"Our country is terribly overpopulated today and really doesn’t need more “traditional” baby-generating marriages. Most hetro marriages are not worth a crap, anyway."

HM, you don't like marriage, or kids, so let's just get rid of them? Can you even hear yourself? I don't think that's going to go over well, but it does show your bias though doesn't it?

Our country is terribly overpopulated today and really doesn't need more "traditional" baby-generating marriages.

Most hetro marriages are not worth a crap, anyway.

I should hope not! But most of us are not content to live in a bubble while the rest of society is affected for the worse.

This is the case in Scandinavian countries where gay marriage is legal where illegitimacy is exploding now that people there no longer connect marriage to childbearing. And when illegitimacy goes up, so does the crime rate and social welfare costs.

Marriage between one man and one woman provides the ideal setting for the procreation and raising of children. A mother and a father are shown to comprise the best structure. That is the kind of family setting that should be promoted and encouraged by society.

Homosexual relationships always deny children of either a mom or a dad. Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable sicne men and women each have unique contributions to the well-being of children.

I find it ironic that gay acvivists notice clear differences between men and women when choosing mates to satisfy their sexual desires, yet insist that men and women are interchangable when it comes to parenting. So homosexuals get what they want sexually, but children must settle for whatever their same sex "parents" give them.

This places sexual fulfillment above what is best for children and is yet another reason why homosexual relationships should not be equated to marriage.

I was talking about gay marriage being imposed, as you well know.

Marriage is not imposed in any country in the world, so far as I know. You don’t have to get married anywhere. How could the number of marriages decline if marriage was being imposed?

As the number of marriages go down over time, then OF COURSE there are going to be less divorces!

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_19.htm#table2

The decline in the number of marriages can be seen in other places where marriage has been imposed like in Scandinavia and the Netherlands.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602230800.asp

This is because traditional family values support traditional marriage. When it is officially recognized as a civil and human rights violation in a country or a state, the frequency of marriages decrease. THAT'S the reason for less divorces as you need a marriage to have one in the first place.

Rob, homosexual "marriage" is an endorsement of a lifestyle which is unhealthy, unproductive, and ultimately annihilistic. Homosexual "marriage" also sends the message that it is not important for a child to have both a mom and a dad. That is why homosexual "marriage" is a very bad idea for our society as a whole.

And yes, homosexuality is a choice, however politically and personally inconvenient that may be. Look no further than the Spitzer study at Columbia which demonstrated that nearly every highly motivated homosexual can change his or her sexual orientation.

Finally, you urge that people should have "the right to act on what is natural to them." Well, why don't we give pedophiles the right to do what is natural to them? We know that mainstream homosexual media would celebrate that. And why don't we give murderers the right to kill? That is, after all, natural to them?

Everybody has the right to get married. You made the choice to be homosexual and therefore forfeited your right to get married. Get help and you will be able to get married just like everybody else.

Look at Larry Craig. He's a gay man trying to live a straight life by staying married to a woman. He's making a "choice" and I'll bet you dollars to donuts he's miserable for it (which is why he trolled mens rooms for anonymous sex).

Sexual orientation isn't a choice. There is not one reputable, peer-reviewed research paper (or scientist for that matter) who would say that it is. And to deny gay people to live the life that's right for them - especially when it has ZERO impact on your lives and your marriage, is bigoted and intolerable. And that's why the tide is changing.

I live in Massachusetts. Children in our schools are taught tolerance and respect for all people. We're not churning out gay kids at any higher a rate than Oklahoma.

Oh, and SINCE gay marriage became legal, our already LOW divorce rate lowered even FURTHER!

Grow up and fight for something truly worth your efforts and money: poverty, homelessness, the environment, etc.

Same sex marriage will be the law of the land and we will all be better off for it.

The following statement can be attributed to Marc Mutty, chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine, the official campaign of Yes on Question 1:

"It was a foregone conclusion that the Attorney General, an ardent supporter of same-sex marriage, has taken the position that there will be no change in public school curricula if Question 1 fails and LD 1020 takes effect.

"Ms. Mills has long supported LD 1020, the gay marriage legislation. Nearly a week before she released her opinion, she told a local television reporter that she was "appalled" by our ads, which do nothing more than point out the real consequences to school children and parents if a new legal definition of "any two will do" marriage replaces the union between a man and a woman.

"In her capacity as Maine's Attorney General, Mills testified in support of it before the Legislature's Judiciary Committee at the LD 1020 public hearing on 4/22/09, saying, in part, 'I speak as someone who is now charged with enforcing Maine's civil rights laws, and hopes that passage of LD 1020 will make my job so much easier.'

"Her legal opinion has not even a shred of pretense of independence or objectivity.

"The request for and her opinion itself is nothing more than the classic lawyer scheme of creating a straw man argument simply for the benefit of striking it down. The opinion poses a position that our campaign does not advocate - that LD 1020 affirmatively changes the curricula to require instruction on gay marriage. That is not our position. Our position is that no change to Maine's curricula is necessary in order for homosexual marriage to be taught in our schools. Further, that homosexual marriage is taught in other states where it has been legalized. When they study the facts, Mainers will see right through Ms. Mills' opinion for what it is: a shameless political ploy by supporters of homosexual marriage.

"There is no getting around the fact that gay marriage has been taught in Massachusetts and California. There is no denying that the author of the "Who's in a Family" book that discusses homosexual relationships and is currently used with young children in Portland said, "The whole purpose of the book was to get the subject out into the minds and the awareness of children before they are old enough to have been convinced there's another way of looking at life." And it is a fact that the Maine state-government sanctioned LGBTQ Youth Commission suggests that gay advocates be placed in every school and every school building, giving greater influence to the gay rights structure that already exists through the Gay Straight Alliance and the Gay, Lesbian Education School Network.

"Yes on Question 1 has shown - and our opponents have been forced to acknowledge - that existing curricula ALREADY create an opportunity for teaching about same-sex relationships under the guise of "safe schools" instruction. We know, for example, that the Portland schools already show films on gay relationships. What is to stop them from showing films about homosexual marriage if it becomes legal?

"Quite simply, the issues we have raised in this campaign were the very same issues raised by many at the single public hearing on LD 1020; none of our arguments are news to our opponents. They had ample opportunity to blunt our concerns by expressly prohibiting same-sex marriage from being discussed in public schools, but they did not do so.

"It is irrefutable that there is nothing in LD 1020 that prevents our children from being taught about same-sex marriage. Maine Department of Education spokesman David Connerty-Marin confirmed that point earlier this month when he told a Maine reporter, 'There's nothing in Maine's standards that requires or encourages teaching on that topic and there's nothing that prohibits it either.'

"We have demonstrated how it could be taught in schools, and that it HAS been taught in other states that have legalized gay marriage. It's a shame that Maine's top lawyer is using her good office for such a transparent political stunt."