How is your marriage affected when two people, who you don't know - and who love each other deeply - wish to become married? You're not being asked to sanction it. You're not being asked to approve it. Frankly, it's none of your business.

The institution of marriage is not weakened when more people have access to it.

The NOM ad is laughable. Public opinion is shifting. And it's shifting in one direction: expressing desire for full equality for gays and lesbians. That is not wishful thinking. That is a fact.

This group is on the wrong side of history.

My Government AP teacher did a lesson on the civil rights movement a few days ago. He showed us a video clip of a minister trying to use the Bible and God as a legitimate reason to discriminate against black people. The aforementioned preacher sounded amazingly stupid while doing so, and I imagine several years down the road from today, discrimination against homosexuals will look equally as foolish.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19Rich.html?_r=2&scp=3&sq=frank%20rich,%20gay%20marriage&st=cse

Many companies today in our ULTRA liberal society allow same sex unions the same benefits as a married couple...and that is basically what you want isn't it...To have the same legal opportunities as a married couple. You can say vows to one another for a committed relationship.
In days of old you did not need a paper just a small ceremony and vows....Ceremony did not have to be public or even witnessed but my God.

All of this hub-bub and change of our moral standards set forth my our forefathers and our Maker are nothing more than an immoral unbelieving society of people to break the moral fiber of our Country. Not every gay is wanting to marry...Not every gay is fighting for this...A very small percentage that want to have SOMEONE approve of their life style.

Marriage and procreation are what God had in mind for a man and a woman...As far as cloning is concerned...it is a gift given my our Lord to help people with genetic and environmentally caused deformities or catastrophic acts that may render on helpless..It is another example of the miracles of God's work.

Cloning would be human manufacture, not human procreation. And cloning would not treat infertility.

But your linked reinforced what I have been saying anyway: the one-sexed scenario where children are inolved would be sex-segregative.

From your link:

"The offspring produced by parthenogenesis are always female".

Please cite the research you'd depend on when you asserted that --

"It certainly IS possible, and, again, far more common than the public knows, for a lone individual to be fertile."

Read my previous comments carefully on this point.

No lone individual can demonstrate fertility without the other sex. Yes, we use shorthand and leave as silent the part about the other sex.

The nature of human generativity is opposite-sexed. I don't think you'd dispute that, surely.

A lone individual cannot procreate *without the other sex*. Using "donor" sperm, for example, to impregnate a woman demonstrates this point. You'd not dispute that, surely.

A roomful of persons of the same sex cannot procreate *without the other sex*. See previous two points.

It is the nature of human fertility that the individual human being begins life pre-fertile, matures to fertility, and further matures to impaired fertility (sub-fertilty and infertility). This is the variablity of fertility and, thus, infertility, which is always based on the two-sexed nature of human procreativity.

The lack of the other sex is NOT infertility. This fact is not disputed, surely.

Since a healthy individual, with reproductive powers intact, is potentially fertile *with the other sex* does not mean that individual can procreate *without the other sex*. That's obvious, surely.

So, regardless of the individual's health and potential procreativity, he or she is not infertile if the lack of the other sex is the central feature of the scenario. Again, that's obvious and undisputed, surely.

Always, a one-sexed scenario (i.e. the lack of the other sex) is nonfertile and is never fertile -- not potentially and not in practice. Obvious, surely.

The same-sex twosome, or moresome, is as nonfertile as the lone individual. Not due to sexual orientation.

When a lesbian is impregnated, by whatever means, she is living proof of all that I have said here.

When a gay man impregnates a woman, by whatever means, he is living proof of all that I have said here.

When a female human being grows and matures through to old age, she is living proof of what I have said here about the variability of human fertility. Indeed, during her childbearing years, she will be fertile only part of the each month.

When a male matures through to old age, and remains potent (though less so) long after his wife has reached menopause, he is living proof of what I have said about the variability of human fertility.

But when a lone individual remains childless, due to the lack of the other sex, he or she again demonstrates the constant nonfertility of the one-sexed scenario.

In summary: We are born equal, of a man and a woman.

To assert that the individual is fertile *without the other sex* is to rely not on fertility nor on human procreation but rather on the possibilities of *human manfacture* through asexual means such as cloning.

That also serves to support what I have described.

But you may have research to show otherwise. Please cite it. Thanks.

The above article cites no studies that support its thesis. It is built on a phony correlation between a statistical analysis of the incidence of left-handedness in the population and the incidence of same-sex attraction. It is a classic red herring.

I guess someone was counting on the big words and percent signs to throw off us uneducated fundies.