Meet a few of them here.

Oh, and shut up, Tony Perkins.

Polygamy is actually higher on the list of questionably prohibited marriage forms than homosexual marriages in my opinion.
Remember; polygamy was tolerated even in the bible.

http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/

I am quite neutral on the issue whether homos should be able to marry or not – my focus is on important issues instead.
I would choose a different form of legal partnership than marriage for homosexuals if I had to make a quick choice.

I have little to no respect for both ends of the spectrum; neither for those who are fiercely pro nor for those who are fiercely contra homosexual marriage.

I can see that homo and interracial marriages are completely different things, though.
Interracial marriage is completely included in the old and traditional understanding of marriage – it took racist segregation/Apartheid policies to keep interracial marriages off-limits.
Homosexual marriage does not fit to the old definition of marriage and I see no strong argument other than a minority’s “we want it” to allow it.

The government/legislative needs to set rules for a smooth and successful living in the society. I don’t see why homosexual marriages should be necessary when there’s the alternative of non-marriage legal partnerships.

See; there are some who want it and some who don’t. There’s no other really factual reason to call that legal partnership “marriage”, so why should it be added into law?
At the same time, why the effort to ban homo marriage in states where it was already legal?

There’s simply no good reason for investing so much attention and time into this issue.

So let’s go on and make the society and its economy and state sustainable instead of wasting our energy on irrelevant issues.

Alls I know is that you’re defending a bigot’s ability to open his/her mouth and show off their ignorance. Interesting, NO?

Good luck getting bit or any of his cronies to recognize the validity you what you say, however.

The goal of marriage is procreation?

Actually, the goal of any marriage is defined by its participants. I and my wife could, but do not intend to, procreate. We legally married for different purposes entirely. That’s my right.

It doesn’t matter if homosexuals can’t procreate, as it doesn’t matter that many heterosexual couples can’t procreate. The test shouldn’t be “do you belong to a category of couples that in many cases can produce healthy viable offspring, whether or not you specifically can? If not, you can’t get married.” That’s completely irrational.

But what if the views are truly ignorant, moronic, and or bigoted?

The OP is correct. I understand the frustration. I am not excusing it but people are calling us second class citizens. Of course, I have to read this crap every day to edit our news engine but it really constitutes a barrage of religious-based hatred.

I live in NYC and I’m on life’s back nine. None of this stuff really affects me directly. What really upsets me, though, is the message that society is sending to gay kids. They have enough self-esteem issues and they are bullied terribly. BTW, the religious right vigorously opposes all anti-bullying measures. What Perkins, Wildmon and Dobson are doing to those kids is disgraceful.

Eugene Debs-

Calling people ignorant bigoted morons for expressing their views … priceless. echo … echo …echo …
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Actually I called him a bigoted ignorant moron for ENDLESSLY repeating bigoted, ignorant, moronic opinions. Which is of course my opinion.

But what if the views are truly ignorant, moronic, and or bigoted?

What words do you suggest should be used to describe these views?

Even as the evidence mounts that bisexual and homosexual behavior is fairly common in nature.

I wonder at what point penguins, chimps, flamingos, etc. choose to become gay, and what prompts the choice. /sarc off

Calling people ignorant bigoted morons for expressing their views … priceless. echo … echo …echo …

To bit when it was said the banning same-same gender marriage, so-called, was like miscegenation, we made an reductio ad absurdum conclusion.

If a society says marriage is whatever a court says it is, then expect to see a great deal of absurdity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

As soon as I see your nick I expect absurdity and hatefilled bigotry all in a wash of ignorance. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy by definition. By this really stupid logic since Congress says you cant ingest drugs they will eventually say you cant ingest food. You are an ignorant bigoted moron bit it really is that simple

Since it is the case that some homosexuals are un-made, then it would seems safe to assume that some are made.

Nonsense. Even Spitzer has now said that the potential for harm is far greater than the possibility of actually changing sexual orientation. The published and peer reviewed research is pretty conclusive that sexual orientation is involuntary and not mutable – any more than “eye color.”

The scientific method dictates that the observations lead to the conclusions. The religious right starts with a conclusion based on scripture and then seeks – by selective observation – proforma “proof” of the conclusion.

This is how we end up with people arguing that the universe is 6,000 years old rather than 4.5 billion years and that sexual orientation is a choice.

By the way and speaking of junk science – here’s some of my own. Looking at this thread, Hart’s corollary applies:
http://www.tips-q.com/content/harts-corollary-godwins-law

I guess your ignorance was inevitable on this thread. You are a bigot and a disgusting one at that. Homesexuality is NOT connected to pedophilia. They do NOT molest children at a higher rate than heterosexuals do. The huge majority of molestation is done by heterosexuals. YOU are a moron. That kind of bigoted ignorant cartoon only appeals to the ignorant and the bigoted like YOU. Bit you are just disgusting. Your hatefilled ignorance does no one any good. Take your stupidity and your bigotry and shove them up your A$$