Gay Marriage

Make sure you can spell before typing. "Controal" isn't a word, at least, not an English one. Anyways, to start, lose the coviction that being gay and being denied marriage is like being black and being denied marriage. The fundamental difference is that anything that happened to the blacks was not their choice. They didn't choose to be slaves. They didn't choose to be second class citizens. They didn't choose to be denied marriage to whites. Homosexuals DID choose to be gay, however. Blacks are understandably offended by this comparison. And yes, I believe homosexuality is a choic, not genetic or anything else that makes it permanent. Whether you are a religious or atheist, the answer is still the same. Being religious means you beleive homosexuality is immoral. Being atheist almost certainly means you believe in evolution. But I am religious and simultaneously believe in evoultion. So, evolution is about a species evolving over a time, while nature runs it's course and eliminates what is detrimental to a specie's survival. And survival is mostly achieved by rearing and raising children. When you are homosexual, you cannot have children, so you are in direct defiance with nature's designs on your basic instincts. Consequently, homosexuality would not have survived as a genetic trait, because it is a detriment to a specie's survival. Consequently, it cannot be a permanent, innate orientation. That means it is chosen. So, having stated that, it should also be stated that homosexuality is a huge health risk. It has not been proven that homosexuals caused AIDS, more likely that it was eating the feces of monkeys, sexual relations with monkeys, or the monkeys themselves caused it. But what has been proved is that homosexuals are generally more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts and that it is primarily transmitted through body body fluids, such as blood and semen. Rampant homosexual activity greatly increases your chance of contracting diseases like that and spreading them amongst the population. Furthermore, homosexuality has been looked down on because it was decided that it was a moral perversion. Most of our laws reflect that premise. Killing is immoral, so we pass laws condemning murder. But, if one day we decide that something is no longer immoral, what would that seem like to those left out, those who support other things that are immoral? The cause of gay marriage is already being used to further the cause of polygamy, especially for America's Muslim population. "Why is exhibitionism immoral, but homosexuality not?", they'd say. You cannot backslide on immorality in one section and expect it to remain constant in another. Marriage as defined as a bond between one man and one woman has been the very premise of civilization since the dawn thereof, and Western Civilization especially. Allowing a homosexual union would endanger the existing value of marriage even more, rendering it a mere commodity rather than something sacred and worth protecting for the good of family and civilization. Look what happened to sexuality. When it was finally the prevailing view that sex was no longer something sacred between two people, women in our culture came to be viewed as a sexual commodity, largely through their own actions and limitations, or rather, the lack thereof. Let it be known that what happens between two (or three, or more) people in the privacy of their own home is no concern of mine. Regulating the bedroom is not something I support. But when the activity brings a health risk to society or is brought into the public sphere, it opens itself to public scrutiny. Like they always say, people never thought of banning homosexuality until they thought of legalizing it.