Hi everyone! Yay, debates with people cool people! And yes, I mean that in a creepy way. I’m the nerdy kid trying to infiltrate the Cool Crowd... =D
So here are my thoughts…

Concerning Rights: Having the Right to, for example, pursue happiness is only a guarantee that nothing will stand in your way should you make the choice to pursue your own definition of happiness. It also means that you have the right to decide that you do not want to pursue happiness. The key word here is choice, this choice is protected by law. It does not guarantee that every person will be able to achieve happiness- that would be silly.

Within this particular Right, “happiness” is another key word, because it is subject to personal definition. Some people think happiness is giving and helping less fortunate people better their quality to life. Other people think happiness is stepping on their friends so that they appear to be superior. Are these people assholes? Yes. But they are operating within their rights, and so long as they are not preventing their friends from making the choice to leave them and pursue happiness with better friends, they are not operating outside of the law.

Marriage falls under the Right to pursue happiness. The key word within this particular “sub-Right” (Of course not meaning that it is less important, but simply that it falls under the umbrella of the Right written in the Constitution) is “Marriage.” While some people are very adamant about their particular definition of marriage, the reality is that it is subject to many cultural and personal definitions.

I fully understand the conservative agenda of trying to preserve the “original” definition of marriage. (And I’m not using this word as if being “conservative” and being “stupid” is the same thing, as some people like to toss around “conservative” and “liberal,” depending on whose side you’re on. I mean it quite literally and I am referring to the stance of “conserving” something people see as sacred, which is definitely a noble intention.) However, like most ancient words and practices, I’m sure there’s a lot of debate about what the “original” marriage was primarily based upon- whether it was based on love, or whether it was based on financial benefits for all families/nations involved, or whatever.

Because it is such unknown territory, I hope you don’t mind if I disregard this hypothetical “first marriage” and I instead focus on a historical generalization: marriage, in many cultures and for many centuries, was (and still is, for some) about finances and increased power. However, for the majority of people now present in the United States, the cultural definition of marriage has changed from “A union between consenting or un-consenting people for the financial gain of all parties involved, who wish to stay together primarily in order to preserve the honor of said parties” to “A union between consenting individuals for love and happiness, who wish to stay together primarily to love and support each other for life.”

This is a majority rule, however it does not apply to every single person. In addition to the people that are moved by love and dedication to make sacred vows to each other, there are those who are marrying to take care of their children or to move across country borders or simply to obtain the benefits of being legally married. To my Indian friend, marriage was only just barely made her choice: Her grandmother asked her if she would like for her to pick out a suitable boy from India for her to marry. She was fortunate enough to have the choice to decline, but remember again that this is only a recent development.

I’m going to briefly bring God and religion into this. I think it very likely that God was a very important presence within even the oldest of marriage ceremonies. God was the binding factor, whatever the reasons for marriage were, and the union was made “before God.” However, with the changes in the cultural definition of marriage, it’s disputable whether or not God is the “key element.” Our culture is one of mixed religions and beliefs, including the choice to have no religion. And so the cultural definition generally places more emphasis on love and making vows to each other. Secondarily, the vows are made before God, for those who believe, and this might make the marriage valid, or more valid, in their eyes. For those who don’t believe or who believe in a different way (I belong to this category. I believe in God, but I do not believe that God would ever condone anything that comes from love, including the desire for two people to marry each other), the marriage is just as valid if it is made only each other: for them, the sacred element need be nothing more than love.

So whatever definition of marriage is “older” or carries more religious weight means little to me. I voted to support my belief that marriage falls under the right to pursue happiness, regardless of gender and regardless of what your definition of happiness is so long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.

Concerning Choices: I’m going to quickly distinguish between what I believe is “genuinely gay” and what isn’t, and I’m going to use myself as an example. And I’ll admit off the bat that this is essentially a reiteration of what Taed Xoa said on the matter, but I’m going to say it anyway haha.
I am “genuinely ‘straight’” (whatever that means- I’m actually not really that straight lol, I have horrible posture). This means that, while I can look at women and think they’re beautiful and even incredibly sexy, I only experience that little jump and flutter in my stomach with men that I think are sexy. I could summarize this and say I am only interested in or attracted to men, and not women. This means that I could kiss, have sex with, and even get into a relationship with a woman and still not be gay- I just don’t feel that same magnetism towards women as I do towards men. This is not a choice, this is simply how I am, in all my wonderfulness. (=

There are those who like to argue that being born a certain way is not a defense that something is “right,” and I agree. If someone is born with murderous tendencies, and murdering is their way of "pursuing their own definition of happiness", this right is still not guaranteed to them by the Constitution because of the simple fact that they are infringing on other people’s Right to the pursuit of happiness and, obviously, to life. This applies to pedophilia as well, and in a way to bestiality. Statutory rape is formed on the basis that the minor is too young to make a the choice yet, whether or not they protest to the act being consensual. Gay relationships and gay marriage cannot be compared to these things in this way, if they are between two consenting adults, and especially if they are based on love.

I won’t argue that there aren’t people who make the choice. These people are going against their natural tendencies, often times when they are young and confused about their own feelings, and in my experiences with people who make this choice that are my age, and with my grandmother as well who went through this “phase,” they oftentimes come to terms with their own feelings in time and settle on one orientation, whether it be gay, straight, or bisexual. This is similar to gay people who make the “choice” to behave like a straight person, and hopefully are given enough peace and acceptance one day in order to come to terms with their own identity.

</thoughts>