““down with those gay faggots” like the Christians.” Seriously, I have never heard any language like that in any church/religious gathering I have attended. Regardless, has the “gay community” ever thought that there is a different intention to the institution of marriage (and yes it is an institution because you have to be crazy to actually want to be married, and being married myself, I sometimes question my sanity). Perhaps the purpose of marriage is to promote the natural and healthy continuation of the human race, by means of procreation. Outside of marriage, individuals are more likely to have multiple sexual partners, and with exposure to more partners, there is a higher likelihood of contracting a sexually-transmitted disease, which can be passed onto the offspring, resulting in a non-healthy offspring. As far as being natural, the only natural way to procreate is through sexual interactions between a natural born man, and a natural born woman. Being gay is in fact biologically un-natural in the fact that a gay couple cannot naturally create an offspring themselves; to my knowledge, there is nowhere in the mammalian class of animals where procreation is possible between two of the same gender. While there are possibilities exist where a homosexual couple can obtain a child, none of these actually promote the idea of natural and healthy procreation.  Firstly, a gay couple could adopt a child, but it is relatively rare that a currently married couple gives up a child for adoption, so by my assumptions above, the child has a higher likelihood of being either unnatural or unhealthy from the start.  Secondly, a gay couple could obtain a child by means of artificial insemination (or other scientific means), which is by definition unnatural. Lastly, a gay (lesbian) couple could conceive a child by a natural means, but this increases the number of sexual partners again (she has to have sex with someone other than her partner), which raises the possibility of an unhealthy offspring. Now, with that in mind, I am not trying to say that I am opposed to individuals being gay, lesbian, or bi-sexual, because what you do behind closed doors is of no concern of mine, unless it affects the health or safety of another individual. What I am saying is that there are other possible reasons why government or religion would not want homosexual marriage to be legal, and my personal reasons for why gay marriage should not be allowed are based more in the science of life rather than religion. One final thought that I would like to offer is that many people equate gay marriage to marrying an animal of some sort, stating, “What’s next, is marrying your dog going to be legal?” Which is absurd, because that would be inter-species marriage as opposed to same gender (same species) marriage. A more fitting example would be marrying a sibling, because that situation also does not promote a healthy and natural procreation.

““down with those gay faggots” like the Christians.” Seriously, I have never heard any language like that in any church/religious gathering I have attended. Regardless, has the “gay community” ever thought that there is a different intention to the institution of marriage (and yes it is an institution because you have to be crazy to actually want to be married, and being married myself, I sometimes question my sanity). Perhaps the purpose of marriage is to promote the natural and healthy continuation of the human race, by means of procreation. Outside of marriage, individuals are more likely to have multiple sexual partners, and with exposure to more partners, there is a higher likelihood of contracting a sexually-transmitted disease, which can be passed onto the offspring, resulting in a non-healthy offspring. As far as being natural, the only natural way to procreate is through sexual interactions between a natural born man, and a natural born woman. Being gay is in fact biologically un-natural in the fact that a gay couple cannot naturally create an offspring themselves; to my knowledge, there is nowhere in the mammalian class of animals where procreation is possible between two of the same gender. While there are possibilities exist where a homosexual couple can obtain a child, none of these actually promote the idea of natural and healthy procreation.  Firstly, a gay couple could adopt a child, but it is relatively rare that a currently married couple gives up a child for adoption, so by my assumptions above, the child has a higher likelihood of being either unnatural or unhealthy from the start.  Secondly, a gay couple could obtain a child by means of artificial insemination (or other scientific means), which is by definition unnatural. Lastly, a gay (lesbian) couple could conceive a child by a natural means, but this increases the number of sexual partners again (she has to have sex with someone other than her partner), which raises the possibility of an unhealthy offspring. Now, with that in mind, I am not trying to say that I am opposed to individuals being gay, lesbian, or bi-sexual, because what you do behind closed doors is of no concern of mine, unless it affects the health or safety of another individual. What I am saying is that there are other possible reasons why government or religion would not want homosexual marriage to be legal, and my personal reasons for why gay marriage should not be allowed are based more in the science of life rather than religion. One final thought that I would like to offer is that many people equate gay marriage to marrying an animal of some sort, stating, “What’s next, is marrying your dog going to be legal?” Which is absurd, because that would be inter-species marriage as opposed to same gender (same species) marriage. A more fitting example would be marrying a sibling, because that situation also does not promote a healthy and natural procreation.