As to your arguments.
1. Do people get married in anticipation of having children?

The relationship between sexual intercourse and children has been well studied and documented. When parents explain the birds and the bees to their children, the usual suggestion is to wait until marriage before putting this lesson into practice. You really do not know why?

Perhaps you missed or misunderstood this lecture. Some parents do find the subject more than a trifle embarrassing to explain to their children. May I suggest a visit to the public library?

2. Would the government’s endorsement of same-sex unions as marriage or civil unions infringe on the People’s religious rights?

This question is really is two questions. The first is this. Why does the government need to endorse the same-sex unions? The second is this? How would the government’s endorsement of same-sex unions infringe upon the religious rights of others?

Does the government need to endorse same-sex unions? The simple answer to that is no. Nobody is infringing on the rights of homosexuals. Marriage is not a right; it is a responsibility.

The government is actually choosy about who it marries. For example, when people insist on practicing polygamy, we throw them in jail. Why? The practice violates accepted norms. Polygamists can produce plenty of children, but we do not want children produced this way. The problem? The practice of polygamy is regarded as inherently unhealthy for children and society. We fear the inequalities that would likely result.

Is this aversion easily explained? No? Is it widely contested? Not yet. But do not worry. Sooner or later some goofy group will find a way to get the news media to provide a sympathetic portrayal of polygamists.

Similarly, most people see problems with homosexuality. The practice is regarded by many as unhealthy for the participants and a bad example for children.

Consider another example. If you take a couple of dogs to the Justice of the Peace, that judge will not marry the dogs. Would it do any harm to marry the dogs? There would be no visible damage, but it would be beneath the dignity of both the judge and the institution of marriage.

Would the government’s endorsement of same-sex unions violate people’s religious rights? Major world religions, and that most certainly includes the Christian religion, teach that homosexual practices are sinful. By licensing homosexual unions, the government would be providing its explicit moral endorsement. If there is no practical reason for this endorsement, then for no good reason the government would be taking sides against as this aspect of Christian religious practice. Where would this taking of sides stop? It would not stop. That is why same-sex marriage violates the First Amendment.

The other aspect that really needs addressing is your very weak argument that allowing gay marriage infringes on your religious rights. Honestly, I don’t support marriage for gay couples myself…civil unions are fine by me…but this argument doesn’t hold a molecule of water.

Just because you have to endure seeing something that you find sinful, yet harms nobody, you still have the right to worship peaceably as you see fit or not worship, for that matter. In no way are your First Amendment rights infringed upon.

Oh really? Looks like we got a case of the pot calling the kettle black….how do you support this anecdotal gem: “people get married in anticipation of having children..”

What survey or data to you point to substantiate that claim, Tom? Not all people get married in anticipation of having children, Tom. Some people get married with NO intention of EVER having children. My aunt and uncle are a perfect example.

And whether folks get married to have children or NOT have children, it’s not the state’s business to micromanage that either way.

And as for insults…you stop insulting me and I’ll stop insulting you. In fact, if you look at my first comment on this thread there was no insult present at all, simply a comment disagreeing with you, that’s all.

Looks to me like you’re the kind that likes to dish it out but doesn’t like it too much when somebody dishes back. I’m more than happy to have a polite dialogue on this subject but I’m not going to let you give me s–t without giving some back.

It appears you spent more effort considering how you might insult me than you did on the cause you support. There is nothing adult about such behavior. My guess is that like a child you still confuse insult with reasoned argument.

Because some matters are best settle up front, people get married in anticipation of having children. With relatively few exceptions, all married couples were married before they had children.

Still no real life? Have you ever kissed a girl? or a guy for that matter? Tell ya what, take off your Starfleet uniform and your Spock ears and let’s have an adult moment, shall we?

I’m sorry that you can’t understand that the inability to conceive offspring does NOT invalidate a marriage. If that were so then all childless marriages would be rendred null and void by your argument.