Going completely away from the subject, but if you want help with that, drop me a PM. I'm in a similar boat to you, but I've found certain ways to get over it all for a while.

The point of marriage is not to create more children to sustain the state. That idea is ridiculous and horribly Big Brotherish, like straight out of Orson Welles' 1984. Neither is marriage, at least in the psychology of your everyday western world man or woman, something we do because it benefits the state. People generally do it out of commitment to eachother, their love and relationships. If you want to discriminate against gay marriages because they don't produce their own children, you're not discriminating on anything relating to the psychological basis people have for marriage (it will basically seem unfair) and you should also have to start to discriminate against any other relationship where those involved are not able to have children.

Then there's the matter of the triviality of the thing. Gay marriages are not really costly for the state, there are far worse money drains. The state also benefits from having a population which is happy and content and you'd think allowing gay marriage would be a step in that direction. Even when accepting that gay marriages could be a net drain, there are still more things to consider. For example, if both gay members of a couple pay their taxes, their net contribution to society may be positive. Even as married, let's say they give more money to the state than they take. Should their relationship still be discriminated against?

Something ironic in your procreation argument is something you've not yet considered. You have to ask yourself; why there are gay people at all? If you know anything about biology and evolutionary theory, you know there should be a fitness benefit, right? Earlier in this thread, I referred to research which shows that genetic factors that cause gayness in men also cause increased fertility in females and so the presence of "gay genes" in human populations have an overall beneficial effect on reproduction. So, if you want to increase the amount of babies people can make, you should anyways keep the gay genes in the population. What happens is that women are more fertile, but produce the occasional gay sons. From a biological point of view through our evolutionary history, it's obviously been worth it. Otherwise the genetic gay factors would've disappeared through natural selection.

well, both of you can PM me also - i'm diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic and i have a multiple personality disorder but i've dealt with it well

Gentlemen, the "problems with mental disorders" thread is here.

P.S.: I'm a terrible neurotic (Doctor Freud would be frightened if he knew me) and I suffer from an atypical depression, but I try to keep some of my sense of humour alive. Otherwise it would be a nightmare.

I'm totally normal and live a happy, normal life. If anyone wants help coping with being normal, they can PM me.

Good for all you that "I" am perfectly stable mentally and physically.
I am always open to PM and will respond with pith and candor!

Onward to the OP . . . the only foreseeable problem I have with homosexuality is that it is genocidal in terms of the human race. The number ONE aspect of all Life is 'survival'. Of course homosexuals can reproduce so this 'problem' I might have is rendered close to nil and void.

There are seven billion humans. Lack of new babies hardly seems like a problem.

I wish all men were homosexual...... except for me. No competitors!

How does that address my theory? Sure, now there is, but if there were three left and two of then were homosexual take an educated guess on the survival rate of that species?

There are 56 million that die every year, 3.9 billion in a 70 year lifetime . . . do the math.

Protip: There aren't three people left, there are seven billion, and most of them are heterosexual.