Utah's Ethical Case Against Gay Marriage

[Silhouette]

Gays, particularly gay men, cannot reproduce. And so their unions will not contribute to a state's population. Lesbians cannot reproduce either, unless they leave their role temporarily and agree that men do have a place after all in the creation of children. In either event there are problems. And one of those problems is population decline if LGBT is indeed a culture/behavior and the premise that they are a "race" is a false one they've been riding on for far too long: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html Cultures have a way of expanding. And perhaps this is why in just the same exact years this big gay push has been seen, there has been an alarming spike in the youngest of "gay" males coming down with HIV:

Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.
Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010.
Almost 60% of youth with HIV in the United States do not know they are infected http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/age/youth/index.html

Hmm....just in the same years as the big gay marriage/gay culture push. Monkey see, monkey do.

A state has a right to be concerned about that.

But they also have a right to be concerned about the dilution of the role of men [in the case of lesbians] and women [in the case of gay men] in the eyes of the children who somehow found their way into these homes. And the state has a right to inquire of the genesis of the mental illness rampant among the general crossection particularly known as "gay men":

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

And since gay men are part of "same sex marriage" petitions inherently, states have a right to question whether or not being a "gay man" is a behavior or a subculture and if part of that behavior/subculture involves a predictable harm to the children they have to line up to adopt if they want them [since 100% of the time gay men cannot bear or sire children within their "marriage"]

And really, would a state be wise to adopt its minor orphaned boys in particular to a subculture/behavior who espouses as its messianic icon, a man who plucked drug-addicted minor teen boys off the streets to sodomize while officating as "father figure/guardian" to them? [Harvey Milk]

Utah and Oklahoma now are fighting for their right to decide if certain subcultures/behaviors/cults have the right to access marriage in their state and thereby access the state's most vulnerable citizens [orphans]. Will adoption agencies be able to tell "married" gay men that they cannot adopt thereafter? Will adoption agencies be able to tell them "you can only adopt girls"? Will adoption agents be able to be prosecuted for adopting out children to homes where the two men show up wearing Harvey Milk t-shirts to fill out the papers? Will an adoption agent have to adopt out a child to two men she saw gyrating almost naked in a public display of lewdness in front of children down main street carrying signs in front of those kids and the general public saying "drill ass not gas"? Will she be required to ignore the rampant signs of sexual exhibitionism and that being co-morbid with those people themselves having been abused sexually as children...?

...and thereafter will she have to ignore this observation from the Mayo Clinic [re-read the Clinical Psychiatry News quote above just before..then..]:

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abuse dabusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

States have real and pressing concerns about the viability of a subcultural minority of behaviors claiming super-rights over a majority rule when it comes to marriage within their boundaries.

Can you imagine being an adoption agent, seeing this on your way to work, and these same people march in your office the next day demanding [for they will, and thereafter cannot be denied or they'll sue the adoption agency and win] to adopt some of her poor and vulnerable orphans? Would you sleep at night if you were her having done so? I expect the turnover and/or suicide rates for adoption agents to begin skyrocketing upon the force of "gay marriage" upon the sovereign states...who know better...

Bear in mind the picture below isn't a mardi gras drunken event where the next day the participants are sorry about their behavior, and certainly didn't bring children there [or they shouldn't and still be able to qualify as parents]. This is an event of "pride" where the sober, purposeful and intent people in the parade mean to convey that they openly approve of public displays of lewdness in broad daylight in the full view of children in every town in the USA, any day of the week.

They, gays AND lesbians, are declaring to anyone with eyes who see: this isn't something we intend to shroud from children. These behaviors you see down main street today are behaviors we intend to share with children.

 

[bodecea]

Gays, particularly gay men, cannot reproduce. And so their unions will not contribute to a state's population. Lesbians cannot reproduce either, unless they leave their role temporarily and agree that men do have a place after all in the creation of children. In either event there are problems. And one of those problems is population decline if LGBT is indeed a culture/behavior and the premise that they are a "race" is a false one they've been riding on for far too long: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

A state has a right to be concerned about that.

But they also have a right to be concerned about the dilution of the role of men [in the case of lesbians] and women [in the case of gay men] in the eyes of the children who somehow found their way into these homes. And the state has a right to inquire of the genesis of the mental illness rampant among the general crossection particularly known as "gay men":

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

And since gay men are part of "same sex marriage" petitions inherently, states have a right to question whether or not being a "gay man" is a behavior or a subculture and if part of that behavior/subculture involves a predictable harm to the children they have to line up to adopt if they want them [since 100% of the time gay men cannot bear or sire children within their "marriage"]

And really, would a state be wise to adopt its minor orphaned boys in particular to a subculture/behavior who espouses as its messianic icon, a man who plucked drug-addicted minor teen boys off the streets to sodomize while officating as "father figure/guardian" to them? [Harvey Milk]

Utah and Oklahoma now are fighting for their right to decide if certain subcultures/behaviors/cults have the right to access marriage in their state and thereby access the state's most vulnerable citizens [orphans]. Will adoption agencies be able to tell "married" gay men that they cannot adopt thereafter? Will adoption agencies be able to tell them "you can only adopt girls"? Will adoption agents be able to be prosecuted for adopting out children to homes where the two men show up wearing Harvey Milk t-shirts to fill out the papers? Will an adoption agent have to adopt out a child to two men she saw gyrating almost naked in a public display of lewdness in front of children down main street carrying signs in front of those kids and the general public saying "drill ass not gas"? Will she be required to ignore the rampant signs of sexual exhibitionism and that being co-morbid with those people themselves having been abused sexually as children...?

...and thereafter will she have to ignore this observation from the Mayo Clinic:

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abuse dabusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

States have real and pressing concerns about the viability of a subcultural minority of behaviors claiming super-rights over a majority rule when it comes to marriage within their boundaries.

Can you imagine being an adoption agent, seeing this on your way to work, and these same people march in your office the next day demanding [for they will, and thereafter cannot be denied or they'll sue the adoption agency and win] to adopt some of her poor and vulnerable orphans? Would you sleep at night if you were her having done so? I expect the turnover and/or suicide rates for adoption agents to begin skyrocketing upon the force of "gay marriage" upon the sovereign states...who know better...

Bear in mind the picture below isn't a mardi gras drunken event where the next day the participants are sorry about their behavior, and certainly didn't bring children there [or they shouldn't and still be able to qualify as parents]. This is an event of "pride" where the sober, purposeful and intent people in the parade mean to convey that they openly approve of public displays of lewdness in broad daylight in the full view of children in every town in the USA, any day of the week.

They, gays AND lesbians, are declaring to anyone with eyes who see: this isn't something we intend to shroud from children. These behaviors you see down main street today are behaviors we intend to share with children.

That picture you are showing...if it weren't for the rainbow flags, etc. it could just as easily be Mardi Gras or Spring Break anywhere warm by the beach. Where is your outrage about those events?

 

[Silhouette]

That picture you are showing...if it weren't for the rainbow flags, etc. it could just as easily be Mardi Gras or Spring Break anywhere warm by the beach. Where is your outrage about those events?

Hey Einstein, next time you comment on an OP, read it first. Read the paragraphs just above the photo and get back to me on the difference between mardi gras and that parade down mainstreet..

 

[TheOldSchool]

Every year over 75% of the world's orphans go unadopted. Millions of children in this country alone have found homes thanks to gay parents.

That sounds like a contribution to me

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is having trouble now. Read above.

Marriage equality is not going to decrease the heterosexual marriage pool.

Duh.

 

[Silhouette]

Every year over 75% of the world's orphans go unadopted. Millions of children in this country alone have found homes thanks to gay parents.

That sounds like a contribution to me

Did you read the OP? You consider adoption to people who promote lewd sexual behavior, soberly and intently in broad daylight in front of kids down main street as a good contribution?

I'd say they're safer and happier in orphanges than being exposed to this culture. And if this is how they behave in the open, it makes you wonder what behind closed doors will be like when they get those kids home? That's the first wonder that adoption agents have to consider with any prospective applicants: not just what's presenting itself at the agency, but what environment behind closed doors that can be predicted from clues gleaned at those interviews..

And if you want a clue, look at the picture in my last post..

 

[alang1216]

Gays, particularly gay men, cannot reproduce. And so their unions will not contribute to a state's population. Lesbians cannot reproduce either, unless they leave their role temporarily and agree that men do have a place after all in the creation of children. In either event there are problems.

By this logic anyone who is infertile should not be allowed to marry, be they men or women, gay or straight. This would include any woman past menopause.

As to adoption, I don't believe I've seen any statistics showing gay parents are any worse than straight ones. In fact, my gut tells me they are in fact much better parent since adoption is a long, expensive, and difficult process and anyone who is willing to jump through those hoops is serious about parenthood. How many straight couples have unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children.

 

[Disir]

I have a couple of questions.

How concerned should the state be with azoospermia, oligospermia, problems with sperm motility and sperm morphology?

So, if gay men and lesbian women are not adding to the population AND are paying taxes and purchasing goods, isn't that considered beneficial?

There has been a drop in public education of HIV, does this contribute?

We only have one race and that is the human race.

Adoption agencies can discriminate against LGB&T. They just can't receive ANY public funds. Gay and Lesbian couples that adopt are life savers. LGB&T are not mentally ill because you don't like them.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Utah's Ethical Case Against Gay Marriage

Utah, the former polygamous state, has a problem with gay marriage.

I'll bet you consider yourself a "small government" conservative too....

 

[TheOldSchool]

Every year over 75% of the world's orphans go unadopted. Millions of children in this country alone have found homes thanks to gay parents.

That sounds like a contribution to me

Did you read the OP? You consider adoption to people who promote lewd sexual behavior, soberly and intently in broad daylight in front of kids down main street as a good contribution?

I'd say they're safer and happier in orphanges than being exposed to this culture. And if this is how they behave in the open, it makes you wonder what behind closed doors will be like when they get those kids home? That's the first wonder that adoption agents have to consider with any prospective applicants: not just what's presenting itself at the agency, but what environment behind closed doors that can be predicted from clues gleaned at those interviews..

And if you want a clue, look at the picture in my last post..

You're a moron. You sound so stupid an ignorant with that post. Gay people have raised millions into successful and happy adults. They'd be happier in orphanages???

 

[bodecea]

That picture you are showing...if it weren't for the rainbow flags, etc. it could just as easily be Mardi Gras or Spring Break anywhere warm by the beach. Where is your outrage about those events?

Hey Einstein, next time you comment on an OP, read it first. Read the paragraphs just above the photo and get back to me on the difference between mardi gras and that parade down mainstreet..

I chose to refer to the photo in my reply. Are you the Posting Police or something?

 

[bodecea]

Every year over 75% of the world's orphans go unadopted. Millions of children in this country alone have found homes thanks to gay parents.

That sounds like a contribution to me

Did you read the OP? You consider adoption to people who promote lewd sexual behavior, soberly and intently in broad daylight in front of kids down main street as a good contribution?

I'd say they're safer and happier in orphanges than being exposed to this culture. And if this is how they behave in the open, it makes you wonder what behind closed doors will be like when they get those kids home? That's the first wonder that adoption agents have to consider with any prospective applicants: not just what's presenting itself at the agency, but what environment behind closed doors that can be predicted from clues gleaned at those interviews..

And if you want a clue, look at the picture in my last post..

How many Gay Pride Parades have you attended, Silhouette? In person?

 

[Silhouette]

You're a moron. You sound so stupid an ignorant with that post. Gay people have raised millions into successful and happy adults. They'd be happier in orphanages???

I consider the protection of children not only a legal mandate in all 50 states and federally too, but also a moral imperative.

I would not, nor should Utah, adopt a child to people who do this in public as a matter of "pride". [not a drunken bruja-ja they regret the next day]....but as expressed daily moral value system...in front of children...

so you can go fuck yourself. Kids' civil rights come first. Then we'll take about your cult's minority behaviors dictating to we majority "how it's gonna be!"...

 

[TheJedi]

Gays are a small percentage of the population. None of their "concerns" have basis in reality. Once again, it is another of the religious right's attempt at "science" much like the absurdity of creationism.

None of their "ethical" fears are legitimate in the least. This logic is flawed on every level and it will have no bearing in the SCOTUS when they uphold the rulings to lift the ban on gay marriage in every state. The LGBTQ community has every right to the same rights and privileges as everyone else. Period.

 

[TheJedi]

Gays, particularly gay men, cannot reproduce. And so their unions will not contribute to a state's population. Lesbians cannot reproduce either, unless they leave their role temporarily and agree that men do have a place after all in the creation of children. In either event there are problems. And one of those problems is population decline if LGBT is indeed a culture/behavior and the premise that they are a "race" is a false one they've been riding on for far too long: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

A state has a right to be concerned about that.

But they also have a right to be concerned about the dilution of the role of men [in the case of lesbians] and women [in the case of gay men] in the eyes of the children who somehow found their way into these homes. And the state has a right to inquire of the genesis of the mental illness rampant among the general crossection particularly known as "gay men":

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

And since gay men are part of "same sex marriage" petitions inherently, states have a right to question whether or not being a "gay man" is a behavior or a subculture and if part of that behavior/subculture involves a predictable harm to the children they have to line up to adopt if they want them [since 100% of the time gay men cannot bear or sire children within their "marriage"]

And really, would a state be wise to adopt its minor orphaned boys in particular to a subculture/behavior who espouses as its messianic icon, a man who plucked drug-addicted minor teen boys off the streets to sodomize while officating as "father figure/guardian" to them? [Harvey Milk]

Utah and Oklahoma now are fighting for their right to decide if certain subcultures/behaviors/cults have the right to access marriage in their state and thereby access the state's most vulnerable citizens [orphans]. Will adoption agencies be able to tell "married" gay men that they cannot adopt thereafter? Will adoption agencies be able to tell them "you can only adopt girls"? Will adoption agents be able to be prosecuted for adopting out children to homes where the two men show up wearing Harvey Milk t-shirts to fill out the papers? Will an adoption agent have to adopt out a child to two men she saw gyrating almost naked in a public display of lewdness in front of children down main street carrying signs in front of those kids and the general public saying "drill ass not gas"? Will she be required to ignore the rampant signs of sexual exhibitionism and that being co-morbid with those people themselves having been abused sexually as children...?

...and thereafter will she have to ignore this observation from the Mayo Clinic:

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abuse dabusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

States have real and pressing concerns about the viability of a subcultural minority of behaviors claiming super-rights over a majority rule when it comes to marriage within their boundaries.

Can you imagine being an adoption agent, seeing this on your way to work, and these same people march in your office the next day demanding [for they will, and thereafter cannot be denied or they'll sue the adoption agency and win] to adopt some of her poor and vulnerable orphans? Would you sleep at night if you were her having done so? I expect the turnover and/or suicide rates for adoption agents to begin skyrocketing upon the force of "gay marriage" upon the sovereign states...who know better...

Bear in mind the picture below isn't a mardi gras drunken event where the next day the participants are sorry about their behavior, and certainly didn't bring children there [or they shouldn't and still be able to qualify as parents]. This is an event of "pride" where the sober, purposeful and intent people in the parade mean to convey that they openly approve of public displays of lewdness in broad daylight in the full view of children in every town in the USA, any day of the week.

They, gays AND lesbians, are declaring to anyone with eyes who see: this isn't something we intend to shroud from children. These behaviors you see down main street today are behaviors we intend to share with children.

That picture you are showing...if it weren't for the rainbow flags, etc. it could just as easily be Mardi Gras or Spring Break anywhere warm by the beach. Where is your outrage about those events?

Ahh but we can let THESE people adopt:

Or these:

Or how about these:

These perhaps:

How come these people engaged in hyper-sexual activity get a pass. Or can only young straight people be allowed to express themselves like this?

 

[Silhouette]

How come these people engaged in hyper-sexual activity get a pass. Or can only young straight people be allowed to express themselves like this?

Don't see any little kids like there are present at the "pride" parades.

Also, few of these people wake up the next day as "proud" of what they were up to.

The expressed intent of "pride" in public sexual exhibition meant for all ages on display, purposefully on display for all [not cloistered away on some beach during Spring break where anyone with a brain would not take little kids] in the normal everyday mainstreet walks of life is the difference.

You know it. And diverting is intellectually dishonest and could result in real harm to children. If they are proud of what they're doing, sober, anyweek, Anytown, Mainstreet USA, then behind closed doors with adopted kids, what else are they proud of?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Every year over 75% of the world's orphans go unadopted. Millions of children in this country alone have found homes thanks to gay parents.

That sounds like a contribution to me

Did you read the OP? You consider adoption to people who promote lewd sexual behavior, soberly and intently in broad daylight in front of kids down main street as a good contribution?

I'd say they're safer and happier in orphanges than being exposed to this culture. And if this is how they behave in the open, it makes you wonder what behind closed doors will be like when they get those kids home? That's the first wonder that adoption agents have to consider with any prospective applicants: not just what's presenting itself at the agency, but what environment behind closed doors that can be predicted from clues gleaned at those interviews..

And if you want a clue, look at the picture in my last post..

You're a moron. You sound so stupid an ignorant with that post. Gay people have raised millions into successful and happy adults. They'd be happier in orphanages???

Freaks like Silhouette would take children away from their families and dump them in foster care or worse. They would rather have homeless orphans than let them live in happy same-sex homes/marriages.

Pretty sick stuff.

 

[Silhouette]

Freaks like Silhouette would take children away from their families and dump them in foster care or worse. They would rather have homeless orphans than let them live in happy same-sex homes/marriages.

Pretty sick stuff.

Newsflash: if children are being sexually abused, they remove them instantly from the home. Are you advocating that this not be the case? And I'm the freak?

OK, so the new slant is "only a freak would notice glaring issues of sexual exhibitionism as a matter of pride, sober, down mainstreet anytime, anywhere" and "only a freak would then act to protect a child from what might be worse behind closed doors".

Did I get that right? You're trying to make people shy away from care and protection of orphaned children by equating that to "a freak". You folks got a million of those tricks in that bag you're carrying around. That's for sure.

Oops, forgot one more, "only a freak would see that a subculture iconizing a man who sodomized teen boys on drugs, orphaned off the streets, while officiating as their "father figure/guardian" would have a problem with adopting out to folks from that cult".

If that's the definition of "freak", call me a freak. Make a badge out of it. Like Hendrix said, "I'm gonna wave my freak-flag high...HIGH..AWHOO".

 

[Silhouette]

I get it. You're angry that someone posted a thread about the 10th federal circuit court of appeals extending the ban on gay marriage this month and approving of a ban on gay-adopting last month. And that a person posted a thread outlining Utah's legitimate ethical concerns about adopting out to people who do sexual exhibitionism as a matter of "sober pride" down mainstreet USA, anyday, anytime.

You knew this glaring issue was going to come to a head when push came to shove. Did you really expect entire states of people to lay down and give y'all a green-light access behind closed doors to our most vulnerable citizens? [orphaned kids]. When do their civil rights enter the discussion?

 

[PratchettFan]

Gays, particularly gay men, cannot reproduce. And so their unions will not contribute to a state's population. Lesbians cannot reproduce either, unless they leave their role temporarily and agree that men do have a place after all in the creation of children. In either event there are problems. And one of those problems is population decline if LGBT is indeed a culture/behavior and the premise that they are a "race" is a false one they've been riding on for far too long: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html Cultures have a way of expanding. And perhaps this is why in just the same exact years this big gay push has been seen, there has been an alarming spike in the youngest of "gay" males coming down with HIV:

Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.
Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010.
Almost 60% of youth with HIV in the United States do not know they are infected CDC - HIV Among Youth - Age - Risk - HIV/AIDS

Hmm....just in the same years as the big gay marriage/gay culture push. Monkey see, monkey do.

A state has a right to be concerned about that.

But they also have a right to be concerned about the dilution of the role of men [in the case of lesbians] and women [in the case of gay men] in the eyes of the children who somehow found their way into these homes. And the state has a right to inquire of the genesis of the mental illness rampant among the general crossection particularly known as "gay men":

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

And since gay men are part of "same sex marriage" petitions inherently, states have a right to question whether or not being a "gay man" is a behavior or a subculture and if part of that behavior/subculture involves a predictable harm to the children they have to line up to adopt if they want them [since 100% of the time gay men cannot bear or sire children within their "marriage"]

And really, would a state be wise to adopt its minor orphaned boys in particular to a subculture/behavior who espouses as its messianic icon, a man who plucked drug-addicted minor teen boys off the streets to sodomize while officating as "father figure/guardian" to them? [Harvey Milk]

Utah and Oklahoma now are fighting for their right to decide if certain subcultures/behaviors/cults have the right to access marriage in their state and thereby access the state's most vulnerable citizens [orphans]. Will adoption agencies be able to tell "married" gay men that they cannot adopt thereafter? Will adoption agencies be able to tell them "you can only adopt girls"? Will adoption agents be able to be prosecuted for adopting out children to homes where the two men show up wearing Harvey Milk t-shirts to fill out the papers? Will an adoption agent have to adopt out a child to two men she saw gyrating almost naked in a public display of lewdness in front of children down main street carrying signs in front of those kids and the general public saying "drill ass not gas"? Will she be required to ignore the rampant signs of sexual exhibitionism and that being co-morbid with those people themselves having been abused sexually as children...?

...and thereafter will she have to ignore this observation from the Mayo Clinic [re-read the Clinical Psychiatry News quote above just before..then..]:

One of the most obvious examples of an environmental
factor that increases the chances of an individual becoming
an offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.
This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”
or “abused-abusers phenomena.”
5,23,24,46...

...
why the “abuse dabusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,
in which the abused child is trying to gain a new
identity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexual
arousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuse
leading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

States have real and pressing concerns about the viability of a subcultural minority of behaviors claiming super-rights over a majority rule when it comes to marriage within their boundaries.

Can you imagine being an adoption agent, seeing this on your way to work, and these same people march in your office the next day demanding [for they will, and thereafter cannot be denied or they'll sue the adoption agency and win] to adopt some of her poor and vulnerable orphans? Would you sleep at night if you were her having done so? I expect the turnover and/or suicide rates for adoption agents to begin skyrocketing upon the force of "gay marriage" upon the sovereign states...who know better...

Bear in mind the picture below isn't a mardi gras drunken event where the next day the participants are sorry about their behavior, and certainly didn't bring children there [or they shouldn't and still be able to qualify as parents]. This is an event of "pride" where the sober, purposeful and intent people in the parade mean to convey that they openly approve of public displays of lewdness in broad daylight in the full view of children in every town in the USA, any day of the week.

They, gays AND lesbians, are declaring to anyone with eyes who see: this isn't something we intend to shroud from children. These behaviors you see down main street today are behaviors we intend to share with children.

If the purpose of marriage is reproduction, then the state should establish laws which require there be reproduction. My father married after my mother died. He was in his mid-70's and his new wife here late 60's. They had no intention of having children, so by this argument they should not have been allowed to marry. Is that your position?

As to showing pictures of behavior you don't approve of, that is pretty selective and disingenuous. Are we to presume that is the behavior of all gays at all times? What about the people we see in such videos as "Girls Gone Wild"? The majority of those people are straight, so should we ban straight marriage as well? Most porn stars are straight, so we conclude straight people are porn stars?

Essentially, what you are doing is applying one standard to the people you don't approve of and not applying it to the people you do approve, so you can arrive at the conclusion you want. There is nothing "ethical" about that.