<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/14/2012 10:57 PM, Scott Dredge
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:SNT124-W431374CD311595ABAD32AE4D50@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr">
Legalization of same sex marriage is a foregone conclusion.
There is simply no logical or legal reasonings that can be
justified to uphold same sex marriage bans. Case in point is
Loving vs Virginia 1967 which ended race based restrictions in
the United States. If there can be no restrictions based on
race, how can there be restrictions placed on gender? Both race
and gender are predetermined prior to birth. Checkmate.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Equity, fairness, and justice arguments in favor of same-sex
marriage have some logical and symmetric attractiveness that
encourage their acceptance. However, there are more powerful and
practical reasons why same-sex marriage may eventuate into the
standard normal behavior, and opposite-sex marriage may become an
ever more regulated minority relationship.<br>
<br>
The more powerful argument in favor of same-sex, that is,
non-reproductive, marriage is simply that there are too many human
beings on this planet, and the rate of growth of population is too
high to be sustainable with the resources we have available, or can
possibly have available, to allow our current rates of population
growth to continue without disastrous consequences to ever more
widespread areas of developed geography.<br>
<br>
If reasonably near human generations are to survive without social
collapse via chaotic, uncontrolled mechanisms, we must, among other
things, control our population growth. Same-sex marriages may well
become the usual majority relationship, rather than the less common,
and population increasing, opposite-sex, legally-recognized
relationship.<br>
<br>
Recently amended state constitutions need re-amendment to recognize
undeniable population realities, and to implement what rational,
non-chaotic controls we are able.<br>
<br>
University of Colorado emeritus professor of physics Albert Bartlett
has been lecturing about the problems of exponential growth for a
long time. You may have seen his standard lecture on the topic, but
if not, here are links to a couple versions of it:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JRVijo65W0">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JRVijo65W0</a> <br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOrvGDRLT7A&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOrvGDRLT7A&feature=related</a> <br>
<br>
<br>
Ken<br>
</body>
</html>