Seeing a fat american woman who has spent too much time in the sun as is red as a boiled crab walking around on a mini-skirt and bikini "is a life scarring experience and should be punishable by death...".

3: Your 'Ant Colony Theory' was completely pointless as humans and ants have about as much in common as a cold virus to a polar bear...

1.tsaephai - Life is not a strugle for survival anymore. By your own standards, shouldn't you be put to death? Your ignorant, and ignorance doesn't add anything to society, now does it?

2.By the way, its not a choice. Like, seriously, who the hell would choose to be homosexual, with societies norms? The subject of this topic shows what a lot of people (75% of Texas) think of homosexuals - they shouldn't even have the right to marraige WAIT not even the right to a civil union.

3.Heres a trick - What if I told you your eye color was inferior to a different color, because it was less sensitive, thus it couldn't protect you from danger as well? You are inferior! You don't help the humans evolve!
Should you die? Should you be banned from society?
Would you be so quick to remove your own rights as you would be to remove others'?

4.Christianity is not bullshit, but the bible is.
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/buddychristintl/<-- The church of buddy christ. In my eyes, its the best religion.

Alright... I'm done ranting... Tsaephai... Meh... Yeh've lost all the respect I had for you.

I find this to be an amusing argument primarily because the Honors Director at my University is a Population Geneticist that graduated from Harvard. He would argue that nature itself has created homosexuality as means to combat excessive over population. Look at the world. Look at the growth rates of population. Do the math and look at where we arrive in say 2020, 2050, 2075. Furthermore, there are several examples of homosexuality in nature. For example, a species of Chimpanzee known Bonobos (pan paniscus) use sex to decrease violence in their society. Specifically, the females are known to engage in sexual acts with each other to make peace with other females (note that some of these females will never reproduce so they are technically "lesbians"). They mutually mastubate with each other.

As for ants, I don't know how you gathered they were close to a "perfect" culture. That in itself speak volumes that I do not wish to delve into, but on a genetic standpoint, the Bonobos are 99% genetically similar to humans. The ants? Not even close.

And finally, what about people who are celebrant? What about people who are sterile? What about hermaphrodites (two hermaphrodites can legally marry in the US)? The list goes on and on. These people can all marry and do not "add to" the population.

yes, i've heard of that before, however i think that humans should atleest try their best to remain living, and the other natural things will take over, such as deseases and things that will weed out the weak. some of the homosexuals are very capable people, and help society allot.

i used ants in this example because almost all of the members of an ant colony are female and yet they don't attempt to reproduce with one another(since, i think, they're all infertile, i say "attempt" rather than just reproduce with one another). i think you're all kindof missing the point though...in terms of marriage i'm more for "get rid of it at all and just let the state monitor who does what with whom" method.

Like many Americans, I grew up learning a “queer” was a criminal, a pervert or, probably, both. Not that I was taught this directly. I just picked it up from the embarrassment of my elders, the cruelty of my peers and the writing on the restroom walls.

I also learned, like the President, that marriage was a “union between a man and a woman.” Like Adam and Eve. There was no Adam and Steve. I didn’t see this as a problem. After all, I liked boys. I was so clueless, I didn’t know my favorite cousin Brandon and his buddy Jake weren’t just “roommates.” What I didn’t know didn’t hurt me…at first.

In high school, I learned the truth about Brandon and Jake. By then, I could relate to all kinds of love, and considered their relationship “cool.” But I couldn’t fathom them being married like my parents were married, or like I expected to get married. Nor could I imagine why they’d want to be.

Years later, Jake contracted Lou Gehrig’s disease. Soon, he could barely move, only capable of communicating with Brandon. Jake’s caretakers understood. But in emergencies, paramedics refused Brandon the right to see Jake. Only “immediate family” allowed. That’s parents, children, siblings and spouses. No friends. No lovers. No roommates-for-life. When a nurse wouldn’t let Brandon see Jake because their 22-year-old relationship lacked a marriage certificate, I realized why everyone needs the right to marry.

Of course, there are happier, “gayer” reasons not to prohibit same-sex marriage, like the radiant newlyweds of San Francisco’s “Winter of Love.” That historic moment, when a courageous mayor gave the right to marry to people who love people of the same sex, ignited acts of romantic civil disobedience reminiscent of Rosa Parks and the Greensboro sit-ins. The comparison isn’t perfect. You can’t hide your skin color, while you can closet your sexual orientation. Yet there are parallels. Slaves couldn’t marry. After emancipation, most states outlawed interracial marriage. Racists called for Constitutional Amendments prohibiting black-white marriage with the same sanctimony the anti-same-sex-marriage set utilizes today.

Both invoke the “sanctity” of marriage. “Gays can’t bear children together,” same-sex detractors intone. “God commanded, ‘Be fruitful and multiply!’” But that was Genesis, when the desert was vast, and the population small. By Ecclesiastes, God wasn’t ordering rampant reproduction anymore. By now, the Earth is overpopulated. Couples who marry not to reproduce, but to stabilize their lives and contribute to their communities, should be applauded, not ostracized.

What constitutes marital sanctity anyway? Anti-same-sex marriage fundamentalists are free to believe what they like about it. What they shouldn’t be free to do is force those beliefs on everyone. America separates Church and State. Individual churches needn’t perform same-sex marriages. Individual states needn’t recognize them. But our federal government must not discriminate. Our Constitution, always amended to extend human rights, shouldn’t take them away. Remember, America’s one attempt at Constitutional Prohibition (anti-alcohol) failed miserably.

The President calls marriage civilization’s “most fundamental institution.” But notions of the proper spouse keep changing. In times past, marriage meant holy union between a man and his chattel. Or one husband and multiple wives. Brothers wed sisters in ancient royal families. In Victorian times, 13-year-old brides married 45-year-old grooms.

So why not same-sex marriage? The sexes aren’t really “opposite.” Men aren’t from Mars. Women aren’t from Venus. We’re all from Earth. We all need sex. We all need love. We all need the right to marry.

Even hermaphrodites do.

Why not just let gays have civil unions? Because, as anti-segregationists have long known, “separate but equal” is never really equal.

Do gay weddings threaten straight ones? Perhaps we’ll have fewer opposite-sex marriages wherein one spouse is living a lie. My friend Nikki was devastated to learn her husband Mark was having unsafe sex with men. Mark always preferred men, but he wanted to be “normal,” so he’d married Nikki. If Mark had the same-sex marriage option, this unhappy hetero union might have been avoided.

As for me, I eventually married (a man). Celebrating our 12th anniversary, I think marriage strengthens our love, though who knows? Marriage isn’t for everybody. For many, it’s a passion-killer, or torture worse than any homophobe could conjure as the hellfire awaiting the queer. Some left-leaning critics deplore same-sex marriage as “assimilation, not liberation.” Maybe so, but everybody should have the right to enjoy, or endure it.

With all the same-sex couples getting hitched nowadays, we can expect plenty of same-sex divorces. That, too, should be their right.

© March 31, 2004, Dr. Susan Block

Remain living?

While homosexuals may not sexually reproduce with their partner, we live in 2005. If at some point in time I desired to have a child that is made from my own sperm, I could do that: I could have my sperm artifically inseminated into a surrogate mother and go from there.

Furthermore, what about adoption? We live in a world where there are millions of starving children that resulted from some attempt to "stay alive" (as you put it) that are doomed to die in the most miserable way I can imagine. A homosexual couple could adopt and provide for said child.

And finally as for the idea that disease will weed out the weak, this is false. We have advanced to the point where disease is no longer an impact upon our race as it is other animals. We can cure diseases. The average life span of a person is now double to triple what it was when disease "had the power." However, that's no longer the case.

=====================================================

And finally, the idea behind gay marriage has little to with reproduction/children. It has to do with equal rights. There are many benefits afforded to married couples that cannot be achieved by gay couples. I have a story that sums it up nicely:

well, that post would make much sense except that i'm saying we should remove all marriage rather than not let homosexuals marry, and that the government should monitor who does what with whom.

well, that post would make much sense except that i'm saying we should remove all marriage rather than not let homosexuals marry, and that the government should monitor who does what with whom.

meh people should be allowed to do what they want.

oh and if we want to bring some other forms of discrimination into this.

Acording to some stuff i have read, The christians changed a passage in the bible thus allowing them to perform the witch trials without going against it. Most claims state that the bible today isn't actually the original one, so for all we know "God" could condone homosexuality. (unlikely but if a religeon changes so it can oppress one group of people why not more)

I think that for those of us that are not homosexual, we'll never really understand what it's like.

But in my opinion, no on gay marriage, yes on gay civil unions. Most people, gay friends that I have included, will not argue that too much.

Also, in my opinion, no on gays adopting children, JUST for the reason that there's evidence behind it that the best possible scenario is a mother and a father. Mom and Dad > Single parent/gay couple. I didn't have a dad for the early years of my life, and I needed a serious can of harden the up, cause I was raised by two women (my mom and grandma in this case). You can really screw up a kid that way (one of my girlfriend's friends has two moms...).

Anyway, I don't have any particular moral concerns with it, so don't bother flaming me. I just have those above mentioned social concerns.