Now what do you do?
Not to mention the Texas attorney who feels obligated to keep two gays married because he refuses divorce them because he won't recognize their same-sex marriage that was made in another state. Ironic, no? A Texas lawyer keeping two married gays together.

As for what makes a man or woman, don't forget that one in 2,000 aren't born exactly either sex. Visit http://dsdguidelines.org/ (which really needs a new name, since 'disorder' has negative connotations) or http://www.apa.org/topics/transgender.html

Good luck on unraveling it.
Oh, by the way, there's probably no God, so get on with enjoying your life (and stop trying to tell others how to live theirs.)

I will ask you as I have asked others: wherein is the proof that homosexuality is not a choice? What evidence is there that it is innate? Please respond as I have never really had these questions answered satisfactorily.

Also, as has been bantered about ad nauseum, how is standing for marriage as the union of male and female, husband and wife, "bigoted?" Explain why it is a "bigoted" position to define marriage this way.

I assure you I stand for marriage as the union of male and female, husband and wife, not as you suggest, "to stroke my hates and fears," but because, as a Christian, it is my honor to stand for marriage as God intended. No hate or fear involved, contrary to what you presume of me and others who support NOM and their efforts.

My point about the sibling relationships you mentioned was to say, at what point does marriage become a mockery of itself.? There is no slippery slope, as marriage as anything other than the union of male and female, husband and wife, is a counterfeit, and will not stand regardless of how hard SSMers try to put SSM on a pedastal as if doing so puts SSM above the "fray" convincing passers-by of its supposed "merits." The thing is, if SSM can stand on its own, then why does it need propped up? No doubt, there is an endgame in mind lest society wise up to what is really going on.

"This assertion of supremacy in the name of pro-gay bigotry would be unjust if the Government, on behalf of all of society, imposed it in any form — and it would be no less unjust if done in the form of a merger of SSM (a subset of nonmarriage) with marriage."

Indeed, the lines drawn regarding related people are variable lines that each civilization figures out based on the societal concerns about sex integration and responsible procreation. This is about family formation via the conjugal union of husband and wife.

Declarations of love do not over-ride these societal concerns. Private and personal sexual behavior do not provide sufficient reason for society to issue licenses and to accord special status to incestuous relationships or arrangements.

But most nonmarriage arrangements that include related people do NOT entail sexual incest. And these are not outlawed. In fact, like the rest of the nonmarraige category, they can avail themselves of provisions for designated beneficiaries. Some of these arrangements are same-sexed and others are two-sexed. There is no gayness factor in play regarding these provisions and the eligiblity rules.

Yet SSMers would pick gayness, based on sexuality, out of the nonmarriage category and give it special status -- for no good reason, much less for special reason.

This assertion of supremacy in the name of pro-gay bigotry would be unjust if the Government, on behalf of all of society, imposed it in any form -- and it would be far no less unjust if done in the form of a merger of SSM (a subset of nonmarriage) with marriage.

SSMers want society to favor gayness even as they declare that sexuality is irrelevant to the proposed SSM-merger with marriage. Even as they note that some sexual relationshps are outlawed; even as they blatantly contradict their own argumentation when it comes to "sexual minorities"; even as they boorishly dismiss love and commitment of some groups due to some unstated fear of these sexual relationships.

Do these SSMers mean what they say? Apparently not. Do they say what they mean? Apparently not so much.

But they do say stuff and they expect us to take that stuff at face value and to base law on it. And they expect that favoring a particular identity group must "logically" negate their own argumentation.

Those two expectations are not in alignment with justice, nor with the Constitution, nor with the societal significance of marriage itself.

SSMers should just admit that their argumentation entails opening the boundaries regarding incestuous marriage. Then, if they can, they should justify prohibitions. They cannot invoke societal concerns that they have disparaged when attacking the core of marriage.

If they can make SSM stand on its own two feet, then, their line-drawing should withstand the same rules they've used to attack, for example, the centrality of procreation and sex integration. Their anemic definition of SSM is virtually meaningless anyway, but it is particularly useless when drawing lines between what SSM is and is not.

Indeed, there are millions of relationshps and living arrangements that are ineligible to marry but which include all of those features.

Note: these millions may or may not be sexualized. Yet they'd be incestuous with or without sexual behavior involved.

There is an observed phenomena known as genetic sexual attraction. Should acting on such an attraction be outlawed even when the people involved are consenting adults?

According to SSM argumentation, nope.

If this attraction is rare does that mean that those who experience it must be denied "marriage equality"?

According to SSM argumentation, nope.

If so-called normal siblings would find it "icky", does that mean that this sexual minority must be outlawed and their mutually consenting and loving commitments be denied equality?

According to SSM argumentation, nope. Even if they pay taxes. Even if the majority rules.

Unfortunately for SSM argumentation, SSMers have declared that sexuality is irrelevant to the SSM-merger. So post merger sexuality cannot be revived as justification to bar incestuous arrangements -- sexually incestuous or otherwise. The SSMers need something else to justify denying the "right to marry".

Hedonistic societies, athiestic societies, and societies with no particular connection to the Bible -- all of these secnarios have included prohibitions on incestuous marriages. That cannot be dismissed based on some SSMer's desire to take swipes at religion at every turn.

Your praise of responsible use of sperm by lesbians would be "amusing" if such use did not result in harming children. Yes Kevin, lesbians deserve gold medals for depriving thousands of children of fathers and for rendering those children emotionally handicapped. As I said before, this is not only immoral, it is criminal, and, sadly, a very bad reflection on our society.

Finally, your attempt to trivialize the cost of homosexuality by touting the very "healthy" lesbian lifestyle is pathetic at best. You may need some education here. In 2008, male to male transmission was responsible for over 70% of new HIV/AIDS cases. Considering that male homosexuals constitute little over 1% of the U.S. population, the statistics are shocking and very telling. You have to be a complete idiot not to see that.

Homosexual "marriage" legitimizes and promotes homosexuality, which, in addition to suffering, has already cost taxpayers billions of dollars because of HIV/AIDS treatment and research. Add to that costs associated with other STDs rampant in homosexual community, as well as anal warts, anal cancer, hepatitis (A,B,C), and other blood and feces-borne diseases.

"Homosexulity is a lifestyle choice. Ex-homosexuals constitue the best proof that it is just a choice. By choosing to be homosexual, you forfeit many wonderful things in life, including a chance of a real marriage (let’s pretend for a moment this discussion is really about marriage and not about radical homosexual agenda to force our society to endorse homosexuality).

You have a will (and brain in most instances), but you chose an unnatural, unhealthy, and often criminal (rampant pedophilia) lifestyle. I also suggest you check the most recent statistics regarding HIV/AIDS, syphillis, anal warts, and anal cancer. You only have yourself to blame."

Homosexuality is absolutely not a choice. There is no such thing as an "ex-homosexual". And surprisingly enough, the legalization of same-sex marriage is not part of the nonexistent "radical homosexual agenda". It's simply a movement in which people want equal rights. Your unwillingness to give them this is horrifying.

Also, your claims of "rampant pedophilia" are completely unfounded. Aside from the fact that same sex marriage has nothing to do with a homosexual pedophile, research shows that even pedophiles who molest boys are most of the time straight, and it is the availability of children rather than the gender that matters.

The connection that proponents of same sex marriage would in turn support polygamy and/or incest is utterly comical. That is textbook logical fallacy and makes as much sense as stating that someone who supports the war in Iraq must also support the US nuking France tomorrow.

The issue at hand is love and marriage - a voluntary union between two people recognized by law. The fact that one would attempt to restrict another couple's happiness because of bigotry is shameful.

I’d love to respond to your questions but I don’t really know what you’re asking. I reject the notion that letting same-sex couples marry will lead to other, less desirable kinds of marriages. As I’ve noted, polygamy existed well before same-sex marriage was even on the radar; I doubt that anyone in biblical times complained about polygamy leading to same-sex marriage! And incest is so uncommon, despite its biblical origins, that to use it as part of the “slippery slope” argument is about as reasonable as saying we should eliminate age restrictions for marriage because some teenager might lie about her age anyway and say she’s older than she is, in order to marry.

Remember the fundamentals of marriage: mutual consent, commitment, shared resources, and, often, raising children together. Incest is illegal, unlike homosexuality and homosexual behavior. That’s one serious impediment to sibling marriage. Also, because of the “mutual consent” aspect of marriage, it is highly unlikely that both a brother and a sister would agree to marry. I know if I pitched the idea to one of my sisters, I would probably have an ex-sister, not a new lover and partner in life.

I find arguments based on fear of theoretical catastrophe or hatred of some group rather unconvincing. But that’s just me. I’m not willing to demean others or stand in the way of their happiness, of the happiness and security of their children, in order to stroke my hates or fears.

Based on the stuff that SSMers exalt as defining SSM, how can they justify drawing boundaries around the SSM-merger?

They disparage the defense of marriage but when it comes to incest and poly-scenarios, and more, SSMers imagine that the defense of marriage will transform into the defense of the SSM-merger.

No such luck. SSMers stand on their own. If they insist that the boundaries are unjust, in the name of SSM, then, they've put the boundaries up for negotiation.

They are emphatic that the core meaning of marriage is incompatable with being pro-gay. So they can't reclaim that core when it comes to boundaries in a post-merger scenario.

Forget all you know about marriage. SSM would be the new thing around which boundaries would be drawn.

In this comment section we've seen a few big declarations: sexuality is irrelevant; love and commitment justify the merger; minority rights trump majority-rule.

What differentiates a sibling arrangement from SSM? Or a threesome, or a moresome, from SSM? Or an underaged scenario from SSM? Consenting adults cannot be arbitrarily denied a license under an SSM-merger.

They could not even claim gayness (much less straightness) as a legal requirement in a post-merger situation.

They could not rely on tradition -- such as the tradition of romance -- since they've knocked that off the table, too. Forget public morality. Forget religion. Forget all you know about marriage.

SSM is a different thing. It stands or falls on its own.

SSMers usually flee from the defense of the SSM-merger when it comes to the boundaries post-merger. The best they can do is whine about there not being enough people pressing for sibling marriage or for polygamy or whatever. And that's pretty lame considering that SSMers insist that minorities have rights that cannot be dismissed due to small numbers.

SSMers get it wrong if they think that, for example, polygamy came before SSM and so it is not an SSM related issue. The issue is justifying boundaries that would have been redrawn for the sake of the SSM-merger; and post-merger there would be little, if any, justification in SSM argumentation to keep the boundaries.

That is why SSMers usually flee from this profound flaw in their argumentation.

Wait a minute. I didn't think "love" had anything to do with marriage? At least that is what I have heard so many times from SSM supporters.

So, if the proposed aforementioned "loving, consentual adult" relationships were to play out, what would be the need for them to get married? What resultant benefit would there be? At that, these "relationships" are part and parcel of the pushback to SSM. In other words, the floodgate would open wide to any and all "relationships" looking for gov't approval via a "license" of some sort. And if this happens. it is just a matter of time before society implodes (if it hasn't already).

Lastly, do you want/need to marry one of your own kids? If not, why? If good enough for someone else, why not you?

Please assume everybody is an adult and able to consent, and that they are all in LOVE.

Two sisters want to get married.
Two brothers want to get married.
Mother and daughter want to get married.
Father and son want to get married.

If heterosexuals can get married, these people should also be able to get married. Do you agree? And if not, why?