And, driving the point home:  “The price for same-sex marriage is paid by children.” ~Kathryn Jean Lopez, quoting Mitt Romney

Perhaps I am confused, because the last time I checked homosexual couples by themselves don’t typically have all that many children.  This is usually one of the things raised against them.  One of the primary reasons why homosexuality itself is deeply disordered and wrong is that it is contrary to nature and will never result in procreation.  Yes, nowadays you have stories (and even plotlines in a cable television show) about a number of lesbian women who have children as a result of artificial insemination, and you do have the possibility of gay couples adopting children.  But surely, if opposition to gay “marriage” is all done “for the children,” which would be legitimate, those would be the things that need outlawing as much as gay “marriage,” and perhaps more.  It is those things that probably have an even greater negative impact on the well-being of children than the mere existence of legal recognition of homosexual “marriage.”  Anyone can oppose gay “marriage,” since the name itself is nonsense and the concept absurd.  Romney is good at saying just enough to get the crowd behind him, but what exactly does he do that has some people so excited?