Will the Homosexual Agenda become an important issue in 2012?

[Lief 🗽]

Where do all these bigoted 20-year-olds live? I mean, I know I'm not necessarily representative of the average early twenty-something, but I go to a Catholic university, and even the College Republicans here are full of gays.

[The Mikado]

Where do all these bigoted 20-year-olds live? I mean, I know I'm not necessarily representative of the average early twenty-something, but I go to a Catholic university, and even the College Republicans here are full of gays.

Go visit Catholic University, the (actually) Catholic school in town.  Or, rather, don't.  It's (hilariously) in a pretty bad area.  You'll find quite a few of them.

[HST1948]

My point is why are 2 committed adults worried about getting approval or certified to be committed together, as if they only want to remain together because the government says they can, otherwise they will break up because there are no legal ramifications of a gay divorce.  2 people decide to be committed to each other with or without certification, it doesn't matter what other people in society think.  While I don't want to see anyone or couple face harassment because they are living in sin or having children out of wedlock, I think people no longer view a marriage certificate as essential towards validating their monogamous relationship. 

That's an argument against marriage in general, not just gay marriage.

I might be wrong, but I think HIV is more prevalent in the gay male community than in the straight community.  I don't know the percentage of condom use among the gay community or rate of promiscuouity.

But what does the spread of STDs have to do with gay marriage?  Are you suggesting that allowing gay people to marry will increase the spread of disease?  If not, what is the relevance of this line of argument?

I don't know the figures of men who have had gay intercourse in their lifetimes or if the trending increases the number of young men having gay intercourse.  But by promoting gay lifestyles is promoting gay intercourse, which will likely increase the rate of dangerous unprotected gay intercourse that would increase the rate and spread of HIV and STD in America.  But I'm sure HIV is nothing to worry about, look at Africa, no one is having gay intercourse there and all the straight couples are getting AIDS. 

Promoting only heterosexual lifestyles is also promoting heterosexual sex witch, like homosexual sex, leads to the increase and spread of HIV and STD's.  HIV is no longer the "gay mans disease" as it was in the 1980's and 1990's.  The rate of HIV in the heterosexual men has been slowly increasing over the past decade, while the prevalence of HIV in homosexual men has actually been decreasing (*Courtesy the Public Health Agency of Canada & CDC).  Canada, which allows gay marriage, has seen a steady decrease in the prevalence of HIV among gay males since they legalized gay marriage in July 2005 (this is also true for the United States. I don't attribute this to the legalization of gay marriage, but it does prove that gay marriage, and "promoting" the acceptance of homosexuality has not lead to an outbreak in STD's.    

[Mechaman]

Where do all these bigoted 20-year-olds live?

Oklahoma

[TheGlobalizer]

Of course evolutionary theory dictates that passing on genes is the fundamental purpose of life.

And yet, evolutionary reality shows that a wide variety of species engage in homosexual activity with no compunction about it whatsoever.

Just tell yourself that it's a genetic condition that prevents "those gays" from breeding, endorse gay marriage as a means to ensure that they don't breed, and pat yourself on the back like a good eugeneticist.  Then you won't have to worry about the gays ruining whatever of yours you mistakenly think is being ruined because of some misconstrued adaptation of science into philosophy.

[HST1948]

What does Eugenics have do do with the gay adgenda?

Milhouse's constant statements that people have some sort of "evolutionary agenda" to have children that has to be state-supported and funded, which apparently A. mistakes evolution from a statement that beings have an innate desire to spread their genes to the next generation to some sort of bizarre "beings have a moral obligation to try to spread their genes on," as if evolutionary instinct = an actual responsibility, and B. that the State has a vested interest in encouraging a certain level of fertility and childbirth.  The level of implied social engineering in his argument is pretty appallingly eugenicist.

I may be wrong, but I've read stories about European countries and Japan having significant birthrate problems that will affect a lot of the future social programs for the retirement of the aging population.  Just because you don't want to have kids or continue your family lineage, doesn't mean no one else should be concerned about their families and promoting childbirth.  Anyways, I'm sure in a few years, Mormons, Irish Catholics and African Americans will outbreed every one else.

You are right European nations and Japan are having problems that will at some point, but this is not due to the 3% of the population that is gay. The reason that people in these countries are not having as many children is due as much to the exorbitant cost of living as it is to anything else.

Secondly, I don't care who procreates or "continues their family lineage". People can have as many kids as they wish, and no one is stopping them.  People are free to be concerned about their families and promoting childbirth.  Gay marriage has NO effect on who else is procreating or any of their concerns. In fact gay marriage does not influence a straight persons life in the least; people are free to populate the Earth as they wish.

[HST1948]

I'm still not getting Milhouse's reasoning for why it is so necessary for everyone to biologically reproduce. His argument that reproduction by everyone is an evolutionary necessity is unfounded.  Evolution ONLY studies the population who are passing on their genetic information between generations and since gay people are generally not reproducing, the study of evolution does not concern itself with them.  Also, he is applying a scientific theory to a moral issue. As has long been established by the scientific community that theories and scientific laws do not address moral issues. In addition evolution, as said by Darwin himself, is only the observation "random" occurrences and natural instincts. These natural "evolutionary" instincts to not translate into some moral responsibility to reproduce.  Evolution will occur just as it has for the last 3 billion years whether the 3% of the population that is gay procreates or not.        

Secondly, in reference to Milhouse's point the the government doesn't need to enforce monogamy, he is right.  But, I NEVER said that it was a necessity.  Receiving a marriage certificate is not a necessity... for anyone... but it is something that people want as a sign and celebration of their commitment to one another.  This has nothing to do with the government certifying or enforcing monogamy.  This is about two people wanting to be treated equally under the law despite their sexuality.  Why should gay people who vote, are CITIZENS, pay taxes, and have the same jobs as straight people be denied any rights that their other citizens have.  And yes, the courts agree, that marriage is a civil right.

But, alas I am staring to fell better because every statement that Milhouse has made so far is an argument against all marriages, not just gay marriage.

Marriage was started as a religious ceremony, not a government ceremony, to protect the chastity of the woman until marriage and future childbirth.  It became a legal entity to allow for land ownership and inheritance to children.  I don't even believe humans are meant to be monogamous for their entire lives.  Marriage is outdated and no longer necessary to anyone.  Unless perhaps, gay people are waiting until marriage to have intercourse or to deposit the male sperm in the female egg.

The point is marriage is no longer always a religious ceremony, and the government now defines what marriage is.  As long as the government takes an interest in marriage, good law abiding, tax paying citizens should have this right (within reason).

I do agree with you on one point atleast, I believe marriage is an outdated system.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

PRESENTING: The most serious rebuttal I can offer
By W. Fox Moderate

I am not a troll or an old fogey.

lol, ok

I am a 20 year old who is enraged and disgusted by the homosexual agenda.

lol, ok

I will resist the Agenda as best as I can for the rest of my life.

lol, ok, go get em tiger
 

Of course evolutionary theory dictates that passing on genes is the fundamental purpose of life. If your morality excludes that, it isn't good morality.

lol, ok

Of course the homosexual agenda is driven at the top by non-homosexuals with a destructive agenda.

lol, ok

If the economy never recovers, we'll all be poorer but we'll survive. But if we don't defeat the homosexual agenda, our nation's very existence will be in mortal peril.

who told you about the gays' secret plan to hand America over to the USSR?

Let's do some math here people. If the Homosexual Agenda is completed and homosexuality is elevated to an identical level with heterosexuality, it wil lead to the gradual growth of the homosexual population to the point where it might be close to half, which would not be surprising considering how hard liberals have worked to confuse gender roles.

hahahah ok

Those people will by and large not reproduce. Less reproduction is less population, less population has obvious negative effects, particularly if it is "top heavy" with a lot of old people instead of young people.

what in  is wrong with your brain? seriously? what is going on up there  that makes you so incredibly broken?

Maybe you don't believe homosexuals will be half. Let's say 10% instead. Unless the other 90% compensate by having more kids, this will also lead to destruction because 10% of those kids will be homosexual and so on and so forth.

lol, what

Let's say hypothetically you have a population of 50,000,000 males and 50,000,000 females. If they reproduce at replacement level (2 kids)  there would be 100,000,000 replacements, also 50,000,000 males and 50,000,000 females. But let's say 10% are homosexuals and do not reproduce. That would mean only 45,000,000 males and 45,000,000 females. The next generation would be 40,500,000 males and 40,500,000 females. We have already lost 19% of the original population.

lol, math

I rest my case. The Homosexual Agenda is indeed one of the greatest threats we have ever faced.

CASE CLOSED

RULING FOR THE PLAINTIFF

[milhouse24]

I am not a troll or an old fogey.

I am a 20 year old who is enraged and disgusted by the homosexual agenda.

I will resist the Agenda as best as I can for the rest of my life.

Of course evolutionary theory dictates that passing on genes is the fundamental purpose of life. If your morality excludes that, it isn't good morality.  

Of course the homosexual agenda is driven at the top by non-homosexuals with a destructive agenda.

If the economy never recovers, we'll all be poorer but we'll survive. But if we don't defeat the homosexual agenda, our nation's very existence will be in mortal peril.  

Let's do some math here people. If the Homosexual Agenda is completed and homosexuality is elevated to an identical level with heterosexuality, it wil lead to the gradual growth of the homosexual population to the point where it might be close to half, which would not be surprising considering how hard liberals have worked to confuse gender roles. Those people will by and large not reproduce. Less reproduction is less population, less population has obvious negative effects, particularly if it is "top heavy" with a lot of old people instead of young people.

Maybe you don't believe homosexuals will be half. Let's say 10% instead. Unless the other 90% compensate by having more kids, this will also lead to destruction because 10% of those kids will be homosexual and so on and so forth.

Let's say hypothetically you have a population of 50,000,000 males and 50,000,000 females. If they reproduce at replacement level (2 kids)  there would be 100,000,000 replacements, also 50,000,000 males and 50,000,000 females. But let's say 10% are homosexuals and do not reproduce. That would mean only 45,000,000 males and 45,000,000 females. The next generation would be 40,500,000 males and 40,500,000 females. We have already lost 19% of the original population.

I rest my case. The Homosexual Agenda is indeed one of the greatest threats we have ever faced.

You speak as if population growth should be the ultimate priority of a society, above even human happiness. If this is indeed the case, there are more important steps that can be taken than stopping the 'homosexual agenda': legalizing polygamy and marital rape, lowering the marriage age to 13, restricting or eliminating access to birth control and prevention, and forbidding women from receiving an education or working outside the home, just to name a few. Why don't you spend more time talking about these very important issues?

I agree with you that polygamy should be legalized.

[milhouse24]

Of course evolutionary theory dictates that passing on genes is the fundamental purpose of life. If your morality excludes that, it isn't good morality.  

Again, you reinforce my sig.

Darwin and his successors never intended to put that tinge of moralizing into the statement that beings have the desire to pass their genes on, and, in fact, survival of the fittest presupposes that quite a few people are not said fittest and will not pass their genes on.  Survival of the fittest is supposed to be a description, not a moral judgment.  It doesn't make you "right" if you do breed or "wrong" if you don't.

Does that mean if a person is gay and not bisexual, then that gay person is unfit to breed - physically and mentally speaking of course. 

In the old days, having children was important to land ownership, but I don't think owning land is a big issue today. 

Does that mean gay people self selectively remove themselves from the gene pool?

[Mopsus]

I am not a troll or an old fogey.

I am a 20 year old who is enraged and disgusted by the homosexual agenda.

I will resist the Agenda as best as I can for the rest of my life.

Of course evolutionary theory dictates that passing on genes is the fundamental purpose of life. If your morality excludes that, it isn't good morality.  

Of course the homosexual agenda is driven at the top by non-homosexuals with a destructive agenda.

If the economy never recovers, we'll all be poorer but we'll survive. But if we don't defeat the homosexual agenda, our nation's very existence will be in mortal peril.  

Let's do some math here people. If the Homosexual Agenda is completed and homosexuality is elevated to an identical level with heterosexuality, it wil lead to the gradual growth of the homosexual population to the point where it might be close to half, which would not be surprising considering how hard liberals have worked to confuse gender roles. Those people will by and large not reproduce. Less reproduction is less population, less population has obvious negative effects, particularly if it is "top heavy" with a lot of old people instead of young people.

Maybe you don't believe homosexuals will be half. Let's say 10% instead. Unless the other 90% compensate by having more kids, this will also lead to destruction because 10% of those kids will be homosexual and so on and so forth.

Let's say hypothetically you have a population of 50,000,000 males and 50,000,000 females. If they reproduce at replacement level (2 kids)  there would be 100,000,000 replacements, also 50,000,000 males and 50,000,000 females. But let's say 10% are homosexuals and do not reproduce. That would mean only 45,000,000 males and 45,000,000 females. The next generation would be 40,500,000 males and 40,500,000 females. We have already lost 19% of the original population.

I rest my case. The Homosexual Agenda is indeed one of the greatest threats we have ever faced.

You speak as if population growth should be the ultimate priority of a society, above even human happiness. If this is indeed the case, there are more important steps that can be taken than stopping the 'homosexual agenda': legalizing polygamy and marital rape, lowering the marriage age to 13, restricting or eliminating access to birth control and prevention, and forbidding women from receiving an education or working outside the home, just to name a few. Why don't you spend more time talking about these very important issues?

I agree with you that polygamy should be legalized.

Just to be clear, I don't actually support any of the things I listed.

[milhouse24]

Where do all these bigoted 20-year-olds live? I mean, I know I'm not necessarily representative of the average early twenty-something, but I go to a Catholic university, and even the College Republicans here are full of gays.

I think with the "gay agenda" particularly popular shows like 'Will and Grace', etc. there have been a huge growth in gay men and gay women (L Word) among high schoolers and college students.  My main concern is from a medical standpoint, in that a lot of gay men lead promiscuous lifestyles with multiple partners and no longer fear the spread of HIV, and engage in unprotected gay intercourse.  

While I think that gay marriage will likely produce more monogamous gay relationships, and slightly decrease gay promiscouity, thereby slowing the spread of HIV, the legitimizing and promoting of gay intercourse will increase the rate of experimentation and likely spread of HIV in the population.  But I guess it doesn't matter since all humans will die from Global Warming.

[milhouse24]

My point is why are 2 committed adults worried about getting approval or certified to be committed together, as if they only want to remain together because the government says they can, otherwise they will break up because there are no legal ramifications of a gay divorce.  2 people decide to be committed to each other with or without certification, it doesn't matter what other people in society think.  While I don't want to see anyone or couple face harassment because they are living in sin or having children out of wedlock, I think people no longer view a marriage certificate as essential towards validating their monogamous relationship. 

That's an argument against marriage in general, not just gay marriage.

I might be wrong, but I think HIV is more prevalent in the gay male community than in the straight community.  I don't know the percentage of condom use among the gay community or rate of promiscuouity.

But what does the spread of STDs have to do with gay marriage?  Are you suggesting that allowing gay people to marry will increase the spread of disease?  If not, what is the relevance of this line of argument?

I don't know the figures of men who have had gay intercourse in their lifetimes or if the trending increases the number of young men having gay intercourse.  But by promoting gay lifestyles is promoting gay intercourse, which will likely increase the rate of dangerous unprotected gay intercourse that would increase the rate and spread of HIV and STD in America.  But I'm sure HIV is nothing to worry about, look at Africa, no one is having gay intercourse there and all the straight couples are getting AIDS. 

Promoting only heterosexual lifestyles is also promoting heterosexual sex witch, like homosexual sex, leads to the increase and spread of HIV and STD's.  HIV is no longer the "gay mans disease" as it was in the 1980's and 1990's.  The rate of HIV in the heterosexual men has been slowly increasing over the past decade, while the prevalence of HIV in homosexual men has actually been decreasing (*Courtesy the Public Health Agency of Canada & CDC).  Canada, which allows gay marriage, has seen a steady decrease in the prevalence of HIV among gay males since they legalized gay marriage in July 2005 (this is also true for the United States. I don't attribute this to the legalization of gay marriage, but it does prove that gay marriage, and "promoting" the acceptance of homosexuality has not lead to an outbreak in STD's.    

Well medically speaking, its been proven that anal intercourse spreads HIV more effectively, so its likely straight couples are engaging more in anal intercourse or more people are having affairs through the internet.  I have conceded that humans are weak-willed and need legal documents to force them into monogamy, otherwise, all men and gay men are horny pigs who will have promiscuous lives if they weren't tied down by marriage. 

I don't even know why HIV is increasing in Hetersexual couples and it really disturbs me.  I thought the entire point of medical campaigns was to decrease the spread of HIV.  Its really alarming for HIV to spread from gay people and drug users to Heterosexual people.

[milhouse24]

What does Eugenics have do do with the gay adgenda?

Milhouse's constant statements that people have some sort of "evolutionary agenda" to have children that has to be state-supported and funded, which apparently A. mistakes evolution from a statement that beings have an innate desire to spread their genes to the next generation to some sort of bizarre "beings have a moral obligation to try to spread their genes on," as if evolutionary instinct = an actual responsibility, and B. that the State has a vested interest in encouraging a certain level of fertility and childbirth.  The level of implied social engineering in his argument is pretty appallingly eugenicist.

I may be wrong, but I've read stories about European countries and Japan having significant birthrate problems that will affect a lot of the future social programs for the retirement of the aging population.  Just because you don't want to have kids or continue your family lineage, doesn't mean no one else should be concerned about their families and promoting childbirth.  Anyways, I'm sure in a few years, Mormons, Irish Catholics and African Americans will outbreed every one else.

You are right European nations and Japan are having problems that will at some point, but this is not due to the 3% of the population that is gay. The reason that people in these countries are not having as many children is due as much to the exorbitant cost of living as it is to anything else.

Secondly, I don't care who procreates or "continues their family lineage". People can have as many kids as they wish, and no one is stopping them.  People are free to be concerned about their families and promoting childbirth.  Gay marriage has NO effect on who else is procreating or any of their concerns. In fact gay marriage does not influence a straight persons life in the least; people are free to populate the Earth as they wish.

But should governments have some sort of incentive plan to promote Heterosexual breeding and childbirth?  Should they promote the straight lifestyle?  Do health care providers consider gay intercourse and unprotected anal intercourse a high risk lifestyle and increase costs?  Will HIV medical coverage costs rise with the increase in HIV patients?

[King]

Where do all these bigoted 20-year-olds live? I mean, I know I'm not necessarily representative of the average early twenty-something, but I go to a Catholic university, and even the College Republicans here are full of gays.

CJK probably was homeschooled and attends a community college if any at all.  That's the usual pattern I find in people who spend their days building conspiracies and over examining trivial issues.

[HST1948]

Where do all these bigoted 20-year-olds live? I mean, I know I'm not necessarily representative of the average early twenty-something, but I go to a Catholic university, and even the College Republicans here are full of gays.

I think with the "gay agenda" particularly popular shows like 'Will and Grace', etc. there have been a huge growth in gay men and gay women (L Word) among high schoolers and college students.  My main concern is from a medical standpoint, in that a lot of gay men lead promiscuous lifestyles with multiple partners and no longer fear the spread of HIV, and engage in unprotected gay intercourse.  

While I think that gay marriage will likely produce more monogamous gay relationships, and slightly decrease gay promiscuity, thereby slowing the spread of HIV, the legitimizing and promoting of gay intercourse will increase the rate of experimentation and likely spread of HIV in the population.  But I guess it doesn't matter since all humans will die from Global Warming.

I don't get why everyone thinks that the popularity of gay intercourse is increasing due to the increased promotion of acceptance of homosexuality.  If anyone on this thread bothered to actually look at tangible facts, the would find that since polls have been done the % of people who admitted to being gay has remained remarkably stable (between 2% and 4%).  Some studies have even shown that the % of men who have engaged in sexual relations with other men has decreased over the past 50 years. There was a study done, although I don't know if I particularly believe it's results, that showed in the late 1950's close to 10% of the male population had admitted to have engaged in gay intercourse more than once in the past.  When you adjust this with a large margin of error, one can reasonably say that in the late 50's about 2%-4% of the population had engaged in gay relations, which is consistent with results that have been found over the past 40 years.  Just because something is uncovered, doesn't mean that it hasn't always been there.

A lot of straight men lead promiscuous lifestyles with multiple partners and no longer fear the spread of STD's and don't use condoms (more so now due to the increased popularity in of "the pill and other such female birth controls). And btw thank you for reversing your opinion on gay marriage not having an effect on the rate of promiscuity.

[HST1948]

What does Eugenics have do do with the gay adgenda?

Milhouse's constant statements that people have some sort of "evolutionary agenda" to have children that has to be state-supported and funded, which apparently A. mistakes evolution from a statement that beings have an innate desire to spread their genes to the next generation to some sort of bizarre "beings have a moral obligation to try to spread their genes on," as if evolutionary instinct = an actual responsibility, and B. that the State has a vested interest in encouraging a certain level of fertility and childbirth.  The level of implied social engineering in his argument is pretty appallingly eugenicist.

I may be wrong, but I've read stories about European countries and Japan having significant birthrate problems that will affect a lot of the future social programs for the retirement of the aging population.  Just because you don't want to have kids or continue your family lineage, doesn't mean no one else should be concerned about their families and promoting childbirth.  Anyways, I'm sure in a few years, Mormons, Irish Catholics and African Americans will outbreed every one else.

You are right European nations and Japan are having problems that will at some point, but this is not due to the 3% of the population that is gay. The reason that people in these countries are not having as many children is due as much to the exorbitant cost of living as it is to anything else.

Secondly, I don't care who procreates or "continues their family lineage". People can have as many kids as they wish, and no one is stopping them.  People are free to be concerned about their families and promoting childbirth.  Gay marriage has NO effect on who else is procreating or any of their concerns. In fact gay marriage does not influence a straight persons life in the least; people are free to populate the Earth as they wish.

But should governments have some sort of incentive plan to promote Heterosexual breeding and childbirth?  Should they promote the straight lifestyle?  Do health care providers consider gay intercourse and unprotected anal intercourse a high risk lifestyle and increase costs?  Will HIV medical coverage costs rise with the increase in HIV patients?

Again, look at tangible facts the cost of treating HIV patients has been drastically lowered since the introduction of Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors.  If caught early enough a simple series of inexpensive "cock tales" can be administered which inhibits the HIV virus from attacking cells.  As with everything else, the higher the prevalence of a disease the more research is done, and thus new and cheaper methods of treatment are discovered. It is far more expensive to treat someone who smokes or likes to eat McDonald's everyday than it is to treat someone with HIV, provided that it is caught early enough. I don't know what the health insurance companies consider gay sex, or if they even ask, but I think that anyone involved in polygamy should pay extra for their health insurance. 

I don't think the government should promote any lifestyle, gay or straight. And this is a thread about "the gay agenda", not health care costs.

[HST1948]

My point is why are 2 committed adults worried about getting approval or certified to be committed together, as if they only want to remain together because the government says they can, otherwise they will break up because there are no legal ramifications of a gay divorce.  2 people decide to be committed to each other with or without certification, it doesn't matter what other people in society think.  While I don't want to see anyone or couple face harassment because they are living in sin or having children out of wedlock, I think people no longer view a marriage certificate as essential towards validating their monogamous relationship. 

That's an argument against marriage in general, not just gay marriage.

I might be wrong, but I think HIV is more prevalent in the gay male community than in the straight community.  I don't know the percentage of condom use among the gay community or rate of promiscuouity.

But what does the spread of STDs have to do with gay marriage?  Are you suggesting that allowing gay people to marry will increase the spread of disease?  If not, what is the relevance of this line of argument?

I don't know the figures of men who have had gay intercourse in their lifetimes or if the trending increases the number of young men having gay intercourse.  But by promoting gay lifestyles is promoting gay intercourse, which will likely increase the rate of dangerous unprotected gay intercourse that would increase the rate and spread of HIV and STD in America.  But I'm sure HIV is nothing to worry about, look at Africa, no one is having gay intercourse there and all the straight couples are getting AIDS. 

Promoting only heterosexual lifestyles is also promoting heterosexual sex witch, like homosexual sex, leads to the increase and spread of HIV and STD's.  HIV is no longer the "gay mans disease" as it was in the 1980's and 1990's.  The rate of HIV in the heterosexual men has been slowly increasing over the past decade, while the prevalence of HIV in homosexual men has actually been decreasing (*Courtesy the Public Health Agency of Canada & CDC).  Canada, which allows gay marriage, has seen a steady decrease in the prevalence of HIV among gay males since they legalized gay marriage in July 2005 (this is also true for the United States. I don't attribute this to the legalization of gay marriage, but it does prove that gay marriage, and "promoting" the acceptance of homosexuality has not lead to an outbreak in STD's.    

Well medically speaking, its been proven that anal intercourse spreads HIV more effectively, so its likely straight couples are engaging more in anal intercourse or more people are having affairs through the internet.  I have conceded that humans are weak-willed and need legal documents to force them into monogamy, otherwise, all men and gay men are horny pigs who will have promiscuous lives if they weren't tied down by marriage. 

I don't even know why HIV is increasing in Hetersexual couples and it really disturbs me.  I thought the entire point of medical campaigns was to decrease the spread of HIV.  Its really alarming for HIV to spread from gay people and drug users to Heterosexual people.

Lol. So now you believe that marriage licenses, or as you call them "documents", will force people into and promote monogamy.  Way to reverse course.

And medically speaking ALL types of sex spread HIV, you are right anal sex spreads it more effectively. The spread of HIV in the heterosexual community is due an increase in polygamy and people waiting to get older to marry and having pre-marital sex with multiple partners.   

[The Professor]

The Homosexual Agenda is grossly exaggerated. I have several gay students in my classroom each semester. My only issue is that there is glitter and feathers all over the assignments they hand in to me.

[izixs]

I've seen this argument before on this very board. The world milhouse is trying to promote is pretty much a genetic fascist utopia where the demand is that the population at least breaks even or increases. For what real purpose I have no idea (to take over the world of course! :-p ), because all these claims of 'oh noes the population will fall and costs will go up and we'll be poor!' are just the far side of insane and unfounded at multiple levels of evidence. You can't win against this guy as if he is ever forced to concede a point he'll move his claim a little further off. And of course, that's difficult as he'll ignore your basis of claims entirely instead falling back time and again on the genetic imperative. (why should the government care about that? society will function how it will!)

So... I ask that if you want to save your sanity, you ignore him forever.

[HST1948]

I've seen this argument before on this very board. The world milhouse is trying to promote is pretty much a genetic fascist utopia where the demand is that the population at least breaks even or increases. For what real purpose I have no idea (to take over the world of course! :-p ), because all these claims of 'oh noes the population will fall and costs will go up and we'll be poor!' are just the far side of insane and unfounded at multiple levels of evidence. You can't win against this guy as if he is ever forced to concede a point he'll move his claim a little further off. And of course, that's difficult as he'll ignore your basis of claims entirely instead falling back time and again on the genetic imperative. (why should the government care about that? society will function how it will!)

So... I ask that if you want to save your sanity, you ignore him forever.

I think I will do just that. Best suggestion on this thread so far!

[pbrower2a]

Moderator: please close this troll Forum.

[TJ in Oregon]

Same-sex marriage and civil unions will be an important issue in 2012, but more in the same way that abortion is an important issue. Most people, outside of those whose ideology prevents them from being swing voters anyway, don't have strong opinions about it and probably really don't care that much. This will become more an issue like abortion that just polarizes people to particular parties than an issue that actually determines the outcome of elections. The 2012 election will be determined by economics provided the Republicans nominate a competent candidate (and I think we'll pick Romney in the end). Homosexuality will be a political sideshow, not the main event.

Homosexuality and the various proxy issues involved, such as gay marriage, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, etc. is something like abortion’s alter ego. On abortion, the majority of the nation is pro-choice but the pro-life side of the argument has a much stronger allegiance to the issue. Pro-choice support is largely soft-support based on people who mostly vote for other issues. Not to say the pro-choice side doesn’t have devoted activists, just that it has fewer of them. Gay marriage has been the opposite and the pro-gay marriage side has the smaller number of devoted activists while opposition has been based on soft support, ie. the people who think homosexuality is “icky” but don’t have a firm reason to oppose legal recognition.

Now, the soft opposition to gay marriage is collapsing. This would have been very hard for conservatives to stop because conservatives have been fighting to save a meta-stable political state that is contradictory. After the sexual revolution of the 1960s (and earlier growing support of contraceptives among mainline Protestant sects) it became socially acceptable to look at porn, or to have pre-marital sex, or to use a condom. Once we decided those things are okay, then why is homosexuality any different really? Over the last ten years we’ve seen plenty of polls where about 60% of Americans believe pre-marital sex is okay and closer to 70% believe divorce is okay. How on earth can anyone expect an electorate like that to keep gay marriage illegal? Yet, that is in practice what conservatives are trying to preserve. It’s an unwinnable war because most of the conservative support was based on feeble ideas like “gay sex is icky”.

Note: I use “you” as a blanket reference to all social conservatives
So where do we as social conservatives go from here? Other than abortion (abortion is the only social issue with stable views across all age groups for most surveys) we are going to lose these fights and continue losing them. I think we may be hitting the reality that changing our culture and its morals can’t start with politics. It may end up there, but it has to start with individual people. As Mother Theresa once said, “Be the change you wish to see in others”. Hold strong to your moral convictions through thick and thin and don’t give in to whatever concupiscence you experience in life. We may individually feel that God is dead to our world, but realize that God can’t be dead to the world as long as he lives in you. The other thing is, we can’t pretend like we’re either a) better than everyone else or b) some kind of tragic victim of society. Doing that is an attention gathering tactic and just annoys people. I’m not saying don’t vote (heck, I’ll vote no on gay marriage if we get a ballot initiative in Ohio), but if we really want to change our society’s ideas of right and wrong the place to do it is in our lives not at the ballot box.

[courts]

As I and other people have said before, it wasn't for the federal benefits (taxes, visitation rights, etc.) attached to marriage almost nobody other than a shrill minority would care about getting gay marriage 'legalized' (re: recognized).. If anything, even now there's a minority of people in the LGBT community (god I hate that acronym) that find gay marriage to be a bizarre attempt at imposing heterosexual norms and institutions on us. If social conservatives want to 'win' on gay marriage they should just turn the debate around and argue that government shouldn't be involved in the marriage industry in general...

Actually, part of the reason "social conservatism" tends to be rendered irrelevant IMO is that it frames things in terms of using the government to "protect morality" or whatever instead of focusing on issues where 'liberalism' is clearly involved in social engineering or arguably authoritarian (e.g. gun control, affirmative action, "hate speech," cap and trade, etc.). Even your previously mentioned abortion example at least somewhat falls under that... A lot of people were turned off by what they saw as the courts over stepping their bounds and the democratic process, never mind the people that view it as a human rights issue on the pro-life side.

[The Mikado]

It's interesting that I (coming from the opposite side) came to the same conclusion as TJ: abortion is the social issue that the right can't lose in the long run, simply because a damn big share of the population literally thinks that abortion = murder.  Rather than pulling out crazy, desperate arguments like the anti-gay marriage crowd does, they can simply say that abortion kills babies.  As one of the most pro-choice people you'll ever meet, I do feel that the pro-lifers have a legitimate argument, just one that I don't buy the premise of, because I don't accept fetal "personhood."  The abortion issue is completely dependent on whether you do or don't believe in personhood pre-birth, and because there will always be disagreement on that topic, there will be disagreement on the abortion debate.

TL;DR: If the Republican Party needs a social issue, they should continue using abortion like they have for the last 30 years, as it's an issue neither side will ever decisively "win" on, rather than opposing gay marriage, a debate they will lose.