If We Legalize Same-Sex Marriage We Will Go Extinct!


Neo-pagan Epicureanism sounds like a lot of fun.
We'll be just like that new species of gay Dinosaurs they recently discovered, Lickalotapuss and Megasaurass.
That's that Moonie paper, right?
Jeez, why bother responding to an article like that? Only the extreme fringe believes that kind of foolishness now. And only a Moonie paper like the Washington Times would even run it. You're just wasting your time. (Or maybe you enjoy it? I think you are secretly going to miss the crazy bigots as they become fewer and fewer).
For a long time now, the anti-gay rights morons have simply been sitting with their eyes closed and their hands over their ears and yelling "LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA!!!"

They've lost, they know they've lost, they just refuse to admit they lost.
Sure we'll go exint, if this is some Battlestar Galactica post nuclear apocolypse where the idea of the human race hinges on the idea that people need to step up the baby making process several notches. Gay men and women might actually be forced to pair up and raise children, for the sake of humanity. Sure, this sci-fi fantasy scenario of same sex marriages causing humans to go extinct, makes sense to me.
The evil secular scientists are covering up the fact that when the dinosaurs legalized gay marriage (6000 years ago) they became extinct.

Same sex marriage would be an extinction level event!
"And those social uses—the love you make—are arguably the "primary function" of sex in human societies and cultures today."

True that. Humans are just as hardwired to socialize as they are to fuck. When you consider our use of language, our need for reciprocity and justice, our ability to empathize, our aversion to loneliness, and how ill-equipped we are to survive in the wilderness by ourselves, it becomes clear that social instincts are as important to our evolutionary fitness as our sexual ones, and that our sexuality has been largely co-opted by our need for social cohesion.
I can't help but think that the christianists fear of gays causing people to go extinct is tied into their fear the white christians are being outnumbered by the otherwise-shaded 'hordes.' They're not worried about humanity's decline, but anxious about the shrinking of white christian americans as a demographic group, how dare we forget that they were of course the first and only legitimate humans (look in an Adam and Eve children's book you guys!!)
These people who keep making the argument that the only thing keeping anyone in a hetero relationship is societal pressure may as well tattoo "CLOSETED HOMO" on their foreheads.
Mr. Canuck and I have been committing a socially barren act ever since his vasectomy in 1995, it's tragic, really, and is probably why we never talk, are still married, and why he met me at the door last night with a cocktail and a raised eyebrow...socially barren sex sucks...really.

PS...I'm Canadian...how do I know that I'm extinct? Will I get a letter from these guys??
Any sex act that does not result in the birth of a child should be punishable by death.
@6: The toastersexual lifestyle signifies the triumph of neo-pagan Kobolianism. By its very nature, a sexual relationship with a Cylon cannot fulfill the primary function of sex: procreation and the reproduction of the human race. It is inherently a socially barren act. A toastersexual society is a childless one—doomed to extinction.

Of course, #8 might have something different to say about that.
"Which hole makes booms?"

This needs to be the catch phrase of 2011.
@8: I don't mean you.
@6 I'll raise you the scenario from The Forever War where in the future the world government pressures everyone to become homosexuals due to massive overpopulation problems. Oh wait, overpopulation is already a problem? Damn, we best start breeding in those gay genes stat! Start breeding like crazy, gays! We need more gay babies so that then there will be less babies!
Hasn't this guy heard about all those revolutionary means of (sexless) reproduction developped in the late 20th Century?

Sorry, just realized I answered my own question: of course not, since he still lives in the 18th Century. BC.
But if a homosexual society garantees the extinction of people of his ilk, I'm all for it.
@13 Favorite comment. Ever.

Ok. Yeah, other cultures have adapted sex to other uses. Yes, agree on all counts. But those. especially those that are impoverished and where women are less empowered/educated, don't necessarily enjoy diverse adaptation. Not to mention these are the same places where gays are threatened openly with violence or death. Just so happens that those are the same cultures where the population is still growing. Wouldn't that make procreation still the de facto primary function of sex?
i love dan.
The extinction of the human race would probably be the best thing that could ever happen to this planet.
Neo-pagan Epicureanism?

a) Epicureanism actually kind of means the opposite of what most people think it means; Epicurus actually promoted an "all things in moderation" approach to life,
b) neo-pagan Epicureanism, at least in the way epicurean has come to mean, actually sounds pretty awesome, and
c) what the fuck is that guy talking about? Give him a few (okay, several dozen) more pages to rant and he'd sound like the Time Cube guy!
The triumph of neo-pagan Epicureanism! Brilliant!

So, uh, are we trying to be rational here? Procreation? Seeeriously????
"Contrary to the claims of liberals, marriage is not a "civil right" - something to be dispensed at the behest of anyone who wishes it. If this were true, it would unleash the floodgates. Polygamy, "transgender" unions, bestiality, pedophilia - all forms of deviant sexual behavior could claim discrimination. It is a recipe for moral anarchy and social disintegration. For centuries, public acceptance of homosexuality has been identified with decadence, decline and the fall of civilizations. "

Oh good, another jerk lumping homos in with dog fuckers and pedophiles. Santorum's got some buddies who may need to be assign new meanings to their names, eh?
What if the government decided to get out of the marriage business altogether? Why should coupled people get special benefits, while those to choose to remain uncoupled are punished?
Do you expect anyone from a Moonie newspaper to know anything about what the world is really like?
Um...shouldn't this twit actually be upset about birth control? I mean That is what is keeping heteros from breeding.

As someone who has no desire to procreate, I rather think that it is as "socially barren" when I sleep with a woman as when with a man.
"...we'll go extinct if we can't manage to keep track of which hole makes babes and which hole makes booms."

Made me snicker.
Why don't interviewers ask people like Kuhner, "So you're gay, then? Because if what you say is true, and humanity will go extinct if we allow gay marriage, it follows that everyone must actually be gay. Otherwise it wouldn't matter, because the same amount of people that are currently gay and not reproducing would just be able to get married and not reproduce, and it shouldn't have any net effect on the human population."
was going to say " any takers on a betting pool for when Kuhner is outed?", but then I read @2 "lickalotapuss" and really couldn't get any further still laughing!
Mandatory homosexuality! I love it.
Well, if ability to procreate is the only factor to consider then I guess we need to exclude the following individuals from getting married:

anyone infertile
post-menopausal women
men who have had vasectomies
women who have had hysterectomies
men who have had testicular cancer and no longer produce sperm
those of us who have no intention of ever having children

I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting. Clearly, there is no current stipulation that couples be willing and able to reproduce before getting married so I don't see how -- even if gay marriage were able to magically turn everyone gay -- that we could use that as an argument.

And while we're on the topic, I'd argue that even if we decided to accept religion as a reason to limit the rights to marriage (which I don't), we'd have a more compelling argument that murderers, liars, people who were disrespectful to their parents or those who have cheated on a spouse should be banned from marriage. Heck they're all called out by name in the 10 commandments, so loved by courthouses across the country.
And isn't the planet kind of already full?
Are people really this stupid? C'mon, why even bother to explain anything to someone this freaking dumb?
Hey, Kuhner missed an opportunity to tell us what great parents ALL hets make.


I know you were on vacation last week, so you're forgiven for not posting this "Every Child Needs A Mother And A Father" story.
'Reasons' like those found in the Washington Times make my head hurt from trying find the logic. WT;SN.
Neo-pagan Epicureanism? That guy talks like a fucking hipster.
Darn my contradictious nature. Now I have all kinds of ideas running through my head and a pair of stiletto heels to decide upon...
The problem is that gay sex is WAY more fun than str8 sex. Once the straights find that out, we're history.


Thank you for nicely summing up liberal thought in general.

You hate your own mediocrity, so you want to punish the successful. The art you like, the books you read, the films you watch and the things you find humorous are all glorifications of the mundane. Rather than look at individual greatness as an inspiration you see it as a threat. Rather than celebrate what wealth accomplishes you demonize it and try to steal it for those with no capacity to enjoy it.

You hate that others have stuff you don't. Multiple cars or a boat or a vacation cottage that you don't have piss you off, so you make up stuff that in your mind makes material acquisition evil and justifies your mediocrity. Liberal nonsence about social justice, or CATASTROPIC GLOBAL WARMING IN WHICH WE'LL ALL BE SWIMMING TO WORK IN THE WATERS OF THE MELTING POLES BY EASTER IF WE AREN'T EATEN BY OTHER PEOPLE!!!!!! are examples. (Gore's planetary emergency' speech, well Gore in general, however is good for a belly laugh any time, so he has some dubious value. as comic relief...)

How about espousing a constructive world view, rather then the reductive and reactive one you do? You might be happier. Oh, forgot, you hate happy too. The best you can muster is snickering at locker room humor well into your dotage rather then acquiring some veneer of adult appreciation of nuanced humor.

You even hate joy so much that you try to justify perversions that make a potentially joyful, even ecstatic, experience like sex essentially meaningless and joyless like homosexuality and promiscuity. FYI, form does follow function. Of course sex is about much more than procreation. It is about procreation at it's heart though. That core meaning informs why the emotional intimacy my wife and I share can find expression in the physical intimacy of sex and enhance both. Since all of you believe sex to be no more meaningful than blowing your nose or scratching your crotches, I get that you don't understand that. I even feel accordingly sorry for your loss. Your view of sex is like watching all of the Wizard of Oz in black and white, instead of the first few minutes.

Heck, you can even write that the only thing which makes terrestrial organic life meaningful, sentient human beings, is the worst thing for the planet.

What a messed up lot of psych ward cases you folks are. Best of luck with those whacked out notions, God knows you'll need it.

Oh, let me crush just a few of his ... er ... arguments:

... thereby enabling homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces. The result will be to undermine unit cohesion and morale, crippling the finest fighting force in the world.

Seriously??? The "finest fighting force in the world"? Maybe the most prevalent, intrusive force in the world. I believe there's enough proof out there about effective armed forces of countries around the world that have abolished such fervent bigotry to dispute his laughably weak claims.

The military has fallen to the homosexual movement. By abandoning DOMA, Mr. Obama is paving the way for the final assault on the last bastion of conservatism - the family.

That "last bastion of conservatism - the family" has not existed for decades, through which time women and children have struggled to escape from their original status of chattel (subject to physical assault that would be considered criminal if it weren't administered by "husbands and fathers"; Rule of Thumb, anybody?).

Aaaaaaand, any conservatives out there who are divorced, you'd better hand in your official conservative badges because you've already broken your original marriage vows, "till death do you part". Ah, I see! You don't want to be reminded of trifling, inconvenient details ... not when you can target GLBT people.

By its very nature, homosexuality cannot fulfill the primary function of sex: procreation and the reproduction of the human race. It is inherently a socially barren act. A homosexual society is a childless one - doomed to extinction.

::looks around up here in Canada:: Nope ... not extinct yet. But keep spouting more hot air. Besides, what isn't stated (but implied) is that homosexuality - by its very nature - is so pervasive and undeniably seductive (he's not the first person to use that, er, argument), that everybody exposed to it will immediately jump out of a ever-so-boring, heterosexual lifestyle [ugh, I loathe that word] because they are now fabulously gay-gay-gay, thereby ensuring that the premise of a "homosexual society" is the only possible outcome. Puh-leeze, would some legal beagles shred this guy's illogic already. And, AFAIK, biological children born to (or adopted by) gay people usually end up being straight. So, definitely not on the road to extinction, but certainly more tolerant and open-minded.

If anything, by denying marriage and full civil (and civilized) rights to GLBT people, he's against doing everything possible to stabilize ALL families.

Although, to be honest, I can see something about the whole "extinct" aspect to white, conservative allegedly-Christian men ... who aren't reproducing or can no longer force their conservative wives (aw, shucks) to bear endless progeny -- Oh, wait. They're tackling that one with the attacks on Planned Parenthood and other groups equally dedicated to women's reproductive health and rights.

It is time conservatives, traditionalists and people of all religious faiths stand up to defend society's most basic institution.

Oh, so sorry to disappoint him (NOT), but there are religious faiths (::tries to look all goggle-eyed:: even Christian ones) that either have marriage as a full right within their places of worship or have "affirming" ceremonies.

Polygamy, "transgender" unions, bestiality, pedophilia - all forms of deviant sexual behavior could claim discrimination.

I won't even try to discuss the first or latter two, as they concern issues of coercion (especially of girls in the first) or criminal intent and lack of consent, but just what does transgender identity and the need for love and stability have to do with deviance ... except that he just doesn't want anybody who's not like him to have a happy life and to be treated with respect.

So, after having wasted some time (and many words) talking about him, I just have to say I feel sorry for him. He's a small-minded, sad, sad man.
The world is overpopulated as it is and the population keeps growing, taxing all resources. Doesn't that mean that we should all be gay, at least those who are currently fertile, and thin the herd?
@42: That's... quite the straw man you've put together there, SB. Shame it doesn't look a bit like many of the "liberals" I know, myself included. Briefly put, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
"Oh, so sorry to disappoint him (NOT), but there are religious faiths (::tries to look all goggle-eyed:: even Christian ones) that either have marriage as a full right within their places of worship or have "affirming" ceremonies."

No, there aren't. One can be Christian and working on prevalent sin in their life. One can be non-Christian and reject the notion of homosexuality as sin. What a person cannot do is reject the notion of sin and call themself a Christian. So, any church which endorses homosexuality by granting openly sinful parishioners marital status as homosexuals is by definition not a Christian church.
You didn't get all that from my one sentence, did you? Sheesh...

You can go on feeling sorry for us for hating life and joy and whatever if you really want to, but, at least in my case, it's misplaced. I don't hate any of that stuff at all.

But this planet and all its inhabitants would undoubtedly be in better condition if humans weren't on it. Not sure how you could argue against that. I'm not saying we're destroying it, but we're certainly polluting and altering it against what it would naturally revert to.
Sweet jesus, Seattleblues, put down the crackpipe! I hate to tell you, but that Italian holiday doesn't seem to have relaxed you at ALL. Something tells me this hasn't been a blowjob-rich vacation...
@46: Incorrect.

One can be a Christian, one can accept the notion of sin, and one can reject the claim that homosexuality is inherently sinful. Many Christians do just that.

There are an awful lot of things that were once considered sinful that don't even merit a second look by most mainstream Christians these days.
Oh, SB (@46), Christianity isn't a fossil. In a few enlightened denominations, it's evolving. Besides, any faith that is so bound and determined to retain sex-negativity as one of its most heinous sins (oh, RLY?) and encourage widespread ignorance of the glory of full sexual expression (while hiding behind a convenient veil of hypocrisy) is missing the mark on what REAL sin is.
Hey, Kim (@40), I think stiletto heels are most comfortable when worn in bed. So ... getting back those ideas, eh?
Ah, SB, the towering genius of our age.

When last I saw him posting about healthcare, I provided OECD statistics, and he countered with an episode of MR. Bean that he saw once. I was intellectually crushed.

So just give it up y'all. We are no match for this here Übermensch. Also it seems that I've been going about this liberal thing all wrong. Who knew?
Oh Jeffrey, you need to do more research. Once we gays overthrow society and make gay marriage compulsory, we of course plan to establish mass breeding facilities with captive surrogate mothers. It's all there in the Gay Agenda. Chapter LXIX, from memory.
@13 Don't forget about Hera. BTW, "toaster" is a racial slur. (jk)

@16. We read that book in high school. Argh! It read like a homophobic fundi's fantasy: straight people are normal and good but they're in the minority and they're being persecuted (at some point in the novel) by the icky warped homo's until they finally take a stand and construct a heterosexual colony to try to make the world right again like it was in the past. (The time-travel theme was awesome, however.)

@35. Right! Probably if 90% of the population were strictly gay (and not reproducing for some reason) we could still maintain the human population at uncomfortably high levels for centuries or more.
Jeeesh. What are the chances he's gay himself? I'd guess around around 99%. The only folks with that kind of world view are the ones repressing their own homosexuality. That's the only way that sort of fear only makes any sense.

As a straight married guy myself, I can say that with 100% certainty that the legalization of same-sex marriage isn't going to cause me to leave my wife for the first good-lookin' guy I come across.
@54: The Forever War was written as an anti-war novel, so I doubt it would be a fundie's fantasy. IIRC the social change where homosexuality became the norm was just a way to show how the future will likely be very much unlike the present; it took up a page or two in the book. I haven't read it for some time but I don't think it was presented as "icky warped homos."
@46 You lose.

"Just as there is that of God in every person, there is that of God in every relationship that calls upon God. ... We agree that spiritual gifts are not distributed with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity, and we affirm that we are all equal before God. Our Quaker testimony guides us to an all-embracing practice of human equality ... discrimination against gays and lesbians (is) contrary to the inclusive ministry of Jesus.”

Read the whole thing: [CLICK HERE]

And read these, too.
@46: Isn't the argument that you're making there an example of the "Snow Blue Frogman pharmacy"?
Hey Dan, you'll love this - Hamilton's rule. If you make society better, and in doing so help pass on your kin's genes, you're essentially passing on your own.

So if being a homosexual helps people related to you get along and prosper, by say, improved social cohesion through gay relationships and sex, you ARE passing your genes on.
Canadians are extinct?? Cool.
DebraB (@60)

Snorfle! You mean I'm a figment of my own imagination? Wow!
Oops. Must have lost that wisp of thought but, then again, I'm not really here either.
Sometimes it feels like a cheap shot to accuse lunatic homophobes of being self-hating closet cases, but in instances like this it's an argument that's unavoidably compelling. If he, himself, didn't have a nigh-irresistible urge to go homo, why would he assume that everyone else would? If he didn't find homosexuality so fascinating, why would he assume that a society that tolerates it will inevitably become it?
#13- You rock venomlash.

#54 - Hera isn't human.

Also, was SB making a point? I couldn't see anything but a lot of hurfdurrrrrrrr.
@58: You mean the One True Scotsman fallacy? I've never heard the name you used for it before.

Anyway, no, it's not. The counterpart to the One True Scotsman fallacy is the Humpty Dumpty fallacy: thinking you can use words however you want. Christian has a specific meaning, and you can't just call yourself Christian but believe whatever you want, especially when the Christian Bible is not exactly gay-friendly.

Christians are factually wrong, and their beliefs are harmful to society, but at least they're more honest than gay-friendly "Christians."
Of course Canadians are a figment of their own imaginations. You expect us to believe that intelligent, socially aware, compassionate, and friendly people would put up with winters like that on purpose? Bah.

But don't feel bad. I know a lot of Americans who are CLEARLY figments of their own imaginations, and with a lot less class and creativity about it. Really, if you are going to imagine yourself into existence, pretend to be someone worthwhile!
" Christians are factually wrong, and their beliefs are harmful to society, but at least they're more honest than gay-friendly "Christians."

One of the more common complaints about Christians is that they all take the Bible literally - and that isn't true. There are plenty of denominations which take an official stance that is far more nuanced and realistic - understanding the intent and worldview of Biblical writers and factoring it into their understanding.

Yes, someone who says that every word of the Bible is literally true and the commands of a pissy God would have trouble justifying being pro-gay.

But someone who says that the Bible is a human document attempting to express a culturally-influenced experience of an ineffable Divinity, and that therefore, human understanding of God can grow and change and evolve over time has no obligation to honor the literal Levitical demands any more than they do the description of a flat earth or toleration of slavery. And they don't have to turn in their Christian card if that's what they believe.

Nice try. Individual Christians don't have any obligation to be what you accuse them of just so it's more convenient for you to hate them.
But don't feel bad. I know a lot of Americans who are CLEARLY figments of their own imaginations, and with a lot less class and creativity about it. Really, if you are going to imagine yourself into existence, pretend to be someone worthwhile!

Oh, darn. You're restricting (the dumber) Americans from expressing their overwhelming need to tell the rest of the world (or even the saner elements in their own country) what to do.

OTOH, imagine how quiet it might be. Nah. Seems ... unnatural.
@66 The only thing I would add is that being Christian is supposed to mean you believe in a "new covenant," in which the covenant of the old testament is marked null and void and the era brought forth by Jesus represents a whole new "deal" with a kinder, gentler, more-obviously loving God. So, it boggles my mind that there can be such a thing as a "Christian" who goes all Fundamentalist out of the Old Testament. Dudes! Didn't you get the memo? There's a New Testament which reinterprets and supplants the old one! Either that, or maybe you're not really Christian.

FWIW, even Jews, even Orthodox Jews, don't treat the Old Testament like a static, prescriptive guide frozen in time. Far from it. For them, religion is a living thing, it's about spirit and intent, and collected religious texts, even the most honored and revered ones, are to be studied, discussed, interpreted and reinterpreted in light of that spirit.

There's some truly amazing crap in the OT, which starts off very early on in the development of what we now call the Judeo-Christian tradition, a religion completely unrecognizable today to even the most orthodox Jews. All the stuff in Leviticus having to do with animal sacrifice shows that was a central part of the early religion, probably all animals raised by the followers having to be slaughtered in the Temple, their living spirits gratefully returned to God. In essence, the priests doubled as abbatoir workers for the community, and got a cut of the meat, quite literally, for their labors. If that's how it was, then the admonitions in Leviticus about all meat having to be consumed before the end of the second day would mean that any Fundies who consume commercially-bought meat or meat products are abominations. Oopsie!
Dan, I thought you read Sex at Dawn. You're giving up fully half of your argument by stipulating that sex evolved only for baby-making but "modern humans" have adapted it for other purposes. There's lots of good evidence that our hunter-gatherer ancestors used sex for bonding as well as procreative purposes, just like many other species do.
@ 64 - You're the one who's guilty of humpty-dumptyism here: a "christian" is, by definition, a follower of Christ, and therefore not a follower of the old testament (for reasons explained @ 68).
Oh, that's just a product of the culture war. THEY are out to get US! So WE must fight THEM with all our might until the very END!

Also the insane rantings of a dying philosophy.
Wait what? Canadians are going extinct because of recognized, legal same sex marriage?
So would that make Canadians an endangered species? :P
Slightly less sarcastic - Same sex marriage is not turning young Canadians gay - if it was, would my (mid-twenty-something) friends facebook pages be full of them and their babies?
@34: to your list of people that shouldn't be permitted to marry in the first place, I would add that married couples who do have children should be required to divorce as soon as their children have reached adulthood.
Bonobos have sex a lot like we do. Not just for reproduction, but for tension reduction, social reasons, etc. With either sex. That's right, those dirty homo apes are rubbing nubs! Is that why they're being hunted out of existence? :(
The fact that dolphins have sex with others of the same sex--in such interesting places as the blow-hole--yet still exist and breed seems to mean nothing to these idiots.

For the most intelligent animals, sex as a means of social bonding is commonplace. It has not rendered them extinct.

Notice also, how for these homophobic doom-and-gloom scenarios, bisexuality, asexuality, and pansexuality do not appear to exist. Everyone is just straight or gay, and straight people are apparently easily made gay.

The fact that these fundy-types believe that straight people switch to gay rather quickly says a little something more about them I think.
@75: The blowhole? Really? HOT. Got a link?

@66: My complaint is that Christians don't take their holy book literally enough. If I believed in god and I actually thought he wrote a book, I sure as hell would take it literally. But most "Christians" don't, which allows their preposterous beliefs and the harm they do to society to continue. If they actually believed what they said, no one would listen, because it's so clearly wrong. They're hypocrites who ignore the parts they don't like.

I don't hate Christians. I do think their beliefs are false and actively harmful. They don't have an obligation to be what I accuse them of being; they do have an obligation to be intellectually honest and examine their beliefs.

@68, 70: I'm not sure you're right about Christianity completely supplanting the OT, considering Jesus is quoted as being a big fan of the Law of Moses. But even if you are, the NT is hardly "kinder and gentler" what with the descriptions of hell and anti-gay statements. I didn't mention the OT specifically, and even sticking to the NT, I stand by my comments that it's not gay-friendly, it's false, it's harmful to society, and one can't call oneself a Christian without accepting it. Therefore, all Christians are part of the problem.
@75 Oh my. That comment about the dolphins reminds me of a joke Robert Schimmel once told about swimming with dolphins. He and his fellow swimmers were told not to stick anything in the blowhole, and he said his first thought was, "Well that's a waste of fifty bucks."


"A homosexual society is a childless one—" ?
"But sex also cements bonds of love, bonds of marriage, "

gawd Dan, you are so wise....

True. Sexual desire, harnessed within the bounds of marriage, is a powerful stabilizing force for good in society.

But sex outside of marriage also destroys bonds of love, bonds of marriage....

Infidelity is a major cause of relationship breakup and divorce.

Children are the biggest victims of infidelity and the social havoc it creates.

Will no one think of the children?

Sex is like fire.
It can heat the home, cook the meals, create an inviting hearth.
Or, used irresponsibly, it can burn the house down.

Sex is like atomic energy.
It can supply the city with clean power.
Or it can incinderate the city.

Sex, outside of marriage, is a socially destructive force.

Danny, won't you help spread the word?....
Period Troll! That's a lovely argument you make for marriage equality. My how far you have come.
A returned mormon missionary was the first person I ever heard this argument from.
@78: Alleged, true or false:
"Society can be accurately described as homosexual or heterosexual."

@79: "Sex is like atomic energy.
It can supply the city with clean power.
Or it can incinderate the city."
I have this image of a bunch of people humping inside a giant hamster wheel connected to a dynamo.
Also, my face when "incinderate".
Dan, why are you reading the TIMES fercrissakes? Put down that rag NOW, damnit. No, don't pick up the Examiner in its place....arrrgh. Don't you get that SOMEONE has to cater to the 4% of the DC population who are transplanted conservative political staffers?

Just rest assured that you're one of like 10 people who read that screed. Well, until YOU linked to it.