138 posts between moondusts previous post in this trhead and his last 2 ones, haven't seen that much before for a person who created the thread himself :-)

He knew he could rely on me to keep the juices flowing in this thread. : )

moon:

A nonreligious, non-insurance argument:

Since homosexual unions have a birthrate of zero, it is hard to argue that there is a genetic disposition to homosexuality unless it operates at the population level. Homosexuality genes may be widespread in the population but don't get activated unless some environmental condition is affecting the whole population, such as overcrowding, etc. that might have some sort of pyschological effect. When the genes get activated, the population growth rate slows and may help the population to survive. So the selection operates at the population level.

Where the "bad" comes in is that an increase in homosexuality may be a symptom that the population is in bad shape. A symptom, not the disease.

Moon, you mentioned my insurance argument but having just slipped back into the thread you may have missed my fatherhood argument. Maybe you could rate that one on the triviality scale.

Just something that hasn't been considered yet:

In the United States, churches are tax-exempt. Were gay marriage legalised nationally, churches could easily lose that status because they naturally would discriminate against those couples. A YMCA in Des Moines was threatened with loss of its government support when it refused to recognise a gay couple as a family for membership. Catholic Charities of Boston quit arranging adoptions over a law in Massachusetts requiring them to place some children with same-sex couples.

I'm Roman Catholic, and I honestly would not mind if the government wanted to recognise same-sex marriages legally, so long as there are no consequences to my (or anyone else's) religious practice. It isn't my place to decide what others should do with their lives.

Yeah, churches are a drag on the economy. They shouldn't be tax exempt.

sweet, lets switch out of the homosexuality topic and into the "wtf does separation of church and state mean?" topic.

thats a very good question monte. I think we should also discuss if the constitution guarantees equality in rights/treatment by the government, or if it attempts to guarantee social, or economic equality, or if it was meant to do all the above.

Thrax, Should the red cross, goodwill, hope, and similar charities and foundations also be non tax exempt?

"That is the overwhelming norm in every country, every culture, and throughout history."

So many things are wrong with that Thraxle that it's hilarious. But Republicans are generally close-minded so I wouldn't expect any differently.

As a minor in psych I've had to take a few anthropology classes, and while I am no certified anthropologist I can attest that any anthropologist would strongly disagree with that statement.

I'll leave you with one phrase Thraxle: "Culture Relativism". Learn what that means and I guarantee you will broaden your horizons including your understanding of the rest of the world (i.e. not suburban America).

Here is another argument: the argument from numbers.

In a work situation, romantic relationships are not really bad while they are going on, but when they break up, it is like a galaxy exploding. Homosexuals have a higher jealousy potential than heterosexuals. Shirer, in his book _The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich_ mentions this problem in regard to homosexuals in the upper ranks of the S.A. (Brownshirts). He mentions the "jealosies that only men of peculiar sexual preferences can have".

The jealosy potential in a group is proportional to the number of possible combinations of relationships. In a group of N people, where N is 2 or greater, the number of combinations possible one-on-one relationships goes as N factorial divided by 2. Factorials get big fast. If the group has men and women, the number of combinations of homosexual relations in the two subgroups grow as factorials. Subtract these from the number for the combined group and you have the residual for the number of heterosexual relationships and that number is likely to be smaller. Reduce the jealosy factor by discouraging romantic relationships in the workplace, particularly homosexual ones.