Are you effing serious? Is that what your bible teaches you? I suggest picking up your nearest biology book, and QUICK!

Even if I bought into the idea that gender was solely defined on the ability or inability to carry a baby, there are millions of people, due to a multitude of medical conditions who are incapable of carrying a child or impregnating a someone else to do so.

So, based on your logic, a woman who has undergone a hysterectomy should not be able to marry because she no longer “goes together with a man”.

Please don’t allow your personal bigotry to cloud your common sense. And also, do not allow your personal bigotry to dictate MY life. I will afford you your right to marry under the law. Afford me the same.

You are as stubborn as a pedophile, you both think that your beahvior is normal.

Look up normal, 2 percent is any but normal.

Look up “aberration” and “deviate”. They mean that your parents created an environment through nurturing that caused your infection.

A woman is a man with a womb, they go together.

A female is a male who can carry a fetus,they go together.

An APA doctor is a homosexual and/or pedophile who is trying to justify their sexual debauchery, they don’t go together.

The age division is simply part of the gay agenda to infiltrate our schools and teach their polluted version of religion. With over 50 lawsuits against gay teachings, without parental consent, that is about to die an AIDS like death.

Gee whiz, guess I should have never started that fight with the Scientologists in January 08.

Cowboy up already everyone. We got some work to do that doesn’t include raising money by outting people no one cares about. Right Mikey Rogers?

They argue about “traditional” marriage and that can be refuted by showing how marriage has changed over time, but you’re not going to have much time educating people via a 30 second commercial.

There’s the “children *could* be taught about gays” argument that we keep denying even though it’s true (and I see no reason why children shouldn’t be taught about *facts* anyway). That hurts credibility.

I don’t think people fully understand what marriage offers either; you have to describe each of these little benefits and put them in terms like “lack of this harms children”. If they’re going to play the “save the children” card, we may as well do it too.

Gay marriage will be in all states and recognized by the national government.

I will accept nothing less.

Sure, we can accept that the bottom boys will whine through this fight.

I never expected the lesbians to act like defeatists.

I never asked to be who I am

I also never asked for people to accept who I am. They did because I demanded they did.

Enough with the “ZOMG we LOST so we must RUN to the hills and HIDE and cry” bullshit.

When I hosted the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation Dallas Meeting it was because they were fighters. Not whiners or quitters. Suck it up. And get to work.

My second question is: why aren’t more feminists fighting this fight? Pro-”Traditional Marriage” advocates are garnering a substantial amount of support because they’re exploiting the tendency toward immediacy in reflecting upon human history (even the most blatently inaccurate historical claims can “fly” as facts when they’re framed in traditionalism).

Most heteros can’t even fathom a time when marriages were arranged, unmarried daughters were financial burdens, and wives were property without rights of citizenship. So, “Traditional marriage” has become an idealized concept, sweetly packaged in false romanticism to serve a political agenda. So, my third question is: why are we allowing our rights to be denied based on a false ideal and historical inaccuracy?