Okay, this first one has been posted lots of other places, but I decided I wanted a turn too. It originated from the Gator GSA (http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/gaymarriage.html) and for those kiddies who may not realize it at first, this list is SARCASTIC. i.e., I'm aware that everything in bold is not true. That's the point. See how it uses obviously ridiculous statements to show the flaws in the first part of the statement? I can't believe I have to put that disclaimer but I've discovered there are a LOT of stupid people on teh interwebs.

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

And, second, something a little more serious. In December, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 30 statements that listed the equal and inalienable rights of all people. This was adopted by an international organization and has been in place for SIXTY (60) years. Article 16 states:

"1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. 2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. 3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."

NOWHERE in that statement does it claim that ONLY marriage between members of the opposite sex are protected.

And remember, those of you reading this that are against gay marriage for religious reasons: religious organizations already have the right to refuse to marry anyone. Religious organizations are private and can refuse to marry any couple that doesn't meet their particular list of requirements. Marriages performed by the state, however (i.e. going to the courthouse and getting married by a Justice of the Peace), should not be open to discrimination. Housing, education, and employment are already protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation (not perfectly, I'll admit, but at least the idea is there). How much longer do we need to wait before the rest of the world catches up to what the U.N. knew over half a century ago?