1.  People like to argue its not a psychological choice, without any evidence for what it really is.  It just "must be" genetic.  We'll find it someday.   Maybe we'll find the Arab polygamy gene too; and then we can explain why the Chinese had polygamy for 5000 years until Mao made them stop.  He "must have" had a mutation ray gun.

2. As some pagan explained to me why he didn't support gay marriage, its not religion its engineering.  Its like demanding you build something with two lug nuts or two carriage bolts instead of a lug nut and a carriage bolt.

3. Careful, you're treading on the genetic theory of homosexuality.

4.  Indeed.

5.  Marriage is going to wildly change?  Will American polygamy come back?

6.  Very true.  It was the popular legislature that created the Convention that established the Bill of Rights; it was the popular legislature that set up the Bill of Rights and the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th and 24th Amendments.  The People, after all, are supposed to be the fount of law, not technicians with the title Judge.  BTW what "right" are we talking about, the "right" to have everybody in America abandon their views and take on yours?

7.  Organized religion is well protected in America; its the private conscience that's under vicious assault. E.g., 'i don't support gay marriage because -I- think its a sin'.

8.  But what if I could say I was tall, and telling me I was short and mistaken was a hate crime?

9.  The territory of Utah had legal polygamy; Congress made them ban it to become a state in 1870.  "Crazy" is a hate word.

10.  Indeed.

11.  So the greatest democracy on earth should be rewritten by diktat?

12.  How about bisexuals?  why should marriage be limited to two?  Can't we have a line marriage like in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", where the marriage is a corporation?  If you say no, aren't you being discriminatory based on your own prejudices?

that's pretty gay

@Han: first off this is a rediculous reason to oppose gay marriage (bring your father day being something absolutely unimportant in life), and secondly if gay marriage is allowed and people are tolerant (like really tolerant, not saying you're tolerant but in the meanwhile teaching your kids it's wrong to be gay), this kind of thing doesn't have to pose any problem whatsoever. You see, people create certain circumstances and use those circumstances to oppose something they disagree with (out of bigotry in this case)

@East: They can't marry the person they love like everyone else though. Hence they're being discriminated against.

Made me chuckle fokker

LOL!! I like to look at it like this: how does Steve and Fred in the next town getting married REALLY effect your daily lives? It doesnt. Whats wrong with letting people live their own lives as they see fit? Why does the rest of society have this overwhelming need to dictate to others just how they should live ESPECIALLY if it has no real impact on their own personal life? To each his own....or in the words of John Lennon: Live and let live.

I believe we could rid the world of male homosexuals by telling them babies don't come from a man's anus.

As long as there is a small distribution of people in society who are homosexuals, then there's nothing wrong with them being homosexual. As to the causes of homosexuality, it's probably both psychological and genetic depending on the circumstances surrounding the individual.

I think homosexuals should be allowed to be homosexuals as long as there are restrictions on advertisement and they aren't harming society, and I think they should enjoy similar rights as everyone else and be judged by their individual merit. That said, I don't think they should be allowed to get married for practical reasons. There is utility in giving married heterosexual couples special benefits as incentives for producing children. Now one might say, "Well then why not forbid sterile people to get married." You could do that, but that would create a messy network of legal conditions for marriage. Simply saying "A gets our desired result 98% of the time is reason enough for A, and trying to cover that other 2% is an inefficient use of our resources." As for homosexuals getting married, well reproduction just never happens. Now you could say that homosexuals should be allowed to get married because then they could adopt, and that would increase supply for high demand to adopt babies, but the fact is is that we have insufficient evidence that children turn out as productive citizens of society when raised by homosexual couples. And because of our great responsibility to raise children in to productive citizens, it is just too risky to do such an experiment. Therefore homosexuals should never be allowed to adopt children. Because we should not allow homosexuals to adopt children, we should not allow them to receive marriage benefits. Now you could concede that homosexuals should be denied such benefits, but then say that they love each other and therefore should be allowed to get married. My answer to that is why should we care about marriage and go through the trouble of legal documentation if it's just about formality?

>They can't marry the person they love like everyone else though. Hence they're being discriminated against.

I don't think that argument is valid. Stop considering homosexuals as a separate race of people. Imagine there are three people. Bob, Shane, and Johnathan. All of us can marry women. None of us can marry men. Which of us is being discriminated against?

I'm sure that bestiality isn't commited without love for that animal. It's not as fashionable as homosexuality, so it isn't talked about.

"There's nothing wrong with homosexuals as long as both women are hot"

"12 Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a

are u guys serious?

ha ha ha ha