were Biblical in nature until 1967 when the Supreme Court struck then down as unconstitutional. Marriage is a civil and secular, not religious, institution, and it should stay that way.

Similarly, churches are not being persecuted for speaking out against homosexuality, or persecuted in general. What's changing is that religion isn't being allowed to operate with impunity and outside of the rules that everyone else is required to follow. Religious symbols that been displayed illegally on public buildings are no less illegal for having been there a hundred years. They're still illegal.

David,
""Kent: I'm not sure which reality your worldview is based in, but it's certainly not the one the rest of us live in." Really? Currently Homosexual marriage is not legal in MN. I guess, as you say, people in my reality decided that a definition should be added to the constitution to stop activist judges from throwing out current law.
"You're being asked to respect and honor your fellow Americans who are not doing you or your heteromarriage any harm by asking to be treated equitably under the law." Not true. Creating legal precedents for alternative lifestyle choices to be accepted and protected under our constitution is very damaging.
"Regardless of whether it's genetic or not, our Constitution provides equal protection for all citizens, which means that the law is applied without prejudice." Really? What is an adult and why is that considered adult age? Why? Can you marry multiple spouses? Why not, it's a lifestyle choice that hurts no one? Can you marry at 14? Why not if you are in love?
"Since opposition to and arguments against same-sex marriage are entirely religious in origin, the burden of proof is left to produce a convincing secular argument for why the LGBT community isn't deserving of equal recognition concerning marriage." Really? I have provided a great argument that has nothing to do with religion. I cannot help it if people cannot understand that one alternate lifestyle choice MUST be equal to all others.

David,
"Arguments against interracial marriage were Biblical in nature until 1967 when the Supreme Court struck then down as unconstitutional." And opposing interracial marriages was wrong. Race is genetic and therefore should be protected. "Christians" that said otherwise were misquoting the Bible just as those that use the Bible today to support homosexual lifestyles do.
"Similarly, churches are not being persecuted for speaking out against homosexuality, or persecuted in general." You cannot be serious here. Do a simple Google search and this is EASILY proven a complete lie. Starting in European countries and Canada it is also beginning here.
"What's changing is that religion isn't being allowed to operate with impunity and outside of the rules that everyone else is required to follow. " Really? So you support forcing religious groups, that have constitutional protection, into supporting or at least not speaking out against a lifestyle choice you happen to agree with? That would also be infringing on free speech. That would be 2 ways their rights are being taken away.

David,
"Religious symbols that been displayed illegally on public buildings are no less illegal for having been there a hundred years. They're still illegal." Thats the point they are not and never were illegal. The current anti Christian/religion movement in the US has decided they should not be "offended" by seeing,among other things, a cross (that says or does nothing and can actually represent multiple religions). They created the idea that it should not be on buildings because they cannot handle seeing it. If they were illegal wouldn't it have been left off when the building/buildings were built? How about our US senate chambers? What is the history there? I understand you are for destroying everything with morals that might be possibly related to Christianity.

Kent:

Homosexuality is not an alternative, nor is it a lifestyle. Both imply choice, and I chose neither. To do so would make me a masochist, as I have lost the relationship with my ultra-conservative Christian family, not to mention the abuse I've suffered from people like you. So let's leave choice out of this. Plus, I don't have a "lifestyle," unless you're talking about my sex life (which you are) and in which case I would say mind your own damn business.

You're right, same-sex marriage has been illegal in Minnesota since 1971. Same-sex marriage will be coming up before the U.S. Supreme Court in the next year, and we hope to see DOMA overturned as unconstitutional, which will make it difficult for states to continue to support discriminatory policies against same-sex couples.

Second, the federal government has allowed each state to set its own age of consent laws: 16 years old in 30 states, 17 yo in 9 states, and 18 yo in 12 states. The federal government is also free to set how many people it defines as comprising a marriage, but it must do so equitably and without prejudice.

In order to build a convincing case against same-sex marriage, you need to be able to prove without a reasonable doubt that same-sex unions are damaging and hurtful to individuals and to society. I'll save you the trouble: there is no case to be made. All arguments come down to "God says it's wrong," which is religious, not secular. Sorry, but religion has no place in lawmaking.

Kent:

Regardless of how you try to wriggle around it, displaying religious symbols or texts on government buildings is an endorsement and establishment of religion, which stands in clear violation of the No Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. America was not founded as a Christian nation. It was actually founded by Deists who wrote our Constitution based on Enlightenment values and morality--namely, that "all men are created equal." It says nothing about color, race, creed or sexual orientation. It clearly says that every human being is deserving of equal rights and recognition under the law (as the Fourteenth Amendment expanded upon).

As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice."

Kent wrote: "... Joyce... It's the same thing. Churches that are told they cannot open their doors to non-members because they preach against homosexuality are being restricted by the government from following their beliefs. How do you define conservative Christians? I see conservative Christians as those who do not believe in rewriting the bible to suit current social beliefs. If you would like to drop the religious aspect from the argument thats just fine. We are being told we must accept homosexuality as equal despite no proof it is genetic. If that holds then we must accept all lifestyle choices. Ready for your husband/wife to become a polygamist? Ready for your 13 year old to get married? No? Then you are a hypocrite."
There is so much wrong with this, I hardly know where to begin. First, what does genetics have to do with it? There is certainly plenty of evidence that homosexuals are born that way, and it is likely a combination of genetics and the hormonal environment inside the womb (which is probably why men with several older brothers are more likely to be gay than are men without older brothers). Even so, the question of genetics is irrelevant; civil marriage is a contract between two consenting adults who are not already close blood relatives. There is no reason why two people of the same gender should be denied entry into said civil contract...

Kent: Incidentally, NARTH (the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) has been condemned and disavowed by just about every human rights, psychological and psychiatric organization. That you would cite them at all reveals your deep-seated prejudice and ignorance. Furthermore, the pages you linked to here are either affiliated with NARTH or are nearly a decade or more old. I'd say you need up update your sources, but that implies considering new information.

David,
"Homosexuality is not an alternative, nor is it a lifestyle. Both imply choice, and I chose neither." Actually it is both despite every effort to have it classified otherwise. The only way one might otherwise classify it is a birth defect. Now before you get even more mad at me understand what I mean. Genetics decides how we will turn out and what trait is passed down from parents to children. Current pro homosexual science is looking into other ways that a homosexual may be born that way. This includes things like mothers who are stressed adding more hormones (not my science belief). If this overall argument that it is caused by lifestyle choices made by the parents then they are saying it is a defect caused by external sources because it modifies natural genetics.
"To do so would make me a masochist, as I have lost the relationship with my ultra-conservative Christian family, not to mention the abuse I've suffered from people like you." Not really, I believe you have these desires. Right or wrong is not mine to say. In fact for this to have resulted in your family coming apart is sad. I don't know how you can claim abuse from "people" like me. You have no idea who I am or how I would treat you. I believe you are still a good person worth loving and caring about. That does NOT mean I have to be forced into accepting a lifestyle choice. Remember there are many successful people who have left the homosexual lifestyle thereby proving it is a choice.

...Kent is worried that allowing same sex marriage will lead the way to polygamy and child marriage. Why would that happen? When same sex couples marry, marriage will remain a civil contract between TWO consenting adults; the contract would not need to be rewritten at all. Polygamy is a completely different issue; without getting into the possible pros and cons of polygamy, there is the problem that allowing polygamy would require a rewrite of the marriage laws to allow for child custody, inheritance, power of attorney and the like.
As for children marrying, when children can enter into legal contracts, then I guess they'll be allowed to marry; until then, that is nothing more than a red herring.
You worry about churches being prevented from following their beliefs; that will not happen. A Catholic Priest or a Christian Minister will be allowed to preach against homosexuality as much as he wants, with no consequences from the government, though they may lose some parishioners as a result. At issue are PUBLIC spaces for rent, such as social halls. If you want to rent the social hall out to the public, you may not discriminate. You may, however, refuse to officiate at or recognize same sex marriages, and you may continue to condemn homosexuality from the pulpit. If a church wants to keep same sex couples from using the social hall, they can stop renting it to the public - a right not guaranteed by the Constitution...

...finally, Kent, there is your statement: 'I see conservative Christians as those who do not believe in rewriting the bible to suit current social beliefs. If you would like to drop the religious aspect from the argument thats just fine. '
Conservative Christians can hold whatever beliefs they see fit, but, in codifying those beliefs in our Constitution they are denying people of other religions the right to observe their own religions as they see fit. Why should conservative Christians and Catholics get to tell Jews, liberal Christians and non-believers how to follow their consciences? What makes your religion the official religion of our state?

Kent:

If you are as well read as you seem to claim to be, you'll know that the most current theory is that male homosexuality is caused by a gene on the X chromosome passed down by mothers that promotes homosexuality in males and fecundity in females. As biologist Richard Dawkins points out, a gene may manifest itself in any number of ways that are unfixed as far as human behavior goes. I can tell you from my own experience that no one "taught" me how to be gay. I was raised in a strict Christian fundamentalist household where we only watched wholesome or educational television. I didn't even know what being "gay" was when I started experiencing same-sex attraction. Whatever the cause, whether genetic or hormonal, homosexuality is not "chosen," nor is it alternative. That would imply that we chose not to be "mainstream" heterosexuals, were therefore heterosexuals to begin with and at some point chose to be homosexual. I have never been attracted to women. So why should I be labeled "aberrant" or "alternative" and treated as a second-class citizen for the sole reason that I'm different from the majority of the human population? That's the very definition of discrimination.

I may be "a good person worth loving and caring about," good enough to share my talents and abilities in the American workforce, good enough to pay taxes, but apparently not good enough to legally marry the man I love.

Again: we're not asking for your blessing. Only for you to leave us alone.

Kent wrote, regarding religious symbols on government buildings, " If they were illegal wouldn't it have been left off when the building/buildings were built?"
Well, no. First, they are not illegal, they are unconstitutional. Our system does not PREVENT unconstitutional actions, nor does it prevent unconstitutional laws from being passed. However, it does allow for an injured party to bring a case before the courts to have an unconstitutional law voided or to have an unconstitutional action (a cross on a government building for example, which has the effect of disenfranchising every non-Christian American) reversed. If no one files a suit, or if the person filing the suit cannot demonstrate standing, then the law and/or the action stands.
The fact that a religious symbol on a government building was not contested for many years does not make it any less unconstitutional.

David,
"I don't have a "lifestyle," unless you're talking about my sex life (which you are) and in which case I would say mind your own damn business." Ok then when other lifestyle choices come around what will your vote be? Pro child love? Pro polygamy? Pro animal love? Yes I know you take offense to the comparisons because you disagree those lifestyles but that is the point.
"The federal government is also free to set how many people it defines as comprising a marriage, but it must do so equitably and without prejudice." Then tell me how it was defined? Why? What harm does a dad and 4 moms cause? What was equitable and without prejudice in that decision? Remember it was practiced happily in the US previously.
"In order to build a convincing case against same-sex marriage, you need to be able to prove without a reasonable doubt that same-sex unions are damaging and hurtful to individuals and to society." No, I don't, and that's the problem. You are asking for a redefinition of marriage accepted since our country was founded. When redefining something, like marriage, based not on genetics but emotional feelings you open the door for any such claims.

"All arguments come down to "God says it's wrong," which is religious, not secular. Sorry, but religion has no place in lawmaking." Really? First I have not been making a religious argument so your hypothesis is faulty from the start. Second, What was our laws founded on? If I like something you have why cant I take it? Isn't that the way it was done by rulers in old times? What caused the difference? Religion did. Different religions impacted our social laws and norms. You may separate them now but the history will always be there.

Kent:

Polygamy, pederasty, incest and bestiality are all red herrings and a perfect example of a slippery slope argument in action. I won't bother with them.

An equally convincing case was made against interracial marriage along the lines that you're arguing, which is essentially that "it's always been this way." We are not asking to "re-define" marriage. We are simply asking to be included under the definition, just as interracial couples were asking to be recognized (and, in their case, protected) in the 1950s and 60s.

Kent, if you actually read the laws rather than relying on the anti-gay propagandists' interpretations of the laws, you'd be better informed. The laws do not apply to food kitchens; they apply only to the renting of church facilities to the public.

As for my research credentials, you're right, I don't have the credentials of the authors you cite, but I do have 20 years experience with medical organizations, scholarly medical journals, and peer-reviewed research, so I know what is true research and what is not. What you call "bullying" by medical researchers against a wayward researcher is actually how it is supposed to work. If a colleague uses faulty methodology or draws conclusions not based on proven data, it's not just the right but the responsibility of their colleagues to call them out on it. With the exception of opinion pieces, which is what you cite as being original research, all articles appearing in scholarly journals are peer reviewed, which is an elaborate and lengthy process. The majority of such article never see print or see print after major modifications. The garbage research you cite has had none of that. Even an opinion piece published in the New England Journal of Medicine is just that: an opinion piece. It certainly is not looked upon as legitimate research nor an authoritative position paper.

So using digests from anti-gay groups, BBC reports, or such crackpot groups as the True Origin Archive shows the legitimacy of your arguments.

Donald, if you have a business that serves the public, you may not discriminate. There are people who are offended by the sight of interracial couples; should those people be allowed to discriminate against interracial couples?
There is no constitutional protection from seeing things you find offensive, so deal with it.
And, by the way, LGBT golfers are not more prone to public displays of affection than any other golfers; in fact, LGBT people in general are no more prone to public displays of affection than heterosexuals. You are allowing your prejudice to show.

Donald: You seem to be under the impression that homosexuals are somehow these hypersexual deviants who walk around every day like it's a Mardi Gras parade. I'd say that you ought to get to know some real people from the LGBT community, but I'd be afraid that you'd try to kill us. We are regular people, with regular hopes, worries and dreams. Most of don't even "look" gay. So we are not asking for your approval or magnanimous condescension. We ask to be treated like human beings, and to be left alone. We'll gladly do the same for you. Nothing more.

Donald, your comments are just about right. Your business plan sounds like something out of Mississippi in the 50s, except you should insert the word "Negro" in the place of "LGBT." if you can't see anything wrong with that, then I think you're living in the wrong country. Try Iran.

The conclusions are incorrect. The difference is that as a legally protected class, the LGBT golfers can brush aside my right to choose my customers.

If those LGBT golfers were the college golfers, who have a reputation for partying in their rooms, and trashing hotels, I would have every right to refuse to serve them. The difference being that they do not have a legal club to force me to rent to them.

David says: "We ask to be treated like human beings, and to be left alone. We'll gladly do the same for you. Nothing more." That is exactly right. This is about free association much more than "discrimination". How many select groups of people are we going to grant legal club to force others to do their bidding? We have done so for reasons of race on the basis of "discrimination" being wrong. This has been extended to the handicapped under the ADA. In some cases the aged now have protected status. Now we have a group - homosexuals - who want a legal weapon, too. Where does this stop?

Homosexuality is about behavior, and conflicts directly with most mainstream religion. To the extent that "anti-discrimination" will use the force of law to prevent me from following my religion - even to the extent that I cannot disassociate myself from "sinners" - it conflicts with religion. The conflict must be resolved, and cannot be done in favor of every group. The pattern must stop.

Kent, a cross on a government building is an endorsement by the government of Christianity and it is tantamount to establishing Christianity as the official religion.
Kent wrote: "Then accept EVERYTHING and get what the vote no people want. Throw out any laws that restrict someone from being happy." Reductio ad Absurdum - look it up.

Kent: You clearly don't understand what "Establishment of Religion" means. I feel like I'm trying to explain basic arithmetic here, to borrow your analogy. Honestly, there are five-year-olds who understand this basic concept of human equality. You're throwing a temper tantrum like a child who is angry about everyone getting a treat and therefore screams that "no one should get a treat!"

Kent, as you have demonstrated numerous times here, you have no idea what the "vote no people want."

Joyce--"Reductio ad Absurdum" I love that!

Kent wrote: 'As for rewriting the laws that is expressly what the pro-homosexual community is asking for so why not do it all at once?'
Wrong, Kent; allowing same sex couples to marry does not require rewriting marriage laws. Civil marriage is a legal contract; same sex couples are asking to be allowed to enter into the SAME contract that only heterosexual couples are currently allowed to enter into.

I don't know the law well enough to be certain, but I'd bet that various provisions of marriage laws that presume children are produced from both parents would have to be revised. Biology precludes equality. Insistence on equality in spite of biology is foolish.

Thanks, Susan (and Joyce). I'm done with him. When a person refuses to see the logical fallacies in his argument (or a lack of logic altogether), there's no point in continuing the conversation. We may have to settle this in court, whether at the state level or all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

You'll get there, hopefully sooner rather than later. Please keep posting on this and other threads. The more people that hear from you, the better.

Thanks. I've been sending pieces to newspapers all over Minnesota for the past month talking about the unconstitutionality of this amendment and the impact that it will have on me. I just submitted a commentary to the Star Tribune this morning. Any more suggestions of places to write and talk about this?

No, I really don't, but you can start a blog on Patch. It will probably only run on your hometown Patch site, but I think sometimes they are picked up by other towns, and/or you can go onto these different articles and post a link to that blog in the comment section whenever you see the topic come up. Keep in mind that some won't be as respectful in the comment section, as Kent and Donald have been here.

Kent, if that room is rented to the general public, then you may not discriminate. You do not have to approve and you may rail about it all you want in your next sermon, but you may not discriminate.

And, just FYI, it is spelled synagogue.

Kent, You go round and round with the same fallacious arguments, red herrings, hyperbolic nonsense, and pseudo science. None of the laws you cite say anything about whom the churches may or may not open their doors do for religious services and activities. When a church decides to engage in a commercial enterprise such as renting out its facilities, they should be required to follow the same laws as commercial enterprises do. Renting out a hall is not a religious activity, and the laws you cite do nothing to affect the exercise of religion.

The laws against preaching against homosexuality relate to the preaching of hate, and hate crimes are a legitimate concern. But to use your extrapolations, as reluctant as I am to raise the Nazi specter, one can easily and quickly draw a connection between your persistent condemnation of homosexuals to the Nazis condemnation of Jews as being not only second-class citizens, but moral degenerates. Your raising the issue of polygamy and child marriages is just sheer nonsense with no relevance to the gay-marriage issue except in the minds of the fear mongers, which has been explained several times in these comments.

I assume that if a Church and that Church's pastor, minister, etc... WANTS to perform marriages for gay people - that you are then ok with that?

And if a Church is ok with performing gay marriages - then the State obviously shouldn't deny that?

Kent wrote: "Almost everyone here has admitted it is not genetic and therefore the whole argument should not be occurring."
Being Jewish is not genetic; why should Jews be allowed to marry?
The whole genetics argument is a red herring, Kent; people are born gay or straight, probably through a combination of genetics and environmental (in utero) factors. It doesn't matter. What matters is that both gays and straights should be entitled to the same civil rights.

I assume that if a Church and that Church's pastor, minister, etc... WANTS to perform marriages for gay people - that you are then ok with that?

And if a Church is ok with performing gay marriages - then the State obviously shouldn't deny that?

Regarding whether or not it is genetic - the science is simply not in so people can say whatever they want but from a scientific point of view - the question is still open - that is simply the scientific fact.

... and a subtext in this discussion is whether homosexuality should be included in the list of groups accorded that anti-discrimination law. I say no. Current Minnesota law says mostly yes, unfortunately. (http://www.humanrights.state.mn.us/education/articles/rs04_1sorient_mhra.html)

Redefining marriage would transform the small club available to activists into a much larger club to force people to do as they wish.

This is a bad thing, not a good thing. We do not advance a free society by squashing expressions of diversity. We all think differently and prefer different things. Allowing one group to define themselves as "special" and able to force others to accede to their demands damages the freedom of everyone. It may be that some types of "discrimination" is too harmful to allow, but carried beyond a limited set, it destroys all freedom by giving every victim the ability to wield the power of the state to force others to do as he wishes.

Note this case: http://blog.speakupmovement.org/church/religious-freedom/case-dropped-against-michigan-woman-seeking-christian-roommate/

Do we really want the state to decide which roommates we may choose? Yet, this is where the logic takes us. It has to stop somewhere....

Equal rights would mean that I could reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

In the case of a hotel, if someone walks into the lobby smelling of alcohol and looks like he has head lice, I can simply say "There are no rooms for you". This gentleman has no legal recourse. After all, it's my hotel, and free exchange is the rule. I have a right to keep lice out of my hotel. I don't have to PROVE he has lice. I have a right to make that judgement without interference.

I may refuse to rent because I don't like you, or because I am watching a football game. No one can second guess me.

If the potential customer is a protected person (handicapped, black, etc) then he can sue me for "discrimination", and I have to prove that his "status" was NOT the reason I refused to rent. In short, the right to make that decision is taken from me and given to the state. The courts decide when I get to refuse service.

The idea of "equal rights" when some persons have a legal club in their hands is downright bizarre. To say that this sort of intervention on behalf of the downtrodden at least makes logical sense, but "equality" it is not.

No, I suggest an example where I would choose not to serve someone with good reason. The fact is that normally I have a right to refuse to serve someone for any reason at all, absent the legal club that is represented by "discrimination" law. Let's make my drunk a "Packer fan" with a cheesehead hat. I'm a Vikings fan, and just don't feel like renting to him, and I tell him so.

I'm trying to illustrate a principle. If those reading are simply trying to defend a position, there is little point in discussion. Maybe that's because to those who are defending the outcome, principles only get in the way.

Without principle, we have no law. The concept of 'Rule of Law' is often described as a "government of laws, and not of men". When law is simply a tool to get a certain outcome, to favor or punish people or groups that are out of fashion, we no longer have a Rule of Law. We have rule by whomever is in power.

Our founders gave us a system - a constitution - that they hoped would maintain a Rule of Law, but only if we "keep it". Abandoning our freedom in the hope of achieving some illusory "equality" cannot be squared with any rational principle, only the logic of fashionable outcomes.

No, I don't. The train of logic is longer than that. I have explained the connection.

As I have detailed several times, the marriage amendment will neither ban, nor implement a redefinition of marriage. The agenda of those who oppose the amendment clearly want all vestiges of "discrimination" stamped out, as you can see in the comments above.

Yes, there is some measure of "protected class" afforded homosexuals today, but redefinition of marriage would necessarily push that agenda much farther into areas where it is particularly unacceptable, as has also been extensively debated above.

No need to insinuate that I am not paying attention or following along - it really was an honest question. I just don't get what you are worried or fighting about. You can not discriminate against homosexuals on the basis that they are homosexual. I agree with this, you do not, who is the one not paying attention to life in 2012?

There is another subtext here. Homosexuality apart from homosexual behavior is not well defined. Apart from behavior, it is little more than a "tendency" or "preference". The law is not, and should not be, in the business of favoring or disfavoring things that are inside our heads.

Legally speaking, behavior is generally separate from motivation. If I transgress the law, I generally get the same sentence in court regardless of why I do it.

This is why homosexuality is so hard to deal with in the law. Activists insist that it is not about behavior, yet insist that the class of people should get special protections. The law can really only deal with behavior - evidence, but if activists insist that the behavior is irrelevant, then the law has a real conundrum. Is it the behavior that is protected? Which behavior?

This is new territory for "discrimination" law. No other protected class is based on behavior, and behavior that most major religions have condemned for thousands of years as immoral.

Legally, this is a voyage of discovery, and one that is likely to do great damage to fundamental societal institutions. (the family)

I do not want to take that voyage.

It's your contention that homosexuality is all about behavior, which is simply false. Some day when you actually talk to a gay person, you would know this. This is yet another fallacy that you base your arguments on. Similar to the fallacy that this amendment is an attempt to push a larger agenda that somehow forces heterosexuals to do something. All the while, you advocate for a law that uses your "club" of judgment and what you call "traditional family" on others who are different from you, and in so doing you ignore the fact that you trample the rights of those who deserve the same rights as you, and posit that it somehow is a good form of discrimination that ought to be allowed to continue.

Kelly, after reading these comments for almost a year, I have been able to come to two conclusions about the opposition to homosexuality.

1. Like pedophelia, some people have certain inappropriate urges, that should not be acted on. It is a sin and immoral.

2. They don't want anti-discrimination laws imposed on their religious facilities.

Of-course the first is ridiculous, as one example is a crime with a victim and the other includes consenting individuals. Quite simply, the second is just too bad. If those religious organization have facilities that they CHOOSE to use for the public or rent out for the public's use, they must follow all applicable laws. No one requires them to provide those services.

On 2., let me point out where this leads. I'm illustrating principle.

Our church can either keep the organization entirely to ourselves, or we can open it up to the public, either by renting out the building, or charging for weddings in the courtyard, or whatnot. The alternative is to restrict the entire church and its activities to members. (I am unclear on how such an insular church attracts new members)

What, precisely, constitutes "offering to the public"? Is it the first dollar that is paid for some product or service? Under this concept of anti-discrimination law, once that threshold is crossed, the church loses control of who it can offer its facilities to, because any aggrieved party being refused could launch a runious lawsuit. I could argue that even the church services are an "offering to the public", because the church "charges" through the collection plate.

Let's say we run a fundamentalist church that preaches against homosexuality. Having once rented out the garage of the church to a bake sale, the church has crossed that threshold, and must comply with all "discrimination" laws. Our church has a nice chapel, and the local GLBT travel service decides to set up our chapel as a "destination wedding" location. If we refuse to allow those weddings - lawsuit! (A lawsuit would break the bank - win or lose)

(continued)

I would point out that with "hate speech" laws, even preaching could be subject to censorship by the state.

The scenario that I lay out is unlikely, but not unreasonable. This sort of thing happens. I have cited similar incidents.

The "just too bad" attitude is pretty callous for someone who claims to object to people "imposing their beliefs on others".

Take careful note here of what is happening. There is a conflict between the definition of right and wrong as defined by the faith of the church, and the definition of right and wrong defined by something else.

I have tried to get a definition of that "something else", but the best we have so far is "the social contract", which is at best a pretty skimpy outline. It is certainly not published anywhere that can be examined and debated as doctrine, only in forums such as this one, where it can weave and dodge at length.

Susan says that the "something else" definition trumps the traditional, biblical, widely held definition, and she and her compatriots have the right to impose that idea on churches, and it's "just too bad".

Words fail me.

Donald, on point number two, you once again use a red herring based on a fallacious premise to make a point. A church service is not the same as renting out the church facility, and you know that, so the hyperbolic scenario you lay out is pure bs. In its commercial activities, a church or any pother nonprofit institution is subject to the same laws as commercial enterprises. Period. And if those are violated, legal action is warranted. Churches are not above the law.

And now that you have brought up Biblical and tradition as reasons for denying gays their rights, you've revealed finally what this is all about for you. Words should fail you because your position is indefensible. The U.S. is not and never has been a Christian country. We are not a theocracy and never have been. Read the Treaty of Tripoli to find out what the founding fathers thought about that. I quote: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

I stand by my "just too bad" comment.

A comparison would be the auto insurance argument for and against ObamaCare. The left liked to say that you are required to buy car insurance, why not health insurance? The right would counter with yes, but you are not required to buy a car. The churches are not required to offer their services and facilities for the general public's use, but if they do, then they must adhere to the law.

Kelly illustrates the problem of letting agenda trump logic and principle. She conveniently (or deliberately) ignores the principle I present to emphasize her desired outcome.

The point is law has inexorable logic, and definitions of "public" are exacting. Churches will be presented by a choice - stay in the closet, or lose control.

The result - Kelly's idea of "right and wrong" trumps someone else's. Kelly, of course, thinks that's fine, while condemning the same in others.

Susan's concept of "religious freedom" leaves much to be desired.

... and is another excellent illustration of agenda trumping principle.

Donald wrote: "Susan's concept of "religious freedom" leaves much to be desired."

As does Donald's position on, and understanding of homosexuality.

My only agenda is equal rights under the law. If don't consider this an honorable principle, then you are the one that may be misguided. "Forcing" churches to follow the law does not seem unreasonable or even remotely unfair. They can always opt out.

So Susan declares that her policy is "right" and the church is "wrong". Her concept of right and wrong is being imposed on others, and she is comfortable with that .

And what is that concept of "right" and "wrong" based upon?
(lather, rinse, repeat)

Haha, Donald, that's priceless. Seriously, do you know, or are there any gay people in your life? Or do your morals preclude that also?

I did not say the church was wrong, I said they either abide by the laws or opt out of those things that are bound by said law. Yes, I am comfortable with that.

Those that prefer "free association" can live by that principle, but when you CHOOSE to partake in activities that have guidelines regulated by the state, you must abide by those guidelines. You choose to be part of a society, you must live by that society's laws.

I find it interesting that Donald decided to use "lather, rinse, repeat" when writing to/about me....a woman. It goes along with that whole "silly" business.

I've not read comments from him that are so condescending regarding right and wrong when directed at men. Well, that is unless you consider his comment here to Kelly, who he incorrectly assumed was a woman.

My audience is not Susan, but the many people who are following along.

I repeat my point in an attempt to be clear.

The law is not an absolute standard. We choose our laws, so they must be based, and judged, on something more fundamental.

So, we are talking about right and wrong - about that foundation. The thread describes a conflict between two different ideas of right and wrong. One insists that it's about equal rights and the other free association and free exercise.

There is little agreement even on the terms of discussion.

Susan (and others here) have said that people should not be able to force their morality on others, especially not via the law. They insist that the marriage amendment is unacceptable for this very reason despite the fact that it does no more than affirm existing law. Yet, she insists that HER ideas on discrimination should be enshrined in law, and should override any ideas of right and wrong that other people - like churches - might hold.

Put crudely - Susan says: "You can't force your morality on me, but I can force mine on you, because I am right."

(again - Not to pick on Susan... my point is about the ideas, not the writer. She is articulate, but has many compatriots here.)

They are not MY "ideas on discrimination". It is the law. Live here, or have an organization or business here, and you must abide by the laws.

This amendment is designed to circumvent the law (the "activist" judges). Anyone still following along with this thread at this point, understands that. I am not forcing anything with this vote, but the right is attempting to do so.

Continue the oppression of gay people? Kelly, in the United States, there is no real oppression, and to say that there is only cheapens the word and degrades the struggles of those who undergo real oppression..

You cannot equate the current definition of marriage with real oppression that exists in the world. Let me ask you this: Would you rather be a gay person in the United States or a straight person in North Korea? North Korea is quite literally a prison. Those people are oppressed. There is oppression in China. There is oppression of any minority in most Islamic countries. It is a crime punishable by death to convert to Christianity in Iran. That, my friend, is oppression. It is in no way comparable to anything that occurs in the United States, least of all the definition of marriage.

Nick wrote: "Would you rather be a gay person in the United States or a straight person in North Korea?"
Wow - USA! We're better than North Korea!
I thought we were supposed to hold ourselves to a higher standard than that.

No, that is not the point. The point is that the LAW cannot deal with things that are strictly inside our heads. The LAW cannot favor or disfavor anything that is not connected to something that can be called evidence - hence some sort of behavior.