Our love is no different than your love

We are not effecting how YOU live

There are two undeniable biological facts at work:

1. Unless they take active measures to prevent it, most heterosexual couples that regularly engage in sex will produce children.

2. Unless they take exceptional measures to cause, no homosexual couple that regularly engages in sex will produce children (and even then it will not be the natural chiold of both members of the couple).

From these facts, I think is reasonable for the law to assume that a long-term committed heterosexual union will contribute to the continuation of society while a long-term committed homosexual union will not. Yes, there are exceptions to both, but trying to act like the societal benefit from the latter is equivalent to the former seems like an exercise in self deception.

Re marrying family members, if my state offered gay marriage I can see no good reason I shouldn’t be able to marry my brother or father. If my wife and my mother died and I wanted to raise my children in a loving stable home with my father, why shouldn’t we be able to marry and have the same benefits of other married couples raising children? Or is consumation required to validate a gay marriage? Why?

Interesting, Karen…..so despite your insistence that the lack of marriage hurts children, you and your partner chose to bring children into your relationship anyway, knowing that your lack of marriage would hurt them — which means you deliberately put children into what you consider to be a harmful situation. Furthermore, since you insist children are harmed by having unmarried parents, logically, you should support forcing people who have children to get married to avoid harming the children.

So does that mean straight couples who ADOPT non biologically related children should not get all the rights under marriage??

I have two children with my partner. Anyone who is anti-same sex marriage is hurting not only the same sex couple (and definitely not promoting tolerance), but also hurting innocent children.

Look at her record in government – not that she has “gay” friends – she is anti-gay, wants legislation to ban same sex unions

She vetoed that bill, numbnuts.

Palin said she believes being gay is a choice. I’m not sure why that’s confusing.

She didn’t say coming out was a choice, she literally said being gay was her friend’s choice.

Actually, her exact words were, “She is one of my best friends who happens to have made a choice…”

You are putting words in her mouth when you claim to know exactly what choice she was referring to. But regardless, there are MANY prominent people, and millions more like them for whom being gay IS a choice. What was Ellen Degeneres previous girlfriend’s name? She said it was a choice. Tammy Bruce has said it was her choice. So, no, there is nothing “HILARIOUS” about using such language “in this day and age. Its accurate language for millions of people.

Listen, I know conservatives pretend they understand there’s supposed to be separation between church and State

Actually, Alexandra, neither the Constitution, nor any other founding document says anything about a “separation of church and state”. What they do say, explicitly, however, is that there shall be NO religious tests to hold office. In other words the bigotry you espouse, suggesting that religious believers should be ineligible for office because of “separation of church and state”, is patently unconstitutional.

Also know folks, gay marriage will happen. Trust me. It will happen. America is founded on change and freedom

Really? I know America is founded on personal freedom, or more specifically, liberty, because the founding documents make it very clear. But I’m wondering if you could point me to the part of the Constitution or Declaration where it says our nation is founded on change — cus its not in my copies. Indeed, the founding fathers made it very difficult to change the Constitution — which is of course why liberals believe in a “living, breathing” (read: meaningless) Constitution, so that it can mean whatever they want it to mean that day.

…and [freedom is] what we’re talking about….Its’ about one person being in a monogamous relationship with another person. That’s all

Wrong. Sorry. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with freedom. You are already free to have a monogomous relationship with whomever you choose (provided theyre of legal age) No one is preventing you. Marriage as far as society is concerned is a bag of goodies we hand out to encourage people to do something we deem beneficial to society. You are just as free to enter into the institution as anyone else is, you just choose not to, instead you are demanding that the institution change, and that everyone else in society not only approve of, but reward you for doing something entirely different.

No one’s talking about marrying their Ford Escort or their pet turtle. Which by the way, is another HILARIOUS argument.

No, but people are talking about marrying multiple people or relatives. And there is nothing “HILARIOUS” about it to anyone who can follow a train of logic. There are logical reasons for excluding same-sex couples from the institution that would be negated by including gay marriage. Once gay marriage becomes law and “love” is the reason government gives out marriage licenses, there can be no logical reason to exclude groups or relatives from entering into the institution together, only arbitrary ones. And arbitrary doesnt stand up to legal scrutiny well.

The choice to stop Americans from uniting with other Americans in a loving relationship, and that choice will go down in history as archaic and misguided.

Nobody is stopping you from uniting with anyone in a loving relationship, Alexandra. Go! Be free! Unite in whatever relationship you wish. It is YOU that is demanding that everyone else approve of you, and hold your same-sex relationship in the same regard as the ONLY relationship that is capable of reproducing society and the ONLY relationship in which children can be raised by both their biological parents.

All because you have a HILARIOUS perception that you are being victimized.

It is you, Alexandra, who are misguided. Grow up.

Second, it’s awful that the first thing Obama wants a young child to learn about sex is that it’s a form of violence.

It occurs to me that the way for conservatives to engage the topic is to say, “Parents, not the government, should be deciding what ‘age appropriate’ means. We think the role of government should be limited to providing information to parents to help them discuss this sensitive topic to their children.”