Should never be put up for a public vote? You think that the citizens of the state that is trying to legalize gay marriage should have no say at all? That is not only wrong, it is unconstitutional. The 10th Amendment says that anything that is not directly mentioned in the Constitution goes to the states and the people to decide. Gay marriage should be done on a state by state vote. It should never be done on a federal level. The people have spoken, and that is what democracy is all about.

Vinny, this is an issue of equal protection under the law. You do not put a minority group's equal rights up to a public vote. Who's next, the blacks? The Jews? Who else do you people want to weed out of society? Here's a fairly conservative idea for those people who oppose equal rights: MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. It's not about you, therefore you do not get to vote on it. Read the Constitution again, sweetpea, specifically the 14th amendment. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Sorry Vinny, but we are not a direct democracy, we never have been. We are a representative republic, where's EVERYONE's equal rights are supposed to be guaranteed under the law, regardless of what one group of people may feel about another group. Just because you do not want gay couples to have equal protection under the law does NOT give you the right prevent them from having such protection. Learn what you're talking about, bigot.

Mr. K,

I certainly do not want to weed gay people out of society. You don't even know me. Two of my uncles are gay. Before you say something like that, find out who you're talking to.

I realize what you are saying about the 14th Amendment. A representative Republic is where the rights of the people are represented and so are their interests. There is no better way to represent the people than a state by state referendum.

"Just because you do not want gay couples to have equal protection under the law does NOT give you the right prevent them from having such protection."

This is not about what I want. I don't live in Maine; I didn't get to vote. It's about what the people in Maine wanted.

As for calling me a bigot, I already told you about my uncles.

Vinny, I don't care about your uncles. Just because you know two gay people personally does not mean that you are a friend to us.

You are wrong in your definition of what a representative republic stands for. In a representative republic, the general population is allowed representatives, and is allowed to have input in the political process. At the same time, however, each of our citizens' civil rights and liberties are to be protected both from the government, and from the masses (ie, protection from the tyranny of the majority). The majority does not get to decide on whether or not to extend equal rights to a minority group. Equal rights are supposed to be a given, and protected by the government, regardless of what one group of people might think about another group of people.

The reality of the current situation is that we have one group of people (straight couples) who receive special rights and benefits from both the state and federal governments, and another group of people (gay couples) who are denied these basic protections under the law. This is not rocket science; it is a blatant violation of the 14th amendment and obvious discrimination.

As for what you want on this issue, it doesn't matter. As for what the people of Maine want on this issue, it doesn't matter, either. There is a fine line where one person's civil rights end, and another person's civil rights begin, and neither party has the authority to overstep those bounds, and begin dictating to each other what rights the other can or cannot have. Once this happens, the Constitution has been violated completely.

Vinny, saying you can't be homophobic because you have uncles that are gay, is as ridiculous as saying you can't be racist because you know people who are african-american.

Furthermore on that thought. I know people who have children that are gay and they are horribly bigotted.

Where could you even get that I am homophobic?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Gay marriage is not directly mentioned in the Constitution. According to the 10th Amendment, this means that it belongs to the people of every state to decide. If you have a problem with the decision in Maine, that's fine, but it was made on a Constitutional level.  By the way, not agreeing with gay marriage does not make a person a "bigot" or "homophobe". I know people who are homophobes, and I have had some heated conversations with them. These are people who think that homosexuals should not be able to live together, or hold hands walking down the street. Those are the ones we should all be concerned about.

My point about my uncles was that if I was a homophobe I would not be able to be friends with homosexuals or accept the fact that I was related to two of them.

By the way, the gay people I know have no problem with what I think about gay marriage, or Proposition 8.

Vinny, I would like to meet your gay friends who don't have a problem with Proposition 8 because the LGBT people I know have very different views on Proposition 8. They see it as a blatantly discriminatory act whose only purpose is to divide the heterosexual and GLBTQ communities with "separate but equal" categories of marriage vs. civil unions. Prop 8 says, in effect, "GLBTQ people are almost as good as straight people but not quite." This kind of thinking is just wrong. Proposition 8 tells my lesbian professor that she and her wife were never really married and will never be seen as a legitimate couple by the majority of heterosexual society. How does that not hurt GLBTQ people?

 My gay friends realize that me not agreeing with gay marriage does not make me a homophobe; the fact that I am their friend shows that I am not a homophobe.

Whats unconstitutional mr. ambrasino IS voting on civil rights...

Because no one should have the rights guarenteed them by our constitution taken away by the majority.

Nor is it even democratic...Theocratic perhaps but not democratic.

You cite the 10th amendment but article 4 section 2 of our constitution makes it clear that all american citizens are to have the same rights...Not just some and not just those who are heterosexual and/or bible thumpers but ALL of them.

And you are a bigot even if you have gay uncles, your still a bigot because you clearly dont believe that theyre entitled to the same rights as you have.

As for your so called gay friends...

Im more inclined to believe that theyre your trophy friends that you trot out on occasion just so you can continue your delusion that your not prejudiced.

I doubt they would even have anything to do with you if they really knew how you felt about them...Unless they were so desperate for a friend that they would settle for less than what they could have.

Vinnie: You conveniently quote the 10th amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Like the good Repugnican fundamentalist you are (Heil Karl Rove!) you assume that this means exactly and exclusively what you want it to mean. And you expect that to be the end of the argument.

You don't seem to understand that your reading of these words may be incorrect. It is in fact, patently wrong. There is just no objective reason for anyone to believe that your interpretation is correct. Not that this ever sopped your kind from asserting bullshit as truth, and it's amazing that you all don't ever seem embarrassed about there being no logic whatsoever to your implied conclusions.

Your conclusion in this case implicitly asserts that the Constitution INTENDS (or at least allows) that questions of civil rights, including equal access to the legal benefits of marriage etc., MUST be decided by popular vote.

Defend this! You may not assert such blatant stretches of the meanings of words (convenient lies) without defending your interpretation. It's amazing how much We the People let you the assholes get away with in this regard. 

Where in the 10th amendment does it PRESCRIBE THE MEANS by which "the powers not delegated... by the Constitution" are "reserved" by putting them to a popular vote.

That does not even make sense. To "reserve powers" is more easily understood to mean that We the People retain the power to make our own decisions unfettered by the intrusion of majority opinion, the federal government or, for fuck's sake, the Church! 

In fact, the opposite interpretation - that these rights are not to be put to any electoral qualification - is very clearly supported by the 9th amendment which says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained BY THE PEOPLE." 

That we the people are presumed to have all the rights not explicitly yielded to the government is WHAT MAKES US A FREE PEOPLE! 

You Repugnicans like to pretend that you are all about "Freedom" but that is a big fat lie. You fear real freedom where people who believe, think, look and behave differently from you may coexist peaceably.

The only "freedom" you Repugnican fundamentalist assholes want is the freedom to limit the freedoms of others who do not believe, think, or act like you. I would guess that this is because, like all school yard bullies and teenage thugs, you simply cannot get over your childish fears and insecurities. You fear that you may not be the best, the smartest, the cutest, the crown of creation, the chosen ones - god's little pets. 

Grow up already, why don't ya? 

Thats a good comment, Greg.

I believe the LGBT community needs to fight for their civil rights at the Federal level. The reason why its not OK to vote on the civil rights of racial minorities and women is BECAUSE they have civil rights laws that protect them at the Federal level. The Supreme Court of the United States would not repeal these Federal civil rights laws because they have constantly been viewed as constitutional.

Until LGBT civil rights are recognized and secured at the Federal level, hate groups shall always have an excuse to keep voting away LGBT people's rights. Its year 2009, almost 2010, and of course its tremendously wrong and discriminatory to be putting up people's civil rights for a VOTE. I am not sure when each State's electorate will support marriage equality, probably never. The electorate is the most difficult to trust since these are completely composed of people with all different kinds of attitudes and beliefs, especially when it comes to human rights issues. Besides, ballot measure votes could be rigged - who knows what hate groups do behind closed doors. Probably Maine's citizens already support marriage equality but the hate groups somehow found a way to rig the election results at the last minute. This can happen. Why else would the percentage of the results be off by SLIGHT margins? The irony between California and Maine is so real. Its time to investigate this.

Once a State takes away rights at the ballot box and you've done what you could to protect it, then its time to go to the Federal level. Thats-that. Don't even bother returning the issue to the State.

I tell you folks...

If were gonna keep trying to win equality at the voting box then its time we took a page out of the bible thumper's book and started using fear to win...

The only difference is...We can present the truth about the bible thumpers in such a way that it scares the shit out of those who would otherwise blindly follow them.

Nice comment, Thomas. Can you please try to think up some good ideas that would create fear for those people who would blindly follow the GOP's terrorist-genocidal Christian Right? Maybe we can send these ideas to future civil rights organizations who will have to battle future State elections. We can display these ideas on TV ads, popular radio channels, national/local newspapers, and of course the Internet.

Ivy, I have plenty of ideas. Unfortunately most of them illegal. :)

Actually mr. jones...If you would stop and think for a moment then you would realise that Im using the "reply to thread" link rather than the stand alone comment box that ISNT showing up on my monitor.

So my earlier message to you is still valid.

Thank you.

Miss ivy m...

I would be very happy to do so and will get back to you folks on that.

Thomas, I understand the anger. Returning fear for fear, or hatred for hatred is not a winning strategy. Christianity is not the culprit here. Ignorance and fear of the unfamiliar has these people acting without thinking. These people are not following the edict of some priest, but Their own superstitions. I am a bit surprised to see it in Maine though, as it has a libertarian heritage. Ii do agree though that the way to win is through the courts. I have never heard a non religous reason for banning same sex marraige. No law based on religion is constitutional.

Ms. M, could you please explain to me how the Christian Right is terrorist or genocidal? When you make a claim like that you must show some proof to back it up, which you did not do in your comment.

By the way, speaking of genocidal, it is mostly the left that stands up for a procedure that has killed 50+ million innocent, defenseless children. 

Wow Vinny, women's rights blog wasn't controversial enough? You felt the need to come over to gay rights and harass some of the 50+ million lives that didn't end with abortion.

You with all the answers. Your goal for gay rights is what? Condemn these people? Talk at them, until they agree with you? Honestly, what are you trying to accomplish on the site? You can't re-parent any of us.

"Christian Right is terrorist or genocidal?" (This depends on what sect of Christianity you represent.) Leviticus 20:13, would answer your question. If you choose to follow the New Testament then you'd realize, there is only one unforgivable sin, and it isn't gay marriage!( Go ahead and reference that Bible; Luke 12:10.)

Ms. Hope,

At least you now admit that lives end with abortion. But that is beside the point. I am not trying to accomplish anything right now. I just want some proof to the ridiculous claim that the Christian Right is terrorist or genocidal and I haven't gotten any. But don't worry, I didn't ask you.

Vinny, these people that your demanding answers from may not be your children, but they are someones children. "Pro-life,"should also represent "Pro-quality of life." How many women choose to have abortions because the world is a hateful place? You can manipulatethe Bible and our Constitution to your benefit; representing only the "wrongs" in the world. I'd rather see you use your knowledge of these writings, to bring people together, (not just people that believe as you do.)

I disagree with a lot on this site, but I don't command people to see it my way. I look at both sides and say, "let's find a way." Both documents that you reference teach this.

What is your religious orientation? If Ms. M doesn't want to respond, I'll gladly take her place. 

Okay, thank you for taking her place. "How many women choose abortions because the world is a hateful place?" I don't know. I have never seen the statistic. If you ever find that out, please let me know.

I have never manipulated the Bible or the Constitution and you know that. You don't bring people together. Anytime someone disagrees with you, you accuse them of ridiculous things. On the abortion blog, you accused me of wanting to blow up an abortion clinic in cold blood, and you told me to make it a suicide bombing. You twist words and put words in people's mouths. I have called you on that multiple times and you never admitted to it or apologized for it. Don't lie to yourself and others by saying that you try to bring people together.

You don't command people to see stuff your way; you personally attack people who don't.

How does my religious orientation matter?

(Vinny, at least you made me laugh.)

 I'm not attacking you. I've compared you to people, and said your "one-sided."( Are you sure I'm the one lying to myself?) If you feel that standing up for what I believe in, warrants an apology; I'm not sorry. I will apologize for any unfounded implications that I've made and for being presumptuous. 

Ms. Hope,

I have heard both sides of the abortion debate, and I have chosen which one to believe. Obviously, that is something we have both done. Believe me, I don't want you to apologize for standing up for what you believe; I would not even accept that apology.However, thank you for apologizing for for the unfounded implications.  

But Vinny, what about forgiveness?

What exactly are you referring to? I told you not to apologize for standing up for what you believe. I would never apologize for that. As for what you did apologize for, I thought I made it clear that I forgave you.

But why should she care if you forgive her or not ?

And for the record...

Folks die from more than just abortion.

I really hate to engage closed-minded religious bigots and morons in any kind of dialogue. You know you're not going to get anywhere with them. They are on a mission from god!!!!!  

But something Vinnie wrote jumps out at me like a snake.

He says, "I have never manipulated the Bible..."

Sorry. Such a statement from someone who uses an icon of a cross laid across an open book that looks a hell of a lot like a bible, well, you have already lost all credibility, Vin. Besides manipulating the image of the bible, I don't believe you are able to read from the bible WITHOUT manipulating it. 

The only way you could do that is to read it objectively without ascribing any kind of "power" or special meaning to the words. That is the crux of the meaning of manipulation. 

I know what you mean. Here on my campus, everyone who voted no on 1 was sad and angry, myself included. I know one a$$hole on campus who voted yes on 1 and was proud that gay marriage was repealed. It took one of my friends who donated a lot of his time for the no on 1 campaign, and who is himself gay, to shut that bastard up.

All because of some homophobic bigots gay marriage has been repealed. I wonder how heterosexuals feel if the roles were reversed and it was the lgbts that were allowed to marry and not the straights. How would they like to feel about that.

Is it really?

Because I can argue that religion is exactley what you are describing, and push to say that religious people should lose their rights.

What do you think of that idea?

I think it is a mal-formed idea. The freedom of religion is expressly granted in the 1st Amendment. Homosexual acts are not mentioned in the Constitution so far as I can recall.

Also, religion is not primarily defined by behavior, but by belief. If you wish to call religious expression behavior, I won't quibble, but it is a secondary attribute.

Repealing this law already broke the constitution, which states that all people are created equal.

And actually sexual orientation is a fixed characteristic, it is not a choice.

Shawn, stop and actually think about what you are saying. Homosexuality is not based on behavior, it is based on sexual attraction. You do not choose which gender you are attracted to, and yes, all the evidence points to it being intrinsic in nature, if you would even bother to do your research. And yes, gay marriage IS a civil rights issue.

I will explain this as simply as I can for people who do not bother to actually research this issue. You have one set of couples in this country (straight couples) that receive special rights and benefits from the government that protect their relationship and provide them with economic and legal security. Then you have another set of couples (gay couples) that do not have any of these privileges whatsoever.

I am sick and tired of trying to reason with bigoted sociopaths like this Shawn character. We need to start calling it like it is. If you oppose gay marriage, then you a mean-spirited, hateful, spiteful, heartless, soulless scumbag.

Kevin, for all your demands of tolerance and acceptance, you are the one calling people names in this discussion.

The fact is, you cannot divorce homosexual acts from homosexuality. Neither race, ethnicity or gender require any feeling, thought, or action to demonstrate the characteristics of said classes. The same cannot be said for homosexuality. As for your "evidence", whatever that might be, it certainly isn't an accepted fact within the public sphere of science. A simple rational test demonstrates that homosexuality cannot be genetically based: as a necessarily recessive gene, incidence of homosexuality would decline over time given the fact that homosexuals reproduce less than the general population if there was a "gay gene". However, the rate of incidence has remained fairly stable over time.

Lastly, gay marriage is not a Civil Rights issue. It is a re-definition issue. And, as every single vote has demonstrated so far, the public does not agree with you about re-defining marriage to include same-sex relationships.

Shawn, I frankly don't care about tolerance or acceptance from you, and yes, the time has come to point out the reality of what people like you actually are.

You are delusional if you honestly believe that you cannot "divorce homosexual acts from homosexuality." Yes, in fact, you can. You can be gay, but celibate; in other words, you would have homosexual attraction, but you would not be having homosexual sex. It really is quite simple to understand. One cannot control his/her sexual attraction, it is not chosen, and it is not a lifestyle. If you honestly believe that all gay people are lying about this as some sort of mass conspiracy to upset religious conservatives, then by all means, believe whatever you want. But every time that you try to tell me that it is somehow "chosen," you will be shot down, because I know otherwise. If you are not gay yourself, you have no authority to try to explain to a gay person exactly why they are the way that they are.

If I were you, I would research scientific studies on the issue more closely. Yes, there is a chance of it being genetically based (not one gene, but most likely a combination of genes). I am not claiming authoritative knowledge on the origin of the orientation. However, several studies have been done on the issue, most with the conclusion that it is not a choice. For instance, the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden recently conducted a study of the brain structure of straight individuals vs. gay individuals, and found resemblances in the brain's physical structure and size as well as the strength of neural connections among gay people and straight people of the opposite sex. There are also numerous other theories based on biological happenings within the womb.

Regardless of what the reason for homosexual orientation actually is (be it a genetic factor, any other number of biological factors, etc.), what we are specifically talking about here is the subject of gay marriage.

This "re-definition issue" excuse that we've all heard before (and rolled our eyes at) is a copout for bigotry. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what straight people think, period. Nobody "owns" the word "marriage." You do not get to dictate to gay couples how they can or cannot refer to their own relationships. Exactly who do you think you are? Your marriage is between a man and a woman, but a gay person's marriage is same-sex. I fail to see how a gay person's marriage affects your marriage in any way whatsoever. Gay people define their own marriages, and straight people define their own marriages. Civil rights are civil rights, period, and civil marriage is a civil right. An entire group of people in this country (who, regardless of what you might think, are in fact, American citizens) are being denied basic rights to protect their own personal relationships, as well as their children. To not view this as a civil rights issue is completely absurd. It could not be any plainer or more obvious if it jumped out in front of you dancing the hula.

Kevin, name one protected class that is defined by emotion (attraction as you put it) or behavior.

The fact is homosexuals are not a protected class at the Federal level, which is why the Feds are able to discriminate against gays in the military and why DOMA has not been struck down on a Constitutional basis. Furthermore, it would be unprecedented to grant protected status to a group of individuals based on behaviors or emotions, or even state of mind.

So, you can continue to echo the same broken record that this is a Civil Rights issue, but the reality is you don't have the standing under the Constitution you say you do. Otherwise, the gay activist movement would have taken this to the SC long ago. That they're afraid to do so, and Boies and Olson have been criticized for "too fast, too soon" by huge numbers of gay activist leaders reflects that you know you will most likely lose at the Fed level.

Also, regarding where homosexuality comes from: it doesn't matter. Whether from an over exposure to estrogen in the womb, or an absent father, or sexual abuse during childhood, it simply doesn't matter. Homosexuality is not simply another "variation" in human sexuality like blond hair vs. red hair. It is a psycho-sexual disorder that results in the inability of an individual to successfully pass on their genes through confounded sexual interactions with members of their same sex. That the APA gave up on the issue and caved to decades of pressure from gay activists seeking affirmation of their deviancy as normative behavior, doesn't mean it suddenly became normative. It simply began being called normative. An un-coerced analysis of the facts of the matter should make it clear, but ironically, science has taken a very un-scientific approach towards study of the issue in the last 30 years.

Name one protected class that is defined by emotion or behavior? How about religion.

The fact that LGBT people are not a protected class currently doesn't mean they shouldn't be, there was time when race was not protected, gender, and even religion was not protected.

And yes it is a civil rights issue, the case of Loving v. Virginia found marriage to be a civil right, the California and Iowa supreme courts found marriage to be a civil right. As for being afraid of losing at the federal level it is not a matter of being wrong, it is a matter of knowing the bigotry and, hatred, ignorance and misunderstanding about LGBT people that still abounds in this country, your comments here are a prime example of this.

Religion is not about emotion or behavior – religions are systems of thought and belief.

The Loving case was about race, an existing protected class. Your glomming onto that case as if it is the same as your present attempt to re-define marriage is intellectually dishonest.

Religion isn't about thought, its about the lack of thought; letting other people do your thinking for you.

And the majority of religious people behave differently than atheists, as well as having different emotional reactions to many things.

That says behavior and emotion right there.

Honestly dude, quit being such a dumb-ass go get a shovel and dig up the other half of your brain.

Then, if you can make sound, logical arguments instead of being Joe-the-Mofo, we might, just might be civil to you in return.

Your insults aside, I've thought about this issue quite a bit and my arguments are sound and logical. That you disagree with my conclusions doesn't make me a "dumb-ass" as you put it.

And, if you can only be civil to your friends and those who agree with you, I would argue you haven't learned the true art of civility.

The only way that you've thought about it is trying to find as many ways to prove your point, rather than actually look at this issue as a whole.

I noticed how you didn't address as to what I said about religion.  I have a feeling that you'll be responding to it later, when you can figure out a good enough answer.

And if homosexuality isn't a variation of sexuality, what would you consider a variation?

Would you be civil to a jack-ass who was enforcing laws that said you couldn't marry the person you loved?

I doubt it.

Religion being about "lack of thought" is simply an insult, not a valid point, and there is no need to bother articulating an argument against a pejorative remark.

I have been civil in this discussion, even though I strongly disagree with you and your opinions. As far as you loving someone or you calling it marriage, no one is stopping you from doing that. By all means, love and marry and do whatever you want to do. But, I won't go along with forcing the rest of society to call it marriage.

Actually, religion is about controlling the masses; making them think the way you want them to.

Dude, I really don't care if its called marriage (I know that some people do).

But we aren't allowed anything resembling marriage.

And calling us deviants really isn't very civil.

I don't believe I've called anyone anything. I've only spoken about behavior in negative terms, not any individual person on this forum.

Sorry, I had misread your other post, but I quote from you: "Homosexuality is not simply another "variation" in human sexuality like blond hair vs. red hair. It is a psycho-sexual disorder."

I do sincerely apologize for that, but nobody likes being told that they are who they are because of a psychosexual disorder.

And where does that leave the people who are bisexual, like myself?

By the way, those reason you gave for people being gay don't make much sense.  Both of my parents were more-or-less busy all the time, I spent most of my time with my older brother.  I've never been raped, abused, molested or anything like that, and neither has my brother, who is straight.

Also, heres a video that I think everyone may find interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PooEhBxh0NY

Shawn, as a heterosexual woman who has at times been dissatisfied with her sexual orientation, I can tell you from experience that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not choices. I never chose to be straight just as my lesbian, gay, and bisexual friends never chose their sexual orientation. Sometimes I do not want to be heterosexual but I remain attracted to men nevertheless. Homosexuality is not a choice, it is a state of being and a beautiful one at that.

Also, your classification of homosexuality as a "psycho-sexual disorder" on the basis of reproduction or lack thereof is open to debate. First, how does a lack of children indicate that a couple is in any way less legitimate than a couple with children? Second, thanks to artificial insemination, sperm banks, and surrogate mothers, it is indeed possible for homosexuals to reproduce biologically, although not with each other. Finally, in a time where overpopulation presents a serious threat to the environment, I would question whether the failure to produce children with your life partner is really a failure at all. 

@Paul – Funny thing. I know a guy who went to Bob Jones and he is gay. So is his brother. Needless to say, his parents are pretty bummed I think.

I appreciate the apology, and trust me, I know what I'm saying is not appreciated here and won't make me any friends on this website. But, I sincerely believe that literally thousands, if not millions of lives are at stake. As you point out yourself, sexuality is not black and white, but exists on a scale. And there are many people who experience sexual attraction to both genders simultaneously or at varying times throughout their lives. Because our society has become so permissive, many people who might otherwise check their homosexual tendencies, go ahead and embrace them even when there exists for them the possibility of a meaningful heterosexual relationship. And, I believe that committed heterosexual relationships provide a better environment for raising children. It is proven fact that children do better when they have a stable home with both a male and female parent. So, because there is more at stake here then individual "happiness", I feel compelled to speak out even though I know it doesn't engender the warm fuzzies.

@Amanda – I've never said that homosexual tendencies or desires are chosen. Only that embracing those desires as an intrinsic identity and living a homosexual lifestyle are choices.

Seriously dude, where have you gotten your information from?

Many children grow up with either separated parents, only one parent or as many as four parents.

How is this less harmful or confusing then having 2 loving parents, who also love eachother?

I also do not see how millions of lives are "at stake", many gay couples raise children that otherwise would have had terrible lives growing up in orphanages.

Gay people have tried to commit to heterosexual relationships, and they hardly ever work.  Especially if the woman (or man) does not know if the other is gay, and cannot figure out why (s)he does not love them the way a heterosexual partner would.

So what you're asking us to do is forfeit our own happiness, in order to make straight men and women miserable, and their children as well.

You said earlier that homosexuality is not a variation of human sexuality, yet is an 'aberration'.  I want to point of first that the word homosexuality has the word sexuality.  Then you go on to talk about a scale.  I'm not sure if you know or not, but it is the Kinsey scale, which rates through 1-6, with 1 being completely straight and 6 being completely gay.  I also want to point out that you cannot have a scale (or meter, or w/e you want to call it) without having extremes.

Also, using your own logic, being heterosexual and embracing your own heterosexuality is also a choice.

What is wrong with embracing who we are?  Ultimately dude, why do you really even care?  It isn't your business what we do behind doors any more than it is our business what you do behind doors.

@ Amanda, I don't think I've ever encountered a straight person that wishes she (or he) was gay or bi.

There is plenty of research that shows children do best when raised by two biological parents in the same household. You could start here: http://www.childtrends.org/_genInfoSearchResults.cfm?cx=008671462673142595874%3Avyvdoznkobe&q=two+biological+parents&cof=FORID%3A11&Submit=Go

I'm well aware that Kinsey defined his scale, and I would agree to a point that people fall along a spectrum of attractedness to either gender. I'm not sure what you were trying to say by bringing that up, but one could put it this way: the scale determines one's propensity towards aberrant behavior. This is true in sexuality, just as it is true in virtually all realms of human behavior. 

As to why I care, I'm not certainly not concerned with what you do behind closed doors. That is your business. But, bringing what you do behind closed doors into the public sphere and demanding that society ratify your relationship as a marriage is another matter. And that is what we're talking about here.

Dude, you make it sound like we want to have sex in public.  Nobody will be scared just from seeing two men (or women) that are married to eachother.

My point being that you can't have the in between if you don't have the two sides.

Dude, I don't give two shits if society ratifies our relationships or not (although it would be nice).  What we want is to be legally recognized as a couple, and get all of the benefits that hetero couples recieve (tax breaks, better insurance, etc).

As I said, at this point I don't care if its called marriage, as long as we are allowed to have some form of civil union.

And showing one site that says having two biological parents is better isn't enough to substantiate the claim.  Just an example, I could find a site that said Hitler was the greatest person who ever lived, and we should all embrace him as a god and fallow in his noble foot-steps (please note, I think hitler was a tyrant, and I would kill him with my bare hands if I got the chance).

And as I previously said, many children do not grow up with both of their biological parents.  Divorce is common now, many children grow up living with mostly one parent and their new spouse if they get re-married.

Also, what I pointed out is that same-sex couples adopt children, who would likely never find a good home in the first place.

Oh yeah, one more thing.  Due to the advances in technology, two women can have children together.  This process is similar to cloning, but not completely.

Children conceived in this manner will always be girls.

How they do it is remove the nuclei from one of the woman's egg cells and inject it into the other woman's egg cell.

The divorced nuclei acts as a sperm cell, except it does not carry the gene required to make a male child.

I looked at some of the documents on that page, they do not really touch same-sex parents, mostly focusing on how both biological parents is best; even having a step-parent is not desirable.

And, most of them are either rather old, or conducted under the bush administration, which did not attempt to conceal its homophobia.

Shawn, I must ask you:

"you cannot divorce homosexual acts from homosexuality."

What exactly is a "homosexual act", and why is it wrong and worth fighting against? Is it being attracted to the same sex? (Which is neither a choice nor a pathology; it's no longer listed in the DSM for a reason, and not because of "pressure" from gay rights activists. That's absurd and just not true. Do you have a source for that claim?) Is it anal sex? (Then what about all the straight couples who enjoy anal sex? Can we revoke their marriage rights next? Maine certainly didn't hesitate to revoke gay marriage!)

There are no good reasons that don't support gay marriage that does not stem from religion and/or ignorance.