"The answer is that you can't." What's your supporting evidence? Gallileo was sentenced to house arrest for his entire life for saying the earth was flat when no one believed it was true. We've gone to space, achieved teleportation (http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/09/06/physicists-quantum-teleport-photons-over-88-miles/), created an infrastructure where anyone in the world can communicate with each other nearly instantly when hundreds of years ago, they didn't even know those parts of the world existed. People have fallen from planes without parachutes and survived (google "Vesna Vulovic"). We have planes. There is a person who can memorized pie down to 22,000 digits in under five minutes. Someone learned a new language - Icelandic at that - in one week. (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Health/story?id=830166&page;=1#.UH3h-iHA9Gs)

Humankind has achieved so much already, why stop us at "can't figure it out"? No, it certainly won't be done in our lifetime, but that doesn't mean it can't be.

While I agree that overpopulation is currently an issue, I refuse to believe it's an insurmountable one, and the only solution is to kill people (indirectly) by not creating a cure for cancer. Indeed, the world as it is now cannot support the number of people that are being added to the planet every day. There are two variables you're not considering here: that the world as it is now is the only world we will ever have, and that the birth to death ratio will remain the same until the end of [our] time. Addressing the second point first, as nations become more well off, they have less progeny (example, my mother is the youngest of 11 children, born in Haiti. Her an her siblings moved to the US, and all 11 have had less than 2 kids each) . As time goes on, the birth to death ratio will slow, since 3rd world countries will become more advanced giving us more time to work on issue number one: how do we all survive together. I don't have a direct answer to this, but if we all put our minds to it, I guarantee we will find a solution. Anything from putting cities on oceans, growing food on building tops in cities, more efficient agriculture, more effective trading between countries. Never mind that we'll have an extra 7+ million people working to solve the problem.

Saying that we've got a problem, and we don't know what the answer is, so rather than try to solve the problem, lets let 7+ million people die every day, needlessly is lazy and shortsighted.

That said, taking the premise of the question (which is bogus) to be true, it's easy to become emotionally bogged down by the 1 million that you'd be killing, but truth of the matter is, you'd be killing 7 times that every year if you killed just the one man. Not saying I could pull the trigger one million times, but it's the right thing to do, from a societal standpoint. "It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong." - Jeremy Bentham

There's more to this question than the marriage of people of the same sex. The term MARRIAGE was originally defined BY THE BIBLE to be a union between two consenting members of opposing genders that would last eternity.

That being said, the government has since taken it upon themselves to redefine (or add the definition to) the term marriage stating that married couples get tax breaks.

Moving on from that, as it stands anyone (read: anyone) can join a civil union in the united states as recognized by the government, the only difference is, they may not receive certain tax breaks left only to those married. So for me the main issue is with the nature of marriage. The real question for me is, "should people get tax breaks based on their marital status" to which I respond, no, the government shouldn't give any special tax breaks to those married or otherwise. A second less favorable option-since it limits those who through one circumstance or another have chosen not to, or are incapable of marriage-would be to offer tax breaks to every kind of union