This defies history; when the union of yin-yang was created there was no United States. Further, union of yin-yang occur long before the rise of Hitler.

Marriage is NOT a creation of the states; the imposition faced today is that the States wish to redefine what IS Marriage yet the States have no authority to do so.

Lastly, for several centuries the union of yin-yang was an arrangement-you did not marry the one you loved, you married the one with the best dowry for the sole purpose of insuring the offspring enjoyed excellent social advantage.

Since the turn of the 20th century Western societies ended that practice however in some parts of the world union between yin-yang are still arranged and in none of these societies would they ever arrange union of yin-yin (same-sex).

Exactly; there is no such thing as ‘same-sex union between opposite sex’

Imagine if you will redefining homosexual to mean ‘sex between people’; may sound reasonable however would ultimately eliminate that which IS homosexual.

Democrats change meaning in order to justify a means to an end.

As a Conservative I can no more change the meaning of homosexual than I can change the meaning of marriage; all I ask is respect for meaning and purpose otherwise everything devolves into nothingness.

Many people in this debate have reached adulthood and do not, and have not felt or been exposed intimately to the influence that sexual appetites of adults, and their behavior in satisfying these appetites. I also think that children being brought up in homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual households are sometimes being used to promote the lifestyle and they (the children) and society have not had a chance to know whether they will be harmed by being taught that this lifestyle is the same as the heterosexual lifestyle. I can’t forget the little girls exclaiming “Why can’t my mommies marry?” Did those little girls know that they had daddies, or were they forgotten somewhere, anonymous donors for two mommies? Not really needed except for their biological material.

Although they were brought into the world with the biological joining of a man(father) and a woman (mother) they are led to believe that it is society that is wrong in questioning whether two mommies can marry each other and two daddies can marry each other. In fact their are situations where biologically a mother and father married but later on, one or the other, through surgery and hormones changed their original sex to become a man or woman. It appears that a man is pregnant, but the reality is, that a woman became pregnant and began the process of becoming a man.

I think the fact that children are being used in this debate is a signal that we should question whether calling a relationship between two women or two men, or other matings should be given the same definition of a man and a women uniting in marriage. People who have set up households with relationships other than married couples should not expect to be given the same definition (marriage). It is not the same.

You forgot the part about defending gay’s freedom. I am not sure there is w or
for this in Vichyste.

It’s hilarious to me how some people believe that all Republicans are anti-gay, or all Liberals are pro-gay. There are only two political parties to choose from – what are the odds that any one person is going to agree with every stance their party takes? We’re not the Borg.