I also want to point out that I find the whole stance of biology not applying here to be quite absurd. Especially since most people who are proponents of homosexual marriage are also proponents of natural selection in particular and nature in general. Even though this is a clear case of nature and natural selection being wholly against the cause (of homosexual marriage) most proponents somehow manage to ignore the cognitive dissonance created by the tension in these two opposing views and, instead, doggedly argue for he acceptance of something that they would otherwise be wholly opposed to if cold hard logic were the only factor in this debate.

But it isn't the only factor in this debate is it?

I would argue that most people argue for the acceptance of gay marriage because they really want to justify their own aberrant sexual practices. Practices such as premarital sexual relations and extramarital sexual relations (adultery). Yes, both of these are inherently against the institution of marriage as well and both of these have real social consequences (just take a look at what has happened ever since we introduced the toxic notion of no-fault divorce).

You are right that ultimately my reasons for opposing same-sex unions stems from my theological beliefs. However there are equally strong secular reasons (http://bit.ly/9SqGwf)” target=”_blank”> http://bit.ly/9SqGwf) as well, the chief among these is actually the exact opposite of the oft-repeated myth of "overpopulation". The truth is that most 1st world countries who have embraced this highly illogical myth have recently found themselves in a severe population crisis thanks to the related social and political policies enacted to "curb" this imaginary problem. The truth, however, is that an increased population is always good for a society and our aversion to encouraging the production of children along with our lack of emphasis on the best environment in which these children are to be raised is quite troubling and does not bode well for us as a society.

Simply put, the social cost of replacing the various aspects of a healthy family with artificial creations of the state are enormous. A price I would rather we not pay.

Note also that I don't need to claim that interracial marriage and homosexual marriage are identical in order to determine that they are opposed for a reason common to both of them. Wolves and lions are different animals; but farmers oppose their presence for the same reason — to prevent consumption of their livestock. In the same manner, opponents of both interracial marriage and homosexual marriage interpret their holy book to call those things an "abomination."

As for those who are married and yet do not produce children. There is an economic term for people who enjoy the benefits of a system and yet who do not contribute. They are called "free riders". You might prefer the term "exceptions". However exceptions do nothing to the rule. And the rule, like it or not, is biology which means that homosexuality no matter how you slice it is a perversion.