So, marriage is not about sex. Well, if marriage is just a registry of friendships, it would make the exclusive nature of this "commitment," and the supposed injustice to gay people (who allegedly can't form a sexual relationship with the opposite sex) extremely questionable.

Following your argument, this recognition of friendship should either be opened to all groups who share "commitment," or marriage should be abolished, as recognition of commitment is not a legitimate state interest.

These individual define themselves by their depravity; right minded couples are defined by nature.

Experimentation is normal and healthy; making a career out of it is perverted.

We don't need the philanderer Gingrich defending the institution of marriage.

That said; when you find yourself completely dependent upon the bastardization of language just to lend an appearance of acceptability to your depravity it may be time to re-evaluate your decision making processes.

Just saying!

Redefining marriage fragments the family. As a society we need to try to strengthen it instead.

Marriage has been established in the first place to provide a stable family setting to raise the children that come out of sexual relationships: with a mother and a father.

You're the one making marriage solely about the wants and desires of adults. If that's truly the case, then why does marriage have to be between only two people? Why not three, or four, or more? Isn't maintaining such a numerical standard a throwback to the old fashioned notion that putting men and women together so they can have children and raise them as a mother and a father has any importance and relevance to society whatsoever?

This is not about what couples do in the bedroom. This is about putting the best interests of children ahead of the wants and desires of adults.

We're talking about marriage here, not sex. People do not need to marry to enjoy sex, nor are married people required to have sex. Couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the ability or even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

People get married because they want to make a formal commitment to one another. Whether they are Gay or Straight is irrelevant. And your obsession with what married couples do in the bedroom is ... well, just a bit creepy.

It is totally hypocritical to define marriage based on sexual desires and then only redefine it exclusively for homosexuality while all other sexual relationships like polyamory and incest continue to be discriminated against, just because they lack the wealth and influence to push their wants and desires into the law.

I makes more consistent and logical sense to define marriage based on biology, which works the same for everybody regardless of their sexual desires.

But for people who are Gay, it's irrelevant. "Natural marriage" to us is a commitment to another Gay person of the same sex.

This is not to say that we do not accept our Straight friends. Of course we do. We understand that a "natural marriage" for them is between two heterosexual people of the opposite sex. Fortunately most Straight people today have a much better understanding of their Gay friends, family members, and co-worker, and they understand what "natural marriage" means to US.