The government enforced redefinition of marriage will officialy label traditional family values as a civil and human rights violation and anyone who believes in those values will be ostracized as a bigot. I, for one, do not want the government to adopt such a hostile attitude toward such values.

And Grey, even the gay activist group: MassEquality admits that the AIDS/HIV rate has risen dramatically in Massachussets.

http://www.massequality.org/ourwork/equality

Please cite your source on this claim

They say: if you don't agree with us, you're stupid, bigot, ignorant.

If this is the result of so many years of freedom... something went wrong.

I never said that gay marriage was the sole cause of the decline of marriages. It is one of several causes. Gay marriage is one part of a new stage of marital decline that contains three basic elements: parental cohabitation, legal equalization of marriage and cohabitation, and gay marriage. All three factors are mutually reinforcing. When any of these three factors emerges, the others tend to follow. And together, they all erode the institution of marriage to obscurity and irrelevance. That is what happened in the Netherlands.

And the government promotion and encouragement of homosexual activity DOES worsen the AIDS/HIV rates. Especially when it legalizes gay marriage.

http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/01/19/data-from-the-netherlands/

Here's a cute soundbite from one of the defense's mastermind witnesses:

Blankenhorn testimony: “heterosexuals did the deinstitutionalization. It predates the discussion of gays and lesbians marrying.”

My point is that most people have a very good reason to favor man-woman relationships as opposed to man-man or woman-woman relationships. Homosexuality, for instance, serves no natural or social benifit to society whatsoever. Worse, it is the most efficient method of spreading STDs like AIDs, HIV, syphillis, etc. That is why I don't believe the government should promote and encourage such a lifestyle by forcing such a redefinition of marriage onto society, even if it allows and tolerates homosexuality.

And even if redefining marriage doesent result in the demise of any straight person's marriage, it will result in the demise, or at least decay of marriage in society. As I have pointed out before, when the government decides that marriage is only about coupling and procreation is merely an irrelevant byproduct, the rate of marriages decline, illigitamacy rises, and the crime and poverty levels fester. Just look at Scandinavia and the Netherlands for example.

The reason why we favor some relationships over others has nothing to do with racism or bigotry. It has everything to do with which type of unions best ensure the survival of the human species and the continuation and stability of civilization. And that type is between one man and one woman, no question.

Such a view has absolutely nothing to do with racism or bigotry and everthing to do with history, biology, and common sense.

And no one is saying that gays should not be able to vote or own property or hold public office. This is about defending the core meaning of marriage. Women never demanded to be called men when struggling for sufferage. Blacks never demanded to be called white in the struggle to desegregate the south. Neither should homosexual couples demand to be called married couples.

Traditional family values is NOT a civil rights violation!

Those darn liberals -- taking away our civil right to vote away other people's civil rights.