Groundbreaking gay marriage trial starts in California

Let them marry. Does it really hurt any of us if they do?

Allow gays the right to marry. < :-)

Let them marry. Does it really hurt any of us if they do?

I don't think they should 'marry', but I think they should be allowed a civil union giving them the same rights as married couples. Marriage comes from the church.

It does not matter what this Federal Court decides; the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down any decision to allow gay marriage.

neverknow2 said:

Marriage comes from the church.

You tell 'em neverknow2. Don't besmirch the church.

If they can find a nice partner of the opposite gender, by all means let them marry. That is, after all what a marriage is. If on the other hand, they wish a union between the same genders, then a civil union fits the bill quite well. Why should they get special privileges, just because they're gay?

What is all this "right to marry" business? Does anyone think the government can tell people who can and can't marry? Does anyone think they should? Please stop bending over and letting the government micromanage your lives! Sure, you may not be gay, but if the government or even the majority gets to block gay marriage, what's next on the horizon? The U.S. government already taxes its citizens based on a "temporary" measure to fund WWI! Why? Because they can! Because the citizens take it like they just eat up the idea that the government has any say in this or any business restricting any basic rights of citizens.

If the government wants to deny government benefits and government based priviledges to gay couples, that the government can do, not with my blessing, but not with my outrage either. But to refuse to register the marriage? No. That function of the government is to shut up and register what they are told, just like they shut up and register your name. They don't tell you they don't like your name. They shut up and register it. They shouldn't tell you they don't like your spouse. If they do, then its not government of, for and by the people. Its tyranny. Its oppression. Its micromanagement.

Molenir: Why should they get special privileges, just because they're gay?

They are not asking for special privileges. They are asking for the same privileges. What you said was your bias talking. Please learn to speak facts instead of bias.

neverknow2: Marriage comes from the church.

Marriage doesn't always come from the church, though there are plenty of churches willing to wed gay couples. There are courtroom marriages which make marriage a LEGAL right in the States (currently only given to hetero or bisexual people who happen to be in a male-female relationship). If I got 'married' in the church without registering my marriage legally with the government, I would not receive any of the legal benefits that come with a legal marriage.

And so, we should leave it up to the individual churches to decide whether or not gay couples can wed. But as for the government, it should provide legal marriages to gay couples in the name of equality.

dontknockit: They are not asking for special privileges. They are asking for the same privileges.

I completely agree!

Neither the government nor the church can claim dominion over marriage. Marriage is a concept that pre-dates both institutions and it belongs each and every human and not those institutions. All those institutions can do is choose to recognize it or not, but the government should not be allowed the choice, because it, like marriage, is supposed to belong to us all.

I think anyone should marry, even the same sex couples. It`s not fair gay people cannot make their love truely official.

I think all those against gay rights are horrid and small minded.

Next thing you know, we will have broke back family counseling...

An insider point-of-view: Me and my boyfriend have been together for 5 years now, we don't really care about the religious aspect of our same-sex relationship. We don't need a priest or a church to bless our lives, we ask this directly thru our prayers to the Lord. On the other hand, we do wish we could have the same legal rights hetero couples are entitled to. We have now assets evaluated around US$ 200,000 which won't go directly to one of us should something happen to the other half. In this case, the remaining one will have to deal with the other's family - which is a recipe for confusion, for sure. Just a curiosity about same-sex marriage: we have realised that those same-sex couples (friends of ours) who really want to get married inside a church, or with the presence of an religious "authority" are the ones which are clearly heading for a future divorce. They are unstable, they childishly fancy marrying, they lack maturity enough to carry their relationship without the unnecessary blessing from a third part. So, I am totally for a legal aspect for same-sex couples, but I am not so sure about the religious one.

Marriage is first and foremost a legal contractual relationship and therefore any two adults should be able to enter into it. People who oppose gay marriage are generally Christians that think it goes against the Bible. They say that marriage is supposed to be a union between a man and a woman and this holy matrimony should last til death. Well, with all the divorces and adultery going on, marriage really has to be redefined anyway. They have no valid or reasonable objections. The gay marriage ban has got to go!!

They are not asking for special privileges. They are asking for the same privileges. What you said was your bias talking. Please learn to speak facts instead of bias.

They're asking for the right to marry a member of the same gender, rather then like everyone else, a member of the opposite gender. That is whats called a special privilege. What they're desiring has already been granted via civil union anyway. What they're asking for is the patina of legitimacy.

They're asking for the right to marry a member of the same gender, rather then like everyone else, a member of the opposite gender. That is whats called a special privilege.

The right of the "pursuit of happiness" is enshrined in our Constitution as "inalienable." You know what that means, right? That as long as no other person's rights are violated, that consenting adults are free to enter into a contract with each other. (And it is not a right that government can take away.)

Only someone with no clue of natural rights would call this a special privilege.

I think it's wildly amusing (yet in a pathetically sad way) that one of the stumbling blocks for two people to be allowed to marry if they wish is religious mantra. The Catholic church will preach to you why Bill and Steve can't get married, but quickly shut their yaps when asked why Father Francis who has been accused of touching a dozen little boys after sunday mass is allowed to simply move on to another diocese. So villanize human love and excuse (or at least hide) predatory depravity.

Excellent post dontknockit!

The right of the "pursuit of happiness" is enshrined in our Constitution as "inalienable." You know what that means, right? That as long as no other person's rights are violated, that consenting adults are free to enter into a contract with each other. (And it is not a right that government can take away.)

Thats right, you have the right to pursue happiness. It doesn't mean you'll get it, and pursuit of happiness has nothing to do with gay marriage. As I said before, you can marry anyone of the opposite gender you wish. Everyone has that right, even criminals. Wanting the extra right, to marry someone of a different gender is what they're after, not because it would confer any additional rights or liberties, but rather for the patina of legitimacy it would provide. That, when it comes down to it, is what this is all about.

It doesn't mean you'll get it, and pursuit of happiness has nothing to do with gay marriage.

The pursuit of happiness has everything to do with two human beings of the age of majority being able to enter into a contract with each other. What rationale is there to deny them that right?

...not because it would confer any additional rights or liberties

It would raise civil union to the same status as marriage under law. Equal treatment under law is another basic principle conservatives are denying in their quest to force everyone to adhere to their concept of "marriage."

The pursuit of happiness has everything to do with two human beings of the age of majority being able to enter into a contract with each other. What rationale is there to deny them that right?

Are you one of the extreme few that believe marriage = happiness? If thats the case, I suppose you might have a point. Do you think everyone believes as you do? Perhaps you can explain that to a few of my divorced friends.

It would raise civil union to the same status as marriage under law. Equal treatment under law is another basic principle conservatives are denying in their quest to force everyone to adhere to their concept of "marriage."

Some states have this already. Other states, mostly those that do not have, or have banned gay marriage, do not. And equal protection under the law, gives everyone the equal right to marry a person of the opposite gender. It does not confer on a select group of people the right to "marry" a person of the opposite gender.

And equal protection under the law, gives everyone the equal right to marry a person of the opposite gender.

When considering adults who have reached the age of majority, the government has no right to order or decree which gender shall enter into a marriage contract with which gender. No right at all. That right is reserved for all people as inalienable.

On what principle does a government order a contract valid or invalid solely on the reasons of the gender of those who would want to enter it?

When considering adults who have reached the age of majority, the government has no right to order or decree which gender shall enter into a marriage contract with which gender. No right at all. That right is reserved for all people as inalienable.

Thank you for pointing that out. Er, exactly which law states that? Ah, thats just your opinion and desire. Got it.

On what principle does a government order a contract valid or invalid solely on the reasons of the gender of those who would want to enter it?

Marriage is a contract entered into between a man and a woman. A Civil Union is likewise a contract between 2 individuals of a similar nature. Again, why do you insist that a civil union be called a "marriage"? Why are you so afraid to come out and admit it? That its got nothing to do with marriage at all, but rather about legitimacy.

Er, exactly which law states that? Ah, thats just your opinion and desire. Got it.

Wrong again. Try reading the U.S. Constitution, Amendment 9 to the Bill of Rights. Now try finding where the chief document of our government mandates government-reconized marriage as being between a man and a woman. (It's not there, therefore Amendment 9 applies. Two people have the right to get married, regardless of their genders.)

Marriage is a contract entered into between a man and a woman.

Sorry, as soon as you mention "contract," the gender requirements are up to the people who enter into it. The word marriage in this case is simply semantics. People can call their union anything they want as long as it is given equal treatment under law as other unions/marriages of like nature. That means gender-irrelevance.

That its got nothing to do with marriage at all, but rather about legitimacy.

And that is a statement from someone who supports the tyranny of the majority. It has everything to do with marriage. Two men or two women marrying each other does nothing to infringe upon the rights of others.

I just got a copy of the latest Newsweek. Not mentioned in the article above are the litigators for the plaintiff: The same conservative lawyer who argued Bush's side in Bush v. Gore -- Ted Olson.

Olson strongly believes that laws which deny gay people the right to marry whom they chose are unconstitutional as well as complete nonsense. He writes a persuasive piece titled: Why same-sex marriage is an American value. (Meanwhile, he's catching hell from some conservative circles for taking the case.)

Molenir - Good posts. LEGITIMACY is what they are after. The alternate lifestyle is normal and natural! Kids need to be taught this from an early age! Once LEGITIMACY is granted all opposition will be silenced! Religions will be demonized by society! You may even be arrested for your hate speech. Welcome to Sodom.

Now The government is still under the natural order and should protect society from the tyranny of a few or even the majority. I do not know what drives people to same sex behavior and I wish to let them be free and let God be the judge (treated them always with dignified respect). But for the society it is best to stay with the natural behavior of male and female as the norm, as we can see in nature itself. Children are a product of male and female union. Quite natural and should be supported as such and not confused.

The male-female-children need extra help at times to bring in the next generation, such as education. Yes LEGITIMACY would help same sex couples adopt children. I for one am happy with having a Mom and Dad.

It is debatable that same sex couples be allowed to adopt. That is coming and for the children's sake it must be accepted or the violence done to the children in ridicule etc. is a result of both parties. The adopters and those wishing for the natural order. Children should never be abused. One could argue that for the children, marriage must be granted to families as such. Perhaps children could be put into the equation for what constitutes a "family with children". Perhaps more than one wife/husband could be allowed as well. Perhaps, forget about this marriage thing and just help children wherever they be.

Perhaps the natural family is outdated and is no longer needed. In theory it looks good perhaps. However, in reality, the natural family is where some very special things happen.

These are tough questions with very few answers. Certainly, I can leave anything I got to anyone in a will. Also, in time of sickness I could also give permission for anyone to see me. Everything can be done without messing with the traditional biological family. It really is LEGITIMACY that this movement wants. Next SILENCE all those who oppose. Reproduction by cloning other peoples children through education. A middle ground must be found because this cloning part will not go over well. Remember, special things happen in the natural biological family. Let us all be GOOD to one another as the natural order demands.

"treat them always with dignified respect" : "Quite natural and should be supported as such and not be confused. " plus a few commas

Everything can be done without messing with the traditional biological family.

Two men or two women getting married will do nothing to mess up the marriage of a man and a woman. Nothing at all.

Those who claim otherwise should be required to prove their claim. One thing that we all know is that the vast majority of gays came out of what the writer calls the "traditional biological family."

Yabits, a very tiring and some would say taboo subject. I hope my children have a normal life.

I hope my children have a normal life.

The chances are they will -- normal for them -- despite the flaws of their parents. (If you think that gay marriage is a "taboo subject," my words especially apply.)

Funny yabits...we are one race, we are human.

yabits: I totally agree. Gay marriage does not affect male-female marriages at all.

I think that people who argue that gay marriage will somehow mess up the 'traditional' family unit or family values are really just homo-phobics hiding behind their flimsy objections. They are terrified of gay people sharing a relationship with the same name as they have put to their relationship; 'marriage' is really just a word to describe a contractual union between two adults.

And they are even more afraid that by acknowledging that gay unions are just as legit as hetero ones, there will be gay married couples having perverted sex everywhere and bringing up gay messed up kids. By not acknowledging that gay people can have loving, long-lasting relationships, they can stay in their own closets and block out realities that scare them to think about. I think these fears are at the core of those who oppose gay marriage. It's pure selfishness and fear.

Also, whether a gay married couple decide to adopt kids or not is a completely separate issue. Although, having male and female role models is important, what is most important is that kids have loving parents whatever gender.

dolphingirl1: very good points.

A generation from now, the conservatives -- yeah, as long as irrational fear and loathing exists in the world, there will be conservatives -- the conservatives will be looking back trying to claim that it was us liberals who were the homophobes. (Just as they now claim we are the ones who are racists.)

I love how how if you oppose the gay agenda, you're a homophobic. Does that mean if you are in favor of it, you're a heterophobic? I mean it makes sense right. So basically, Yabits and dolphin girl have just come out and admitted they're heterophobes.

Dirty Stinkin Heterophobes!

I love how how if you oppose the gay agenda, you're a homophobic. Does that mean if you are in favor of it, you're a heterophobic?

That's the same logic that would argue that a white person who supports civil rights for minorities hates white people. Some people really embarrass themselves.

That's the same logic that would argue that a white person who supports civil rights for minorities hates white people. Some people really embarrass themselves.

Yet oddly, the reverse never seems to be true. Or is it possible, that it is, and you guys won't admit it?

I think every married couple, gay or straight, should be able to define for themselves what a marriage is. Why should the government have the right to control what our relationships are or what we call them? It just doesn't make sense.

Proponents of gay marriage are only asking that gay people have the same legal rights as straight people. It's really as simple as that. If we are only arguing over semantics then should they create another name, besides 'marriage', for a gay union? No, because besides gender, it is exactly the same. Would we then have to have other names for marriages of mixed ethnicities, too? Of course not.

Marriage is a promise to love and honor someone so there is no reason why any two adults shouldn't be able to make this promise. Straight marriages will not suddenly collapse if gay marriages are allowed. That is simply absurd, irrational, fearful thinking.

Marriage between a man and a women is beautiful. That is how we were made. End of story. They do not want to televise this trial because of all the hate sent to those defending prop 8. I read some of the comments and boy do the gays have hatred for Christian values. Really scary bunch. So scary and full of hate that the trial cannot be televised.

Marriage between a man and a women is beautiful. That is how we were made. End of story.

Sorry, Mein Führer, but you get to declare "end of story" only for yourself and whomever wants to follow you blindly.

I read some of the comments and boy do the gays have hatred for Christian values. Really scary bunch. So scary and full of hate that the trial cannot be televised.

Since when did bearing false witness as you have done above become a Christian value?

If these people are so scary, why as arch-conservative litigator, Theodore Olson, taken on the case? (Don't go there; Ted was married to Barbara Olson, who lost her life on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11.)

OneForAll

Two hours before trial was scheduled to start, the top U.S. court weighed in on an issue related to the case, blocking video of the proceedings from being posted on YouTube.com. It said justices need more time to review that issue, and put the order in place at least until Wednesday.

I don't see anything here that says that the airing of the trial was blocked because of hatred for Christians or any hatred. It's been a platform of Christians to judge gays by their beliefs, not the other way around. < :-)

Yet oddly, the reverse never seems to be true. Or is it possible, that it is, and you guys won't admit it?

I would only admit it when someone shows me where in this so-called "gay agenda" they are calling to ban all marriages between heterosexuals.

Sorry, Mein Führer, but you get to declare "end of story" only for yourself and whomever wants to follow you blindly.

And now you're apparently linking anyone who thinks gay marriage is wrong, to nazis. Thats tolerance for you. I almost feel sorry for these heterophobes.

Since when did bearing false witness as you have done above become a Christian value?

False witness? What are you talking about here?

The trial is not being broadcast for very good reason. After the hatred vented by the heterophobes following the passage of prop 8, a lot of people were frightened, and rightfully so. Theres so much intolerance shown by the gay community and their allies. Anyone who doesn't follow in lockstep, is attacked. Hmm, now that I think about it, that sounds more like nazi gestapo tactics to me. Perhaps we should be the ones using such terms as Mein Führer?

And now you're apparently linking anyone who thinks gay marriage is wrong, to nazis. Thats tolerance for you.

I'm linking anyone who decrees "end of story" to a little Hitler. It's obviously not the the end of the story, or it wouldn't be in the court system: As civil rights were eventually won by blacks and other minorities, liberties will be obtained by the homosexual community too. By the way, I don't see what's so tolerable about ignorance and cowardice.

Hmm, now that I think about it, that sounds more like nazi gestapo tactics to me.

Narrow-minded conservatives like yourself -- the ones who want to deny basic rights to others -- should pull their heads out of their bunkers and smell the coffee.

Narrow-minded conservatives like yourself -- the ones who want to deny basic rights to others -- should pull their heads out of their bunkers and smell the coffee.

Again, no one is denying anyone rights. These people have the right to marry if they wish. If they want to hook up with someone of the same gender, they can simply do a civil union. No rights are lost. The only thing they don't have is the patina of legitimacy granted by the term 'marriage'.

I'm linking anyone who decrees "end of story" to a little Hitler. It's obviously not the the end of the story, or it wouldn't be in the court system: As civil rights were eventually won by blacks and other minorities, liberties will be obtained by the homosexual community too.

You refer to anyone who decides that at a certain point thats the end of the story, a nazi? Quite the leap. I don't buy it of course, but go ahead and spin that if you want. By the way, trying to link gay marriage to civil rights is disgusting and offensive. Its offensive to all those who fought so long and hard for equality. Its complete nonsense as well. If you were referring to basic rights, they already have that. I would fight for that as well. But linking marriage to that is just offensive in the extreme.

By the way, I don't see what's so tolerable about ignorance and cowardice.

Well, thats one opinion. Though for myself, I think it takes a lot more courage to stand up for what you believe in, despite the derision, and constant attacks, then it does to simply go along with the flow. Though going along with your terms, out of curiosity, why is your cowardice and ignorance towards those who disagree with you acceptable, but mine towards you not?

Getting back to what I was saying. Despite what you think I'm a tolerant person. I tolerate gays, despite my belief that their lifestyle is wrong. I tolerate civil unions too, for myself, I see no reason why they shouldn't be granted. However when it comes to calling it marriage, I draw the line. Marriage is between 2 people of the opposite gender. Thats it. Is like the difference between a rose and Daffodil. You can call a Daffodil a rose if you like, but it isn't. They are however both flowers, and that should suffice.

You refer to anyone who decides that at a certain point thats the end of the story, a nazi? Quite the leap. I don't buy it of course, but go ahead and spin that if you want.

You obviously don't believe in "original intent." Go back and re-read the post in question. I never used the word "nazi." That is how you spun it. Little Hitler, or little dictator, describes the kind of person who would declare "end of story," on an issue that is nowhere near settled. Also, it is not on you or any other individual to confer "legitimacy."

The little hitlers want to dictate to others via the force of government what marriage is. It's one thing for a religious group to adhere to its own rules and expel those who don't follow them, but when they push that view on government to force others to adhere to it, that's crossing the line. Completely unconstitutional.

Despite what you think I'm a tolerant person. I tolerate gays, despite my belief that their lifestyle is wrong.

Until you can love your gay neighbors as yourself and not judge them for how they were made, your statement does not rise to a very high level of tolerance, if it's tolerance at all.

Marriage is between 2 people of the opposite gender.

It is not for you or me to dictate that to anyone else. You want to marry a woman, nobody is trying to stop you. A man wants to marry a man, the same principle applies. The little Napoleons don't have the authority to dictate to others what is legitimate and what is not.

The little hitlers want to dictate to others via the force of government what marriage is.

Ah, so what you're saying is, that you're a little hitler, trying via force of government to dictate to society what marriage should be. Glad we got that straightened out. Happy you finally admit your close ties with Hitler.

Until you can love your gay neighbors as yourself and not judge them for how they were made, your statement does not rise to a very high level of tolerance, if it's tolerance at all.

Can you love your "intolerant" neighbors as yourself and not judge them? Are you tolerant? Or is this another case of do as I say, not as I do that you hypocrites on the left are so fond of? I disagree with your premise that homosexuals are how they were made. This however is not the thread for that discussion, so I won't go into it.

It is not for you or me to dictate that to anyone else. You want to marry a woman, nobody is trying to stop you. A man wants to marry a man, the same principle applies. The little Napoleons don't have the authority to dictate to others what is legitimate and what is not.

I'm glad to hear you say that you don't have the authority to dictate what is legitimate. Ah wait, you were referring to me. Guess you didn't realize that once again, your argument can be turned around and used on you. Let me say it to you then. YOU don't have the authority or right to dictate to everyone what marriage should be. Society has deemed that Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. What you are attempting to do, is force your beliefs, your so called "tolerance" down everyone elses throat. You are using government and judges to do it. You are essentially the little Hitler you so despise.

Society has deemed that Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.

"Society" has "deemed" a lot of things in the past which denied the rights of minorities. Your arguments against gay marriage were once those used against interracial marriage.

Society will change what it deems marriage to be in relatively short order. You are only bitter because you know the tide is against you. In my view, anyone who opposes the right of two men or two women to marry each other are as un-American and intolerant as those whites who once used the laws to prohibit interracial marriage.

Society will change what it deems marriage to be in relatively short order. You are only bitter because you know the tide is against you. In my view, anyone who opposes the right of two men or two women to marry each other are as un-American and intolerant as those whites who once used the laws to prohibit interracial marriage.

Fortunately however, the majority of Americans disagree. The tide of history is a funny thing. You may think its on your side, when in fact its not. The reason civil rights, and indeed so many other issues that we both agree with passed, is because there was injustice there. The majority of Americans could see that. Marriage however does not fit this category however. Civil unions provide all the protections and benefits that Marriage provides. It does so however without compromising the sanctity of Marriage, and what it means to society. I've said it before, and I'll repeat it again. Gay Marriage, is not about Marriage. It has nothing to do with the issue. It has to do with the patina of legitimacy that is being sought by Homosexuals. Thats all it is.

The tide of history is a funny thing. You may think its on your side, when in fact its not. As soon as some states allow gays the freedom to marry, the game is well on the way to being decided.

When strident conservatives like Theodore Olson come out in strong support for the concept that the government has no right whatsoever to deny gay couples the right to marry, it reveals a trend that shows no sign of doing anything else but growing. The blindness to the injustice of denying loving gay couples the right to marry is akin to the blindness of the injustice done to other minority groups in the past.

I've said it before, and I'll repeat it again. Gay Marriage, is not about Marriage.

Yeah, and you were the one who said that allowing a gay couple to marry would make you some kind of victim by "shoving" tolerance down your throat. The burden of proof is on you and anyone who claims that allowing two people of the same sex to marry would undermine the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, to demonstrate exactly how it would do that. It seems to me that the counter-claim is much stronger: By granting the legitimacy of gay unions, marriage as an institution of commitment of one person to another for life is strengthened. Sanctity, by the way, is something that no government should be able to bestow. That's what religion is for.

Lastly, the reason you don't see the injustice done to gay people is because you have no love in your heart for them. (Quite the contrary, I am afraid.)

Lastly, the reason you don't see the injustice done to gay people is because you have no love in your heart for them.

I normally stand by while other folks get riled up over this stuff, but I thought this it was a funny statement. As I see it, you don't need to be married in order to love your "significant other". Moreover, you don't even need to be married to have the same legal benefits. The ring and titles husband and wife are pretty much social niceties that people use to avoid getting labeled as "immoral". As such, it seems to me that getting married will offer no such benefit to homosexual couples as American society in general still regards such relationships as immoral, whatever you call it.

Getting the rest of society to call your relationship a "marriage" does not create any real positives externalities, nor does it eliminate any real negative externalities. As such, there is no injustice that will be corrected by instituting gay marriage. Eliminating government involvement in marriage so it isn't even a legal institution is probably a wiser course of action, but I don't expect wisdom from the political activists.

I love how how if you oppose the gay agenda, you're a homophobic. Does that mean if you are in favor of it, you're a heterophobic? I mean it makes sense right. So basically, Yabits and dolphin girl have just come out and admitted they're heterophobes.

Molenir, you can't win this argument because you are wrong. Cold wrong.

Your undoing is inherent to your wording. "Gay agenda." There is no gay agenda. People who use this term obviously don't understand homosexuality, so I will define it for you.

There are 3 major types of sexuality.

The majority of people are believed to be heterosexual, though I don't have the correct numbers. Heterosexuals are ONLY attracted to the opposite sex. This often results in procreation, but some people cannot and others will no procreate.

There are some open bi-sexual people. Bisexuals can CHOOSE a partner from either gender. I suspect a large majority of the anti-"gay agenda" crowd are bisexuals since they seem to believe that homosexuality is an evil temptation. This makes total sense if you have a religious background and are bisexual, because you will definitely have sexual feelings for your same gender.

Then there are homosexuals. Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, cannot choose the gender they are sexually attracted to. This should be very easy to comprehend for heterosexuals. Statistics prove that one out of ten people are homosexual. That's a huge number. Also note that one out of three homosexuals attempt suicide during there teenage years. This terribly reduces the number of homosexual adults. I'm sure if society accepts homosexual marriage, the number of suicides will greatly be reduced, don't you agree?

Now let's talk about love and marriage. We can agree that sexual attraction leads to being in love which leads to the desire to marry someone. Agree?

As for marriage, it's very important. For example, if a man's wife suddenly falls seriously ill, the man can visit in the hospital and help make serious decisions for the woman he loves. However, if they were unmarried, the risk that he would be shut out by the family or legal red tape. This is just one of numerous examples why all people should have the right to marry. Our society is set up for the institute of marriage. Surely you are not arguing that homosexuals should deny their nature and enter loveless (and sexless) marriages with the opposite gender just to uphold current laws?

As you can see, their is no "gay agenda." Just a misunderstanding bounded with tons of denial strapped to the legs of those who wish to see homosexuals denied the right to marry the person they love.

I hope I have reached your heart with this.