One of the big arguments religious people will give for their anti-gay rantings is the idea that 'if everyone was gay the human race would die out because there would be no new births'. That, of course, makes complete sense. If two gay men or two gay women have sex, it doesn't matter what they do they won't be having a child anytime soon. However there are a couple of reasons why, every time I see that point raised, I have to shrug and say, 'so what?'.

First, it's actually a 100% true statement. Taking artifical insemination out of the picture, which is not exactly high on the 'thanks be to God' list, then yes, if everyone was gay there would be no more children, and when everyone died that would be the human race finished for good. And maybe you could argue that, technically, for the survival of the human race it would be better that we were not all gay. But whoever said that because some people are gay all people must become gay? That isn't what being gay is all about. Gay people don't want everyone to be gay. There are no anti-straight rallies, no marches against 'the evils of heterosexuality'. Sadly, the reverse is not the case.

To say that 'if everyone was gay there would be no more children' is as ridiculous as saying, 'if everyone was vegetarian there would be no more McDonalds restaurants'. They are both true statements, but neither of them reflects reality. We live in a world where diversity is everywhere you look. We are all different - we look different, we all have different mannerisms, choose different lifestyles, eat different foods, cheer on different sports teams. Yet in few areas other than sexuality are any of our 'ways' criticised with such vigour as is homosexuality, and most of that criticism comes with the 'assurance' that God said it's bad so that's how it is.

It simply makes no sense to even start the sentence with 'if everyone was gay', because that is not the case, has never been the case, and will never be the case. What the people who promote this attitude should instead realise is that 'not everyone is gay therefore the human race will not die out because there will be new births to ensure it continues'.

This leads on to my second point, which lays more emphasis on the religious notion that God has commanded people to 'go forth and multiply'. Again, that is supposedly a reason to condemn homosexuality. It is in fact one of the reasons why the main religions refuse to accept same-sex marriages - they teach that one of the primary reasons for marriage is the production of children. I posted the following comment about a week ago, on a video from a Christian woman who was promoting an anti-gay marriage viewpoint:

Yes, Steve and Bill cannot produce a child. But 75-year olds Alice and Bert also cannot produce a child (too old). Should they be barred from marrying for that reason? Your reason is therefore null and void - to make any sense it would have to apply to ALL people who are unable to produce children, or not at all. Plus, no law exists which says 'You MUST produce children if you marry'. Some people don't want children. Should they be barred from marriage too?

There are so many ways in which people enter marriage knowing that they will not be having children, yet why is only gay marriage unacceptable? I mentioned old age, but what if one partner is sterile? Because their religion says they must produce children, should he/she then reject a marriage with the sterile person, in favour of someone who is fertile? And I don't remember many couples being hounded in the streets, or discriminated against at work because they simply chose to remain childless.

Is one child enough? To re-work the original statment at the top of this blog, 'if all couples had one child the human race would die out because there would be not enough new births'. Again, that's a true statement but one which does not reflect reality. Why does religion not condemn those with fewer than two children? Because it all averages out, that's why. Some couples have 3, 4 or more children. Some have just one. Some have none. And the human race goes on regardless, endlessly increasing as it has always done, despite the fact that gay couples cannot have children, and despite the fact that many heterosexual couples cannot, or choose not to, have children. Yet only those who are gay are condemned by religion.

To argue that homosexuality is wrong because it is not a union which produces children is ridiculous. Life does not have to revolve around the creation of children. If you don't want children, don't have them. If you can't have children, that's just the way it is. And if the reason you can't have children is because you are in a homosexual relationship, that's just the way it is too. Condemnation of any of these situations is pointless and wrong, and it is only the condemnation by religion of homosexuality which is in any way seen to be 'acceptable' in society. This tolerance of homophobia is a position which should be ended as quickly as possible. Intolerance of homosexuality is as bad as intolerance of other races, another area where religion has historically had blood on its hands. The fact that racism is wrong is these days self-evident to most people. That homophobia is right is still upheld by most of the major religious denominations, and these are the groups which must be shouted down from their position of self-righteous bigotry. The human race is not about to end because of homosexuality.