XD, your sig is simply the most ignorant reflection of what gay people believe those who are against same sex marriage believe. Not one of those 10 is actually aplicable in most cases. In any case, the social,and  economic drawbacks to gay marriage are enough that anybody who is the least bit objective cannot be for it. But I digress, if you wish to discuss this further, please, start a thread for it, I will, as time permits (ask Yo_john117, I'm extremely busy these days) reply to it. 

Back on topic:

No, it really isn't, it's a pretty biased source, since you don't care to post anything meaningful in retort, it is safe to assume you have nothing. 

Romney is Obama is Bush.

Ron Paul should be your president he's the only one that makes any sense, the others all say the same things, Obama just carried on the bush administration for another four years

Romney is Bush. There, fixed it for you. Obama is a good man, nothing like those two.

Holy crap! Somebody who gets it. Ron Paul is down right dangerouse on foreighn policy though, and for that reason, I did not vote for him in the caucus. 

http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/04/grassroots-video-obomney/

Seriously, watch it.

Howso? Looking back, had we remained neutral, both attacks on American soil would have been prevented. 

Marriage is an institution that is designed to create the ideal environment for raising children, you do not require children to be married.

Personally, I'm against international adoption (in general) at the moment because it is not particularly ethical; essentially, a large portion of children that are available for international adoption are being sold to wealthy westerners, and I have heard it suggested that this is against their parents will. I believe the correct approach to deal with "unwanted" children in developing nations is to increase the standard of living, and to encourage the use of birth control; whether it is artificial birth control (the pill/condoms) or more natural methods (the rhythm method). I don't necessarily have a problem with homosexual adoption, but with there being a massive shortage of children available for adoption I think we should be able to place them in the "best" environment possible; which could potentially discriminate against people for countless reasons. As an example, you might want to place a baby with a family that most closely matches their ethnic background and, since there are far more black babies than white babies available for adoption, the waiting list for black adoptive parents might be shorter than white parents. Of course, this would not preclude white parents from being given a black baby; after all, any loving parents (including parents of different ethnic backgrounds, or homosexual parents) are better than being a ward of the state.

I generally agree you but I would priorities solutions as follows:

1. State out of marriage
2. Civil unions for all
3. Heterosexual marriage / Homosexual civil union
4. Marriage for all
5. Heterosexual Marriage / no gay unions

Explain.