Ha, hilarious! 10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society Being gay is not natural. Real…

do you mean “shouldn’t”?

Great civilization which was brought to its knees by the decay of their morals though homosexuality, incest, slavery. Or the third reich, again a group which failed because of their poor moral choices.

Aside from homosexuality the examples you have given relate to consent by both parties (in previous posts, pedophilia was also part of the example). No one in thier right mind consents to be a slave, consents to a victim of presecution of govt, or consents to incest (very very very strong genetic reasons not to consent to incest). Homosexuality already exists and is part of society. All that giving them the ability to marry in the eyes of govt (see someones earlier post about the differnce between legal marriage and religious marriage) and grant to them the same property rights etc that a hetro married couple have.

homosexuality serves no fundamental purpose toward the propogation of the civilization. Bringing homosexuality more into the ‘mainstream’ of our society only serves to weaken it, though simple biology (less kids) and other factors

From a simple biology viewpoint you are right. However like I said before there are already homosexuals, not letting them marry is not going to stop them from being gay. In fact it can make it harder for them to assist helping where they can by adopting children for example(which I am aware is another point of contention). Most western countries are already experienceing population replacement problems as more and more adult CHOOSE not to have children, in or our of marriage. And these are marriages recognised by BOTH church and state.

Marriage only exist for one thing, having and raising children

No. Marriage exists for two reasons, neither of which are having children. As eloquently pointed out by an earlier poster, Marriage by government relates to property rights and the application of various laws. Marriage by religion is the continuation of tradition. I am unaware of any religion even that makes children a REQUIREMENT of marriage. There is a social expectiation but to my knowledge no requirement. Marriage was and is a method of social control. By two people commiting to marriage it publically announces that the relationship is off limits, this increases trust in the long term strength of the relationship, thus increaseing the chance of both people agreeing to procreate.

Finally, Strictly biologically speaking marraiage is NOT useful to further the race. If biology is your ultimate yardstick for law making then sex with any female human capable of childbirth should be legal, regardless of consent. The institution of marriage wastes much procreation time espcially for those who wait until married before procreating. Think of all the non-pregant women you see everyday, with marriage and the current requirements of consent and the current laws surrounding welfare payments to single mothers there are a lot of wombs sitting idle especially considering females humans are constantly ‘in heat’.

By your viewpoint it should be socially unacceptable for a woman to not be pregnant and also a male devoting themselves to a single female who will be unable to procreate for at least 12 months at a time (gestation and recovery time) should be made illegal.

This all neatly comes back to my point in my last post. Legalisation of homosexual marraiges will not be the moral downfall of civilisation due to the overriding moral requirement for consent.