President Bush has just recently stated that he wants to insure that "marriage" is defined as a heterosexual union. This would obviously leave out homosexuals who wish to be married. The Vatican supports Bush in this, and has also said that it wishes to keep gays from adopting, saying that it is violence to "deny a child a mother or father figure." However, there are so many different styles of parenting that this statement is irrelevant, aside from being ridiculously exaggerated. For instance, in some families, the mother is strict while the father is easygoing. On the other hand, it is sometimes the other way, or each parent is a combination of both. Therefore, the advantage of having two parents is the combination of parenting styles, not the genders of the people involved.
And I have been wondering, what is the point of banning gay marriage? They're going to live together anyway, so all the religious right is doing is making people miserable. Most likely they think that there is some higher ground in not sanctioning what they believe to be immoral. True, there is some good in not being part of something bad, even if it cannot be stopped. But HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT IMMORAL! The problem is with those who cannot accept people different from them.
Another much-used argument against homosexuality is that any child brought up by homosexuals would be confused, made fun of, and otherwise messed up. This does not have to be the case. Gays do not radiate any kind of "confusion rays," and they tend to be openminded on aspects of sexuality, so a heterosexual child would probably not feel the need to question his or her own sexuality. Also, the only reason the child of gay parents would be made fun of has to do with the biases of current society. If people accept gays, then this won't be a problem.
One more comment: Bush said that he accepted gays, but draws the line at marriage. Please explain how this is not a contradiction.