New Jersey Gay Marriage Bill Should Be Vetoed

The article ends with an argument against 'protection against discrimination' but that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Same sex marriage would follow the exact same laws as all other marriages. Nothing special asked.

In addition to the many strange claims and logical fallacies contained in this article, the oddest thing is that there is not even an attempt to justify the discrimination he says should be allowed to continue. So, according to Mr. Wise, there's nothing wrong with being gay but the government, in its role of protecting the rights of all, should actively discriminate against them and prevent any attempts to end this state of affairs.

On the other hand, this is about as coherent as arguments for discrimination get.

All I got is this author saying all heterosexual people choose to be attracted to heterosexual people since obviously we can change on a dime. Interesting, I have yet to ever look at a woman the way I have a man but it's apparently just going to come one day if I want too. Stupid article written by an idiot.

Religion is also a choice therefor any protective legislation based off of relion should also be vetoed if you follow this man's logic. If it was so easy to change who a peron was attracted to, why are there any homosexuals at all? Why would there be any homosexuals EVER?

Only with sexual orientation does that fluctuate.
Explan to me why someone would CHOOSE to be gay. For the discrimation against them? Perhaps for the hate crimes committed upon them? Oh maybe even to be discriminated against in every aspect of their life.....Mark Wise you are a complete fool. You and fat boy Christie deserve each other. You tell so many lies in your article trying to justify more hate and discrmination. Trust me there will be gay marriage in all states one day. Equal rights should be granted to all citizens of this country. I would love to see you CHOOSE to be gay and walk a day in our shoes. Trust me I have a great life and being gay is only a small part of who I am. And I am man enough to back up my word where as you hide behind lies and delusions.

"However, sexual preference is something that can be changed quickly. I know that the immediate retort for gay rights supports for that position is to point out that I did not choose my sexual orientation, but the fact of the matter is that I choose my sexual orientation each and every day."

In that case he is bisexual. If he can choose to sport wood to George Clooney AND Kate Upton he is bisexual. Just like Cynthia Nixon.

Why do these ignorant fundiots lie?

Wow, Yahoo just went from publishing articles that are mediocre at best to simply ignorant.

This guy who isn't even a real journalist is pretending to know something about the Psychology of sexuality. Clearly, he does not.

Try getting an education before you start to make bold claims like this. And figure out your sexual orientation while you're at it.

Yes, people choose to be gay just to deal with idiots like the author, discriminated against by bible thumping Jesus freaks, beat up and killed by those who are homophobic. With all these benefits of being gay I don't understand they everyone doesn't "choose" to be gay. And by the way gender CAN be changed it's call sex-reassignment surgery. Ignorant people shouldn't be allowed to post commentary.

Ask anyone who is gay and they will tell you it wasn't a choice. They were born that way. Why would anyone choose to be something that uneducated and bigoted people hate?

I would suggest the author suddenly change his "sexual preference" to see if it is as easy as he says.

Why is this guy's opinion news? That's the real question.

ω+f kind of bigotry article is this? Sexual preference is something that can be changed??? Sexual orientation is as biological as race! I know since I'm black AND gay, none of this was a "choice" I remember making before being born. Yahoo should be boycotted for sponsoring articles like this. I usually take commentary articles with a grain of salt, but this rubbed me the wrong way.

Mr. Wise:

You wrote, "The granting of special government protection against discrimination is not something that should be granted for something that can be easily changed."

As a Jewish man, I can "easily change" to being Christian any time. I CHOOSE not to. By your "logic" the government should not provide protection from discrimination against Jewish people because our being Jewish, "can be easily changed."

This article is insane! "The problem comes when what is done in private demands public recognition and the protection of the government." This has already been done when this country decided to give over a thousand rights to married couples. Giving tax exemptions to those that are married seems to me to be "public recognition and the protection of the government". Mr. Wise has a CHOICE to meet a woman and become married to her but should just be granted " public recognition and the protection of the government" because he didn't chose a man? This is absurd logic. This has nothing to do with whether a person was born one way or the other. Two people choosing to be in a commited relationship and create a household together should be granted the same rights as every other person that chooses to be in a commited relationship and create a household....period!

OK then, take the Dan Savage challenge. Prove that it's a choice by giving a guy a BJ.

That aside, so what if orientation is a choice? Marriage itself is a choice. Right now you can choose to marry ANYONE of the opposite gender. The only criteria is that they are over 18, and are not already married. You can choose to marry someone you are compatible with, someone you aren't compatible with, someone who is just after your money. You can choose to marry an ex-spouse. You can choose to marry someone who doesn't want kids, or cannot have kids (this goes against the most common argument against gay marriage, relating to procreation). You can choose to marry someone who is beautiful, or someone who is butt ugly. So why should it matter if two people of the same sex get married?

The article states that what happens in private should not be made public or have government protection. By this logic, heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry either. I mean, I have no problem if someone is straight, but they shouldn't constantly remind me of their lifestyle choice by demanding to get married.

The contributor of this article is named "Wise"... kind of ironic, don't you think?

Dear Mark, you are not wise.

What a pity that although Mark Wise claims he can change his sexual orientation at the drop of a hat, he's stuck with the mental orientation he was born with: stupidity.

actually i am sick of everyone telling eveyone what to do and how to live...go back into your own cave and shut up and stop putting your foot in your mouth every time you open it.

Cynthia Nixon is bisexual, and using her as "evidence" that being gay is a choice is false and misleading. Being gay is about as much of a choice as being left-handed.

Wow, Mark Wise is infinitely unwise. How can you write an entire article and be so opinionated about something you clearly have no understanding of? The issue is not whether gay people "choose" to have same-sex relationships, the issue is whether gay people can change from being sexually and emtionally attracted to the same gender to being sexually and emotionally attracted to the opposite gender. They can't -- I know from personal experience. This issue is no longer up for debate among educated people. Is Mark suggesting that he can simply flip a switch if he wants to and no longer be sexually attracted to or ever again fantasize about women? Is it possible he is so ignorant? I doubt it.

Sexual orientation is not something that can be "changed quickly". I doubt that the author of this article would feel remotely comfortable with a male partner any more than I would as a heterosexual female with another female. Could I make that choice to sleep with a woman? Yes, but that does not make me a lesbian any more than dying my hair and moving to China makes me Asian.
The question is NOT whether a person is born gay or has the choice. They are born gay, and have the choice to live the way that feels natural to them or conform against their nature to suit society's norms. The debate is whether choosing to live in a way that feels natural to them should be accepted and respected. People can't change their race? People alter their speech patterns, straighten their hair, dress differently to embrace or hide their cultural identities depending upon how they choose to live their lives and fit in with the world. Gay people should not have to live in hiding or be denied the rights that heterosexual couples take for granted. Nor should they have to make up their own word for a ceremonial joining with their partner, as if their using the word 'marriage' soils it for anyone else who is married. Segregation, anyone? Way to learn from the past. Future generations are going to be cringing with shame when they read articles like this one a decade or two down the line.