5. proposition 8 directly UNDERMINES the first amendment. The problem with using religious principles as the sole reasoning for an amendment is that ANY amendment that values one religion over another is in violation of the first amendment. Morality aside, citizens DO NOT have the right to force one another to obey their religious principles. That is the first amendment. Do read it before you go screaming for your rights to violate others rights. I think I answered all 10 'false' 'facts'.

4. What, do I need to answer a question when you reference YOURSELF? What research from other countries? Anyway I will try. Look any marriage like any other agreement between adults is based on the good faith to fallow through on it. Your marriages value is directly related to the value you put into it. This proposition directly undercuts all marriages by giving people the false belief that their relationship is some how better because its between a man and a women, WRONG. The only people who can put value in the marriage are the ones in it, how tend to it EVERYDAY and therefor are putting the value were the say they want it. If you don't do that then your marriage isn't going to be worth much, period.

3. your statement that some gay couples have open relationships shows a distinct lack of knowledge of the polyamory community, yes many STRAIGHT couples have agreed to have open relationships. And there even evidence to support it as a healthy choice for some people. When you live in a glass house don't through stones. Just because any number of gay couples have agreed to have open relationships is no reason to refuse those who haven't of it. You wouldn't accept the argument that your relationships should be worth less because some opposite gendered couples have agreed to have open relationships would you?

2. Again you seem to misunderstand the difference between same gender attraction and any specific behavior. The specific behavior you blame gays for is being practiced very frequently by 'straight' couples now a days. If you wish to attack that behavior DO that, not just accuse 'gays' as being immoral even when some of them don't engage in that behavior because some of them do.

1. The real question isn't wither or not gays should be 'allowed' to 'marry' but wither or not citizens have the right to abridge the right of other citizens to enter into legally binding contracts. The constitutionality of marriage was never established in the constitution as anything other than a contractual agreement. Don't go screaming about first amendment rights as a means to establish your religion as the state religion, that itself is a violation of the first amendment.

10. The rational basis for concluding that proposition 8 is unconstitutional lies in the previous answer to number 9. To deny gay marriage is to deny citizens the right to form their own binding contracts. Marriage isn't regulated by the constitution, it existed before the constitution and therefor isn't covered as anything other than a mutually binding contract, which every citizen can form with any other willing citizen.

9. If society does endorse one type of relationship over another you are right, but that isn't the case anyway. What is actually being argued here is wither or not the state should tell a couple who are making a commitment to each other that their commitment is less than any other citizens who make a commitment to each other. In that the state (and the citizens) don't have that right (actually the state shouldn't be in the marriage business anyway). The state (and the citizens) should honor the binding agreement between two adults as a legally binding contract, without regard to the genders of the participants, just like any other contract. To show a preference to one marriage or the other do to religious objections lead to a state...

8. Assuming that homosexuality itself is harmful. Now prove it. Take away the aspect of assuming a well known sexual behavior (which some homosexuals don't engage in) prove that homosexuality is an unhealthy behavior. I will also not that lots of 'straight' people are engaging in the same behavior! Were is your moral outcry about that.

7. Is a child better of without parents then with gay parents is a far more informative question anyway. Do you think it's healthy for society to ignore the children who are to 'old' to be adopted? Denying a child parents who are willing to care about them is immoral period. The question of wither or not straight parents in a relationship are better or worse than gay parents just lead to cruelly ignoring the children who never get adopted by anyone, like I said, immoral.

6. invoking Spitzers' study is weak. It could never stand in front of a judge do to the very fragile nature of the study. A telephone conversation with people who have an interest in promoting the ex-gay movement is creditable 'proof' that the ex-gay ministries work, do better.